Karalis: Celtics happily took good shots without looking for great ones

We, from the outside, have a bad habit of judging things in basketball based on whether a shot went in or not. That is especially true on a night where the Celtics were dared to shoot from deep and only shot 11-49. Just looking at those two numbers triggers a visceral reaction.

Why keep shooting if you're cold?

Live by the 3, die by the 3

And so on...

In fact, the 3-pointer has changed the game so much it's difficult to even have the discussion of which 3's are good and which are bad. Sometimes they look the same and it's just a matter of a player making a tough shot or not.

The Celtics didn't make many tough shots in this loss to the Thunder, and part of why they lost is their abysmal shooting from deep. It can very easily be argued that if the Celtics make an average amount, they would have hit six more on the night and won by double digits.

They didn't. And so the argument begins.

"There were some that certainly were forced, there’s no question about it," Brad Stevens said after the game. "And there were some that were just missed. And that’s part of the game."

An NBA player will almost always argue that getting a clean look means it's okay to pull the trigger, mostly because NBA defenses are generally good enough that clean looks don't come along often. However, there are some shots, especially 3 pointers, that will just be generally available at all times. In those situations, it's better to probe the defense a little bit to see if giving up a good shot leads to a great shot.

Here's one example.



Marcus Smart gets the dribble handoff from Luke Kornet, doesn't see anyone on him, and he fires. He'll say that's a good look, and he's right. It's a good look. But with 13 seconds on the shot clock, why not see what else is available?



Instead of shooting, why not drive it to the left and see if you can't suck in the defense and get Romeo Langford a look in the corner?

Evan Fournier will rotate up top basically to where Smart was, Aaron Nesmith will replace Fournier, and Smart will continue through and end up in the right corner.

So instead of pulling up from the top of the key, a couple of dribbles, could result in a pass to Langford, a swing to Fournier, another swing to Nesmith, and then a final pass back over to Smart in the right corner for a more set catch-and-shoot look. If we want to take it a step further, Smart could still have time to up-fake the defender closing out, drive to the baseline, and hit a diving Kornett for a basket.

Any one of those passes could result in something more open, and for a better shooter. All of those passes would have forced the Thunder to work their butts off for a full possession.

It's not always on the shooter, either.



Payton Pritchard comes off the re-screen from Thompson and sees nothing but wide open space.

"I think for me that’s a shot I practice a lot, so I’ve got to be comfortable with taking that. If a team goes under, you’ve got to make them pay," he said after the game.

The defender didn't go under on this particular screen, but this is the shot he wants. Except...



What are these three guys doing over here on the right? I understand clearing out, but no one has presented themselves as an option. If this thing doesn't work, then what? Or, even better, how about someone reads how high Tristan Thompson is screening and someone make a cut?



There's a corner 3 just waiting there to be taken. Evan Fournier probably should have recognized the opportunity. Jaylen Brown has a window to back-cut Lu Dort. Smart can find somewhere to spot up.

Even if we excuse Fournier for not being fully up to speed, a Brown cut in that situation would have drawn the attention of at least one defender and maybe opened up a driving lane for Pritchard to attack. If there's a lane to the basket, Pritchard could get an and-one. Or he could drop it off to Brown for an easier shot. Or he can find someone spotting up in the corner.

The shot Pritchard got was a good one. The Celtics never gave him a chance to look for a great one.

And even in late clock situations, the Celtics need to be more aware.



Smart had his mind up to shoot, it seems, before he caught it. And Brown could have easily continued drifting into the corner so Smart would have had the option of up-faking the hard-charging Dort, taking one dribble, and dropping it back to Brown for a more open 3-pointer, or attacking the one defender left and making him choose between a Smart drive or sticking with Kornet.

This is often the problem with Boston's 3-point shooting. They can legitimately say that most of those shots are good shots. I could freeze most of the shots Boston took in this game and say it had a decent chance of going in.

What the Celtics don't do often enough is the extra bit just to see if there aren't better options. There's a good chance that other good shots will be available throughout the possession, but the Celtics don't find those often enough. They often tend to put up the first good shot they can get.

If they were a "seven seconds or less" Mike D'Antoni team, that would be fine because the Celtics would be getting a heavier volume of opportunities and the math would work out. This Celtics team isn't playing at a fast pace, and so they owe it to themselves to seek out the best shot available.

Good shots are there all the time. What Brown said after the game is perfectly legit.

"If we got an open shot, I think it's in our best interest to take it. Especially with guys out," he said. "We wanted Fournier, Evan to take shots when he was open. Smart to take shots when he was open. For the most part, we got good looks, they just didn't fall."

However, the Celtics never got themselves great looks, because they were content with the good ones.

That's the thing about greatness. You'll never find it if you settle for "good."