Control what you can control...

[threrf23]

While encountering adversity during our '23 playoff run, Malcom Brogdon remarked to the media that he felt our team lacked an identity. I don't think management liked that he commented publicly, but nevertheless I think he hit on something.

When Ime became coach, he emphasized the importance of defense, he acted as if defense was of primary importance to him, and the team followed his lead. I wasn't always paying close attention tbh, but generally, as long as our guys played their part on the defensive end, other faults were forgiven. We made the jump from good defensive team to dominant defensive team. Smart went from slightly abandoning his trademark defense efforts in favor of his offense, to taking great pride in winning DPOY.

But, what I have realized, is the biggest advantage we saw was simply that we were no longer so dependent on whether our shots were falling. The team developed an identity centered around its defense; even if our shots were not falling, our guys could still take care of their responsibilities on the defensive end, they could satisfy coach by doing so, and their identity remained intact. I think this helped them keep their heads in the game, and maintain composure during stretches where things weren't going so well.

By contrast, Ime year aside, ever since Brad has been part of our franchise, it feels like we have simply placed a heavy emphasis on shooting, and to a lesser effect on hustling or otherwise being aggressive. We have signed and drafted lots of guys who were selfish, low iq, or otherwise who could be considered defensive liabilities. The constant (aside from maybe some reserve Centers) is that we like guys who can shoot, and we like guys who are aggressive on offense (if not also on the defensive end). This, btw, is a classic NCAA formula...in college talent is at a premium, so you recruit as much raw talent as possible and work around other deficiencies...anyways...

Whether by coincidence or not, this seems to have created a situation where, if our shots aren't falling, our guys tend to look a slight bit defeated and they know nothing else but to simply be aggressive. And at least on the offensive end, this often backfires because it leads to out of control hero ball where our guys would be well served to slow things down in an attempt to get on the same page as one another. And there's a domino effect.

In a simplistic sense, I think our defensive identity under Ime was effective because defense was something we could control at all times. At least, it was usually something we could control. Against the Warriors, their offense trumped our defense I guess, and perhaps we lost our identity as a result, and our guys at times reverted back to being the frontrunning losers we often saw before and after Ime. (I know, Tatum was an issue too that series)

Whereas, basing our team's identity around shooting is inherently flawed because our players have limited control over whether their shots fall on a given night. Someone is going to point to the Warriors as an argument against this, but does that argument really hold any water? Go back some years, the Warriors always started two bigs even when it started falling out of fashion. They gave big minutes to both Iggy and Dray - both guys who were mediocre shooters at best, both guys who liked to defer their own shot, both guys who played physical defense and were smart, willing passers. Steve Kerr always placed a strong emphasis on physical defense and ball movement and IMO that was key to the Warriors' success.

As an aside, Grant & Smart were the closest things we had to Dray & Iggy, I can't knock the Smart trade but letting Grant walk so easily after losing Smart disappointed me.

Anyways, question:

What is a meaningful aspect of the game that our team is well equipped to excel in, regardless of their opponent, and regardless of whether their shot is falling?

If there is a good answer to this question, IMO it needs to become central to our identity, and our management needs to act accordingly.

Also, what might make a good secondary emphasis? Under Ime, I think we lacked a secondary emphasis to help keep the team stable when its defense failed.

[BK_2020]

In 21-22 playoffs opponents shot 33% from the three whereas opponents shot 38% from the three in 22-23 playoffs. In 21-22 playoffs, opponents shot 78% from the line. In 22-23, 85%. There are things you just can't control, and defense is actually more about RNG than offense.

Inb4 you say it's in how you defend the three--
On wide open threes, opponents shot 37.8% in 21-22, 41.3% in 22-23. On open threes, 29.9% in 21-22, 37% in 22-23. We played the Nets, Bucks, the Heat and the Warriors in 21-22, teams that were 10th, 5th, 1st and 7th for 3pt%. In 22-23, we played the Hawks, Sixers and the Heat, teams that were 21st, 1st and 27th.

[BK_2020]

Or let's look at just the ECFs from both seasons, since winning game 7 in 2021-22 is what makes Ime appear more successful. In 2021-22, the Heat shot 30% from the three on 243 attempts. In 2022-23, they shot 43% from the three on 205 attempts. And even then, without Tatum injuring his ankle on the first play of game 7, we might have won the series and at least match 2021-22 team's success. There's just so much luck involved even in a 7 game series that it's a pipedream to think there's an entire half of basketball you can control.

[Smart2Nesmith43]

By contrast, Ime year aside, ever since Brad has been part of our franchise, it feels like we have simply placed a heavy emphasis on shooting, and to a lesser effect on hustling or otherwise being aggressive. We have signed and drafted lots of guys who were selfish, low iq, or otherwise who could be considered defensive liabilities. The constant (aside from maybe some reserve Centers) is that we like guys who can shoot, and we like guys who are aggressive on offense (if not also on the defensive end). This, btw, is a classic NCAA formula...in college talent is at a premium, so you recruit as much raw talent as possible and work around other deficiencies...anyways...

The three players the Celtics have drafted under Brad Stevens are Juhann Begarin, JD Davison and Jordan Walsh. For all three, shooting was arguably their biggest weakness. The two non minimum signings he's made in free agency are Dennis Schröder and Danilo Gallinari. Only of those two is a good shooter.

The two main guys that Stevens has let go out of the door are Grant Williams and Evan Fournier, both of which have shooting as their biggest NBA skill. The biggest trade acquisitions were Al Horford, Josh Richardson, Derrick White, Daniel Theis, Malcolm Brogdon, Kristaps Porzingis and Jrue Holiday. While most of those guys can shoot at a high level it's not necessarily their biggest strength. Their biggest weapon is their versatility which Stevens has repeatedly emphasised as the thing they value most in players.

The Celtics value shooting to be sure, because it's kind of important to win games in the modern NBA, but they have repeatedly picked the more well rounded skillset over the better pure shooter so there doesn't seem to be an organisational mandate to chase shooting at all cost.

I'm also not sure who you are refering to when talking about the selfish, low iq players that are defensive liabilities that have joined the Celtics in recent years. The only ones that would fit the bill in my opinion are Freedom and Schröder which were signed during Stevens first free agency as a GM and he got rid of them as fast as he could and hasn't gone back to that archetype since. I doubt we will see more in the near future.

To get back to your main question, the Celtics' identity is versatility. They have a bunch of different players that can fill different roles which is going to allow them to shapeshift to attack their opponents' weakness series after series. Putting Grant in the same sentence as Green, Iguodala and Smart is disrespectful, he is not remotely close to them in terms of ability or accomplishments.

[BK_2020]

Yeah the Draymond to Grant comparison is a little confusing. Draymond is pretty much the anti-Grant Williams. He can do everything except shoot. Grant meanwhile can only shoot.

[threrf23]

I'm also not sure who you are refering to when talking about the selfish, low iq players that are defensive liabilities that have joined the Celtics in recent years. The only ones that would fit the bill in my opinion are Freedom and Schröder which were signed during Stevens first free agency as a GM and he got rid of them as fast as he could and hasn't gone back to that archetype since. I doubt we will see more in the near future.

I mean, I didn't say "selfish, low iq players that are defensive liabilities." We have signed many selfish players, many low iq players, and several defensive liabilities. Maybe an exception to the rule here or there, but generally all of them either were known for their shooting, or alternatively, were known to play aggressive on offense or just in general.

Marcus Morris - selfish, defensive liability....but he can shoot and is aggressive

Schroeder - selfish, defensive liability, but he is aggressive....he was a value signing tho

Carsen Edwards - selfish, all around liability, but aggressive and was known for his shooting in college.

Nik Stauskas, Svi, etc....I could go on but those are guys who come to mind quickly.

The ones you mentioned....Begarin = known for playing aggressive on offense (to a fault), Walsh = actually a poor man defender rn, but known for playing very aggressive on the defensive end (to a fault), also showed upside as a shooter in college, Davison = supposedly we didn't like him but took him anyways because others were off the board.

[31to6]

thref the sarcasm I'm about to type is not specifically at you, just sarcasm I've been harboring all season:
yeah I don't know how this team can possibly win after trading its leader and its "heart and soul" Marcus Smart away
let alone Grant Williams who was complete ass

to answer your question more honestly, the identity is going to have to be 'being better at basketball than anyone else'
that includes making shots
that includes playing defense
that includes moving the ball
that includes rebounding

and that list is enough. if they can do those things well enough I think they win the title. if they stop doing any one or more of those things, they probably don't.

[playa-hater]

When I read this thread title I was expecting a quote from Marcus Aurelius..or Seneca..

[Fencer reregistered]

By contrast, Ime year aside, ever since Brad has been part of our franchise, it feels like we have simply placed a heavy emphasis on shooting, and to a lesser effect on hustling or otherwise being aggressive. We have signed and drafted lots of guys who were selfish, low iq, or otherwise who could be considered defensive liabilities. The constant (aside from maybe some reserve Centers) is that we like guys who can shoot, and we like guys who are aggressive on offense (if not also on the defensive end). This, btw, is a classic NCAA formula...in college talent is at a premium, so you recruit as much raw talent as possible and work around other deficiencies...anyways...

The three players the Celtics have drafted under Brad Stevens are Juhann Begarin, JD Davison and Jordan Walsh. For all three, shooting was arguably their biggest weakness. The two non minimum signings he's made in free agency are Dennis Schröder and Danilo Gallinari. Only of those two is a good shooter.

The two main guys that Stevens has let go out of the door are Grant Williams and Evan Fournier, both of which have shooting as their biggest NBA skill. The biggest trade acquisitions were Al Horford, Josh Richardson, Derrick White, Daniel Theis, Malcolm Brogdon, Kristaps Porzingis and Jrue Holiday. While most of those guys can shoot at a high level it's not necessarily their biggest strength. Their biggest weapon is their versatility which Stevens has repeatedly emphasised as the thing they value most in players.

The Celtics value shooting to be sure, because it's kind of important to win games in the modern NBA, but they have repeatedly picked the more well rounded skillset over the better pure shooter so there doesn't seem to be an organisational mandate to chase shooting at all cost.

I'm also not sure who you are refering to when talking about the selfish, low iq players that are defensive liabilities that have joined the Celtics in recent years. The only ones that would fit the bill in my opinion are Freedom and Schröder which were signed during Stevens first free agency as a GM and he got rid of them as fast as he could and hasn't gone back to that archetype since. I doubt we will see more in the near future.

To get back to your main question, the Celtics' identity is versatility. They have a bunch of different players that can fill different roles which is going to allow them to shapeshift to attack their opponents' weakness series after series. Putting Grant in the same sentence as Green, Iguodala and Smart is disrespectful, he is not remotely close to them in terms of ability or accomplishments.

And Tatum was just bragging about being back to a switch-everything defense, with guys taking responsibility for defending whoever they had in front of them.