#1 Factor Haunting the Celtics over these past 4 seasons?

[chambers]

Injuries hurt us and have been our worst enemy by far- but we have also been pretty lucky considering we played an LA team in 2008 with no Bynum.
We are all wearing green goggles of some shade, and to say we automatically beat LA in 2009 with a healthy KG is pretty bold considering they had Bynum back- this is at a time when he and Gasol and the triangle were just mauling anybody in their path.

We've been lucky to get to the finals and not play Bynum, and we've also been lucky to face Philly instead of the Bulls.
It cuts both ways and I do understand that injuries really were the major catalyst in us not at least having a real chance to reach our full potential and see what could happen with a full strength squad. I just feel that Lakers fans would say injuries probably gave us a title in 2008- just as we say KG going down gave them 09'.

[Fafnir]

http://wagesofwins.com/2012/05/26/making-the-picks-for-the-conference-finals/

This same statistic you're using which is used in this post also says that Greg Steismsa was on a per minute basis one of our most productive player and by far our best big man.

Meanwhile when he was on the court it was ugly and the Heat crushed us. They just walked into the paint and scored at will while often getting fouled....

I assume you realize that it's pretty easy to get distorted per48 stats when the sample size is so tiny. Nice straw man argument though.

Its not a strawman argument, its an example of how flawed the statistic is in that it assigns the credit for a missed shot only with the player who collects the rebound.

A player who gives up 65 TS% to his opponent can easily still be rated as the more "productive" guy than someone who doesn't rebound as well but actually guards somebody.

Wins produced is an interesting alternative to PER and the like, but like most box score stats it fails because it doesn't account for half of the game properly.

[slamtheking]

Injuries.  No doubt in my mind.  

KG in '09 most likely cost the Celtics back to back titles.

Then you look at 2010 and the Finals and if Perk doesn't get hurt in Game 6, then you're looking at a possible 3-peat.

'10-11, I think was due to a combination of injuries, father time, and depth.  Probably the worst Celtics team of the past five year and that's really not meant to be demeaning.

This season was another combination of injuries, father time playing a much bigger role, and depth. Injuries & depth hand in hand this season. Yet, they were still a title contender.

#1, though?  Gotta be injuries.

This.

the one year they won, they were all healthy with the note that Ray was still recovering from surgery that year.  

Every other year, they were derailed by injuries.

'09 - KG and Powe.  best team in the league until KG went down.  If we even had Powe in the Orlando series, we win that.  get to the finals against the same LA team essentially, he had a fighting shot at it.

'10 - Having Perk in game 7 helps cut down LA's offensive rebounding barrage and they should hang on to win in 7.

'11 - Having Shaq, JO and/or Perk available during the season boosts home court standings for playoffs.  Shaq in the post was unbeatable when they had it that year-->who does the other team double off of-KG, Ray, PP or Rondo.  no good options for anyone.  Throw in Quisy with the year he as having, and we have a legit defender for both Wade and Bron.  Miami had no one to counter that in the playoffs.  After that, who knows against Chicago and Dallas.

'12 - Add in Green, Wilcox, Bradley, JO and a pre-concussion Pietrus and healthy Steimsma -- we beat Miami no problem.  against OKC, pretty solid chance since they don't play top-level D like the C's and although they have 3 topnotch scorers, C's would have had a number of defenders to throw at them.  a legit shot at it this year as well.

[RockinRyA]

Championship teams must be able to overcome adversity to win.
Injuries are part of the game, and are part of the adversity you need to overcome.

To believe we didn't win it all in 2010 due to an injury to our 5th best player is not saying much about the character of this team.  (Especially after Dallas won last year despite an injury to their 3rd best player.)  Even without Perk we had game 7 won, but we let it slip away.  The question is: Why can't we finish?

The only injuries that truly couldn't be overcome would have to happen to our top two players, Pierce or Garnett.  So, Garnett's injury in 2009 is a legitimate reason.  But all the other injuries listed for the last 4 years only count as adversity we failed to overcome.  (IMO)

Pierce and Garnett have been the driving forces on this team, legitimate superstars both, and anytime we've had them both on the court together we need to look for reasons other than injuries for us not having a dynasty.   

lol injuries to non-stars can be a facotr as well, no matter how you try to argue about it, a regular rotation player is important to the team. An injury to one of them would mean your one skillset weaker. Imagine that with not just one but several players? this would affect a team like the celtics more, who rely on sharing the workload rather than relying on one or two big superstars.

a player, even if hes your 7th best, is a huge factor in deciding the game. explain then why other teams go on a run whenever kg sits for just even a minute? with better backups availbale due to health, that might be preventable.

[ScoobyDoo]

ballin -

"Allow me to blow your mind right now"

This is a chicken or the egg debate. Have injuries prevented us from winning more titles? Or have, with the exception of 2008, benches with serious holes in them resulted in a greater reliance on our starters for the entire season that resulted in worn down players - which probably had a direct correlation to more frequent injuries to those players.

This version of the big three, in some ways, is very similar to the original big three from the 80's - great starting five, weak or constantly changing bench that allowed no "team continuity" and resulted in the starters playing heavy minutes all season and in the playoffs.

The Lakers one 5 titles in the 80's - I thought it had a lot to do with the fact that they generally had a bench that was at least 3 deep and that had been together for a while. This allowed their starters to play less minutes throughout the season. The one year in the 80's that Boston had a half decent bench - in '86 - they steamrolled the league, it wasn't even close. They were rested and stacked  -all season.

Pierce hasn't had a decent back up behind him since 2008 with Posey. maybe if he had had a solid Posey type behind him for the entirety of the 2010 season, he may have had enough left in the tank to finish the Lakers off with or without Perkins. Anyone remember how gassed Pierce looked in game 7?

A solid bench allows the starters to be their best and it reduces injuries by putting less pressure on those starters - so they can be their best when it matters most.

It is injuries - but having weak benches greatly enhances your chances of injuries and just leaves you more fatigued.

I would argue that if Pierce and KG had very solid backups behind them in 2010 - even Bass / Posey levels, they probably would have had enough in the tank to close that game seven - without Perkins. Same can be said of Ray in 2010 and 2011 had he had Tony Allen behind him.