OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT OF A NEW CONTEST

I especially liked your conspiracy theory............it just may ring too true for some observers in many C's games to amuse.............for many years I've felt the Celts have needed be more than a little better to succeed.

The Designated Hugger is an interesting thought as well..............lol

Tark

thanks, Tark - good to hear you chime in.
i agree, we seem to get more than our share of bad calls and non-calls, so many that ... maybe it's not a bad conspiracy theory after all !!!!

(and they'd NEED to designate a hugger to get any hugs going - Doc really REALLY doesn't seem like the huggy-bear type at all, at all.)

Michael

bigpygme,

Appreciate the sentiment...........greatly.

Read my own posts sent on my Blackberry earlier, and beyond the typo (hate the combination of little keyboard and old eyes) were not in the positive tone I advocate.

Just hate excuses for non-performance. Always have, always will. Where injuries, age, calls, etcetera serve as an explanation for they inevitably become enablers for failure.

Better to accept that poor planning and preparation couple with execution, and are at the roots of most problems. They are not an acceptable excuse but a reality. And championship level teams deal with them and win despite them. Those of lower caliber fail.

I've seen both this week. My Rebels are a talented team with no senior leadership, as likely to implode as explode in any contest. They are far to young to make a serious national run, yet it's enjoyable watching them evolve. I think they CAN win their conference tournament and delight in all that they are capable of. With 9 of their top 11 back and all 5 starters next season...it is interesting. They planned poorly THIS year in being too young.

The C's are a talented group that has at its core brittle or aging stars as likely to be on an IR as a Championship team. When the inevitable happened, there was no draftees ready from the last few years to step in. Look at the contrast with the elite. Sans Kobe and Carmelo the Lakers & Nuggets deliver impressive wins and their are myriad examples of such this year. The Celtics are just too old this season as a result of poor drafting & management preparation. A magical rejuvenation of the Big 3 IS possible and I will enjoy that as much as any. I just cannot predict it based on results.

Kind regards,

Tark

Tark,

I don't categorize anyone as anything; in fact, I constantly speak out against labeling.

As a message board operator, I welcome all opinions as long as they're expressed civilly. As an individual and avid Celtics fan, I don't feel compelled to agree with all opinions.

It's not negativity I have an issue with. I express lots of negatives about the Celtics. Just check virtually any game-on thread for evidence. Check my comments on Tony Allen early in the season. Check some of my recent comments about Paul Pierce. It's what appears to be an emphasis on ONLY the negatives, and an insistence that all is now lost for this season that I disagree with.

I guess people have to decide for themselves whether they belong under this umbrella—in essence labeling themselves. I'm not doing the labeling. One reason why I started this contest was to help all of us to recognize that no situation need be regarded as universally dire.

Sam

Tark,

As for using execution as an excuse, perhaps that's what it is. Perhaps it was old age that made Rondo pass to an invisible Tony in the
corner against New Orleans. Perhaps it was old age that compelled Sheed to pass behind Tony on another play. I happened to think it was poor execution by someone.

As I see the turnovers mount (well over 20 in one recent game), I can't help but feel that brittleness has less to do with mistakes than lack of proper execution, including rhythm, timing, etc. And it seems logical to me that factors such as rhythm and timing are likely to
improve when player combinations become more used to playing with one another and adapting to reduced capacities guys like KG or Pierce may have.

Perhaps they're just too old and feeble to make the plays, but that didn't seem to be the case when they were 23-5 about seven weeks ago (although frankly I wasn't wild about the synergy even then).

I understand that old guys can get injured. So do young guys. Just ask Tony Allen, Blake Griffin, Chris Paul, and half the Portland team. Some young guys even die: Reggie, Lenny.

Red rolled the dice with very veteran teams when the pace was even more demanding, and it worked out fairly well. After 1962, he didn't really draft any significant young guys as they went on to win another six championships in seven years by adding a few members of the "over-the-hill or unwanted gang" (Siegfried, Nellie, Bailey, Embry, Naulls, Emmette, etc.)—sort of filling in the way free agents might do nowadays—while Sam, Satch, Heinsohn, Russ and K.C. were getting "old and brittle" and, in some cases, retired. So it can be done.

My own guess is that this team can come together and perform well once they get the opportunity. Whether they can perform well enough to be serious contenders will probably be very largely dependent on KG's condition. Getting Jamison for Ray would have been helpful in that regard, but only if they could also have gotten someone to replace Ray at SG. I wonder how much the Wiz want to shed salary; could Ray for Jamison and Miller yet be a possibility?

Sam

Hey Tark,

In case you missed it, we'll be having a Celtics party in San Francisco on April 24. You get around a lot, and I hope you might be able to make it.

We haven't finalized any plans except for the date. But you'll be reading about it. There are several board members from that area, and I'm hoping there might be some easterners there besides my wife and myself. I just thought you (and others) might appreciate a heads-up.

Sam

Sam wrote:Tark,
... it seems logical to me that factors such as rhythm and timing are likely to improve when player combinations become more used to playing with one another and adapting to reduced capacities guys like KG or Pierce may have.

Perhaps they're just too old and feeble to make the plays, but that didn't seem to be the case when they were 23-5 about seven weeks ago (although frankly I wasn't wild about the synergy even then).

Red rolled the dice with very veteran teams when the pace was even more demanding, and it worked out fairly well. After 1962, he didn't really draft any significant young guys as they went on to win another six championships in seven years by adding a few members of the "over-the-hill or unwanted gang" (Siegfried, Nellie, Bailey, Embry, Naulls, Emmette, etc.)—sort of filling in the way free agents might do nowadays—while Sam, Satch, Heinsohn, Russ and K.C. were getting "old and brittle" and, in some cases, retired. So it can be done.

My own guess is that this team can come together and perform well once they get the opportunity.
Sam

thx for the observations, Sam, and the note about April 24th as well.

about the observations - agreed that it wasn't long ago we were looking at a very good record and a satisfactory number of wins vs losses. we can be that team again, or better ...

in your note you said, "... once they get the opportunity." do you think Doc's going to give them that opportunity? i've been on his case in recent posts - what's YOUR take on Doc? I'm all ears !!!

about the April party - can't make it, though i'd love the opportunity to meet some of the folks i've been posting with these last recent months. are plans developing for a July or August get-together? i plan to be a part of that, if it's happenin (and the sooner i jump on airfares, the better ... )

and i hope someone else posts a conspiracy theory - i'd love to see us hit 12 entries !!!!!

best regards,
Michael

I take it nobody's on board with my alien abuction post?

bobheck

The aliens were involved but only as wheel men for the Bildebergers. It's all there you just gotta look.

Jeb

Bigpygmy,

I'm sure you've read at least some of my many posts about the importance of context in basketball. For example, how it's futile to evaluate an individual player without also considering the context of the team with which he's expected to blend, etc. I believe it's the same with respect to a coach.

Whenever I think about Doc, or any coach, I immediately recall how relatively little we all know about what really goes on behind the
scenes on this (or any) basketball team. Relationships within the management hierarchy. Ownership directives that never become
public. Off-court player interaction and little power struggles. The tremendous importance of closed practices on game decisions. Medical advice privately being conveyed by medical staffs. Things like those.

Just based on what we all see, it would be easy to surmise that Doc's a nice guy who caters to veterans at the expense of developing young guys...who has a fair grasp of basketball strategy but is too stubborn and resistant to change. That would be easy to surmise...and I believe entirely superficial!

Three years ago, during one of the worst seasons in Celtics history (if not the worst), the roster was absolutely loaded with young guys. And, despite losing more than 300 player games to injury that season, Doc found a way to keep them in games and to develop a lot of those young players so that they were viable trading chips in getting KG and Ray. He stuck with young Rondo and Perk when the message boards were full of advice to the contrary.

Then he suddenly found himself with a veteran nucleus, and many of the national media were full of dire predictions about clashing egos and the difficulties in getting the team to mesh. Well, from the initial brainstorm of taking the team on a motivational Duck Tour of the parade route before the season started, and the further brainstorm of giving the Three Amigos a lot of leeway in seeking their own balance in their collaboration, Doc led that team to a championship in its first year together...while continuing the very tricky task of nurturing a fledgling center and point guard along the way. My favorite moment in the immediate celebration at the end of game six was watching Doc mouth the words to "We are the Champions."

Whenever things go south for a basketball team, many fans immediately look for a place to fasten the blame. And, as I suggested above, they do it based on superficial knowledge of what's really going on. They're prone to assuming that, because performance has fallen off, players have lost their abilities overnight and en masse. Coaches too. In reality, things don't usually happen that suddenly. People are simply looking at the tip of the iceberg.

I happen to believe that there are things that Doc has probably had to cope with and adapt to—even during the championship that season—that we know nothing about.

Just as one possible example, I've always felt (but cannot prove) that there is an inherent strain between two of the strongest influences on the Celtics' playing system—Pierce's deliberate iso game and Rondo's up-tempo, ball distribution game. I'm not talking about an adversarial situation...simply a difference in instinctive stylistic comfort levels. I have no idea (and isn't that the point?) of the myriad ways in which that kind of stalemate might affect the rest of the team. Whatever issues it might have caused, it's been a rather involved and continual challenge for Doc to deal with. And, I'm sure, just one of many.

So now the Celtics—for whatever reasons—have fallen into a pattern of periodic disarray. Not total disarray, but enough to exacerbate
the impact of all the old challenges and present some new ones as well. Once again, we have very little idea of what's really going on
in the Celtics family—from trade possibilities to potential player friction to injuries to people coming back from injuries to individual
slumps to the seasonal dog days timing of the malaise to whatever!

The complaint I read most frequently is that Doc has played his charges into the ground. Did that cause KG's original injury last season?
Bullcrap! In 2008-09, KG played 31 minutes a game—less than in any season since his second year in the league.

As for the rest of them, I don't believe the sheer floor time has been nearly the factor many people assume it is. Paul Pierce is playing 35.5 minute per game—the least since his third year in the league. The year before Ray Allen joined the team, he averaged 40+ minutes per game. In his three Celtics years, he has averaged 35.4, 36.4 and 36.7—an obvious concession to his advancing years. Yes, Paul and Ray sometimes are called upon to play an extra 4-6 minutes a game...and sometimes less (hence their averages are what they are). That happens due to injuries, foul trouble, etc. These guys are not babies to be pampered.

A short while ago, I posted a list of stars through the years who played those kinds of minutes or more at age 34. And some of them were occasionally called upon to play a faster game as many as five nights in a row. If today's players can't play 35 minutes a game in the first half of their thirties, don't ever bother me with stories about how superior they are athletically. Not a syllable!

I think that, if one were to look beneath the totality of playing time, one might be more concerned about the duality of roles Ray Allen has been asked to play. He's basically a regular with the starters and a regular with the bench. Unfortunately, in a season of disarray, he has been Doc's best option—certainly better than putting in either of two "deer in the headlights" kids who obviously aren't showing enough in practice to get extended minutes. And Ray has held up quite well.

Let's assume that, despite what I say, the time demands have taken some toll on Paul and Ray. (Not enough of a toll to dissuade Paul to skip the all-star game as some other are doing. And not enough to make Ray miss appreciable time. But let's assume it anyway.) Whatever has happened, that was then and now is now. Marquis Daniels and Tony Allen (if they can stick with the bench and not be pressed into starting duty) represent two viable offensive/defensive alternatives for giving Paul and Ray some rest. That will be a veritable luxury for Doc—one that he has seldom enjoyed this season.

This will be just one of a number of ways in which Doc will be operating from a position of relative strength for the first time in a long while—certainly since KG went down mid-season.

I don't profess to know exactly how good or bad a coach Doc is, although he has shown me much more of the former than the latter. But I'm content to let him (and the team) show me what they can do when hopefully operating from strength rather than from weakness. And I'm willing to display some patience and not to assume that it will all come together in game 1 or 2 or 2 or (well, you get the idea) after the all-star break. Good things sometimes are a while in the making.

I look forward to that prospect. GO DOC, AND GO CELTICS!

Sam

Sam -
thanks for taking me back three steps into some perspective of the past years. it helps.
but ... there's always this "but" in my head about Doc's decisions. at least, i THINK they're his decisions. would't Doc be The Only One in a position to ask Paul to do something different than run the iso-ball play he has become so prone to taking? and wouldn't Doc be the man to ask Sheed to emphasize low-post play versus launching three-point bobms at a low success rate?

i could go on ... you recently mentioned the importance of guys having the opportunity to play together ... isn't Doc is in charge of deciding which guys have the chance to play together and mesh? isn't that, imposing a rotation and substitution pattern, Key to what happens next in the season? in fact, isn't it a Key in what's been going on with their recent 3rd (and 4th) quarter fades ?

and while Quis is a role player, it's a very important role ... why isn't he in when ... when i think he SHOULD be in ? !!!

maybe i just don't understand what the coach's job coaching these Celtics ought to be, because even with your perspective and thoughtful words, i find i am still puzzled ...

and heck, Bob, i liked your alien abduction theory as well as any other ... i wish more would chime in with conspiracy theories. it seems there should be an abundance, with what's been goin on recently !

Michael, wanting to get behind Doc ... go Doc and go C's

Hey Sam,

Appreciate the insights and perhaps we agree to disagree. I strongly feel the Russell, Jones, Sanders, et al group to which you refer would side with me on not making excuses for poor play other than personal responsibility for that act. I never heard Russ blame a loss on a player missing.

Discontinuity is bred by injuries, foreshadowed by acts last season, that were not addressed by the management team in the summer. Poor execution is an element of a team improperly assembled. I agree Davis being a knucklehead and injuring himself could not have been anticipated, however, great teams overcome such.

Really think Doc is a fine coach and (having seen Austin play in HS in FL several times) an excellent mentor. Would presuppose, on the agreed mention that there are behind the scenes events of which we are unaware, that he has been dealt a bad hand this year. Rather than a doomsayer for the present season, most of my angst is directed at the assurance the franchise will continue to be successful next year and in seasons to come.

I'll try and attend in April...will be in the Bay area in late March for tourney games in Sacramento. If there are board members in the area let me know.

Love your forum , Sam, and wanted to make aware that those who are concerned for the future have not given up on the present, either. The key to this forum's success is not the absence of 'trolls', but rather the presence of those who display keen knowledge and unabated spirit.

Happy V Day to all,

Tark

Bigpygme,

Of course Doc is in charge of who plays. But that's subject to who's available and who's playing at full-strength.

As for asking Paul not to play iso ball, a coach doesn't legislate an instinct simply through a request. Iso ball is Paul's forte. And it's not just about running an iso play. It's an entire philosophy of operating with the basketball. Sometimes Paul takes over the playmaking function, and very often it's not that effective because ball distribution is not his strength. A lifelong habit of hesitating or pounding the ball while deciding how/whom to attack one-on-one (or one-on-three as the case may be) doesn't just disappear because a coach requests something different. That would be more consistent with my "toy soldiers" theory. Just wind 'em up and they'll automatically follow instructions regardless of their individual makeups.

More realistic is that Doc has had to grapple with how best to blend these two very diverse basketball instincts so as to get the best out of each while minimizing any negative effects of the differences in Paul's and Rondo's instincts. And I used this situation as just an example of what are probably many other challenges unknown to the public.

Sam

Jerry,

I'm not quite sure where "excuses" entered the discussion. I make observations, not excuses.

Yes, the Russell teams very much took personal responsibility for their actions. But I attended scores of Celtics practices during the Russell and Heinsohn coaching years; and my best friend in the world during much of that time was Sam Jones. And I never once heard a Celtics coach or any player say, "We're doing a poor job because we're improperly assembled." Occasionally, effort was brought into question. But, time after time, what I invariably heard was, "We're just not executing. Let's get after it!" It was like a mantra.

You say that poor execution is an element of a team improperly assembled. While this team was building a 23-5 record despite never once having all its elements together, it was executing pretty well and seemed to be properly assembled. Then KG went down, and others followed, and they quickly went into a tailspin. Are you seriously trying to suggest that they went from being a properly assembled team to being an improperly assembled team within the span of a week or two? Sorry, I'm not coming close to buying that. And, for reasons I outlined in a previous post, I don't buy the fact that staying away from veteran players is the way to avoid injuries.

Any interruption in the chemistry of a team can contribute to deteriorating execution—whether the team is poorly constructed or injuries or extended discontinuity.

When the Russell Celtics had a slump (which they did), it was assumed that they were people who exercised personal responsibility. Yes, sometimes they needed a little extra effort; but mostly they just had to sharpen their execution because they were human beings and could get out of sync or fall into bad habits for any number of reasons.

The play that arguably was the single most pivotal factor in facilitating the uniqueness of the Celtics mystique was the Sam Jones jumper that brought the Celtics to 2-2 rather than 1-3 against the Lakers in the 1969 finals. That was the "Ohio play"—a triple pick, which they began practicing at the suggestion of Havlicek and Siegfried when Russell missed a practice one day. When Russell returned, he liked the idea, and they continued to practice it all year long as a possible play to use for a "must have" bucket at the end of a game.

But this very experienced team had incredible difficulty mastering that college play. It was designed to be executed in not more than five seconds. The first time they tried it, they timed it at 23 seconds. And it didn't get a whole lot better as the season progressed, over numerous practices (many of which I attended). Finally, at the end of the season, they got it down to about seven seconds, but they never once tried it in a game until that fourth game of the finals when they were down one point with five seconds to go. And it was successful.

And, throughout all those repetitions, all I heard was "execution, execution, execution." And those words weren't excuses. They were exhortations. And they had nothing to do with the makeup of the team or the desire of the team.

Nothing can make me believe that either the composition of this team or the basic pride of this team deteriorated mysteriously and universally over a short span of time. Yes, I believe they got down on themselves as a result of the repeated frustration of trying without positive returns. But I believe the sloppy passing and turnovers I've been referring to, which I believe are symptomatic of dysfunction, have been much more a matter of poor execution than of the makeup of the team or its desire. And I also believe that starting with a clean slate after this break can refocus them on executing better and recapturing proper collective rhythm and timing.

I guess time will tell. I intend to wait patiently to see what happens when they once again are operating from a reasonable degree of strength. If Danny chooses to change the composition of the team, that's fine too. I'll just exert even greater patience as the added parts perhaps take a little longer to become assimilated.

I can already assure you that there are a number of members of this board in the SFO area. Hope you can make the party. It would be an honor to meet you. And, by then, a lot of these questions should thankfully be answered for better or worse.

Sam

Hi Sam,

Unquestionably your example is right on. The ability to execute the OSU playbook was remarkable....and like that you reinforce the ability of older players to perform, if not as quickly, as efficiently as those more dynamic.

I'm with you that this group could perform in a like manner to that '69 team...no title run has ever pleased me more.................WITH a major infusion in KG's health. Ray and PP, much like Russell of that season, will return to near 100%....KG has me unconvinced....though I still hold hope.

My concern is what did the 1970 team accomplish ?

The magical job Red did to return that team to contenders in the following years are rendered far more difficult in today's NBA. It's complicated...and if cap reasons obligate management to make unpopular and difficult decisions....just find it interesting to analyze. Upon analysis, each observer will take their own stance on what is the proper tactic.

And I respect yours.

Tark

Tark,

Agree about the infusion in KG's health. I believe the pivotal figure in the Celtics' championship chances has changed from Sheed to KG.

The 1970 team did not win the championship. You can't win them all. But the 1974 team did. And the 1976 team. They were helped by the drafting of Chaney, JoJo and Cowens in successive seasons. Unless the current team does a complete and sudden nosedive, it would seriously challenge Ainge's drafting powers (to say the least) to get guys like those, given the positions where the Celtics will likely be drafting in the next few years.

In 1970, the Celtics had a core of Havlicek and an emerging JoJo, along with some fading veterans and the kid Chaney. Potentially, next year, this team will have a core of Perk and Rondo along with some fading veterans and whatever they might have received for Ray (two $9 million players?). But what the 2010-11 team will additionally have that the 1969-70 team didn't will be the expiring contract of Paul Pierce (if he exercises his option), which could potentially be traded for a couple of $9 million players. And the same will be true of the 2011-12 team in the form of KG's expiring contract.

In other words, it could very well be that, by 2012-13, the Celtics might have Rondo, Perk, six $9 million players (very likely more athletic than the current group, and some of them making more than $9 million by then), plus the usual mid-level suspects. Maybe even an attractive draftee if Danny can work in a switch of draft picks into one of his deals. While I would never expect things to work that neatly in reality, and I leave the Collective Bargaining stuff to others, I'm not ready to throw in the towel about either this year or future prospects.

One reason I'm glad Doc is the Celtics' coach is that he has proven to me that he has the ability to adapt to coaching young teams and veteran teams with productive results. And I think ownership will spend money when it's justified. These are just more of the reasons why I'm not about to panic at this juncture. (And just because I say this does not mean I'm accusing anyone else of panicking.)

Sam

I have not looked it up but if memory serves the C's won 34 or so games in '70.

I agree an Auerbachian draft is not what I'd expect from DA based on his pedigree, and that drafting late is far later in the talent pool than in the early 70's. Be tougher, and that has borne true the last 3 years. Second rounders seem to have little value these days, where diamonds were sometimes mined there in the past.

The presence of Wyc and Doc give me greater hope than DA's prowess as a GM.

The strategies to remain a power are what fascinate me in these scenarios, and I have seen some GREAT ideas proposed here. San Antonio fans, grappling with similar issues, provide neither the innovation nor the enthusiasm as does this group of folks.

BTW...the C's and the Spurs are the two teams I follow.

And, as you stated, undoubtedly KG holds the key to any title aspirations this year, and those with a better feel for his condition will have to decide if that is a realistic hope.

I believe that evaluation will be the wild card in any moves to be made now and in the off season.

Kind regards,

Tark