# Thank God Ray Allen wasn't supposed to save this team.



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

Thank God Ainge made another deal for Garnett.

Thank God we didn't trade away West and a good young prospect for Ray Allen in vain.

I love Ray, but I am so happy our hopes weren't hinged on a guy who has looked downright nauseous in half the games he's played as a Celtic.

Sorry for my lack of posting, fellas. Hadn't had regular access to a computer over break. Will be back to normal in a few days.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

**** outta here. We'd still be a playoff team with Ray and Al instead of KG, which is a helluva lot better than last season


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

Playoffs sure, but not a contending team...

Not sure whats been wrong with Ray lately, but im sure there is still some gelling to be done with this team, still a lot of time for him to get comfortable before the games really start to matter


----------



## mqtcelticsfan (Apr 2, 2006)

Marcus13 said:


> **** outta here. We'd still be a playoff team with Ray and Al instead of KG, which is a helluva lot better than last season


Yes, but with West/Wally instead of Ray, I bet we'd be better than we'd be with Al instead of KG. Much better.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

KG wasn't interested in coming to Boston before the Allen trade and no way Ainge can make a deal if he's not sure Garnett won't opt out(although it's hard to believe he would've walked out on that contract)


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Ray Allen is a very good third option and things worked out the way they worked out and the Celtics are on top.


----------



## The_Legend_23 (Dec 10, 2005)

He's struggled in his last couple of games, but Ray Allen is an excellent third option for Boston.


----------



## LamarButler (Apr 16, 2005)

P-Dub34 said:


> Thank God Ainge made another deal for Garnett.
> 
> Thank God we didn't trade away West and a good young prospect for Ray Allen in vain.
> 
> ...


I always knew that Ray's role would be hard to determine. This was evident even in the 1st preseason game. If I remember correctly, Pierce and Garnett both scored 20+ and Ray only had like 12 points. I knew it would be tough, being the 3rd best player on the team after years of being the main man. Garnett never really was the dominant scorer type and Pierce is still the first option.

At first, his shot wasn't falling. Then it was him overdribbling. I think he just needs to find his place on this team. It'll take some time, but when it does, we'll be even more lethal. It can be done. It's not like these guys can't fit together. His percentages have gone down this season, but they should be going up because defenses aren't focusing on him. This goes for the whole team as well. Our chemistry is surprisingly good right now, but it will only get better.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

mqtcelticsfan said:


> Yes, but with West/Wally instead of Ray, I bet we'd be better than we'd be with Al instead of KG. Much better.


What? No matter how badly he's played on the offensive end (and it hasn't been bad, just not to his normal standards), he's been far better there than Wally, and unlike Wally he's actually hit some clutch shots. That's before addressing the defense. And way before addressing the fact that the reason Garnett came here is that he and Allen have been friends since high school. I'm not worried about Ray Ray, he'll figure out how to fit in as the third option.


----------



## mrsister (Sep 9, 2002)

Ray was playing great at the start of the season. Then he got the ankle injury and his play dropped off. After he got some rest, he started playing well again, but lately, his shots have not been falling. He's statistically the second worst shooter on the team (the top honor belongs to Veal). I can't see him staying in this slump the rest of the season. He's a veteran and a shooter. If we can be 29-3 with him not playing well half the time, then I can only imagine how good we'll be if he steps it up.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

When our record is what it is I can't complain about much. But it's unacceptable for Ray to be MIA in games like this, and we aren't winning a championship with him playing like that against great teams.


----------



## LamarButler (Apr 16, 2005)

I don't think Ray is taking advantage enough of the situation he's in.

As a great shooter, he should be playing off of Pierce and Garnett, both guys who command double teams. But it seems all his jumpshots come off of the dribble. He'll get a screen and then get some space and then launch a jumper. I hardly see a Garnett post up where the double team comes and Garnett kicks it out to Allen for the 3. Or a Pierce drive and kick to Allen for the 3. It always seems like he gets a screen, and if he has space, he shoots the 3. Or if his man chases him off the 3 point line then he hits the midrange.


----------



## agoo (Jun 1, 2003)

Allen is a third option, but I don't think anyone is doubling off of him, so he's not getting the open looks that we anticipated him getting. The opposition is always doubling off the 1 and the 5.


----------



## mqtcelticsfan (Apr 2, 2006)

ehmunro said:


> What? No matter how badly he's played on the offensive end (and it hasn't been bad, just not to his normal standards), he's been far better there than Wally, and unlike Wally he's actually hit some clutch shots. That's before addressing the defense. And way before addressing the fact that the reason Garnett came here is that he and Allen have been friends since high school. I'm not worried about Ray Ray, he'll figure out how to fit in as the third option.


Ugh, if you think I don't know that, you're selling me short. My point is that KG is far more important than Ray, and if you take KG away, you lose a lot more wins than if you take away Ray.


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

The best part about it all is that even though Ray hasnt exactly found his niche within the team we have clearly the best record...


----------



## banner17 (Jun 28, 2003)

mqtcelticsfan said:


> Yes, but with West/Wally instead of Ray, I bet we'd be better than we'd be with Al instead of KG. Much better.



You are absolutely nuts. There is NO WAY this team is better with West/Wally than it is with Ray.

Allen is a shooter, not a scorer. Shooters need to put the ball up 20 times a game, every game to average 20-25 ppg over the course of the season. Ray was averaging 40 minutes a game up until December and putting up around 18 shots. Since then, his minutes have gone down to around 36 and he's putting up more like 14 shots. It's a long season and the latter is exactly where he needs to be, especially as the third option. Ray was both playing too much, especially for his age and shooting too much.

So, you'll have nights that he goes 0 for 9 or 4 for 12 and scores less than ten points. Then you will have nights that he goes 8 for 14 with five threes and puts up 22-23 points. That's the way it goes with shooters.

I'm about as concerned with Ray's drop in offensive production as I am with KG averaging 10 rpg instead of 15 rpg. In the month of December KG only had 5 double doubles in 14 games. The last two games he's had 5 rpg. I don't see people fearing the sky falling.

The stats are there, even for Ray, they're just blended throughout the whole team, which is the way it needs to be if we want to win with this squad. So far, 29 and 3 and Ray Allen is a big part of that.


----------



## Sliccat (Oct 16, 2004)

^I like how this guy completely missed the point of the post he quoted.

Anyways, I think you guys are forgettingt that Allen isn't a spot up shooter, never has been. He's a great shooter, but he's been even more of an all around scorer his whole career. In Boston, they're relegating him to being rich man's Kyle Korver, and that's not really his game.


----------



## banner17 (Jun 28, 2003)

Sliccat said:


> ^I like how this guy completely missed the point of the post he quoted.


I actually didn't. You can read it two ways. He's either saying the Celtics would be better off with Wally/West than Allen playing alongside KG (which somebody made the point that KG wouldn't be here without the Allen trade) or perhaps he meant if we had kept Al, we'd be better with Delonte/Wally than with Ray. In either situation, I stand by my point that there is NO WAY this team is better with West/Wally than it is with Ray - NO WAY.


----------



## mrsister (Sep 9, 2002)

banner17 said:


> I actually didn't. You can read it two ways. He's either saying the Celtics would be better off with Wally/West than Allen playing alongside KG (which somebody made the point that KG wouldn't be here without the Allen trade) or perhaps he meant if we had kept Al, we'd be better with Delonte/Wally than with Ray. In either situation, I stand by my point that there is NO WAY this team is better with West/Wally than it is with Ray - NO WAY.


I don't think either one is what he meant. I think he meant if you replaced Allen with Wally/West and kept KG that it would be a better team than if you replaced KG with Al Jefferson and kept Allen. I would actually agree with that point. However, the team as it is now is better than either of those combinations. Allen demands attention whether he's shooting well or not. Defenses can stray off of Wally and West. Yes, either one can hurt you, but Allen is more likely to hurt you. By paying attention to Allen, you can limit his game, but that gives other players the opportunity to get open shots, and that can be almost as valuable as having Allen do the scoring himself. One of the reasons for the success of this team is that there is rarely a time when all 3 stars are off the floor. Teams constantly have to worry about at least one of them, so that allows continuity when they go to the bench. In the past, when Pierce went the bench, defenses could relax a bit. Now they can't. And that includes the times when Pierce and Garnett are on the bench.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

But then it would be West and Rondo as your point guard rotation. Wally plays the role of spot up shooter better than Ray. Ray might be more versatile, but then again this thread wouldn't have been made if he wasn't struggling with his role on the team right now. I dont think the Wally/West > Ray on the Celts is too ridiculous


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

HB said:


> But then it would be West and Rondo as your point guard rotation. Wally plays the role of spot up shooter better than Ray. Ray might be more versatile, but then again this thread wouldn't have been made if he wasn't struggling with his role on the team right now. I dont think the Wally/West > Ray on the Celts is too ridiculous


Wally can't shoot under pressure, makes horrible decisions under pressure, and pollutes clubhouses with his continuous blaming of his teammates for his own failings. There is no winning team in the NBA that would be better off with Wally Szczerbiak. And certainly not Boston with Garnett. 

Wally has found his niche, firing up shots at will on a cellar dweller. No pressure to win, no pressure to defend. I'll guarantee you that he's as happy as a pig in Paris Hilton's bedroom right now.


----------



## pokpok (Jul 26, 2005)

hopefully i am right and doc will utilize ray a lot more after the all star break. maybe they are trying to save his legs for the 2nd half of the season?


----------



## Sliccat (Oct 16, 2004)

banner17 said:


> I actually didn't. You can read it two ways. He's either saying the Celtics would be better off with Wally/West than Allen playing alongside KG (which somebody made the point that KG wouldn't be here without the Allen trade) or perhaps he meant if we had kept Al, we'd be better with Delonte/Wally than with Ray. In either situation, I stand by my point that there is NO WAY this team is better with West/Wally than it is with Ray - NO WAY.


You've now read it wrong twice. :laugh:

I'll bold to emphasize the important part:

with West/Wally instead of Ray, I bet we'd be *better than we'd be with Al instead of KG.*

In effect, he's saying Kevin Garnett has been the more important addition to the celtics, and obvious statement that (to my great amusement) went completely over your head.


----------



## mqtcelticsfan (Apr 2, 2006)

Sliccat said:


> You've now read it wrong twice. :laugh:
> 
> I'll bold to emphasize the important part:
> 
> ...


Thank you! I think Ray Allen is great, and I would never want Wally/West instead of him. However, KG is far more important than Ray Allen.


----------



## jimmybean (Jan 8, 2008)

Ray has been less than impressive


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

HB said:


> I dont think the Wally/West > Ray on the Celts is too ridiculous


Then shooting yourself in the head probably wouldn't be too ridiculous


----------



## cgcatsfan (Jun 10, 2005)

Not for nothing, but averaging 18 ppg and 3 assists and 4 rpg doesn't exactly suck. 

Szerbiak is 12.4 and 1.2 assist and 3 rpg. West is 7.9, 3.4 assists and 2.7rpg. And it's not like you could even play them both at once. You'd have to ADD their totals to beat what Ray Allen is doing.


----------



## KingHandles (Mar 19, 2005)

The_Legend_23 said:


> He's struggled in his last couple of games, but Ray Allen is an excellent third option for Boston.


Yeah, it's nice not to have three people hanging off Pierce on the inbound pass on game winners this year.


----------



## ray_allen_20 (Dec 26, 2007)

Well it looks like Ray has finally started step up and I'm glad. I was really surprised at how we played when Garnett was gone and i was even more surprised after the losing streak when he returned. But I think it is kind of good because it shows that Garnett is not the god of basketball and we'd still be an elite team without him.


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

We wouldnt be a championship contender though, THAT is Garnett.

Great to see Ray's percentages coming up though, we need him to be shooting well come playoff time.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

Avalanche said:


> We wouldnt be a championship contender though, THAT is Garnett.
> 
> Great to see Ray's percentages coming up though, we need him to be shooting well come playoff time.


This team wouldn't be a championship contender if they were missing any of the big three


----------



## mqtcelticsfan (Apr 2, 2006)

ray_allen_20 said:


> Well it looks like Ray has finally started step up and I'm glad. I was really surprised at how we played when Garnett was gone and i was even more surprised after the losing streak when he returned. *But I think it is kind of good because it shows that Garnett is not the god of basketball* and we'd still be an elite team without him.


The very best player on the best team this year. He's pretty close.


----------



## cgcatsfan (Jun 10, 2005)

So far the Celtics have proved that old adage that "The whole is MORE than the sum of it's parts." 

Different guys step up every night. Allen has been one of them.


----------



## LamarButler (Apr 16, 2005)

Marcus13 said:


> This team wouldn't be a championship contender if they were missing any of the big three


Yes it would. It would if we were missing Ray Allen, but not Pierce and definitely not Garnett. Ray only does one thing well for this team, and thats score/shoot. You can find tons of guys like that. Meanwhile, Garnett is one of the best defenders and rebounders in the league, gives you a post presence on offense, and passes the ball very well. Pierce scores alot and scores in a great way, by getting to the free throw line, he rebounds well for a wing, he is a playmaker, and he is our 2nd best defender.


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

LamarButler said:


> Yes it would. It would if we were missing Ray Allen, but not Pierce and definitely not Garnett. Ray only does one thing well for this team, and thats score/shoot. You can find tons of guys like that. Meanwhile, Garnett is one of the best defenders and rebounders in the league, gives you a post presence on offense, and passes the ball very well. Pierce scores alot and scores in a great way, by getting to the free throw line, he rebounds well for a wing, he is a playmaker, and he is our 2nd best defender.


I agree that losing Ray is not near as big a loss as losing Pierce or Garnett.

That said, I completely disagree that _"Ray only does one thing well, thats score/shoot"_ and that you'd still be championship contenders.


----------



## LamarButler (Apr 16, 2005)

NewAgeBaller said:


> I agree that losing Ray is not near as big a loss as losing Pierce or Garnett.
> 
> That said, I completely disagree that _"Ray only does one thing well, thats score/shoot"_ and that you'd still be championship contenders.


Ok, he can take it to the rack when guys close out on him, but 4 rebounds a game is alright. 3 assists a game is average. He's a mediocre defender also. A team with a Garnett-Pierce duo, plus competent role players definitely has a chance of going to the Finals, and there, anything can happen.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

LamarButler said:


> Yes it would. *It would if we were missing Ray Allen*, but not Pierce and definitely not Garnett. Ray only does one thing well for this team, and thats score/shoot. You can find tons of guys like that. Meanwhile, Garnett is one of the best defenders and rebounders in the league, gives you a post presence on offense, and passes the ball very well. Pierce scores alot and scores in a great way, by getting to the free throw line, he rebounds well for a wing, he is a playmaker, and he is our 2nd best defender.


Depends on what we have in his place. If we still had Szczerbifack then there would likely be some locker room problems and discontent, and our record wouldn't be as good. I wish we still had Delonte though, I was kind of hoping we would snatch him up at the deadline after I heard Seattle was looking to trade him. :biggrin:


----------



## Eternal (Sep 7, 2005)

LamarButler said:


> Ok, he can take it to the rack when guys close out on him, but 4 rebounds a game is alright. 3 assists a game is average. He's a mediocre defender also. A team with a Garnett-Pierce duo, plus competent role players definitely has a chance of going to the Finals, and there, anything can happen.


I disagree. You need Allen to go to the Finals.


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

LamarButler said:


> Ok, he can take it to the rack when guys close out on him, but 4 rebounds a game is alright. 3 assists a game is average. He's a mediocre defender also. A team with a Garnett-Pierce duo, plus competent role players definitely has a chance of going to the Finals, and there, anything can happen.


Well I'd consider them _contenders_ in the same way I might consider Cleveland _contenders_.

They _can_ get to the Finals, but likely won't against the more solid and experienced team (Detroit), and if they made the Finals I would predict an uneven series or sweep by the superior team (eg. San Antonio).


----------



## ray_allen_20 (Dec 26, 2007)

Ray Allen has been a better scorer throughout the course of the season than Pierce who just gets the ball alot more than ray does and gets more shots and as a result more assists. Ray has a higher 2pt%, 3pt% and FT% than Pierce does and obviously Pierce is bigger so he is going to get more rebounds, but really what difference does grabbing a couple more boards make? And as for defense I'll admit Pierce is a better defender but Allen is far better at guarding smaller quicker guards than pierce is.


----------



## LamarButler (Apr 16, 2005)

ray_allen_20 said:


> Ray Allen has been a better scorer throughout the course of the season than Pierce who just gets the ball alot more than ray does and gets more shots and as a result more assists. Ray has a higher 2pt%, 3pt% and FT% than Pierce does and obviously Pierce is bigger so he is going to get more rebounds, but really what difference does grabbing a couple more boards make? And as for defense I'll admit Pierce is a better defender but Allen is far better at guarding smaller quicker guards than pierce is.


Ray Allen has been a better scorer? Wow. Pierce averages more on a higher FG%. Thats pretty self explanatory. Pierce's scoring is more efficient because of the 7 free throws he shoots a game. Shooting from the line is a more efficient way of scoring than taking field goals. Their 3 point % is identical, also. 

There's a reason why Pierce gets the ball more, and its because hes the better offensive option. Ray doesn't share the same court vision.

Yes, Pierce is bigger, allowing him to get more rebounds. Thats an advantage. I dont know what you were trying to prove by that.

You just said it right there, Pierce is the better defender.


----------



## mrsister (Sep 9, 2002)

Not sure why this argument is happening. The fact of the matter is that both players are Celtics, and both players are helping them work toward their goal of a championship. We have three high quality players and a great supporting cast. We're 45-12 and have the best record in the NBA. We haven't seen that kind of record since the 80s. We may or may not win a championship, but we have the pieces to be a legitimate contender. Enjoy it and recognize the contributions of all the players. Ray, Paul, Garnett and the rest will not point fingers, and really they have no reason to.


----------



## mqtcelticsfan (Apr 2, 2006)

LamarButler said:


> Pierce's scoring is more efficient because of the 7 free throws he shoots a game. Shooting from the line is a more efficient way of scoring than taking field goals.


Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Do you really think that?


----------



## LamarButler (Apr 16, 2005)

mqtcelticsfan said:


> Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Do you really think that?


Yea, why not? Say if you make 6 out of 8 free throws (75%, which is a modest percentage), thats the equivalent of 3/4 field goals. 3/4 field goals = 75%. That makes shooting from the line a very efficient way of scoring. So the more you're at the line, the more efficient you're scoring.


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

mrsister said:


> Not sure why this argument is happening. The fact of the matter is that both players are Celtics, and both players are helping them work toward their goal of a championship. We have three high quality players and a great supporting cast. We're 45-12 and have the best record in the NBA. We haven't seen that kind of record since the 80s. We may or may not win a championship, but we have the pieces to be a legitimate contender. Enjoy it and recognize the contributions of all the players. Ray, Paul, Garnett and the rest will not point fingers, and really they have no reason to.


Very true... i took part in this arguement earlier because at the time Ray was shoting woefully and it was costing the team... but lately his percentages have picked up and the team looks great.

hopefully he has settled into his role and his shooting will remain this good for the season/playoffs


----------



## mqtcelticsfan (Apr 2, 2006)

LamarButler said:


> Yea, why not? Say if you make 6 out of 8 free throws (75%, which is a modest percentage), thats the equivalent of 3/4 field goals. 3/4 field goals = 75%. That makes shooting from the line a very efficient way of scoring. So the more you're at the line, the more efficient you're scoring.


But, you're admitting then that it takes 8 FT attempts to equal 4 FG attempts, so even if you make 6/8, you're only scoring as much as what you'd get on 3/4 FGs. You get 2 points for every FG attempt, and only 1 for a FT attempt, so it's easily more efficient to get more points per shot.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

You coulda named this thread 'Thank God Heysus wasn't supposed to save this team'


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

Not necissarily, considering each time you go to the line its 2 shots, unless of course you make the bucket or its a technical... so its not really more efficient seeing as you score the same amount on the same number of trips down the floor


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

The best statistic that measures scoring efficiency is TS% (otherwise known as one-half PSA, points per shot attempt). It is determined by (points / (field-goal attempts + (.44 x free-throw attempts)). Dean Oliver determined that 12% of free-throw attempts are on made shots ("and ones").

Both Allen and Pierce have great TS%s this season, but Allen is more efficient (58.1% relative to Pierce's 57.7%). The entire team is rather efficient save Rajon Rondo, whose TS% is a below average 51.5% (league average is 53.759%). Basically, even though Rondo has a decent (league average) eFG% (field-goal mades + 1/2 three-point field-goals made all over field-goals attempted), he is still very inefficient due to his poor free-throw percentage.

Also, for anyone that cares to know, the Celtics have a TS% of 57.10% and a eFG% of 52.38% this season (league averages of 53.75% and 49.49% respectively).


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

FWIW, there is no way, objectively, that one could claim that Allen is having a better season than Pierce. This conclusion is easy to determine watching the Celtics this year and the statistics back it up.


----------



## Avalanche (Nov 17, 2005)

Premier said:


> The best statistic that measures scoring efficiency is TS% (otherwise known as one-half PSA, points per shot attempt). It is determined by (points / (field-goal attempts + (.44 x free-throw attempts)). Dean Oliver determined that 12% of free-throw attempts are on made shots ("and ones").
> 
> Both Allen and Pierce have great TS%s this season, but Allen is more efficient (58.1% relative to Pierce's 57.7%). The entire team is rather efficient save Rajon Rondo, whose TS% is a below average 51.5% (league average is 53.759%). Basically, even though Rondo has a decent (league average) eFG% (field-goal mades + 1/2 three-point field-goals made all over field-goals attempted), he is still very inefficient due to his poor free-throw percentage.
> 
> Also, for anyone that cares to know, the Celtics have a TS% of 57.10% and a eFG% of 52.38% this season (league averages of 53.75% and 49.49% respectively).


cheers for puttin up the numbers, really shows how well the team is doing, especially for a team who had never played together at the start of the season such efficiency is great to see


----------



## LamarButler (Apr 16, 2005)

mqtcelticsfan said:


> But, you're admitting then that it takes 8 FT attempts to equal 4 FG attempts, so even if you make 6/8, you're only scoring as much as what you'd get on 3/4 FGs. You get 2 points for every FG attempt, and only 1 for a FT attempt, so it's easily more efficient to get more points per shot.


Yea, but 2 free throws is the equivalent of a field goal attempt, cause if you get fouled on a field goal attempt, you're shooting 2 free throws. And that was my point. Most players won't shoot anything close to .750 (3/4) from the field, but most players will shoot 6/8 from the free throw line.

As for TS%, I can't say much about that since I don't know how it works out.


----------

