Big Three Era a Failure?

[Kane3387]

I don't think it was. Good article below that I thought I would share.

When expectations are high, so is the potential to feel unsatisfied. With all the trade rumors surrounding Rajon Rondo and the Boston Celtics, some Boston fans might feel some sadness that the era of Boston's Big Three is on life support. But should they also feel some disappointment that they underperformed? Should we view the last four and a half seasons as a success?


When GM Danny Ainge dealt for Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen, Celtics fans immediately dreamed that multiple championship banners and the perpetual stink of stale champagne would hang in the TD Bank Garden air. And in the first season of the trio of Paul Pierce, Allen and Garnett, the Celtics came through with a championship, taking down the Los Angeles Lakers in dramatic fashion in six games.

Considering that the Celtics hoisted the Larry O'Brien trophy only once in their past four playoff trips, should we look back on this era (if it indeed gets broken up) as a disappointment? Should they have won more titles with this group?

Whenever we talk about championships, this can't be stressed enough: titles are really, really hard to come by. Just ask last season's Chicago Bulls. Or the last two James-led Cleveland Cavalier squads. Or the 2004-05 Phoenix Suns. Or the 2003-04 Indiana Pacers. All of these teams won more games than any other team in their respective seasons, yet they failed to win the title. In fact, seven of the last eight regular season "champions" failed to win the eventual championship.

So when we put the most recent Celtics era in perspective, it's important to note the elusiveness of a championship. When picking who will win the title, there's a reason it's a safer bet to put your money on the field rather than any one team. Given the Celtics' talent, should their fans feel underwhelmed by their current core's lone ring?

Calculating an "expected" titles number isn't an easy task, but we look to history as a guide. One way to tackle the problem is basing their title chances on their regular season win total. Obviously, a regular-season record might be misleading because of injuries, perceived momentum and trades. But we see plenty of teams that face-plant in the playoffs after seemingly holding all the momentum in the world.

So when we took a look at the Celtics' regular-season win totals over the years, we can look at how similarly successful teams did with those wins. What we find is that the Celtics might have actually overachieved with their title, considering how many games they won in the regular season. It might seem like their 2007-08 title should have been a lock after they slaughtered the rest of the league on their way to 66 wins in the regular season, but the 2006-07 Mavericks (67 wins) and 2008-09 Cavaliers (66 wins) offer a cautionary tale.

On the flip side, the 2009-10 Celtics might have left a pit of disappointment in Beantown because they came within minutes of another title only to have it ripped away by the Lakers. But expectations are everything: Since 1983-84, 30 teams have amassed 50 wins in the regular season, but only one other team reached the Finals with that win total (2006-07 Cavaliers). Looking at it from that perspective, anything past the first round was gravy for a Celtics team that limped to a 4-seed in the Eastern Conference.

The next step, after combing through history, is to use regular- season win totals to predict the chances at a title. Equipped with data from 448 playoff teams over the past 28 seasons, a regression analysis reveals each team's chance at winning the title given its regular season record. The chart below tells us the historical odds for each of the last four Celtics playoff teams and its eventual fate.

Title chances
Championship odds for the Celtics during the Big Three Era.

Season   W   L   WPct   Title %   Outcome
2010-11   56   26   .683   13.9%   L, ECF
2009-10   50   32   .610   6.4%   L, Finals
2008-09   62   20   .756   21.3%   L, ECF
2007-08   66   16   .805   26.3%   Champion

Total    234   94   0.713   69.2%   --

This analysis suggests that the 2007-08 Celtics, given their win total, had a 26.3 percent chance of winning the title in that season. Or said another way, they were expected to "win" .263 titles after tallying 66 wins in the regular season. Of course, you can't win parts of the Larry O'Brien trophy; it's all or nothing. Those odds might seem low, but remember that hindsight is 20/20 and that the Lakers, Phoenix Suns, San Antonio Spurs, Detroit Pistons and New Orleans Hornets were all legitimate title contenders that season.

But the number to focus on is that 69.2 in the total row. What does that tell us? Over the past four playoffs, the Celtics were expected to win .692 titles, and of course they won one, in 2007-08. Once you temper your expectations and look at the historical pursuit of championships, the fact that the Celtics can hang up at least one banner should be considered a success, especially when we consider that they won it all during a span in which the Lakers, Magic and Spurs were also averaging over 55 wins per season.

When the Celtics won their first title together, the visions of a dynasty were probably premature. Winning multiple titles in today's basketball is far more difficult with greater talent distribution across the league; the Celtics and the Lakers can't hold a pseudo-monopoly on talent like they did in the 1960s and 1980s, respectively. Dynasties are especially harder to come by when the three best players have surpassed their physical peak, as in the Celtics' case. If they grew together in the league, perhaps we'd witness a dynasty in the making.

So if this is the end of the Celtics as we know them, we should be impressed, not disappointed, with their championship total, even if it stands at one. It might not have been a dynasty like some expected, but even one title is harder to achieve than we think.

[PosImpos]

It resulted in a championship.  Hence -- not a failure.

If KG hadn't injured his knee in '09, they likely would have gone to the Finals that year, and probably won it all.  In '10, they came very close.  If Perk hadn't injured his knee then, perhaps they could have won then, too.


So could it have resulted in a better run?  Sure.  But they won a championship, and you can't complain about that.

[wdleehi]

Trophy says no.

[Celts Fan 92]

It resulted in a championship.  Hence -- not a failure.

If KG hadn't injured his knee in '09, they likely would have gone to the Finals that year, and probably won it all.  In '10, they came very close.  If Perk hadn't injured his knee then, perhaps they could have won then, too.


So could it have resulted in a better run?  Sure.  But they won a championship, and you can't complain about that.

Co-sign the bolded I kno hella people who havent even seen their team win a championship some idiots gon call our 08 title a fluke but tht was hard work nd determination dat entire playoff run only thing I feel bad about was 2010 game 7

[green7]

nah

[Tgro]

only thing I feel bad about was 2010 game 7

I'm STILL trying to get over that game. We were 6 minutes away from Championship #2. 

[Donoghus]

After the memory I have of celebrating in the balcony with my father in the Garden after clinching in '08?

Heck no.

That was priceless. 

[Marcus13]

We won a championship, I dont know what you missed.  Considering only 8 or 9 teams have won one in the last 30 years - that's definitely a success.

[dang] shame about the injuries, but it be like that.

[ScoobyDoo]

TP to PosImpos, this is exactly how I feel and I think it's spot on and a very valid argument.

2008: Title
2009: Until KG dropped, we were crushing teams
2010: Title expectation is reasonable if Perk doesn't go down
2011: same could be said if Shaq and Rondo don't go down.

Still, two ECF, two finals trips and one trophy? Major success. The unfortunate parts for me are:

1. That no GM, until Ainge, understood they needed to blow it up, meaning getting Walker out of town, and build around Pierce immediately.

2. That KG, Ray and Pierce couldn't have gotten together at the ages of LeBron, Wade and Bosh. WE'd probably be looking at 4-5 titles.

3. That injuries, often to players other than the big three, outside of KG in 2009, have derailed us.

The only "failure" part of it for me is that I've felt that Ainge undervalued the importance of the tough glue types we've had that slipped away.

1. I thought it was a mistake to let Posey go. I think in our system, with these vets we would have gotten another good two years out of him. He would have added something in year three and I think he would have been good trade bait in year four as an expiring.

2. Never would have let Tony Allen go - he brought a real physical edge to the team. His defense last year against Wade and LeBron would have been very important.

3. Even though Perkins was one of my all time favorite celts, that trade doesn't bother me as much. Had Shaq stayed healthy we win another title and I think Green will be better long term value.

4. Thought we should have signed a big banger like Aaron Grey this year. He was cheap and would be all we needed in the middle to eat space and hit people.  

The years we've done the best we've had some real "tough guys" on the squad. And the years we've struggled the most, we haven't.

I think we put the Rolls together with the starting five - and then shorted the bench sometimes, particularly in 2009 and this year.

[ScoobyDoo]

Want to qualify shorting the bench in 2009 and this year means in terms of guys that bring team toughness.

We took POB in 2009 instead of Birdman...

This year a combo of Aaron Gray and Reggie Evans off our bench would bring a lot of attitude and banging in the paint.

That allows KG, Ray and Pierce to do what they do best, the finesse stuff.

[RayAllen4Three]

Lakers = 2 Championships
Boston = 1 Championship

That is the only means which by this era should be measured. Anytime you fall to your rival it must objectively be classified a failure, especially when it was wholly within your power for things to go the other way. If you think this era was a success, then you must also believe the 16-0 Pats season was a success. All the stats and accolades and historical significance are nice but rings speak for themselves.

[manl_lui]

I think it was a major success, we got 1 championship and 2 trips to the finals,

I seriously think that if KG never got injured we would've had at least 2 championships

I argue with my roommate about this, we won in 2008, but even if KG was healthy I think we would've lost to the Lakers in 09, but when we sign Rasheed in 2010, we would've beaten LA so theres 2 championships

And also if Shaq was healthy and Marquid never had that scary injury against Orlando, Perk would never have been traded and we would've gotten our 3rd

[Roy H.]

It resulted in a championship.  Hence -- not a failure.

If KG hadn't injured his knee in '09, they likely would have gone to the Finals that year, and probably won it all.  In '10, they came very close.  If Perk hadn't injured his knee then, perhaps they could have won then, too.


So could it have resulted in a better run?  Sure.  But they won a championship, and you can't complain about that.

That's pretty much word for word what I would have said.  If KG never gets injured, I genuinely think we'd have won three rings.

[CeltsAcumen]

Um they won a title and almost won a second.  How can anyone claim the Big 3 era was a failure if they won a title?

Makes zero sense. 

They are only a failure to people who cannot understand how difficult winning a championship can be in professional sports.

No, this is a crazy argument.

[Carhole]

.....a knee injury away from 3 in a row. That 09 team was a juggernaugt (29-2), they figured it out in the 08 playoffs and came out with a real joy of defending their title. They still won 62 games with KG missing 40% of the year and took the eventual eastern conf champs to 7 games. The bench was short and maybe the 09 season + back to back finals wears them down in 10 and they don't make that run, but I doubt it. When fully healthy they were far and away the class of the league

Put a healthy KG in there for 09 and 10 and this team is being talked about historically.

Unfortunately you cant do that, but Championships are hard to come by so 1 and a finals run when the guys got together in their 30's (usually a recipe for disaster in NBA) is a success. Just feel bad for Ray, KG and PP that they didnt get at least 2. They deserved the recognition that comes from being a multiple time champ.