Shrewsberry: Stevens Really Beat Himself up Over Last Season

[Csfan1984]

Pulling out a win when down during a game isn’t playing well?

They won those games. Played better than the opposing teams for enough of the game to score more points. That’s good, right?

Well if two teams shot under 35% for a game then no its not good for either team. That's lucky for the winner.

[mobilija]

Pulling out a win when down during a game isn’t playing well?

They won those games. Played better than the opposing teams for enough of the game to score more points. That’s good, right?

Well if two teams shot under 35% for a game then no its not good for either team. That's lucky for the winner.

Or it’s two strong defensive teams.

Also, didn’t realize that those 16 straight wins were all two teams shooting so poorly. Gotta be a record of some kind...30-10 where a team and it’s opponents all shot below league avg.

[greg683x]

Lol clearly you’re just as lazy as me because you provided no such link when I asked for it the first time.  God forbid you back your own statements up.

As for the clip, do you really want to start dissecting how often good teams can fall behind by double digits?  It happens all the time, basketball is a game of runs.  Who won the games??  Was it a cause for concern?  Sure.  But maybe the reason they fell behind by double digits is because they had just lost a main focal point of their offense that they had worked all training camp on??

He also went into to praise his players resolve and will to come back, does that sound like a team that has problems with chemistry?

they were able to come back in these games because they were playing elite level defense and it’s takes chemistry to play elite team defense, even though you’re failing to prove that they had none.

There were no chemistry issues.  They were 30-10, so there was obviously no hole to be dug out from, give it up already

Resolve isnt chemistry it's character. Watch again and pay attention to what he said they had to work on. Then think about all the mixing and matching he does early in the year and how that can effect the very thing he says say struggled with.

Lol you’re being ridiculous.  You’re gonna split hairs between resolve and character when it comes to chemistry and try and hang onto every words Stevens says when it’s already been pointed out several times in this thread alone that that’s always how Stevens behaves in any kind of interview.

And on top of all that you continue to ignore all the other numbers and stats shown to support how positive the team was playing.

Can you just answer one question?   Did the 30-10 team have to dig itself out of a hole in the second half of the season?

[Csfan1984]

Pulling out a win when down during a game isn’t playing well?

They won those games. Played better than the opposing teams for enough of the game to score more points. That’s good, right?

Well if two teams shot under 35% for a game then no its not good for either team. That's lucky for the winner.

Or it’s two strong defensive teams.

Also, didn’t realize that those 16 straight wins were all two teams shooting so poorly. Gotta be a record of some kind...30-10 where a team and it’s opponents all shot below league avg.

I didn't say that. Was only proving the point. And no, good defense in today's NBA can't have teams shoot such a low number it would be guys not hitting shots

[Csfan1984]

Lol clearly you’re just as lazy as me because you provided no such link when I asked for it the first time.  God forbid you back your own statements up.

As for the clip, do you really want to start dissecting how often good teams can fall behind by double digits?  It happens all the time, basketball is a game of runs.  Who won the games??  Was it a cause for concern?  Sure.  But maybe the reason they fell behind by double digits is because they had just lost a main focal point of their offense that they had worked all training camp on??

He also went into to praise his players resolve and will to come back, does that sound like a team that has problems with chemistry?

they were able to come back in these games because they were playing elite level defense and it’s takes chemistry to play elite team defense, even though you’re failing to prove that they had none.

There were no chemistry issues.  They were 30-10, so there was obviously no hole to be dug out from, give it up already

Resolve isnt chemistry it's character. Watch again and pay attention to what he said they had to work on. Then think about all the mixing and matching he does early in the year and how that can effect the very thing he says say struggled with.

Lol you’re being ridiculous.  You’re gonna split hairs between resolve and character when it comes to chemistry and try and hang onto every words Stevens says when it’s already been pointed out several times in this thread alone that that’s always how Stevens behaves in any kind of interview.

And on top of all that you continue to ignore all the other numbers and stats shown to support how positive the team was playing.

Can you just answer one question?   Did the 30-10 team have to dig itself out of a hole in the second half of the season?

Splitting hairs.. read my original post it says chemistry not just record. You guys have made it about one season, the one with a real lucky stretch that BS called fools gold and a mirage. I explained the luck involved and how they didn't play well but you guys ignore it for "they still won". Let me guess you want me to post the stats on how lucky it was, the ones I mentioned? I mean seriously why should I? After I posted an interview from the man himself making my point and you ignored it.

[Never Nervous Pervis]

The Warriors have come from at least 12 down during their last 5 wins. I guess there should be an asterisk next to those with the small print saying "struggled early, wins tarnished." Maybe there's even a sound byte with Kerr saying they got lucky tonight.

[Csfan1984]

The Warriors have come from at least 12 down during their last 5 wins. I guess there should be an asterisk next to those with the small print saying "struggled early, wins tarnished." Maybe there's even a sound byte with Kerr saying they got lucky tonight.

Struggled early is a fact.

Maybe in a year since they won we will say they dominated each game.

[Never Nervous Pervis]

The Warriors have come from at least 12 down during their last 5 wins. I guess there should be an asterisk next to those with the small print saying "struggled early, wins tarnished." Maybe there's even a sound byte with Kerr saying they got lucky tonight.

Struggled early is a fact.

Maybe in a year since they won we will say they dominated each game.

The one thing smart, rational minds will say in a year is Stevens didn't put the Celtics in a hole when they started the year 30-10.

[Csfan1984]

The Warriors have come from at least 12 down during their last 5 wins. I guess there should be an asterisk next to those with the small print saying "struggled early, wins tarnished." Maybe there's even a sound byte with Kerr saying they got lucky tonight.

Struggled early is a fact.

Maybe in a year since they won we will say they dominated each game.

The one thing smart, rational minds will say in a year is Stevens didn't put the Celtics in a hole when they started the year 30-10.

And hopefully they can read.

[mmmmm]

If you watch the post games and pre games that year BS said it a few times. And don't be fool by the total win difference during the stretch they played a lot of bad teams that helps it. They had a ridiculous stat that was being covered by a few sports media sources of games being very close with the last 3 mins. Don't remember the exact number but they also said the win % in that scenario was like double the league average. There were a few teams that really gave the C's the win in that stretch as well with unforced turn overs in under 2 mins. It was very much a lot of luck.

The Celtics could go 82-0 and Stevens would still find things to be critical of. That's his humble Indiana roots, not proof that the team struggled despite going 30-10 without Hayward. Why are you still clinging to this invalidated claim 4 pages later?

Invalidated? Please, the evidence is there that there are issues. A few posters have stated them over the last few years. I am stating it now. The thread is about a report BS is beating himself up about the season. I am pointing out something he is doing wrong and the BS fan club want's to come at me with one half of a season. I broke down the errors in their rebutle. The facts are he has struggled, some teams over achieved but he has made mistakes. Mistakes I point out that need correction. I'm critical because that's what a non-homer is.

The definitive truth is the Celtics did not start the 2017-2018 season in a hole when they went 30-10, and nobody in their right mind would claim otherwise. This has been pointed out repeatedly. Each subsequent attempt to rationalize it — the team came back to win several times, they only won some games by a few points, they got lucky at the end of a few others — teeters farther into the absurd. Now you're calling me a homer and a BS fan club member for holding a mirror to reality, rather than simply saying you spoke in error.

If they weren't having problems, why didn't they finish well? They got lucky in the first half.

Oh, I don't know. Maybe because Kyrie Irving suffered a season-ending injury?

Also, here's a little secret: each year every team but one, by definition, doesn't finish well.

Just for the record, they 'finished out'  the 2017-18 season at pretty close to the same rate that they played most of that season.

After the red-hot 18-2 start, the team played at about a 62% (51-win) pace in the games Kyrie played in.

In the games in which Kyrie did not play (including playoffs) the team played at about a 61% (50-win) pace.

[bellerephon]

You can't chalk up either winning streaks or losing streaks to luck. All teams go through ups and downs during the season. The final record is a fair benchmark to use when measuring how a season went, and you should not simply dismiss a good season on the grounds that they had a lucky streak. Likewise you can't dismiss a disappointing season.

[nickagneta]

If you watch the post games and pre games that year BS said it a few times. And don't be fool by the total win difference during the stretch they played a lot of bad teams that helps it. They had a ridiculous stat that was being covered by a few sports media sources of games being very close with the last 3 mins. Don't remember the exact number but they also said the win % in that scenario was like double the league average. There were a few teams that really gave the C's the win in that stretch as well with unforced turn overs in under 2 mins. It was very much a lot of luck.

The Celtics could go 82-0 and Stevens would still find things to be critical of. That's his humble Indiana roots, not proof that the team struggled despite going 30-10 without Hayward. Why are you still clinging to this invalidated claim 4 pages later?

Invalidated? Please, the evidence is there that there are issues. A few posters have stated them over the last few years. I am stating it now. The thread is about a report BS is beating himself up about the season. I am pointing out something he is doing wrong and the BS fan club want's to come at me with one half of a season. I broke down the errors in their rebutle. The facts are he has struggled, some teams over achieved but he has made mistakes. Mistakes I point out that need correction. I'm critical because that's what a non-homer is.

The definitive truth is the Celtics did not start the 2017-2018 season in a hole when they went 30-10, and nobody in their right mind would claim otherwise. This has been pointed out repeatedly. Each subsequent attempt to rationalize it — the team came back to win several times, they only won some games by a few points, they got lucky at the end of a few others — teeters farther into the absurd. Now you're calling me a homer and a BS fan club member for holding a mirror to reality, rather than simply saying you spoke in error.

If they weren't having problems, why didn't they finish well? They got lucky in the first half.

Oh, I don't know. Maybe because Kyrie Irving suffered a season-ending injury?

Also, here's a little secret: each year every team but one, by definition, doesn't finish well.

Just for the record, they 'finished out'  the 2017-18 season at pretty close to the same rate that they played most of that season.

After the red-hot 18-2 start, the team played at about a 62% (51-win) pace in the games Kyrie played in.

In the games in which Kyrie did not play (including playoffs) the team played at about a 61% (50-win) pace.

It's mathematically ingenuous to not count the 18-2 start.

The team was 41-19 playing with Irving that year. A 68% winning rate or a 56 win pace.

The team finished 14-8 in the regular season and 11-8 in the playoffs. That's 25-16, 51% rate or a 51 win pace.

[gift]

You can't chalk up either winning streaks or losing streaks to luck. All teams go through ups and downs during the season. The final record is a fair benchmark to use when measuring how a season went, and you should not simply dismiss a good season on the grounds that they had a lucky streak. Likewise you can't dismiss a disappointing season.

I think there was a study someone did that showed that overall record tended to be a better indicator of team strength than any given streak within the season. Certainly, some teams will be completely different at the beginning and end of the same season, and some are not even structurally the same due to trades, injuries or rotations. But for the most part, a regular season record is the best indicator we have a given team's strength. Which makes some sense since it is the largest sample size we have for a single season.

[mmmmm]

If you watch the post games and pre games that year BS said it a few times. And don't be fool by the total win difference during the stretch they played a lot of bad teams that helps it. They had a ridiculous stat that was being covered by a few sports media sources of games being very close with the last 3 mins. Don't remember the exact number but they also said the win % in that scenario was like double the league average. There were a few teams that really gave the C's the win in that stretch as well with unforced turn overs in under 2 mins. It was very much a lot of luck.

The Celtics could go 82-0 and Stevens would still find things to be critical of. That's his humble Indiana roots, not proof that the team struggled despite going 30-10 without Hayward. Why are you still clinging to this invalidated claim 4 pages later?

Invalidated? Please, the evidence is there that there are issues. A few posters have stated them over the last few years. I am stating it now. The thread is about a report BS is beating himself up about the season. I am pointing out something he is doing wrong and the BS fan club want's to come at me with one half of a season. I broke down the errors in their rebutle. The facts are he has struggled, some teams over achieved but he has made mistakes. Mistakes I point out that need correction. I'm critical because that's what a non-homer is.

The definitive truth is the Celtics did not start the 2017-2018 season in a hole when they went 30-10, and nobody in their right mind would claim otherwise. This has been pointed out repeatedly. Each subsequent attempt to rationalize it — the team came back to win several times, they only won some games by a few points, they got lucky at the end of a few others — teeters farther into the absurd. Now you're calling me a homer and a BS fan club member for holding a mirror to reality, rather than simply saying you spoke in error.

If they weren't having problems, why didn't they finish well? They got lucky in the first half.

Oh, I don't know. Maybe because Kyrie Irving suffered a season-ending injury?

Also, here's a little secret: each year every team but one, by definition, doesn't finish well.

Just for the record, they 'finished out'  the 2017-18 season at pretty close to the same rate that they played most of that season.

After the red-hot 18-2 start, the team played at about a 62% (51-win) pace in the games Kyrie played in.

In the games in which Kyrie did not play (including playoffs) the team played at about a 61% (50-win) pace.

It's mathematically ingenuous to not count the 18-2 start.

The team was 41-19 playing with Irving that year. A 68% winning rate or a 56 win pace.

The team finished 14-8 in the regular season and 11-8 in the playoffs. That's 25-16, 51% rate or a 51 win pace.

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.   

[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?