Jason Walker tweets

[Buzzard]

We lost the game when JaCo went out. We might have come back had Josh played the rest of the game but I doubt it.I agree that we need to just play the game but I'm getting tired of hearing about the losses Boston had to play through while people act like Atlanta hasn't had just as much, if not more losses.

For this series SO FAR they have loss more. Now in game three if Rondo and Josh both play and Allen does not, its not a big difference. But Josh for one quarter vs Rondo for a whole game? We have no reason to cry about game 2.

[Admin]

For this series SO FAR they have loss more. Now in game three if Rondo and Josh both play and Allen does not, its not a big difference. But Josh for one quarter vs Rondo for a whole game? We have no reason to cry about game 2.

Fact: Boston scored 13 more and gave up 3 less in game 2 vs game 1. I guess the Rondo loss wasn't such a big deal.

[Buzzard]

Fact: Boston scored 13 more and gave up 3 less in game 2 vs game 1. I guess the Rondo loss wasn't such a big deal.

Any time we shoot under .400 as a team, Boston could send out Doc at PG and they would still beat us.

[MaceCase]

Ah whoops that was an oversight, not an intentional omission and yes that would slant things quite a bit more.

I still say that Boston has more left even with their losses though.

Well by you calculations adding Ray Ray would mean that Boston was mIssing this amount's worth of production compared to the Hawks' losses (using your Smoove missed quarter calculation)....

42 ppg +14 on Hawks

20 rpg +.5 on Hawks

3 bpg +1 on Hawks

16.9 asg +10.4 on Hawks

I don't know.....That is an ass load of lost production right there. The difference of their lost production and ours is the equivalent of an all star PG by itself lol. That's like Steve Nash numbers right there.

I don't care, we had an opportunity and blew it.

[Admin]

Any time we shoot under .400 as a team, Boston could send out Doc at PG and they would still beat us.

We shot 40.8% (31-76) in game 1 and 34.9% (29-83) in game 2 so clearly they played better defense on us in game 2 without having Rondo out there. Boston on the other hand shot 39% (32-82) in game 1 and 42.6% (29-68) in game 2 so they scored the ball better as well. Seems to me that Rondo wasn't a factor at all and they played better on both sides of the ball without him.

[Admin]

Well by you calculations adding Ray Ray would mean that Boston was mIssing this amount's worth of production compared to the Hawks' losses (using your Smoove missed quarter calculation)....

42 ppg +14 on Hawks

20 rpg +.5 on Hawks

3 bpg +1 on Hawks

16.9 asg +10.4 on Hawks

I don't know.....That is an ass load of lost production right there. The difference of their lost production and ours is the equivalent of an all star PG by itself lol. That's like Steve Nash numbers right there.

I don't care, we had an opportunity and blew it.

I don't disagree that we had an opportunity and that we blew it but people are acting like the poor Celtics were able to overcome all of their tragic personnel losses to beat a healthy Hawks team when the truth is that even with their losses they're still a more talented team than the Hawks team missing their guys. I mean come on, the Celtics still started 2 future hall of famers while the Hawks don't have anyone who's going to the hall of fame.

[MaceCase]

I don't disagree that we had an opportunity and that we blew it but people are acting like the poor Celtics were able to overcome all of their tragic personnel losses to beat a healthy Hawks team when the truth is that even with their losses they're still a more talented team than the Hawks team missing their guys. I mean come on, the Celtics still started 2 future hall of famers while the Hawks don't have anyone who's going to the hall of fame.

I just can't buy that. With Rondo we beat them then without him they beat us but why? Because their remaining guys stepped their shit up is why! Not because they are more talented because once you factor in age our All Star G/F equaled their All Star G/F and our Triple Double waiting to happen F/C equaled their Triple Double waiting to happen F/C and everyone worth a damn on their bench was already starting in that game. Joe has gotten 35 before in the playoffs too so it wasn't as if what Pierce achieved was in a realm all onto itself, he just played the game like his life depended on it from the starting gun while our team was trying to throw down flashy dunks.We beat them Dol at the fullest strength that they are going to be in this series yet couldn't capitalize on them when they were further hampered. You can't talk about their talent and then rationalize away that we were able to beat a stronger version of them......now we are going to see a stronger version of them while we'll be weaker......here's hoping they make the same mental gaffes we did.

[Admin]

The numbers show they played better offense and defense without Rondo than with him. We'll see on Friday if that's a fluke, assuming Josh is playing.

[MaceCase]

The numbers show they played better offense and defense without Rondo than with him. We'll see on Friday if that's a fluke, assuming Josh is playing.

That's not a rational argument, Dol. You are using one game sample sizes as though it's more indicative of them with or without Rondo overall. Paul Pierce is not capable of averaging 36 and 14 on a continuous basis the same way he wasn't likely to continue to shoot 26% with Rondo playing either. There's no way you can somehow make the connection and say that Rondo was the cause and effect behind such a swoon.

[Buzzard]

We shot 40.8% (31-76) in game 1 and 34.9% (29-83) in game 2 so clearly they played better defense on us in game 2 without having Rondo out there. Boston on the other hand shot 39% (32-82) in game 1 and 42.6% (29-68) in game 2 so they scored the ball better as well. Seems to me that Rondo wasn't a factor at all and they played better on both sides of the ball without him.

Or you could say we choked like hell and shot to many jumpers. I really would not say us shooting bad in a playoff game, given our history of it, Is a factor of the other team playing great D.We, in paticular Josh and JJ, do not shoot well in the playoffs. I do not see how anyone who follows us can argue with this. You want to blame it on their D. Go for it. I guess we just cannot beat a good defensive team in the playoffs. Edited May 2, 2012 by Buzzard

[Admin]

That's not a rational argument, Dol. You are using one game sample sizes as though it's more indicative of them with or without Rondo overall. Paul Pierce is not capable of averaging 36 and 14 on a continuous basis the same way he wasn't likely to continue to shoot 26% with Rondo playing either. There's no way you can somehow make the connection and say that Rondo was the cause and effect behind such a swoon.

I didn't say Boston was better without Rondo. I said they played better offense and defense in game 2 without him than they did in game 1. That's not opinion, it's fact based on the stats of the 2 games. 1 game with Rondo, 1 game without Rondo.As to whether we can beat a good defensive team in the playoffs, no, I don't think that without Al and Zaza we can beat a good defensive team unless they're not playing up to their standards.

[Buzzard]

The numbers show they played better offense and defense without Rondo than with him. We'll see on Friday if that's a fluke, assuming Josh is playing.

Come on Dolfan you know that is a fluke but us choking and forcing shots is a trend. And them shooting just 42% without Rondo is not lighting it up lmao

[Admin]

Come on Dolfan you know that is a fluke but us choking and forcing shots is a trend. And them shooting just 42% without Rondo is not lighting it up lmao

Maybe it's a fluke or maybe they're better offensively and defensively with Avery Bradley starting and Pierce controlling the offense? Bradley is a very good defender and a far better offensive player than Rondo and Pierce has always played better with the ball in his hands. Who said they were lighting it up? Just like we only shot a little worse (5%) in game 2, they only shot a little better (3%) in game 2. And as I said above, if Josh plays on Friday it will tell us if we're better offensively and defensively against Rondo than we are against Bradley.

[Buzzard]

Maybe it's a fluke or maybe they're better offensively and defensively with Avery Bradley starting and Pierce controlling the offense? Bradley is a very good defender and a far better offensive player than Rondo and Pierce has always played better with the ball in his hands.Who said they were lighting it up? Just like we only shot a little worse (5%) in game 2, they only shot a little better (3%) in game 2. And as I said above, if Josh plays on Friday it will tell us if we're better offensively and defensively against Rondo than we are against Bradley.

A three game sample size will not say all that :)

[Admin]

A three game sample size will not say all that

It will say more than a 2 game sample size LOL. You can't tell me that if we don't improve offensively and defensively in game 3 while the Celtics worsen offensively and/or defensively that it's completely a coincidence.

[ag82]

Its an interesting argument for sure. A lot of boston fans wanted rondo gone this year.There is something misleading about guys who put up huge assist numbers but can't score.

[Buzzard]

Its an interesting argument for sure. A lot of boston fans wanted rondo gone this year.There is something misleading about guys who put up huge assist numbers but can't score.

I am sure we would send them our 23rd for Rondo. Wonder if those fans want Rondo gone that bad....

[Admin]

Rondo shot something like 23% against the Hawks this year in the regular season so it doesn't surprise me that their offense looked better without him. I'm on the fence about whether their defense was actually better but seeing how Bradley is a quality defender I can see it being possible.

[frankthetank966]

Walker is right. JJ didn't do anything after Josh left. He couldn't buy a shot and forced stupid turnovers and shots. If he player smarter down the strech we would have won. That's not the style of play you expect from your higher paid player.

[AHF]

Rondo scored 20 points on 56% shooting in a game where the Celtics shot less than 40%. For ball control, he generated 4 steals and had 1 turnover.For the season, the Celtics scored 105 points per possession with Rondo on the court and scored 96.9 points per 100 possessions with him off the court - a difference of 8.1 points per 100 possessions. For reference, the Hawks were 5.0 points better on offense when JJ was on the court and were 4.8 points per 100 possessions better with Josh Smith on the floor.I don't think he was the problem. The biggest difference for Boston's offense was that PP wasn't ready to play in Game 1 and came out like a dog backed into a corner in Game 2.