CelticsStrong
Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: nickagneta on September 18, 2017, 12:30:35 PM
-
First let me say that I want the Celtics to be better than last year. I want them in the Finals competing for the championship. I want everything to go just right. I want those things, I just don't think it will happen.
First, this is a brand new team with little to no resemblance to the solid, deep team that went to the ECF last year. Newly constructed teams take time to meld together. Everyone needs to learn their role and learn their team mates strengths, weaknesses and tendencies. Newly put together teams don't normally gel as quckly and as successfully as the 2007-08 Celtics. That team was the statistical anamoly, not the norm. I think expecting this team to come together that quick and be a +56-57 win team is unrealistic.
Second, we were good last year because we were deep. We had one all-star/MVP candidate and a whole bunch of great role players that made this team 12 deep with experience. On any given night last year you could get 15+ points in a game from bench players Olynyk, Jerebko, Green, Smart, Brown and Rozier. And though Zeller never could score that much as a twelfth guy he could give solid minutes.
This year that is gone. Baynes isn't a scorer. Smart or Brown will be a starter. Crowder, who would have been our 6th man, is gone. Rozier will be back but every other player has zero NBA experience. All you have to do to see how inexperienced teams do in the NBA is watch the young teams that litter the lottery every year. Unless Smart fixes his shot or Brown and/or Tatum develop instantly into scorers that can give you that 15-20 points a game fairly consistently, this team will not be deep. And the bench could give up tons of points on top of being outscored every game.
Third, the Irving trade weakened us for this year. If IT is healthy this year, Irving would have to upgrade his game significantly to become the super efficient high scoring guard we had last year and Cleveland could have this year and as I said earlier, Crowder is gone. Zizic looked awful in Summer League and probably would have sat a lot and been awful when he got in, but he is big and can at least rebound and foul a lot helping to preserve our bigs: Horford, Baynes, Morris. We don't have a player like that anymore.
And if you're expecting Kyrie to be a substantial defensive upgrade over IT, you're going to be disappointed. I could care less if he is 5" taller than Thomas, he is as bad a defender as Isaiah, just for different reasons. He will need to be hid on defense a lot.
I think the trade can't be judged to see who won it for many years. I think short term we lost it but I think long term we could have won it. We will see.
Overall, I think Ainge took this team a step back this year to take 2-3 steps forwards in years to come. He is booking on Kyrie being here for 7 years and being the face of the team. He is booking on Brown, Hayward, Tatum and the LA/Sac pick all playing at star level in 3-4 years. And he is betting that he hits with some of the inexperience and youth like Yabusele, Nader, Theis, Ojeleye and future late picks for them to become very good rotational contributors. That's a lot of uncertainty and its something you usually see in lottery teams, not contenders.
I hope my pessimism is replaced, but as most you who have seen my posts over the years know, I am not high on unproven youth. So I just want to say, especially to those in the game threads, don't go crazy if we aren't a 60 win team or even a ECF team. This team may not even win as many games as last year and could be too shallow and thin to be a successful playoff team this year.
-
Solid post, and I agree that while there is a lot to be excited about going forward, there is also a lot of valid questions/doubts about the team too.
I honestly feel the same way (want to be optimistic but idk.. just can't). So many questions and this roster turnover is just... :o
And while I can see they overpaid to make up for IT being injured, it was still a HUGE overpay and now they may not have enough assets to pull of a future trade for another star.
Hell, it feels like Zizic was put into the trade as a "throw-in", which is ridiculous considering many believe he would have been a Top-10 pick in the most recent draft.
Again I hope all works well, but until the season begins I will have doubts (a ton of them).
I saw Isaiah lead a team to an ECF (despite all the sh** he got for being short, ballhog, etc.), yet all I've seen Irving do is lead his team to Top-5 picks as an alpha (and even in the last few years, in games Lebron sat but Irving AND Love played... the Cavs were flat out garbage in those games still).
-
TP.
I liked the post, similar to how I felt.
The Celtics team last year wasn't ever going to be a true contender, but because they managed to do extremely well, and outperform expectations, we ended up with a nitty gritty team that hustled, and really just put their hearts out on the floor.
I don't think we're going to be the 1st seed. If anything, I actually think we'll end up as the 4th or 5th. I do think we'll get to the ECF. I have a feeling the Raptors aren't going to be that good, and the Wizards might end up as the 2nd or 3rd seed, but I'm not convinced they'll beat us. I think Kyrie and Hayward will prove to be a complete offensive duo, and in order for Kyrie to at least be the man.
He has to be willing to put it on both ends of the floor.
Stevens and Ainge seems really high on both, so I'll trust their judgment.
Solid post, and I agree that while there is a lot to be excited about going forward, there is also a lot of valid questions/doubts about the team too.
I honestly feel the same way (want to be optimistic but idk.. just can't). So many questions and this roster turnover is just... :o
And while I can see they overpaid to make up for IT being injured, it was still a HUGE overpay and now they may not have enough assets to pull of a future trade for another star.
Hell, it feels like Zizic was put into the trade as a "throw-in", which is ridiculous considering many believe he would have been a Top-10 pick in the most recent draft.
Again I hope all works well, but until the season begins I will have doubts (a ton of them).
I saw Isaiah lead a team to an ECF (despite all the sh** he got for being short, ballhog, etc.), yet all I've seen Irving do is lead his team to Top-5 picks as an alpha (and even in the last few years, in games Lebron sat but Irving AND Love played... the Cavs were flat out garbage in those games still).
Can this argument or point die down already?...
Kyrie was inexperienced, young, and had come off a serious knee injury the year he was drafted... He was also sharing a back court with a ball dominant shooting guard who legit believed that he was superior.
AD, Cousins, and Kyrie are all fantastic players, but there are only very few players that can push a team that is irrefutably horrendus; into a playoff contender.
Also yes the metrics don't show him doing well when Lebron sits... But the entire team is literally built around Lebron. Yes Irving takes more shots, and higher USG %, but that's because he doesn't want to be limited by LBJ.
And I've always said this, but I think Kyrie is a better scorer than Lebron now, but I think Lebron is the far better player.
-
Let's just do a comparison
Irving > Thomas
Hayward > Horford
Horford > Bradley
That is the top 3 players, all are better than their counterpart last year
Let's look at the rest of the main rotation
Crowder, Smart, Johnson, Olynyk, Brown, Rozier vs. Smart, Brown, Rozier, Tatum, Morris, Baynes
I think that is much closer than you are really acknowledging. Rozier, Smart and Brown should be better than last year. I think Morris and Baynes are better fits than Johnson and Olynyk, though obviously bring different things. Crowder is definitely a better all around player than Tatum will be, but I do expect Tatum to be a better scorer and a guy that could drop 30 on any given night (that isn't Crowder's game). So pretty close overall really, unless Smart, Brown, and Rozier don't progress or Tatum is just downright terrible.
As for the deeper bench Jerekbo, Green, and Zeller had their moments and obviously would be better than a bunch of late round picks like Yabusele, Theis, and Ojeleye, but if you are winning or losing games on your deep bench, you are in trouble.
That said, Boston is not going to beat Cleveland as the teams are presently constructed and if both teams are reasonably healthy. Even without Thomas, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see the Lebron/Love led Cavs to beat Boston and end up in the Finals again (though it would be a pretty interesting series in that scenario). And the Cavs now have that BKN pick they can use to upgrade their roster further (I think they are way more inclined to make a trade than Boston is utilizing the LAL pick).
-
TP for a good post, Nick. I mostly agree but let me provide a bit of optimism for you. Shocking to some, I know, who think that I'm Negative Nanny because I'm cautious about the Irving deal.
1. The lack of cohesion could hurt us, no doubt. But most guys have picked up Brad's system quite quickly. I don't think this is a long process like trying to get players to understand The Triangle or anything like that. Moreover, Danny and Brad have found guys who like to play in this type of system. It will be easier to get guys on board when they feel comfortable doing what they're being asked to do.
There will be a disruption to chemistry. What Danny just did has never been attempted in the NBA before. But it may not be that bad, we have the perfect coach to do it and we're far more able to beat teams based on talent than we were last year.
2. We won because we were deep last year. We're top heavier this year and that's probably a good thing. We had to get bench contributions last year when the best 3 were IT, Horford and Bradley (in that order). Some guys like Amir were dead weight at times. That's been upgraded to Hayward, Irving and Horford. That's a big difference in starting firepower. We shouldn't need to be as deep.
(more on the reserves later)
3. Don't worry about Jaylen. He'll be ready. Jaylen really showed a lot post All-Star break last year and he's worked his tail off this offseason. He won't be a 15-20 ppg scorer but he'll put in 13-14ppg with good defense and that's enough when Hayward takes on more of the scoring load than Crowder could ever supply. Don't underestimate Brown - he's one of the reasons Danny made the deals he did. He believes that Jalyen can start in Bradley's place. That leaves Smart to steady the second unit.
4. What we lost in experience we gained in athleticism. This team is simply bigger, longer and stronger than last years' team, especially where it counts with Brad's system - in the wings. We're not putting 5'9" IT, 6'2" Bradley and 6'6" Crowder on the floor. This year it's 6'3" Irving, 6'7" Brown and 6'8" Hayward hitting the floor. Amir, Zeller, KO and Jerebko give way to Morris, Baynes, Tatum, Semi and Yabu. Those guys had years of experience and no doubt we're going to miss that. But with certain 2nd teams we got blown off the court because we didn't have anyone who could create a shot nor anyone who played above the rim. That problem largely goes away this year.
The other thing to consider is minutes will be harder to come by this year (barring injuries). Guys like Horford, Hayward, Irving, Morris, Smart, etc. are used to playing big minutes. Reserve minutes for the guys deeper on the bench will be precious and hopefully that spurs those guys to get better faster. It's the old "two dogs, one bone" scenario.
Finally, while our reserves have little NBA time, they aren't that inexperienced. Nader is 24. Theis is 25. Semi has 3 years of college. Jabari Bird has 4. Yabu has been playing overseas professional basketball for 3 years now. Rozier is in his 3rd year in the NBA and got 1,200 minutes last year. Smart's in his 4th year. They might not be as raw as you think.
That doesn't mean we won't have growing pains. But there's some reason to be cautiously optimistic that we may not take a step back this year.
-
Third, the Irving trade weakened us for this year. If IT is healthy this year, Irving would have to upgrade his game significantly to become the super efficient high scoring guard we had last year
This piece really doesn't make any sense. IT isn't healthy this year so the Irving trade couldn't have weakened us. I suppose you mean last year's IT vs. this year's Kyrie, but Kyrie is really good and will surprise a lot of people. I also think that the stars aligned last year for IT. It's too bad for him that this wasn't his expiring year and that he didn't finish the season with a perfect hip. I see Rondo-type contracts for the rest of his career...if he can actually get healthy.
TPs to Granath and Moranis for providing more realistic frameworks for how the year should work out. Nobody is expecting us to be the Warriors, but having more star power at the top of our line-up with elite young players coming through the system should give most of us chills.
-
This years Celtics team has way more talent than last year. I'm not sure how that talent will gel but BS got a lot out of many less talented squads.
-
TP for a good post, Nick. I mostly agree but let me provide a bit of optimism for you. Shocking to some, I know, who think that I'm Negative Nanny because I'm cautious about the Irving deal.
1. The lack of cohesion could hurt us, no doubt. But most guys have picked up Brad's system quite quickly. I don't think this is a long process like trying to get players to understand The Triangle or anything like that. Moreover, Danny and Brad have found guys who like to play in this type of system. It will be easier to get guys on board when they feel comfortable doing what they're being asked to do.
There will be a disruption to chemistry. What Danny just did has never been attempted in the NBA before. But it may not be that bad, we have the perfect coach to do it and we're far more able to beat teams based on talent than we were last year.
2. We won because we were deep last year. We're top heavier this year and that's probably a good thing. We had to get bench contributions last year when the best 3 were IT, Horford and Bradley (in that order). Some guys like Amir were dead weight at times. That's been upgraded to Hayward, Irving and Horford. That's a big difference in starting firepower. We shouldn't need to be as deep.
(more on the reserves later)
3. Don't worry about Jaylen. He'll be ready. Jaylen really showed a lot post All-Star break last year and he's worked his tail off this offseason. He won't be a 15-20 ppg scorer but he'll put in 13-14ppg with good defense and that's enough when Hayward takes on more of the scoring load than Crowder could ever supply. Don't underestimate Brown - he's one of the reasons Danny made the deals he did. He believes that Jalyen can start in Bradley's place. That leaves Smart to steady the second unit.
4. What we lost in experience we gained in athleticism. This team is simply bigger, longer and stronger than last years' team, especially where it counts with Brad's system - in the wings. We're not putting 5'9" IT, 6'2" Bradley and 6'6" Crowder on the floor. This year it's 6'3" Irving, 6'7" Brown and 6'8" Hayward hitting the floor. Amir, Zeller, KO and Jerebko give way to Morris, Baynes, Tatum, Semi and Yabu. Those guys had years of experience and no doubt we're going to miss that. But with certain 2nd teams we got blown off the court because we didn't have anyone who could create a shot nor anyone who played above the rim. That problem largely goes away this year.
The other thing to consider is minutes will be harder to come by this year (barring injuries). Guys like Horford, Hayward, Irving, Morris, Smart, etc. are used to playing big minutes. Reserve minutes for the guys deeper on the bench will be precious and hopefully that spurs those guys to get better faster. It's the old "two dogs, one bone" scenario.
Finally, while our reserves have little NBA time, they aren't that inexperienced. Nader is 24. Theis is 25. Semi has 3 years of college. Jabari Bird has 4. Yabu has been playing overseas professional basketball for 3 years now. Rozier is in his 3rd year in the NBA and got 1,200 minutes last year. Smart's in his 4th year. They might not be as raw as you think.
That doesn't mean we won't have growing pains. But there's some reason to be cautiously optimistic that we may not take a step back this year.
TP for a fantastic post.
I'm also happy that these wholesale changes were made during the offseason and before the start of training camp. I'm not a big fan of blockbuster trades during the season, as chemistry is hard to develop with no practice time. The new guys have also had time to hopefully get their family situation resolved and can just concentrate on basketball once training camp begins.
I believe we're just two weeks away from the first preseason game and about a month away from the season opener against Cleveland. I can't wait.
BTW, TP's to Danny, Brad, and ownership for the fireworks and back-to-back memorable offseasons. I wouldn't trade that group for anyone.
-
Third, the Irving trade weakened us for this year. If IT is healthy this year, Irving would have to upgrade his game significantly to become the super efficient high scoring guard we had last year
This piece really doesn't make any sense. IT isn't healthy this year so the Irving trade couldn't have weakened us. I suppose you mean last year's IT vs. this year's Kyrie, but Kyrie is really good and will surprise a lot of people. I also think that the stars aligned last year for IT. It's too bad for him that this wasn't his expiring year and that he didn't finish the season with a perfect hip. I see Rondo-type contracts for the rest of his career...if he can actually get healthy.
TPs to Granath and Moranis for providing more realistic frameworks for how the year should work out. Nobody is expecting us to be the Warriors, but having more star power at the top of our line-up with elite young players coming through the system should give most of us chills.
Don't see where Granath's and Moranis' views are any more realistic than mine. More optimistic, yes. Realistic, no.
-
There is zero question in my mind this team is significantly more talented than last year's team.
How it gels is a good question, and I really don't expect an increase in wins.
But we were going to fall back dramatically without IT thanks to that injury. Crowder will be missed, but I am still laughing over the ridiculous notion that the Croatian Crawler was a top 10 pick - in any draft.
-
They might not win as many games as last season. The "gel" process could take some time and hurt that but, unequivocally, I think this team is better than last year.
The scoring should be better and I actually do like depth especially since I think both Brown & Tatum are going to open up some eyes. Rebounding and team defense make me nervous but this team is going to score points & I think they are going to pose some nightmare matchups for other teams. I'm excited.
While last year's team faced a plateau that was rather apparent, I think this year's squad has a high ceiling. Whether they get there in year 1 or not is another question.
-
Depends on how optimistic people are I guess. We're better than last year. I fully expect to make it back to the Eastern Conference Finals. I don't expect us to beat the Cavs with a healthy IT but if he's not healthy, I give us a 50-50 chance of being in the finals.
There is really only one concern that could derail my predictions; rebounding. Not worried about the team gelling or defense.
-
Third, the Irving trade weakened us for this year. If IT is healthy this year, Irving would have to upgrade his game significantly to become the super efficient high scoring guard we had last year
This piece really doesn't make any sense. IT isn't healthy this year so the Irving trade couldn't have weakened us. I suppose you mean last year's IT vs. this year's Kyrie, but Kyrie is really good and will surprise a lot of people. I also think that the stars aligned last year for IT. It's too bad for him that this wasn't his expiring year and that he didn't finish the season with a perfect hip. I see Rondo-type contracts for the rest of his career...if he can actually get healthy.
TPs to Granath and Moranis for providing more realistic frameworks for how the year should work out. Nobody is expecting us to be the Warriors, but having more star power at the top of our line-up with elite young players coming through the system should give most of us chills.
Don't see where Granath's and Moranis' views are any more realistic than mine. More optimistic, yes. Realistic, no.
I didn't say they were more realistic than yours, just that they had more realistic expectations, in general. Expecting our star-studded team to fail because Jerebko, Zeller, and Green aren't anchoring the deep bench anymore is a little far-fetched. It is fair to have concerns over the team immediately jelling. It is just my opinion that you may be overrating our players/team from last year and underrating what we have this year.
Depth is nice, but the NBA is a star-oriented league. We went from having zero stars this coming year (with IT injured) to now having two. We also still have Al Horford having a Horford-like effect on the game. We are going to be good - probably not win-the-championship good, but we are in far better position to compete moving forward...immediately, I believe.
You know I respect your opinion, Nick. I believe back in '07 or '08, there was a thread on who your favorite poster was and I named you and IP (IndeedProceed). I just feel that some people had/have a real emotional attachment to last year's team and are afraid to move forward with players who are ready to really compete.
-
Kyrie is no slouch...the guy is a borderline superstar for cryin out loud. IT as much as we all loved him peaked already as far as im concern. Kyrie is going to be a contender for the MVP race this year. You can all doubt that if you want but I say that he makes the Stephen Curry leap this yr like Curry was in 2014.
Add that to Hayward who was the alpha of the Jazz but with the Cs he will have no such pressure and all he will be asked is to be the man we all thought he can be...and he will so im optimistic in this department.
This team will easily beat a Cleveland team with just Lebum and Love..IT will be the key for them and if he is no where near pre injury IT then they can kiss their dreams of being in the finals again goodbye.
-
Third, the Irving trade weakened us for this year. If IT is healthy this year, Irving would have to upgrade his game significantly to become the super efficient high scoring guard we had last year
This piece really doesn't make any sense. IT isn't healthy this year so the Irving trade couldn't have weakened us. I suppose you mean last year's IT vs. this year's Kyrie, but Kyrie is really good and will surprise a lot of people. I also think that the stars aligned last year for IT. It's too bad for him that this wasn't his expiring year and that he didn't finish the season with a perfect hip. I see Rondo-type contracts for the rest of his career...if he can actually get healthy.
TPs to Granath and Moranis for providing more realistic frameworks for how the year should work out. Nobody is expecting us to be the Warriors, but having more star power at the top of our line-up with elite young players coming through the system should give most of us chills.
Don't see where Granath's and Moranis' views are any more realistic than mine. More optimistic, yes. Realistic, no.
You don't win championships with depth. You win championships with top end talent. Boston's three best players this year are significantly better as a group than Boston's three best players last year.
-
I'm not worried about gelling at all. Around the league it seems like it's just a matter of putting the right players with the right coach. Great teams go to the finals in their first year together plenty of times. I don't think the Celtics were better last year because they gelled more than the previous years. They added Horford and several of the players they already had improved.
-
Let's just do a comparison
Irving > Thomas
Hayward > Horford
Horford > Bradley
That is the top 3 players, all are better than their counterpart last year
Let's look at the rest of the main rotation
Crowder, Smart, Johnson, Olynyk, Brown, Rozier vs. Smart, Brown, Rozier, Tatum, Morris, Baynes
I think that is much closer than you are really acknowledging. Rozier, Smart and Brown should be better than last year. I think Morris and Baynes are better fits than Johnson and Olynyk, though obviously bring different things. Crowder is definitely a better all around player than Tatum will be, but I do expect Tatum to be a better scorer and a guy that could drop 30 on any given night (that isn't Crowder's game). So pretty close overall really, unless Smart, Brown, and Rozier don't progress or Tatum is just downright terrible.
As for the deeper bench Jerekbo, Green, and Zeller had their moments and obviously would be better than a bunch of late round picks like Yabusele, Theis, and Ojeleye, but if you are winning or losing games on your deep bench, you are in trouble.
That said, Boston is not going to beat Cleveland as the teams are presently constructed and if both teams are reasonably healthy. Even without Thomas, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see the Lebron/Love led Cavs to beat Boston and end up in the Finals again (though it would be a pretty interesting series in that scenario). And the Cavs now have that BKN pick they can use to upgrade their roster further (I think they are way more inclined to make a trade than Boston is utilizing the LAL pick).
As an asset? Of course. Going forward given IT's injury? Sure. As a comparison between the production of 2016-17 IT and 2017-18 Kyrie? You're baking in a TON of improvement from Kyrie.
-
I agree with the OP on the depth, I also agree that it will be difficult for Kyrie to replicate what IT did last year (a historic offensive season).
However I think there are two huge reasons to be optimistic that weren't in the original post.
1. Gordon Hayward is a top 20 player in the NBA. Sure losing depth hurt, but I don't think people fully grasp how much of an upgrade Hayward is over Crowder.
2. Development. I expect some of our young players to improve. Some of the players who make up the bench unit will presumably give us more than they did last season. On the aggregate we will get more from Jaylen, Rozier and Smart than we did last year.
3. Changing Roster. Ainge and Stevens have shown that they can turn players no one wants into good rotation pieces. If depth is an issue next season, I trust Brad to develop players to fill the holes we need on the bench. If those players aren't on the team yet the C's sure have the assets to get back end rotation pieces. If Stevens and Ainge can grab Evan Turner, Jordan Crawford, and others off the scrap heap and turn them into contributors, then I don't see why a decrease in depth to start the season means that the depth won't be just as good by the end of the year.
Honestly, I'm still sad about the IT trade. I don't like this much roster turnover. The Celtics play a ton of games before 2018 at a time when they are just finding themselves. I expect the C's to start off slow but by the end of the year this team will be head and shoulders better than last year's version.
-
I thought that the OP presented a nice argument and well written post. At the same time I think a lot of us became emotionally attached to the team because of their heart and character. I am the first to admit that I am a sucker for teams that overachieve and play the right way. One of the most gratifying aspects of being a sports fan is when you have gritty and likable group that maxes out its potential.
Our new team could definitely take a while to develop chemistry on the court. With that being said we are significantly more talented and athletic across the board. Assuming everyone buys in to Brad's system then what reason do we have to expect worse results? Kyrie has already mentioned many times that he is anxious to become more of a pure PG and improve on the defensive end. I don't think we can overstate the lack of structure in Cleveland. Kyrie clearly has shown the ability to make important defensive plays in key spots during the playoffs. My expectation is that he will give consistent effort on a nightly basis. I don't believe the metrics tell the entire story.
The OP also mentioned our depth and bench as a major strength last season. Our bench was solid because of the effort and consistency it gave on a nightly basis. Brad isn't going to change his message to the bench just because our roster is more talented. We know he is going to set his expectations clearly and that veterans like Horford will provide leadership. Unless there is a fundamental change in attitude/effort then I don't see how the bench isn't better. We have more length and athleticism which should lead to greater defensive versatility. There is also much more upside on the offensive end of the court. This will all take some time but the bench should be fine come playoff time.
Quite frankly this all boils down to the Celtics being a top notch organization. Ownership, Danny, and Brad are all on the same page. The message is consistent at all levels and we manage to avoid the negative drama that surrounds other teams. I fully expect this new group to gel by the end of the season and pose a serious threat to the Cavs even if IT is fully healthy.
-
I'm sorry you feel that way OP, but the reality is that last year's team had some serious issues, and ultimately overachieved. As constructed, they were not going any further with that core. Add to that Bradley and IT requiring big contracts that we couldn't afford and you've got a recipe that requires alterations.
I agree that we lost depth with this roster overhaul, but I feel like this team was always built for a trade. Danny had a million contingency plans in place when we got our star, so expect guys like Semi and Nader getting some minutes.
We make take a slight step backwards this year as our team gels and the young guys get some experience, but with a weak Eastern conference we should be okay.
Personally, I love our new team, and we still have options moving forward. Don't worry bud, our new and improved team will grow and you, I promise ;)
-
The bench is young. They are not sure things because they are still in their early stages of development but I am optimistic overall. About the main bench players anyway.
(1) Tatum = I think is ready to contribute as a rookie. He doesn't need to be a star or even a starter. Just a 15-25mpg role player. I think he will at least be an average bench SF as a rookie. Possibly an above average one.
(2) Baynes = good backup center
(3) Smart = I expect Brown to start in order to keep Smart on the bench. Give that youth another veteran to play alongside them. Give Smart more time on the ball rather than having to share with Kyrie and Hayward. And I rate Smart as one of the best bench players in the league so that is a big asset for the 2nd unit.
(4) Rozier = 3rd year for Rozier. I like his talent. He hasn't put it together consistently yet. I hope he is at least an average backup PG/SG next year. I would bet on that but not hugely confident about it.
So I look at it as:
Guard = Rozier = hopefully average
Guard = Smart = top bench player
Forward = Tatum = average to above average bench player
Center = Baynes = good backup center
That looks an above average bench unit to me. When first choice players are available.
End of bench is more variable -- how they will handle injuries.
(5) Rest of bench = I like the look of Theiss. I think he can be a good end of bench option. Not optimistic about Yabusele helping this season. His defense was awful from what I have seen on him. I think he will be glued to the end of the bench to start his career. Gerald Green is a fine 3rd string wing. He can shoot and put up points in a hurry. Semi will be useful if he can be consistent from 3. If not, they can get by without much from him. Do not like Larkin. I do like Kadeem Allen as defense-only 3rd string guard.
-
I agree with much of this, I think we'll likely win fewer games in the regular season this year than the past year even after accounting for the fact that the east has gotten even weaker. The kind of team we had last year was well one equipped to win regular season games, deep and just good enough to beat good teams. What I think Ainge did is drastically increase our upside in terms f playoff performance when the depth of a team matters far less and you need guys who can cerate one on one. We now have two of those players who will be in their prime for the next 5 seasons. We may not go as far in the playoffs this year because we'll be relying a lot on young guys like Tatum, Brown, Rozier to be part of a rotation, but long terms when those guys get a season or two more under their belts we'll be in better shape.
In short, if people are expecting us to win 56+ games and take the Cavs to 7 they may be disappointed, but after this year with some gelling and improvement from our young guys plus our naturally higher scoring upside I think we are in a better position.
-
I enjoyed Who's post and largely agree with it.
btw, I think Green is no longer with the team.
-
Let's just do a comparison
Irving > Thomas
Hayward > Horford
Horford > Bradley
That is the top 3 players, all are better than their counterpart last year
That's really bizarre math. Why wouldn't we do that comparison like so:
Irving > Thomas (Today, with an injured Thomas. Not necessarily last season.)
Horford == Horford
Hayward > Bradley
So really, it's not exactly a case where all three of our best players now are better than all three of our best players last year. Horford is Horford. Yes, he may play better with a year in this system. But he'll also be a year older and the system around him will be with totally new teammates. And being a 'glue' guy, a lot will be on his shoulders to make all these new parts work together.
Irving is an improvement over Thomas if Thomas is injured. But he's not an improvement over the Thomas that played last year. And it remains to be seen how long Thomas will be injured this year or if he'll be able to recover.
Hayward is, no argument from me, a big improvement over Avery.
So you are really looking at an improvement in at ONE of the 'big 3' spots over last year.
Now, I consider that a pretty significant improvement, actually. Because having just one extra elite scoring option should be a massive help all by itself.
But it is silly to characterize that as having upgrades at all three of the 'three best players'.
Whether the rest of the rotation works out as better remains to be seen. I firmly believe have a lot more _talent_ in the rest of the roster. But they are desperately short on _experience_ and the obvious chemistry that last year's roster had. Much of that lack of experience should be mitigated by the time the playoffs get here, but it will still be a thing.
Overall, because of Hayward and the aforementioned overall bump in talent, AND because more teams in the East are going to suck, I DO think this team will win more games than last year. I'm down for about 56-58 wins.
But I can also understand a lot of the concerns being expressed.
And if Thomas does come back close to full strength by the time the playoffs get here, CLE if still going to look like a very tough wall to climb over.
-
Continuity and depth matter, especially for regular season wins.
The calculus behind the moves this summer was clear. Ainge wanted to:
a) Add more top level talent, which raises the playoff ceiling
b) Get younger, which extends the window of the current core to remain very competitive.
Adding top talent and getting younger sacrificed continuity in a big way and also compromised the depth of experienced role players on the bench.
As a result, I agree, this team should struggle in the regular season compared to last year's team.
I think it's very possible they are a better playoff contender come April. By then, assuming they're mostly healthy (esp Irving, Hayward, and Horford), they may be battle-tested enough to make a run.
However, I would note that last year's team did not exactly skate to the ECF. This year's team could be a significantly better at playoff style basketball and still lose in the second round.
-
Let's just do a comparison
Irving > Thomas
Hayward > Horford
Horford > Bradley
That is the top 3 players, all are better than their counterpart last year
That's really bizarre math. Why wouldn't we do that comparison like so:
Irving > Thomas (Today, with an injured Thomas. Not necessarily last season.)
Horford == Horford
Hayward > Bradley
You're right, it's really just Hayward > Bradley. It was a bad way for Moranis to make a point but I think I might understand his logic here (God help me).
It's all about options on offense. Last year our #1 was IT. There really wasn't a #2 as Bradley/Horford (and one could argue Crowder) were both really a 3rd option type of player. This is really brought out in the stats. 29ppg for IT. Then Bradley was 16.3 (and declining all year after a hot start and 13.6 after the All Star break), Horford at 14 and Crowder at 13.9. When a guy like Crowder is that close to being the 2nd best option it shows a lack of offensive talent. This created a massive offensive problem and we saw that every time IT went to the bench. The offense would stagnate because no one else could really generate his own shot and it was easier for defenses to key on IT.
This year with Hayward it's a different story. We still have the straw that stirs the drink in Irving (it could have easily been a healthy IT instead) but now there's truly a 2nd option on offense. He's almost a 1(a) option at 22 points per game and is a guy who can create his own buckets. This in turn opens up things for both the #1 guy (Irving) and also helps open up everyone else. This only goes so far as there's only one ball on the court but here it truly is a case of a rising tide lifting all boats. So in a weird kind of way, it looks like this:
Irving = IT
Hayward >>> Bradley
Horford/Brown > Horfort/Crowder
Because Hayward being on the court may very well make Horford and Brown more effective offensively than Horford and Crowder.
PS - don't sleep on Brown. I think by the end of the year he may very well be solidly the #3 option and Horford #4.
-
I'm sorry you feel that way OP, but the reality is that last year's team had some serious issues, and ultimately overachieved. As constructed, they were not going any further with that core. Add to that Bradley and IT requiring big contracts that we couldn't afford and you've got a recipe that requires alterations.
I agree that we lost depth with this roster overhaul, but I feel like this team was always built for a trade. Danny had a million contingency plans in place when we got our star, so expect guys like Semi and Nader getting some minutes.
We make take a slight step backwards this year as our team gels and the young guys get some experience, but with a weak Eastern conference we should be okay.
Personally, I love our new team, and we still have options moving forward. Don't worry bud, our new and improved team will grow and you, I promise ;)
TP...excellent perspective!
Count me as one who totally trashed the Kyrie trade. And, losing Kelly bothered me more than most posters here. On the other hand we were two levels below winning an NBA Championship. One level below Cleveland and another level beneath Golden State.
Danny knew he had to do something drastic to try and move the needle. Thus, he added some real scorers in Kyrie, Tatum and Hayward. Judging from Golden State's last 3 years it's evident you need shooters to win in this NBA climate.
Will this crew have a better record than last year's team? Perhaps not...we'll never know how last year's would have done if no trades were made. What we do know is that last year's team never would have won a Championship even if Isaiah were healthy. Maybe this team will have better odds. We'll have to wait and see....
-
Let's just do a comparison
Irving > Thomas
Hayward > Horford
Horford > Bradley
That is the top 3 players, all are better than their counterpart last year
That's really bizarre math. Why wouldn't we do that comparison like so:
Irving > Thomas (Today, with an injured Thomas. Not necessarily last season.)
Horford == Horford
Hayward > Bradley
So really, it's not exactly a case where all three of our best players now are better than all three of our best players last year. Horford is Horford. Yes, he may play better with a year in this system. But he'll also be a year older and the system around him will be with totally new teammates. And being a 'glue' guy, a lot will be on his shoulders to make all these new parts work together.
Irving is an improvement over Thomas if Thomas is injured. But he's not an improvement over the Thomas that played last year. And it remains to be seen how long Thomas will be injured this year or if he'll be able to recover.
Hayward is, no argument from me, a big improvement over Avery.
So you are really looking at an improvement in at ONE of the 'big 3' spots over last year.
Now, I consider that a pretty significant improvement, actually. Because having just one extra elite scoring option should be a massive help all by itself.
But it is silly to characterize that as having upgrades at all three of the 'three best players'.
Whether the rest of the rotation works out as better remains to be seen. I firmly believe have a lot more _talent_ in the rest of the roster. But they are desperately short on _experience_ and the obvious chemistry that last year's roster had. Much of that lack of experience should be mitigated by the time the playoffs get here, but it will still be a thing.
Overall, because of Hayward and the aforementioned overall bump in talent, AND because more teams in the East are going to suck, I DO think this team will win more games than last year. I'm down for about 56-58 wins.
But I can also understand a lot of the concerns being expressed.
And if Thomas does come back close to full strength by the time the playoffs get here, CLE if still going to look like a very tough wall to climb over.
It not bizarre math at all. What he's doing is lining up our best players in order, last year to this year. So Kyrie versus IT at the top, then Hayward versus Al, and Al versus Avery. An important element being that Al has gone from our second best player to our third.
-
First let me say that I want the Celtics to be better than last year. I want them in the Finals competing for the championship. I want everything to go just right. I want those things, I just don't think it will happen.
I think your position is perfectly acceptable and rational but then you compare them to last year's team. And that is where you are wrong.
There was a reason most everyone said the Celtics were the worst #1 seed in NBA history. It wasn't because IT was 5'9" or because Amir Johnson was basically a corpse.
It was because the point differential that Boston averaged for margin of victory was 2.6 points. They were 8th in the league in offensive rating and 13th in defensive rating. Basketball-Reference has them with a predicted win total of 48 - the same they had the previous year without the addition of Al Horford. They were an above average team that easily could have lost in the 1st round, or make the ECF.
You are making last year's team out to be some well-bulit, well-oiled machine, less top-heavy in talent but deep in talent on the bench. Well that is what gets you a 45+ win NBA season, especially if you are well-coached and compete. That does not get you a team that can dominate, blow teams out, and be a legitimate Finals contender.
Now it is perfectly legitimate to say the current team is not that as well, which is why your original paragraph is OK. But saying that they should have kept a team similar to last year's is basically giving up on the season and in some ways the future.
-
Just a few things:
My pessimism is for this year. I think Ainge upgraded the talent but a lot of that talent is undeveloped. Long term, I love what he has done. I just don't see 53+ wins and a guarantee to the ECF nevermind beating Lebron to get to the Finals.
My take on the player order last year to this year:
Best player: IT>KI
2nd Best: Bradley<<Hayward
3rd Best: Horford=Horford
4th Best: Crowder>Brown or Morris, whoever you want to place here.
Rest: Last year >> This year due to experience and cohesion.
-
Just a few things:
My pessimism is for this year. I think Ainge upgraded the talent but a lot of that talent is undeveloped. Long term, I love what he has done. I just don't see 53+ wins and a guarantee to the ECF nevermind beating Lebron to get to the Finals.
My take on the player order last year to this year:
Best player: IT>KI
2nd Best: Bradley<<Hayward
3rd Best: Horford=Horford
4th Best: Crowder>Brown or Morris, whoever you want to place here.
Rest: Last year >> This year due to experience and cohesion.
Part of it might be thinking of the team as an ECF team and having lofty expectations that flow from going deep. Bear in mind: we could just as easily been out in the 2nd, or even the first round. Last year things clicked, but we weren't far from the bottom of the playoff picture either.
Hopefully the roster is more stable now. We'll see.
-
I'm optimistic.
Kyrie is slightly better than Thomas, Hayward is a major upgrade over Bradley, and Horford is now our 3rd best player instead of our 2nd best player. The bottom line here is that we significantly increased the level of our top end talent.
We may have lost some of our bunch depth and replaced it with lesser experienced players, but I figure by year's end our bench will be just as good, if not better, than last year's.
At the end of the day talent trumps depth, and we have more talent now.
-
Danny reset the team this year with a different trajectory. It might take a couple years for Tatum and Brown to become stars, but that is OK b/c the Warriors are going to run train on the league for another couple years.
So, they might not win as many games this year, and they could lose before the ECF. In three years, however, they should be a better team.
-
Danny reset the team this year with a different trajectory. It might take a couple years for Tatum and Brown to become stars, but that is OK b/c the Warriors are going to run train on the league for another couple years.
So, they might not win as many games this year, and they could lose before the ECF. In three years, however, they should be a better team.
TP...thats what I have been saying.
-
The regular season doesn't even matter. This team is a better team this year because they are a better playoff team. More talent. Much more Talent at the top of the roster, and that is and always has been the most important part of an NBA team.
-
To condense the OP's post, the concerns stem from:
1. Jelling of the new team
2. Less depth
3. Kyrie not performing to the level of IT
--
1. This is a legit concern and the risk you run when overhauling the roster. There are only 4 players from last year. Smart is the longest tenured Celtic. That's crazy! CBS has his work cut out for him.
2. We sacrificed depth to become more top heavy. While this could potentially result in less season wins, I will take the top heavy team in the playoffs. I hope injuries don't wreck us though.
3. This one, we'll have to wait and see. I don't think this will be the case but until the games are played, your guess is as good as mine. I think CBS will get a lot out of Kyrie though and his production may mirror IT's production last year. What'll be interesting to see is IT's production in Cleveland. I think IT is going to play noticeably worse once he comes back. But let's see.
-
Irving, Brown, Hayward, Tatum, and Horford.
I'm very optimistic.
-
I look at the top 8 guys for playoffs and top 10 guys for regular season to anticipate success.
Guards= Irving, Smart, Rozier,
Wings= Hayward, Brown, Tatum
Bigs= Horford, Morris, Baynes, Theis
The bold is for the top players for playoffs we need another guy to emerge as a contributor who teams have play hard against. But overall that should be the ten guys featured every night with possibly Semi and Nader getting minutes if they do well in practice. Playing a tight rotation is key to chemistry. So for BS figuring things out early is important.
-
There is zero question in my mind this team is significantly more talented than last year's team.
How it gels is a good question, and I really don't expect an increase in wins.
But we were going to fall back dramatically without IT thanks to that injury. Crowder will be missed, but I am still laughing over the ridiculous notion that the Croatian Crawler was a top 10 pick - in any draft.
Lol, I assume that the term "Croatian Crawler" will also be added to your signature, hehe? I'm just busting you, although, and I've said this before, that whole thing about how Zizic would have been taken around the 10th pick in this year's draft sounded like Ainge propaganda to me, and particularly of the James Young variety, as in when reporters asked Danny and Stevens about why he wasn't playing they countered with the classic "he would have been a top 10 pick in this year's draft had he stayed in school" line ::). Give me a break ::), but by all means, please keep trying to polish that turd, Ainge ::).
Third, the Irving trade weakened us for this year. If IT is healthy this year, Irving would have to upgrade his game significantly to become the super efficient high scoring guard we had last year
This piece really doesn't make any sense. IT isn't healthy this year so the Irving trade couldn't have weakened us. I suppose you mean last year's IT vs. this year's Kyrie, but Kyrie is really good and will surprise a lot of people. I also think that the stars aligned last year for IT. It's too bad for him that this wasn't his expiring year and that he didn't finish the season with a perfect hip. I see Rondo-type contracts for the rest of his career...if he can actually get healthy.
TPs to Granath and Moranis for providing more realistic frameworks for how the year should work out. Nobody is expecting us to be the Warriors, but having more star power at the top of our line-up with elite young players coming through the system should give most of us chills.
Don't see where Granath's and Moranis' views are any more realistic than mine. More optimistic, yes. Realistic, no.
You don't win championships with depth. You win championships with top end talent. Boston's three best players this year are significantly better as a group than Boston's three best players last year.
I would argue that you need both to win a title :-\.
-
Let's just do a comparison
Irving > Thomas
Hayward > Horford
Horford > Bradley
That is the top 3 players, all are better than their counterpart last year
That's really bizarre math. Why wouldn't we do that comparison like so:
Irving > Thomas (Today, with an injured Thomas. Not necessarily last season.)
Horford == Horford
Hayward > Bradley
So really, it's not exactly a case where all three of our best players now are better than all three of our best players last year. Horford is Horford. Yes, he may play better with a year in this system. But he'll also be a year older and the system around him will be with totally new teammates. And being a 'glue' guy, a lot will be on his shoulders to make all these new parts work together.
Irving is an improvement over Thomas if Thomas is injured. But he's not an improvement over the Thomas that played last year. And it remains to be seen how long Thomas will be injured this year or if he'll be able to recover.
Hayward is, no argument from me, a big improvement over Avery.
So you are really looking at an improvement in at ONE of the 'big 3' spots over last year.
Now, I consider that a pretty significant improvement, actually. Because having just one extra elite scoring option should be a massive help all by itself.
But it is silly to characterize that as having upgrades at all three of the 'three best players'.
Whether the rest of the rotation works out as better remains to be seen. I firmly believe have a lot more _talent_ in the rest of the roster. But they are desperately short on _experience_ and the obvious chemistry that last year's roster had. Much of that lack of experience should be mitigated by the time the playoffs get here, but it will still be a thing.
Overall, because of Hayward and the aforementioned overall bump in talent, AND because more teams in the East are going to suck, I DO think this team will win more games than last year. I'm down for about 56-58 wins.
But I can also understand a lot of the concerns being expressed.
And if Thomas does come back close to full strength by the time the playoffs get here, CLE if still going to look like a very tough wall to climb over.
It not bizarre math at all. What he's doing is lining up our best players in order, last year to this year. So Kyrie versus IT at the top, then Hayward versus Al, and Al versus Avery. An important element being that Al has gone from our second best player to our third.
Well, I'm sorry, but I find that to be pretty dubious logic.
The difference in talent among our 'best 3' over last year is pretty overwhelmingly wrapped up in Hayward's value over Bradley, no matter how you slice it. Not in our positional replacements for IT (Kyrie) or Horford (Horford).
-
I had my first doubts about the off season when getting Hayward meant losing AB. That is because I liked the way AB had progressed, his attitude and I don't think his contribution has been appreciated by many who had him moved on long before DA sent him away. I accepted this was the sort of change that would have to happen. I know KO was good but not good enough. AB had been so close to good enough it was hard to admit that we could be closer to a championship without him (the truth of this is yet to be tested).
When Kyrie became available and the Celtics were mentioned as a possible destination, I had serious doubts that it would happen. I thought KI was an upgrade over IT (marginal I know) but I had doubts about his commitment to a new team and knew the franchise owed IT for his efforts to promote and recruit. The bottom line in a straight KI and IT comparison has to be IT's injury and age. His ability to recreate more seasons like last has to be questioned. I hope he can and gets his pay day somewhere. The Celtics are better without having to wait to find out how well and when he recovers, and having a player of KI's ability ready to go. We may have overpaid for KI but only time will tell us if that is really the case. This is typical of the risks franchises have to take.
Horford will perform better next season I believe with Hayward and KI alongside him. I also think he could be on borrowed time. To get to the level of GSW the Celtics need a Davis and Horford has the contract that could help provide that. He is unlikely to be playing his best the season after next when I think all the other pieces will have come together, banking on Brown and Tatum both being special. Al has some pressure to be with the Celtics if DA really pushes to get to the level of GSW so his time has to be now.
I think Brown and Tatum will both contribute quite a lot, though it could be another season before Tatum really starts to shine, when he is older and has a year of NBA experience under his belt. They are a big part of my optimism. They are going to be better than AB, KO and Crowder. This team has more depth than people give it credit for.
Finally, these players under CBS should produce one of the most productive offences in the NBA. I have some doubts too but I am definitely more optimistic than many posters. The Celtics weren't going to be better keeping what they had or just adding Hayward, they are considerably better now.
-
The way I see it:
KI >= IT
Brown < AB
Hayward > Crowder
Moris >= Johnson
Al = Al
Smart = Smart
Rozier = Rozier
rookie Tatum = KO
Baynes > Zeller
We are clearly better than last year, the only player we will be missing is AB. But Smart, Rozier and Brown are all on the way up, I expect they as a group can fill the hole left by AB.
Depth wise, all we need is two of Yabu/Semi/Theis to replace Green/Jereko. They are all "old" rookies with specialities, I think they'll settle in faster than people think.
The jellying is a real problem, offensively we'll be fine as we have more fire power than last year. But defence wise we'll probably have a slow start, so I'm expecting we have a 50% record before Christmas. But that's ok, the Cavs won't do so well either.
-
There is one key variable that hasn't really been much of a focus in this discussion.
Last years squad was built to win in the regular season. This team is designed to win in the playoffs, and against the heavy hitters.
IT tapped in to his full potential, for one season. Unfortunately, it also may never happen again, because of his hip. This was our number one scoring option. The supporting cast? An all-around big in Horford.....a guy who should be a 3rd option at best, on a championship level team, at this point in his career. The rest of the team was filled out by specialists. The 3 and D wing in Crowder, the perimeter defending guard (who definitely improved his offensive game) in Bradley. An inconsistent combo-guard in Smart. A top 3 pick. Aaaand a bunch of bench/rotation worthy guys, who yes, some became household names in our eyes as Celtics fans; but in the grand scheme of NBA quality players.....nothing special.
Hence, why Ainge cleaned house.
Guys, that was the best that squad was going to get. It had ZERO chance of ever beating GS, or a Cleveland team with Kyrie (or whoever they traded him for elsewhere, hypothetically). Even if San Antonio somehow upset GS next season, we would still lose to them. IT, contract year. Smart, contract year. Maxed out cap space.
Running it back was not a sound option. BKN 2018 pick and Zizic or not, all that development turns us in to a glorified Sixers, by summer of 2018, when we can't afford to keep both IT and Smart.
Ainge absolutely made the right move! And I can't wait to watch these guys prove it.
Our number one scoring option improved. Imagine Kyrie in place of IT in our lineup last season. You don't think his numbers would be similar, if not better? Put down the kool-aid. Kyrie has 4 All-star seasons under his belt, at 25 years old. IT is 3 years older, several inches shorter, and for all we know, may never repeat his success due to a major hip issue.
Our number two scoring option improved. Horford now becomes the number 3 option, where he belongs. Hayward gets to play with the most elite point guard he has yet to play next to. His spacing for wide open 3's/shots off of the Irving/Horford pick and roll, is going to be abundant! And I trust Gordon Hayward taking those shots over Crowder, Bradley, Smart, and every other extremely streaky option we've had over the past few seasons. Hayward can drive. He is a bigger body. Healthy. Playing for his old coach, who developed him to get where he is now, and is probably drooling over being able to utilize/maximize his improvements to his game.
We actually HAVE a legitimate number 3 scoring option! This is the key! Who was it last year? This question should be able to be answered unanimously, and quickly. This offseason has arranged a clear pecking order in the offense. And we have 3 very unselfish, basketball-minded, team-oriented top-3 players. I can't wait (and I'm sure he can't either), to watch Horford actually play the 4 for most of games! I'm sure the starting lineup will have Horford at the 5 next to Morris.....but Baynes will be coming in to replace Morris first most of the time, and Horford then slides to the 4. I think this will eventually be recognized by Stevens as the most effective front-court, and we will make a move to sign another C, to back Baynes up, moving Morris to the bench to back up Horford.
This is where it gets interesting, and exciting. The bench. Smart and Brown are doing all the right things in the off season. They saw the quality of the parts that went out (IT, Bradley, Crowder)....their brothers. They saw two all-stars come back. They saw the best pure-scoring wing in the draft come in to the mix. It appears to have sunk in with them, that they are VALUED. They could have both easily been the pieces in those trades. Ainge valued the combination of their youth, ceilings, development curve, and contracts, and they seem to be buying in to the system, and the coach. Three years ago, we were all thinking Smart was questionable at best to ever reach his full potential. Now? He literally has 2017/18 to grab by the balls. Same for Jaylen. One of them is going to be our starting two-guard. The other guy, is likely the first guy off the bench. It's going to bounce back and forth, and depend on matchups, but it's "two dogs, one bone" (as mentioned earlier). Rozier is a guy who couldn't sniff double-digit minutes for quite some time. Too many PG/combo guards with experience ahead of him. He played mostly mistake-free....nothing spectacular, but then he got a few opportunities to put up some shots, and get some transition buckets. The confidence has clearly been developed, and he will be a great backup PG, IMO.
The wild card. Who the hell was our go-to scorer, when the 2nd unit was on the floor last season? :::::I'll wait:::::
Enter Jayson Tatum. Now, I'm not expecting this to be a right out the gate thing. But dude, this kid can shoot like Pierce. From anywhere, and everywhere. And he looks like he's not even trying. I am so excited to watch the 2nd unit lineup of Rozier/Smart/Brown/Tatum. The speed and athleticism is ridiculous. If they can figure out a solid gameplan, and work well together, we are going to be a very scary team by mid-season.
If everything develops as I described, which is my deductions from why Ainge made the moves he made, I think this team has every capability of beating any team in the East, in a seven game series. I also think, they at least have a chance, and would not be absolutely swept off the court by Golden State.
This is a team that can contractually run it back (assuming we go in to Luxury tax for Smart) next year, and hopefully we get to add another top draft pick in to the fold.
I 100% see what's going on, and I'm buying. It sucks a lot to see all of my favorite Celtics go elsewhere, especially to watch IT play for the Cavs....ugh, terrible! But I have a feeling that this will all make a lot more sense, this time next year!
Let's GO CELTICS!
-
Hence, why Ainge cleaned house.
Guys, that was the best that squad was going to get. It had ZERO chance of ever beating GS, or a Cleveland team with Kyrie (or whoever they traded him for elsewhere, hypothetically). Even if San Antonio somehow upset GS next season, we would still lose to them. IT, contract year. Smart, contract year. Maxed out cap space.
Running it back was not a sound option. BKN 2018 pick and Zizic or not, all that development turns us in to a glorified Sixers, by summer of 2018, when we can't afford to keep both IT and Smart.
I agree. TP
But some folks here clearly fell in love with the scrappiness of our guys. They were overachievers who got exposed when playing CLE or GS. I was beginning to wonder if IT was a playoff basketball player but he proved me wrong last year and he had a good playoffs. Still it was clear to me that CLE knew that if you played him physical he would break down. The previous year they were physical and he had trouble with it. Last year he was playing well and they broke him down. Teams seemed to big body IT when they could because of his size. No matter the size of a guy's heart, you bang a guy enough and he will break down.
-
Let's just do a comparison
Irving > Thomas
Hayward > Horford
Horford > Bradley
That is the top 3 players, all are better than their counterpart last year
That's really bizarre math. Why wouldn't we do that comparison like so:
Irving > Thomas (Today, with an injured Thomas. Not necessarily last season.)
Horford == Horford
Hayward > Bradley
So really, it's not exactly a case where all three of our best players now are better than all three of our best players last year. Horford is Horford. Yes, he may play better with a year in this system. But he'll also be a year older and the system around him will be with totally new teammates. And being a 'glue' guy, a lot will be on his shoulders to make all these new parts work together.
It isn't bizarre at all. Last year Horford was the #2, this year he is the #3, so while he may be slightly worse as a player, he is a rung lower and will still out perform Bradley who was the #3 last year.
-
rookie Tatum = KO
I've got no idea what we'll get out of Tatum next year. I don't expect him to be as good as KO, either defensively or shooting-wise. He's got NBA moves, but not a refined NBA game yet.
-
rookie Tatum = KO
I've got no idea what we'll get out of Tatum next year. I don't expect him to be as good as KO, either defensively or shooting-wise. He's got NBA moves, but not a refined NBA game yet.
I think he's "straight out of the box" good enough offensively for this league. Nothing I saw from SL jumped out at me defensively, though.
I expect more out of his rookie year than the Celtics got out of Brown. Question will be how many minutes will the kid be afforded.
-
This idea that Kyrie needs to be better than Isaiah was last season is ridiculous. If Isaiah was healthy and the trade never happened, then even Isaiah wouldn't have come close again to putting up 29 ppg. With the addition of Hayward, the scoring burden on Isaiah was going to be less significant, where a more realistic ppg being 22-24. If healthy, how would have Isaiah performed in his contract year with another legitimate scorer taking shots and points away from him? In close games, Brad would have taken some of those big shot moments away from Isaiah, in favor of Hayward. Do you honestly think Isaiah would be fine with that, especially in a his quest to get a max contract? Remember Isaiah throwing Brad under the bus after that game in Phoenix because the game winner wasn't designed for him? I love Isaiah and wish him nothing but the best, but at some point last season it went from the Celtics as a team to Isaiah and the Celtics.
-
Let's just do a comparison
Irving > Thomas
Hayward > Horford
Horford > Bradley
That is the top 3 players, all are better than their counterpart last year
That's really bizarre math. Why wouldn't we do that comparison like so:
Irving > Thomas (Today, with an injured Thomas. Not necessarily last season.)
Horford == Horford
Hayward > Bradley
So really, it's not exactly a case where all three of our best players now are better than all three of our best players last year. Horford is Horford. Yes, he may play better with a year in this system. But he'll also be a year older and the system around him will be with totally new teammates. And being a 'glue' guy, a lot will be on his shoulders to make all these new parts work together.
It isn't bizarre at all. Last year Horford was the #2, this year he is the #3, so while he may be slightly worse as a player, he is a rung lower and will still out perform Bradley who was the #3 last year.
You are using dubious re-ordering logic in order to 'count better players' rather than really evaluate how/where we are actually better. That's pure spin.
Unless KI puts up an All-NBA season, we are not better than last year at the 1. And unless Al Horford suddenly gets younger we are likely about the same with him.
The difference in talent is pretty much almost all due to the addition of Hayward.
-
Let's just do a comparison
Irving > Thomas
Hayward > Horford
Horford > Bradley
That is the top 3 players, all are better than their counterpart last year
That's really bizarre math. Why wouldn't we do that comparison like so:
Irving > Thomas (Today, with an injured Thomas. Not necessarily last season.)
Horford == Horford
Hayward > Bradley
So really, it's not exactly a case where all three of our best players now are better than all three of our best players last year. Horford is Horford. Yes, he may play better with a year in this system. But he'll also be a year older and the system around him will be with totally new teammates. And being a 'glue' guy, a lot will be on his shoulders to make all these new parts work together.
It isn't bizarre at all. Last year Horford was the #2, this year he is the #3, so while he may be slightly worse as a player, he is a rung lower and will still out perform Bradley who was the #3 last year.
You are using dubious re-ordering logic in order to 'count better players' rather than really evaluate how/where we are actually better. That's pure spin.
Unless KI puts up an All-NBA season, we are not better than last year at the 1. And unless Al Horford suddenly gets younger we are likely about the same with him.
The difference in talent is pretty much almost all due to the addition of Hayward.
It isn't pure spin at all. When you add better players, you shift players down, and their roles change. You can't compare Horford as a #2 to Horford as a #3. They have vastly different roles offensively (defensively not much changes) and as such are relied upon for vastly different things. That is what adding Hayward did for the team. It shifted Horford into his much more suited #3 player role where his passing and ability to nail an open shot are much more effective.
-
I think if people are expecting this season by Kyrie to be better than last season by IT, you are setting yourself up to be disappointed. IT had a generationally good season. I think Kyrie is going to be better for the next two seasons than IT is going to be for the next two seasons (and that is ignoring that we likely would have only gotten one injury plagued season from IT) and that is why this trade was made.
The bigger change for the team is Hayward in for Bradley out. This will likely be an upgrade but I am a big Bradley fan. Bradley has durability issues but he is a very good player. Hayward is more durable and we shall see but likely a better all around player, but this is not some huge upgrade. I think Morris in for Amir Johnson may end up being more of a net gain for the team.
This trade was about aligning the window. IT may surprise everyone again and put up 3 or 4 really good seasons but Kyrie is a safer bet for that.
-
The bigger change for the team is Hayward in for Bradley out. This will likely be an upgrade but I am a big Bradley fan. Bradley has durability issues but he is a very good player. Hayward is more durable and we shall see but likely a better all around player, but this is not some huge upgrade. I think Morris in for Amir Johnson may end up being more of a net gain for the team.
You're underestimating Hayward. Hayward is not "likely" a better all around player. He's a far better all around player.
Remember, I'm the one who posted an "Ode to Avery Bradley" about a year ago. I've consistently been his biggest fan on this board. But he's not in the same ballpark at Hayward. Bradley is consistently a 15/4/2 guy. He had a career month or two to start last season which skewed his stats for scoring and rebounding. But it's easy to see that was an aberration as he steadily declined throughout the year. Bradley is a top notch defender who provides some nice outside shooting. He's not a playmaker, a consistent rebounder, a guy who can create his own shot or a guy who gets to the FT line. He can only play one position - SG - because he doesn't pass well enough to play PG and he's too small to play SF. He also misses about 15 games a season due to injury.
Hayward, on the other hand, is significantly better. He's a 21/5/4 guy in a system that isn't as good as it could be for his talents. He shoots just as well from outside but can create his own shot. This is not to be underestimated. He's not the recipient of good passes the way Bradley is. He's making things happen on the court for the other guys. He rebounds a bit better and is a better passer. He gets to the line more often as well. He can play 3 positions at 6'8" (though he's best as a SF) and he consistently plays more than 70 games a year. He's a plus defender even if he's not as good as Bradley.
The advanced stats bear this out. Hayward's VORP is about 4 times what Bradley's is. Plus/Minus, Win Shares, W/48 - you name it and Hayward has far and away the better metrics. They're not even in the same ballpark.
Now what's funny is I had a similar position about Bradley vs. Jimmy Butler. But the difference in that discussion was the 2 1st round picks that everyone wanted to send along with Bradley to get Jimmy B. I said that was too much given Bradley's production. Now that we know those picks turned out to be Irving and Tatum, I think most everyone would agree with me at this point. But that's not the case here. Hayward didn't cost us anything besides the cap space that cost us Bradley and KO. That's a heck of an upgrade in my book and far more than Morris for Amir.
-
rookie Tatum = KO
I've got no idea what we'll get out of Tatum next year. I don't expect him to be as good as KO, either defensively or shooting-wise. He's got NBA moves, but not a refined NBA game yet.
What rookie has a more refined NBA game than Tatum? How often do rookies come in with a refined NBA game? I'm not sure how Danny is expecting him to be refined. I'm sure he will start on the bench, and Brad knows how young he is. While Tatum might be more refined than Jaylen offensively this year, both players are still very young. The refinement will come through experience.
I am so happy that the Celtics didn't throw good money at KO. While he may be more refined than Tatum this year, he is definitely not as valuable long term. No team in the league would trade Tatum for KO straight up.
This trade was about the future. Not the past. Not for this year. Danny made the trade so that they would contend once the Warriors need to make tough financial decisions.
Paul Pierce has a refined offensive game, but at this point of his career (ie retired), is lacking the athleticism to be a special player. KO is much younger than Pierce, yet he lacks the athleticism/ability to pound down low which limits his ceiling.
KO vs Tatum this year doesn't seem that relevant to where this team is going.
-
rookie Tatum = KO
I've got no idea what we'll get out of Tatum next year. I don't expect him to be as good as KO, either defensively or shooting-wise. He's got NBA moves, but not a refined NBA game yet.
I do, at least offensively.
KO had a nice year. He averaged 9/5/2 in 20 minutes. He had a nice eFG of .579 but his career number is .537. He's still a set piece kind of guy who doesn't create offense. He's been a great role player for us.
I think Tatum will average similar numbers in similar minutes. While he probably won't be as efficient, he will however be able to generate his own offense which is something the 2nd unit desperately lacked last year. So even if he's not as efficient as KO, he will be able to provide additional benefits that KO could not.
With the exception of breaking people's arms. That's a Kelly special.
-
I think it is realistic to have tempered expectations with a young team like ours. I feel like it may very well take a season or even 2 before we develop chemistry and get guys in the right roles to seriously contend. A 2nd round exit this year may be our ceiling but I'm looking for teamwork and unselfish play.
We certainly have the talent to be a finals candidate going forward for a few years. It would not surprise me to see Kyrie and Hayward work hard to prove they are unselfish teammates. I think especially Kyrie will work hard on his defense and leadership.
Jaylen, Marcus and Terry all have opportunities here to excel in their roles. If they do, it will set a great example for Tatum to follow. My greatest concern is lack of leadership. Who is going to step up? Horford sets a quiet example that I hope some younger guys will emulate.
-
Let's just do a comparison
Irving > Thomas
Hayward > Horford
Horford > Bradley
That is the top 3 players, all are better than their counterpart last year
That's really bizarre math. Why wouldn't we do that comparison like so:
Irving > Thomas (Today, with an injured Thomas. Not necessarily last season.)
Horford == Horford
Hayward > Bradley
So really, it's not exactly a case where all three of our best players now are better than all three of our best players last year. Horford is Horford. Yes, he may play better with a year in this system. But he'll also be a year older and the system around him will be with totally new teammates. And being a 'glue' guy, a lot will be on his shoulders to make all these new parts work together.
It isn't bizarre at all. Last year Horford was the #2, this year he is the #3, so while he may be slightly worse as a player, he is a rung lower and will still out perform Bradley who was the #3 last year.
You are using dubious re-ordering logic in order to 'count better players' rather than really evaluate how/where we are actually better. That's pure spin.
Unless KI puts up an All-NBA season, we are not better than last year at the 1. And unless Al Horford suddenly gets younger we are likely about the same with him.
The difference in talent is pretty much almost all due to the addition of Hayward.
He's ranking the players from last year and the players from this upcoming season and comparing them to their counterparts in the ranking. It might not be your preference or how you'd rank the players but the logic is pretty unassailable. It also shows how the top level talent has changed on the team.
I don't see a problem with comparing the two teams in a variety of ways.
-
But some folks here clearly fell in love with the scrappiness of our guys.
I think every Celtics fan fell in love with last year's teams scrappiness. That, however, has nothing to do with my opinion that this coming season we may have taken a step back for reasons I have outlined. As I said, long term I think Ainge has done an incredible job. Just next year we might take one step back to take three steps forward the year after that.
-
As far as comparing last year's team to this year's it may be only a slight increase in win totals.
IT had a legendary season last year especially in the 4th quarter. I don't think Irving can exceed what IT, and at best match it. We'll see though.
I don't think Brown or Smart can match Bradley's production just yet in the starting lineup.
Hayward is obviously a huge upgrade on Crowder.
Morris is a different type of player than Johnson but probably an upgrade.
Horford is a year older in his 30s so at best he will match his production from last year but could decline some.
With the bench Smart and Rozier will be a year with more experience so that will definitely help. I think Tatum should match Green's production. Baynes isn't the scorer KO but may be just as good a player.
So when I look at our roster comparing to last year the big swing in our favor is Hayward over Crowder. That has me a little more excited.
What has me even more excited is we are better situated for the long term. In 2 or 3 years Irving is probably better than Thomas, Brown and Smart better than Bradley, Hayward still much better than Crowder, and Tatum a hell a lot better than Green was last year.
What still needs some long term fixing is our bigs situation. Baynes is only signed for 1 year, Morris 2, and Horford 3 but could be declining every year. Ainge needs to figure that out. Maybe Yabusele will surprise us.
-
Let's just do a comparison
Irving > Thomas
Hayward > Horford
Horford > Bradley
That is the top 3 players, all are better than their counterpart last year
That's really bizarre math. Why wouldn't we do that comparison like so:
Irving > Thomas (Today, with an injured Thomas. Not necessarily last season.)
Horford == Horford
Hayward > Bradley
So really, it's not exactly a case where all three of our best players now are better than all three of our best players last year. Horford is Horford. Yes, he may play better with a year in this system. But he'll also be a year older and the system around him will be with totally new teammates. And being a 'glue' guy, a lot will be on his shoulders to make all these new parts work together.
It isn't bizarre at all. Last year Horford was the #2, this year he is the #3, so while he may be slightly worse as a player, he is a rung lower and will still out perform Bradley who was the #3 last year.
You are using dubious re-ordering logic in order to 'count better players' rather than really evaluate how/where we are actually better. That's pure spin.
Unless KI puts up an All-NBA season, we are not better than last year at the 1. And unless Al Horford suddenly gets younger we are likely about the same with him.
The difference in talent is pretty much almost all due to the addition of Hayward.
He's ranking the players from last year and the players from this upcoming season and comparing them to their counterparts in the ranking. It might not be your preference or how you'd rank the players but the logic is pretty unassailable. It also shows how the top level talent has changed on the team.
I don't see a problem with comparing the two teams in a variety of ways.
It's spin.
Let's say I've got three vehicles: A blue VW bug. A very nice pickup truck. An old run-down Corolla.
I replace the run-down Corolla with a new Audi S6. And I paint the blue VW bug red.
How many vehicles are 'better' than the ones I had before?
Moranis' logic is:
Red VW > Blue VW (because he likes red better)
Audi S6 > Pickup Truck
Pickup Truck > old run-down corolla
Therefore, with this logic, I've upgraded all three vehicles!!! :laugh:
Spin.
-
Does it really matter? Who cares if its spin or not? The Celtics have upgraded their team by leveraging draft picks, solid role players (Bradley, Crowder), and a promising but slow center (Zizic) for another solid role player (Morris), a super role player (Hayward), and a star scorer (Irving).
Oh, and they drafted two forwards in the last two years that will now have time to play.
It's a winning offseason, the Celtics are better in the long term, and the short term doesn't really matter, unless Steph and KD get hurt in the playoffs.
-
This years Celtics team has way more talent than last year. I'm not sure how that talent will gel but BS got a lot out of many less talented squads.
I agree with this. I think just on chemistry they will not be as good early but I think the plan is really for 2018 and beyond. This year will be about playing together, learning the system and building a culture. I think they will be a high scoring team but a poor defensive team.
-
First let me say that I want the Celtics to be better than last year. I want them in the Finals competing for the championship. I want everything to go just right. I want those things, I just don't think it will happen.
First, this is a brand new team with little to no resemblance to the solid, deep team that went to the ECF last year. Newly constructed teams take time to meld together. Everyone needs to learn their role and learn their team mates strengths, weaknesses and tendencies. Newly put together teams don't normally gel as quckly and as successfully as the 2007-08 Celtics. That team was the statistical anamoly, not the norm. I think expecting this team to come together that quick and be a +56-57 win team is unrealistic.
Second, we were good last year because we were deep. We had one all-star/MVP candidate and a whole bunch of great role players that made this team 12 deep with experience. On any given night last year you could get 15+ points in a game from bench players Olynyk, Jerebko, Green, Smart, Brown and Rozier. And though Zeller never could score that much as a twelfth guy he could give solid minutes.
This year that is gone. Baynes isn't a scorer. Smart or Brown will be a starter. Crowder, who would have been our 6th man, is gone. Rozier will be back but every other player has zero NBA experience. All you have to do to see how inexperienced teams do in the NBA is watch the young teams that litter the lottery every year. Unless Smart fixes his shot or Brown and/or Tatum develop instantly into scorers that can give you that 15-20 points a game fairly consistently, this team will not be deep. And the bench could give up tons of points on top of being outscored every game.
Third, the Irving trade weakened us for this year. If IT is healthy this year, Irving would have to upgrade his game significantly to become the super efficient high scoring guard we had last year and Cleveland could have this year and as I said earlier, Crowder is gone. Zizic looked awful in Summer League and probably would have sat a lot and been awful when he got in, but he is big and can at least rebound and foul a lot helping to preserve our bigs: Horford, Baynes, Morris. We don't have a player like that anymore.
And if you're expecting Kyrie to be a substantial defensive upgrade over IT, you're going to be disappointed. I could care less if he is 5" taller than Thomas, he is as bad a defender as Isaiah, just for different reasons. He will need to be hid on defense a lot.
I think the trade can't be judged to see who won it for many years. I think short term we lost it but I think long term we could have won it. We will see.
Overall, I think Ainge took this team a step back this year to take 2-3 steps forwards in years to come. He is booking on Kyrie being here for 7 years and being the face of the team. He is booking on Brown, Hayward, Tatum and the LA/Sac pick all playing at star level in 3-4 years. And he is betting that he hits with some of the inexperience and youth like Yabusele, Nader, Theis, Ojeleye and future late picks for them to become very good rotational contributors. That's a lot of uncertainty and its something you usually see in lottery teams, not contenders.
I hope my pessimism is replaced, but as most you who have seen my posts over the years know, I am not high on unproven youth. So I just want to say, especially to those in the game threads, don't go crazy if we aren't a 60 win team or even a ECF team. This team may not even win as many games as last year and could be too shallow and thin to be a successful playoff team this year.
If IT was healthy then yes, its arguably a step back. However it looks like he will miss significant time, and its gonna be hard to start well without him.
The team is good enough, our 8-9 guys are pretty solid, comparable to last year. The real problem lies in our lack of bigs, which is a real problem if either horford or baynes gets injured.
-
Kyrie won't replicate IT's season. Three players in the history of the NBA have averaged 28+ points, 5+ assists, .620+ TS% and .540+ eFG%. IT, Curry, Durant. That's it.
So, we're in all probability looking at a step backward there.
Whether we're an overall better playoff team will depend a lot on whether Jaylen and Smart have progressed.
-
Kyrie won't replicate IT's season. Three players in the history of the NBA have averaged 28+ points, 5+ assists, .620+ TS% and .540+ eFG%. IT, Curry, Durant. That's it.
So, we're in all probability looking at a step backward there.
Whether we're an overall better playoff team will depend a lot on whether Jaylen and Smart have progressed.
So you reference Thomas' regular season numbers, but fail to point out his career playoff production? That said, I don't think Irving will have too hard of a time surpassing Thomas' inefficient 40% from the field 30% from 3.
-
Kyrie won't replicate IT's season. Three players in the history of the NBA have averaged 28+ points, 5+ assists, .620+ TS% and .540+ eFG%. IT, Curry, Durant. That's it.
So, we're in all probability looking at a step backward there.
Whether we're an overall better playoff team will depend a lot on whether Jaylen and Smart have progressed.
So you reference Thomas' regular season numbers, but fail to point out his career playoff production? That said, I don't think Irving will have too hard of a time surpassing Thomas' inefficient 40% from the field 30% from 3.
Why would we look at career numbers when talking about last year?
Despite being injured, IT put up only 2.6 fewer ppg, despite taking 3.2 fewer shots. He averaged more assists and rebounds despite playing fewer numbers.
-
Kyrie won't replicate IT's season. Three players in the history of the NBA have averaged 28+ points, 5+ assists, .620+ TS% and .540+ eFG%. IT, Curry, Durant. That's it.
Do you think he'll be as high as IT was for TO's he was 15th in the league last year? JK
You're comparing a guy that was not the first option on his team to a guy that was and they are still close stats wise. He put up stats next to IT as the second fiddle. Give the guy the chance, IT is gone, it stinks but that is the way it is folks.
IT was phenomenal last year. But there is a chance that he won't be the same player. I am not wishing it on him, I hope he recovers, but it could happen. When a short guy's speed and athletic ability cease to grant him the ability to get separation then it will be shot block city and probably be the end for his career. I hope that does not happen to IT, I hope he plays well and gets paid. But Ainge had access to the doctor reports and he pulled the trigger, that could mean something.
-
Kyrie won't replicate IT's season. Three players in the history of the NBA have averaged 28+ points, 5+ assists, .620+ TS% and .540+ eFG%. IT, Curry, Durant. That's it.
So, we're in all probability looking at a step backward there.
Whether we're an overall better playoff team will depend a lot on whether Jaylen and Smart have progressed.
But do you believe we are in all probability taking a step backward with kyrie over IT?
-
Kyrie won't replicate IT's season.
Neither will IT. That was a career year that even if healthy he likely never reaches again.
I'm more interested in what both players look like going forward. Comparing what Kyrie might do this year to what IT did last year is futile, the circumstances surrounding both players isn't the same and in all likelihood we don't need Kyrie to do what IT did statistically last year as we have more surrounding talent now.
-
Kyrie won't replicate IT's season.
Neither will IT. That was a career year that even if healthy he likely never reaches again.
That's possibly true, but it's irrelevant to this thread, which specifically compares this year's team to last year's.
-
Kyrie won't replicate IT's season. Three players in the history of the NBA have averaged 28+ points, 5+ assists, .620+ TS% and .540+ eFG%. IT, Curry, Durant. That's it.
So, we're in all probability looking at a step backward there.
Whether we're an overall better playoff team will depend a lot on whether Jaylen and Smart have progressed.
But do you believe we are in all probability taking a step backward with kyrie over IT?
In terms of 2016 Celtics vs 2017 Celtics?
Yes. IT had an amazing year, he ran an excellent passing offense, and he was a team leader who was beneficial.
Long-term is a topic for a different thread, but my feelings in general are pretty widely known.
-
Kyrie won't replicate IT's season.
Neither will IT. That was a career year that even if healthy he likely never reaches again.
That's possibly true, but it's irrelevant to this thread, which specifically compares this year's team to last year's.
I haven't seen that many people on here argue that the Celtics will not take a step back next year. Some are saying they could be as good (getting crushed in the ECF), but I haven't read anyone state that they'll win it all.
I have read a bunch of posts where people agree that the Celtics are likely better off in the long term as a result of this offseason.
So yes, while this topic can be viewed exclusively through the lens of last year vs this year, I'm not sure that level of analysis is all that interesting. I find the Celtics future to be much more interesting than predicting which Eastern Conference team will beat them in the playoffs next year.
-
Kyrie won't replicate IT's season.
Neither will IT. That was a career year that even if healthy he likely never reaches again.
That's possibly true, but it's irrelevant to this thread, which specifically compares this year's team to last year's.
I haven't seen that many people on here argue that the Celtics will not take a step back next year. Some are saying they could be as good (getting crushed in the ECF), but I haven't read anyone state that they'll win it all.
I have read a bunch of posts where people agree that the Celtics are likely better off in the long term as a result of this offseason.
So yes, while this topic can be viewed exclusively through the lens of last year vs this year, I'm not sure that level of analysis is all that interesting. I find the Celtics future to be much more interesting than predicting which Eastern Conference team will beat them in the playoffs next year.
Sure. Feel free to start a new thread on it. Nick's thread is about whether there will be a step back this coming season. I personally think it's an interesting topic, but to each their own.
-
Just a few things:
My pessimism is for this year. I think Ainge upgraded the talent but a lot of that talent is undeveloped. Long term, I love what he has done. I just don't see 53+ wins and a guarantee to the ECF nevermind beating Lebron to get to the Finals.
My take on the player order last year to this year:
Best player: IT>KI
2nd Best: Bradley<<Hayward
3rd Best: Horford=Horford
4th Best: Crowder>Brown or Morris, whoever you want to place here.
Rest: Last year >> This year due to experience and cohesion.
Sorry, you have to understand that Crowder was traded because Jaylen Brown is a far more talented player than he is.
-
Kyrie won't replicate IT's season. Three players in the history of the NBA have averaged 28+ points, 5+ assists, .620+ TS% and .540+ eFG%. IT, Curry, Durant. That's it.
So, we're in all probability looking at a step backward there.
Whether we're an overall better playoff team will depend a lot on whether Jaylen and Smart have progressed.
Roy - how do ITs stats for last year's team matter for a team that has completely turned over it's roster?
-
Just a few things:
My pessimism is for this year. I think Ainge upgraded the talent but a lot of that talent is undeveloped. Long term, I love what he has done. I just don't see 53+ wins and a guarantee to the ECF nevermind beating Lebron to get to the Finals.
My take on the player order last year to this year:
Best player: IT>KI
2nd Best: Bradley<<Hayward
3rd Best: Horford=Horford
4th Best: Crowder>Brown or Morris, whoever you want to place here.
Rest: Last year >> This year due to experience and cohesion.
Sorry, you have to understand that Crowder was traded because Jaylen Brown is a far more talented player than he is.
I think Crowder was traded because his salary matched, more than anything else.
Jaylen seems to have more upside, and more natural ability. To nick's point, though, does that make him a better player next season?
We all hope so, of course. If I were betting, though, I'd predict that Jae has the better season.
-
I know people are arguing that we are more top heavy in talent than last year's team so we will be better but I am still concerned about the possible bench.(I know either Brown or Smart will start but will address my concerns about both as bench players).
Smart: he is an important role player but if his shooting doesn't improve, the bench will be pretty offensively challenged. The bench NEEDS a veteran scoring pressence in case Tatum can't be consistently very good on the offensive side. I have no faith that Smart can fix that shot.
Brown: he has only one year of experience and if he goes into a sophomore slump and doesn't take a big step forward, it really hurts this team. I feel he won't stagnate as he seemingly got better week by week last year. But...he is still just a 2nd year player and anything is possible. After his first game in Summer League I wasn't impressed with his performance against crap competition.
Rozier: lets face it, last year was his rookie year because he only played about 300 minutes his real rookie year and was just lost. My concerns for him is similar to those of Brown...he needs to continue to grow. But if Smart starts he has to show he can lead the 2nd team and honestly, I don't think he can. He over dribbles, pounds the ball a lot, then deep in the clock he tries to go iso. That happened a ton. Ball movement when he was the PG was awful. He may be a 2 guard in a PG body. I am not his biggest fan. I have little faith in Rozier.
Baynes: he is what he is, a defensive minded, rebounding, horrible on offense big role player. He probably gets 20 MPG and will bring energy when on the court. The continuing theme is he is just another huge problem the bench may have on offense.
Tatum: love this kid. Think he could be Paul Pierce special. But he is a rookie kid that weighs only 205 that opponents will beat up. Hoping he can be that scoring punch the bench needs but not sure he will this year, especially early to mid season.
Everyone else: inexperienced, limited, rookies. They will have to take up the 10-12 slots on the depth chart and though many may scoff at that on last year's team that meant playing 1200 minutes from those slots for the year. If one the the stars gets hurt, like Horford did last year, these guys have to produce and I don't think they can. Most of this group will be being shuttled back and forth to Portland.
This team is screaming for another veteran big and a veteran shooter. The bench basically has a 4th year guy who can't shoot, two kids with one year of experience, a limited vet big and 6 rookies. The starters may be great but unless they are all going to play 36+ minutes per game this team is going to need this bench to produce and I just don't think they can.
-
Just a few things:
My pessimism is for this year. I think Ainge upgraded the talent but a lot of that talent is undeveloped. Long term, I love what he has done. I just don't see 53+ wins and a guarantee to the ECF nevermind beating Lebron to get to the Finals.
My take on the player order last year to this year:
Best player: IT>KI
2nd Best: Bradley<<Hayward
3rd Best: Horford=Horford
4th Best: Crowder>Brown or Morris, whoever you want to place here.
Rest: Last year >> This year due to experience and cohesion.
Sorry, you have to understand that Crowder was traded because Jaylen Brown is a far more talented player than he is.
I think Crowder was traded because his salary matched, more than anything else.
Jaylen seems to have more upside, and more natural ability. To nick's point, though, does that make him a better player next season?
We all hope so, of course. If I were betting, though, I'd predict that Jae has the better season.
There is zero doubt in my mind that Crowder was moved in part because Danny wants to free up minutes for Jaylen Brown and Jason Tatum.
-
I know people are arguing that we are more top heavy in talent than last year's team so we will be better but I am still concerned about the possible bench.(I know either Brown or Smart will start but will address my concerns about both as bench players).
I think the biggest part of your argument that is true that you haven't made is that the team - on paper - has not addressed some of the deficiencies from last year: rebounding and team defense.
-
Kyrie won't replicate IT's season. Three players in the history of the NBA have averaged 28+ points, 5+ assists, .620+ TS% and .540+ eFG%. IT, Curry, Durant. That's it.
So, we're in all probability looking at a step backward there.
Whether we're an overall better playoff team will depend a lot on whether Jaylen and Smart have progressed.
Roy - how do ITs stats for last year's team matter for a team that has completely turned over it's roster?
The stats are reflective of IT's level of play. IT had one of the all-time great offensive seasons in NBA history. It sounds like hyperbole, until you look at the numbers. Volume scoring with that efficiency is almost unheard of.
When considering whether there will be a step back, you have to consider how great IT was.
-
Just a few things:
My pessimism is for this year. I think Ainge upgraded the talent but a lot of that talent is undeveloped. Long term, I love what he has done. I just don't see 53+ wins and a guarantee to the ECF nevermind beating Lebron to get to the Finals.
My take on the player order last year to this year:
Best player: IT>KI
2nd Best: Bradley<<Hayward
3rd Best: Horford=Horford
4th Best: Crowder>Brown or Morris, whoever you want to place here.
Rest: Last year >> This year due to experience and cohesion.
Sorry, you have to understand that Crowder was traded because Jaylen Brown is a far more talented player than he is.
I think Crowder was traded because his salary matched, more than anything else.
Jaylen seems to have more upside, and more natural ability. To nick's point, though, does that make him a better player next season?
We all hope so, of course. If I were betting, though, I'd predict that Jae has the better season.
There is zero doubt in my mind that Crowder was moved in part because Danny wants to free up minutes for Jaylen Brown and Jason Tatum.
Maybe. If the Kyrie trade doesn't happen I think that Jae is still here, but it's impossible to tell.
-
Kyrie won't replicate IT's season. Three players in the history of the NBA have averaged 28+ points, 5+ assists, .620+ TS% and .540+ eFG%. IT, Curry, Durant. That's it.
So, we're in all probability looking at a step backward there.
Whether we're an overall better playoff team will depend a lot on whether Jaylen and Smart have progressed.
Roy - how do ITs stats for last year's team matter for a team that has completely turned over it's roster?
The stats are reflective of IT's level of play. IT had one of the all-time great offensive seasons in NBA history. It sounds like hyperbole, until you look at the numbers. Volume scoring with that efficiency is almost unheard of.
When considering whether there will be a step back, you have to consider how great IT was.
Yeah he was great, on a team without Gordon Hayward who will obviously command a major share of offense now.
We have to accept that IT's top-5 MVP performance last year was both great but also completely necessary and a function of the roster. This roster is different and that type of player is no longer needed.
-
Kyrie won't replicate IT's season. Three players in the history of the NBA have averaged 28+ points, 5+ assists, .620+ TS% and .540+ eFG%. IT, Curry, Durant. That's it.
So, we're in all probability looking at a step backward there.
Whether we're an overall better playoff team will depend a lot on whether Jaylen and Smart have progressed.
Roy - how do ITs stats for last year's team matter for a team that has completely turned over it's roster?
The stats are reflective of IT's level of play. IT had one of the all-time great offensive seasons in NBA history. It sounds like hyperbole, until you look at the numbers. Volume scoring with that efficiency is almost unheard of.
When considering whether there will be a step back, you have to consider how great IT was.
Yeah he was great, on a team without Gordon Hayward who will obviously command a major share of offense now.
We have to accept that IT's top-5 MVP performance last year was both great but also completely necessary and a function of the roster. This roster is different and that type of player is no longer needed.
The roster has more top end talent. That doesn't mean that IT's loss won't be felt, or that a player playing at a similar level is not "needed". The efficiency in particular is tough to replace.
-
I think the OP's post is being slightly misrepresented because of his bench analysis.
Nick isn't saying that last years team was better or more talented, he's just saying his expectations for this particular year are a bit more toned down amongst all the hype- especially given the time they might need to become cohesive.
To me, this team is soooo much better than last years team. Why?
1) More talent, more stars
2) Bigger, longer, more athletic
3) Coach has finished his first deep playoff run and the experience that comes with that is priceless.
We lost a few end of bench role players that were fun to watch and made us buy in emotionally, but the reality is the only thing keeping this team from being better than last year is time played together and lack of familiarity with the offense and defense. eg Kyrie might take 6 months to work out where guys will be on certain plays to kick out, and Hayward/Kyrie/Morris might be a step behind on defensive rotations.
The only thing stopping this team from torching last years team is gel time. They may not get there by the end of this upcoming season, but by next offseason they will be way better.
Let's hope Brad can get them to buy in immediately.
As constructed I think it's possible to get to the ECF this year with a bit of luck and that should be our expectation.
After a year of playing together I think being competitive in the finals should be the expectation given how weak the East will be.
-
Kyrie won't replicate IT's season. Three players in the history of the NBA have averaged 28+ points, 5+ assists, .620+ TS% and .540+ eFG%. IT, Curry, Durant. That's it.
So, we're in all probability looking at a step backward there.
Whether we're an overall better playoff team will depend a lot on whether Jaylen and Smart have progressed.
Roy - how do ITs stats for last year's team matter for a team that has completely turned over it's roster?
The stats are reflective of IT's level of play. IT had one of the all-time great offensive seasons in NBA history. It sounds like hyperbole, until you look at the numbers. Volume scoring with that efficiency is almost unheard of.
When considering whether there will be a step back, you have to consider how great IT was.
Yeah he was great, on a team without Gordon Hayward who will obviously command a major share of offense now.
We have to accept that IT's top-5 MVP performance last year was both great but also completely necessary and a function of the roster. This roster is different and that type of player is no longer needed.
The roster has more top end talent. That doesn't mean that IT's loss won't be felt, or that a player playing at a similar level is not "needed". The efficiency in particular is tough to replace.
We do have a player who will be playing at a similar level - Kyrie Irving.
Here are Isaiah's offensive numbers from last year:
28.9 PPG
5.9 APG
2.8 TO
0.6 OREB
54.6% eFG%
62.5% TS%
34% USG
Here are Kyrie's numbers:
25.2 PPG
5.8 APG
2.5 TO
0.7 OREB
53.5% eFG%
58.0% TS%
30.8% USG
I think it's safe to say that those production levels are 'similar'.
We aren't talking about a drop from 29 PPG to 18 PPG here...we are talking abut a 4 PPG drop in scoring output (partially offset by Kyrie's lower usage rate) and a 4% drop in TS%. Aside from this the two players had practically identical stats across the board.
So you are basically:
* Replacing about 90% of Isaiah's production from last year with Kyrie
* Replacing about 60% of Avery's production with whoever we start at SG (the biggest loss)
* Replacing about 180% of Crowder's production from last year with Hayward
* Replacing about 200% of Amir's production from last year with Morris
* Retaining 100% of Horford's production from last year by keeping Horford
I think our starting lineup is very easily at a plus there - it's the bench that I, personally, am worried about here.
My concern with the bench is simply how unproven the majority of our bench players are, assuming Smart stats (which all signs seem to suggest).
We pretty much know what to expect from Baynes, but aside from that it's an open book. We really have no clue what we are going to get from Rozier, Brown, Tatum, Theis, Yabusele, Nader, Larkin, etc. Absolutely no clue.
That list of guys is so unpredictable that it could just as easily be the a top 5 bench or a bottom 5 bench depending on which way any number of those dominos fall.
-
Kyrie won't replicate IT's season. Three players in the history of the NBA have averaged 28+ points, 5+ assists, .620+ TS% and .540+ eFG%. IT, Curry, Durant. That's it.
So, we're in all probability looking at a step backward there.
Whether we're an overall better playoff team will depend a lot on whether Jaylen and Smart have progressed.
Roy - how do ITs stats for last year's team matter for a team that has completely turned over it's roster?
The stats are reflective of IT's level of play. IT had one of the all-time great offensive seasons in NBA history. It sounds like hyperbole, until you look at the numbers. Volume scoring with that efficiency is almost unheard of.
When considering whether there will be a step back, you have to consider how great IT was.
Yeah he was great, on a team without Gordon Hayward who will obviously command a major share of offense now.
We have to accept that IT's top-5 MVP performance last year was both great but also completely necessary and a function of the roster. This roster is different and that type of player is no longer needed.
TP for that statement. A lot of people who are critical of the trade are not taking this into account.
-
We have to accept that IT's top-5 MVP performance last year was both great but also completely necessary and a function of the roster. This roster is different and that type of player is no longer needed.
Well said. TP
-
Kyrie won't replicate IT's season. Three players in the history of the NBA have averaged 28+ points, 5+ assists, .620+ TS% and .540+ eFG%. IT, Curry, Durant. That's it.
So, we're in all probability looking at a step backward there.
Whether we're an overall better playoff team will depend a lot on whether Jaylen and Smart have progressed.
Roy - how do ITs stats for last year's team matter for a team that has completely turned over it's roster?
The stats are reflective of IT's level of play. IT had one of the all-time great offensive seasons in NBA history. It sounds like hyperbole, until you look at the numbers. Volume scoring with that efficiency is almost unheard of.
When considering whether there will be a step back, you have to consider how great IT was.
Yeah he was great, on a team without Gordon Hayward who will obviously command a major share of offense now.
We have to accept that IT's top-5 MVP performance last year was both great but also completely necessary and a function of the roster. This roster is different and that type of player is no longer needed.
TP for that statement. A lot of people who are critical of the trade are not taking this into account.
I'm not taking it into account because it doesn't make a lot of sense.
Dozens of guys have scored 28+ points per game. Hundreds have averaged 5 apg. Three players in history have done both while maintaining the efficiency of IT, and the other two are both MVPs.
-
I'm sorry, but this thread is probably the saddest attempt to justify this mess of an off-season I have seen in a long time on this blog.
What people are basically asking for is "more time", and the season hasn't even begun, yet. "Please don't judge us if we don't win right away". Sounds to me like you are just getting your excuses in early.
What about the fact that before the off-season, we had flexibility, whereas now we're committed? Comitted to a team whose ceiling is an also-ran, basically the new Clippers?
Danny invested the two biggest assets this franchise had in over 30 years, it is entirely reasonable and appropriate to expect instant, marked improvement.
"But we got younger".
So we have more years of a team not good enough to win it all? And I should be excited about that for what reason exactly?
"Well, we can't expect a finals appearance. Last year's team massively over-achieved".
If last year's team over-achieved, why did we feel the need to go all-in then? Why commit?
And on and on and on it goes, just so nobody has to lose face in case this ominous super-team we've all dreamt about for the past few years never comes to pass. Imo, just a classic case of emotional sunk-cost fallacy.
"This has to be good, right? No way we fumble on the last few yards and mess up this sure-fire, once in a lifetime opportunity."
But deep down you know this isn't nearly good enough, this team isn't even close to what you were (rightfully) expecting, considering our assets. That's really all there is to threads like these...
-
Kyrie won't replicate IT's season. Three players in the history of the NBA have averaged 28+ points, 5+ assists, .620+ TS% and .540+ eFG%. IT, Curry, Durant. That's it.
So, we're in all probability looking at a step backward there.
Whether we're an overall better playoff team will depend a lot on whether Jaylen and Smart have progressed.
Roy - how do ITs stats for last year's team matter for a team that has completely turned over it's roster?
The stats are reflective of IT's level of play. IT had one of the all-time great offensive seasons in NBA history. It sounds like hyperbole, until you look at the numbers. Volume scoring with that efficiency is almost unheard of.
When considering whether there will be a step back, you have to consider how great IT was.
Yeah he was great, on a team without Gordon Hayward who will obviously command a major share of offense now.
We have to accept that IT's top-5 MVP performance last year was both great but also completely necessary and a function of the roster. This roster is different and that type of player is no longer needed.
TP for that statement. A lot of people who are critical of the trade are not taking this into account.
I'm not taking it into account because it doesn't make a lot of sense.
Dozens of guys have scored 28+ points per game. Hundreds have averaged 5 apg. Three players in history have done both while maintaining the efficiency of IT, and the other two are both MVPs.
IMO IT had a great year on a decent team. To have a very good or great team IT can't have those kind of numbers it wont work. He commanded the ball and took a lot of shots, lots of times it was him vs. the other team. You can't be a great team with that even if it was Michael Jordan.
-
If last year's team over-achieved, why did we feel the need to go all-in then? Why commit?
Because Ainge had to pick a direction. I have been saying that for a long time with a lot of push back on this board, but this summer was the decision point. Ainge either had to commit to a rebuild building around the young kids or commit to go forward utilizing assets to add high end talent. Once he was able to land Hayward, it became apparent that he had to move some of the assets to upgrade other roster positions. It just wasn't feasible to keep trying to win now and rebuild at the same time because he would have harmed both (by either stunting the growth of the young kids or wasting his window with Horford, Hayward, and Thomas by not getting them enough help). I liked the trade if for no other reason, Ainge finally made a decision on what he wanted to do with the team (It is the same reason I was one of the few people on one of the prior iterations of this board that was gung ho from the get go with the Ray Allen trade in 2008). Thus, I fully expect Ainge, at some point this season, to make some short term moves utilizing more draft picks and young players (not the LAL pick unless it is a star, but Boston has plenty of future 1st's at its disposal) to add some vets to go for at least the Finals this year, especially if Cleveland looks at all vulnerable (like say Thomas still isn't playing by the trade deadline or something like that).
-
Kyrie won't replicate IT's season. Three players in the history of the NBA have averaged 28+ points, 5+ assists, .620+ TS% and .540+ eFG%. IT, Curry, Durant. That's it.
So, we're in all probability looking at a step backward there.
Whether we're an overall better playoff team will depend a lot on whether Jaylen and Smart have progressed.
Roy - how do ITs stats for last year's team matter for a team that has completely turned over it's roster?
The stats are reflective of IT's level of play. IT had one of the all-time great offensive seasons in NBA history. It sounds like hyperbole, until you look at the numbers. Volume scoring with that efficiency is almost unheard of.
When considering whether there will be a step back, you have to consider how great IT was.
Yeah he was great, on a team without Gordon Hayward who will obviously command a major share of offense now.
We have to accept that IT's top-5 MVP performance last year was both great but also completely necessary and a function of the roster. This roster is different and that type of player is no longer needed.
TP for that statement. A lot of people who are critical of the trade are not taking this into account.
I'm not taking it into account because it doesn't make a lot of sense.
Dozens of guys have scored 28+ points per game. Hundreds have averaged 5 apg. Three players in history have done both while maintaining the efficiency of IT, and the other two are both MVPs.
IMO IT had a great year on a decent team. To have a very good or great team IT can't have those kind of numbers it wont work. He commanded the ball and took a lot of shots, lots of times it was him vs. the other team. You can't be a great team with that even if it was Michael Jordan.
Agreed. Those were great historic numbers, great for IT, but one season on a particular team with particular teammates does not prove that is who IT is. Makes sense to me, Roy. ;)
-
Kyrie won't replicate IT's season. Three players in the history of the NBA have averaged 28+ points, 5+ assists, .620+ TS% and .540+ eFG%. IT, Curry, Durant. That's it.
So, we're in all probability looking at a step backward there.
Whether we're an overall better playoff team will depend a lot on whether Jaylen and Smart have progressed.
Roy - how do ITs stats for last year's team matter for a team that has completely turned over it's roster?
The stats are reflective of IT's level of play. IT had one of the all-time great offensive seasons in NBA history. It sounds like hyperbole, until you look at the numbers. Volume scoring with that efficiency is almost unheard of.
When considering whether there will be a step back, you have to consider how great IT was.
Yeah he was great, on a team without Gordon Hayward who will obviously command a major share of offense now.
We have to accept that IT's top-5 MVP performance last year was both great but also completely necessary and a function of the roster. This roster is different and that type of player is no longer needed.
TP for that statement. A lot of people who are critical of the trade are not taking this into account.
I'm not taking it into account because it doesn't make a lot of sense.
Dozens of guys have scored 28+ points per game. Hundreds have averaged 5 apg. Three players in history have done both while maintaining the efficiency of IT, and the other two are both MVPs.
IMO IT had a great year on a decent team. To have a very good or great team IT can't have those kind of numbers it wont work. He commanded the ball and took a lot of shots, lots of times it was him vs. the other team. You can't be a great team with that even if it was Michael Jordan.
Sure. You need to add talent to make the team better. In terms of shots, you realize that IT took less than Kyrie, right?
However, you obviously can put up those numbers while being on a great team. Steph Curry and Durant do. But, reduce the points per game, if you think IT's numbers are based upon more chances (which is silly unless you're saying the same thing about Kyrie). IT averaged 28.9 ppg. Do you know how many players in NBA history have averaged even 23 points, 5 assists, and IT's efficiency levels?
Five: Steph, Durant, Wilt, Lebron and IT.
Our level of PG play will go down next season, unless Kyrie has a historically great season.
-
Kyrie won't replicate IT's season. Three players in the history of the NBA have averaged 28+ points, 5+ assists, .620+ TS% and .540+ eFG%. IT, Curry, Durant. That's it.
So, we're in all probability looking at a step backward there.
Whether we're an overall better playoff team will depend a lot on whether Jaylen and Smart have progressed.
Roy - how do ITs stats for last year's team matter for a team that has completely turned over it's roster?
The stats are reflective of IT's level of play. IT had one of the all-time great offensive seasons in NBA history. It sounds like hyperbole, until you look at the numbers. Volume scoring with that efficiency is almost unheard of.
When considering whether there will be a step back, you have to consider how great IT was.
Yeah he was great, on a team without Gordon Hayward who will obviously command a major share of offense now.
We have to accept that IT's top-5 MVP performance last year was both great but also completely necessary and a function of the roster. This roster is different and that type of player is no longer needed.
TP for that statement. A lot of people who are critical of the trade are not taking this into account.
I'm not taking it into account because it doesn't make a lot of sense.
Dozens of guys have scored 28+ points per game. Hundreds have averaged 5 apg. Three players in history have done both while maintaining the efficiency of IT, and the other two are both MVPs.
IMO IT had a great year on a decent team. To have a very good or great team IT can't have those kind of numbers it wont work. He commanded the ball and took a lot of shots, lots of times it was him vs. the other team. You can't be a great team with that even if it was Michael Jordan.
Sure. You need to add talent to make the team better. In terms of shots, you realize that IT took less than Kyrie, right?
However, you obviously can put up those numbers while being on a great team. Steph Curry and Durant do. But, reduce the points per game, if you think IT's numbers are based upon more chances (which is silly unless you're saying the same thing about Kyrie). IT averaged 28.9 ppg. Do you know how many players in NBA history have averaged even 23 points, 5 assists, and IT's efficiency levels?
Five: Steph, Durant, Wilt, Lebron and IT.
Our level of PG play will go down next season, unless Kyrie has a historically great season.
Roy, I feel that you have made this point. A couple times. I'm not sure anyone disagrees. IT was straight fire last year. It is highly improbable that he has a similar year. It is also highly improbable that Kyrie has a year like IT did in 2016-17.
I think Danny made the trade to consider the future, not the past.
Who do you believe will score more points next year (in aggregate, not on average): IT w/ a hip injury or Kyrie (who also seems to gets nicked up during the reg. season)?
I think that Kyrie will score more points than IT next year.
-
Kyrie won't replicate IT's season. Three players in the history of the NBA have averaged 28+ points, 5+ assists, .620+ TS% and .540+ eFG%. IT, Curry, Durant. That's it.
So, we're in all probability looking at a step backward there.
Whether we're an overall better playoff team will depend a lot on whether Jaylen and Smart have progressed.
Roy - how do ITs stats for last year's team matter for a team that has completely turned over it's roster?
The stats are reflective of IT's level of play. IT had one of the all-time great offensive seasons in NBA history. It sounds like hyperbole, until you look at the numbers. Volume scoring with that efficiency is almost unheard of.
When considering whether there will be a step back, you have to consider how great IT was.
Yeah he was great, on a team without Gordon Hayward who will obviously command a major share of offense now.
We have to accept that IT's top-5 MVP performance last year was both great but also completely necessary and a function of the roster. This roster is different and that type of player is no longer needed.
TP for that statement. A lot of people who are critical of the trade are not taking this into account.
I'm not taking it into account because it doesn't make a lot of sense.
Dozens of guys have scored 28+ points per game. Hundreds have averaged 5 apg. Three players in history have done both while maintaining the efficiency of IT, and the other two are both MVPs.
IMO IT had a great year on a decent team. To have a very good or great team IT can't have those kind of numbers it wont work. He commanded the ball and took a lot of shots, lots of times it was him vs. the other team. You can't be a great team with that even if it was Michael Jordan.
Sure. You need to add talent to make the team better. In terms of shots, you realize that IT took less than Kyrie, right?
However, you obviously can put up those numbers while being on a great team. Steph Curry and Durant do. But, reduce the points per game, if you think IT's numbers are based upon more chances (which is silly unless you're saying the same thing about Kyrie). IT averaged 28.9 ppg. Do you know how many players in NBA history have averaged even 23 points, 5 assists, and IT's efficiency levels?
Five: Steph, Durant, Wilt, Lebron and IT.
Our level of PG play will go down next season, unless Kyrie has a historically great season.
Roy, I feel that you have made this point. A couple times. I'm not sure anyone disagrees. IT was straight fire last year. It is highly improbable that he has a similar year. It is also highly improbable that Kyrie has a year like IT did in 2016-17.
I think Danny made the trade to consider the future, not the past.
Who do you believe will score more points next year (in aggregate, not on average): IT w/ a hip injury or Kyrie (who also seems to gets nicked up during the reg. season)?
I think that Kyrie will score more points than IT next year.
It seems like people do disagree, or are suggesting that somehow having the ball a lot (but taking fewer shots than Kyrie) played a role in his historically efficient season.
Since IT will miss at least a month of the season, something will have to go seriously wrong for him to score more aggregate points than Kyrie. I'm not sure what points totals really tell us, though. Carmelo scored more total points than Durant last year. Does that matter?
-
Kyrie won't replicate IT's season. Three players in the history of the NBA have averaged 28+ points, 5+ assists, .620+ TS% and .540+ eFG%. IT, Curry, Durant. That's it.
So, we're in all probability looking at a step backward there.
Whether we're an overall better playoff team will depend a lot on whether Jaylen and Smart have progressed.
Roy - how do ITs stats for last year's team matter for a team that has completely turned over it's roster?
The stats are reflective of IT's level of play. IT had one of the all-time great offensive seasons in NBA history. It sounds like hyperbole, until you look at the numbers. Volume scoring with that efficiency is almost unheard of.
When considering whether there will be a step back, you have to consider how great IT was.
Yeah he was great, on a team without Gordon Hayward who will obviously command a major share of offense now.
We have to accept that IT's top-5 MVP performance last year was both great but also completely necessary and a function of the roster. This roster is different and that type of player is no longer needed.
TP for that statement. A lot of people who are critical of the trade are not taking this into account.
I'm not taking it into account because it doesn't make a lot of sense.
Dozens of guys have scored 28+ points per game. Hundreds have averaged 5 apg. Three players in history have done both while maintaining the efficiency of IT, and the other two are both MVPs.
IMO IT had a great year on a decent team. To have a very good or great team IT can't have those kind of numbers it wont work. He commanded the ball and took a lot of shots, lots of times it was him vs. the other team. You can't be a great team with that even if it was Michael Jordan.
Sure. You need to add talent to make the team better. In terms of shots, you realize that IT took less than Kyrie, right?
However, you obviously can put up those numbers while being on a great team. Steph Curry and Durant do. But, reduce the points per game, if you think IT's numbers are based upon more chances (which is silly unless you're saying the same thing about Kyrie). IT averaged 28.9 ppg. Do you know how many players in NBA history have averaged even 23 points, 5 assists, and IT's efficiency levels?
Five: Steph, Durant, Wilt, Lebron and IT.
Our level of PG play will go down next season, unless Kyrie has a historically great season.
Roy, I feel that you have made this point. A couple times. I'm not sure anyone disagrees. IT was straight fire last year. It is highly improbable that he has a similar year. It is also highly improbable that Kyrie has a year like IT did in 2016-17.
I think Danny made the trade to consider the future, not the past.
Who do you believe will score more points next year (in aggregate, not on average): IT w/ a hip injury or Kyrie (who also seems to gets nicked up during the reg. season)?
I think that Kyrie will score more points than IT next year.
It seems like people do disagree, or are suggesting that somehow having the ball a lot (but taking fewer shots than Kyrie) played a role in his historically efficient season.
Since IT will miss at least a month of the season, something will have to go seriously wrong for him to score more aggregate points than Kyrie. I'm not sure what points totals really tell us, though. Carmelo scored more total points than Durant last year. Does that matter?
IT and Kyrie are primarily scorers (at this point in their careers). They score better than they do anything else. The amount of points scored might be the most relevant stat for these two basketball players.
You are cherry picking here to make a point. Your point presents a unique position: comparing a decent player on a bad team to a great player on a great team. This scoring analysis isn't that relevant to the Celtics and the Cavs, which presumably will both be good teams.
In general, scoring matters. It's a league based on offensive production. GS won rings while averaging 116 ppg last year, first in the league. Here are the top 20 scorers from last year (total, not ppg):
Westbrook
Harden
IT
AD
KAT
Lillard
Derozan
Curry
Lebron
Cousins
Wiggins
Leonard
CJ McCollum
Greek Freak
Kemba
Jimmy Butler
Irving
Wall
Beal
PG13
All are considered to be above average players. Many are considered to be among the best. The Celtics would take most of these players on their team. I think Durant is the obvious exception (which you brought up) after missing 20 games.
The top 3 players in scoring last year were in the top 5 of MVP voting.
With IT4 hurt and in CLE, the Celtics biggest need is an influx of scoring. Fortunately, Irving will be playing for them next year.
My point is that Kyrie will score more points than IT next year, which will hopefully help them win a couple more games.
Also, projecting that IT will miss a month is conjecture. I don't think anyone really knows how many games he will play. The same can be said about Kyrie, though I think he's more of a sure thing to play more games next year.
-
My point is that Kyrie will score more points for the Celtics next year, which will hopefully help them win a couple more games, compared to IT sitting on the bench with an injury.
Sure. Has anyone argued to the contrary? If IT had stayed here, nick could have started a thread arguing that the Celts would take a step backward in part due to IT's injury.
But instead, you're going off topic again. IT's health has nothing to do with whether the 2017 Celts take a step back from 2016.
Lots of people are arguing that Kyrie is an upgrade. '17 IT vs. '17 Kyrie, there's an argument (for another thread). But '16 IT vs. '17 Kyrie? That's a different argument entirely, one that IT wins.
-
My point is that Kyrie will score more points for the Celtics next year, which will hopefully help them win a couple more games, compared to IT sitting on the bench with an injury.
Sure. Has anyone argued to the contrary? If IT had stayed here, nick could have started a thread arguing that the Celts would take a step backward in part due to IT's injury.
But instead, you're going off topic again. IT's health has nothing to do with whether the 2017 Celts take a step back from 2016.
Lots of people are arguing that Kyrie is an upgrade. '17 IT vs. '17 Kyrie, there's an argument (for another thread). But '16 IT vs. '17 Kyrie? That's a different argument entirely, one that IT wins.
I don't think this is true. Lots of people are saying that Kyrie will finish 3rd in MVP voting? Lots of people are arguing that he will score 29 ppg? I haven't read lots of people stating this.
Your argument in a vacuum makes sense and is hard to crack. Once we look to the future (adding context and relevance), this argument doesn't matter too much.
But I agree, Nick wanted to talk about the past and this year, not the future (when the Celtics have a chance to win rings). I started another thread to talk about the Celtics future and few were interested. This surprises me, as the Celtics are more interesting looking forward than they are looking back, in my opinion.
-
'17 IT, even if health, would never be able to replicate '16 IT's season due to the simple fact that '17 IT would have to share the ball with hayward who wlll average 20+ ppg.
Celtics take a step back? I highly highly doubt it man. Forgetting about Hayward?
Not to mention this team is definitely a better playoff team regardless of regular season outcome.
-
My point is that Kyrie will score more points for the Celtics next year, which will hopefully help them win a couple more games, compared to IT sitting on the bench with an injury.
Sure. Has anyone argued to the contrary? If IT had stayed here, nick could have started a thread arguing that the Celts would take a step backward in part due to IT's injury.
But instead, you're going off topic again. IT's health has nothing to do with whether the 2017 Celts take a step back from 2016.
Lots of people are arguing that Kyrie is an upgrade. '17 IT vs. '17 Kyrie, there's an argument (for another thread). But '16 IT vs. '17 Kyrie? That's a different argument entirely, one that IT wins.
What is a step back exactly? Would losing the ECF in 5 again, but only winning 50 games be a step back? What if the ECF loss is in 7 games this time instead of 5, but the team only wins 47 games in the regular season? What if the team wins 59 games, but by unfortunate circumstances faces Cleveland in the 2nd round and loses a tough series to the Cavs, is that a step back?
2017 Boston has more top end talent than 2016 Boston. That makes 2017 Boston closer to winning a title than 2016 Boston. That is all that really matters in this sort of analysis.
-
My point is that Kyrie will score more points for the Celtics next year, which will hopefully help them win a couple more games, compared to IT sitting on the bench with an injury.
Sure. Has anyone argued to the contrary? If IT had stayed here, nick could have started a thread arguing that the Celts would take a step backward in part due to IT's injury.
But instead, you're going off topic again. IT's health has nothing to do with whether the 2017 Celts take a step back from 2016.
Lots of people are arguing that Kyrie is an upgrade. '17 IT vs. '17 Kyrie, there's an argument (for another thread). But '16 IT vs. '17 Kyrie? That's a different argument entirely, one that IT wins.
What is a step back exactly? Would losing the ECF in 5 again, but only winning 50 games be a step back? What if the ECF loss is in 7 games this time instead of 5, but the team only wins 47 games in the regular season? What if the team wins 59 games, but by unfortunate circumstances faces Cleveland in the 2nd round and loses a tough series to the Cavs, is that a step back?
2017 Boston has more top end talent than 2016 Boston. That makes 2017 Boston closer to winning a title than 2016 Boston. That is all that really matters in this sort of analysis.
I agree.
Others might say they are lacking the same depth.
Others will say that there's no way that Kyrie matches IT's performance last year, while ignoring the other improvements made on the team like Gordon Hayward, Morris, and Tatum.
Others will claim that Avery Bradley, Jae Crowder, and Kelly Olynyk are franchise type players that cannot be replaced.
I don't agree with these pessimistic views.
-
2017 Boston has more top end talent than 2016 Boston. That makes 2017 Boston closer to winning a title than 2016 Boston. That is all that really matters in this sort of analysis.
It's a bit more nuanced than that. At the top end, we've added one star. We've subtracted one star and replaced him with a slightly lesser star. We've also subtracted two very good role-playing starters.
For all the reasons nick stated, it's not as simple as saying "we had one star, now we have two, so we're obviously better." Things like depth, chemistry, fit, spacing, defense, etc. matter, particularly in setting expectations for next year.
-
2017 Boston has more top end talent than 2016 Boston. That makes 2017 Boston closer to winning a title than 2016 Boston. That is all that really matters in this sort of analysis.
It's a bit more nuanced than that. At the top end, we've added one star. We've subtracted one star and replaced him with a slightly lesser star. We've also subtracted two very good role-playing starters.
For all the reasons nick stated, it's not as simple as saying "we had one star, now we have two, so we're obviously better." Things like depth, chemistry, fit, spacing, defense, etc. matter, particularly in setting expectations for next year.
Nah, Jae was becoming overrated. His defense wasn't as good as his reputation, esp in the playoffs. I think Bradley is a good role player.
Also, I don't think one year in isolation is enough to make value judgements re: the "lesser star" comment. I think you'd be hard pressed to find support that Kyrie is not as much of a star as IT. If anything, one could make the point that Kyrie will be better this year as he finally is sitting in the drivers seat.
Re: depth, they don't have the same. Luckily, Danny isn't done making moves. I imagine there will be some depth to add at the trade deadline.
Re: talent, they have more. Brown and Tatum are more talented than Crowder and Kelly/Amir. Bradley isn't as good as Marcus, but I actually prefer Smart's defense going forward (he's bigger, younger, and potentially meaner).
Re: coaching, It should be the same.
Re: chemistry, this is the one that will take some time to figure out. I am projecting 1.5-3 years before this team gels into a championship contender. Unfortunately, last year's team was never a contender.
-
'17 IT, even if health, would never be able to replicate '16 IT's season due to the simple fact that '17 IT would have to share the ball with hayward who wlll average 20+ ppg.
Celtics take a step back? I highly highly doubt it man. Forgetting about Hayward?
Not to mention this team is definitely a better playoff team regardless of regular season outcome.
I agree with this.
Kyrie in playoff last year average 25.9p|5.3a|2.8r|47%|37%|21.3PER|57%TS
IT in playoff last year average 23.3p|6.7a|3.3r|43%|33%|18.1PER|56%TS
Kyrie has also put better stats in the 2016 playoff, so it's reasonable to be optimistic.
-
'17 IT, even if health, would never be able to replicate '16 IT's season due to the simple fact that '17 IT would have to share the ball with hayward who wlll average 20+ ppg.
Celtics take a step back? I highly highly doubt it man. Forgetting about Hayward?
Not to mention this team is definitely a better playoff team regardless of regular season outcome.
I agree with this.
Kyrie in playoff last year average 25.9p|5.3a|2.8r|47%|37%|21.3PER|57%TS
IT in playoff last year average 23.3p|6.7a|3.3r|43%|33%|18.1PER|56%TS
Kyrie has also put better stats in the 2016 playoff, so it's reasonable to be optimistic.
Those logic are off guys.
- IT with Hayward would have similar if not better stats, because they won't double or triple him. (Do Lillard and McCollum have drop stats because they have to share the ball? don't think so.)
- Irving has better stats because the opposite team couldn't double or triple on him.
Everybody so down on IT, they don't realize what he has done almost all by himself.
He put up historical celtics stats and beat records, all without having another guy to rely on the team to score.
Please compare what is comparable.
-
Those logic are off guys.
- IT with Hayward would have similar if not better stats, because they won't double or triple him. (Do Lillard and McCollum have drop stats because they have to share the ball? don't think so.)
Yes, Lillard and McCollum have lesser scoring stats because they play with each other. For example, Lillard last year missed 5 consecutive games in the middle of the season. In those 5 games, McCollum scored 29, 20, 29, 43, and 35. which is an average of 31.2. Including those games McCollum averaged 23 on the season. I get that is a small sample size, but similar levels of production jumps from McCollum also occurred in the prior season i.e. Lillard missed 7 straight games the prior year, McCollum missed the first and the first two after that was a bit off, but he still averaged 26 in those 6 games. That year he averaged 20.8.
You historically see this when great offensive players play together. Look at the drop in stats from the Boston Big 3 or the Miami Big 3. Curry went from 30.1 to 25.3 with the addition of Durant. When Durant left, Westbrook went from 23.5 to 31.6. Even Durant dropped from 28.2 to 25.1 by leaving 1 great offensive player (Russ) to joining 2 (Curry, Klay).
What does tend to happen is players have greater efficiency when they don't shoulder as much of the load, but they take less shots because they share that load more.
- Irving has better stats because the opposite team couldn't double or triple on him.
Everybody so down on IT, they don't realize what he has done almost all by himself.
He put up historical celtics stats and beat records, all without having another guy to rely on the team to score.
Please compare what is comparable.
Thomas had the ball in his hand whenever he wanted the ball. That allowed him to control the offense, take the shots he wanted, pass when he wanted, etc. There is a reason Thomas' USG was significantly higher than Irving's.
-
]Thomas had the ball in his hand whenever he wanted the ball. That allowed him to control the offense, take the shots he wanted, pass when he wanted, etc. There is a reason Thomas' USG was significantly higher than Irving's.
Well, while IT's USG was high (34%) Irving's wasn't all that low either, at 30.8%. Irving actually took slightly more FGA per game (19.7 vs 19.4) than Thomas. And they took the identical FGA/100 possessions. Irving was the highest USG player in CLE and took the most FGA in CLE. It's not like he was really a distant second option.
Thomas touched (84.7) and passed (55.7) the ball only slightly more per game than Irving (79.0 & 52.2) did. People make a lot of how much the Cavs used Lebron to handle & facilitate their offense, but the Celtics similarly used Al Horford a lot in theirs.
Also, as for quality of shots, it's important to note that 23.8% of Kyrie's threes occurred with no defender within 6 feet (he hit them at a nice 41.2% clip) while only 13% of Isaiah's threes occurred with no defender within 6 feet (he hit them at a 52.3% clip!). In other words, a much bigger share of KI's shots were wide-open.
Thomas scored more points than Kyrie because he was more efficient at scoring. Despite getting far more attention from defenders. It's that simple.
Doubtful we'll see a similar season from Isaiah _or_ Kyrie anytime soon, though.
-
]Thomas had the ball in his hand whenever he wanted the ball. That allowed him to control the offense, take the shots he wanted, pass when he wanted, etc. There is a reason Thomas' USG was significantly higher than Irving's.
Well, while IT's USG was high (34%) Irving's wasn't all that low either, at 30.8%. Irving actually took slightly more FGA per game (19.7 vs 19.4) than Thomas. And they took the identical FGA/100 possessions. Irving was the highest USG player in CLE and took the most FGA in CLE. It's not like he was really a distant second option.
Thomas touched (84.7) and passed (55.7) the ball only slightly more per game than Irving (79.0 & 52.2) did. People make a lot of how much the Cavs used Lebron to handle & facilitate their offense, but the Celtics similarly used Al Horford a lot in theirs.
Also, as for quality of shots, it's important to note that 23.8% of Kyrie's threes occurred with no defender within 6 feet (he hit them at a nice 41.2% clip) while only 13% of Isaiah's threes occurred with no defender within 6 feet (he hit them at a 52.3% clip!). In other words, a much bigger share of KI's shots were wide-open.
Thomas scored more points than Kyrie because he was more efficient at scoring. Despite getting far more attention from defenders. It's that simple.
Doubtful we'll see a similar season from Isaiah _or_ Kyrie anytime soon, though.
6 touches a game is a pretty decent disparity. Irving had a lot of wide open fast break three pointers. Running was a big part of Cleveland's offense.
I agree neither is very likely to duplicate Thomas' season from last year, but I wouldn't be overly surprised if Irving came close.
-
]Thomas had the ball in his hand whenever he wanted the ball. That allowed him to control the offense, take the shots he wanted, pass when he wanted, etc. There is a reason Thomas' USG was significantly higher than Irving's.
Well, while IT's USG was high (34%) Irving's wasn't all that low either, at 30.8%. Irving actually took slightly more FGA per game (19.7 vs 19.4) than Thomas. And they took the identical FGA/100 possessions. Irving was the highest USG player in CLE and took the most FGA in CLE. It's not like he was really a distant second option.
Thomas touched (84.7) and passed (55.7) the ball only slightly more per game than Irving (79.0 & 52.2) did. People make a lot of how much the Cavs used Lebron to handle & facilitate their offense, but the Celtics similarly used Al Horford a lot in theirs.
Also, as for quality of shots, it's important to note that 23.8% of Kyrie's threes occurred with no defender within 6 feet (he hit them at a nice 41.2% clip) while only 13% of Isaiah's threes occurred with no defender within 6 feet (he hit them at a 52.3% clip!). In other words, a much bigger share of KI's shots were wide-open.
Thomas scored more points than Kyrie because he was more efficient at scoring. Despite getting far more attention from defenders. It's that simple.
Doubtful we'll see a similar season from Isaiah _or_ Kyrie anytime soon, though.
My take on what Danny said about the trading for Kyrie.
And, that was that there were many, many factors that went into making this trade. I'm sure several scoring, rebounding, passing, assists, defensive and rebounding stats, etc. were all part of their decision making process.
Obviously, Isaiah's injury, age and impending contract also played a part. To narrow down the comparison between these players is a great idea and necessary. But, in the end, it was the sum of all the factors that convinced Danny and his staff to pull the trigger.
-
]Thomas had the ball in his hand whenever he wanted the ball. That allowed him to control the offense, take the shots he wanted, pass when he wanted, etc. There is a reason Thomas' USG was significantly higher than Irving's.
Well, while IT's USG was high (34%) Irving's wasn't all that low either, at 30.8%. Irving actually took slightly more FGA per game (19.7 vs 19.4) than Thomas. And they took the identical FGA/100 possessions. Irving was the highest USG player in CLE and took the most FGA in CLE. It's not like he was really a distant second option.
Thomas touched (84.7) and passed (55.7) the ball only slightly more per game than Irving (79.0 & 52.2) did. People make a lot of how much the Cavs used Lebron to handle & facilitate their offense, but the Celtics similarly used Al Horford a lot in theirs.
Also, as for quality of shots, it's important to note that 23.8% of Kyrie's threes occurred with no defender within 6 feet (he hit them at a nice 41.2% clip) while only 13% of Isaiah's threes occurred with no defender within 6 feet (he hit them at a 52.3% clip!). In other words, a much bigger share of KI's shots were wide-open.
Thomas scored more points than Kyrie because he was more efficient at scoring. Despite getting far more attention from defenders. It's that simple.
Doubtful we'll see a similar season from Isaiah _or_ Kyrie anytime soon, though.
6 touches a game is a pretty decent disparity. Irving had a lot of wide open fast break three pointers. Running was a big part of Cleveland's offense.
I agree neither is very likely to duplicate Thomas' season from last year, but I wouldn't be overly surprised if Irving came close.
84.7 vs 79.0 is 5.7 additional touches per game ... but given that Thomas also passed off 3.5 times more per game, that nets out to only 2.2 non-passing touches per game difference.
Cleveland (15th) and Boston (17th) were both ranked middle-of-the-road in fast break points per game. CLE scored 12.9 points via fast-break and BOS scored 12.4. Not really a big difference there.
-
And, that was that there were many, many factors that went into making this trade. I'm sure several scoring, rebounding, passing, assists, defensive and rebounding stats, etc. were all part of their decision making process.
Obviously, Isaiah's injury, age and impending contract also played a part. To narrow down the comparison between these players is a great idea and necessary. But, in the end, it was the sum of all the factors that convinced Danny and his staff to pull the trigger.
I would like to add timeline which Ainge said.
-
To many variables to draw any real solid conclusions from IT and Kyries seasons last year.
Completely different coach and system.
Completely different team mates.
Kyrie was the shooting guard, IT was a point guard.
Completely different regular season goals.
Compare stats and advanced stats all day but the only thing that really matters is what would 30 NBA GMs do, Sign 27 year old KI to max or a 29 IT to max.
-
Obviously, Isaiah's injury, age and impending contract also played a part. To narrow down the comparison between these players is a great idea and necessary. But, in the end, it was the sum of all the factors that convinced Danny and his staff to pull the trigger.
These were the reasons. A 25 year-old healthy IT who had 2 years left and did what he did last year does not get traded for a similar player.
I think one thing those who are defending IT - because of his season last year - still have not answered for me is whether IT was the type of player who would make the rest of his teammates better. I know he made last year's version of the team better, vs without him, but does he make players like Hayward, Horford, et al better?
-
]Thomas had the ball in his hand whenever he wanted the ball. That allowed him to control the offense, take the shots he wanted, pass when he wanted, etc. There is a reason Thomas' USG was significantly higher than Irving's.
Well, while IT's USG was high (34%) Irving's wasn't all that low either, at 30.8%. Irving actually took slightly more FGA per game (19.7 vs 19.4) than Thomas. And they took the identical FGA/100 possessions. Irving was the highest USG player in CLE and took the most FGA in CLE. It's not like he was really a distant second option.
Thomas touched (84.7) and passed (55.7) the ball only slightly more per game than Irving (79.0 & 52.2) did. People make a lot of how much the Cavs used Lebron to handle & facilitate their offense, but the Celtics similarly used Al Horford a lot in theirs.
Also, as for quality of shots, it's important to note that 23.8% of Kyrie's threes occurred with no defender within 6 feet (he hit them at a nice 41.2% clip) while only 13% of Isaiah's threes occurred with no defender within 6 feet (he hit them at a 52.3% clip!). In other words, a much bigger share of KI's shots were wide-open.
Thomas scored more points than Kyrie because he was more efficient at scoring. Despite getting far more attention from defenders. It's that simple.
Doubtful we'll see a similar season from Isaiah _or_ Kyrie anytime soon, though.
Thomas had more efficient plays called for him. Big difference having a real coach and system.
(https://i.imgur.com/bS0NYsD.png)
-
]Thomas had the ball in his hand whenever he wanted the ball. That allowed him to control the offense, take the shots he wanted, pass when he wanted, etc. There is a reason Thomas' USG was significantly higher than Irving's.
Well, while IT's USG was high (34%) Irving's wasn't all that low either, at 30.8%. Irving actually took slightly more FGA per game (19.7 vs 19.4) than Thomas. And they took the identical FGA/100 possessions. Irving was the highest USG player in CLE and took the most FGA in CLE. It's not like he was really a distant second option.
Thomas touched (84.7) and passed (55.7) the ball only slightly more per game than Irving (79.0 & 52.2) did. People make a lot of how much the Cavs used Lebron to handle & facilitate their offense, but the Celtics similarly used Al Horford a lot in theirs.
Also, as for quality of shots, it's important to note that 23.8% of Kyrie's threes occurred with no defender within 6 feet (he hit them at a nice 41.2% clip) while only 13% of Isaiah's threes occurred with no defender within 6 feet (he hit them at a 52.3% clip!). In other words, a much bigger share of KI's shots were wide-open.
Thomas scored more points than Kyrie because he was more efficient at scoring. Despite getting far more attention from defenders. It's that simple.
Doubtful we'll see a similar season from Isaiah _or_ Kyrie anytime soon, though.
Thomas had more efficient plays called for him. Big difference having a real coach and system.
(https://i.imgur.com/bS0NYsD.png)
Kyrie was in the 95th percentile last season scoring on iso plays, averaging 1.12 points per shot. For all his coaching faults, Lue allowing Kyrie to run isolation was to the Cavs' benefit.
-
There are easier and more efficient plays than running iso. Spot ups, off screens, etc.....
-
Irving, Brown, Hayward, Tatum, and Horford.
Very optimistic.
-
Irving, Brown, Hayward, Tatum, and Horford.
Very optimistic.
Are you sure you're on the right blog? ;D
-
There are easier and more efficient plays than running iso. Spot ups, off screens, etc.....
Exactly, even for a great ISO player. Hard to believe they once had Blatt as coach, and thought Lue is an upgrade. LBJ, coach killer?
-
Assistants for coach LeBron. No Wade or Riley, some one he respects to keep him in check, he takes over the whole show. Cleveland were are mess for most of last season.
-
]Thomas had the ball in his hand whenever he wanted the ball. That allowed him to control the offense, take the shots he wanted, pass when he wanted, etc. There is a reason Thomas' USG was significantly higher than Irving's.
Well, while IT's USG was high (34%) Irving's wasn't all that low either, at 30.8%. Irving actually took slightly more FGA per game (19.7 vs 19.4) than Thomas. And they took the identical FGA/100 possessions. Irving was the highest USG player in CLE and took the most FGA in CLE. It's not like he was really a distant second option.
Thomas touched (84.7) and passed (55.7) the ball only slightly more per game than Irving (79.0 & 52.2) did. People make a lot of how much the Cavs used Lebron to handle & facilitate their offense, but the Celtics similarly used Al Horford a lot in theirs.
Also, as for quality of shots, it's important to note that 23.8% of Kyrie's threes occurred with no defender within 6 feet (he hit them at a nice 41.2% clip) while only 13% of Isaiah's threes occurred with no defender within 6 feet (he hit them at a 52.3% clip!). In other words, a much bigger share of KI's shots were wide-open.
Thomas scored more points than Kyrie because he was more efficient at scoring. Despite getting far more attention from defenders. It's that simple.
Doubtful we'll see a similar season from Isaiah _or_ Kyrie anytime soon, though.
Thomas had more efficient plays called for him. Big difference having a real coach and system.
(https://i.imgur.com/bS0NYsD.png)
If he did, that particular graphic doesn't really demonstrate it. You need to look at frequency and point-per-play efficiency for each type.
For example, both Thomas and Irving both ran Pick & Roll more than any other play type and at about the same percentage of their respective play profiles (about 34% for both). The differences in their play type usage were in ISO (which Kyrie ran more of) and spot ups and dribble-hand-offs (which IT ran more of). But those differences aren't really indicative of 'more efficient plays' for Isaiah.
Kyrie was very efficient at ISO plays, at 1.12 points per play (95th percentile). Isaiah actually was identically efficient at ISO, but ran less of it. Instead he ran a little bit more Spot-up, which was a more efficient play type (1.22 per play for IT) and a little bit more hand-off, which was less efficient (1.06 points per play for IT). So when you look at the differences in their play-types, overall, there is no real advantage there for IT. And these play types amount to a smaller share of the total for each player.
It's when you look back at the play type that they both ran the most of, the bread and butter pick & roll handler play type, that's where the difference in their results came from. Because while they both ran it the same percentage of their play type profile, Thomas was far more efficient at it, generating 1.04 points per play versus 0.95 points per play for KI.
In other words, it it the difference in efficiency running the same play type that added up to the bulk of the difference in what Thomas did last year and what Kyrie did last year.