Could the Celts follow the Red Sox path?

[Chris]

I think the difference is that everyone (me included) over reacted to the bad year.  In Sept. 2011, they were in first place and were the hottest team in baseball.  That somehow carried over and Lackey, Lester, Buchholtz and most of the other pitchers all had career bad years in 2012.

The truth it turns out is that the Sox pitching staff is closer to the 2011 version (June 1 - Aug 31) than the 2012 version.  The core of the pitching staff is the same (Lester, Buchholtz, Doubront, Lackey) and many of the key position players are still here (Pedroia, Ortiz, Ellsbury, Salti, Nava).

With the Celtics, their heart and soul is gone (Pierce and KG plus to some degree Ray Allen).  If the Celtics are by some miracle good this season, it will be due to new players, not a returning core.

And I realize the Rondo, Green, Bradley and some others are returning but this just isn't the same as getting essentially your starting rotation back and playing well.

I kind of agree, although you are kind of picking and choosing things to fit your argument. 

In 2011, their best pitcher was Josh Beckett, who fell apart in September after being perhaps the leader for the Cy Young for much of the season, and their best position player was Adrian Gonzalez, who looked like a potential triple crown candidate until the All-Star break, but still finished with strong numbers. 

They also lost one of the best closers in the game, and a number of other major impact players since 2011 (Youk, Varitek, Ellsbury's HR swing).  And of course Lackey was TERRIBLE that year, and I'm not even sure Nava played.

And its not like the C's don't have talent. 

[action781]

The issue is that they are different sports.

In baseball, the guy with the most ability to control a game is legally only allowed to play once every 3 games and typically only plays once every 5 games.  And that guy only plays half of the game (in the AL).  i.e. No single player can make a monumental difference on a baseball team and it's not super important to get that 1 guy.  So its easier to rebuild the way the red sox have since you don't need to get one of very few players who are difficult to obtain.

In basketball, the guy with the most ability to control the game plays 40/48 minutes of every game, is one of only 5 guys on the court, and has the ball in his hands the majority of that time.  Rebuilding in basketball requires getting that one guy.  It's SUPER important to get that 1 guy.  Then it's very important to get additional top talent around that one guy.  Its harder for the celtics to rebuild because they don't have and can't obtain the best players for that one position.  If you think Rondo is that guy, well maybe he is, but he'll miss significant time this season.  Also, we don't have the additional top talent around him, which is also difficult to obtain when you're over the salary cap.

That's a good point. Safe to say that baseball (and football & hockey for that matter) are more of a team sport than basketball?

Football is probably the most team-oriented of the 4 major sports.  Then hockey.  Then baskeball.  Then baseball.

While baseball is probably the least of all sports in terms of being team-oriented, individuals still have the least impact in this sport because they are involved in the game so infrequently.

[Jon]

The issue is that they are different sports.

In baseball, the guy with the most ability to control a game is legally only allowed to play once every 3 games and typically only plays once every 5 games.  And that guy only plays half of the game (in the AL).  i.e. No single player can make a monumental difference on a baseball team and it's not super important to get that 1 guy.  So its easier to rebuild the way the red sox have since you don't need to get one of very few players who are difficult to obtain.

In basketball, the guy with the most ability to control the game plays 40/48 minutes of every game, is one of only 5 guys on the court, and has the ball in his hands the majority of that time.  Rebuilding in basketball requires getting that one guy.  It's SUPER important to get that 1 guy.  Then it's very important to get additional top talent around that one guy.  Its harder for the celtics to rebuild because they don't have and can't obtain the best players for that one position.  If you think Rondo is that guy, well maybe he is, but he'll miss significant time this season.  Also, we don't have the additional top talent around him, which is also difficult to obtain when you're over the salary cap.

This is pretty much spot on.  Basketball, more than any other pro sport, is a sport dominated by elite players.  Roughly 10 players are primarily responsible for most of the championships over the past 30-35 years (Bird, Johnson, Kareem, Jordan, Thomas, Olajuwon, Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, and LeBron).  Sure, you get some anomalies like 2004 Detroit, but that was really more the Lakers self-destructing than the Pistons winning.  That Pistons team would've been crushed by pretty much any other champion in any other year. 

And it's not just baseball that it's different, it's hockey and football too.  As great as Tom Brady is, he still only plays 40-45% of all plays (when you count defense and special teams).  In basketball, elite superstars can literally play the entire game and have their hands pretty much in every play, offensively and defensively. 

So might the Celtics surprise us a bit?  Sure.  Maybe Rondo is back with a vengeance earlier than expected, Jeff Green proves he's an All Star, and Avery Bradley proves to be the second coming of Joe Dumars or Dennis Johnson.  But it won't be because "team" prevails.  If it happens, it will because we have more star power than we thought.

[Eja117]

I think one thing the Sox did that was key was that they got rid of a major cancer (Beckett) and possibly some other guys too.  The Celts didn't exactly have a cancer, although they did have maybe a treatable disease (Doc) and they have dealt with that, so they may very well get a boost from that in a similar kind of way.

The Pedroia and Rondo similarity could be interesting to watch.

[Fafnir]

Red Sox issues weren't talent or chemistry. They basically had injuries destroy two seasons. The pitching staff fell entirely apart.

Then they hired Valentine who was a complete disaster and the injury bug struck again and the rotation was just bad for an entire year.

The C's on the other had have just shipped of two aging top 20 guys in the NBA when they're on the court. They just don't have roster strength to replicate what the Red Sox have accomplished. In the NBA your best players produce the majority of your wins. In baseball the MVP of the league will only get you 8 to 10 more wins than a call up.