Looking into the Crystal Ball

One of the interesting things about pro basketball is that it’s a metaphor for life in numerous ways. The roller coaster cycle of challenge and triumph. The yin and yang of individuality and collaboration. Etc.

And one of the most intriguing similarities, in my estimation, is the constant tension between complexity and simplicity.

I think I’m a complex person in so many ways. But life becomes so much easier for me when I dumb it down to an overriding focus: “Do your best.” I bet that anyone, in a reflective moment—and perhaps aided by the right adult beverage—might discover that the multiple facets of his or her life could be distilled into one central mantra. And the wonderful thing about human uniqueness is that the mantra wouldn’t be the same for everyone.

I believe it’s much the same for basketball teams. Each team is influenced by all sorts of complexities—human, strategic, cultural, ideological, financial, etc. But most teams—at least the successful ones—develop some overriding approach or personality that characterizes its essence in a nutshell.

If I use the Celtics and Lakers (who else?) as models, I believe that all of the complexities and nuances that have differentiated their respective eras of greatness can be boiled down into four “models”:

Power:

• The Mikan era
• The Bird/McHale/Parish/Max or Walton era
• The Shaq era

Heroics:

• The West/Baylor era
• The Kobe era

Elusiveness:

• The Cousy (pre-Russell) era
• The Magic/Worthy/Kareem sky hook era

Resolve:

• The Russell era
• The Cowens era
• The KG/Pierce era

I know a lot of people will feel these are oversimplifications. Maybe so. But, in my estimation, they represent the central direction in which each era has been most distinctive.

The reason I bring this up is because I’m wondering about the future of each of the two teams. I’m obviously more familiar with the Celtics than the Lakers. Perhaps this is why I feel better able to envision a likely catalyst for a future “team personality” in the case of the Celtics than the Lakers. His name is Rondo.

What I’m less certain about is which of the four models the Celtics will adopt. (Or could a new model evolve?) If one buys into the theory that Rondo could become a key catalyst for the Cs, which model would be most consistent with future success for this team. Within which model is it most likely that he’ll function effectively?

Elusiveness is an obvious Rondo trademark, but would that model be best for competing with directions in which the league seems to be going? It does seem (and Sheed mentions this in today’s Boston Globe) that we’re entering an era of dominant young PGs; and more and more teams seem to be favoring an uptempo attack. Is it best to join them or to run counter to the trend? (The Bird Celtics were almost the stylistic antithesis of the Magic Lakers, using the break only opportunistically as compared with the relentlessness of the Magic/Worthy connection.)

I expect the “resolve” model to persist as long as KG is with the Celtics. But I’m interested in your opinions about the most effective stylistic model for the Celtics AFTER the Three Amigos are gone.

And what about the Lakers? It could be that Phil will be gone soon. Will that mean they’ll forsake the triangle? How are they likely to evolve? Are they at a disadvantage by not currently nurturing a readily identifiable catalyst for LAK (life after Kobe)? This is most emphatically NOT an invitation to Laker-bashing. I’m sincerely interested in constructive views about this issue from the perspective of both teams.

Sam

Sam

I think any crystal ball peak into the future can only be considered speculative for both the Celtics and the Lakers but Boston is faced with a big decision in 2010 when Ray Allen becomes a free agent and Rondo's new contract kicks in.

There is only one young star on this team, Rajon Rondo. Rajon is really an amazing player because to a great extent his skill level has always been undermined by a style of play that the Celtics are locked into. The efficient halfcourt offense works well given the overall makeup of the team as it is contructed today.

But I guess the question is what happens when the big three are gone or have reached a point in their careers where there impact on the game is more secondary.

Rajon Rondo is the future for the Celtics and therefore future additions to the team should be complimentary to what he does best. Pushing the tempo, an unrelenting style that gets the opponents defense guessing and having to make quick decisions. Celtics fans will never fully appreciate how good Rondo is until the overall style of play for Boston moves at light speed.

There are so many factors involved here. But in order to stay competitive the Celtics will need to add (over the next 3-5 years) at least 2 high quality players.

The Lakers' franchise like that of Boston is a basketball institution. The Celtics and Lakers are the only two teams that have been able to rebuild again and again and again.

Phil will leave and LA will get a new coach and the triangle offense will go away. Players will be traded and drafted and developed.

The biggest unknown will be ownership/management. We have already seen what happens when a storied franchise is faced with issues that cannot be addressed in short order. Sometimes things just have to work themselves out.

There is really only one constant in this equation into the future and that is the unexplainable energy form the fans of both team. It is more than simple fan support. It transcends that thin line between idolatry and pure entertainment for the sport. It borders on hero worship and can only be tempered through our interaction as fans outside of the game, the team, the players, the banners and hoopla.

Being a Celtics or Lakers fan works because we see this phenomena as a intricate part of our lives. Our hopes and dreams, disappointments and successes.

Sorry I kinda slipped off topic here.

dboss

dboss,

It's so great to have you on this board. Welcome.

I know you're as big a fan as I am of the uptempo game. That would seem to be the best model for the Celts if he's the most prominent "holdover" once the Amigos leave. One thing I like about that approach is that I believe it's easier to "retool" with an uptempo offense than with a deliberate offense, because the former requires more energy and less immaculate timing; and it can more easily compensate for other flaws and inexperience.

I just wonder whether the composition of this team will change overnight so that rondo's imprint can take maximum effect. Or will it shift gradually so that the influx of the uptempo game will be more gradual and diluted?

On one hand, it seems that the Lakers have farther to go than the Celtics in terms of moving into the future. On the other hand, with the departure of Phil, they could actually accelerate the process sooner than the Celtics.

It's going to be very interesting.

Sam

Sam

I'm glad to be here and I appreciate your email responses.

I do not know if it will be gradual. The problem with an uptempo team is that is usually requires young athletic talent or at the very least a group of veterans that move as one unit up and down the court using proper spacing and tempo. We have seen some uptempo play thus far. We also saw that at the beginning of last year before it quickly gravitated to the half court offense.

One can only think about the transition from 2007 to the 2008 championship year. It all happened over the summer. We really did not know it was coming. It was certainly long over due but there were many things that les to this outcome and perhaps the process was very gradule. It just happened and the Celtics were on top just like that!

I think that a team can change quickly by acquiring one or 2 players. (i.e. The Celtics did not become a real contender until Silas was signed)

The Lakers have one young star..Bynum...Next to Howard I think he is the best young center in the NBA. The Lakers could build around him because he scores, rebounds and defends the post. The Lakers have managed to rebuild several times while remaining competitive. But they are probably further away from that process than Boston. Gasol is still only 29 as is Odom. Their bigs including Bynum, Gasol and Odom can be good for another 5 years together.

How the Ray Allen free agency is handled will begin the Celtics on a course into the future. The only way to stay good is to draft at the top of the food chain or be astute enough to recognize the potential for low draft picks (Rondo, Perkins, Powe, baby), acquire players through free agency or make key trades. This has been a successful formula for DA. So I would expect him to duplicate this process as this teams matures into the future.

Thus having players like JR and Walker and Baby or even Williams provides the chips that may be used down the road. The key of course is that these players MUST be developed so that the rest of the league takes notice and is willing to make a trade to acquire them.

The Lakers have their own mystique and will also make moves to stay competitive.

The rivalry between Boston and LA is mythical but playing only 2 times a year really dilutes the dynamics of of having a long term rivalry.

Few fans will remember when Boston and LA played 6 times per year. Then it went to 4 and now we have just 2 opportunities to measure up.

That rivalry only becomes relevant today if both teams make it to the finals. Unfortunately, the stars do not align themselves that way too often.

dboss

Those 4 models are thought provoking. Kudos, Sam.

dboss wrote:
Thus having players like JR and Walker and Baby or even Williams provides the chips that may be used down the road. The key of course is that these players MUST be developed so that the rest of the league takes notice and is willing to make a trade to acquire them.
dboss

Well said, I hope and think it may happen Dboss.

Offensive versus defensive mindsets affect continuity because I feel a hearty defensive game, which I have loved with this current Celtic team, is physically more demanding and more of an injury prone environment. Excellent defense frustrates the opponent which often results in cheap and dangerous fouls. J Noah’s late slap the other night while harmless can easily escalate. Versatility and adaptability are two of many of Rondo’s key talents and fit well in the elusiveness model. I’m not sure you can switch a defensive mindset/style on and off from one night to the next although last year I thought the Lakers did it as well as anybody. And switching that overarching style, O versus D, may be a path to extending the lifespan of the amigos, while at the same time increasing the number of losses in a season I suspect; a double edged sword. The Celtics depth this year I think allows them to focus on the defensive intensity Doc wants. I love it, believe it can bring them another ring, but I cringe at the prospect of injury, wash my mouth with soap. If anyone can orchestrate that versatility going forward with Rondo at the helm it is Tom Thibodeau. I know he is the D coach, but I think his versatility and adjusting on the fly expertise will go a long way toward bringing the Green more rings in the Rondo era. Let’s hope they both wear green next year. Soooo I am advocating Elusiveness (or versatility) with Rondo, PP, KG, point guard Ray ( ), Glen, Rasheed, Marquis…..heck virtually the whole team fits this model.
I’ve been a little busy of late , haven’t kept up with all the posts, so forgive me if I duplicate already well covered thoughts. Ray bringing the ball up while playing with Rondo is a brilliant little twist that put a smile on my face and something that will get Ray more open looks, and is a good example of the elusiveness that I think Doc and Thibodeau can bring to the team. Maybe they did a lot of that last year, but for the last ten years I have been “watching” the games on the internet on ESPN Gamecast, since I haven’t had a television during that time. I got onto the grid (electric) during the Orlando playoff series, and I will see a lot of the games this year on satellite. I’ve have been reading all the Globe & Herald articles daily and pored over every box score during that blissful hiatus from TV.

Regards,
Bygone

Great posts guys. As you've suggested, there are many unknowns between now and whatever happens. But I agree that the elusiveness model seems somehow inevitable with Rondo at the throttle. With that prospect in our future, we can look forward to a lot of exciting and enjoyable basketball.

Bygone, you emphasized versatility, and it's been a real staple in my Celtics vocabulary ever since the off-season acquisitions. I toyed with the idea of making it one of the models but decided that versatility was really the means toward the some of the models rather than being the stylistic model itself.

Dboss, the Celtics and Lakers actually used to play as many as NINE times during the regular season. You're right about the lack of frequency diluting the intensity of the rivalry. And having played one another only once in the past 23 playoffs hasn't helped.

Thanks for posting, guys.

Sam

FWIW, the Celts didn't pick up Gidden's option yesterday. Not real worrisome, he's not a key cog and, unless he just explodes the rest of the season, I don't see teams climbing over each other to sign him away from us.

Wing players are the easiest to replace.

As far as the "Kobe era" goes, can we wait until he wins at least one more without Shaq (he was part of the "Shaq era") before we dub him "an era"? Bill Walton won one championship with Portland. We don't have a Walton/Lucas era, do we? West deserves an era because he won the Finals MVP award on a losing team (still, the only one to do it) after many years of coming close and the winning team was an unbeatable juggernaut. That's resolve. Hell, Pierce deserves his own era, pre-KG, because of his year-in-year-out efforts on teams that had no chance and yet he didn't bail out and go to another team (not even the Los Angeles Lakers, who play out of his hometown, Inglewood CA). Ok, that might be a bit too "homie", but it also has a measure of truth to it. If KG is the fire, Paul Pierce is the iron.


bob

Bob,

I don't really know what constitutes an "era." But I figures Kobe has been the face of the franchise since Shaq left, and they did win a championship during that period. That's close enough to an "era" for my purposes in contrasting styles. I'm not implying any qualitative "dynasty-like" definitions.

For that matter (I feel a pre-vacation rant coming on), I think the value of the word "dynasty" has become severely diluted. Every time a team wins one championship, some bozo is claiming it's a "dynasty." I could make an argument that there has only been one real dynasty—possibly two (Michael's interrupted skein). I could make an argument that there have been NO dynasties...just one TYRANNY (Bob Ryan's term) and a lot of very good runs.

I bet these comments won't spark any conversations. Hit and run, I say. Talk with you in a week.

Sam

Sam wrote:Bob,

I don't really know what constitutes an "era." But I figures Kobe has been the face of the franchise since Shaq left, and they did win a championship during that period. That's close enough to an "era" for my purposes in contrasting styles. I'm not implying any qualitative "dynasty-like" definitions.

For that matter (I feel a pre-vacation rant coming on), I think the value of the word "dynasty" has become severely diluted. Every time a team wins one championship, some bozo is claiming it's a "dynasty." I could make an argument that there has only been one real dynasty—possibly two (Michael's interrupted skein). I could make an argument that there have been NO dynasties...just one TYRANNY (Bob Ryan's term) and a lot of very good runs.

I bet these comments won't spark any conversations. Hit and run, I say. Talk with you in a week.

Sam

sam,

Enjoy your vacation. Jealous as always.

As far as some bozo claiming a single championship is a dynasty, that bozo would be Greenkiller. The absent, but not missed, Greenkiller.

bob

Sam wrote:One of the interesting things about pro basketball is that it’s a metaphor for life in numerous ways. The roller coaster cycle of challenge and triumph. The yin and yang of individuality and collaboration. Etc.

And one of the most intriguing similarities, in my estimation, is the constant tension between complexity and simplicity.

I think I’m a complex person in so many ways. But life becomes so much easier for me when I dumb it down to an overriding focus: “Do your best.” I bet that anyone, in a reflective moment—and perhaps aided by the right adult beverage—might discover that the multiple facets of his or her life could be distilled into one central mantra. And the wonderful thing about human uniqueness is that the mantra wouldn’t be the same for everyone.

I believe it’s much the same for basketball teams. Each team is influenced by all sorts of complexities—human, strategic, cultural, ideological, financial, etc. But most teams—at least the successful ones—develop some overriding approach or personality that characterizes its essence in a nutshell.

If I use the Celtics and Lakers (who else?) as models, I believe that all of the complexities and nuances that have differentiated their respective eras of greatness can be boiled down into four “models”:

Power:

• The Mikan era
• The Bird/McHale/Parish/Max or Walton era
• The Shaq era

Heroics:

• The West/Baylor era
• The Kobe era

Elusiveness:

• The Cousy (pre-Russell) era
• The Magic/Worthy/Kareem sky hook era

Resolve:

• The Russell era
• The Cowens era
• The KG/Pierce era

I know a lot of people will feel these are oversimplifications. Maybe so. But, in my estimation, they represent the central direction in which each era has been most distinctive.

The reason I bring this up is because I’m wondering about the future of each of the two teams. I’m obviously more familiar with the Celtics than the Lakers. Perhaps this is why I feel better able to envision a likely catalyst for a future “team personality” in the case of the Celtics than the Lakers. His name is Rondo.

What I’m less certain about is which of the four models the Celtics will adopt. (Or could a new model evolve?) If one buys into the theory that Rondo could become a key catalyst for the Cs, which model would be most consistent with future success for this team. Within which model is it most likely that he’ll function effectively?

Elusiveness is an obvious Rondo trademark, but would that model be best for competing with directions in which the league seems to be going? It does seem (and Sheed mentions this in today’s Boston Globe) that we’re entering an era of dominant young PGs; and more and more teams seem to be favoring an uptempo attack. Is it best to join them or to run counter to the trend? (The Bird Celtics were almost the stylistic antithesis of the Magic Lakers, using the break only opportunistically as compared with the relentlessness of the Magic/Worthy connection.)

I expect the “resolve” model to persist as long as KG is with the Celtics. But I’m interested in your opinions about the most effective stylistic model for the Celtics AFTER the Three Amigos are gone.

And what about the Lakers? It could be that Phil will be gone soon. Will that mean they’ll forsake the triangle? How are they likely to evolve? Are they at a disadvantage by not currently nurturing a readily identifiable catalyst for LAK (life after Kobe)? This is most emphatically NOT an invitation to Laker-bashing. I’m sincerely interested in constructive views about this issue from the perspective of both teams.

Sam

Sam-

Great breakdown, and really good food for thought. The only problem with your forum is that there are always a lot of interesting, thoughtful posts to respond to and I end up finding myself typing something to you at 3:50am. Kind of like right now. Since I need to get some sleep, and you're getting ready to go on vacation, I'll make it short.

I think the Lakers will, and are already starting to, evolve into a power team along the Bird/Mchale/Chief lines.

Bynum is the long-term future, but with Pau and Odom in their primes, the addition of Artest, and the very slow decline in Kobe's athleticism, the offense is already rapidly becoming very low-post focused- as it should be, since the players listed above are the best players on the team and all have very good to excellent post games.

On the defensive side, it's also about power. We all know the way games are called in the playoffs. The Lakers learned well the painful lesson the Cs inflicted on them in '08 with their smothering D. The LAkers really got up into the Magic in the Finals last year, and were very physical with denver before that. Adding Artest to the mix is only going to make them even more physical this year once the playoffs roll around. They won't show it in the regular season except for games they really get up for (Cs, Cavs, Spurs- maybe the Magic will have their attention also this year), as they are too prone to taking nights and quarters off during the season. But come playoff time, their D will also be based on power.

Great idea for a thread, Sam.

enjoy your vacation.

bsh

babyskyhook wrote:

Sam wrote:One of the interesting things about pro basketball is that it’s a metaphor for life in numerous ways. The roller coaster cycle of challenge and triumph. The yin and yang of individuality and collaboration. Etc.

And one of the most intriguing similarities, in my estimation, is the constant tension between complexity and simplicity.

I think I’m a complex person in so many ways. But life becomes so much easier for me when I dumb it down to an overriding focus: “Do your best.” I bet that anyone, in a reflective moment—and perhaps aided by the right adult beverage—might discover that the multiple facets of his or her life could be distilled into one central mantra. And the wonderful thing about human uniqueness is that the mantra wouldn’t be the same for everyone.

I believe it’s much the same for basketball teams. Each team is influenced by all sorts of complexities—human, strategic, cultural, ideological, financial, etc. But most teams—at least the successful ones—develop some overriding approach or personality that characterizes its essence in a nutshell.

If I use the Celtics and Lakers (who else?) as models, I believe that all of the complexities and nuances that have differentiated their respective eras of greatness can be boiled down into four “models”:

Power:

• The Mikan era
• The Bird/McHale/Parish/Max or Walton era
• The Shaq era

Heroics:

• The West/Baylor era
• The Kobe era

Elusiveness:

• The Cousy (pre-Russell) era
• The Magic/Worthy/Kareem sky hook era

Resolve:

• The Russell era
• The Cowens era
• The KG/Pierce era

I know a lot of people will feel these are oversimplifications. Maybe so. But, in my estimation, they represent the central direction in which each era has been most distinctive.

The reason I bring this up is because I’m wondering about the future of each of the two teams. I’m obviously more familiar with the Celtics than the Lakers. Perhaps this is why I feel better able to envision a likely catalyst for a future “team personality” in the case of the Celtics than the Lakers. His name is Rondo.

What I’m less certain about is which of the four models the Celtics will adopt. (Or could a new model evolve?) If one buys into the theory that Rondo could become a key catalyst for the Cs, which model would be most consistent with future success for this team. Within which model is it most likely that he’ll function effectively?

Elusiveness is an obvious Rondo trademark, but would that model be best for competing with directions in which the league seems to be going? It does seem (and Sheed mentions this in today’s Boston Globe) that we’re entering an era of dominant young PGs; and more and more teams seem to be favoring an uptempo attack. Is it best to join them or to run counter to the trend? (The Bird Celtics were almost the stylistic antithesis of the Magic Lakers, using the break only opportunistically as compared with the relentlessness of the Magic/Worthy connection.)

I expect the “resolve” model to persist as long as KG is with the Celtics. But I’m interested in your opinions about the most effective stylistic model for the Celtics AFTER the Three Amigos are gone.

And what about the Lakers? It could be that Phil will be gone soon. Will that mean they’ll forsake the triangle? How are they likely to evolve? Are they at a disadvantage by not currently nurturing a readily identifiable catalyst for LAK (life after Kobe)? This is most emphatically NOT an invitation to Laker-bashing. I’m sincerely interested in constructive views about this issue from the perspective of both teams.

Sam

Sam-

Great breakdown, and really good food for thought. The only problem with your forum is that there are always a lot of interesting, thoughtful posts to respond to and I end up finding myself typing something to you at 3:50am. Kind of like right now. Since I need to get some sleep, and you're getting ready to go on vacation, I'll make it short.

I think the Lakers will, and are already starting to, evolve into a power team along the Bird/Mchale/Chief lines.

Bynum is the long-term future, but with Pau and Odom in their primes, the addition of Artest, and the very slow decline in Kobe's athleticism, the offense is already rapidly becoming very low-post focused- as it should be, since the players listed above are the best players on the team and all have very good to excellent post games.

On the defensive side, it's also about power. We all know the way games are called in the playoffs. The Lakers learned well the painful lesson the Cs inflicted on them in '08 with their smothering D. The LAkers really got up into the Magic in the Finals last year, and were very physical with denver before that. Adding Artest to the mix is only going to make them even more physical this year once the playoffs roll around. They won't show it in the regular season except for games they really get up for (Cs, Cavs, Spurs- maybe the Magic will have their attention also this year), as they are too prone to taking nights and quarters off during the season. But come playoff time, their D will also be based on power.

Great idea for a thread, Sam.

enjoy your vacation.

bsh

Sam-

I saw this quote from Pau and thought immediately of our discussion on this thread. The quote was after the Lakers just absolutely shut down the Jazz in the 4th quarter Wed night- holding them to as less field goals (2) than shot clock violations (3).


From the LA Times:

The Lakers outscored the Jazz, 28-6, and surrendered their fewest points in a quarter since holding the Clippers to three in the second quarter of a 95-68 victory in December 1999.

The Jazz made two of 18 shots and had nine turnovers in the final 12 minutes, including three shot-clock violations.

"We just imposed our will defensively," Gasol said. "We were able to then pound them on the other end and I think their heads started to get lower and lower."


Sounds like Pau thinks they are evolving into a power team as well.

Sky,

Wouldn't it be interesting if, a couple of years down the road, the Lakers were the preeminent power team while the Celtics were (I hate to say it in this day and age) the preeminent uptempo team. It would be sort of like watching the 80s in a mirror. LOL.

I've always enjoyed watching competition between teams with contrasting styles MUCH more than between teams with similar styles. There's so much more going on...so many more adjustments...so much more reliance on depth and versatility...such interesting matchups, usually more potential for both teams to go on "runs" so that many of the games take on a roller coaster aura, etc.

Now that I think of it, I could handle 10 years like the 80s, with both the styles and results for the Celtics and Lakers being reversed.

Unfortunately, at my age, I have to keep my focus pretty much on the present. That's probably what we all should be doing anyway, but it is fun to try to sneak an occasional peek down the road.

Sam

mtptl77,

I'm not quite sure what your point is, but welcome to the board. I'm not sure whether or not you're a Celtics fan, but all the matters here is civility of conversation.

I gather that you're saying that some players are making the all-star team based on their reputations, while denying spaces to younger players who may have more contemporary all-star credentials. You may find that, in Boston, we're not as focused on individual all-star portfolios as on the synergy of the TEAM. But I suppose there's truth in what you say.

Sam