Stevens needs to win a title soon or it won't happen

[Moranis]

I don't understand this logic at all.


Jerry Sloan coached the Utah Jazz starting 1988.  Jazz made the Finals in 1998, lost to the Bulls.

So you're saying the Jazz didn't win the Finals because Jerry had been coaching them for more than 6 years?

All I posted was the historical data.  The historical data is what it is.  There are of course exceptions, but by and large coaches don't win their first title with a team after coaching that team for 6 seasons or more.

[Donoghus]

Ho-hum....

Let's see where this team is situated come April. 

It's not like he's on the hot seat for a mid-season firing or anything.  Looking at it now doesn't do much at all since it'll be the big picture of the entire season that he'll eventually be judged on.

I don't think he is on the hot seat, but when I posted this last year, he wasn't either, but I do think Bird may be on to something when he says after so many years it is time for a change.  The message often gets lost.  Now this Celtics team is vastly different than most of the teams Stevens has had, making it more like college than the pros, but I don't think you can just ignore historical trends either.

You really think Danny & company are sitting around right now on November 30th and looking at historical coaching trends?

This is fodder for sports talk radio.

[PhoSita]

Ho-hum....

Let's see where this team is situated come April. 

It's not like he's on the hot seat for a mid-season firing or anything.  Looking at it now doesn't do much at all since it'll be the big picture of the entire season that he'll eventually be judged on.

I don't think he is on the hot seat, but when I posted this last year, he wasn't either, but I do think Bird may be on to something when he says after so many years it is time for a change.  The message often gets lost.  Now this Celtics team is vastly different than most of the teams Stevens has had, making it more like college than the pros, but I don't think you can just ignore historical trends either.

This is literally the first year when the Celts have had the whole core group available to play.

Last year was the first year of Kyrie, Tatum, and Horford together.  Kyrie wasn't available for the playoffs and they still came within a few minutes of the Finals.


I honestly just don't get where you're coming from here other than the usual stirring the pot.

[PhoSita]

I don't understand this logic at all.


Jerry Sloan coached the Utah Jazz starting 1988.  Jazz made the Finals in 1998, lost to the Bulls.

So you're saying the Jazz didn't win the Finals because Jerry had been coaching them for more than 6 years?

All I posted was the historical data.  The historical data is what it is.  There are of course exceptions, but by and large coaches don't win their first title with a team after coaching that team for 6 seasons or more.

I believe you are smart enough to recognize the difference between correlation and causation.  The logic here doesn't line up.

But hey, you got people to respond to your post, so, good job?

[Moranis]

Ho-hum....

Let's see where this team is situated come April. 

It's not like he's on the hot seat for a mid-season firing or anything.  Looking at it now doesn't do much at all since it'll be the big picture of the entire season that he'll eventually be judged on.

I don't think he is on the hot seat, but when I posted this last year, he wasn't either, but I do think Bird may be on to something when he says after so many years it is time for a change.  The message often gets lost.  Now this Celtics team is vastly different than most of the teams Stevens has had, making it more like college than the pros, but I don't think you can just ignore historical trends either.

You really think Danny & company are sitting around right now on November 30th and looking at historical coaching trends?

This is fodder for sports talk radio.

Well isn't this basically just sports talk radio?  Isn't that what we do up and down this board?

[Bobshot]

I think Stevens' seat is at least a little warm based on the poor Celtics' start, the regression of Tatum and Brown so far, and his judgment starting Hayward who clearly was not ready to start.

The media hasn't said anything yet, but unless the Celtics turn it around soon, there will be some criticism.

[PhoSita]

Ho-hum....

Let's see where this team is situated come April. 

It's not like he's on the hot seat for a mid-season firing or anything.  Looking at it now doesn't do much at all since it'll be the big picture of the entire season that he'll eventually be judged on.

I don't think he is on the hot seat, but when I posted this last year, he wasn't either, but I do think Bird may be on to something when he says after so many years it is time for a change.  The message often gets lost.  Now this Celtics team is vastly different than most of the teams Stevens has had, making it more like college than the pros, but I don't think you can just ignore historical trends either.

You really think Danny & company are sitting around right now on November 30th and looking at historical coaching trends?

This is fodder for sports talk radio.

Well isn't this basically just sports talk radio?  Isn't that what we do up and down this board?

I think most people come to a forum like this specifically because they want to get away from the talk radio nonsense and engage in good faith discussions about basketball and the Celtics.

You could just listen to the radio on the drive home and get angry at the dumb stuff Felger and Mazz say, if that's what you're looking for.

[Bobshot]

Lopsided win against the Cavs tonite at home.

Team seems to be playing better since Hayward was moved to the bench for more defense in the starting 5. Morris and Smart are key defensive players who needed more presence.

Hayward may even be playing better off the bench. I felt he needed to get out of the spotlight.

[Greyman]

Don't agree with the title of the thread but I do agree that Stevens has to sort things out and get the season back on track. There are a number of realistic reasons given for the Celtics' less than dominant start. I don't think Stevens coaching or the level of talent are the most relevant. The high skill level in the NBA and finding togetherness may be two reasons the Celtics are not where predicted.

Stevens does have the job of juggling a number of players (more than 5) who want to be starters and finding the most efficient lineup for specific teams.

I can't believe it won't all come together and that now is the time to take the advantageous odds that are available with the Celtics.

[Celtics4ever]

You have too much time if you look up stuff like this Moranis and look for patterns that no one else in the world would notice.   I think this means nothing.   He will either win some or he won't.

[adam8]

at least historically.  The only coach in NBA to win his first title with a team after 6 years of coaching with that team was Red Auerbach who won his first title in his 7th season with the Celtics.  Al Cervi, Al Attles, Billy Cunningham, and Chuck Daly all won their 1st title with a team in year 6 of coaching with that team.  Only 3 coaches won their 1st title after their 11th year of coaching a NBA team overall.  Red Auerbach, Bill Fitch, and Larry Brown (it was Brown's 22nd year as a NBA head coach, but his 1st year in Detroit - Brown also had ABA and NCAA experience).  Dick Motta did it in his 10th year overall, but as indicated of the 10 year + guys only Auerbach made it past 5 years with that title winning team before breaking through.

Stevens is entering his 5th season, so historically it needs to happen in the next couple of seasons or it isn't going to happen at all.

If I think about this logically it actually makes some sense, because coaches don't win championships superstars do. If a coach is with a team for over 6 years that means they are successful, they wouldn't have gotten a second or third contract without success. If you have had success you are less likely to get a superstar player because you don't have high draft picks. Typically a coach with a superstar is either going to win within 6 years or probably get replaced before they get 6 non championship years and a new coach gets a chance.

If you have a team overachieving for more than 6 years you will keep your job but it's really hard to win without top end talent in this league, if the sport were more variable like hockey or baseball then a team of over achievers can win because of a coach, not in the NBA.

So basically I think there is a reason for these seemingly weird stats but I don't think it necessarily says anything negative about these coaches. Brad has not only been great in the regular season but has really led the team further into the playoffs than many expected the last two years there is no reason to believe Brad isn't a good enough coach to win a title.

[Moranis]

at least historically.  The only coach in NBA to win his first title with a team after 6 years of coaching with that team was Red Auerbach who won his first title in his 7th season with the Celtics.  Al Cervi, Al Attles, Billy Cunningham, and Chuck Daly all won their 1st title with a team in year 6 of coaching with that team.  Only 3 coaches won their 1st title after their 11th year of coaching a NBA team overall.  Red Auerbach, Bill Fitch, and Larry Brown (it was Brown's 22nd year as a NBA head coach, but his 1st year in Detroit - Brown also had ABA and NCAA experience).  Dick Motta did it in his 10th year overall, but as indicated of the 10 year + guys only Auerbach made it past 5 years with that title winning team before breaking through.

Stevens is entering his 5th season, so historically it needs to happen in the next couple of seasons or it isn't going to happen at all.

If I think about this logically it actually makes some sense, because coaches don't win championships superstars do. If a coach is with a team for over 6 years that means they are successful, they wouldn't have gotten a second or third contract without success. If you have had success you are less likely to get a superstar player because you don't have high draft picks. Typically a coach with a superstar is either going to win within 6 years or probably get replaced before they get 6 non championship years and a new coach gets a chance.

If you have a team overachieving for more than 6 years you will keep your job but it's really hard to win without top end talent in this league, if the sport were more variable like hockey or baseball then a team of over achievers can win because of a coach, not in the NBA.

So basically I think there is a reason for these seemingly weird stats but I don't think it necessarily says anything negative about these coaches. Brad has not only been great in the regular season but has really led the team further into the playoffs than many expected the last two years there is no reason to believe Brad isn't a good enough coach to win a title.

Yeah.  You also don't see very many gaps between titles either (for much the same reason).  In fact, Pop had a 7 year gap between his last 2 titles (and some other decent gaps), but no other coach had more than 2 full seasons in between titles for the same team (like Phil had 2 seasons between the 3 peats in Chicago, he retired and then came back to LA so not the same thing).  Coaches win their titles early for a team and then win them in spurts if they are going to win  multiple titles.  It certainly doesn't mean an exception can't exist, but it is called an exception for a reason.

[sgrogan]

No coach who won a title in their first 6 years has ever won 8 titles in a row.
It seems not winning a title in the first 6 years is a prerequisite to winning 8 titles in a row

[bdm860]

Unfortunately every coach can't be as great as Ty Lue and win in their first year 

One thing Stevens has going for him, he's improved his record all 5 years in the league, both in the regular season and playoffs.  Don't think any other coach has done that. (Of course much easier when you start with a low win total   ).

Only has to go 44-16 (a 60 win pace) the rest of the season and make the Finals (both of which are in the realm of possibility) to make it 6 straight years. 

I don't think any other coach has done that.  We're in uncharted waters here!

[Green-18]

Interesting stats but there are far too many unique variables to conclude much of anything.  How many rookie coaches have inherited a blown up team that also had a seemingly unlimited amount of assets?  There's been a complete turnover of the roster, yet the team has improved every season up until this point.  The Celtics were able to create a winning culture while receiving lottery picks at the same time. 

This year kind of feels like the start of a new era anyways.  I'm not overly concerned about Brad's message getting lost.  Most of these guys have only been with us for 1 or 2 years.