Celtics Still Searching For Identity On Offense

by Jimmy Toscano on Feb 16, 2012 9:01 AM EST in Boston Celtics Articles

The Celtics are still searching. Whether it's against the Miami Heat or the Detroit Pistons - they are still searching.

For what, you ask?

Who they are on offense.

The players don't really know. Doc Rivers doesn't really know. And far be it from any one of us to have any clue.

Maybe the answer, if ever discovered, isn't one we want to hear anyways.

When it comes to straight up scoring points, the Celtics are ranked 26th in the NBA averaging just 90.2 per game. The four teams behind them? Raptors, Pistons, Hornets, and Bobcats.

The two teams ahead of them? Nets and Wizards.

Talk about a crap sandwich.

The difference though, is that the Celtics play defense - something none of those other teams that are listed do to the same extent. That's why when the C's lose it's on their defense, not their offense - so they say.

Yeah, they play at an extremely slow pace - the slowest in the NBA - which contributes to their low scoring. And yeah, they were without Kevin Garnett and Brandon Bass Wednesday night, two obviously important pieces.

But it's clear the issue is far deeper than missing one or two guys - it's a fundamental issue rooted deep in the team's execution on offense, or lack thereof.

Are they to utilize Rajon Rondo more aggressively on offense- and his new chemistry with Chris Wilcox - like they did tonight when Rondo took 27 shots? Or are they going to walk up the ball, set the offense, and look for Ray Allen's and Paul Pierce's shot?

In a perfect world, the two styles are complementary. But it's not always the case, and certainly not easy. And Rondo is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. When the C's lose and he doesn't attack the basket, he needs to do it more. When the C's lose and he takes 27 shots, some say he needs to get the ball moving more. And then some - like Doc Rivers - want him to do both.

"Offensively I didn't really like the way we played the whole night, really," Rivers said. "Wasn't a lot of movement. I like Rondo being aggressive, but on the other hand we didn't get a lot of ball movement. This wasn't lost on offense. Defensively you give up 98 points to a team that's struggling right now scoring."

"I want Rondo to stay aggressive, more in transition," Rivers went on to say later. "In half-court, that's when you get the ball to your other guys. But listen, Rondo we want him to stay exactly, we want him to stay aggressive. That's really important to us. The way to really do that is off of stops. In the first half, that's how we did it. In the second half, we were not getting stops."

I did the play-by-play - the C's scored 27 of 49 first-half points on the ensuing possession of a defensive stand or turnover but still only led by two points. In the second half, they scored 17 of 39 points under the same circumstances.

The Pistons hit three more field goals in the second half (19) than in the first half, with the same amount of field goals (37). They scored four more points in the second half than in the first half.

So really, how much worse was the defense? Four points worse than in the first half? If you want to put it on the defense, you can make an argument that 98 points to the Pistons is too much. But to say it was the second-half defense would be a little off.

The C's held Detroit to 40-percent shooting in the fourth quarter (although they gave up four 3-pointers to Ben Gordon), but could only score 16 points. In the third quarter they scored 23 points while allowing Detroit to convert 65-percent of the time. How does that translate to creating offense from defense? It doesn't.

After the game Rondo talked about the difficulties of being aggressive and also finding his teammates.

"It's difficult. When you have it going yourself, my teammates kept telling me stay aggressive," he said. "But at the same time I was just trying to get other guys involved. You know, when they're not missing, they have to come back and tell me to still attack and stay aggressive."

Ray Allen took just five shots, hitting one. Pierce was not himself either, finishing 3-11 for 10 points. Maybe it was because they didn't get it going early on. But if Rivers wants aggression from Rondo, who converted 15 of 27 field goals, that's the price he pays.

"We played a lot of bump and roll. Rondo got the hot hand and took the shots that were there when they sagged off of him," Pierce said. "When the shots were there he took them. We went to him in the post a lot and it caused a lot of isolation. That was the game plan."

Rivers didn't like the offense all night and wanted more ball movement. Pierce says the plan was to give it to Rondo for as long as Detroit would allow.

And here we are.

Tweet Comment 13 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Can't blame Rondo when he shoots a lot and makes a high %

This was on the rest of the team, but I agree about the conflict of styles. Rondo is at his best in an up tempo style, and even in half court I think he is better with more freedom rather than set plays. The Celtics have always been a defense first team, and with the big 3 being old it was always better to play slower and grind it out. Ideally the Celtics always wanna push the ball on offense and slow things down for the other team in defense, but usually if you push it speeds up both teams and grinding slows down both teams.

by kg2128 on Feb 16, 2012 9:31 AM EST reply actions

But this wasn't a fast paced game by any means

Only roughly 86 possessions for each team and not that many fast break points for either side.

by Fafnir on Feb 16, 2012 11:06 AM EST up reply actions

Yea it was a slower game the team just didn't step up

Mainly Paul Pierce and Ray Allen. Doesn’t have to be both, but with KG out one of them had to bring their A game and it never happened.

by kg2128 on Feb 16, 2012 2:52 PM EST up reply actions

Gotta give a little credit to Coach Frank.

After reviewing the game, Larry made some smart coaching decisions pivoting around KG’s absence. Basically, he focused on not letting Ray and Pierce beat him on one end and on the other end he exploited the fact that JO was only going to play about 20ish minutes and when he was sitting our interior defense was vulnerable. Without JO or KG, it is hard for us to stop a player like Monroe.

NBA Officiating - Corrupt? Incompetent? Which is worse? Does it matter? It sucks.

by mmmmm on Feb 16, 2012 6:30 PM EST up reply actions

I’m not sure there is really anything that can be fixed, not if the goal is to win a championship. I think the celts have become mediocre, victory against a rose less bulls notwithstanding.

by jurrasicearl on Feb 16, 2012 9:47 AM EST via mobile reply actions

complex situations

Not an easy task for players and coaches they need to balance speed. quickness and height every night. due to injuries busy schedule. I believe playing most of the bench all of the time will make a healthier and more energetic team. I think it is time to mix the youth with the Vets to balance speed and quickness to help defense and offense. Also the vets can teach the less experienced players team defense and offense. Try different lineups to start game and end game with your Vets. Example the old Celtic teams would not start all of their best players example Havilicek and McHale. Good Luck Celtics season is still early to win.

by CelticsWin on Feb 16, 2012 9:51 AM EST reply actions

You have to look beyond just the raw FG% when it comes to defense

The Celtics gave up 7 offensive rebounds in the second half compared to 4 in the first half, five of those were in the fourth quarter. The C’s also gave up all 4 Detroit 3 point makes in the fourth quarter.

So the Pistons only shot 40% in the fourth, but their eFG% was .500. That’d rank for 25th in the NBA, and the C’s season average is .447. Their second half eFG% was .568, compared to a first half of .43 eFG%.

The reason they were close going into the half was their own free throw makes (15-17), and the C’s missing 9 free throws in the first half alone!

by Fafnir on Feb 16, 2012 10:18 AM EST reply actions

I understand eFG%, but that doesn't really apply to simply getting "stops" and working in transition.

A score is a score in that sense, and even though the Pistons hit four threes in the fourth (which I did note in article), they only scored four more points in the second half on three more field goals. Therefore, I don’t think the defense-creating-offense in the second half reason for the loss holds a lot of water this time around. It was, to me, just lack of execution on offense.

The offense can never bail the defense out on this team.

by Jimmy Toscano on Feb 16, 2012 11:18 AM EST up reply actions

They scored more points on less possessions in the second half.

But they also got to the line 12 times compared to 17 times in the first half. That’s five less free throws, effectively 3 less shots. They also had 1 less turnover in the second half. So in the first half they had around 50 possessions and got 47 points. In the second half they had 47 possessions and scored 51 points.

TS% in the first half .528, for the second half it was .600

Whether or not the offense to defense thoughts Doc put out there are accurate wasn’t really my point. Rather I’m trying to say we lost this game because of a poor defensive showing, nothing else.

You’re right the offense almost never bails the defense out with the C’s, but its been that way for 3 years so I suppose I’m used to it.

by Fafnir on Feb 16, 2012 11:38 AM EST up reply actions

Good points.

I think it is telling that in the ~20 minutes while Jermaine was on the floor, we were +5. With his defense removed, we were -15 in the remaining ~28 minutes.

I think Larry Frank gamed us a bit. Knowing KG was out, his strategy was to take Ray and PP away and make Rondo beat Detroit on offense without them. Then, on the other end of the court, he knew he’d have 25-28 minutes with neither JO or KG on the floor so he could attack the post with Monroe (11 of 14, 4 ORBs).

Ben Gordon getting red hot and dropping those 4 three point shots was just the gravy on top of that strategy.

The harsh negative +/- numbers of our bench are screaming at us that basically, our bench bigs are still not getting it done on defense.

NBA Officiating - Corrupt? Incompetent? Which is worse? Does it matter? It sucks.

by mmmmm on Feb 16, 2012 12:00 PM EST up reply actions

4th quarter offense

Personally I think the reason our 4th quarter offense becomes stagnant is because we try to get Ray and Paul involved too much rather than looking for the best shot that is available in the flow of the offense. It seems logical to look for them as they have been the primary options for the past few years, but their skills have deteriorated to a certain point that relying on them only will lead to inefficient offense. What shows this trend the most is the attitude of Rondo. In yesternight’s game, he was aggressive the first three quarters yet stopped his aggressive play in the 4th quarter, instead focusing too much on getting Paul and Ray their shots. Again, it’s not the worst thing to do to get your teammates going, but I think Rondo as a point guard should consider who’s hot and who’s not and plan the 4th quarter offense accordingly, instead of just giving Paul the ball every single time in crunch time.

by greysoul0614 on Feb 16, 2012 11:05 AM EST reply actions

haha...

loved your final lines.

I didn’t get to see the game, but when I checked the box score at half time and later, I said…“What the…….?” when I saw the shot distribution. Crazy.

Your article speaks to those concerns.

The offense can never bail the defense out on this team.

Also true far too often. Even Ray Allen said how surprised he is that a team with the offensive talent that they have had over time has struggled as it does.

So, allowing 98 points to even Detroit, without KG in the line up is not a surprise (to me).

Looking at the offensive experimenting is interesting and, at least from the box score, it looked like something strange was going on.

I guess they have to try stuff out to see what can work. That it was ‘game situational’ according to Pierce makes it more understandable.

But your larger question, I think, is valid.

by Tom Halzack on Feb 16, 2012 11:43 AM EST reply actions

One factor that has probably been a big contributor is simply injuries.

The thing that makes our ‘Big 4’ a big four is not that they are all still at their elite HoF levels. It is that they complement each other and each is capable of a huge game at any time. They take turns ‘being elite’ without having to be elite scorers every game.

Defenses can game plan to take away one or 2 good scorers but it is hard to try to shut down 3. Out of a typical top rotation, if you can get a big game out of any two players and then just mediocre production out of the rest of your top rotation players, then you will be able to put points on the board.

In most games, you can usually count on at least 2 of those 4 having big games.

But when one of them is out, then that’s making the defense’s job much easier.

So far this year, our ‘starting 5’ (Big 4+JO)has only played 161 minutes together on the floor. That’s 21st in the league!!! The top units by minutes played have 2 or 3 times that.

Yes, JO’s minimal minutes (502) have reduced that particular unit’s totals. But even if you add in the minutes of our ‘Big 4’ with Bass, GS, CW or JJ, they only total about 255 minutes on the court together so far this year.

KG has finally missed a game, but Paul has missed 3, Ray has missed 4 and Rondo has missed 8. Jermaine has missed 6.

Together, our starting 5 has a very healthy +11.44 net rating – largely because of a stingy 89.44 DRtg. That’s a dominant margin, but we just haven’t been able to see it on the floor enough.

I’ll try to put together a more detailed Fan Post on this. There are some interesting numbers.

NBA Officiating - Corrupt? Incompetent? Which is worse? Does it matter? It sucks.

by mmmmm on Feb 16, 2012 7:19 PM EST reply actions