AInge says Rondo will miss first 20- 30 games. What's our win record now?

[Kiorrik]

Ainge says Rondo will miss first 20- 30 games.

I say Rondo will miss his first 20- 30 freethrows.

HARHARHAR

[PhoSita]

I don't care if they win 10 games. I don't care if they completely tank. As long as the young guys can improve throughout the year and get named to Rookie/Sophomore games, and All-Rookie teams, and whatever else can increase value.... I'll be alright.

And risk hearing crickets during games at the Garden? Tanking never leads to anything good. Not to mention basketball and the Celtics are 4th on the totem pole of Boston sports fans. Further turning people off by putting out a 10 win team is not a good idea.

Once you lose fans, it's very hard to get them back.

Ask Red Sox ownership.

Um . . . if the Red Sox haven't already gained back all of their fans, they will once they play some playoff games over the next few weeks.

The Celtics are going to be 4th on the totem pole whether they trot out a mediocre playoff team or tank hardcore.  The only way the Celtics rise in the ranks around these parts is if they're one of the very best teams in the league.

Like with the Bruins, the fans that really care about basketball and the Celtics will keep paying attention even when the product on the floor isn't great and the team is struggling to win even a handful of games.  The rest will listen to Felger and Mazz and watch baseball or football stuff, and also hockey when it's Stanley Cup playoffs time.

[gpap]

I don't care if they win 10 games. I don't care if they completely tank. As long as the young guys can improve throughout the year and get named to Rookie/Sophomore games, and All-Rookie teams, and whatever else can increase value.... I'll be alright.

And risk hearing crickets during games at the Garden? Tanking never leads to anything good. Not to mention basketball and the Celtics are 4th on the totem pole of Boston sports fans. Further turning people off by putting out a 10 win team is not a good idea.

Once you lose fans, it's very hard to get them back.

Ask Red Sox ownership.

Um . . . if the Red Sox haven't already gained back all of their fans, they will once they play some playoff games over the next few weeks.

The Celtics are going to be 4th on the totem pole whether they trot out a mediocre playoff team or tank hardcore.  The only way the Celtics rise in the ranks around these parts is if they're one of the very best teams in the league.

Like with the Bruins, the fans that really care about basketball and the Celtics will keep paying attention even when the product on the floor isn't great and the team is struggling to win even a handful of games.  The rest will listen to Felger and Mazz and watch baseball or football stuff, and also hockey when it's Stanley Cup playoffs time.

I was referring to the fact that there were still empty seats at Fenway this year, even during a very successful season.

Guess I am referring to the casual fan because yes you are correct in saying the true blue fans will never go away.

[guava_wrench]

I don't care if they win 10 games. I don't care if they completely tank. As long as the young guys can improve throughout the year and get named to Rookie/Sophomore games, and All-Rookie teams, and whatever else can increase value.... I'll be alright.

And risk hearing crickets during games at the Garden? Tanking never leads to anything good. Not to mention basketball and the Celtics are 4th on the totem pole of Boston sports fans. Further turning people off by putting out a 10 win team is not a good idea.

Once you lose fans, it's very hard to get them back.

Ask Red Sox ownership.

No matter what they do, there will be crickets in the Garden because the team isn't good. With Pierce and KG gone, they aren't selling a lot of tickets.

The difference that will matter is whether we are winning 2 years from now.

[guava_wrench]

I don't care if they win 10 games. I don't care if they completely tank. As long as the young guys can improve throughout the year and get named to Rookie/Sophomore games, and All-Rookie teams, and whatever else can increase value.... I'll be alright.

And risk hearing crickets during games at the Garden? Tanking never leads to anything good. Not to mention basketball and the Celtics are 4th on the totem pole of Boston sports fans. Further turning people off by putting out a 10 win team is not a good idea.

Once you lose fans, it's very hard to get them back.

Ask Red Sox ownership.

Um . . . if the Red Sox haven't already gained back all of their fans, they will once they play some playoff games over the next few weeks.

The Celtics are going to be 4th on the totem pole whether they trot out a mediocre playoff team or tank hardcore.  The only way the Celtics rise in the ranks around these parts is if they're one of the very best teams in the league.

Like with the Bruins, the fans that really care about basketball and the Celtics will keep paying attention even when the product on the floor isn't great and the team is struggling to win even a handful of games.  The rest will listen to Felger and Mazz and watch baseball or football stuff, and also hockey when it's Stanley Cup playoffs time.

I was referring to the fact that there were still empty seats at Fenway this year, even during a very successful season.

Guess I am referring to the casual fan because yes you are correct in saying the true blue fans will never go away.

The empty seats already started. Interest had already declined for the Celtics as they became mediocre.

[Boris Badenov]

I don't care if they win 10 games. I don't care if they completely tank. As long as the young guys can improve throughout the year and get named to Rookie/Sophomore games, and All-Rookie teams, and whatever else can increase value.... I'll be alright.

And risk hearing crickets during games at the Garden? Tanking never leads to anything good. Not to mention basketball and the Celtics are 4th on the totem pole of Boston sports fans. Further turning people off by putting out a 10 win team is not a good idea.

Once you lose fans, it's very hard to get them back.

I dunno, the Celtics have sold out every game since... April 2007, which was the end of their last "tank."

In 2007 the Celtics had no jerseys in the top 10 by sales and were #7 in team merchandise sales. In 2008 we had the #1 jersey overall and were #1 in merchandise sales.

Our sellout streak and other measures of fandom will no doubt decline this year, but the evidence from our last turnaround suggests that there's little in the way of a permanent effect.

If we become good again, the fair-weather fans will be back.

I, unfortunately, will be suffering this year, along with all the other CB die-hards.

[More Banners]

I don't care if they win 10 games. I don't care if they completely tank. As long as the young guys can improve throughout the year and get named to Rookie/Sophomore games, and All-Rookie teams, and whatever else can increase value.... I'll be alright.

And risk hearing crickets during games at the Garden? Tanking never leads to anything good. Not to mention basketball and the Celtics are 4th on the totem pole of Boston sports fans. Further turning people off by putting out a 10 win team is not a good idea.

Once you lose fans, it's very hard to get them back.

I dunno, the Celtics have sold out every game since... April 2007, which was the end of their last "tank."

In 2007 the Celtics had no jerseys in the top 10 by sales and were #7 in team merchandise sales. In 2008 we had the #1 jersey overall and were #1 in merchandise sales.

Our sellout streak and other measures of fandom will no doubt decline this year, but the evidence from our last turnaround suggests that there's little in the way of a permanent effect.

If we become good again, the fair-weather fans will be back.

I, unfortunately, will be suffering this year, along with all the other CB die-hards.

Being in the top third in merch sales in the league when tanking says quite a bit for the strength of the franchise.

[Boris Badenov]

I don't care if they win 10 games. I don't care if they completely tank. As long as the young guys can improve throughout the year and get named to Rookie/Sophomore games, and All-Rookie teams, and whatever else can increase value.... I'll be alright.

And risk hearing crickets during games at the Garden? Tanking never leads to anything good. Not to mention basketball and the Celtics are 4th on the totem pole of Boston sports fans. Further turning people off by putting out a 10 win team is not a good idea.

Once you lose fans, it's very hard to get them back.

I dunno, the Celtics have sold out every game since... April 2007, which was the end of their last "tank."

In 2007 the Celtics had no jerseys in the top 10 by sales and were #7 in team merchandise sales. In 2008 we had the #1 jersey overall and were #1 in merchandise sales.

Our sellout streak and other measures of fandom will no doubt decline this year, but the evidence from our last turnaround suggests that there's little in the way of a permanent effect.

If we become good again, the fair-weather fans will be back.

I, unfortunately, will be suffering this year, along with all the other CB die-hards.

Being in the top third in merch sales in the league when tanking says quite a bit for the strength of the franchise.

Yeah, I found that pretty surprising.

It does appear related to team success. In the first year I can find - 2000 - the Celtics are not in the top 10. That holds up until 2002. Thanks, Rick Pitino!

But then in 2003, following our surprising Conference Finals run, we are 4th.

We hung around in the lower half of the top 10 in every year after then, it appears, until we won it all in 2008.

This is by the way from a limited sample: nba.com sales and the NBA store in NYC. Not sure whether it'd be biased in any particular way, except perhaps for an East Coast tilt. But arguing against that, the Lakers were #1 in 2009 and 2010 after they won it all, and we were #2.

It seems to track the top teams pretty closely, except that the Knicks are always up there. And of course the Spurs are under-sellers.

Here's one as an example:

http://www.nba.com/2009/news/04/30/jersey.leaders.2009/index.html

[LatterDayCelticsfan]

I do not know about you guys but I am so stoked to see how the young assets grow as a team!

[chambers]

I'm thinking the schedule is so brutal in November with 18 games in 30 days that he ain't playing any of them.
If he comes back half way through December or 'eases' his way in from the beginning of December then I think missing 5 games into December is reasonable. Then he misses another 5 to 10 throughout the season due to niggling injuries like his plantar and finger, or his knee just flares up a bit. That's an easy 35 games he sits right there. They add up fast.

We just have such a bad defensive big man line up and such a bad shooting line up I can't see us scoring well and I can't see us defending the paint well. Perimeter D will be nice but that only does so much.

If Rondo sits 35 games and we go 1 of 4 in each of those games, that's 8.5 wins. If he plays the remaining 47 and we win 1 in 3 that's 15.6 wins

8.5+
15.6
=24.1

Now if he were out longer or Wallace or Green went down then...

If we go 1 win for every 5 games while he's out that's 7 wins, and 1 in 4 when he's back, that's 11.75 which is ...
18.75 wins
lol.
And that's barring no other injuries. I don't think people realize how easily we could be a sub 20 win team. Things would have to go against us but they always seem to go against us with injuries. I mean basically if Avery, Green or Sully goes down then how many more losses does that mean?

[mmmmm]

I'm thinking the schedule is so brutal in November with 18 games in 30 days that he ain't playing any of them.
If he comes back half way through December or 'eases' his way in from the beginning of December then I think missing 5 games into December is reasonable. Then he misses another 5 to 10 throughout the season due to niggling injuries like his plantar and finger, or his knee just flares up a bit. That's an easy 35 games he sits right there. They add up fast.

We just have such a bad defensive big man line up and such a bad shooting line up I can't see us scoring well and I can't see us defending the paint well. Perimeter D will be nice but that only does so much.

If Rondo sits 35 games and we go 1 of 4 in each of those games, that's 8.5 wins. If he plays the remaining 47 and we win 1 in 3 that's 15.6 wins

8.5+
15.6
=24.1

Now if he were out longer or Wallace or Green went down then...

If we go 1 win for every 5 games while he's out that's 7 wins, and 1 in 4 when he's back, that's 11.75 which is ...
18.75 wins
lol.
And that's barring no other injuries. I don't think people realize how easily we could be a sub 20 win team. Things would have to go against us but they always seem to go against us with injuries. I mean basically if Avery, Green or Sully goes down then how many more losses does that mean?

Well, if I assume our entire starting lineup and half our bench gets injured and misses the entire season then we probably don't win any games.

How useful of a prediction is that?

[chambers]

I'm thinking the schedule is so brutal in November with 18 games in 30 days that he ain't playing any of them.
If he comes back half way through December or 'eases' his way in from the beginning of December then I think missing 5 games into December is reasonable. Then he misses another 5 to 10 throughout the season due to niggling injuries like his plantar and finger, or his knee just flares up a bit. That's an easy 35 games he sits right there. They add up fast.

We just have such a bad defensive big man line up and such a bad shooting line up I can't see us scoring well and I can't see us defending the paint well. Perimeter D will be nice but that only does so much.

If Rondo sits 35 games and we go 1 of 4 in each of those games, that's 8.5 wins. If he plays the remaining 47 and we win 1 in 3 that's 15.6 wins

8.5+
15.6
=24.1

Now if he were out longer or Wallace or Green went down then...

If we go 1 win for every 5 games while he's out that's 7 wins, and 1 in 4 when he's back, that's 11.75 which is ...
18.75 wins
lol.
And that's barring no other injuries. I don't think people realize how easily we could be a sub 20 win team. Things would have to go against us but they always seem to go against us with injuries. I mean basically if Avery, Green or Sully goes down then how many more losses does that mean?

Well, if I assume our entire starting lineup and half our bench gets injured and misses the entire season then we probably don't win any games.

How useful of a prediction is that?

Well, we have one player who is missing games due to an injury last season. I don't think it's going overboard to say that if we miss another player for an extended time- say 15-25 games, we'll be dancing with the bottom of the barrel.
That would be one reasonable injury to any player in 82 games played this season.
ie: last season Rondo went down, and Sully went down after him.

[mmmmm]

I'm thinking the schedule is so brutal in November with 18 games in 30 days that he ain't playing any of them.
If he comes back half way through December or 'eases' his way in from the beginning of December then I think missing 5 games into December is reasonable. Then he misses another 5 to 10 throughout the season due to niggling injuries like his plantar and finger, or his knee just flares up a bit. That's an easy 35 games he sits right there. They add up fast.

We just have such a bad defensive big man line up and such a bad shooting line up I can't see us scoring well and I can't see us defending the paint well. Perimeter D will be nice but that only does so much.

If Rondo sits 35 games and we go 1 of 4 in each of those games, that's 8.5 wins. If he plays the remaining 47 and we win 1 in 3 that's 15.6 wins

8.5+
15.6
=24.1

Now if he were out longer or Wallace or Green went down then...

If we go 1 win for every 5 games while he's out that's 7 wins, and 1 in 4 when he's back, that's 11.75 which is ...
18.75 wins
lol.
And that's barring no other injuries. I don't think people realize how easily we could be a sub 20 win team. Things would have to go against us but they always seem to go against us with injuries. I mean basically if Avery, Green or Sully goes down then how many more losses does that mean?

Well, if I assume our entire starting lineup and half our bench gets injured and misses the entire season then we probably don't win any games.

How useful of a prediction is that?

Well, we have one player who is missing games due to an injury last season. I don't think it's going overboard to say that if we miss another player for an extended time- say 15-25 games, we'll be dancing with the bottom of the barrel.
That would be one reasonable injury to any player in 82 games played this season.
ie: last season Rondo went down, and Sully went down after him.

Is it unreasonable to assume that other teams will also, on occasion, miss one or two key players?

Or will all of the other teams stay healthy throughout?

[Celtics18]

I'm thinking the schedule is so brutal in November with 18 games in 30 days that he ain't playing any of them.
If he comes back half way through December or 'eases' his way in from the beginning of December then I think missing 5 games into December is reasonable. Then he misses another 5 to 10 throughout the season due to niggling injuries like his plantar and finger, or his knee just flares up a bit. That's an easy 35 games he sits right there. They add up fast.

We just have such a bad defensive big man line up and such a bad shooting line up I can't see us scoring well and I can't see us defending the paint well. Perimeter D will be nice but that only does so much.

If Rondo sits 35 games and we go 1 of 4 in each of those games, that's 8.5 wins. If he plays the remaining 47 and we win 1 in 3 that's 15.6 wins

8.5+
15.6
=24.1

Now if he were out longer or Wallace or Green went down then...

If we go 1 win for every 5 games while he's out that's 7 wins, and 1 in 4 when he's back, that's 11.75 which is ...
18.75 wins
lol.
And that's barring no other injuries. I don't think people realize how easily we could be a sub 20 win team. Things would have to go against us but they always seem to go against us with injuries. I mean basically if Avery, Green or Sully goes down then how many more losses does that mean?

I think it's equally reasonable to surmise that Rondo will miss about 22 games this season and return in early December.  Then we could say that we expect the Celtics to be a .500 team with Rondo back.  That's 30 wins.  I'll say we can win 1/3 of our games without Rondo.  So, we start off the season at 7 and 15.

That's 37 wins. 

Maybe things even really click, and everything falls into place and we are an above .500 team for the last 75% of the season. 

Optimistic?  Sure, but from my vantage point, not more overly optimistic than your scenario is overly pessimistic. 

You say, we could win less than 20 games, I say we could win more than 35.  We are both dealing in entirely hypothetical situations at this point. 

Who knows?  Maybe, they end up splitting the difference and winning somewhere between 28 and 30 games.   

I'm still going to hope for my scenario and a playoff berth for the 2013-2014 Celtics. 

[chambers]

I'm thinking the schedule is so brutal in November with 18 games in 30 days that he ain't playing any of them.
If he comes back half way through December or 'eases' his way in from the beginning of December then I think missing 5 games into December is reasonable. Then he misses another 5 to 10 throughout the season due to niggling injuries like his plantar and finger, or his knee just flares up a bit. That's an easy 35 games he sits right there. They add up fast.

We just have such a bad defensive big man line up and such a bad shooting line up I can't see us scoring well and I can't see us defending the paint well. Perimeter D will be nice but that only does so much.

If Rondo sits 35 games and we go 1 of 4 in each of those games, that's 8.5 wins. If he plays the remaining 47 and we win 1 in 3 that's 15.6 wins

8.5+
15.6
=24.1

Now if he were out longer or Wallace or Green went down then...

If we go 1 win for every 5 games while he's out that's 7 wins, and 1 in 4 when he's back, that's 11.75 which is ...
18.75 wins
lol.
And that's barring no other injuries. I don't think people realize how easily we could be a sub 20 win team. Things would have to go against us but they always seem to go against us with injuries. I mean basically if Avery, Green or Sully goes down then how many more losses does that mean?

Well, if I assume our entire starting lineup and half our bench gets injured and misses the entire season then we probably don't win any games.

How useful of a prediction is that?

Well, we have one player who is missing games due to an injury last season. I don't think it's going overboard to say that if we miss another player for an extended time- say 15-25 games, we'll be dancing with the bottom of the barrel.
That would be one reasonable injury to any player in 82 games played this season.
ie: last season Rondo went down, and Sully went down after him.

Is it unreasonable to assume that other teams will also, on occasion, miss one or two key players?

Or will all of the other teams stay healthy throughout?

of course. I don't know how much other teams would be effected losing their best or second best player compared to us. I mean without Rondo we are probably a 25-30 win team if everything went well.

Our talent depth is a little worrisome at the 4/5 and SG/PG spots.
Avery hasn't played a full season and appears to be injury prone.

Anyway, it is up in the air to an extent.
I'll ask you what record you'd put money on if you had to make the best/wisest gamble.
what are the bookies saying?