POST GAME CHICAGO - AWAY

To anyone:

I have to disagree with the theory that this team is losing it physically or is old. And, before jumping all over me, read my reasoning.

There have been games in which they definitely demonstrated the ability to crush the other team, often playing stellar defense and even fast breaking them to death. Some of those games have been against teams ahead of them in the standings. Some of the dates have been on the tail end of back-to backs.

I've often talked about that fact that, once a player achieves a certain accomplishment (especially on more than one occasion), it can't be denied that he possesses that ability. It's the same with a team. Once they demonstrate a certain level of proficiency of competitiveness, it can't be denied that they possess that ability.

Now possessing the ability doesn't mean either the player or the team is going to demonstrate it consistently. Other factors can intervene: attitudinal, physical, or whatever. But I happen to believe the Celtics have demonstrated the ability to be extremely competitive and possibly even to be contenders.

And there's another factor that makes me doubt the tired old complaint that they're tired and old. I believe I've watched every game this season (including three or four on tape). And it seems to me that many of their worst stretches of basketball have come at the beginnings of games, when they should be at their freshest. Think of the number of times they've stood around in the first quarter, taking only jumpers, while the other team is off to the races. Think of the number of holes they've dug for themselves, only to make impressive comebacks at times when they should be wearing down.

Yes, they have also failed at times in the crunch time. However, I lay a lot of that to the ebb and flow of the game. For example, when they made a great comeback against Detroit and trailed by only one point after three quarters, I recall posting on the Game-on Thread that I hoped they had enough left to finish the game strongly. They didn't.

When a team gets 10 down in the first quarter, they often work like dogs to catch up, and then it becomes the OTHER team's "turn" to make a run. Very often, the team that makes the first extended run also winds up having more to offer in crunch time because the other team has been playing catchup throughout most of the game. Playing catchup not only involves the expenditure of more physical and psychological energy than playing from ahead, but it also is likely to necessitate the kind of aggressiveness that results in foul trouble.

I could believe many factors might be contributing to the malaise in which this team too frequently finds itself:

• I could believe it if an insider told me the Celtics have some internal attitude problems or disagreements. (Somehow, this possibility always makes me envision Rondo and Pierce in the forefront.)

• I could believe concerns about the negative impact of all the injuries.

• I could believe claims of discontinuity very largely due to those injuries.

• I could believe they're more affected than many teams by lack of practice because they depend more on timing and finesse than on athleticism and banging while on the floor.

• I could believe that they're paying the price for integrating several young guys into the rotation.

• I could believe that they are struggling with chemistry problems in their lack of ability to "establish" Rondo, Pierce and Ray simultaneously in the offensive attack.

• I could believe that there are trust issues on the team because I have witnessed numerous occasions when certain players deliberate avoid passing to certain other players.

• I could believe that some players on the team (one would be #7) just don't "get" the Celtics concept of going all-out all the time and, for example, not disappearing when in foul trouble.

I could believe almost anything EXCEPT an emphasis on the all-too-easy answers of fatigue and age.

Sam

Sam

You sure like to complicate things!

Now take everything you said and throw on a heavy dusting of age and I think you got it.

I think everyone agrees PP RA and KG cannot play like they did 4 years ago. Sure on occasions they make you think of Sherman and Peabody and their WABAC, machine. Those times just seem to get further and further apart. But father time has never lost a battle yet. And he is winning this one. Thing we all wonder? has he won it yet.



beat

The problem gentlemen is the Celtics OFFENSE , plain and simple. Go to the WEEI web site and listen to their last discussion with Danny 3 days ago, he says the same thing. The defense is fine, it's the inconsistent offense.

To back this up, the Celtics are averaging 89 points per game. If they maintain this pace, it will equal the lowest average since the 1952-1953 season.

Now can this be because they cannot rebound effectively both on the defense and offensive boards. If so it is due to the fact that they cannot play physically any more. They are not trying as much to get rebounds as they are into cheating the system by breaking down court early and trying to get a leg up on their opponent.

112288

112288,

Even in the area of rebounding, they have shown spurts where they've done it pretty well—especially on the offensive end, where Bass and even Wilcox have made a difference. On the Game-on Thread, I recall noting, on a number of occasions, how there were sometimes three or four Celtics around the defensive boards. (And, almost invariably, their transition game picked up as a result.) The problem is consistency, and I don't believe it's primarily age-related or fatigue-related.

On the defensive boards, they too frequently do a lousy job of blocking out. I believe that's why Doc was screaming at Johnson a game ago.

For some reason, the Celtics are indulging in low-percentage basketball. They're taking too many low-percentage shots. Too often, they try to stick one hand into the scrum to snatch a rebound, which is a very low-percentage likelihood, when some of them should be laying a body on an opponent so teammates will have a better shot at the rebound. (If they had someone like Noah or Varejao, maybe it would be different, but they don't.)

I agree with you, 112288, that the offense is the main problem. To be perfectly frank, I've not really been in love with the Celtics offense since the 1980s. I think the main reason they've been able to score enough points to win games is that they've been very good at making difficult shots. Now they're missing a lot that they might have made in years gone by.

I'm sure many people will attribute that fact to age or fatigue. I don't happen to agree, especially because (not to beat a dead horse) so much of the problem happens in the first quarter when they're at their freshest. I don't think they're consistently in good positions to shoot high percentage shots. I also believe a lot of that is because most of their screens are "brush screens" which opponents can pretty easily avoid.

I think that's the number 1, 2 and 3 reasons why Ray's curls aren't working. I don't believe he's running them any slower. When his shooting hand gets free, I believe he's as accurate as ever. It's just that the split second advantage he used to gain from picks isn't available nearly as often.

I could make a pretty good argument that a similar problem is confronting Paul Pierce in his attempted penetration. When he was a good penetrator, it wasn't because he was an acrobatic player. Yes, he had good body control, but he also got better picks with which to work than he has now.

I often like to isolate on certain factors when watching games. This season, I've isolated far more on picks than any other factor. KG sets some good ones (maybe not as many as earlier in his career). By my observation (others may see it differently) the second best setter of picks on the team has been Rondo. The point guard, for Pete’s sake!!!

Ray recently made some statements about how lack of ball movement is hurting his game. I think it’s hurting much more than Ray’s game, especially since a lot of the passes that ARE thrown are of the crosscourt variety that have been far too easy for opponents to pick off. It’s ridiculous that these guys can’t follow the concept of the short, crisp pass while the recipient moves toward the ball.

I also think we have to keep in mind that kids are playing 18% of the Celtics’ minutes this season. Without the normal number of practices, it’s not easy for kids to adapt to either the offensive or defensive systems of the Celtics.

Short, quick, safe passes; gang-banging the defensive boards; putting a body on an opposing rebounder; setting lasting picks. These are all fundamentals of the game. Trusting one another; putting one another in positions to succeed. These are but two of the many mental facets of the game that lead to wins. I couldn’t care less if each veteran on the team were two or three years older. It would be absolutely no excuse for neglecting these and other ingredients of success on the court.

Regardless of what’s really at the heart of the problems (and we all have our opinions), I believe we’d better hope this team, as currently constituted, irons out those problems. If Danny makes a trade designed to upgrade the effectiveness of this team this season, I’ll be amazed. If he makes trades, I bet they’ll be with an eye toward the future.

Sam

cowens/oldschool wrote:We had a decent stretch against some bad teams to get over .500, but were looking old.....amazed how San Antonio is still doing it.

By next year this team will be all blown up, too bad with a little luck this team could have won 3 championships and even last year, if Rondo doesn't go down I don't know if Heat have heart to beat us last year.

Spurs are 22-9, on a ten game winning streak and Ginobili missed 22 games. Simply amazing.

I agree with Sam that age and fatigue are NOT the principal reasons why the Celts have faltered. I also think the CElts can regroup and make a serious run in the playoffs. My memories of the 68-69 season explain this perhaps irrational bias. Consider the ages of the 68-69 Celts:
Player Pos Ht Wt Birth Date Exp
Jim Barnes C-F 6-8 210 April 13, 1941 4
Em Bryant G 6-1 175 November 4, 1938 4
Don Chaney G 6-5 210 March 22, 1946 R
Mal Graham G 6-1 185 February 23, 1945 1
John Havlicek F-G 6-5 203 April 8, 1940 6
Bailey Howell F 6-7 210 January 20, 1937 9
Rich Johnson C 6-7 210 December 18, 1946 R
Sam Jones G-F 6-4 198 June 24, 1933 11
Don Nelson F 6-6 210 May 15, 1940 6
Bud Olsen F-C 6-8 220 July 25, 1940 6
Bill Russell C 6-9 215 February 12, 1934 12
Tom Sanders F 6-6 210 November 8, 1938 8
Larry Siegfried F 6-3 190 May 22, 1939 5

Among key players, Hondo and Don Nelson were the toddlers at age 29, Satch was 31, Bailey Howell was 32, Russ was 35, and Slippery Sam was the patriarch at age 36. Someohow they had the cojones to win 12 playoff games after winning only 48 regular season games.

Amazing to me is that the 1969 Celts averaged 111.0 ppg and were only 10th in the NBA with that stat! Compare that number to this season's 89 ppg! The Celts vaunted defense back then gave up 105.4 ppg. If those old timers could run with the wind, I think our current crew has the stamina to make a run of their own, especially since what's lacking is not vital lung capacity on sprints but focus on interior defense!

Team and Opponent Statistics

48-34, Finished 4th in NBA Eastern Division (Schedule and Results)
Coach: Bill Russell (48-34)

1968-69 NBA Champions

PTS/G: 111.0 (10th of 14) ▪ Opp PTS/G: 105.4 (2nd of 14)
SRS: 5.35 (2nd of 14)
Expected W-L: 55-27 (2nd of 14)

Arena: Boston Garden ▪ Attendance: 322,130 (4th of 14)

Playoffs:
Won NBA Finals (4-3) versus Los Angeles Lakers
Won NBA Eastern Division Finals (4-2) versus New York Knicks
Won NBA Eastern Division Semifinals (4-1) versus Philadelphia 76ers

Worcester & Sam,

Sorry I do not see the major age on 1969 Celtics outside of Russell and Jones. Everyone else was in their sweet spot in terms of being a player 28 -32/33.

Besides, even if you want to argue age, the 1969 Celtics had a deeper bench that went to the #9 or 10th player. 2012 Celtics go as far as #7 possibly #8. So my point is the deeper bench in 1969 allowed players who might be argued as old to rest more while giving up nothing to the other team.

What everyone is also is also forgetting is KG has been playing NBA ball since out of high school and has a lot more wear and tear on his legs verses Russell.
He is shot physically to be a starter. If he came off the bench, I would say he could be quite affective for short bursts.
Both players age is 35

Russell - 963 NBA games played verses
Garnett - 1223 NBA games played

112288 - True KG has played a lot more minutes, but that last year for Russ he averaged 42.7 minutes for the season, and I think between 46-48 minutes for the playoffs. The three oldest Celts now -PP at 34, KG at 35 and RR at 36 are pretty close in age to Bailey Howell 32, Russ at 35 and Sam Jones at 36. Biggest difference is the 68-69 Celts had a much more productive bench. Em Bryant was good for 5.7 ppg, Don Nelson had 5+ rebounds and 11.6 ppg, and Tom Satch Sanders had 7 rebounds and 11.2 ppg. All this on top of Russ's 19.3 rebounds per game.

When Bass is healthy again methinks the current Celts will begin winning again.

112288:

It won't be any picnic tomorrow night in Dallas. The Knicks just beat the Mavs 102-97. I'm sure Dirk & Friends will be anything but friendly when the C's play there on President's Day.

MD!

Guy's I respect your view but respectfully disagree. As for Russell playing more minutes, he did so because he could. Russell also played 260 games less in the NBA. His legs had some spring in them and he could still jump. He was also 2 inches shorter the KG. So you can see that he was still effective in his leaping ability. With KG it is a shame but but true, his legs are shot. Yes he can pull from the gut and give you spurts but he has no more lift left in his legs. Russell's legs was in far better shape, in fact Red was surprised that he left the game so soon. He felt he had more years left in him and had offered him a contract for 1969 - 1970 season. Russell left because he was burnt out mentally and wanted to do more in the racial area & politics.

Let us not forget the bench. Much deeper in 1969 then now.

112288

To all:

Some facts.

The 8-man core of the 1968-69 Finals Celtics team averaged 30.8 years of age.
The 9-man core of the 2011-12 Celtics (to date) averages 29.8 years of age. (Courtesy of Basketball Reference)

If the ages of the 8-man core of the 1868-69 team are weighted by the number of minutes they played in the finals that season, their weighted average age equals 31.0.

If the ages of the 9-man core of the 2011-12 team are weighted by the number of minutes they have played this season (to date), their weighted average age equals 30.5.

If the ages of the two cores were weighted by the number of career minutes they had played up through 1969 and the current point in the 2012 season respectively, I suspect the current team would have an older profile. But it is noteworthy that the earlier core included no player under 28, while the current core includes three.

It seems to me it's quite appropriate to consider the two teams pretty comparable in terms of "seasoning," although the current team probably has endured more serious injuries over its collective career. Whether they're comparable in terms of conditioning, heart and class under pressure may become apparent as this season wears on.

Sam

Sam.,

I think Russell's legs may still be in better shape than KG's even today. (LOL)

MD!

Sam,

How can you say 9 man in 2012. Not close. 7 at best.

112288

112288,

I took the players who had played at least 20 games and more than 15 minutes per game. Nine.

If you don't think Wilcox and Bradley are now part of the regular rotation, you and I are watching different games.

Sam

Sam,

Still think 1969 was deeper with better ball . But I cannot argue your stats. Good point.

112288

112288,

Certainly, earlier Russell teams were deeper, but the 1968-69 team really went only eight deep. Eleven guys played in the playoffs, and the final three (Don Chaney, Rich Johnson and Mal Graham) played a grand total of 32 minutes in those 18 games. In fact, an argument could be made that they were only 7 1/2 deep during the playoffs because Satch played only half his normal minutes due to injuries. Having two players average 47.2 MPG (Havlicek) and 46.1 MPG (Russell) throughout the playoffs is not exactly a sign of great depth either.

As for "better ball," if you mean the 1968-69 team played better basketball than the current team, you'd get nothing but support from me. And the heart factor can never be over-stated with respect to that '68'-'69 team.

Sam

69 team had a core of 7 players that had been together for 4 years. Russ, Sam, KC, Havlicek, Satch, Siggy and Nellie. Throw Nellie out and the other 6 were together for the previous 6 years.

What does this current crop have?

PP, KG, RR, and RA since 08, 4th season together.
Lots of completely new faces this season. Perhaps in time the new mix will pay dividends but back in 69 we KNEW what we had. Not so now.

beat

Beat,

Never thought of looking at it that way. Good observation. I know what Sam is trying to say, however your point hits home. 1969 team knew each other better and was a more cohesive group of players.

112288

112288,

Actually, my comments weren't intended to address the relative pros and cons of the two teams. I simply noted some conjecture about the relative age of the two teams, and I tried to supplement the conjecture with a few facts.

If it's a relative analysis you want, obviously, the 1968-69 team had much more cohesiveness/better chemistry as well as better conditioning as well as a better team orientation as well as more versatility as well as more proficient depth as well as more complementary roles as well as more interchangeable parts as well as a more comprehensive and competent skill set as well as (in my opinion) more basketball smarts and far more heart—just for starters. The current team has a balder coach.

Sam

Sam, I understand.

Let's get a win tonight.

112288