I took a look at some stats, curious about where this team stands compared with the rest of the NBA. They're good in turnovers (#4 lowest) and assists (#8). Their rebounding isn't even as bad as I thought it would be (#11), though to be fair, that's the full season and it's gotten noticeably worse with Baynes and Horford and Morris out. Their three-point shooting, which has seemed inconsistent, is still #6, which is pretty good.
Where they suck is FG% (#21) and true shooting (#18). Also they're terrible in getting to the foul line (#28). To me this feels like a team that was built a little too small (even with Baynes and Horford healthy, they match up small against the NBA's bigger lineups) that could've been saved by good shooters, but the shooters aren't that good, and when they're not lighting it up from three, the Celtics get in trouble, because no one is that good at driving and drawing a foul, like a Harden or Giannis.
An interesting thing is, right now, they're tied for #10 in terms of best record. However, if you look at this advanced stat of "Player Impact Estimate" they're #6 at 53.8 and nearly tied with Golden State at 54. Which leads me to wonder: With Brad's past teams, the whole always seemed greater than the sum of the parts. But I wonder if we've finally reached a position where the whole is less than the sum of the parts.
If this is true, the good news is that a savvy GM (Ainge) would then need to figure out which parts he can swap out for equal value parts that will enhance the overall whole (and plug the holes). It would be interesting if Ainge tried to make a couple of strategic trades next year, right before the deadline, and after he's had a good opportunity to better evaluate this team's strengths/weaknesses/chemistry.