Are the Celtics Bipolar?

People can be bipolar, is it possible for Sports teams to have disfunctional personalities? Is it possible for the C's to be bipolar? When Dr. Jekyll shows up they go on winning streaks on the road...Then they come home and they become Mr. Hyde (one of them getting tossed), losing to a team that turns around and loses at home to the Clippers...Does this team have trouble focusing...as a team?
They're 20-5...that's pretty darned good but when they have trouble...are they they're own worst enemy?

Save the Prozac and Lithium for the LA fans who have to ride those freeways, what's going on here is much less oprahwinfrey.

The way I see it, like a bunch of jazz musicians, each with his own taste, style and rhythm, the Celtics are strugglng as a group to find their groove.

The Celts have an issue with losing focus. The second half of the Sixer game was horrific. We saw just a bit of that against the Wolves. Why can't the C's do what Tommy says and put their foot across the opposition's throat when the opportunity is there and just bury them. Friday we stopped moving the ball on offense, we let the Sixers get to wherever they wanted to go on their offensive possessions: too many second and third shots. Last night it wasn't quite as bad, but a game we could have won by 40 turns into only an 18 point win. One silver lining is the play of T. Allen. How much is his play an effort to save his spot here, or showcase himself for his next employer?-MD.

Yeah, but there are ways around all this. Work with what we are given. Deal with the card we are dealt. First of all, let's address the elephant in the room and that is the next few games that include Indiana, Orlando and Phoenix. Like it or not, regular season games or not, these are definite marker games.

In our favor, Orlando and Phoenix are road and revenge games. We are not going to win all of our games from here on out. Every team has brain fart games and I am still PO'ed about losing to Philadelphia of all Godawful teams. Much rather lose a game to them than go into Orlando Christmas Day like we did against the Lakers last year at this time with a streak and start another 9 game losing streak or whatever disaster came of us then. We have for some reason a way better road record than home record (BTW, in NBA history, has a contending team ever finished the season with a significantly better road record than home? I'm asking, I have no clue.) Interesting how we have progressed over the last 3 years to absolutely needing home court to win the title in '08 to not needing it as much last season to advance one game shy of the Conference Finals to this season where if we had to, be an 8th seed and make it to the Finals, given our current sharpness on the road.

I know these stats will converge probably over the season but interesting nonetheless. MD, there's a question in here for Sam about the Russell teams in that were they able to put put their foot across the opposition's throat during the season and the playoffs, game in, game out for the whole decade. I have to admit, I was surprised at the number of the Celtics championship series from the 60's that went the full 7 games. Just to get Sam jumping on my case, I'm going to say as great as those teams were in the 60's, and yes, the championships (the end results) speak for themselves and they were dominant, but it was no cakewalk, winning 80%+ of their regular season games and sweeping playoff series was not the norm.

Against us is the bipolar play. I think we can catch PHX on a downward turn as they are returning to what we come to expect of them. ORL has to be the biggest one of those three, though. And of course, we can't look past IND at home. If we go 3-0 on these games, things will look very good. Any split, not so good. If we are swept in those three games, major problems, in my humble but accurate opinion.

This set of games is the first of several huge tests over the next 2 months though, so lets not kid ourselves. We are going to have a very good idea of where we stand beginning tomorrow night through the end of the year. What more can you ask for? Let's not even look ahead to January's games yet.

dbrown

your question

(BTW, in NBA history, has a contending team ever finished the season with a significantly better road record than home? I'm asking, I have no clue.)

Went through the league standings back into the late 60's prior to that teams played so many "neutral games" home away records become a bit pointless.

There are 4 division winners who won more games on the road than at home.

Going back to the earliest

Boston 1974-75 won 28 home, won 32 road games
Miami 96-97 won 29 home. 32 away
Detroit 06-07 won 26 home, 27 road
Orlando 07-08 won 25 home, 27 road

(hope I didn't miss any)

beat

BTW, how come I couldn't get CLE vs. DAL last night on NBATV? I've got League Pass but was C-Blocked by a message saying something about contractual obligations, blah, blah, blah. Did anyone with LP see this same bs?

Thanks, beat. Very interesting. None very dominant. Small list too. How do you do that so fast?!! Great having you here. db

dbrown

here is my bookmark for most things I look up.

http://www.databasebasketball.com/index.htm

simply went to the most recent complete year and looked at the league standings that included home and away records and went back year by year. As you were looking for "contenders" I only looked at the top teams in each conference. Didn't take too long.

beat

Dbrown,

No jumping on your case from me. I'm more than aware that the Russell Celtics were cursed with numerous defects. In fact they had only one talent...winning championships!

Only kidding. Their domination didn't come in the form of having record-breaking winning percentages or wining by huge scores or having scoring leaders. Even when they won individual awards, they almost seemed embarrassed and fell all over themselves emphasizing that each award was really a team accomplishment. In the final analysis, their domination came from their consistency in winning it all. And to accomplish that year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year (that's eight, and I'm tired), they had what I feel was the perfect storm of traits.

They NEVER focused on accomplishments designed to get them extremely high: winning streaks, record-setting winning percentages; individual scoring leaders; etc. By the same token, they never permitted themselves to get particularly low. Winning streaks were a function of being very, very good. Losing streaks of any magnitude just didn't happen.

They were incredibly task-oriented. If things started going south, they focused as a team on how to correct it. They weren't worried about how the fans felt or what the media said because they knew that worry just burned energy unproductively and that the energy was put to better use solving the problem.

They certainly had the capacity to lose. But virtually never when the scent of victory was in the air. Call it foot on the throat or killer instinct or whatever; but, when they found themselves in a war, their collective adrenalin rush was matched only by their coolness under pressure (a very unusual pairing). And they always had the master puppeteer yanking their chain of each individual in the right psychological direction. (Phil can read all the books he wishes, but he'll never approximate those instincts.)

They had an ability (unmatched before or since) to rise to meet challenges. They could coast a bit or pace themselves, secure in the knowledge that, when the chips were down, they simply had to put on their cloak of invincibility.

And, most important, the core of this cloak of invincibility was an utter expectation of winning the ones that really mattered. Not just talk or hope. An absolute insistence on winning, with no other possibility allowed.

I believe this year's team has designs on similar patterns. They've got the coasting and pacing parts down. They're still working on the invincibility on/off switch. The 2007 playoff edition just about had it. Hopefully this team will reach the same level by the same time.

Sam

I dont think they are bipolar. I think they are still forming and gelling. Which is to say the best is yet to come. And we are 21-5.

spikeD wrote:Save the Prozac and Lithium for the LA fans who have to ride those freeways, what's going on here is much less oprahwinfrey.

The way I see it, like a bunch of jazz musicians, each with his own taste, style and rhythm, the Celtics are strugglng as a group to find their groove.

Duly noted Spike...let me pause here to wash down my prozac and lithuim, with a martini...just got off the freeway...
I like your analogy of jazz musicians trying to find the groove...they get something going for a stretch and then it starts to break down until they get back into a new one (hopefully quickly).

Oh, by the way...

Due to the title of this thread, we are getting bipolar advertisement up at the top.

IMO (so's there is no confusion), I think that is a funny thing, not a bad thing. Just an observation.

beat wrote:dbrown

here is my bookmark for most things I look up.

http://www.databasebasketball.com/index.htm

simply went to the most recent complete year and looked at the league standings that included home and away records and went back year by year. As you were looking for "contenders" I only looked at the top teams in each conference. Didn't take too long.

beat

beat,

That's a great resource and I've added it to the links forum. Thanks for pointing the site out!

Regards

Sam, your last paragraph summed it up well. Before I got to it, I was saying to myself, "Hummm, sounds alot like this year's team!!" You know I like throwing you in the briar patch just as much as you to me with stats!

As long as they are alive and well come playoff time, I'm going to keep my criticisms to a minimum or at least hold them up to previous championship teams/eras like this and try to keep things in perspective.

I don't remember the 80's Celtic teams being that dominant either. Of course we didn't have league pass back then where you could pick the team apart every day. But I did enjoy watching them when they were on! They made basketball fun to watch. In the end, they knew how to win championships and that's what separates Boston from 28 other wannabe franchises, maybe 27 if you throw in Chicago reluctantly, but Chicago only had one era, nothing since.

So your advice, if I'm reading correctly is to chill, (you've seen this song and dance before) enjoy each(every) moment because the Celtics are going to win the ones that count (no one is going to remember we lost one to Phila @ home by one during the regular season as Paul, Kevin and Ray help hoist #18 next fall at the first home game) and we'll get a good look at our invincibility cloak all through the season, especially starting over the next two and half months, right?

Dbrown,

I wish I had an invincibility cloak right now. It's really cold here.

Sam

gyso wrote:Oh, by the way...

Due to the title of this thread, we are getting bipolar advertisement up at the top.

IMO (so's there is no confusion), I think that is a funny thing, not a bad thing. Just an observation.

Gyso,
You busted me....I gave it that title cause I was just looking for a good deal for meds...
Not that bipolar disorder is something to be flip about....but the fact that the internet is designed to sell anything to anyone...well, that's the american way, I suppose.

dbrown4 wrote: MD, there's a question in here for Sam about the Russell teams in that were they able to put put their foot across the opposition's throat during the season and the playoffs, game in, game out for the whole decade. I have to admit, I was surprised at the number of the Celtics championship series from the 60's that went the full 7 games. Just to get Sam jumping on my case, I'm going to say as great as those teams were in the 60's, and yes, the championships (the end results) speak for themselves and they were dominant, but it was no cakewalk, winning 80%+ of their regular season games and sweeping playoff series was not the norm.

Ron Bonham was a bench player on some of those championship teams. He was recently asked why they won so many titles.

Ron Bonham: "It was the closeness of the guys on that team – it was just one big family. I’ll tell you, Bill Russell didn’t speak to any rookies or anyone new coming in. John Havlicek and I had been friends all through college, and I asked John about that. I said, ‘What’s the deal with Bill?’ And he said, ‘That’s just the way he is. If you make the team then you’re a part of the family, and that’s the way this whole team is. That’s the reason we’re so successful.’ So after I did make the team it was like night and day. Russell invited us over to his house for dinner, and at that time he had a little soul food restaurant in downtown Boston. He invited us down there and treated us to dinner. So it really was like family, and I think that’s a big reason for the team’s success. Of course, you’ve got to have talent, and Boston had plenty of that, too. But race was never an issue. It was just a great environment. The talent was there, the love for each other was there, and that was really the secret to the team’s success."

Bonham also mentioned the Auerbach effect.

"He was a tremendous coach, very knowledgeable. Very knowledgeable of our opponents. And we always had a good game plan. All the players respected him. There was always humor in the dressing room – not during our practices, because they were very heated – but the camaraderie went a long way towards the success of the Boston Celtics, and Red had a lot to do with that. He was a genius."

This team doesn't have 2 personalities - it just doesn't play especially hard or smart all the time. Part of it is to conserve energy, part of it is laziness, part of it is the idea that they can turn it on (which at their age they can't).

This is the best team in the league when they play at peak energy and professionalism. When they don't they are no better than 5th or 6th.

Like I posted a month ago, this Celtic team is not enjoying what it must go through to qualify for the playoffs. They would rather the playoffs started next week. Can Big Baby infuse this team with energy? Can Daniels when he comes back? I hope the answer is "yes" in both cases.

Don't compare this team to Russel's Celtics or Bird's Celtics. Or even 2008 Celtics. Unlike their predecessors, these Celtics do not feel the need to dismantle their opponents each quarter. Today's Celtics' major battle is with themselves.

sdcelt

Geeze we are 22 and 5. That's pretty good right?

Jeb

SD,

Seems to me the Russell and Bird teams are ideal "gold standards" with which to compare the current team. I don't believe anyone on this thread has intimated that the current team nearly measures up by comparison...but it would be a worthy objective.

Sam

Guys, I guess , like Rivers and Ainge, I am disappointed with this team only in the number of minutes and quarters they take off. This team definately hasn't been a 48 minute team. I believe the bench has been playing very hard. I am disappointed with our starters and the inconsistent effort they have brought.

Big Baby and Daniels will be playing more minutes. Williams minutes have been going down, I don't know if there has been a reason given. I would rather see more bench minutes and rest the starters if we would see a more consistent effort.

Go Celtics!

sdcelt

The starters are saving some juice. I bet they will slowly turn up the intensity all season. The Magic game will damn sure tell us where we are! I understand the bad habits argument but I really aint all that worried about the focus of the big 5.

Plus we got a gaudy record and have played drop dead tough on the road. If some middlin efforts in december mean the older guys stay valid a few more years I for one will damn sure take it.