Could the Celts follow the Red Sox path?

[gpap]

This year, everyone thought the Red Sox were going to be an 85 win team at best with an outside chance of making the playoffs.

No one thought they'd be ahead in the AL East by 5 games in the beginning of September.

Just wondering if the Celts MAYBE take a page out of the Sox book and follow their path?

Sox make a franchise altering trade last August, then hire a new manager, acquire players that have been better than advertised (Napoli, Victorino, Uehara.)

Celts make a franchise altering trade last June, hire a new coach, and acquire players that no one is crazy about but maybe overachieve like the Sox did.

Is this a reach or a possibility?

Granted, I think it be a huge reach if the Celts are ahead in the Atlantic Division by 5 games in early April, but maybe they're better than most think and end up being a 5-7th seed in the East?

[action781]

The issue is that they are different sports.

In baseball, the guy with the most ability to control a game is legally only allowed to play once every 3 games and typically only plays once every 5 games.  And that guy only plays half of the game (in the AL).  i.e. No single player can make a monumental difference on a baseball team and it's not super important to get that 1 guy.  So its easier to rebuild the way the red sox have since you don't need to get one of very few players who are difficult to obtain.

In basketball, the guy with the most ability to control the game plays 40/48 minutes of every game, is one of only 5 guys on the court, and has the ball in his hands the majority of that time.  Rebuilding in basketball requires getting that one guy.  It's SUPER important to get that 1 guy.  Then it's very important to get additional top talent around that one guy.  Its harder for the celtics to rebuild because they don't have and can't obtain the best players for that one position.  If you think Rondo is that guy, well maybe he is, but he'll miss significant time this season.  Also, we don't have the additional top talent around him, which is also difficult to obtain when you're over the salary cap.

[Boris Badenov]

I think the Sox' record last year was a function of bad chemistry, players under-achieving and injuries. They were initially projected to win 90-95 games and contend for the playoffs by many analysts, but they ended up dramatically under-performing.

This year the Sox are healthy and playing up to their talent - maybe over-achieving a bit, but not dramatically.

With the Celts on the other hand, they are projected to be bad because they lack talent. Even with good health and chemistry that limited talent will only take you so far.

Even if they over-perform dramatically, I think making the playoffs is going to be tough for the Celts.

[gpap]

The issue is that they are different sports.

In baseball, the guy with the most ability to control a game is legally only allowed to play once every 3 games and typically only plays once every 5 games.  And that guy only plays half of the game (in the AL).  i.e. No single player can make a monumental difference on a baseball team and it's not super important to get that 1 guy.  So its easier to rebuild the way the red sox have since you don't need to get one of very few players who are difficult to obtain.

In basketball, the guy with the most ability to control the game plays 40/48 minutes of every game, is one of only 5 guys on the court, and has the ball in his hands the majority of that time.  Rebuilding in basketball requires getting that one guy.  It's SUPER important to get that 1 guy.  Then it's very important to get additional top talent around that one guy.  Its harder for the celtics to rebuild because they don't have and can't obtain the best players for that one position.  If you think Rondo is that guy, well maybe he is, but he'll miss significant time this season.  Also, we don't have the additional top talent around him, which is also difficult to obtain when you're over the salary cap.

That's a good point. Safe to say that baseball (and football & hockey for that matter) are more of a team sport than basketball?

[gpap]

I think the Sox' record last year was a function of bad chemistry, players under-achieving and injuries. They were initially projected to win 90-95 games and contend for the playoffs by many analysts, but they ended up dramatically under-performing.

This year the Sox are healthy and playing up to their talent - maybe over-achieving a bit, but not dramatically.

With the Celts on the other hand, they are projected to be bad because they lack talent. Even with good health and chemistry that limited talent will only take you so far.

Even if they over-perform dramatically, I think making the playoffs is going to be tough for the Celts.

I think what's led to the Sox success this year (SO FAR, knock on wood) is like you said, chemistry but also their free agent pick ups were better than most thought.

I do think they've overachieved a bit, however that lineup has just clicked and I also think John Farrell was the perfect man to lead the Sox.

Just goes to show however and this may be the moral of the story, it shouldn't take so long to transition a team from being horrible to being a contender.

And also, maybe sometimes you just can't judge a team on paper either, which I am certainly guilty of.

Look at the Lakers of last season? Didn't Metta Peace say that team was capable of winning 72 games? Ha!!

[JBcat]

The issue is that they are different sports.

In baseball, the guy with the most ability to control a game is legally only allowed to play once every 3 games and typically only plays once every 5 games.  And that guy only plays half of the game (in the AL).  i.e. No single player can make a monumental difference on a baseball team and it's not super important to get that 1 guy.  So its easier to rebuild the way the red sox have since you don't need to get one of very few players who are difficult to obtain.

In basketball, the guy with the most ability to control the game plays 40/48 minutes of every game, is one of only 5 guys on the court, and has the ball in his hands the majority of that time.  Rebuilding in basketball requires getting that one guy.  It's SUPER important to get that 1 guy.  Then it's very important to get additional top talent around that one guy.  Its harder for the celtics to rebuild because they don't have and can't obtain the best players for that one position.  If you think Rondo is that guy, well maybe he is, but he'll miss significant time this season.  Also, we don't have the additional top talent around him, which is also difficult to obtain when you're over the salary cap.

That's a good point. Safe to say that baseball (and football & hockey for that matter) are more of a team sport than basketball?

Well yes and no IMO.  Baseball isn't a team sport in the sense where there is continuous passing like in basketball.  Baseball is one one battles between pitcher and hitter.

[mmmmm]

The issue is that they are different sports.

In baseball, the guy with the most ability to control a game is legally only allowed to play once every 3 games and typically only plays once every 5 games.  And that guy only plays half of the game (in the AL).  i.e. No single player can make a monumental difference on a baseball team and it's not super important to get that 1 guy.  So its easier to rebuild the way the red sox have since you don't need to get one of very few players who are difficult to obtain.

In basketball, the guy with the most ability to control the game plays 40/48 minutes of every game, is one of only 5 guys on the court, and has the ball in his hands the majority of that time.  Rebuilding in basketball requires getting that one guy.  It's SUPER important to get that 1 guy.  Then it's very important to get additional top talent around that one guy.  Its harder for the celtics to rebuild because they don't have and can't obtain the best players for that one position.  If you think Rondo is that guy, well maybe he is, but he'll miss significant time this season.  Also, we don't have the additional top talent around him, which is also difficult to obtain when you're over the salary cap.

That's a good point. Safe to say that baseball (and football & hockey for that matter) are more of a team sport than basketball?

Well yes and no IMO.  Baseball isn't a team sport in the sense where there is continuous passing like in basketball.  Baseball is one one battles between pitcher and hitter.

Yeah, baseball is more an ensemble of individual efforts.   It's still a team sport (especially on fielding plays which at a high level of play require a lot more players in motion than most people realize), but in a very different way than most of the others.

[guava_wrench]

That's a good point. Safe to say that baseball (and football & hockey for that matter) are more of a team sport than basketball?

Basketball is very much a team sport.

Baseball isn't. Pitchers do their thing alone. Same with batters. Outfields just make sure they don't run in to each other and certain fields know to backup up throws. Teamwork in baseball doesn't compare to basketball.

Unrelated to that, it is pretty easy to know which teams will be good in basketball. Baseball is tougher. This may partly be due to the lower number of players, so overall team talent is easier to estimate in basketball.

[PhoSita]

In theory, they could, if the NBA had the same cap rules as the MLB.  Still, the sports are very different.

The thing is, in the MLB, you can win a lot of games if you have 5 pitchers with a 3 ERA and you have 8-9 hitters who all get close to 50 RBIs.

In the NBA, you need to have true superstars at the top of your roster to compete.  Even in the MLB you need elite aces and clutch mega-hitters to advance deep in the playoffs.

So no, I don't think the Red Sox strategy would work in the NBA, because of cap restraints, and because the talent you have at the top of your roster matters more in the NBA.

[manl_lui]

The issue is that they are different sports.

In baseball, the guy with the most ability to control a game is legally only allowed to play once every 3 games and typically only plays once every 5 games.  And that guy only plays half of the game (in the AL).  i.e. No single player can make a monumental difference on a baseball team and it's not super important to get that 1 guy.  So its easier to rebuild the way the red sox have since you don't need to get one of very few players who are difficult to obtain.

In basketball, the guy with the most ability to control the game plays 40/48 minutes of every game, is one of only 5 guys on the court, and has the ball in his hands the majority of that time.  Rebuilding in basketball requires getting that one guy.  It's SUPER important to get that 1 guy.  Then it's very important to get additional top talent around that one guy.  Its harder for the celtics to rebuild because they don't have and can't obtain the best players for that one position.  If you think Rondo is that guy, well maybe he is, but he'll miss significant time this season.  Also, we don't have the additional top talent around him, which is also difficult to obtain when you're over the salary cap.

That's a good point. Safe to say that baseball (and football & hockey for that matter) are more of a team sport than basketball?

pretty much in my opinion. Basketball you can just have one player that carries the team. Coach does little to affect the team in my opinion. Players like Allen Iverson and Lebron really took their crappy teams very far in the past (I'm taking 2007 Lebron not Miami Lebron).

I don't think in football, hockey, or even baseball is like that. I think they are a bit more team oriented and the coach actually does matter.

[Chris]

Could they have the best record in the league?  No, I don't think that's anywhere near realistic.

Could they gel, surprise people, and make the playoffs...perhaps even a mid-seed?  Yeah, I think that's definitely possible.

This team has more talent than they are given credit for, but they also have a ton of questionmarks.  But, if they get some players outperforming expectations, then they could really surprise people. 

[gpap]

That's a good point. Safe to say that baseball (and football & hockey for that matter) are more of a team sport than basketball?

Basketball is very much a team sport.

Baseball isn't. Pitchers do their thing alone. Same with batters. Outfields just make sure they don't run in to each other and certain fields know to backup up throws. Teamwork in baseball doesn't compare to basketball.

Unrelated to that, it is pretty easy to know which teams will be good in basketball. Baseball is tougher. This may partly be due to the lower number of players, so overall team talent is easier to estimate in basketball.

Respectfully disagree. In theory, yes the logistics of basketball certainly require it to be a team game (5 on 5 on the court.)

BUT, out of the four major team sports right now, the NBA is become head and shoulders more about individuality and individual marketing than anything that resembles teamwork.

Now, the select star players like Lebron, Kobe, Durant and Melo get a lot more notoriety and attention than their actual respective teams.

When Lakers and Miami play on Xmas day, I guarantee you the game will be billed as Lebron vs Kobe instead of Heat vs Lakers.

You could make the argument that star players in other sports get that individual attention but in the NBA, it's become downright sickening (IMO.)

I guess I have a bigger issue with the perception of the league than the actual sport.

[Galeto]

That's a good point. Safe to say that baseball (and football & hockey for that matter) are more of a team sport than basketball?

Basketball is very much a team sport.

Baseball isn't. Pitchers do their thing alone. Same with batters. Outfields just make sure they don't run in to each other and certain fields know to backup up throws. Teamwork in baseball doesn't compare to basketball.

Unrelated to that, it is pretty easy to know which teams will be good in basketball. Baseball is tougher. This may partly be due to the lower number of players, so overall team talent is easier to estimate in basketball.

Respectfully disagree. In theory, yes the logistics of basketball certainly require it to be a team game (5 on 5 on the court.)

BUT, out of the four major team sports right now, the NBA is become head and shoulders more about individuality and individual marketing than anything that resembles teamwork.

Now, the select star players like Lebron, Kobe, Durant and Melo get a lot more notoriety and attention than their actual respective teams.

When Lakers and Miami play on Xmas day, I guarantee you the game will be billed as Lebron vs Kobe instead of Heat vs Lakers.

You could make the argument that star players in other sports get that individual attention but in the NBA, it's become downright sickening (IMO.)

I guess I have a bigger issue with the perception of the league than the actual sport.

You're talking about the marketing of the sport, not how the sport is played..  That's kind of a big difference.  You responded to a post about the different dynamics of how the sports are played with how the sports are sold.  Edited.  Profanity and masked profanity are against forum rules and may result in discipline..

Anyway, ever see the ESPN Sunday Night baseball commercials?  Most of them highlight individual players.  What do you think is going to be the storyline in the Patriots vs Broncos game this year?  The same as it's always been: Brady vs Manning.  The NBA is not alone in highlighting the stars of their sport.  Anyway, this is completely irrelevant to whether the Celtics have a chance of "surprising" like the Red Sox have, which was itself a pretty silly post.

One thing I feel fortunate about is that the Red Sox and Celtics play in the same city so this kind of cross-sport comparison is possible.  Heaven forbid a team like the Miami Marlins played here, then no such post like this would've existed.  It would've been the opposite: can the Celtics challenge the 1973 Sixers for the worst record ever in a 82 game season.  On the other hand, since the Miami Marlins play where they do, which happens to be in the same city as the Miami Heat, maybe there's a chance the Heat will be horrible.

[Vermont Green]

I think the difference is that everyone (me included) over reacted to the bad year.  In Sept. 2011, they were in first place and were the hottest team in baseball.  That somehow carried over and Lackey, Lester, Buchholtz and most of the other pitchers all had career bad years in 2012.

The truth it turns out is that the Sox pitching staff is closer to the 2011 version (June 1 - Aug 31) than the 2012 version.  The core of the pitching staff is the same (Lester, Buchholtz, Doubront, Lackey) and many of the key position players are still here (Pedroia, Ortiz, Ellsbury, Salti, Nava).

With the Celtics, their heart and soul is gone (Pierce and KG plus to some degree Ray Allen).  If the Celtics are by some miracle good this season, it will be due to new players, not a returning core.

And I realize the Rondo, Green, Bradley and some others are returning but this just isn't the same as getting essentially your starting rotation back and playing well.

[the_Bird]

In addition to the core of the 2011 Red Sox team getting healthy and playing up to expectations, they were also able to go out and acquire solid, professional veterans - Victorino, Napoli, Gomes, Uehara, trading for Peavey.  They were able to fill in some of the gaps.  Can't say the same for the Celtics.  This is partially due to philosophy (better to play a young guy than a vet) but mostly due to $$/salary cap.