49 replies to this topic

[dhellers]

Rondo's injury has reignited the idea of "blowing it up".  This  means trading just about any & every one (including Pierce/Garnett/Rondo) to obtain prospects and cap relief.

 

An important rationale for "blowing it up" is that it accelerates rebuilding a contender. Some say by up to 4 years: given the added picks from blowing it up, plus the better picks from being bad now (versus waiting two years to be bad).  This is controversial, others point out that this kind of strategy is far from guaranteed to succeed, and point out the Celtic 90's as evidence.

 

In addition to determining the probabilty that blowing it up works, there is an issue of entertainment value: blowing it up means you will have a bad team. Quite likely, an  unwatchable team.  Not blowing it up means you probably have a watchable team. Maybe very watchable, one that could suprise everyone with a gritty and deep run.

 

The two, contender building vs watchability, have to be balanced. That means one has to weight the value of championships, versus having a decent team.

 

In other words: is winning championships all that matters?  For example: would you trade 9 years of terrible  and 1 certain championship for 10 years of pretty good (say, with a 10% chance of one championship in the decade)?

 

If so, blowing it up makes more sense. If no, then waiting to see what you got, and erring on the side of keeping current players, is best.

 

Personally, over the last 40 years I have evolved from a "championships are all that matters" to "championships are great, but watchability matters too" (the 90's did that to me).   Note that Grande, in http://espn.go.com/e...ayer?id=8891371 argues similarly.

Edited by dhellers, 01 February 2013 - 12:14 PM.

[Brickowski]

In the real world its a few years of terrible, then a year or two of good (2007-08 Celtics were an exception but that was the biggest turnaround in NBA history), then a championship, then a few more years of pretty good, even if the team doesn't win another banner.

IMHO Championship Celtics teams are always watchable and there are plenty of post season games to watch.

[dhellers]

In the real world its a few years of terrible, then a year or two of good (2007-08 Celtics were an exception but that was the biggest turnaround in NBA history), then a championship, then a few more years of pretty good, even if the team doesn't win another banner.

IMHO Championship Celtics teams are always watchable and there are plenty of post season games to watch.

Jeez, I try to present a stark choice and you go all realistic on me!

[wutang112878]

This is controversial, others point out that this kind of strategy is far from guaranteed to succeed, and point out the Celtic 90's as evidence.

 

Can we please not link these two, I feel we have discussed this on this board many times, and there is a chorus of us who explain that the 90s sucked for because of horrible bad luck [Bias&Reggie] but mainly because they did not have a competent NBA GM for the entire decade.  The 90s Celtics are evidence that incompetent GMs can not rebuild teams, it is not evidence that blowing it up doesnt work.  Furthermore, its generally accepted that you can not prove a theory with just a shred of evidence.

 

 

In addition to determining the probabilty that blowing it up works, there is an issue of  entertainment value : blowing it up means you will have a bad team. Quite likely, an  unwatchable team.  Not blowing it up means you probably have a watchable team. Maybe very watchable, one that could suprise  everyone with a gritty and deep run.

 

The two, contender building vs watchability, have to be balanced.

 

There are a few implicit assumptions you made that are subjective and opinions. 

 

"Watchability" and "entertaining" is subjective.  The Antoine/Pierce throw up as many 3s as possible disgusting offense teams, made some playoff runs.  To me, they were completely unwatchable, because I knew they did not have a chance to win because their roster wasnt elite, to beat an elite team they were going to have to shoot 40% from 3 for a 7 game series and play amazing defense to win.  I cringed with every 3 they hit because I hated their style of play.  Whereas, I found the 06/07 very watchable and entertaining.  While they only had 24 wins, during the season you could see the potential in Rondo, the development of Perk, Big Al and Games, and it was clear we had something in Powe.  Realizing all that, and that Pierce was coming back the following year, and we were going to have a good pick, I was incredibly optimistic and loved watching that young nucleus begin to develop. 

 

Whereas, an uneducated basketball fan might fun the step back 3s that Antoine loved to shoot an absolute hoot to watch, and because of the wins begin to get emotionally invested in the team.  And that same person would look at the 06/07 team and think they were absolutely awful and see no hope in the short or long term for the team. 

 

So, what makes a team watchable is completely subjective.  Furthermore, balancing watchability vs building is an opinion.  Some owners and GMs are willing to accept peaks and valleys, and the fan interest that goes with that, while teams go through cyclical rebuild periods.  Some owners and GMs simply are not willing to do that, and do care about this balance you think they should strike.  What is important is that there is no mandate that these things must be balanced, its an opinion.  Wyc might think what is best is to keep this team 'interesting' until KG and PP retire, and in my opinion I think thats incredibly stupid.

 

 

In other words: is winning championships all that matters?  For example: would you trade 9 years of terrible  and 1 certain championship for 10 years of pretty good (say, with a 10% chance of one championship in the decade)?

 

This is a much more relevant question, assuming you want to win titles [and some franchises dont] what odds do you want to play?  When you play roulette do you put your money on 13 or do you bet on 1 - 12?  Personally, my opinion is that you should give yourself a window where your roster is truly championship caliber and accept that only during that window will you really have a chance, and accept the rebuilding cycles that are similar to business cycles.  Knowing the odds, and seeing the flaws that exist in a team with a 10% chance of winning a title, and knowing that this type of team [10% chance each year] is what the GM and owner want to put out there every season, would frustrate me to no end and disenchant me as a fan.  People have different opinions, desires and appetites for risk/reward scenarios, and I totally get that and can respect different opinions.  This is no different than 2 gamblers spending $10 a week on lottery tickets, one buying $2 scratch tickets [small upside] and the other who only buys powerball tickets [boom or bust], the chances against both are very bad and both just like to take different chances.

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

 

"Watchability" and "entertaining" is subjective.  The Antoine/Pierce throw up as many 3s as possible disgusting offense teams, made some playoff runs.  To me, they were completely unwatchable, because I knew they did not have a chance to win because their roster wasnt elite, to beat an elite team they were going to have to shoot 40% from 3 for a 7 game series and play amazing defense to win.  I cringed with every 3 they hit because I hated their style of play.  Whereas, I found the 06/07 very watchable and entertaining.  While they only had 24 wins, during the season you could see the potential in Rondo, the development of Perk, Big Al and Games, and it was clear we had something in Powe.  Realizing all that, and that Pierce was coming back the following year, and we were going to have a good pick, I was incredibly optimistic and loved watching that young nucleus begin to develop. 

 

This is where I'm at too.  I would rather watch a young team that loses a lot of games but has some serious potential than a mediocre team that might squeak into the playoffs but has little chance of winning a series and effectively zero chance of making a deep run.

 

Others might disagree, but I really think we have the latter kind of team on our hands at this point.  If we make the playoffs this year, it will be as a 7/8 seed and we are going to get pounded by Miami or Chicago.  Even before the injuries, we were a .500 team and I think its very unreasonable to expect us to be substantially better next year.  Pierce and KG are very, very likely to be worse players a year from now and the chances of one of them missing significant time with an injury next year are also high.  We may see some improvement from young guys but that's very unlikely to be enough to make a real difference.  I can see myself enjoying watching that team but it will be a last hurrah and my very strong guess is that it will a somewhat pathetic one. 

 

In my view, blowing it up (now or over the summer) will not only increase our chances of a championship over the next decade but actually make the team more watchable, if not in 2013-2014 then certainly in the years afterward.

Edited by Morgan's Magic Snowplow, 02 February 2013 - 03:53 PM.

[mcpickl]

 

This is a much more relevant question, assuming you want to win titles [and some franchises dont] what odds do you want to play?  When you play roulette do you put your money on 13 or do you bet on 1 - 12?  Personally, my opinion is that you should give yourself a window where your roster is truly championship caliber and accept that only during that window will you really have a chance, and accept the rebuilding cycles that are similar to business cycles.  Knowing the odds, and seeing the flaws that exist in a team with a 10% chance of winning a title, and knowing that this type of team [10% chance each year] is what the GM and owner want to put out there every season, would frustrate me to no end and disenchant me as a fan.  People have different opinions, desires and appetites for risk/reward scenarios, and I totally get that and can respect different opinions.  This is no different than 2 gamblers spending $10 a week on lottery tickets, one buying $2 scratch tickets [small upside] and the other who only buys powerball tickets [boom or bust], the chances against both are very bad and both just like to take different chances.

 

The line I've bolded is part of the trouble I see in the blow it up faction, in how greedy sports fans are.

 

You're saying you'd be frustrated and disenchanted with a team that has a 10% chance of winning a title. In a 30 team league, that's a fantastic percentage. There are probably only 3-4 teams every year with a 10% chance or better of winning the title. I'd sign up for that chance in a second. That's before even figuring in that the team would still be competitive and entertaining in years they don't hit on that 10% chance.

[ALiveH]

I wouldn't mind watching a terrible team that doesn't win a ton of games but has tons of young talent that is fun to watch develop and watch the chemistry of them develop as they play together (something like Durant's first year in OKC). Cause then, I would have hope for the future, and could imagine how that core could do great things together in the future.


What I do find depressing and tough to watch is a team full of older players who play well enough to have a winning record and something like a 6-8 seed of the playoffs that gets blown out in the first round with the full expectation that they won't be as good and will almost definitely be worse the next year.


In practical terms, and as it applies to the majority of fans, there is a real risk to revenues if ownership puts out a terrible team, but again there tends to be more fan interest when it is a young, interesting terrible team that at least supplies hope of a better future.


And, yes the goal is to win championships. If you play it perfect you can be like the Spurs or early Celtics and transition from one core to another. If you fail to do so, it seems like one has to sacrifice some short-term performance for some time to go in to young-asset-gathering mode to build another strong core.


It's not really realistic in my opinion to shoot for always being at around 10% chance of title. I would be happy with that too, but look at the Vegas odds - there are only 3 teams anywhere close to 10% - the vast majority are way higher or way lower. That's the way it shakes out in the NBA. And, I can guarantee that no team around 10% this year is going to be around 10% for any significant number of years - it's just not reality in the NBA.
http://www.vegasinsi...a/odds/futures/

Edited by ALiveH, 02 February 2013 - 11:10 PM.

[dhellers]

Can we please not link these two, I feel we have discussed this on this board many times, and there is a chorus of us who explain that the 90s sucked for because of horrible bad luck [Bias&Reggie] but mainly because they did not have a competent NBA GM for the entire decade.  The 90s Celtics are evidence that incompetent GMs can not rebuild teams, it is not evidence that blowing it up doesnt work.  Furthermore, its generally accepted that you can not prove a theory with just a shred of evidence.

 

 

My base assumption is that you can't get something for nothing. If one pursues a path that yields high returns (i.e.; maximize championships), it is sensible to assume  that the downside risk is also high (i.e.; having to restart the rebuild)

 

IOW:  You have a regrettable tendency to cherry pick. 

 

Are you really saying that a competently done blow it up style rebuild will be nice and smooth. That you have some way of guaranteeing competence   (did you know   in 1990 that Celtics management would become incompetent?).  More generally, since you find one example to be shredless, provide a properly drawn random sample of  blow-it-ups, and note their results (such as: failure leading to another blowup, okay teams that fizzle, or construcdtion of a contender). And please don't start with OKC 2007 and SAS 1997 and call it a day. 

 

BTW: a competent management that would do  a good job of minimzing the pain of a rebuild should also be able to maintain a watchable sub-champion team for a while.

 

What would I do with the current Celtics? I  like to watch this current version.  Let's see what they can accomplish during the remainder of the season. Give PP another year; seeing him retire as a Celtic would be positive thing (i.e.; worth forgoing a #15 draft pick).

 

And then in 2014:  a  core of a wizened Rondo, a fixed up Sullinger, a Green fulfilling his potential, a Bradley entering his prime, a Lee with a home,..... that's   not far fetched, and might present an attractive opportunity to free agents in 2014. Would Lebron be interested  (say, if the Heat collapse)? Would Kevin Love escape MN for this? Or  Anderson Varajeo, LaMarcus Aldridge, Marcin Gortat... 

 

If it just doesn't work and 2014 is a hopeless bust, rebuild then.

 

BTW: spare me the pipe dream accusations, I am not counting on Lebron becoming a Celtic. But a portfolio of dozen or so low probablity free-agent possiblities is not so different (in risk/reward terms) than a  portfolio of a several  draft-picks prospects

[ALiveH]

Boston has historically not been a NBA free agent destination (unless they drastically overpay). Having a 40-win supporting cast (which is what i'm guessing you'd have with that core) is not going to entice a missing-piece NBA superstar - that is wishful thinking.



If the current core has no shot with the caveat that I want to see what they can do until the trade deadline (and I'm willing to let Ainge be the judge of that b/c he has superior information to all of us), then it's not going to give me warm fuzzies to watch PP & KG hit career statistical milestones on Celtics teams with no shots while the rest of the young core gets older (which could cause the championship window for the next core to be a couple years shorter for 27 yr olds Rondo & JG) and we give up opportunities to add more young assets sooner.



It would give me far more happy feelings to watch young, interesting, talented Celtics teams get better and develop chemistry while PP & KG hit those same milestones somewhere else while winning more championships to cement their legacy.



Only 1 team out of 30 can win a championship any year. No method is a guarantee of success. All championships require some degree of GM luck & skill. The process is very rarely nice and smooth. Some of that judgment of GM skill is hindsight and subject to SSS, like drafting prowess, but even at the time they were happening any intelligent observer would know a priori that ML Carr and Pitino were making dumb moves. The ones I'll never forgive are trading away rookies Chauncy Billups and Joe Johnson from teams that were supposed to be gathering and developing young talent. The reverse is true of Ainge - we now know he is a skilled GM and have a large enough sample size to know that he drafts well even in mid to late 1st round where it is not easy to find quality NBA players.

Edited by ALiveH, 02 February 2013 - 11:28 PM.

[dhellers]

Boston has historically not been a NBA free agent destination (unless they drastically overpay). Having a 40-win supporting cast (which is what i'm guessing you'd have with that core) is not going to entice a missing-piece NBA superstar - that is wishful thinking.



 

KG came to a worse core.

[wutang112878]

The line I've bolded is part of the trouble I see in the blow it up faction, in how greedy sports fans are.

 

You're saying you'd be frustrated and disenchanted with a team that has a 10% chance of winning a title. In a 30 team league, that's a fantastic percentage. There are probably only 3-4 teams every year with a 10% chance or better of winning the title. I'd sign up for that chance in a second. That's before even figuring in that the team would still be competitive and entertaining in years they don't hit on that 10% chance.

 

If it was really a 10% chance every year, sure, but its virtually impossible to have a team with a 10% chance of winning every year for a decade, its impossible.  To win an NBA title, you basically have to win 55 regular season games, in the past 30 years only 3 teams [05/06 Heat, 03/04 Pistons and 94/95 Rockets] have won a title without 55 wins.  Hitting 55 wins doesnt mean you will win a title, but [and I dont have the numbers handy] I bet it gives you those 10% odds.  In today's NBA its impossible to win 55 games a year over and over.  Even stable well run organizations with elite, generational talent like the Lakers and Spurs have had down years.  The 10% chance every year for a decade just isnt realistic.  If you told me I could watch a 55 win team every year, then my answer would be sure.

 

 

 

My base assumption is that you can't get something for nothing. If one pursues a path that yields high returns (i.e.; maximize championships), it is sensible to assume  that the downside risk is also high (i.e.; having to restart the rebuild)

 

IOW:  You have a regrettable tendency to cherry pick. 

 

Are you really saying that a competently done blow it up style rebuild will be nice and smooth. That you have some way of guaranteeing competence   (did you know   in 1990 that Celtics management would become incompetent?).  More generally, since you find one example to be shredless, provide a properly drawn random sample of  blow-it-ups, and note their results (such as: failure leading to another blowup, okay teams that fizzle, or construcdtion of a contender). And please don't start with OKC 2007 and SAS 1997 and call it a day. 

 

 

It depends on how you define nice and smooth.  Could blow this up right now and win 40-44 games a year and rebuild in 5?  That is just not happening.  You have to get out of NBA purgatory, where you have enough talent that you arent awful and dont get high picks, but not enough talent to really have a chance at winning.  You dont want to be a 45 win team year after year, maybe uneducated fans might think you have a chance but you really have no chance and its truly impossible to get that elite piece you need to push you over the top.

 

I am not trying to evade your question on why a blowup will work, just listen to my logic for a second.  You suggested that you cant justify a blowup as rational because it didnt work in the 90s.  I explained the reasons the 90s were so bad, and pointed out that you can prove your hypothesis with 1 example or piece of evidence, thats fact.  My reasoning behind wanting a blowup is this: I want to maximize the number of championships won, I think this team is done and we will not win with this core, I think the fastest way to rebuild and return the team to a championship level is to blow it up and avoid NBA purgatory.  Getting back to the 'are blowups justified by the success rate', really its a pointless exercise.  We define success differently, you have an appetite for flawed, entertaining teams and I do not, so we are going to define success differently.  In my eyes, a blowup is nothing more than mercy killing, I dont want to pay $400 to fix my dryer if I can buy a new one for $500, at that point I say goodbye to my dryer and look to the next one, thats where I am with this team.  You still see value in the dryer, thats fine we just see basketball differently.

 

As for 'did I know if the Celts management would suck in 1990', I didnt know it with all of them.  I completely realize and accept that there is risk associated with a blow up, management is a piece of that.  I can tell you that Ainge has proven to be without a doubt the most competent GM we have had since Red, that doesnt mean that he will continue to be but I would much rather he navigate through a blowup than Chris Wallace or Pitino and I could have told you at the time of their hirings that both of them were incompetent. 

 

 

BTW: a competent management that would do  a good job of minimzing the pain of a rebuild should also be able to maintain a watchable sub-champion team for a while.

 

What would I do with the current Celtics? I  like to watch this current version.  Let's see what they can accomplish during the remainder of the season. Give PP another year; seeing him retire as a Celtic would be positive thing (i.e.; worth forgoing a #15 draft pick).

 

And then in 2014:  a  core of a wizened Rondo, a fixed up Sullinger, a Green fulfilling his potential, a Bradley entering his prime, a Lee with a home,..... that's   not far fetched, and might present an attractive opportunity to free agents in 2014. Would Lebron be interested  (say, if the Heat collapse)? Would Kevin Love escape MN for this? Or  Anderson Varajeo, LaMarcus Aldridge, Marcin Gortat... 

 

If it just doesn't work and 2014 is a hopeless bust, rebuild then.

 

BTW: spare me the pipe dream accusations, I am not counting on Lebron becoming a Celtic. But a portfolio of dozen or so low probablity free-agent possiblities is not so different (in risk/reward terms) than a  portfolio of a several  draft-picks prospects

 

 

What do you mean by smooth transition?  Like we keep KG and PP and win 45 games next year, have no shot to win, get embarrassed in the first round of the playoffs, repeat that the following year, and slowing gracefully morph into a 35 win team?  Completely your opinion, but I think thats an incompetent work by an NBA GM.  He should be working to expedite the process of bottoming out, to speed up the process of ascending.  Thats just my opinion on how things should be done.

 

Just trying to understand your opinion, but do you really give this team a chance to win a title?  Like do you think its a 10% chance or 5% chance?  Personally I think its 1% at this point, and as such I just dont like watching them.  I am assuming you find entertainment value in watching a team with a 5% chance play out those odds?

 

When you talk about the 2014 core, are you trying to win a title with that core?  We can debate if Rondo could be the best player on a team to win the title, but I would say its probably considered fact among NBA GMs that if he is your best player and you want to win a title, your #2 player better be the best or one of the best #2 talents in the league.  No one on the current roster under 30 has the potential to be that player.  Love and Aldridge are good, but I dont think the could the #2 guy on a team that wins a title, let alone with a #1 talent that shoudnt really be your #1.  When you mention Varaejo and Gortat, I have to ask nicely if you really know your basketball.  Neither one of them are really difference maker players, their hustle is great but they are not making a difference on a team with the Celts 2014 core, and both will be past their prime in 2014. 

 

KG came to a worse core.

 

This is way offbase.  He went to a team that won 24 games, but saw a promising young PG in Rondo, a quality young C in Perk, knew that Pierce was coming back healthy and what he could do, and we had just traded for Ray.  The core was a projection as it had proven nothing, but once it was put together the general consensus around the league was that it was a championship caliber roster.  Also remember that KG was not willing to come here before the trade for Ray Allen, he looked at that same exact core and said it didnt have a chance.

[dhellers]

 ..  

My scenario was a "watchable" team: say in first or 2nd round for 9 of the years, and in one year having a 10% shot. And comparing that to a team that is deep lottery for 9 years, but then winning it all in one year. It was an attempt to ascertain tradeoffs in  a stark way. Whatever.

 

Rather than re-re-commenting, I summarize some points:   

 

*    For a team really coming from and going to nowhere (2003 celtics) it makes perfect sense to tank/blow-it-up. For a team that has been good, and could be interesting (2012-13), it's not so simple.  That said, I would not turn down an obviously good deal (i.e.; Jason Terry  for Kawhi Leonard). I don't expect such deals (the days of Red playing chess vs everyone playing checkers are gone).

 

 * When KG game decided to sign with the celts in 2008, it was to a team with a matured Pierce, a coming-off-injury and past-prime-shooting-guard ray allen, a sort of dumb perkins, an interesting but non-all star Al J, and a bunch of "propspects" (rondo included). How is that not a  40 win team?  Maybe KG understood that his prescence (even without AL J etc) made them a 55+ win team with a shot (no one expected 66 and a championship in year 1). Maybe KG recognized that the Celtics understood something about loyalty (the ubuntu bs), and being a little bit of a loyal guy (he did stay in MN longer than expected), that helped convince him it was a reaonable gamble.

 

 * Assume my optimistic scenario (i.e.; Rondo older and wiser and not much slower, J Green plays better than a 10 million man, Sullinger fully recovers and continues to improve, ...). In Jan 2014, do you blow that up?

 

 *  Say you have that core in June 2014. Add a Gortat/varjeo like hustle  guy,   Add a scorer (ala Jamal Crawford rather than J Terry).   KG and PP  around in diminished roles (yikes, as of 6/12 KG is the highest earner in NBA history!), which  helps attract/discipline some young talent (ala Cousins). Is that worse than the 2003 Pistons? Or do you argue the the Pistons are a never-will-happen-again outlier?

 

 * suppose a well managed blow up   won't necessiarly  require a few resets, that the 90's celtics combo of bad luck and mismanagement is unlikely. Compared to a strategy of see what we got in June 2014: how many years do you reduce expected waiting time until the next championship? If it is one or so years, does that mean erring on the side of a enjoying the current team (say, until June 2014) is sign of a foolish or unserious fan?

Edited by dhellers, 03 February 2013 - 10:54 AM.

[mcpickl]

If it was really a 10% chance every year, sure, but its virtually impossible to have a team with a 10% chance of winning every year for a decade, its impossible.  To win an NBA title, you basically have to win 55 regular season games, in the past 30 years only 3 teams [05/06 Heat, 03/04 Pistons and 94/95 Rockets] have won a title without 55 wins.  Hitting 55 wins doesnt mean you will win a title, but [and I dont have the numbers handy] I bet it gives you those 10% odds.  In today's NBA its impossible to win 55 games a year over and over.  Even stable well run organizations with elite, generational talent like the Lakers and Spurs have had down years.  The 10% chance every year for a decade just isnt realistic.  If you told me I could watch a 55 win team every year, then my answer would be sure.

Of course it's impossible, just like it would be impossible to guarantee a title within ten years, but that's what the hypothetical was that you responded to.

 

I just responded to your answer of not wanting, and claiming you'd be frustrated by, a team that would have a 10% chance at a title every year.

 

That seemed crazy to me, and this post seems to indicate you've changed your mind.

[wutang112878]

 

- If you think the 2012-13 team is interesting at this point, that is where we disagree.  I dont see KG and PP giving up, but with the Rondo loss, and KG and PPs rapid age and loss of skill, I think our playoff exit is going to be embarrassing.  Based on that, this team to me isnt entertaining, and why I am willing to give up assets now in the hopes of getting assets that could be more valuable in the future.

 

- Onto the 2008 core team:  Perk was not dumb, he was still developing but his development was very obvious.  Same thing for Rondo.  They werent prospects in MLB terms of guessing what the guys production might be once he hits the majors, it was clear what they could do on a team without much talent, it was clear they had promising talent and the expectation was therefore if surrounded by more complimentary talent they should become better and help significantly.  Selling your franchise to a star when your team has 2 established NBA stars [granted Rays ankle was a little question mark there, but it was major surgery] and 2 young promising players, and saying 'thats a 40+ win core', is really different than trying to sell a 40 win franchise with little promising talent.  Stars look at a 3 year projection of a franchise and thats certainly a factor in their decision making process. 

 

- As for the expectations of that 2008 team, I think the general consensus was that they would need time to jell, while its probably excessive to say they were expected to win a title in 08/09/10, its fair to say that it would be considered a disappointment if they didnt win at least 1.  I remember the KG and Bill Russell interview where Russell told KG that he expected that he would win at least 2 or 3 titles with the Celts, thats probably a little optimistic but thats the general expectation for that core.

 

- The 2014 core with Rondo, Green, Sully and Bradley, yes I would probably blow that up.  There are purely on the court reasons you dont want to build around Rondo, we have talked about those before, the major questions are can he be your #1 guy and can he be great when not surrounded by great offensive talent given his offensive deficiencies.  Beyond that, there are some off the court reasons like his attitude, his reliance on speed, the fact he will be 29 when he wants a contract extension and how much value he would have to the franchise on a max contract when he is 30-35.  Beyond that, Green, Sully and Bradley have some talent, but they are close to hitting their NBA ceiling.  Its really unclear if Green will ever approach what we think his ceiling is, Sully will improve but his lack of length keep his ceiling somewhat low, and Bradley is a great defensive player but it doesnt look like he is every offensively going to be above average.  That core could keep you in NBA purgatory for a while.  I dont think you have to trade all of them, but I do think I would be very open to trade current assets for younger assets with great potential trades without a doubt.

 

- Then adding Gortat or Varejo, I think it lengthens your stay in NBA purgatory.  By 2014 both will have played their best basketball, if you pay them the MLE they are not going to have great trade value because of their productivity/salary projections for the near future.  Adding a veteran talent to a young core, if that veteran talent wont have great trade value, makes little sense to me.  It would be much more logical, IMO, to go after a young player who is improving and hasnt played their best basketball.  Signing these 'played their best basketball' hustling player types to add to a young core, is what got the franchise in trouble in giving Tony Battie an extension and the Mark Blount contract.  These non-significant talent additions make sense for contending teams who need to fix small problems on the roster, not on young teams that need a complete roster overhaul to contend.  Moving on to Crawford, he will also be in the played his best basketball category, just like Terry was when we signed him, Crawford is already 32.

 

- As for the Pistons, could it happen again, sure but the odds are against it.  We had 1 team with non-elite talent that won in like 30 years.  It seems foolish to me to build a team around that type of construction and think 'well I have a 2% chance of winning, so there is a chance'. 

 

- Getting to the logic behind a blowup, here is my logic, and here is a question that my highlight the difference in our approach.  Do you think you have to dip down and have a season or 2 of 30 or less wins to build yourself back up?  I am of the belief that unless you make an amazingly unlikely steal of a trade, or could acquire amazing talent in free agency or a sign and trade [which is unlikely in Boston, which isnt a climate destination attraction, without a great core already in place] then I think you have to dip down.  So if the dip down is inevitable, tearing the team down as opposed to letting it deteriorate saves you the difference in years it takes to tear it down vs deteriorate.  I see this team being in NBA purgatory for 2 years because they arent completely devoid of NBA talent that can play today, and while KG is here you have a hugely influential player who is going to push everyone on the roster to squeeze as many wins as possible out of the current talent.

 

- Saving those 2 years is justified in my mind for 2 reasons.  1 - any future asset value you get by tearing it down vs deterioration, helps in that it aids you in rebuilding.  2 - I do not find entertainment value in watching a team that I see as fundamentally flawed.  If you do see value in that, it doesnt mean you are uneducated, you might think this team has more of a chance that I do and I could certainly be wrong.  But if you think this team has a chance of winning that requires Lebron, Duncan, Durant, Rose and Kobe to tear ACLs, thats just something I dont want to root for.  Or if you find entertainment value in saying 'look this team has no chance, and I know it, but I enjoy watching them play', thats fine too.  Just explain to me why you enjoy the team, if its loving a flawed team, thats fine, if its 'they arent completely flawed' that could be ok too if we just fundamentally disagree on how flawed they are.  I just think think a fan is uneducated or not serious if they can look at this team and say 'they have a chance' and not clearly explain and make a valid case as to why they have a chance.

 

 

Sidenote, here, and this is partially why I am so critical of this team's chances.  KG is 8th all time in total minutes played, Pierce is 28th.  What they have done is beyond amazing, they have beaten incredible odds, but eventually father time always, always wins, and as months go by its pretty clear to me that this battle is shifting in father times way more and more.

Edited by wutang112878, 04 February 2013 - 12:06 PM.

[wutang112878]

Of course it's impossible, just like it would be impossible to guarantee a title within ten years, but that's what the hypothetical was that you responded to.

 

I just responded to your answer of not wanting, and claiming you'd be frustrated by, a team that would have a 10% chance at a title every year.

 

That seemed crazy to me, and this post seems to indicate you've changed your mind.

 

I'll take the criticism as a flopper here.  In my mind I didnt, but when I said 'I wouldnt sign up for that' the implied odds I had in my head, based on what I thought was realistic, was much less than the 10%, but I never explicitly said that.  So, I made my own bed looking like a flopper, my bad.

[dhellers]

Sidenote, here, and this is partially why I am so critical of this team's chances.  KG is 8th all time in total minutes played, Pierce is 28th.  What they have done is beyond amazing, they have beaten incredible odds, but eventually father time always, always wins, and as months go by its pretty clear to me that this battle is shifting in father times way more and more.

Lots of stuff to respond to -- so before I get to the quoted paragraph above...

 

Basically, simply maximizing # of championships is not my sole goal; the drought from ~1990 to ~2007 "cured" me of that preference (one I picked up circa 1966)

This is not to say that contending for championships isn't great. It just isn't everything.

Having a team that is "appropriatively" competitive (even if overmatched against the best) is a good thing, in and of itself.  Appropriate? An unselfish  team that plays with intent defence, ball movement, and contributions from everyone.  An equivalently successful team that wins with high flying spectable... that I would tire of.  

 

What else did I learn during the golden years? That "loyalty" mattered; that rooting for an evolving team is a lot of fun.  That is something I haven't been "cured" of! Seeing PP (and KG to a lesser extent) retire in Celtics green, or at least parting on decent terms (ala Bourque, or D Evans) is also worth something.  I am also quite curious as to what the current group can do -- especially since the way they are playing (albeit 4 games) is very "appropriate".

 

Of course, this isn't absolute. If the space gods could guarantee that a blow-it-up would yield OKC level of success (a true contender in 4 years).... geez, it would hurt to do it but I would go along.  But if these space gods reported that "maybe you cut 2 years off of a rebuild, but maybe we don't" --- then my predelection is to keep it together. 

 

Frankly, the blow it up prospects seem to me to be of the "maybe you cut two years" ilk. What of the "maybe you don't" possiblity? Let's consider the possible upside of keeping the current group together; with a hope of attracting a difference maker or two in  2 years (and that could be a #1 ala Garnet, but could also be a several superior parts with a goal of replicating Piston style success). 

 

 

* As much as I love Perkins work ethic and down home funniness, he was kind of a blockhead.  W/o Garnett's mentoring, is Perkins ever much better than Turiaf?  And Rondo's development was not a shock, but it wasn't something you could count on.    

    BTW: is Perkins to the Thunder a rare example of the "what happened when the guy moved from MN to ND -- the average IQ in both states went up"?

* Ray Allen was NOT a certain prospect -- drat, can't find the article -- he himself sez he was hobbled the first half of 2008.

 

Thus, a well-playing team of Pierce-Bradley-Sullinger-Green, with decent pieces ala Lee/Wilcox -- is that  a team with "less promising talent" than the team KG went to? That's not at all obvious.

 

Yes, this assumes a "well-playing team". But while probably less than 50% chance, it isn't far fetched. Green has shown he can be very produtcive: I would speculate that deep down inside he knew his "heart wasn't in it" (I have a Ralph Sampson story that is relevant); and with his surgery perhaps he can now  rise above the tenativeness that keeps him mediocre. Bradley was a relevation in March 2012, he was scoring consistently from everywhere (and he was known as a high school scorer). I expect that to return.  Rondo is a smart SOB, one who had the mixed blessiong of being surrounded by 3 HOFers in his formative years.  It might be hard from him to transition to a new role, but it should be possible. And maybe Sullinger's surgery will be a long term fix, allowing him to be a very solid contributor (is Paul Silas an unreasonable comp?)

 

It also is worth speculating about Boston's advantages. As much as I love the SMSA (been living in DC for 20 years, but it still isn't home), it's not everyone's cup o tea; what with cold winters, highish taxes, and not the greatest race relations history. However, the Celtics do have a "tradition" that is second to none. There may be players to whom that signals something important -- players like Garnett. Cultivating that, by erring on the side of "loyalty", may reap benefits down the road (it might be a deciding factor that brings a future Garnett to the celtics)

 

There does remain your last paragraph: injuries. Can Bradley/Sullinger/Rondo really recover and reach the peaks I speculate?  How soon until Garnett cripples himself with an endemic groin/hamstring pull? Or Pierce finally wears his knee into true decrepitude. Am I whistling past the graveyard by not seriously factoring this in?

 

Hmm, I can't completely deny that. But it's not a hell of a lot more likely than a Greg Oden or  Brandon Jennings (and maybe John Wall or Andrew Bogut) quality prospect whose physical frailities prevent them from reaching "projections"

Edited by dhellers, 04 February 2013 - 01:35 PM.

[wutang112878]

- "Having a team that is "appropriatively" competitive (even if overmatched against the best) is a good thing, in and of itself.  Appropriate?"  - I mentioned this before, its a matter of opinion.  Personally, I dont enjoy watching a 42 win team with no chance to win in the playoffs when its clear the plan of the organization is to keep assembling a flawed low 40 win team for years.  Your opinion to enjoy that has to be respected, we just cant make a blanket statement that this approach is what all fans want.  That said, if you told me 'Wyc wants 3 years of a 42 win team, to generate additional profit and that money is going to be re-invested in the team and will pay for higher payroll and luxury tax bills that the franchise otherwise wouldnt take on if we didnt have these three 42 win seasons', then while I wouldnt like that I could get behind it just like you wouldnt like but would get behind blowing it up in some scenarios.  Unfortunately, Wyc & team is never going to come out and say 'we know we have no chance, but we are going to continue this for a while to make some money', so we will never know if this is part of the plan.

 

Here is where we have a huge difference of opinion:
 

Frankly, the blow it up prospects seem to me to be of the "maybe you cut two years" ilk. What of the "maybe you don't" possiblity? Let's consider the possible upside of keeping the current group together; with a hope of attracting a difference maker or two in  2 years (and that could be a #1 ala Garnet, but could also be a several superior parts with a goal of replicating Piston style success).

 

 

My opinion is that what this team can do is eventually have an embarrassing exist in the playoffs, and because of NBA purgatory with this current talent base we cant get a difference maker without giving up so much talent on the roster that we will be right back to where we started.  We need a #2 or #1 superstar to bring the franchise back, Rondo would be the only chip that might be able to get us that, and every year further into the future we go we have to assume that KG and PP will continue to slow down and we have to add talent to compensate for that as well.  My opinion is this team is an old house that needs to be torn down, adding support beams is just going to delay it falling down.  Thats why I dont see the upside, but we can agree to disagree.

 

Just dont let the 90s scar you, and I totally get being scarred by that.  But pre-90s, when the Celts needed to be rebuilt, because of the amazing job Red generally did, the attitude was 'well, we will just build another championship caliber team'.  As fans we were patient and didnt try to hold onto to hope that a team could pull off a minor miracle and win another one, instead we just started looking toward that next championship team.  Danny isnt Red, but IMO he is so much better than most of these incompetent GMs that run most of the NBA teams today.  I cant say 'he will build one in 3 years', and I wont claim there will not be bumps in the road and some downturns, but I am confident enough to say that I trust Danny to build another one.

 

* As much as I love Perkins work ethic and down home funniness, he was kind of a blockhead.  W/o Garnett's mentoring, is Perkins ever much better than Turiaf?  And Rondo's development was not a shock, but it wasn't something you could count on.    

    BTW: is Perkins to the Thunder a rare example of the "what happened when the guy moved from MN to ND -- the average IQ in both states went up"?

 

Are you sure you arent thinking of Big Al as the blockhead?  Al was the one that didnt get his ankles taped, and never understood or hustled enough to play defense.  Perk was always limited as a player, but it was clear in 07 that he was developing into a solid defensive center.  And disagree to what happened when he moved to OKC, physically he has lost it as a player, it has very little to do with his IQ
 

 

* Ray Allen was NOT a certain prospect -- drat, can't find the article -- he himself sez he was hobbled the first half of 2008.

 

There was uncertainty, but it was around 'can a guy in his mid 30s come back from ankle spur surgery', that surgery isnt super serious, it was only significant because of his age.  Ray the player when healthy was never a question.  The risk associated with 'can this guy blossom into a star' is much greater in comparison to this risk with Ray.

 

Thus, a well-playing team of Pierce-Bradley-Sullinger-Green, with decent pieces ala Lee/Wilcox -- is that  a team with "less promising talent" than the team KG went to? That's not at all obvious.

 

Might have to agree to disagree here, but PP is playing one of his last few years of basketball, his career is almost over.  Lee is average at best.  Wilcox chews up minutes.  The cupboard is pretty bare here.  They can look good in spurts, but talent wise with age and free agency, our talent pool is going to decrease in future years, its deteriorating, and we dont have the assets and ability to add enough talent to address that.  And trust me, free agents, guys on the trading block and their agents can see that and plan accordingly.

 

As for Green, no one on this board, and hardly anyone around the league has hope for Green to emerge into anything. Can you find one stat, or trend or anything that indicates that 'if put in X position, Green will succeed', trust me I want the guy to succeed but I just dont see it.  And we need evidence beyond 'he needs a big play' because I will say it again, if a guy cant be mentally strong and into the game enough by himself to give 100% effort and intensity to get the most out of himself without a big play, then he isnt going to be a player for you.  I have a feeling Red wouldnt have much patience with Green at this point for those exact reasons.

 

However, the Celtics do have a "tradition" that is second to none. There may be players to whom that signals something important -- players like Garnett.

 

 

Dont buy into what guys say when they get here, because then they all say the right thing, but think about what they say and do before they get here.  I am not going to claim this isnt a factor for anyone, but its a very small factor to a very small number of players in the league.  KG is a great example, the Celts tradition and pride was exactly the same before the Ray Allen trade and KG would not come here, and his attitude changed after we got Ray.  Stuff like that matters more to a prideful guy like KG than probably any other player in the league, and he was ultimately attracted to the opportunity to win, not the pride.  And I would argue only 10% of players in the league really care about this.
 

 

How soon until Garnett cripples himself with an endemic groin/hamstring pull? Or Pierce finally wears his knee into true decrepitude. Am I whistling past the graveyard by not seriously factoring this in?

 

Hmm, I can't completely deny that. But it's not a hell of a lot more likely than a Greg Oden or  Brandon Jennings (and maybe John Wall or Andrew Bogut) quality prospect whose physical frailities prevent them from reaching "projections"

 

 

We are really, really close to the end of KG and PP, they dont have years left they have months.  Their injury history has been amazing, but its getting close to curtain time.  This is exactly why I dont think the team can rely on them for that much for even next year, if they want to compete they should plan to have them as part time players and we simply cant add enough talent to compensate for that.  Its exactly why we would be suspect of a team relying on Oden or Bogut to play major roles.  However, that doesnt mean that the injury risk is the same with all players and prospects.  You cant be optimistic about Sully's chances of a comeback after he has major back surgery, because he is a Celtic and then point out that there is significant injury risk with everyone, Sully is probably one of the players with the highest injury risk in the league right now.  This is why sometimes I think you are looking at this stuff with Celtics green glasses on and not completely completely objective about the situation.

[Brickowski]

Wutang, you say "As for Green, no one on this board, and hardly anyone around the league has hope for Green to emerge into anything."  Until a week ago, I would have agreed with that statement completely.  Now I'm not so sure.  Maybe I'm the only one who sees hope for Green, but they wouldn't be 4-0 in their last four games without him.

[dhellers]

We are really, really close to the end of KG and PP, they dont have years left they have months.  Their injury history has been amazing, but its getting close to curtain time.  This is exactly why I dont think the team can rely on them for that much for even next year, if they want to compete they should plan to have them as part time players and we simply cant add enough talent to compensate for that.  Its exactly why we would be suspect of a team relying on Oden or Bogut to play major roles.  However, that doesnt mean that the injury risk is the same with all players and prospects.  You cant be optimistic about Sully's chances of a comeback after he has major back surgery, because he is a Celtic and then point out that there is significant injury risk with everyone, Sully is probably one of the players with the highest injury risk in the league right now.  This is why sometimes I think you are looking at this stuff with Celtics green glasses on and not completely completely objective about the situation.

Jennings/Oden/etc etc were prospects whose frailities wrecked their "projections".  They are examples of the risks of a blow-it-up-for-prospect strategy. In particular, they are the equivalent to the "risk of  KG/PP imploding due to age.

 

The bigger point is weighting risk and reward.  I think the blow-it-uppers forget how often it doesn't work; with the 90's celtics a classic example (but FAR FROM unique example, lving in DC the Wizards immediatlely come to mind). I also think the "championships are all that matter" mindset is kind of spoiled -- I have enjoyed all of the last 5 years, even though in only 2 (maybe 3) of them were the Celts true contenders. For example: knowing what you know now, would you go back to Jan 2012 and push the reset button, and thereby forgoe the embarrasment of losing to Miami in game 7?  Lastly, I am interested in this current batch, for reasons of "loyalty", they seem to be playing in a aesthetically pleasing (from a RussellianCeltic POV) fahsion, and I figure PP and KG have earned the right to give it a try. 

 

Maybe it doesn't work: if time reveals they are truely a  solidly mediocre 41 win team (say, vs a 52 win team with the ability to beat anyone), it would make blow-it-up more attractive (in a risk/reward tradeoff sense). 

 

But we aren't there yet. We have time to find out. A worse case is we find out in March that this really is a blah team, in which case take aciton in the summer. Alternatively, if it turns out to be an interesting team (2-3 rounds deep in the playoffs without being blown out), in which case giving it another year is appealing, for the same reasons as listed above, AND since it  is not impossible that a "reload" (rather than a rebuild) can be done.

 

I realize that's probably exactly what you are afraid of: losing 1.5 years chasing an illusion. Obviously, that's not how I feel about it.

 

WTF, a Ralph Sampson story that may be germane to Green:  I was at the old Garden in the 80s (1986 if the link below is true) vs Houston. Ralph Sampson was absoutely unstoppable. He made Kevin McHale (the one before he ruined his ankles) look small. And then, he hits the ground and DOES NOT MOVE for minutes. Out he goes on a stretcher.  Later, in the hospital, he recovers movement.  After that, I understood why Sampson seemed to play "small", why he never lived up to his capabilites. Would you play hard if the consquences of a misstep is paralysis?

 

Maybe J Green knew, in some unconsious level, that his heart was limited. Maybe he is starting to know, in a similar fashion, that these limits are not so bad. 

 

http://news.google.c...pg=4018,3137573

Edited by dhellers, 04 February 2013 - 05:26 PM.

[cumicon]

I think you put too much weight into thinking how often blowing it up doesn't work.  Its been established that it is nearly impossible to win an NBA championship without having found great talent in the draft.  Blowing it up / tanking gives you the greatest chance of landing elite talents.  If you get stuck drafting in the 10-20 range year after year, its going to be near impossible to put together a contender.  Blowing it up doesn't guarantee anything, but it does give you the greatest chance of turning into a legitimate contender.  A mediocre team drafting in the 10-20 range every year is going to have a really hard time becoming a contender.

 

I also believe teams are just bad at blowing it up.  They don't have a good plan in place, and lets face it, it is hard to sell tickets when your team is bad.  

[dolomite133]

This conversation has become needlessly complex. Really, among Celtics fans, doesn't it (sort of) boild down to a simple question: "What would Red say?"

 

He'd probably say it's about winning championships. By any means necessary. Then eat some Chinese food.

Edited by dolomite133, 04 February 2013 - 09:34 PM.

[dhellers]

This conversation has become needlessly complex. Really, among Celtics fans, doesn't it (sort of) boild down to a simple question: "What would Red say?"

 

He'd probably say it's about winning championships. By any means necessary. Then eat some Chinese food.

I don't know that. He would of said "be the instigator", but that's not the same

 

Here is what I know. I was born with the entitlement of the 60's (the Celtics yin to the Red Sox Yang), kind of drifted through the Cowans era, and was all in during the 80s.  "Nothing but a championship" was, of course, the mantra.  But the 20 years after 1986, incorporating more than one several year stretch of futility, left me appreciating the benefits of a decent team .

 

Another point: what's the average return, in best record after 5 or so years, from blowing it up? I expect it is worse than what the Celtics are now. So what's the hurry?

 

Addendum: on further thought, the evidence of the late 80's suggest that Red would NOT be quick to win championships by any means necessary (despite young Jedi Danny's provocations)

Edited by dhellers, 05 February 2013 - 01:29 AM.

[dolomite133]

I don't know that. He would of said "be the instigator", but that's not the same

 

Here is what I know. I was born with the entitlement of the 60's (the Celtics yin to the Red Sox Yang), kind of drifted through the Cowans era, and was all in during the 80s.  "Nothing but a championship" was, of course, the mantra.  But the 20 years after 1986, incorporating more than one several year stretch of futility, left me appreciating the benefits of a decent team .

 

Another point: what's the average return, in best record after 5 or so years, from blowing it up? I expect it is worse than what the Celtics are now. So what's the hurry?

I'm neither saying blow it up nor stand pat. I'm just saying teams -- all teams in every sport -- should be making moves to win. It's neither about hurrying nor working at a leisurely pace. It's about taking stock of your roster, assessing potential, scouting talent, gauging the opposition and aggressively acting to make improvements and address shortcomings whenever possible. (All of this, of course, is from an idealistic point of view that doesn't consider business needs and priorities).

 

And for those who want to split hairs between "blow it up," "tank the season" and "simply suck due to lack of talent," the fact remains that most (note I said most, not all) championship teams are built up from the ashes of terrible squads and humiliating failure. So, when someone poses the question "to rebuild or not rebuild," or maybe "to tinker or not tinker," what they're really asking is "have you given up on this team's championship potential, as currently constituted, or not?"

[wutang112878]

 

 

 

First off, lets agree to disagree on when to blow it up, the risk associated with blowing it up and the chances of this team.  We fundamentally disagree on all of these and are getting nowhere fast.  I promise this isnt a lead in question, but maybe it could give us some common ground.  Would you agree that Danny is significantly better GM than ML Carr, Pitino and Chris Wallace?  And if yes, then with this go around the rebuild, whenever we decide to do it, is going to be in much more able, competent hands?

 

As for Green specifically, I should have been more clear, to be convinced that he still has potential I need a basketball reason, not a psychological reason.  I realize thats a factor to get players to play at their best, but every single player in the league has mental hurdles they have to overcome, Green has mental hurdles and basketball hurdles to overcome as well.  So I really need some basketball reason to have hope, like 'look at his +/- when playing with the starters', 'look at his 3pt shooting when playing the 4', 'when he gets 25+ minutes his FG% improves dramatically', some statistical clue that would give someone hope that Green still has potential.

 

 

 

Jennings/Oden/etc etc were prospects whose frailities wrecked their "projections".  They are examples of the risks of a blow-it-up-for-prospect strategy. In particular, they are the equivalent to the "risk of  KG/PP imploding due to age.

 

First off, KG and PP might not 'implode' but their effectiveness is slipping very quickly, look at KGs rebound % the past 3 years 17.5, 15.6, 14.4, his offensive rating 110, 106, 104 [league average this year is 105.3] and PP the last 3: 116, 106, 103.  There really isnt risk of them degrading as players, its happening.

 

Now, I think your assessment of risk with young players and prospects is inconsistent, and seems to always support your larger point.  On one hand you say you point to the risks with Jennings and Odom, and you recognize there are risks with young players who appear to have potential.  Then you assess the young players on the Celts roster and are optimistic with all of them:

 

And then in 2014:  a  core of a wizened Rondo, a fixed up Sullinger, a Green fulfilling his potential, a Bradley entering his prime, a Lee with a home,..... that's   not far fetched, and might present an attractive opportunity to free agents in 2014.

 

Based on what we have seen on draft night  and to present day, Sully is entering frailty wrecking his projection territory.  Green's recent medical history is similar, and when healthy he has never proved to be above average.  Bradley has significant flaws in his game that will be exploited badly when playing with less talent around him.  I really think your assessment of our youth is overly optimistic.

 

 

A worse case is we find out in March that this really is a blah team, in which case take aciton in the summer. Alternatively, if it turns out to be an interesting team (2-3 rounds deep in the playoffs without being blown out), in which case giving it another year is appealing, for the same reasons as listed above, AND since it  is not impossible that a "reload" (rather than a rebuild) can be done.

 

Not sure what you mean by this but its really not possible. 

- Do you mean reload and add to the talent pool and make another run?  Lets assume this years team 100% healthy really had a chance, next year Rondo will be coming off of ACL surgery, KG and PP will be older, so your 3 best players will not be as good as they were at the start of this year.  Beyond these 3 players no one on this team has great trade value to get you a real difference maker.  The only FA signing we can make is the MLE, and that might not even get us an impact guy, just like Terry isnt an impact guy, and Lee [MLE salary level] wasnt an impact guy.  Without an impact addition, the loss in production from KG, PP and Rondo will make the team worse. 

 

- Or do you mean reload while winning around 40+ a year and flipping the roster around to a new batch of superstars?  I have said this before but the only teams that did a reload and didnt bottom out recently have been LA and the Spurs.  The Spurs had Duncan and are simply amazing at drafting.  LA had Kobe and got to steal Gasol.  I wont get into how lucky and skillful those teams were to rebuild their talent base like that, but Rondo would be your player to bridge to the next team and he is not, 100% is not, on the level of Kobe or Duncan.  Reload on the fly is not possible in today's NBA

[dhellers]

I'm neither saying blow it up nor stand pat. I'm just saying teams -- all teams in every sport -- should be making moves to win.  ....

 So, when someone poses the question "to rebuild or not rebuild," or maybe "to tinker or not tinker," what they're really asking is "have you given up on this team's championship potential, as currently constituted, or not?"

It is almost amusing.  I pose the question directly, re iterate it in several ways, note that there can be value in a broad set of outcomes ...  and a slew o respondents just assume that "championship potential" is all that matters. 

 

Perhaps that is the answer: a lot of people (or people bothering to respond) really only care about championships. They would prefer 9 years of suckitude and 1 championship; rather than 10 years of  appearing in the  playoffs with a 10% chance of winning it all  any given year (i.e.; over the course of a decade, each scenario has the same expected probabiltity of winning it all)

 

For example:

Celtics from 1995 to 2001, insert 2008, and revert to 2006 and 2006  (i.e.; skip over the 2001-2005 playoff appearances, and revert to suckitude immediately after the banner is raised and the GFIN vets disappear)

     vs

Utah Jazz 1990-2000

 

BTW: to make the thought experiment fair, you have to "forget" that the Jazz never won; and  assume a complete reset after a decade.

Edited by dhellers, 04 February 2013 - 11:31 PM.

[wutang112878]

Wutang, you say "As for Green, no one on this board, and hardly anyone around the league has hope for Green to emerge into anything."  Until a week ago, I would have agreed with that statement completely.  Now I'm not so sure.  Maybe I'm the only one who sees hope for Green, but they wouldn't be 4-0 in their last four games without him.

 

Let me get this straight, these 4 games where he averaged 13.5 points, < 3 rebounds per, and 2.5 turnovers really gave you hope?  If they were gaudy numbers ok, but he basically played at his career average [except he was better in FG%] in every category for 4 games.  Personally, I need a month of 15+ PPG with an above average offensive rating before I am going to become the smallest bit optimistic.

[dolomite133]

It is almost amusing.  I pose the question directly, re iterate it in several ways, note that there can be value in a broad set of outcomes ...  and a slew o respondents just assume that "championship potential" is all that matters. 

 

Perhaps that is the answer: a lot of people (or people bothering to respond) really only care about championships. They would prefer 9 years of suckitude and 1 championship; rather than 10 years of  appearing in the  playoffs with a 10% chance of winning it all  any given year (i.e.; over the course of a decade, each scenario has the same expected probabiltity of winning it all)

 

For example:

Celtics from 1995 to 2001, insert 2008, and revert to 2006 and 2006  (i.e.; skip over the 2001-2005 playoff appearances, and revert to suckitude immediately after the banner is raised and the GFIN vets disappear)

     vs

Utah Jazz 1990-2000

 

BTW: to make the thought experiment fair, you have to "forget" that the Jazz never won; and  assume a complete reset after a decade.

We get it. You prefer to be entertained. You could care less about the destination, it's about the journey. OK, that's fine. But to pretend you occupy some sort of intellectual high ground for taking that point of view, well, who cares? Why has this become a central point of contention here. You'd rather be friends with a girl for 10 years and never get laid. Figuratively, not literally. Got it. And you know what, that's fine, I take no issue with your world view. It doesn't really matter to me either way. In the context of professional basketball I, and others here, simply disagree. Those who disagree with you simply do NOT prefer a certain level of comfort for an extended period of time, and are completely at ease with a feast or famine, take a gamble approach to team building. We'll take a title once every 10 years and wear our championship T-shirts until they are faded and worn through while Hawks fans watch yet another low seed playoff team flame out. We appreciate a couple of years when tickets are cheap and scalpers sell for below market value. It's OK. Really, it is. Because sports is a series of ups and downs, thrills and spills, love and heartbreak and nothing lasts forever so take what you can, while you can.

[dhellers]

We get it. You prefer to be entertained. You could care less about the destination, it's about the journey. OK, that's fine. But to pretend you occupy some sort of intellectual high ground for taking that point of view, well, who cares? Why has this become a central point of contention here. You'd rather be friends with a girl for 10 years and never get laid. Figuratively, not literally. Got it. And you know what, that's fine, I take no issue with your world view. It doesn't really matter to me either way. In the context of professional basketball I, and others here, simply disagree. Those who disagree with you simply do NOT prefer a certain level of comfort for an extended period of time, and are completely at ease with a feast or famine, take a gamble approach to team building. We'll take a title once every 10 years and wear our championship T-shirts until they are faded and worn through while Hawks fans watch yet another low seed playoff team flame out. We appreciate a couple of years when tickets are cheap and scalpers sell for below market value. It's OK. Really, it is. Because sports is a series of ups and downs, thrills and spills, love and heartbreak and nothing lasts forever so take what you can, while you can.

It is telling that you need to cherry pick your tales. The experiment isn't "feast or famine", its "lots of famine and then a feast", It isn't "the journey", its "low to middling probablity of success, but no guarantee".    Of course, a few years of famine followed by many years of feast is awesome, but that's not the choice -- the control is to have the same  long term average probability of winning, but  modify the variance (you do understand that much statistics?)

 

PS: I suppose I owe Dolomite an apology, I just read his tagline.

 

I am belaboring this  because of the tendency of the blow it uppers to be all or nothing in their analysis.  "You" seem to be averse to acknowledging that the odds of success really do matter; that 20% is NOT the same as 0%, and 51% is NOT the same as 100%. 

 

Now, if ALL THAT MATTERS is expected number of championships, that might be a reasonable approximation: in the sense that such a strategy would arguably succeed more often than a  strategy of err-on-the-side-of-working-with-what-you-have. Which is not the same as saying blow-it-up would always work better.

 

That is:  the  pose of "the manly thing is to take your chances and gamble" reeks of the juvenille.

 

Or, to be less antagonistic: at what point does the length of suckitude matter? One championship every 30 years and 29 years of yuck,  vs a 3% chance of winning once in 30 years? How about one every 86 years?

Edited by dhellers, 05 February 2013 - 01:05 AM.

[dhellers]

 

 

 

First off, lets agree to disagree on when to blow it up, the risk associated with blowing it up and the chances of this team

Per usual, too much to quote (I need to figure out how to do "in line" quotes).  So a few notes:

 

First: you tend to ascribe certainies to me that I do not intend.  The question is approximate measures of probability of a variety of outcomes given different strategies, and then deciding which probablity/outcome set is preferable.   In the context of this thread, the notion is that a choice of strategy depends on what you think the probabilities will be (of each outcome in each set), AND on how much you value each outcome. If the only outcome of any value is "win a championship", then the only probability that matters is what yields the shortest waiting time until the next championship. And that's true even if this probabilty is only slightly greater in the chosen strategy, and all other probabilities (say, the chance of making the ECF) are much worse.

 

As for your lead question: yes, current management is more competent (though to give MLCarr his due, he did effectively keep the Celtics on the downside of purgatory). However, that's a two way street, it also means they are likely to be creative in managing a rebuild strategy (i.e.; inducing a Garnett to join  a "40 win type of team"). It also indicates they see Green as a valuable prospect  (why else sign him to $!0mill/year?). Which leads me to consider that the anecdotal evidence of the last few days is not purely a run of +epsilons.

Edited by dhellers, 05 February 2013 - 01:37 AM.

[wutang112878]

It is telling that you need to cherry pick your tales. The experiment isn't "feast or famine", its "lots of famine and then a feast", It isn't "the journey", its "low to middling probablity of success, but no guarantee".    Of course, a few years of famine followed by many years of feast is awesome, but that's not the choice -- the control is to have the same  long term average probability of winning, but  modify the variance (you do understand that much statistics?)

 

 

This wreaks of 'I am smarter than you', there is no need to write like an unfocused philosopher.  Stick to the issues and people will respect your opinions even if they have fundamentally different beliefs.  Writing these vague nothing sentences adds no value to a discussion.

 

Stop trying to jam other peoples beliefs into your mathematical probability model.  We do not have the same assumptions that you do, we have clearly communicated that to you. 

 

 

That is:  the  pose of "the manly thing is to take your chances and gamble" reeks of the juvenille.

 

 

In the discussions we have had I havent called you juvenile even though most of your posts need to be run through spell check.  I also nicely explained our rationale behind taking risk, and how one of the best GMs in basketball history, Jerry West, was a big believer in taking risks, and how the vast majority of teams that won a title did so by taking huge risks.  Calling risk taking juvenile is really indicative of a lack of understanding of team construction in today's NBA. 

 

Having different opinions is ok, it can spark great conversation and debate.  However, being disrespectful and engaging in name calling because someone doesnt have your point of view is utterly ridiculous.

[wutang112878]

Per usual, too much to quote (I need to figure out how to do "in line" quotes).  So a few notes:

 

First: you tend to ascribe certainies to me that I do not intend.  The question is approximate measures of probability of a variety of outcomes given different strategies, and then deciding which probablity/outcome set is preferable.   In the context of this thread, the notion is that a choice of strategy depends on what you think the probabilities will be (of each outcome in each set), AND on how much you value each outcome. If the only outcome of any value is "win a championship", then the only probability that matters is what yields the shortest waiting time until the next championship. And that's true even if this probabilty is only slightly greater in the chosen strategy, and all other probabilities (say, the chance of making the ECF) are much worse.

 

The bolded is why our discussion is pointless.  I am titles or bust, you are not, so your preferences are fundamentally different.  In terms of probability of a title, you think this team has a shot, I think it has none.  Therefore we are never going to agree.

 

 

 

As for your lead question: yes, current management is more competent (though to give MLCarr his due, he did effectively keep the Celtics on the downside of purgatory). However, that's a two way street, it also means they are likely to be creative in managing a rebuild strategy (i.e.; inducing a Garnett to join  a "40 win type of team"). It also indicates they see Green as a valuable prospect  (why else sign him to $!0mill/year?). Which leads me to consider that the anecdotal evidence of the last few days is not purely a run of +epsilons.

 

Green was signed to that deal because Danny had no choice.  Danny was in reload mode, trying to add talent to the roster to compete right now.  If he didnt sign Green, he could not sign a FA for $10M, we did not have cap space, but he could go over the cap to retain Green because he had Bird rights.  His options were Green and whatever contract offer he and his agent would accept, or nothing.  This gave Green and his agent leverage, and Green got a deal that he did not deserve.  This exact same thing happened with Bass and is why he got his deal.  Salary does not indicate a player is a prospect, and this deal doesnt indicate that Danny is losing it either, he just had no leverage and was trying to add as much talent as possible.

 

We could save a lot of time if you didnt respond with vague, riddle writing.  By +epsilons I am assuming you mean the last few days has significant statistical value.  Let me add some perspective to this 5% of the season sample size.  All 4 games were at home.  None of the games were back to backs.  The Heat win was a quality one, but the Clippers were playing without their best player in CP3, and Sacramento and Orlando are 2 of the worst teams in the league.  I wouldnt get too excited about the results just yet.

[dhellers]

This wreaks of 'I am smarter than you', there is no need to write like an unfocused philosopher.  Stick to the issues and people will respect your opinions even if they have fundamentally different beliefs.  Writing these vague nothing sentences adds no value to a discussion.

 

Stop trying to jam other peoples beliefs into your mathematical probability model.  We do not have the same assumptions that you do, we have clearly communicated that to you. 

 

In the discussions we have had I havent called you juvenile even though most of your posts need to be run through spell check.  I also nicely explained our rationale behind taking risk, and how one of the best GMs in basketball history, Jerry West, was a big believer in taking risks, and how the vast majority of teams that won a title did so by taking huge risks.  Calling risk taking juvenile is really indicative of a lack of understanding of team construction in today's NBA. 

 

Having different opinions is ok, it can spark great conversation and debate.  However, being disrespectful and engaging in name

 calling because someone doesnt have your point of view is utterly ridiculous.

If you don't want to be called out for being juvenille, you could consider not being juvenille. For example:  saying "rather be friends with a girl for 10 years and never get laid....-- Got it. And you know what, that's fine" is not provocative, wtf is?

 

IOW:  a preference for risk taking is not the issue. Its your airs of superiority (so generous of you to "nicely explain") that is.

 

As for jamming beliefs. This site does respect models and statistics.  This thread -- watchability vs championships-- attempts to consider one component of such a model: how preferences are weighted.  The idea is that it is useful to model strategies (such as blow-it-up) as a set of  outcomes/probabilities/weights. This kind of breakdown helps clarify what is a probability, and what is  a preference weight. 

 

Why might that be useful? I suspect that a lot of the rationale for blowing-it-up is a conflating of probabilites and weights. If that is the case, then those with different weights (even slightly different weights) should appropriately discount the blow-it-up scenarios. Not reject out of hand, but be more skeptical about whether the risk/reward tradeoff is worth it.

[dhellers]

The bolded is why our discussion is pointless.  I am titles or bust, you are not, so your preferences are fundamentally different.  In terms of probability of a title, you think this team has a shot, I think it has none.  Therefore we are never going to agree.

 

 

 

 

Green was signed to that deal because Danny had no choice.  Danny was in reload mode, trying to add talent to the roster to compete right now.  If he didnt sign Green, he could not sign a FA for $10M, we did not have cap space, but he could go over the cap to retain Green because he had Bird rights.  His options were Green and whatever contract offer he and his agent would accept, or nothing.  This gave Green and his agent leverage, and Green got a deal that he did not deserve.  This exact same thing happened with Bass and is why he got his deal.  Salary does not indicate a player is a prospect, and this deal doesnt indicate that Danny is losing it either, he just had no leverage and was trying to add as much talent as possible.

 

We could save a lot of time if you didnt respond with vague, riddle writing.  By +epsilons I am assuming you mean the last few days has significant statistical value.  Let me add some perspective to this 5% of the season sample size.  All 4 games were at home.  None of the games were back to backs.  The Heat win was a quality one, but the Clippers were playing without their best player in CP3, and Sacramento and Orlando are 2 of the worst teams in the league.  I wouldnt get too excited about the results just yet.

Yep, we do have somewhat different preferences. I am willing to lose a year or two of "expected waiting time until the next championship".

 

BTW:I am not trying to be smarmy when I use statistical jargon: "epsilons" is a lot shorter than "a few days where random factors led to better than average results, but these random factors are transient and do not connote a change in the underlying mean". Similarly "expected waiting time" is a lot shorter than "the number of years you will typically wait for the first championship".

 

As for cap space .. yeah, I get that. But still, $10 mill is a lot. Some of that has to be based on an assesement that there is a  moderate probability that Green is worth $10million. 

 

BTW: do you really think that Ainge was in GFIN in 2013 mode? That 2014 was simply not in the picture?  Maybe, but given the length of contracts, the window seems to be at least until 2014.  

 

So..if present playing (and Doc argues that the bench has been performing well over 9 games, not 4) is a better measure of effectiveness than the first half; and if the aging of KG and PP and the recovery of RR can be  offset by the maturitation of Bradley/Green/Sullinger; and if of Lee/Terry/Barbosa/Wilcox can perform at something like their career average; then contending in 2014 is not out of the question.

 

I do agree with your core point: its only 4 games. The next week should be very revealing.

Edited by dhellers, 05 February 2013 - 02:21 AM.

[ALiveH]

The fact that most of the people who commented on this thread apart from dHellers basically said they want to maximize the # of championships is probably representative of the fan base.


My 2 cents are that championships are the ultimate goal. Failing that, the secondary goal would be the feeling that your team had a legitimate chance and competed hard for one. And, failing that, the tertiary goal would be the feeling that your team at least competed hard, exceeded expectations and provided hope that it would be better next year.


Frankly, there is a real risk that if we ride it out into KG &amp; PP's retirements we'll be watching a 2014-15 team that fails on all of the above...but hey at least we'll be "loyal" and we'll be watching them put up statistical milestones on mediocre celtics teams... It's all subjective so there's really no way to argue right or wrong here, but for me as a fan - it would overall be a depressing experience.


My question to you - if you hadn't had the experience of watching all those championships would you value championships more highly? Everybody here under the age of 35 basically only remembers one championship. The one in 2008. We are hungry for many more. I too was a fan during the dark years and had my fun picking up cheap tickets, rooting for the underdog, complaining about the refs and mock-cheering for flawed players getting major run like Potapenko and Tony Allen...it was all an attempt to stay interested and stave off the depressing reality of what I was watching.


BTW, for the record (I feel like I need to say this in every post) - I'm not for blowing it up now, I'm for evaluating performance until the trade deadline then deciding whether to blow it up; sure if they keep winning, let's go to war with these guys in the playoffs and re-evaluate in the offseason.

Edited by ALiveH, 05 February 2013 - 02:37 AM.

[dhellers]

The fact that most of the people who commented on this thread apart from dHellers basically said they want to maximize the # of championships is probably representative of the fan base.


My 2 cents are that championships are the ultimate goal. Failing that, the secondary goal would be the feeling that your team had a legitimate chance and competed hard for one. And, failing that, the tertiary goal would be the feeling that your team at least competed hard, exceeded expectations and provided hope that it would be better next year.


Frankly, there is a real risk that if we ride it out into KG &amp; PP's retirements we'll be watching a 2014-15 team that fails on all of the above...but hey at least we'll be "loyal" and we'll be watching them put up statistical milestones on mediocre celtics teams... It's all subjective so there's really no way to argue right or wrong here, but for me as a fan - it would overall be a depressing experience.


My question to you - if you hadn't had the experience of watching all those championships would you value championships more highly? Everybody here under the age of 35 basically only remembers one championship. The one in 2008. We are hungry for many more. I too was a fan during the dark years and had my fun picking up cheap tickets, rooting for the underdog, complaining about the refs and mock-cheering for flawed players getting major run like Potapenko and Tony Allen...it was all an attempt to stay interested and stave off the depressing reality of what I was watching.


BTW, for the record (I feel like I need to say this in every post) - I'm not for blowing it up now, I'm for evaluating performance until the trade deadline then deciding whether to blow it up; sure if they keep winning, let's go to war with these guys in the playoffs and re-evaluate in the offseason.

Sometimes I wonder if the the non-blow-it-uppers are intimidated

 

I mostly agree with your points, though in some cases I could live with a goal of  "might be better next year."  

 

Your question is interesting.  I  am more patient, and willing to give the current crew more time (say, until summer 2014).  On the other hand, staying ahead of the damnable Lakers is poignant, since it would be disheartening if they grabbed the "most titles won" crown (though it is righteous to point out that the  LA team has no right to the Minn Lakers titles). So I am not sure what the memories of championships does!

 

If I had to guess, I think my preferences were shaped as a young teen in the 60s, where the Celtic way was one of continuity.  Yes yes and yes, it was a different time and Red was in a class of his own, so continuity didn't cost much (in terms of fewer championships). Still, it's  how I want to think of the Celtics, and that tends to lead me err on the side of seeing-what-they-can-do.

[dolomite133]

My 2 cents are that championships are the ultimate goal. Failing that, the secondary goal would be the feeling that your team had a legitimate chance and competed hard for one. And, failing that, the tertiary goal would be the feeling that your team at least competed hard, exceeded expectations and provided hope that it would be better next year.

This is basically where I stand. Well said.

Hellers, your tendency to be unwittingly and naturally pretentious and your inclination to use statistical terminology and jargon aside (not a judgment just an observation), if your desire is consistency how do you reconcile that with a lack of risk, the average outputs of mid to late round draft picks, Boston's historic disadvantage (or struggles) obtaining players on the open market and the trend (last quarter century) of championship teams being built around top five draft picks?

Sure our team has a better chance to compete this season if we stand pat but without a bridge player (Duncan, Kobe, Jordan, Wade(?), Bias (coulda been), etc.) it's tough to sustain elite or contender status.

And oh my god I just realized how awful this discussion has become for everyone involved. Can we please lock this thread for our own good and the good of future generations?

Edited by dolomite133, 05 February 2013 - 08:52 AM.

[dhellers]

This is basically where I stand. Well said.

Hellers, your tendency to be unwittingly and naturally pretentious and your inclination to use statistical terminology and jargon aside (not a judgment just an observation), if your desire is consistency how do you reconcile that with a lack of risk, the average outputs of mid to late round draft picks, Boston's historic disadvantage (or struggles) obtaining players on the open market and the trend (last quarter century) of championship teams being built around top five draft picks?

Sure our team has a better chance to compete this season if we stand pat but without a bridge player (Duncan, Kobe, Jordan, Wade(?), Bias (coulda been), etc.) it's tough to sustain elite or contender status.

And oh my god I just realized how awful this discussion has become for everyone involved. Can we please lock this thread for our own good and the good of future generations?

Seeing as how I have addressed these kinds of issues numerous times, at the risk of sounding judgemental, the straw man role you have assigned me to speaks far louder than my natural pretensions.  If you don't wish to consider what it means to "tradeoff", perhaps because maximizing expected number of champions is such an overriding goal that further discussion is pointless, feel free to  not participate in a "valuing watchability vs. championships" thread.

 

I should elaborate on "continuity" (even though it is a discussion better suited to a way-forward thread).  Back in the day, it seemed to help; the Celtics were amazingly successful. The sample size isn't huge, but it isn't miniscule. Times have changed, but the game is mostly the same.  So valuing, which is not the same as  worshipping, continuity kind of feels right. In other words, allowing continuity to color your decisions is not NECESSARILY a pathway to irrelevance.

Edited by dhellers, 05 February 2013 - 10:07 AM.

[wutang112878]

[

As for jamming beliefs. This site does respect models and statistics.  This thread -- watchability vs championships-- attempts to consider one component of such a model: how preferences are weighted.  The idea is that it is useful to model strategies (such as blow-it-up) as a set of  outcomes/probabilities/weights. This kind of breakdown helps clarify what is a probability, and what is  a preference weight. 

 

Why might that be useful? I suspect that a lot of the rationale for blowing-it-up is a conflating of probabilites and weights. If that is the case, then those with different weights (even slightly different weights) should appropriately discount the blow-it-up scenarios. Not reject out of hand, but be more skeptical about whether the risk/reward tradeoff is worth it.

 

You are not hearing this message.  You want a 'this is the mathematical model we should use to evaluate possibilities'.  But our preferences on what is the best way to run a franchise, and the risks associated with the different possibilities are fundamentally different.  Your model is going to be a completely different model than mine or dolomites, and none of us are caving or changing our beliefs on preferences and risk %s.  Hence the conversation is pointless.  You want to make cookies, we want to make brownies, we cant merge the 2 recipes into one.

 

 

As for cap space .. yeah, I get that. But still, $10 mill is a lot. Some of that has to be based on an assesement that there is a  moderate probability that Green is worth $10million. 

 

BTW: do you really think that Ainge was in GFIN in 2013 mode? That 2014 was simply not in the picture?  Maybe, but given the length of contracts, the window seems to be at least until 2014.  

 

So..if present playing (and Doc argues that the bench has been performing well over 9 games, not 4) is a better measure of effectiveness than the first half; and if the aging of KG and PP and the recovery of RR can be  offset by the maturitation of Bradley/Green/Sullinger; and if of Lee/Terry/Barbosa/Wilcox can perform at something like their career average; then contending in 2014 is not out of the question.

 

I do agree with your core point: its only 4 games. The next week should be very revealing.

 

These moves are indicative of the market, not Danny's preferences and how far he thinks the window extends.  Do you really think Danny wanted to give Green 4 yrs, when with his heart condition he probably cant get insurance coverage for the contract?  Same thing with Bass.  Danny doesnt dictate contracts, and to retain and keep talent he was forced to give out contracts that were less than ideal.

 

As for 2014, we probably have to agree to disagree.  In the NBA its really your top talent that matters the most, and that is exactly what is deteriorating with this team.  Terry, Barbosa [who wants to leave already], and Wilcox have played their best basketball, their trend at this point is going to be to play worse.  Then as for the young core, if you really think Bradley, Green and Sully can really step up and be huge contributors next year, we have to agree to disagree.  These guys are not hugely impactful NBA players, they just are not.

 

 

 

If I had to guess, I think my preferences were shaped as a young teen in the 60s, where the Celtic way was one of continuity.  Yes yes and yes, it was a different time and Red was in a class of his own, so continuity didn't cost much (in terms of fewer championships). Still, it's  how I want to think of the Celtics, and that tends to lead me err on the side of seeing-what-they-can-do.

 

You are missing the biggest factor, Russell.  The Celtics had one of the best players of the decade, playing at an amazingly high level and never missing a game.  Russell allowed the team to have the continuity and thats what drove team success, its simply a talent league.  There is no one on this roster at present time, that is a fraction of the player that Russell was for that decade.

[dolomite133]

[You are missing the biggest factor, Russell.  The Celtics had one of the best players of the decade, playing at an amazingly high level and never missing a game.  Russell allowed the team to have the continuity and thats what drove team success, its simply a talent league.  There is no one on this roster at present time, that is a fraction of the player that Russell was for that decade.

Also, if your model is the 1950s and 1960s Celtics, you need to know that (1) The Celtics concluded the 1949-50 season with the third worst record in the league, passsed on Cousy with the first pick in the 1950 draft, but got him anyway (via a dispersal draft) when the Chicago Stags folded; (2) Used a territorial pick to land Heinsohn in the 1956 draft; and (3) Traded then six-time all-star Ed McCauly and future five-time all-star Cliff Hagan to St. Louis for the draft rights for an unproven player, Bill Russell. Those two teams faced off in four of the next five finals.

 

So what you have here is (1) An event that is unlikely to happen in the modern NBA (there hasn't been a dispersal draft since the ABA-NBA merger in 1976); (2) Territorial picks, which no longer exist; (3) A significant risk, with the Celtics, after finishing with the second best record in the league, trading two all-stars for the #2 draft pick, Russell, which obviously esulted in signficant gains.

[dhellers]

[ 


You are not hearing this message.  ... .our preferences on what is the best way to run a franchise, and the
risks associated with the different possibilities are fundamentally different ...
 These moves are indicative of the market, not Danny's preferences  .

 
As for 2014, we probably have to agree to disagree.   .  These guys are not hugely impactful NBA players, they just are not.

You are missing the biggest factor, Russell...

The "choice model" (I am an economist by trade) I am working off is pretty basic --   where  preference weights are assigned to risk-reward pairs.
* The rewards should not  be controversial: they are just a list of possible different outcomes (i.e.; win a championship next year and go deep in the playoffs for the next 9, or be terrible for 10 years, etc etc)
* The risks are are the probabilities of these outcomes, which depends on one's analysis.  Different people can have different information and predictive models,  yielding different probabilties.  These can range from 0% to 100% (rarely will they be 0% or 100%)
* The preference weights are completely subjective.
 
This kind of model easily encompasses your differences with me.  As noted above, the usefulness of this exercise is that it can clarify the differences beween "risks" and "preferences".  And my ulterior motive is that I think it clarifies that the blow-it-up-crowd tends to conflate probabilities with preferences. Not terribly, but enough to warrant additional skepticism if you do not have a "championships are the ONLY thing that matters" preferences.
 
Your other comments are somewhat off thread-topic, but not completely (they are examples where probability measures, rather than binary decisions, are relevant). So, per your comments.
 
1) Are you saying that Ainge signed several multi-year contracts but was only thinking of 2012-2013?  Assuming Wyc et didn't force him to make these signings, that seems extremely short sighted.  If Ainge is a good GM, which you and I both agree, it is plausible that he had at least a 2 year window in mind, and that his model of player performance included a non-zero-probability on outcomes such as  "Green could develop into the player we think he can be".
 
2) Russell is the best ever (screw you MJ). That was part of my "yes yes yes", as was Sam Jones, Havilcek, etc etc.
Recognizing that  explicitily  doesn't change my gut-feeling that continuity is a worth considering.
 
3) The odds of  current core being as effective as we hoped in October 2012 are quite possibly less than 50%.  But that doesn't mean they are 0%.  So the probability of "being a contender in 2013-2014" is not necessarily 0.
 
wtf,  how about a very rough prediction. Define season long effectiveness relative to the start of 2012, where 1.0 is "will be as good in 2013-14 as hoped for in 2012-2013", < 1.0 means "worse", > 1.0 means "better".   The following cooks the numbers to yield a team wide (multiplicative) effectiveness of 1.0. That means that if these predictions are true, the 2013-2014 team will be as good as we hoped the 2012-2013 team would be (a team that had a puncher's chance of a championship).
 
Rondo : 0.95 (takes a while to fully recover)
Bradley: 1.25  (his jump shot comes back)
Green: 1.25 (his confidence and health continue to grow)
Terry : 0.95 (he isn't as good as hoped for, but he isn't as bad as the first half suggests)
Sullnger: 0.7  (per the article in a different thread on pro players returning from back injury)
Barbosa: 1.0 (he is what he is)
Lee: 1.0 (he is what he is)
Wilcox: 1.15 (he gets healthier)
Pierce: 0.95 (he ages slowly)
Garnett: 0.95 (he ages slowly)
 
Of course this is a simplistic exercise (it doesn't consider playing time, etc), but are these guesses completely crazy? I don't think so (i..e; similar results with a 15% decline in pierce/ garnett/sullinger , 33% increase in Green/Bradley, and 5% increase in Rondo)

Edited by dhellers, 05 February 2013 - 11:47 AM.

[ALiveH]

i generally agree with your outlook on player progression / depreciation...but the 5% depreciation in RR, KG, PP is pretty significant b/c all 3 are your "big 3" and are heavily relied upon (and there's also the risk that at their age the old guys drop off significantly more at any time).  The progression of some of the other players doesn't hurt but unless someone makes the leap to be a major contributor at borderline all star level (Bradley?  JG?) I wouldn't expect 2013-14 to be any better than 2012-13...

[dhellers]

i generally agree with your outlook on player progression / depreciation...but the 5% depreciation in RR, KG, PP is pretty significant b/c all 3 are your "big 3" and are heavily relied upon (and there's also the risk that at their age the old guys drop off significantly more at any time).  The progression of some of the other players doesn't hurt but unless someone makes the leap to be a major contributor at borderline all star level (Bradley?  JG?) I wouldn't expect 2013-14 to be any better than 2012-13...

Pretty much same results if you call it 10% decline for KG and PP (to account for their importance, which will be dimnishing), Rondo the same (maturity compensating for slowing down), and Bradley/Green improving 30% (not completely nuts, given that their expectations for this year had to be dampened due to injury recovery). And if 2013-14 is nearly the same, or even 5% less, than the "expected 2012-2013 team", that's pretty good -- it's not far from a good-not-great outcome of a blow-it-up-and-rebuild

 

WTH: if you grade Sullinger at 1.0 (given that not much was expected, if he can return to form by December '13 he would be as valuable in 13-14 as he was expected to be in 12-13); Lee/Wilcox a at 1.08 (as long as he doesn't handle the ball in crunch time, Lee can be pretty damn good).. then a  1.2 (i.e.; 10% improvement with 10% more minutes) for Bradley/Green  offsets a  0.8  (90% as good in 90% of the minutes) for KG/PP ....

 

BTW: I reiterate these are relative to expectations prior to the beginning of the season.  If you score season-to-date effectiveness relative to these expectations, would anyone (other than KG and Sullinger) be greater than 0.9?

Edited by dhellers, 05 February 2013 - 01:05 PM.

[wutang112878]

 
wtf,  how about a very rough prediction. Define season long effectiveness relative to the start of 2012, where 1.0 is "will be as good in 2013-14 as hoped for in 2012-2013", < 1.0 means "worse", > 1.0 means "better".   The following cooks the numbers to yield a team wide (multiplicative) effectiveness of 1.0. That means that if these predictions are true, the 2013-2014 team will be as good as we hoped the 2012-2013 team would be (a team that had a puncher's chance of a championship).
 
Rondo : 0.95 (takes a while to fully recover)
Bradley: 1.25  (his jump shot comes back)
Green: 1.25 (his confidence and health continue to grow)
Terry : 0.95 (he isn't as good as hoped for, but he isn't as bad as the first half suggests)
Sullnger: 0.7  (per the article in a different thread on pro players returning from back injury)
Barbosa: 1.0 (he is what he is)
Lee: 1.0 (he is what he is)
Wilcox: 1.15 (he gets healthier)
Pierce: 0.95 (he ages slowly)
Garnett: 0.95 (he ages slowly)
 
Of course this is a simplistic exercise (it doesn't consider playing time, etc), but are these guesses completely crazy? I don't think so (i..e; similar results with a 15% decline in pierce/ garnett/sullinger , 33% increase in Green/Bradley, and 5% increase in Rondo)

 

I could get behind this type of model with a few adjustments.  If we use it to estimate points scored vs points allowed, use that and run it through the basketball pythag to get an estimated win/loss.  Then separate the debate there, where we could argue if 44 wins is a 10% chance or 5% chance, basically isolate our differences of opinion.

 

The model does need further refinement though as you mentioned.  Playing time is a huge factor, on top of that 'importance' for lack of a better term is another.  For example, a 10% reduction in defensive effectiveness for KG isnt going to result in a 2% [10% reduction for 1 player, hold the other 4 players constant] in overall defensive effectiveness for the group as a whole.  This is because KG is so vital defensively when he is on the court, and he makes up for so many mistakes by his teammates, and raises their overall defensive level of play, etc. 

 

There is a similar issue offensively with PP and Rondo, recently we have relied on them to attack offensively because they were our offensive super stars, we asked them to force the defense to react or shift and possibly double.  To put this different, 5 players who are equally efficient and can score 15 ppg, are not the same as 1 great scorer, who is more efficient than these 5, scoring 30 ppg and 4 others scoring 11.2ppg.  That great scorer draws additional attention and makes it easier for his teammates to score.  We are missing that offensive threat.  So, a 10% reduction for PP and Rondo if they are unable to draw defensive focus away from their teammates is going to have some sort of multiplier effect.  This is also why prior to the Rondo injury we were having issues scoring IMO, because neither Rondo or PP were really feared offensively by opponents.

 

 

As for the specific projections:

- Rondo, considering how important speed is to his game, and considering the amount of rehab time he will have, 95% productivity is overly optimistic.  I would aim for something like 90% and if you get that I would say we got very lucky

- Barbosa probably isnt resigning here

- Bradley - a 25% improvement is really optimistic, thats indicates he is playing better than he did last year and this year he hasnt even got to his productivity levels of last year yet.  Assuming he will 'be healthy' kind of ignores the injury risk he has proven to be during his career thus far

- Green - there is nothing statistically to support this level of improvement, even putting health issues aside, there is nothing statistically in his career prior to his medical scare that indicates that amount of improvement is a reasonable projection

- Wilcox - he hasnt been healthy since he has been here, its probably time to accept that what we see is what we are going to get

[dhellers]

I could get behind this type of model with a few adjustments.  If we use it to estimate points scored vs points allowed, use that and run it through the basketball pythag to get an estimated win/loss.  Then separate the debate there, where we could argue if 44 wins is a 10% chance or 5% chance, basically isolate our differences of opinion.

 

The model does need further refinement though as you mentioned.  Playing time is a huge factor, on top of that 'importance' for lack of a better term is another.  For example, a 10% reduction in defensive effectiveness for KG isnt going to result in a 2% [10% reduction for 1 player, hold the other 4 players constant] in overall defensive effectiveness for the group as a whole.  This is because KG is so vital defensively when he is on the court, and he makes up for so many mistakes by his teammates, and raises their overall defensive level of play, etc. 

 

There is a similar issue offensively with PP and Rondo, recently we have relied on them to attack offensively because they were our offensive super stars, we asked them to force the defense to react or shift and possibly double.  To put this different, 5 players who are equally efficient and can score 15 ppg, are not the same as 1 great scorer, who is more efficient than these 5, scoring 30 ppg and 4 others scoring 11.2ppg.  That great scorer draws additional attention and makes it easier for his teammates to score.  We are missing that offensive threat.  So, a 10% reduction for PP and Rondo if they are unable to draw defensive focus away from their teammates is going to have some sort of multiplier effect.  This is also why prior to the Rondo injury we were having issues scoring IMO, because neither Rondo or PP were really feared offensively by opponents.

 

 

As for the specific projections:

- Rondo, considering how important speed is to his game, and considering the amount of rehab time he will have, 95% productivity is overly optimistic.  I would aim for something like 90% and if you get that I would say we got very lucky

- Barbosa probably isnt resigning here

- Bradley - a 25% improvement is really optimistic, thats indicates he is playing better than he did last year and this year he hasnt even got to his productivity levels of last year yet.  Assuming he will 'be healthy' kind of ignores the injury risk he has proven to be during his career thus far

- Green - there is nothing statistically to support this level of improvement, even putting health issues aside, there is nothing statistically in his career prior to his medical scare that indicates that amount of improvement is a reasonable projection

- Wilcox - he hasnt been healthy since he has been here, its probably time to accept that what we see is what we are going to get

All good points.  Fleshing out the model would be a time consuming and complex task, which is why I stopped at barebones.

 

Still, the idea was to see what it would take to yield a "puncher's chance" team. I think that the requirements aren't incredible. Could even be 50% likely to happen. For example,

* How important is "speed" to the modern Rondo (as compared to the energetic maniac of a few years ago?). It seems to matter less; hence some reduction in speed might be compensated for by maturity (and a better jump shot).

* The expectations for Bradley and Green this year were not all that high, since some set back this year while they recovered had to be considered. Thus, a 20% improvement over "expectation" doesn't mean "all star performance". 

* Is it reasonable to think that Bradley is more grown up, and has had congenital weaknesses repaired, so will not continue to be injury prone?

* Barbosa, if he leaves, is replaceable.

* Wilcox is recovering from life changing surgery, so not a lot was expected,.  And he isn't bad when he plays (btw: I wonder if the Celtic docs are especially on the alert for what-killed-Reggie style ailments).

* If Sullinger can deliver what he did this year, and Lee can improve somewhat, PP and KG can decay a lot more (see my note above).

* I just recalled that we have the Bass-aster. Is there any where but up for him (or whatever MLE he can be replaced by)?

 

Green is probably the biggest question mark.  You look at his past performance and see no evidence that he will ever change. I look at a life changing event, and some observational data that suggests he can play at a high  level, to indicate that a real improvement is possible.  Time will tell (if there is no blow up) who is right!

 

As an aside: the lack of crunch time offensive prowess may be this team's biggest/most-frustrating weakness.

That is one reason why I advocate PP off the bench -- to keep him fresh for when is most needed (if J Terry plays

 close to his career potential, that  would also help).

Edited by dhellers, 05 February 2013 - 05:03 PM.

[wutang112878]

Be completely analytical about your model.  You already know where I stand on these issues, and that I think you are being overly optimistic about some of your projections.  But ask folks on the board: prior to the Rondo injury the % chance they gave the team to win a title.  Then ask how many folks think Green could improve 25%, and how many folks think the improvement of Bradley and Green could compensate for the reduction in productivity from PP, KG and Rondo next year to just get us to the same point we were just before the Rondo injury. 

 

If a lot of the votes indicate the team is deteriorating and slowly bleeding talent, then it might demonstrate to you that you have an optimistic view of this team going forward, and also demonstrate why us 'blow it uppers' seem to ignore the downside risk of blowing it up.

[dhellers]

Be completely analytical about your model.  You already know where I stand on these issues, and that I think you are being overly optimistic about some of your projections.  But ask folks on the board: prior to the Rondo injury the % chance they gave the team to win a title.  Then ask how many folks think Green could improve 25%, and how many folks think the improvement of Bradley and Green could compensate for the reduction in productivity from PP, KG and Rondo next year to just get us to the same point we were just before the Rondo injury. 

 

If a lot of the votes indicate the team is deteriorating and slowly bleeding talent, then it might demonstrate to you that you have an optimistic view of this team going forward, and also demonstrate why us 'blow it uppers' seem to ignore the downside risk of blowing it up.

I argue that the baseline should be expectations prior to the start of the season. Pre injuries, just about everyone (Rondo especially) was underperforming.  While righting the ship (ala the end of 2011-2012) was possible, it would not have been easy (for example: with little room for error, there is more pressure to overuse the vets, hence they will be worse come playoff time). 

 

That is why my baseline is "expectations as of the beginning of the 2012-13 season".  Would you agree that, circa October 2012, one could say that the team "had a puncher's chance"? 

 

Of course, underperforming this year may be a sign of systematic degradation.  But not necessarily.

 

I feel compelled to point out that this all probabilistic.  Votes that indicate the team is deteriorating doesn't mean it will deterioate. It might (if you credit wisdom of crowd) be  evidence that the team  is more likely to deteriorate than not. IOW, if having an optimistic view  is triggered by an assement that the 2013-14 team has a 40% odds of playing at basline level (a probability that could be taken as a strong indication of deterioration) -- is being optimistic so bad? A 40% chance that your team has a puncher's chance. And (humor me a bit) a 10% chance it has a real chance.  Wouldn't such an outcome be an accepable result of a rebuild after a blow-it-up? If so, isn't it a resonable gamble to give it another year? 

 

How does this relate  to watchability vs championships: it suggests that ignoring the downside risks may be a case of black/white vision.

 

[And I didn't even discuss the additional touchy-feely "I want to see these guys some more" or "let PP retire a Celtics" kinds of rationales].

 

BTW: are you being rhetorical, or would there be real value in such a poll. For it to be useful, people would have to assign probabilties across a range of "effectiveness" for current  players (not just a single number). And some way of weighting performance would be needed. Perhaps respondents should also supply a "relative importance" weight. Something like: "compared to 2012-2013, how important will Avery Bradley's role be: i.e.; 20% more important"? These weights would be used to adjust the effectiveness scores; with smaller weights yielding smaller changes in scores (since a score of 1 means "no change from 2012").  Thus, if Wilcox has a 1% "change in importance" rank, and has an average relative-effectiveness score of 1.2, you might use a value of 1.02 when computing the "relative team effectiveness" (hmm, that particular adjustment may not make sense, so this isn't a final proposal)

 

IOW: in addition to using an "Oct 2012 expectations of 2012-13" as a baseline; use the "wisdom of crowds" to weight each player (rather than using points scored, minutes played, etc run through pythag or other models).

Edited by dhellers, 05 February 2013 - 06:16 PM.

[wutang112878]

I argue that the baseline should be expectations prior to the start of the season. Pre injuries, just about everyone (Rondo especially) was underperforming.  While righting the ship (ala the end of 2011-2012) was possible, it would not have been easy (for example: with little room for error, there is more pressure to overuse the vets, hence they will be worse come playoff time). 

 

That is why my baseline is "expectations as of the beginning of the 2012-13 season".  Would you agree that, circa October 2012, one could say that the team "had a puncher's chance"? 

 

Obviously I have some bias because it supports my viewpoint, but I see the baseline time as just before the Rondo injury because what happened this season cant be ignored.  Injury wise, they really were not that bad.  You say people are under performing, I say thats a reasonable expectation of performance because with the dip in production by Rondo, KG and PP, and the lack of compensation by others around them, the cumulative effect is that they all look worse.  But really we are splitting hairs at this point, it doesnt matter if its start of the season or mid season.

 

Personally, no I didnt give them much of a chance because I was very concerned about the aging core.  I was suggesting and hoping that they blow it up like 2 years ago.

 

 

IOW, if having an optimistic view  is triggered by an assement that the 2013-14 team has a 40% odds of playing at basline level (a probability that could be taken as a strong indication of deterioration) -- is being optimistic so bad? A 40% chance that your team has a puncher's chance. And (humor me a bit) a 10% chance it has a real chance.  Wouldn't such an outcome be an accepable result of a rebuild after a blow-it-up? If so, isn't it a resonable gamble to give it another year? 

 

How does this relate  to watchability vs championships: it suggests that ignoring the downside risks may be a case of black/white vision.

 

This is 100% subjective, its simply opinion.  If you are telling me they have a 40% chance of being the same team they were last year, and at that baseline we think they have a 10% chance to win it all, and that is made possible by Jeff Green finding himself and KG and PP being 90% healthy, my appetite for risk in that 'lets give it a try' scenario is very small and I am walking into Danny's office with my demolition tools.  Thats not to say that your beliefs are wrong, ours are just different.  We can frame this in a very analytical way, with clear % probabilities and it just comes down to base assumptions to get to the % of success numbers and we are wildly different in our assessment of those base assumptions as well. 

 

 

BTW: are you being rhetorical, or would there be real value in such a poll. For it to be useful, people would have to assign probabilties across a range of "effectiveness" for current  players (not just a single number). And some way of weighting performance would be needed. Perhaps respondents should also supply a "relative importance" weight. Something like: "compared to 2012-2013, how important will Avery Bradley's role be: i.e.; 20% more important"? These weights would be used to adjust the effectiveness scores; with smaller weights yielding smaller changes in scores (since a score of 1 means "no change from 2012").  Thus, if Wilcox has a 1% "change in importance" rank, and has an average relative-effectiveness score of 1.2, you might use a value of 1.02 when computing the "relative team effectiveness" (hmm, that particular adjustment may not make sense, so this isn't a final proposal)

 

IOW: in addition to using an "Oct 2012 expectations of 2012-13" as a baseline; use the "wisdom of crowds" to weight each player (rather than using points scored, minutes played, etc run through pythag or other models).

 

I was being half serious.  You seem to be one of the most optimistic voices on this board for this Celtics roster, and my critiques pointing out their flaws and the incredible odds the team would have to overcome isnt swaying you.  Totally fine, I cant change your opinion.  I was just curious if you wanted to use this type of framework to judge this teams chances going forward, perhaps the voices of many might strike you differently than just my opinion has. 

 

Just dont make it too complicated, or no one will vote, and the discussion becomes too complex.  Use something like this: KG - 47 of 47 games played, 30 mpg, 14.8 ppg, 8.7 rpg, 1.04 points per shot, and have the poll be what % of this productivity will we get next year?  115%, 110%, 105%, 100%, 95%, 90%, 85% 

 

As for importance rating, that would be great, but I doubt you would get enough votes to have useful data.  Instead just see, assuming perfect health, what this team projects to perform like next year.  Then we know the important players, if folks are predicting a 10% drop off in KG, we know he is super important so then you take the overall projection and realize its an optimistic view because we dont have an importance factor.

[dhellers]

Pray tell, Wu, what payoff(s) from a blow-it-up do you expect? It is a lot to ask, but I am curious as to what the worst acceptable case is.

It would be nice to see it expressed as a probability distribution over outcomes, but that would be asking you to think like me.

 

BTW, I just have to note this from KG. Its part of the watchability bundle.

http://www.boston.co..._garnett_d.html

Edited by dhellers, 05 February 2013 - 10:20 PM.

[wutang112878]

Getting into specific probability distribution and outcomes is really impossible given the # of different trade possibilities.  More generally I see the worst case scenario benefits as this:

- Removing KG and/or PP from the team shorten our stay in NBA purgatory, and get us higher quality draft picks faster

- When we trade KG and/or PP we will get young assets in return

- I fully realize the odds against the young assets and picks working out, but I am willing to accept those risks because in my team construction philosophy if the team has little chance to win and is deteriorating then the proper action is not to reload but rebiuld

 

I think getting into this is muddying the waters because from a philosophical standpoint we dont agree on that strategy, and we also dont agree on the odds of this team

 

How does this apply to watchability?  Because KG says he will die green?  Dont get me wrong, I love that about the guy, but thats part of the reason I dont want to see him end his NBA career getting embarrassed in the playoffs here.  This is a subjective issue.  You would be happy seeing him win game 4 in the Garden, wave to the crowd, and then get demolished in game 5.  With me that 'its over, that sucked' face that he would eventually have on the bench at the end of game 5 is what is going to stick with me.

[dhellers]

Getting into specific probability distribution and outcomes is really impossible given the # of different trade possibilities.  More generally I see the worst case scenario benefits as this:

- Removing KG and/or PP from the team shorten our stay in NBA purgatory, and get us higher quality draft picks faster

- When we trade KG and/or PP we will get young assets in return

- I fully realize the odds against the young assets and picks working out, but I am willing to accept those risks because in my team construction philosophy if the team has little chance to win and is deteriorating then the proper action is not to reload but rebiuld

 

I think getting into this is muddying the waters because from a philosophical standpoint we dont agree on that strategy, and we also dont agree on the odds of this team

 

How does this apply to watchability?  Because KG says he will die green?  Dont get me wrong, I love that about the guy, but thats part of the reason I dont want to see him end his NBA career getting embarrassed in the playoffs here.  This is a subjective issue.  You would be happy seeing him win game 4 in the Garden, wave to the crowd, and then get demolished in game 5.  With me that 'its over, that sucked' face that he would eventually have on the bench at the end of game 5 is what is going to stick with me.

I commented on this in the Life After thread (http://sonsofsamhorn...-7#entry4541699). 

 

As for memories: bittersweet memories of coming up short aren't that bad. Some examples:  losing to the Lakers in 1987 was disheartening, but it was good to get there. The 2010 loss was a gut punch, but not one I would choose to forgoe (if I could go back in time and make that choice).  Losing the the Pistons in 88 wasn't that bad either, though it was clearly the end of an era (the Pistons paid their dues, I had no resentment). Etc etc etc.

 

How about a new threadette: Outcomes of  broad strategies 

 

When I think of the rough outline  of what blow-it-up-now offers, and what err-on-the-side-of-continuity offers; the range of probabilties won't be enormous. So consider these somewhat, but not completely, cooked numbers for the prospects over the next 10 years for the two generic strategies..

 

Outcome:                                      Blow it up probablity     : continuity probablity    description

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

True contender for 1-3 years         10%                                        3%                 glory (not not always)!

Punchers chance for 1-3 years     10%                                      10%                  disappointment (but not always)

Make the playoffs  several years    20%                                     35%                  high purgatory

Marginal team                                25%                                      30%                  low purgatory

Bad team                                      35%                                      22%                   lotto bound.. good luck with the ping pong balls!

 

We could debate endlessly what the exact meaures are (which is not a bad thing), but I think that the overall conclusions would remain: blow-it-up yields a large relative increase in the odds of glory; a larger (in absolute, not relative, terms) probability of being lotto bound;  and a smaller chance of being in a purgatory.
 

Maybe that's a good thing: a big relative increase in the odds of being a contender at the expense of a mid-sized relative increase in the odds of being bad, and the bad state mostly comes from reducing the odds of being in a purgatory. But it doesn't mean that continuity means you surrender all chances of "mattering".