With the Celtics rounding back into 2010-11 form (excellent defense, mediocre offense, poor rebounding) Danny Ainge will soon face a decision. Are the Celtics good enough to go three or four rounds deep in the playoffs with the kinds of upgrades he can pull off in the next six weeks? And what upgrades might he pursue?

Right now, the C’s are probably a second round out to Miami or Chicago. At absolute best, they lose in the conference finals, but even that may be a stretch, given the age of the core players and the weaknesses noted above. It’s a safe bet that Ainge has a less romantic view of a final, desperate run for this core than many fans, especially if he believes the outcome is, at best, going a couple of rounds deep. It’s bloodless, but I think Ainge has to seriously augment or disassemble this core.

The real gap is at the center position. You’d be forgiven for having doubts about Avery Bradley and E’Twaun Moore’s abilities to handle high-pressure playoff minutes but finding a Sam Cassell or Stephon Marbury is a lot easier than finding a mid-season big, as Mikki Moore made clear a couple of years ago. A center that could haul in some rebounds, trigger the fast break, protect the rim and score a little bit would be significant.

There’s a possibility of organic improvement from within. Chris Wilcox can probably move his 17.3 DRR back up to somewhere around 22, which would help. It’s less certain that Kevin Garnett can repeat his renaissance of last year. He’s slipped from a 28.7 DRR to a 22.5. That may be his new normal and his offense is no more assertive than last year, save for the three-point shooting. Of course, Jermaine O’Neal remains Jermaine O’Neal, which is to say that if Ainge is counting on him to be available in the spring, he hasn’t learned the lessons of last season.

The challenge for Ainge is that he has precious few assets to move in return for upgrades, without touching his core. He could move any of Moore, Bradley and JaJuan Johnson. Packaged with a draft pick, they have some value. But probably not enough to get what this team needs.

Chris Kaman remains a viable, if unlikely, possibility if the Hornets eventually buy him out.

Beyond that, there are few obvious fixes for what ails the Celtics, unless Ainge is inclined to move Rajon Rondo and seriously alter the core of the team in mid-season. That didn’t work last year with the OKC trade. But that was more about the specific pieces he received and lost than the act of making a deal. It certainly wouldn’t be beyond Ainge to try something like that again.

The numbers don’t lie. Despite better depth and a younger roster, the Celtics aren’t materially better than they were last season, and that wasn’t good enough.

Something has to be done.

One way or another.

Nickname origin stories are fun. Not just-for-sports nicknames like Paul “The Truth” Pierce or Joel “Ghostface” Pryzbilla. Real nicknames; the kind that show up on team rosters and that players go by in their everyday lives, often to the point that the people around them don’t even realize that they go by nicknames at all.

Several players with crazy nicknames have played for the Boston Celtics. Here are the craziest five of them. All of these stories are true and supportable by a cursory Google search.

5. “Mikki” Moore

Mikki Moore’s real name is Clinton, not Mikki, a name famous for not sounding like it’s supposed to. Mikki was nicknamed after “Little Mikey” from the Life Cereal commercials, apparently because he loved Life Cereal as a kid. I bet he really enjoyed spending his last five years in the NBA trying to explain that to his teammates, most of whom were born ten years after that commercial last aired on television.

Stephen Curry, 2010: Why do they call you Mikki?
Mikki: Because I enjoyed Life Cereal to a degree that drew comparisons to the boy from the Life Cereal commercials.
Stephen: Who?
Mikki: There was a boy named Mikey who appeared in Life Cereal commercials in the 70′s. He hated everything, but he loved Life Cereal, and he gave the other children the courage to try Life Cereal for themselves.
Stephen: …
Mikki: It was a wonderful commercial.
Stephen: Then…why is it spelled that way? Shouldn’t it be spelled the same way as the kid’s name? Who came up with that spelling?
Mikki: (is waived by Golden State)

4. “PJ” Brown

PJ Brown has neither a “P” nor a “J” in his entire name. His real name is Collier. He was named PJ as a child because, to the best of his recollection, he loved peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.

So that’s two NBA players who took their permanent names from the foods they enjoyed as children. That makes sense. All my friends call me “Scrambled Eggs with Chopped-Up Hotdogs and Magic Shell.”

3. “Theo” Ratliff.

Theo Ratliff’s nickname is not weird. But his real name is not Theodore.

It’s Theophilus.

2. “Popeye” Jones

Most people assume Popeye Jones got the nickname “Popeye” because he looks like this:

Somehow those people are wrong.

Popeye (real name Ronald) got his name when he came home from the hospital as a newborn infant and his brother was watching a Popeye cartoon on television. So, to recap: Popeye Jones got his nickname on the day he was born, and then coincidentally developed eyes that popped out of his face.

1. “Bimbo” Coles

As we wrap things up here, I just want to point out that none of these players was on the Celtics for more than one season.

Bimbo Coles’s real name is Vernell Eufaye Coles. He has one of those nicknames that everyone just instinctively knows is a childhood nickname, and one of those careers where nobody bothers to find out where it comes from. Turns out he was given his nickname by his cousin, who got it from a very old country song recorded by a number of now-dead singers. Here is that song.

Nicknames! They can certainly be inexplicable.

The Celtics played to two of their major offensive strengths against Memphis.

With Rajon Rondo consistently pushing tempo, the C’s got out in transition regularly and put up 26 fast break points. Running is an efficiency move for the Celtics as they’re first in the league with 1.2 points per transition possession (per mySynergySports).

They also launched up 20 three-pointers, another good thing. The Celtics shoot 42.2% on threes, which is first in the league by a healthy margin over the second place Hawks, who are hitting 39.9%. The Celtics have shot 20 or more three-pointers only five times this season. They’ve won each of those games.

The win against Memphis was a frustratingly atypical performance for the C’s because they play so slow — they’re third last in the league in pace — and as a result, they only get up 15.4 three-point shots a game (22nd in the league). Despite much prodding from Doc Rivers to push tempo, the Celtics often default to walking the ball upcourt and settling into their offensive sets with around 12 seconds left on the clock.

Pace is only partially responsible for the lack of efficient shots, of course. It’s reasonable to wonder if the Celtics’ offensive play selection is maximizing their offensive output. It’s even more reasonable to wonder about the lineups, and whether they’re “young” enough to maintain their energy. And it’s obvious the Celtics lack the kind of rebounding that promotes the running game.

We’ve touched on this structural inefficiency in the Boston offense before, but it bears repeating: the Celtics remain 17th in the league in offensive efficiency.

With few obvious ways to upgrade the offensive talent on the roster, the C’s have to find ways to get more out of what they have if they want to do any damage in the playoffs. They need easy, efficient buckets. Grinding for every basket in the halfcourt is going to bear little fruit and wear the older guys out quickly. That’s the deadly little secret about the C’s recent success: it’s probably not sustainable four times in seven games against great teams. Because the burden on both sides of the ball is going to be exhausting.

There will be flashes, of course. You’ll remember Kevin Garnett’s huge game three against Miami in the playoffs last season when he put up 28 and 18. But also remember the last two games of the series, where he shot just 7-23. That’s what aging does to players. The peaks are still there, they just come less and less frequently and it takes more time to recover from the exertion of the climb.

This regular season is really just a lab experiment for the playoffs. What other options do the C’s have besides asking the Big Three (plus Rondo) to do everything?

Rivers has been a lot more creative this year — partly out of necessity — in mixing and matching his top four guys with the other parts on the roster. One of the more promising things he’s done involves pairing younger bigs with Rondo and some combination of Paul Pierce, Ray Allen and Mickael Pietrus.

It was encouraging to see Chris Wilcox and JaJuan Johnson filling lanes and outrunning the Memphis transition defenders yesterday with wing players spotting up on the arc (have a look at that clip at the top; if Wilcox had been covered, Rondo still had two options for three-balls). These kinds of lineups maximize what Rondo can do offensively.

So, there’s something to keep in mind as the year wears on: can the C’s build the kind of trust in new lineups and combinations so they can feel comfortable deploying them in the playoffs?

(.284)*3 = .852 expected points per shot
(.450)*2 = .9 expected points per shot

I also probably felt like it was unconventional and bloggy to say that KG shouldn’t shoot more threes, because basically everyone thinks he should. I’m not proud.

In any case, I’ve changed my mind. I think KG should shoot about one three per game, just as he’s done in his last three games. Here’s why: throughout his career, when KG shoots more threes, he tends to shoot them at a higher percentage.

Here are two charts showing KG’s long-range shooting by year during his time in Minnesota (he’s never really shot threes with Boston): the top one is his three-point attempts, and the bottom is his three-point efficiency.

Those charts could be twins, sort of! Except for those little tails at the end of each trendline, Garnett’s attempts and efficiency seem to be directly proportional: when his attempts go up, his efficiency goes up, too. His top three years in efficiency are also his top three in attempts. Likewise, the lowest three-point efficiency he posted came in the year when he shot them the least.

Those little end-tails, by the way, represent Garnett’s final season with Minnesota in 2006-2007, when he took .7 threes per game and only made 21% of them. But those numbers might actually be an anomaly. Thanks to Hoopdata, we know that ALL of Garnett’s shooting numbers were down that season: he had his lowest percentages in the last five years from the long two, midrange, short range, AND at the rim. Every single spot on the floor.

If I were to try to explain why KG’s shooting fell off that year, I would probably point out that the second-best player on that ’06-’07 Minnesota team was Ricky Davis. The third-best was either Randy Foye or Craig Smith, both of whom were only 11 years old at the time. Garnett was probably playing 5-on-1 for most of that season, or even 6-on-1 when Troy Hudson briefly forgot which team he was on.

I don’t have that much shot-location data for KG pre-Celtics, but all the anecdotal evidence supports KG being able to shoot at least 30% from three today (30% would give him the same expected points as a long two). He’s a better overall shooter now than he was in 2000, when he shot a completely nuts 37%. And opposing defenses will probably give him that shot for at least another two months.

So if it means trading at least one long two per game for a three, I say fire away. At worst, his scoring takes a tiny dip and he still draws opposing bigs even further from the basket than he already does. At best, he maintains his current pace and shoots 100% from three for the entire year, then immediately retires in shame at having reinvented himself as a three-point specialist. Somewhere in between would also be fine.

JANUARY IN REVIEW

The Celtics went 9-7 in January, which counts as a small mercy considering how poorly it started. A strong 6-2 finish brought Boston’s record up over .500 and suggests the team isn’t nearly as done as it seemed just two weeks ago.

The problem is that January was supposed to be when the C’s got fat on a long stretch of home games and their previously-typical strong start. Instead, they’ve squandered one of the few advantages they had in the condensed schedule.

BOSTON’S STATISTICAL PROFILE

Entering February, the Celtics have shaken off the early season statistical anomalies and look very much like the team they’ve been the last couple of years: a great defensive team that plays at a slow pace, struggles to rebound and struggles to score without crisp ball movement. All told, it has to be disappointing for Danny Ainge and Doc Rivers as they’ve been unable to move this team beyond the profile of the one that lost in the second round of last year’s playoffs.

The Celtics are:

19th in the league in offensive efficiency at 99.2 points/100 possessions. Last Month: 8th at 105.0.
4th in the league in defensive efficiency at 95.7 points/100 possessions. Last Month: 26th at 106.9.

9th in eFG% at 49.7%. Last Month: 4th at 52.6%.
5th in TS% at 53.7%. Last Month: 2nd at 57.5%.
4th in assist ratio at 15.9. Last Month: 4th at 16.0.
19th in defensive rebound rate at 72.8. Last Month: 16th at 72.7.
29th in offensive rebound rate at 22.5. Last Month: 22nd at 23.5.
24th in total rebound rate at 48.4. Last Month: 25th at 47.2.
26th in pace at 91.2. Last Month: 20th at 93.0.
27th in turnover rate at 27.2. Last Month: 28th at 28.6.

After the jump, the February schedule and a few predictions.

The next two weeks are crucial for the Celtics. They have another mass of home games before the schedule gets ugly and doesn’t let up for the rest of the season (starting with a 13-day road trip). There are four SEGABABAs, including one against the Chicago Bulls.

(HOT STOVE) PREDICTIONS

Last month’s predictions were less inaccurate than usual. I feel almost proud. Let’s go again:

Safe Prediction: Trade rumors will be plentiful. Either the Celtics will be staggering and teams will be circling over the decaying carcass to pick clean the good meat, or they’ll be playing well (ish) and Ainge will be looking to add pieces to position this group for one last run.

Bold Prediction: A major deal goes down, and Ray Allen – Boston’s most marketable part not named Rajon Rondo – is shipped out of town for picks and/or prospects and the rebuilding begins in earnest.

Ridiculous Prediction: Ainge goes all in on 2012, dumping future picks, Avery Bradley’s alleged potential and whatever remains of Jermaine O’Neal to acquire a center that can 1) stay healthy 2) rebound and 3) score. The Celtics play with renewed swagger and start looking like a championship contender again.

Predicted February Record: 7-7