Everything you need to know about the Boston Celtics loss to the Charlotte Hornets with BSJ insight and analysis
IN A NUTSHELL
The Celtics started out well enough, though the Celtic did have 5 first-quarter turnovers. The problems hit in the second quarter, where the Celtics went into a lull and couldn't hit a thing while the Hornets hit half their shots. It carried into the second half where the Celtics could never get the necessary stops to string together a big enough run to pull ahead.
HEADLINES
Cold as ice: The Celtics shot 14-46 on 3-pointers, just 30.4%, taking two more 3-pointers than 2’s on a night they couldn't hit a thing. There is certainly some element to this game that boils down to “make/miss league” since a lot of their looks were open.
That's been the problem, though, this season. Boston has been way off on wide-open shots.
“It probably starts to wear on guys a little bit there,” Ime Udoka said. “There's nothing better than a wide-open one. So if the ball movement is there and guys are missing, then there's nothing you can do about that. They’re not trying to miss the shot on purpose and they're not taking tough contested ones. We'd like to mix in some stuff downhill. Obviously guys flying at you and your shot’s not falling, how can you impact the game in other ways? And so that was the message to the guys. When shots aren't falling, what can we do on the other end?”
Turnovers … again: The first two items of my “Three Things To Watch For” were protecting the ball and attacking the basket. They didn't attack enough, and they turned the ball over way too much. The 14 turnovers isn’t a huge number, necessarily, but the 20 points off those is. The live-ball turnovers that become points for the other team are the killers.
Back to .500: The Celtics had an opportunity here to get to 24-22, climb to the eighth seed, and prepare for a Portland/Washington/Sacramento stretch that could get them up to 27 wins and the middle of the East pack. Instead, they fell to .500 again, which keeps them right where they were.
TURNING POINT
The Celtics were down 88-84 with 8:40 to go and the Charlotte Hornets had four team fouls. The next foul would have put the Celtics on the line for the rest of the quarter but Boston never drew another foul. Here’s Boston’s shot chart for the rest of that time frame.
They went 4-12 from deep the rest of the way, taking only four non-3s and 2 shots in the restricted area. The Celtics actively chose not to attack, which could have helped them get easy points. Instead, they were outscored 23-18 the rest of the way.
“We want to attack from there and I think the foul trouble in general with Jayson and some guys might have affected them offensively,” Udoka said. “They got a little hesitant there and not as aggressive moving downhill. That hurt us and we knew we were in the bonus and talked about attacking and getting to the basket a little bit more. I think we drove it in and got a little sloppy, some turnovers in transition and playing in a crowd. We didn't take advantage of that fourth quarter, being in that early obviously.”
SECOND GUESS
Boston was missing Robert Williams and Marcus Smart, then Grant Williams and Jayson Tatum got into foul trouble. Even with all that, I just don’t see why playing Enes K. Freedom makes a lot of sense. I’d rather just go small and play Tatum at the 5 and if they want to try dumping it to Mason Plumlee for post up, they can go right ahead.
ONE UP
Al Horford: He was the only one hitting shots (5-7 overall, 2-4 3pt), he rebounded (10), and he distributed (4 assists). There was only so much he could do.
THREE DOWN
Jayson Tatum: 12 points, 6 rebounds, 3 assists on a rough shooting night 5-19 overall, 0-7 3pt. I think he got caught up in some spots trying to answer Charlotte shots with looks that were open, but also early in the clock and that could have been worked for better opportunities
Grant Williams: He hit a couple of 3’s but he got into foul trouble and that seemed to make him tentative defensively.
Jaylen Brown: He was moving the ball and had 6 assists, but the 2-11 shooting from 3 is rough. He also looked a bit lost defensively.
ONE UP AND DOWN
Dennis Schroder: I should just make this a regular feature. His box score looks great until you get to the -14 and the defensive issues persist to negate some of the good offense he gives. He really is the opposite of Smart. Schroder finds ways to make his stats look even better, like the two meaningless 3-pointers he hit in the final seconds to pump up his numbers.
TOP PLAY
Jaylen Brown coast ➡️ coast! pic.twitter.com/NHT0oip5j4
— Celtics on NBC Sports Boston (@NBCSCeltics) January 20, 2022
ONE TAKE KARALIS WILL PROBABLY REGRET LATER
Here we are with the ‘attack vs. good open look from 3’ debate.
The Celtics were 25-44 on 2’s, 56.8%, and they scored 40 of those 50 points in the paint. Charlotte has no rim protector to speak of (sorry, Mason Plumlee) and they allow the most assists in the league.
The Celtics could have just made a normal amount of 3-pointers and won the game. If they hit an average percentage of the shots that should have fallen, they probably would have won the game.
However, they could have worked a little harder, gotten into the paint a bit more, and forced the Hornets to make defensive decisions there that could have resulted in easier looks that generally finish at a higher percentage.
“I think the easy answer is to try to get to the basket more, but it's the NBA, it don’t really work like that,” Jaylen Brown countered. “You have 7-footers down there, you gotta make the right play. We had guys, at times we tried to be overly aggressive and get to the basket anyway, but sometimes that leads to turnovers and even worse basketball, so we have to keep taking the open shots. I think sometimes we passed up looks at times, but for the most part, we got really good looks. I think they just outplayed us tonight.”
They did get good looks. The argument, though, is that there are better looks available, and the Celtics are reluctant to give up good ones to get great ones.
The Celtics love the 3, but they love it to a fault. Not all good looks are created equally. There are times and situations where the team is better off probing for better shots and looking for opportunities at the rim.
Against the Hornets, with the way the game was going, with some of the groups on the floor, there were good looks the Celtics could have sacrificed to go for better ones.
Maybe the net effect would have been 40 3-pointers versus 46, but those six shots could have become layups, fouls, or both. I think the opportunities were there, and Boston passed them up. And that's one of their biggest problems.