Do you want to see Isiah Thomas Starting?

[Csfan1984]

If he could defender better I'd want to start IT but he can't.

[Granath]

Do you want to see Isiah Thomas Starting?

I love how he changes the game when he comes off the bench, he gives us a huge lift and plays the majority of the game after that, but the guy deserves to be a starter. Any thoughts?

It doesn't matter who starts. It matters who finishes. Any player worth their salt will tell you they'd rather be on the floor during crunch time over starting the game.

Frankly, I like seeing IT off the bench. It's better to let Smart's strength wear down the opposing PGs for a while then let IT come in and blow by tired defenders.

[hwangjini_1]

No, though the slow start in the first game will need to be addressed. Catching the 76ers is less of a challenge than what happens against stronger teams who get a significant lead on you.

That's true, though it's not like it's a new development -- the team started slow in many of the games at the end of last season over the same time period they went like 25-10.

but, just to beat a deceased equine, it is not unexpected that the celtics starters, who often do not match the talent of other good teams' starters, may fall behind early on. but the celtic bench is supposedly so deep and good that as long as the opponent's lead is not too great, they can come back.

oh, and so as to not get too far away from the thread's theme, no, i dont want thomas to start. my reasons have been mentioned already above in some very good posts.

[Greyman]

No, though the slow start in the first game will need to be addressed. Catching the 76ers is less of a challenge than what happens against stronger teams who get a significant lead on you.

That's true, though it's not like it's a new development -- the team started slow in many of the games at the end of last season over the same time period they went like 25-10.

but, just to beat a deceased equine, it is not unexpected that the celtics starters, who often do not match the talent of other good teams' starters, may fall behind early on. but the celtic bench is supposedly so deep and good that as long as the opponent's lead is not too great, they can come back.

oh, and so as to not get too far away from the thread's theme, no, i dont want thomas to start. my reasons have been mentioned already above in some very good posts.

My concern would still be, how far behind? Despite what was achieved last season it is a dangerous assumption that you will be able to run better teams down, and by better I don't mean just the top ranked teams like the Cavs. The 76ers showed enough to suggest they will improve as their young squad matures and maybe shows enough to attract bigger fish. I like the depth and combinations that are building at the Celtics, but it is not like other teams are standing still and not developing.

[incoherent]

When most teams have this problem they worry about disrupting chemistry in the starting unit or a disgruntled player like Ray.

Brad Stevens would never start IT for fear of disrupting the chemistry in our second unit... Can't say I've heard of that before.

[soap07]

He's been great off the bench, but I find it strange to have your best player come off the pine. It appears I'm in the minority on this.

[konkmv]

Cbs knows better

[crimson_stallion]

When most teams have this problem they worry about disrupting chemistry in the starting unit or a disgruntled player like Ray.

Brad Stevens would never start IT for fear of disrupting the chemistry in our second unit... Can't say I've heard of that before.

That's because there haven't really been that many teams who have taken the strategy that we have - which is to win with our bench.

There have been teams out there who have had strong benches, but we must be one of the few teams in recent memory to have a bench that is arguably more potent/dangerous than our starting unit.  The other night we had something like 60 or 70 points from our bench.  We actually got more offense from our bench than we did from our starters. 

Our bench is basically our competitive advantage because most teams get significantly worse when they go to their bench, while our team arguably gets even better.  Thomas is a key to our bench, and our bench is a key to us winning games.

[crimson_stallion]

No, though the slow start in the first game will need to be addressed. Catching the 76ers is less of a challenge than what happens against stronger teams who get a significant lead on you.

That's true, though it's not like it's a new development -- the team started slow in many of the games at the end of last season over the same time period they went like 25-10.

but, just to beat a deceased equine, it is not unexpected that the celtics starters, who often do not match the talent of other good teams' starters, may fall behind early on. but the celtic bench is supposedly so deep and good that as long as the opponent's lead is not too great, they can come back.

oh, and so as to not get too far away from the thread's theme, no, i dont want thomas to start. my reasons have been mentioned already above in some very good posts.

My concern would still be, how far behind? Despite what was achieved last season it is a dangerous assumption that you will be able to run better teams down, and by better I don't mean just the top ranked teams like the Cavs. The 76ers showed enough to suggest they will improve as their young squad matures and maybe shows enough to attract bigger fish. I like the depth and combinations that are building at the Celtics, but it is not like other teams are standing still and not developing.

Our starting 5 were not as bad as they looked against Philly.  They were getting all the looks they wanted, and the shots just weren't falling.  It was also the first 5-8 minutes of the first quarter of the first game of the new season.  A number of Celtics players (including Lee and Crowder, both starters) went on record saying they still get butterflies from all the excitement of playing in the first game of a new season. 

i don't expect that starting lineup to shoot something like 35% from the field on a consistent basis.  It was just a bad start, and probably had a lot to do with being overanxious.

[Greyman]

No, though the slow start in the first game will need to be addressed. Catching the 76ers is less of a challenge than what happens against stronger teams who get a significant lead on you.

That's true, though it's not like it's a new development -- the team started slow in many of the games at the end of last season over the same time period they went like 25-10.

but, just to beat a deceased equine, it is not unexpected that the celtics starters, who often do not match the talent of other good teams' starters, may fall behind early on. but the celtic bench is supposedly so deep and good that as long as the opponent's lead is not too great, they can come back.

oh, and so as to not get too far away from the thread's theme, no, i dont want thomas to start. my reasons have been mentioned already above in some very good posts.

My concern would still be, how far behind? Despite what was achieved last season it is a dangerous assumption that you will be able to run better teams down, and by better I don't mean just the top ranked teams like the Cavs. The 76ers showed enough to suggest they will improve as their young squad matures and maybe shows enough to attract bigger fish. I like the depth and combinations that are building at the Celtics, but it is not like other teams are standing still and not developing.

Our starting 5 were not as bad as they looked against Philly.  They were getting all the looks they wanted, and the shots just weren't falling.  It was also the first 5-8 minutes of the first quarter of the first game of the new season.  A number of Celtics players (including Lee and Crowder, both starters) went on record saying they still get butterflies from all the excitement of playing in the first game of a new season. 

i don't expect that starting lineup to shoot something like 35% from the field on a consistent basis.  It was just a bad start, and probably had a lot to do with being overanxious.

TP for analysis. Not being able to see the games and trying to assess on stats doesn't always allow you to see the full picture.

[Moranis]

Thomas is Boston's best player.  He should start. 

[guava_wrench]

No, though the slow start in the first game will need to be addressed. Catching the 76ers is less of a challenge than what happens against stronger teams who get a significant lead on you.

That's true, though it's not like it's a new development -- the team started slow in many of the games at the end of last season over the same time period they went like 25-10.

but, just to beat a deceased equine, it is not unexpected that the celtics starters, who often do not match the talent of other good teams' starters, may fall behind early on. but the celtic bench is supposedly so deep and good that as long as the opponent's lead is not too great, they can come back.

oh, and so as to not get too far away from the thread's theme, no, i dont want thomas to start. my reasons have been mentioned already above in some very good posts.

My concern would still be, how far behind? Despite what was achieved last season it is a dangerous assumption that you will be able to run better teams down, and by better I don't mean just the top ranked teams like the Cavs. The 76ers showed enough to suggest they will improve as their young squad matures and maybe shows enough to attract bigger fish. I like the depth and combinations that are building at the Celtics, but it is not like other teams are standing still and not developing.

I'm having a hard time getting you comment to be directly relevant to the previous comment and to itself.

The Celtics don't have superstars. They don't even have all star level players at the moment, though IT could score 20+ a game with 8+ assists given the minutes. The previous poster's point is along the lints of we are a deep team, but no combination of 5 players is going to be an above average starting lineup. So we will never have a big advantage at the start of the game when our opponent likely has their best 4 or 5 players on the floor, but we will often have an advantage when they go to their less effective bench and we go to our equally effective bench.

How is the development of other teams relevant?

The argument for starting IT would be that he is a legitimate 20 ppg scorer, which some would argue makes him our best player. The argument against him would be that we are a defensive oriented team and starting lineups would find it much easier to take advantage of IT's height. The other argument against him starting is that we are all-in on developing Smart as a PG, so we want to let both those guys to get a lot of minutes without the other. We also want AB defending starters, and only 2 of Smart, AB and IT can start the game.