Should the Celtics avoid playing the big 3 together as a trio?

by fordescort on Mar 13, 2010 10:31 AM EST

I think the big 3 of KG, Pierce and Allen due to age and injuries now lack, speed, athleticism and stamina that they had in their youth and in previous seasons.

I also think that when they play as a group of 3 on the court these physical weak spots are even more obvious and evident.

For that reason would it possibly be a smart move to no longer play the big 3 as together as a group at the same time on the floor and have 1 or 2 of the big 3 come of the bench in order to get more young legs and athleticism on the court and disguise those weak spots the big 3 have when they do play together as a unit.

Back in the early 90's when the big 3 of Bird, Mchale and Parish were slowing down also due to age and injury Coach Ford (Gee I like that name) and Red realized that the big 3 were too slow and not athletic enough to play together as a group so what did they do...

They put Mchale on the bench to play the role of 6th man and never really played the big 3 of Bird, Mchale and Parish as a group since when they did play together they were exposed for being nonathletic and slow on the court against their competition .

It worked out good at the start of that 90 season since it propelled the C's to the best record in the NBA at the Allstar break.

I think our current big 3 due to age and injury are also not athletic or quick enough to play as trio group anymore and Doc needs to avoid playing them together.

I think starting Daniels and Robinson for example in place of Ray and Pierce would be a bold smart move worth trying since it would avoid us playing the big 3 together and bring younger, quicker more athletic players on the court.

Putting 1 or 2 big 3 players on the bench may just help us this year and would also help us long term by helping prep Allen, Garnett and Pierce to come off the bench which they may have to do if they want to remain as Celtics to close out their career's.

Again I am not just talking about putting 1 or 2 of the big 3 to come off the bench, I am also talking about Doc developing rotations that avoid playing the big 3 all together as a trio on the court at the same time.

Anybody have any thoughts?

Be respectful and keep it clean. Thanks.

Tweet Comment 13 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

prolly just ray to the bench pierce is still an important starter

LUCHA LIBRE Goes Celtic Green

by Luchador B.I.G. on Mar 13, 2010 10:49 AM EST reply actions

They might make some changes next season

For this one, we’re locked. Especially with Doc at the helm (of course).

by DRJ1 on Mar 13, 2010 11:59 PM EST reply actions

Yea agree about next year for sure...

I think if the C’s resign Ray he will probably for sure come off the bench next year…

Then they can either start Robinson or another shooting guard (if they sign one) to help prep and prime our shooting guard of the future.

by fordescort on Mar 14, 2010 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions

I disagree with this idea so strongly

that I will constrain myself from going on a 10 page rant about it.

This team is, without any room for questioning it, best with those three guys. Period.

The net offensive and defensive efficiencies when those three guys are on the floor is simply way better for this team.

Our record with any one of those three missing is a miserable 9-11. With a negative pt differential.

It is 32-12 with all three in the game. With a huge leap in net pt differential to around 8 pts. And that includes several games with one or two of them ‘hobbling’.

KG, Pierce and Ray are an unbelievably complementary set of players. They are perfectly balanced in what each provides. Throw in Rondo and Perk and it is simply a great starting 5.

That 5-man unit posts an offensive efficiency of 1.10 and a defensive efficiency of 0.98. We want that on the floor more, not less.

I will stop now. It is just a bad bad idea you suggest.

by mmmmm on Mar 14, 2010 12:18 AM EST reply actions

And 1

No question.

Though they might tweak some rotations next season. I can see some possibilities.

by DRJ1 on Mar 14, 2010 1:38 AM EST up reply actions

You make it sound as if I am saying do not play the big 3 anymore....

which I am not suggesting.

All I am saying is it may be a good idea to avoid playing them together as much as possible since they have all (which I think we all agree) slowed down due to age and injury which is ever more glaring when they play as a trio on the court at the same time.

For that reason I do not think it is as horrible a idea as you think.

by fordescort on Mar 14, 2010 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions

i understand exactly what you suggested

but it just doesn’t work.

Those three need to be on the floor together because they each are the best player we have at their respective roles and we want them to be each on the floor for the majority of minutes in that role (over alternative players).

You are focused a lot on athleticism in a lot of your posts. That’s important. But far more important is synergy. Balancing roles on the floor. Working together to achieve the desired result.

Whether the big three are more/less athletic than some other combinations we could put out there is arguable. But what is not arguable is the resulting efficiencies. Those are measurable and they indicate that we are far better off if the most minutes on the floor go to our starting 5.

by mmmmm on Mar 14, 2010 10:49 PM EDT up reply actions

Well...

I still think my idea is worth giving a shot since the big 3 have evidently slowed down physically and athletically due to age and injury this year and since the team as a whole is struggling and maybe a shake up in the starting line up may get us going.

I agree that the big 3 are our most efficient players, but if you were to follow my suggestion of benching 2 of them I think it would only increase their efficiency and on court production.

For the following reason:

Lets say Garnett still starts but Pierce and Ray were to come off the bench for us.

Rays and Pierce’s (even considering they are aging and injured players) efficiency and court production would probably increase since they would be playing more minutes against the opposing teams bench players who they could probably out play.

Now the gamble is if the 2 bench players we start in place of Ray and Pierce can hold up their end of the bargain to make moving 2 of the big 3 to the bench worthwhile.

But considering the funk we have been in all this year I think its worth giving the idea a shot since we have nothing to lose (since we can always go back to the big 3 starting line up again whenever we want) and maybe alot to gain.

by fordescort on Mar 15, 2010 1:07 AM EDT up reply actions

get them the hell outta here!

shows over folks nothing to see here!

by Leprachaun in da hood on Mar 14, 2010 1:30 AM EST reply actions

Well...

I would not go that far at all.

by fordescort on Mar 14, 2010 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions

If they cant play together, then, why call them the big three?

by Reyquila on Mar 14, 2010 6:25 PM EDT reply actions

let them work it out

these are not bench players.
come on.

by Snowball on Mar 14, 2010 11:58 PM EDT reply actions

I agree...

The C’s should have Ray coming off the bench. Not that Ray is the weakest link, but the age factor that fordescort discussed and I just think that there are too many touches to be had among the first unit. Paul, KG, and Ray are all highly respected veterans that believe they deserve significant touches each. This just can’t happen with Rondo, a recent all-star point guard on the team in the same lineup as well.

I like what the Mavs do with Jason Terry. Clearly, Terry is not the 6th best player on the team, but he can serve as a go-to guy coming off the bench for the second unit.

I noticed that yesterday against the Cavs that when the Celtics had their entire bench in at the beginning of the fourth quarter, they did not know where to go. They ended up going to Rasheed down low for three straight possessions, all coming up empty. Finley then hucked up a jump shot. This is not what we need. The opposing defense doesn’t have to double anyone on the second unit and they really have nobody that they really have to worry about, thus causing us, The Celtics, to use up the majority of the shot clock looking for an open man, and then conceding the possession to a low-percentage shot.

Ray could serve as a go-to guy on the second unit that not only can produce offensively, but can draw defenders and open up shots for the other guys on the bench (especially Nate Robinson : what a lethal combination that could become). On the first unit, KG and Pierce can get more touches without worrying about Ray.

On the second unit, we have Ray and Nate. These are two lethal offensive weapons if either becomes hot. If Nate gets hot, they have to focus on him, which will result in Ray getting open shots. Vice versa for Ray. I think it would be a pretty cool experiment by the “mad scientist” Doc to see a little tweak in the rotation. If not now, when? It won’t happen, but I would really like to see the C’s try it for just one game and see how it works out.

by avirgile2 on Mar 15, 2010 11:21 AM EDT reply actions