Remember Who We Are!

by drza44 on Jan 19, 2010 7:47 PM EST

I have been reading all of these posts about what this team needs to do to keep the championship window open. While some calmer heads are preaching patience and health, I am seeing many saying that the window is already closed, that if Ainge doesn't see how bad we are he's blind, that this team just isn't competing with the heart of the past, etc. To those that feel that way, I say: remember who were are!

In 2007-08, when Kevin Garnett played we won more than 80% of our games with a point margin of +10.5. When we got to the playoffs we worked through rust early on as the team learned to play with each other, but in the Finals we rocked the heavily favored Lakers.

In 2008-09 when Kevin Garnett played we won more than 80% of our games with a point margin of +9.7. After he went down the team still fought valiantly and won about 2/3 of their games, but with a point margin of +3.8. Whether you're into advanced stats or not, there is a pretty solid body of evidence that point margin is at least as good of an indicator about team caliber as win-loss record. Before the playoffs even began last season John Hollinger predicted that the Celtics would have an extremely close series with the Bulls and had less than a 50/50 shot of beating the Magic even though the Cs had home court advantage, because of the point margins with and without Garnett. In this instance he was spot-on on both counts.

This season, before KG went down with that first "bruised thigh" we were winning more than 80% of our games with a point margin of +9.5. Yes, since he went down the team hasn't looked like itself, but here's the kicker...it's looked just like it did last season, and JUST LIKE IT DID IN 2008 without Garnett.

For any stat to be effective, you have to have a certain sample size. In 2008 and thus far in 2010, the Cs didn't have enough of a sample size without Garnett to truly evaluate them. They did in 2009, when his injury came with more than a third of the season left, and the point margin and playoff results both suggested the same thing: without Garnett, the Celtics would still be a solid team, somewhere between the Bulls and the Magic. Probably about 50 wins, legitimate playoff team. But no longer contenders. With that in mind, let's look at the trends from 2008 and 2010:

2008: Celtics were undefeated against putrid teams, smashing lottery-bound squads by 12.4 points/game. They were about a .500 team against solid, playoff-bound teams.

2010: Celtics are undefeated against putrid teams, smashing lottery-bound squads by 16.5 points/game. They are close to a .500 team against solid, playoff contending teams.

One big difference between 2008 and 2010? In 2008 the Cs played seven putrid teams and four playoff contenders without KG, but in 2010 they have played two putrid teams and eight playoff contenders. Oh yeah, and over that same time period Paul Pierce (you may have heard of him) also missed a couple of games injured.

The point? Remember who we are! I know that it can be hard to see past the fact that the Lakers won the title with the Cs stuck in the 2nd round last year. I know that it flat out sucks to see us getting beat right regular by the Mavs and Hawks of the world. But keep in mind, when Kevin Garnett plays we win more than 80% of our games. That's just as true this year as it was in 2008. And the last time Kevin Garnett played in the playoffs we won a title, soundly defeating the team that would win it the next year in our absence.

If your concern is whether KG will be able to get/stay healthy again, I totally understand that. After last season, I would expect no different. But really, at this point there is nothing that we can do about that but hope for the best. There is no realistic trade or acquisition that we can make that will make this team contenders if their best player gets hurt. It could turn out that this team is like the '87 Celtics, just not healthy enough to win it all. But you know what? NOBODY wanted to play those '87 Celtics, including the Lakers that eventually won. That team was tough as nails, and certainly could have won that title.

This team is the same way. Nobody, not Kobe, not LeBron, not Dwight, not ANYBODY wants to play this team if all five starters are on the floor. This team is historic. This team should win the title.

REMEMBER WHO WE ARE!

Be respectful and keep it clean. Thanks.

Tweet Comment 8 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Good post

Another stat shows that we are 22-7 with KG and 5-5 without. As long as their all healthy at the right time we should see a very strong playoff run. With that said, once KG and Daniels come back one would assume (hope) TA and Scal will turn into dead weight at the end of the bench. Thus it would be nice to see them traded for a decent role player.

by Scal4theallstargame on Jan 19, 2010 9:55 PM EST reply actions

This time

…KG’s absence has coincided with Daniels’, Sheed’s and PP’s injuries, so comparisons are hard to make to years past. Despite the stats from 08, I think this time, the team COULD win it all without KG… if Sheed steps all the way up. He brings a similar physical presence, similar skills, a better 3-point shot (unless KG’s developing something new for us!), but a significantly different psychological impact on the team. KG fires everybody up… Sheed may or may not, depending on how he feels… but at his best he can never be the manic torch that KG is. Still, given the sum of all he brings, Sheed could help this team go all the way even without KG… assuming of course that everyone else stays healthy.

Also, while there is no major shakeup that could improve what we already have, it’s very clear that the team needs a backup PG. Without that, it’s completely dependent on the mood and motivation of one 23-year-old player. Imagine that… the whole multi-million-dollar enterprise, plus the hopes and dreams of millions of fans, all ride on the back of one kid. That, regardless of how you feel about Rondo, is not good. The team needs a backup, badly. Once that is done, there’ll be no stopping this team when it’s healthy. And yes, even if KG’s out – which would certainly make the situation a lot muddier – the big kahuna would still be within our reach.

by DRJ1 on Jan 20, 2010 5:42 AM EST reply actions

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thats all i have to say!

Celtic Pride Till I Die!!!

by dbthetruth on Jan 20, 2010 9:48 AM EST reply actions

Good post, drza44.

I like the analysis. I think the sample sizes by now are big enough and the +/- differentials are pretty compelling. We should indeed know who we are by now.

KG’s +/- of 10.7 (Net48) is simply not easy to replace.

To disagree only slightly with DRJ1 -

On one hand I agree that Sheed brings a very similar set of skills and presence as KG to the Celtics, and that when he plays his game well we should have an almost equivalent chance of winning any given game. However, game-after-game-after-game, ‘Sheed does not have the endurance, at his age to ’bring it’ every game. So over time, we won’t win as many games (i.e. the 80% number) that we would with KG.

Wallace’s Net48 is +4.7. Not bad – but a full 5 pts below KGs.

I also think if Daniels comes back healthy, the backup PG issue is moot.

I’ve said it before – the key to this whole season is health. Not trading or replacing any key players. I can see moving one or two of the expirings, but that’s going to be only for bench minute players who’s net +/- effect on the team is going to be basically nill. No backup PG is going to be playing PG more than 12-18 minutes, which means the difference they’ll make over playing Daniels or House or TA at PG for those minutes is going to be negligible, maybe +/- 1 pt.

To get an actual impact player, we’d have to move a more significant piece. And if we move any of the significant pieces (i.e. Ray Allen) then we will have decided to blow up the season and restructure for the future. Because there is absolutely no way we will get anybody in a trade to replace Ray’s +10.x Net48 (of which 74% is REALIZED because he plays so many minutes!) for this year.

by mmmmm on Jan 20, 2010 11:55 AM EST reply actions

Yes

Agree with most of your tweaks. A few minor points:
- the +/- numbers for KG this season are made less reliable by the coincident injuries to several other players. Too many variables.
- Absolutely agree on Sheed. He must step ALL the way up if he’s to replace KG (and no one can replace KG’s pysche). Whether he can or would or not we can’t know until it happens. Here’s hoping we don’t have to find out.
- We diverge slightly on Daniels. You are bit more sanguine about him than I am. I remain concerned that the fate of the team rests on one 23-year-old kid. He’s very mature for his age. He seems serious (most of the time). But he’s still a kid. He won’t really be ready to carry this load, psychologically, for another half a decade (at least). And Doc, certainly lately, has shown an inability to get this kid motivated when he turns inexplicably, as he is wont to do, into a his zombie-PG mode. Will he do that in the playoffs? Not sure. Last year, it was NOT Rondo that turned zombie…. as I recall, it was more Paul. Last year, Rondo stepped up in the playoffs. So there’s reason to hope. But to allay the problem of relying solely on one young kid (as best we can), having a true backup PG is the only solution. Daniels is not that… he’s just ok for a few minutes here and there to bring the ball up. And… he has a long history of injuries. For all these reasons, the one trade I’d like to see to cement this season is for that backup PG spot.
- We completely agree about health as the single (obviously) most significant factor.

by DRJ1 on Jan 20, 2010 1:01 PM EST up reply actions

The +/- numbers are consistent with the last couple of years

I think that most of the variables are mediated out by now.

On the PG issue – I agree that we don’t win the playoffs without Rondo. But if Rondo goes down, I don’t see any PG that we are possibly going to get being able to replace him. If Rondo goes down, we tank the season and trade Ray Allen for whatever we can get for the future.

So this isn’t about finding a PG who can carry the team if Rondo goes down. The only issue around PG is what do we want coming off the bench to spell Rondo. Again, I don’t see any potential backup PG acquisition out there that is going to provide any significant value over our current bench PG options (Eddie, TA & Daniels when he’s back). You are only talking about 12-18 minutes of play per game. So the difference would be marginal, maybe a pt per game. And the aforementioned guys all can not only backup Rondo, but have other value and above all – already know our system.

Again – it all comes down to health. If healthy down the stretch, we are a championship caliber team and we don’t need to make any changes. And if we are not healthy down the stretch, we are not going to be able to contend for a championship this year and we may as well blow up the season and aim for the future.

by mmmmm on Jan 20, 2010 1:32 PM EST up reply actions

So...

- Rondo goes down = it’s all over
- I’m more concerned about Rondo going zombie
- The remaining open question… can Danny find “any potential backup PG acquisition out there that is going to provide any significant value over our current bench PG options.” I think he will try. Hope he succeeds.

by DRJ1 on Jan 20, 2010 1:55 PM EST via mobile up reply actions