Simmons on the Eastern Conference / Celtics

[PhoSita]

Pho,

Is this an on-line article?  I didn't find it and would really appreciate it if you could give a link. 

Thanks

Here ya go

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/10089272/the-nba-e-league

Also, here's a blast from the past that should be amusing:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/061129

9. BOSTON
The big problem: The Celtics are playing just hard enough that it doesn't make sense to fire the coach, but not nearly consistently/coherently/decently enough that it would be smart to keep that same coach. It's extremely frustrating. For instance, on Saturday night, as the crows were circling after an embarrassing 24-point home loss to the Knicks (replete with "Fi-re Doc!" chants and the C's being flummoxed by a basic 2-3 zone), the Doc Era was on life support with the team trailing by 14 at halftime in Milwaukee. Of course, Pierce went bonkers in the second half, they played their best team defense of the season and Boston ended up cruising to a comeback win, and I called my half-asleep father just to scream, "He won't diiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiie!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Not a fun first month for the current Atlantic Division leaders.

Most interesting subplot: Rumors of a possible Pau Gasol trade (with Gerald Green and Al Jefferson as the bait), which would go a long way toward solving the whole "we have too many young guys" problem but raises another issue ... namely, can you really give up on Green this early? I attended almost every home game during Joe Johnson's only Boston season, when poor Joe looked like a scared puppy for 50 straight games. When they finally traded him for bench help, my father and I were both on board with the deal. We never thought Johnson would make it -- he seemed like one of those guys who drifted through games and never did anything. Five years later, he's a top-20 guy and even plays the role of Peter Lawford in LeBron and Wade's NBA Rat Pack.

Here's the point: You never know with young guys. Green might have a low hoops IQ, but he's an A-plus athlete and a good kid with an absolutely breathtaking jumper (especially coming off screens). Seriously, we're talking Mike Miller Territory here. Will he disappear from the league five years from now like Kedrick Brown did? I don't know. Will he turn into a top-20 guy like Johnson some day? I don't know. The point is ... I don't know. And neither does Danny Ainge. I bet the Celtics end up keeping him. And you know what? I can't wait to flip-flop on the Gerald Green Era another 20 times over the next three years. He's going to take about nine months off my life before everything's said and done.

Random revelation: I like Bassy Telfair. There. I said it. At some point, he's going to cross paths with a coach who realizes that he should be running high screens for him, and that's when his career will take off like Monta Ellis' career took off this month.

Worst-case scenario: Win two, lose two, win two, lose three (blood pressure rising), win one, lose two, win two (blood pressure rising), lose one, win two, lose three (blood pressure rising) ...

Prognosis: Somewhere between 28 and 47 wins.

 

[PhoSita]

We're kinda right where we expected to be.  10th worst record in the league... Brooklyn and New York aren't supposed to be this bad.  Presumably when D-Will and Chandler come back, those teams will start rolling.  That pushes us to 8th worst record in the league.  A Top 8 pick is what I expected.

Unfortunately, 8th worst record in the league might mean the playoffs for us with how lopsided the conferences are right now.  Which would mean nothing better than the #15 pick.

Maybe we keep winning and get above .500.  Who knows.  I think Simmons wrote that 3 wins ago.

  We're currently on a pace to win 37 games, with the 13th worst record in the league. That's right where you thought we'd be?

For my part, I thought the team was going to be much worse.

That said, I think they're a 30-win caliber team that might win closer to 40 games because of how weak the competition is this season.

[D.o.s.]

We're kinda right where we expected to be.  10th worst record in the league... Brooklyn and New York aren't supposed to be this bad.  Presumably when D-Will and Chandler come back, those teams will start rolling.  That pushes us to 8th worst record in the league.  A Top 8 pick is what I expected.

Unfortunately, 8th worst record in the league might mean the playoffs for us with how lopsided the conferences are right now.  Which would mean nothing better than the #15 pick.

Maybe we keep winning and get above .500.  Who knows.  I think Simmons wrote that 3 wins ago.

  We're currently on a pace to win 37 games, with the 13th worst record in the league. That's right where you thought we'd be?

For my part, I thought the team was going to be much worse.

That said, I think they're a 30-win caliber team that might win closer to 40 games because of how weak the competition is this season.

I'm still sticking with 26.

[Celtics18]

Pho,

Is this an on-line article?  I didn't find it and would really appreciate it if you could give a link. 

Thanks

Here ya go

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/10089272/the-nba-e-league

Also, here's a blast from the past that should be amusing:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/061129

9. BOSTON
The big problem: The Celtics are playing just hard enough that it doesn't make sense to fire the coach, but not nearly consistently/coherently/decently enough that it would be smart to keep that same coach. It's extremely frustrating. For instance, on Saturday night, as the crows were circling after an embarrassing 24-point home loss to the Knicks (replete with "Fi-re Doc!" chants and the C's being flummoxed by a basic 2-3 zone), the Doc Era was on life support with the team trailing by 14 at halftime in Milwaukee. Of course, Pierce went bonkers in the second half, they played their best team defense of the season and Boston ended up cruising to a comeback win, and I called my half-asleep father just to scream, "He won't diiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiie!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Not a fun first month for the current Atlantic Division leaders.

Most interesting subplot: Rumors of a possible Pau Gasol trade (with Gerald Green and Al Jefferson as the bait), which would go a long way toward solving the whole "we have too many young guys" problem but raises another issue ... namely, can you really give up on Green this early? I attended almost every home game during Joe Johnson's only Boston season, when poor Joe looked like a scared puppy for 50 straight games. When they finally traded him for bench help, my father and I were both on board with the deal. We never thought Johnson would make it -- he seemed like one of those guys who drifted through games and never did anything. Five years later, he's a top-20 guy and even plays the role of Peter Lawford in LeBron and Wade's NBA Rat Pack.

Here's the point: You never know with young guys. Green might have a low hoops IQ, but he's an A-plus athlete and a good kid with an absolutely breathtaking jumper (especially coming off screens). Seriously, we're talking Mike Miller Territory here. Will he disappear from the league five years from now like Kedrick Brown did? I don't know. Will he turn into a top-20 guy like Johnson some day? I don't know. The point is ... I don't know. And neither does Danny Ainge. I bet the Celtics end up keeping him. And you know what? I can't wait to flip-flop on the Gerald Green Era another 20 times over the next three years. He's going to take about nine months off my life before everything's said and done.

Random revelation: I like Bassy Telfair. There. I said it. At some point, he's going to cross paths with a coach who realizes that he should be running high screens for him, and that's when his career will take off like Monta Ellis' career took off this month.

Worst-case scenario: Win two, lose two, win two, lose three (blood pressure rising), win one, lose two, win two (blood pressure rising), lose one, win two, lose three (blood pressure rising) ...

Prognosis: Somewhere between 28 and 47 wins.

 

Thanks.  TP

[LooseCannon]

I thought the team was a 30- to 35-win squad that had a chance of overachieving and making the playoffs if Stevens could get the Celtics to be an above-average defense.

[LatterDayCelticsfan]

Well Stevens has got the team playing above average D and the present record extrapolates to 34 wins.

[LooseCannon]

Well Stevens has got the team playing above average D and the present record extrapolates to 34 wins.

Take out the first four games and extrapolate how the Celtics do over the remaining 78 games if Avery Bradley never plays point.

[BballTim]

Well Stevens has got the team playing above average D and the present record extrapolates to 34 wins.

  37 by my count.

[wiley]

So with a deeply flawed roster the C's are still able to show a number of things:

1. Crawdford can indeed play PG and be an impact player andis not just a punk kid with an attitude.

2. Chris Humphries is still a banger

3. Sullinger is for real.

4. Bradley can be a important cog. etc.

So the way I see it. Mission accomplished. Who cares if they win a few more games. We have some real assets and plenty of picks to go with them. Danny fleeced the Nets and got KG and Jesus. Perhaps he has not lost his magic after all.

I think this is well stated. Also nice to see Green put forth a little more consistent effort.

By the way, it's a great article by Simmons. He and Zach Lowe have both been very good this year for Grantland.

Politely disagree--I thought this article was the epitome of mailed-in Simmons.

It's hard to call anything "the epitome of mailed-in" with BS, because that's a fair description of everything he does (though "e-mailed in" might be more accurate) these days.

Bill still has small moments of really nice insight, however -- in this article I really thought he "artificially inflated win totals covering up real problems" bit was one of those.

I would call that more of a good reminder to fans rather than a sharp insight.  A collection of wins feels great no matter whose expense it comes at.  But I would hope any Eastern GM worth his salt would understand that Western teams will put a sizable dent in that collection. ( I don't think teams just sit around staring at their navel comparing themselves to teams in their own division or conference.)

What's interesting about the Celtics is that they are deep and young, and have a coach who knows how to use depth.  That makes them an interesting contrast to teams more like the Celtics of the past 5 years, riding the vet stars.  I expect the current Celtics may do better during the regular season against teams like Dallas, Atlanta, San Antonio, Chicago, Memphis, Clippers and even Indiana or Miami, than younger teams like Golden State, Washington, MInnesota or New Orleans, who can match our energy/depth with their own.

Then of course things change in the playoffs, which brings me to the question of how Brad Stevens will use depth in the playoffs.  Will he be tempted to play Rondo 40 minutes?  I hope not.  I'd like to see a deep team continue to use all of its pieces, at least for now...

Loved Doc, but never liked him sticking with cold players over guys who could bring energy (mainly thought TA was underutilized).  Thought he was too careful and precious with lineups.  (Sill love Doc though, and Simmons not so much if that wasn't clear enough.. )

[hwangjini_1]

just for fun i looked up some w/l stats for the celtics....

http://www.nba.com/standings/team_record_comparison/conferenceNew_Std_Div.html

the celtics are currently at 10 wins and 12 losses. of those, the celtics are 8 - 6 within their conference (you know, the really sucky Leastern one). this is a .571 winning percentage. this is good news since they play lots more games against these teams.

that means against the other conference (the "watch us beat the east like rented mules" one) the celtics are 2 wins and 6 losses... a .333 winning percentage. this is bad news for when they swing out west to play.

but the good news is that within their division (the nba's current gold-standard for suck) the celtics are 1-1, meaning they have lots of games left against some profoundly bad teams.

is the 10-12 record fool's gold? i dont know anymore. stevens has changed the equation for this team. and i like that. 

[wiley]

We're kinda right where we expected to be.  10th worst record in the league... Brooklyn and New York aren't supposed to be this bad.  Presumably when D-Will and Chandler come back, those teams will start rolling.  That pushes us to 8th worst record in the league.  A Top 8 pick is what I expected.

Unfortunately, 8th worst record in the league might mean the playoffs for us with how lopsided the conferences are right now.  Which would mean nothing better than the #15 pick.

Maybe we keep winning and get above .500.  Who knows.  I think Simmons wrote that 3 wins ago.

  We're currently on a pace to win 37 games, with the 13th worst record in the league. That's right where you thought we'd be?

Yes, as soon as Sullinger and Bradley went from constituting "our trash" to being decent players in his eyes....last week sometime.   

[PhoSita]

I expect the current Celtics may do better during the regular season against teams like Dallas, Atlanta, San Antonio, Chicago, Memphis, Clippers and even Indiana or Miami, than younger teams like Golden State, Washington, MInnesota or New Orleans, who can match our energy/depth with their own.

Then of course things change in the playoffs, which brings me to the question of how Brad Stevens will use depth in the playoffs.

This is the thing that sticks out in my mind.  We've seen in recent seasons that young teams with depth can punch above their weight in the regular season, especially if they are well coached.  The Nuggets are the most prominent example of that, followed by the Sixers.

Those teams typically are much less competitive in the playoffs, however. 

I think that may be the biggest challenge for Brad Stevens; he's already shown that he can translate the success he had in college with making underdog teams more competitive than expected -- in the regular season.  But I'm not sure that it can work in the playoffs, when rotations tighten up and the more experienced, more talented teams typically step it up a level or three.

So the concern is that the Celtics regularly punch above their weight in the regular season but have trouble putting together the pieces to make a really good playoff team, in part because they win more games in the regular season.


The biggest difference between the Celtics and the Nuggets, however, is that they play a slow pace and emphasize defense, which is the opposite of what the Nuggets do.  Playing a slow, defensive style definitely correlates with greater post-season success.

[hwangjini_1]

I expect the current Celtics may do better during the regular season against teams like Dallas, Atlanta, San Antonio, Chicago, Memphis, Clippers and even Indiana or Miami, than younger teams like Golden State, Washington, MInnesota or New Orleans, who can match our energy/depth with their own.

Then of course things change in the playoffs, which brings me to the question of how Brad Stevens will use depth in the playoffs.

This is the thing that sticks out in my mind.  We've seen in recent seasons that young teams with depth can punch above their weight in the regular season, especially if they are well coached.  The Nuggets are the most prominent example of that, followed by the Sixers.

Those teams typically are much less competitive in the playoffs, however. 

I think that may be the biggest challenge for Brad Stevens; he's already shown that he can translate the success he had in college with making underdog teams more competitive than expected -- in the regular season.  But I'm not sure that it can work in the playoffs, when rotations tighten up and the more experienced, more talented teams typically step it up a level or three.

So the concern is that the Celtics regularly punch above their weight in the regular season but have trouble putting together the pieces to make a really good playoff team, in part because they win more games in the regular season.


The biggest difference between the Celtics and the Nuggets, however, is that they play a slow pace and emphasize defense, which is the opposite of what the Nuggets do.  Playing a slow, defensive style definitely correlates with greater post-season success.

a really good post, along with the other recent ones by ps. basically, i have trouble figuring out how to predict this team with any degree of confidence because of stevens.

before the season it was soooo clear the crawford for good for a knucklehead shot every 3-4 minutes. him a pg? ha, maybe in between being a chucker. the thought of watching him play pg made me ill. wrong, wrong, wrong by me.

team defense? give me a break. new players, new schemes, old lack of height...no chance for defense for these celtics. actually, while not consistent, the team shows that they can play good defense.

bass? who is that guy who plays for the celtics and wears a bass mask?

sully with 3 pointers? who would have thought?

and, the corpse of courtney lee has at least become a semi-useful zombie. i would not have guessed this.

in short...i dont think it is the players on their own who are winning, even if intermittently. stevens evidently has gotten the team to buy into a new way of playing. i am impressed since he has coached exactly 22 regular season nba games in his life and is learning on the fly.

i wonder how stevens will do should the celtics get 1-2 new stars on the team?

[PhoSita]

in short...i dont think it is the players on their own who are winning, even if intermittently. stevens evidently has gotten the team to buy into a new way of playing. i am impressed since he has coached exactly 22 regular season nba games in his life and is learning on the fly.

I think what Stevens has done is identify the individual skills that the players bring to the table and put those skills together in a way that allows the players to synergize and succeed individually and as a group.

So the players are playing well, but the interesting thing is that none of them is necessarily doing anything that they never seemed capable of before.  They're just doing things well in a way that fits into a strategy that makes the team competitive.

[hwangjini_1]

in short...i dont think it is the players on their own who are winning, even if intermittently. stevens evidently has gotten the team to buy into a new way of playing. i am impressed since he has coached exactly 22 regular season nba games in his life and is learning on the fly.

I think what Stevens has done is identify the individual skills that the players bring to the table and put those skills together in a way that allows the players to synergize and succeed individually and as a group.

So the players are playing well, but the interesting thing is that none of them is necessarily doing anything that they never seemed capable of before.  They're just doing things well in a way that fits into a strategy that makes the team competitive.

well stated and it seems to fit with what my eyes tell me so far. but, as simple as this may appear to be, obviously not all nba coaches are up to the task.