Does the Lockout Hurt or Help the Celtics?

[Built Ford Tough]

Obviously if the entire season is lost it will hurt the Celtics given their age and the fact that guys like Pierce, Garnett and Allen clearly aren't getting any younger.

 

However, if a similar scenario to what happened in 1998 happens and the NBA and NBAPA come to an agreement and we get a shortened season (whether 50 games or 60 games or whatever) does that work to Boston's advantage or do you think it hurts them?

[AboveLegit]

Well the '99 Spurs won the title in a shortened season, and Pop did a great job that year in managing his older guys' minutes and playing a deep rotation. Doc does a good job managing the big three's minutes, and I've read that he's planning on playing Green more while resting Pierce/Allen.

 

It's probably not the best comparison considering Duncan was playing like an MVP that season, but the Jazz also had a good run that year with an aging big three (Although they struggled in the playoffs).

 

I don't think the lockout will hurt the Celtics that much, I trust Doc will make the right coaching moves to put the big three in a good position to succeed come playoff time.

[Nitro]

I really don't think it matters. If the Celtics entered the playoffs last year around 50-60 games in, both O'Neal's would have been down to injury, rather than just one (JO was a key contributor in the playoffs). Basically, injuries happen, the older guys will still be worn down and require some days off at the end of the regular season, and in the end they will still be a step slower than the Heat.