"The Celtics are learning to deal with their own mortality."

[drza44]

I'll need to see more evidence before I buy into the minutes played argument.  Thus far, most of the support that I've seen on the topic doesn't do anything to separate minutes played from age.  Yes, most people that have played as many minutes as KG were on their last legs...but they were also close to 40.  You're correct that we'll have a better idea after this generation of players passes, but I don't know that this is enough to really suggest any viability to the theory.

That said, I'm one that believes that all of the talk about the decline/demise of the Cs has been dramatically premature.  I think the playoffs will give us a much better indication about where these guys are than the regular season, as there will be no more checks/limits/"let's-stay-healthy"s in place.  The end of the regular season almost can't get here fast enough for me.

[ssspence]

That quote is courtesy of Jackie MacMullen who was being interviewed on Sports Tonight. When asked if LeBron was right about being bored, Jackie went into a pretty significant denial of LeBron's comments. She said that when she was in the locker room after much of their losses where the Celtics had blown leads that the tone was anger and exasperation. She said if they were bored there would have been more of an apathetic attitude.

She said the problem with the Celtics this year and the reason they have taken so long to get it together is because after being hurt or banged up and coming back and realizing that their bodies don't heal like they used to or that they can't regain what they once had as quickly the Celtics tried to push it too much. They had to come to grips with aging bodies and elevation and explosion that isn't there all the time.

"The Celtics are learning to deal with their own mortality."

That was an exact quote with the rest being mostly paraphrasing. But I think she's absolutely right. She mentioned Paul Pierce coming out and now stating that he did indeed come back too soon and that Chauncey Billups, who was in constant contact with KG this year, derided KG for coming back as soon as he did and not taking more time off.

This team is starting to realize their new limitations and how to play within them and how those new limits effect the other players around them. Ray is starting to realize he isn't always going to have it as a three point shooter but when he does he has to shoot it and when he doesn't he has to create points elsewhere. KG has to realize that he can't elevate like he used to as often as he used to and preserve that explosion for certain times and use his body more in boxing out. Pierce has to learn just how much explosion he has left and harness it accordingly to make him as dangerous as he can.

It's about knowing they are older and more limited and learning to maximize their games within those limitations. Less intelligent and savy veterans could spend years fighting their way through these things but our Big Three are doing it in less than half a season. I think that bodes well for this team as instead of trying to find old chemistry and replicate it, they are making new chemistry that can be molded around their new limitations and using that knowledge to extract more of what they need as a team from the others they play with.

The more I think about it, coming to grips with the mortality of your athletic life so quickly and succeeding in transforming themselves, the more impressed I am and the more credit I give them as Hall of Famers and Doc as a coach that allowed them the time and patience and had the trust in them to do so in the span of one half season.

If this team wins it all, I think all three will cement their place in Celtic lore as one of the greatest Celtics teams over an era ever. To do something like that so quickly in today's NBA and come away a champion is something special indeed.

TP, PLamb.

[wiley]

Wiley, I don't know how old you are but let me assure you aging has nothing to do with being tired when it comes to pro sports. It has to do with recovery times both from playing games and recovering from injuries. It has to do with muscle and tendons not having the same strength power and explosion they once had. It has to do with the body not responding to what the brain wants it to do. It has to do with an overall erosion of body, mind and skills.

Once NBA players get past the age of 31 to 32, on average, they begin to decline because they are past their peak physical performance and ability. Taking time off and playing fewer minutes helps to maximize those continuing to erode capabilities. And recovering from injures, injuries you are more prone to due to....well I'll let the doctors deal with explaining that....aging, is a part of aging and decline.

I think your view is a bit off if you think that the Big Three are not in decline in any way and are just recovering from injury. Personally I think both are occurring though in varying amounts for each player.

Yes Nick, I think I put too much percentage of decline into tiredness as oppposed to actual bodily breakdown, which are often completely different issues.  At a certain age, players have to start relying on smarts more than explosiveness, etc...

And energizer bunnies are good examples of those who eventually quit to due to poor quality of play as opposed to being too tired to go on.  

But tired is a major issue, too.  A heck of lot of tennis players retire, while still dominating the sport, due to complete burnout as opposed to busted knees, elbows, etc..  Burnout can happen quickly when the effort it takes to win suddenly doubles, then quadruples, etc..due to simple aging.  At that point, tired is an issue, and losing, the player recognizes, is right around the corner....

I do believe decline of all types happens and is inevitable at some point.  If it weren't, a trade KG this offseason thread would result in chinese water torture for the one proposing such an idea....Not sure a GM ever got fired for trading a 34 year old.  

So If people, in talking about KG's "decline", are talking about his knee, then I can't argue with them (when it's an old man's injury we talk about age, when it's a young man's injury we talk about luck, which is natural, slower recovery for the aged, fear of the end, etc..)....What I don't like is the sense I get that they are not talking about KG's knee, as it is so often written:  KG's knee injury and decline.  This I do have a problem with.  How can you measure a decline in his play when he was in peak form at the time of injury (just one year ago)

"Tired" is something that can imo relate to decline significantly, via minutes played  in a career (as you pointed out), number of playoff minutes played, and intensity of one's play (KG verses Sheed....I don't see Sheed injuring himself any time soon).  In other words, tired in the sense of burned out.  And I think exhaustion can lead to injury.  

So while decline, as you say, is certainly there in a general sense for anyone in their 30's, I think it's used a bit too freely, and I would argue for saving it for players who aren't clearly dealing with an injury....I really do believe that injuries prevent a sound analysis of decline.

In KG's case, I would have had to see decline before his injury in order to cal it decline now, as I said, just one year later....

[wiley]

I'll need to see more evidence before I buy into the minutes played argument.  Thus far, most of the support that I've seen on the topic doesn't do anything to separate minutes played from age.  Yes, most people that have played as many minutes as KG were on their last legs...but they were also close to 40.  You're correct that we'll have a better idea after this generation of players passes, but I don't know that this is enough to really suggest any viability to the theory.

That said, I'm one that believes that all of the talk about the decline/demise of the Cs has been dramatically premature.  I think the playoffs will give us a much better indication about where these guys are than the regular season, as there will be no more checks/limits/"let's-stay-healthy"s in place.  The end of the regular season almost can't get here fast enough for me.

To me the minutes played argument is going to be hard to prove.  That's because each individual is different.  Look at Nolan Ryan verses pre-steroid Clemens.

I think some players, and I think KG is one of them, are designed (biologically) to play unlimited minutes in their career without fatigue becoming a major factor.  Injury could get him (basketball certainly brings out the injuries and requires nearly perfect knees, feet, etc..) but not fatigue.  KG is a Nolan Ryan type imo.  They have the gift of energy.  Others not so much.  For that reason imo KG's retirement age (barring major injury) is going to be very hard to predict (if he were in baseball I'd say 50).

[nickagneta]

Wiley, I don't know how old you are but let me assure you aging has nothing to do with being tired when it comes to pro sports. It has to do with recovery times both from playing games and recovering from injuries. It has to do with muscle and tendons not having the same strength power and explosion they once had. It has to do with the body not responding to what the brain wants it to do. It has to do with an overall erosion of body, mind and skills.

Once NBA players get past the age of 31 to 32, on average, they begin to decline because they are past their peak physical performance and ability. Taking time off and playing fewer minutes helps to maximize those continuing to erode capabilities. And recovering from injures, injuries you are more prone to due to....well I'll let the doctors deal with explaining that....aging, is a part of aging and decline.

I think your view is a bit off if you think that the Big Three are not in decline in any way and are just recovering from injury. Personally I think both are occurring though in varying amounts for each player.

Yes Nick, I think I put too much percentage of decline into tiredness as oppposed to actual bodily breakdown, which are often completely different issues.  At a certain age, players have to start relying on smarts more than explosiveness, etc...

And energizer bunnies are good examples of those who eventually quit to due to poor quality of play as opposed to being too tired to go on.  

But tired is a major issue, too.  A heck of lot of tennis players retire, while still dominating the sport, due to complete burnout as opposed to busted knees, elbows, etc..  Burnout can happen quickly when the effort it takes to win suddenly doubles, then quadruples, etc..due to simple aging.  At that point, tired is an issue, and losing, the player recognizes, is right around the corner....

I do believe decline of all types happens and is inevitable at some point.  If it weren't, a trade KG this offseason thread would result in chinese water torture for the one proposing such an idea....Not sure a GM ever got fired for trading a 34 year old.  

So If people, in talking about KG's "decline", are talking about his knee, then I can't argue with them (when it's an old man's injury we talk about age, when it's a young man's injury we talk about luck, which is natural, slower recovery for the aged, fear of the end, etc..)....What I don't like is the sense I get that they are not talking about KG's knee, as it is so often written:  KG's knee injury and decline.  This I do have a problem with.  How can you measure a decline in his play when he was in peak form at the time of injury (just one year ago)

"Tired" is something that can imo relate to decline significantly, via minutes played  in a career (as you pointed out), number of playoff minutes played, and intensity of one's play (KG verses Sheed....I don't see Sheed injuring himself any time soon).  In other words, tired in the sense of burned out.  And I think exhaustion can lead to injury.  

So while decline, as you say, is certainly there in a general sense for anyone in their 30's, I think it's used a bit too freely, and I would argue for saving it for players who aren't clearly dealing with an injury....I really do believe that injuries prevent a sound analysis of decline.

In KG's case, I would have had to see decline before his injury in order to cal it decline now, as I said, just one year later....

Thanks wiley, that clarifies things better for me regarding your point. TP.

The thing with KG that is tough to decipher whether his injury is because of age or bad luck or whether his recent worse play is due to rehabilitation from injury or overall decline is that, clearly his stats have declined significantly since he came to the Celtics. Now a great deal of that is reduced minutes and a sacrifice of his overall game to fit into the team concept with other superstars.

But visual observation tells me that some of that has also been from decline. I think the injury could be both age and bad luck. I think his decline of stats could be both sacrificing for the greater good as well as a declining and aging skill set. I think his inconsistencies and lack of former superlative play could be both rehab from and injury and decline.

I don't think it is mutually exclusive on one side of the point of view or the other but a combination of both. To what degree? That is clearly debatable.

[looseball]

You can get injured any time, whether you're old or young.  The difference is: when you're young they can fix you up and you're good as new; whereas, when you're old they can't make you good as new any more.  The older guys have to make adjustments to compensate.

[Neurotic Guy]

Old is relative.

First, biology makes it relative.  30-somethings year olds can be solid as all get-out (read: Ray Allen, Reggie Miller, Robert Parrish) while 20-somethings can be brittle (read: Andrew Bynum and Greg Oden).  But, of course, we generalize and  see that there is a tendency for more guys to break down at 33 than 23 and therefore we can surmise that age is, or will be a factor, sooner rather than later for our 30-somethings.

With that said, and with the great unknown of the toll of NBA minutes on a body, I do not discount a 34 year old's ability to heal and get back close to new -- especially when we are talking about finely tuned professional athletes who have cared obsessively about their physical fitness.  I can tell you that I (after having logged zero NBA minutes), had some knee problems in my early 40's.  Paying some attention to the breakdown, I was able to revitalize the knees and I would say my knees are about where they were in my late 20's now (and I'm 51).  How do I know? I really don't -- but I have played in the same b-ball game since my late 20's on the same court and I know I can jump as high now as then, I know I can run as long and hard, and I think I can run almost as fast.  I can guarantee, BTW, that my shot is no worse (it's always been terrible). 

Anyway -- 34 year old KG may indeed be impacted by all those minutes, but he's still a young man, and he might be able to get pretty close to where he was.  I still hope for 95% -- we'll need it.
 

[twinbree]

The decline question is an interesting one and personally I think the age issue for the Big 3 is less a decline problem  but rather the harder recovery process. And more than the them understanding their own limitations I think it is important for the team doctors and the coaches to do so too to make life easier for them.

Ray post-deadline has looked good so I think his problems before were mostly mental. He's been aggressive offensively all season and lately has been looking very active on defense to me. KG looks to be working back something I think will be a season long process or more judging by how long Ray said it took to get over his own bone spurs surgery. Paul has played at a very high level when he's been healthy. To me the person who is clearly in a decline is Sheed. Its amazing how much worse his movement looks compared to last season and he wasn't exactly nimble then.

Great insight. TP for sharing. MacMullen is one of the few on ESPN whose work I admire.

[Mr October]

Nice Topic, Nick.

Jackie MacMullen is my favorite basketball analyst. Freaking great observation.

[drza44]

The thing with KG that is tough to decipher whether his injury is because of age or bad luck or whether his recent worse play is due to rehabilitation from injury or overall decline is that, clearly his stats have declined significantly since he came to the Celtics. Now a great deal of that is reduced minutes and a sacrifice of his overall game to fit into the team concept with other superstars.

But visual observation tells me that some of that has also been from decline. I think the injury could be both age and bad luck. I think his decline of stats could be both sacrificing for the greater good as well as a declining and aging skill set. I think his inconsistencies and lack of former superlative play could be both rehab from and injury and decline.

I don't think it is mutually exclusive on one side of the point of view or the other but a combination of both. To what degree? That is clearly debatable.

The question is complicated because KG is kind of a perfect storm of 3 different issues:

1) Age vs minutes for decline
2) How do you evaluate his quality of play?
3) How do you measure "pacing self" in regular season?

We've touched a bit on the first one, but what about the second one?  Usually, people rely on their eye test and the box scores to make player evaluations, but (especially since coming to Boston) KG might be the player that most defies those methods. 

His box score stats went from "MVP caliber" to "good secondary player" when he came to Boston, then went to "really good role player" for each of the last 2 years.

Everyone's eye test is different, but most people are trained to naturally look at scoring and blocks/steals as impact plays, but again KG has spent a lot more energy on non-boxscore/visually noticeable things (like locking up his man and/or profviding rotational help defense, or setting lots of picks/facillitating ball movement on offense)...but does him doing that more indicate a decline or a decision?

The advanced stats seem to me to do the best job in evaluating impact beyond the box scores and fine-tuning the eye test...but everyone doesn't buy them.  According to the cross-section of advanced stats out there, KG went from MVP-caliber ('07) to MVP-caliber ('08) to best-player-on-elite-team ('09) to best-player-on-whatever-we-are ('10).  That seems to me to be a more accurate representation of his impact than the box scores and the eye test, but again not everyone subscribes to them.

And none of that is even touching on how to measure pacing oneself and/or trying to peak at the right time, something that definitely older players do more than younger but don't necessarily change their caliber once the post season begins.

All of that is a long way to say what I said earlier...I think the news of the Cs decline (and KG's in specific) has been over-stated and I really look forward to the postseason to get a bit more evidence one way or the other as to whether my theory holds any merit.

[LarBrd33]

Less intelligent and savy veterans could spend years fighting their way through these things but our Big Three are doing it in less than half a season. I think that bodes well for this team as instead of trying to find old chemistry and replicate it, they are making new chemistry that can be molded around their new limitations and using that knowledge to extract more of what they need as a team from the others they play with.

You think so?  Sounds pretty optimistic.  To me it seems they are failing at creating this new chemistry... unless you're all worked up about 3 good wins in 4 attempts.  This team isn't at that level anymore. 

And btw... I absolutely do not buy the "bored" thing.  The Celtics aren't "bored" when they are getting owned by the Lakers, Cavs and Magic.  They are just losing.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Less intelligent and savy veterans could spend years fighting their way through these things but our Big Three are doing it in less than half a season. I think that bodes well for this team as instead of trying to find old chemistry and replicate it, they are making new chemistry that can be molded around their new limitations and using that knowledge to extract more of what they need as a team from the others they play with.

You think so?  Sounds pretty optimistic.  To me it seems they are failing at creating this new chemistry... unless you're all worked up about 3 good wins in 4 attempts.

Is that really all you're seeing? Has the progress since the All-Star break meant nothing? Has Garnett getting healthier day by day meant nothing? Has Pierce getting healthier day by day mean nothing, to the point of being completely dominant for the last 5 games or so? Has Ray Allen re-finding his shot for the last month and a half meant nothing?

I don't know, but for the last month or so we've had much more than "3 good wins in 4 attempts". Clearly we've hit some lows during the past 2 months or so, but in General there's been abundance of forward movement and improvement. All leading towards what I hope, and should be, peaking towards the playoffs.

[BballTim]

Less intelligent and savy veterans could spend years fighting their way through these things but our Big Three are doing it in less than half a season. I think that bodes well for this team as instead of trying to find old chemistry and replicate it, they are making new chemistry that can be molded around their new limitations and using that knowledge to extract more of what they need as a team from the others they play with.

You think so?  Sounds pretty optimistic.  To me it seems they are failing at creating this new chemistry... unless you're all worked up about 3 good wins in 4 attempts.  This team isn't at that level anymore. 

And btw... I absolutely do not buy the "bored" thing.  The Celtics aren't "bored" when they are getting owned by the Lakers, Cavs and Magic.  They are just losing.

  It's quite a stretch to say that the Lakers owned us.

  I don't think bored is the right word, but I think that they don't view the regular season the way we do. They're probably looking at it like getting ready for the postseason while we're looking at each game as a measuring stick against that particular opponent. They do have some chemistry type of issues to work through. I'm not saying at all that the team wasn't trying at all.

  Just that they didn't view the four regular season losses to Atlanta as a sign that we have no hope of beating them in the playoffs like many here did. They knew that they weren't at full strength and that Paul and KG would get healthier and play better barring further injuries. People here were convinced that both were done as effective players, and that it wasn't even debatable.

[Mr October]

Less intelligent and savy veterans could spend years fighting their way through these things but our Big Three are doing it in less than half a season. I think that bodes well for this team as instead of trying to find old chemistry and replicate it, they are making new chemistry that can be molded around their new limitations and using that knowledge to extract more of what they need as a team from the others they play with.

You think so?  Sounds pretty optimistic.  To me it seems they are failing at creating this new chemistry... unless you're all worked up about 3 good wins in 4 attempts.  This team isn't at that level anymore. 

And btw... I absolutely do not buy the "bored" thing.  The Celtics aren't "bored" when they are getting owned by the Lakers, Cavs and Magic.  They are just losing.

  It's quite a stretch to say that the Lakers owned us.

  I don't think bored is the right word, but I think that they don't view the regular season the way we do. They're probably looking at it like getting ready for the postseason while we're looking at each game as a measuring stick against that particular opponent. They do have some chemistry type of issues to work through. I'm not saying at all that the team wasn't trying at all.

  Just that they didn't view the four regular season losses to Atlanta as a sign that we have no hope of beating them in the playoffs like many here did. They knew that they weren't at full strength and that Paul and KG would get healthier and play better barring further injuries. People here were convinced that both were done as effective players, and that it wasn't even debatable.

Yeah, the Celtics have rarely been able to go up against the other contenders when the 2 big guns (Pierce and KG) were at relatively full strength.

We're gonna see and learn a lot about this team in a month when the post season starts.

[BballTim]

Less intelligent and savy veterans could spend years fighting their way through these things but our Big Three are doing it in less than half a season. I think that bodes well for this team as instead of trying to find old chemistry and replicate it, they are making new chemistry that can be molded around their new limitations and using that knowledge to extract more of what they need as a team from the others they play with.

You think so?  Sounds pretty optimistic.  To me it seems they are failing at creating this new chemistry... unless you're all worked up about 3 good wins in 4 attempts.  This team isn't at that level anymore. 

And btw... I absolutely do not buy the "bored" thing.  The Celtics aren't "bored" when they are getting owned by the Lakers, Cavs and Magic.  They are just losing.

  It's quite a stretch to say that the Lakers owned us.

  I don't think bored is the right word, but I think that they don't view the regular season the way we do. They're probably looking at it like getting ready for the postseason while we're looking at each game as a measuring stick against that particular opponent. They do have some chemistry type of issues to work through. I'm not saying at all that the team wasn't trying at all.

  Just that they didn't view the four regular season losses to Atlanta as a sign that we have no hope of beating them in the playoffs like many here did. They knew that they weren't at full strength and that Paul and KG would get healthier and play better barring further injuries. People here were convinced that both were done as effective players, and that it wasn't even debatable.

Yeah, the Celtics have rarely been able to go up against the other contenders when the 2 big guns (Pierce and KG) were at relatively full strength.

We're gonna see and learn a lot about this team in a month when the post season starts.

  Even then I don't think that they really view these games as life or death to their long term prospects like people here do. Look at, for instance, the 2 point loss to Orlando. We were losing a lot of games right around that time, KG had just come back, and many people here thought that we were absolutely desperate for a win. We got up by 10-15 points in the first half and they're playing like a team that's up 30 in the 4th quarter. Paul and Ray trying Rondo-type passes, Rondo putting on a show, Same with KG and Perk. They looked about as far from a team that desperately needed a win to restore their confidence as you'll see.