Two Competing Truths

[PhoSita]

TP. Competing narratives, but both are true.

A/K/A a Paradox.

I don't think they're fundamentally inconsistent, so they're not a paradox, in my opinion.

[LarBrd33]

Lack of talent is a problem.  There’s maybe a handful of players at most in the entire league that you could swap kyrie with and have a chance of beating the bucks. 

[footey]

TP. Competing narratives, but both are true.

A/K/A a Paradox.

I don't think they're fundamentally inconsistent, so they're not a paradox, in my opinion.

Definition of paradox. 1 : a tenet contrary to received opinion. 2a : a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true. b : a self-contradictory statement that at first seems true.

Give me credit for trying, LOL.

[mctyson]

This season makes 10x more sense than last season.

Fans are never going to be able to understand that.  Last season’s playoff run was literally unprecedented.  Also, overrated if you look at it rationally.

This season, a team with a top 25 player and no other stars winning 49 games and losing in round 2 to the #1 seed is completely logical. 

On some level I’m disappointed too, but my level of disappointment is completely dwarfed by my all-out dumbfounded shock that a starless team of children was able to win a couple playoff series last year.  That made no sense whatsoever.

It is even more logical when you look at their record, them not winning 50 games, and having a +4 point differential.  That they are losing to the Bucks is not really shocking, and should not be.

But I do think there is something to be said about having the opportunity for the upset and losing 3 games in a row in the exact same way.  To me, that speaks to something more fundamentally flawed than just being a lesser team.

[footey]

I think our "talent" was greatly overrated going into the season.  Even when we would go on a winning streak, something seemed off/unfulfilling about this team. I never felt confident going into any one game that it was going to be an automatic win. Heck, very rarely did I feel in any game going into the 4th quarter that we had it all wrapped up (other than that Chicago 40 plus point blow out, which shouldn't count). 

I recall only two games this entire season including playoffs where we dominated another great team: The away GS victory (in which, let's face it, the Warriors sleep walked) and the first MIL playoff game (and control rather than dominate is more apt a description).  Can you think of any others that I forgot?

For all our "length", we sure look small against a truly long team like the Bucks.

For all our BBIQ, we sure looked pretty dumb, time and again.

This gets me to my one beef with Stevens, for whom I otherwise have great respect and affection: If something ain't working, try something else.  Don't rely on better execution of the same formula, which this team has repeatedly proven utterly unable to accomplish. 

[action781]

This disgusting, disappointing team has inspired a lot of takes in the last couple of weeks.  We're all feeling a certain way about this team.  This team has been making us all feel a certain way pretty much all year.

There's one major theme running through much of the discussion in the wake of the latest dispiriting loss: talent.

A common refrain:

The Celtics are way too talented to be this bad.

They are a team of individuals, they don't play the right way, Kyrie isn't a leader, they don't like each other, Brad Stevens is doing a bad job, etc.

But also:

The Celtics aren't that talented!

The Bucks have the best player in the series!  Kyrie would not be the best player on any of the other teams still alive in the playoffs!  They were overrated all along!

So which is it?

Personally, I feel both perspectives are correct, to an extent.

This Celtics team isn't as talented as they were made out to be since before the season began.  They don't have a MVP caliber player on the roster.  They only have one no-doubt All-Star, and that guy is not a lock to make All-NBA in any given season.

We never should have looked at this team as the "clear cut team to beat in the East" or anything like that.

Kyrie is a perennial All-Star who doesn't have the size to impose his will against any given opponent and who doesn't make an impact on the defensive end (unless it's a negative impact).

Horford is a complementary player, albeit an elite one.  Same applies to Smart.

Hayward isn't anything more than a decent utility bench player who occasionally has a big game.

Jayson and Jaylen are inconsistent, because they're young, but overall, right now, they are solid starting wings with the ability to occasionally take their game up a level.

Rozier is an erratic, excessively confident backup combo guard.

Morris is an excessively confident yet fairly consistent borderline starter who mostly looks for his own offense and brings more grit than discipline on defense.

Baynes is a solid post defender who is very injury prone and gets exposed when he needs to move his feet quickly.

With all of that said ... the Celts are better than this.

This roster is good enough to win 50 games.  They have the pieces to have a more balanced distribution of shots.  They have more than enough intelligent players to keep the ball moving and respond to adversity by making good decisions instead of reverting to hero ball.

Brad Stevens is not perfect, but he could have prepared the team better than he has.

It feels important to me that we acknowledge both parts of this.  Yes, this team was never as talented as the pre-season expectations made them out to be.  They never should have been talked about as a favorite to win the East, let alone seriously compete for a title.

At the same time, they have the talent on the roster right now to be a better team than they are.  But as I posted a few days ago, simply having the roster isn't enough.  You can't just decide one day to be a good team that plays the right way.  A good team is built over many months.  First by putting the roster in place, and then by building the trust and the habits and the determination over the course of many games, many weeks, many situations.


We as Celtics fans deserve to feel that this team has let us down, even if our expectations for them were too high.

I disagree with a few assessments on these players.  Not because they aren't true this season.  But because I think they are only true this season because of Kyrie's presence and style of play.  I think he has made it difficult for Rozier, Brown, Tatum, and Hayward to play the level of basktball that they are capable of playing.  I acknowledge that I could be totally wrong and it is just them being inconsistent or not playing well enough on their own.  But my speculation, which is impossible to prove of course, is that they would be playing better in a real Brad Stevens offensive system without Kyrie present.

That is the thinking behind my assessment which is that we have the talent, but its not being used properly.  I don't even have any specific direct blame either.  It's more just what happened as a result when we put a bunch of players together who didn't quite fit.  There was some reason to believe that it could have worked too, which is why I don't have any blame for going forward with this roster, but it didn't work.  So its time to reassess and move forward in some way this offseason.

[PhoSita]

Lack of talent is a problem.  There’s maybe a handful of players at most in the entire league that you could swap kyrie with and have a chance of beating the bucks.

Key distinction with your hypothetical is are we swapping out Kyrie immediately prior to the start of this series, or are we swapping him out in August 2018 and seeing how the season plays out with Player X in place of Kyrie?

Because if it's the latter, I think there are more than a couple players who could fit the description.

[PhoSita]

For all our BBIQ, we sure looked pretty dumb, time and again.

This gets me to my one beef with Stevens, for whom I otherwise have great respect and affection: If something ain't working, try something else.  Don't rely on better execution of the same formula, which this team has repeatedly proven utterly unable to accomplish.

This gets to my main issue with the team.  Shot selection, decisionmaking, offensive and defensive focus.  Shot distribution.  Offensive balance.

I guess the question is, do you think low BBIQ / not playing as a team / not giving consistent focus and effort on defense are all inherent to these players?  Or is it possible that given different circumstances / leadership / whatever this team could have played smarter, harder, etc and been more successful?

[Moranis]

Lack of talent is a problem.  There’s maybe a handful of players at most in the entire league that you could swap kyrie with and have a chance of beating the bucks.

Key distinction with your hypothetical is are we swapping out Kyrie immediately prior to the start of this series, or are we swapping him out in August 2018 and seeing how the season plays out with Player X in place of Kyrie?

Because if it's the latter, I think there are more than a couple players who could fit the description.

I honestly don't think it matters.  Assuming Giannis is out of play, I really think the only guys you could add to this team with a shot to beat the Bucks are Durant, James, Leonard, Embiid, and possibly Curry, Harden, and George (and PG is only there because I think he could actually defend Giannis fairly well).  I really don't think you could add anyone else and make any sort of real difference against the Bucks (and let's be clear I'm not saying those new teams would beat the Bucks, only that they would have a decent opportunity to). 

[footey]

For all our BBIQ, we sure looked pretty dumb, time and again.

This gets me to my one beef with Stevens, for whom I otherwise have great respect and affection: If something ain't working, try something else.  Don't rely on better execution of the same formula, which this team has repeatedly proven utterly unable to accomplish.

This gets to my main issue with the team.  Shot selection, decisionmaking, offensive and defensive focus.  Shot distribution.  Offensive balance.

I guess the question is, do you think low BBIQ / not playing as a team / not giving consistent focus and effort on defense are all inherent to these players?  Or is it possible that given different circumstances / leadership / whatever this team could have played smarter, harder, etc and been more successful?

Not sure this was addressed above. I think BBIQ was much higher the year before; it had to be to make up for the talent deficiency.

A mixture of Kyrie's foot in mouth disease (criticizing teammates in public, e.g.), egomania ("I'm great, look at me"), moodiness (TRoz spoke of this), condescension ("I know what it takes to win in the playoffs"--barf)  and, ESPECIALLY, the lurking Anthony Davis trade. Not enough "credit" has been given to this cloud that has been hovering over this team.  We were in the process of seeming to iron our our chemistry/effort issues, until the AD saga emerged and with it, throwing out names of guys who were likely to get traded (Brown and Tatum especially).   Compounded by the fact that GETTING AD (and trading away some of our current starters in the process) would be necessary to keep Kyrie interested.

How would you feel about going to work for a guy (Kyrie) after reading a memo from him to your company's CEO that says (I work for a lot of untalented slackers, and unless you get me someone awesome to replace them, I am so out of here)?  Now in fairness, that was the narrative created by the media and not Kyrie, but we all know it to be true. 

So to answer your question, sort of, I think the effort and BBIQ is sufficient for most of our existing guys to be role players in a really great team, but we lack a super star (Davis), in addition to a regular star (Kyrie) to become one.

[angryguy77]

For all our BBIQ, we sure looked pretty dumb, time and again.

This gets me to my one beef with Stevens, for whom I otherwise have great respect and affection: If something ain't working, try something else.  Don't rely on better execution of the same formula, which this team has repeatedly proven utterly unable to accomplish.

This gets to my main issue with the team.  Shot selection, decisionmaking, offensive and defensive focus.  Shot distribution.  Offensive balance.

I guess the question is, do you think low BBIQ / not playing as a team / not giving consistent focus and effort on defense are all inherent to these players?  Or is it possible that given different circumstances / leadership / whatever this team could have played smarter, harder, etc and been more successful?

Not sure this was addressed above. I think BBIQ was much higher the year before; it had to be to make up for the talent deficiency.

A mixture of Kyrie's foot in mouth disease (criticizing teammates in public, e.g.), egomania ("I'm great, look at me"), moodiness (TRoz spoke of this), condescension ("I know what it takes to win in the playoffs"--barf)  and, ESPECIALLY, the lurking Anthony Davis trade. Not enough "credit" has been given to this cloud that has been hovering over this team.  We were in the process of seeming to iron our our chemistry/effort issues, until the AD saga emerged and with it, throwing out names of guys who were likely to get traded (Brown and Tatum especially).   Compounded by the fact that GETTING AD (and trading away some of our current starters in the process) would be necessary to keep Kyrie interested.

How would you feel about going to work for a guy (Kyrie) after reading a memo from him to your company's CEO that says (I work for a lot of untalented slackers, and unless you get me someone awesome to replace them, I am so out of here)?  Now in fairness, that was the narrative created by the media and not Kyrie, but we all know it to be true. 

So to answer your question, sort of, I think the effort and BBIQ is sufficient for most of our existing guys to be role players in a really great team, but we lack a super star (Davis), in addition to a regular star (Kyrie) to become one.

They have a job to do, and if they're so weak that they cannot handle trade rumors or speculation then they will not amount to much in this league.

If these guys are so frail they couldn't handle this, I wonder how long they would've lasted playing with KG.

[PhoSita]

Lack of talent is a problem.  There’s maybe a handful of players at most in the entire league that you could swap kyrie with and have a chance of beating the bucks.

Key distinction with your hypothetical is are we swapping out Kyrie immediately prior to the start of this series, or are we swapping him out in August 2018 and seeing how the season plays out with Player X in place of Kyrie?

Because if it's the latter, I think there are more than a couple players who could fit the description.

I honestly don't think it matters.  Assuming Giannis is out of play, I really think the only guys you could add to this team with a shot to beat the Bucks are Durant, James, Leonard, Embiid, and possibly Curry, Harden, and George (and PG is only there because I think he could actually defend Giannis fairly well).  I really don't think you could add anyone else and make any sort of real difference against the Bucks (and let's be clear I'm not saying those new teams would beat the Bucks, only that they would have a decent opportunity to).

I think if this Celtics team had their head on straight and they were led by, say, Damian Lillard, then they could have a reasonable shot of at least winning a few games and keeping the rest close against this Bucks team.


This Bucks team looks invincible against this disjointed, undisciplined Celtics team.

They are a very good team, and Giannis is a great, great player.  I don't think they're as invulnerable as they've looked in this series.

[RJ87]

Lack of talent is a problem.  There’s maybe a handful of players at most in the entire league that you could swap kyrie with and have a chance of beating the bucks.

Key distinction with your hypothetical is are we swapping out Kyrie immediately prior to the start of this series, or are we swapping him out in August 2018 and seeing how the season plays out with Player X in place of Kyrie?

Because if it's the latter, I think there are more than a couple players who could fit the description.

I honestly don't think it matters.  Assuming Giannis is out of play, I really think the only guys you could add to this team with a shot to beat the Bucks are Durant, James, Leonard, Embiid, and possibly Curry, Harden, and George (and PG is only there because I think he could actually defend Giannis fairly well).  I really don't think you could add anyone else and make any sort of real difference against the Bucks (and let's be clear I'm not saying those new teams would beat the Bucks, only that they would have a decent opportunity to).

I think if this Celtics team had their head on straight and they were led by, say, Damian Lillard, then they could have a reasonable shot of at least winning a few games and keeping the rest close against this Bucks team.


This Bucks team looks invincible against this disjointed, undisciplined Celtics team.

They are a very good team, and Giannis is a great, great player.  I don't think they're as invulnerable as they've looked in this series.

Damian Lillard and Portland got swept in the first round last year by Rondo and AD.

[Moranis]

Lack of talent is a problem.  There’s maybe a handful of players at most in the entire league that you could swap kyrie with and have a chance of beating the bucks.

Key distinction with your hypothetical is are we swapping out Kyrie immediately prior to the start of this series, or are we swapping him out in August 2018 and seeing how the season plays out with Player X in place of Kyrie?

Because if it's the latter, I think there are more than a couple players who could fit the description.

I honestly don't think it matters.  Assuming Giannis is out of play, I really think the only guys you could add to this team with a shot to beat the Bucks are Durant, James, Leonard, Embiid, and possibly Curry, Harden, and George (and PG is only there because I think he could actually defend Giannis fairly well).  I really don't think you could add anyone else and make any sort of real difference against the Bucks (and let's be clear I'm not saying those new teams would beat the Bucks, only that they would have a decent opportunity to).

I think if this Celtics team had their head on straight and they were led by, say, Damian Lillard, then they could have a reasonable shot of at least winning a few games and keeping the rest close against this Bucks team.


This Bucks team looks invincible against this disjointed, undisciplined Celtics team.

They are a very good team, and Giannis is a great, great player.  I don't think they're as invulnerable as they've looked in this series.

Boston won a game though, I don't think winning an extra game matters all that much.  If you want to beat the Bucks, then you have to add a special player.  I forgot Davis, I think if this team swapped Kyrie for Davis it could give the Bucks fits as well.  Now if you add Davis and keep Irving, that is when you really have the potential for something special.

[PhoSita]

Lack of talent is a problem.  There’s maybe a handful of players at most in the entire league that you could swap kyrie with and have a chance of beating the bucks.

Key distinction with your hypothetical is are we swapping out Kyrie immediately prior to the start of this series, or are we swapping him out in August 2018 and seeing how the season plays out with Player X in place of Kyrie?

Because if it's the latter, I think there are more than a couple players who could fit the description.

I honestly don't think it matters.  Assuming Giannis is out of play, I really think the only guys you could add to this team with a shot to beat the Bucks are Durant, James, Leonard, Embiid, and possibly Curry, Harden, and George (and PG is only there because I think he could actually defend Giannis fairly well).  I really don't think you could add anyone else and make any sort of real difference against the Bucks (and let's be clear I'm not saying those new teams would beat the Bucks, only that they would have a decent opportunity to).

I think if this Celtics team had their head on straight and they were led by, say, Damian Lillard, then they could have a reasonable shot of at least winning a few games and keeping the rest close against this Bucks team.


This Bucks team looks invincible against this disjointed, undisciplined Celtics team.

They are a very good team, and Giannis is a great, great player.  I don't think they're as invulnerable as they've looked in this series.

Boston won a game though, I don't think winning an extra game matters all that much.  If you want to beat the Bucks, then you have to add a special player.  I forgot Davis, I think if this team swapped Kyrie for Davis it could give the Bucks fits as well.  Now if you add Davis and keep Irving, that is when you really have the potential for something special.

I think belaboring this point is probably silly beyond what we've already said, but personally it would make a big difference to me if they were competitive in these games and went 6 or 7 games against the Bucks, as opposed to winning the Game 1 (which was an afternoon tip on a Sunday) and then getting blown out in four straight matches.