Thoughts on Irving and Love's playoff debut?

[manl_lui]

after game 2 - Love is definitely containable. I like our strategy at going at him yesterday. We need to do that again with some other changes to win Thursday night

[Celtics4ever]

I think the league has been helping Love with lots of FTAs to generate better stats.  7.5 FTAs and he usually averages 4, the guy does not drive.  He is shooting .36% from the field.   It almost seems that the league is subsidizing him some.   I hope we do not sign him, he is wilting under the pressure and not even making the shots, that he has an opportunity to take.  I hope, he goes to LA, they deserve him.  He is averaging 16 PPG of which 6.5 is coming from the line, other wise he would have like 9.5 PPG.   The NBA works in mysterious ways.

Irving has been tough, there has been some ticky tack fouls on our guys guarding him but he has been solid.   I thought the guys who thought we could trade Rondo were silly before but they are ludricous now and make me chuckle.

[Moranis]

Both are all-stars in the league, and talent trumps experience, as JVG said during the game. Scrubs are scrubs, stars are stars, regular season, playoffs, or finals..

I disagree that talent always trumps experience. The value of experience is starting to become vastly under-rated.  It's been shown that you need good players with lots of big game experience to be able to be successful in the NBA playoffs. 

Of course, the point is moot in this case as the Cavs currently have more talent and more experience than the Celtics. 

Marcus Smart, Kelly Olynyk, Jared Sullinger, Tyler Zeller, Jonas Jerebko and Isaiah Thomas all played in their first playoff game ever on Sunday.

it's been shown when exactly and how?  Rarely do the more experienced less talented teams beat the less experienced more talented teams.  Talent is king.  now sure if the talent is roughly equal, take the experienced team, but talent is rarely equal.

I was doing a bit of research on this the other day and discovered that since the Bird/Parish led Celtics of the early '80s the only championship team to not have a top two player with at least 2,000 previous playoff minutes was the 2004 Pistons. 

Ironically, that Pistons team is known as a champion that won with considerably less top tier talent than the Lakers they were playing in those finals.

Of course you need talent to win it all.  But when you look at the NBA champions of the last thirty-five years, there is a clear pattern of superstars needing a lot of seasoning before they eventually lead their teams to a title. 

I'm not saying that a young, talented team can't win an NBA championship.  I'm just saying that it's been a very long time since it's happened.

Experience matters.

And then you have teams like the 79/80 Lakers which sure had Kareem (and Haywood and Chrones as 7th and 8th men) but pretty much every other main cog was a rookie, 2nd or 3rd year player, and Magic was a rookie. 

Experience helps sure, but it doesn't trump talent.  I mean all those title teams that you claim are experienced were led by guys like Jordan, Bird, Hakeem, Magic, Kareem, Shaq, Kobe, Duncan, Garnett, Nowitzki, Wade, and James.  Big bunch of no talent schlubs that lot is.

It's not just a "claim," it's a fact.  Also, I would certainly never call the guys on your above list "no talent schlubs."

My whole point here is that even for great players, it generally takes a lot of seasons, and a lot of losses along the way, before they finally get over the hump.  Obviously, you need talent to win in the NBA, but just having that talent isn't enough.  You need talent that is well seasoned to really give yourself the best chance at winning.

This is something to keep in mind for those who advocate "tanking" year after year for high lottery picks.  If your team is continually losing, your top players aren't getting the playoff experience which is crucial for eventual playoff success.

Duncan won a title in his second season so did Bird.  Magic won as a rookie.  James was in the NBA Finals with a team full of scrubs in his second post season.  Westbrook and Durant (and Harden and Ibaka) were in the conference finals and then the nba finals in their 2nd and 3rd playoff seasons.  Heck Scottie Pippen never even lost in the first round of the playoffs until he was in Houston (and had 1500ish of playoff minutes before his first title winning season). 

Talent wins.  Now generally you don't just get talent and boom have a championship level team.  You generally have to get talent and then slowly over time add to that talent to make the team a real contender.  It isn't about not having experience though, it is about not having a team capable of winning.  That is why the draft method takes so long, it takes awhile to get sufficient talent.

[Celtics4ever]

Duncan has the Admiral to help him somewhat. 

[Moranis]

Duncan has the Admiral to help him somewhat.

Sure and Magic had Kareem.  That is sort of my point.  Talented teams win.  Not so talented teams don't.  Experience isn't really a part of that equation.  And to win a title you have to have a lot of talent.  Generally you don't have lots of talent by immediately drafting a player and boom championship level team.  It takes years to build up a championship level team (or acquiring players already in their prime).  The reason rookies don't win title is not because they don't have experience, it is because they don't have championship teams, except when they do, and then they win (like Magic, Duncan, Bird, etc.).

[Celtics18]

Duncan has the Admiral to help him somewhat.

Sure and Magic had Kareem.  That is sort of my point.  Talented teams win.  Not so talented teams don't.  Experience isn't really a part of that equation.  And to win a title you have to have a lot of talent.  Generally you don't have lots of talent by immediately drafting a player and boom championship level team.  It takes years to build up a championship level team (or acquiring players already in their prime).  The reason rookies don't win title is not because they don't have experience, it is because they don't have championship teams, except when they do, and then they win (like Magic, Duncan, Bird, etc.).

Chicken  ____________  Egg?

Nobody is arguing that talent isn't necessary to win in the NBA.  Of course it is.  I am arguing that having experienced talent has proven to be essential to winning NBA titles as well.

It can't be proven either way, but I am guessing that Duncan wouldn't have won a title so early without Robinson and that Magic wouldn't have won one in his rookie year without the help of Kareem.  Bird had Parish, Tiny Archibald, and Maxwell for his first title.  Parish and Archibald were fairly seasoned vets, but neither had a ton of playoff experience at the time.  Really, though, as I stated, that Celtics team is the last team to win a title without one of their top players already having a ton of prior playoff experience. 

[Moranis]

Duncan has the Admiral to help him somewhat.

Sure and Magic had Kareem.  That is sort of my point.  Talented teams win.  Not so talented teams don't.  Experience isn't really a part of that equation.  And to win a title you have to have a lot of talent.  Generally you don't have lots of talent by immediately drafting a player and boom championship level team.  It takes years to build up a championship level team (or acquiring players already in their prime).  The reason rookies don't win title is not because they don't have experience, it is because they don't have championship teams, except when they do, and then they win (like Magic, Duncan, Bird, etc.).

Chicken  ____________  Egg?

Nobody is arguing that talent isn't necessary to win in the NBA.  Of course it is.  I am arguing that having experienced talent has proven to be essential to winning NBA titles as well.

It can't be proven either way, but I am guessing that Duncan wouldn't have won a title so early without Robinson and that Magic wouldn't have won one in his rookie year without the help of Kareem.  Bird had Parish, Tiny Archibald, and Maxwell for his first title.  Parish and Archibald were fairly seasoned vets, but neither had a ton of playoff experience at the time.  Really, though, as I stated, that Celtics team is the last team to win a title without one of their top players already having a ton of prior playoff experience.

But that is pretty arbitrary isn't it.  I mean Boston won the title in 2008 with significant roster turnover.  Sure there were a lot of veterans, but they had to learn to play together, did they not? They had no experience together and yet won the title and collectively the entire starting unit and most of the bench had played in just two Conf. Finals and no NBA Finals. 

Even saying one of the top two guys seems pretty arbitrary.  The Showtime Lakers first title had just 1 guy in the first 6 who was not in his first 3 years in the league.  Now sure Kareem was a great player, but they were far from a title team until some rookie named Johnson joined the team.  Cleveland and Oklahoma City were playing in the NBA Finals very early on in the very young careers of their stars.  They both lost to better deeper and arguably more talented teams.

[Celtics18]

Duncan has the Admiral to help him somewhat.

Sure and Magic had Kareem.  That is sort of my point.  Talented teams win.  Not so talented teams don't.  Experience isn't really a part of that equation.  And to win a title you have to have a lot of talent.  Generally you don't have lots of talent by immediately drafting a player and boom championship level team.  It takes years to build up a championship level team (or acquiring players already in their prime).  The reason rookies don't win title is not because they don't have experience, it is because they don't have championship teams, except when they do, and then they win (like Magic, Duncan, Bird, etc.).

Chicken  ____________  Egg?

Nobody is arguing that talent isn't necessary to win in the NBA.  Of course it is.  I am arguing that having experienced talent has proven to be essential to winning NBA titles as well.

It can't be proven either way, but I am guessing that Duncan wouldn't have won a title so early without Robinson and that Magic wouldn't have won one in his rookie year without the help of Kareem.  Bird had Parish, Tiny Archibald, and Maxwell for his first title.  Parish and Archibald were fairly seasoned vets, but neither had a ton of playoff experience at the time.  Really, though, as I stated, that Celtics team is the last team to win a title without one of their top players already having a ton of prior playoff experience.

But that is pretty arbitrary isn't it.  I mean Boston won the title in 2008 with significant roster turnover.  Sure there were a lot of veterans, but they had to learn to play together, did they not? They had no experience together and yet won the title and collectively the entire starting unit and most of the bench had played in just two Conf. Finals and no NBA Finals. 

Even saying one of the top two guys seems pretty arbitrary.  The Showtime Lakers first title had just 1 guy in the first 6 who was not in his first 3 years in the league.  Now sure Kareem was a great player, but they were far from a title team until some rookie named Johnson joined the team.  Cleveland and Oklahoma City were playing in the NBA Finals very early on in the very young careers of their stars.  They both lost to better deeper and arguably more talented teams.

My overall point is this:

If you are one of the fans who want to rely on the draft as the only answer to rebuilding:

1.)  Obviously, you have to get really, really lucky to land the right guy.

and

2.) Even if you do get really, really lucky and land the right guy, you will probably need to wait at least seven or eight years until you win a title.

unfortunately

3.)  During that waiting period, the fan base will become frustrated with how much of a loser that star is and demand that he be traded for a winner.

then

4.)  Start all over again.