Built for the Regular Season?

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,499
In the OP I talked about winning a championship, so that's not at all a goalpost move.
It is a goalpost move because your original post talked about being built for the playoffs and the underlying reasoning behind your post was that they were going to be ousted by the Bulls. Here's the money quote (emphasis added):

"The Celtics, simply put, are not built for the playoffs. They are built for regular season success, which is no small or unimportant thing. But if they want to be a championship team, they need to be constructed differently. They need to add more top-end talent, even if it sacrifices some depth. And they need to add toughness. I think the former is more important than the latter, but I think both are needed."

You also talked about things like rotations being shorter, the playoffs being more physical, and the like as reasons why the Cs wouldn't be successful in the playoffs.

I know you're going to say something to the effect of, "But I did say that if they wanted to be a championship team they have to be constructed differently." But 98% of your approximately 700 word post - actually everything except that one use of the phrase "championship team" had nothing to do with championships, it had to do with regular season versus playoffs.

Look, this is a message board. We're trying to have fun here talking about a team that we love to watch and talk about. I don't think anyone really cares if you are right or wrong about your opinions but there is a basic honesty that people need to have. It would be better - in my opinion - if you simply said that you misjudged the team and owned it rather than talking about being "partially right and partially wrong."

One other thing. I don't know how tough you think Fultz is, but if he really is the next coming of Russell Westbrook (except with wanting to get his teammates involved), it's certainly possible that adding Fultz is going to make the Cs a championship caliber team without adding any toughness.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
Wall, quarter by quarter

1st: miss, make, miss, make, miss (2-5)
2nd: make, make, miss, make, make (4-5)
3rd: make, make, miss, miss, miss, miss, miss, miss (2-8)
4th: miss, miss, miss, miss (0-4)

Total: 8-22, missing his last 10 FG attempts

*The box score says he was 8-23, but going through the game's play-by-play on espn.com, it only shows 22 field goal attempts, so I'm not sure where the other miss was. Long story short...yeah Wall...hit a wall for sure.

To wade boggs... I hear you. I think the correct answer is that I was partially right and partially wrong. Again, I'm not sure why it needs to be "all right" or "all wrong". And not being built for the playoffs doesn't mean that you can have NO success in the playoffs. I mean, the #1 seed SHOULD beat the #8 seed, barring catastrophic injury, even if you're not "built for the playoffs". Going into that Bulls series, I would have been very surprised if the Celtics didn't get past them. After the first two games....I was shaken. If Rondo hadn't gotten injured and the Celtics had not managed to come back in that series, would that have "proven" me "right"? I don't know, because I'm sure plenty of people here would simply have said, well, IT's sister's death was a huge factor, etc. I'm giving them credit. I didn't think their bench strength - which is enormous during the regular season - would be sufficient in the playoffs to overcome what I see as their major deficit against other excellent team's top-tier talent. And last night was a great example of how they surprised me. The Wizard's starting unit CRUSHED the Celtics' starting unit. But Olynyk went off for the game of his life, and the C's bench dominated the Wizards' bench (and really, with Olynyk going bonkers, they even handled Washington's starting unit in the 4th quarter). I didn't think that the Celtics' bench advantage would be sufficient to overcome Washington's advantages. I was wrong. Great job by Boston.
 
Last edited:

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,241
Yes, I acknowledged their depth in the OP - I think that, and Stevens, are their biggest strengths. I thought it would be reduced as a strength by (1) the adjusted schedule in the playoffs, and (2) shortened rotations, which can happen because of the adjusted schedule - i.e., no back-to-backs. But the depth really showed up last night for sure in a big way.
The premise that they were built for the regular season was based on the fact that their depth would wear down teams in the regular season, but come the playoffs, the stars would shine. These two series have shown it is the exact opposite. The Celts depth has won them both series. Wall and Beal played 45+ minutes last night but Wall was gassed come the 4th quarter. The Celts bench outscored Washington's bench 48-5. Nuff said.
And for the record, I thought they were built for the regular season too. I was wrong.
In the traditional sense, lack of backcourt depth killed the Wiz.
But I think "depth" also may have more meaning than just, "go ten deep in a game." Stevens was able to pluck a Gerald Green out of mothballs to be a factor in a couple of games where he thought instant offense at the start was important, before he was mothballed again. Rozier had his moments and a DNP. Brown got a DNP against the Bulls and had 3 sub-10 minute games (2 wins and a loss) against the Wiz. In the hands of a good coach, that's a weapon. Brooks either didn't have the options, or couldn't figure out how to effectively use guys like Mahinmi, Smith and Oubre, who have particular skills and lack others.
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,848
NYC
One game, anecdotal sample, but it definitely seemed like the stretch at the end of the 3rd and beginning of of the 4th in which the Celtics pushed a deficit to a 13-point lead was largely fueled by the Cs' fresher legs. The Cs were contesting, pressing and getting after loose balls much more actively than the Wiz. I remember checking the boxscore and noticing that IT had played only 28 minutes to that point, whereas Wall and Beal had played 34-35. Wouldn't surprise me at all if that extra 6-7 minutes rest Stevens was able to get his core guys was a decisive factor.

The Spurs' shocking beatdown of Houston in Game 6 also clearly seemed swayed by the Spurs' deeper rotation and fresher legs (though I don't think the complete Harden vanishing act can be totally explained or justified by fatigue).

Meanwhile, the Cavs play a 7-8-man rotation with LeBron playing 42-45 minutes a game. But then: LeBron isn't human and those bastards get their rest with their 8-9 day layoffs between every series.
 

NoXInNixon

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
5,299
I don't think that rest between series makes much of a difference as to players being able to play more minutes during games. It helps with nagging injuries, but it doesn't inprove your endurance.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,476
Melrose, MA
One game, anecdotal sample, but it definitely seemed like the stretch at the end of the 3rd and beginning of of the 4th in which the Celtics pushed a deficit to a 13-point lead was largely fueled by the Cs' fresher legs. The Cs were contesting, pressing and getting after loose balls much more actively than the Wiz. I remember checking the boxscore and noticing that IT had played only 28 minutes to that point, whereas Wall and Beal had played 34-35. Wouldn't surprise me at all if that extra 6-7 minutes rest Stevens was able to get his core guys was a decisive factor.
It was rest plus getting IT and Kelly into more favorable matchups, and it was the C's unit with Smart and Brown being able to hold its own against the Washington starters.

At that point midway through the third, where the Wizards looked like they were about to pull away, Stevens went to Brown, Smart, Bradley, Crowder and Horford against the Wizards' starting 5. They held their own, Smart even hitting the big 3.

Later in the third, Washington finally went to its bench (Mahinmi and Bogdanovic) and Stevens countered with IT and Olynyk and went on a run.

Washington tightened it up again at a couple of points in the 4th, but by that point Wall and Beal (90 minutes between them) were gassed.