These Celtics, on the other hand, are winning because of the depth of talent on their roster, an eight-deep collection of good-to-excellent players who provide an opponent with few weak links to attack.
They may not have a Giannis or a LeBron, but they have two All-Star-caliber wings, seven All-Defense-caliber defenders in their top eight and the ability to play big or small depending on the opponent. The roster has enough resilience to survive injuries to Robert Williams and Marcus Smart; enough defensive flexibility to have rock-solid schemes for Kevin Durant, Giannis and Steph Curry; and enough offensive pressure points to attack weak defenders anywhere on the floor.
This, in turn, may be more of a sign of the league’s evolution than any unique element of this particular Celtics team. A year ago, for instance, Phoenix nearly pulled off a similar feat, finishing two wins from the title with a similar setup. The Suns followed that up with a league-best 64 wins this season. Devin Booker is great, but he’s in a similar class with Tatum — a top-10 guy, but not quite in the league’s uppermost crust. Yet Phoenix won big by offering opponents few weaknesses to probe. ...
And I think there is something telling and significant about that. In the switch-heavy, supermax-paying, 3-point spacing NBA of 2022, a team’s postseason success is driven more by the strength of its weakest link and less by the greatness of its best player.
now obviously, we're starting at a deficit because the top-end talent on the bulls is two minus wing defenders, rather than two assets like tatum/brown. but because you can't be picky about your stars, you have to be particularly picky about your supporting cast.
and i realize that, on the face of it, trying to assemble a roster free of "weak links" seems obvious — but in practice, it means placing a greater value on an unremarkable but well-rounded player than you would on a "more talented" player with a glaring weakness. it's the principle that made max struss playable this offseason but kept duncan robinson chained to the bench. also, you can't just hope that one good offensive player and one good defensive player will balance each other out; you have to be hypersensitive to how each individual piece might be exploited.
with that in mind, here's how i look at our prospective roster for next season:
in:
lavine/derozan - top-end talent. nobody else on the roster can be worse than them defensively
lonzo ball - plus defender, plus shooter, plus transition ballhandler
alex caruso - plus defender. not a non-entity on offense, but on the low end of acceptable as a shooting threat. no other perimeter player can be worse than him offensively
out:
nikola vucevic - defensive liability (could hypothetically get by in a vacuum, but he's not good enough to get away with him as your third-worst defender)
javonte green - offensive liability (could be kept as a fringe rotation guy/specialist, but not someone you want in a playoff rotation)
coby white - defensive liability
on the bubble:
patrick williams - theoretically an ideal piece in a no-weak-link system. in practice, must be more of an impact defender and must ramp up his volume offensively. has to at least be a willing catch-and-shoot threat.
ayo dosumunu - solid defense, ok offense, needs to ramp up volume to secure a spot.
missing pieces:
2 bigs — both plus players defensively, no more than one of whom is a 'traditional' big. ideally, both can contribute on offense, even if just as rim runners/lob threats. only other roster slot in which a caruso-level offensive player is plausibly acceptable.
1-2 wings — ideally both at least average shooters and defenders. you can probably sacrifice a little bit of defense for a little more shooting for one of them, given the dynamics of the current roster. you maybe even want that player to be able to serve as a secondary offensive initiator?
now, i turn to you, the humble forum reader...
which potentially available free agents and trade targets do you think would fit in with the objective of constructing a team with as few weak links as possible?
are there players whose classifications you agree or disagree with?
do you think this is a reasonable approach to team-building, or is chasing the "boston model" simply another chapter in delusional roster construction that's chasing after the impossible-to-replicate magic of a recently successful team?
