« The Celtics' Toughest Series | Main | Celtics Coach Doc Rivers Gets Respect and New Contract »
August 30, 2008
Cavaliers: The Celtics Toughest Series - part-two
In analyzing the Celtics and what ever troubles they experienced in this post season, one must keep in mind that, with few exceptions, when Boston is right, no one has really shown that they can stop them. In an almost perfect season, Boston has largely been their own worst enemy this season.
Against the Hawks, Boston did appear to have lost a bit of their edge. Perhaps they thought they would just show up and roll over the Hawks. A young, athletic but inexperienced Atlanta Hawks team had given them far too much trouble before going down for the count in game 7 of that series.
Some feel that Hawk athleticism exposed the Celtics' age and their own lack of the same. Some feel Danny Ainge had that in mind when he drafted the 2 players he drafted in JR Giddens and Bill Walker. The uncertainty of signing Posey and Tony Allen's future (at that time) might have had more to do with that, I think.
A 68 free throw Hawk advantage (220-152) was the single biggest culprit for the Celtics' troubles with the Hawks. A 10 foul shot per game handicap in the play-offs is big enough to make any team question its approach to the game, when they aren't questioning the refs themselves. During the season, Boston was a league leader (4th) in fouling, averaging 15 plus fouls per game. But they broke even in foul shooting with their opponents at 26-26 per game. The Hawks had a huge 31.4 to 21.7 advantage in their first round series.
Other than not winning a single road game and having to play through 'foul adversity', the Celtics were, in fact, playing pretty well. You have to know that to understand why Cleveland should get credit for putting the Celtics through a wringer.
In the Hawks series, the Celtics shot 46% from the field and 38% from 3 beyond the arc, and averaged 5 more shot per game than they did during the regular season (81-76). Just how much of a funk were the Celtics in?
Ray Allen
On top of that, it's been said Ray Allen wasn't himself going into the Cavalier series either. That is true, Ray wasn't playing as well as he could. His confidence in his outside shot wasn't quite what it normally was. But it is the Cavalier defense that kicked Ray down and kept him down. And the Cavs didn't just give Ray problems. Paul Pierce was experiencing difficulty shooting as well.
Here are Ray Allen's 3 point shooting pcts in the play-offs - series by series:
3 pt FG%
Atlanta = 40%
Clev = 16.7%
Detroit = 39%
LA.= 52%
He actually shot a very high percentage.... except against the Cavs. The difference is dramatic. Was that simply Ray being "off'" ? I highly doubt it.
Whenever Ray shook free from Wally Szczerbiak there was another Cavalier (or two) to meet him. That was the game plan. Ray did miss some open shots, but they were few, and he appeared to be feeling rushed even when open. Good defense will do that to you. It got so bad for Ray, that at one point he uncharacteristically publicly said that Rondo had to get him the ball in the right spots more. The problem was that Cleveland's defense was clicking and the 'right spots' were often being taken away.
This number is the most telling. 16.7% over seven games for the 2nd best 3 pointer in the history of the game? The Cavs were intent on cutting him off right on the arc.They didn't let him drive either. If he did, the Cavalier front line was equal to the task and was the best that the Celtics faced in the entire play-offs. Ray either had to shoot very difficult shots or give the ball up. Ray's shot attempt totals will tell you what he did.
Need further proof?
Ray Allen was shut out from the arc in four Cleveland games. He made 3 point shots in every single Atlanta game and in 17 straight games ending the season. His last 'ofer' was Mar 5 against Detroit. Detroit shut him out from three point land in 2 games in the play-offs. He did not shoot over 40% in a single Cavs game. Not one.
More Ray Allen shooting stats:
Ray's Shot Attempts (3 pters in parentheses) average/game
Atlanta 81 (45) 11.57
Cleveland 61 (24) 8.71
Detroit 77 (28) 12.83
LA 73 (42) 12.17
Average attempts of other series total = 12.16
Difference = 40% less attempts against the Cavaliers
Ray's Points
Atlanta = 16.3
Clev. = 9.3
Detroit = 17.5
LA = 20.3
The next part of the 'Cleveland gets no credit' theory says that when Ray doesn't get his shot going he picks it up in other areas. He had his lowest assists per game and lowest rebounds per game for the play-offs all in the same Cleveland series. All the important stats were his play-off lows against the Cavs. More important, as you can see, it wasn't even close.
He started with a goose egg. This is Ray Allen we are talking about. 0-4 shooting in 37 minutes - with zero foul shots? The last 2 games he scored 9 points, then 4 points. In three games of the Cavs series, Ray contributed a total of 13 points. Let me say that again, 3 out of 7 games, Ray scored a total 13 points. 109 minutes. Zero 3 pointers. Ray may have been off, the Celtics could have tried to get him open more, but the Cavalier defense must get credit for a lock down job on the Celtic assassin.
Looking at Ray's Atlanta series will tell you that his shot was not in a slump statistically.. What slump? He had two 5-8 games from downtown and two 20 plus point games in the Atlanta series. Then came Cleveland.
Paul Pierce found shooting difficult as well, his unbelievable game 7 performance being the exception. Until that game for the ages, Paul Pierce was shooting 36% from the field and a Josh Smith-like 26% from the arc. So two of the game's top shooters were having slumps at the same time? If it walks like a duck.....
Delving into some other stats tells the same story:
The Celtics shot 46% and took 81 shots a game against the Hawks . They only shot 41% and took only 71 shots a game against the Cavaliers. They shot 46% against the Pistons.
The foul shooting attempts (205-176 -Cavs), turnovers (92-89), and rebounding (273-263) were all about equal in this series.
Boston shot 28% from the arc as a team against the Cavs. They shot .356% from the arc for the whole play-offs. Take out the Cavs series 3 pt. point % and the gap is even wider.
There is just too much evidence to suggest it was just the Celtics 'not being themselves' that the series went as it did.
While the parts surrounding LeBron don't seem like championship material, the fact that the team is built around defense keeps this club in the hunt. If only they had a solid number two scoring option when the Celtics turn Lebron into a jump shooter, they would be dangerous indeed. Remember, in that now famous game 7, LeBron was 3-11 from the arc. The Celtics know that LeBron shooting jumpshots is something they would rather have anytime than the James Express driving into the paint.
There were too many times in that series when, almost curiously, LeBron would go and stand at the three point line (unguarded) while the rest of the team would run an offensive rotation that looked like a Chinese Fire Drill near the paint on the other side of the court. The Celtics never fell for it and it never resulted in the Cavs getting a decent shot out of it. It looked like a 4 on 5 game to allow LeBron some rest, outside of the play entirely.
Is there an offensive coaching version of Tom Thibodeau out there somewhere? Please call Mike Brown. He needs you. But I digress....
After slogging through the tough Cavs series, the Celtics were better prepared for Detroit. Even Mark Jackson's opening comments of game one of the Detroit series were that "the Celtics wouldn't be seeing the same tough interior defense from the Pistons they had seen in the Cavaliers' series". It turned out to be true.
The Celtics shot their play-off low of .520 (91-175) immediately around the hoop against the Cavs. They shredded the Pistons for a devastating .578 (89-154), by far their play-off high in the inner paint. Points in the entire painted area were scored at a higher pct. against the Pistons. Props to ManchvegasBob for alerting me to the NBA Hotspots shot charting on the NBA.com site, for an earlier discussion we had. Check it all out here NBA.com hotspots.
While not worth his huge contract, perhaps Ben Wallace is still worth something. The tandem of Verajeo, Wallace and Ilguaskas are very physical and will keep most teams out of the middle. It is Cleveland's offense that is in need of a solid revamp. Only Delonte West continually tried to attack the Celtic defensive middle as the series wore on.
The Great Wall of Boston kept Lebron on the outside looking in for the most part. When he did manage to get inside, he missed a number of shots he would normally make. PJ Brown blossomed as a Celtic and had a fine offensive series, going 4-4 twice including game 7 and hitting that big jumper. But in truth, both he and James Posey had some difficult assignments. Both had moments when they struggled defensively.
After letting Ilgauskas get off to a hot start offensively in the series, Kendrick Perkins settled down and was great defensively there after. Paul Pierce did a very credible job on James defensively when he was on him.
This series was very hard fought and Cleveland should never be taken lightly as long as LeBron James is on the team.
No one will say they are a better team than Detroit or the Lakers, though I will say they appear to be under rated by most. Was the Cavs success simply due to the Celtics being out of sync? Or did the Cavs knock the Celtics out of sync when the Celtics thought they finally had gotten it together against the Hawks in the Hawks' series final game? The stats suggest it was more of the latter.
Neither Detroit nor LA could offer the kind of defensive obstacles that Cleveland did. Detroit's rebounding and interior D were exposed against the Celtics. East coasters knew that LA's interior D wouldn't stand up to the Celtics. While board work was about even for the Hawks and Cavs series, the Cavaliers out rebounded the Celtics 3 times. The Hawks outrebounded the Cs 4 times. Boston was not out rebounded by Detroit in a single game in that series. They enjoyed a 238-191 advantage.
Kevin Garnett's consistently solid play, consistently solid Celtic team defense and a performance for the ages by Paul Pierce in game 7 put away a team few thought would provide the Celtics their toughest series.
The Cavaliers are certainly not the most exciting team to watch. Rather the opposite. Last year's TV ratings for the Finals proved that. This year's team is no different. But of all NBA teams that faced this year's green team of destiny in the play-offs, it is only the Cleveland Cavaliers can say they were within 6 points of knocking off the future NBA Champion Boston Celtics. 6 points.
No other team came that close. It is time to give them credit for that.
Posted by Tom on August 30, 2008 11:43 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://forum.connpost.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1768
Comments
I received this comment from musty Joe from Celticstufflive's board and thought I would share it if any would want to further comment. I'll add my own thoughts after....
So, IF we want to put our thoughts on 'the right groove (or the desired playing style)' and "personnel capable, but NOT on the Celtics", there's a point to scrutinize. ??
Very athletic teams like the Hawks gave us trouble. To match this athleticism, a team like the Cs have also got to get out and run, and we begin to miss having "another" big man (center)-a man athletic enough to help make this changing ends of the court, as aptly as the Hawks could, especially on the occasions when our center Perkins is not having a good game/series. (Later on against Cleveland, Perkins did have a great game defensively, which was a great factor). But saying this doesn't erase the idea of a SECOND Celtics athletic, center which we don't have.
Now our experience has shown us, that although Garnett is good (he is very), and possibly could go play the center on occasion-the fact is he doesn't care to go play there at "the 5 spot". Garnett is a great player-so, one has to demur in this reality and let him stay where he prefers.
(That still does not give us the extra, good center-playing guy.) AND leads me to think about the big guy, Semih Erden from Turkey that we drafted in the '08 2cd round. How adaptable to the sketch given above, could this man Erden be? We won't know until we try to follow his current activities.
Another point : Pierce and Ray Allen must NEVER have a bad playoff game together. This would be defensive or offensive. Rondo is more than capable of handling the point, but we have yet to get in a key backup to Rondo.
Our team needs ,(with the stars we do have) to play in the 1970s version of the Cs, and this means run, rebound, move the ball quickly, thus more easily getting to "the right offensive spots at the right time", where our star players (we all know who THEY are-to include Rondo), can do the scoring. An ATHLETIC center like Cowens (who fit perfectly in a faster game up and down AND rebound), is NOT on our roster, currently. And Rondo can fit in perfectly with that "70s Celtic moving the ball and the guys game" , BUT we as noted, need that legit ball handler/shooter point guard off the bench.
It is widely thought, and realism after a long 82 game season would tend to make one think, that in the playoffs the game transfers its logic, to HALFcourt. The Cs of "other years-other playoffs/titles", were able to not just CONFINE their logic to half court.
Currently in the East, we are facing up with some opposing great, defensive coaches-Mike Brown is surely one of them. That said, the LESS time we confront ourselves with a scheme that does NOT let us play a logical pace that "takes the advantage AWAY from other good teams", the better off we'll be. Especially with our star players-even in the face of, they are respectively 31, 32, and 33 years old. We have to just "do it anyway". This all, is just my opinion. Whattdya think ? :-)
musty Celtic joe
Posted by: Tom Halzack at August 31, 2008 10:44 PM
Hi Joe,
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
A few things...
Certainly Garnett is only a 5 on occasion as you mentioned. Danny never has found the back-up to Kendrick in all these years, though it might to be to his credit that he didn't bring in a Lorenzen Wright, Adonal Foyle or Jake Voskuhl to take up roster space with little upside.
So yeah...Kendrick's back-up is up in the air. I guess you give little hope for Patrick O'Bryant, eh? PJ Brown has left the door open for another late season comeback.
Doc Rivers has begged this team to get up the court quicker on many occasions this past season. He has even had to get after Rondo to move it up quicker. So yes, adding a bit more running wouldn't hurt this team at all. It would help.
The problem seems to be that the games of all three stars lend themselves best to a half court game. Perkins is a half court game center as well. The Celtics had the fewest field goal attempts per game in the league last season. They are without a doubt a 'walk it up' group of players. They control the game and the ball better when they slow teams down.
They offset that by being extremely efficient at the offensive end.
The Hawks athleticism wasn't as much of a problem as some think. The faster pace helped the Hawks as was their willingness to attack the hoop, led by Al Horford, Smith, Childress, and Johnson. The refs calls didn't help and the Cs had a hard time adjusting to that. Every game it seemed, one of the Celtic stars would have to leave in the first quarter with foul trouble. Not to say that the Hawks didn't play well - they did. But they were erratic, as young players will be. You couldn't count on the same performance every night from most of them. That's a killer in play-off basketball, IMO.
This Celtic team's strength is that it plays as team and puts forth amazing effort on the defensive end on most nights. It's strength is also a half court game.
To get the team running more would require a 'buy in' by Garnett, Pierce and Allen in addition to the mobile center that you are talking about, or.....a second unit that runs with Tony Allen, Powe and/or Davis and that running center you suggest and one or two of Giddens and Walker perhaps.
The Turkish center is nothing more than a project right now, as I understand it.
And yes, a solid back-up PG is still to be found as well. I guess it's hard to do that with so little to offer in terms of salary. Tyronne Lue, for one, would have come here, but they obviously felt Eddie House offered more to the team.
Thanks again for the comments.
best,
T
Posted by: Tom Halzack at August 31, 2008 11:44 PM
