In the regular season, yes. The Celtics were middle of the road in terms of turnovers. In the postseason, though, they've improved by 1.5 turnovers per game. They're 6th in the playoffs (ahead of the heat and Pacers).
Rondo has a high turnover per game rate, but that's in large part because he carries SO much of the offensive burden for the Celtics. In the playoffs he's averaging 13.2 assists, 2.7 steals, and 3.4 turnovers per game. So his A/TO ratio is roughly 4, which is absurd.
Haslem suspended one game, Pittman three games.
I'm confused...why is the Celtics-Sixers series going 7 games?
Why? In this case, Sixers guards were able to slash down the middle at will, either getting no resistance or, if help came over, they either still got to the hole or else made an easy dish to the open man. Plus, the original AI was in the house. Celts still got good looks but didn't knock them down or get any rebounds off the misses.
Don't worry; Sixers still have plenty of ability to get killed in Game 7 if they go into ball-hog mode or get sloppy with the ball on offense, or if Thaddeus decides he has absolutely no interest in defense other than trying (and failing) to block shots.
I'm thinking Rondo and the Truth will step up and carry Game 7 for the Celts. KG will chip in something, but unfortunately I think Ray-Ray's too banged up and has nothing left in the tank... None of the Sixers have that sort of ability; if they pull off the upset, they'll have at least 7 guys in double figures.
"Quality is not an option!"
I'm not sure why it needs to be equitable. Fr one thing, Hansbrough's foul had nothing to do with Pittman's elbow to Stevenson's throat. That was "retaliation" for Stevenson's choke gesture. Pittman's suspension was absolutely appropriate. As for the Haslem suspension, if you can't distinguish between what Hansbrough did and what Haslem did, then I can't help you. Hansbrough's foul was certainly over the line (which is why it was a flagrant 1 later upgraded to a flagrant 2). Haslem's foul made absolutely no play on the ball and was specifically and clearly intended to be a slap/fist to the face of Hansbrough. It should have been a flagrant 2 and ejection, but the refs blew it. So he got suspended for a game instead.
Hansbrough's foul didn't necessitate the degree to which Haslem went to retaliate. And it had no bearing on the Pittman foul at all. While I can't stand Hansbrough, I think the decisions were absolutely appropriate.
I am in agreement, Haslem and Pittman both deserve the suspensions. I thought that 1 and 3 games are appropriate.
My question is, what is the point of upgrading Hansbrough's foul to a flagrant two if you are not going to give him a 1-game suspension? If it really is a flagrant-2, then he should have been ejected from the game...so now the NBA is saying, Tyler committed a flagrant-2 but will face no punishment...
I just want some consistency. If it is really a flagrant-2 you have to suspend him for 1 game because he wasn't ejected. If it was really a flagrant-1 and you upgraded it to a f-2 just to have an appearance of fairness...then that is ridiculous...
...tbh though you could see this stuff coming. I am not sympathetic to Indiana's cause because they have been trying to play "Punk the Heat" all series, especially Granger.
any word on granger and west for tonight?
"One POSSIBLE future. From your point of view... I don't know tech stuff.".... Kyle Reese
I think the bolded part is the answer. Hansbrough's foul wasn't a flagrant-2. But I think the league felt uncomfortable not doing "something" more, even though the original call was the correct one. I don't think what Hansbrough did warranted an ejection or suspension. What Haslem did did warrant an ejection/suspension. My guess is that the impact of the change may also have something to do with future penalties. In other words, if Hansbrough gets another flagrant foul, he could be justifiably suspended for longer. I don't know the specifics, but that could be what played into it.
As for the Pacers trying to "punk the Heat," I think some of that is overblown. They've played aggressively, but I think it's actually been the other way around. The Heat have responded to aggressive play with elbows flying. Watch the replays of Granger playing defense on James and see how many times James sharply raises an elbow "accidentally" in response to Granger's contact. Watch Wade's reaction to any solid foul he receives.
I think the Hansbrough foul is the only on-court incident in which the Pacers have crossed the line in this series. The rest has simply been trash talking and physical (but not dirty) play. The Heat have been the ones who've done most of the chippy stuff. Admittedly, their chippiness has been in response to the Pacers' physicality, but chippy play is not the appropriate response to physical play.
The Heat get all the stitches but also all the suspensions. If the ref's had done a better job of controlling the mayhem, then we wouldn't have gotten to this point.
I'm just glad that Hansbrough didn't get a bloody nose when he slammed Wade or Wade would have been kicked out for a game as well.
It is amazing how different the Celtics and Sixers can look game to game. I was thrilled to see Elton put together a solid 34 minute, 13 pts, 10 rebound game. Those stats don't jump out at you, but you really felt his veteran presence, especially in dealing with KG's ridiculous emotive antics. I don't know how the young guys react to KG, but you could sense that Elton was, essentially, laughing off his psycho-bug eyed routine and I think it helped steady the team.
But, not to go overboard on Elton's contribution, Jrue Holiday could not be kept from the lane and the Sixers got really solid play from Iggy, Hawes, Lou Williams, Evan Turner and Lavoy Allen, and could have won by more had they not missed 11 FTs and 8 3s.
FYI...AI, the Answer, we talking bout practice! came out before the game to a raucous ovation...it was really cool.
I agree with you in part, CDu. Certainly, the Heat have upped the ante by consistently responding to the Pacer's physicality. But the line between physical play and chippy play is by no means clear-cut, and both teams are aggressively pushing that boundary. As in any arms race, each side is equally responsible for the escalation.
Oh, I certainly don't think the Pacers are without blame. They know they're the less talented team and they feel (probably correctly) that they have to push the limits of physicality to win the series. And they clearly have instigated plenty throughout the series. But the Heat have typically been the ones escalating matters to well beyond the realm of physical and into dirty/chippy.
Hansbrough's foul started as a typical hard foul and ended up crossing the line into dirty with the rake of the ball and then face of Wade. It was very similar to the Henderson foul on Hansbrough in that there was clear intent to (a) prevent a basket by any means necessary and (b) commit a hard foul; it was also similar in that neither player seemed worried about what they hit when they committed the foul.
I don't think Hansbrough intended to rake Wade across the face (especially not near the eye) just like I don't think Henderson meant to bludgeon Hansbrough's nose. Where I think Hansbrough has a slightly better case than Henderson is that Hansbrough actually makes contact with the ball (he actually tries to rip it from Wade). I think Henderson's foul falls somewhere between Hansbrough's foul and Haslem's foul in terms of dirtiness. Accordingly, I'm somewhat ambivalent as to whether Henderson should have been suspended. I'm not ambivalent about Hansbrough or Haslem; I think both calls were correct.
Sorry CDu, I guess in my mind the instigator deserves the same punishment as the retaliator. Hence my use of the word equitable. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree here.
It's like my kids. When kid #1 smacks kid #2, it's almost always in retaliation for something that kid #2 did. My solution? Give them both a time out.