Would the Lockout be of Benefit to the Veteran Celtics Team?

[TheGreenThumb]

A lockout is looming in the NBA horizon.  This most likely means a shortened NBA season.

In the past couple of years, the Celtics have started fast out of the gates but towards the end of the long season, seem to run out of gas.

If the lockout, for example, cuts 10-20 games out of the 2011-2012 season, that's 10-20 less games that the "old" Celtics  players have to play. 

I'm hoping that the shortened season would mean fresher legs for Garnett, Pierce and Allen for the playoff push against the young & more athletic players of the Bulls & Heat.

I'd say that the lockout is more advantageous to the veteran clubs.  Agree?

[j804]

Definitely. 

[Shots]

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.

[clover]

It's another hurdle for young Mr. Bradley, I'd say, and an advantage for any of Danny's late-season hirings looking to come back on a vet minimum.  (Also an advantage for last year's late preseason cuts hoping to be invited back.)

[Roy H.]

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).

[GreenEnvy]

I originally thought so, but this team usually hits a wall halfway through the season. Presumably, it takes them quite a while to get their second wind for the postseason.

A shortened season may not give them that luxury.

We'll just have to wait and see. If we get a stronger bench that can spell the Big Three and JO, they should be fine.

Let's just hope there is a playoffs next year. Whenever the season starts is OK by me as long as it starts. I don't think the NBA can afford to lose an entire season with the state of the game right now.

[RAG50K]

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.