Ime has got to go!

[action781]

They've been fun to watch this last half of the season. Up to this point, Ime has done a good job getting them to buy in and I'll give him credit for that.
That said, respect in the NBA is earned from what you do in the playoffs. If we fizzle out and get owned by MKE or another, none of this success means anything. I'm not saying they have to win it all, but if they don't give the team that eliminates them a run, then a lot of what we're seeing right now is all smoke and mirrors.

Lots of moving the goalposts here.

Udoka sucks.

<Months later after team is playing like the best team in the league.>

Well, I might have been harsh but only the playoffs matter so if the team doesn't win it all, Udoka still sucks.

I might be paraphrasing....but not by much.

Eh.  It’s fair to be skeptical of a rookie coach.  The playoffs are a completely different set of circumstances.  Even the 2008 Celts had some playoff hiccups on the road.

I suspect that we’ll be fine.  Tatum, Brown and Marcus are battle-tested.  But, it’s a question mark.

Except he isn't really being skeptical, now is he?

He is just pushing his opinion about Udoka's suckiness down the road. He's basically saying if they fail in the playoffs, nothing Udoka did to get the Celtics playing like world beaters counts and he is still not going to respect him and probably revert back to his original position

Udoka looks like he is going to have an amazing regular season of coaching in his 1st year as head coach. You shouldn't just flush that down the toilet if the Celtics don't win in the playoffs, which is pretty much what AG is advocating.

Skeptical is: Udoka had a great regular season, let's hope it carries of to the playoffs. The playoffs are a different animal so it could go poorly

Skeptical isn't: If they lose in the playoffs it renders the regular season meaningless, just smoke and mirrors, so Udoka should get no respect for the job he has done.

Well, he specifically said the team doesn’t have to win a title, it just needs to go down fighting.

I think that’s fair.  Perhaps it’s a built-in excuse to blame the coach, but I know I’ll be disappointed if we roll over and lose a first or second round series easily.  If we go down swinging in seven games against Philly, Milwaukee, Brooklyn or Miami, I think we chalk it up to a good year that went wrong.

So basically, don’t put on a Kyrie vs. Milwaukee showing.

But does that loss undo everything done up to that point? Because he is clearly saying that.

Yes, it will suck and I will hate seeing the team bow out like that. But that isn't going to change the fact Udoka had done an amazing job up to that point and doesn't mean he should only be judged on the playoff loss, which is what he is saying.

I'll step out here. I think Udoka has been amazing as a whole and a playoff loss isn't going to change that for me. Rookie, 1st time ever head coaches almost never win a title their rookie year. If Udoka doesn't, I'm not gonna throw him under the bus.

It’s hard to say what I’ll think.  If Ime has a lousy first half of the season, an amazing second half, and an embarrassing playoffs?  I’ll probably consider his first year to be a bit mixed, rather than uniformly positive.

If you were to be asked the question, "A first year head coach is coming in to coach a team that formerly had a strong veteran coach but was the 7 seed last season and lost 4-1 in the first round of the playoffs.  What would you consider to be a positive outcome for him this season?"

For me, my answer would probably be "If they can bypass the playin round, then that's a success."

Playoff performance matters.  But I think it will take a first year head coach some time to learn that aspect of coaching so I'm willing to not judge a first year head coach on that aspect.

[Kiorrik]

Regular season = basketball
Playoffs = chess

Lessee Ime's castling.

[Roy H.]

They've been fun to watch this last half of the season. Up to this point, Ime has done a good job getting them to buy in and I'll give him credit for that.
That said, respect in the NBA is earned from what you do in the playoffs. If we fizzle out and get owned by MKE or another, none of this success means anything. I'm not saying they have to win it all, but if they don't give the team that eliminates them a run, then a lot of what we're seeing right now is all smoke and mirrors.

Lots of moving the goalposts here.

Udoka sucks.

<Months later after team is playing like the best team in the league.>

Well, I might have been harsh but only the playoffs matter so if the team doesn't win it all, Udoka still sucks.

I might be paraphrasing....but not by much.

Eh.  It’s fair to be skeptical of a rookie coach.  The playoffs are a completely different set of circumstances.  Even the 2008 Celts had some playoff hiccups on the road.

I suspect that we’ll be fine.  Tatum, Brown and Marcus are battle-tested.  But, it’s a question mark.

Except he isn't really being skeptical, now is he?

He is just pushing his opinion about Udoka's suckiness down the road. He's basically saying if they fail in the playoffs, nothing Udoka did to get the Celtics playing like world beaters counts and he is still not going to respect him and probably revert back to his original position

Udoka looks like he is going to have an amazing regular season of coaching in his 1st year as head coach. You shouldn't just flush that down the toilet if the Celtics don't win in the playoffs, which is pretty much what AG is advocating.

Skeptical is: Udoka had a great regular season, let's hope it carries of to the playoffs. The playoffs are a different animal so it could go poorly

Skeptical isn't: If they lose in the playoffs it renders the regular season meaningless, just smoke and mirrors, so Udoka should get no respect for the job he has done.

Well, he specifically said the team doesn’t have to win a title, it just needs to go down fighting.

I think that’s fair.  Perhaps it’s a built-in excuse to blame the coach, but I know I’ll be disappointed if we roll over and lose a first or second round series easily.  If we go down swinging in seven games against Philly, Milwaukee, Brooklyn or Miami, I think we chalk it up to a good year that went wrong.

So basically, don’t put on a Kyrie vs. Milwaukee showing.

But does that loss undo everything done up to that point? Because he is clearly saying that.

Yes, it will suck and I will hate seeing the team bow out like that. But that isn't going to change the fact Udoka had done an amazing job up to that point and doesn't mean he should only be judged on the playoff loss, which is what he is saying.

I'll step out here. I think Udoka has been amazing as a whole and a playoff loss isn't going to change that for me. Rookie, 1st time ever head coaches almost never win a title their rookie year. If Udoka doesn't, I'm not gonna throw him under the bus.

It’s hard to say what I’ll think.  If Ime has a lousy first half of the season, an amazing second half, and an embarrassing playoffs?  I’ll probably consider his first year to be a bit mixed, rather than uniformly positive.

If you were to be asked the question, "A first year head coach is coming in to coach a team that formerly had a strong veteran coach but was the 7 seed last season and lost 4-1 in the first round of the playoffs.  What would you consider to be a positive outcome for him this season?"

For me, my answer would probably be "If they can bypass the playin round, then that's a success."

Playoff performance matters.  But I think it will take a first year head coach some time to learn that aspect of coaching so I'm willing to not judge a first year head coach on that aspect.

I wouldn't have found the play-in to be a success, no.  When we were struggling a couple games below .500, I don't think many people were thrilled with the direction of the team.  I know that I wasn't.  As I said early in the thread, the team seemed to lack buy in.

And then, Ime got through to them.  With that buy in, the team exploded.  They've played extremely impressive basketball.  Ime gets a large part of that credit.  Defense is due to team culture, and Ime has helped maximize that.

But, if we lose 4-1 in the first round, that's going to initiate a debate about whether Ime had his team properly prepared.  I'm hoping it doesn't come to that, because this team has Finals potential right now.  But, if we flame out, part of the blame goes to the coach, and I think that takes a lot of luster off the January -> March (April?) run.

[Birdman]

He just needed time..he gotta be here a long time

[Moranis]

They've been fun to watch this last half of the season. Up to this point, Ime has done a good job getting them to buy in and I'll give him credit for that.
That said, respect in the NBA is earned from what you do in the playoffs. If we fizzle out and get owned by MKE or another, none of this success means anything. I'm not saying they have to win it all, but if they don't give the team that eliminates them a run, then a lot of what we're seeing right now is all smoke and mirrors.

Lots of moving the goalposts here.

Udoka sucks.

<Months later after team is playing like the best team in the league.>

Well, I might have been harsh but only the playoffs matter so if the team doesn't win it all, Udoka still sucks.

I might be paraphrasing....but not by much.

Eh.  It’s fair to be skeptical of a rookie coach.  The playoffs are a completely different set of circumstances.  Even the 2008 Celts had some playoff hiccups on the road.

I suspect that we’ll be fine.  Tatum, Brown and Marcus are battle-tested.  But, it’s a question mark.

Except he isn't really being skeptical, now is he?

He is just pushing his opinion about Udoka's suckiness down the road. He's basically saying if they fail in the playoffs, nothing Udoka did to get the Celtics playing like world beaters counts and he is still not going to respect him and probably revert back to his original position

Udoka looks like he is going to have an amazing regular season of coaching in his 1st year as head coach. You shouldn't just flush that down the toilet if the Celtics don't win in the playoffs, which is pretty much what AG is advocating.

Skeptical is: Udoka had a great regular season, let's hope it carries of to the playoffs. The playoffs are a different animal so it could go poorly

Skeptical isn't: If they lose in the playoffs it renders the regular season meaningless, just smoke and mirrors, so Udoka should get no respect for the job he has done.

Well, he specifically said the team doesn’t have to win a title, it just needs to go down fighting.

I think that’s fair.  Perhaps it’s a built-in excuse to blame the coach, but I know I’ll be disappointed if we roll over and lose a first or second round series easily.  If we go down swinging in seven games against Philly, Milwaukee, Brooklyn or Miami, I think we chalk it up to a good year that went wrong.

So basically, don’t put on a Kyrie vs. Milwaukee showing.

But does that loss undo everything done up to that point? Because he is clearly saying that.

Yes, it will suck and I will hate seeing the team bow out like that. But that isn't going to change the fact Udoka had done an amazing job up to that point and doesn't mean he should only be judged on the playoff loss, which is what he is saying.

I'll step out here. I think Udoka has been amazing as a whole and a playoff loss isn't going to change that for me. Rookie, 1st time ever head coaches almost never win a title their rookie year. If Udoka doesn't, I'm not gonna throw him under the bus.

It’s hard to say what I’ll think.  If Ime has a lousy first half of the season, an amazing second half, and an embarrassing playoffs?  I’ll probably consider his first year to be a bit mixed, rather than uniformly positive.

I posed the question elsewhere, but it does seem to fit in this discussion.  Does the fact that the C's have basically been playing a playoff style rotation against mostly non (or lesser) playoff competition over this 2 months make the team appear better than it actually is?  And if that is the case, should Udoka really get as much credit for that as many are giving him?  I think the playoffs will really give a real indication of both the coaching job and the talent on the team.  That seems like a fair discussion to have.

So you're questioning if the guy in charge of the rotations, should get credit for the rotations that got us our success?

I get where you're coming from, honestly. Playoffs are different. But that's not the only way to judge a team. The tight rotations have very clearly seen us produce better and better over the season, to the point where we look several cuts above the rest. And our rotations really aren't tighter than at the start of the season, so you've got to assume it's helped.

People have been complaining about minutes for our starters all season long, whilst in reality, we've been playing our guys the same amount of minutes as league average-ish.

Especially seeing as Ime's current options are Hauser, Stauskas, Kornet and Fitt.

No, what I'm saying is, when teams shorten rotations and play starters more minutes, that has historically been in the playoffs.  Which is why the regular season and playoffs often yield vastly different results from the teams that know they can compete (i.e. the teams with guys like Lebron, Giannis, Durant, etc.).  So I do think there is a question that if Boston was playing a more traditional regular season rotation i.e. most of the team plays on a regular basis, very few guys near 35 mpg, etc., as opposed to the 8/9 man rotation with heavy minutes the team has been playing, if some of the results would be different.  Couple that with the weakest part of the schedule (I was one of the few that was predicting the team would finish 2 to 1 wins to losses - think I said 26-12 at a minimum back in December when the team was in the hard part of the schedule) and I do think there are some concerns about just how good the team is. 

The remaining schedule is much more difficult with the only 2 clear victories being Indiana and Washington at home.  Every other game the opponent could pretty easily beat Boston (obviously Boston will win some of those).  9 games left 5-4 or 4-5 seem most likely. 

[ozgod]

They've been fun to watch this last half of the season. Up to this point, Ime has done a good job getting them to buy in and I'll give him credit for that.
That said, respect in the NBA is earned from what you do in the playoffs. If we fizzle out and get owned by MKE or another, none of this success means anything. I'm not saying they have to win it all, but if they don't give the team that eliminates them a run, then a lot of what we're seeing right now is all smoke and mirrors.

Lots of moving the goalposts here.

Udoka sucks.

<Months later after team is playing like the best team in the league.>

Well, I might have been harsh but only the playoffs matter so if the team doesn't win it all, Udoka still sucks.

I might be paraphrasing....but not by much.

Eh.  It’s fair to be skeptical of a rookie coach.  The playoffs are a completely different set of circumstances.  Even the 2008 Celts had some playoff hiccups on the road.

I suspect that we’ll be fine.  Tatum, Brown and Marcus are battle-tested.  But, it’s a question mark.

Except he isn't really being skeptical, now is he?

He is just pushing his opinion about Udoka's suckiness down the road. He's basically saying if they fail in the playoffs, nothing Udoka did to get the Celtics playing like world beaters counts and he is still not going to respect him and probably revert back to his original position

Udoka looks like he is going to have an amazing regular season of coaching in his 1st year as head coach. You shouldn't just flush that down the toilet if the Celtics don't win in the playoffs, which is pretty much what AG is advocating.

Skeptical is: Udoka had a great regular season, let's hope it carries of to the playoffs. The playoffs are a different animal so it could go poorly

Skeptical isn't: If they lose in the playoffs it renders the regular season meaningless, just smoke and mirrors, so Udoka should get no respect for the job he has done.

Well, he specifically said the team doesn’t have to win a title, it just needs to go down fighting.

I think that’s fair.  Perhaps it’s a built-in excuse to blame the coach, but I know I’ll be disappointed if we roll over and lose a first or second round series easily.  If we go down swinging in seven games against Philly, Milwaukee, Brooklyn or Miami, I think we chalk it up to a good year that went wrong.

So basically, don’t put on a Kyrie vs. Milwaukee showing.

But does that loss undo everything done up to that point? Because he is clearly saying that.

Yes, it will suck and I will hate seeing the team bow out like that. But that isn't going to change the fact Udoka had done an amazing job up to that point and doesn't mean he should only be judged on the playoff loss, which is what he is saying.

I'll step out here. I think Udoka has been amazing as a whole and a playoff loss isn't going to change that for me. Rookie, 1st time ever head coaches almost never win a title their rookie year. If Udoka doesn't, I'm not gonna throw him under the bus.

It’s hard to say what I’ll think.  If Ime has a lousy first half of the season, an amazing second half, and an embarrassing playoffs?  I’ll probably consider his first year to be a bit mixed, rather than uniformly positive.

I posed the question elsewhere, but it does seem to fit in this discussion.  Does the fact that the C's have basically been playing a playoff style rotation against mostly non (or lesser) playoff competition over this 2 months make the team appear better than it actually is?  And if that is the case, should Udoka really get as much credit for that as many are giving him?  I think the playoffs will really give a real indication of both the coaching job and the talent on the team.  That seems like a fair discussion to have.

So you're questioning if the guy in charge of the rotations, should get credit for the rotations that got us our success?

I get where you're coming from, honestly. Playoffs are different. But that's not the only way to judge a team. The tight rotations have very clearly seen us produce better and better over the season, to the point where we look several cuts above the rest. And our rotations really aren't tighter than at the start of the season, so you've got to assume it's helped.

People have been complaining about minutes for our starters all season long, whilst in reality, we've been playing our guys the same amount of minutes as league average-ish.

Especially seeing as Ime's current options are Hauser, Stauskas, Kornet and Fitt.

You can add Thomas and Nesmith to that list as well. That’s 6 guys on the bench that aren’t proven NBA players. I know it’s the deep bench, but I don’t have confidence in any of those players. Too many projects, IMO.

How many other teams are in the same situation as we are though? We're talking positions 10-15. Here's an example from a couple of teams in the East:

Code: [Select]

Boston Milwaukee Miami Sixers

Smart Jrue Lowry Harden
Horford Giannis PJ Tucker Harris
Tatum Matthews Buckets Thybulle
Timelord Lopez Bam Embiid
Brown Allen Robinson Maxey

White Connaughton Herro Niang
GWill Portis Martin Green
Theis Ibaka Strus Milton
Pritchard Carter Markieff Reed

Nesmith Hill Yurtseven DeAndre J.
Stauskas Thanasis Heismith Joe
Fitts Nwora Haslam Korkmaz
Kornet Smart Millsap
We're talking deep bench...I don't think there's many contending teams in the NBA that have players in the 9-15 spot that aren't either projects or washed up has beens. Maybe the rebuilding teams like OKC will have young, exciting rookies and sophomores that make people think "wow this kid might have a future here" - but because of the salary cap, most teams that have multiple max players and are trying to contend aren't going to be giving their 9-15 players tons of minutes to try and develop.

I could go and look at more teams but I stopped at those 3, anyone who wants to check for themselves the minutes distributions and quality of end of bench players with other teams can easily find that info at www.basketball-reference.com.

One thing that is worth looking at, which I think Moranis is alluding to, is the minutes distribution by team to see if the 48 minutes is evenly distributed across the whole team, including deep bench, vs the top 7 or 8 players. It would be a considerable undertaking to pull all the data from basketball reference manually and put it on a spreadsheet for each team but it could definitely be done and we can get statistics on where the Cs sit when it comes to that. (I'm sure the Cs and every other team can easily access data of that granularity via Second Spectrum but the rest of us plebs have to do it manually  )

I did look at the overall minutes splits for our top 8 players just to get a sense for if they are "being overworked" which was a common narrative here, and they are not. The numbers end of Feb are below, and the minutes for the starters have only continued to decline going into March. The reduction in their minutes has been picked up by the other rotation players - GWill, White, Payton and Theis. Not by the deep bench. Note that those minutes numbers include White's Spurs minutes, I should probably take that out.



I will try and update this chart end of March to see where they are at.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

No, what I'm saying is, when teams shorten rotations and play starters more minutes, that has historically been in the playoffs.  Which is why the regular season and playoffs often yield vastly different results from the teams that know they can compete (i.e. the teams with guys like Lebron, Giannis, Durant, etc.).  So I do think there is a question that if Boston was playing a more traditional regular season rotation i.e. most of the team plays on a regular basis, very few guys near 35 mpg, etc., as opposed to the 8/9 man rotation with heavy minutes the team has been playing, if some of the results would be different.  Couple that with the weakest part of the schedule (I was one of the few that was predicting the team would finish 2 to 1 wins to losses - think I said 26-12 at a minimum back in December when the team was in the hard part of the schedule) and I do think there are some concerns about just how good the team is. 

The remaining schedule is much more difficult with the only 2 clear victories being Indiana and Washington at home.  Every other game the opponent could pretty easily beat Boston (obviously Boston will win some of those).  9 games left 5-4 or 4-5 seem most likely.

This is a really interesting point, but one that I feel is somewhat not quantifiable. Ime seems to have a tighter rotation than many teams, but not all teams, and not all teams that have been legit contenders in the recent past.

1. The Celtics needed this tight rotation imo for a time. They needed to learn they could play like this. They needed to grow into what they could be.
2. The Celtics starting lineup and top 8 is one of the best in the league, and their deep bench is one of the worst of any contender. That steep divide is part of the reason for this. If we had better end of the bench players (something that I am fully confident Brad Stevens will continue to work on), Ime would play them more. But again, this is a question what comes first: the chicken or the egg? Is the bench bad because they aren't getting the opportunities like other teams, or are they not getting opportunities because they are bad?

I don't understand the statement "every other game the opponent could pretty easily beat Boston." That definitely comes across as throwing shade at Boston, which makes you sound less like the nuanced basketball mind you are, and more like a troll.

[pokeKingCurtis]

Regular season = basketball
Playoffs = chess

Lessee Ime's castling.

Regular season is like ranked on League of Legends. You have a bunch of random things you can't control (your teammates in LoL, your schedule, injuries and other stuff in basketball) and you just spam whatever strategy you have. You might know your opponent's champion, you might even know who your opponent is, but you don't really plan for them - at most you might adjust on the spot.

That's how I understand it. But I don't play LoL.

[Hoopvortex]

No, what I'm saying is, when teams shorten rotations and play starters more minutes, that has historically been in the playoffs.  Which is why the regular season and playoffs often yield vastly different results from the teams that know they can compete (i.e. the teams with guys like Lebron, Giannis, Durant, etc.).  So I do think there is a question that if Boston was playing a more traditional regular season rotation i.e. most of the team plays on a regular basis, very few guys near 35 mpg, etc., as opposed to the 8/9 man rotation with heavy minutes the team has been playing, if some of the results would be different.  Couple that with the weakest part of the schedule (I was one of the few that was predicting the team would finish 2 to 1 wins to losses - think I said 26-12 at a minimum back in December when the team was in the hard part of the schedule) and I do think there are some concerns about just how good the team is. 

The remaining schedule is much more difficult with the only 2 clear victories being Indiana and Washington at home.  Every other game the opponent could pretty easily beat Boston (obviously Boston will win some of those).  9 games left 5-4 or 4-5 seem most likely.

This is a really interesting point, but one that I feel is somewhat not quantifiable. Ime seems to have a tighter rotation than many teams, but not all teams, and not all teams that have been legit contenders in the recent past.

1. The Celtics needed this tight rotation imo for a time. They needed to learn they could play like this. They needed to grow into what they could be.
2. The Celtics starting lineup and top 8 is one of the best in the league, and their deep bench is one of the worst of any contender. That steep divide is part of the reason for this. If we had better end of the bench players (something that I am fully confident Brad Stevens will continue to work on), Ime would play them more. But again, this is a question what comes first: the chicken or the egg? Is the bench bad because they aren't getting the opportunities like other teams, or are they not getting opportunities because they are bad?

I don't understand the statement "every other game the opponent could pretty easily beat Boston." That definitely comes across as throwing shade at Boston, which makes you sound less like the nuanced basketball mind you are, and more like a troll.

A lot changes during a season, but it looks like Ime is going with a nine-man rotation. That hardly qualifies as "short". He has made a point more than once of saying that they're getting minutes for White and Theis to work them in, so it looks clear that nine men is his intention.

I think that you could quibble (I would) with his overuse of Tatum, though it's hard to quibble with the results. You might say that it's "a good problem to have". The best solution to that problem, ultimately, is a third wing who can shoot with range and create shots off the dribble; it's getting late into the season for Aaron Nesmith to step into that role, but it's something to look for next year.

[Surferdad]

No, what I'm saying is, when teams shorten rotations and play starters more minutes, that has historically been in the playoffs.  Which is why the regular season and playoffs often yield vastly different results from the teams that know they can compete (i.e. the teams with guys like Lebron, Giannis, Durant, etc.).  So I do think there is a question that if Boston was playing a more traditional regular season rotation i.e. most of the team plays on a regular basis, very few guys near 35 mpg, etc., as opposed to the 8/9 man rotation with heavy minutes the team has been playing, if some of the results would be different.  Couple that with the weakest part of the schedule (I was one of the few that was predicting the team would finish 2 to 1 wins to losses - think I said 26-12 at a minimum back in December when the team was in the hard part of the schedule) and I do think there are some concerns about just how good the team is. 

The remaining schedule is much more difficult with the only 2 clear victories being Indiana and Washington at home.  Every other game the opponent could pretty easily beat Boston (obviously Boston will win some of those).  9 games left 5-4 or 4-5 seem most likely.

This is a really interesting point, but one that I feel is somewhat not quantifiable. Ime seems to have a tighter rotation than many teams, but not all teams, and not all teams that have been legit contenders in the recent past.

1. The Celtics needed this tight rotation imo for a time. They needed to learn they could play like this. They needed to grow into what they could be.
2. The Celtics starting lineup and top 8 is one of the best in the league, and their deep bench is one of the worst of any contender. That steep divide is part of the reason for this. If we had better end of the bench players (something that I am fully confident Brad Stevens will continue to work on), Ime would play them more. But again, this is a question what comes first: the chicken or the egg? Is the bench bad because they aren't getting the opportunities like other teams, or are they not getting opportunities because they are bad?

I don't understand the statement "every other game the opponent could pretty easily beat Boston." That definitely comes across as throwing shade at Boston, which makes you sound less like the nuanced basketball mind you are, and more like a troll.

A lot changes during a season, but it looks like Ime is going with a nine-man rotation. That hardly qualifies as "short". He has made a point more than once of saying that they're getting minutes for White and Theis to work them in, so it looks clear that nine men is his intention.

I think that you could quibble (I would) with his overuse of Tatum, though it's hard to quibble with the results. You might say that it's "a good problem to have". The best solution to that problem, ultimately, is a third wing who can shoot with range and create shots off the dribble; it's getting late into the season for Aaron Nesmith to step into that role, but it's something to look for next year.

Tatum is a superb athlete, only 24 years old, and he generally kicks it up a notch at this time of the season. I have no problem with his minutes. Ime is rightfully wary of pulling the starters, even in a blowout.  The bench has failed to hold big leads multiple times, sometimes resulting in Ime re-inserting the starters.

[Moranis]

No, what I'm saying is, when teams shorten rotations and play starters more minutes, that has historically been in the playoffs.  Which is why the regular season and playoffs often yield vastly different results from the teams that know they can compete (i.e. the teams with guys like Lebron, Giannis, Durant, etc.).  So I do think there is a question that if Boston was playing a more traditional regular season rotation i.e. most of the team plays on a regular basis, very few guys near 35 mpg, etc., as opposed to the 8/9 man rotation with heavy minutes the team has been playing, if some of the results would be different.  Couple that with the weakest part of the schedule (I was one of the few that was predicting the team would finish 2 to 1 wins to losses - think I said 26-12 at a minimum back in December when the team was in the hard part of the schedule) and I do think there are some concerns about just how good the team is. 

The remaining schedule is much more difficult with the only 2 clear victories being Indiana and Washington at home.  Every other game the opponent could pretty easily beat Boston (obviously Boston will win some of those).  9 games left 5-4 or 4-5 seem most likely.

This is a really interesting point, but one that I feel is somewhat not quantifiable. Ime seems to have a tighter rotation than many teams, but not all teams, and not all teams that have been legit contenders in the recent past.

1. The Celtics needed this tight rotation imo for a time. They needed to learn they could play like this. They needed to grow into what they could be.
2. The Celtics starting lineup and top 8 is one of the best in the league, and their deep bench is one of the worst of any contender. That steep divide is part of the reason for this. If we had better end of the bench players (something that I am fully confident Brad Stevens will continue to work on), Ime would play them more. But again, this is a question what comes first: the chicken or the egg? Is the bench bad because they aren't getting the opportunities like other teams, or are they not getting opportunities because they are bad?

I don't understand the statement "every other game the opponent could pretty easily beat Boston." That definitely comes across as throwing shade at Boston, which makes you sound less like the nuanced basketball mind you are, and more like a troll.

I was the saying the schedule was much more difficult over the last 9 games.  They play 7 really good teams and are thus teams that could pretty easily beat Boston (while Indiana and Washington should be clear victories). 

Boston's schedule

Utah
Minnesota
@ Toronto (back-to-back with Minny)
Miami
Indiana
Washington
@ Chicago
@ Milwaukee (back-to-back with Chi)
@ Memphis

The team will probably finish 5-4 or 4-5 just based on the significant step up in competition.  It doesn't mean the team won't still be playing well, but schedule matters and it matters a lot.  It is why in December I was predicting at worst a 26-12 finish over the last 38 games (I had a health caveat on that).  They are 23-6 over that range, so would need to finish just 3-6 to hit my minimum, which should absolutely happen.

[Hoopvortex]

No, what I'm saying is, when teams shorten rotations and play starters more minutes, that has historically been in the playoffs.  Which is why the regular season and playoffs often yield vastly different results from the teams that know they can compete (i.e. the teams with guys like Lebron, Giannis, Durant, etc.).  So I do think there is a question that if Boston was playing a more traditional regular season rotation i.e. most of the team plays on a regular basis, very few guys near 35 mpg, etc., as opposed to the 8/9 man rotation with heavy minutes the team has been playing, if some of the results would be different.  Couple that with the weakest part of the schedule (I was one of the few that was predicting the team would finish 2 to 1 wins to losses - think I said 26-12 at a minimum back in December when the team was in the hard part of the schedule) and I do think there are some concerns about just how good the team is. 

The remaining schedule is much more difficult with the only 2 clear victories being Indiana and Washington at home.  Every other game the opponent could pretty easily beat Boston (obviously Boston will win some of those).  9 games left 5-4 or 4-5 seem most likely.

This is a really interesting point, but one that I feel is somewhat not quantifiable. Ime seems to have a tighter rotation than many teams, but not all teams, and not all teams that have been legit contenders in the recent past.

1. The Celtics needed this tight rotation imo for a time. They needed to learn they could play like this. They needed to grow into what they could be.
2. The Celtics starting lineup and top 8 is one of the best in the league, and their deep bench is one of the worst of any contender. That steep divide is part of the reason for this. If we had better end of the bench players (something that I am fully confident Brad Stevens will continue to work on), Ime would play them more. But again, this is a question what comes first: the chicken or the egg? Is the bench bad because they aren't getting the opportunities like other teams, or are they not getting opportunities because they are bad?

I don't understand the statement "every other game the opponent could pretty easily beat Boston." That definitely comes across as throwing shade at Boston, which makes you sound less like the nuanced basketball mind you are, and more like a troll.

A lot changes during a season, but it looks like Ime is going with a nine-man rotation. That hardly qualifies as "short". He has made a point more than once of saying that they're getting minutes for White and Theis to work them in, so it looks clear that nine men is his intention.

I think that you could quibble (I would) with his overuse of Tatum, though it's hard to quibble with the results. You might say that it's "a good problem to have". The best solution to that problem, ultimately, is a third wing who can shoot with range and create shots off the dribble; it's getting late into the season for Aaron Nesmith to step into that role, but it's something to look for next year.

Tatum is a superb athlete, only 24 years old, and he generally kicks it up a notch at this time of the season. I have no problem with his minutes. Ime is rightfully wary of pulling the starters, even in a blowout.  The bench has failed to hold big leads multiple times, sometimes resulting in Ime re-inserting the starters.

Your point is a good one, but it only considers one half of one side of the equation.

In addition to keeping a player rested, it reduces the risk of injury (which happens to even the fittest and youngest).

On the other side of the equation, reducing a starter's minutes is also the opportunity to get regular minutes for other players, strengthening your depth for the post-season. This was a strength of Brad Stevens, incidentally, who kept his eye on the big picture. Actually it was Popovich who was the real modern pioneer in this aspect of coaching, so I for one was surprised by Ime's tolerance for Tatum's big minutes.

Then again, maybe like the rest of us, he just loves to watch Jayson play.

[Surferdad]

No, what I'm saying is, when teams shorten rotations and play starters more minutes, that has historically been in the playoffs.  Which is why the regular season and playoffs often yield vastly different results from the teams that know they can compete (i.e. the teams with guys like Lebron, Giannis, Durant, etc.).  So I do think there is a question that if Boston was playing a more traditional regular season rotation i.e. most of the team plays on a regular basis, very few guys near 35 mpg, etc., as opposed to the 8/9 man rotation with heavy minutes the team has been playing, if some of the results would be different.  Couple that with the weakest part of the schedule (I was one of the few that was predicting the team would finish 2 to 1 wins to losses - think I said 26-12 at a minimum back in December when the team was in the hard part of the schedule) and I do think there are some concerns about just how good the team is. 

The remaining schedule is much more difficult with the only 2 clear victories being Indiana and Washington at home.  Every other game the opponent could pretty easily beat Boston (obviously Boston will win some of those).  9 games left 5-4 or 4-5 seem most likely.

This is a really interesting point, but one that I feel is somewhat not quantifiable. Ime seems to have a tighter rotation than many teams, but not all teams, and not all teams that have been legit contenders in the recent past.

1. The Celtics needed this tight rotation imo for a time. They needed to learn they could play like this. They needed to grow into what they could be.
2. The Celtics starting lineup and top 8 is one of the best in the league, and their deep bench is one of the worst of any contender. That steep divide is part of the reason for this. If we had better end of the bench players (something that I am fully confident Brad Stevens will continue to work on), Ime would play them more. But again, this is a question what comes first: the chicken or the egg? Is the bench bad because they aren't getting the opportunities like other teams, or are they not getting opportunities because they are bad?

I don't understand the statement "every other game the opponent could pretty easily beat Boston." That definitely comes across as throwing shade at Boston, which makes you sound less like the nuanced basketball mind you are, and more like a troll.

A lot changes during a season, but it looks like Ime is going with a nine-man rotation. That hardly qualifies as "short". He has made a point more than once of saying that they're getting minutes for White and Theis to work them in, so it looks clear that nine men is his intention.

I think that you could quibble (I would) with his overuse of Tatum, though it's hard to quibble with the results. You might say that it's "a good problem to have". The best solution to that problem, ultimately, is a third wing who can shoot with range and create shots off the dribble; it's getting late into the season for Aaron Nesmith to step into that role, but it's something to look for next year.

Tatum is a superb athlete, only 24 years old, and he generally kicks it up a notch at this time of the season. I have no problem with his minutes. Ime is rightfully wary of pulling the starters, even in a blowout.  The bench has failed to hold big leads multiple times, sometimes resulting in Ime re-inserting the starters.

Your point is a good one, but it only considers one half of one side of the equation.

In addition to keeping a player rested, it reduces the risk of injury (which happens to even the fittest and youngest).

On the other side of the equation, reducing a starter's minutes is also the opportunity to get regular minutes for other players, strengthening your depth for the post-season. This was a strength of Brad Stevens, incidentally, who kept his eye on the big picture. Actually it was Popovich who was the real modern pioneer in this aspect of coaching, so I for one was surprised by Ime's tolerance for Tatum's big minutes.

Then again, maybe like the rest of us, he just loves to watch Jayson play.

Fair enough, but the difference between starters and bench seems to be much bigger this season than during Brad's time coaching the team.

[Hoopvortex]

No, what I'm saying is, when teams shorten rotations and play starters more minutes, that has historically been in the playoffs.  Which is why the regular season and playoffs often yield vastly different results from the teams that know they can compete (i.e. the teams with guys like Lebron, Giannis, Durant, etc.).  So I do think there is a question that if Boston was playing a more traditional regular season rotation i.e. most of the team plays on a regular basis, very few guys near 35 mpg, etc., as opposed to the 8/9 man rotation with heavy minutes the team has been playing, if some of the results would be different.  Couple that with the weakest part of the schedule (I was one of the few that was predicting the team would finish 2 to 1 wins to losses - think I said 26-12 at a minimum back in December when the team was in the hard part of the schedule) and I do think there are some concerns about just how good the team is. 

The remaining schedule is much more difficult with the only 2 clear victories being Indiana and Washington at home.  Every other game the opponent could pretty easily beat Boston (obviously Boston will win some of those).  9 games left 5-4 or 4-5 seem most likely.

This is a really interesting point, but one that I feel is somewhat not quantifiable. Ime seems to have a tighter rotation than many teams, but not all teams, and not all teams that have been legit contenders in the recent past.

1. The Celtics needed this tight rotation imo for a time. They needed to learn they could play like this. They needed to grow into what they could be.
2. The Celtics starting lineup and top 8 is one of the best in the league, and their deep bench is one of the worst of any contender. That steep divide is part of the reason for this. If we had better end of the bench players (something that I am fully confident Brad Stevens will continue to work on), Ime would play them more. But again, this is a question what comes first: the chicken or the egg? Is the bench bad because they aren't getting the opportunities like other teams, or are they not getting opportunities because they are bad?

I don't understand the statement "every other game the opponent could pretty easily beat Boston." That definitely comes across as throwing shade at Boston, which makes you sound less like the nuanced basketball mind you are, and more like a troll.

A lot changes during a season, but it looks like Ime is going with a nine-man rotation. That hardly qualifies as "short". He has made a point more than once of saying that they're getting minutes for White and Theis to work them in, so it looks clear that nine men is his intention.

I think that you could quibble (I would) with his overuse of Tatum, though it's hard to quibble with the results. You might say that it's "a good problem to have". The best solution to that problem, ultimately, is a third wing who can shoot with range and create shots off the dribble; it's getting late into the season for Aaron Nesmith to step into that role, but it's something to look for next year.

Tatum is a superb athlete, only 24 years old, and he generally kicks it up a notch at this time of the season. I have no problem with his minutes. Ime is rightfully wary of pulling the starters, even in a blowout.  The bench has failed to hold big leads multiple times, sometimes resulting in Ime re-inserting the starters.

Your point is a good one, but it only considers one half of one side of the equation.

In addition to keeping a player rested, it reduces the risk of injury (which happens to even the fittest and youngest).

On the other side of the equation, reducing a starter's minutes is also the opportunity to get regular minutes for other players, strengthening your depth for the post-season. This was a strength of Brad Stevens, incidentally, who kept his eye on the big picture. Actually it was Popovich who was the real modern pioneer in this aspect of coaching, so I for one was surprised by Ime's tolerance for Tatum's big minutes.

Then again, maybe like the rest of us, he just loves to watch Jayson play.

Fair enough, but the difference between starters and bench seems to be much bigger this season than during Brad's time coaching the team.

That's exactly my impression, and that's why I expressed surprise that Udoka, who made his bones with Popovich, would have fewer players playing.

[mr. dee]

I have to admit I was wrong about Udoka. But to be fair, I also said to myself to give him and the team at least until All-Star break to figure it out. So I was half-right about it.

And I have to say, he's already doing a much better job than Brad ever did. For one, the difference in offensive philosophy is showing already. In Brad's offense, everyone is chucking 3s as long as it is an "open" shot. Ime, in contrast have put much more discipline in Celtic's offense. They are not settling for any "open" shots, but they are looking for the most efficient ones.

I'm pretty confident that there's no longer guys like Morris, Rozier, Kemba and Kyrie shooting us out of the game because our guys are more truEdited.  Profanity and masked profanity are against forum rules and may result in discipline.l to their teammates and much more willing passer than those guys mentioned.