Hot and Not Hot Cs Takes...Will They Age Well?

[Jed Zeppelin]

With JB it is such a fine line. Two games ago we were raving about his decision making and playmaking, but that was largely within the flow of offense and getting the ball in more advantageous positions.

It doesn’t really translate when he’s acting as PG and his defender realizes what’s happening and locks in on the steal opportunity in front of him.

 

[RorschachsMask]

With JB it is such a fine line. Two games ago we were raving about his decision making and playmaking, but that was largely within the flow of offense and getting the ball in more advantageous positions.

It doesn’t really translate when he’s acting as PG and his defender realizes what’s happening and locks in on the steal opportunity in front of him.

Two games ago, I thought he was used really well. A lot of his assists were him catching the ball and making a quick decision with the play infront of him. Also, the Bucks are just atrocious defensively, and Jaylen himself said the reads were easy lol.

But putting him at the top of the key and asking him to create offense? Nah, it’s not going to work out a majority of the time. That’s where it reflects on Joe, IMO.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

4. Speaking of Stevens, as good as he is in most of his job, I guess the dumpster diving to fill out the bottom of the roster isn't a strength. Unlike his higher profile moves, Stevens went 0-for-6 (Svi, Stevens, Brissett, Banton, Queta, Knight) in his attempts to add a low cost bench piece that is usable. Meanwhile our starters just got manhandled by a guy Stevens had no use for.

0-7 if you include DJ Steward.

Of course among the Steven of them, we're talking about a grand total of 209 minutes so not really sure we can write everyone off.

Finally, I think Ainge cut Wagner to sign Jabari Parker, not Stevens.

 

[Devizier]

Dude went dumpster diving for Kornet, didn’t he?

 

[RorschachsMask]

I still think Svi ends up getting some real minutes.

 

[lexrageorge]

Let me see if I can get this straight:

1. We're so good we don't need to try to win every game - there are a good 25 games or so that we don't need to complete in and we don't need to worry about losing. The loss in Orlando is a good example of that kind of unimportant, almost planned loss.

Literally nobody is saying that. Just that even the best NBA teams lose about 20-25 games per season, with rare exceptions. So there's not a lot to read into any particular November loss.

2. But we're not good enough to win without Tatum leading the league in minutes or coming close to that. Even in these "planned loss" type of games he needs to be going 39 minutes - otherwise, we might... lose?

Not sure the complaint here. Tatum is going to play when he's active. The delta between Tatum's minutes and those of Maxey and Durant are insignificant.

3. We have a bench of 2 guys who are playable in the postseason: well, one we know who is (Horford), and one we hope is but who is showing all the progress towards that (Hauser). After that we are relying on guys who can be OK in the regular season, but who can't be counted on in the post-season (Pritchard, Kornet).

Typical playoff rotation of 7 players, plus a couple who will say <5 minutes when they do appears.

4. Speaking of Stevens, as good as he is in most of his job, I guess the dumpster diving to fill out the bottom of the roster isn't a strength. Unlike his higher profile moves, Stevens went 0-for-6 (Svi, Stevens, Brissett, Banton, Queta, Knight) in his attempts to add a low cost bench piece that is usable. Meanwhile our starters just got manhandled by a guy Stevens had no use for.

I personally would happily take really good players in the top 7 spots in the roster and drek in the bottom 6 slots than have it any other way.

 

[benhogan]

Obviously no Jrue, but I’m also wondering if CJM has been doing that to try and help JB grow as a player.

Let Jaylen grow as a player & work on his handle/PG skills next summer at 5-Star. Garfinkel can give him private sessions.

That's been my hot take for 3 years running and I'm not moving off it.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

Let me see if I can get this straight:

1. We're so good we don't need to try to win every game - there are a good 25 games or so that we don't need to complete in and we don't need to worry about losing. The loss in Orlando is a good example of that kind of unimportant, almost planned loss.

We can try all we want....we aren't going to go 82-0. You are literally complaining about 57-25. Schedule losses or schedule challenges are on ALL teams calendar. It isn't difficult to recognize with a little effort.

4. Speaking of Stevens, as good as he is in most of his job, I guess the dumpster diving to fill out the bottom of the roster isn't a strength. Unlike his higher profile moves, Stevens went 0-for-6 (Svi, Stevens, Brissett, Banton, Queta, Knight) in his attempts to add a low cost bench piece that is usable. Meanwhile our starters just got manhandled by a guy Stevens had no use for.

Wait, so you are blaming Stevens for not dumpster diving over the summer to replace those dumpster dives in Hauser and Kornet who are currently playing in our rotation?

It is November....guys who aren't able to find a role on the backend of the rotation will be in play to move for someone who will.

 

[benhogan]

We can try all we want....we aren't going to go 82-0. You are literally complaining about 57-25. Schedule losses or schedule challenges are on ALL teams calendar. It isn't difficult to recognize with a little effort.

It's kind of funny because we discussed this exact Orlando game being a "scheduled loss" on Wednesday (before the BUCKs game)

"Hot Takes" are welcome in this thread but not sure why anyone would bat an eye over this loss, especially without the Celtics' most physical defender. After KP checked out it wasn't going to be very tight

Here are the receipts from the Silver Dollar thread

Very early Friday start for a very motivated Magic team on Friday.

HRB, cause for concern? I know you have early game research (low score? home team bias?)

Low scoring day games are the norm as teams typically don't push pace as much. Orlando plays to low scores bc they have arguably the best defensive team in the league now that Suggs is healthy and leading that charge. I don't imagine the Celtics will be up for an afternoon game after having geared all their energy this past week on the Bucks game. I'll expect low scoring and likely a Magic win but a tight game either way.

 

[lars10]

When wa the last team that one a chamionship with a 7 man rotation? Do we aim to be the first?

Aren't we already playing 9 pretty regularly? Tatum, Brown, KP, Horford, White, Holiday, Prichard, Hauser, Kornet? And your assertion was that the entire season rested on bringing in some plug and play vets... the entire season?

The team has really only lost when missing one or more of their top 6..against the top teams in the NBA. I expect that they'll win a lot of games against worse teams even when missing players.

I don't really think adding a few vets with the spots and money they have available will change much of anything.. and I also am not ready to write off the end of the bench for whatever roles they'll play during the season.. which will probably be the same as almost every other team..in that they will play in blowouts and that's pretty much it.

edit: actually the Celtics currently have 10 players averaging over 10 minutes a game in the ones they play..and 8 have played in over 14 games.. (White has played in 13). Brissett has played in 8.

 

[slamminsammya]

It's kind of funny because we discussed this exact Orlando game being a "scheduled loss" on Wednesday (before the BUCKs game)

"Hot Takes" are welcome in this thread but not sure why anyone would bat an eye over this loss, especially without the Celtics' most physical defender. After KP checked out it wasn't going to be very tight

Here are the receipts from the Silver Dollar thread

everyone accepts good teams lose sometimes but somehow the conversion from abstract truth to the dirty reality of watching them play like shit sometimes causes overreactions. good wins are all alike, every bad loss is bad in its own way.

 

[ManicCompression]

It is November....guys who aren't able to find a role on the backend of the rotation will be in play to move for someone who will

Totally agree. This minutes discussion in November is wild.

1. The starters are still all learning to play with one another. They should get that figured out first.
2. Injuries are unavoidable in an 82 game season. There will be chunks where Stevens, Banton, Brissett et al play a lot, and they can distinguish themselves during those minutes.

This is the right move. Bank the wins that you can now, then learn who can add to this core during the choppy waters of the season. Someone will hopefully surprise us.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

We can try all we want....we aren't going to go 82-0. You are literally complaining about 57-25. Schedule losses or schedule challenges are on ALL teams calendar. It isn't difficult to recognize with a little effort.

I'm literally not complaining about that. I'll be OK with 57-25 or anything reasonabley close to that.

What I object to is not the losing of games but the wasting of them.

All we learned Friday is that a team well-built to pose a challenge for the Celtics beat the crap out of them en route to turning a 12 point second half deficit into a domiant win. That's a loss but also a waste. NBA games are a limited resource and, win or lose, they should be used for the betterment of the team.

Since Ime turned the team around in mid 2021-22, a period of nearly 2 years now, the Celtics have always been able to beat the crap out of teams that can't or don't stop the Celtics from playing the way they want to offensively. But they have also struggled against teams that attack their weaknesses (usually ballhandling, playmaking, rebounding, physical play), struggled to execute their offense late in games, prone to giving up long runs. They will face more teams that can do that in the playoffs.

At some point they need to be better at those things, and I don't really see them working towards that.

They also have a thin bench, and I don't see them working towards expanding it.

I think the Jays prefer a looser style of play where they get by on talent and individual effort as a substitute for clean execution. What we have seen for nearly 2 years is that that works but not enough to win a championship.

They have changed some players but as of game 16, they look like fundamentally the same team. Probably capable of (ie., assuming health) being better because they have more talent, but still capable of being attacked and defeated in the same ways.

They still have 80% of the season left, I'd like to see them trying to improve because as of today I don't think they are good enough.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

It’s also funny to see folks who, in the In Season Tournament thread, like to take every chance they get to say how hyper competitive these guys are. Then completely ignore that Friday was for all intents and purposes an elimination game. Not only did the Celtics lose, they lost so badly they blew their shot at the wild card.

 

[lexrageorge]

It’s also funny to see folks who, in the In Season Tournament thread, like to take every chance they get to say how hyper competitive these guys are. Then completely ignore that Friday was for all intents and purposes an elimination game. Not only did the Celtics lose, they lost so badly they blew their shot at the wild card.

I mean, it’s not like the Celtics started the 3rd string guys. They played to win, but so did Orlando. Sometimes you have to tip your hat to a decent squad on the other side.

 

[lovegtm]

I mean, it’s not like the Celtics started the 3rd string guys. They played to win, but so did Orlando. Sometimes you have to tip your hat to a decent squad on the other side.

The Sixers' game 7 loss last year completely devalued the idea of the "NBA title" for me. Amazing that a team would just not try in the biggest game of its season. How else can you explain letting a guy drop 50 on you?

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

I mean, it’s not like the Celtics started the 3rd string guys. They played to win, but so did Orlando. Sometimes you have to tip your hat to a decent squad on the other side.

This is pretty much how I feel about the Orlando game. It’s a different argument than chocking it up to a schedule loss.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

I mean, it’s not like the Celtics started the 3rd string guys. They played to win, but so did Orlando. Sometimes you have to tip your hat to a decent squad on the other side.

Orlando is also much more than a decent squad as well as discussed in Silver Dollar thread. They run 10-deep with the best defensive squad in the league. The primary gripe with them is that they are young and without a Top-30 player. Charlotte was a pure schedule loss....Orlando was the perfect combination of everything going against Boston. However, NBA scheduling still remains the singular most exploitable factor in these games from a wagering perspective as the markets do not value it nearly enough when compared to personnel availability....nor do the teams fanbases.

 

[bankshot1]

Orlando beat the Celts 3 of 4 last year including the last 3 meetings.

Now its 4 losses in the last 5 and the last four in a row.

Who wants them in a 7-gamer?

Maybe we should just stay out of Florida after April.

Or learn how to play those Sunshine state MFers

 

[Imbricus]

The primary gripe with them is that they are young and without a Top-30 player.

Give Banchero two, maybe three years.

I will say their size is pretty impressive. Suggs at 6' 5" was the shortest guy in the starting lineup. The others were 6' 7", 6' 10", 6' 10", 6' 10". Then you've got 6' 10" Isaac coming off the bench, with 6' 11" Wagner. Is there a bigger team in the NBA?

They do seem prone to rookie-type mistakes, like the string of turnovers early in the Boston game.

 

[Euclis20]

Give Banchero two, maybe three years.

I will say their size is pretty impressive. Suggs at 6' 5" was the shortest guy in the starting lineup. The others were 6' 7", 6' 10", 6' 10", 6' 10". Then you've got 6' 10" Isaac coming off the bench, with 6' 11" Wagner. Is there a bigger team in the NBA?

They do seem prone to rookie-type mistakes, like the string of turnovers early in the Boston game.

The Lakers are pretty big (Lebron, AD, Hachimura, Vanderbilt and Wood), but I can't think of another team with Orlando's size. They should've kept Bol Bol just for kicks.

 

[the moops]

The Lakers are pretty big (Lebron, AD, Hachimura, Vanderbilt and Wood), but I can't think of another team with Orlando's size. They should've kept Bol Bol just for kicks.

Wemby skews the average for sure but San Antonio has been rolling out Sochan 6’9”, Vassel 6’5”, Johnson 6’5”, Wemby 7’4”, Collins 6’11”

 

[slamminsammya]

Wemby skews the average for sure but San Antonio has been rolling out Sochan 6’9”, Vassel 6’5”, Johnson 6’5”, Wemby 7’4”, Collins 6’11”

and yet all those guys feel small for their size, except wemby. if that makes sense?

 

[Euclis20]

The only legit giant person the Raptors play is Poeltl (7'1), but it feels like the rest of their rotation are big wings and Schroder (somehow Barnes is just 6'7, but with a 7'3 wingspan).

Dunno how legit this site is or how exactly they define rotation players, but the Celtics apparently have the tallest rotation in the league (just ahead of Minnesota, Denver and Orlando):

https://en.hispanosnba.com/teams/comparison

9 rotation players would include Kornet, so it does make sense. Shortest rotation belongs to the Warriors, Rockets and Grizzlies.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

The only legit giant person the Raptors play is Poeltl (7'1), but it feels like the rest of their rotation are big wings and Schroder (somehow Barnes is just 6'7, but with a 7'3 wingspan).

Dunno how legit this site is or how exactly they define rotation players, but the Celtics apparently have the tallest rotation in the league (just ahead of Minnesota, Denver and Orlando):

https://en.hispanosnba.com/teams/comparison

9 rotation players would include Kornet, so it does make sense. Shortest rotation belongs to the Warriors, Rockets and Grizzlies.

The Grizzlies undoubtedly have the widest rotation with Biyombo, Lofton, Roddy, Smart and Bane. That's not an NBA rotation.....that's an Offensive Line!

 

[Devizier]

The Grizzlies undoubtedly have the widest rotation with Biyombo, Lofton, Roddy, Smart and Bane. That's not an NBA rotation.....that's an Offensive Line!

Bane has that kind of Larry Johnson physique. Totally different kind of player though.

 

[lovegtm]

The Grizzlies undoubtedly have the widest rotation with Biyombo, Lofton, Roddy, Smart and Bane. That's not an NBA rotation.....that's an Offensive Line!

I can never get over seeing Lofton on the floor. Looks like a character I'd create in a video game just to laugh.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

I can never get over seeing Lofton on the floor. Looks like a character I'd create in a video game just to laugh.

We've seen a few of these guys over the years and not too surprisingly they don't seem to last. Oliver Miller, Sweetney, John "Hot Plate" Williams (who I'm convinced would have been an All-Star had it not been for Golden Corral), post-lockout Shawn Kemp, and surely others I cannot recall.

 

[Devizier]

We've seen a few of these guys over the years and not too surprisingly they don't seem to last. Oliver Miller, Sweetney, John "Hot Plate" Williams (who I'm convinced would have been an All-Star had it not been for Golden Corral), post-lockout Shawn Kemp, and surely others I cannot recall.

How could you forget the immortal Celtics great Thomas Hamilton.

 

[lovegtm]

The "Joe isn't going deep enough in the bench or trying to develop them" hot take feels like a lifetime ago.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

The "Joe isn't going deep enough in the bench or trying to develop them" hot take feels like a lifetime ago.

Well, it's good he has changed his approach with KP out. He should be going 10 deep even with everyone healthy, though.

 

[lovegtm]

Well, it's good he has changed his approach with KP out. He should be going 10 deep even with everyone healthy, though.

They already go 8-9 deep when healthy, so why go deeper? They clearly assume injuries and rest will happen; it's not like Kornet has been stapled to the bench or anything.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

They already go 8-9 deep when healthy, so why go deeper? They clearly assume injuries and rest will happen; it's not like Kornet has been stapled to the bench or anything.

If they are 100% convinced that there is no there there with, say, Dalano Banton, that he is just roster filler, then fine. No need to play him at all except when filler is needed. If they think there is some possibility that there is a decent NBA role player there, they should be trying to bring that out.

 

[benhogan]

If they are 100% convinced that there is no there there with, say, Dalano Banton, that he is just roster filler, then fine. No need to play him at all except when filler is needed. If they think there is some possibility that there is a decent NBA role player there, they should be trying to bring that out.

Joe has navigated a few small injuries while using role players from the bench to match up in-game. He has also thrown several curveballs: Jrue on Embiid, Randle, Giannis, etc + Hauser picking up PGs in the halfcourt that have worked.

Even with hindsight, JOE has been exceptional with bench, rotation, and matchup use so far.

I'm interested in seeing if JOE makes bench use/matchup adjustments against Orlando the next time we play them, or if he feels that it was just a schedule/timing loss?

 

[HomeRunBaker]

The "Joe isn't going deep enough in the bench or trying to develop them" hot take feels like a lifetime ago.

This still seems bizarre. Why would any coach go outside his regular rotation to give minutes to players who he deemed not to have earned those minutes over the players ahead of them? It's ass backwards and not how coaching works unless you're tanking down the stretch of the season.

 

[lexrageorge]

This still seems bizarre. Why would any coach go outside his regular rotation to give minutes to players who he deemed not to have earned those minutes over the players ahead of them? It's ass backwards and not how coaching works unless you're tanking down the stretch of the season.

I don't get it either. There are already 9 players in the rotation; Kornet does get some DNP's but that was expected. The rest of the deep bench has to show something to get playing time; that's how it works everywhere. Seems like Banton is getting rewarded with some playing time as a result of showing something to the coaches. Queta will get some situational minutes as a big. It's now really on the others (Brissett, Stevens, Svi) to show they earned the opportunity to get inserted into the rotation here and there.

 

[lovegtm]

This still seems bizarre. Why would any coach go outside his regular rotation to give minutes to players who he deemed not to have earned those minutes over the players ahead of them? It's ass backwards and not how coaching works unless you're tanking down the stretch of the season.

Of course it's bizarre: no one else in the NBA does this, and it was just a way to complain about Joe without context as to how the league operates.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Of course it's bizarre: no one else in the NBA does this, and it was just a way to complain about Joe without context as to how the league operates.

My opinion that you apparently think is "just a way to complain about Joe without context as to how the league operates," is that useful role players don't sprout, fully-formed, out of Zeus's head, they are made with on the job training.

Also, I don't think we have a championship-level bench here, at least not yet. Horford fits that bill, though he is 37. Hauser is playing that way in the early going, but it is a long season and he doesn't have a long track record of this level of success. He's not previously been effective in the playoffs.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that we are all set with those two, the next ones are more questionable. Kornet is a guy Mazzulla doesn't trust to play every-game bench minutes for us, nor did any of our last 3 coaches trust him in the playoffs before. And Pritchard has obvious physical limitations.

There's also the possibility of adding a player or two, but the pathways for that are fairly limited if we aren't considering trading Hoford or White (which we absolutely should not be considering).

I think it makes sense to see what they have, rather than follwing the failed approach of a year ago. But that's just me.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

I don't get it either. There are already 9 players in the rotation; Kornet does get some DNP's but that was expected. The rest of the deep bench has to show something to get playing time; that's how it works everywhere. Seems like Banton is getting rewarded with some playing time as a result of showing something to the coaches. Queta will get some situational minutes as a big. It's now really on the others (Brissett, Stevens, Svi) to show they earned the opportunity to get inserted into the rotation here and there.

Yeah, this is how a rotational pecking order works over 82 games when there are injuries/load mgmt. Banton's length against the Hawks pick-n-pop starting unit was a good matchup and a good fit with the starting unit that night. Queta is the next big on the depth chart to eat minutes there so he got them. He performed capably in the 1H so he earned those 2H minutes until Atlanta adjusted by attacking him by using his man as the high screener.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

My opinion that you apparently think is "just a way to complain about Joe without context as to how the league operates," is that useful role players don't sprout, fully-formed, out of Zeus's head, they are made with on the job training.

Also, I don't think we have a championship-level bench here, at least not yet. Horford fits that bill, though he is 37. Hauser is playing that way in the early going, but it is a long season and he doesn't have a long track record of this level of success. He's not previously been effective in the playoffs.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that we are all set with those two, the next ones are more questionable. Kornet is a guy Mazzulla doesn't trust to play every-game bench minutes for us, nor did any of our last 3 coaches trust him in the playoffs before. And Pritchard has obvious physical limitations.

There's also the possibility of adding a player or two, but the pathways for that are fairly limited if we aren't considering trading Hoford or White (which we absolutely should not be considering).

I think it makes sense to see what they have, rather than follwing the failed approach of a year ago. But that's just me.

These things can ALL happen organically from Opening Night to the Trade Deadline without force feeding minutes to players that jump them ahead of others on the depth chart. Guys will get opportunities....they already have and it isn't even December.

 

[Nator]

It’s also funny to see folks who, in the In Season Tournament thread, like to take every chance they get to say how hyper competitive these guys are. Then completely ignore that Friday was for all intents and purposes an elimination game. Not only did the Celtics lose, they lost so badly they blew their shot at the wild card.

Did not age well.

 

[slamminsammya]

Did not age well.

but it sure was hot!

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

Did not age well.

Look I said wild card. And there was no way they were getting that.

not my fault I didn’t understand the three way tiebreaker

 

[Nator]

Look I said wild card. And there was no way they were getting that.

not my fault I didn’t understand the three way tiebreaker

I'm just having some fun.

 

[JakeRae]

My opinion that you apparently think is "just a way to complain about Joe without context as to how the league operates," is that useful role players don't sprout, fully-formed, out of Zeus's head, they are made with on the job training.

Also, I don't think we have a championship-level bench here, at least not yet. Horford fits that bill, though he is 37. Hauser is playing that way in the early going, but it is a long season and he doesn't have a long track record of this level of success. He's not previously been effective in the playoffs.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that we are all set with those two, the next ones are more questionable. Kornet is a guy Mazzulla doesn't trust to play every-game bench minutes for us, nor did any of our last 3 coaches trust him in the playoffs before. And Pritchard has obvious physical limitations.

There's also the possibility of adding a player or two, but the pathways for that are fairly limited if we aren't considering trading Hoford or White (which we absolutely should not be considering).

I think it makes sense to see what they have, rather than follwing the failed approach of a year ago. But that's just me.

The problem with this thinking is we know what we have. Svi and Stevens are 26 and Brissett is 25. Svi has played over 4,000 NBA minutes across 260 games. Stevens has played over 2,600 minutes across 171 games. Brissett has played over 3,300 minutes across 180 games. None of them lack the ability to improve, but the odds are pretty heavily on the side of them being who they are, and we haven’t seen anything in their minutes to disrupt that prior.

Banton and Queta are a bit different. Banton is 24 with just over 1,000 minutes across just over 100 games. Queta is on a two-way, but is also 24 and has just 169 NBA minutes in 22 games. Neither has gotten real run so there’s some element of learning what we have there. With Banton, part of the problem is his main deficiency (putting the ball in the hoop) is a pretty hard one to overcome.

In any event, NBA teams do practice. We may not be able to “see what we have” but that really doesn’t mean Mazzulla and his staff cannot. Guys who show in practice will get minutes. There’s a reason Hauser earned an expanded role last season as the season wore on and the team was comfortable going into this season with him as a key rotation player. It’s not just his performance in games but that he did the work and performed outside of games in a way that earned those minutes. Hopefully one of Banton, Brissett, Stevens and Svi can take a meaningful step forward by the end of year so they are more than break glass options. I think that’s the bet Stevens was making in signing all 4 (they are all perfectly fine non-rotation depth at their current level). But unless they are showing that ability in practice, there’s no reason to take minutes from guys like Hauser, Pritchard, and Kornet to play them more when the team is healthy.

Also, only one of them is really going to get a shot at once unless we have multiple injuries. The season opened with Brissett getting those opportunities. Banton is now seeing them because Brissett didn’t do enough or because Banton passed him in practice. That’s as it should be. So far Banton has done ok, but Svi or Stevens or Brissett again could easily start to see those opportunities if he struggles or if they earn them in practice.

 

[bakahump]

I guess its fair to think the bench is subpar.

But I might like some comparisons to Past Benches and current Benches of Championship caliber teams.

 

[lars10]

I guess its fair to think the bench is subpar.

But I might like some comparisons to Past Benches and current Benches of Championship caliber teams.

How much worse is this bench than Rick Carlise, Greg Kite, Jerry Sichting, David Thirdkill, Sam Vincent, Scott Wedman and Sly Williams? How much worse is Horford than Bill Walton was at this stage in both of their careers?

Minutes/Points/Games
Bird 38/25.8/81 - Tatum 37/27.7/18 (extrapolates to 82 games)
McHale 35.3/21.3/68 - JB 34.5/21.9/17 (77 games)
Parish 31.7/16.1/81 - KP 30.3/18.9/15 (68 games)
DJ 35/15.6/78 - DW 32.2/13.9/15 (68 games)
Ainge 30.1/10.7/80 - JH 34.5/12.4/16 (73 games)
Wedman 17.7/8/79 - Hauser 22.8/9.7/18 (82 games)
Walton 19.3/7.6/80 - Horford 25.8/6.9/16 (73 games)
Sichting 19.5/6.5/82 - Pritchard 20.6/6.3/18 (82 games)
Thirdkill 7.9/3.3/49 - Kornet 13.5/4.6/13 (59 games)
Vincent 7.6/3.2/57 - Queta 10/3.5/2 (9 games)
Williams 9.0/2.8/6 - Banton 8.8/3.5/8 (36 games)
Carlisle 9.9/2.6/77 - Svi 7.4/2.0/8 (36 games)
Kite 7.3/1.3/64 - Brissett 11.3/1.8/8 (36 games) and Stevens 3.3/1.5/6 (27 games)

Just looking at the numbers.. this team seems to be running similarly deep to the '86 team with similar numbers for the starters and longer minutes for most of the bench... also hard to figure out how many games the bench will actually play in..but they'd play a similar amount of games.. I guess the difference is Sam Vincent, Carlisle and Kite played in a lot of games.

Never really would have expected how similar the numbers would be.. although I guess the end of the bench did play more games in the 80s. Middle of the bench seems to be better now in terms of minutes.. Horford, Hauser, PP and Kornet all play more minutes than Wedman, Walton, Sichting and Thirdkill. Kornet is getting almost the same mpg as Vincent and Thirdkill got combined.

 

[the moops]

I guess its fair to think the bench is subpar.

But I might like some comparisons to Past Benches and current Benches of Championship caliber teams.

NBA benches are just not that good. In general, the best teams have the best top 4 in the league, sometimes best top 5. Rarely are the teams that run 10 deep (who have legit bench players in all those spots) contenders. Here are the 6-8 from the previous three champions. Not good - like not good at all.

Bruce Brown, Jeff Green, Christian Braun
Jordan Poole, Otto Porter Jr, Gary Payton II
Pat Connaughton, Bobby Portis, Bryn Forbes

 

[HomeRunBaker]

NBA benches are just not that good. In general, the best teams have the best top 4 in the league, sometimes best top 5. Rarely are the teams that run 10 deep (who have legit bench players in all those spots) contenders. Here are the 6-8 from the previous three champions. Not good - like not good at all.

Bruce Brown, Jeff Green, Christian Braun
Jordan Poole, Otto Porter Jr, Gary Payton II
Pat Connaughton, Bobby Portis, Bryn Forbes

The rise of Hauser to go along with Horford is a major boost to our playoff bench assuming we are 100% at that time. It places us well above average leaguewide and right in the mix with benches of other contenders. The .500 teams and below don't have a Horford and Hauser coming off their bench....because if they do have those guys they will be starting for them.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

How much worse is this bench than Rick Carlise, Greg Kite, Jerry Sichting, David Thirdkill, Sam Vincent, Scott Wedman and Sly Williams? How much worse is Horford than Bill Walton was at this stage in both of their careers?

Minutes/Points/Games
Bird 38/25.8/81 - Tatum 37/27.7/18 (extrapolates to 82 games)
McHale 35.3/21.3/68 - JB 34.5/21.9/17 (77 games)
Parish 31.7/16.1/81 - KP 30.3/18.9/15 (68 games)
DJ 35/15.6/78 - DW 32.2/13.9/15 (68 games)
Ainge 30.1/10.7/80 - JH 34.5/12.4/16 (73 games)
Wedman 17.7/8/79 - Hauser 22.8/9.7/18 (82 games)
Walton 19.3/7.6/80 - Horford 25.8/6.9/16 (73 games)
Sichting 19.5/6.5/82 - Pritchard 20.6/6.3/18 (82 games)
Thirdkill 7.9/3.3/49 - Kornet 13.5/4.6/13 (59 games)
Vincent 7.6/3.2/57 - Queta 10/3.5/2 (9 games)
Williams 9.0/2.8/6 - Banton 8.8/3.5/8 (36 games)
Carlisle 9.9/2.6/77 - Svi 7.4/2.0/8 (36 games)
Kite 7.3/1.3/64 - Brissett 11.3/1.8/8 (36 games) and Stevens 3.3/1.5/6 (27 games)

If you look instead at the 2007-2008 Celtics, the story is different.

In the regular season, that team had 10 players who played at least 800 minutes (I think total minutes is a better indicator of role than minutes per game. If you go 10 minutes per game as a marker, you have to include Scal, who played 512 minutes but was a healthy scratch for 34 games). Pierce, Allen, Garnett, Rondo, Perkins of course, then Posey, then House, Allen, Big Baby, and Powe. The starters missed a total of 31 games that year. (Our current starters have missed a total of 9 games through the first 18, a slightly - but only slightly - higher pace).

The 5 players who played included 2 established vets (Posey, House) and 3 young players, in their rookie (Big Baby), second (Powe), and fourth (Allen) years.

Late in the season, the Celtics, unsatisfied with the bench depth, added two more vets: PJ Brown, who had not been in the league, and Sam Cassell, a late-season buyout. Once they got here, both averaged over 10 minutes per game for the rest of the season.

The rotation shortened in the playoffs - but still there were 9 rotation players (which I'm defining as at least 250 minutes). The 4 bench regulars were Posey, Brown, Powe, Cassell (though Davis and especially House did get some opportunities outside of garbage time).

So, the addition of Brown and Cassell shifted the Celtics from a 2 vet/3 young 10 man rotation in the reg season to a 3 vet/1 young (Powe) rotation in the playoffs.

My preference would be to see something closer to the 2007-08 bench usage with this team. That was a better team than what this one is likely to be, despite giving a lot of playing time to guys that the conventional wisdom here would suggest should have stayed nailed to the bench all season. Even if some vets need to be added later (and the new cap rules make finding and adding vets harder now than then), the Celtics should want to find out which if any of these guys is our Leon Powe.