Stevens IS THE Coach of the year

[fairweatherfan]

I mean....

- we turned over nearly the entire roster

- we lost one All-Star 5 minutes in and the other two have been in and out

- lost 2 top bench players for at least the regular season, with Morris in and out, and Jaylen having some missed time plus an extremely scary head injury. Only Tatum and Rozier have been consistently healthy in our rotation.

- 5 rookies have gotten rotation minutes, 3 of them fairly regularly.


And we're 52-23 having just swept a 4-game West trip immediately after beating OKC at home.  We have basically no seeding to play for and we're taking down teams scrabbling just to stay in the playoffs.  The last possession last night was 2 rookies, a 2nd year player, a 3rd year career backup, and a guy who was out of the league last year!

Whether Stevens gets the award or not, it's legit incredible what we've done with the guys we've had available. It's a testament to Danny for rounding up this roster, and to the players for making it work, but Stevens is right there in the middle of it. It's really been something to appreciate as a fan.  What a season.

i can just see the day, when we win banner 18, Gordon Hayward embraces Stevens mid court finally completing their mission together as coach and player and winning it all

Right after Hayward banks in a half-courter to win it, then stares down Kyle Singler, who is attending as a fan 

[footey]

Hope he does not get it. Keeps that chip on team shoulder.

[kozlodoev]

It's like you don't want Stevens to win it or [somehow] don't believe that he deserves it.

I don't particularly care whether he wins or not. It's a glorified popularity contest. Also, last time I checked, we don't hang COY banners at the Garden.

From a Cs fan perspective, there is really no argument for anybody else.

Sure. There are all sorts of homers out there that like to pretend objective reality doesn't exist.

From a more objective point of view, you would have to genuinely dislike Stevens to not vote for him.

Because it's inconceivable that someone might have been better? Am I also obliged to think that the best player on the Celtics is automatically the best player in the NBA, lest I have my fan card revoked?

Somebody like Casey had his team perform exactly to expectations.

I don't care about Casey either. But just out of curiosity, what are the expectations for a team headlined by Kyrie Irving and Al Horford?

Heck, the Cs finished in 1st place last year with AB and Crowder as their 3rd and 4th best players and Stevens didn't even finish in the top 3. You can't have it both ways.

I'm not entirely sure what "both ways" you're referring to. Of course, last year's team had Isaiah Thomas and not Kyrie Irving as its best player. It also had different pieces instead of Baynes, Theis, and Morris. But on the balance, it was a highly comparable team. Also, the fact that Stevens didn't win last year when he turned a 48-win into a 53-team win (and his case was arguably a lot stronger) should be telling about the likelihood he will win this season.

I'm sure he'll get consideration. I just have guys like Quin Snyder and Brett Brown ahead of him.

[celticsclay]

It's like you don't want Stevens to win it or [somehow] don't believe that he deserves it.

I don't particularly care whether he wins or not. It's a glorified popularity contest. Also, last time I checked, we don't hang COY banners at the Garden.

From a Cs fan perspective, there is really no argument for anybody else.

Sure. There are all sorts of homers out there that like to pretend objective reality doesn't exist.

From a more objective point of view, you would have to genuinely dislike Stevens to not vote for him.

Because it's inconceivable that someone might have been better? Am I also obliged to think that the best player on the Celtics is automatically the best player in the NBA, lest I have my fan card revoked?

Somebody like Casey had his team perform exactly to expectations.

I don't care about Casey either. But just out of curiosity, what are the expectations for a team headlined by Kyrie Irving and Al Horford?

Heck, the Cs finished in 1st place last year with AB and Crowder as their 3rd and 4th best players and Stevens didn't even finish in the top 3. You can't have it both ways.

I'm not entirely sure what "both ways" you're referring to. Of course, last year's team had Isaiah Thomas and not Kyrie Irving as its best player. It also had different pieces instead of Baynes, Theis, and Morris. But on the balance, it was a highly comparable team. Also, the fact that Stevens didn't win last year when he turned a 48-win into a 53-team win (and his case was arguably a lot stronger) should be telling about the likelihood he will win this season.

I'm sure he'll get consideration. I just have guys like Quin Snyder and Brett Brown ahead of him.

I think an interesting way to think about it these things, and how they usually work, is how much a team exceeds their expectations. Believe it or not The 76ers were actually projected for 42 wins this year. So if they end up with 49 it is a nice achievement for sure but not really up to the difference we are seeing in other places.

Now if you had a projection for the Celtics with how many games they would win with no Hayward, Irving for 50 games, Horford missing 10+, Smart missing 25+ Morris missing significant time etc, I don't think the anyone would have guessed more than 44-45. The fact that they could win 57 games or something like that is a bit more impressive in most people's eyes.

However, it isn't just stevens. The pacers are going to have a very similar record to the 76ers and I am almost positive they were projected for wins in the 30's for the season. Utah making the playoffs after losing Hayward and missing Gobert for a sizeable chunk is also very impressive.

I think the leader has to be D'antonio though given that nobody in the world expected them to finish in first overall and he did it with Paul missing 30 games.

[KGBirdBias]

I have been critical of Stevens at times because he doesn't value big men. However, he knows how to manage games and players. You never hear a word of griping players.

I truly believe had he coached those teams from 2008 to 2012 or to the present, we'd have 3-4 titles. This is really the first year he's had real talent and that's with a turned over roster. What's going to happen when real continuity sets in and guys know the system like the back of their hand.

My vote
Stevens
Casey
D'Antoni

...call me bias

[bdm860]

I think an interesting way to think about it these things, and how they usually work, is how much a team exceeds their expectations. Believe it or not The 76ers were actually projected for 42 wins this year. So if they end up with 49 it is a nice achievement for sure but not really up to the difference we are seeing in other places.

The thing about the Sixers success, I think the expectations were tempered a bit going in because nobody really knew what to expect.  Embiid could play <30 games, and who knew if Simmons and Fultz could handle NBA competition.

But if I told those people predicting 42 wins before the season that Embiid would play 85% of the games, and that Simmons would (likely) win ROY by a wide margin, they'd probably raise their expectations a bit (though they'd then probably lower them after I tell them about Fultz).

All that to say, I think Philly's success is seen more as players beating expectations, while Boston (and Houston, Toronto, Indiana, Portland, Utah, etc.) are seen more as coaches beating expectations, as they were all dealing with mostly known commodities.

Not saying Brett Brown hasn't done a good job though, but I don't see him as top 5 this year.  What would an average coach get out of Embiid and Simmons (now that we know what he's capable of)?

[jambr380]

...
However, it isn't just stevens. The pacers are going to have a very similar record to the 76ers and I am almost positive they were projected for wins in the 30's for the season. Utah making the playoffs after losing Hayward and missing Gobert for a sizeable chunk is also very impressive.

I think the leader has to be D'antonio though given that nobody in the world expected them to finish in first overall and he did it with Paul missing 30 games.

I think a team having an unexpected break-out star should be taken into consideration. Oladipo was apparently much better than we all knew and proved that from the beginning. While MacMillan did a nice job utilizing him, he hardly had much to do with his development. The same can be said about Mitchell. Utah has a very similar team to last year except they swapped out Hayward for Mitchell. If Mitchell had a year similar to Malik Monk or Justin Jackson, then I doubt the Jazz would be flourishing as much as they are. These two coaches are partially riding the wave of players who are in year 1 of their respective systems.

As for D'Antoni, I suppose the award could go to him, but he just won it last year. Is he really considered that much better than Stevens (or better at all) that he deserves to be the back to back winner?

[kozlodoev]

I think an interesting way to think about it these things, and how they usually work, is how much a team exceeds their expectations. Believe it or not The 76ers were actually projected for 42 wins this year. So if they end up with 49 it is a nice achievement for sure but not really up to the difference we are seeing in other places.

Now if you had a projection for the Celtics with how many games they would win with no Hayward, Irving for 50 games, Horford missing 10+, Smart missing 25+ Morris missing significant time etc, I don't think the anyone would have guessed more than 44-45. The fact that they could win 57 games or something like that is a bit more impressive in most people's eyes.

That's exactly how I'm thinking about it, and beating expectations by 7 wins is in fact a pretty sizable difference. It's certainly a lot better than the Celtics did.

Last season, when we won 53 games, Horford missed 14 games, Bradley missed 27, and Jae Crowder missed 10. This is how the baseline is set. Whoever thought we'd be 2 games above .500 without Hayward this season is just as divorced with reality as someone who thought we'd  65 with him.

Irving has played 60, not 50 games, by the way.

[GreenEnvy]

I think an interesting way to think about it these things, and how they usually work, is how much a team exceeds their expectations. Believe it or not The 76ers were actually projected for 42 wins this year. So if they end up with 49 it is a nice achievement for sure but not really up to the difference we are seeing in other places.

Now if you had a projection for the Celtics with how many games they would win with no Hayward, Irving for 50 games, Horford missing 10+, Smart missing 25+ Morris missing significant time etc, I don't think the anyone would have guessed more than 44-45. The fact that they could win 57 games or something like that is a bit more impressive in most people's eyes.

That's exactly how I'm thinking about it, and beating expectations by 7 wins is in fact a pretty sizable difference. It's certainly a lot better than the Celtics did.

Last season, when we won 53 games, Horford missed 14 games, Bradley missed 27, and Jae Crowder missed 10. This is how the baseline is set. Whoever thought we'd be 2 games above .500 without Hayward this season is just as divorced with reality as someone who thought we'd  65 with him.

Irving has played 60, not 50 games, by the way.

What does last years team have to do with this season? We have 4 returning players.

And who really cares about arbitrary preseason projections? Want to use Vegas over/unders also? They don’t take into account what actually happens throughout the course of the season, and that 100% matters.

Philly was expected to make the playoffs if everyone was healthy. They did that. They can get a higher seed than most would have projected, but I think that has more to do with teams struggling and the many teams blatantly tanking.

Toronto was figured to be a top-4 team, and again, due to injuries and struggles to other teams, are where they were expected to be.

Celtics were favored to be a top-2 team, but after the first game of the season, many would have been happy with making the playoffs. For Brad to keep them in the top-2 all season despite sustaining a plethora of significant injuries is amazing.

The only other coaching job that rivals it is Nate McMillon. The job he’s done in Indy has been great. Oladipo took a giant leap and he has that team scratching and clawing nightly. They could get the 3-seed, who would’ve thunk?

[celticsclay]

I think an interesting way to think about it these things, and how they usually work, is how much a team exceeds their expectations. Believe it or not The 76ers were actually projected for 42 wins this year. So if they end up with 49 it is a nice achievement for sure but not really up to the difference we are seeing in other places.

Now if you had a projection for the Celtics with how many games they would win with no Hayward, Irving for 50 games, Horford missing 10+, Smart missing 25+ Morris missing significant time etc, I don't think the anyone would have guessed more than 44-45. The fact that they could win 57 games or something like that is a bit more impressive in most people's eyes.

That's exactly how I'm thinking about it, and beating expectations by 7 wins is in fact a pretty sizable difference. It's certainly a lot better than the Celtics did.

Last season, when we won 53 games, Horford missed 14 games, Bradley missed 27, and Jae Crowder missed 10. This is how the baseline is set. Whoever thought we'd be 2 games above .500 without Hayward this season is just as divorced with reality as someone who thought we'd  65 with him.

Irving has played 60, not 50 games, by the way.

Koz so we are losing IT (who played incredible last year), Bradley, Crowder and KO and Amir Johnson. 5 of our top 8 rotation players from last season and 3 starters. We replace them with Kyrie for 60 games, Marcus Morris for 49 games and a bunch of rookies and you expect 53 wins still? That doesn't make any sense.

Regardless of the Celtics though, I don't think anyone can really argue the Pacers, Trailblazers and Jazz did not exceed their win totals projections by a lot more than 7. The blazers have a very good chance of winning 50 games and finishing 3rd in a brutal west.

For what it is worth I am not alone in this thinking. I don't have an article handy the ones i have read all have brown in 5th-8th and some order of casey, stevens, snyder, stotts, d'antonio in front of him. Ill try to dig something else up later.

[kozlodoev]

Koz so we are losing IT (who played incredible last year), Bradley, Crowder and KO and Amir Johnson. 5 of our top 8 rotation players from last season and 3 starters. We replace them with Kyrie for 60 games, Marcus Morris for 49 games and a bunch of rookies and you expect 53 wins still? That doesn't make any sense.

Amir Johnson, really? 

We replaced Thomas, Bradley, Crowder, and Olynyk with Irving, Morris, Baynes, and (once Hayward got injured) increased role for Brown/Tatum. Crowder/Olynyk and Morris/Baynes are largely a wash. Irving is an upgrade over IT, and Brown/Tatum over AB is up for a debate. In my mind, however much we lose by having to play the relatively unproven Brown over AB, it's compensated by the fact that having Irving is just plain better than having to tailor the entire offensive and defensive scheme of a team around Isaiah Thomas.

So yeah, while matching last year's win total wasn't a given, expecting 44 wins was pure insanity. Even if Tatum was struggling, this team should have been able to start Morris at SF and win close to 50 games easily.

[Granath]

Koz so we are losing IT (who played incredible last year), Bradley, Crowder and KO and Amir Johnson. 5 of our top 8 rotation players from last season and 3 starters. We replace them with Kyrie for 60 games, Marcus Morris for 49 games and a bunch of rookies and you expect 53 wins still? That doesn't make any sense.

Amir Johnson, really? 

We replaced Thomas, Bradley, Crowder, and Olynyk with Irving, Morris, Baynes, and (once Hayward got injured) increased role for Brown/Tatum. Crowder/Olynyk and Morris/Baynes are largely a wash. Irving is an upgrade over IT, and Brown/Tatum over AB is up for a debate. In my mind, however much we lose by having to play the relatively unproven Brown over AB, it's compensated by the fact that having Irving is just plain better than having to tailor the entire offensive and defensive scheme of a team around Isaiah Thomas.

So yeah, while matching last year's win total wasn't a given, expecting 44 wins was pure insanity. Even if Tatum was struggling, this team should have been able to start Morris at SF and win close to 50 games easily.

Any team that turns over all but 4 of their players is subject to exceptional variability. If you thought anything would come "easily" this year then it demonstrates a shocking lack of common sense.

You also missed the important part of his post. Kyrie for 60 games. Morris for 49. Smart for 54. Every single player but Rozier, Tatum and maybe Horford has missed more than 10 games. A bench almost entirely comprised of rookies. When you take all of that into account this team could have easily sunk into chaos. We've had rookies play 26% of the minutes this year. That's an astounding number for a 50 win team and that's due to Brad.

[Redz]

Koz so we are losing IT (who played incredible last year), Bradley, Crowder and KO and Amir Johnson. 5 of our top 8 rotation players from last season and 3 starters. We replace them with Kyrie for 60 games, Marcus Morris for 49 games and a bunch of rookies and you expect 53 wins still? That doesn't make any sense.

Amir Johnson, really? 

We replaced Thomas, Bradley, Crowder, and Olynyk with Irving, Morris, Baynes, and (once Hayward got injured) increased role for Brown/Tatum. Crowder/Olynyk and Morris/Baynes are largely a wash. Irving is an upgrade over IT, and Brown/Tatum over AB is up for a debate. In my mind, however much we lose by having to play the relatively unproven Brown over AB, it's compensated by the fact that having Irving is just plain better than having to tailor the entire offensive and defensive scheme of a team around Isaiah Thomas.

So yeah, while matching last year's win total wasn't a given, expecting 44 wins was pure insanity. Even if Tatum was struggling, this team should have been able to start Morris at SF and win close to 50 games easily.

Any team that turns over all but 4 of their players is subject to exceptional variability. If you thought anything would come "easily" this year then it demonstrates a shocking lack of common sense.

You also missed the important part of his post. Kyrie for 60 games. Morris for 49. Smart for 54. Every single player but Rozier, Tatum and maybe Horford has missed more than 10 games. A bench almost entirely comprised of rookies. When you take all of that into account this team could have easily sunk into chaos. We've had rookies play 26% of the minutes this year. That's an astounding number for a 50 win team and that's due to Brad.

[tarheelsxxiii]

Hope he does not get it. Keeps that chip on team shoulder.

With all due respect, a team rarely has shoulders

[Androslav]

Koz so we are losing IT (who played incredible last year), Bradley, Crowder and KO and Amir Johnson. 5 of our top 8 rotation players from last season and 3 starters. We replace them with Kyrie for 60 games, Marcus Morris for 49 games and a bunch of rookies and you expect 53 wins still? That doesn't make any sense.

Amir Johnson, really? 

We replaced Thomas, Bradley, Crowder, and Olynyk with Irving, Morris, Baynes, and (once Hayward got injured) increased role for Brown/Tatum. Crowder/Olynyk and Morris/Baynes are largely a wash. Irving is an upgrade over IT, and Brown/Tatum over AB is up for a debate. In my mind, however much we lose by having to play the relatively unproven Brown over AB, it's compensated by the fact that having Irving is just plain better than having to tailor the entire offensive and defensive scheme of a team around Isaiah Thomas.

So yeah, while matching last year's win total wasn't a given, expecting 44 wins was pure insanity. Even if Tatum was struggling, this team should have been able to start Morris at SF and win close to 50 games easily.

Any team that turns over all but 4 of their players is subject to exceptional variability. If you thought anything would come "easily" this year then it demonstrates a shocking lack of common sense.

You also missed the important part of his post. Kyrie for 60 games. Morris for 49. Smart for 54. Every single player but Rozier, Tatum and maybe Horford has missed more than 10 games. A bench almost entirely comprised of rookies. When you take all of that into account this team could have easily sunk into chaos. We've had rookies play 26% of the minutes this year. That's an astounding number for a 50 win team and that's due to Brad.

TP Granath,
Usually, when a team turns over +70% (13/17 new players) players it leads to better chances of winning a lottery, than improving on an already high 53 win bar.
I can't remember any similar example in 72 seasons long NBA history to what Stevens (Celtics)  did this year.
Correct me if I am wrong.