At times, hard to stay positive over the off season moves

[mkogav]

Repeat after me "We are returning the starting five from the 2008 Championship team!".

We lost Posey, which is a shame and PJ Brown who was helpful. Casell and was a mistake who fortunately didn't derail us and Pollard was a non-contributor.

We have our starting five, most of our bench, including young players who have another years experience, especially in the playoffs, so should be better than last year. Then we have several low risk high reward players of which if any of them blossom, we are golden.

So put away the worry beads and get set to enjoy the season!

yep!

[KJ33]

I'm with you on this Nick--except on the "bigger" thing...the team doesn't seem small to me...

Let me clarify. Last year they played a lot of "small" ball with Posey, a wing player for the most part, playing with 2 other wings and a PG. That type of ball was statistically horrible for the Celtics. I was hoping for a legit talented big man to come off the bench so that they wouldn't use that type of scheme this year.

I like Powe and Baby when either are in with Perk but would have preferred a talented center instead to come in in place of Perk to keep KG at his natural PF position and not have to guard centers on defense. I just think this team is built better around playinga more natural lineup in the half court than trying to go with Doc's "small" ball style that he loves to have in during extended periods of the game. Heck, Ainge even admitted that type of lineup was awful for them.

Can we please put to rest once and for all the myth about Doc loves small ball?  The quote you are referring to by Ainge actually contradicts what you are saying.  If that lineup was truly statistically awful, yet according to you, the one most favored by Doc, how in the world did this flawed strategy result in the Celtics winning 66 games?  In fact, Doc is in agreement with Danny, and did not prefer this lineup and used it sparingly.  The most famous example of this lineup being effective was in Game 4 vs. the Lakers, but both Doc and Danny, and even Van Gundy on the broadcast, all admitted that this lineup was "born out of desperation" that is, being down by 24 points.  If you remember, when Kendrick got hurt, Posey was not the original sub, Doc thought about it for a few minutes, realized the deficit was so large, going with a smaller lineup was a gamble he needed to take, even admitting he realized it was a gamble later, but one worth taking when down 24 points in the 2nd half of a Championship game.  We all know the result, and many have magnified the lineup used in this 1 1/2 quarter stretch as one that was so great, that Doc loves, etc. 

Danny was simply pointing out that in fact that lineup was not always very good in most circumstances throughout the year, so that fans would not overblow what happened in the latter stages of that one, unique game.  People got on the bandwagon of the "Doc loves small ball" thing back in the day when the C's were constantly playing from behind late in games, necessitating the kind of risky, small lineup that Doc used to play and for some, they cannot grasp why that was then, and still hold onto this myth of Doc's affection for a style that Danny says is statistically not very effective.  Again, if stubborn Doc, loving a style both Danny and all the expert posters in the blogosphere have rejected as folly, really persisted in the flawed lineup, how did he manage to win 66 and guide the C's all the way to the Championship?  And think what you want about O'Bryant, he is the C's attempt to bring in a true backup 5 to keep KG out of that spot as much as possible.  You may think he is not the man for the job, but remember, how much did Pollard give us in that role, PJ came in very late, we basically racked up 66 wins without that issue being resolved, so even if O'Bryant is the bust many here seem gleeful about that happening, the C's will be fine.

[wdleehi]

I'm with you on this Nick--except on the "bigger" thing...the team doesn't seem small to me...

Let me clarify. Last year they played a lot of "small" ball with Posey, a wing player for the most part, playing with 2 other wings and a PG. That type of ball was statistically horrible for the Celtics. I was hoping for a legit talented big man to come off the bench so that they wouldn't use that type of scheme this year.

I like Powe and Baby when either are in with Perk but would have preferred a talented center instead to come in in place of Perk to keep KG at his natural PF position and not have to guard centers on defense. I just think this team is built better around playinga more natural lineup in the half court than trying to go with Doc's "small" ball style that he loves to have in during extended periods of the game. Heck, Ainge even admitted that type of lineup was awful for them.

Can we please put to rest once and for all the myth about Doc loves small ball?  The quote you are referring to by Ainge actually contradicts what you are saying.  If that lineup was truly statistically awful, yet according to you, the one most favored by Doc, how in the world did this flawed strategy result in the Celtics winning 66 games?  In fact, Doc is in agreement with Danny, and did not prefer this lineup and used it sparingly.  The most famous example of this lineup being effective was in Game 4 vs. the Lakers, but both Doc and Danny, and even Van Gundy on the broadcast, all admitted that this lineup was "born out of desperation" that is, being down by 24 points.  If you remember, when Kendrick got hurt, Posey was not the original sub, Doc thought about it for a few minutes, realized the deficit was so large, going with a smaller lineup was a gamble he needed to take, even admitting he realized it was a gamble later, but one worth taking when down 24 points in the 2nd half of a Championship game.  We all know the result, and many have magnified the lineup used in this 1 1/2 quarter stretch as one that was so great, that Doc loves, etc. 

Danny was simply pointing out that in fact that lineup was not always very good in most circumstances throughout the year, so that fans would not overblow what happened in the latter stages of that one, unique game.  People got on the bandwagon of the "Doc loves small ball" thing back in the day when the C's were constantly playing from behind late in games, necessitating the kind of risky, small lineup that Doc used to play and for some, they cannot grasp why that was then, and still hold onto this myth of Doc's affection for a style that Danny says is statistically not very effective.  Again, if stubborn Doc, loving a style both Danny and all the expert posters in the blogosphere have rejected as folly, really persisted in the flawed lineup, how did he manage to win 66 and guide the C's all the way to the Championship?  And think what you want about O'Bryant, he is the C's attempt to bring in a true backup 5 to keep KG out of that spot as much as possible.  You may think he is not the man for the job, but remember, how much did Pollard give us in that role, PJ came in very late, we basically racked up 66 wins without that issue being resolved, so even if O'Bryant is the bust many here seem gleeful about that happening, the C's will be fine.

[nickagneta]

I'm with you on this Nick--except on the "bigger" thing...the team doesn't seem small to me...

Let me clarify. Last year they played a lot of "small" ball with Posey, a wing player for the most part, playing with 2 other wings and a PG. That type of ball was statistically horrible for the Celtics. I was hoping for a legit talented big man to come off the bench so that they wouldn't use that type of scheme this year.

I like Powe and Baby when either are in with Perk but would have preferred a talented center instead to come in in place of Perk to keep KG at his natural PF position and not have to guard centers on defense. I just think this team is built better around playinga more natural lineup in the half court than trying to go with Doc's "small" ball style that he loves to have in during extended periods of the game. Heck, Ainge even admitted that type of lineup was awful for them.

Can we please put to rest once and for all the myth about Doc loves small ball?  The quote you are referring to by Ainge actually contradicts what you are saying.  If that lineup was truly statistically awful, yet according to you, the one most favored by Doc, how in the world did this flawed strategy result in the Celtics winning 66 games?  In fact, Doc is in agreement with Danny, and did not prefer this lineup and used it sparingly.  The most famous example of this lineup being effective was in Game 4 vs. the Lakers, but both Doc and Danny, and even Van Gundy on the broadcast, all admitted that this lineup was "born out of desperation" that is, being down by 24 points.  If you remember, when Kendrick got hurt, Posey was not the original sub, Doc thought about it for a few minutes, realized the deficit was so large, going with a smaller lineup was a gamble he needed to take, even admitting he realized it was a gamble later, but one worth taking when down 24 points in the 2nd half of a Championship game.  We all know the result, and many have magnified the lineup used in this 1 1/2 quarter stretch as one that was so great, that Doc loves, etc. 

Danny was simply pointing out that in fact that lineup was not always very good in most circumstances throughout the year, so that fans would not overblow what happened in the latter stages of that one, unique game.  People got on the bandwagon of the "Doc loves small ball" thing back in the day when the C's were constantly playing from behind late in games, necessitating the kind of risky, small lineup that Doc used to play and for some, they cannot grasp why that was then, and still hold onto this myth of Doc's affection for a style that Danny says is statistically not very effective.  Again, if stubborn Doc, loving a style both Danny and all the expert posters in the blogosphere have rejected as folly, really persisted in the flawed lineup, how did he manage to win 66 and guide the C's all the way to the Championship?  And think what you want about O'Bryant, he is the C's attempt to bring in a true backup 5 to keep KG out of that spot as much as possible.  You may think he is not the man for the job, but remember, how much did Pollard give us in that role, PJ came in very late, we basically racked up 66 wins without that issue being resolved, so even if O'Bryant is the bust many here seem gleeful about that happening, the C's will be fine.

I'm sorry but you couldn't be more wrong about the statement that Doc doesn't play "small ball". And just for the record I didn't say it was Doc's most used lineup or his favorite. I said that he played it a lot and loved playing it for extended periods of time.

Let's see what 82games.com has to say about what 5 man units the Celtics most used last year:

http://www.82games.com/0708/0708BOS2.HTM

So according to 82games.com "small ball" lineups where the 3rd, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 14th, 15th, 17th, 18th, and 20th most used lineups by Doc last year accounting for a collective amount of 766 minutes. The more conventional lineups with two big men in them accounted for a total of 1550 minutes with 1052 minutes of that being the starting lineup.

So a couple of things we can see from the numbers are:

- out of the top 20 used lineups, 60% were "small ball" lineups
- out of the top 20 used lineups, 33% of the minutes put up by those lineups were from "small ball" lineups
- of the non-starting rotation lineups , "small ball" lineups were used more often than conventional lineups 766 minutes to 498 minutes, meaning that Doc's most preferred substitution lineups were of the "small ball" type
- the +/- for "small ball" lineups was a total of 131 for an average +0.17 per minute played
- the +/- for conventional lineups was a total of 537 for an average of  +.35 per minute played meaning that conventional lineups were twice as effective as "small ball" lineups

Perhaps you weren't paying close enough attention to the games being played last year but it inevitably seemed that as soon as the C's got a large lead, Doc went small and the lead disappeared. It happened a lot and if you go through the game threads it was one of the most discussed topics of the game threads.

Fact is Doc played a lot of "small ball" and it wasn't effective. If the loss of Posey is good for one thing, hopefully, it makes going small that much more difficult for Doc because he really doesn't have a wing guy that can cover PFs anymore.

[bucknersrevenge]

I'm with you on this Nick--except on the "bigger" thing...the team doesn't seem small to me...

Let me clarify. Last year they played a lot of "small" ball with Posey, a wing player for the most part, playing with 2 other wings and a PG. That type of ball was statistically horrible for the Celtics. I was hoping for a legit talented big man to come off the bench so that they wouldn't use that type of scheme this year.

I like Powe and Baby when either are in with Perk but would have preferred a talented center instead to come in in place of Perk to keep KG at his natural PF position and not have to guard centers on defense. I just think this team is built better around playinga more natural lineup in the half court than trying to go with Doc's "small" ball style that he loves to have in during extended periods of the game. Heck, Ainge even admitted that type of lineup was awful for them.

Can we please put to rest once and for all the myth about Doc loves small ball?  The quote you are referring to by Ainge actually contradicts what you are saying.  If that lineup was truly statistically awful, yet according to you, the one most favored by Doc, how in the world did this flawed strategy result in the Celtics winning 66 games?  In fact, Doc is in agreement with Danny, and did not prefer this lineup and used it sparingly.  The most famous example of this lineup being effective was in Game 4 vs. the Lakers, but both Doc and Danny, and even Van Gundy on the broadcast, all admitted that this lineup was "born out of desperation" that is, being down by 24 points.  If you remember, when Kendrick got hurt, Posey was not the original sub, Doc thought about it for a few minutes, realized the deficit was so large, going with a smaller lineup was a gamble he needed to take, even admitting he realized it was a gamble later, but one worth taking when down 24 points in the 2nd half of a Championship game.  We all know the result, and many have magnified the lineup used in this 1 1/2 quarter stretch as one that was so great, that Doc loves, etc. 

Danny was simply pointing out that in fact that lineup was not always very good in most circumstances throughout the year, so that fans would not overblow what happened in the latter stages of that one, unique game.  People got on the bandwagon of the "Doc loves small ball" thing back in the day when the C's were constantly playing from behind late in games, necessitating the kind of risky, small lineup that Doc used to play and for some, they cannot grasp why that was then, and still hold onto this myth of Doc's affection for a style that Danny says is statistically not very effective.  Again, if stubborn Doc, loving a style both Danny and all the expert posters in the blogosphere have rejected as folly, really persisted in the flawed lineup, how did he manage to win 66 and guide the C's all the way to the Championship?  And think what you want about O'Bryant, he is the C's attempt to bring in a true backup 5 to keep KG out of that spot as much as possible.  You may think he is not the man for the job, but remember, how much did Pollard give us in that role, PJ came in very late, we basically racked up 66 wins without that issue being resolved, so even if O'Bryant is the bust many here seem gleeful about that happening, the C's will be fine.

I'm sorry but you couldn't be more wrong about the statement that Doc doesn't play "small ball". And just for the record I didn't say it was Doc's most used lineup or his favorite. I said that he played it a lot and loved playing it for extended periods of time.

Let's see what 82games.com has to say about what 5 man units the Celtics most used last year:

http://www.82games.com/0708/0708BOS2.HTM

So according to 82games.com "small ball" lineups where the 3rd, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 14th, 15th, 17th, 18th, and 20th most used lineups by Doc last year accounting for a collective amount of 766 minutes. The more conventional lineups with two big men in them accounted for a total of 1550 minutes with 1052 minutes of that being the starting lineup.

So a couple of things we can see from the numbers are:

- out of the top 20 used lineups, 60% were "small ball" lineups
- out of the top 20 used lineups, 33% of the minutes put up by those lineups were from "small ball" lineups
- of the non-starting rotation lineups , "small ball" lineups were used more often than conventional lineups 766 minutes to 498 minutes, meaning that Doc's most preferred substitution lineups were of the "small ball" type
- the +/- for "small ball" lineups was a total of 131 for an average +0.17 per minute played
- the +/- for conventional lineups was a total of 537 for an average of  +.35 per minute played meaning that conventional lineups were twice as effective as "small ball" lineups

Perhaps you weren't paying close enough attention to the games being played last year but it inevitably seemed that as soon as the C's got a large lead, Doc went small and the lead disappeared. It happened a lot and if you go through the game threads it was one of the most discussed topics of the game threads.

Fact is Doc played a lot of "small ball" and it wasn't effective. If the loss of Posey is good for one thing, hopefully, it makes going small that much more difficult for Doc because he really doesn't have a wing guy that can cover PFs anymore.

Nick I agree but I don't think he wanted to go with that lineup. I think he felt he had to because Powe was still weak on rotations on defense and BBD was a rookie. I think this year Powe will be better. So will Davis and the hope is that O'Bryant can be decent enough to give at least 10-15 minutes of relief to keep us big.

[Roy Hobbs]

To back up what nick is saying, Posey played 19% of the team's total minutes at small forward, vs. 26% of the team's minutes at PF.

I'm not sure that small ball lineups were statistically horrible for the Celtics, though.  I haven't done the analysis that Nick has, but the Celtics actually performed very slightly better when Posey played power forward, as opposed to small forward.  The team gave up significantly more points when Posey was in the game at the 4, but they also scored more.

http://www.82games.com/0708/07BOS8C.HTM

I was surprised by that, but it suggests that perhaps small ball isn't as bad as it seems.  The problem with small ball isn't occasionally going to a small lineup, it's *sticking* with a small ball lineup when it's obviously not working.

Doc did go to more traditional lineups in the playoffs, playing Posey 9% of the team's minutes at power forward, as opposed to 35% of the minutes at small forward.

[BillfromBoston]

To back up what nick is saying, Posey played 19% of the team's total minutes at small forward, vs. 26% of the team's minutes at PF.

I'm not sure that small ball lineups were statistically horrible for the Celtics, though.  I haven't done the analysis that Nick has, but the Celtics actually performed very slightly better when Posey played power forward, as opposed to small forward.  The team gave up significantly more points when Posey was in the game at the 4, but they also scored more.

http://www.82games.com/0708/07BOS8C.HTM

I was surprised by that, but it suggests that perhaps small ball isn't as bad as it seems.  The problem with small ball isn't occasionally going to a small lineup, it's *sticking* with a small ball lineup when it's obviously not working.

Doc did go to more traditional lineups in the playoffs, playing Posey 9% of the team's minutes at power forward, as opposed to 35% of the minutes at small forward.

I actually think the argument above is one of the reasons that Posey is no longer here...Posey was hit-or-miss defensively at the 3 and while he was more effective at the four, that lineup had tremendous problems scoring the basketball as well as rebounding it, which is why it got virtually abandoned.

Chronologically, Posey started playing less minutes at the 4 right around the time that Leon Powe emerged from the bench. It was the Celtics one slide of the season where the team finally stopped going to the "Posey at the 4 in the 4th" lineup, after they got beat by Washington and lost 6 out of 9 or whatever it was....at that point we saw less small-ball with Posey and more usage of Powe/Davis instead...

[bucknersrevenge]

To back up what nick is saying, Posey played 19% of the team's total minutes at small forward, vs. 26% of the team's minutes at PF.

I'm not sure that small ball lineups were statistically horrible for the Celtics, though.  I haven't done the analysis that Nick has, but the Celtics actually performed very slightly better when Posey played power forward, as opposed to small forward.  The team gave up significantly more points when Posey was in the game at the 4, but they also scored more.

http://www.82games.com/0708/07BOS8C.HTM

I was surprised by that, but it suggests that perhaps small ball isn't as bad as it seems.  The problem with small ball isn't occasionally going to a small lineup, it's *sticking* with a small ball lineup when it's obviously not working.

Doc did go to more traditional lineups in the playoffs, playing Posey 9% of the team's minutes at power forward, as opposed to 35% of the minutes at small forward.

I actually think the argument above is one of the reasons that Posey is no longer here...Posey was hit-or-miss defensively at the 3 and while he was more effective at the four, that lineup had tremendous problems scoring the basketball as well as rebounding it, which is why it got virtually abandoned.

Chronologically, Posey started playing less minutes at the 4 right around the time that Leon Powe emerged from the bench. It was the Celtics one slide of the season where the team finally stopped going to the "Posey at the 4 in the 4th" lineup, after they got beat by Washington and lost 6 out of 9 or whatever it was....at that point we saw less small-ball with Posey and more usage of Powe/Davis instead...

I agree. Not to mention the fact that all we brought off the bench was shooters; shooters that couldn't create their own shot and needed Paul on the court whenever they were on to facilitate. We keep House as the main shooter off the bench and instead of being a perimeter based team, now we bring some talent off the bench that is all about attacking the rim. Going to the hole and creating some offense and finishing at the rim on the break rather than pullup 3's sll the time.

[Greenback]

Celtics Pre-Season Grades  =  55 Wins, 1st in Atlantic, Conference finals

Center:  C-
Perkins  C
O’Bryant D+

Power Forward:  B+
Garnett A
Powe C
Davis C-
Scal  D

Small Forward: B+
Pierce A-
Walker D
Miles  D-

Shooting Guard: B-
R. Allen B
T. Allen C
Pruitt D+

Point Guard: C-
Rondo C-
House C
Giddens D

Coaching:  C+
Doc  C-
Thibodeau  B+
C. Ray  A-

[wdleehi]

Celtics Pre-Season Grades  =  55 Wins, 1st in Atlantic, Conference finals

Center:  C-
Perkins  C
O’Bryant D+

Power Forward:  B+
Garnett A
Powe C
Davis C-
Scal  D

Small Forward: B+
Pierce A-
Walker D
Miles  D-

Shooting Guard: B-
R. Allen B
T. Allen C
Pruitt D+

Point Guard: C-
Rondo C-
House C
Giddens D

Coaching:  C+
Doc  C-
Thibodeau  B+
C. Ray  A-

Rondo < TA, Powe, House? 

Rondo = Davis? 


Perkins is only a half grade better then O'Bryant?



How are you grading these players?

[nickagneta]

Celtics Pre-Season Grades  =  55 Wins, 1st in Atlantic, Conference finals

Center:  C-
Perkins  C
O’Bryant D+

Power Forward:  B+
Garnett A
Powe C
Davis C-
Scal  D

Small Forward: B+
Pierce A-
Walker D
Miles  D-

Shooting Guard: B-
R. Allen B
T. Allen C
Pruitt D+

Point Guard: C-
Rondo C-
House C
Giddens D

Coaching:  C+
Doc  C-
Thibodeau  B+
C. Ray  A-

Rondo < TA, Powe, House? 

Rondo = Davis? 


Perkins is only a half grade better then O'Bryant?



How are you grading these players?

I'm with wd on this one.

I'm still scratching my head on some of these grades.

Rondo is a C-? Based on what? He's a helluva defensive player. Handled the pressure of the playoffs tremendously considering only Magic Johnson and Tony Parker are the only other starting PGs ever to be younger than him on a championship team. He shot 49%. And he will probably be a 15PPG, 5RPG, 6APG, 2 SPG player either next year or the year following.

Giddens and Walker at D? Based on what? We haven't even seen them play a game. What I saw from Walker at K State was encouraging and Giddens seems to have the body to be a good defensive player at the very least. They may not have been who I would have taken in the draft but we should at least see what they can do for a season before almost failing them.

Ray Allen at B while Tony Allen is a C? Sorry that's just mind boggling.

Clifford Ray gets the highest grade out of the coaches but the only big guy with a grade over C is someone Ray really had no part in making an A? Thibodeau is an easy A and Doc did at the very least B+ to A- work last year and should be expected to do the same with almost the entire group back.

Teams don't win 82 games out of 108 in one season without a heck of a lot of A's and B's. It just can't happen.

[BballTim]

Celtics Pre-Season Grades  =  55 Wins, 1st in Atlantic, Conference finals

Center:  C-
Perkins  C
O’Bryant D+

Power Forward:  B+
Garnett A
Powe C
Davis C-
Scal  D

Small Forward: B+
Pierce A-
Walker D
Miles  D-

Shooting Guard: B-
R. Allen B
T. Allen C
Pruitt D+

Point Guard: C-
Rondo C-
House C
Giddens D

Coaching:  C+
Doc  C-
Thibodeau  B+
C. Ray  A-

  Just for fun, here is the PEr differential by position for last year:

   http://www.82games.com/BYPOSIT.HTM

  Our rank out of 30 from pg-c was 11, 3, 2, 2, 12 which you translate into a C-, B-, B+, B+, C-. You're a pretty tough grader.

[nickagneta]

Celtics Pre-Season Grades  =  55 Wins, 1st in Atlantic, Conference finals

Center:  C-
Perkins  C
O’Bryant D+

Power Forward:  B+
Garnett A
Powe C
Davis C-
Scal  D

Small Forward: B+
Pierce A-
Walker D
Miles  D-

Shooting Guard: B-
R. Allen B
T. Allen C
Pruitt D+

Point Guard: C-
Rondo C-
House C
Giddens D

Coaching:  C+
Doc  C-
Thibodeau  B+
C. Ray  A-

  Just for fun, here is the PEr differential by position for last year:

   http://www.82games.com/BYPOSIT.HTM

  Our rank out of 30 from pg-c was 11, 3, 2, 2, 12 which you translate into a C-, B-, B+, B+, C-. You're a pretty tough grader.

TP4U BBall Tim. I hadn't run into those stats over at 82games.com. Interesting stuff.

Boston and Detroit were the only two teams who had all their positions with a better PER than their OPP against. Even PG(Rondo, House) and C(Perk,KG,PJ) had better PERs than their opponents. I thought PG would be close better never thought our C position outplayed, if you use PER as a guide, their opposing position as a whole last year.

[bucknersrevenge]

Celtics Pre-Season Grades  =  55 Wins, 1st in Atlantic, Conference finals

Center:  C-
Perkins  C
O’Bryant D+

Power Forward:  B+
Garnett A
Powe C
Davis C-
Scal  D

Small Forward: B+
Pierce A-
Walker D
Miles  D-

Shooting Guard: B-
R. Allen B
T. Allen C
Pruitt D+

Point Guard: C-
Rondo C-
House C
Giddens D

Coaching:  C+
Doc  C-
Thibodeau  B+
C. Ray  A-

Congratulations. You have just ruined all credibility here in one post. There are so many things wrong with these grades I'm not even sure where to begin. It would probably be a good idea if you didn't post for a while, maybe change your screenname too.

[ACF]

Congratulations. You have just ruined all credibility here in one post. There are so many things wrong with these grades I'm not even sure where to begin. It would probably be a good idea if you didn't post for a while, maybe change your screenname too.

Whoa there.
No need for that.
What happened to constructive
criticism? Give the man a break.