Rotation and Minutes

[2short]

In a perfect world I would like to see all starters getting 30 minutes a night (rondo can have a bit more).  Also put Sheed at 30 or just under.  By end of season regulates minutes more giving starters more time and get a set rotation of who'll actually get pt during playoffs.  Develop walker when he's healthy, keep daniels & house fluid with time (they deserve it) . 
Our weak posistion is sf, pierce than a mix of daniels, ta, walker & scal.  I feel it would benefit the team if Walker gets playing time with the starting group, even if he isn't ready.  Go out with the starters and play good d, work hard and play within the team game.  Our pg posistion is rondo, eddie/daniels combo.  I can't see Hudson being on team as I feel he has lots to work on, good athlete but d league bound. 
Much like Walker I think williams should get some minutes here and there to develop.  His rebounding is good for the minutes he has been getting.  ot as many as the pf posistion is our strongest: kg, 'sheed, davis, scal and williams.  So when you read it that way williams is going to work in practice and sit on bench unless there is an injury. 
Where DO davis' time come from..?..
Tony & giddens are lost, does giddens stay because he is younger? or send him to d league because he really needs work and to me is looking like he'll never be an nba player
I think danny has a deal left in him...tony, scal, giddens, davis maybe ?
What would it take to get Shane Battier here?

[Jon]

Don't be surprised if Hudson eventually gets 5-6 minutes from House and Daniels' time. 

Also, the talk of blowouts is counting chickens before they hatch.  The best Celtic teams of the 80's never had that many blowouts even though they were clearly superior to almost every other team in the league.  These guys will still get a handful of blowouts but not enough to significantly impact their average minutes per game.

While I agree about not counting chickens yet, it bears mentioning that the 2007-2008 team won 30 games by 14 points or more and 16 of those 30 games were by 19 points or more.  And given that I think that most of us think that this team is at least better on paper, I don't think it's out of the question to expect a lot of blow outs this year. 

http://www.sportsofboston.com/celtics-2007-2008-schedule-and-results/

P.S. My apologies in advance if my numbers are off by a game or two: I counted quickly. 

[CelticG1]

I think all of the starters will end up playing a couple minutes more than what we'd ideally like to see them play. I think Pierce and Ray will be playing closer to 34 min a game. I think KG closer to 32 (depending on how he looks/health), Rondo 36, and Perk 32. The younger guys will play more than they have and the older ones about the same or a little lower. You need your best players to play a lot to be good and get a good flow as Doc said a week or two ago. The East is going to be very competitive this year I think although we might not kill ourselves to try and get the first seed, I think if we are in the hunt then we are certainly going to go for it. I think whatever the OP said about the back ups filling in was pretty spot on. I also agree that BBD's role will decrease a decent amount due to Sheed unless he shows major improvements defensively or offensively that would force Doc to play him. If we are blowing out teams all of this obviously changes but I think in during competitive games the minutes will definitely be higher than most people think or would want.

[Bahku]

Don't be surprised if Hudson eventually gets 5-6 minutes from House and Daniels' time. 

Also, the talk of blowouts is counting chickens before they hatch.  The best Celtic teams of the 80's never had that many blowouts even though they were clearly superior to almost every other team in the league.  These guys will still get a handful of blowouts but not enough to significantly impact their average minutes per game.

While I agree about not counting chickens yet, it bears mentioning that the 2007-2008 team won 30 games by 14 points or more and 16 of those 30 games were by 19 points or more.  And given that I think that most of us think that this team is at least better on paper, I don't think it's out of the question to expect a lot of blow outs this year. 

http://www.sportsofboston.com/celtics-2007-2008-schedule-and-results/

P.S. My apologies in advance if my numbers are off by a game or two: I counted quickly. 

It's certainly much too early to make concrete predictions, but on pure feeling and impressions so far, this team, to me, looks like the strongest and deepest team since 1986! (Yes, I'm serious ... but it's early).

[CelticG1]

Don't be surprised if Hudson eventually gets 5-6 minutes from House and Daniels' time. 

Also, the talk of blowouts is counting chickens before they hatch.  The best Celtic teams of the 80's never had that many blowouts even though they were clearly superior to almost every other team in the league.  These guys will still get a handful of blowouts but not enough to significantly impact their average minutes per game.

While I agree about not counting chickens yet, it bears mentioning that the 2007-2008 team won 30 games by 14 points or more and 16 of those 30 games were by 19 points or more.  And given that I think that most of us think that this team is at least better on paper, I don't think it's out of the question to expect a lot of blow outs this year. 

http://www.sportsofboston.com/celtics-2007-2008-schedule-and-results/

P.S. My apologies in advance if my numbers are off by a game or two: I counted quickly. 

I think the east is a lot more competitive now than it was then. If people  think that we might limit minutes to the starters than blow outs wouldn't be as likely either (even if our bench is that good.  Also you have to factor in that there is a decent chance that a main contributor on our team could miss time due to injury obviosuly limiting blow outs  abit more. Just my opinion

[slamtheking]

Don't be surprised if Hudson eventually gets 5-6 minutes from House and Daniels' time. 

Also, the talk of blowouts is counting chickens before they hatch.  The best Celtic teams of the 80's never had that many blowouts even though they were clearly superior to almost every other team in the league.  These guys will still get a handful of blowouts but not enough to significantly impact their average minutes per game.

While I agree about not counting chickens yet, it bears mentioning that the 2007-2008 team won 30 games by 14 points or more and 16 of those 30 games were by 19 points or more.  And given that I think that most of us think that this team is at least better on paper, I don't think it's out of the question to expect a lot of blow outs this year. 

http://www.sportsofboston.com/celtics-2007-2008-schedule-and-results/

P.S. My apologies in advance if my numbers are off by a game or two: I counted quickly. 

It's certainly much too early to make concrete predictions, but on pure feeling and impressions so far, this team, to me, looks like the strongest and deepest team since 1986! (Yes, I'm serious ... but it's early).

I'm not sure the stats are available on your blowout figures but at what point in the game did they become "blowouts"?  I don't believe that there were too many of those games where they had a 20-point lead in the 3rd and the bench could be thrown out there for the majority of the 4th quarter.  Many games with those win margins come from the C's pulling away during the 4th quarter.  In some cases when the C's did have a big lead in the 3rd, the bench occasionally coughed up enough of it that the starters had to come back in.

Looking at a final score differential and calling a game a blowout isn't accurate.  IMHO, a blowout is determined better by looking at how much time the bench players got in the game--particularly the end-of-the-bench players.  If you can tell me that Scal and Pruitt saw significant minutes in the 30 games (14 point differential) or 16 games (19 point differential) I'd find this assumption more credible.  Kudos though on the effort to look up the winning-margin info.

[xmuscularghandix]

You can't project lineups like this though. You have to take consideration to who we're playing against.

[Jon]

A few things.  I agree with the poster who said that big scores are not necessarily indicative of playing the game like its a blowout.  I'm willing to bet in most of those games Scal and Pruitt got in by the end; but I agree, they likely didn't play the whole second half.  However, if they played at all, it factors into this discussion.

However, my original post wasn't about games like that.  I fully realize that more than 9 players will play minutes next year. I'm simply asking what our "game plan" should be.  And personally, I think our "game plan" should be limited to 9 players.  If for some reason foul trouble arises or a blowout occurs, obviously we'll deviate from the plan.  However, I see zero reason to play a 10th or 11th guy unless that happens; we can get by with 9 without risking injury. 

I also strongly disagree that we should change that game plan based on who we play.  We're the best team in the NBA: teams should be adjusting their game plans to face us.  Sure, might you argue BBD should get a few more minutes than he'd usually get at the expense of Wallace against a big guy like Dwight Howard?  Maybe.  But what type of nightmare is it going to be for Dwight Howard to have to guard Rasheed 25 feet out?

Have a 9 man rotation and stick to it.