On May 2, Beijing time, the NBA playoffs Eastern Conference semifinals began, and the Celtics lost to the Bucks 89-101 at home, swallowing the first defeat of this year's playoffs. And in this game, although the Green Army performed well on the defensive end, defending the alphabet brother to only 9 of 25 shots, they did not even get 90 points on the offensive end, from the core of the double probe to White, Pritchard and other substitute role players, the whole team is crazy to play iron, so what is the problem with the Celtics' offensive end?
The statistics after the game actually revealed part of the answer. In this game, the Celtics made a total of 84 shots, including 50 three-point shots, accounting for 59.5% of all offensive shots. Obviously, the Celtics' three-point shooting percentage is a bit too high. Even if they hit 18 three-pointers, this single way of playing is still difficult to win the game.
Admittedly, the Celtics' massive three-point shots are directly related to the Bucks' defensive style. In the defensive system set by Budenholzer, the Bucks three highs (Big Law, Portis and Alphabet Brother) crouched under the basket to grab the board, Holliday, Allen, these fast-paced defenders, try to entangle the opponent's key players, and for some role players' three-pointers, the Bucks will directly let go.
In this defensive mode, almost all teams will shoot a large number of three-pointers when they meet the Bucks. The problem is that even though three-pointers are important in modern basketball's offensive system, three-pointers are indeed the most unstable offensive means. And when a team's offensive method is only left to shoot three-pointers, the opponent can predict your offensive style every time, and it is naturally easier to tit-for-tat.
So if the Celtics want to solve the problem on the offensive end, they must add other offensive means. However, due to the Bucks' three-high squat pit, strong chiseling under the basket will certainly not work, so increasing the mid-range shot should be the most appropriate way. In the first game, the Green Army's mid-range shooting is obviously too small, the whole game, they only shot 3 times inside the three-point line and outside the three-second zone, all of them hit the iron, such a performance, obviously not passed.
Although from the analysis of modern basketball data models, the middle distance is the least efficient area, and the basketball game can be played without doing math problems. It is also because the middle distance seems to be "inefficient", so it is often difficult for the opponent to take care of when defending. The Warriors of that year, even if they had a top three-pointer like Curry and Thompson, they never gave up shooting, which is exactly the reason. The negative case is the original "magic ball" Rockets, which hit iron 27 consecutive three-pointers in the playoffs, directly allowing them to lose the key seven-point battle.
When the three-point shot is inaccurate, appropriately reduce a part of the three-point shot, increase the mid-range projection, and launch attacks from closer to the basket, which is the adjustment that the Celtics need to make in G2. In addition, in terms of fast attack and counterattack, the Celtics also need to improve.
In the first game, they lost a full 20 points 8-28 on the fast attack score, which is obviously not the normal level. Only by enriching the means of the offensive end and making the opponent unpredictable the offensive characteristics, so that it is more likely to break through the Bucks' defense line, otherwise blindly pulling out three-pointers on the outside line, it seems that the role players have obtained a lot of "empty" opportunities, but this way of playing is likely to make the whole team lose their accustomed rhythm of the game and eventually lose the game.