Brighter Days Ahead For Celtics?

After playing .500 ball through the first six games of the 2014-15 season, the Celtics have hit something of a rough patch, dropping five of their last six contests. You could point to a number of different reasons to explain the team’s current drought, but none seem more prominent than the quality of the opponents they’ve had to take the floor against so far.

Sure, there have been many fundamental inconsistencies on both ends of the court and guys are still trying to figure out where they fit in Brad Stevens’ system. But when you hand a young, inexperienced team like the Celtics the sixth toughest schedule in the league through the first 12 games of the year, there are bound to be struggles.

Boston’s opponents thus far have a combined .528 win percentage and 11 of those 12 – Philadelphia being the only exception – were playoff teams last season. In fact, if you were to exclude the Sixers from the conversation then that number bumps up to .606. What’s worse is the fact that this grueling stretch is not yet over, as the Celtics will host a Chicago Bulls team seeking revenge from an earlier loss to Boston and the always-great San Antonio Spurs who are currently riding a four-game win streak.

The Celtics’ November woes have become somewhat commonplace over the past two years as ESPN Stats & Info pointed out on Twitter:


Between this year and last, Boston has an overall record of 10-19 in the eleventh month of the calendar year.

Luckily, the month of December is rapidly approaching and Stevens had his crew playing pretty good basketball in the month leading up to the New Year last season, going 6-6 in their 12 games.

This year, the Celtics will play a total of 15 December games, eight of which are against teams that failed to qualify for the 2013-14 postseason. Admittedly a much easier schedule, the teams that Boston will face have a combined record of 110-146, which roughly equates to a .430 win percentage.

There will be a few tests a long the way, though, including three meetings with the up-and-coming Washington Wizards, a Charlotte Hornets team that is much better than it’s current 4-11 record, a Miami Heat team that still has plenty of talent sans LeBron James, and finally a Sacramento Kings squad led by early-MVP candidate, DeMarcus Cousins.

This is the NBA. These are the best players on the planet that are all fighting for the same things at the end of the day: wins and championships. Every team is going to hit its rough patches and what I can guarantee you is that the other 29 franchises will absolutely not feel bad for you. But there is some comfort in knowing that the Celtics have played a lot of really quality opponents down to the wire, including close losses to the Dallas Mavericks, Toronto Raptors, Cleveland Cavaliers, Phoenix Suns, Memphis Grizzlies, and Portland TrailBlazers.

Boston lost all of those games by a combined 26 points. That’s not bad at all considering that each of those teams are arguably considered to be contenders in their respective conferences; some more than others, of course.

Bottom line: Stevens and the Celtics still have a lot of work to do before they are ready to contend for a playoff spot in the East and battling some of the league’s juggernauts in a four week stretch doesn’t make that process any easier. Perhaps a softer schedule is what this team needs to get everything figured out schematically and if they are able to pick up a good amount of wins then the extra confidence will be welcomed with open arms.

The bounce back opportunity is there for the taking, the question is, will the Celtics take advantage of it, or will they continue to form bad habits by playing down to the level of their competition?




bob



.

It hasn't stopped being a developmental, rebuilding season.  They're trying hard.  It's all good.

Sam

bob,

"Playing down" to the level of your lesser opponents is always a concern, but especially for a team that has not yet fully matured.  Even "playing down" during a game against a superior team is something to think about.

The Celtics will likely fall into this category for some time yet.  A team like the Spurs will be much less likely to have this happen on any night.

The first step to achieving an end to the "playing down" situation is finding someone on your team who is just "not going to allow it" to happen.  Every really good team has at least one of these guys.  If you have played basketball at some level you have seen this guy either on your team or as an opponent.  Some such guys are verbal and some not so verbal, but always seem to get the message out to the other guys on the team in their own way.  As a result, the team plays better and more wins are saved or earned.

To me, this guy on the Celtics this year has to be Rondo.  This is where his intelligence, leadership, skills, individual and team focus, etc, etc are most needed.  He is getting paid big bucks, fills the stat sheet most nights, but needs to do more for his team.  Fourth quarter type control is missing from him, in my opinion.

There is just always a guy on every good team who does this type of thing for his team in all levels of basketball.  He is often the team's "best" player, but he is always the team's "leader".  He is the guy who holds things together when the game gets moving the other way, the other team gets on a run or even his coach makes a bad call.  This guy is the guy who HAS to be on the court and doing his thing for his team when the chips are down and the game is on the line (note: games are often on the line at times other than the last two minutes).  "He" is found on every good team in the NBA and all the way down to every good team in the parks and rec Saturday morning leagues.

Again, has to be Rondo until someone else is added.

I don't think Rondo has ever been "that" guy.

will he be able to become that type of "A" player....I guess that's one of the questions Ainge and company are trying to answer this year.

Wide

We might have him already on the team right now.

With a little more offensive seasoning Smart could very well be a fourth quarter go to guy. Not a great shooter but he appears to have the mental edge that he is not afraid to take it and that he is strong enough to go to the rim too, and he can make a foul shot. Not the greatest handle but certainly good enough.

He's played in only a handful of games but as long as there are no lingering problems with the ankle and he's back to "100%" by Feb March of next year he could very well be the guy you describe.

beat

beat wrote:Wide

We might have him already on the team right now.

With a little more offensive seasoning Smart could very well be a fourth quarter go to guy. Not a great shooter but he appears to have the mental edge that he is not afraid to take it and that he is strong enough to go to the rim too, and he can make a foul shot. Not the greatest handle but certainly good enough.

He's played in only a handful of games but as long as there are no lingering problems with the ankle and he's back to "100%" by Feb March of next year he could very well be the guy you describe.

beat

you might be on to something with Smart being that type of player. he certainly has shown no desire to back down in the NBA even as a rookie, so that "A" type mentality seems to be there. Will he develop that "go-to " move or shot needed to complete the transition to being that guy?...time will tell.

My second best guess right now on this roster would be Kelly O. He certainly has the shot, even at this young age, trouble is he doesn't appear to have that mentality. Since I don't think being a "type A" personality is something that can be learned, I don't think Kelly can ever become a go-to guy. Instead I see him as J. Green style second of third option on a good team.

but I think we have seen players become better shooters and even develop go-to skills in the NBA. Smarts ability to hit his FT's is a MAJOR plus in that regard.

Thanks for all the excellent comments, guys, not just on this thread but the others, too. I don't comment often, but I read everything, you betcha.

As for finding a leader, that's definitely the next step in this team's evolution. It isn't Rondo, either: floor leader, yes, because he controls the ball so much, but Rondo isn't the spiritual leader of this team. Like you all are implying, it's Mahcus Smaht. The man has charisma - what my former drinking buddy, the late columnist for the old Boston Herald, George Frazier, used to call duende.

When Smart collapsed on the floor with his ankle injury, you could see it in the reaction of his teammates. The ones who were on the court rushed to his side while the ones on the bench jumped up and took a few steps onto the court. You could see his emotional importance to this team in the concerned looks on their faces; they genuinely love the guy AND, as the Texas brigade said about Robert E. Lee, they would storm the gates of hell for that man. That's what leadership inspires.

It's no knock on Rondo that he doesn't have it, although I don't think he even knows what it is that Smart has. There's probably some jealousy there, too, deep down. Rondo wants to be the man, the captain, the guy everybody rallies around. He should play like a wild animal if that's what he wants, diving for loose balls, taking charges, helping his teammates out with reckless abandon. Instead, he stays in control. Not smart; sometimes you have to let go and try defying gravity.

That's also why Rondo probably has to go. Rondo's game is based on pacing himself, taking it easy on defense so he can dazzle everyone with his offense. It's kind of ridiculous, because he isn't a great offensive player. He can't shoot, he can't drive on these collapsing defenses, and he can't convert foul shots into points. He's a one-trick pony, a dazzling passer, that's it.

Rondo is also trapped into thinking too much of his own self-importance; he thinks the team can't win without him on the floor. That's not conducive to the kind of defense that Coach Brad wants to play. Unfortunately, it also seems as though Avery Bradley, who used to be a defensive terror, has gotten caught up in Rondo's lackadaisical attitude. Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought Bradley played with more intensity when Smart was around.

It isn't necessarily as bad as it sounds, however. KG was the team leader, even though Paul Pierce was the captain. Pierce was good with that. He had already proved himself. All he wanted to do was win. In Rondo's case, he seems like he's still trying to prove something.

Rick,

You were a drinking buddy of George Frazier?  Kudos to you, big time!  I believe he introduced the term "duende" when I was in my first professional job in Boston.  My boss and I would eagerly scour George's column each day to see if he'd list more samples of duende.  He offered several definitions, but the one I recall most was (I think I have this right) "grace under pressure."  Merriam Webster defines duende (which is derived from the Spanish word for hobgoblin) as "the power to attract through personal magnetism and charm."

George felt Ted Williams had more duende than Stan Musial had when hitting a home run.  Frank Sinatra had duende and (name any other male singer of his time, including Tony Bennett) didn't. 

To observe someone who had duende, felt George, was "to feel icy fingers running up and down our spine."


My boss and I would invent our own comparisons.  Clark Gable yes; Rock Hudson, no.  Judy Garland, oui; Dinah Shore, non.  Judy Garland, most assuredly; Joan Crawford, fuggeddaboudit.

Judy Garland, yes.  Shirley MacLaine, no.  Jack Nicholson obviously; Marlon Brando, no chance.

I'd give a lot to have a chat with George nowadays and run some basketball names past him.  My guesses: Bob Cousy, Magic Johnson, certainly.  Steve Nash, John Stockton and Oscar Robinson not even close.  (Pete Maravich would be an interesting toss-up.)  Bill Russell, of course.  Wilt Chamberlain, pretender.  Julius Erving, affirmative.  Elgin Baylor, negatory.  And other sports.  Bobby Layne had it.  Tom Brady doesn't.  Jim Brown, undoubtedly.  O.J. Simpson, so bland that it took a murder to make him slightly interesting.  Maurice Richard, right-on.  Bobby Orr, sorry.   

My own favorite is that the Chrysler Building is the epitome of duende.  The Empire State Building is just tall.

Rick, you were so fortunate to have known George Frazier.  That, alone, is worth a passel of Thanksgivings.

Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.

Sam

The article suggests that the Celtics are playing down to opponents.

A rather odd statement considering the schedule that they played.

The only sure win in the stretch was the 26ers who by the way appear to be poised to jump in the tank once again.

The offense has performed well overall. The defense is still in the midst of the learning stage with no specific graduation day in sight.

The continued development of a large group of young players does remind me of the youth embedded in the roster before the 08 surprise.

I have seen good play from the entire roster. That tells me we do have some talent. Their continued development along with needed additions that we will make over the next 1-2 years provides a wealth of speculation. Still waiting to see if the team can be coached up individually and collectively.

dboss

beat,

I like your thought of Smart perhaps being "that "guy". Only time will tell, but such a guy is very necessary.

Was looking back on our early struggles and though I would bring this thread back from the junk pile.

makes for some interesting reading.

beat

Here is a comment from NYCelt in a thread from 12/14/14

The wisdom in the Stevens hire was that it presented a no lose situation for all. It let Brad take a shot at coaching in the NBA, while at the same time allowing us to give a shot to someone not on the same old carousel of recycled faces. One would think Stevens was smart enough to know you don't rebuild an NBA club in a season, so speculation that he's frustrated may be a bit of a push, or at least premature. Even I have speculated about Stevens going back to college one day. That has nothing to do with him being so impatient he blows a mental gasket during just the second season here.

If Blakley is banking on the idea that the talent is better this year, he's arrived at that conclusion awfully early in the season. If the individual talent is better, it may not translate into a better performance as a team either, and certainly appears not to have been the needed tonic on defense. I would personally throw in the notion that if it is indeed better, it's only looking marginally so.

I'm also wondering just how it is that Stevens' calm outward demeanor has anything to do with anything. Do NBA players need a coach to jump up and down and cheerlead? Does a calm coach spell failure, or give his players a sense that he's confident and unwavering in what he's doing?

My comment...
( nail hit on head )

beat