Re: M.L.

["Caleb J. McArthur" <cmcarthu@umich.edu>]

On Mon, 21 Apr 1997, Nault wrote:

> If the Celtics were capable of winning 35 games this year then I say they
> should have won 35 games this year.
> 
> Tim

Part of me is inclined to agree, but how far should this philosophy be
taken?  Should a team always simply focus on the present?  If so, then a
team should never trade a proven, but aging veteran for youthful prospects
or get rid of decent contributors to clear cap space for a FA star down
the road, yet teams do such "reloading" all the time. Also, a team should
never give rookies or even second year players any playing time if it
means hurting their chances of winning the game.  But then how do you
develop your young talent?  Some say that if Reggie Lewis had played 25
minutes a game his rookie year (87-88), the Celtics would have won the
championship (preventing the Lakers from repeating) that year (they lost
to the Pistons in 6 games in the semis).  The very next year, Lewis
averaged over 30 minutes a game because Bird missed all but 6 games after
getting ankle surgery, and he averaged close to 17 pts, 5 rebs, 2.5
assists per game while shooting close to 47% from the field.  He would
have made a great sixth man behind Bird and Ainge on that 87-88 team. 


What should ML have done?  Should he have encouraged Radja to come back as
soon as possible and then give Walker's minutes to Radja?  We might have
won more games that way, but I think it is perfectly ok to develop your
young talent instead.  


The strongest objection one can make is that ML did not teach the kids how
to play defense.  The Celtics were by far the worst defensive team in the
league.  Granted they had no shot blocking center and the Center position
is the key to a good defense, but the Cs were still worse than they should
have been.  Why?  In part because of who their coach was, but then ML was
picked in part to take the blame for this horrible season --  they stunk
b/c they had a bad coach not b/c they were tanking sort of thing.

Does all this detract from the Celtics Mystique?  Maybe, or maybe it adds
to it.  Just another one of those crafty Celtic plans to get to the top.
If Duncan turns out to be the star people say he will be and if Walker
continues to pan out, then people won't look back at this past year as a
disgrace, it will be considered another example of "shrewd, Celtic
maneuvering".  

As long as nobody is telling the players to let the other team win, to
miss shots intentionally, etc., I don't have a problem.  I think that
generally, the players on the floor tried their best to win each game; any
tanking was done at the managerial level.  Better this than to be the
Cleveland Cavaliers forever.


Caleb