Celtics Outrebounded, Outplayed In Loss To Hawks

by Jimmy Toscano on Nov 14, 2009 12:30 AM EST in Games Comment 40 comments

It was one of those nights for KG and the Celts.

The Boston Celtics got flat out beaten by the Atlanta Hawks Friday night, 97-86. It was the second loss of the year for the Celtics, and their second loss as home. The story tonight was offensive rebounds and second chance points, and unfortunately, the Celtics gave up many of them.

After giving up 17 offensive rebounds to the Utah Jazz on Wednesday night, the Celtics let the Hawks rip down 16 offensive rebounds Friday night, en route to 22 second chance points.

"You can't run a game getting outrebounded 47-29," Kevin Garnett said. "You know, they're getting to the basket- and rebounding is a group effort and it starts with the bigs, so the bigs got to do a better job of doing just that."

Ray Allen added, "I think rebounding ultimately is what kept them in the game, early. And starting off the third quarter getting second chance opportunities and then [the Hawks] were moving the ball. There was a possession where they might have gotten two or three shots at the rim, and end up ultimately getting the basket. So you can't win that way."

The Celtics entered the game ranked 28^th in the league in total rebounds and last in offensive rebounds. Doc Rivers states that while the big guys do need to grab rebounds, the blame cannot fall completely on them.

"When you don't put bodies on athletic guys, you're going to give up points. And unfortunately I think everyone will say it was our bigs, our bigs. But out bigs weren't helped all night because the guards were getting beat off the dribble all night. And so a lot of those offensive rebounds were guards that should have put bodies on guys."

The Celtics' first loss came in a stretch of numerous games in a short amount of time. Asked whether or not this loss felt different from the loss to Phoenix, Doc Rivers was quick to state that it did not, and that they aren't using any excuses for either of their losses.

"No, I just think they kicked our butt, honestly," Rivers admitted. "I think they were better tonight... We were fresh and well-practiced; they just beat us- and so did Phoenix... We've lost two games. We didn't lose them because of any sinister reasons. Phoenix beat us, and Atlanta beat us. And they beat us with their play. They came in with a game plan. They ran it to perfection. We came in with a game plan and we didn't do it very well in both games really."

Rasheed Wallace credits the Hawks for figuring out that using the isolation would be successful against the Celtics.

"They knew we were a good defensive team and they had a lot of isolation guys, you know, going one-on-one," Wallace said. "And anytime you have a team like that, it forces the other defensive guys to step up and, you know, that's leaving our man behind us for the offensive rebound or a tip just to keep the ball alive."

Head Coach Mike Woodson was very proud of his team after the game, and rightfully so. Tonight was a huge win for the Hawks, who can use this game as a measuring stick for how they compare to one of the best teams in the league.

"You know it's not easy winning in this building," Woodson stated. "And for our guys to step up tonight, and come in here, because I think this is the best team in the East, I really do... But tonight we matched them from beginning to end, and I thought the third and fourth quarter like we did in New York the other night, we really stepped it up from a defensive standpoint and were able to secure the win."

Paul Pierce left the game towards the end of the third quarter but returned to the bench before the fourth quarter began.

"It's a little tender," Pierce said. I'm just going to wait to see how it feels when it cools down. On the play I was falling down and my foot got stepped on, sort of turned it so it was a light sprain in the knee."

Pierce played roughly 10 minutes in the fourth quarter, scoring six of his 24 on the night. With those 24 points, Pierce moved into 49^th place on the all-time scoring list with 18,790 points, passing Bob McAdoo. Sitting at 48^th all-time is Isiah Thomas with 18,822 points.

0 recs | Comment 40 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Why we lost

A lot of overreactions to this loss. I watched the game after the fact, looking for reasons:

- The refs were terrible, and terribly one-sided. I could list all the specifics, but we all saw them. Doc even talked about it in a huddle, saying ""They’re letting them get away with everything out there. Just play through it. You gotta play through it." (Of course, he can’t say that on the record, which the huddle is not.) The refs clearly calling the game in favor of the other side makes it much harder to win — both for the obvious direct reasons, and because it’s hard to get your energy/psyche up when you know that “the fix is in”. (Ok, it wasn’t THAT bad, but it must have felt that way, especially for Paul when he got triple-mauled on a layup, got no call, and then the Hawks hit a 3-pointer while the Cs were standing agape in disbelief.)

- A significant portion of the off. rebounding disparity was due to simple bad luck in this game… a lot of bad bounces and taps. In addition, Perk was too often late to the party, and KG still doesn’t have all his hops back. We can expect KG’s jumping to gradually improve till about the All-Star break, which is when I think/hope he’ll be close to his 100%.

- 3s were just not falling. Had they, this would have been a W. The Hawks, meanwhile, got hot with their 3s late in the game. Way it goes sometimes.

- But the Cs are taking too many 3s. Doc should not be flippant about this (as he recently was). One particularly egregious example in this game was KG passing up a layup/dunk in favor of a pass to Sheed on the 3-point line (which missed, of course). That’s just nuts, and it needs to stop.

- FTs were not critical in this game, but the % is still below par.

- The Cs’ demeanor was NOT poor in this game. They worked hard and lost, for several reasons. It is true, though, that Rondo should have worked harder on offense, and Perk was a tad slow in the rebound battles.

by DRJ1 on Nov 14, 2009 5:16 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

This is Hilarious.

You lost because the refs cheated and you had bad luck on your side, not because you got out played, out hustled and out everything in this. Take the loss as a man the Hawks were the better team and they won. Not because it was Friday the thirteenth.

I'll Have A Matty Ice Please.

by IllHaveAMattyIcePlease on Nov 14, 2009 6:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Now Explain this:

09:17 Wallace Foul : Offensive (4 PF)
08:34 Perkins Foul : Shooting (4 PF)
08:09 Garnett Foul : Personal (1 PF)
07:23 Rondo Foul : Personal (3 PF)
06:42 Daniels Foul : Personal (3 PF)
06:08 Pierce Foul : Defense 3 Second (0 PF)
05:56 Allen Foul : Shooting (3 PF)
04:44 Garnett Foul : Personal (2 PF)
03:38 Wallace Foul : Shooting (5 PF)

by star18 on Nov 14, 2009 8:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What's funny is...

… the way so many people can see the same thing… refs screwing up call after call… and then deny what their eyes just saw. As if saying the refs had something to do with a loss is somehow not macho enough. Happens every time, every year. Ridiculous… as is the NBA rule that nobody can ever complain about the refs. Well, Doc did, in the huddle. Or do you not believe your ears either?

The refs were a factor, a major one. But the Cs were also outplayed, no question about that. Still, they might have won but for bad 3-pt shooting and, yes, quite a few unlucky bounces of the ball.

The rebounding will improve as KG gets closer to 100%, and Perk and Sheed focus more on it. And everything will improve as Rondo’s energy output gets back to normal.

by DRJ1 on Nov 14, 2009 8:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ridiculous - there were bad/no calls both ways

You complained about the officiating in the Phoenix loss as well.

Only 3 fouls and 4 fts different between the two clubs is in no way a ref job.

But when the Celtics get over 2 times the free throws as their opponents (see Nets game), or 3.8 times as many as the Lakers IN THE FINALS (still a post-merger record in a finals series I believe), Celts fans say it’s because they were the more aggressive team.

You are so used to favorable officiating in Boston that purely bad officiating can’t be accepted for what it is…

by nba is the worst on Nov 14, 2009 10:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Can anyone give an example of a bigger free throw discrepancy in the Finals than the 38-10 the Celtics got in '08?

Inquiring minds want to know…

by nba is the worst on Nov 14, 2009 10:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

no

you don’t know what you are talking about homeslice. The foul calls in Game 2 of the 2008 Finals went Lakers 28 Celtics 21. The Lakers didn’t get more than 4 foul calls in a row against them. Last night the Celtics got called for 10 consecutive fouls in a row in under 6 minutes. Now go back to your cheating side. You have been proven wrong. .

by star18 on Nov 14, 2009 4:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You're right.

The Hawks paid the refs to call the game in their favor; give me a break, you know what else Doc said “They have better athletes than us.” and “They kicked our butts” or do you not believe your ears?

I'll Have A Matty Ice Please.

by IllHaveAMattyIcePlease on Nov 14, 2009 5:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

10 calls in a row

You know what happens in the casinos in Vegas or AC when that happens don’t cha. The Big Boys come and put someobody in the “Blue Room”.

by star18 on Nov 14, 2009 6:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Before we all freak out about the Celtics inability to handle young athletic teams...

1. The season is long. There’s a certain pace you want to follow and it’s not necessarily 29-2. Better to take your knocks early and learn to overcome them. I prefer a humble Celtics squad to one that is talking about 72-10.

2. The playoffs are made for defensive, halfcourt teams with veterans, playing at a more deliberate pace. That is, the C’s are built for the playoffs, not for blowing out the Hawks in the first month of the season.

3. The incorporation of BBD (possibly Hudson and, crossing fingers, Bill Walker) into the rotations will result in a more energetic/athletic spark off the bench. Hustle is contagious, and BBD hustles if nothing else.

by milt palacio's shot on Nov 14, 2009 5:16 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

The rebounding is a very disturbing trend

The Celtics need to turn that around, and fast.

When Perk was asked what he thought of Howard winning the gold medal this summer, he responded: "What’s his impression of me after I won a ring?"

by Green17 on Nov 14, 2009 6:43 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

No shame there hombre's ... they rocked portland in PORTLAND..

I didn’t see that happening, the hawks despite being the hawks are for real this year.

The Faith don't panic, the faith freaks out, burns out farms, and torchs small villages in the name of The Faith.

by faith on Nov 14, 2009 6:52 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

when the bigs are not posting up and instead are shooting three's and long two's

then who do you expect to get the offensive boards? I like it when sheed’s three ball is falling and KG’s long two pointers but wouldn’t it be nice to post up when you know your shot or you’re teammates shots are not falling? Personally though I like seeing good post up plays rather than lights out basketball, good post up play just sends a message to the opposing team that they can defend all they want but I’m still gonna get to the basket.

by jeric on Nov 14, 2009 7:09 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Wallace

At his peak Wallace was no more than a mediocre rebounder and now he’s descended to the level of McCarty or Scal. And for someone who’s only average from 3-point land, he takes what even for a guard or forward would be an inordinate number of treys. He’s not and won’t become the prize addition that many thought was.

by Celtsfansince55 on Nov 14, 2009 7:25 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Not the first time I've heard this

Just before the regular season started my husband, who’s not a huge fan of any team and therefore is pretty objective, told me that he felt a lot of Celtics’ fans would find themselves disappointed in Sheed. I didn’t really understand why he would say that and begged to differ, but unfortunately I’m beginning to understand. Your comment pretty much nails it.

by 34green on Nov 14, 2009 11:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That's Impossible!!

Rarely, in a basketball game does a team even get 4 foul calls against them in a row!!

by star18 on Nov 14, 2009 7:59 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Please clarify...

While I sill have this in the DVR, did you feel that any of the fouls you mention were bad calls, or that the Hawks fouled similarly but weren’t called?

Merely complaining about consecutive calls isn’t particularly relevant…

BTW, see my response to DRJ1 above, do you have an example?

by nba is the worst on Nov 14, 2009 10:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yes

8 of them were questionable, plus the Hawks fouled Perkins and didn’t get called. Its not 9 fouls in a row, its 10 because I forgot about Perkins Techincal. Its never happened before in the NBA it is proof of cheating. Your Lakers got only 4 consecutive foul calls in a row in Game 2 of the 2008 Finals, that is how it usually is. Rarely, very very rarely does a team get called for 5 consecutive fouls in a row. Last night the Celtics got called for 10=proof of cheating.

by star18 on Nov 14, 2009 4:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Boards, Boards, Boards

C’s didn’t do their work on the boards, plain and simple. I can’t see how the Hawks lose that game with that rebounding gap. Atlanta played smarter ball.

As for the Refs, Celts can’t worry about it. Some days you get the calls, some days you don’t. The replays of Pierce getting hacked on multiple drives (and not getting calls) or ONLY getting a call after taking multiple hits were eye opening, but what can you do? Refs aren’t going to reverse their call.

Celts still made a game of it, to their credit. Rondo, as brilliant as he passed, needs to score some. He can’t let a half go by without establishing his offense. He gave up multiple open looks only make a tough pass in traffic. He’s got to take those short, open jumpers. His shot will never improve if he doesn’t shoot in games.

by LuckyNumber07 on Nov 14, 2009 8:05 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

yes

But you never see 9 foul calls in a row, ever. That’s more foul calls in a row then the Celtics won Championships in the 1960’s.

by star18 on Nov 14, 2009 8:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Who cares!

So, they didn’t get the breaks they might normally get. They still are one of the worst rebounding teams in the league. They are scoring the ball well, but they are not boxing out properly, and they (at times) did a terrible job defending the perimeter. Maybe the reason that the had so many fouls was because they didn’t set up well enough defensively. No excuses! They are the better team and they let the Hawks in this game over and over.

by B-ball on Nov 14, 2009 8:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

they shot 49% from the Field

Don’t front, we see your cheating mentality.

by star18 on Nov 14, 2009 4:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agree

With everything you said, except for the inevitability of the final outcome. A correctly called game would have been a rout for the Cs… think of all the TOs and FTs the Hawks would have given up had the game been accurately (and fairly) officiated.

As for the boards, note that KG himself said, as noted here earlier, that the ball just didn’t bounce the Cs’ way in that game. Luck was not with them on many of those rebounds, and that happens.

by DRJ1 on Nov 14, 2009 1:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Now look at this

69 CLE ATL W 40:03 2
70 CLE @ NJN W 39:09 0
71 CLE NJN W 39:06 0
72 CLE MIN W 33:36 0
73 CLE DAL W 31:19 0
74 CLE DET W 40:36 0
75 CLE @ WAS L 38:20 1
76 CLE @ ORL L 32:00 1
77 CLE SAS L 36:43 1
78 CLE WAS L 30:51 1

During a 2008-09 stretch run when the Cavs were going to try and break the Celtics home record Lebron was called for 6 fouls in 360 consecutive minutes.

The Celtics last night were called for 9 fouls in less than 6 minutes.

At least I can admit it.

And I can’t wait for my breakfast cereal too!!

by star18 on Nov 14, 2009 8:18 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Suggest a relaxing bath after your cereal. One factor of many.

by Tenacious D on Nov 14, 2009 8:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

just like the refs

maybe the refs should take one too, dontcha think? 10 foul calls in a row and I’m supposed to take a breath?

by star18 on Nov 14, 2009 4:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Do the math

6 Fouls 360 Minutes
9 Fouls 5:40

On a night somebody says #23 is out of play and #6 isn’t

by star18 on Nov 14, 2009 8:20 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I always said we have a 3 year window with the "Big 3"

Thought it from the day they were put together, considering their ages. Still think this is our last legit year as contender with PGA as our core 3. Time waits for no man (not exactly original), and our guys are old as basketball players go. We’ll look really good some days, and look like we’re stuck in mud on others, like last night. This group will remind me of the ‘88 Celts. When Ray’s contract runs out this year, we still won’t have cap space, so the only way to extend the window is to trade Ray for younger stars (teams looking to shed salary), because we won’t be able to do it in free agency.

You’re a championship contender when your star players are performing like all-stars. Right now, only of Pierce could it be said that that’s true. No regrets here. We already got one championship, and still have a possibility this year, but I think Danny must cash in TA, Scal’s expirings for more help to get it done. When this window slams shut, it’ll be ugly for a few years as Danny has to reload, so he should maximize this (in my view) last year of window by trading expirings for a Jax, Magette, or some such.

by Mencius on Nov 14, 2009 10:08 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

It may not be original...

…but it doesn’t need to be when it’s accurate. I agree with most of what you stated above but I don’t think Jackson or Magette would make the difference in winning the championship, although if you gave up Scal and Tony for them, it’s a no brainer. Think Bigger!

by Little D on Nov 14, 2009 11:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Way it is...

1) It is not an "excuse" to say the refs changed the outcome of a game. It’s reality, certainly in this case.

2) You cannot judge the refs’ actions by counting fouls. That’s way too simplistic and silly. In yesterday’s game, the Hawks committed TWICE as many fouls as the Cs, and, because the refs were both incompetent and one-sided, they got away with most of them. (In fact, the Hawks got 4 more FTs than the Cs did!) To judge the refs in any game, the box score cannot help you. You must WATCH AND ANALYZE THAT GAME.

3) If the refs had called the game correctly, this would have been a rout for the Cs. The Hawks’ TOs and FT disparity would have (and should have) killed them. Oh, and btw… maybe Paul wouldn’t have been injured as he was on one of those no-calls.

4) The Cs played with average energy last night. They were NOT slow or lackadaisical. However, they were not as aggressive as the Hawks — who were over-aggressive to the point of committing many fouls (too many of which, unfortunately, went unwhistled).

5) The Cs’ window is NOT closing in one more year. If Steve Nash can do what he’s doing at the age of 35.5, so can the Cs. The only question is health. If they stay reasonably healthy, this particular window might not close for another 3-4 years.

6) Note: Ray is not a PG, and he needs to stop trying to be one from time to time. Be the 2 you are Ray.

7) Sheed needs to bang the boards more than he is. KG will be banging more and more as time goes on this year… he’s still working his way up to 100%.

8) Luck was a big factor on many of the rebounds last night. I went through all of them, and saw at least 7 where the ball simply bounced the wrong way. Btw, KG also made this very point in his interview… in case you don’t believe me.

by DRJ1 on Nov 14, 2009 1:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

It's all opinion

5) The Cs’ window is NOT closing in one more year. If Steve Nash can do what he’s doing at the age of 35.5, so can the Cs. The only question is health. If they stay reasonably healthy, this particular window might not close for another 3-4 years.

Well, none of us really know. To be true contenders, you need stars performing as stars in the now. Nash is an anomaly, not the norm. We likely (almost certainly) won’t still have PGA in 3-4 years. If we did, we would not be championship contenders with them as mainstays another 3-4 years beyond their primes.

When we brought Ray and KG on, I personally thought the PGA window would be 3 years. Hope I’m wrong, but it’s what I believed then, and it’s what I still believe now.

In any event, I’m enjoying the successful ride however long it lasts.

by Mencius on Nov 14, 2009 2:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

To say that the refs are the reason we lost is false

To say that they contributed to the reason we lost would be more accurate. The Celtics could have won the game despite some poor officiating, had they done the things in their power to control. You can’t go into a game assuming to get a perfect officiated game. I can remember a few blown calls, but the Celtics didn’t help themselves out by missing free throws and not grabbing rebounds.

by Jimmy Toscano on Nov 14, 2009 2:10 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Agree

The refs were not the only reason they lost, but one of them.

The thing is also… the guys know when the refs are working against them. Doc specifically talked about the refs in one of those huddles that they aired. That’s a downer, when the guys know the game is tilted against them. All they want, all everybody wants, is accurate and fair officiating.

And bottom line: though it wasn’t the only reason they lost, clearly… I do believe they would have won with accurate and fair refereeing. The Hawks were outhustling them, yes, but they were committing many fouls in the process, which with good refs would have led to several more TOs for the Hawks and extra FT points for the Cs.

But that’s the NBA. You gotta take the good with the bad. Which is exactly how the guys must feel.

by DRJ1 on Nov 14, 2009 4:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah right

explain this: 09:17 Wallace Foul : Offensive (4 PF)
08:34 Perkins Foul : Shooting (4 PF)
08:09 Garnett Foul : Personal (1 PF)
07:42 Perkins Technical
07:23 Rondo Foul : Personal (3 PF)
06:42 Daniels Foul : Personal (3 PF)
06:08 Pierce Foul : Defense 3 Second (0 PF)
05:56 Allen Foul : Shooting (3 PF)
04:44 Garnett Foul : Personal (2 PF)
03:38 Wallace Foul : Shooting (5 PF)

Just logically explain how that is possible.

by star18 on Nov 14, 2009 4:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

UPDATE IT WAS 10 IN A ROW HA HA!!

09:17 Wallace Foul : Offensive (4 PF)
08:34 Perkins Foul : Shooting (4 PF)
08:09 Garnett Foul : Personal (1 PF)
07:42 Perkins Technical
07:23 Rondo Foul : Personal (3 PF)
06:42 Daniels Foul : Personal (3 PF)
06:08 Pierce Foul : Defense 3 Second (0 PF)
05:56 Allen Foul : Shooting (3 PF)
04:44 Garnett Foul : Personal (2 PF)
03:38 Wallace Foul : Shooting (5 PF)

by star18 on Nov 14, 2009 4:55 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

that is...

a petty argument. We’ll play ya’ll three times in January then we’ll talk.

Atlanta will win a championship....someday

by maxxj3 on Nov 18, 2009 6:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

stats

If you want to disagree with me you have to get the stats correct to prove me wrong. Even 6 consecutive fouls in a row in under 6 minutes against one team has never happened before in the NBA. If you can find the box score which proves me wrong, do it. Until then everything I have posted is correct and statistically accurate.

by star18 on Nov 14, 2009 5:25 PM EST reply actions 0 recs