Shrewsberry: Stevens Really Beat Himself up Over Last Season

[gift]

A win total above 50 is generally indicative of a team that either 1) overachieved to get there or 2) is in position to either be a contender by force or by [good or bad] luck [of some combination]. Winning 50+ games generally puts you in the upper brackets of the playoffs and maybe an injury or two away from contending (if you weren't already a contender anyway).

The only time I'd say this is a bad position to be in is if your team is aging, expensive, and has tried multiple times and failed year after year. Then you can rebuild. But otherwise, that's where you want to be in the league. There's no way you can guarantee 60 wins. That's like insisting that you are a top 2 or 3 team every year. That's just not realistic, though of course that's the dream.

[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.

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.

Being a perennial contender certainly is something to strive for.  Coming out of it empty handed with no titles has to be a disappointment, though. 

If this Philly process results in zero titles, was it really worth all the ups & downs for that fanbase?  I have most of their fans are focused on the end goal of the Process resulting in a title and not simply contention.

[Never Nervous Pervis]

Mr. Blind Man,
  Yabu played regardless he should have never seen the floor even sparingly.

Yabu averaged 6 minutes a game last year. What are you talking about?

We invested mins into Turner instead of developing guys when we were a rebuilding team.

Who failed to develop as a result of Evan Turner playing? Gerald Wallace? Marcus Thornton? Phil Pressey?

We invested time in Morris when he wasnt a long term answer, even played him during a terrible slump.

Marcus Morris was a veteran brought in to help with a deep playoff run; most veterans on team friendly contracts aren't long-term answers. We were trying to win last year. Morris helped with that early.

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.

Tatum averaged 31 minutes a game last year, and Brown's struggles at the beginning of the year were such that he was removed from the starting lineup. Terry Rozier didn't cause that.

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.

I'm not blindly ignoring anything, I'm deconstructing every false and preposterous claim you make with specific evidence. You claimed Brad Stevens puts his team at a disadvantage to start every year. My response? Well, we started 2017-2018 with a 30-10 record, which included a 16-game winning streak. That's not putting the team at a disadvantage. You? That doesn't count. The team came from behind too many times. My response? Every team comes from behind over the course of a game/season. Look at the Warriors last 5 games. They were behind in every game. They're the best team in the league over the past 5 years yet you still argue that's somehow not a model we should emulate.

And the irony of you claiming to speak truth is duly noted.

[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.

Being a perennial contender certainly is something to strive for.  Coming out of it empty handed with no titles has to be a disappointment, though. 

If this Philly process results in zero titles, was it really worth all the ups & downs for that fanbase?  I have most of their fans are focused on the end goal of the Process resulting in a title and not simply contention.

Zero titles and zero trips to the finals are different things, though, right? I know losing 4 straight Super Bowls was brutal for Buffalo Bill fans, but was their organizational model flawed?

I would argue that's a helluva run with some bad luck involved at the very end.

[Csfan1984]

Mr. Blind Man,
  Yabu played regardless he should have never seen the floor even sparingly.

Yabu averaged 6 minutes a game last year. What are you talking about?

We invested mins into Turner instead of developing guys when we were a rebuilding team.

Who failed to develop as a result of Evan Turner playing? Gerald Wallace? Marcus Thornton? Phil Pressey?

We invested time in Morris when he wasnt a long term answer, even played him during a terrible slump.

Marcus Morris was a veteran brought in to help with a deep playoff run; most veterans on team friendly contracts aren't long-term answers. We were trying to win last year. Morris helped with that early.

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.

Tatum averaged 31 minutes a game last year, and Brown's struggles at the beginning of the year were such that he was removed from the starting lineup. Terry Rozier didn't cause that.

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.

I'm not blindly ignoring anything, I'm deconstructing every false and preposterous claim you make with specific evidence. You claimed Brad Stevens puts his team at a disadvantage to start every year. My response? Well, we started 2017-2018 with a 30-10 record, which included a 16-game winning streak. That's not putting the team at a disadvantage. You? That doesn't count. The team came from behind too many times. My response? Every team comes from behind over the course of a game/season. Look at the Warriors last 5 games. They were behind in every game. They're the best team in the league over the past 5 years yet you still argue that's somehow not a model we should emulate.

And the irony of you claiming to speak truth is duly noted.

Irony is you still say 6mins for Yabu is ok. Irony is Smart not playing more or Brown who could of used more PT. Irony is Brown having a tough start was when Irving and Hayward struggled at the same while he was supposed to be playing off them, Morris struggles but Brown never gets the start back. Irony is you say deconstructed when you haven't you just spout off something else as unrelated to that I wrote or something that actually still supports my claim, lol. I talked about chemistry being plays, rotations and development never talking records but you keep going to a record from one year. One which not only I explained was lucky and BS called fools gold and a mirage. Yes you very blind.

[Donoghus]

Well, would've helped if you had listened.  This thread is getting dangerously close to getting locked.  Consider this the final warning.

[Never Nervous Pervis]

Mr. Blind Man,
  Yabu played regardless he should have never seen the floor even sparingly.

Yabu averaged 6 minutes a game last year. What are you talking about?

We invested mins into Turner instead of developing guys when we were a rebuilding team.

Who failed to develop as a result of Evan Turner playing? Gerald Wallace? Marcus Thornton? Phil Pressey?

We invested time in Morris when he wasnt a long term answer, even played him during a terrible slump.

Marcus Morris was a veteran brought in to help with a deep playoff run; most veterans on team friendly contracts aren't long-term answers. We were trying to win last year. Morris helped with that early.

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.

Tatum averaged 31 minutes a game last year, and Brown's struggles at the beginning of the year were such that he was removed from the starting lineup. Terry Rozier didn't cause that.

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.

I'm not blindly ignoring anything, I'm deconstructing every false and preposterous claim you make with specific evidence. You claimed Brad Stevens puts his team at a disadvantage to start every year. My response? Well, we started 2017-2018 with a 30-10 record, which included a 16-game winning streak. That's not putting the team at a disadvantage. You? That doesn't count. The team came from behind too many times. My response? Every team comes from behind over the course of a game/season. Look at the Warriors last 5 games. They were behind in every game. They're the best team in the league over the past 5 years yet you still argue that's somehow not a model we should emulate.

And the irony of you claiming to speak truth is duly noted.

Irony is you still say 6mins for Yabu is ok. Irony is Smart not playing more or Brown who could of used more PT. Irony is Brown having a tough start was when Irving and Hayward struggled at the same while he was supposed to be playing off them, Morris struggles but Brown never gets the start back. Irony is you say deconstructed when you haven't you just spout off something else as unrelated to that I wrote or something that actually still supports my claim, lol. I talked about chemistry being plays, rotations and development never talking records but you keep going to a record from one year. One which not only I explained was lucky and BS called fools gold and a mirage. Yes you very blind.

Most of this is incoherent but okay. Those 6 minutes a game Yabu played were not rotation minutes, but during blowouts when the outcomes were already decided. Are you really criticizing Brad for seeing if a former first round pick who's rarely played had any value at the end of games (while at the same time criticizing him for not developing young players)? Does Steve Kerr get criticized for playing Jacob Evans 6.8 minutes a game?

This on-going conversation was about the beginning of games/seasons, and your false claim that Brad's tinkering with lineups significantly set us back. The only year you could even make that accusation with a straight face is this past year, and that's still dubious at best.

Yes, I wish Jaylen had played more after Christmas, but he's not a power forward, Morris is. We had a rebounding problem. Why compound that by removing your power forward from the starting lineup and replacing him with another wing?

The 2017-2018 Celtics team was not a mirage, and you won't find one legitimate expert or insider to say otherwise. It was a weaker Eastern Conference. That's it.

[greg683x]

has anyone ever admitted that theyre wrong on a message board before?  lol

im sure it happens, but its gotta be rare, like seeing a shooting star.

[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?

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.

A run like that without a title would be disappointing, sure.

I'm sure Utah fans were disappointed that Stockton and malone never won one.


But does that make the entire run "not worth it"?

Do you think Utah fans wish the team had drafted somebody else and avoided the entire Stockton Malone era because that could have possibly resulted in a different outcome?


That's nonsensical to me.

I will always maintain that the journey has to be worth it on its own even if the team never reaches the destination. But of course we always want our teams to be striving to reach the destination.


All but one season of the KG era ended without a title.

Do you wish the team had simply blown it up and started rebuilding earlier after the 08 title, since the team never won another?

Personally I'm glad that we got to watch that team make those additional runs.  I honestly have stronger memories of the 09, 10, and 12 playoff runs than the 08 one.

[nickagneta]

It's been 11 years since the last title. Probably 9 years since we were a realistic title contender. Starting the season off knowing that the next time the team may be contenders again are years and years away because that next time might be when Tatum and Brown are fully developed and the Memphis pick has brought a superstar that is just coming into his own, is depressing to me.

I was 21 when the Celtics won it 1986. 33 years later and the best franchise of all time has won 1 title in that time. I am not going to be content with a team full of feel good players giving max effort to be a 1st or, at best, a 2nd round out in the playoffs for the next 5-8 years while the youth grows.

And even then, what happens if the youth doesn't grow all that much? Smart as a sixth pick has turned out to be only an elite role player. What happens if Brown and Tatum don't grow that much more and never make it to All-Star status? What if that Memphis pick ends up low lottery and turns out not to be that good?

The only guarantee you have in the NBA is if you have top 10 superstars, you have the best chance to be a top team and contender. If Kyrie and Davis aren't here, it may be quite a while before we see that next superstar.

[PhoSita]

It's been 11 years since the last title. Probably 9 years since we were a realistic title contender. Starting the season off knowing that the next time the team may be contenders again are years and years away because that next time might be when Tatum and Brown are fully developed and the Memphis pick has brought a superstar that is just coming into his own, is depressing to me.

I was 21 when the Celtics won it 1986. 33 years later and the best franchise of all time has won 1 title in that time. I am not going to be content with a team full of feel good players giving max effort to be a 1st or, at best, a 2nd round out in the playoffs for the next 5-8 years while the youth grows.

And even then, what happens if the youth doesn't grow all that much? Smart as a sixth pick has turned out to be only an elite role player. What happens if Brown and Tatum don't grow that much more and never make it to All-Star status? What if that Memphis pick ends up low lottery and turns out not to be that good?

The only guarantee you have in the NBA is if you have top 10 superstars, you have the best chance to be a top team and contender. If Kyrie and Davis aren't here, it may be quite a while before we see that next superstar.

All of this is fair and reasonable. 

You're absolutely right that to win a title in the NBA you need to either catch lightning in a bottle in a down year for the league (e.g. 05 Pistons), or you need a top 5-10 superstar.

That alone isn't even enough.  You need a quality supporting cast and a team that is able to fight through adversity and handle different kinds of matchups.  You also need a coach who can manage a playoff series effectively.  And you need luck with injuries, difficult shots going in at the right time, etc.


We've been down this road before on the blog many times.  If your team doesn't have that superstar already, what do you do?  Is the answer to pull a Philly and just completely throw any semblance of trying to field a legitimate NBA team out the window for 3-5 years until you are able to draft that guy?  Do you try to line up cap space every time there are enticing names entering free agency and try to pitch them a la the Lakers or Heat?  Or do you carefully manage and build up your assets year over year for 5-10 years and hope that you have the best offer when the right guy becomes available?

There are no guarantees.  Right now it doesn't look like the Celts are going to be in a position to have one of those guys who can take a team to the promised land for at least a few more years. 

We can either try to find things worth being excited about in that time, or we can change the channel, I guess. 


I don't blame anybody for being disappointed or frustrated.  At the same time, I don't think Kyrie is the answer, with or without Anthony Davis.  I think we've learned that pretty definitively.  Time to move on.


You mentioned that the Celtics have only won a single title since 1986.  Part of that is bad luck.  For a while there, too, they were a poorly managed team.  I guess one reason for optimism is that the Celts have good ownership, good management, a quality coach, and a solid base of young players / assets.  How many teams in the league right now that are not currently in contention can say the same?

There's no way of knowing when the Celtics will be a true contender again, but I think we have reason to believe it might not be that far off.