Has the Cs championship window already closed?

[BballTim]

This team is playing lethargic basketball. Sure, they won a bunch of games earlier in the year, mostly against weak opponents, but they weren't playing playoff caliber basketball then, and they aren't playing it now.

  So when we were 20-4 and had, by a decent margin, the best differential in the league, when we won like 14 out of 15, we weren't playing playoff caliber basketball?

  I'm going to go out on a limb and say that recognizing playoff caliber basketball isn't your forte.

I've been watching playoff caliber basketball since Bill Russell.

  I don't care if you started watching when they were shooting balls into peach baskets. The Celts were playing the best basketball in the league in December. Claiming that it wasn't playoff caliber basketball clearly points to your inability to recognize it when you see it.

This team isn't playing good basketball and the return of KG and Daniels isn't going to change that.  They're cutting too many corners and and doing (or not doing) the little things that let teams back in games.

You would think, for example, that this far into the season a playoff caliber team would not be:

1. missing 50% of its free throws (and below 50% if you disregard Ray Allen)

2. throwing passes into the crowd.

3. Shooting predominantly long twos-- the worst shot in basketball

4. failure to defend the 3 point line

5. Failure to rotate properly when other teams swing the ball

6. A totally stagnant offense when Rondo is off the floor, and sometimes even when he's on the floor.

7. Failing to box out

8. Failure to hustle for long rebounds

9. trying to make showboat passes instead of the sensible pass, causing multiple turnovers.

10. generally failing to protect the ball, and thowing away possessions with unforced errors.

And I've got more if you want to hear it.

  You could have dozens more. If your point is that, even when healthy, this team is somehow incapable of getting into the playoffs or win in the playoffs then, even if your list is right point for point, it's not the right list.

[BballTim]

So, it's all going to get magically better, right?  Garnett will come back 100% and the other old veterans will forego their third quarter naps and actually play some defense. They'll even make some free throws.  LOL.

I don't believe in miracles or fantasies. What you see is what you are going to get.

 

Thanks for revealing us that January games are signs of things to come in the playoffs. I thought it was quite the opposite but obviously you must be right since you know so much about the game.

Why shouldn't they be? The Cs have lost 8 of 15. The assumption that the Cs will get healthier, more athletic and more energetic over and after 82 games is a bit disturbing.

  If you're going to talk about 82 games shouldn't you mention that we're 27-12 and have the third best record in the league? The 7-8 stretch is real, and so are the injuries. But so was the 20-4 before that.

Absolutely -- it actually furthers my point.

Old, shallow team lies to itself about the need for more depth. A lot of talk about limiting minutes and pacing themselves is just that: talk.

They start well and everyone talks about how good they are. Then around Christmas things start getting loose. Guys get tired, injuries begin to mount and they fade progressively throughout the year due to failure to address that depth.
 
Sound familiar?

So familiar that I would put at least two of the top 3 teams in each conference in that category.

This is the point all the consistently negative people here don't seem to get: we are flawed, old, and injured, BUT SO ARE MOST OTHER CONTENDERS.

I was actually referring to last year's Celtics. Guess I needed to make that explicit.

What were you talking about condescension on the other thread?

By the way, yes, I got it that you were referring to last year's celtics. I guess I needed to make more explicit that I was also talking about how most of the other contenders also are in a similar situation to last year celtics.

Older team needs more depth and limiting minutes while in reality the stars play significant minutes while injured. It describes last year's celtics, this year's celtics, and, guess what, this year's lakers too...

  Funny, I thought he was trying to make some obscure reference to the Celts from the late 80s or someone older. The fact is we didn't start fading progressively after Christmas last year. After that bad patch around Xmas we were playing as well as anyone until KG went down in February or so.

[PLamb]

I see some major over reacting going on to a mid season slump that is being generated through a lack of health

The goal is to win it all in June not to win every game in January

Now I ran across and read through a thread that predicted the win totals of this team that people made at the start of the season

Of 32 predictions, 9 picked this team winning 70 or more games, 23 picked this team to win 64 or more games and only 2 picked this team to win less than 60 games

Could it be that there was a massive amount of over optimism going on here and now because those dreams of a near record team have been dashed the equal and opposite over pessimistic reaction is occurring now

This team is probably a 22-26 loss team this year

There's nothing wrong with that as 11 of the Celtics 17 championships happened in years where they didn't win 60 games

Get healthy, get roles established, and get rolling come April and really that is all that matters

[Tai]

This team is playing lethargic basketball. Sure, they won a bunch of games earlier in the year, mostly against weak opponents, but they weren't playing playoff caliber basketball then, and they aren't playing it now.

  So when we were 20-4 and had, by a decent margin, the best differential in the league, when we won like 14 out of 15, we weren't playing playoff caliber basketball?

  I'm going to go out on a limb and say that recognizing playoff caliber basketball isn't your forte.

I've been watching playoff caliber basketball since Bill Russell.

This team isn't playing good basketball and the return of KG and Daniels isn't going to change that.  They're cutting too many corners and and doing (or not doing) the little things that let teams back in games.

You would think, for example, that this far into the season a playoff caliber team would not be:

1. missing 50% of its free throws (and below 50% if you disregard Ray Allen)

2. throwing passes into the crowd.

3. Shooting predominantly long twos-- the worst shot in basketball

4. failure to defend the 3 point line

5. Failure to rotate properly when other teams swing the ball

6. A totally stagnant offense when Rondo is off the floor, and sometimes even when he's on the floor.

7. Failing to box out

8. Failure to hustle for long rebounds

9. trying to make showboat passes instead of the sensible pass, causing multiple turnovers.

10. generally failing to protect the ball, and thowing away possessions with unforced errors.

And I've got more if you want to hear it.

You know, people said a lot of these things about the Lakers early last year, especially points 3-8.

Shooting long contested shots? Check.

Failure to defend the 3-point line? I SAW Laker fans on ESPN.com whine about that.

Failure to rotate properly? Man, everyone said the C's played this great defense while the Lakers dogged, dogged, and dogged some more defensively.

Stagnant offense? Kobe vs 5 anyone?

Failure to box out? The Lakers were called soft until they won the championship. You forget that?

Failure to hustle for long rebounds? Same thing; Lakers = considered soft served ice creams.

Thing is...I also feel like all you say happens in the 3rd quarter. 1st halves seem great for us, then we can't keep that momentum going into the 3rd quarter. Strange.

[Brickowski]

I'm not talking about winning 50,60,70 whatever in the regular season. Who cares?

I'm talking about this team's ability to win a 7-game playoff series against a good team.

They have not played well enough to do that at any point this year, including December when they were allegedly playing well.  They have not played good basketball for 48 minutes in any game I've watched this year.  There has been a good quarter here, a good seven minutes there, but that's about it.

And let me add that, in the 4th quarter of close playoff games, other teams will play hack-a-Rondo and you know what?  It's going to work.

[PLamb]

Brickowski: I'm not talking about winning 50,60,70 whatever in the regular season. Who cares?

I'm talking about this team's ability to win a 7-game playoff series against a good team.

They have not played well enough to do that at any point this year, including December when they were allegedly playing well.  They have not played good basketball for 48 minutes in any game I've watched this year.  There has been a good quarter here, a good seven minutes there, but that's about it.

And yet the playoffs are over three months, a trading deadline, an All-Star break and more than half of a regular season away

The Celtics have not once had their full compliment of their top 9 players healthy and on a great many nights this season have gone to play with 2 or 3 or 4 of their top 9 players from their rotation missing

Patience is needed, that's what I say

[Tai]

So, it's all going to get magically better, right?  Garnett will come back 100% and the other old veterans will forego their third quarter naps and actually play some defense. They'll even make some free throws.  LOL.

I don't believe in miracles or fantasies. What you see is what you are going to get.

 

  What you saw last month is also what you get. Why is one more likely than the other? Are you saying we won't be able to win when KG gets back and Paul's knee isn't as sore, or are you saying that KG won't ever come back?

He'll come back, but not at 100%.  And even if he does, they may not get past the 2nd round.

There's an old coach's saying: "You play like you practice." Teams that dog it in practice do not suddenly hustle in games.  Players who don't dive for loose balls in practice won't do it in games either.

This team is playing lethargic basketball. Sure, they won a bunch of games earlier in the year, mostly against weak opponents, but they weren't playing playoff caliber basketball then, and they aren't playing it now.  Pierce is playing at half speed, and Scalabrine and House are vitually useless. Ray Allen is turning it over too much and starting to look like he's 35 years old.

It just isn't happening, and Kevin Garnett is not some magic bullet who will suddenly transform this team.  They should be winning without him anyway, but they aren't.

As for the woes of other teams (e.g. the Hawks), I'll point out that the other contending teams in the EC are all younger than the Celtics and will heal more quickly. I have no faith at all in Orlando's ability to win (the Vince Carter selfishness factor) or Toronto's ability to win (the Chris Bosh Mr. Softee factor, even if they don't trade him), but I have no doubt that the Cavs, Hawks and Bulls will be ready for the playoffs.

What do the Hawks have to heal from in order to heal more quickly? Their youth is why they're 7-8 and not steamrolling these teams?

[BballTim]

I'm not talking about winning 50,60,70 whatever in the regular season. Who cares?

I'm talking about this team's ability to win a 7-game playoff series against a good team.

They have not played well enough to do that at any point this year, including December when they were allegedly playing well.  They have not played good basketball for 48 minutes in any game I've watched this year.  There has been a good quarter here, a good seven minutes there, but that's about it.

And let me add that, in the 4th quarter of close playoff games, other teams will play hack-a-Rondo and you know what?  It's going to work.

  Which teams have you seen that regularly play good basketball for 48 minutes in a game?

[Tai]

So, it's all going to get magically better, right?  Garnett will come back 100% and the other old veterans will forego their third quarter naps and actually play some defense. They'll even make some free throws.  LOL.

I don't believe in miracles or fantasies. What you see is what you are going to get.

 

Thanks for revealing us that January games are signs of things to come in the playoffs. I thought it was quite the opposite but obviously you must be right since you know so much about the game.

Why shouldn't they be? The Cs have lost 8 of 15. The assumption that the Cs will get healthier, more athletic and more energetic over and after 82 games is a bit disturbing.

  If you're going to talk about 82 games shouldn't you mention that we're 27-12 and have the third best record in the league? The 7-8 stretch is real, and so are the injuries. But so was the 20-4 before that.

Absolutely -- it actually furthers my point.

Old, shallow team lies to itself about the need for more depth. A lot of talk about limiting minutes and pacing themselves is just that: talk.

They start well and everyone talks about how good they are. Then around Christmas things start getting loose. Guys get tired, injuries begin to mount and they fade progressively throughout the year due to failure to address that depth.
 
Sound familiar?

  Not really. And how many teams have benches that are significantly better than Sheed/Davis/Daniels/TA/House?

In a fantasy league, that's a pretty good bench -- though there's not a guy you can go to when you absolutely need a bucket or a foul.

But I thought we were talking about reality.

  If you think that you're increasing your credibility with your fantasy/reality talk you're sadly mistaken. But if it makes you feel better I'll rephrase the question so you can understand it better.

  In the real world, which teams have benches that are significantly better than Sheed/Davis/Daniels/TA/House?

I'm interested in gaining insight, not credibility. That's why I pointed out that you're talking about a group of bench players that have never played together. Ever. They've all missed time, and a number of them have missed large portions of their season.

If you wish to assume the best about injuries -- not to mentioned 'Sheed's looming tech situation -- come playoff time, that's your choice. I prefer to hope for that, but prepare for the worst.

Meanwhile, I'd prefer you not bother with comments like "so you can understand it better." This isn't a sandbox.

How about you answer dpin's question about which team's bench you like better than the Celtics bench? I'd like to know too.

[ssspence]

  In the real world, which teams have benches that are significantly better than Sheed/Davis/Daniels/TA/House?

I'm interested in gaining insight, not credibility. That's why I pointed out that you're talking about a group of bench players that have never played together. Ever. They've all missed time, and a number of them have missed large portions of their season.

  Yes, just like 2 years ago we were talking about a team that had hardly played together. Ever. After you complained about the depth  on this team I asked you twice which teams have significantly better benches than us. You've avoided answering it twice. I guess I have my answer.

Meanwhile, I'd prefer you not bother with comments like "so you can understand it better." This isn't a sandbox.

  If you really preferred that you'd probably avoid comments like "But I thought we were talking about reality". This isn't a sandbox for you either.

Look, if you understood my point about the reality of our bench, then why be snide about it? So we can debate who is significantly better when our guys are all healthy even though that day may very well never come? If a telephone rings in an empty room, does it make a sound? The fantasy point is fair --- these guys aren't all on our bench, so comparing them to others' is moot.

The Magic's have the deepest bench in the East, and their going to need it considering their inconsistency. A number of other teams have impact sixth men the Cs lack (Odom, Crawford, Millsap, etc). Our depth (or lack there of) is clear, and obviously we don’t have that impact player.

Maybe I'm just a little bitter over all the talk about how deep the Cs bench was pre-season when the guys we brought in, kept or resigned all had a history of lacking dependability. If the Celtics are all healthy and sane come playoff time, it's a good bench. But in the meantime, the starters’ minutes and play suffers for that lack of bench dependability, as they did last season.

As Chris points out, this is all about the health and freshness of KG, as well as Paul, Ray, the other starters. Other teams can lose a starter – we really can’t. So the ability of the bench to take some load off of the starters during the year is key. That hasn’t happened and the pattern points towards last year. I’d like to see us add a solid player so we can try to reverse that curve a bit.

[dlpin]

Which teams can lose a starter of KG's caliber and still contend?

The magic are struggling as much as we are and they are fully healthy. Can the lakers compete without Gasol and/or Kobe? Because their health is as much in the air as our's is. Can the cavs compete without Mo Williams? Can the hawks compete without Horford, Smith, Johnson or Crawford?

[BballTim]

  In the real world, which teams have benches that are significantly better than Sheed/Davis/Daniels/TA/House?

I'm interested in gaining insight, not credibility. That's why I pointed out that you're talking about a group of bench players that have never played together. Ever. They've all missed time, and a number of them have missed large portions of their season.

  Yes, just like 2 years ago we were talking about a team that had hardly played together. Ever. After you complained about the depth  on this team I asked you twice which teams have significantly better benches than us. You've avoided answering it twice. I guess I have my answer.

Meanwhile, I'd prefer you not bother with comments like "so you can understand it better." This isn't a sandbox.

  If you really preferred that you'd probably avoid comments like "But I thought we were talking about reality". This isn't a sandbox for you either.

Look, if you understood my point about the reality of our bench, then why be snide about it? So we can debate who is significantly better when our guys are all healthy even though that day may very well never come? If a telephone rings in an empty room, does it make a sound? The fantasy point is fair --- these guys aren't all on our bench, so comparing them to others' is moot.

  You never explained your point. Saying "this isn't fantasy" is a lot less descriptive than you think it is. If it's just health, then remove Daniels from the list. We still have a good bench. We don't need perfect health. We just need to avoid multiple injuries at the same spot at the same time, just like every other team does.

The Magic's have the deepest bench in the East, and their going to need it considering their inconsistency.

  Of course this bench also fits into your "never played together. ever." category.

 

A number of other teams have impact sixth men the Cs lack (Odom, Crawford, Millsap, etc). Our depth (or lack there of) is clear, and obviously we don’t have that impact player.

  No, but they don't have any backup bigs that can defend against opposing centers like Sheed.

As Chris points out, this is all about the health and freshness of KG, as well as Paul, Ray, the other starters. Other teams can lose a starter – we really can’t.

  Completely disagree with this. The Lakers without Gasol look no better than we've been. All you can say is that most teams can lose one (or one of two) particular starters and still win. If they lose one of their top 3 or so they're toast. We could probably win without Ray if everyone else was healthy (including Daniels). We could probably win without Perk. We're no more vulnerable to injuries than anyone else.

[ejk3489]

I'm not talking about winning 50,60,70 whatever in the regular season. Who cares?

I'm talking about this team's ability to win a 7-game playoff series against a good team.

They have not played well enough to do that at any point this year, including December when they were allegedly playing well.  They have not played good basketball for 48 minutes in any game I've watched this year.  There has been a good quarter here, a good seven minutes there, but that's about it.

And let me add that, in the 4th quarter of close playoff games, other teams will play hack-a-Rondo and you know what?  It's going to work.

So you didn't watch the 76ers game on 11/3? Or the Bobcats game on 10/28? Or how about the Bulls game on 12/12? I'd say those were pretty complete basketball games...

[GreenFaith1819]

Wow - I am surprised that this thread is showing no signs of going away.

God Forbid the Celtics go 27 - 52 the rest of the way .

[dlpin]

Here's the bottom line:

We are 2nd in the conference and 3rd in the league, and within 3 losses of both teams ahead of us. If that is not a contender, I don't know what is.

Have we struggled recently? Yes, but so have 2 of the other top 3 teams in the east (hawks and magic also 7-8) and 2 of the top 3 teams in the west (Denver and Dallas are both 8-7 for the past 15).

Have we had issues with injuries this season? Yes, but so do the lakers and nuggets, who, by the way, are playing their starters more than we are playing ours.

Are we old? Yes, but so are the lakers.

Do the injuries sometimes lead to depth issues? Sure. But you can't honestly say that an Odom/Farmar/Jordan bench (or a Farmar/Brown/Powell bench when Gasol is out) is significantly better than ours. Or that a Varejao/West/Ilgauskas is significantly better than ours.

Point being, no team is perfect. And any team that has an advantage over us in one area also has a weakness against us in another.