Celtics went 41-40 in the 2012-2013 regular season, are we as good as that team?

[D.o.s.]

To me it's not even close, the 2012 team would kill this squad.

Agreed. I think the only way our team right now wins is if the old version takes the night off and phones it in to save themselves for the playoffs.

[hpantazo]

no one has mentioned the difference between Rivers and Stevens yet either

[Beat LA]

No, we're not even close, imo.  Pierce > Green, period, and KG is not only a great defender individually, but he is still off the charts when you talk about being the quarterback of a team's defense.  For everyone who says that Rondo and Bradley have 'regressed' or whatever defensively, they haven't.  The difference is Garnett.  The guy made Ray Allen look like an excellent defender, even in 11-12.  You can't replace his instincts, knowledge, and most importantly, his defensive communication.  He was an outstanding 'talker' (yes, I know, not just on defense, haha) defensively.  Bird called Parish the best talker on defense when he played, and Garnett is the same way.  You can't replace the intangibles that Pierce and KG brought to our team.  I don't care how old they are.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

On paper? No. KG and Pierce then were better than KO and Green now. And that team should've been well above .500 but played some very frustrating cruise-control basketball. I can't see this team even getting to .500.

[Endless Paradise]

The East is not considerably worse now than it was that year. Just because it was bad this past year doesn't mean it's going to remain bad.

[LB3533]

TP to the OP of this topic thread. The research is much appreciated!

That being said, just because statistical production is better or higher (per position VS position), does not translate into more W's.

Hypothetical example, with my Green Sunglasses on: Jeff Green could average 20/5/5 next year. But at what cost? Would this play takeaway from the team's offense, as a whole? Would Jeff's increase in shot attempts or assists, hurt a teammate, say Rondo, as a possibility?

If the ball was more in Jeff's hands, and he increases assists, but at the price of the ball being in Rondo's hands less......I strongly say that this is a huge detriment. No offense, Jeff Green.

This concern for me lay more in my STRONG trust in Rondo with the ball than it is a knock on Jeff with the ball. I, and we would all love it if Jeff would ASSERT himself more with the ball, not just when he is on a fastbreak, but more frequently ASSERT his offensive game as a whole.

But I would not want Jeff's assertiveness to overshadow Rondo's role. Rondo is our leader, period. The ball should be in Rondo's hands. I could care less, if Rondo turns it over 4-5 times per game. Most likely this won't happen.

In my personal opinion, I feel 96% of the time, the ball is safe in Rondo's hands. 1% of the time, Rondo will turn it over all by himself. 1.5% of the time, one of Rondo's teammates make the wrong cut or ran the wrong play etc. which led to a turnover. The other 1.5% of the time, the opposing defense made a spectacular defensive play & forced a Celtic turnover, maybe even pick pocketed Rondo (MAYBE). 

This was already brought up, cohesion & experience playing together is an extreme advantage. This advantage is priceless & unquantifiable with normal basketball statistics. To compare the old Celtic roster with our current roster is not fair. Next year's Celtic roster is going to be more "newer". Coach Stevens has MORE work cut out for himself and his staff.

[D.o.s.]

Bolded text. Italics. Underlined phrases. Parenthetical statements. Capitalized words. Capitalized parentheticals.

[SHAQATTACK]

NO

[incoherent]

The fact that the 12-13 team coasted and took nights off only strengthens the idea that this team, who will not be taking any nights off, has a chance to win half its gamess.

I genuinely believe our starters are slightly better and our backups are clearly better and we have a coach the players aren't tired of or hasn't given up yet. No one on this team from coach on down is going to be coasting, yet that's exactly what the 12-13 team did And still managed 41 wins.

[jambr380]

The fact that the 12-13 team coasted and took nights off only strengthens the idea that this team, who will not be taking any nights off, has a chance to win half its gamess.

I genuinely believe our starters are slightly better and our backups are clearly better and we have a coach the players aren't tired of or hasn't given up yet. No one on this team from coach on down is going to be coasting, yet that's exactly what the 12-13 team did And still managed 41 wins.

This is the point you should be focusing on. It seems that nobody agrees that this current team could beat the 12-13 team; however, if you point to the fact that this team should win half of its games based off of what the 12-13 'coasting' team did, then I think that helps your case.

[Fred Roberts]

KG is the key difference between the teams, giving the older team a way higher upside on nights they were playing their hardest and best.

That said, they couldn't do it every night. This year's team will have fresh young legs ready to get at it every night and play full tilt with a lesser apex. Sure, they'd lose the majority of games to the older team but they'd get their fare share of wins based on hustle.

Those old KG, PP teams were awful to watch against young teams. Again, KG's D led the way and made that team better. Other than him, I'd take this squad.

[bleedGREENdon]

We'll be better

[Donoghus]

No.

That team had PP, KG, plenty of team chemistry, and the years of experience can't be dismissed.  Plus they were better defensively. 

'12-'13 would beat this team rather handily.  They weren't a pretty team by any means but they knew what they were doing.

[timpiker]

Nice analysis and special thanks for being optimistic.  I just don't think we'll win 30.

[gpap]

Nope.