Overlooked Fact: Why the Celtics shall start out strong

CelticsFan11 · Post #1 » by **CelticsFan11** » Sun Sep 6, 2009 3:47 am

A team can be full of superstars, however, that does not guaranteed a championship. Why? Chemistry. Although teams can develop chemistry throughout the season, none of them will have the chemistry that our Celtic team has. Out of the 5 Contenders: Orlando, Cleveland, LA, San Antonio and Us, we're are the only team that maintains the same starting lineup as the year before.

Orlando: Vince instead of Turkoglue
Cleveland: Shaq instead of Z
LA: Ron Artest instead of Ariza
San Antonio: Jefferson instead of Bown.

Celtics: Rondo, Ray, Pierce, KG, and Perk, same lineup as the last 2 years.

We may be older, but we are wiser, and know our fellow players strengths and weaknesses better and is why the Celtics shall start this year out strong.

joneb · Post #2 » by **joneb** » Sun Sep 6, 2009 5:56 am

While I like your sentiment, I think you're exaggerating the effect a little bit. The Celtics integrating Sheed and Daniels into the lineup is at least as difficult a process as San Antonio replacing Jefferson with Bowen, and likewise LA with Artest replacing Ariza. And until we can see how Garnett responds to his offseason surgery, it's way too premature to be talking about a strong start. That being said, if everything comes together early, a strong start is quite possible. But at this point I wouldn't make a declarative statement about it,like the OP did.

Mahoney_jr · Post #3 » by **Mahoney_jr** » Sun Sep 6, 2009 9:52 am

Chemistry was one reason why sceptics of the Celtics said that we wouldn't win the 'ship in 2008...

I don't think the other teams will have trouble to start. Maaaybee the Cavs.

hairybyrd · Post #4 » by **hairybyrd** » Sun Sep 6, 2009 2:22 pm

I agree with what you're saying - that the Celtics have the best chemistry of any team in the league - and they do. But, I wouldn't go as far to say they will have the same starting five. I think Rasheed will start although I doubt it effects team chemistry. People have disagreed with me several times for this but, Perk is a better bench player. He would be the best backup C in the league - no question - and he pairs nicely with Big Baby off the bench. The case against Perk not starting is 4-fold.

1. He picks up early fouls. That's a fact.
2. Rasheed/Big Baby off the bench is a little redundant and lacks chemistry. Perk and Baby played ridiculously well together last year in the playoffs. Furthermore, Perk would get A LOT of touches down low with the second unit vs. the scraps he would be getting with the starters.
3. Rasheed and KG already share a friendship and, therefore, strong chemistry.
4. I strongly believe that Doc plays the seniority card (which is also the reason he never plays young guys) and will vote in favor of starting Rasheed.

The counter-argument frames itself around the idea that by not starting Perk, his development is being stunted. I disagree because his minutes should stay about the same from last year and he will be more productive (numbers-wise) against the backup big men of the league. Playing Perk 25-27 mpg (a slight decrease from the 28 he got last year) will help the team more than it will hurt his individual development. Besides, his per-minute numbers were inflated because of KG's injury.

I'm not getting down on Perk, here, the dude is a beast and I hope he does well in whatever his role with the team may be.

A 2nd unit consisting of: Perk, Baby, Daniels, Bill Walker and Eddie House is quite formidable and egoless. If Rasheed was substituted for Perk in this lineup he would be jakking up 3's all day. Playing Wallace with the starters will keep him accountable IMO.

Zin5 · Post #5 » by **Zin5** » Sun Sep 6, 2009 4:24 pm

Mahoney_jr wrote:Chemistry was one reason why sceptics of the Celtics said that we wouldn't win the 'ship in 2008...

I don't think the other teams will have trouble to start. Maaaybee the Cavs.

Came in to basically post this. Chemistry's only a problem if you wait until about the deadline like the Lakers did with Pau that same season. Not saying they weren't a good team (they were first before they made the trade IIRC), but they were much better the next year after having worked everything out. It's also hurt us bringing in a point guard late in the year due to chemistry, which is why I'd like to bring a third point guard in now, rather than wait.

I also think the Cavs have the most to worry about from those teams, just because I don't think Shaq/Lebron will work at this stage in Shaq's career. He's a good player still, but he's going to clog the lane for Lebron.

Zin5 · Post #6 » by **Zin5** » Sun Sep 6, 2009 8:01 pm

hairybyrd wrote:I agree with what you're saying - that the Celtics have the best chemistry of any team in the league - and they do. But, I wouldn't go as far to say they will have the same starting five. I think Rasheed will start although I doubt it effects team chemistry. People have disagreed with me several times for this but, Perk is a better bench player. He would be the best backup C in the league - no question - and he pairs nicely with Big Baby off the bench. The case against Perk not starting is 4-fold.

1. He picks up early fouls. That's a fact.
2. Rasheed/Big Baby off the bench is a little redundant and lacks chemistry. Perk and Baby played ridiculously well together last year in the playoffs. Furthermore, Perk would get A LOT of touches down low with the second unit vs. the scraps he would be getting with the starters.
3. Rasheed and KG already share a friendship and, therefore, strong chemistry.
4. I strongly believe that Doc plays the seniority card (which is also the reason he never plays young guys) and will vote in favor of starting Rasheed.

The counter-argument frames itself around the idea that by not starting Perk, his development is being stunted. I disagree because his minutes should stay about the same from last year and he will be more productive (numbers-wise) against the backup big men of the league. Playing Perk 25-27 mpg (a slight decrease from the 28 he got last year) will help the team more than it will hurt his individual development. Besides, his per-minute numbers were inflated because of KG's injury.

I'm not getting down on Perk, here, the dude is a beast and I hope he does well in whatever his role with the team may be.

A 2nd unit consisting of: Perk, Baby, Daniels, Bill Walker and Eddie House is quite formidable and egoless. If Rasheed was substituted for Perk in this lineup he would be jakking up 3's all day. Playing Wallace with the starters will keep him accountable IMO.

Perk is the better defensive fit next to KG, Sheed at his age will get more rest coming off the bench, Perk needs starters around him to cover up his glaring weaknesses on offense, Baby actually needs to play a bit down low on D which is why he was the better fit next to KG than Powe and why he'd clash with Perk on D, Sheed coming off the bench is also the best backup C in the league (PF too) and he can sub in for KG or Perk at any time knowing he's the sixth man, rather than having to sort between which of Baby and Perk goes in first.

Run on sentence, but there's a lot of reasons other than stunting his development regarding why Perk will start.

sutrick · Post #7 » by **sutrick** » Sun Sep 6, 2009 9:19 pm

I agree that Perk should start because you need to keep his self-confidence high. He will be around and a key player much longer than Rasheed. With 4 quality bigs, the Celtics are loaded. Best idea is to limit KG's minutes in the regular season.

Whether the Celtics start out strong is not as important as staying strong. Being the #1 seed will be critical in the East this year. Otherwise you have to play both of the top 3 teams. No one else in league should concern the top 3, although Boston could struggle more than others against a young, quick team. Fortunately, I don't think the Bulls have improved enough to cause any concern for Boston. Philly, Miami and Atlanta don't play fast and Toronto might but they are weak defensively and rebounding at the 3, 4 and 5. Bosh rebounds but is not strong enough to play low post defense.

hairybyrd · Post #8 » by **hairybyrd** » Sun Sep 6, 2009 9:39 pm

You guys made some good points. I still believe Wallace will start but I better understand the case for Perkins.

TonyMontana · Post #9 » by **TonyMontana** » Mon Sep 7, 2009 1:41 am

Outsider looking in........... Perk should start since he has earned his starting role. Problem Sheeds head is too big and Im sure he will have a problem with that. So if you start Sheed over Perk then your going to place a young player in a postition where he will feels betrayed and unappreciated as well as taking away his P.T and his starting role is going to effect his game and his growth.

On the other hand Wallace can both play down low in the paint and still drain shots from the perimeter so he is definatly more valueable coming off the bench for you guys. Your bench has been consistently inconsistent for the most part of last year and the earlier part of the year before. At times Tony Allen looked really lost on the floor and Eddie House can have some offnights that all perimeter shooters will have at times, and if you think about it there really hasn't been a leadership role givin to anyone outside of your big three for your second unit coming off the bench.

I think our success of last year was largly due to Lamar coming off the bench and basically taking over the leadership role of our second unit. I see Sheed doing the samething for you guys as well. I think Sheed should come off the bench.

Also why fix whats not broken, you guys have been very succesful with Perks, wasnt the whole purpose of singing Shed to your squad to deepen your bench?

CelticsFan11 · Post #10 » by **CelticsFan11** » Mon Sep 7, 2009 3:46 am

Ah sorry, but one of the points that I meant to really cover upon but i didn't emphasize was that our chemistry is proven. We know what we going to get chemistry wise from the Celtics. Of course the Cavs, Lakers, Magic can and probably will gel together during training camp, but we can't be certain. How do we know Shaq or Ron Ron won't screw up the Cavs/ Laker's mentality?

DEEP3CL · Post #11 » by **DEEP3CL** » Tue Sep 8, 2009 6:31 am

CelticsFan11 wrote:Ah sorry, but one of the points that I meant to really cover upon but i didn't emphasize was that our chemistry is proven. We know what we going to get chemistry wise from the Celtics. Of course the Cavs, Lakers, Magic can and probably will gel together during training camp, but we can't be certain. How do we know Shaq or Ron Ron won't screw up the Cavs/ Laker's mentality?

This is where you're reaching a bit. Shaq won't screw with the Cavs chemistry because he know's he'll be an integral part of their scheme. And Artest is too hungry to F up what he's been trying so hard to get to.......a real contender. Plus weather you guys know this or not he knows the Triangle already so it's not like it's foreign to him.

Bottom line is this.......every contender added major heat, and every team is going to have to integrate that player in their scheme.

SichtingLives · Post #12 » by **SichtingLives** » Tue Sep 8, 2009 4:44 pm

DEEP3CL wrote:
CelticsFan11 wrote:Ah sorry, but one of the points that I meant to really cover upon but i didn't emphasize was that our chemistry is proven. We know what we going to get chemistry wise from the Celtics. Of course the Cavs, Lakers, Magic can and probably will gel together during training camp, but we can't be certain. How do we know Shaq or Ron Ron won't screw up the Cavs/ Laker's mentality?
This is where you're reaching a bit. Shaq won't screw with the Cavs chemistry because he know's he'll be an integral part of their scheme. And Artest is too hungry to F up what he's been trying so hard to get to.......a real contender. Plus weather you guys know this or not he knows the Triangle already so it's not like it's foreign to him.

Bottom line is this.......every contender added major heat, and every team is going to have to integrate that player in their scheme.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to consider it a certainty that Shaq or Artest won't ruin chemistry on their teams. Sure, it could play out just how you say, but we're talking about the biggest drama queen in the league, and Ron Artest, who is certifiably insane. It is no stretch at all to at least allow for the possibility that two guys with an extensive history for creating drama will continue to create more drama in the future. They are both getting desperate. That could trigger true strength and determination, more childish behavior or a bit of both.

ps - In Shaq's case, it may not matter. I can't see him making it to the playoffs healthy, unless the Cavs baby him and really limit his minutes throughout the season.