Celtics v. Knicks

[Dumpy]

As I write this, the Knicks are up by six with about a minute and a half left, despite the Cetics playing Rondo, Allen, Pierce, and Garnett--the big three-and-a-third--approximately forty minutes each, which seems a little ridiculous at this point in training camp. Allen, Pierce, and Garnett have combined for 58 of their 87 points, but the rest of the team has scored just 29 on 11-for-33 shooting, if my eyeballing is right. Only three other celtics have scored: Scalabrine (who started), Powe, and Posey. Perkins didn't play. The difference seems to be due to the rebounding differential (David Lee) and an inability to contain Nate Robinson. Yes, it is just the preseason, but this is another sign that the Celtics will go as far as the other 12 players on their team will take them. And that might not be as far as the experts think. The big three will play approximately one-half of the total minutes on the court for the Celtics (barring injury, of course). What will Posey, Tony Allen, Eddie House, Scalabrine, Leon Powe, Greg Pruitt, not to mention Perkins and Rondo, be able to contribute? The Nets have been there--a solid "big three" and not much else. Remember, in the one-half of play the other night, while the Celtics starters beat up on the Nets' primary reserves, the Nets' third-stringers did the same to the Celtics' primary reserves. It's not the way to build a champion. My prediction is that the Celtics will be erratic--sometimes blowing teams out, but sometimes losing to mediocre teams, also, and in the end they'll end up roughly five games over .500.</p>

Don't go ceding the division to them quite yet.</p>

And, again, it is just pre-season, and injuries will of course play a factor, both by the Celtics and by other teams, but I think that watching whether they are successful will be a fascinating sub-plot to the season (as will watching whether Al Jefferson, on Minnesota, can match Garnett's stats).</p>

 

[Dark Defender]

I can't see that group winning less than 50 games. The eratic part I agree with, at least early on.</p>

 

[CelticKing]

Bet money that the Celtics will win the divison.</p>

 

[Dumpy]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticKing)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>

Bet money that the Celtics will win the divison.</p>

</div></p>

</p>

I don't bet, and I don't want this to turn into a war of the words between Nets and Celtics fans. My point is just that the games have to be played on the court; the Celtics will not win the conference "by default" or because the other teams are terrified and outclassed by them. There is a lot of hype surrounding the Celtics right now, and while they may very well go far, I believe that it is premature. You know, I'm of the opinion that, if it had not been for injuries, last year's celtics team was clearly playoff-bound. They were utterly ravaged. If the Celtics do win 45 or 50 or games or however many they win, the line will be: Look how much better they are! But again, I believe that they were a 40-45 win team LAST year had they been healthy. I'm going to put my over-under on 44 wins, and that assumes that Ray Allen will only miss about ten games. </p>

 

[CelticKing]

So you're saying the Celtics pre-trade were (or would be) better than the current Celtics?</p>

I though they would make the playoffs as well but it was a sure thing that they would have lost in the first round. (no matter who they got, because of inexperience)</p>

But when talking about the current team, everyone knows that barring any injuries, its a sure thing they make the playoffs and advance to the ECF. Where our difference is as Celtics fans is that we think they'll go all the way.</p>

We'll be here though and I'll remember what you said.

</p>

 

[#1_War_Poet_ForLife]

Al Jeff + P^2 sounded good to me.</p>

 

[CelticKing]

Garnett + PP + Jesus, sounds better. </p>

 

[Real]

I believe I dug up a statistic that says that Jason Kidd by himself has won more playoff games than any of the big three combined.</p>

 

[Black Republican]

They're so overrated,they aint gon win the Atlantic.</p>

 

[#1_War_Poet_ForLife]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Black Republican)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>

They're so overrated,they aint gon win the Atlantic.</p>

</div></p>

</p>

You've pretty much cursed it. Now the Nets are going to end up 4th :`(</p>

 

[Dumpy]

Szczerbiak is no slouch, at least offensively. In 2005-06, he averaged 16 PPG on roughly 47% shooting, which is pretty good for a SF--I think that qualified him for the fifth best SF or so statistically. Last year, he was averaging something like 20 points per game on roughly 50% shooting until he got injured in late November; unfortunately, he never recovered and his stats suffered until he shut down for good. He's injury prone, but probably no more than Ray Allen. I submit that trading Szczerbiak and ultimately Jeff Green for Ray Allen (and Delonte West, right??) will turn out fine for Seattle. As for Garnett . . . Al Jefferson is pretty darn good, and the Celtics gave up a lot of other young talent as well in that deal. Garnett has a well-known name, but the difference between him and Jefferson won't amount to more than a handful of wins, in my mind. The big differnece, as you say, is in experience, which may be a factor in the end. What happened to them last year showed that you have to have a capable bench, because your starters WILL get hurt. Maybe their starting five is a little better now--who knows about their PG situation--but their bench is weaker, and at some point they;ll likely be down to a Big Two, and I don't know if that's enough to get it done. I'm not ready to award them a trip to the ECF finals quite yet. It may happen, don't get me wrong, but they'll have to work pretty damn hard for it.</p>

 

[pegs]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>

And, again, it is just pre-season, and injuries will of course play a factor, both by the Celtics and by other teams, but I think that watching whether they are successful will be a fascinating sub-plot to the season (as will watching whether Al Jefferson, on Minnesota, can match Garnett's stats).</p>

</div></p>

I was surprised to see this from you, Dumpy. Stats don't mean everything, or anything, especially when you look at big men.</p>

You've also gotta consider how AJ does on defense, how he passes out of a double team, how good he is at rebounding/boxingout/being in position, things like that. Garnett outdoes him in all those ways.</p>

What will be interesting, of course, is seeing who takes a leadership role on the Wolves when Garnett is gone, and how good he does.</p>

Same thing with the Celts...the leadership role will be important for them. I don't think any of the stars have been really good leaders in the past. Whenever they've accomplished anyone, it's been with another strong leader on the team (Cassel, Daniels, etc.). I'm not sure the Celts have a good, true leader right now.</p>

</p>

 

[Dumpy]

Jefferson will learn those things with time. The Celtics have roughly a two-year window for success with this team before age catches up with them, and they'll be left with no assets to rebuild. The general consensus seems to be that the Celtics got the better of that deal--by a long shot--but if Jefferson can put up 20 and 10 this year, people will have to reassess, despite how much better Garnett is at those other things. Because, remember, Minnesota got other peices as well . . .</p>

 

[CelticKing]

The Celtics have a 3 to 4 year window of opportunity to win it all.</p>

 

[cpawfan]

In order to keep my high opinion of you Dumpy, I'm going to pretend I never read this thread</p>

 

[Dumpy]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>

In order to keep my high opinion of you Dumpy, I'm going to pretend I never read this thread</p>

</div></p>

Why? You think that the other teams in the division are going to forfeit or something? You think the Celtics are going to win 60 games playing three on five? Clearly, their ultimate fate will be decided by the other 12 players on the club. They have three tremendous players (although one is a bit injury prone) and a supporting cast that is below average. The Lakers were more than Kobe and Shaq; the Spurs more than Duncan and Robinson; the Heat more than Wade and Shaq. Those teams all had supplemental parts that carried daggers in their waist. Do the Celtics? Maybe. Maybe not. To wit: Show me the money.</p>

p.s., how about that Bobby Jones?</p>

 

[CelticKing]

The thing is that they're not playing three on five. They have Rondo at the PG and Perkins at C. Rondo, while not the best out there, is still a damn good pg and will only get better from playing with the GPA*. Perkins can hold his own against the Currys, Nenads, and other centers out there. (defensively I'm talking about)</p>

The Lakers were nothing more than Shaq and Kobe, Shaq left, look what happend. They won't win another championship in the next 20 years if they don't get another star to side with Kobe. (or bynum in the future)</p>

Now understand that I'm not saying that the bench is not important, you need veterans, etc, and a good coach but the Celtics (or any other team) will go only as far as their star(s) take them. Simple as that.</p>

</p>

(GPA = garnett, pierce, allen)</p>

 

[cpawfan]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>

In order to keep my high opinion of you Dumpy, I'm going to pretend I never read this thread</p>

</div></p>

Why? You think that the other teams in the division are going to forfeit or something? You think the Celtics are going to win 60 games playing three on five? Clearly, their ultimate fate will be decided by the other 12 players on the club. They have three tremendous players (although one is a bit injury prone) and a supporting cast that is below average. The Lakers were more than Kobe and Shaq; the Spurs more than Duncan and Robinson; the Heat more than Wade and Shaq. Those teams all had supplemental parts that carried daggers in their waist. Do the Celtics? Maybe. Maybe not. To wit: Show me the money.</p>

p.s., how about that Bobby Jones?</p>

</div></p>

Your comments and comparisons about AlJeff and Wally were really poor. Your estimation of how good the Celtics could have been last season is laughable. It is Hollinger bad.</p>

James Posey is better than Rick Fox was at his best and you are greatly underestimating what having three players that can carry a team means.</p>

</p>

 

[Dumpy]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>

In order to keep my high opinion of you Dumpy, I'm going to pretend I never read this thread</p>

</div></p>

Why? You think that the other teams in the division are going to forfeit or something? You think the Celtics are going to win 60 games playing three on five? Clearly, their ultimate fate will be decided by the other 12 players on the club. They have three tremendous players (although one is a bit injury prone) and a supporting cast that is below average. The Lakers were more than Kobe and Shaq; the Spurs more than Duncan and Robinson; the Heat more than Wade and Shaq. Those teams all had supplemental parts that carried daggers in their waist. Do the Celtics? Maybe. Maybe not. To wit: Show me the money.</p>

p.s., how about that Bobby Jones?</p>

</div></p>

Your comments and comparisons about AlJeff and Wally were really poor. Your estimation of how good the Celtics could have been last season is laughable. It is Hollinger bad.</p>

James Posey is better than Rick Fox was at his best and you are greatly underestimating what having three players that can carry a team means.</p>

</div></p>

What comments and comparisons? I think you are reading more into my posts than is warranted. I have clearly indicated that I am just looking at those things measured by traditional stats. I have not said that AJ is as good as Garnett, nor have I said that Wally is as good as Ray Allen. I did say, though, that statistically, Wally's offense was near the top of all SFs when healthy, as measured by efficiency, as reported by the site hoopstats.com.</p>

Incidentally, if I remember correctly, if you go back a few months, you'll find that the general consensus was that the Celtics overpaid for Ray Allen. Once they acquired Garnett, though, there was a sudden revision of opinion.</p>

Anyway, you seem pretty confident that it is inevitable that the Celtics will dominate the division. I disagree, but I see them as an above-average team. You could very well be right, but I'm not willing to cede the division to them. There will be growing pains; there will be days when Ray Allen or Pierce are hurt. There will be questions about Rondo and some nebulous backup PG that need to be answered. We'll see what happens.</p>

 

[Kid Chocolate]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>

As I write this, the Knicks are up by six with about a minute and a half left, despite the Cetics playing Rondo, Allen, Pierce, and Garnett--the big three-and-a-third--approximately forty minutes each, which seems a little ridiculous at this point in training camp. Allen, Pierce, and Garnett have combined for 58 of their 87 points, but the rest of the team has scored just 29 on 11-for-33 shooting, if my eyeballing is right. Only three other celtics have scored: Scalabrine (who started), Powe, and Posey. Perkins didn't play. The difference seems to be due to the rebounding differential (David Lee) and an inability to contain Nate Robinson. Yes, it is just the preseason, but this is another sign that the Celtics will go as far as the other 12 players on their team will take them. And that might not be as far as the experts think. The big three will play approximately one-half of the total minutes on the court for the Celtics (barring injury, of course). What will Posey, Tony Allen, Eddie House, Scalabrine, Leon Powe, Greg Pruitt, not to mention Perkins and Rondo, be able to contribute? The Nets have been there--a solid "big three" and not much else. Remember, in the one-half of play the other night, while the Celtics starters beat up on the Nets' primary reserves, the Nets' third-stringers did the same to the Celtics' primary reserves. It's not the way to build a champion. My prediction is that the Celtics will be erratic--sometimes blowing teams out, but sometimes losing to mediocre teams, also, and in the end they'll end up roughly five games over .500.</p>

Don't go ceding the division to them quite yet.</p>

And, again, it is just pre-season, and injuries will of course play a factor, both by the Celtics and by other teams, but I think that watching whether they are successful will be a fascinating sub-plot to the season (as will watching whether Al Jefferson, on Minnesota, can match Garnett's stats).</p>

</div></p>

</p>

It's Gabe Pruitt.</p>

</p>

 

[CelticKing]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>

What comments and comparisons? I think you are reading more into my posts than is warranted. I have clearly indicated that I am just looking at those things measured by traditional stats. I have not said that AJ is as good as Garnett, nor have I said that Wally is as good as Ray Allen. I did say, though, that statistically, Wally's offense was near the top of all SFs when healthy, as measured by efficiency, as reported by the site hoopstats.com.</div></p>

He got 20ppg because a lof of the Celtics players were injured, including Pierce, Tony Allen, etc. So being the veteran that he is and also knowing that the Celts had so many young guys in the team, the offense fell to Wally and it was his job to produce and therefore get 20ppg. Other than that he's not a top SF, he's not even top 30. I'm sure you know that.</p>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'>Incidentally, if I remember correctly, if you go back a few months, you'll find that the general consensus was that the Celtics overpaid for Ray Allen. Once they acquired Garnett, though, there was a sudden revision of opinion.</div></p>

No it wasn't. Everyone, meaning the analysts, the Celts fans, and other teams fans, said that just by getting Allen and teaming him with Pierce, it won't get you to the promise land. It was simple as that. Not that they overpaid for him, because they didn't. You have to remember that he's one of the top shooters in the league. Lets say top 5. (I could argue that he's top 3, but we'll leave it at that)</p>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'>Anyway, you seem pretty confident that it is inevitable that the Celtics will dominate the division. I disagree, but I see them as an above-average team. You could very well be right, but I'm not willing to cede the division to them. There will be growing pains; there will be days when Ray Allen or Pierce are hurt. There will be questions about Rondo and some nebulous backup PG that need to be answered. We'll see what happens.</p>

</div></p>

Explain to me how having three allstars (or two superstars) in your team makes you an above-average team? I don't understand it. (I'm sure others don't either)</p>

The Celtics with only Paul Pierce were already somewhere in between average and above-average team. Remember, they won the divison on 05 (if I'm correct).</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

 

[Dumpy]

I will define "average" as between 38-43 wins, and "above average" as between 44-50 wins. You refer to a mythical Celtics team "with only Paul Pierce." There was no such team! The Celtics had 13 or 14 other players! Look, this is just my opinion, but while they have three terrific players, I personally believe that you need great players and depth to wn 50 or 55 or60 games. [You also need time to gel, which they haven't had yet.] If the Celtics are to win fifty something games, they will need to get contributions from more than three players. Maybe it'll happen, I don't know. I need to seee it first before I believe, though. The games aren't won on paper. </p>

 

[cpawfan]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>

Anyway, you seem pretty confident that it is inevitable that the Celtics will dominate the division. I disagree, but I see them as an above-average team. You could very well be right, but I'm not willing to cede the division to them. There will be growing pains; there will be days when Ray Allen or Pierce are hurt. There will be questions about Rondo and some nebulous backup PG that need to be answered. We'll see what happens.</p>

</div></p>

</p>

I never said they were going to dominate the division. My opinion is that they will take some time to gel and overcome their poor coaching. I won't be surprised if the Raptors win the division again, but the Celtics will do their damage in the playoffs and that is all that is really important.</p>

 

[Chutney]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'>Incidentally, if I remember correctly, if you go back a few months, you'll find that the general consensus was that the Celtics overpaid for Ray Allen. Once they acquired Garnett, though, there was a sudden revision of opinion.</div></p>

I think this had more to do with the direction of the team than what they actually gave up. That move had basically decided the fate of a team that was kind of stuck in between rebuilding and trying to contend now. The end result was a team that gave up one of their most coveted assets to contend for one of the last playoff spots. I don't think anyone believed they had enough left to deal for another superstar (basically, most of us forgot about McHale) and so it was generally looked upon as a questionable/stupid trade. If they had reversed positions though (KG was traded for first) I doubt the move would have been as heavily criticized.

I do agree with you on your general position though. The Atlantic title is hardly a guarantee for the Celtics, even if I think they're the favourites. Having watched the Raptors struggle for the first couple of months last season, I can tell you that it often takes a while to build great chemistry after such a significant turnaround (having a terrible coach doesn't help at all).</p>

 

[kdub]

Whoa, Big Baby.</p>

 

[CelticBalla32]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>

In order to keep my high opinion of you Dumpy, I'm going to pretend I never read this thread</p>

</div></p>

Why? You think that the other teams in the division are going to forfeit or something? You think the Celtics are going to win 60 games playing three on five? Clearly, their ultimate fate will be decided by the other 12 players on the club. They have three tremendous players (although one is a bit injury prone) and a supporting cast that is below average. The Lakers were more than Kobe and Shaq; the Spurs more than Duncan and Robinson; the Heat more than Wade and Shaq. Those teams all had supplemental parts that carried daggers in their waist. Do the Celtics? Maybe. Maybe not. To wit: Show me the money.</p>

p.s., how about that Bobby Jones?</p>

</div></p>

Which of the trio is "a bit injury prone" like you stated? Ray Allen has played in 790 out of a possible 870 games throughout his career, (90.8%). If you're referring to Ray Allen because of last season, calling him injury prone is ridiculous. He could have continued to play, but it was to the point where it was best to just rest the ankle and look forward to the following season, considering the fact that Seattle was going nowhere. He got minor surgery this past summer, removing bone spurs, which Al Jefferson also had two summers ago and came back to break out. Before last season, Pierce missed a total of 19 games from 1998-2006, and very well could have suited up for an extra 15 games or so had this team been competitive. Calling him injury prone is a joke, he's one of the NBA's real iron men. Kevin Garnett has missed 25 games in 12 years.</p>

Also, you knock on our supporting cast... look at LeBron's.</p>

As for a basis of discussion (the Celtics in general), I think that we'll be fine. We could use another center, and a solid veteran backup wouldn't hurt, but I think we're a deeper team than a lot of people think. Do we have three guys coming off the bench that are bonafide starters on other teams? No, not necessarily, but we have a group of veterans that fill roles. James Posey is one of the better defensive players in the entire league, can knock down the perimeter jumper, works very hard, and has championship experience. Eddie House is a dynamite shooter, and will help this team offensively off the bench. Spacing is everything. Tony Allen, if he can continue to build on what he has done in recently, is going to make a big impact as well. I'm not expecting anything more than sporadic flashes to begin the season, but if he can return to form (or pretty close to it) by playoff time, that's a HUGE boost for this team. A healthy Tony Allen is a terrific 6th man. Brian Scalabrine brings the hustle, the basketball IQ, the spacing, the shooting, the defense, and the positive attitude. Scot Pollard, if and when healthy, is a solid option to bang around for 10-12 minutes a night. Leon Powe and Glen Davis may be young, but they can play.</p>

Everybody on this roster is unselfish, willing to sacrafice for the betterment of the team, and has a positive attitude. Obviously, you can't expect a team that has been together for a little over a month to have San Antonio-like chemistry, but it is coming along much quicker than I expected. It will continue to build. Another thing is that this team plays defense. That's something I haven't been able to say about a Celtics team since 2003, and with the new attitude to go along with defensive guru Tom Thibodeau on the sidelines, things will come together. Already, you can tell that this team is drastically improved defensively from last year. Kevin Garnett alone changes everything, but the team defense has been excellent.</p>

Nothing is guaranteed, but this team will NOT go easily, and they will not go quietly. All we can do is sit back and enjoy the show. Time will tell, but there's no reason why this shouldn't work.</p>

</p>

 

[Dumpy]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>

Anyway, you seem pretty confident that it is inevitable that the Celtics will dominate the division. I disagree, but I see them as an above-average team. You could very well be right, but I'm not willing to cede the division to them. There will be growing pains; there will be days when Ray Allen or Pierce are hurt. There will be questions about Rondo and some nebulous backup PG that need to be answered. We'll see what happens.</p>

</div></p>

</p>

I never said they were going to dominate the division. My opinion is that they will take some time to gel and overcome their poor coaching. I won't be surprised if the Raptors win the division again, but the Celtics will do their damage in the playoffs and that is all that is really important.</p>

</div></p>

</p>

yes, that is my position also. I am solely considering the regular season in considering them "above average."</p>