Okay, here's your opportunity to offer your feedback on the game. If you want to participate in our ongoing MVP and rating scorecard, please do so at the beginning of your post. Then, provide any comments you wish. Feel free to copy the following as a "voting template" to complete and paste in the "comment" box. Just type each answer or rating at the end of the "............" (Don't worry that it looks squished when you cram it into that box. As long as you don't try to reformat it, I think it will reformat automatically when it appears on the thread.)
If you just want to comment without voting, simply type in the comment box as usual.
Thanks,
Sam
________________________________________________________
Your game MVP (Celtic or other)............
Rate the Celtics' performance on each of these factors...any rating from 0 = awful to 10 = perfect. (If you don't want to rate a given factor, just leave it blank. Rating scale clarified below.)
Very
Awful --Poor-- ---Fair--- Avg. Above avg Good Good Perfect
F D D+ C Minus C C+ B- B B+ A
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(These are the ratings)
YOUR RATINGS (0 TO 10):
Overall Celtics performance.......................
A Offense/plays/shooting/spacing/timing..
B Defense/strategy/stops/disruption,.........
C Rebounding/blocking out.......................
D Passing/ball distribution/outletting........
E Ballhandling/ball control.......................
F Intensity/hustle/first to the ball...............
G Chemistry/fluidity/teamwork.................
H Tempo/control of the pace.....................
I Killer instinct/clutch performance..........
J Coaching/substitutions/timeouts............
___________________________________________________________
Your comments here:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Well, given the absence of posts, it appears this idea may be a bomb. However, it's still early in the day, and I know many people couldn't watch the game. Anyway, I'll post my own observations for whatever they're worth:
Your game MVP..................Daniels (mainly on the strength of 5 assists in 18 minutes) and his patented floater in the lane
A Offense/plays/shooting/spacing/timing, etc...6
B Defense/strategy/stops/disruption, etc............4
C Rebounding/blocking out, etc........................4
D Passing/ball distribution/outletting, etc..........4
E Ballhandling/ball control, etc.........................6
F Intensity/hustle/first to the ball, etc.................5
G Chemistry/fluidity/teamwork, etc...................3
H Tempo/control of the pace, etc.......................5
I Killer instinct/clutch performance, etc............2
J Coaching/substitutions/timeouts, etc...............8
_________________________________________________________________________________
I've discovered another limitation of this blog. You can only include up to 4,096 characters in a post. So I'll continue in another post.
Sam
First continuation:
Your comments here:I almost arbitrarily added 2 points to every rating because this was the first exhibiiton game and the priorities for Doc were obviously to get a good look at everyone, look at some combinations, and to give KG a good workout without overtaxing him. And he did all three of these things very well, which is why I gave the coaching the only decent rating of the bunch. And both Doc and Thibs were also very active in pulling guys over and tutoring them on the spot.
So everything I say carries the caveat that this game was like a glorified practice. You don't play your starters just a little more than one-quarter of the game if your chief objective is to win. (Houston played theirs a little more, which was probably the margin of "victory.") Doc mentioned that he hadn't put in any plays for Pierce yet, and Paul was just about invisible.
Even in defeat, there were some things I liked. The scrappiness of the bench was perhaps chief among them. Hudson plays like a whirling dervish on defense. And, in the second half, even in the fact of Rocket momentum, the second-stringers hung in there until (with only Sweetney to try to deter the relentless drives of the Rockets), they finally faded in the very last minute.
I certainly liked the way KG looked, although he was gassed early in his second stint (third quarter). That's a matter of conditioning. I saw no sign of a limp, and he was running the floor. He was doing his usual foot shuffle while playing intimidating defense. And, on his very first touch, he served notice that he was back by draining a jumper from just inside the arc. So far, so good with him.
I was pleasantly surprised by Sweetney's offense. He just bulled in for three three-point plays. On defense, he reminds me of Lady Liberty out in New York Harbor.
Well, maybe I'll finally learn brevity. Naah! Second continuation:
I won't say what I disliked, in favor of noting areas for improvement: dramatic improvement in some cases.
1. Once the starters leave the floor, the offensive flow has to shape up. 55% of the starters' baskets came off assists; 35% of the bench's baskets came of assists.
2. The second unit is going to have to learn gang rebounding. Sheed, alone, gets swarmed by jumping jacks. Baby or Scal will need to block out. There will be a lot of loose balls arising from defensive rebounding scrums, and Daniels should hold back and scoop up some of those.
3. The second unit needs endless tutoring on the break. They may not run a lot of them, but it's a disaster when Daniels is running the point and no one else knows who's supposed to be running the lanes. And once Hudson (who was my second choice for MVP on a night without strong candidates) threw a great bounce pass in transition to Williams who was out in front. But Williams wasn't looking for the ball. Shame on both Williams and Hudson.
4. Both units should perform a lot better on offense once Doc installs plays. Much of last night was like organized grab-butt out there. Aside from some nice inside passing by both KG (one great feed to Ray for an and-one) and Daniels (the guy has very good PG instincts), there was very little fluidity to the offense.
5. And I think I saw more man-up defense than at any time since the Russell days. I bet Thibs hasn't slept yet, trying to figure out where to start on team defense at the next practice.
I'll let it go at that, although there's more material. First game, MUCH, MUCH more welcome improvement to follow. Nobody hurt.
One final thing, just as a sort of benchmark that might bear watching in the future. I did a rough calculation (from the box score) of the +/- for the three echelons that played for the Celts last night: the starters (we all know them); the veteran bench (Sheed, Baby, Scal, Daniels, House) and the Kiddie Korps (Hudson, Giddens, Williams, Sweetney—who is definitely past the toddler stage but belongs with this group). Yes there was mixing and matching of individuals and bench units in particular, but I've taken some liberties in breaking out these three groups.
The starters averaged a +/- of roughly +0.13 points per minute played. The veteran bench players averaged about -0.15 points per minute played. The Kiddie Korps averaged approximately -0.55 per minute played. At this moment, my boldest statement is that the key to championship aspirations lies in getting the veteran bench figure at least equal to that of the starters.
Man, it's great to see the Green back on the floor. And, for the moment at least, we can all stop holding our collective breath about KG.
Sam
Sam
Wish I'd been able to see it but apparently as mentioned on the game on thread Direct TV League won't be carring pre season games.
I was a bit under the weather yesterday anyway and was out of it by 8PM. Better today however, i think I got what Marcus had. He has his 2nd "open gym" practice this evening and he's ready for a bit of redemption.
As for the C's looking at the box score we did go to the line 55 times and shot terrible as a team. Were the refs calling them close?
Also noticed the rebounding was poor gave up 16 offensive boards and only got 9 ourselves.
Anyway hopefully I can watch a game somehow before the season starts otherwise I won't be able to grade anything.......except Direct TV league pass gets an F
One last thought perhaps you might wish to change the grading to a letter grade A,B,C,D,F and people could put a + or a - after each if they need to. When I look at a 4 I have to think is 10 good or is 1 but if I see a D or an F there is no doubt.
Just a suggestion.
beat
Beat,
Thanks for the suggestions. I thought about letter grades. In my research work, I've sometimes used them (mainly with young people). But I've found that just having five possible levels of answers isn't as discriminating as I'd like if I'm going to calculate changes in average scores over a long period of time. Somehow, everything winds up being between a B and a C.
But, if the rating system seems to be causing problems, I'll probably change it to a school grade-type thing before the regular season starts.
Sorry to hear that both you and Marcus have been afflicted by the same "bug." I hope it's a quick thing for both of you.
Yeah, the replacement refs were definitely calling them closely. At one point, they even called both teams in the lane on a free throw (which I never knew called for a jump ball). Heinsohn remarked that at least they could count to three (time in the lane), and Gorman responded that they ought to be able to do that because they all have three numbers on the backs of their uniforms. Tommy also made some reference comparing the calls to WNBA calls. (I won't comment on that one.)
I kept wondering if guys like Kobe and Lebron are getting more traveling calls. (I somehow doubt it.)
By the way, I responded to your letter. And thanks for posting on this thread.
Take care,
Sam
Wish I could have seen the game, but you did a great play-by-play on the Game On thread, Sam. Thanks.
Hmm. Not sure I'm happy about a 50# overweight player who isn't going to make the team being the high scorer.
Sounds like everybody looked "ok" but nobody looked great. No biggie, it's the first pre-season game.
I think you might be right, Sam, about having our 3 running the fast break. Who's the finisher on the second team?
bob
Sam,
I didn't see the game, so I can't comment on it myself. But I can't suppress the urge to comment on your comments.
For your rating system, you might want to consider simplifying it before dumping it. (I happen to like the idea overall, but maybe that's just me.) At its current length (11 items), it may be overly complex for some people, but it's missing one simple item -- an overall grade for the team performance. You may also want to consider simplifying individual items, like changing "offense/plays/shooting/spacing/partridge in a pear tree" to just "offense" with the rest implied. I personally think tempo is an inspired choice for the list, but I'm not sure what others think of it. Anyway, tinker with the list before dumping the idea altogether, or at least give it a true test of more than one game. I'm sure others will have comments.
I'm certainly glad to hear KG was moving well. Great news.
Again, I didn't see the game, and I haven't seen Sweetney at all, but the box score showed that he had no rebounds and five fouls in less than ten minutes. The fouls I can understand somewhat, but no rebounds?? It's probably irrelevant because there's no room for him on the roster, but that immediately jumped out at me.
I don't know how Pierce has played in past exhibition seasons, but I'd think he's the type of guy who wants to coast through these games and save it for the regular season.
And on a totally unrelated topic, I found the NBA TV practice pieces to be mind-numbing fluff pieces with as much meat as a 39 cent burger. Pure promotion. If they did one on the Grizzlies, you'd think by the time it's over that they're a title contender.
Outside
Oh yeah, one other thing -- in transition, if Hudson passes to Williams and Williams isn't ready for it, I put that all on Williams.
It reminds me of a lesson I learned early -- to have your hands up looking for the ball when rolling through the lane to set a screen. I'd be so focused on setting the screen that I wouldn't look for the ball, but after my coach drilled me in the head with a pass, I learned to look for the ball first. (There's a special circle in Hell for that coach for myriad reasons, but that was a good lesson.)
In Williams' case, he didn't get hit in the head, but I would hope the lesson would be the same -- be ready for the ball.
Outside
Well I have to confess that my analysis of the game is severely limited by (1) my own BBIQ that approaches the mythical absolute zero asymptotically and (2)the fact that I could not "watch" or "listen" to the game and what little I know came from a somewhat biased play by play analysis from a doofus on BDC named "Sam" or "Bam" or somesuch doing a poor man's version of a Johnny Most running commentary. A lot got lost in the translation to be sure. Yea... thanks a lot, Bam!
MVP... a toss up between Daniels and "Rumble in the Jungle".
Who was the one who quipped that Rumble could commit a foul (or be fouled) without moving? Best line of the evening!
Need to be able to rate the announcer/blogger/forward observer/commentator too while we are at it.
Spacing? How so? and how do you measure it with Rumble on the floor and/or compensate for his vast gravitational pull?
Killer instinct? After the Powe fiasco, you're talking to him. I give myself a 10.
Sam, I was in a location where I relied on either Direct TV or Justin.com and NBA.com on my computer. The game was blacked out. Therefore, any ratings I offered would have no real foundation.
However, what "jumped out" to me in watching the post game show, which Direct TV did not blackout, and reading the box scores and commentaries, is the vulnerability that the Celtics may have in a back-up for Perk. He obviously picked up 5 quick fouls which appears to be part of the reason for the C's losing the lead and momentum. It appeared to me that Doc, and staff, used the game to make some determinations on the future make-up of the bench, and look at different combinations.
I am somewhat disappointed the Celtics didn't win. However, not because it makes any difference to the future success of the Celtics, but it would have avoided the few days that the "posting attackers" will use to support their "hate" based comments. I was tempted to use my original "username" and respond, but I'll reflect on that before making my decision. There was even a physical threat to a Celtic fan by a Cavs fan on BDC.
The positives of the game, based on the reports and "clips" I saw, include KG appeared to play pain free, and the great start from the starters before they backed off and/or sat on the bench. I'm okay with Sheed's T. Sheed's energy and passion will pay off in the long run. I was concerned about Perk's fouls and apparently lack of unity on the second unit.
Outside,
I toyed with the idea of an "overall" rating and then figured the score might tell it all. However, I believe you've got a good point, and I'll insert it.
As for omitting some of the details beside categories such as "offense," I think I'll leave them throughout the exhibition season to give people some ideas of the range of factors that might be considered, and then omit them during the regular season. I'm considering the exhibition season a "training camp" for this exercise too. LOL.
Since Beat's comments, I've spent the last hour or so trying to clarify the rating scale without shortening it. You'll see the change edited into the rating explanation in my original post on this thread. I don't know whether it will help, because it may be a case of more not being better.
Many thanks for the suggestions.
David,
In reflecting on your comments about Perk's fouls, I have to resort to my usual mantra: its all about the team. I think my recall is correct that some of those fouls occurred when KG wasn't on the floor. Those two form a potent duo; and I happen to believe that either is not nearly as effective on defense without the other.
As for a Perk replacement, in a real game situation, I suspect it would be Sheed. And I'd take my changes with Sheed and KG out there.
I was more concerned about Sheed's lack of defensive rebounding prowess when he was one of the bench leaders. He tended to rebound with one hand rather than elevating and grabbing the ball with two. That resulted in a lot of rebound loose balls, and the Rockets wound up with a number of balls even though the Celts outnumbered them as much as 3-1 under the board. Something's got to be done about that unless Sheed's on cruise control like Pierce seemed to be. (Rondo and Baby too.) And Giddens thoroughly disappointed me by not stepping up at all. Sweetney has pretty much one dimension; but, last night, that was one more than Giddens displayed.
There were so many "subplots" occurring simultaneously in the first game that it's anything but a fair indicator of the potential of this team. Certain players (and combinations) will use the next few exhibition games to work on specific aspects of their game. then perhaps, in the last exhibition or two, we'll start to see what the team's really made of.
I'm looking forward to the coming games. After Friday's game, we're going to have a "guest poster" on the post-game site—Kelly Green, who will be at the game.
Despite the challenges that arise from time to time, I'm having fun with this blog thing; and it's absolutely wonderful not to be looking over one's shoulder for snipers (from any of several directions).
By the way, I've added an overall Celtics performance rating to the voting exercise, and my rating for this Houston game would be a (somewhat generous, given the circumstances) 5.
Thanks for your comments.
Sam
Well I did watch the game, but rather than take the time to do the rankings, I'll just say that I pretty much agree with Sam's rankings on this one. There wasn't much to get excited about after the first 8 minutes or so of the game.
I thought the starting unit came out with a lot of fire defensively. I hope thats a sign that the defense will be back to what it was in '08. KG looked good, as has been noted by others.
Marquis looked fine to me once he got into the flow of the game. I love the stop and pop action in the lane. It seemed like he reverted to that once he realized his outside shot wasn't dropping. Good recognition on Quis' part.
I do have to say I was a little disappointed in what I saw from Rasheed. I know his MO is jacking up those threes, but a part of me hoped there would be less of that with the Celtics. I don't mind the threes every now and then, but I would have liked to see some versatility out of him. I also thought the technical foul was a bad sign. I understand he plays with passion, but I'm going to get tired of that kind of "passion" real quick once he starts doing that with the game on the line. I wish he would channel some of that fire into being aggressive on the boards or driving to the hoop.
Overall, not a particularly good or bad game...it's definitely pre-season!
Go Celtics!
Sam thanks for the response. It is difficult to get a "feel" for the game without attending the game or watching the broadcast. However, some of my concern for the back-up for Perk was based on your comments about Sheed's rebounding habits. My intuition tells that Baby may not be in the best frame of mind these days. In addition, he may need some time to adjust to his new weight. Therefore, if your concerns about Sheed's rebounding turn out to be true, I'm hoping the second unit can "team cover" when Perk's on the bench. I think it would be a mistake to put too much rebounding pressure on KG since that responsibility, without Perk on the floor, may create too much of a risk to KG's knee. That is, until KG has sufficient time to get his legs back in shape. PJ Brown turned out to contribute some important back up time. Therefore, I hope all goes will without a true back up. Time will tell. I remain VERY enthusiastic about the C's success in the upcoming season.
I'm hoping to watch the Knick game and will be very interested in reading Kelly's views.
Thanks for the response.
David
Sam
It would appear that many of us on here were unable to watch the game so rating anything would be like shooting trolls in the dark. Which I would love to try. I'd run out of amo real quick!!
Keep your system till at least after a couple regular season games when virtually all of us will have the means to watch and discuss and rate!
I do think a rating system of 1-5 means you will get a few 2's lots of 3's and a couple 4's most of the time.
When ever I have to go to training we usually get handed a sheet at the end of how do you rate the traning from the location to the speaker(s). By that time I've usually run out of ink doodling. But if I can I put 3's across the board and get the heck out of there.
Just a brief story about one training I went to in Ithaca a couple years ago. The speaker got off on a tangent how things have gotten better like in sports. He stated how years ago running a sub 4 minute mile was only done by a few people and now many high school runners can do it.
So being the ex runner I was I raised my hand and when he finally responded I asked him how many high schoolers had run sub 4? He said many. I asked again How Many?
(I find it very helpful to know the answer to questions when you ask) Anyway he shrugged and asked me. I told him ther have only been 3 (at that time) Marty Liquori 70's(sp) Jim Ryun 60's and Tim Danielson later in the 70's. And that is it!! Since then Alan Webb broke the HS record a couple of years ago.
The speaker was a bit taken back then I said simply told him when you speak of things and use comparisons you best be able to back them up.
Needless to say when I got the "ranking" page he got a few low scores from me.
beat
Beat,
Rating scale are interesting things, and different people relate to them in different ways. Just as many people have difficulties differentiating between ratings and rankings. I must have attended two dozen seminars on the philosophies of ratings, and I've actually taught a course, much of which involved theories of rating scales. (Should a scale have an even number or an odd number of rating points? Ratings with "verbal anchors" at each end versus open-ended ratings. Four- or five-point versus 10-point or 11-point scales. Effect of rating scales on statistical validity. All that kind of junk.
And the sum total of what I've learned is that there's no "right" answer when it comes to rating scales. Which is why I've adapted your A-F idea AND another method in redefining the rating scale in my initial post. (See above.)
Sam
Sam: The absence of snipers, with the exception of some occasional friendly fire, is really remarkable. Soaking up and sharing the knowledge here without worrying about being attacked by God only knows WHO... for God only knows WHAT.... I don't miss that at all.
This is all GOOD.
Raj,
Thanks. And I get a kick out of your comments, and especially the humor you display. Humor is the greatest. Ironically, it can now get one into trouble in some venues because people interpret everything so literally and seriously.
Sam
Sam: The real irony is that I get in just as much trouble with my humor in friendly venues as I do in unfriendly venues.
Seriously!
And the humor gets more and more inappropriate and ill fitting... like a cheap Joseph A. Bank Esq suit worn with almost-matching pink dayglo Crocs.
I'm putting you on notice again, Sam.
Save yourself some heartache.
Post a Comment