Sanity Check: The Elephant(s) in the Room

[FallGuy]

The OP obviously put a lot of thought into this post, but I think there are a few holes there.

First of all, it seems to me that the complaints that this team is not athletic enough makes sense.  That would contribute to the inability to hold onto large leads late in the games.  Also, it seems to me that the injury bug and age does have an effect on speed, agility and athleticism.  The opinion that the team is not athletic enough is purely based on FACT.

Does this mean that the team cannot win the championship?  That remains to be seen.  I think the 61 game sampling size is a pretty large sample to base an opinion on.  The team has not performed well against the league's top teams and they have not been healthy for the majority of those games.  I do not believe there is enough evidence out there to convince some of the more pessimistic fans (including myself) that this team will be fully healthy for the playoff run.

Now, this is purely an opinion, but I have about the same amount of faith in this team that I had in last year's team post-KG and that is based on how they struggle at home and the nationally-televised games I have watched this year (and the NY local games, which included that horrible Nets performance a week ago).

This team could absolutely win a championship. But we have a lot of ducks that need to line up to play well enough to do it. An *unlikely* number of ducks. LAL, CLE, ORL, DEN, and even DAL have fewer concerns as we approach the playoffs.

  Not sure this is true. If we don't have any more injuries I'd sa we'd have fewer concerns than those teams.

A lot of people assume this team will be healthy come playoff time. Or healthier than it has been. That's counterintuitive to me. Why would a team of aging players be fresher and healthier AFTER playing a six month season? If anything, I think we'll be dealing with exactly what we have been all year. Tired legs, minor injuries (hopefully not major ones), PP or KG being shut down every now and then for a game or playing ineffectively through injuries for a few games. Of benefit to us is the lack of back-to-backs in the playoffs, and the focus that will come with short series and playoff atmosphere. Those things alone may be enough, with a little luck, for us to go deep. But  LAL and CLE look far stronger than we do right now.

[drza44]

Now, this is purely an opinion, but I have about the same amount of faith in this team that I had in last year's team post-KG and that is based on how they struggle at home and the nationally-televised games I have watched this year (and the NY local games, which included that horrible Nets performance a week ago).

Oh c'mon, I know the Nets loss was bad, but you really have the same faith in this team as when they replaced KG with Glen Davis in the lineup?  I knew we were doomed once that happened, and I'm not as quick to write this current team off.

Last year's team found a way to gut out wins.  This team looks like they are beginning to move in that direction.  Furthermore, is this version of KG much better than last year's version of Glen Davis?  I know from what I have been seeing that this year's Glen Davis regressed from last year's version.  This year's team has more bodies, but that's the biggest positive I see so far.

Last year's team didn't have to worry about learning to play without Garnett until the end of February/early March (essentially, now).  This year's team had to face injuries to their best players right during the dog days of the season.  

And I'm not sure whether that comparison between this year's KG and last year's Baby was serious or tongue-in-cheek.  If it was serious, then simply...yeah.  There's a huge, monster, donkey-kick of a difference between the two.

[Spilling Green Dye]

Now, this is purely an opinion, but I have about the same amount of faith in this team that I had in last year's team post-KG and that is based on how they struggle at home and the nationally-televised games I have watched this year (and the NY local games, which included that horrible Nets performance a week ago).

Oh c'mon, I know the Nets loss was bad, but you really have the same faith in this team as when they replaced KG with Glen Davis in the lineup?  I knew we were doomed once that happened, and I'm not as quick to write this current team off.

Last year's team found a way to gut out wins.  This team looks like they are beginning to move in that direction.  Furthermore, is this version of KG much better than last year's version of Glen Davis?  I know from what I have been seeing that this year's Glen Davis regressed from last year's version.  This year's team has more bodies, but that's the biggest positive I see so far.

Yes, this years KG is still much better than Davis has been for any stretch of games.  I will agree though that last year they gutted out wins, although they did blow that 10pt lead in game 6 in Orlando (I was at the game with great seats!)

[drza44]

A lot of people assume this team will be healthy come playoff time. Or healthier than it has been. That's counterintuitive to me. Why would a team of aging players be fresher and healthier AFTER playing a six month season? If anything, I think we'll be dealing with exactly what we have been all year. Tired legs, minor injuries (hopefully not major ones), PP or KG being shut down every now and then for a game or playing ineffectively through injuries for a few games. Of benefit to us is the lack of back-to-backs in the playoffs, and the focus that will come with short series and playoff atmosphere. Those things alone may be enough, with a little luck, for us to go deep. But  LAL and CLE look far stronger than we do right now.

Two things.  First, as I've said all along, if you think the team won't be healthy for the playoffs I can't do anything but respect that, even while hoping that you're wrong.  My irritation is more with the "this team is pathetic" crowd than those worried about injury.

But second, as to your question, I don't think it's counterintuitive at all to think the team should be more physically ready for the playoffs than the season. 

For one thing, like I alluded to in my old track anecdote, high level athletes often tailor their physical prep specifically to peak at certain times of the year.  I don't doubt that the Cs, knowing that they have age and injury issues, have been attempting to do this.  Doesn't mean it's guaranteed to work, but I think that's been the plan all season.

Also, the lack of back-to-backs and lessening of travel are both solid factors for why the team would regularly be able to do more physically in the playoffs than they do now.

[FallGuy]

A lot of people assume this team will be healthy come playoff time. Or healthier than it has been. That's counterintuitive to me. Why would a team of aging players be fresher and healthier AFTER playing a six month season? If anything, I think we'll be dealing with exactly what we have been all year. Tired legs, minor injuries (hopefully not major ones), PP or KG being shut down every now and then for a game or playing ineffectively through injuries for a few games. Of benefit to us is the lack of back-to-backs in the playoffs, and the focus that will come with short series and playoff atmosphere. Those things alone may be enough, with a little luck, for us to go deep. But  LAL and CLE look far stronger than we do right now.

Two things.  First, as I've said all along, if you think the team won't be healthy for the playoffs I can't do anything but respect that, even while hoping that you're wrong.  My irritation is more with the "this team is pathetic" crowd than those worried about injury.

I hope I'm wrong. I really, really do.

[/quote]But second, as to your question, I don't think it's counterintuitive at all to think the team should be more physically ready for the playoffs than the season. 

For one thing, like I alluded to in my old track anecdote, high level athletes often tailor their physical prep specifically to peak at certain times of the year.  I don't doubt that the Cs, knowing that they have age and injury issues, have been attempting to do this.  Doesn't mean it's guaranteed to work, but I think that's been the plan all season.

Also, the lack of back-to-backs and lessening of travel are both solid factors for why the team would regularly be able to do more physically in the playoffs than they do now.

[/quote]

I think you're right about the intent behind this season, the "bored with the regular season" comments we've heard recently, the vanishing acts during games. It's all about prepping for late April through mid June.

There's good reason to be angry at this team if you believe they are fully healthy. But calling them pathetic makes NO sense if you come at it from the POV I do - which is that the team is much more battered and worn down than they'll let on (not being a group that makes excuses much). If anything, this team is honorably battling through this stretch. Much like last year's undermanned team did in the playoffs.

[Who]

Does anyone know the team's W-L record + point differential since Garnett returned in late January?

[Who]

Does anyone know the team's W-L record + point differential since Garnett returned in late January?

I looked it up:

(1) 13 wins and 8 losses -- .619 (51 win season)

(2) A point differential of +1.76 -- what's that? About a 45 win season?

[Who]

Does anyone know the team's W-L record + point differential since Garnett returned in late January?

I looked it up:

(1) 13 wins and 8 losses -- .619 (51 win season)

(2) A point differential of +1.76 -- what's that? About a 45 win season?

If we take away the games Paul Pierce missed, those numbers become:

(1) 10 wins and 6 losses -- .625 (51 win season)

(2) A point differential of 3.13 -- How many wins is that? 50 or so?

[BballTim]

The OP obviously put a lot of thought into this post, but I think there are a few holes there.

First of all, it seems to me that the complaints that this team is not athletic enough makes sense.  That would contribute to the inability to hold onto large leads late in the games.  Also, it seems to me that the injury bug and age does have an effect on speed, agility and athleticism.  The opinion that the team is not athletic enough is purely based on FACT.

Does this mean that the team cannot win the championship?  That remains to be seen.  I think the 61 game sampling size is a pretty large sample to base an opinion on.  The team has not performed well against the league's top teams and they have not been healthy for the majority of those games.  I do not believe there is enough evidence out there to convince some of the more pessimistic fans (including myself) that this team will be fully healthy for the playoff run.

Now, this is purely an opinion, but I have about the same amount of faith in this team that I had in last year's team post-KG and that is based on how they struggle at home and the nationally-televised games I have watched this year (and the NY local games, which included that horrible Nets performance a week ago).

This team could absolutely win a championship. But we have a lot of ducks that need to line up to play well enough to do it. An *unlikely* number of ducks. LAL, CLE, ORL, DEN, and even DAL have fewer concerns as we approach the playoffs.

  Not sure this is true. If we don't have any more injuries I'd sa we'd have fewer concerns than those teams.

A lot of people assume this team will be healthy come playoff time. Or healthier than it has been. That's counterintuitive to me. Why would a team of aging players be fresher and healthier AFTER playing a six month season? If anything, I think we'll be dealing with exactly what we have been all year. Tired legs, minor injuries (hopefully not major ones), PP or KG being shut down every now and then for a game or playing ineffectively through injuries for a few games. Of benefit to us is the lack of back-to-backs in the playoffs, and the focus that will come with short series and playoff atmosphere. Those things alone may be enough, with a little luck, for us to go deep. But  LAL and CLE look far stronger than we do right now.

  I don't think that they'll be healthier than they've been all year, but I don't see why they can't be as healthy as they were before Xmas. I think Paul's injuries have been kind of flukey, not age related. And LAL doesn't look far stronger than us right now. They've dropped three straight, they're 17-13 on the road and they play 11 out of 18 remaining games on the road. I wouldn't be surprised to see us finish within a few games of them. Cleveland, likewise, has been up and down since the trade deadline and haven't looked overly scary when we've played them.

[PLamb]

I've said before, and I continue to say, if you're a "realist" that just doesn't believe the Cs will stay/be healthy till the end, OK.  I can respect that, even if I hope you're wrong.  But if you're one that just harps on the team not being "that good" this year because they're lacking athleticism, or lacking heart, or they want to flip the switch, or whatever else the "realists" say...

That's not realism.  That opinion isn't grounded in reality.  People that espouse that opinion shouldn't call themselves "realists".  Maybe "skeptics", or "we just really don't think the Celtics will win-ists".  Or keep it simple and call it what it is: pessimists.

Just don't pretend that your opinion reflects the reality of what this team has been.  It just doesn't.

Well, first let me say that I hate this "realist" thing.  It is just a throwback to the whole "kool-aid" thing of the Jefferson/Green regime, and it accomplishes nothing to label people with certain opinions.

With that said, I personally think it is hard to argue that this team has been cruising at times, and I would also argue that they have absolutely lacked heart. 

This does not change the fact that you are right about Pierce and Garnett being incredibly important to this teams success, as demonstrated by that record.  However, I am reserving the right to hold them to a higher standard of "effort" and "heart", after they showed what they are capable of in 2008, and will continue to be disappointed when they do not come out and go the extra mile to win every game the way they should.

Let's be clear, this team has lost a number of games that they should have won this season, if they were giving full effort for 48 minutes.  And while those may be irrevalent in May, it certainly does not make me feel better for shelling out thousands of dollars to watch them play, or dedicate so much time to following them.

I respect folks like you and the other mods that have this opinion, even though I strenuously disagree.  I think part of the issue is that we don't seem to know how to appreciate a veteran team.  The fact that the Celtics are an older team is often used as a criticism for them, but the flip side is hardly ever considered: they may not be ABLE to go full-boar for 100 games anymore.  I mean, physically just not able to do it.  I was one of the people that really thought this team could win 70 with the idea that if healthy they're the best, but for this season at least it's obvious that KG and Pierce simply could not do that.  And maybe they never will be able to again.  But the thing is: THAT'S OK.

I think people get hung up on the Shaq/Kobe idea of "coasting" then "flipping the switch".  And it's perceived as a negative because 1) they're the Lakers and 2) it seems so obvious that Shaq and Kobe should have won more than they did.

But, in my opinion, they're a horrible comparison for this team.  

That squad was all about Shaq and Kobe being so ridiculously talented that when they worked together at full-speed, they just could overpower just about everyone.  But they were primadonnas...both wanted to prove they could win "their" way.  Shaq really WAS wilfully out of shape/coasting...just to prove he could.  Kobe really DID wilfully take bad shots or pass-just-to-show-what-would-happen-if-he-didn't-shoot.  

This team isn't like that.  Maybe if they'd been playing together in their 20s (like Shaq and Kobe did) they would have been physically able to dominate like that.  In 2008, at the dawn of their 30s, they almost were.  But now?  Their bodies just aren't at that place.  And mentally, they've NEVER been comparable to those Lakers.  At all.

This team is MUCH more similar to the Spurs of the previous decade than the Lakers.  They are a team built on defense and execution (both of which require a lot more energy and unity than just relying on 2 supremely gifted scorers).  They are built around veteran players with minutes limits (much like David Robinson on the early Spurs championships and Tim Duncan on the later title teams).  

The regular season win percentage of those Spurs teams?  72.5%, almost EXACTLY the same as this team when KG and Pierce play.  And you know what?  I'm willing to bet that those Spurs teams also lost or had some close games against teams they should have beaten.  But you know what else?  I SERIOUSLY doubt that there were many "The Spurs are Pathetic!" topics swirling among their fans at the time.  Know why?  Because their fans had learned to appreciate what they had: the opportunity to see a great team, built around All-time great players.  And more importantly, they (and their fans) knew that for a contender, the regular season is meant to prepare the team as best as possible for the postseason.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Whether we want to hear it or not, last season hammered home the point to this squad that going balls out from October to February is absolutely pointless if that means that you wreck your best player(s) and ruin your shot at a title.

But all of the above DOESN'T MAKE THE TEAM PATHETIC, or not-giving-fans-their-money's-worth, or flip-switchers, or whatever other negative spin folks put on it.  This is a team that is doing the best that they can to put themselves in a position to win a title.  They aren't having primadonna issues like Shaq and Kobe.  They aren't coasting because they're lazy or proving a point like Shaq and Kobe.  Maybe they aren't as strong as they were physically in 2008...that's nature.  But frankly, if they continue along the trajectory that I've been seeing since all of the negativity began back in January...if they DO continue to build their way up from the ashes of their injuries and age infirmities...if they DO perform in the playoffs the way I think they will if their bodies hold up...to me that is MORE impressive than what they did in 2008 when KG could still hit 101 with his fastball and everyone was healthy and fresh and new.

If they can fight through the aches and pains and continue to march on, that shows more to me than "well, they fought hard every night."  

It's show me both the heart AND the intellect of a champion.  

Giving one for awesomeness

[Greenbean]

I respect folks like you and the other mods that have this opinion, even though I strenuously disagree.  I think part of the issue is that we don't seem to know how to appreciate a veteran team.  The fact that the Celtics are an older team is often used as a criticism for them, but the flip side is hardly ever considered: they may not be ABLE to go full-boar for 100 games anymore.  I mean, physically just not able to do it.  I was one of the people that really thought this team could win 70 with the idea that if healthy they're the best, but for this season at least it's obvious that KG and Pierce simply could not do that.  And maybe they never will be able to again.  But the thing is: THAT'S OK.

I think people get hung up on the Shaq/Kobe idea of "coasting" then "flipping the switch".  And it's perceived as a negative because 1) they're the Lakers and 2) it seems so obvious that Shaq and Kobe should have won more than they did.

But, in my opinion, they're a horrible comparison for this team.  

That squad was all about Shaq and Kobe being so ridiculously talented that when they worked together at full-speed, they just could overpower just about everyone.  But they were primadonnas...both wanted to prove they could win "their" way.  Shaq really WAS wilfully out of shape/coasting...just to prove he could.  Kobe really DID wilfully take bad shots or pass-just-to-show-what-would-happen-if-he-didn't-shoot.  

This team isn't like that.  Maybe if they'd been playing together in their 20s (like Shaq and Kobe did) they would have been physically able to dominate like that.  In 2008, at the dawn of their 30s, they almost were.  But now?  Their bodies just aren't at that place.  And mentally, they've NEVER been comparable to those Lakers.  At all.

This team is MUCH more similar to the Spurs of the previous decade than the Lakers.  They are a team built on defense and execution (both of which require a lot more energy and unity than just relying on 2 supremely gifted scorers).  They are built around veteran players with minutes limits (much like David Robinson on the early Spurs championships and Tim Duncan on the later title teams).  

The regular season win percentage of those Spurs teams?  72.5%, almost EXACTLY the same as this team when KG and Pierce play.  And you know what?  I'm willing to bet that those Spurs teams also lost or had some close games against teams they should have beaten.  But you know what else?  I SERIOUSLY doubt that there were many "The Spurs are Pathetic!" topics swirling among their fans at the time.  Know why?  Because their fans had learned to appreciate what they had: the opportunity to see a great team, built around All-time great players.  And more importantly, they (and their fans) knew that for a contender, the regular season is meant to prepare the team as best as possible for the postseason.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Whether we want to hear it or not, last season hammered home the point to this squad that going balls out from October to February is absolutely pointless if that means that you wreck your best player(s) and ruin your shot at a title.

But all of the above DOESN'T MAKE THE TEAM PATHETIC, or not-giving-fans-their-money's-worth, or flip-switchers, or whatever other negative spin folks put on it.  This is a team that is doing the best that they can to put themselves in a position to win a title.  They aren't having primadonna issues like Shaq and Kobe.  They aren't coasting because they're lazy or proving a point like Shaq and Kobe.  Maybe they aren't as strong as they were physically in 2008...that's nature.  But frankly, if they continue along the trajectory that I've been seeing since all of the negativity began back in January...if they DO continue to build their way up from the ashes of their injuries and age infirmities...if they DO perform in the playoffs the way I think they will if their bodies hold up...to me that is MORE impressive than what they did in 2008 when KG could still hit 101 with his fastball and everyone was healthy and fresh and new.

If they can fight through the aches and pains and continue to march on, that shows more to me than "well, they fought hard every night."  

It's show me both the heart AND the intellect of a champion.  

+1. I think the same way. It is just too tasking to play at that level for the whole season two years later after 08.

However it is dissappointing especially after watching that 08 team.

We were spoiled before so it is difficult for people to adjust their expectations when the roster is much the same. I completely understand the nay-sayers who come out after lackluster efforts (so a certain degree).

If we see the same brand of basketball the rest of the season and into the playoffs, well they will all be right. If they are wrong though, we will be bringing home banner 18.

Also, I think you meant to saw switch-flippers. I dont want anyone flip-switching on the Celtics.

[mmbaby]

Excellent post, drza44! You rock!