Hawks continuity something Stevens someday hopes for

http://www.csnne.com/blog/celtics-talk/hawks-continuity-something-stevens-someday-hopes?p=ya5nbcs&ocid=yahoo


WALTHAM, Mass. – For much of Brad Stevens’ time with the Boston Celtics, he has had a roster that has been in a perpetual state of influx.

But having had the same group of players for about a month now, the Celtics have put together a bunch of strong performances that have catapulted them out of the Eastern Conference basement into now being a legit playoff contender.

However, don’t expect Stevens to get too comfortable with the group he has, knowing the Feb. 19 trade deadline will be here soon and the Celtics’ brass may look to continue shaking up the roster – and making his job a whole lot tougher in terms of winning games.

“It is what it is,” Stevens said. “The one thing I’ve learned is, be ready for anything. And coach that team that’s there, as well as you can. The biggest challenge the last year and a half is just the constant movement. How do you come together in three weeks? It’s not feasible against the competition you’re playing.”

Stevens added, “You’re on a never-ending quest to maximize your team.”

The constant changes to the Celtics roster makes developing cohesion difficult, especially against teams like Wednesday’s opponent, the Atlanta Hawks.

“They are going to take everyone’s best shot because of who they are and how they’ve played,” Stevens said. “They’re one of the best teams in the NBA. That’s what makes their challenge even greater but makes their run even more impressive thus far. Every time you win a game you become more targeted. That’s a real tribute to them. They play basketball the right way at both ends of the court. They play as a team. They have high motor, high-savvy guys that get it. It’s fun to watch; it’s really fun to watch.”

But the Hawks’ success to some degree has been fueled by the fact that their core players have spent years playing together.

“It’s why continuity is so important,” Stevens said. “I don’t know if you can gauge anything after a couple of weeks to be honest, in a team sport.”

The Celtics have made nine trades since the offseason, including shipping out the team’s leading scorer (Jeff Green) and assists man (Rajon Rondo) in separate transactions.

That has created a noticeable vacuum on the roster, but with that has come opportunities for younger players to gain valuable experience.

And with that experience comes the growing pains that have made it difficult for the Celtics (19-31) to gain the kind of traction and consistency with their play that Stevens wants.

“We’re going to make a lot of mistakes at both ends of the court,” Stevens said. “In part because of our youth, and part because we’re really going to be asking them to really stretch themselves, especially defensively as we head into the last couple of months of the regular season.

Stevens added, “We have a good foundation but we have to get better at some little things or else we won’t be able to grow the way I want to grow and make the leaps and steps I want to make, especially on the defensive end of the floor.”

---


I think there's more problems than "youth." For starters, Ainge needs to set up a roster that will grow together, not just a whole bunch of players that will be switched out year after year. Brad also has to continue to improve his coaching. One thing that comes to mind is the 3-point shooting.


KJ

Kj,

True. I agree with your comments and what the article says, BUT...

How many years have the Hawks been building this continuity? They had a false start when Smith and Childress and Bibby were there. Now they've got it, finally, but it took years of massaging the roster until now.

We're only 1 1/2 years into it. Where were the Hawks 1 1/2 years ago? Nowhere near where they are today and wasn't their roster closer to todays' than ours was 1 1/2 years ago? Last year we were missing multiple pieces and this year we are still missing some. You can't disassemble a contender and rebuild it in a year and a half.


bob


.

Spot on Bob.

The Hawks are one of the last franchise that I think of when I think of who I want to model my team after

They have been perpetually mediocre (they havent been relevant since Nique was in his prime in the early 90s) and less than a year ago were run by a guy who may or may not be a racist, but certainly made some pretty insensitive remarks which resulted in him being placed on indefinite leave.

They are having a good year, but slow down people.  Not only have they won exactly nothing, but they have very few players with any clue about how to succeed in the playoffs.  I like their attitude, I like their hustle and grit - but you put them up against the Wizards or Bulls in a 7 game series - I dont see how they are possibly the favorite.

After the better part of a decade talking about the importance of continuity, I'm delighted to see it become part of the NBA lexicon. I haven't seen any mention if discontinuity yet, but maybe that will follow.

In the absence of continuity, the next best thing is a sprinkling of veterans among all the youth. I believe that sprinkling, as much as anything, is what's holding the Celtics together right now. I don't mean it's all that's propelling the Celtics in a generally positive direction, but it's much of what creates coalescence out of potential mayhem.

Sam

mrkleen09 wrote:Spot on Bob.

The Hawks are one of the last franchise that I think of when I think of who I want to model my team after

They have been perpetually mediocre (they havent been relevant since Nique was in his prime in the early 90s) and less than a year ago were run by a guy who may or may not be a racist, but certainly made some pretty insensitive remarks which resulted in him being placed on indefinite leave.

They are having a good year, but slow down people.  Not only have they won exactly nothing, but they have very few players with any clue about how to succeed in the playoffs.  I like their attitude, I like their hustle and grit - but you put them up against the Wizards or Bulls in a 7 game series - I dont see how they are possibly the favorite.

Mrkleen,

I would love to model the Celtics after the Hawks. I just wouldn'the want to model our rebuild after theirs. Their high water mark, after 'Nique's retirement, was their 7 game series loss to us in 2008. 7 years later, they're really good.


bob


.

It took Danny Ainge five years to bring the Celtics out of years of irrelevancy to a title and a five year run as a contender.

As Bob said we're into year 1 1/2 of the present rebuild.

Patience. Patience.

Ainge has piled up enough assets to be a player in future opportunities to get the talent.

What else can we realistically expect so early in a rebuild?

bobheckler wrote:Kj,

True.  I agree with your comments and what the article says, BUT...

How many years have the Hawks been building this continuity?  They had a false start when Smith and Childress and Bibby were there.  Now they've got it, finally, but it took years of massaging the roster until now.

We're only 1 1/2 years into it.  Where were the Hawks 1 1/2 years ago?  Nowhere near where they are today and wasn't their roster closer to todays' than ours was 1 1/2 years ago?  Last year we were missing multiple pieces and this year we are still missing some.  You can't disassemble a contender and rebuild it in a year and a half.  


bob


.

Bob'

I would only argue your final point that DA disassembled a "contender" 2 years ago. Perhaps disassembled a "former" contender might be more accurate. KG and PP despite some moments this season were not going to bring us 18 and we all knew that. We could have been good enough to make the playoffs with them perhaps but we certainly were not going far. The next few months will be interesting for sure.

beat wrote:

bobheckler wrote:Kj,

True.  I agree with your comments and what the article says, BUT...

How many years have the Hawks been building this continuity?  They had a false start when Smith and Childress and Bibby were there.  Now they've got it, finally, but it took years of massaging the roster until now.

We're only 1 1/2 years into it.  Where were the Hawks 1 1/2 years ago?  Nowhere near where they are today and wasn't their roster closer to todays' than ours was 1 1/2 years ago?  Last year we were missing multiple pieces and this year we are still missing some.  You can't disassemble a contender and rebuild it in a year and a half.  


bob


.

Bob'

I would only argue your final point that DA disassembled a "contender" 2 years ago. Perhaps disassembled a "former" contender might be more accurate. KG and PP despite some moments this season were not going to bring us 18 and we all knew that. We could have been good enough to make the playoffs with them perhaps but we certainly were not going far. The next few months will be interesting for sure.

beat,

Fair enough.  Perhaps a better way for me to have said it was "1 1/2 years ago Danny began the process of discontinuing the Celtics then-current core in order to rebuild a new one".



bob


.

bobheckler wrote:
Mrkleen,

I would love to model the Celtics after the Hawks.  I just wouldn'the want to model our rebuild after theirs.  Their high water mark, after 'Nique's retirement, was their 7 game series loss to us in 2008.  7 years later, they're really good.


bob


.

So they have been to the ECF once since 1994 - and this year they are leading the league during the regular season in February...and people are asking the Celtics to look to the Hawks as a model? Sorry, not seeing what the infatuation is.

Danny Ainge is a much better GM than Danny Ferry or whoever they have as the figurehead running the team this year. Asking the Celtics to model themselves after the Hawks is like asking Ella Fitzgerald to listen to Beyonce for singing tips.

mrkleen09 wrote:So they have been to the ECF once since 1994 - and this year they are leading the league during the regular season in February...and people are asking the Celtics to look to the Hawks as a model?  Sorry, not seeing what the infatuation is.

Danny Ainge is a much better GM than Danny Ferry or whoever they have as the figurehead running the team this year. Asking the Celtics to model themselves after the Hawks is like asking Ella Fitzgerald to listen to Beyonce for singing tips.

It's not infatuation; it's a knowledgeable appreciation for how they play. There's a good reason they're called "Spurs East," and it's not just because Mike Budenholzer is from the Popovich coaching tree. They play the same free-flowing, anti-hero ball, team offense and excellent defense that characterized the 2014 champion Spurs.

I've been more than happy to rag on the Hawks for their underachieving ways and inability to do anything other than win the occasional first round series in the playoffs, but this is an entirely different bunch. I am really impressed by how they play at both ends of the floor and how deep the effectiveness of their roster extends.

It was an absolute joy watching the beautiful brand of basketball played by San Antonio in the 2014 playoffs and how Miami, with their reliance on LeBron's individual greatness, was powerless in the face of the Spurs' team play. NBA teams had been built on the star system for so long -- isolations, two-man game while the other three clear out and watch, plays designed specifically to get shots for star players, and other manifestations of "hero ball" -- that true team basketball seemed like a quaint idea from the past.

Atlanta and Golden State lead their respective conferences playing the same unselfish, team-oriented brand of basketball as San Antonio. They are near the top in most offensive and defensive categories, including first and second in assists per game. The Hawks and Warriors may not have recent championships that you sometimes say is the only thing that counts, but the way they play is the reigning champion.

We'll see how it plays out come playoff time. Injuries could of course be a key factor, and Golden State in particular has a tough path through the Western Conference, but the Hawks' and Warriors' success in the regular season is no fluke. They play the game the right way.

The Celtics have a coach tailor-made for this type of basketball, so considering the Hawks as a model to follow makes sense. As for Danny Ferry, he stepped in one huge pile of poo in the offseason, but he is the one who built this team, not some unknown who took over after he stepped away. I like Ainge a lot and think he's doing a good job of guiding the rebuilding process, but Ferry deserves credit. The question has been raised whether a GM on a forced leave of absence can be executive of the year.

I am glad you chimed in Outside - as you are a big proponent of Golden State and now the Hawks.  Two very exciting, yet wholly unproven teams.  I like watching them both, but people are a little too quick to anoint them as the next coming.

They call them the Spurs east because of their head coach being a longtime assistant for Coach Pop and his staff, you certainly are not comparing the two franchises are you?

As for Danny Ferry, if he stepped in poo - it was a pile of poo he created.  He may well be a great person and a great GM....but he didnt do himself any long term favors by sounding like a racist insulting not only Deng, but an entire continent with his tone deaf comments.

After the Warriors and Hawks win a few championships each, maybe we can begin to look to them as an example of how to build a sustainable NBA winner.  Until then, Brad Stevens should look up at the to the rafters if he needs inspiration.

mrkleen09 wrote:I am glad you chimed in Outside - as you are a big proponent of Golden State and now the Hawks.  Two very exciting, yet wholly unproven teams.

I am a big proponent of the way they play. It's an important distinction that leads to the point I made in my previous post -- that the Hawks and Warriors may not have won titles recently, but this style of play has.

mrkleen09 wrote:They call them the Spurs east because of their head coach being a longtime assistant for Coach Pop and his staff, you certainly are not comparing the two franchises are you?

No, I'm saying that the current Hawks are quite similar to the Spurs in how they are constructed and how they play. The "Spurs East" tag is valid for more than just Budenholzer being a former Pop assistant. No one ever called Mike Brown's teams "Spurs East."

mrkleen09 wrote:As for Danny Ferry, if he stepped in poo - it was a pile of poo he created.  He may well be a great person and a great GM....but he didnt do himself any long term favors by sounding like a racist insulting not only Deng, but an entire continent with his tone deaf comments.

I agree, but that doesn't change the fact that he deserves credit for building this roster, not some unnamed placeholder GM who took over after Ferry went on leave. Both can be true.

mrkleen09 wrote:After the Warriors and Hawks win a few championships each, maybe we can begin to look to them as an example of how to build a sustainable NBA winner.  Until then, Brad Stevens should look up at the to the rafters if he needs inspiration.

You keep returning to this notion that nothing counts and no one can claim any measure of success until they win a title, but I just don't view things in such a binary way. It's possible to see teams building toward a title and acknowledge that they are doing things the right way. It can also be true that multiple teams are doing things the right way even though only one team wins a title each year.

Even so, you keep dismissing the point that I am pointing to the proven championship model of the Spurs and acknowledging that the Hawks and Warriors are following that lead to build championship contenders. I am a proponent of the Spurs-Hawks-Warriors model, based on both achievement and on philosophical affinity.

As for claiming some permanent right to point to the rafters, Boston fans have every right to be proud of the team's history and accomplishments, but the vast majority of those titles were from a time when teams were built and titles were won in a far different way than they are today. Only one of those titles has come in the past 29 seasons. There are many reasons to look up at those banners with pride and for inspiration, but guidance on how to build a championship team in today's NBA isn't one of them.

IMO - there are two proven ways to win in the modern NBA. The Spurs way (with lots of teams trying to copy that formula, none of which have won anything) and the way the Celtics / Heat / Mavericks have won recent championships which is trading assets and signing free agents to get there.

The Celtics won one, lost in the last quarter of game 7 in another, and were contenders for two more years...so the success of Danny Ainge in building a winner goes beyond "one title in 29 years". If you add in Miami winning 2 in row and appearing in 3 in a row, the Mavericks appearing in 2 finals and winning one in the past few years, I think the Free Agent / trading assets for players is a model that is easier to replicate, than the Spurs model which has proven to be successful for exactly one team.

I again do not dislike the Warriors or Hawks. I just would like to see them have some sustained success (not just winner banners, but going deep into the playoffs a few years in a row) before I anoint them the next coming of the Spurs.

MrKleen,

I can agree with most of what you wrote in your most recent post.

To expand on something I touched on earlier, part of why I like the 2014 Spurs and the current editions of the Hawks and Warriors so much is philosophical affinity. I think the team concepts they practice at both ends of the court are the right way to play the game, the more philosophically pure way the game should be played. I also like the way those teams were built over time with relatively small additions compared to teams that pursue big trades and free agency signings that generate a lot of noise but usually bring underwhelming results or fleeting success.

The other reason I like the Spurs-Hawks-Warriors model is performance-based. The star-centric, more hero-ball model has many more titles to point to in recent years (even decades), although that characterization is somewhat misleading because the vast majority of those teams played excellent team defense and had complementary contributors on offense that were essential to those titles, not just Allen Iverson and Iversonettes. But I experienced tremendous satisfaction in last year's finals to see the complete demolition of the recent star-centric team by the effectiveness of team basketball. I was even more pleased as LeBron reacted to the Spurs' performance by doubling down on hero-ball, trying to exert his personal star will, and being rendered irrelevant in the face of a tidal wave of team ball. It was the most beautiful demonstration of how a great team can achieve so much more than great players.

So, yeah, I'm rooting for the Spurs-Hawks-Warriors model to be successful. It doesn't hurt that one of them is my favorite team, but even more so, it's the way I think the game should be played.

Yadayadayada...continuity Hawks lose to the discontinuous Celts tonight who are now only 1.5 games out of the 7th playoff spot. Who'd a thunk it?

Actually, the Auerbach Celtics invented the modern version of team basketball, proving that pace could be combined with egaliltarian play very, very successfully. Today's teams (INCLUDING the Spurs) could only be so lucky as to replicate the seamlessness of the team ball of Red's teams.

As to how the Celtics' great teams were built, they were the product of some very good drafting (Hall-of-Famers Ed MacAuley, Sam Jones, Tom Sanders, John Havlicek, Frank Ramsey, Tom Heinsohn, Jim Loscutoff, K.C. Jones, Dave Cowens, Larry Bird, Danny Ainge, Reggie Lewis, Len Bias); smart trading (Bill Russell, Bill Sharman, Bailey Howell, Kevin McHale, Robert Parish, Dennis Johnson, Paul Silas, Bill Walton); and free agent pickups (Don Nelson, Larry Siegfried, Clyde Lovellette, Emmette Bryant, James Posey, Eddie House); and one notorious piece of luck (Bob Cousy).

The egalitarian system isn't at all outmoded. It's just underutilized, largely as a function of the sheer greed that points so many teams and players toward an entertainment orientation. And trades, the draft and free agency continue as the primary modes of player acquisitions.

Yes, the player acquisition rules have changed, as has the number of teams in the league. But teamwork remains as the most natural form of a basketball system and especially the best model within which new acquisitions may be integrated on the fly. And the draft, free agency and trades remain the main forms of player acquisition. To those who are infatuated with the thought that times have changed, think twice about whether effective basic concepts have changed accordingly.

Sam

Outside wrote:
To expand on something I touched on earlier, part of why I like the 2014 Spurs and the current editions of the Hawks and Warriors so much is philosophical affinity. I think the team concepts they practice at both ends of the court are the right way to play the game, the more philosophically pure way the game should be played. I also like the way those teams were built over time with relatively small additions compared to teams that pursue big trades and free agency signings that generate a lot of noise but usually bring underwhelming results or fleeting success.

What makes a team brought together through free agency and trades inherently less "team" oriented?

The 2008 Celtics featured a number of superstars who all took a step back in terms of individual achievements - for the betterment of the "team". Much as I dont like them, so did the Big 3 in Miami....each a superstar on their own, who each gave a little to gain 2 rings and 3 straight finals appearances.

Now if you are saying you like a team like Golden State more because you have watched the players there grow up and mature in front of you as a fan, I can totally buy that increasing your level of affection for them.

But to suggest that a team built from primarily the draft is somehow inherently more team oriented or "pure" whatever that means, is nothing but a figment of imagination. The purest form of the game is to win, by whatever means necessary.

Guess we will once again have to agree to disagree.

When I saw the title of the post I thought that "continuity" referred to the Hawks' offensive system.

But it's about the players being together. Aside form Horford and Teaque no player has been on the present Hawks roster for more than three years. But I guess that counts as continuity compared to the Celtic's roster the last couple of years.

The thing that is striking about Sam's post is that almost all the players he mentions were with the Celtics a whole lot more than three years. Indeed most of those Red acquired in the fifties and sixties spent their entire careers with the Celtics.

I bet that Sharman, Ramsey, Cousy, Russell, Sam Jones, KC Jones, Sanders, Havlicek knew each other better than their wives and girlfriends knew them.

Red used to say that the hardest thing in sports isn't getting to the top; it's staying there.

In the age of salary caps, luxury tax and free agency keeping a core together is almost as hard as getting to the top and certainly a lot harder than staying there.

"The 2008 Celtics featured a number of superstars who all took a step back in terms of individual achievements - for the betterment of the "team". Much as I dont like them, so did the Big 3 in Miami....each a superstar on their own, who each gave a little to gain 2 rings and 3 straight finals appearances."

It was amazing how quickly the 2008 team came together. I remember thinking that it would probably take 25-30 games to become a cohesive unit.

I agree that the success was based on the willingness of Pierce, KG and Allen to sacrifice individual glory. Maybe they had all arrived at a point in their careers where they felt that winning is a whole lot more fun than averaging 25 ppg.

The first time that I thought they would win it all was when I saw Pierce go to the bench in the 4th quarter of a blow out win with a huge grin on his face and a TV graphic saying that he was three for seven.

Sloop,

IN the 1969-70 season, I also got to know the Celtics' players wives better than the Celtics players themselves. The Celtics wanted my primo seasons tickets (one on each side of the center court line in the second row of the first balcony. In return, they offered my choice of many other seats. I selected Row M in some loge section (i can't recall which) because it was the wives' row and also in back of the Celtics bench. I spent a delightful season hobnobbing with the wives and Tom Sanders' mother. (I usually sat next to her.) They were all knowledgeable and really tuned into the games.

By the way, in those days, a top-price season ticket cost $205.

Sam

Sam,

Pretty cool.  In Bill Simmon's book he writes about some of the Celtic wives.  The only real interesting tidbit was about Parish's wife who Simmons mentioned had a talent for making everyone uncomfortable.

Mrs Chief  screamed like a crazed banshee at the refs whenever they called a foul on her husband and several times had to be physically restrained from going after them.  Simmons wondered why Parish didn't dump her but then speculated that The Chief was probably scared he'd wake up to find himself handcuffed to the bed and his house on fire.

It may not have been a coincidence that Chief had one of his best years after he split up with her. Did you ever meet Simmons?

200 bucks for primo seats for the season?  I don't know what the $200  would be in today's money but I trust it was an amount within reach of anyone of reasonable means.  Now you can easily drop $200 on hotdogs and beer.




Talk about tkts getting out of the reach of many fans, it amazes me that a team like the Knicks continues to sell out.  During the 16 year reign of the present owner James Dolan they've usually been mediocre or worse.  The fans haven't just had to endure awful play but also the buffoonish and meddlesome antics of the owner.  

Yet they keep coming and the team is always ranked among the most financially valuable in the league.  I guess if management plays its cards right winning has no connection to revenue.

Talk about making the game an Entertainment Event.  The local gliteratti fill the good seats glued to their phones while waiting for the cameras to pan on to them.  And you can bet they're not munching on hotdogs.