Sanity Check: The Elephant(s) in the Room

[vinnie]

First -- really good post.

Second -- a question. How many times have the C's played top teams with both KG and Pierce in the lineup and what is their record in those games?

Finally, it will be interesting to see how the Celts do as a healthy team when the tough stretch begins next Sunday versus Cleveland. I am a pessimsitic realist who does not think they will be healthy enough to win the championship or even get to the estern finals, but this stretch coming up with either close or open the door completely.

[Chris]

First -- really good post.

Second -- a question. How many times have the C's played top teams with both KG and Pierce in the lineup and what is their record in those games?

Finally, it will be interesting to see how the Celts do as a healthy team when the tough stretch begins next Sunday versus Cleveland. I am a pessimsitic realist who does not think they will be healthy enough to win the championship or even get to the estern finals, but this stretch coming up with either close or open the door completely.

I think that will be interesting...although, to throw a wrench into the equation, even if they are healthy, Robinson and Finley will still be learning the system.  And Cleveland will be missing Shaq and Z.  And so on, and so forth.

So we might be able to see a bit of what this team could do, but ultimately, until May comes around, it really is hard to project what is going to happen until we see what the teams look like at that time.

[PosImpos]

The original post is a nice message, but I think it too is an oversimplification.

The Celtics are a very good road team - the best in the league - and have been all year.  However, they've been disturbingly bad at home this year; they've already dropped 11 games at home versus 6 all of last year, and they are ranked 15th in the league for home record.  That disparity can't be explained away by injuries.

Also very troubling is the fact that the Celtics only have a handful of significant wins against really good teams - all on the road.  They beat Cleveland in the season opener, the Magic on Christmas, and the Lakers a few weeks ago.  The only big home win I can think of is a big win over the Jazz in November, though at that point in the season the Jazz couldn't be considered a top team.  

What the Celtics do have is a lot of tough, sometimes embarrassing losses to good teams that they could have and should have beaten if they want to consider themselves contenders.  Early in the season it was the disheartening home losses to Phoenix, the Hawks, and the Magic.  Then it was getting beaten by the Hawks 3 times in January for the season sweep, coupled with two crushing breakdowns against the Magic and a late-game choke against the Lakers.

Again, I would argue that these problems can't be explained simply by injuries, because the Celtics have consistently given up leads and had difficulty beating good teams throughout the season even when they've been at or near full strength.  I don't think you can explain away all of those blown leads simply by pointing at the injuries to Pierce and Garnett.  The fact is, even when Pierce or KG were out or somewhat hobbled by injuries, there were games this team could have and should have won, but failed to win (e.g. the most recent game against the Cavs).  Injuries cannot account for the Celtics' lack of focus, and their inability to hold a lead and consistently play the kind of smothering defense they used to play pretty much all the time.

Last year, the Celtics lost KG for basically half the season.  Despite that, and despite having an even thinner bench than they do this year, they fought hard and won a lot of games they probably shouldn't have won.  They ended up winning 62 games.  This year, the Celtics have been hit with injuries, but it's not as bad as last year.  Knock on wood, all of the C's starters have been able to play for the majority of the season, and they have a much stronger bench than last year.  Rondo has been playing great for most of the season - much better than ever before.  The Celtics should be very good this year, far better than last year.  Nonetheless, they have not fought hard and they have lost a lot of games they should have won.  As a result, they'll be lucky to get 55 wins. 

Whether or not that's because of a lack of energy, athleticism, and intensity due to age or boredom, it doesn't really matter.  The bottom line is the Celtics haven't played as well as they ought to have over the course of this season, and injuries alone can't explain it.  Whether the Celtics will have it all together for the playoffs remains to be seen.

The "pessimists" on this board are being more "realistic" than you give them credit for.

[Vermont Green]

Some interesting (albeit loooong posts from the OP'er) and I am not sur if I am saying I agree or not but I think there have been some really flat games where effort could be questioned.  I don't think though that effort or team chemistry or whatever will be an issue when it counts.  I would like to see consistent effort every game like in 08 but it does not concern me when it doesn't happen from time to time.  He11, Cleveland rested LeBron the other night and lost.

I am very concerned about health though and in particular, KG's knee.  I am concerned about PP too but to a far less degree.  I really like the recent additions, in particular Nate because I think the 2nd unit really needed a creater-type PG and Nate is all that.  History shows that integration of late season additions is not to be taken for granted but I think Nate is going to figure it out and be well integrated by playoffs.

So is that the same as the OP is saying?

[More Banners]

Good thoughts in the OP, but I disagree with much after that.

If these elder talents play with minutes restrictions or flat-out take some nights off just to rest, that's fine with me, and I'd support it completely.  That makes sense for a veteran team that needs to be healthy and rested for the playoffs.

But there is just no reason to not try one's best on the court.  Ever.  Even on an off-night.  It just happens that these guys' best is really, really good.  We have good reason to expect much of them when they play.  It is an expectation that they themselves have established.  They used to hold themselves to that high level of play, but don't seem to as much anymore, at least until there are 6 minutes to go in the 4th.  If their effort matches their talent, they should enjoy regular blowouts.  It just hasn't been happening, and the shortcoming isn't talent.

And now, it's almost like they need to learn how to execute all over again, as lackadaisical play has allowed bad habits to creep in (poor ball movement, etc.).

That's my stand.  Of course, the team isn't pathetic, talent-wise.  They're talented enough to win, and, when healthy, they tend to (even if not in the fashion in which we've become accustomed).  Their effort has been quite pathetic at times, and I find that disrespectful to the game, the fans, and the jersey.  The place to rest is on the bench.

[slamtheking]

Interesting post by the OP.  

your figures on how the team performs when both KG and PP are playing give you a good foundation from which to base your comments.  

However, for the fans (and yes fans can be negative and still be called fans) who watch the games and see a lack of effort, lack of heart and some flat out stupid plays that should not occur with a veteran team, there's just as solid a basis for their concerns as well.  

Personally, I've been transformed from an optimist this season to what has been termed a "realist" by some and more accurately a "pessimist".  My concerns are not that the team is too old or lacking in talent.  My principle concern is the lack of focus and intelligent play.  Are there stats for that. No.  Just something that comes from observing the team play.

Why, you ask, should that give my viewpoint credibility when I have no statistics to back it up?  Part of my reasoning is that when we shipped out the youth for vets, one of the primary reasons was that vets knew how to make smart plays to win games and what it took to win games/championships while our youth lost close games or couldn't mount comebacks because they didn't know how to.  Well, these vets this year have shown very little savvy and intelligence this year to win the games that are "winnable".  Losing a dozen games or so when they have a double-digit lead--->not what I would expect or accept from a veteran team----particularly one when the core members are only recently removed from winning a title.

I still think this team can win a title IF they get their collective heads out of their butts and start playing like winning means something.  The recent win streak is a good start in that direction.  There's room here for both the optimists and pessimists.  The key to getting along is both sides recognizing there's cause for optimism as well as pessimism and not totalling disregarding the opposing viewpoints.

[slamtheking]

one other thing, from an effort perspective, there's no excuse for an NBA player not to give a full effort when on the court.  none.  They play a kid's game for 40 minutes tops with plenty of interspersed rest breaks. 

People making a helluva lot less than players make are forking over their hard-earned cash in a miserable economy to be entertained.  As someone who was at the Nets debacle, that complete lack of effort by the C's was despicable.  Wyc should have issued a refund to every customer for that atrocious display.  (yeah, i'm dreaming on that one)

[drza44]

The original post is a nice message, but I think it too is an oversimplification.

The Celtics are a very good road team - the best in the league - and have been all year.  However, they've been disturbingly bad at home this year; they've already dropped 11 games at home versus 6 all of last year, and they are ranked 15th in the league for home record.  That disparity can't be explained away by injuries.

Also very troubling is the fact that the Celtics only have a handful of significant wins against really good teams - all on the road.  They beat Cleveland in the season opener, the Magic on Christmas, and the Lakers a few weeks ago.  The only big home win I can think of is a big win over the Jazz in November, though at that point in the season the Jazz couldn't be considered a top team.  

What the Celtics do have is a lot of tough, sometimes embarrassing losses to good teams that they could have and should have beaten if they want to consider themselves contenders.  Early in the season it was the disheartening home losses to Phoenix, the Hawks, and the Magic.  Then it was getting beaten by the Hawks 3 times in January for the season sweep, coupled with two crushing breakdowns against the Magic and a late-game choke against the Lakers.

Again, I would argue that these problems can't be explained simply by injuries, because the Celtics have consistently given up leads and had difficulty beating good teams throughout the season even when they've been at or near full strength.  I don't think you can explain away all of those blown leads simply by pointing at the injuries to Pierce and Garnett.  The fact is, even when Pierce or KG were out or somewhat hobbled by injuries, there were games this team could have and should have won, but failed to win (e.g. the most recent game against the Cavs).  Injuries cannot account for the Celtics' lack of focus, and their inability to hold a lead and consistently play the kind of smothering defense they used to play pretty much all the time.

Last year, the Celtics lost KG for basically half the season.  Despite that, and despite having an even thinner bench than they do this year, they fought hard and won a lot of games they probably shouldn't have won.  They ended up winning 62 games.  This year, the Celtics have been hit with injuries, but it's not as bad as last year.  Knock on wood, all of the C's starters have been able to play for the majority of the season, and they have a much stronger bench than last year.  Rondo has been playing great for most of the season - much better than ever before.  The Celtics should be very good this year, far better than last year.  Nonetheless, they have not fought hard and they have lost a lot of games they should have won.  As a result, they'll be lucky to get 55 wins. 

Whether or not that's because of a lack of energy, athleticism, and intensity due to age or boredom, it doesn't really matter.  The bottom line is the Celtics haven't played as well as they ought to have over the course of this season, and injuries alone can't explain it.  Whether the Celtics will have it all together for the playoffs remains to be seen.

The "pessimists" on this board are being more "realistic" than you give them credit for.

The OP came directly after I got done sifting through the (then) 4-page long "This team is pathetic" thread.  As I stated in the OP, I intentionally simplified my message for the purpose of Keeping It Simple.  And the simplest and most obvious response to a "this team is pathetic" movement is to point out the facts: when KG and Pierce play (note: I said PLAY, not even be HEALTHY) the Celtics are right there with the best teams in the NBA in this regular season.

As for the more complicated ideas, I've addressed some of them in other things that I've written.  The thing is, when you start getting into "complicated" you very quickly start hearing "excuses!".  But just listing a few of the more major ones:

1) Again, from end December until end February KG and Pierce missed a combined 21 games and hobbled through several others.  Over those 2 months the Celts went 15 - 16.  Over the 2 months when KG and Pierce played the team is 25 - 5.  I don't think that is coincidence.

2) This team is built on defense and unity above all else.  Shuffling players (including foundation pieces) on and off the DL while integrating in several new rotation-level players...would contribute to poor showings.

3) They've learned the vet team lesson that going balls out from October to Feb is meaningless if you burn out the best players and lose your championship hopes.  This is NOT the same as Shaq/Kobe's flipped switch.  It's a reality of the game.

There are others.  But again, the point of this thread wasn't to get into a reason-vs-excuse fest.  The point was that even if you just keep it simple and look at the actual results when the team isn't missing their best players, they're still right there with the best.  So no, the "pessimists" aren't being realistic...not to the level and degree I've been seeing.  

[Spilling Green Dye]

I think most people agree that it takes a healthy KG and Pierce for this team to succeed, but you're kidding yourself if you think this team hasn't been lazy at times.  

It seems this year there are a few more chemistry issues than in 2008, and this is something to factor in.  It's not like the start of the playoffs are magically going to solve this.

With the exception of possibly the season opener, I have yet to see the Celtics play great basketball for four quarters against a top team.  I'm all for focusing on the playoffs, but they have yet to prove to me that they can play consistently enough to win this championship.  Talent?  Yes.  Chemistry & Focus?  Has yet to be seen.

[nyceltsfan]

The OP obviously put a lot of thought into this post, but I think there are a few holes there.

First of all, it seems to me that the complaints that this team is not athletic enough makes sense.  That would contribute to the inability to hold onto large leads late in the games.  Also, it seems to me that the injury bug and age does have an effect on speed, agility and athleticism.  The opinion that the team is not athletic enough is purely based on FACT.

Does this mean that the team cannot win the championship?  That remains to be seen.  I think the 61 game sampling size is a pretty large sample to base an opinion on.  The team has not performed well against the league's top teams and they have not been healthy for the majority of those games.  I do not believe there is enough evidence out there to convince some of the more pessimistic fans (including myself) that this team will be fully healthy for the playoff run.

Now, this is purely an opinion, but I have about the same amount of faith in this team that I had in last year's team post-KG and that is based on how they struggle at home and the nationally-televised games I have watched this year (and the NY local games, which included that horrible Nets performance a week ago).

[drza44]

Good thoughts in the OP, but I disagree with much after that.

If these elder talents play with minutes restrictions or flat-out take some nights off just to rest, that's fine with me, and I'd support it completely.  That makes sense for a veteran team that needs to be healthy and rested for the playoffs.

But there is just no reason to not try one's best on the court.  Ever.  Even on an off-night.  It just happens that these guys' best is really, really good.  We have good reason to expect much of them when they play.  It is an expectation that they themselves have established.  They used to hold themselves to that high level of play, but don't seem to as much anymore, at least until there are 6 minutes to go in the 4th.  If their effort matches their talent, they should enjoy regular blowouts.  It just hasn't been happening, and the shortcoming isn't talent.

And now, it's almost like they need to learn how to execute all over again, as lackadaisical play has allowed bad habits to creep in (poor ball movement, etc.).

That's my stand.  Of course, the team isn't pathetic, talent-wise.  They're talented enough to win, and, when healthy, they tend to (even if not in the fashion in which we've become accustomed).  Their effort has been quite pathetic at times, and I find that disrespectful to the game, the fans, and the jersey.  The place to rest is on the bench.

Again, "not trying their best" is a gross overstatement.  A season and a championship is MUCH bigger than any single game.  It just is.  And not being able to play at your best every night is NOT the same as "not trying their best".

I like using anecdotes, so forgive me if this comes off in any way pretentious.  But when I used to run, we very well understood the idea of building your body and mind up over the course of the season so that you could compete at your best when it counted.  I had Olympic Gold-medalist teammates that would get beat during indoor season or early in outdoor, losing races that at their best they would win.  But that is NOT the same as they didn't try their best, or they wanted to flip the switch.

This team isn't the 2008 team.  They just aren't.  They have different strengths and weaknesses.  They're physically not what they were.  And mentally they've learned some lessons that the '08 team never had to deal with.  It's not OK when they lose, but it's part of the process.  And I think the amount of "realism" around here vastly, dramatically overstates the negatives of this team's process when compared to their positives and the other factors present.

[FallGuy]

The OP obviously put a lot of thought into this post, but I think there are a few holes there.

First of all, it seems to me that the complaints that this team is not athletic enough makes sense.  That would contribute to the inability to hold onto large leads late in the games.  Also, it seems to me that the injury bug and age does have an effect on speed, agility and athleticism.  The opinion that the team is not athletic enough is purely based on FACT.

Does this mean that the team cannot win the championship?  That remains to be seen.  I think the 61 game sampling size is a pretty large sample to base an opinion on.  The team has not performed well against the league's top teams and they have not been healthy for the majority of those games.  I do not believe there is enough evidence out there to convince some of the more pessimistic fans (including myself) that this team will be fully healthy for the playoff run.

Now, this is purely an opinion, but I have about the same amount of faith in this team that I had in last year's team post-KG and that is based on how they struggle at home and the nationally-televised games I have watched this year (and the NY local games, which included that horrible Nets performance a week ago).

This team could absolutely win a championship. But we have a lot of ducks that need to line up to play well enough to do it. An *unlikely* number of ducks. LAL, CLE, ORL, DEN, and even DAL have fewer concerns as we approach the playoffs.

[Spilling Green Dye]

Now, this is purely an opinion, but I have about the same amount of faith in this team that I had in last year's team post-KG and that is based on how they struggle at home and the nationally-televised games I have watched this year (and the NY local games, which included that horrible Nets performance a week ago).

Oh c'mon, I know the Nets loss was bad, but you really have the same faith in this team as when they replaced KG with Glen Davis in the lineup?  I knew we were doomed once that happened, and I'm not as quick to write this current team off.

[BballTim]

The OP obviously put a lot of thought into this post, but I think there are a few holes there.

First of all, it seems to me that the complaints that this team is not athletic enough makes sense.  That would contribute to the inability to hold onto large leads late in the games.  Also, it seems to me that the injury bug and age does have an effect on speed, agility and athleticism.  The opinion that the team is not athletic enough is purely based on FACT.

Does this mean that the team cannot win the championship?  That remains to be seen.  I think the 61 game sampling size is a pretty large sample to base an opinion on.  The team has not performed well against the league's top teams and they have not been healthy for the majority of those games.  I do not believe there is enough evidence out there to convince some of the more pessimistic fans (including myself) that this team will be fully healthy for the playoff run.

Now, this is purely an opinion, but I have about the same amount of faith in this team that I had in last year's team post-KG and that is based on how they struggle at home and the nationally-televised games I have watched this year (and the NY local games, which included that horrible Nets performance a week ago).

This team could absolutely win a championship. But we have a lot of ducks that need to line up to play well enough to do it. An *unlikely* number of ducks. LAL, CLE, ORL, DEN, and even DAL have fewer concerns as we approach the playoffs.

  Not sure this is true. If we don't have any more injuries I'd sa we'd have fewer concerns than those teams.

[nyceltsfan]

Now, this is purely an opinion, but I have about the same amount of faith in this team that I had in last year's team post-KG and that is based on how they struggle at home and the nationally-televised games I have watched this year (and the NY local games, which included that horrible Nets performance a week ago).

Oh c'mon, I know the Nets loss was bad, but you really have the same faith in this team as when they replaced KG with Glen Davis in the lineup?  I knew we were doomed once that happened, and I'm not as quick to write this current team off.

Last year's team found a way to gut out wins.  This team looks like they are beginning to move in that direction.  Furthermore, is this version of KG much better than last year's version of Glen Davis?  I know from what I have been seeing that this year's Glen Davis regressed from last year's version.  This year's team has more bodies, but that's the biggest positive I see so far.