Appreciating the Obvious

In the wake of Boston's fairly comfortable win over the Detroit Pistons it's perhaps time to revisit the obvious point that this is a really good basketball team. Kevin Garnett has consistently been one of the top players in the league, and now for the first time ever he's playing alongside another legitimately great player in Paul Pierce. Ray Allen's not really the force he once was, but he's no slouch, either. And contrary to how things looked over the offseason, Boston's now got reasonable depth. Rajon Rondo is pretty good and Kendrick Perkins is good enough. Add on to that Glen Davis, Eddie House, James Posey and now P.J. Brown and Sam Cassell off the bench, and you've got a really great basketball team.

I kind of lost sight of the Celtics because they fell off their seventy win pace and then there were blockbuster trades out west, but the slip was driven by injuries. When healthy, I see every reason to think they'll win the championship.

Photo by Flickr user The Mike Lee used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

I remain convinced that Doc Rivers is going to kill them in the end. Every other legitimate title contender has a far better coach.

Posted by right | March 6, 2008 1:12 PM

They're pretty small (I think), and their most important pieces are pretty old. Certainly, they look like the most likely team to emerge from the Eastern Conference.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 6, 2008 1:17 PM

You left out mention of Leon Powe. He lead the Pac 10 in ppg and rpg, and adds ferocity and muscle to Boston's inside game.

Posted by Jasper | March 6, 2008 1:17 PM

I'd pick them to come out of the east, but if you look at their roster top-to-bottom, there's no way they match the talent level of the Lakers. Or the Spurs, either. And Doc is going to get out-coached in a 7-game series.

Posted by too many steves | March 6, 2008 1:23 PM

They have to show they can stay healthy in a long, tough playoff series. Detroit has done it before. It's not obvious that Boston will come out of the East.

But yeah, they're good.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | March 6, 2008 1:24 PM

Cassell really makes me feel much better about the playoffs. Rondo is good, and he's the future, but I was a little wary about going into a seven game series with him running the offense with very little backup. Who knows if Cassell steps on his toes, but if Sam embraces a mentor role we could do something special

Posted by Jack | March 6, 2008 1:32 PM

C'mon guys, it's so obvious: Matt hates Boston sports teams so he's pulling the same reverse jinx crap he did with Hillary (before he forgot how powerful he was and screwed everything up).

Posted by T_Porter | March 6, 2008 1:33 PM

Remember that the Lakers still have Bynum and Ariza on the injured list. As good as they have been playing since the Gasol trade, they are actually better then this.

Posted by Mark | March 6, 2008 1:35 PM

i agree with jack that the add of cassell has the potential to be really significant, but actually, i wanted to post because, funny, i've just been thinking to myself over the past week, it's been a tough season to call with the overall strength in the west and the newly constructed celtics and so on, but prompted by the addition of kurt thomas (my favorite deadline move in terms of this season), i'm suddenly looking at the spurs reasserting their core strengths of defense and rebounding....

Posted by howard | March 6, 2008 1:36 PM

The Rockets will win it in six over the Celtics.

Posted by Clark | March 6, 2008 1:37 PM

Remember that the Lakers still have Bynum and Ariza on the injured list. As good as they have been playing since the Gasol trade, they are actually better then this.

If I were a Laker fan, I'd be a bit nervous about Bynum coming back healthy and fitting it.

As to the post itself, exactly right. For everyone wondering about Doc as a coach, remember who the Pistons are coached by. I see no obstacle to Boston coming out of the east.

Posted by Al | March 6, 2008 1:42 PM

Win the East? Maybe. But they would get stomped by San Antonio, LA, or the Jazz in a seven game series. I actually think the Pistons match up better with all of those teams in a series. I like the Pistons out of the East.

Posted by Todd Doug | March 6, 2008 1:44 PM

Sadly, I agree with Howard. And it sucks because the Spurs are bad for basketball as a spectacle. It's like an Italian team winning the Champions league - they're good but there's nothing particularly joyful about the viewing experience.

Posted by Pooh | March 6, 2008 2:00 PM

If I were a Laker fan, I'd be a bit nervous about Bynum coming back healthy and fitting it.

I'm worried about his health and his ability to show that the first two months of the season weren't a fluke. But I'm not worried about him fitting in. It's not like he was putting up 20pts a night. Mostly just getting rebounds, playing good defense and providing a real low post option.

Posted by mpowell | March 6, 2008 2:03 PM

Remind me again how many times the Lakers managed to beat Boston this year?

Oh, thats right.

Posted by rochrist | March 6, 2008 2:16 PM

The Celtics are clearly the class of the NBA right now and are simply not getting any credit for that since the big "West" trades last month.

The idea that the Lakers are somehow gonna cruise through the West just doesn't cut it. First of all, competition is too stiff. Second of all, don't expect Andrew Bynum to come back and look anything like he did before he got hurt - and remember, he wasn't even that great then! He was very inconsistent, liable to fuck up at big moments, despite his enormous talent and potential. Ariza simply isn't that good - he and Walton bring different things, but if LA is gonna outscore you - which is how they are trying to win right now - Walton is the better choice anyway, because Ariza is a mediocre offensive player (he can finish on the break though).

Plus, the Celtics have kicked the Lakers butts twice this season - neither was even a contest.

Fact is, the Celtics have beaten everybody in the West and can beat them all, especially in a seven game series when defense becomes paramount, and the Celtics play the best D in the league.

The Rockets are a fad, they aren't getting out of the first round. Dallas and Phoenix are done, they aren't getting past the second round.

It's gonna be down to the Spurs, Lakers & Jazz, all of which the Celtics match up great against.

A little more credit, please...

Posted by Credit Where Credit is Due | March 6, 2008 2:24 PM

pooh, since we haven't had a soccer hijacking in a while, let me note that AS Roma doesn't play like an italian team!

Posted by howard | March 6, 2008 2:42 PM

Mancini!">http://youtube.com/watch?v=EYvruh2japw">Mancini!

Posted by Pooh | March 6, 2008 2:57 PM

gah, take two

Mancini!

Posted by Pooh | March 6, 2008 2:59 PM

Plus, the Celtics have kicked the Lakers butts twice this season - neither was even a contest.

Umm... you may have heard the Lakers (and the Celtics) made a couple of transactions since those games were played. I'm thinking Gasol to LA and Cassell to Boston weighs out in the Lakers' favor, pretty significantly.

I know Boston is great at defense, but how will they match up against a Bynum-Gasol-Odom front line and still effectively contain Kobe? No one's been able to explain this to me. Can Cassell guard Kobe?

Posted by right | March 6, 2008 3:07 PM

Exactly right, howard - neither in dispatching Real Madrid, nor in blowing their lead against Inter last week.

Posted by Al | March 6, 2008 3:13 PM

I seem to recall that Mr. Yglesias was writing off San Antonio a couple of months ago. If they're at full strength, they are perfectly capable of beating the Lakers and the Celtics in a seven game series.

Posted by SLC | March 6, 2008 3:20 PM

I got burned last year when I believe I described San Antonio as "creaky" right around the super bowl. If they turn out to be "creaky" this year, I will, Goldberg-like, be right to have been wrong on this one...

Posted by Pooh | March 6, 2008 3:28 PM

"Kevin Garnett has consistently been one of the top players in the league, and now for the first time ever he's playing alongside another legitimately great player in Paul Pierce."

Well, Stephon Marbury was pretty great.

Though, yeah, Marbury proved to be a colossal baby who whined his way out of Minnesota prior to whining his way of New Jersey . . . . until finally he whined his way into his dream job with the Knicks.

(That's working out great, huh? Well, let it be a lesson for cry-babies the world over.)

Still -- the guy was a major talent and could've perhaps formed one of the all time great NBA tandems with Garnett.

But, oh, let's talk of better things.

Like all kind hearted right-thinking people I root against Boston and Dallas teams on principle, but I'll be suspending that rule now that the endearingly fearless Sam Cassell is part of the Celtics equation.

Frankly, the blog could use more Sam Cassell.

The political stuff is strong, but the recent comments about literature were rather philistine and the few times you've written about music it wasn't pretty. Hmmm, maybe work in a Sam Cassell reference every third day to start with then see where it goes from there.

Trust me, it could be just the answer.

Posted by You're Forgetting Someone, Mr. Yglesias | March 6, 2008 3:32 PM

But don't you know that Kevin Garnett is a choker in the playoffs? The fact that he couldn't single-handedly win a championship for a pathetic Timberwolves franchise shows that he's not a clutch player.

Posted by ESPN Talking Head Moron | March 6, 2008 4:04 PM

right, nobody "contains" Kobe, but if you keep Odom-Gasol-Bynum from contributing much, you force Kobe to do too much, and that's when the Lakers fall apart. He can score 50 on any given night, but it's usually not a very efficient 50. And adding Gasol is great for the Lakers, but it's largely nullified against the Celtics because he has to go against Garnett.

Of course, we're all way ahead of ourselves, let's see the Lakers get through 3 rounds in the west first. The Celtics really only need to concern themselves with the Pistons and LeBron, the Lakers could easily lose in the first round in the star-studded Western Conference.

Posted by Crusty Dem | March 6, 2008 4:43 PM

I still think the fact that Boston has no one to guard Billups will get them in the end. And last night's game was one of those decided by the schedule. Detroit played at home the night before.

The Celtics and Pistons are close, but I think Detroit will win in May...

Posted by coolcatson5 | March 6, 2008 4:57 PM

An Odom-Gasol-Bynum frontline isn't actually that scary. Just pack the paint and force them to shoot jumpers -- Odom and Gasol don't have the range for effective spacing. That's not to say they're not a tremendous frontline, just that there's an obvious strategic counter, which a good coach could probably make work.

Posted by Dave Meyer | March 6, 2008 5:40 PM

Gasol don't have the range for effective spacing. . .

Have you ever seen him play? Pau makes his living from 10-15 feet out. I get the felling you think "spacing" means "at the three point line." Anyhoo, if I was Jackson, I'd love to see Pierce, Garnett, and Player X pack the paint and watch Kobe destroy Allen 1-1.

Lakers got there problems, but an Odom-Bynum-Gasol frontcourt is, um, scary.

Posted by l2p | March 6, 2008 6:21 PM

if defense wins championships, it'll be the celts. If overall talent and offensive efficiency does, it'll be the lakers.

Or maybe the spurs, can never count those bastards out.

Posted by howlingfantods | March 6, 2008 6:41 PM

Re right

The big problem that Doc Rivers would face if the Celtics played either San Antonio or LA is the fact that the coaches of those teams have 13 championship rings between them. Greg Popovich has 4 and Phil Jackson has 9.

Posted by SLC | March 6, 2008 6:45 PM

"I still think the fact that Boston has no one to guard Billups will get them in the end."

Um, Rondo is a very good defender. If Detroit beats Boston, it won't be because Billups single-handedly destroys the Celtics.

Posted by too many steves | March 6, 2008 7:15 PM

Last night's game highlighted Detroit's main weakness - they become a perimeter-oriented team at the end of games when the defense tightens up. Chauncey and Sheed are both very good perimeter players, but we saw it against Cleveland last year...and we've seen it in Detroit's other deep playoff runs. They rely too much on the jumper because they don't a true go-to post player and they lack tough slashers who can get to the line consistently in slowed-down, half court, playoff-style games. As a result, their offense can go very cold at inopportune times.

As much as everyone minimizes Boston's success because it's "only the regular season," Detroit has become the Phoenix of the Eastern Conference - always competitive, but seemingly unable to conquer their demons against tough playoff opponents. Their roster is basically identical to the one that failed last year...and their coach is still Flip Saunders (who in my mind, is no better than Doc Rivers).

As for Boston, it's ludicrous to say "they would get stomped by San Antonio, LA, or the Jazz in a seven game series" when we haven't seen Boston in a playoff series. They are simply an unknown playoff quantity...and there is no way we can be certain what they will do until it happens. My sense, having watched nearly all of their games, is that the Celtics are exceptionally well constructed for the playoffs, since they mix extraordinary team defense with the kind of versatile scoring that Detroit sometimes lacks.

What makes the Celtics unique is that they are a veteran team...without a playoff resume. Usually, logic dictates that a young and emerging team that puts together a strong regular season will wilt in the playoffs due to youth and inexperience. Clearly, that's not the case with a team as veteran-laden as the Celts. The question for the Celtics is whether the mix of skills and personalities will continue to work in the playoffs. Based on the individual and cummulative style and talent of the players, I say it will. But that's just a guess.

Posted by owenz | March 6, 2008 8:13 PM

I completely agree with people's fears about Doc Rivers. It will be very interesting to see how he deals with a guy like Cassell...who is such a strong personality and will push hard for minutes. Ironically, the lack of bench talent the Celts had for most of this year was perfect for Rivers, who didn't have to think too much with his rotations.

Both Popovich and Jackson are huge assets for their teams. But anyone who watched Cleveland beat Detroit last year should know that Flip Saunders is somewhere between mediocre and terrible.

Posted by owenz | March 6, 2008 8:19 PM

Owenz makes some good remarks. The sad thing is that, of all the playoff contenders in the East, Boston may actually have the best coach. Who's better? Flip? No. Sam Mitchell? No. Mike Brown? Maybe - I'm not convinced, although he did OK last year. Maybe SVG, who knows.

Posted by Al | March 6, 2008 9:26 PM

I'm completely w/owenz about Rivers. He's not always bad, but he's certainly mediocre with his rotations. I doubt he's any worse than Flip, he (or more precisely, his staff) does a good job with the defense and he finally has a team that doesn't need much help with the offense. But the D is much more solid than people appreciate. The only guys I've seen have great games against this team are LeBron and Jason Richardson, and I don't think LeBron has enough offensive help in the playoffs.

Posted by Crusty Dem | March 6, 2008 9:35 PM

Let me second Jasper and note that Leon Powe is a tremendous force for the Celtics. His PER this year is 19.4, higher than either Pierce or Allen, and the second highest mark on the team. This doesn't seem to be a fluke, either: his PER last year, while lower at 14.6, was already surprising and impressive. If you scale his minutes to 36 a game, he gets 18.7 points and 10 rebounds, all with a scarily high true shooting percentage of 63.5%.

I'm not sure how long it will take for everyone to realize that Leon Powe is a beast. Just like Carl Landry on the Rockets, he's a little-known player who outdoes some of the famous names on the roster.

Posted by Matt Rognlie | March 6, 2008 11:27 PM

once again, when's the last time a team with zero playoff success the year before, when effectively a new collection of players won it all? just about never in recent memory? so why do you all think it might happen with the celtics? cause the east is so weak they get to the finals by default? there's still the cavs and detroit as serious competition. and garnett's proven what about his playoff abilities? and it's been how long since cassell was in the finals? and ray allen's been to the finals when? and pierce?

regular season means little, it's beyond dispute. don't be surprised if it doesn't work out for the celtics in their first year, just like it didn't for everyone else who looked great in the regular season.

Posted by dj superflat | March 7, 2008 12:09 AM

"Garnett's proven what about his playoff abilities?"

According to basketball-reference.com, KG's career playoff averages are 22.3 ppg, 13.4 rpg and 5.0 apg (they don't list PER or other advanced stats for the playoffs). Those are all above his career averages, which is pretty impressive, since the pace is slower in the playoffs and most guys have a slight decline in their numbers.

As far as team success, they were a low seed almost every year, and they lost in the first round most years, just like you'd expect. The one year Garnett had help (the team with Cassell and Sprewell), they took the Lakers to 6 games in the conference finals.

It's also wrong to say the regular season "means little." The #1 team in the regular season doesn't always win it all, of course, but the champ is almost always one of the top teams in the regular season.

I still like the Lakers over the Celtics in the Finals (god, would that be fun). The great thing about the Lakers is how well they pass. You put Farmar, Kobe, Walton, Odom and Gasol on the court, and thats 5 serious passers.

They're also amazingly deep. When they're healthy, their bench is Farmar, Walton, Ariza, Radmanovic, Turiaf and Sasha Vuja-whatever.

That's if they have everybody healthy. If not, I like the Spurs.

Posted by too many steves | March 7, 2008 1:28 PM

"I still think the fact that Boston has no one to guard Billups will get them in the end."

did you watch the last game before emitting such nonsense? the celtics beat the pistons by 12, and the game was not as close as the score might indicate. the only reliable way for the pistons to score in the second half was for billups to get fouled. neither mcdyess, nor sheed can play with the celtics. the pistons own fans were calling out tayshaun as "princess" on the detroit free press pistons boards. rip hamilton played ray allen to a draw--big deal, ray allen played rip hamilton to a draw. billups may be better than anyone the celtics have in that position, but he's no lebron or kobe; he won't be winning any games against the celtics by himself.

as for the vaunted west, look at the record--the only games the celtics have lost to the west were games when garnett was down, and even those games were within reach. the celtics have the best winning margin in the league, have a better defense than any team in the west, and have lost one game all season long by a score in the double digits, while every other team in the league has lost at least five or six such games.

i'm not guaranteeing a celtics championship, but anybody who doesn't see them as the current favorites shares a dubious connection to reality with the wingnut/30%.

Posted by pilgrimtraveller | March 7, 2008 5:49 PM