For what its worth...

If this team plays .500 ball the rest of the year, they will match
last years record, and that team came within 5 points of bringing home a banner.
When this team is firing on all cylinders...It's a green machine.

dag lacelt is that right?

Seems the good start is goin to help now big time with all the dang injuries

JON has been slowly improving every game,by the time KG comes back he could be even further along as his defense and defensive instincts are all there,to have him as another option at the 4 and 5 is gonna be a great benefit to this team just as having Delonte as a combo guard for Rondo or Ray and playing with either is gonna be further great for the team.I see this team getting stronger and stronger after the all star break,the depth is such a great luxury and our chemistry will get better as everyone gets back.

LACELTFAN wrote:If this team plays .500 ball the rest of the year, they will match
last years record, and that team came within 5 points of bringing home a banner.
When this team is firing on all cylinders...It's a green machine.

Well, that may be true, but they only won 50 games last season, which was quite a drop from the 66 and 62 they won the two seasons before that. Those 50 wins got them 4th in the East. If they'd been in the West, they would've tied with three other teams at 6th, meaning one of those 50-win teams wouldn't even make the playoffs. Fifty wins would put them safely in the playoffs this year in the top-heavy East, considering the Bucks are currently in 8th position at 13-18. The Celts will manage their situation as necessary, and if that means 50 wins, they'll be fine as long as they're reasonably healthy for the playoffs, but there would still be considerable gnashing of teeth around here, much like there was last season when they played .500 ball the last half of the season.

As you say, the Celtics have certainly been a green machine... before Christmas. Here are some interesting facts from Mark Heisler at the LA Times, who does a great job covering the NBA:

From the last four openers to Christmas Eve, Boston has gone an astounding 94-14 . . . a 71-win pace.

Not even the Bill Russell teams that won 11 titles in 13 seasons ever did as well in that time frame.

The Celtics' best four-year opener-to-Christmas Eve run in the Russell era was 94-26 from 1959-1962.

Even posting win totals of 72-69-62 in Michael Jordan's last three seasons, the Bulls were 64-14 before Christmas.

Unfortunately for the Celtics, after the last three Christmases, they went 84-54 when injuries hit . . . as they have once more.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-nba-coast-20110102,0,5778410.story

Outside

Outside

I dont think that is going to happen this year. The team has too many assets and too much ganas. I expect a little slippage but not as chronic as last year.

I like our chances and feel pretty strong we have the deepest, meanest most dangerous team. But hell so much of it is just dang ol luck. Lakes will be around, san antone, miami, dallas

Jeb,

I agree. I expect the Celtics to come in around 60 wins. The two points I wanted to make were that last year's 50 wins is hardly a mark to feel too comfy about and that keeping up the pre-Christmas win rate isn't realistic. They'll ultimately be somewhere in between. Plus I thought the tidbits about the pre-Christmas record being better than anything the Russell teams and Bulls had done was interesting.

Outside

Outside, my point wasn't that 50 wins is where they want to end up but that all they would have to do is play .500 ball to get there from here on out. I would be positively bummed if this team only got to 50 wins this year, it would mean that essentially from here on out they fell apart, but I don't think they will this year. I do think that it will be another bumpy ride all year long until the playoffs with the roller coaster profile. Obviously they are on a down right now but I think they will get back on the up by month's end, if not sooner. Somewhere between 58- 66 wins, if I had to guess...but which direction they are headed into the playoffs is more important to me.
Also note the title of thread, Outside...I was just pointing out a possibly irrelevant but somewhat interesting fact.

LACELTFAN wrote:I was just pointing out a possibly irrelevant but somewhat interesting fact.

Point taken. They've certainly played excellent ball.

Outside,

You're talking apples and oranges as far as the Russell Celtics are concerned.

The Russell Celtics had to strike a balance between persistent domination and pacing themselves in order to win year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year (well that's only eight, but you get the idea). Their motivation was long-term.

Nor did they have the short-term motivation related to home court advantage because they knew they could win anywhere. It was more important to focus on being at their best when it counted most.

Nor did they have the short-term motivation caused by a relatively brief window of championship opportunity. They were in it for the long haul.

Consequently, it was imperative that they never waste psychic energy by never get too high from a win or too low from a loss. They wasted no physical energy either. They didn't even tap hands at the foul line. No chest-thumping. If they won, they smiled and went home. (Well, most of them went home). If they lost, they frowned and went home.

They did try to make it a point to remind their fiercest competitors that they (the Celtics) were still at the top of the heap. But they were susceptible to lesser teams because they didn't have to remind the lesser teams of anything; and the lesser teams had pretty good players (almost always including at least one or two future hall-of-famers) who ALWAYS targeted the Celtics.

Moreover, the sustained level of competition was such that the Russell Celtics played other elite teams like the Lakers and St. Louis (in their heyday) as many as nine times apiece during the regular season, and even the lousiest teams were usually much better than the lousiest teams nowadays.

Moreover, the schedule was so compact that the Russell Celtics played as many as five nights in a row, and the travel conditions were not great. Today, it's ALWAYS mentioned as a challenge when the Celtics have to play two nights in a row. The Russell Celtics would have considered that a vacation.

It's not even apples and oranges, really. It's more like apples and blueberries.

I'm not trying to take anything away from today's Celtics. I'm actually thrilled with how they're dealing with adversity—so much better than last season. It's just than, when I think "my boys" are being inadvertently sold a bit short (even though I know that was definitely not the intent), it's almost as though I'm being unintentionally kicked in "my boys" (if you know what I mean). Sometimes I feel like a voice in the wilderness as I intercede in their behalf.

That having been said, I am so glad you're on this board. You write so beautifully; and your inputs are always thoughtful, provocative, and without a semblance of malice.

Sam

Sam,

Sam wrote:It's just than, when I think "my boys" are being inadvertently sold a bit short (even though I know that was definitely not the intent), it's almost as though I'm being unintentionally kicked in "my boys" (if you know what I mean). Sometimes I feel like a voice in the wilderness as I intercede in their behalf.

I enjoyed your post thoroughly. I have to say I was puzzled at what in the thread could possibly be construed as selling the Russell teams short, since the only reference to them was comparing the "big 3" teams' record through Christmas to the team with the most wins in a season (the Bulls) and the NBA's greatest dynasty (the Russell teams). Whatever the reason, I encourage you to find any and all possible slights to the Russell teams in my posts if that prompts you to write more about them. My brothers and I all developed a deep appreciation for those teams during their run, but it was from afar, and I was too young at the time to fully appreciate all aspects of their play. You were there; you got to see them practice, traveled with them, and got to know them. Reading your personal recollections interpreted through the prism of your knowledge of the game is a treasure.

Hey... those Russell teams... they stink! [wink, wink]

Sam wrote:Consequently, it was imperative that they never waste psychic energy by never get too high from a win or too low from a loss. They wasted no physical energy either. They didn't even tap hands at the foul line. No chest-thumping. If they won, they smiled and went home. (Well, most of them went home). If they lost, they frowned and went home.

Not getting too high or too low was a hallmark of another great basketball dynasty -- Wooden's UCLA teams. (Self Control is one of the blocks in Wooden's Pyramid of Success.) I don't think that's a coincidence. Teams for both dynasties were fiercely competitive, yet maintained emotional balance. They were teams that expected to win and were built to be their best over a long period of time.

As for tapping hands at the foul line and chest-thumping, I'm not sure when those things started, but they are conventions of the modern age. We never did those things when I was in high school and college in the '70's, or even as I played recreation league ball through the '80's. I can't stand the tapping hands after free-throw thing in particular. I can think of a million less annoying ways to build team unity. Plus, I would personally consider it counter-productive. When I shot free-throws, I wanted to be locked in a zone, my foot at the desired point on the foul line, in balance. I always felt I shot a higher percentage on second free-throws because of that. If I had to tap hands, I'd have to reset all over, both in my position and my focus, which means I'd lose my second free-throw advantage. And as stupid as I think tapping hands after a free throw is, tapping hands after a missed free throw seems like one of the stupidest things ever. But I'm a creature from another age.

Outside

Outside,

The handtap after a missed free throw defies belief in my book. What are they doing, congratulating a guy for missing?

Something related to your comments on free throw shooting happened the other day. Someone (probably Heinsohn) was talking about the practice of free throw shooters walking around after the first attempt. I hadn't heard anyone mention that for probably 40 years. I was always taught that it was a mortal sin to miss the second of two freebies because, even if the first is missed, it ought to lead to a correction in the second one. Keep that lead foot anchored and simply make a little correction in the direction and/or arc and/or length or whatever. Coaches would yell at guys if they moved their feet between freebies.

I remember having flashbacks of that discipline while firing mortars in the Army. It worked the same way. A forward observer would tell us to add 10 or drop 5 of whatever it took to zero in. Of course, there was one slight difference. After dropping the shell in the muzzle, we had something like one second to the hand out of the way before it got blown apart.

Hmmm. I wonder if the threat of a consequence like that might somehow be used to improve Rondo's stroke at the line.

Sam

Outside wrote: But I'm a creature from another age.

Outside

You and me both brother....

I hate that free throw hand tapping crap, was hoping that Stern would go Goodell on it and ban it.