Are we tanking this year?

[greece66]

Really p---ed off with the way we lost at Houston: low 3% + the star calls.
I am afraid that if we perform poorly in the first twenty or so games, then Danny will pull the trigger and we ll go tanking big time. I am trying to enjoy this team while its playing at the max of its abilities and having the refs messing with it really gives me the creeps.

everyone can blame the refs all they like. but by now everyone should know they're horrible and should expect the bad officiating. specifically the players and coaches.

that's why you don't put the game in their hands.

Two top ten or so players are going to get calls.  Not surprising.  We could have had this be a closer game.  I don't think the refs are the number one complaint.

In terms of why we lost no. In terms of seeing a young talented team being unnecessarily bullied by the refs while it is already lagging behind by 20 points, hell yeah!

[GreenWarrior]

Really p---ed off with the way we lost at Houston: low 3% + the star calls.
I am afraid that if we perform poorly in the first twenty or so games, then Danny will pull the trigger and we ll go tanking big time. I am trying to enjoy this team while its playing at the max of its abilities and having the refs messing with it really gives me the creeps.

everyone can blame the refs all they like. but by now everyone should know they're horrible and should expect the bad officiating. specifically the players and coaches.

that's why you don't put the game in their hands.

Two top ten or so players are going to get calls.  Not surprising.  We could have had this be a closer game.  I don't think the refs are the number one complaint.

In terms of why we lost no. In terms of seeing a young talented team being unnecessarily bullied by the refs while it is already lagging behind by 20 points, hell yeah!

that's arguable.

[greece66]

Really p---ed off with the way we lost at Houston: low 3% + the star calls.
I am afraid that if we perform poorly in the first twenty or so games, then Danny will pull the trigger and we ll go tanking big time. I am trying to enjoy this team while its playing at the max of its abilities and having the refs messing with it really gives me the creeps.

everyone can blame the refs all they like. but by now everyone should know they're horrible and should expect the bad officiating. specifically the players and coaches.

that's why you don't put the game in their hands.

Two top ten or so players are going to get calls.  Not surprising.  We could have had this be a closer game.  I don't think the refs are the number one complaint.

In terms of why we lost no. In terms of seeing a young talented team being unnecessarily bullied by the refs while it is already lagging behind by 20 points, hell yeah!

that's arguable.

Depends on your definition. Mine is large enough to include Philly and Milwaukee. The only team among the bottom 10 of the League I would leave out is the LAL.
The thing with talent is that you never know whether it's there until it's too late. Which gives me an opportunity for another wonderful quote in black and white with a photo on the left.

[wdleehi]

They do not need to tank.  They already do not have enough talent.

[greece66]

They do not need to tank.  They already do not have enough talent.

This is what I would call a low risk high - reward strategy which maximizes your future prospects through the accumulation of young talent by the wise use of the draft, while at the same time allowing for enough flexibility to pull the trigger on crucial trades when deemed necessary by the front office.

[Celtics18]

They do not need to tank.  They already do not have enough talent.

Despite last night's spanking at the hands of the Rockets, I still contend that we have enough talent to not finish in the bottom 10 in the league.

No, we are nowhere near being a title contender, but we are not tanking either. 

[Celtics4ever]

They do not need to tank.  They already do not have enough talent.

TP , I concur.

This is what I would call a low risk high - reward strategy which maximizes your future prospects through the accumulation of young talent by the wise use of the draft, while at the same time allowing for enough flexibility to pull the trigger on crucial trades when deemed necessary by the front office.

We are also throwing guys into the fire and seeing if we can develop some assets with this strategem.

[GreenWarrior]

They do not need to tank.  They already do not have enough talent.

TP , I concur.

This is what I would call a low risk high - reward strategy which maximizes your future prospects through the accumulation of young talent by the wise use of the draft, while at the same time allowing for enough flexibility to pull the trigger on crucial trades when deemed necessary by the front office.

We are also throwing guys into the fire and seeing if we can develop some assets with this strategem.

I didn't see that last night. last night as soon as Stevens saw KO was the weak spot that most of us assumed he was, he didn't go back to him. he went to the veteran Bass and stayed with him. in fact started him in the 2nd half.

many moons ago(in this thread I believe), I said I have no problem with us being an 8 seed or higher if it was because the young guys got us there. that means they were developing, that means we played them. if it was because we went to the veterans and leaned on the veterans to get us that 8 seed? that's not developing the young guys, that's not getting the young guys experience, all it's doing is getting us a lousy pick and bounced in the 1st rnd.

I also said the only way we can validate starting or playing KO at C is if the dude scores like Dirk and averages around 26 - 30 pts. a game because he's giving up at the very least 20 before he even steps off the bus. well we didn't even get a chance to see if KO could put up 26 or 30 because Stevens abandoned him for the veteran Bass. who are we developing Bass or KO. is Bass going to even be here next yr.? this game was lost in the 1st qrtr., KO wasn't given a chance to redeem himself by starting the 2nd half, and he was barely even given a chance in garbage time. if we're not going to play him during these kinds of games when are we going to play him? why protect him?

     
 

[Celtics4ever]

I didn't see that last night. last night as soon as Stevens saw KO was the weak spot that most of us assumed he was, he didn't go back to him. he went to the veteran Bass and stayed with him. in fact started him in the 2nd half.

It's obvious to me that Bass is our second best big.   He is slightly behind Sully in offense, better  defender than KO or Sully at D.   Sully is a better rebounder and KO and Sully are better passers.   Bass is more consistent however, and has the veteran skills not to foul out in a nano second.   If we were trying to win, I think he would be playing more.

They are playing kids in front of him to develop him.   It is not to win.   I think if we were trying to win you'd be playing Bass and Sullinger.

[GreenWarrior]

I didn't see that last night. last night as soon as Stevens saw KO was the weak spot that most of us assumed he was, he didn't go back to him. he went to the veteran Bass and stayed with him. in fact started him in the 2nd half.

It's obvious to me that Bass is our second best big.   He is slightly behind Sully in offense, better  defender than KO or Sully at D.   Sully is a better rebounder and KO and Sully are better passers.   Bass is more consistent however, and has the veteran skills not to foul out in a nano second.   If we were trying to win, I think he would be playing more.

They are playing kids in front of him to develop him.   It is not to win.   I think if we were trying to win you'd be playing Bass and Sullinger.

but we did play Bass and Sully more. I have it the other way around. we were trying to win and that's why we went to the veteran Bass and I still consider Sully one of the young guys. obviously KO is an inept defender and his offense is far ahead of his defense. so if that's the case why aren't we sticking with him like I said previously? if his D gives the other team 20? let's see if he can score 30? instead they're telling us he's not even worth the time, because we're trying to win. and we'll just play him when he's not completely outmatched...which i'm not sure when he won't be.

[Ogaju]

we are not tanking. We are not good enough to tank.

[nickagneta]

I said I have no problem with us being an 8 seed or higher if it was because the young guys got us there. that means they were developing, that means we played them.

This simply is not true. Often, its not in the best interest of a player's development if they are playing and making the same mistakes over and over again without changing what they are doing. Playing that player under those circumstances does more harm to their development than it does good. So the best thing to do sometimes is get them out of the game, sit them, tell them what they are doing wrong and let them learn that playing the way they are playing without changing how they are doing something is going to have consequences, like not playing.

You want to teach anyone something, then its best to teach them they have certain responsibilities and if they don't take care of those responsibilities, then there are consequences.

Also, if a player is getting constantly beat at a certain part of the game, getting them out of the game so you don't destroy their confidence level is also a good thing. Stevens may have decided for both reasons the young Olynyk needed to sit and that it was in KO's best interest. That's good coaching and that's how you develop players. Young players need to know that you earn playing time, its not given to you.

[greece66]

we are not tanking. We are not good enough to tank.

A Hinkie admirer among the C's fans?

[greece66]

I still think along the lines I described earlier.
This team has a window of opportunity at the beginning of the season.
If we end up with, say, a 5-20 record, then, I believe the front office will start competing with LAL and Philly. In the unlikely event that after the first 20-25 games we are near 0.500, it will be debatable, which is the best strategy. But only in that second scenario.
To be honest, things do look mildly better than a couple of months ago, at least IMHO.
Zeller is an OK defender, Thornton and ET have proved better than expectations (I stress the word "expectations"), Rondo did not miss the first month as was initially expected, and Stevens is doing the best with the material available.
Moreover,  it looks like the predictions that the Eastern Conference will be stronger this year were incorrect.
So, well maybe the window of opportunity might be a bit larger than expected, but still I would not bet my money on it.

[Celtics4ever]

This simply is not true. Often, its not in the best interest of a player's development if they are playing and making the same mistakes over and over again without changing what they are doing. Playing that player under those circumstances does more harm to their development than it does good. So the best thing to do sometimes is get them out of the game, sit them, tell them what they are doing wrong and let them learn that playing the way they are playing without changing how they are doing something is going to have consequences, like not playing.

 

It can help in one way, experience, but I agree, repetition of bad habits is bad for a player.