Did the Bulls slow their way to victory?

Has anyone else found Brandon's posts about the bowl season far more interesting than the actual bowl season? And, doesn't it seem like we've been watching bowls for 2 months already (that ND win over Miami seems like it was last year...)? Well, I'm shifting from posts about a sport where players should be paid to a sport where players are paid, as we try to figure out why the Celtics lost to the Bulls over the weekend.

The C's were riding a 4 game winning streak into their match with Chicago. They were firing on all cylinders, raising the roof to structurally unsound levels, and accomplishing other silly and unnecessary metaphors. Then, they faced the Bulls, and lost in a very un-Celtic like way, 79-90. During the winning streak, the C's averaged 54.23% from the floor, 29.25 assists, and 104 points per game. Then, against the Bullies, they shot a putrid 37.8 assists, handed out 12 assists, and scored the aforementioned lowly 79. What the heck happened? Well, I guess the easy answer would be that Derek Rose just punked Rajon Rondo all night. But why didn't the C's fight back?

My favorite Celtics blog, the appropriately named "CelticsBlog," suggests it was the pace of the game that did the C's in. The pace finished up at 89 possessions, which the blog compares to the league average of 94.9, and suggests that the C's were helpless in the slow paced game. In fact, as the blog states, the last time the Celtics faced a game this slow, they lost to the Hornets 81-83 on New Year's Day (an 88 possession game). But, if you follow this blog, you probably already know that I'm a little suspect of this pace excuse. 

So, did the Bulls slow their way to victory against my C's? It's pretty doubtfull. Comparing the 89 pace of the game to the 94.9 league average may make it seem that way, but when you compare it overall to the average pace of the average Celtic game it doesn't pan out. Mostly because the Celtics don't play anywhere near the league average on any given night. In fact, the C's pace of 90.9 ranks 22nd out of the 30 NBA teams, making us the 9th "slowest" team in the league. Just watch the games, there are just not even close to as many possessions as there are in the average Clipper matchup (hate, hate, hate). We're a methodical team that likes to work on set plays and ball control, not some willy nilly run and shoot type offense. 

If you can't explain the drop off in play by the pace, how do you explain it? How about by our bench? The Celtics had 10 points off the bench against the Bullies, which seems drastically low given how good our bench has been this year. We average 25.5 points from the bench during the winning streak, including 50 against Toronto the game prior. The bench has thinned out with KG's injury, moving Glen Davis to the starting role, but that bench is so important to the C's winning games, it's crazy. So, when you get held to 10 from your bench, you're in for a long night if you're the Green Army. And it would seem to be that, not the pace, that was the not so secret source of Chicago's success over the weekend.

Now 28-8, neck and neck with the 30-9 Heat atop the Eastern Conference, my boys battle the 16-21 Rockets tonight on NBA TV. And, with KG slated to rejoin the squad now that he's "healthy," look for the bench to go off in a spread busting victory.

-- Sent from my Palm Prē