I have nothing against uncertainty. Not knowing what is about to happen is fundamental to the appeal of a tightly contested basketball game, a captivating TV drama and a Kinder Surprise. Depending on context, an unclear outcome can be exhilarating (i.e., free-soloing a mountain) or terrifying (i.e. watching a loved one free-solo a mountain). 

In the case of the Boston Celtics, a team that inspires adjectives like volatile, erratic and inconsistent, I am neither exhilarated nor terrified. Their regular season has left me uninspired, maybe even a little disappointed, but definitely not disinterested, as evidenced by the amount of time I've spent talking/thinking/writing about them. If they had been as great as expected, they wouldn't be all that fascinating. I am, however, tired of watching them underachieve.  

The Celtics have so much talent that their players -- and even one of their former players -- keep saying it's too much. Entering the season, Westgate pegged their over/under win total at an Eastern Conference-best 59; with a week remaining, they are 46-32 and will all but certainly finish fourth or fifth. Regardless of how many dispiriting losses and disturbing quotes I see, though, I remember that that they came within one game of the NBA Finals last season without Kyrie Irving and Gordon Hayward. Despite everything, including their record, their upside is obvious. 

That record, however, is impossible to ignore. It is worse than that of the Los Angeles Clippers, and, even if they win the four games they have left, they will finish with five fewer wins than they did last year and three fewer than the year before. Their plus-4.1 net rating ranks sixth, but it must be weighed against their lack of harmony. A few minutes into the third quarter against the Brooklyn Nets on Saturday, Brad Stevens called timeout to yell at his team. Among dedicated Boston fans, there is a name for this recurring phenomenon: Mad Brad. 

"I was really frustrated," Stevens said after the 110-96 loss. 

The coach went out of his way to praise Brooklyn and point out that lots of teams lose at Barclays Center. The result was predictable, with the Nets fighting for their playoff lives and Al Horford and Kyrie Irving sidelined. Stevens was not upset that the Celtics lost, but rather how they lost. D'Angelo Russell had roasted them in previous encounters this season, and containing him was a point of emphasis coming into the game. Stevens didn't think they defended him with enough intensity to prevent him from getting in rhythm. Mad Brad arrived after Russell hit two quick 3-pointers.

The timeout didn't fix things: Russell scored 20 points in the third quarter as Brooklyn built a 19-point lead. Shorthanded as Boston was, it did not have room for error.  

"I don't think we valued possessions at the level we need to get to," Stevens said. "That's what I just talked about. And I get it. We played really hard last night [in a win against Indiana]. Last night was a tough game. But, you know, every possession all year matters, and we haven't been great at that, and that's one of the things that, if we're going to make it anywhere significant, they've all gotta matter equally. Offensively, defensively, moving it, all of those things." 

I haven't seen anyone sum up the Celtics' season better. They have not valued possessions, and they might have simply not valued the regular season. Five weeks ago, Irving told reporters that he wanted to fast forward to playing at the highest level. After the Nets loss, forward Marcus Morris said, "Obviously, we didn't have the year we wanted to have," as if Game 77 were Game 82.  

In the playoffs, Boston will need to be locked in. It will need to execute. It will need to do the little things that coaches care about. Until this group shows that it can do that stuff on a regular basis, there will be skepticism about how far they can go. 

"We've been having criticism all year," Morris said. "It can't be no worse than what it is now. Basically we just tell ourselves keep going, man. Everybody's going to doubt us because of the year we had, but when the playoffs hit, it's basically a new season, so we still have a chance to turn this thing around. We're excited, man. Hopefully, probably 10 years from now, they'll do a '30 for 30' on this team."

That "30 for 30" line has stuck with me for the past few days. Does this team really deserve a documentary? If everything comes together and the Celtics win spectacularly, yes. Same goes for them failing spectacularly. But what if they play decent basketball and lose to one of the East's other contenders? What if this team, as stacked as it is, just doesn't have it?

As I've been mulling that question over, here's what has come out of Boston:

  • Paul Pierce told the Boston Herald that Jayson Tatum can be a perennial All-Star if he drives to the basket more … but we're not going to see his whole skill set "until he either goes to another team or there's less talent on the team." Not promising. 
  • Following a win against Miami, Marcus Smart told reporters that they'll need to respond to adversity in the playoffs, as "everybody can play good when things are going their way, but you define the character in the player when things are going against you." He said it in a positive way, as Boston had withstood a comeback, but it's not all that promising when you think about how the team has handled adversity all season.
  • The Athletic's Jay King explored the Celtics' complete inability to function without Horford on the court. This is promising because they can push his minutes to the high 30s in close postseason games like they did last season.
  • Someone played "Baby Shark" in Boston's weight room. This is neutral.

OK, looking at the news was not clarifying. I will return, then, to some things I believe about playoff basketball: Matchups sometimes matter more than talent. Coaching matters. Style of play matters. Last year's Boston team was instructive, as it had a movement-oriented system but could also play matchup ball. Those Celtics were difficult to exploit on defense, and Stevens always seemed to make the right adjustments. They never seemed like a true championship contender, but they were resilient. They overachieved. Typically, they valued possessions. 

This year's team has more talent, but that has, to this point, stripped Boston of that identity. I don't think that motivation will be an issue in the postseason, but I don't know if that means that the Celtics will find the best version of themselves. Part of me thinks that they have had all season to show us who they are, and we should believe them. Another part thinks that they still have unrealized potential. I am aware that these thoughts are incompatible. If the playoffs reveal the essence of a team, then the picture will be much clearer soon.