How far will a completely healthy Celtic team go in this whacky season?

[Moranis]

What are the most important things with this abrupt interruption to the season?

1. Franchise and system stability. The more a team knows their responsibilities the better off they will be. The Celtics are second to no one in that regard.
2. Hunger. With such a short sprint to the finish line, a team that is locked in from the get-go will be able to get into rhythm quicker.
3. Talent. Normally talent would be first because it assumes that, by the end of any season, most teams are pretty equal in knowing their roles, rotations, schemes, etc. Then talent would be the thing that sets some teams apart. Talent still matters, alot.

I really think the Cs have got a chance. The Lakers are the favorites in my opinion. They have the system in place around Lebron, vets that know their roles, hunger because they know their championship window is not big, and as much talent as anyone in the NBA.

I think Milwaukee is the top team in the East in all 3 of your key ingredients, though Boston is probably 2nd or 3rd in all of them, so certainly could have a shot if Milwaukee falters in any way.  I also agree the Lakers are the top team in the West and perhaps even ahead of the Bucks, but I also wouldn't be surprised if the Clippers or Rockets came out of the West either.  I really don't think any team other than those 4 is winning the title this year, even in an abbreviated weird season like this one.

Maybe. I tend to think they will struggle getting back into rhythm more than other teams, but I may be wrong. I thought their performance was a bit like the Cs from the Isaiah Thomas days. They were greater than the sum of their parts, but that might be exposed in the playoffs. Still, they do have Giannis, obviously. Even if I am right it may not matter.

You've always been down on Milwaukee and I'm really not sure why.  They have the best player in the world.  They have a team that is perfectly crafted to support that best player in the world.  They are perhaps the deepest team in the league.  And frankly their two best skill sets are their defense and their shooting and you don't tend to lose your defense and you can get shooting touch back pretty easily.  I expect Milwaukee to be rolling by the time the playoffs start (if not sooner) and really don't think they will be challenged in the East.  The only team I think could give Milwaukee real problems is the Sixers (given their size), but that is only if the Sixers figure it out and I can't see them really figuring it out with what is left of the season (though they are probably going to be fully healthy for the first time).

I willingly concede that I might be wrong on this. I guess I still view the Bucks as a group of outcasts. We saw Bledsoe fall apart in the playoffs. Lopez is a good player, but just a year ago he struggled to get a good contract in the NBA. I think both Matthews and Hill are more washed up than they appear. Middleton is a good player, but I can't get last Team USA tourney out of my head, where he was supposed to be the main guy and struggled greatly on a team that desperately needed him.

The system is great because it hides a lot of these weaknesses, but what if the weaknesses get exposed? For example, they place at a ridiculous pace, but pace slows significantly in the playoffs (normally, but maybe it won't for them). Their defensive numbers have been great, but something seems off about the fact that they give up so many threes.

It's not like I think they are terrible. Giannis is still probably the best player in the world and I really do like a lot of their players. I think they have a great system in place. I just think there are more questions than typical for a team that has dominated so much.

Bledsoe did not play well against Toronto, but I thought he was fine overall against Boston and Detroit.  Now maybe he choked or maybe Toronto just wasn't a great matchup for him.  That seemed to be the case with most of that team after the first 2 games against Toronto though.  The shooters went cold when Giannis was more bottled up when Toronto put Kawhi on Giannis more often.  Now maybe a team can do that to them again this year, but I don't think that team is in the East.  The Raptors just had the right mix of size along with the uber-wing defender.  Boston has the wing defenders, I just don't think they have the size overall needed to deal with the Bucks.  I mean look at last year when Boston had Horford, Baynes, and Morris, they had nothing for Giannis.  I think that is worse this year.  If Boston makes it to Milwaukee, I just don't see how the Celtics win that series (assuming both teams are healthy). Boston has no real answer for Giannis.

I think our struggles last year were due the fact that we couldn't stretch Lopez and their non-Giannis bigs enough that the Bucks were forced to go small with the exception of game 1. I'm pretty optimistic that we'll do that well enough this season with a more cohesive offence and additional perimeter threats to turn the series into a small ball slugfest, and I can see us outgunning the Bucks in that scenario. Obviously the Bucks would still be favoured to win the series (like they were last year against Toronto until they collapsed lol), but I think we have the best shot to take them out in the East.

Horford was 46.4% from 3.  Morris was on fire all series at 55% from 3.  The bigs shooting well and stretching out Lopez and the other bigs, wasn't the problem in that series.  It was the wings and smalls that couldn't hit the broad side of the barn.  And it still doesn't change the fact that Boston has no real answer for Giannis.  Now if Boston shoots lights out all series, then it would have a chance because 3 is worth more than 2, but Milwaukee is such a good defensive team, I just don't think Boston will be able to do that 4 times to win a series against the Bucks.  A game or two, certainly, but 4 over 7 is asking a lot. 

I just don't like how Boston is constructed and haven't all season.  Not nearly enough size to really play well over the course of a series against elite teams.

[mmmmm]

I'm really struggling to see the relevance of how last year's highly dysfunctional Celtic playoff team, built around a checked-out Kiri Irving (who came as close to blatantly throwing an NBA series as I have ever seen in a player) has anything to do with this year's team.

Not saying this team will go any farther or not.  I just find discussions about the failing of that team to be completely pointless and irrelevant.

[Roy H.]

When this team plays at its peak, it can beat anybody.  That presumes the games are called fairly.

[PhoSita]

Who can say?  I think anything could happen when things resume.

That said though, I think this Celtics team at their best are very good but still a couple supporting pieces, or at least another year or two of experience, away from truly contending.

If you compare this Celts team to the Raps or Bucks, it's really clear that beyond the top 5 or 6 players the Celts are lacking in reliable depth.  I expect that to be exposed in a long playoff series against a quality opponent.

Does anybody really want to rely on Brad Wanamaker, Grant Williams, Enes Kanter, Rob Williams, or Semi Ojeleye for key minutes against a top opponent?

Meanwhile the Raps go 10 or even 11 deep with quality role players.

Because of that I expect the Celtics to beat their first opponent and then lose in 6 or 7 to whoever they see in the second round, assuming that's the Bucks or Raps.

Great players overcome deficient supporting casts, though.  I'm hoping that this summer we see Tatum and Brown take over a playoff series. 

[RodyTur10]

Who can say?  I think anything could happen when things resume.

That said though, I think this Celtics team at their best are very good but still a couple supporting pieces, or at least another year or two of experience, away from truly contending.

If you compare this Celts team to the Raps or Bucks, it's really clear that beyond the top 5 or 6 players the Celts are lacking in reliable depth.  I expect that to be exposed in a long playoff series against a quality opponent.

Does anybody really want to rely on Brad Wanamaker, Grant Williams, Enes Kanter, Rob Williams, or Semi Ojeleye for key minutes against a top opponent?

Meanwhile the Raps go 10 or even 11 deep with quality role players.

Because of that I expect the Celtics to beat their first opponent and then lose in 6 or 7 to whoever they see in the second round, assuming that's the Bucks or Raps.

Great players overcome deficient supporting casts, though.  I'm hoping that this summer we see Tatum and Brown take over a playoff series.

I completely agree with this. Because of difference in depth, the only teams I can see winning the championship (assuming no game changing injuries) are the Bucks, Lakers or Clippers.

The Clippers are up there in talent with the Bucks and Lakers, but haven't played that well this season so therefore I have them below the Bucks and Lakers. The Raptors are a very good team, but Siakam is not a star like Antetokounmpo, James or Leonard that can dominate a finals series I think.

[SHAQATTACK]

fairly.

a unique concept in the NBA    .....advantage always to the certain few 

[Moranis]

I'm really struggling to see the relevance of how last year's highly dysfunctional Celtic playoff team, built around a checked-out Kiri Irving (who came as close to blatantly throwing an NBA series as I have ever seen in a player) has anything to do with this year's team.

Not saying this team will go any farther or not.  I just find discussions about the failing of that team to be completely pointless and irrelevant.

There is no question that Irving played awful overall in that series, but so did Tatum, Brown, and Hayward.  And Smart in his 32 minutes was the worst player on the floor basically at all times.  It is easy to blame Irving, but to act like he was the only reason Boston lost is also a very strange thing to do.  You can glean a lot from that series and most of it starts with Boston not being able to stop Giannis and that is with a lot more size last year (and it was quality size in Horford, Morris, and Baynes).  In addition, Milwaukee's small defense was incredible last year and might even be better this year.  I know a lot of this board thinks Irving quit, but I don't.  I just think Milwaukee's defense was incredible.  And I know it is easy to say Irving was shooting to much, but who was he supposed to pass to.  I mean that seriously.  Horford and Morris were the only two Celtics who played well that entire series.  Tatum was worse than Irving in basically every game of the series and Brown wasn't much better (and was worse in some).  Hayward might as well not even bothered to suit up. 

The simple truth is Milwaukee was just better than Boston last year and by all appearances they are just better than Boston this year as well.  I mean, Milwaukee not only has the best player in the series, but also probably has the 2nd best player in the series and is a much deeper, more balanced, and generally more well constructed team.  And it isn't like Budenholzer is a bad coach, he is a good coach.  Stevens may be better, but they are close enough I don't think it would make up the clear talent and roster advantage that Milwaukee has. 

[Somebody]

What are the most important things with this abrupt interruption to the season?

1. Franchise and system stability. The more a team knows their responsibilities the better off they will be. The Celtics are second to no one in that regard.
2. Hunger. With such a short sprint to the finish line, a team that is locked in from the get-go will be able to get into rhythm quicker.
3. Talent. Normally talent would be first because it assumes that, by the end of any season, most teams are pretty equal in knowing their roles, rotations, schemes, etc. Then talent would be the thing that sets some teams apart. Talent still matters, alot.

I really think the Cs have got a chance. The Lakers are the favorites in my opinion. They have the system in place around Lebron, vets that know their roles, hunger because they know their championship window is not big, and as much talent as anyone in the NBA.

I think Milwaukee is the top team in the East in all 3 of your key ingredients, though Boston is probably 2nd or 3rd in all of them, so certainly could have a shot if Milwaukee falters in any way.  I also agree the Lakers are the top team in the West and perhaps even ahead of the Bucks, but I also wouldn't be surprised if the Clippers or Rockets came out of the West either.  I really don't think any team other than those 4 is winning the title this year, even in an abbreviated weird season like this one.

Maybe. I tend to think they will struggle getting back into rhythm more than other teams, but I may be wrong. I thought their performance was a bit like the Cs from the Isaiah Thomas days. They were greater than the sum of their parts, but that might be exposed in the playoffs. Still, they do have Giannis, obviously. Even if I am right it may not matter.

You've always been down on Milwaukee and I'm really not sure why.  They have the best player in the world.  They have a team that is perfectly crafted to support that best player in the world.  They are perhaps the deepest team in the league.  And frankly their two best skill sets are their defense and their shooting and you don't tend to lose your defense and you can get shooting touch back pretty easily.  I expect Milwaukee to be rolling by the time the playoffs start (if not sooner) and really don't think they will be challenged in the East.  The only team I think could give Milwaukee real problems is the Sixers (given their size), but that is only if the Sixers figure it out and I can't see them really figuring it out with what is left of the season (though they are probably going to be fully healthy for the first time).

I willingly concede that I might be wrong on this. I guess I still view the Bucks as a group of outcasts. We saw Bledsoe fall apart in the playoffs. Lopez is a good player, but just a year ago he struggled to get a good contract in the NBA. I think both Matthews and Hill are more washed up than they appear. Middleton is a good player, but I can't get last Team USA tourney out of my head, where he was supposed to be the main guy and struggled greatly on a team that desperately needed him.

The system is great because it hides a lot of these weaknesses, but what if the weaknesses get exposed? For example, they place at a ridiculous pace, but pace slows significantly in the playoffs (normally, but maybe it won't for them). Their defensive numbers have been great, but something seems off about the fact that they give up so many threes.

It's not like I think they are terrible. Giannis is still probably the best player in the world and I really do like a lot of their players. I think they have a great system in place. I just think there are more questions than typical for a team that has dominated so much.

Bledsoe did not play well against Toronto, but I thought he was fine overall against Boston and Detroit.  Now maybe he choked or maybe Toronto just wasn't a great matchup for him.  That seemed to be the case with most of that team after the first 2 games against Toronto though.  The shooters went cold when Giannis was more bottled up when Toronto put Kawhi on Giannis more often.  Now maybe a team can do that to them again this year, but I don't think that team is in the East.  The Raptors just had the right mix of size along with the uber-wing defender.  Boston has the wing defenders, I just don't think they have the size overall needed to deal with the Bucks.  I mean look at last year when Boston had Horford, Baynes, and Morris, they had nothing for Giannis.  I think that is worse this year.  If Boston makes it to Milwaukee, I just don't see how the Celtics win that series (assuming both teams are healthy). Boston has no real answer for Giannis.

I think our struggles last year were due the fact that we couldn't stretch Lopez and their non-Giannis bigs enough that the Bucks were forced to go small with the exception of game 1. I'm pretty optimistic that we'll do that well enough this season with a more cohesive offence and additional perimeter threats to turn the series into a small ball slugfest, and I can see us outgunning the Bucks in that scenario. Obviously the Bucks would still be favoured to win the series (like they were last year against Toronto until they collapsed lol), but I think we have the best shot to take them out in the East.

Horford was 46.4% from 3.  Morris was on fire all series at 55% from 3.  The bigs shooting well and stretching out Lopez and the other bigs, wasn't the problem in that series.  It was the wings and smalls that couldn't hit the broad side of the barn.  And it still doesn't change the fact that Boston has no real answer for Giannis.  Now if Boston shoots lights out all series, then it would have a chance because 3 is worth more than 2, but Milwaukee is such a good defensive team, I just don't think Boston will be able to do that 4 times to win a series against the Bucks.  A game or two, certainly, but 4 over 7 is asking a lot. 

I just don't like how Boston is constructed and haven't all season.  Not nearly enough size to really play well over the course of a series against elite teams.

The wings and smalls not being able to shoot last year gave us exactly that problem last year when we tried to go small against the Bucks, we simply could not tug on their bigs enough in PnRs and DHOs because our ballhandlers cannot shoot at all. And we don't really need to have an answer for Giannis imo, it'll be a contest of who can score more if we go small. I like our chances the most out of any team in the East due to how many weapons we have this year with better chemistry.

[nickagneta]

I'm really struggling to see the relevance of how last year's highly dysfunctional Celtic playoff team, built around a checked-out Kiri Irving (who came as close to blatantly throwing an NBA series as I have ever seen in a player) has anything to do with this year's team.

Not saying this team will go any farther or not.  I just find discussions about the failing of that team to be completely pointless and irrelevant.

There is no question that Irving played awful overall in that series, but so did Tatum, Brown, and Hayward.  And Smart in his 32 minutes was the worst player on the floor basically at all times.  It is easy to blame Irving, but to act like he was the only reason Boston lost is also a very strange thing to do.  You can glean a lot from that series and most of it starts with Boston not being able to stop Giannis and that is with a lot more size last year (and it was quality size in Horford, Morris, and Baynes).  In addition, Milwaukee's small defense was incredible last year and might even be better this year.  I know a lot of this board thinks Irving quit, but I don't.  I just think Milwaukee's defense was incredible.  And I know it is easy to say Irving was shooting to much, but who was he supposed to pass to.  I mean that seriously.  Horford and Morris were the only two Celtics who played well that entire series.  Tatum was worse than Irving in basically every game of the series and Brown wasn't much better (and was worse in some).  Hayward might as well not even bothered to suit up. 

The simple truth is Milwaukee was just better than Boston last year and by all appearances they are just better than Boston this year as well.  I mean, Milwaukee not only has the best player in the series, but also probably has the 2nd best player in the series and is a much deeper, more balanced, and generally more well constructed team.  And it isn't like Budenholzer is a bad coach, he is a good coach.  Stevens may be better, but they are close enough I don't think it would make up the clear talent and roster advantage that Milwaukee has.

Minor quibble. Brown played awfully well in that series.

[Moranis]

I'm really struggling to see the relevance of how last year's highly dysfunctional Celtic playoff team, built around a checked-out Kiri Irving (who came as close to blatantly throwing an NBA series as I have ever seen in a player) has anything to do with this year's team.

Not saying this team will go any farther or not.  I just find discussions about the failing of that team to be completely pointless and irrelevant.

There is no question that Irving played awful overall in that series, but so did Tatum, Brown, and Hayward.  And Smart in his 32 minutes was the worst player on the floor basically at all times.  It is easy to blame Irving, but to act like he was the only reason Boston lost is also a very strange thing to do.  You can glean a lot from that series and most of it starts with Boston not being able to stop Giannis and that is with a lot more size last year (and it was quality size in Horford, Morris, and Baynes).  In addition, Milwaukee's small defense was incredible last year and might even be better this year.  I know a lot of this board thinks Irving quit, but I don't.  I just think Milwaukee's defense was incredible.  And I know it is easy to say Irving was shooting to much, but who was he supposed to pass to.  I mean that seriously.  Horford and Morris were the only two Celtics who played well that entire series.  Tatum was worse than Irving in basically every game of the series and Brown wasn't much better (and was worse in some).  Hayward might as well not even bothered to suit up. 

The simple truth is Milwaukee was just better than Boston last year and by all appearances they are just better than Boston this year as well.  I mean, Milwaukee not only has the best player in the series, but also probably has the 2nd best player in the series and is a much deeper, more balanced, and generally more well constructed team.  And it isn't like Budenholzer is a bad coach, he is a good coach.  Stevens may be better, but they are close enough I don't think it would make up the clear talent and roster advantage that Milwaukee has.

Minor quibble. Brown played awfully well in that series.

Brown was ok.  But he also shot less than 31% from 3 in the series.  He was strong defensively though.  He also had 2 excellent games (game 1 and 3) and 3 games that were subpar, including an awful game 5.  At least he had 2 excellent games, which is better than most. 

[nickagneta]

I'm really struggling to see the relevance of how last year's highly dysfunctional Celtic playoff team, built around a checked-out Kiri Irving (who came as close to blatantly throwing an NBA series as I have ever seen in a player) has anything to do with this year's team.

Not saying this team will go any farther or not.  I just find discussions about the failing of that team to be completely pointless and irrelevant.

There is no question that Irving played awful overall in that series, but so did Tatum, Brown, and Hayward.  And Smart in his 32 minutes was the worst player on the floor basically at all times.  It is easy to blame Irving, but to act like he was the only reason Boston lost is also a very strange thing to do.  You can glean a lot from that series and most of it starts with Boston not being able to stop Giannis and that is with a lot more size last year (and it was quality size in Horford, Morris, and Baynes).  In addition, Milwaukee's small defense was incredible last year and might even be better this year.  I know a lot of this board thinks Irving quit, but I don't.  I just think Milwaukee's defense was incredible.  And I know it is easy to say Irving was shooting to much, but who was he supposed to pass to.  I mean that seriously.  Horford and Morris were the only two Celtics who played well that entire series.  Tatum was worse than Irving in basically every game of the series and Brown wasn't much better (and was worse in some).  Hayward might as well not even bothered to suit up. 

The simple truth is Milwaukee was just better than Boston last year and by all appearances they are just better than Boston this year as well.  I mean, Milwaukee not only has the best player in the series, but also probably has the 2nd best player in the series and is a much deeper, more balanced, and generally more well constructed team.  And it isn't like Budenholzer is a bad coach, he is a good coach.  Stevens may be better, but they are close enough I don't think it would make up the clear talent and roster advantage that Milwaukee has.

Minor quibble. Brown played awfully well in that series.

Brown was ok.  But he also shot less than 31% from 3 in the series.  He was strong defensively though.  He also had 2 excellent games (game 1 and 3) and 3 games that were subpar, including an awful game 5.  At least he had 2 excellent games, which is better than most.

Brown was much better than okay.

16.2 points
5 rebounds
1.4 assists
1 steal
46.6/30.8/90.5 shooting splits with a 60.2TS%
Great defense

If Brown doesn't go 0-5 from three in game 5 he would have much better 3 pt% due to the small sample size.

Brown played great, along with Horford and Morris, in that series. The rest of the team sucked.

[Hoopvortex]

I'm really struggling to see the relevance of how last year's highly dysfunctional Celtic playoff team, built around a checked-out Kiri Irving (who came as close to blatantly throwing an NBA series as I have ever seen in a player) has anything to do with this year's team.

Not saying this team will go any farther or not.  I just find discussions about the failing of that team to be completely pointless and irrelevant.

There is no question that Irving played awful overall in that series, but so did Tatum, Brown, and Hayward.  And Smart in his 32 minutes was the worst player on the floor basically at all times.  It is easy to blame Irving, but to act like he was the only reason Boston lost is also a very strange thing to do.  You can glean a lot from that series and most of it starts with Boston not being able to stop Giannis and that is with a lot more size last year (and it was quality size in Horford, Morris, and Baynes).  In addition, Milwaukee's small defense was incredible last year and might even be better this year.  I know a lot of this board thinks Irving quit, but I don't.  I just think Milwaukee's defense was incredible.  And I know it is easy to say Irving was shooting to much, but who was he supposed to pass to.  I mean that seriously.  Horford and Morris were the only two Celtics who played well that entire series.  Tatum was worse than Irving in basically every game of the series and Brown wasn't much better (and was worse in some).  Hayward might as well not even bothered to suit up. 

The simple truth is Milwaukee was just better than Boston last year and by all appearances they are just better than Boston this year as well.  I mean, Milwaukee not only has the best player in the series, but also probably has the 2nd best player in the series and is a much deeper, more balanced, and generally more well constructed team.  And it isn't like Budenholzer is a bad coach, he is a good coach.  Stevens may be better, but they are close enough I don't think it would make up the clear talent and roster advantage that Milwaukee has.

Minor quibble. Brown played awfully well in that series.

Brown was ok.  But he also shot less than 31% from 3 in the series.  He was strong defensively though.  He also had 2 excellent games (game 1 and 3) and 3 games that were subpar, including an awful game 5.  At least he had 2 excellent games, which is better than most.

Brown was much better than okay.

16.2 points
5 rebounds
1.4 assists
1 steal
46.6/30.8/90.5 shooting splits with a 60.2TS%
Great defense

If Brown doesn't go 0-5 from three in game 5 he would have much better 3 pt% due to the small sample size.

Brown played great, along with Horford and Morris, in that series. The rest of the team sucked.

Especially impressive was how much he got to the line, and his clutch FT shooting (19/21).

I think we really ought to retire the FG% stat. In today’s game it just confuses the real picture; Jaylen’s FG% in this series is a prime example. He shot .594 from 2, which is red-hot.

[Somebody]

Especially impressive was how much he got to the line, and his clutch FT shooting (19/21).

I think we really ought to retire the FG% stat. In today’s game it just confuses the real picture; Jaylen’s FG% in this series is a prime example. He shot .594 from 2, which is red-hot.

Absolutely, FG%, PER, EWA and probably some others that I've forgotten should be retired. The craze about statistics somehow just being those numbers so we should disregard every statistic in favour of accolades and narratives is simply insane: those statistics are incredibly poor at capturing what they aim to approximate.

[mmmmm]

I'm really struggling to see the relevance of how last year's highly dysfunctional Celtic playoff team, built around a checked-out Kiri Irving (who came as close to blatantly throwing an NBA series as I have ever seen in a player) has anything to do with this year's team.

Not saying this team will go any farther or not.  I just find discussions about the failing of that team to be completely pointless and irrelevant.

There is no question that Irving played awful overall in that series, but so did Tatum, Brown, and Hayward.  And Smart in his 32 minutes was the worst player on the floor basically at all times.  It is easy to blame Irving, but to act like he was the only reason Boston lost is also a very strange thing to do.  You can glean a lot from that series and most of it starts with Boston not being able to stop Giannis and that is with a lot more size last year (and it was quality size in Horford, Morris, and Baynes).  In addition, Milwaukee's small defense was incredible last year and might even be better this year.  I know a lot of this board thinks Irving quit, but I don't.  I just think Milwaukee's defense was incredible.  And I know it is easy to say Irving was shooting to much, but who was he supposed to pass to.  I mean that seriously.  Horford and Morris were the only two Celtics who played well that entire series.  Tatum was worse than Irving in basically every game of the series and Brown wasn't much better (and was worse in some).  Hayward might as well not even bothered to suit up. 

The simple truth is Milwaukee was just better than Boston last year and by all appearances they are just better than Boston this year as well.  I mean, Milwaukee not only has the best player in the series, but also probably has the 2nd best player in the series and is a much deeper, more balanced, and generally more well constructed team.  And it isn't like Budenholzer is a bad coach, he is a good coach.  Stevens may be better, but they are close enough I don't think it would make up the clear talent and roster advantage that Milwaukee has.

Minor quibble. Brown played awfully well in that series.

Brown was ok.  But he also shot less than 31% from 3 in the series.  He was strong defensively though.  He also had 2 excellent games (game 1 and 3) and 3 games that were subpar, including an awful game 5.  At least he had 2 excellent games, which is better than most.

Brown was much better than okay.

16.2 points
5 rebounds
1.4 assists
1 steal
46.6/30.8/90.5 shooting splits with a 60.2TS%
Great defense

If Brown doesn't go 0-5 from three in game 5 he would have much better 3 pt% due to the small sample size.

Brown played great, along with Horford and Morris, in that series. The rest of the team sucked.

Exactly.  Plain truth.

I'd also argue that a lot of the 'suck' of much of the rest of the team was due very much to the absolutely beyond suck play of the primary ball handler  - who not only constantly killed the offense with his horrid play but also preceded to kill the defense again and again with one horrible decision after another - whether it was being too slow & lazy to get up the court to covering the wrong man and even on more than one occasion deliberately waiving off better defenders so he could 'take' Giannis.   This is not exaggeration - go back and watch that horror show.

Hayward had played fantastic ball for the last couple of months of the season and through he first round of those playoffs ... and then barely touched the ball in that MIL series as KI simply would not pass him the ball.   The touch / ball possession metrics in that series were very stark and telling.  Kyrie went from being his normal modest ball-possession type of PG to an absolute John-Wall-esque ball-hog.

By far, the absolute worst playoff performance I've ever seen from a 'star' and the closest I have ever seen to what looked like someone deliberately trying to throw an NBA series.

[footey]

I'm really struggling to see the relevance of how last year's highly dysfunctional Celtic playoff team, built around a checked-out Kiri Irving (who came as close to blatantly throwing an NBA series as I have ever seen in a player) has anything to do with this year's team.

Not saying this team will go any farther or not.  I just find discussions about the failing of that team to be completely pointless and irrelevant.

There is no question that Irving played awful overall in that series, but so did Tatum, Brown, and Hayward.  And Smart in his 32 minutes was the worst player on the floor basically at all times.  It is easy to blame Irving, but to act like he was the only reason Boston lost is also a very strange thing to do.  You can glean a lot from that series and most of it starts with Boston not being able to stop Giannis and that is with a lot more size last year (and it was quality size in Horford, Morris, and Baynes).  In addition, Milwaukee's small defense was incredible last year and might even be better this year.  I know a lot of this board thinks Irving quit, but I don't.  I just think Milwaukee's defense was incredible.  And I know it is easy to say Irving was shooting to much, but who was he supposed to pass to.  I mean that seriously.  Horford and Morris were the only two Celtics who played well that entire series.  Tatum was worse than Irving in basically every game of the series and Brown wasn't much better (and was worse in some).  Hayward might as well not even bothered to suit up. 

The simple truth is Milwaukee was just better than Boston last year and by all appearances they are just better than Boston this year as well.  I mean, Milwaukee not only has the best player in the series, but also probably has the 2nd best player in the series and is a much deeper, more balanced, and generally more well constructed team.  And it isn't like Budenholzer is a bad coach, he is a good coach.  Stevens may be better, but they are close enough I don't think it would make up the clear talent and roster advantage that Milwaukee has.

Minor quibble. Brown played awfully well in that series.

Brown was ok.  But he also shot less than 31% from 3 in the series.  He was strong defensively though.  He also had 2 excellent games (game 1 and 3) and 3 games that were subpar, including an awful game 5.  At least he had 2 excellent games, which is better than most.

Brown was much better than okay.

16.2 points
5 rebounds
1.4 assists
1 steal
46.6/30.8/90.5 shooting splits with a 60.2TS%
Great defense

If Brown doesn't go 0-5 from three in game 5 he would have much better 3 pt% due to the small sample size.

Brown played great, along with Horford and Morris, in that series. The rest of the team sucked.

Exactly.  Plain truth.

I'd also argue that a lot of the 'suck' of much of the rest of the team was due very much to the absolutely beyond suck play of the primary ball handler  - who not only constantly killed the offense with his horrid play but also preceded to kill the defense again and again with one horrible decision after another - whether it was being too slow & lazy to get up the court to covering the wrong man and even on more than one occasion deliberately waiving off better defenders so he could 'take' Giannis.   This is not exaggeration - go back and watch that horror show.

Hayward had played fantastic ball for the last couple of months of the season and through he first round of those playoffs ... and then barely touched the ball in that MIL series as KI simply would not pass him the ball.   The touch / ball possession metrics in that series were very stark and telling.  Kyrie went from being his normal modest ball-possession type of PG to an absolute John-Wall-esque ball-hog.

By far, the absolute worst playoff performance I've ever seen from a 'star' and the closest I have ever seen to what looked like someone deliberately trying to throw an NBA series.

preach bro.