Boston Early Offseason in Review (HW/Slava/bondom34/Mamba4goat)

[bondom34]

PER is just one of the many statistics grading Brown out favorably. Facts are, Bender was pathetic at every facet related to offensive performance other than providing spacing because his entire game relies on him parking behind the 3 point line.

He may grade out better defensively per APM (though, I'll plead ignorance, what are the inputs? Could you provide me a link to last year's grades? The only thing I could see online is a distinct warning from the authors on small sample sizes, which likely applies to both Brown and Bender), but I'd argue that Brown still showed well on that end for a rookie.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CiOqGlz6zjjmjUlJBNOXflG6wYAS1RLjZjtZSQHraF4/edit?usp=sharing

It's RAPM. Lineup data is the main input along w/ scoring margin. And Brown doesn't show remotely well, he's near worst in the NBA. Brown wasn't good offensively either, wasn't good defensively, and is older. And RAPM is generally more predictive than other metrics.

I'm confused how you can rely on RAPM when it comes to evaluating Brown vs Bender and also not 100% love the Bradley for Morris trade? Moving to player ~150 from ~420 at the expense of a second rounder in 2019 feels like it should be a home run A+ move, especially when considering contracts. Yet you seemed ambivalent. Why?

Because it's not the only thing I use, and Boston has about 100 SFs when Bradley was tradable for a big? And Morris is really redundant, doesn't fill a need, and you gave up a 2nd? You got a slightly better player who doesn't fit a need and gave up assets.

[BfB]

Yeah, Stevens is an amazing coach and an even better tactician. I expect you to win more games than you otherwise should because of him. I'm not a huge fan of Ainge as a GM, but Stevens will end up in the hall of fame. As long as he's on the payroll your team will continue to outperform expectations.

That said it is tiresome that so many Celtic fans are as defensive as they are. It is possible to read criticism and not view it as a comprehensive indictment of the organization. No person or organization is perfect, if you can't listen to and consider constructive feedback your ability to learn and progress will be stunted.

So what you're saying is it's fine to criticize moves made by the Celtics organization but when Celtics fans disagree with the criticism and offer their own opinions in return it's tiresome? How does that work?

It's tiresome because I encounter very few Celtic fans who are even willing to acknowledge that you made trade-offs this summer, i.e. the reality that you lost veteran depth to sign Hayward. It isn't unreasonable at all to think there may be negative consequences as a result. The starting lineup was improved, but depth was sacrificed to achieve that and as a result you will be relying on rookies and young players to step up.

My argument would be that the team is fully aware that it cannot win the title this year and consciously put more "upside" players in positions to contribute in order to maximize their trade value and/or discover more of their value to the short term as well.

Maxing out the total potential of this season had one incarnation - Hayward/George - they have no interest in lesser short term value-ads that cost assets needed for title contention


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[nykballa2k4]

I think the off-season was a B. Ultimately the team is obviously better and nothing is broken, but is the team any closer to the NBA finals? Treading water for me is a C, the big addition of Hayward and the solid looking draft makes this a B. What would have made it an A for me would have been moving Horford for a center who is a better rebounder.

[SmartWentCrazy]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CiOqGlz6zjjmjUlJBNOXflG6wYAS1RLjZjtZSQHraF4/edit?usp=sharing

It's RAPM. Lineup data is the main input along w/ scoring margin. And Brown doesn't show remotely well, he's near worst in the NBA. Brown wasn't good offensively either, wasn't good defensively, and is older. And RAPM is generally more predictive than other metrics.

I'm confused how you can rely on RAPM when it comes to evaluating Brown vs Bender and also not 100% love the Bradley for Morris trade? Moving to player ~150 from ~420 at the expense of a second rounder in 2019 feels like it should be a home run A+ move, especially when considering contracts. Yet you seemed ambivalent. Why?

Because it's not the only thing I use, and Boston has about 100 SFs when Bradley was tradable for a big? And Morris is really redundant, doesn't fill a need, and you gave up a 2nd? You got a slightly better player who doesn't fit a need and gave up assets.

Got it, so you selectively choose the metric when it better fits the argument you want to make. Thanks for clarifying!

[bondom34]

I'm confused how you can rely on RAPM when it comes to evaluating Brown vs Bender and also not 100% love the Bradley for Morris trade? Moving to player ~150 from ~420 at the expense of a second rounder in 2019 feels like it should be a home run A+ move, especially when considering contracts. Yet you seemed ambivalent. Why?

Because it's not the only thing I use, and Boston has about 100 SFs when Bradley was tradable for a big? And Morris is really redundant, doesn't fill a need, and you gave up a 2nd? You got a slightly better player who doesn't fit a need and gave up assets.

Got it, so you selectively choose the metric when it better fits the argument you want to make. Thanks for clarifying!

So you think Boston needs more SFs? Great, who needs other players! I fully expect a title based on your comments here A+ offseason. Like really, you have no concept of fit? At all? Or just think you can play 5 wings at once all the time? Because right now you're still remarkably awful at rebounding and just got worse with this trade, and gained a player at literally the single position you didn't need.

But adding snark to your post because you disagree is very very helpful. Good content.

[bondom34]

I think the off-season was a B. Ultimately the team is obviously better and nothing is broken, but is the team any closer to the NBA finals? Treading water for me is a C, the big addition of Hayward and the solid looking draft makes this a B. What would have made it an A for me would have been moving Horford for a center who is a better rebounder.

All of this.

[myronbolitar]

The Celtics were never going to move Horford in a deal for an unnamed "rebounder" a year after giving him a max contract. Continuity and reputation matters. It was a big deal that he came to Boston last year, and it's something the franchise is building on.

[BullyKing]

So where do you grade the Celtics asset accumulation? You ding them in your write up for failing to execute Noel and Cousins trades, but you also want to ignore the assets they had on hand in offseason. It seems to me that you're trying to have it both ways.

The Celtics didn't "just have" the assets they used this offseason. That dismisses they choices they had to make to put them in the position to have the A+ offseason they executed.

So Brooklyn's offseason grade should factor in that they gave away the number one pick for nothing?

Honestly, I can't understand how worked up some people are getting that someone gave the Celtics an A- and not an A+ on an offseason. It's like you think the grade HW gives the offseason actually impacts how Boston will perform this season. Like do you realize how amazing it is to be arguing between an A- and an A+ as though there is some clearly delineated objective distinction between the two? If HW's analysis was exactly the same but at the end he gave them an A+, what would your reaction be?

No, I just think Celtics should not be docked for the offseason because they started with more assets. Somewhere in the assessment process, you have to account for the steps Ainge took to acquire and hold onto those assets. If he gets criticism for not using them on Cousins, then you must also give him credit for having the assets now. He can't use them twice.

And look, I'm not concerned with any particular grade you want to give (I assume the"F's" are coming from Utah fans, sorry guys). I'm just discussing the points laid out for and against the offseason moves and I see them differently than you guys do. From my point of view, the criticisms you're laying out aren't consistent...and apparently you think the same of mine. But if it seems I'm worked up about something, I've miscommunicated. I don't perceive any of you to be worked up about anything either. I thought we were just disagreeing.

Maybe it's a good idea to move on. Hartford, thanks for coming onto our board and inviting us to be a part of the discussion. I've enjoyed it.

No one "docked" Boston for the assets they had. They only evaluated their use of the assets this offseason. Amazingly, you accuse others of changing their criticisms, which is not only inaccurate but exactly what you did after saying Boston should be "credited" for past moves to get those assets.

[bondom34]

The Celtics were never going to move Horford in a deal for an unnamed "rebounder" a year after giving him a max contract. Continuity and reputation matters. It was a big deal that he came to Boston last year, and it's something the franchise is building on.

Did someone suggest moving Horford?

[SmartWentCrazy]

So you think Boston needs more SFs? Great, who needs other players!

Stevens believes in 3 positions. Ball handlers, wings and bigs. The traditional 2-4 is interchangeable. Jaylen Brown started double digit games there last year, and Hayward will play the two as well. Morris, Crowder and Tatum will play both the 3 and 4. Try again.

I fully expect a title based on your comments here A+ offseason.

Quote me where I said this. If you need to make things up to try to make a point, chances are your point is wrong.

Like really, you have no concept of fit? At all? Or just think you can play 5 wings at once all the time?

Or 3, which is the plan.

Because right now you're still remarkably awful at rebounding

Agreed.

and just got worse with this trade, and gained a player at literally the single position you didn't need.

Disagreed.

But adding snark to your post because you disagree is very very helpful. Good content.

Did you read half of your posts in this thread? Cuz that's pretty much all you do.

[Homerclease]

Because it's not the only thing I use, and Boston has about 100 SFs when Bradley was tradable for a big? And Morris is really redundant, doesn't fill a need, and you gave up a 2nd? You got a slightly better player who doesn't fit a need and gave up assets.

Got it, so you selectively choose the metric when it better fits the argument you want to make. Thanks for clarifying!

So you think Boston needs more SFs? Great, who needs other players! I fully expect a title based on your comments here A+ offseason. Like really, you have no concept of fit? At all? Or just think you can play 5 wings at once all the time? Because right now you're still remarkably awful at rebounding and just got worse with this trade, and gained a player at literally the single position you didn't need.

But adding snark to your post because you disagree is very very helpful. Good content.

All of bostons wings can play multiple positions, not that there is really any difference between a 2/3/4 anymore anyway. Hell, Browns best stretch of basketball last season was when he started at "SG" when Bradley was hurt. Also, Morris ability to create his own shot was something the Celtics sorely lacked off the bench. I think your analysis here is way off. The Celtics already got better at rebounding when they signed Baynes and let guys like Amir and Olynyk go.

Not only that, the Celtics actually outrebounded the cavs in game 5 yet lost by 30

[bondom34]

So you think Boston needs more SFs? Great, who needs other players!

Stevens believes in 3 positions. Ball handlers, wings and bigs. The traditional 2-4 is interchangeable. Jaylen Brown started double digit games there last year, and Hayward will play the two as well. Morris, Crowder and Tatum will play both the 3 and 4. Try again.

I fully expect a title based on your comments here A+ offseason.

Quote me where I said this. If you need to make things up to try to make a point, chances are your point is wrong.

Like really, you have no concept of fit? At all? Or just think you can play 5 wings at once all the time?

Or 3, which is the plan.

Because right now you're still remarkably awful at rebounding

Agreed.

and just got worse with this trade, and gained a player at literally the single position you didn't need.

Disagreed.

But adding snark to your post because you disagree is very very helpful. Good content.

Did you read half of your posts in this thread? Cuz that's pretty much all you do.

Could you show me where I was snarky? I was short, because I was on a phone, but not snarky. And we agree you didn't fix the single massively gaping weakness the team had while adding to depth at a position you don't need. You apparently graded the offseason rather well because I gave a B and you think much higher than me.

I like Stevens but if that's the game plan you're always going to be bad at rebounding because you've got no good rebounders. And AB was a better one than Morris.

Edit: And note my review, where I said I don't even think AB is that good, but hate the fit.

[SmartWentCrazy]

I think the off-season was a B. Ultimately the team is obviously better and nothing is broken, but is the team any closer to the NBA finals? Treading water for me is a C, the big addition of Hayward and the solid looking draft makes this a B. What would have made it an A for me would have been moving Horford for a center who is a better rebounder.

No team is any closer to beating GS following the offseason. 28 teams had 0 shot, and one team that had a minute chance took a step back. Did you really give out 28 C's and B's?

[Homerclease]

I do now expect Boston to win the title this year, given their asset depth and apparently perfect offseason.

Definatly no snark here.

[Homerclease]

I think the off-season was a B. Ultimately the team is obviously better and nothing is broken, but is the team any closer to the NBA finals? Treading water for me is a C, the big addition of Hayward and the solid looking draft makes this a B. What would have made it an A for me would have been moving Horford for a center who is a better rebounder.

All of this.

You agreed with a post suggesting trading Horford and then asked if someone made a post saying they should trade Horford

[bondom34]

I do now expect Boston to win the title this year, given their asset depth and apparently perfect offseason.

Definatly no snark here.

That was. Because according to this thread Boston had a perfect offseason.

And we know they were the 1 seed in the East with the most assets to start the offseason of any team.

Why wouldn't you expect a title? I mean, you started with the most and maximized it, there's no excuse.

[bondom34]

I think the off-season was a B. Ultimately the team is obviously better and nothing is broken, but is the team any closer to the NBA finals? Treading water for me is a C, the big addition of Hayward and the solid looking draft makes this a B. What would have made it an A for me would have been moving Horford for a center who is a better rebounder.

All of this.

You agreed with a post suggesting trading Horford and then asked if someone made a post saying they should trade Horford

That's my bad, was agreeing with the first part.

[Homerclease]

So you think Boston needs more SFs? Great, who needs other players!

Stevens believes in 3 positions. Ball handlers, wings and bigs. The traditional 2-4 is interchangeable. Jaylen Brown started double digit games there last year, and Hayward will play the two as well. Morris, Crowder and Tatum will play both the 3 and 4. Try again.

I fully expect a title based on your comments here A+ offseason.

Quote me where I said this. If you need to make things up to try to make a point, chances are your point is wrong.

Like really, you have no concept of fit? At all? Or just think you can play 5 wings at once all the time?

Or 3, which is the plan.

Because right now you're still remarkably awful at rebounding

Agreed.

and just got worse with this trade, and gained a player at literally the single position you didn't need.

Disagreed.

But adding snark to your post because you disagree is very very helpful. Good content.

Did you read half of your posts in this thread? Cuz that's pretty much all you do.

Could you show me where I was snarky? I was short, because I was on a phone, but not snarky. And we agree you didn't fix the single massively gaping weakness the team had while adding to depth at a position you don't need. You apparently graded the offseason rather well because I gave a B and you think much higher than me.

I like Stevens but if that's the game plan you're always going to be bad at rebounding because you've got no good rebounders. And AB was a better one than Morris.

Edit: And note my review, where I said I don't even think AB is that good, but hate the fit.

Baynes is a good rebounder, so is Jaylen Brown, so is Terry Rozier

[Statlanta]

Chuck nailed it. This is the Magic thread all over again.

Wise 1-2 has never returned

[Homerclease]

I do now expect Boston to win the title this year, given their asset depth and apparently perfect offseason.

Definatly no snark here.

That was. Because according to this thread Boston had a perfect offseason.

And we know they were the 1 seed in the East with the most assets to start the offseason of any team.

Why wouldn't you expect a title? I mean, you started with the most and maximized it, there's no excuse.

Nobody said Boston had a perfect offseason, that was you waving the white flag. I'm on record in this thread as an A- because I didn't like the Philly trade.