How about... rest the starters?

[playdream]

I know it's against CBS' philosophy to not try their best and they most likely intend to push it through, but after the hell schedule in Dec and the Rockets game the starers should be exhausted, i wonder two days of full rest is enough to full recover, let alone adding practice during it.

So instead of play the starers and risk possible injuries or under-performing(and lose anyway), why not just rest them and play the bench big minutes, therefor the bench get some run and the starters get full rest and can practice.

Afterall the Nets is the one team i can afford to take the lose..if it should be.

[jpotter33]

The London game is going to provide us a stretch of one game in nine or so days, which will give us plenty of rest. No reason to rest guys before that, too.

[dreamgreen]

We need to win the game, we've been playing .500 ball basically for a while now it's time to get back on track, rest later.

[tenn_smoothie]

The London game is going to provide us a stretch of one game in nine or so days, which will give us plenty of rest. No reason to rest guys before that, too.

London game includes extensive travel and time away from home - that is as tiring as two away games on the east coast. Stevens does need to play the starters 4-5 less minutes per game. I think Baynes, Morris, Rozier, Smart, Theis, Larkin and Ojeyle would love more minutes and might do just fine with them.

Think Patience & Future.

[adam8]

The London game is going to provide us a stretch of one game in nine or so days, which will give us plenty of rest. No reason to rest guys before that, too.

London game includes extensive travel and time away from home - that is as tiring as two away games on the east coast. Stevens does need to play the starters 4-5 less minutes per game. I think Baynes, Morris, Rozier, Smart, Theis, Larkin and Ojeyle would love more minutes and might do just fine with them.

Think Patience & Future.

Stevens is so good at limiting minutes not sure why he should do so further, our leading player in minutes per game (Horford) is tied for 44th in the league. If we were to play him 4-5 minutes less a game he would be down around 100th in minutes played. It's the dog days of the year after a fast start it was going to get bumpy along the way at some point but I don't want our starters playing 28 mpg our bench isn't good enough. Also Smart plays 1.9 minutes less than our leading player in minutes, but the starters should get 4-5 less and he should get more you want him leading the team in minutes?

Also teams like GS and HOU have two players with more mpg than any Boston player, even pop is playing Aldridge more than any Celtic

[Moranis]

Boston is not a contender so resting starters is just silly.

[jpotter33]

Boston is not a contender so resting starters is just silly.

Unless the only team in the league who you consider a contender is GS, then this statement is nonsense. We’re just as much of a true contender as Cleveland, SAS, Houston, etc.

[Moranis]

Boston is not a contender so resting starters is just silly.

Unless the only team in the league who you consider a contender is GS, then this statement is nonsense. We’re just as much of a true contender as Cleveland, SAS, Houston, etc.

No we aren't.  Cleveland and Houston, especially both have significantly higher title odds than Boston does.  They aren't close (and that accounts for Houston having to beat not only GS but also a team like SA just to make the finals).  San Antonio's are about inline with Boston, but that is really only because they would have to beat both Houston and Golden State just to make the finals.  Then you have teams like Toronto, which right now would likely be favored to beat Boston in a playoff series (especially if Toronto ends up with home court where they are 14-1). 

It is fun to think of Boston as a contender, but that 16 game win streak was a fluke.  Boston is closer to the .500 team it has been since the team started 22-4 than it is to a 22-4 juggernaut.  And that is ok, but there are going to be a lot of very disappointed Celtics fans when the C's lose in the 1st or 2nd round even though the team should be applauded for turning the season around after losing Hayward 5 minutes in.

[jambr380]

Boston is not a contender so resting starters is just silly.

Unless the only team in the league who you consider a contender is GS, then this statement is nonsense. We’re just as much of a true contender as Cleveland, SAS, Houston, etc.

No we aren't.  Cleveland and Houston, especially both have significantly higher title odds than Boston does.  They aren't close (and that accounts for Houston having to beat not only GS but also a team like SA just to make the finals).  San Antonio's are about inline with Boston, but that is really only because they would have to beat both Houston and Golden State just to make the finals.  Then you have teams like Toronto, which right now would likely be favored to beat Boston in a playoff series (especially if Toronto ends up with home court where they are 14-1). 

It is fun to think of Boston as a contender, but that 16 game win streak was a fluke.  Boston is closer to the .500 team it has been since the team started 22-4 than it is to a 22-4 juggernaut.  And that is ok, but there are going to be a lot of very disappointed Celtics fans when the C's lose in the 1st or 2nd round even though the team should be applauded for turning the season around after losing Hayward 5 minutes in.

Where are you getting your information? Boston is solidly in 4th place at 12/1 - behind GS, CLE, and Houston (SAS is 14/1); Toronto is 50/1. I am not sure why you think Toronto would be favored to beat the Cs or why you are handing the home court advantage.

What about if Hayward comes back, we sign a solid player with the DPE, and we have home court advantage? Does the pendulum swing back our way? We are a good team and one of the top 5 teams in the NBA. Even if we aren't favored to win the championship, we are definitely in the discussion with a few select other teams.

[gift]

Boston is not a contender so resting starters is just silly.

Unless the only team in the league who you consider a contender is GS, then this statement is nonsense. We’re just as much of a true contender as Cleveland, SAS, Houston, etc.

No we aren't.  Cleveland and Houston, especially both have significantly higher title odds than Boston does.  They aren't close (and that accounts for Houston having to beat not only GS but also a team like SA just to make the finals).  San Antonio's are about inline with Boston, but that is really only because they would have to beat both Houston and Golden State just to make the finals.  Then you have teams like Toronto, which right now would likely be favored to beat Boston in a playoff series (especially if Toronto ends up with home court where they are 14-1). 

It is fun to think of Boston as a contender, but that 16 game win streak was a fluke.  Boston is closer to the .500 team it has been since the team started 22-4 than it is to a 22-4 juggernaut.  And that is ok, but there are going to be a lot of very disappointed Celtics fans when the C's lose in the 1st or 2nd round even though the team should be applauded for turning the season around after losing Hayward 5 minutes in.

I would suggest that you are over-correcting the projection.

[Vermont Green]

Where are you getting your information? Boston is solidly in 4th place at 12/1 - behind GS, CLE, and Houston (SAS is 14/1); Toronto is 50/1. 

That sounds about right to me, GSW, CLE, and HOU are all better than the Celtics in my opinion.  SAS seems to be about on par with the Celtics making us the 4th or 5th best team.  I can live with that.  Of that group, we are by far the youngest.

Things can change based on trades, acquisitions, and injuries but at the almost halfway point and based on who is on the roster right now (and not injured) this is about right.

Does that make us a "contender", I think so but I also don't think we need to do anything different in terms of resting our starters.  Actually it is Tatum and to some degree Brown that may need to be watched as they are not as acclimated to the NBA season as the veterans.

[Moranis]

Boston is not a contender so resting starters is just silly.

Unless the only team in the league who you consider a contender is GS, then this statement is nonsense. We’re just as much of a true contender as Cleveland, SAS, Houston, etc.

No we aren't.  Cleveland and Houston, especially both have significantly higher title odds than Boston does.  They aren't close (and that accounts for Houston having to beat not only GS but also a team like SA just to make the finals).  San Antonio's are about inline with Boston, but that is really only because they would have to beat both Houston and Golden State just to make the finals.  Then you have teams like Toronto, which right now would likely be favored to beat Boston in a playoff series (especially if Toronto ends up with home court where they are 14-1). 

It is fun to think of Boston as a contender, but that 16 game win streak was a fluke.  Boston is closer to the .500 team it has been since the team started 22-4 than it is to a 22-4 juggernaut.  And that is ok, but there are going to be a lot of very disappointed Celtics fans when the C's lose in the 1st or 2nd round even though the team should be applauded for turning the season around after losing Hayward 5 minutes in.

Where are you getting your information? Boston is solidly in 4th place at 12/1 - behind GS, CLE, and Houston (SAS is 14/1); Toronto is 50/1. I am not sure why you think Toronto would be favored to beat the Cs or why you are handing the home court advantage.

What about if Hayward comes back, we sign a solid player with the DPE, and we have home court advantage? Does the pendulum swing back our way? We are a good team and one of the top 5 teams in the NBA. Even if we aren't favored to win the championship, we are definitely in the discussion with a few select other teams.

Toronto started 5-4 and is 20-6 since.  They've played 5 more road games then home games and don't have to travel past the central time zone the rest of the season (and have just 3 such games 2 in Chicago (including their next game) and 1 in Minnesota).  They are 14-1 at home.  They have the same amount of losses as Boston.  Toronto is trending upwards while Boston is not.  Thus, trending most certainly suggests that Toronto will end up with a better record than Boston, thus giving Toronto home court advantage in a playoff series.  That said, I actually expect Toronto to finish with the 1st seed and thus don't actually think Boston will play Toronto in the playoffs as I see Boston (the 3 seed) losing to Cleveland (the 2 seed) in the 2nd round (assuming Boston actually gets by the 6th seed, which depending on matchup could be a problem). 

[chilidawg]

Boston is not a contender so resting starters is just silly.

Unless the only team in the league who you consider a contender is GS, then this statement is nonsense. We’re just as much of a true contender as Cleveland, SAS, Houston, etc.

No we aren't.  Cleveland and Houston, especially both have significantly higher title odds than Boston does.  They aren't close (and that accounts for Houston having to beat not only GS but also a team like SA just to make the finals).  San Antonio's are about inline with Boston, but that is really only because they would have to beat both Houston and Golden State just to make the finals.  Then you have teams like Toronto, which right now would likely be favored to beat Boston in a playoff series (especially if Toronto ends up with home court where they are 14-1). 

It is fun to think of Boston as a contender, but that 16 game win streak was a fluke.  Boston is closer to the .500 team it has been since the team started 22-4 than it is to a 22-4 juggernaut.  And that is ok, but there are going to be a lot of very disappointed Celtics fans when the C's lose in the 1st or 2nd round even though the team should be applauded for turning the season around after losing Hayward 5 minutes in.

I would suggest that you are over-correcting the projection.

I had a far less polite reaction to this post.  Kudos for your restraint.

[Moranis]

Boston is not a contender so resting starters is just silly.

Unless the only team in the league who you consider a contender is GS, then this statement is nonsense. We’re just as much of a true contender as Cleveland, SAS, Houston, etc.

No we aren't.  Cleveland and Houston, especially both have significantly higher title odds than Boston does.  They aren't close (and that accounts for Houston having to beat not only GS but also a team like SA just to make the finals).  San Antonio's are about inline with Boston, but that is really only because they would have to beat both Houston and Golden State just to make the finals.  Then you have teams like Toronto, which right now would likely be favored to beat Boston in a playoff series (especially if Toronto ends up with home court where they are 14-1). 

It is fun to think of Boston as a contender, but that 16 game win streak was a fluke.  Boston is closer to the .500 team it has been since the team started 22-4 than it is to a 22-4 juggernaut.  And that is ok, but there are going to be a lot of very disappointed Celtics fans when the C's lose in the 1st or 2nd round even though the team should be applauded for turning the season around after losing Hayward 5 minutes in.

I would suggest that you are over-correcting the projection.

I think Boston is probably a 50ish win team, though with the hot start will probably finish around 55.  A 50 win pace is around 60%, that is closer to 50% than it is to 85% (a 22-4 start).  Even 55 wins is a 67% pace, which is still closer to 50% than it is to 85%. 

[gift]

Boston is not a contender so resting starters is just silly.

Unless the only team in the league who you consider a contender is GS, then this statement is nonsense. We’re just as much of a true contender as Cleveland, SAS, Houston, etc.

No we aren't.  Cleveland and Houston, especially both have significantly higher title odds than Boston does.  They aren't close (and that accounts for Houston having to beat not only GS but also a team like SA just to make the finals).  San Antonio's are about inline with Boston, but that is really only because they would have to beat both Houston and Golden State just to make the finals.  Then you have teams like Toronto, which right now would likely be favored to beat Boston in a playoff series (especially if Toronto ends up with home court where they are 14-1). 

It is fun to think of Boston as a contender, but that 16 game win streak was a fluke.  Boston is closer to the .500 team it has been since the team started 22-4 than it is to a 22-4 juggernaut.  And that is ok, but there are going to be a lot of very disappointed Celtics fans when the C's lose in the 1st or 2nd round even though the team should be applauded for turning the season around after losing Hayward 5 minutes in.

I would suggest that you are over-correcting the projection.

I think Boston is probably a 50ish win team, though with the hot start will probably finish around 55.  A 50 win pace is around 60%, that is closer to 50% than it is to 85% (a 22-4 start).  Even 55 wins is a 67% pace, which is still closer to 50% than it is to 85%.

You're using the wrong argument. For instance, if they finish with 56 wins they'd be closer to the "juggernaut" percentage. Finishing with 56 wins over 55 doesn't mean that much. Similarly, their record over 15-20 game stretches of the season doesn't necessarily represent the whole of the team in either direction.

There's truth to what you are saying, but I think you're over-correcting.