Well, see topic of thread.
I did...
The topic is the prediction that the Celtics will be this year's Hawks.
The Hawks were a team who, at the end of the 2013/14 season, were not expected to be much more then a fringe playoff team.
These expectations were based on the fact that while they had a few genuinely good players, they didn't seem to have any real "stars" - they only had a single All-Star that year, and even he was a fringe selection that many people questioned. Of course the general view around the league thees days is that a team cannot win with just "fringe stars", which is what the Hawks best players were all considered as being, and hence nobody expected them do do much.
The Hawks then went on to overachieve mainly because (IMHO) a few of their role players established themselves and made a really big impact, and because they were able to play really well as a team to largely make up for what they lacked in individual talent - they were able to be better than the sum of their parts, so to speak. Also they ended up gonig from 1 All-Star to 4 All-Stars in the space of one season, even though not one of those players (Millsap, Horford, Teague, Korver) really had a year that was substantially better individually than what has been typical of their careers.
Many people see the Celtics in the same way. We have a lot of "nice" players, but we don't have any "wow" players. Last year we had no All-Stars, so the standard argument for why we won't be a great team is lack of star power - much like it was for the Hawks. However I feel we have a lot of good role players who I believe will step up in a huge way (like Carroll and Schroeder did). I also believe we have a great team system that allows our team to perform as a unit that is greater than the sum of it's parts - much like the Hawks.
We don't have any guys that were really considered All-Star caliber players, but then neitehr did the Hawks in 13/14. Milsap's numbers didn't look any more "all star" in 13/14 than Thomas' did last year.
However the following year (14/15) the team overachieved, and a number of guys who were not previously seen as All-Star calibre players, made the ASG. I could see the same happening with any number of guys on the Celtics if we ended up with a record similar to the Hawks' one. In this league if you get the record then you typically get the All-Stars, one way or the other.
The 'relevance' of career trajectory is that most guys on this team are young up-and-comers so there is quite a good chance that multiple guys on the team will take significant strides next year. Given a number of those guys are putting up per-minute numbers that are in the Horford/Milsap/Teague range already, it's not unrealistic to consider that we could easily end up with 3 or 4 guys next year who are just as good as Atlanta's top 3 or 4 guys this year.
That is the relevance.
I guess we don't. We do know 1 of those 4 has probably hit his ceiling, and 3/4 are going to be fighting for minutes.
We don't really not about any of those four guys - I don't believe either of them has hit a ceiling TBH, but time will tell. Also regarding the fight for minutes - this roster is only as it is until Ainge can find a trade he likes.
Maybe that trade never happens - entirely possible - but I can assure you he's spending ever minute of every day looking over all the options out there. Our current team (with it's 6 bigs) is certainly not Ainge's vision of how he wants his rotation to look. All it would take is one or two significant trades and the entire "fighting for minutes" scenario changes. Again, we just don't know what's going to happen.
As it stands yes, it's going to be hard to give nay player 30+ minutes a night. But who knows what this team will look like 3 months from now.
Their offensive stats cancel each other out, and Teague is a plus-defender (IIRC, you're a pro-RPM fan... go check out Teague's DRPM from last season -- eye popper). So no... they aren't nor will ever be "on par." Could one be more valuable to the Cs than the other? Sure. I'd argue we need IT far more than we would benefit from Teague. But that's a different story.
How on earth do their offensive stats cancel each other out?
Per 36 with the Celtics Thomas averaged 26.5 points, 7.5 assists and 3.6 turnvovers. Teague for the Hawks averaged 18.8 points, 8.3 assists and 3.3 turnovers. How are those offensive stats even close to comparable? Thomas' scoring efficiency of 1.404 (PTS / FGA) is easily superior to Teague's scoring efficiency of 1.31 PTS / FGA).
As for the difference in RPM - it's not as great as you suggest.
Teague had a DRPM of +0.95 and an ORPM of +0.92. Neither of those is elite, but they are good none the less. The overall RPM as a result was +1.87, which is again very good.
Thomas had an Offensive RPM of +4.14 (which is elite) and a DRPM of -2.69 (which is poor). His combined RPM of +1.45 is (like Teague) very good.
The two players are clearly comparable, with Teague being more of an All-Rounder and Thomas being more of a specialist - but both having a comparably positive impact on their teams.
It's pretty hard to argue that Thomas isn't on Teague's level...
Comparing per 36 numbers between their bigs and ours is fruitless... ours haven't gotten there for a reason... nor will they this season, even if it's solely due to the logjam (which it won't be).
i understand what you're saying, in that Per-36 numbers is hardly a perfect method of comparison.
Per 36 is a measure of a players "rate of production", and you cannot blindly assume that a player will produce at the same rate if he's playing 36 minutes as he would if he's playing 25 minutes. There are a number of factors (like fatigue, risk of injury, wear and tear, rotation changes, etc) that can potentially have an impact on a player's production as their minutes increase and/or decrease.
But at the same time, doing the opposite (comparing actual production) for players with significantly different playing time is not any more accurate either. For example, it wouldn't be accurate to suggest Millsap is much more productive player than KO because he averaged 16/8/3, while KO only averaged 10/5/1.5 - the fact that Millsap played 32 MPG and Olynyk played only 22 MPG makes that comparison similarly fruitless.
Ultimately the fact is that while Olynyk was on the court for Boston he was producing at the same rate as Millsap was when he was on the court for Atlanta - that's about the only accurate conclusion we can come to.
As long as Olynyk has shown he's capable of producing at that rate, it's fair to argue that he has the
potential to put up Paul Millsap numbers.
That's not to say it will happen - just that he has the potential.
Similar deal with Zeller and Horford. Zeller was producing just as much for Boston while he was on the court (17 / 10 / 2.5 / 0.4 / 1.1 Per 36) as Horford was for the Hawks when he was on the court (18 / 8.5 / 3.8 / 1.1 / 1.5). Does this mean that Zeller will explode and put up Horford numbers next season? Of course not. But it shows he has the
potential to be a Horford caliber player, given the opportunity. Whether he'll realise that potential, who knows?
Same deal with Thomas. His production last year with the Celtics hinted that he has the potential to be the best offensive "little guy" since Allen Iverson.
We can't possible know for sure that any of the above will come true - it could all be a pipe dream. But if those guys can earn the minutes, and they can come even close to maintaining their rates of production, then you are looking at at team every bit as good as the Hawks - maybe even better because we are (IMHO) significantly deeper.
This is not even bringing up David Lee, who put up Horford-like stats in 6 of his past 7 seasons - with a reduction in minutes being the only clear reason for him not repeating that last year.
It also doesn't include Marcus Smart, who I've intentionally not mentioned simply because we don't really know what to expect from him.
Are our players putting up numbers as impressive as the Hawks' best players right now? No. Could they potentially be by midway through next year? Sure.
Per-36 numbers again. If any one of the 3 play over 30 mpg next year and can be fairly compared to Horford, then great. I'd put my money on Sully, and in that case, there's no telling he'd be in shape to play 20 mpg the following season.
Again, we can't know any of this until next year - for now all we can go off is potential, and the potential for it to happen is there.
Stop it.
Why?
How do we know that Rozier won't surprise all the haters and have a Dennis Schroeder like year as a rookie? The guy has talent. He may well be a complete non-factor, but he could also be a major impact role player for us in his first year.
Likewise how do we know Mickey won't carve out a role as an athletic big who can rebound, block shots, defend the P&R, and knock down open midrange jumpers? Bass was a major piece for us for years in exactly that role (minus the rebounding and shotblocking) so if Mickey can impress when the opportunities come, he could carve himself a role as an impact role player in 8-12 minutes a night.
How do we know Hunter give us a nice contribution (by the time midseason comes) as a nice 3+D guy with size? Look at the competition right now at the SF spot - Evan Turner and Jae Crowder. When it comes to rookies earning minutes, Hunter will have more opportunity than anybody. All he has to do is make smart plays, play tough defense, make the right passes, and knock down open threes. On a team like this that's enough to earn yourself a role as a contributer - just as Jerebko.
Will any of those rookies be starting caliber players next year? Probably not. But any one of those guys could make a signifciant contribution as energy / role guy off the bench.
Likewise nobody knows how much of a jump Smart will take this year. He shot poorly in SL but it was also a small sample size. There's no denying that he looked like he was playing with a whole other level of confidence, speed and determination though. Don't think he'll suddenly break out as an All-Star caliber guy, seeing him averaging 15/5/5 by the All-Star break wouldn't surprise me all
that much.
I don't even like him. He's better than the bigs we have, that's the only argument being made here. Will any be better eventually? Sure hope so. I like Amir to be our best 2-way player this year, and hope Smart bumps up his averages and finds a way to command the offense in spurts.
True, but he's better than the bigs we have as of how they played last year. None of us know what strides / improvements they have made in the off-season. By the time the All-Star break comes around, we may no longer feel Horford is better than our bigs. Only time will tell.
Topic: Prediction: C's will be This year's Hawks. (Read 12562 times)