You do know the offense is set up that way for Dwight to get layups and easy hook shots? Just making sure..
Offenses around Shaq were built to get him easy points close to the basket. Offenses around Kareem were likewise. Same with Robinson and Duncan. Same with Wilt. Same with every single offensive big man with a post game in the history of the league. The difference? All these guys don't need to be 2 feet from the basket to do something. Whether through power, speed, fundamentals, or an unstoppable move, all these guys had moves in the post that let them get what they wanted anywhere in the court.
Getting the ball that low in the block doesn't show me any skills in the post. It just shows Dwight can put the ball in the basket when he doesn't even need to dribble. Most bigs can do that much. What happens when Dwight is 2 dribbles away from the basket? What does Dwight do better 4 feet away from the basket compared to Duncan? Shaq? Bynum? Bogut? Garnett? Stoudemire? Gasol? Nene? Lopez? Aldridge? Ming? Brand? Griffin? Kaman? Randolph?
People say Dwight's post game had improved.
The improvement isn't too impressive.
Dwight's got a lot of talent. His skills are nowhere near it. Don't delude yourself into thinking otherwise until actual improvement shows up.
It was a close game regardless. Both teams looked about the same. Boston hasn't let anyone score on them that much in a long time I believe. They just didn't guard the three ball well and fouled a lot. Magic didn't guard the paint well (understandably since they only have one real big man and shot blocker). Hopefully, they can get a four-five man who can help them with this.
I don't know what game you were watching if you think both teams looked about the same.
To get an idea, completely disregard the points scored by both sides. Take a look at Boston's offense. Ray Allen running around multiple screens, if the defense responds to the screens incorrectly, Allen ended up with a good look at the basket. If the player guarding the one setting up the screen overcommits, Garnett/Davis/Shaq ended up with an easy look at the basket, from simple bank shots 4 feet away from the basket to a jumper from the high post. Go even further and add Rondo's penetrations to the rim that causes the defense to respond to him. Finally, the few times Pierce got the ball for an iso, he abused his defender for easy buckets. The screens, the penetration, the movement; it all leads to easy buckets for Boston.
Boston's defense was pretty mediocre that game. Poor closeouts in the perimeter. Poor rotations in general. The inability to play defense without fouling. Too much barking, not enough playing.
The Magic's offense? Single screens for J. Rich, which for this game, worked moderately well. Bass at the high post gave him some nice looks at the basket. Turkoglu taking advantage of his height advantage over his defenders. Howard's dangerous ability to finish when he doesn't have to dribble to get to the basket. The offense in transition was spectacular, and even on a good night for Boston's defense, the Celtics are rather mediocre in defending quick teams in transition.
The Magic's defense was awful. The decisions against Boston's screen setups were almost always incorrect. Pierce abused his defenders. Rondo even made some jumpers.
Heading into the 4th quarter, the Celtics were shooting something like 63%, they finished the game 42/70, or 60%. This wasn't just because of a good shooting night.
The Celtics got easy looks to the basket all game long.
That is all that matters in the regular season. Yeah, wins help for better seeding once the playoffs roll along. But it's just a warm-up. Focus on how the teams are playing, not the score. It's about being able to consistently execute what you want night in and night out.
How effectively can we execute our offense? How sharp is our defense? What are some problems I see with this team? These are the questions that need answers.
If your team
executes their offense and defense the way they want to, but lose because of a poor shooting night, bad refs, and/or a great shooting night by the opponent,
that's okay. You get nights like that throughout the season.
They didn't "rely" on it. That is simply what Boston gave up. It's not like Orlando didn't try to go for easy 2's as well. Boston simply does not give those up as other teams would. They still did fine. Does the Christmas game mean anything?
What about the Spurs? They're one of the best teams in shooting threes and they can get hot too. Does anybody ever say they rely on them?
Bullshit they didn't rely on it. They jacked up 27 3 pointers and made 40% of them. Hey, if Boston wasn't going to defend me beyond the arc, I'd abuse that detail all game long too. But these kind of nights aren't going to happen often against a defense as good as Boston. They needed a great shooting night against what's normally one of the top defenses in the league
just to stay even.
Yes, the Spurs do shoot a great number of 3s (almost 22 a game). Yes, they probably are a little too reliant on them in my opinion. But there's a little detail you're overlooking. The Spurs, unlike the Magic, have a coherent offensive system that works with the players. Parker and Manu give you iso options against defenses. The nights he is needed, Timmy can still get his number called and get to work in the post. Jefferson's been a deadeye shooter this season and can drive to the basket. They get buckets in transition, with quick, athletic guys like Parker and Jefferson, shooters like Neal and Bonner. Screens for Manu which lead to high post shots for McDyess or Duncan.
The Spurs score because they've got weapons and a versatile system that works. Credit Coach Popovich for changing his offensive playbook to play more to the skills of Parker/Ginoboli/Jefferson than Duncan as Duncan ages and can't be Timmy as often as he used to.
You have to understand that they play to Dwight's strength in speed in power. Also, you can't automatically say Jason Richardson has the same exact skil lset as Ray Allen just because they can shoot off screens. Ray Allen is one of the best shooters in history. Richardson is a great shooter as well off of screens, but his threat is nothing compared to Ray Allen. I can understand your suggestions for an off the ball offense, but Dwight Howard is STILL their best player on the team (did you see his statline)? Now, if Howard was struggling that night, then I believe you would be correct (but even in the Christmas game, they still won).
You have to understand posting up isn't just strength and speed. You need the proper fundamentals.
You're putting words in my mouth now; I never said anything about Richardson's skills being the same as Allen's beyond stating Richardson could use more screens.
What does Allen being one of the all time great shooters have anything to do with Richardson's ability to shoot anyways? Does Allen's ability to shoot well suddenly take away from Richardson's own ability to shoot well? Yes, I get Allen is a better shooter than most people in the league. But is that really a legitimate excuse for not running a system that Richardson would most likely thrive in more than the one he's currently in? Just because Richardson would be less effective than Allen in this system doesn't mean it's not worth looking into. A waste of both of our times even discussing this point.
Outside being in awe of ridiculous statlines you get every once in a while from players, I completely ignore statlines. Why? Because it doesn't tell me shit about what happened within a game. All stats tell me is what a player did in a game, not how they got it. Dwight goes and grabs 20 rebounds. Impressive. Look within the game and you see that 18 of those 20 were with no one else near the ball. Not impressed. Kobe has 5 assists. Okay. He had 4 passes that lead to another pass that led to an open shot made by his teammate. 3 more passes his teammates missed open shots. Now I'm impressed.
Dwight was 10 for 19 from the field against the Celtics. He also had 14 rebounds. Let me ask now; how many of Dwight's field goal attempts were off post moves? How did he shoot from those post moves? Did he get fouled on putbacks or post attempts? How many of those rebounds were uncontested?
What I recall from the game, Dwight made at least one bank shot. He had at least one successful post move (a spin that left his defender in the dust for an easy 2). As for the rebounds, I couldn't tell you right now.
If most of those 9 misses came from poor postups, then Dwight doesn't look very impressive. If those misses lead to him being fouled, then we're heading into the right direction. If 11 of his 14 rebounds were uncontested, his rebounding numbers aren't too impressive. If 6 of his rebounds were uncontested, then suddenly those 14 rebounds look a lot more impressive.
You get the idea. Statlines just answer the whats. You need to get the answers to the hows too before you can make a conclusion.
Also, the Celtics guarded Richardson very well in the last possession, so he can be shut down anyway if the Celtics honestly tried. He has less spots than Ray Allen, so he is much easier to keep control of.
Key word being last possession. Boston's defense in general got better the last half of the 4th.
Would like to point out: if the Celtics had indeed tried against the Magic on the defensive end, this would have been an easy double digit win for the Celtics.
