#3 - Pistons-Celtics

[whitehops]

I think we do better as the game moves on because the other teams csnt match the energy as long, we wear them down and regain control for a lot of wins.

I'll 100% buy into the idea that we should try and wear teams down, but I'm not buying into the idea that the difference in our play the 1st Q vs the other 3 Q's has been us wearing teams down.

We've come out sluggish & stagnant while opposing teams have aggressively attacked us early. We've responded well, but something is broken.

we definitely have to work on our execution overall, which is probably why we get off to slow starts. then it takes a little while for the adrenaline to kick in and we can outwork teams and they can't match our athleticism/effort. when the game becomes chaotic those things definitely become handy.

good to get the win though, on to the next.

[DetroitSho]

Gotta love the grit, but it's going to be really tough to keep this up if we can't make a reasonable number of 3s. 9 makes tonight. That would be dead last in the league last year.

The Hell with threes! As long as we're scoring in the paint, f?ck threes. I don't care if we’re dead last. OkC proved you don't have to shoot threes all the time to win

sent from a remote location

You mean the team that was 6th in the league in made threes last year?

Ouch

[Rip32]

Gotta love the grit, but it's going to be really tough to keep this up if we can't make a reasonable number of 3s. 9 makes tonight. That would be dead last in the league last year.

The Hell with threes! As long as we're scoring in the paint, f?ck threes. I don't care if we’re dead last. OkC proved you don't have to shoot threes all the time to win

sent from a remote location

You mean the team that was 6th in the league in made threes last year?

The Detroit Pistons ranked fifth in the NBA for points in the paint in 2025, averaging \(60.0\) points per game. For the 2024-25 season, they averaged \(60.0\) points in the paint.  Ranking: 5th in the NBA. Average points in paint per game: \(60.0\). Season: 2025.
I'm not a proponent of randomly shooting threes. The first priority should be taking a high percentage shot. If you take a three within the flow of the offense, I'm cool with it. Stew takes his threes within the flow.

[flow]

Gotta love the grit, but it's going to be really tough to keep this up if we can't make a reasonable number of 3s. 9 makes tonight. That would be dead last in the league last year.

The Hell with threes! As long as we're scoring in the paint, f?ck threes. I don't care if we’re dead last. OkC proved you don't have to shoot threes all the time to win

sent from a remote location

You mean the team that was 6th in the league in made threes last year?

11th in the playoffs. Out of 16 teams.

And 13th in 3pt%, out of 16 teams.

.

[Snakebites]

The Hell with threes! As long as we're scoring in the paint, f?ck threes. I don't care if we’re dead last. OkC proved you don't have to shoot threes all the time to win

sent from a remote location

You mean the team that was 6th in the league in made threes last year?

11th in the playoffs. Out of 16 teams.

And 13th in 3pt%, out of 16 teams.

.

Playoff stats are notoriously fickle due to small sample size. Look at the best and most successful teams in recent years. They’re uniformly good at shooting threes. Looking at one team across 16 wins is misleading.

If folks want to continue believing threes don’t matter fine. But please don’t act like the stats support that notion. They don’t.

[Rip32]

You mean the team that was 6th in the league in made threes last year?

11th in the playoffs. Out of 16 teams.

And 13th in 3pt%, out of 16 teams.

.

Playoff stats are notoriously fickle due to small sample size. Look at the best and most successful teams in recent years. They’re uniformly good at shooting threes. Looking at one team across 16 wins is misleading.

If folks want to continue believing threes don’t matter fine. But please don’t act like the stats support that notion. They don’t.

I don't want us being a strictly 3 pt shooting team. We're a young team with good size. We should be getting more fast break pts and scoring more within the 3 pt arc. Again, if the 3 is there take it (like Stew and DR etc. has) but don't go hoisting up 3 pt shots just because some other teams is doing it. As a coach you need to adjust your style to the players you have. JB is doing a great job at it.

[flow]

You mean the team that was 6th in the league in made threes last year?

11th in the playoffs. Out of 16 teams.

And 13th in 3pt%, out of 16 teams.

.

Playoff stats are notoriously fickle due to small sample size. Look at the best and most successful teams in recent years. They’re uniformly good at shooting threes. Looking at one team across 16 wins is misleading.

If folks want to continue believing threes don’t matter fine. But please don’t act like the stats support that notion. They don’t.

Hold on. Rip was simply saying that OKC showed, through its championship run, that you can win without relying on 3's. Which they did. As everybody saw. You, then, wipped out the stats. But reverted to a regular season stat. The playoff 3 pt stats propely reflect what took place. They won without the 3.

.

[Billl]

11th in the playoffs. Out of 16 teams.

And 13th in 3pt%, out of 16 teams.

.

Playoff stats are notoriously fickle due to small sample size. Look at the best and most successful teams in recent years. They’re uniformly good at shooting threes. Looking at one team across 16 wins is misleading.

If folks want to continue believing threes don’t matter fine. But please don’t act like the stats support that notion. They don’t.

I don't want us being a strictly 3 pt shooting team. We're a young team with good size. We should be getting more fast break pts and scoring more within the 3 pt arc. Again, if the 3 is there take it (like Stew and DR etc. has) but don't go hoisting up 3 pt shots just because some other teams is doing it. As a coach you need to adjust your style to the players you have. JB is doing a great job at it.

Nobody thinks we should be bombing away like the 2024 celtics. We are on pace to be worse that any other team in the league last year though, and by a considerable margin. And more concerning, when you look down the roster, there really isn't anyone other than Ivey that realistically is going to up their 3 point volume in a significant way. And our top 7 volume shooters are all at below league average efficiency. If you continually spot the opposition +15 ppg on extra 3's, you are going to find yourself trying to dig out of a hole more often than not. It's a glaring flaw in the roster right now and needs to be addressed.

[Snakebites]

11th in the playoffs. Out of 16 teams.

And 13th in 3pt%, out of 16 teams.

.

Playoff stats are notoriously fickle due to small sample size. Look at the best and most successful teams in recent years. They’re uniformly good at shooting threes. Looking at one team across 16 wins is misleading.

If folks want to continue believing threes don’t matter fine. But please don’t act like the stats support that notion. They don’t.

Hold on. Rip was simply saying that OKC showed, through its championship run, that you can win without relying on 3's. Which they did. As everybody saw. You, then, wipped out the stats. But reverted to a regular season stat. The playoff 3 pt stats propely reflect what took place. They won without the 3.

.

They managed to win in the finals without the three- yes.

But they earned the number one seed, and a big part of that was their three point shooting. Relative to how good they were in the regular season, I think they UNDERPERFORMED in the playoffs- series that had no business going on as long as they did or being as close as they were given how much better they were than the next best team in the RS. And a lot of that was their shooting.

Just because it's technically possible to win without a key ingredient doesn't mean it's advisable.

[Snakebites]

11th in the playoffs. Out of 16 teams.

And 13th in 3pt%, out of 16 teams.

.

Playoff stats are notoriously fickle due to small sample size. Look at the best and most successful teams in recent years. They’re uniformly good at shooting threes. Looking at one team across 16 wins is misleading.

If folks want to continue believing threes don’t matter fine. But please don’t act like the stats support that notion. They don’t.

I don't want us being a strictly 3 pt shooting team. We're a young team with good size. We should be getting more fast break pts and scoring more within the 3 pt arc. Again, if the 3 is there take it (like Stew and DR etc. has) but don't go hoisting up 3 pt shots just because some other teams is doing it. As a coach you need to adjust your style to the players you have. JB is doing a great job at it.

No team is strictly a three point shooting team. Threes are often what you take when you can't get a high percentage two point shot or free throws (which are still the most efficient form of offense). But in modern defenses that happens quite a lot. And the successful teams are still able to capitalize on that.

[Rip32]

You take the Knicks. They hoisted 54 threes and missed a ton of them against Miami. Idiot Mike Brown is telling to team don't defend (opposite thibs approach), hoist 3's. I'm not a fan of this. Most NBA enthusiast (in Detroit) don't want to see it either

[Canadafan]

Playoff stats are notoriously fickle due to small sample size. Look at the best and most successful teams in recent years. They’re uniformly good at shooting threes. Looking at one team across 16 wins is misleading.

If folks want to continue believing threes don’t matter fine. But please don’t act like the stats support that notion. They don’t.

I don't want us being a strictly 3 pt shooting team. We're a young team with good size. We should be getting more fast break pts and scoring more within the 3 pt arc. Again, if the 3 is there take it (like Stew and DR etc. has) but don't go hoisting up 3 pt shots just because some other teams is doing it. As a coach you need to adjust your style to the players you have. JB is doing a great job at it.

Nobody thinks we should be bombing away like the 2024 celtics. We are on pace to be worse that any other team in the league last year though, and by a considerable margin. And more concerning, when you look down the roster, there really isn't anyone other than Ivey that realistically is going to up their 3 point volume in a significant way. And our top 7 volume shooters are all at below league average efficiency. If you continually spot the opposition +15 ppg on extra 3's, you are going to find yourself trying to dig out of a hole more often than not. It's a glaring flaw in the roster right now and needs to be addressed.

Free Beasley
Then trade Levert for a backup big that can shoot 3s

[ahike12]

Random thought, but does Ausar lead the team in +/- this year? Tobias has quietly been our most consistent player at both ends, but Ausar can fill up a stat sheet with winning plays.

I decided to look this up for the three games:
Chicago - Ausar was +6. One of four players positive. The other three were Beef Stew (+8), Holland (+2), and Green (+4), with Green only playing 10 minutes.
Houston - Ausar was -10, which was the worst on the team.
Boston - Ausar was +15, top for the team. Next closest was Tobia with +7.

Stewart is the only one to be positive all 3 games. 8, 4, and 2.

Overall team:
Stewart - +14
Ausar - +11
Holland - +11
Jenkins - +6 (2 games)
Reed - +3 (2 games)
Robinson - +2
Cade - +1
Duren - -2
Lanier - -2 (2 games)
Green - -3
Tobias - -4
Levert - -7 (1 game)

[bstein14]

Random thought, but does Ausar lead the team in +/- this year? Tobias has quietly been our most consistent player at both ends, but Ausar can fill up a stat sheet with winning plays.

I decided to look this up for the three games:
Chicago - Ausar was +6. One of four players positive. The other three were Beef Stew (+8), Holland (+2), and Green (+4), with Green only playing 10 minutes.
Houston - Ausar was -10, which was the worst on the team.
Boston - Ausar was +15, top for the team. Next closest was Tobia with +7.

Stewart is the only one to be positive all 3 games. 8, 4, and 2.

Overall team:
Stewart - +14
Ausar - +11
Holland - +11
Jenkins - +6 (2 games)
Reed - +3 (2 games)
Robinson - +2
Cade - +1
Duren - -2
Lanier - -2 (2 games)
Green - -3
Tobias - -4
Levert - -7 (1 game)

Ausar + Tobias have often been staying in during minutes Cade rests each game, which means both are unlikely to lead in +/- this year IMO. Ausar has been doing a lot of the ball handling with Cade out and Tobias is often the top option with Cade out.

[bstein14]

Way too early for these stats, but our best duos or "two-man units" have been... <Min 25 minutes played together>

#1 Ron Holland + Ausar have played 28 minutes together and the team defense in those 28 minutes was incredible (Net rating +37.3)
#2 Ausar + Stewart = 34 minutes played together (Net Rating + 28.2)
#3 Stewart + Duncan Robinson = 34 minutes played together (Net Rating + 18.9)
#4 Stewart + Holland = 39 minutes played together (Net Rating +11.4)
#5 Stewart + Cade = 46 minutes played together (Net Rating +9.4)

---------

Our worst duos or "two-man units" have been... <Min 25 minutes played together>

#1 Jalen Duren + Ausar = 39 minutes played together (Net Rating -15.2) <- Not enough spacing? Reason for slow starts?
#2 Jalen Duren + Duncan Robinson = 51 minutes played together (Net Rating -9.2)
#3 Jalen Duren + Tobias Harris = 48 minutes played together (Net Rating -5.4)

Doesn't look good for Jalen Duren that the team has been much better with Stewart on the floor than him.

I wanted to look at 3 man units but just not enough minutes played yet... BUT the best 3 man units have been
#1 Cade + Stew + Ausar
#2 Stew + Ausar + Holland

[Sort]

Man, those stats do highlight just how dynamic Holland and Ausar can be on the court. It's also that the individual stats don't matter as much as the collective for those two. Neither will burn you down with forty points.

[tmorgan]

Yup. We need to make our other long term moves with exactly this in mind.

Cade, Ausar, Ron are the true core.

Stew fits with that, but likely isn’t a starter minutes player.
Ivey can fit with that, but needs to be a plus scorer (shooter, too) and better defender. So he has to show more.
Duren… yeah, he’s a problem. He has even bigger improvements to make than Ivey. Needs some range and much better defense.
Tobias fits just fine, as long as you correctly play Ron and Ausar as wings, which is what they are. This “Ron is a future 4” stuff is stupid.

The rest are bench guys, and that’s easy enough to tinker with. We aren’t picking high with our own pick any time soon unless something happens to Cade — best not to think about that. Finding vets willing to play cheaper on a good team is something we have to look forward to.

[tmorgan]

Going further, with the current bench guys:

We likely misstepped a bit with Caris, but it’s only 2 years. He’ll have some big games for us this year, though. He’s streaky.
I doubt we keep DR beyond this season. Too much money for what he does well.
Paul Reed is a nice 4th big. He’ll be here for a while unless he’s needed in a trade.
Klintman won’t be around for long. Too limited.
Lanier has a Sasser-like chance to carve out a deep bench role with his shot, but I doubt it.
Sasser really needs to be moved. We don’t need what he supplies.
Jenkins and Green are JAGs, of course.
Getting Beasley back would be awesome. No idea if that’s gonna happen.

[Snakebites]

Going further, with the current bench guys:

We likely misstepped a bit with Caris, but it’s only 2 years. He’ll have some big games for us this year, though. He’s streaky.
I doubt we keep DR beyond this season. Too much money for what he does well.
Paul Reed is a nice 4th big. He’ll be here for a while unless he’s needed in a trade.
Klintman won’t be around for long. Too limited.
Lanier has a Sasser-like chance to carve out a deep bench role with his shot, but I doubt it.
Sasser really needs to be moved. We don’t need what he supplies.
Jenkins and Green are JAGs, of course.
Getting Beasley back would be awesome. No idea if that’s gonna happen.

We only saw about 20 minutes of Caris and he was clearly not 100 percent.

I'm not terribly optimistic either but I think it's early to label that an outright mistep.

Beasley would be great, but recent events have made me pretty pessimistic about his potential return. Certainly in the short term, and perhaps at all.

[tmorgan]

Going further, with the current bench guys:

We likely misstepped a bit with Caris, but it’s only 2 years. He’ll have some big games for us this year, though. He’s streaky.
I doubt we keep DR beyond this season. Too much money for what he does well.
Paul Reed is a nice 4th big. He’ll be here for a while unless he’s needed in a trade.
Klintman won’t be around for long. Too limited.
Lanier has a Sasser-like chance to carve out a deep bench role with his shot, but I doubt it.
Sasser really needs to be moved. We don’t need what he supplies.
Jenkins and Green are JAGs, of course.
Getting Beasley back would be awesome. No idea if that’s gonna happen.

We only saw about 20 minutes of Caris and he was clearly not 100 percent.

I'm not terribly optimistic either but I think it's early to label that an outright mistep.

Beasley would be great, but recent events have made me pretty pessimistic about his potential return. Certainly in the short term, and perhaps at all.

That’s part of the issue, though. Caris has been fragile since college. With our current team construction, we’re looking at Ivey, Caris, and Ausar as our backup PG options. Ivey’s hurt again, Caris is Caris… so either Ausar takes the reins and runs with it or we have a problem.

The misstep is not using the LeVert money on a solid, reliable PG. 2/29 could have gotten someone very solid, even if it wasn’t Schroder.