The Celtics do not care about January! READ ON

[ssspence]

when guys look visably tired or injured, and physically slow, it's not about caring. they get run out of the gym by young teams and outworked by veteran teams.

could they 'turn it on' in the playoffs? it's possible. but i'd challenge you to list a team like the Cs (injured and aged) who has done some. there are very few, and the mentality in and off itself will likely bury this team if it's in fact their m.o.

[action781]

I think that its true.  Think of past Januarys in the big 3 era.  We had that stretch of losing 3/4 in '08 then lost a couple later games.  Then we had that 4 game losing streak in January of '09 too.  In the last 2 years, those are the only 2 regular season times of struggle that stick out in my mind.  Granted this one seems more serious, I still think its just a lull in effort because of the grind. 

My only question is, why January and not December?  I don't konw.  But it seems to be consistent over the years in January.

[vinnie]

I think that its true.  Think of past Januarys in the big 3 era.  We had that stretch of losing 3/4 in '08 then lost a couple later games.  Then we had that 4 game losing streak in January of '09 too.  In the last 2 years, those are the only 2 regular season times of struggle that stick out in my mind.  Granted this one seems more serious, I still think its just a lull in effort because of the grind. 

My only question is, why January and not December?  I don't konw.  But it seems to be consistent over the years in January.

Unfortunately, the Olrando loss Sunday was in February, so as I stated earlier, maybe they don't care about February either. This theory holds no water.

[ducksawce]

I think everyone who vehemently disagrees with this post has TOTALLY misinterpreted what is being said here.

I also think that perhaps the point being made by GranTur may be correct...but the explanation for it was not

The Celtics have played PHENOMENAL 1st halves against all the good teams (Atlanta, LA, Orlando, Dallas).  They did so because Rondo was running the show, and the Big 3 got good, easy looks.  The important point here is that the Big 3 never tried to do everything on their own in the first halves.

The second halves have been mirror images of the first halves.  Where did Rondo go?  Instead, the Big 3 tried to get everything done on their own.

This in itself (as an idea) is not a bad thing.  Everyone always harps on the fact that "the Big 3 have to get going".  True.  But each one of them has tried to get it going by themselves. 

The point being made by GranTur is that the Celtics haven't treated these games as if they were worth 100% efforts.  100% effort would mean Rondo running the show, and the Big 3 not worrying about "getting it started".  Not running 100% means the team deviates from the best strategy for winning...instead, taking a chance on getting the Big 3 started.  Lately, that hasn't semed to pay off.

In the playoffs, if the Big 3 won't be able to "get it started" then they WILL defer to Rondo as the playmaker for the whole game.  Until then, they will experiment with what is possible in their own individual games.  Again, this is not a bad thing, but it is making us lose.  Until these games count in elimination rounds, we will just have to watch these guys experiment.  It doesn't mean they don't care, it just means the Big 3 are experimenting with a new team heirarchy.

[Jon]

Well, I wouldn't totally dismiss the idea that the OP stated.  Shaq clearly took large parts of the regular season off en route to championships, and the Spurs didn't exactly kill themselves in the regular season either. 

Still, I think the bigger point is that there really isn't a reason to think that they can't get back to the way they were the first 1/3 of the season.  People act as if the last time this team played well was two years ago, when in reality it was two months ago.  It isn't age that's keeping this team from winning; it's something else. 

And it's certainly possible for them to fix that by playoff time.  Sports history is absolutely riddled with examples of teams that looked great at the All Star break and went south in the playoffs: think the of the Sox and Yankees this past year.  The Sox looked like the team to beat and the Yankees looked done; then the Sox get swept out of the playoffs and the Yankees win it all. 

While the NBA season isn't as long; it's still quite long.  It's very, very possible the C's get hot again.  And if they do, the rest of the league better look out. 

[jdpapa3]

Well, I wouldn't totally dismiss the idea that the OP stated.  Shaq clearly took large parts of the regular season off en route to championships, and the Spurs didn't exactly kill themselves in the regular season either. 

Still, I think the bigger point is that there really isn't a reason to think that they can't get back to the way they were the first 1/3 of the season.  People act as if the last time this team played well was two years ago, when in reality it was two months ago.  It isn't age that's keeping this team from winning; it's something else. 

And it's certainly possible for them to fix that by playoff time.  Sports history is absolutely riddled with examples of teams that looked great at the All Star break and went south in the playoffs: think the of the Sox and Yankees this past year.  The Sox looked like the team to beat and the Yankees looked done; then the Sox get swept out of the playoffs and the Yankees win it all. 

While the NBA season isn't as long; it's still quite long.  It's very, very possible the C's get hot again.  And if they do, the rest of the league better look out. 

Great, great post Jon. Earlier this season, this team looked like the best team in the league for 2 months. It's like this time period was "men in black" flashed from people's memories around here.



McHale (champion)

"(The Celtics) are ok right now, they are getting where they want to be," he said. "When you get to the age where Kevin Garnett is, and Paul Pierce, and Ray Allen is, it’s always going to be after the All-Star break. You do pace yourself. When you’re 22 or 23 you’re out there going gung ho, you have no idea what you’re doing anyway. You’re playing on energy and running around.

"As you get older you start conserving your energy and you start to realize you can be 40-10 at the All-Star break. If you play poorly down the stretch and don’t get in the playoffs on a roll, healthy and playing well, it doesn’t make any difference. I think they are pacing themselves. When you are a jump shooter, it comes and goes, it’s hard, I can’t imagine being a jump shooter and relying on that shot all the time. I always liked when Ray would drive a little more and get fouled and get free throws; he’s such a good free throw shooter, but as you get older that gets harder to do. Doing that for 82 games is very hard. Is he getting longer in the tooth? Yeah, but that’s what happens.

[PosImpos]

Well, I wouldn't totally dismiss the idea that the OP stated.  Shaq clearly took large parts of the regular season off en route to championships, and the Spurs didn't exactly kill themselves in the regular season either. 

Still, I think the bigger point is that there really isn't a reason to think that they can't get back to the way they were the first 1/3 of the season.  People act as if the last time this team played well was two years ago, when in reality it was two months ago.  It isn't age that's keeping this team from winning; it's something else. 

And it's certainly possible for them to fix that by playoff time.  Sports history is absolutely riddled with examples of teams that looked great at the All Star break and went south in the playoffs: think the of the Sox and Yankees this past year.  The Sox looked like the team to beat and the Yankees looked done; then the Sox get swept out of the playoffs and the Yankees win it all. 

While the NBA season isn't as long; it's still quite long.  It's very, very possible the C's get hot again.  And if they do, the rest of the league better look out. 

I'm not so sure baseball is a good analogy.  They play so many games that you can go on a 10 (heck, even 15 or 20) game losing streak during the regular season and still end up with a great record.  You can play awful for long stretches and still have lots of time to "put it together." 

Plus, baseball is much less of a team sport than basketball.  It's a game of matchups.  If your hitters start hitting better and your pitchers put it together, then suddenly your team becomes a lot better.  That's why the Yankees can just buy up good free agents every year and do well.  In basketball, team chemistry matters so much more.

[Jon]

Well, I wouldn't totally dismiss the idea that the OP stated.  Shaq clearly took large parts of the regular season off en route to championships, and the Spurs didn't exactly kill themselves in the regular season either. 

Still, I think the bigger point is that there really isn't a reason to think that they can't get back to the way they were the first 1/3 of the season.  People act as if the last time this team played well was two years ago, when in reality it was two months ago.  It isn't age that's keeping this team from winning; it's something else. 

And it's certainly possible for them to fix that by playoff time.  Sports history is absolutely riddled with examples of teams that looked great at the All Star break and went south in the playoffs: think the of the Sox and Yankees this past year.  The Sox looked like the team to beat and the Yankees looked done; then the Sox get swept out of the playoffs and the Yankees win it all. 

While the NBA season isn't as long; it's still quite long.  It's very, very possible the C's get hot again.  And if they do, the rest of the league better look out. 

Great, great post Jon. Earlier this season, this team looked like the best team in the league for 2 months. It's like this time period was "men in black" flashed from people's memories around here.



McHale (champion)

"(The Celtics) are ok right now, they are getting where they want to be," he said. "When you get to the age where Kevin Garnett is, and Paul Pierce, and Ray Allen is, it’s always going to be after the All-Star break. You do pace yourself. When you’re 22 or 23 you’re out there going gung ho, you have no idea what you’re doing anyway. You’re playing on energy and running around.

"As you get older you start conserving your energy and you start to realize you can be 40-10 at the All-Star break. If you play poorly down the stretch and don’t get in the playoffs on a roll, healthy and playing well, it doesn’t make any difference. I think they are pacing themselves. When you are a jump shooter, it comes and goes, it’s hard, I can’t imagine being a jump shooter and relying on that shot all the time. I always liked when Ray would drive a little more and get fouled and get free throws; he’s such a good free throw shooter, but as you get older that gets harder to do. Doing that for 82 games is very hard. Is he getting longer in the tooth? Yeah, but that’s what happens.

Thanks.  Part of the problem is this darn 24-hour news cycle.  Everything gets covered so heavily that the media runs out of things to say.  So then they start over analyzing every microcosmic aspect of the season and making sweeping generalities about the season.  We can see this happening at a smaller level at Celtics Blog.  

However, I don't want to be misunderstood.  I am by no means guaranteeing that the C's are going to turn it around.  They may continue to decline and fizzle out as some of you are predicting.  All I'm saying is that they only thing we can say for sure right now is that they're playing badly and that it could change.  And I think after what they showed us they could do the first two months, they deserve the chance to see if they can turn this around.  

[jdpapa3]

That is the same way I feel. I realize how delicate you have to be when you do have a contender because of how rare it is. And people are writing us off and making harsh statements like "this team can not win a championship this year" and passing it around like it is fact.

If I were a knee doctor that has been in the business of athletics for a long time, I'd be more willing to call what I see either way, but I have no idea if KG's knee will ever improve and that is where the majority of our future will be decided.

[Jon]

I agree too.  Sometimes I think we've been spoiled as Celtic fans.  It really isn't as easy as the C's have made it look throughout their history.  I mean look at Knicks.  They win their title in '73, don't win another the entire decade.  Then they get lucky and land one of the big prizes of the '80s, Patrick Ewing, and they still don't ever win a title.  And that's with getting lucky and getting a top pick in a good draft.

I mean look at the Jazz.  They make great picks in Malone and Stockton, put a nice group of players around them, and they still never win a title. 

Look at the C's in '97 and '07.  They have a great chance of getting a franchise-changing player in the draft and then don't get the pick. 

I wouldn't be anxious to blow this up.  Even if you're somebody that thinks that our chances of winning are dramatically lower than they used to be, they're still dramatically higher than our chances of winning a title in the next 5-10 years after blowing this thing up. 

And I also agree about KG.  He's 33, not 83.  It's not like his body can't heal itself.  It is quite possible he may improve as the season goes on. 

To PosImpos, as for my baseball analogy earlier, I agree baseball is a different sport and might not be totally applicable.  I couldn't find All Star break records from past seasons online and the Sox/Yankees example just leapt to mind.  Still, I think the fact of the matter remains that teams get hot and cold in all sports.  The C's started the season hot and are now cold.  What's to say they can't get back there again, especially since it was the injury bug that started this downward spiral and it's now the injury bug that's going away.   

[youcanthandlethetruth113]

Our bench, KG's slowness and Ray Allen's shooting have been the biggest culprits in many of these losses.
[/quote]

Our bench - hasn't been "full" since the begining of the season. I'm talking Daniels, Baby, Sheed, Scal, AND Tony all healthy at the same time.

KG's slowness will improve. Like Doc has said, "KG is 100% healthy, but he does not have 100% conditioning + timing". As his conditioning improves so does his quickness.

Ray Allen - he is a pure shooter. Hot streaks and cold slumps are what shooters go through. He's obviously experiencing a bit of a cold slump and he will heat up when we need him to (just like he did in 2007-2008).

Sky = not falling

[snively]

Still, I think the bigger point is that there really isn't a reason to think that they can't get back to the way they were the first 1/3 of the season.  People act as if the last time this team played well was two years ago, when in reality it was two months ago.  It isn't age that's keeping this team from winning; it's something else. 

And it's certainly possible for them to fix that by playoff time.  Sports history is absolutely riddled with examples of teams that looked great at the All Star break and went south in the playoffs: think the of the Sox and Yankees this past year.  The Sox looked like the team to beat and the Yankees looked done; then the Sox get swept out of the playoffs and the Yankees win it all. 

While the NBA season isn't as long; it's still quite long.  It's very, very possible the C's get hot again.  And if they do, the rest of the league better look out. 

Good points all.  But age has been a factor.  Three players who have been healthy pretty much all season, Ray/Sheed/House, have endured season-long slumps that can reasonably interpreted as age-related decline (although I wouldn't rule out a minor House renaissance if we get a back-up PG).  These three came into the season as what projected to be our knock-out punchers on offense.

Their inability to deliver wasn't much of a problem early on. We got fantastic 3-pt shooting from Pierce, superb mid-range shooting from KG, and surprising and efficient buckets from Perk and even Shelden Williams to carry the offense over energy lulls and turnover patches and push the team to double digit victories.

Since then, injuries aside, Pierce, KG, Perk and Shelden have cooled down, and Ray/Sheed/House have continued to limp offensively, while Baby replaced the rapidly declining Shelden Williams to offer even more inefficient offense.

To get back to early season levels without Eddie/Ray/Sheed showing something they haven't shown all season, we'll need Perk/KG/Paul to go back to their December levels when Perk gave us 13 ppg on 67% shooting, when Pierce shot 54% from 3 and when KG poured in 16 ppg on 58% shooting.

Don't think we can count on that.

[Jon]

Still, I think the bigger point is that there really isn't a reason to think that they can't get back to the way they were the first 1/3 of the season.  People act as if the last time this team played well was two years ago, when in reality it was two months ago.  It isn't age that's keeping this team from winning; it's something else. 

And it's certainly possible for them to fix that by playoff time.  Sports history is absolutely riddled with examples of teams that looked great at the All Star break and went south in the playoffs: think the of the Sox and Yankees this past year.  The Sox looked like the team to beat and the Yankees looked done; then the Sox get swept out of the playoffs and the Yankees win it all. 

While the NBA season isn't as long; it's still quite long.  It's very, very possible the C's get hot again.  And if they do, the rest of the league better look out. 

Good points all.  But age has been a factor.  Three players who have been healthy pretty much all season, Ray/Sheed/House, have endured season-long slumps that can reasonably interpreted as age-related decline (although I wouldn't rule out a minor House renaissance if we get a back-up PG).  These three came into the season as what projected to be our knock-out punchers on offense.

Their inability to deliver wasn't much of a problem early on. We got fantastic 3-pt shooting from Pierce, superb mid-range shooting from KG, and surprising and efficient buckets from Perk and even Shelden Williams to carry the offense over energy lulls and turnover patches and push the team to double digit victories.

Since then, injuries aside, Pierce, KG, Perk and Shelden have cooled down, and Ray/Sheed/House have continued to limp offensively, while Baby replaced the rapidly declining Shelden Williams to offer even more inefficient offense.

To get back to early season levels without Eddie/Ray/Sheed showing something they haven't shown all season, we'll need Perk/KG/Paul to go back to their December levels when Perk gave us 13 ppg on 67% shooting, when Pierce shot 54% from 3 and when KG poured in 16 ppg on 58% shooting.

Don't think we can count on that.

I don't know.  You can attribute Ray's decline in defense to age (though I'd pair that with being overplayed), but I don't know how you really attribute his shooting to that.  Ray has been missing open jumpers this whole season.  The thing is, Ray will be able to hit those jumpers when he's 50; so I have to think it's something else that he can snap out of. 

[celticinorlando]

i don't understand how anyone can say they are where they want to be right now. I disagree with McHale 100 percent. 5 losses lately were vs teams that you are going to have to through to win the title...and 3 of those games were at home. to front run and just go through the motions vs the elite teams is just unacceptable.

[BballTim]

i don't understand how anyone can say they are where they want to be right now. I disagree with McHale 100 percent. 5 losses lately were vs teams that you are going to have to through to win the title...and 3 of those games were at home. to front run and just go through the motions vs the elite teams is just unacceptable.

  The fans fret about these things more than the players probably do. If he's right, the Celts are coasting a little during the season. If that's the case and they play the Hawks minus KG or Paul, get a lead but then lose the game, is the team going to think that they can't beat the Hawks? If they play the Bulls shorthanded and it's the 4th game in 5 days are they going to feel that it's a sign of impending doom?