I've been meaning to write this piece for sometime, maybe since last Spring. But I couldn't find a hook to hang it on.
Now I have two.
This team never does one thing the great Celtics teams from the 1970s and 1980s did often:
Lose big leads.
The scenario is easy to remember:
The 1970s and 1980s Celtics would methodically build a 12-to-18 point lead with efficient offense and a focused effort on defense (I wouldn't call either of their defenses "stifling"). Lead in hand, Tommy Heinsohn or KC Jones would send in the bench, and then watch the lead drop by four to ten points. Next the starters would return, but no longer wearing their game faces. Playing from their heels, the lead would drop further. Pretty soon, the Celtics are only up by a couple. Oftentimes, the Celtics would lose the lead altogether, falling behind by as many as five. For fans, the last three to five minutes of the game were consumed by nailbiting and cursing, maybe even throwing and banging things. The green usually won, but also managed to lose at least two out of every five of these.
Last night ESPN displayed a stat that proved my gut feeling. KG and company are now 25-0 when building a double-digit lead at some point in the game. The stat by itself speaks volumes, but doesn't tell the whole story.
When the Celtics exchange leads of less than 10 points, the game is up for grabs. When the Celtics hold a lead of 10 to 16 points, they typically win by 12 to 16. But once a lead bulges to 17 or more points, funny things start to happen. Games quickly get out of control, and the lead often surges to 25, 30 or more points.
This team knows how to put down the hammer like no other Celtics team I've seen.
So what accounts for the difference? Why is this team so much better at smelling blood and putting games away with a vengeance?
We got our answer last night.
KG.
When he undressed Glen Davis and the rest of the bench, we got to see a very public display of what the Big 3 call "holding each other accountable." The bench was a collective -35 last night and a -27 the game before that. Tony Allen or not, this is unacceptable. It not only forces the starters to play more minutes, but it may also force our hand in trying to do a deal before the trade deadline
Now I have two.
This team never does one thing the great Celtics teams from the 1970s and 1980s did often:
Lose big leads.
The scenario is easy to remember:
The 1970s and 1980s Celtics would methodically build a 12-to-18 point lead with efficient offense and a focused effort on defense (I wouldn't call either of their defenses "stifling"). Lead in hand, Tommy Heinsohn or KC Jones would send in the bench, and then watch the lead drop by four to ten points. Next the starters would return, but no longer wearing their game faces. Playing from their heels, the lead would drop further. Pretty soon, the Celtics are only up by a couple. Oftentimes, the Celtics would lose the lead altogether, falling behind by as many as five. For fans, the last three to five minutes of the game were consumed by nailbiting and cursing, maybe even throwing and banging things. The green usually won, but also managed to lose at least two out of every five of these.
Last night ESPN displayed a stat that proved my gut feeling. KG and company are now 25-0 when building a double-digit lead at some point in the game. The stat by itself speaks volumes, but doesn't tell the whole story.
When the Celtics exchange leads of less than 10 points, the game is up for grabs. When the Celtics hold a lead of 10 to 16 points, they typically win by 12 to 16. But once a lead bulges to 17 or more points, funny things start to happen. Games quickly get out of control, and the lead often surges to 25, 30 or more points.
This team knows how to put down the hammer like no other Celtics team I've seen.
So what accounts for the difference? Why is this team so much better at smelling blood and putting games away with a vengeance?
We got our answer last night.
KG.
When he undressed Glen Davis and the rest of the bench, we got to see a very public display of what the Big 3 call "holding each other accountable." The bench was a collective -35 last night and a -27 the game before that. Tony Allen or not, this is unacceptable. It not only forces the starters to play more minutes, but it may also force our hand in trying to do a deal before the trade deadline
Instead of dealing from a position of strength, defined as having five, six, seven, eight or more contributors off the bench, the Celtics may develop a reputation for having very few bench contributors, and this would make Danny look desperate to make a deal.
You never get value when making a deal from a point of perceived desperation.
So while the starters once again proved they are frontrunners without equal, the bench is starting to make the rest of us a little nervous.
No comments:
Post a Comment