Well, it all depends on how that season would be scheduled. If say, the season is just essentially shortened by some 20 games, but the intensity of past season remains, then the Celtics would probably gain some advantage over other teams. That is given they do not add any significant pieces this season, that thus has to gel with the team.

However, looking back to the last time there was a lockout, the season was shortened, but also intensified. That means the team would play 4 rather than 3 games a week. And, think about it. I do not think that the mileage was the problem for this team, rather it was back to backs and the likes. If the season is shortened to such an extent, that the teams will play a lot of games in a shorter span of time, the Celtics will relatively lose more than some of their younger competitors, simply due to the fact that they will not be able to recouperate physically as much as others.

Furthermore, I would assume the risk of injury would be increased with higher intensity - and sadly there's quite a few players on the Celtics (O'Neal, Rondo) who's been rather injury prone.

The short answer. In the ideal situation? Yes. In the probable outcome? I strongly doubt it.

As Shots said above, it comes down to fewer games being played, but games being played with increased frequency.

Last time, games were regularly scheduled 4 games in 5 nights, and oftentimes 5 games in a week.  That doesn't help a team like the Celts.  The hope would be, though, that we'd get through the regular season okay, and would have less cumulative wear by the time the playoffs hit (which would presumably be on a more normal schedule).

I remember listening to Sean Grande mention that the shortened season forced teams to play 50 games within 4-5 months. That meant something like 3-4 games a week, as opposed to 2-3 as it is now. If so, it's actually be detrimental.