7.12.2009

Defense Blamed for Second Straight Home Loss

Celtics Fall to 30-11
1981-82 Boston Celtics


If it were only the losing that mattered, then Bill Fitch might not be so upset. After all, for Boston to lose two straight games in the Garden is not the end of the world, although it hasn't happened since the end of the 1978-79 season.

If just one or two players were in a defensive rut, there would be no real flag waving over the Celtics practice floor today at Hellenic College.

But the breakdown in what was once one of the NBA's most physical and aggressive team defenses is now so obvious nobody has to ask why the Celtics' coach is now asking his players to look in the mirror and see who they really are.

"I don't know why," said Calvin Natt, whose 20 points was just one of many surprises by the Portland Trail Blazers who pulled off a stunning 123-119 victory over the Celtics yesterday.

"But I thought Boston would be much more physical. We were quicker and we penetrated. We beat them on the boards. They played a little lax today."

The Celtics, if the truth be known, have been anything but awesome of late. They are floundering in the midseason doldrums.

Last week the Celtics allowed the Knicks and Pacers to come much too close. The warning signs were there. In Friday's loss, Seattle had a field day against a sporadic defense. Yesterday, the Celtics hit a valley, or perhaps, the pits. Their only defense for much of the game was no defense at all.

"I could have posted up against our defense," suggested Fitch.

How bad was it? Well, Kelvin Ransey, a penetrating guard, weaved through the Celtics for 33 points as if he had a roadmap. Billy Ray Bates (26 points) did a victory jig everytime he touched the ball. And yes, the Celtics knew the Blazers were a guard-oriented team.

Worse yet, the Blazers controlled the boards, outrebounding the Celtics, 44 to 36. Thus, taking away the Green's finest weapon, the fastbreak. Boston shot 47 per cent (46-98). The Celtics were getting second and third shots and missing them, too, until the closing minutes. If Robert Parish hadn't had a hot hand - 36 points against the smaller Portland front line - the game might have been a rout for the Trail Blazers.

"There were some things going on out there that shouldn't have been happening," said Parish. "We're not playing 48 minutes of good basketball, particularly on defense. It's more than the penetration. We gave up second and third shots. We let men set up down low, and there is nothing you can do about it once they get the ball. We weren't helping out the way we have been in the past. We've got to regroup and pull ourselves together."

The 100-point mark has been a barometer of the Celtics. When they have scored 100 or more, their record is 23-8. When they are under, it is 7-3.Boston held teams under 100 points, it won 15 of 16 games. Ten of the Celtics' losses have been in games in which they've allowed teams more than 100 points.

So you can understand why Bill Fitch gives so much importance to defense. When the Celtics don't play it very well, they generally lose.

"When was the last time that we really played good defense?" Fitch asked. "It was about a month ago. Remember when everybody was talking about the way we held teams under 100 points, and how we were always 1-2-3 in defense. Well, we aren't doing that anymore.

"People have called us the best in pro basketball. Well, we're not playing like the best right now. I think the worst sin you can commit on defense in this league is to take things for granted. The name of the game is T-E-A-M. We're not playing it. Everybody wants to win. But not everybody is paying the price."

"People wonder how the 76ers are coming back without Darryl Dawkins. They're doing it with good team defense. Look at the Super Bowl. It's the one area pro football and basketball have in common. The most successful teams are those who play good defense."Larry Bird (6-for-18) had a rare off day and the outside shooting of Tiny Archibald, Kevin McHale, Chris Ford and Gerry Henderson could not stop the Trail Blazers from winning what was, for them, a very important game.

"But it doesn't work like that," said Parish. "We're a team, and we don't depend on just one guy to do all the scoring. We've been going to Larry lately because he's been hot. We win games because we don't concentrate on one guy. And if Larry is having an off night, it shouldn't affected us."

By their own admission, the Trail Blazers were up for the game, and usually the Celtics find a way to combat that enthusiasm.Holding on to a one- point lead (83-82) after three quarters, the Celtics ran into a buzzsaw. Trail Blazers cut loose.

"We opened up our game today," said Ransey. "We got some good high picks, and I just took it to them. I wasn't afraid to drive. Penetration seems to open up our entire offense. Our big men can shoot well, and they're quicker than the Celtics."

Bates must have thought for a time he was back in the Continental League playing for te Maine Lumberjacks. It was that easy, and none of the Celtics could slow him down.

"The coach has told us," said Bates, "that we've been shooting too many outside shots. So all of us just made up our mind to take it to the basket. Boston is bigger than we are. But we're much quicker. Whoever was playing me had to protect the lane for the drive because if they didn't, I'd take it right past them for the stuff. When they dropped out at the end, that's when I started to pop away."

The problem, said Fitch, is more basic than that. His club expects somebody to have a hot hand. It's how the Celtics were handling the situation that made him mad.

"How many times have I told these guys that if somebody is hot, you don't let him get the ball," said Fitch. "It wasn't that we weren't just playing well. We weren't playing smart. When somebody went after Ransey on the penetration, we didn't rotate on defense. Yet, if you look at the films, you'll see Portland rotating all game long.

"We had guys walking their lanes on fast breaks and walking when they should have been running. We have guys who think their jobs are secure, but they aren't."

No comments: