Shrewsberry: Stevens Really Beat Himself up Over Last Season

[PhoSita]

2018 and 2019 the Celts had an Expected W-L that would place them 6th in the league.  They had a SRS that was 7th and 8th, respectively.

2018 they had a top defense and a somewhat below average offense. 

2019 they had a defense and offense both in the back half of the top 10.

All of the above is from basketball-reference.


I think these are probably better measures than fighting over whether that win streak counts or not.

[Boston Garden Leprechaun]

CBS needs to grow a pair

Just move on and dont try to satisfy every player

agreed. i cannot satisfy every player on teams I coach. they have to earn time and will play where i want when i want how i want or they sit.

[Boston Garden Leprechaun]

he should

he sucked

amen

[Csfan1984]

Nothing ingenuous about stating the observable fact:  Since the end of the 16-2 start (which was 174 games ago) the Celtics have never played any stretch of games with anything remotely like those results -- with or without Kyrie.     They've been nowhere near a "56 win pace".  That's just not who this team has been.

If a player started his career hitting 12 shots in a row in his first few games, and then from that point commenced to consistently hitting at a 45% clip, how long are you going to wait before you stop giving much statistical significance to those first 12 shots when describing what kind of shooter that player is?

Time to let go of that red hot start to the Kyrie era.   Because those games don't paint an accurate picture of what the Kyrie era really has been like.

A perennial playoff contender that averages 50 wins a year (after you've cooked the data) despite its 2nd best player being injured?

50 wins means nothing. Even 56 means nothing. The average champion is closer to 60 wins per season. We are not close to that for a whole season or back to back seasons. They need to work better as a team to gel, they need consistent rotations of the best players. Not tinkering playing bums or over playing FAs to be so they can be happy making money from some other team. The chemistry will never be there unless BS changes that part of things that he is in control of. That's what is worth beating himself up on.

[Never Nervous Pervis]

Nothing ingenuous about stating the observable fact:  Since the end of the 16-2 start (which was 174 games ago) the Celtics have never played any stretch of games with anything remotely like those results -- with or without Kyrie.     They've been nowhere near a "56 win pace".  That's just not who this team has been.

If a player started his career hitting 12 shots in a row in his first few games, and then from that point commenced to consistently hitting at a 45% clip, how long are you going to wait before you stop giving much statistical significance to those first 12 shots when describing what kind of shooter that player is?

Time to let go of that red hot start to the Kyrie era.   Because those games don't paint an accurate picture of what the Kyrie era really has been like.

A perennial playoff contender that averages 50 wins a year (after you've cooked the data) despite its 2nd best player being injured?

50 wins means nothing. Even 56 means nothing. The average champion is closer to 60 wins per season. We are not close to that for a whole season or back to back seasons. They need to work better as a team to gel, they need consistent rotations of the best players. Not tinkering playing bums or over playing FAs to be so they can be happy making money from some other team. The chemistry will never be there unless BS changes that part of things that he is in control of. That's what is worth beating himself up on.

It's funny how spoiled and entitled some fans have become. If you've been a Celtics fan since 1984, then you know that we didn't win 50 games once from 1992 until 2008, the championship year. A drought like that makes you appreciate teams that average 52 wins a year and have a legitimate shot to get out of the east with its second best player (and former all-star) injured and several of its young prospects still developing.

I'm glad we have a top-5 coach who is universally respected across the league, and whose teams have exceeded expectations 5 out of 6 years.

Act like you know more than him all you want. It's not creditable.

[Csfan1984]

Nothing ingenuous about stating the observable fact:  Since the end of the 16-2 start (which was 174 games ago) the Celtics have never played any stretch of games with anything remotely like those results -- with or without Kyrie.     They've been nowhere near a "56 win pace".  That's just not who this team has been.

If a player started his career hitting 12 shots in a row in his first few games, and then from that point commenced to consistently hitting at a 45% clip, how long are you going to wait before you stop giving much statistical significance to those first 12 shots when describing what kind of shooter that player is?

Time to let go of that red hot start to the Kyrie era.   Because those games don't paint an accurate picture of what the Kyrie era really has been like.

A perennial playoff contender that averages 50 wins a year (after you've cooked the data) despite its 2nd best player being injured?

50 wins means nothing. Even 56 means nothing. The average champion is closer to 60 wins per season. We are not close to that for a whole season or back to back seasons. They need to work better as a team to gel, they need consistent rotations of the best players. Not tinkering playing bums or over playing FAs to be so they can be happy making money from some other team. The chemistry will never be there unless BS changes that part of things that he is in control of. That's what is worth beating himself up on.

It's funny how spoiled and entitled some fans have become. If you've been a Celtics fan since 1984, then you know that we didn't win 50 games once from 1992 until 2008, the championship year. A drought like that makes you appreciate teams that average 52 wins a year and have a legitimate shot to get out of the east with its second best player (and former all-star) injured and several of its young prospects still developing.

I'm glad we have a top-5 coach who is universally respected across the league, and whose teams have exceeded expectations 5 out of 6 years.

Act like you know more than him all you want. It's not creditable.

C's by their own standards (not your's) is about winning championships. That's my hope.

It doesnt taking acting to know it if things are in plain sight. I'm pointing out a flaw that he should fix. Everyone makes bad decisions. Some do it over and over. Like BB struggles drafting but he is great in other areas. Does it make him bad or a coach I want fired? Of course not but he can hire different people to help him make better choices in the future. BS can get better people to help him in his flaws.

As for creditable, just look at the season and the quote that gave us this thread for if we should question how he does things.

[Never Nervous Pervis]

Nothing ingenuous about stating the observable fact:  Since the end of the 16-2 start (which was 174 games ago) the Celtics have never played any stretch of games with anything remotely like those results -- with or without Kyrie.     They've been nowhere near a "56 win pace".  That's just not who this team has been.

If a player started his career hitting 12 shots in a row in his first few games, and then from that point commenced to consistently hitting at a 45% clip, how long are you going to wait before you stop giving much statistical significance to those first 12 shots when describing what kind of shooter that player is?

Time to let go of that red hot start to the Kyrie era.   Because those games don't paint an accurate picture of what the Kyrie era really has been like.

A perennial playoff contender that averages 50 wins a year (after you've cooked the data) despite its 2nd best player being injured?

50 wins means nothing. Even 56 means nothing. The average champion is closer to 60 wins per season. We are not close to that for a whole season or back to back seasons. They need to work better as a team to gel, they need consistent rotations of the best players. Not tinkering playing bums or over playing FAs to be so they can be happy making money from some other team. The chemistry will never be there unless BS changes that part of things that he is in control of. That's what is worth beating himself up on.

It's funny how spoiled and entitled some fans have become. If you've been a Celtics fan since 1984, then you know that we didn't win 50 games once from 1992 until 2008, the championship year. A drought like that makes you appreciate teams that average 52 wins a year and have a legitimate shot to get out of the east with its second best player (and former all-star) injured and several of its young prospects still developing.

I'm glad we have a top-5 coach who is universally respected across the league, and whose teams have exceeded expectations 5 out of 6 years.

Act like you know more than him all you want. It's not creditable.

C's by their own standards (not your's) is about winning championships. That's my hope.

It doesnt taking acting to know it if things are in plain sight. I'm pointing out a flaw that he should fix. Everyone makes bad decisions. Some do it over and over. Like BB struggles drafting but he is great in other areas. Does it make him bad or a coach I want fired? Of course not but he can hire different people to help him make better choices in the future. BS can get better people to help him in his flaws.

As for creditable, just look at the season and the quote that gave us this thread for if we should question how he does things.

You criticized him for "playing bums," tinkering at the start of every year with the rotation and giving guys run just to keep them happy heading into free agency, as if you have any idea what goes into his allocation of minutes.

You don't know who's outplaying who and what units are working in practice, who's banged up or having personal problems (yes, there's an injury report but there are also internal things not released to the media), what the advanced scouting report says about the opponents, or how Brad is thinking strategically about future matchups with an opponent if he knows we'll see them again in the playoffs.

The best coaches change lineups from time to time. One minute Jordan Bell is starting at center for the Warriors, the next he doesn't see the court for 3 straight games. Is Steve Kerr tinkering, responding to circumstances or trying things out to see if they work?

What seems obvious to you in plain sight is subjective and reads like a know-it-all blogger, not someone with any real knowledge of the inner workings of a professional basketball team.

Of course the goal is to win championships, but that doesn't mean there aren't a bunch of small failures on the road to success. Having the big picture in mind and a little perspective sure helps guard gets wild overreactions.

[Csfan1984]

Nothing ingenuous about stating the observable fact:  Since the end of the 16-2 start (which was 174 games ago) the Celtics have never played any stretch of games with anything remotely like those results -- with or without Kyrie.     They've been nowhere near a "56 win pace".  That's just not who this team has been.

If a player started his career hitting 12 shots in a row in his first few games, and then from that point commenced to consistently hitting at a 45% clip, how long are you going to wait before you stop giving much statistical significance to those first 12 shots when describing what kind of shooter that player is?

Time to let go of that red hot start to the Kyrie era.   Because those games don't paint an accurate picture of what the Kyrie era really has been like.

A perennial playoff contender that averages 50 wins a year (after you've cooked the data) despite its 2nd best player being injured?

50 wins means nothing. Even 56 means nothing. The average champion is closer to 60 wins per season. We are not close to that for a whole season or back to back seasons. They need to work better as a team to gel, they need consistent rotations of the best players. Not tinkering playing bums or over playing FAs to be so they can be happy making money from some other team. The chemistry will never be there unless BS changes that part of things that he is in control of. That's what is worth beating himself up on.

It's funny how spoiled and entitled some fans have become. If you've been a Celtics fan since 1984, then you know that we didn't win 50 games once from 1992 until 2008, the championship year. A drought like that makes you appreciate teams that average 52 wins a year and have a legitimate shot to get out of the east with its second best player (and former all-star) injured and several of its young prospects still developing.

I'm glad we have a top-5 coach who is universally respected across the league, and whose teams have exceeded expectations 5 out of 6 years.

Act like you know more than him all you want. It's not creditable.

C's by their own standards (not your's) is about winning championships. That's my hope.

It doesnt taking acting to know it if things are in plain sight. I'm pointing out a flaw that he should fix. Everyone makes bad decisions. Some do it over and over. Like BB struggles drafting but he is great in other areas. Does it make him bad or a coach I want fired? Of course not but he can hire different people to help him make better choices in the future. BS can get better people to help him in his flaws.

As for creditable, just look at the season and the quote that gave us this thread for if we should question how he does things.

You criticized him for "playing bums," tinkering at the start of every year with the rotation and giving guys run just to keep them happy heading into free agency, as if you have any idea what goes into his allocation of minutes.

You don't know who's outplaying who and what units are working in practice, who's banged up or having personal problems (yes, there's an injury report but there are also internal things not released to the media), what the advanced scouting report says about the opponents, or how Brad is thinking strategically about future matchups with an opponent if he knows we'll see them again in the playoffs.

The best coaches change lineups from time to time. One minute Jordan Bell is starting at center for the Warriors, the next he doesn't see the court for 3 straight games. Is Steve Kerr tinkering, responding to circumstances or trying things out to see if they work?

What seems obvious to you in plain sight is subjective and reads like a know-it-all blogger, not someone with any real knowledge of the inner workings of a professional basketball team.

Of course the goal is to win championships, but that doesn't mean there aren't a bunch of small failures on the road to success. Having the big picture in mind and a little perspective sure helps guard gets wild overreactions.

What's knowing about practice not going to tell me Yabu is terrible. Or Turner is a a chucker. Or Morris is likely gone as a FA. Or Rozier isn't playing smart basketball. Doesn't take me watching practice to know those things. Keep calling me a know it all, Mr Blind Man.

Changes to lineups are fine if you are winning and playing well as a team. When you lose or are poor you are suppose say that was a bad move.

 You be happy with 50 wins,  don't bother coming at me with a loser mentality.

[PhoSita]

LOL @ "thinking 50 wins is good is a loser mentality."


Basketball fandom on the internet is freaking wild sometimes.

[Never Nervous Pervis]

Nothing ingenuous about stating the observable fact:  Since the end of the 16-2 start (which was 174 games ago) the Celtics have never played any stretch of games with anything remotely like those results -- with or without Kyrie.     They've been nowhere near a "56 win pace".  That's just not who this team has been.

If a player started his career hitting 12 shots in a row in his first few games, and then from that point commenced to consistently hitting at a 45% clip, how long are you going to wait before you stop giving much statistical significance to those first 12 shots when describing what kind of shooter that player is?

Time to let go of that red hot start to the Kyrie era.   Because those games don't paint an accurate picture of what the Kyrie era really has been like.

A perennial playoff contender that averages 50 wins a year (after you've cooked the data) despite its 2nd best player being injured?

50 wins means nothing. Even 56 means nothing. The average champion is closer to 60 wins per season. We are not close to that for a whole season or back to back seasons. They need to work better as a team to gel, they need consistent rotations of the best players. Not tinkering playing bums or over playing FAs to be so they can be happy making money from some other team. The chemistry will never be there unless BS changes that part of things that he is in control of. That's what is worth beating himself up on.

It's funny how spoiled and entitled some fans have become. If you've been a Celtics fan since 1984, then you know that we didn't win 50 games once from 1992 until 2008, the championship year. A drought like that makes you appreciate teams that average 52 wins a year and have a legitimate shot to get out of the east with its second best player (and former all-star) injured and several of its young prospects still developing.

I'm glad we have a top-5 coach who is universally respected across the league, and whose teams have exceeded expectations 5 out of 6 years.

Act like you know more than him all you want. It's not creditable.

C's by their own standards (not your's) is about winning championships. That's my hope.

It doesnt taking acting to know it if things are in plain sight. I'm pointing out a flaw that he should fix. Everyone makes bad decisions. Some do it over and over. Like BB struggles drafting but he is great in other areas. Does it make him bad or a coach I want fired? Of course not but he can hire different people to help him make better choices in the future. BS can get better people to help him in his flaws.

As for creditable, just look at the season and the quote that gave us this thread for if we should question how he does things.

You criticized him for "playing bums," tinkering at the start of every year with the rotation and giving guys run just to keep them happy heading into free agency, as if you have any idea what goes into his allocation of minutes.

You don't know who's outplaying who and what units are working in practice, who's banged up or having personal problems (yes, there's an injury report but there are also internal things not released to the media), what the advanced scouting report says about the opponents, or how Brad is thinking strategically about future matchups with an opponent if he knows we'll see them again in the playoffs.

The best coaches change lineups from time to time. One minute Jordan Bell is starting at center for the Warriors, the next he doesn't see the court for 3 straight games. Is Steve Kerr tinkering, responding to circumstances or trying things out to see if they work?

What seems obvious to you in plain sight is subjective and reads like a know-it-all blogger, not someone with any real knowledge of the inner workings of a professional basketball team.

Of course the goal is to win championships, but that doesn't mean there aren't a bunch of small failures on the road to success. Having the big picture in mind and a little perspective sure helps guard gets wild overreactions.

What's knowing about practice not going to tell me Yabu is terrible. Or Turner is a a chucker. Or Morris is likely gone as a FA. Or Rozier isn't playing smart basketball. Doesn't take me watching practice to know those things. Keep calling me a know it all Mr Blind Man.

Changes to lineups are fine if you are winning and playing well as a team when you lose or are poor you are suppose say that was a bad move.

You be happy with 50 wins don't bother coming at me with a loser mentality.

Yabu has never been in the rotation, Evan Turner was a valuable role player who turned his brief Celtics stint into a big new contract that we were smart not to match, Marcus Morris was our second most consistent player the first half of the year and Terry Rozier was a backup point guard who averaged just 22 minutes despite being in demand and coming off a career stretch at the end of 17-18.

In short, you're not supporting any of the points you're trying to make with anything but wild rants and unsubstantiated claims, and you're getting more unhinged each time someone provides a small dose of reality.

Averaging 52 games a year and being perennial playoff contenders with your second best player hurt is a place 90% of the league would love to be in, especially with the young talent and trade pieces available. Sorry you're unable to grasp that.

[PhoSita]

Between 2001 and 2011 the Dallas Mavericks averaged 52 wins, winning as many as 67 games and as few as 50.  They made the Finals twice and won a title.


Was that a bad run?

[Donoghus]

Between 2001 and 2011 the Dallas Mavericks averaged 52 wins, winning as many as 67 games and as few as 50.  They made the Finals twice and won a title.


Was that a bad run?

No, because they won a title.

If they went that stretch without winning anything, I'm sure a decent segment of their fanbase would've been disappointed.

Titles change everything.   No matter what the win total was that season.

[Csfan1984]

Nothing ingenuous about stating the observable fact:  Since the end of the 16-2 start (which was 174 games ago) the Celtics have never played any stretch of games with anything remotely like those results -- with or without Kyrie.     They've been nowhere near a "56 win pace".  That's just not who this team has been.

If a player started his career hitting 12 shots in a row in his first few games, and then from that point commenced to consistently hitting at a 45% clip, how long are you going to wait before you stop giving much statistical significance to those first 12 shots when describing what kind of shooter that player is?

Time to let go of that red hot start to the Kyrie era.   Because those games don't paint an accurate picture of what the Kyrie era really has been like.

A perennial playoff contender that averages 50 wins a year (after you've cooked the data) despite its 2nd best player being injured?

50 wins means nothing. Even 56 means nothing. The average champion is closer to 60 wins per season. We are not close to that for a whole season or back to back seasons. They need to work better as a team to gel, they need consistent rotations of the best players. Not tinkering playing bums or over playing FAs to be so they can be happy making money from some other team. The chemistry will never be there unless BS changes that part of things that he is in control of. That's what is worth beating himself up on.

It's funny how spoiled and entitled some fans have become. If you've been a Celtics fan since 1984, then you know that we didn't win 50 games once from 1992 until 2008, the championship year. A drought like that makes you appreciate teams that average 52 wins a year and have a legitimate shot to get out of the east with its second best player (and former all-star) injured and several of its young prospects still developing.

I'm glad we have a top-5 coach who is universally respected across the league, and whose teams have exceeded expectations 5 out of 6 years.

Act like you know more than him all you want. It's not creditable.

C's by their own standards (not your's) is about winning championships. That's my hope.

It doesnt taking acting to know it if things are in plain sight. I'm pointing out a flaw that he should fix. Everyone makes bad decisions. Some do it over and over. Like BB struggles drafting but he is great in other areas. Does it make him bad or a coach I want fired? Of course not but he can hire different people to help him make better choices in the future. BS can get better people to help him in his flaws.

As for creditable, just look at the season and the quote that gave us this thread for if we should question how he does things.

You criticized him for "playing bums," tinkering at the start of every year with the rotation and giving guys run just to keep them happy heading into free agency, as if you have any idea what goes into his allocation of minutes.

You don't know who's outplaying who and what units are working in practice, who's banged up or having personal problems (yes, there's an injury report but there are also internal things not released to the media), what the advanced scouting report says about the opponents, or how Brad is thinking strategically about future matchups with an opponent if he knows we'll see them again in the playoffs.

The best coaches change lineups from time to time. One minute Jordan Bell is starting at center for the Warriors, the next he doesn't see the court for 3 straight games. Is Steve Kerr tinkering, responding to circumstances or trying things out to see if they work?

What seems obvious to you in plain sight is subjective and reads like a know-it-all blogger, not someone with any real knowledge of the inner workings of a professional basketball team.

Of course the goal is to win championships, but that doesn't mean there aren't a bunch of small failures on the road to success. Having the big picture in mind and a little perspective sure helps guard gets wild overreactions.

What's knowing about practice not going to tell me Yabu is terrible. Or Turner is a a chucker. Or Morris is likely gone as a FA. Or Rozier isn't playing smart basketball. Doesn't take me watching practice to know those things. Keep calling me a know it all Mr Blind Man.

Changes to lineups are fine if you are winning and playing well as a team when you lose or are poor you are suppose say that was a bad move.

You be happy with 50 wins don't bother coming at me with a loser mentality.

Yabu has never been in the rotation, Evan Turner was a valuable role player who turned his brief Celtics stint into a big new contract that we were smart not to match, Marcus Morris was our second most consistent player the first half of the year and Terry Rozier was a backup point guard who averaged just 22 minutes despite being in demand and coming off a career stretch at the end of 17-18.

In short, you're not supporting any of the points you're trying to make with anything but wild rants and unsubstantiated claims, and you're getting more unhinged each time someone provides a small dose of reality.

Averaging 52 games a year and being perennial playoff contenders with your second best player hurt is a place 90% of the league would love to be in, especially with the young talent and trade pieces available. Sorry you're unable to grasp that.

Mr. Blind Man,
  Yabu played regardless he should have never seen the floor even sparingly. We invested mins into Turner instead of developing guys when we were a rebuilding team. We invested time in Morris when he wasnt a long term answer, even played him during a terrible slump. Neither makes a championship difference or were traded for assets. Rozier was a mess all year he should have seen no more than 10 mins the way he was playing. You could have gave those minutes to Brown and Tatum to be more effective.

I keep listing stuff but you blindly ignore it  How am I wrong about the stuff I said when I explain exactly what I mean? I'm not the one changing the topics taking things into a tangent. I give you truth and you give me green coolaid.

[Donoghus]

Enough with the snark & labeling.  Be civil.

[Never Nervous Pervis]

Between 2001 and 2011 the Dallas Mavericks averaged 52 wins, winning as many as 67 games and as few as 50.  They made the Finals twice and won a title.


Was that a bad run?

No, because they won a title.

If they went that stretch without winning anything, I'm sure a decent segment of their fanbase would've been disappointed.

Titles change everything.   No matter what the win total was that season.

Great case study so thanks for the question. And I agree with the answer. Titles do change everything. But I also think that if the Mavs had lost both times to the Heat in the finals, that's still a great run. As a franchise, the goal is to be a perennial contender year after year. Sometimes you take two steps forward and one step back. But a decade's worth of contention is admirable.