The myth about Celtic's post ASG record

[crimson_stallion]

I think you're misunderstanding what people have said about the end of season run.

It's not that people think other teams actually tried to lose games against the Celtics.

Rather, it is the notion that the last two months or so of the regular season are often treated as a sort of "garbage time" by many teams, even some teams that seemingly still have reason to win games for the sake of post-season seeding.

The problem with the whole argument is this...

1) People try to argue that the biggest reason we had such a great end of season record was essentially because the teams we played during that stretch didn't really care much about winning

2) The actual teams we played in closing out the season actually all did have something to play for (and seeding matters - home court advantage is important) which essentially indicates point #1 is a moot point

3) The people who try to argue this 100% completely ignore the fact that the boost in our play after the all star break very closely coincides with trades that sent out arguably our two biggest 'negative impact' players (who were both playing big minutes for us) and brought in a couple of much higher positive impact players

People COMPLETELY ignore the possibility that trades and player changes could have have been the biggest contributer in our big run - somehow they insist it was because the teams we played just didn't care that much about winning. 

Despite the fact that there is more evidence to suggest the former than their is to suggest the latter. 

The rationale behind this argument completely escapes me.

[max215]

Does anyone know of any other examples of big runs/turn-arounds after the ASG? I'd really like to compare the C's to other similar situations.

[beantownboy171]

I mean all of you have made interesting points about the factors that contribute to our second half run last year. For me it's just an eye test thing. I watched those games down the stretch and saw  a team that had a winning formula.

There are no guarantees, but I think this team is going to have a lot of success next year. We just have to wait and see.

[LilRip]

I don't think this team will win 50+ games this season. That's pretty much the pace we were on post-ASG, going something like 23-12. I mean, we were still below .500 overall. But I don't think it's unreasonable to think that the team could get better. With the current roster though, I have a hard time imagining 1) the team winning 50 or more games this season, and 2) making any noise if the team makes the playoffs.

If I were to make a prediction, I think this team just misses the playoffs next year, but is good for about 35-37 wins, finishing around 10th in the east.

[crimson_stallion]

I don't think this team will win 50+ games this season. That's pretty much the pace we were on post-ASG, going something like 23-12. I mean, we were still below .500 overall. But I don't think it's unreasonable to think that the team could get better. With the current roster though, I have a hard time imagining 1) the team winning 50 or more games this season, and 2) making any noise if the team makes the playoffs.

If I were to make a prediction, I think this team just misses the playoffs next year, but is good for about 35-37 wins, finishing around 10th in the east.

I think 50+ wins is definitely a stretch - not impossible, but unlikely.

45-49 is I think a more realistic prediction.

I don't see us falling below 0.500 to be honest, so I feel our absolute worst case is about 40-42 wins. 

Not sure why people wold think we could have a worse record this year.  We've added significant talent (not in terms of outright star power, but in terms of filling needs and adding depth) and have suffered no significant losses.   I don't think there are any more than about 5 teams in the NBA who have made improvements more signifcant than us from last year to this year - most teams either stayed put or made small changes (like us).

[ahonui06]

I think you're misunderstanding what people have said about the end of season run.

It's not that people think other teams actually tried to lose games against the Celtics.

Rather, it is the notion that the last two months or so of the regular season are often treated as a sort of "garbage time" by many teams, even some teams that seemingly still have reason to win games for the sake of post-season seeding.

The problem with the whole argument is this...

1) People try to argue that the biggest reason we had such a great end of season record was essentially because the teams we played during that stretch didn't really care much about winning

2) The actual teams we played in closing out the season actually all did have something to play for (and seeding matters - home court advantage is important) which essentially indicates point #1 is a moot point

3) The people who try to argue this 100% completely ignore the fact that the boost in our play after the all star break very closely coincides with trades that sent out arguably our two biggest 'negative impact' players (who were both playing big minutes for us) and brought in a couple of much higher positive impact players

People COMPLETELY ignore the possibility that trades and player changes could have have been the biggest contributer in our big run - somehow they insist it was because the teams we played just didn't care that much about winning. 

Despite the fact that there is more evidence to suggest the former than their is to suggest the latter. 

The rationale behind this argument completely escapes me.

Really hit it on the head here. The biggest reason was shipping out Green/Rondo and bringing in IT4 and Crowder. They brought vitality and spirit to the squad and really helped the entire team gel down the stretch.

It also really helped that Bradley and IT4 knew each other from their childhood in Tacoma.

[LooseCannon]

Does anyone know of any other examples of big runs/turn-arounds after the ASG? I'd really like to compare the C's to other similar situations.

Spot-checked a few franchises and here are recent post-AB jumps that I found:
2012-2013 Dallas, 23-29 pre-ASB to 18-12 post-ASB
2007-2008 Philadelphia 23-30 to 17-12
2013-2014 Wizards 25-27 to 19-11

Those are all smaller than the Celtics going from 20-31 to 20-11.

20-31 is on pace for 32 wins, 20-11 is on pace for 53 wins.  I think that the Celtics before the All-Star break were more like a 35- to 40-win team that was underperforming.  I don't think they are really a 53-win team, but I think they were a legitimate over-.500 team.

[crimson_stallion]

Does anyone know of any other examples of big runs/turn-arounds after the ASG? I'd really like to compare the C's to other similar situations.

Spot-checked a few franchises and here are recent post-AB jumps that I found:
2012-2013 Dallas, 23-29 pre-ASB to 18-12 post-ASB
2007-2008 Philadelphia 23-30 to 17-12
2013-2014 Wizards 25-27 to 19-11

Those are all smaller than the Celtics going from 20-31 to 20-11.

20-31 is on pace for 32 wins, 20-11 is on pace for 53 wins.  I think that the Celtics before the All-Star break were more like a 35- to 40-win team that was underperforming.  I don't think they are really a 53-win team, but I think they were a legitimate over-.500 team.

I would say that's a pretty fair assessment in all honesty.

[crimson_stallion]

One thing I don't hear is how many games they were leading in going into the fourth quarter and still lost before ASG. After ASG the team learned how to win, which was exciting. The question is did they find lightning in a bottle or is this who they really are?

On that note, how many big clutch shots did we get from Marcus Smart and Isaiah Thomas towards the end of the season? 

Something to ponder considering that until around the All-Star break:

a) Smart was playing limited backup minutes
b) Thomas wasn't on the roster

[LGC88]

At the end of it, it's always the same thing. People underestimate team play and chemistry and keep talking about individual talent and judge a team by their individual talents and make the sum of them.

We get better by trading Rondo & Green. It happens they were our 2 best players but there level of talent wasn't the problem. It was their attitude towards the team or the coach that wasn't suitable for our current roster. A good example is the Kings, something is wrong since a few years and they can't figure out why, they keep shuffling their roster and they fail each year. I don't think Cousins is their problem, but more their ability to find a good coach that Cousins will respect and a good GM that knows how to build a team around a special player like Cousins.

Going back to our roster and their performance, they play their best basketball because they probably trust the coach and each others. This is 50% of the win. To get an edge and have a better team you need talents. But you need that team play as a solid foundation or else you are nothing (look at the Cavs first part of the season, until they finally find a way to play together, they were very average).

As for next season, don't underestimate Amir & Lee and what they can bring to the Celtics. Media didn't pay attention to Amir and he was buried behind DeRozan & Lou. We are very lucky to have him, he's a perfect fit.
We'll be a match up nightmare for most of nba teams. We won't win any games with big show and athletic performance nor ridiculous 3pts shooting %, we'll win games collectively with hustle and top intensity level because we have a roster that is built that way.

You can say they won't win 40 games, that's your opinion, but don't say they won't be good because they don't have talent. To me this is a proof of not understanding our team.

[LilRip]

I don't think this team will win 50+ games this season. That's pretty much the pace we were on post-ASG, going something like 23-12. I mean, we were still below .500 overall. But I don't think it's unreasonable to think that the team could get better. With the current roster though, I have a hard time imagining 1) the team winning 50 or more games this season, and 2) making any noise if the team makes the playoffs.

If I were to make a prediction, I think this team just misses the playoffs next year, but is good for about 35-37 wins, finishing around 10th in the east.

I think 50+ wins is definitely a stretch - not impossible, but unlikely.

45-49 is I think a more realistic prediction.

I don't see us falling below 0.500 to be honest, so I feel our absolute worst case is about 40-42 wins. 

Not sure why people wold think we could have a worse record this year.  We've added significant talent (not in terms of outright star power, but in terms of filling needs and adding depth) and have suffered no significant losses.   I don't think there are any more than about 5 teams in the NBA who have made improvements more signifcant than us from last year to this year - most teams either stayed put or made small changes (like us).

Ending up in the .500 mark is a pretty fair prediction, although unlike you, I think 45 wins is on the high side of the spectrum of plausible outcomes, as opposed to one of the more likely outcomes.

The reason though why I think we will fall below 0.500 is that there are teams below us that got significantly better (top of mind: Indy, Miami, and Sacramento) and teams that will likely show some improvement (top of mind: Phoenix, Utah, and Charlotte). Not to mention, OKC will eat up more wins as well. So it's not us necessarily becoming worse but other teams becoming better.

Don't get me wrong. I like the additions of Lee and Amir. I think Lee actually provides invaluable leadership that a team as young as this needs. If we don't make the playoffs, I won't see this year as a failure, particularly if Smart shows significant improvement in his game and expands his role, and if a rookie shows real promise outside of Summer League (maybe Hunter? I don't know).

[greece66]

One thing I don't hear is how many games they were leading in going into the fourth quarter and still lost before ASG. After ASG the team learned how to win, which was exciting. The question is did they find lightning in a bottle or is this who they really are?

On that note, how many big clutch shots did we get from Marcus Smart and Isaiah Thomas towards the end of the season? 

Something to ponder considering that until around the All-Star break:

a) Smart was playing limited backup minutes
b) Thomas wasn't on the roster

Good point. Thing is, it wasn't like our team before the AS break could not compete. It did compete very well until the fourth quarter.

To me this suggests this team could compete all year long; a handful of contenders apart, it can win another game on a good day. We simply had not figured out how to do it until IT gave us a hand in the fourth quarter.

[Celtics4ever]

People COMPLETELY ignore the possibility that trades and player changes could have have been the biggest contributer in our big run - somehow they insist it was because the teams we played just didn't care that much about winning.

I think that the OP is right, other teams were tanking.   However, I think it helped us that we got IT, and our defense went up after losing Sullinger.  We had guys who could stay in front of their man, Jonas could spread the floor.  So it is a little of both.  I think Smart adds toughness to the roster when he is in there and it is contagious.

I think we were destroyed in the post season and exposed as a pretender.   Oh, we still played tough and has some close games but I felt the CAVS were toying with us.  The East was so weak this year, there was only really one real team in the EAST and it was not us.

Don't get me wrong. I like the additions of Lee and Amir. I think Lee actually provides invaluable leadership that a team as young as this needs. If we don't make the playoffs, I won't see this year as a failure, particularly if Smart shows significant improvement in his game and expands his role, and if a rookie shows real promise outside of Summer League (maybe Hunter? I don't know).

I like them too, Ainge upgraded our talent with no real loss of talent.   Bass was a good soldier though.   But the bottom line is we lack a true talent/star.   Maybe Smart can become one, though.   I am less optimistic about Young, Olynyk and Sullinger, though Young is very young still but the other two lack athletic ability.   I think we got a gem in Mickey, this year and I think RJ Hunter will contribute.   I think Rozier is an upgrade in some ways over Pressey but Phil is a better passer.   I get the sense that the four new guys will be rotation players at some point but maybe not stars.   It is early, I hope I am wrong.

To me this suggests this team could compete all year long; a handful of contenders apart, it can win another game on a good day. We simply had not figured out how to do it until IT gave us a hand in the fourth quarter.

I disagree respectively, because Ainge himself thought we needed improvement in this area after the run.   IT helped but we lost games where we had long spells of not scoring in the fourth.   It was even a problem sometimes late in the big three era.   It is still a problem now.   Here is what Ainge said:

"We often talk about transcendent players and stars, but I think the hardest skill to find in our league is guys that can score in the fourth quarter, the last six minutes of the game type of scorers. Usually the offensive patterns don't score baskets at that time, usually it's the individuals and the talent and I think that's always a priority, regardless of need by position. But those kinds of players are hard to find and I think that Isaiah is our best at that right now, so it'd be nice to have one or two more of those before the season starts next year, and ideally at other positions."

http://www.celticsblog.com/2015/4/30/8525253/danny-ainge-says-the-boston-celtics-want-players-with-a-knack-for-scoring-late-in-games

Rozier looks like he has the knack for it.   IT does.  Will Lee help?   Stay tuned same bat time, same bat channel....

[obnoxiousmime]

Even if this were true, so what? Continuing to add good-but-not-great role player types to the team and increasing depth might help our regular season record a bit, but the playoffs are a different bag. They're two entirely different animals, like regular and post season baseball for example.

Let's say we have 5 solid B-level pitchers that get us into the playoffs. The team we're facing has two aces, a B-level, and two C-level or crappy guys (high 4s to 5 ERA). In a 7-game series, we have to face the two aces 4 times, the B-level twice, and the C-level guy once or sometimes never if they go with a three-man rotation.

This means the team that is top-heavy in pitching talent has the pitching advantage in 4 of 7 games and an even matchup in 2, sometimes 3 games. Sure, the pitchers pitching on shorter rest than usual might be more fatigued, but so are superstar players playing 40 minutes a game in the NBA playoffs. Also, the playoffs are more forgiving with the built-in rest days.

[DarkAzcura]

As someone who thinks the Celtics overachieved at the end of the year, my suspicion covers and was born out of the 25-12 record they compiled after the All Star Break, not just the last 13 games. It seems peculiar to me that you would pick the last 13 games, and feels rather arbitrary, given that most people talk about the post ASG in total, rather than starting with one game at the end of March.

A larger sample size only helps the OP's argument, not hurts.