CelticsStrong
Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: drza44 on October 24, 2009, 01:46:33 AM
-
This thread...it's hard to convey exactly what I'm looking for here, so I hope you bear with me and actually read it long enough to see if it's for you.
You see...most of you that have read my posts here know I was a Kevin Garnett fan that came to the Celtics with him, but though that is my background for this thread I want it to be about more than that. Since we're all one family now, I want this to be one that all of us can check through the year and after and reminisce on how this team made the national "experts" look bad. Let me explain.
Every year, everyone in the basketball media makes some type of predictions on how the season will go. And every year, those predictions slowly give way to revised, backtracking stories and by the time history remembers it you would think everyone all along knew how it would go. Don't believe me? Let me give you a few of examples:
Example 1: 2003-04 Timberwolves. Summer of 2003, the Wolves trade Joe Smith and Anthony Peeler for 34-year old Sam Cassell and Ervin Johnson, then trade the expiring salary of the retired Terrell Brandon for 33-year old Latrell Sprewell. At that time, all of the "experts" noted that Cassell and Sprewell would be the most talented teammates of KG's career, but that they were old, headcases, and weren't good enough anymore to be difference makers.
By December, when the Wolves were off to a great start and on their way to the #1 seed in the West, Sports Illustrated had KG/Cassell/Spree on the cover calling them the Big 3. By the time the season was over Cassell and Spree were considered two elite players, and history now tells us that everyone knew the Wolves would be great with the addition of two superstars like Cassell and Spree to play next to KG. Like the media was always with that team as contenders, in the words of the great Kanye West, "no you (freakin) wasn't!"
Example 2: 2007-08 Celtics. Summer of 2007, the Celtics trade half of their team for Ray Allen and the other half for KG. At that time, all of the experts noted that KG/Pierce/Allen were a super-talented trio and could be contenders, but most thought that they would eventually come up short. Whether they weren't confident enough in the main trio, whether they thought Rondo and Perk would break under pressure, whether they thought the bench was too weak...whatever the reason, there weren't many that were willing to say the Celtics would actually WIN the title. Not in the Summer of 2007. But by spring of 2008, every article was about how great the Big 3 were, ESPN was running KG interviews with Bill Russell, and you would think that the experts were always on the train that the Cs were going to dominate the league, no you (freakin) wasn't!
Example 3: 2008 Celtics in the playoffs. Despite the previous example, after the first 2 rounds of the playoffs the media had once again jumped off the bandwagon. Most "experts" picked the Pistons over the Cs, then the Cs left them behind. Then, almost EVERY expert picked the Lakers over the Cs. Then, what happened? The Cs beat the Lakers by 40 in deciding game, and the story changed. All of a sudden, the Celtics were just SO much more talented than the Lakers. All of a sudden, there was no way you could REALLY have expected Kobe to beat a defense as strong as the Cs had. Like they were saying that all along, no you (freakin) wasn't!
So, my point. In the previous examples, I remember the BS I read before the season started but most people don't. They swallowed the revised story, and think I'm lying if I point out that many really didn't believe before it happened. So, this thread is dedicated to those that REALLY believe that this 2009-10 Celtics team is going to be SPECIAL.
If you really think this team is too old to really be special, this thread isn't for you.
If you think this team is really good but so are the Cavs, Lakers, Spurs and Magic so the Celtics should just be one of five contenders but not really the favorite...again, this isn't for you.
Because you see...I think this team is history in the making. I think we're in Chicago in October of 1995, that we're in LA in fall of 1986, that we're re-living Boston in fall of 1985. This is going to be a BIG year, and I don't think it's being properly appreciated now. I wouldn't be surprised at 75 wins and a Fo-fo-fo-fo playoffs. This team is freakin GOOD!!! (Three exclamation-points needed!!!) And by next spring, when every member of the media is writing the story that they knew it all along, I want to have this thread to go back to so I can point and say "no you (freakin) wasn't!).
So, here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to post some of the articles that I've been reading about how the Cs will be very good, but just one of the good ones. In fact, this rant was touched off by the Bill Simmons NBA preview that is in another thread right now...that article is going to be the first one that I post. Over the next little while I'm going to find some more articles like this and put them in this thread.
I'm hoping that some of you that really think this team will be special have read similar things that irritated you, and that you will put them in this thread too.
I also hope that some of you others that think we've got front row seats to watch history will chime in with your testimony now, before it's safe to say it.
Now, don't get me wrong. I know all of us pull for the Celtics, and that many hope the Cs will outdistance their competitors but still recognize how great those teams are. I do. I think the Spurs (especially), the Lakers, the Cavs and the Magic are outstanding teams. I think they all could have won the championship almost any other year in this decade. Just not this year. This year will be remembered with green glasses, and I'm just trying to get in on the ground floor.
And maybe I'm alone. Maybe no one else really feels that strongly. Maybe nobody else is willing to risk the "jinx" by saying it now. Maybe this thread will just be a bunch of 'drza44' posts. But if so...so be it. By next summer I'll either be a genius or a lunatic. But so be it. This team is really, really, REALLY good. And if you're in the media and you aren't saying that now...I don't want to hear you saying it next spring. Like you were with us all along...no you (freakin) wasn't!
-
Easy TP. I'm 200% for this topic. : )
-
Great post ... and let me be the first to say i wholeheartedly agree, (edit: well, I was the first when I started typing, haha). I have said this same thing, (though much abbreviated), in other threads, so I won't be sticking my neck out any further than I already have, and most who know me, know I'm not real concerned with my head getting lopped off anyway ... it's no great loss to me or the world, so c'est la vie.
I had a real problem when the 'Sheed deal went down initially, because I quite frankly have always hated the guy, but I have quickly come to realize, (upon being faced with no alternative), that he is a perfect fit for this team, will be able to curb his attitude sufficiently to get the "Ubuntu" thing, and that he is quite possibly the mortar that can securely bond the starting five to the bench.
I have also stated in other threads that I believe this is the deepest bench and best team we've had since 1986, and I will support that with facts, if needed. There is much left to be proved by the new additions and younger players, and I know these things take time. But from what I have seen of this chemistry that's brewing, it's going to be a powerful concoction, and one that could quite possibly not only win the championship this year, but set us up for two or more.
So if you were hoping to not have to wait long for an opinionated fool to jump on this seemingly ill-fated bandwagon, you got your wish. And I not only agree with your assessment of things to come, but declare that it's not so ill-fated at all, but to me, from where I sit, more of a sure bet. Whatever happens this season, it's going to be one of the most exciting in many years ... and one of the most fun. I, for one, am glad to be part of this ship you've raised sails on, and all too willing to take the fall for it if we're wrong.
I'm with ya, Bro ... bring on the NBA, and let's get number 18 to the rafters!
(TP ... without a doubt!)
Maybe we can be the "18 Club" ... or something equally tacky and trite. ;)
-
For the Simmons article, because there's already a thread on it I'm not looking to discuss the pros and cons of the entire article. If you want to discuss the article itself, check out this thread:
http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=32446.0
And for posterity sake, here is the link to the Simmons article itself:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/part2/091023&sportCat=nba
That said, here are the two blurbs that set me off:
7. Kevin Garnett
Remember in "Shawshank," when Red was describing how Andy burrowed through the walls thanks to "pressure over time." The same goes for NBA players and knees. Pressure over time. You pressure your knees over time, ... blah blah blah ...
One silver lining for Celts fans: The Celtics can make the Finals with Garnett at 65-70 percent efficiency. Why? Because it's the deepest of the three Garnett/Celtics teams, and because the rest of the conference is that weak. Anything he gives them beyond a 14/7 and good defense is a bonus. A little frightening to say about someone in Year 1 of a three-year, $53 million extension. But true.
I didn't post this whole blurb, because it is pasted and discussed in the Celticsblog topic that I mention above. But here, I want you to take that KG blurb (and the passive-aggressive Rondo/Sheed criticism blurbs that Simmons wrote in part 1) and contrast that with what he writes about the Spurs here:
"2. Tim Duncan
Healthy, happy, rested, in shape. He's already the greatest power forward ever. He already has four rings. But you know what he doesn't have? When he's 60 years old, or 70, or 75, or whatever, and one of his grandkids says, "Grandpa, what was the best team you ever played on?" … he doesn't have an answer. He never played for a kick-ass, take-no-prisoners, dominant team. Kareem had the '87 Lakers and '71 Bucks. Magic had the '87 Lakers. Wilt had the '67 Sixers and '72 Lakers. Bird had the '86 Celtics. Shaq and Kobe had the '01 Lakers (playoff edition). West had the '72 Lakers. Oscar had the '71 Bucks. Moses had the '83 Sixers. Duncan has nothing.
Now, you could argue that the league is too diluted at this point. (And maybe it is. The '01 Lakers were our last kick-ass team.) Or, you could argue that Duncan never had a season in which everything fell into place. In my basketball book (coming Tuesday!!!), I wrote a chapter about the specific set of dynamics that separate championship teams from memorable championship teams. It's complicated and I won't spoil it here. Just know the 2009-10 Spurs qualify for "memorable" status. They have the talent, they have the "Eff You" edge (a term I explain in the book), and they have something that Gregg Popovich likes to call "appropriate fear." Here's how he explained that phrase in 2005:
It gets more difficult after a win to come back and understand how that subconscious sort of complacency can set in. You can't allow that to happen. You have to keep an appropriate fear of your opponent so that complacency will dissipate as soon as possible.
This particular Spurs team has the right level of appropriate fear: fear of aging and complacency coupled with an appreciation for how fast things can fall apart (thanks to Manu's ankle the past two seasons), and beyond that, the reality that their best player might only have one great season left in him. I am a Spurs junkie. I love reading about them. I love the way they put their rosters together and value chemistry so deeply. I love the way they interact during games (as I've written many times). I just get a kick out of them. And the truth is, this might be their last chance for a dominant season with Tim Duncan leading the way.
I think it happens. If only because great basketball players have a habit of somehow finding that one great team. They are my pick to win in 2010. Convincingly. "
You see that? Now, take that ENTIRE blurb, swap out KG's name for Duncan's, change every "Spurs" to "Celtics", and THAT is what should be written about this Celtics team. This team is championship tested, but no longer complacent after last year's disappointment. This team has appropriate fear, after seeing what could happen when KG went down. This team is STARVING to get the Lakers out of their crown. And BILL SIMMONS SHOULD KNOW THIS! He is the self-proclaimed biggest Celtics fan in the world. And I don't give a crap about a jinx or reverse jinx, YOU DON'T GET TO [dang] YOUR TEAM WITH FAINT PRAISE AND GIVE YOUR TEAM'S DESCRIPTION TO ANOTHER TEAM WHILE PICKING THAT OTHER TEAM TO WIN THE TITLE. Not THIS year. Not THIS team.
In summer of '09 Simmons is going to once again come out saying that he was with this team all along, No you (freakin) wasn't!
-
For the Simmons article, because there's already a thread on it I'm not looking to discuss the pros and cons of the entire article. If you want to discuss the article itself, check out this thread:
http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=32446.0
And for posterity sake, here is the link to the Simmons article itself:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/part2/091023&sportCat=nba
That said, here are the two blurbs that set me off:
7. Kevin Garnett
Remember in "Shawshank," when Red was describing how Andy burrowed through the walls thanks to "pressure over time." The same goes for NBA players and knees. Pressure over time. You pressure your knees over time, ... blah blah blah ...
One silver lining for Celts fans: The Celtics can make the Finals with Garnett at 65-70 percent efficiency. Why? Because it's the deepest of the three Garnett/Celtics teams, and because the rest of the conference is that weak. Anything he gives them beyond a 14/7 and good defense is a bonus. A little frightening to say about someone in Year 1 of a three-year, $53 million extension. But true.
I didn't post this whole blurb, because it is pasted and discussed in the Celticsblog topic that I mention above. But here, I want you to take that KG blurb (and the passive-aggressive Rondo criticism blurb that Simmons wrote in part 1) and contrast that with what he writes about the Spurs here:
"2. Tim Duncan
Healthy, happy, rested, in shape. He's already the greatest power forward ever. He already has four rings. But you know what he doesn't have? When he's 60 years old, or 70, or 75, or whatever, and one of his grandkids says, "Grandpa, what was the best team you ever played on?" … he doesn't have an answer. He never played for a kick-ass, take-no-prisoners, dominant team. Kareem had the '87 Lakers and '71 Bucks. Magic had the '87 Lakers. Wilt had the '67 Sixers and '72 Lakers. Bird had the '86 Celtics. Shaq and Kobe had the '01 Lakers (playoff edition). West had the '72 Lakers. Oscar had the '71 Bucks. Moses had the '83 Sixers. Duncan has nothing.
Now, you could argue that the league is too diluted at this point. (And maybe it is. The '01 Lakers were our last kick-ass team.) Or, you could argue that Duncan never had a season in which everything fell into place. In my basketball book (coming Tuesday!!!), I wrote a chapter about the specific set of dynamics that separate championship teams from memorable championship teams. It's complicated and I won't spoil it here. Just know the 2009-10 Spurs qualify for "memorable" status. They have the talent, they have the "Eff You" edge (a term I explain in the book), and they have something that Gregg Popovich likes to call "appropriate fear." Here's how he explained that phrase in 2005:
It gets more difficult after a win to come back and understand how that subconscious sort of complacency can set in. You can't allow that to happen. You have to keep an appropriate fear of your opponent so that complacency will dissipate as soon as possible.
This particular Spurs team has the right level of appropriate fear: fear of aging and complacency coupled with an appreciation for how fast things can fall apart (thanks to Manu's ankle the past two seasons), and beyond that, the reality that their best player might only have one great season left in him. I am a Spurs junkie. I love reading about them. I love the way they put their rosters together and value chemistry so deeply. I love the way they interact during games (as I've written many times). I just get a kick out of them. And the truth is, this might be their last chance for a dominant season with Tim Duncan leading the way.
I think it happens. If only because great basketball players have a habit of somehow finding that one great team. They are my pick to win in 2010. Convincingly. "
You see that? Now, take that ENTIRE blurb, swap out KG's name for Duncan's, change every "Spurs" to "Celtics", and THAT is what should be written about this Celtics team. This team is championship tested, but no longer complacent after last year's disappointment. This team has appropriate fear, after seeing what could happen when KG went down. This team is STARVING to get the Lakers out of their crown. And BILL SIMMONS SHOULD KNOW THIS! He is the self-proclaimed biggest Celtics fan in the world. And I don't give a crap about a jinx or reverse jinx, YOU DON'T GET TO [dang] YOUR TEAM WITH FAINT PRAISE AND GIVE YOUR TEAM'S DESCRIPTION TO ANOTHER TEAM WHILE PICKING THAT OTHER TEAM TO WIN THE TITLE. Not THIS year. Not THIS team.
In summer of '09 Simmons is going to once again come out saying that he was with this team all along, No you (freakin) wasn't!
Simmons is so far from being the "Greatest Celtics Fan In The World" ... self-proclaimed, yes, but that in itself shows what his priority is: Self. Sorry, but when he writes about the C's it just turns me off, because he's so determined to be objective that he forgets he's not SUPPOSED to be! You nailed this, too, and if he wrote about the Celtics with the same passion he does when talking about OTHER teams, he would be one of my favorites, without a doubt. As it is, I've stopped reading most of what he writes, especially about the C's, because I can predict with about a 90% accuracy what he's going to say anyway. Great addition to a great post ... I owe you another TP in an hour! ;)
-
I'm not predicting 75 wins and fo-fo-fo-fo, but I do see a championship. I think this is the best team in the NBA, and Shaq, Vince, Artest, etc. don't scare me at all.
I'll sticky this at the top of the forum for you, so you can update it as the season goes along.
-
Agreed. This is on paper the best team in the NBA. VERY confident in that conclusion.
What gives me pause is injuries.
-
I'm with you and couldn't agree more with the revisionism of the media. On paper this the best team of the KG era.
-
well done, TP most definitely
-
Bahku, I'm with you for the most part. I do think you can plug KG and the C's in for a lot of the Spurs lines there, but two things do jump out that do not plug in so easily...
1) Duncan is indeed a lot less of a health worry than KG
2) The Spurs do not have that DOMINANT, instantly identifiable, championship team he was eluding to. This group of C's does (well, they only have the one championship, so it's easy to pick out).
I think this argument needs to be looked at with hindsight if you want to plug in the C's to the equation.
But, yes, if all goes well. PLUG AWAY!
-
I'm confident in winning the championship. I think this is definitely a championship team. I don't, however, see it as being anywhere near a 75 win club. The talent in the league is too deep and the good teams are too good and the C's have two brutal stretches in their schedule that make 72 wins impossible in my mind, never mind 75.
But I think they will be the best defensive team in the league. I think they will have a point differential of 10+ points. I think they will have 7 players scoring in double figures and at least 3 All-Stars and possible a Defensive Player of the Year and a Sixth Man of the Year.
To me every Celtic team is special, I just don't see this one as being magically, invincibly, special like the OP does. But they are still going to win banner 18!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
I agree with the OP, a lot of the media loves to do the backtracking, revisionist history kind of thing. I'd love to see a site that compares the success rate of media "experts" opinions to a monkey throwing poo at a dartboard full of possible events. I think hilarity would ensue.
I will say in the summer of '07, some of the loss of skepticism came after we signed Posey and House. Right after the KG trade we really had a skeletal bench; adding those two was when some of the pundits started to become optimistic about us. I think that was reasonable.
-
I'm not predicting 75 wins and fo-fo-fo-fo, but I do see a championship. I think this is the best team in the NBA, and Shaq, Vince, Artest, etc. don't scare me at all.
I'll sticky this at the top of the forum for you, so you can update it as the season goes along.
I'm completely with Roy. I see a championship in the future but winning 75 games in the regular season followed by a 16-0 record in the playoffs is going 98-7 overall. That's a 92.8% winning percentage. I don't think that's sustainable over such a long period of time.
BUT I SEE A RING!
-
Shiny stuff.
-
I see the Celtics having a great regular season with 60+ wins and them winning the 2010 NBA championship.
Rebus is on the record.
-
I will say in the summer of '07, some of the loss of skepticism came after we signed Posey and House. Right after the KG trade we really had a skeletal bench; adding those two was when some of the pundits started to become optimistic about us. I think that was reasonable.
Yeah, that's where I was. Immediately following the trade, when our bench consisted of guys like Jackie Manuel and Brandon Wallace, I wasn't convinced we would win in year one. However, after the Posey signing, I was pretty confident.
-
Lol. 75 wins and Fo fo fo fo would be over the top...but I wouldn't be shocked if it happens. That's the point. By next summer the majority of the articles will be about how they always knew this when right now it's not like that.
I think next up I'll find one of the articles talking about how Sheed is possibly a head case or possibly washed up (I guess I could reference the Simmons article again, but I don't want to overkill that one). Because guaranteed, by June there'll be articles calling him either the 4th Hall of Famer or the fifth All Star like adding such a star guaranteed a great Celtics team.
-
congratulations for a very good OP
and yes as roy i really really think that this team healthy is THE best one on the NBA
-
TP.
But I don't necessarily agree with your predictions. I think the Cs will be a playoff team, but I really think we are going to see more injury problems cropping up during the season. How Doc handles the playing time for his vets, IMHO, will determine how the Cs do when they eventually make it to the playoffs. If they make it to the playoffs with all the main players in decent health, then they have a decent shot at the championship.
-
I actually bookmark articles that interest me at work, but I'm at home for the weekend so to get a Sheed article (which I've read lots of in the last couple of months) I just ran a quick Google search. So I don't know who "The Big Lead" is, but here is what they had to say in their article "Aging Celtics Grab Grumpy Fossil Rasheed Wallace" ( http://thebiglead.com/?p=15470 ) :
"To alleviate the potential loss of a 2008 playoff hero (Powe) and a 2009 playoff savior (Davis), Boston put the full court press on soon-to-be 35-year-old Rasheed Wallace. This weekend, they finally landed him. Let’s hear it: Boston’s the team to beat in 2009-2010. Wrong."
"Wallace, as we’ve mentioned, is coming off a terrible season (though some will surely attribute that to the new coach, Iverson, injuries, etc). How is he going to like coming off the bench? And really, would he even play down the stretch in the fourth quarter? Not with the way Kendrick Perkins defends Dwight Howard; Perkins is also probably a better defensive matchup against Shaq. Where will his minutes come from? Will a guy with an ornery history be content with 20 minutes a night?"
Now, whoever "The Big Lead" is isn't really important, he just happened to be the lucky winner of the Google search. I've seen the same sentiment, several times, from I'm sure writers with a bigger name. The particulars of his content aren't even important outside of the fact that he follows the formula. I'm telling you, I've seen a bunch of random articles like this and the formula is the same:
1) The Celtics were already old
2) Sheed is old
3) Sheed has an attitude
4) Sheed isn't as good as he used to be
5) Therefore, Celtics aren't really any better with him
You see, I read a lot of the same articles with the exact same formula in 2003 when the Wolves added 67 years worth of Cassell and Spree. The articles would point out that Sam and Spree were old, that they weren't impact players like they used to be, that they had attitude problems, that there was no way they could help make the Wolves contenders, etc. A couple of months later they were with KG on the cover of Sports Illustrated.
Just remember, when the pundits are looking back on how the addition of a Hall of Famer like Sheed (get used to hearing that. You never hear much about Sheed and the Hall of Fame right now, but just wait till next summer...you'll think it was always a given) guaran-Sheed (you like what I did right there?) that the Celts were going to be outstanding. Just wait. It's coming.
-
TP, I look at this Celts team and see something special, maybe not as special as you see but I see a team that if they are playing well and healthy when the playoffs come they should win.
I looked through their early schedule the other day and think 18-1 through 19 is possible but I see this team winning in the 66 area again but getting through the first 2 rounds of the playoffs much easier than 2 years ago therefore making them look like a much more dominant team.
-
TP, I look at this Celts team and see something special, maybe not as special as you see but I see a team that if they are playing well and healthy when the playoffs come they should win.
I looked through their early schedule the other day and think 18-1 through 19 is possible but I see this team winning in the 66 area again but getting through the first 2 rounds of the playoffs much easier than 2 years ago therefore making them look like a much more dominant team.
Excellent point, and one of (IMO) the under-looked aspects of last year's team. I've heard some people suggest that since the championship team went 7 games in the first 2 rounds of 08 and last year's team also went 7 games the first 2 rounds there really wasn't much difference.
Well, not only isn't that true (all 7 games series are NOT created equal), but also it overlooks the fact that last year's team would have been MUCH better prepared to ease through the playoffs than the previous incarnation. To my eyes, last year's team was pretty much coasting for much of the season but they never got the chance to prove me right or wrong in the playoffs because it all changed when KG went down.
This year? It's on. They've still got the championship experience, they still have the confidence of knowing what they can do in the postseason, and now you add significantly more talent and motivation to the squad as well? Oh, snap! Even if you asked Dylan who the top 5 of all time are, he'd have to answer...
"Dylan, Dylan, Dylan, Dylan, and ... the 2010 Celtics. I spit hot fire, mon!" We're going to be THAT good.
-
tp. I agree totally!!! And if this goal is reached, maybe it wasn't set high enough?
As far as injuries, they are as apt to beset other teams as our Celtics, so don't project that curse on us....what will happen will happen. I couldn't be happier with our team if "Larry Bird came through that door," ;D .
-
Well, here's one guy who sees it our way:
http://realgm.com/src_feature_pieces/825/20091021/leroux%5Cs_2009_10_prediction_thread/
Celtics win the title, KG is DPOY and Finals MVP. I'll take it.
-
Amen! TP! I have absolute confidence in this team. The naysayers will eat their words come those 16 extra wins at the end of the too-long playoffs. ;)
-
I know it was just preseason, but the other day when they were playing the cavs - ray allen and KG weren't playing, and it looked like they weren't missed at all. Daniels was owning Moon, the Celtics were winning kind of easily, and that was the first time this year that I'd say I felt the same way the OP does. There IS a chance that this team could be scary good. Injuries or in-fighting would be the only things that I can see that might derail them.
-
Yes, this is a good topic. Though I think it does bear mentioning that though many of us think the C's might be historically good this year, an injury could derail that. And I don't just say that because of age: look at Big Al in Minnie.
Still, I like the gist of this post. And in all honesty, none of them really follow this team closely enough to make anything but broad, sweeping statements. Still cracks me up that some C's previews talk about how Shelden Williams helps provide size upfront. I wasn't aware size mattered when sitting on the bench.
-
I see the same: We're on the cusp of witnessing one of the most dominant teams in NBA history. I don't think 75 wins, but I do see 68.
Speaking of the media coming up with ridiculous "analysis" and backtracking, does anyone else remember when like half of the ESPN "experts" picked the Chicago Bulls to win the championship last year. THE NBA CHAMPIONSHIP!! End result? Bulls get the 8th seed and lose in the 1st round.
I really wish we could pull up all of the old predictions, compare them to what happened, and develop a trend for certain "experts" lol
-
Well, here's one guy who sees it our way:
http://realgm.com/src_feature_pieces/825/20091021/leroux%5Cs_2009_10_prediction_thread/
Celtics win the title, KG is DPOY and Finals MVP. I'll take it.
Here's another, as Ian Thompsen is picking the Cs to beat the Lakers in the Finals. So, not ALL media are off...
-
Great thread, I'm all in! I don't see the 72 wins record reached, and honestly I don't care, but I definitely believe this team is the best in the league and that it will be crowned NBA Champion next June.
-
I got ultra busy early this week so I didn't get to continue posting articles. I still have plans to find Hollinger's ridiculous preseason prediction record for this team and take it apart before we get too far into the year (he confuses his methods, and it produces silly results). But the other thing I didn't get to do was really hammer on the "all of our players are going to be all stars by the time the season is over" trend. I mentioned it before with Sheed but the other player that I was absolutely convinced would get the same treatment (outside of Marquis Daniels, who maybe I'll tackle another day) is Shelden Williams. This is what I said when the Cs got Williams this summer:
"I love this signing. In 2006, I was PRAYING that the Wolves would find a way to get Williams because I thought he was the perfect big man to play next to KG: wide body, defensive minded, doesn't mind doing the dirty work. Essentially, what I wanted/expected in a KG/Williams combo is what we eventually got out of the KG/Perkins combo.
I don't expect Williams to come here and actually BE Perk, but the potential is there. They have similar size (Perk about an inch taller), they both have the disproportionally long arms, and on the court they have a similar mindset. And if he got extended minutes next to KG and Wallace, I fully expect that Williams would make a competent fill-in rotation big. Excellent insurance option."
http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=30931.msg554974#msg554974
Side note: did anyone else see KG all in Williams' ear bigging him up after last night's game? I saw the same thing with Perk and Powe year 1, and with Big Baby the last 2 years. KG is a **** kingmaker with his younger teammates.
Now, back on business, here is what ProtectThePaint had to say when we signed Williams:
"There is no chance he will actually contribute"
"We’ll likely put a man on Mars before Williams has any sort of NBA impact. Good thing he married well."
http://protectthepaint.com/2009/08/04/candace-parker-rejoices-boston-celtics-sign-sheldon-williams/
Now, 2 games in, I'm already seeing articles starting to big Williams up. Just wait...by the time the season ends he'll have been a top-5 lottery pick that the Celtics gypped their way into getting and all of that "bust" talk will be forgotten about like all the pundits were with him all along...no you (freakin) wasn't!
-
I got ultra busy early this week so I didn't get to continue posting articles. I still have plans to find Hollinger's ridiculous preseason prediction record for this team and take it apart before we get too far into the year (he confuses his methods, and it produces silly results). But the other thing I didn't get to do was really hammer on the "all of our players are going to be all stars by the time the season is over" trend. I mentioned it before with Sheed but the other player that I was absolutely convinced would get the same treatment (outside of Marquis Daniels, who maybe I'll tackle another day) is Shelden Williams. This is what I said when the Cs got Williams this summer:
"I love this signing. In 2006, I was PRAYING that the Wolves would find a way to get Williams because I thought he was the perfect big man to play next to KG: wide body, defensive minded, doesn't mind doing the dirty work. Essentially, what I wanted/expected in a KG/Williams combo is what we eventually got out of the KG/Perkins combo.
I don't expect Williams to come here and actually BE Perk, but the potential is there. They have similar size (Perk about an inch taller), they both have the disproportionally long arms, and on the court they have a similar mindset. And if he got extended minutes next to KG and Wallace, I fully expect that Williams would make a competent fill-in rotation big. Excellent insurance option."
http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=30931.msg554974#msg554974
Side note: did anyone else see KG all in Williams' ear bigging him up after last night's game? I saw the same thing with Perk and Powe year 1, and with Big Baby the last 2 years. KG is a **** kingmaker with his younger teammates.
Now, back on business, here is what ProtectThePaint had to say when we signed Williams:
"There is no chance he will actually contribute"
"We’ll likely put a man on Mars before Williams has any sort of NBA impact. Good thing he married well."
http://protectthepaint.com/2009/08/04/candace-parker-rejoices-boston-celtics-sign-sheldon-williams/
Now, 2 games in, I'm already seeing articles starting to big Williams up. Just wait...by the time the season ends he'll have been a top-5 lottery pick that the Celtics gypped their way into getting and all of that "bust" talk will be forgotten about like all the pundits were with him all along...no you (freakin) wasn't!
Love your enthusiasm about Sheldon, which I share, as noted in the other post I started. Still, there will be some downs along the way. Let's see how he does over the 82.
-
I think this team will win it all even if they have injuries to the core 8. Sheed and Daniels give the C's an almost fool proof insurance policy. Only multiple injuries to key players will stop the C's.
-
I think this team will win it all even if they have injuries to the core 8. Sheed and Daniels give the C's an almost fool proof insurance policy. Only multiple injuries to key players will stop the C's.
The C's cannot survive an injury to KG or Rondo. Though winning a title without Ray/Pierce/Perk would be incredibly difficult.
-
I think this team will win it all even if they have injuries to the core 8. Sheed and Daniels give the C's an almost fool proof insurance policy. Only multiple injuries to key players will stop the C's.
The C's cannot survive an injury to KG or Rondo. Though winning a title without Ray/Pierce/Perk would be incredibly difficult.
They were super close to going back to the ECF and Finals without KG last year. I don't think it's crazy to think, adding Sheed and Daniels to last years squad would have been enough to win it all. Rondo would be the tough one. Hudson is the closest to being a true PG behind him. I give them 75% chance of the title without Rondo
-
Side note: did anyone else see KG all in Williams' ear bigging him up after last night's game? I saw the same thing with Perk and Powe year 1, and with Big Baby the last 2 years. KG is a **** kingmaker with his younger teammates.
Nice, thanks for pointing that out.
Just a quick word, though, on your calling out of the "experts" -- I think it will be harder than you expect. In my opinion, it is rare that a writer will say one thing, and then turn around a few months later and say something opposite (of course it happens, though). What is more likely is that a large number of writers will say something, then a few months later, a large number of different writers will say something different -- so the general perception has changed, but not necessarily the opinions/ positions of the writers.
For example, when you write
Now, 2 games in, I'm already seeing articles starting to big Williams up. Just wait...by the time the season ends he'll have been a top-5 lottery pick that the Celtics gypped their way into getting and all of that "bust" talk will be forgotten about like all the pundits were with him all along...no you (freakin) wasn't!
... what you need to show is that whoever is bigging Williams up was denigrating him earlier (in other words, in line with your example, you need Protectthepaint to be on the Williams band wagon by the end of the year).
-
Well, here's one guy who sees it our way:
http://realgm.com/src_feature_pieces/825/20091021/leroux%5Cs_2009_10_prediction_thread/
Celtics win the title, KG is DPOY and Finals MVP. I'll take it.
Here's another, as Ian Thompsen is picking the Cs to beat the Lakers in the Finals. So, not ALL media are off...
Frankly, I'd prefer it if all the media were against us ... I think this team thrives as an underdog, and it will make the victory next spring that much sweeter. Let them kiss Kobe's butt all they want ... we'll just kick it in the playoffs anyway.
-
Just want to sign on to this thread. I believe this team is special. I feel about like I did in '07-'08 - I thought title then and I think title this year, as well.
I think the Spurs will be the West champ, but I hope to play the Lakers again. I want Kobe to forever be haunted by the fact that despite his 4 rings (I still think last year was kind of a fluke), he was never good enough to beat the Celtics. It'll eat at him every time he sees green for the rest of his life. ;D
-
Hey,
Wondering if the thoughts are as high on this after the last three games. Are we living the emotional boston roller coast ride?
-
I'm still very confident in this team. They've hit a few weeks-long cold spell in each of the first two years that seemed to correspond with them having dead legs. In this case we already knew that KG would have dead legs to start the season, though, and we saw last year that the team's D starts and ends with a healthy KG.
But there are still plenty of positives for me. The bench gives us new dimensions, Pierce and Ray show no signs of slippage, Rondo and Perk show signs of improvement in general, and KG is progressively getting better. And though we have four losses, we could still very easily be undefeated with just a little bit better shooting from the line and the 3-point line.
I'm still ultra confident.
-
The eternal optimist would say at the end of the year we'll look back at this stretch and say it made the team stronger.
i'm not sure if i'm the eternal optimist or not
-
Sure, you can be the eternal optimist. You iterate it and I will reiterate it, ha ha ha!
-
Been some ups and downs in the early season since I started this thread. Anyone changed their mind either way?
Anyway, I really bumped the thread because I never got back here and broke down the Hollinger preview like I had wanted to, but I figure better late than never:
Hollinger made his season preview predictions (54 wins for the Cs?!?) for a lot of sketchy reasons, including his PER stat. But his in-season power rankings are tied almost entirely to the team scoring margin. And that, right there, is what made Hollinger's preseason prediction idiotic.
Because PER was essentially something that Hollinger just came up with. There was no science involved, he just played with a lot of box score stats until he found a formula that fit his notions of what a good player is. If, historically, there is any predictive value in PER it is purely a side effect.
On the other hand, the team scoring margin as a predictor of team quality has been proven and re-proven by multiple different sources. Hollinger has his version, but so do others like Berri and Sagarin.
And by looking at their history of team scoring margin, it was idiotic to expect the Celtics to suddenly fall off the board barring significantly more injury. To publish a prediction based purely upon a random stat and some very qualitative "analysis" when you have a lot of data in your possession from a better stat that gives more realistic results...that was just dumb.
I wanted to type this message out before Hollinger's new power rankings started coming out because it was a lead-pipe lock that the Cs would spend most of the year on top of that ranking, but alas I am late and the Cs have already taken a perch at the top. Principle still applies, though...your stat might have the Cs on top, Hollinger, but as for you being in agreement with it all along...no you (freakin) wasn't!
-
I'm not predicting 75 wins and fo-fo-fo-fo, but I do see a championship. I think this is the best team in the NBA, and Shaq, Vince, Artest, etc. don't scare me at all.
I'll sticky this at the top of the forum for you, so you can update it as the season goes along.
mr. hobbs - why does orlando not scare you ? they scare me - and they are on a fresh 2-game losing streak as i write this.
-
Does anyone know where the find the best streaming feed for the celtics. This year has been awful compared to last season..
-
I'm not predicting 75 wins and fo-fo-fo-fo, but I do see a championship. I think this is the best team in the NBA, and Shaq, Vince, Artest, etc. don't scare me at all.
I'll sticky this at the top of the forum for you, so you can update it as the season goes along.
mr. hobbs - why does orlando not scare you ? they scare me - and they are on a fresh 2-game losing streak as i write this.
I can't speak for Hobbs, but I would like to answer this question as well. The Magic don't scare me because if these Celtics are healthy, they are simply better than the Magic and well-built to stop the Magic at their strengths.
The Magic team is built on 1) Howard dominating the middle, 2) Carter outdeuling the opponents' wings, and 3) Rashard Lewis taking advantage of mismatches against opposing PFs. But the Celtics have the interior game to neutralize Howard, they have the perimeter players to counteract Carter, and they have KG who is probably Lewis' worst matchup in the league.
Conversely, the Magic aren't built to stop the Celtics. Lewis can't stop a healthy Garnett, Pierce and Allen should be able to overcome their wings, and Nelson can't handle Rondo defensively.
In short...the Celtics are just the better team. Orlando is very, very good...but at our best, this Celtics team is just better.
-
I'm not predicting 75 wins and fo-fo-fo-fo, but I do see a championship. I think this is the best team in the NBA, and Shaq, Vince, Artest, etc. don't scare me at all.
I'll sticky this at the top of the forum for you, so you can update it as the season goes along.
mr. hobbs - why does orlando not scare you ? they scare me - and they are on a fresh 2-game losing streak as i write this.
I can't speak for Hobbs, but I would like to answer this question as well. The Magic don't scare me because if these Celtics are healthy, they are simply better than the Magic and well-built to stop the Magic at their strengths.
The Magic team is built on 1) Howard dominating the middle, 2) Carter outdeuling the opponents' wings, and 3) Rashard Lewis taking advantage of mismatches against opposing PFs. But the Celtics have the interior game to neutralize Howard, they have the perimeter players to counteract Carter, and they have KG who is probably Lewis' worst matchup in the league.
Conversely, the Magic aren't built to stop the Celtics. Lewis can't stop a healthy Garnett, Pierce and Allen should be able to overcome their wings, and Nelson can't handle Rondo defensively.
In short...the Celtics are just the better team. Orlando is very, very good...but at our best, this Celtics team is just better.
I agree. In a seven game series the Magic aren't scary especially given that Carter will probably shoot the Magic out of at the very least two wins in any 7 game series against a good team. he just can't help himself. He gets this need to jack up 25-30 shots a game pretty often and much of those shots are early in the shot clock, contested and from way way out. He is going to really p.o. his team mates and his coach once the playoffs come around and Howard isn't getting 10 touches a game because Carter is such a shot happy pig.
-
I'm not predicting 75 wins and fo-fo-fo-fo, but I do see a championship. I think this is the best team in the NBA, and Shaq, Vince, Artest, etc. don't scare me at all.
I'll sticky this at the top of the forum for you, so you can update it as the season goes along.
mr. hobbs - why does orlando not scare you ? they scare me - and they are on a fresh 2-game losing streak as i write this.
I can't speak for Hobbs, but I would like to answer this question as well. The Magic don't scare me because if these Celtics are healthy, they are simply better than the Magic and well-built to stop the Magic at their strengths.
The Magic team is built on 1) Howard dominating the middle, 2) Carter outdeuling the opponents' wings, and 3) Rashard Lewis taking advantage of mismatches against opposing PFs. But the Celtics have the interior game to neutralize Howard, they have the perimeter players to counteract Carter, and they have KG who is probably Lewis' worst matchup in the league.
Conversely, the Magic aren't built to stop the Celtics. Lewis can't stop a healthy Garnett, Pierce and Allen should be able to overcome their wings, and Nelson can't handle Rondo defensively.
In short...the Celtics are just the better team. Orlando is very, very good...but at our best, this Celtics team is just better.
drza just killed it. Absolutely right, TP.
-
DRZA44: You posted that although Duncan has 4 rings PP has 1) he will naver be able to say that he played on a good team ( maybe you meant to say that he played with a team that were a band of brothers and every playe played his small part and thats why they won 4 rings. Its not easy to win 4 rings. Ask Garnett, PP, Ray Allen. I think you are missing the point, amigo. You had your Mullingan; now say it right.
-
Our team will be injury free the rest of the season? Not. How will injuries affect our chances of winning another flag? I dont have the slightest idea; thats why I dont go out on a limb predicting the future. Too many "if's". They do present very good excuses if we don't win, though. Mother nature is not on our side and almost everybody knows it.
-
OP was magnificent! I only started watching Basketball 2 years ago and my chosen team was the Celtics. After watching this amazing bunch of players, I love basketball now. When the player roster was finally decided for this year, my heart did a jump and I thought, wow, this is too good to be true. This group of players together is going to be unreal. I agree that we will win the Championship again this year because our team is the best it's ever been (at least in the 2 years I've been watching ;D. The bench is almost equal to the starters and that absolutely rocks. KG is feeling his age, but he will not go down any time soon. PP and KG may have age, but they also have wisdom, heart and great bb I.Q. Ray Allen is like a fluid dance on the floor and always comes through at the right moment and that man can shoot. Perkins has improved more than 100% and is likely to be one of basketball's all time greats. Rondo has always been excellent and only keeps getting better. Tony and Rasheed have totally exceeded my expectations. I cannot wait to see Big Baby this year and am so glad he's finally getting back. LET'S GO CELTICS!
-
I started to post this in an entirely new thread, but when I think about it, I don't want this thread to just be a place people come when things are going great and we want to brag a bit. No, the whole point of this thread is that even when things don't look great, when others are down on us, we can still believe in our squad because it is a GREAT team. So for those that think this team's window has closed, that the Lakers are just too good for us, that this team is no longer a contender, I say:
Remember who we are! http://www.celticsblog.com/2010/1/19/1260804/remember-who-we-are
-
I still believe...I believe that we should NOT dismantle this team at this time!
I still believe...that as people return from injury we are a major component in the title hunt and can win a championship this year.
I still believe...that we have one of the deepest benches in the NBA.
and...I still believe in Danny, Doc, the staff and the owners.
-
I still believe...I believe that we should NOT dismantle this team at this time!
I still believe...that as people return from injury we are a major component in the title hunt and can win a championship this year.
I still believe...that we have one of the deepest benches in the NBA.
and...I still believe in Danny, Doc, the staff and the owners.
I believe the same things, TP for sharing your confidence during these tough times in Celtics nation. :)
-
I dont really understand how anyone who has played sports could not still believe in this team. That is not mean to be a knock against those who havent played sports much either. I just mean, injuries are a part of any sport and it's quite obvious that this group has had more then their share of them. There is not a single team in the this league who can withstand injuries to so many key players and still be able to look like a title contending team. The Lackers have had Gasol out a lot but that is really just one player. When, and of course if, we are healthy this team is still the best in the league and if KG and Baby get a lot healthier we are far and away the best squad.
-
Ok, I give. Startin' to feel a bit negative now.
Put BBD in starting lineup. Take out Ray when he's not playing well. Gosh, how obvious. Doc keeps playing Ray on his bad nights. Why? Don't put in Williams, Scal when we are losing.
Let BBD have his legs. Though he was boxed in tonight at one point, he still got it up to and in the basket and got both free throws. And that was only playing for a very few minutes. Quit starting Scal and give big minutes to BBD and see what happens.
-
Ok, I give. Startin' to feel a bit negative now.
I'm there dude
-
The media are starting to write the Celtics off, but let's remember in a few months who still believed in the team at the time. I'm in.
-
I still believe...I believe that we should NOT dismantle this team at this time!
I still believe...that as people return from injury we are a major component in the title hunt and can win a championship this year.
I still believe...that we have one of the deepest benches in the NBA.
and...I still believe in Danny, Doc, the staff and the owners.
Nothing has changed my mind. The impending return of Marquis Daniels fills in the last missing piece. The playoffs, after all, have not started yet. Like I said in our Championship season, no one has won the finals yet, and the Celts have as good an opportunity to do so as anyone else. There are still a lot of games left between now and then. Remember when everyone was saying "regular season games don't matter, just get everyone healthy"? Since when does the championship run end after 40 games?
-
The media are starting to write the Celtics off, but let's remember in a few months who still believed in the team at the time. I'm in.
Tomorrow night I can tell u if I'm in, too, or not... ;)
-
Just remember that KG has only been back a couple games and Marquis is coming back after the All Star break and will give Paul and Ray a little relief. It will take both of them a couple games to get their legs under them and for the team to get used to their play again. The season doesn't hinge on any one regular season game....even if it is the Lakers, Cavs, Magic, etc. The teams we play now may not be the same teams we play in the playoffs...
-
Just remember that KG has only been back a couple games and Marquis is coming back after the All Star break and will give Paul and Ray a little relief. It will take both of them a couple games to get their legs under them and for the team to get used to their play again. The season doesn't hinge on any one regular season game....even if it is the Lakers, Cavs, Magic, etc. The teams we play now may not be the same teams we play in the playoffs...
I agree with you here 100%...tp
-
So much discussion for a simple situation.
There are other teams that are at least our equals (over the course of a season, not just the first healthy week of the season). We are good enough to win it all, but so are some other teams. We will make the playoffs with a high seed. No team is dominant enough this season that they are a shoo-in for the finals (esp with Kobe repeatedly injured).
Most importantly, no one knows how things will play out. You may have great insight into the shortcomings of teams, but the playoffs are non-deterministic.
-
That is exactly what I have been trying to say, Guava. We have as good a chance as anyone who makes the playoffs. It is a whole new ballgame and is promised to no one...otherwise, why bother playing the season or the playoffs? Just play one game at a time and don't give too much weight to any one game.
-
I'm still in. At least I "believe" the C's are one of the three or four teams with a shot at the title.
The talent is there, but they'll all need to be healthy for the playoffs(maybe unrealistic, but possible). But it's better than being one of the other 25 or so teams that has no chance.
If things don't work out this year, then a complete makeover of the bench is in order for next year-except for Eddie House, I love the guy. And, what the heck, I'll throw in a gratuitous bring back Leon request here too.
But for this year, just play it out and hope for the best, unless, referring to another post, the Sixers are crazy enough to give us Iggy for Ray ;)
-
I'm definitely still in. And I've seen the same negative trends in the media, so that'll just be more fodder for me to have fun with in about 6 months
-
Still feel the same as I did in October ... at least as far as the "Big Picture" goes. If people are counting this team out, they're in for a few surprises.
-
tboots ....you remember for me ...and get busy on those slippers....you and I know the faithful....coffee please!!!
-
Posting Indeed Proceed's game preview in here for posterity sake. He has links about John Hollinger not believing, Marc Stein not believing, and even some Celtic fans not believing anymore. I still believe that come June links like these will just be more fodder. We'll see.
http://www.celticsblog.com/2010/2/3/1291252/celtics-heat-check-against-the-heat
-
The Sports Guy checks in with another entry, first brought to my attention in Roy Hobbs' "#17 or Durant" thread http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=34888.0:
Q: If you could go back in time "Lost"-style and fix the 2007 lottery so the Celtics landed the second pick, would you keep what happened (No. 5 pick, KG trade, 2008 title, everything else that happened up to now), or would you switch it so that they ended up with the No. 2 pick and Durant?
--Dr. Bill Simmons, Boston
SG: OK, I fibbed that one. My dad asked me that on the phone this week. And we both came to the same conclusion pretty quickly: You'd have to go with Durant. Have you seen what he's doing for the Zombies lately? Thirty a night, eight boards, 50 percent shooting, nails his free throws … just eerie, Gervin-like consistency for a young team that doesn't have another reliable scorer, and if that's not enough, he's the single best teammate in the league other than LeBron. Barring injury, he's going to win this year's scoring title (he'd be the youngest ever by two years) and could be looking at a historic 35 ppg, 10 rpg, 50/40/90 percentage season soon. I don't see how you pass that up. And if you remember, the 2007 Celts had a decent nucleus in place already (Al Jefferson, Rajon Rondo, Kendrick Perkins, Paul Pierce, Theo Ratliff's expiring contract, the rights to Minnesota's No. 1) and easily could have turned a couple of those assets into Pau Gasol a couple of months later.
Here's the best analogy: You know in football when a team kicks a field goal, only there's a penalty, and they have the option of wiping the points off the board but getting four new downs? It's usually a horrible idea to wipe the points off unless you have someone on the Brady-Manning-Brees level as your quarterback. Too risky otherwise. For a redo of the 2007 lottery scenario, you would wipe three points off the board (in this case, an NBA title), grab Durant and go for seven points (the possibility of multiple titles and 15-plus years of a potential pantheon guy). You have to.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/100205&sportCat=nfl
As you can see from Roy's thread, this idea got some support on this board and my point isn't to call out anyone who holds this opinion, including Simmons. The point is to document where he stands now...Simmons has made it clear this season that he doesn't really see this Celtics team as a championship squad. Which is ok, I guess, it's his opinion. But don't change the story later on...if these Cs win #18 this year I don't want to read anything about "reverse jinx" or "I made my kids watch this team because I knew they were watching history".
This era of Celtics basketball is "a field goal" in Simmons' mind...later on I don't want to read anything from him about them being touchdowns.
-
Writers jumping off the bandwagon like flies. It's Elrod's turn.
"The reason is clear: it is now obvious that the Boston Celtics will not win the 2010 NBA title. And their chances of winning the 2011 NBA title, as presently constituted, are even more remote. In other words, the team is no longer a genuine contender."
http://www.realgm.com/src_feature_pieces/863/20100209/danny_ainges_critical_juncture/
-
I hate to be a non-believer in this thread but considering the way the season is going couldn't it be that all the experts were right
After only 49 games the C's have lost 17 games, probably more than most of the participants and maybe even the originator of the thread thought they would lose this year
Is a 52-30 record really out of the question
I desperately want this team to win and will be cheering them on until the end with all my heart and soul
But maybe those experts were right
Maybe this team is too old and not good enough
Isn't time to maybe concede they might have been correct
-
I hate to be a non-believer in this thread but considering the way the season is going couldn't it be that all the experts were right
After only 49 games the C's have lost 17 games, probably more than most of the participants and maybe even the originator of the thread thought they would lose this year
Is a 52-30 record really out of the question
I desperately want this team to win and will be cheering them on until the end with all my heart and soul
But maybe those experts were right
Maybe this team is too old and not good enough
Isn't time to maybe concede they might have been correct
The original point of this thread wasn't to prophecy, or even to pat ourselves on the back for our "great" team. If you go back to the OP, the point was that the "experts" (and even fans) often write teams off early only to change their story dramatically at the end. I gave the example of the '04 Wolves and the '08 Celtics, both of whom were supposedly fragile and iffy before-hand then after the fact were lauded as obvious juggernauts.
I, personally, believe this current team is the champion-in-waiting. I believed it before the season when everyone had stars in their eyes (then, I really thought they could win 70), I believed it early in the season when KG was hobbling into shape and many started writing him/us off (the 70 looked bleaker then, but definitely still saw the championship), I believed it in December when KG started getting into shape and the team went on its win streak, I believed it when Pierce and KG have had their injuries and the team struggled, and I continue to believe it now while they are trying to play themselves back into shape (no longer see them fighting for regular season stuff at all, but prep for 18 still on-going). That's what I believe.
Now perhaps, as you say, the pundits are right. If so, then come June (or whenever the Cs lose) I'll come to this thread and acknowledge it and try to pinpoint whether my error was due to incorrect evaluation, bad luck, or homer-tinted glasses. But I'll come in here and fall on the sword.
But if, as I suspect, the pundits are wrong. If, as I suspected last year and suspect again this year, the team is doing what it has to in order to make it through the long year healthy and they start to find their groove after the Break in March and April. If, as I suspect, once the playoffs come around and there is at least a day between games and our best players are playing 38 minutes instead of 31 the team starts looking like champions. If, as I suspect, this team handles their business in the early round then comes in as heavy underdogs and defeats the Cavs in the ECF and the Lakers in the Finals. If, as I suspect, THOSE things happen, I don't want the same writers (and fans, even) that are burying the team now to claim that they knew it all the time. That this team was just too talented to lose. That it was obvious that the Cs would take this title.
If they (or anyone else) later say "you know, I doubted and it didn't seem possible, but somehow this team overcame the obstacles and fought their way to a title"...I'm cool with that. But if the doubters now are all over in June talking about how they were on the bandwagon all along...no you (freakin) WASN'T!
-
TP drza, I still believe like I did at the beginning of the season.
-
We win another championship and I guarantee the last thing I'll be concerned with is "who really believed." We fans all hate it when our C's don't play well and we all dig it when they do. That's all I gotta know about my fellow fans. Period.
-
For the record, I think if the C's do stand pat (or just get Nate), they are going to roll off 15 or 16 wins in the next 20 games. I still don't feel confident about this team in the playoffs, but I really think the buildup to the trade deadline has taken a huge toll on some of these guys (Ray Allen), and they will loosen up a lot once it is past. I also think KG will continue to improve as he gets further from his latest injury, and the chemistry will continue to improve now that everyone is healthy.
I still hope they make a big move now, because the gap with Cleveland just became much bigger, but if they don't, I think they will rise back up to be the second best team in the East.
-
For the record, I think if the C's do stand pat (or just get Nate), they are going to roll off 15 or 16 wins in the next 20 games. I still don't feel confident about this team in the playoffs, but I really think the buildup to the trade deadline has taken a huge toll on some of these guys (Ray Allen), and they will loosen up a lot once it is past. I also think KG will continue to improve as he gets further from his latest injury, and the chemistry will continue to improve now that everyone is healthy.
I still hope they make a big move now, because the gap with Cleveland just became much bigger, but if they don't, I think they will rise back up to be the second best team in the East.
I agree with everything you said Chris... But I still believe we can win it!!... (People may say I'm blinding myself but I still have hope!).
-
For the record, I think if the C's do stand pat (or just get Nate), they are going to roll off 15 or 16 wins in the next 20 games. I still don't feel confident about this team in the playoffs, but I really think the buildup to the trade deadline has taken a huge toll on some of these guys (Ray Allen), and they will loosen up a lot once it is past. I also think KG will continue to improve as he gets further from his latest injury, and the chemistry will continue to improve now that everyone is healthy.
I still hope they make a big move now, because the gap with Cleveland just became much bigger, but if they don't, I think they will rise back up to be the second best team in the East.
I agree with everything you said Chris... But I still believe we can win it!!... (People may say I'm blinding myself but I still have hope!).
Oh, I believe we can too, if everything comes together, the chemistry starts to work, and most importantly, KG can pull it together to be effective, despite his lack of athleticism.
An injury or two on the Cavs wouldn't hurt matters either.
Ultimately though, I think the C's are major underdogs at this point. But they are by no means cooked.
-
For the record, I think if the C's do stand pat (or just get Nate), they are going to roll off 15 or 16 wins in the next 20 games. I still don't feel confident about this team in the playoffs, but I really think the buildup to the trade deadline has taken a huge toll on some of these guys (Ray Allen), and they will loosen up a lot once it is past. I also think KG will continue to improve as he gets further from his latest injury, and the chemistry will continue to improve now that everyone is healthy.
I still hope they make a big move now, because the gap with Cleveland just became much bigger, but if they don't, I think they will rise back up to be the second best team in the East.
I agree with everything you said Chris... But I still believe we can win it!!... (People may say I'm blinding myself but I still have hope!).
Oh, I believe we can too, if everything comes together, the chemistry starts to work, and most importantly, KG can pull it together to be effective, despite his lack of athleticism.
An injury or two on the Cavs wouldn't hurt matters either.
Ultimately though, I think the C's are major underdogs at this point. But they are by no means cooked.
I agree.
We are major underdogs but we still definitely can bring home banner 18 and I hope nobody gets injured on the Cavs or any team we face because I want to beat them all at full strength.
-
For the record, I think if the C's do stand pat (or just get Nate), they are going to roll off 15 or 16 wins in the next 20 games. I still don't feel confident about this team in the playoffs, but I really think the buildup to the trade deadline has taken a huge toll on some of these guys (Ray Allen), and they will loosen up a lot once it is past. I also think KG will continue to improve as he gets further from his latest injury, and the chemistry will continue to improve now that everyone is healthy.
I still hope they make a big move now, because the gap with Cleveland just became much bigger, but if they don't, I think they will rise back up to be the second best team in the East.
If we do win 15 or 16 out of the next 20 games, I think the rest of the league should be very worried. One of the main things missing since Christmas (and all of the injuries) is our swagger. A stretch like you are talking about would more than bring that back.
-
What scares me about the whole "they team is just injured and needs to get better theory" is that I am doing a little research on PFs, SGs, and SFs who have player more than 30000 minutes in the NBA
I'm doing it for a future thread that I want to write if our woes continue
So far the data is staggering and scary as to what we can expect from Pierce, Ray and KG going forward based solely on the history of other players performances when they reach the 30000, 35000 and 40000 minute marks in their careers
And most of these players that reach these marks are former All-Stars and Hall of Famers just like our Big Three
We might need to face the reality that they might not be ABLE to recover from their injuries during the year while playing through them and that when they do fully recover, they will never be what they were and maybe not even close to what they were
-
Well, I guess we can now apply this to all those who didn't write Ray off. Well done Ray :D
-
Sign me up as a believer!
-
The negative posters who pride themselves for being "realists" seem to not know the meaning of the word. If the playoffs were a one and done event, and last night was the finals, we would be "done". However, that is not the case. We still have games to play. We have bested the Cavs on their court, they have won on ours. That seems to me to be a wash. Rondo is proving that he is one of the absolute best point guards in the league. Rondo is on our team. Last night Marquis played through the flu. In the second half the flu won and Marquis ran out of gas. Paul Pierce did not play because of an injured thumb. That is not an excuse, that is a fact. Marquis will get over the flu. Paul's thumb will heal. KG's stamina will improve. Even if these things do not happen, there is no guarantee that the Lakers, Cavs, etc. will remain healthy through the next 25 games. If the sky is truly falling, I know who's head I want it to fall on, because the Celtics will be fine. There is no guarantee in sports that a particular team will win a championship. The Celtics STILL have as good a chance as any other until they are defeated in a series. I really don't know what else to say, except that I am disappointed that so many share in a defeatist attitude, giving up before the game has been played out, so to speak... instead of looking forward to continuedimprovement, in effect quitting and giving up.
-
For the record, I think if the C's do stand pat (or just get Nate), they are going to roll off 15 or 16 wins in the next 20 games. I still don't feel confident about this team in the playoffs, but I really think the buildup to the trade deadline has taken a huge toll on some of these guys (Ray Allen), and they will loosen up a lot once it is past. I also think KG will continue to improve as he gets further from his latest injury, and the chemistry will continue to improve now that everyone is healthy.
I still hope they make a big move now, because the gap with Cleveland just became much bigger, but if they don't, I think they will rise back up to be the second best team in the East.
For the record again...I still believe this.
-
This thread has a sticky. Rather ironic given today's result. Or last Thursday's result. Or...
-
I still believe, anyway.
-
Have not believed since the beginning of this year and believe even less now.
-
No change in the story here. I called this situation six weeks ago, and I've seen absolutely nothing to change my mind.
No title. No finals appearance. Probably no appearance in the conference finals.
Too old. WAY too unathletic.
I'm grateful for the title in 2008. The trades were worthwhile. Not going to belittle anyone who still thinks a title is possible this year.
But the films don't lie. It's over. Done. Finito. Kaput. The window, as I said weeks ago, is shut.
-
I''m still a believer.
-
My confidence has clearly been shaken since my last post in this thread but I still am a believer.
-
My confidence has clearly been shaken since my last post in this thread but I still am a believer.
Ditto. I wouldn't say I'm confident any more, but I will say I remain more optimistic than the team's record says I should be.
-
I'll cheer them on until the end
But unless they go Bullwinkle on us and pull a rabbit out of that hat and win it all, basically all those authors of stories saying that the C's couldn't do it because they wee too old, that the OP was sure would change their stories as the C's ran roughshod through the league to Banner 18, will actually have called it right
I believe I love this team
But my expectations of them going all the way do not exist any longer
If they exceed my expectations and do win it all great, I'll love it
If they don't, I won't be nearly as disappointed as some
-
It was becoming too painful for me to watch games expecting championship level basketball and getting let down so often. Now I just look for improvements in their play and Im happy with the little things.
My expectations have changed just so I can keep my sanity. In the back of my mind though I have the idea stored away that they will be champs this year. ;)
-
My sanity has been restored because I have lowered my level of intensity I guess.
I've become resigned to two fundamental points.
1) The Celtics will be in the playoffs.
2) These regular season games don't mean jack. If we win them all, it doesn't mean anything. if we lose them all, it means something I guess. But we won't lose them all. We'll still lose some though, and we'll win some, but we can't look for the team to suddenly 'turn a corner'. All we get is a fair shake in the post season, and I've come to terms with that.
-
My sanity has been restored because I have lowered my level of intensity I guess.
I've become resigned to two fundamental points.
1) The Celtics will be in the playoffs.
2) These regular season games don't mean jack. If we win them all, it doesn't mean anything. if we lose them all, it means something I guess. But we won't lose them all. We'll still lose some though, and we'll win some, but we can't look for the team to suddenly 'turn a corner'. All we get is a fair shake in the post season, and I've come to terms with that.
Exactly. TP.
Lower intensity means now more throwing objects in the living room and DEFINITELY no more going out drinking after losses. (Im only half kidding)
-
I still believe. Because of the climate around here I haven't updated this thread in awhile, but I have written several posts about the subject. Not just THAT I believe, but also WHY I believe.
Two months ago I wrote about who this team is when everyone is healthy: http://www.celticsblog.com/2010/1/19/1260804/remember-who-we-are
Last month I pointed out how the team's level of play appears very correlated with KG's level of health: http://www.celticsblog.com/2010/2/26/1327792/3-phases-of-kgs-recovery-and
Last week I pointed out the obvious, that our team is really good when KG and Pierce play and not so much when they're injured/out. http://www.celticsblog.com/2010/3/8/1362216/sanity-check-the-elephant-s-in-the
I have the seeds for another article, really looking at how the team has lost over the course of the year. I spent some time looking at every loss, and the pattern is the same as the one that I pointed to before in the KG's health article: when KG is healthy (defining health as his last few weeks or his good month early in the season), our starters don't get outscored even when we lose. When he was limping, our losses were because the opposing team's starters were better than ours. I could pull implications of that moving into the playoffs, where KG won't be playing 29 minutes and (hopefully) our rotations will finally be set. But I haven't written it yet, and don't know if I will.
The point is, though, I still believe. I still think I've got logical reasons (besides purely homer glasses) to believe. And if I'm wrong, and the team comes up short, I'll be right here to talk about why and maybe even give credit to those that saw it before I did. But I don't think I'm wrong.
Addendum: I should amplify what PLamb said a few posts up - the point of this thread wasn't just a question of if you believe or not. The point was that if we did win, as I expected, then those that have criticized can't later say "I knew it all along". If you're consistent with your story, more power to you. If you want to say "I doubted, but they proved me wrong and I'm so happy about it!", great. But I don't like reading about how 2007-08 was an inevitable title when I remember vividly the many doubters at the time.
-
Whatever happens, happens
-
Something i heard humorous today meant as a joke:"Boston Celtics,make up your minds,im tired of jumping on/off the bandwagon".
-
KG's looking healthier...
Pierce is looking healthier...
The team is starting to look more and more like the team I expected...
(runs off frantically to find some wood to knock on...)
-
I think to be honest and fair to the OP I should put myself on the list of people that didn't believe this year.
I think belief is all well and good for religion and matters that can't be proved and feelings like love and maybe holding onto beautiful lies like Santa or something
I think in sports the onus is on a team or player to make believers out of people, and they haven't done that with me this year. Not by a long shot.
-
Total media blackout for the Celtics. No one is talking about them. I think they are no sure if the postseason Celtics are for real yet and don't want to go out on a limb.
-
Total media blackout for the Celtics. No one is talking about them. I think they are no sure if the postseason Celtics are for real yet and don't want to go out on a limb.
In general I think the attitude is "easy to do that against Miami...let's see how they do against the Cavs"
-
Total media blackout for the Celtics. No one is talking about them. I think they are no sure if the postseason Celtics are for real yet and don't want to go out on a limb.
In general I think the attitude is "easy to do that against Miami...let's see how they do against the Cavs"
All the stories I see about Heat vs Celtics are about Wade. If he'll stay or go. If he can get any help. Nothing about us shutting them down. We have played great this series. The Heat have been playing out of there minds at the end of the season and now they've hit a brick wall.
-
I'm glad someone bumped this. The environment was so caustic around here entering the postseason that I didn't want to keep bumping my own thread, so I saved some stories instead of posting them. But since someone else already bumped it, I can put some things out there for posterity's sake:
Bill Simmons, ESPN: I Know the Celtics will lose in round 1, "I thought Dwyane Wade could beat by himself what I described in a recent e-mail as a 'decrepit, non-rebounding, poorly coached, dispirited, excuse-making, washed-up sham of a contender'" ( http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/part2/100416&sportCat=nba )
J.A. Adande, ESPN: Celtics should be euthanized and eulogized ( http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2010/columns/story?columnist=adande_ja&page=playoffoutlook-100415 )
Randy Hill, Fox Sports: Cavs and Magic sure thing to face off in ECF because no one else can challenge them ( http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/Hill-East-finals-should-be-Magic-Cavs-040910 )
Galinski, Fox Sports: Celtics one of worst disappointments of year, and 2008 is the only title they'll be sniffing in a long time ( http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/lists/Top-10-disappointments-of-the-NBA-season#sport=NBA&photo=11097992 )
Ben Zani, Rotowire.com: A funeral march for the Celtics ( http://rotosynthesis.rotowire.com/The-Celtics-Funeral-March-BBD1883.htm )
There were a few brighter opinions out there, though.
Jackie MacMullan, Globe correspondent: No predictions, but great piece on the reality of Garnett's injury and how he is coping and building his way back ( http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/celtics/articles/2010/04/17/questioning_adds_to_garnetts_pain/ )
Scoop Jackson, ESPN: Garnett struggling, but will be better and at some point "a problem" for competition in playoffs ( http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=jackson/100415 )
The Professor, Rotowire.com: The Celtics are still a superteam whose only competition for the title are the Cavs, the Lakers and the Spurs ( http://rotosynthesis.rotowire.com/Playoff-Thoughts-The-Celtics-BBD1911.htm )
We're only a week into the postseason at this point, still a long way before anyone is crowned. So it's nice to put a few articles out there so we can get a cross section of where the media has the team right now. We'll see if that changes before all is said and done
-
Total media blackout for the Celtics. No one is talking about them. I think they are no sure if the postseason Celtics are for real yet and don't want to go out on a limb.
In general I think the attitude is "easy to do that against Miami...let's see how they do against the Cavs"
All the stories I see about Heat vs Celtics are about Wade. If he'll stay or go. If he can get any help. Nothing about us shutting them down. We have played great this series. The Heat have been playing out of there minds at the end of the season and now they've hit a brick wall.
I'm glad you pointed this out, but shhhhhh. We are still flying under the radar.
Even if we sweep this series or otherwise win it convincingly, don't for one second think that Cleveland is not wanting a piece of us. We just have to keep up this level of defense and we will always give ourselves a great chance.
-
Yeah this series only matters to the rest of the nation if we lose it.
Sometimes i feel like the celtics only matter to ESPN when they lose. We're easy to hate but the same authors are reluctant to pat the boys on teh back after a solid win.
-
Yeah this series only matters to the rest of the nation if we lose it.
Sometimes i feel like the celtics only matter to ESPN when they lose. We're easy to hate but the same authors are reluctant to pat the boys on teh back after a solid win.
Eh, not sure about online, but on TV, I heard plenty of C's love.
I think the problem is that they have now won two games, and played about 5 1/2 quarters at anything close to the level they should have been playing the entire season at. So its tough to give them too much credit yet. Basically, they have done what they are supposed to do/
I think if they sweep this series, and more importantly, if they take one of the first couple games at Cleveland, then you are going to see everyone jumping on the bandwagon.
-
Yeah this series only matters to the rest of the nation if we lose it.
Sometimes i feel like the celtics only matter to ESPN when they lose. We're easy to hate but the same authors are reluctant to pat the boys on teh back after a solid win.
I was watching PTI yesterday, and Cornheiser and Wilbon were discussing which was bigger news: Wade being unhappy or the Celtics winning. They ended the segment with Cornheiser sarcastically asking "But how far do they go? Do they beat the Cavs? Do they beat the Cavs?" as his way of writing them off and pointing out why them winning against Miami wasn't news. We'll see.
-
I was watching PTI yesterday, and Cornheiser and Wilbon were discussing which was bigger news: Wade being unhappy or the Celtics winning. They ended the segment with Cornheiser sarcastically asking "But how far do they go? Do they beat the Cavs? Do they beat the Cavs?" as his way of writing them off and pointing out why them winning against Miami wasn't news. We'll see.
In fairness to Tony, isn't that the big question? If, at the beginning of the season, somebody had told all of us Celtics fans that we won in the first round, our reaction would have been "so what?" If we beat Miami -- even if it's in four games -- it's not much of an accomplishment, in my mind. For this season to mean anything, we've got to beat Cleveland.
-
I was watching PTI yesterday, and Cornheiser and Wilbon were discussing which was bigger news: Wade being unhappy or the Celtics winning. They ended the segment with Cornheiser sarcastically asking "But how far do they go? Do they beat the Cavs? Do they beat the Cavs?" as his way of writing them off and pointing out why them winning against Miami wasn't news. We'll see.
In fairness to Tony, isn't that the big question? If, at the beginning of the season, somebody had told all of us Celtics fans that we won in the first round, our reaction would have been "so what?" If we beat Miami -- even if it's in four games -- it's not much of an accomplishment, in my mind. For this season to mean anything, we've got to beat Cleveland.
Agreed. And I think the C's would agree as well. Beating Miami is not an accomplishment. If they lose to Miami it would be a HUGE disappointment. Generally, we don't give teams too much credit for not being a huge disappointment.
-
I was watching PTI yesterday, and Cornheiser and Wilbon were discussing which was bigger news: Wade being unhappy or the Celtics winning. They ended the segment with Cornheiser sarcastically asking "But how far do they go? Do they beat the Cavs? Do they beat the Cavs?" as his way of writing them off and pointing out why them winning against Miami wasn't news. We'll see.
In fairness to Tony, isn't that the big question? If, at the beginning of the season, somebody had told all of us Celtics fans that we won in the first round, our reaction would have been "so what?" If we beat Miami -- even if it's in four games -- it's not much of an accomplishment, in my mind. For this season to mean anything, we've got to beat Cleveland.
Agreed. And I think the C's would agree as well. Beating Miami is not an accomplishment. If they lose to Miami it would be a HUGE disappointment. Generally, we don't give teams too much credit for not being a huge disappointment.
I agree with both of your sentiments. I've been pretty consistent that I think the Cs are going to win the title, and (at least in my opinion) I've supported that opinion with enough facts that it's not purely a homer pick. I think there's enough logical information out there to suggest why this season has gone like it has, and that this team is still a legit contender. Ironically, the only team in the NBA that legitimately worries me in a series IS the Cavs (with the Lakers/Spurs secondary), so it sucks that if all goes right we'd be seeing them so early.
That said, my point on the PTI commentary was that Tony wasn't really asking a question. He was saying that the Celtics had absolutely no chance to beat the Cavs, and was only phrasing it as a question as a means to sarcastically browbeat Wilbon, who was suggesting that the Celts winning was news.
I got no issue with him having that opinion. I just think it's incorrect, and I look forward to tuning into the show in a couple weeks when they actually have to discuss the impossible possibility that maybe the Celts really CAN beat the Cavs.
-
I was watching PTI yesterday, and Cornheiser and Wilbon were discussing which was bigger news: Wade being unhappy or the Celtics winning. They ended the segment with Cornheiser sarcastically asking "But how far do they go? Do they beat the Cavs? Do they beat the Cavs?" as his way of writing them off and pointing out why them winning against Miami wasn't news. We'll see.
In fairness to Tony, isn't that the big question? If, at the beginning of the season, somebody had told all of us Celtics fans that we won in the first round, our reaction would have been "so what?" If we beat Miami -- even if it's in four games -- it's not much of an accomplishment, in my mind. For this season to mean anything, we've got to beat Cleveland.
Agreed. And I think the C's would agree as well. Beating Miami is not an accomplishment. If they lose to Miami it would be a HUGE disappointment. Generally, we don't give teams too much credit for not being a huge disappointment.
I agree with both of your sentiments. I've been pretty consistent that I think the Cs are going to win the title, and (at least in my opinion) I've supported that opinion with enough facts that it's not purely a homer pick. I think there's enough logical information out there to suggest why this season has gone like it has, and that this team is still a legit contender. Ironically, the only team in the NBA that legitimately worries me in a series IS the Cavs (with the Lakers/Spurs secondary), so it sucks that if all goes right we'd be seeing them so early.
That said, my point on the PTI commentary was that Tony wasn't really asking a question. He was saying that the Celtics had absolutely no chance to beat the Cavs, and was only phrasing it as a question as a means to sarcastically browbeat Wilbon, who was suggesting that the Celts winning was news.
I got no issue with him having that opinion. I just think it's incorrect, and I look forward to tuning into the show in a couple weeks when they actually have to discuss the impossible possibility that maybe the Celts really CAN beat the Cavs.
Can you really believe them for thinking the Cavs will destroy the C's though? The Cavs have put together one of the better seasons in the history of the NBA, and got significantly better at the trade deadline, while the C's fell WAY below expectations, and really have given little hard evidence that they will beat a team as good as the Cavs in a 7 game series.
I happen to think the C's have a very good chance about the Cavs (I personally think they match up better against them than some other contenders), but I really cannot argue with someone who does not see it the same way, since there is so much evidence that points that way.
-
I was watching PTI yesterday, and Cornheiser and Wilbon were discussing which was bigger news: Wade being unhappy or the Celtics winning. They ended the segment with Cornheiser sarcastically asking "But how far do they go? Do they beat the Cavs? Do they beat the Cavs?" as his way of writing them off and pointing out why them winning against Miami wasn't news. We'll see.
In fairness to Tony, isn't that the big question? If, at the beginning of the season, somebody had told all of us Celtics fans that we won in the first round, our reaction would have been "so what?" If we beat Miami -- even if it's in four games -- it's not much of an accomplishment, in my mind. For this season to mean anything, we've got to beat Cleveland.
Agreed. And I think the C's would agree as well. Beating Miami is not an accomplishment. If they lose to Miami it would be a HUGE disappointment. Generally, we don't give teams too much credit for not being a huge disappointment.
I agree with both of your sentiments. I've been pretty consistent that I think the Cs are going to win the title, and (at least in my opinion) I've supported that opinion with enough facts that it's not purely a homer pick. I think there's enough logical information out there to suggest why this season has gone like it has, and that this team is still a legit contender. Ironically, the only team in the NBA that legitimately worries me in a series IS the Cavs (with the Lakers/Spurs secondary), so it sucks that if all goes right we'd be seeing them so early.
That said, my point on the PTI commentary was that Tony wasn't really asking a question. He was saying that the Celtics had absolutely no chance to beat the Cavs, and was only phrasing it as a question as a means to sarcastically browbeat Wilbon, who was suggesting that the Celts winning was news.
I got no issue with him having that opinion. I just think it's incorrect, and I look forward to tuning into the show in a couple weeks when they actually have to discuss the impossible possibility that maybe the Celts really CAN beat the Cavs.
Can you really believe them for thinking the Cavs will destroy the C's though? The Cavs have put together one of the better seasons in the history of the NBA, and got significantly better at the trade deadline, while the C's fell WAY below expectations, and really have given little hard evidence that they will beat a team as good as the Cavs in a 7 game series.
I happen to think the C's have a very good chance about the Cavs (I personally think they match up better against them than some other contenders), but I really cannot argue with someone who does not see it the same way, since there is so much evidence that points that way.
Like I said, I've got no issue with him having the opinion. I just think it's wrong and look forward to hearing the surprise in his voice when he has to acknowledge the possibility.
-
I haven't updated this since the start of the last round. This Cs/Cavs series still has a loooong way to go...it's essentially just a best-of-5 now instead of a best-of-7. So definitely no gloating. Just continuing to put some things out there for posterity's sake that we can look back upon after this all plays out.
ESPN: Obviously I have to post the clean-sweep of ESPN analysts that predicted the Cavs would win.
(http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/347412/seriespicks.JPG)
http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2010/matchup/_/teams/celtics-cavaliers
CNNSI: The graphic is a bit more convoluted and the picks were made before the first round, but all 5 CNNSI analysts also picked the Cavs to win: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/basketball/nba/04/16/expert.picks.playoffs/index.html
Various former NBA players I have no link except for where it was discussed on this board, but Barkley was absolutely adamant that the Cavs would beat the Celtics easily, saying that he would bet everything that he owns on it ( http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=37099.0 ).
Jalen Rose and Bruce Bowen had similar, if not as emphatic, sentiments when I heard them on various radio/TV interviews. Their essential take home was that LeBron was too good and the Celtics too old to beat the Cavs.
Cavs blog: Not a shock that they pick the Cavs. Fairly in-depth analysis/opinion on the various matchups: http://www.mtrmedia.com/cavaliers/2010/04/an-indepth-breakdown-of-the-cleveland-cavaliersboston-celtics-series-who-has-the-edge.html
Dan Shaughnessy: In a surprising move, Shaugnessy picked the Cs to take out the Cavs. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/dan_shaughnessy/04/25/celtics/index.html?eref=si_writers
Benjamin cox (Cavs blog): In a not surprising at all response, this Cavs blogger thinks Shaughnessy is an idiot for his prediction: http://benjamincox.blogspot.com/2010/04/dan-shaughnessy-is-idiot.html
Brit Robson, CNNSI: Thinks Cavs will win, but did notice that the Cs look better and hedged his bet from Cavs in 5 to Cavs in 7. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/britt_robson/04/29/semifinal.cavaliers.celtics/index.html
My take: I picked a hard-fought win for the Celtics in 6. I think the Cavs really are that good...I just think the Celtics are better. http://www.celticsblog.com/2010/4/30/1452306/where-are-we-right-now-and-what
-
I had stopped believing. I remember posting something after the Lakers loss in December, that I had to stop watching since it was too painful and the Celtics were consuming my life.
I want to believe now and deep inside, Maybe I'd do.
But i am not ready to go back to my over passionate self until we get passed this series.
-
I had stopped believing. I remember posting something after the Lakers loss in December, that I had to stop watching since it was too painful and the Celtics were consuming my life.
I want to believe now and deep inside, Maybe I'd do.
But i am not ready to go back to my over passionate self until we get passed this series.
I remember that post! Dont go back to that dark place but certainly welcome back!
Here's a TP.
-
I got shaky for about a day and a half this season...other than that I have been solid in my belief in the Celtics this year. I have always felt that if they could be healthy at the end of the season they would be a power to be reconned with, and that other teams could not count on being healthier...Looks like Doc had the right formula for getting the team to the post season after all....
Go Celts!!!
-
Gotta say drza, I was one of those guys saying you might have to admit you were wrong because of the horrible last 4 months of the season so if the C's win this series, you might have to add me to that list of people. really never expected they could just flip a switch but appears they could and did.
-
there not going to lose but who cares if they do? there still a great team and a great group of guys who gave us alot, we owe it to them to not stop believing even if there down 40 points with 30 seconds left in game 7 of the finals
-
Gotta say drza, I was one of those guys saying you might have to admit you were wrong because of the horrible last 4 months of the season so if the C's win this series, you might have to add me to that list of people. really never expected they could just flip a switch but appears they could and did.
People just get caught up in the wrong details, mostly fueled by the negative always getting an exponential focus for whatever reason that may be. The wrong questions were being asked, and all the possibilities were not being explored... and many of the more plausible ones were dismissed incorrectly even when good evidence was being presented. People also start getting caught-up in random stories that the media tries to propagate because it makes for good drama, which at the end of the day is mostly crap.
This switch people are speaking off wasn't as abrupt as people are making out to be. Since February, even though there were some setbacks along the way, we were quite steady in the improvement of our team... which coincided curiously with our team getting healthier. Suddenly good games became flukes, and bad games were being considered as the ultimate representation of our team... as if nothing we had done in the last 3 years mattered at all. Don't quite understand it.
In all, I was quite dumbfounded by what was going on in the latest few months around here. Just as I am dumbfounded by the booing in a playoff game, after the type of playoffs these guys have been playing so far just because they had a tough day playing wise. It happens.
-
I don't think they're much different a team than they were in the regular season. They're more focused, to their credit, but still very capable of blowing big leads and phoning in games. We've seen both of those things happen this series.
-
I don't think they're much different a team than they were in the regular season. They're more focused, to their credit, but still very capable of blowing big leads and phoning in games. We've seen both of those things happen this series.
Same as 2007-2008 as well. Nothing new here.
-
I don't think they're much different a team than they were in the regular season. They're more focused, to their credit, but still very capable of blowing big leads and phoning in games. We've seen both of those things happen this series.
Same as 2007-2008 as well. Nothing new here.
That team was a lot better than this one.
-
I don't think they're much different a team than they were in the regular season. They're more focused, to their credit, but still very capable of blowing big leads and phoning in games. We've seen both of those things happen this series.
Same as 2007-2008 as well. Nothing new here.
That team was a lot better than this one.
Yeah. That defense was consistently great.
Then again, we went 7 games in the first 2 rounds.
-
I don't think they're much different a team than they were in the regular season. They're more focused, to their credit, but still very capable of blowing big leads and phoning in games. We've seen both of those things happen this series.
Same as 2007-2008 as well. Nothing new here.
That team was a lot better than this one.
Yeah. That defense was consistently great.
Then again, we went 7 games in the first 2 rounds.
Throughout the season... but then again, that team didn't suffer any big injuries during the season. And I'd say that during the playoffs, this current team is playing better.
But, what I was suggesting at was the idea that the 2008 team didn't suffer from lack of focus and let downs. They were quite bad holding leads and had as much of a turnover problem as we currently have. Or don't we forget all those 4th quarter meltdowns that we were lucky to get away with because time just ran out on the opposing team?
So, in all, these issues we've faced this year are nothing new... just a bit more pronounced.
-
There are still 8 games to play to accomplish our goal, but it looks like some of us were not so foolish to keep believing, uh? :)
-
Update for the Celtics/Magic series:
Again we're 2 games in before I had a chance to update, and again obviously this series isn't over so my posting is more about consistency/posterity in the thread than gloating. That said, here are some of the things that were said before the ECF began:
1) ESPN's thoughts:
(http://cdn3.sbnation.com/fan_shot_images/118956/melike.gif)
2) ESPN again: panel of "experts" explain why Magic will win, with 6 of the 7 picking Orlando (only Broussard went with Boston). Also in there is this gem from Hollinger:
"The Magic are 27-3 with a plus-14 scoring margin in their past 30 games, have home-court advantage, won three of the four regular-season meetings and beat Boston last year with Rafer Alston in place of Jameer Nelson. They have the best players, more depth and more rest. There's simply no plausible reason to bet against them."
http://espn.go.com/nba/dailydime/_/page/sundaydime-100516/abc-sunday-dime
3) Charley Rosen, Foxsports. Rosen gives pros/cons for each team, but the tone of the article suggests he believed the Celtics would win. http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/boston-celtics-orlando-magic-eastern-conference-preview-051410
4) Britt Robson, CNNSI: Magic in 6 http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/britt_robson/05/14/final.magic.celtics/index.html
5) Best Sportsbook: Magic in 6. http://bestsportsbook.name/sportsbook-review/celtics-magic-betting-%E2%80%93-magic-will-succeed-where-cavaliers-failed/
6) Wil Bradley (random writer) on Bleacher Report: Points out how great Rashard Lewis has been playing, especially in the postseason, and how he was going to put up numbers even against Garnett. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/392687-why-is-nobody-talking-about-orlandos-rashard-lewis
7) My prediction: I predicted the Celtics in 6 (just like I did over the Cavs), but unlike Cleveland I just didn't think Orlando was on the Celtics' level. Here is the summary of the article:
"In summary, after looking at the match ups, the Celtics are built to beat this team. The danger in the Magic is their versatility, but the Celtics have even more ways to attack than the Magic do. The Celtics also have the edge and swagger that comes with knowing that they are champions, while the Magic just hope that they are. Finally, and this ties back to my themes from previous articles...the Celtics are just better than the Magic."
http://www.celticsblog.com/2010/5/16/1474165/where-are-we-now-part-2-why-the#storyjump
Hopefully my next update will be a preview of the Finals sometime next week...just need the Cs to continue to take care of business and keep the hammer down on the path to #18.
-
Just read this thread - wow. It's great and TP for the OP.
I also followed your link to the professor on rotosynthesis
This is a money quote (a bit long) that covers his point, but the whole thing (http://rotosynthesis.rotowire.com/Playoff-Thoughts-The-Celtics-BBD1911.htm) should be read.
They came out the first couple of months looking a lot like they did the past two years ... their 23 - 5 record with an excellent win margin through the first two months looked very familiar. Then, three key things happened at the end of December:
1) KG reinjured the knee that ended his season last year and missed the first of what would be a 10+ game absence
2) Paul Pierce went down with the first of several injuries that would keep him out for 10+ games
3) The Cavs and Lakers kept winning, putting HCA against either team out of reach
The rest of this is purely my conjecture. But I believe that the Celtics looked up, after going 9 - 10 in the 19 games where Garnett and/or Pierce sat out, and realized that they couldn't catch the Lakers or Cavs. I think they also were feeling their mortality after losing out on a chance to contend last year due to an injury. And I think the whole focus of the team became: let's make it to the playoffs healthy, and if so we've got a shot. I think they revved it up a bit in March to see if they still had it during a stretch when they went 6 - 1 with a win in Dallas, and I think they revved it up again in their last game against the Cavs as a bit of a measuring stick. Once they proved to themselves they could still do it, they essentially started the end-of-season shut-down that you saw from a lot of the teams who couldn't really change their postseason position...but I think they started it a bit earlier.
...Nevertheless, when I look at the available theories for this season, to me this is the one that makes the most sense. Age is a bear for pro athletes, but mainly due to injury or long-term skill erosion. If they're healthy (which they seem to be), you can't convince me that the Celtics suddenly aged so much between December and April that they forgot how to play. Likewise, you can't convince me that all of a sudden some of the most passionate players in this generation suddenly got content and decided they didn't care anymore if they won or not. Neither of those make sense to me.
Emphasis mine - and slightly redacted for fair use purposes :) .
-
I remain amazed -- stunned in a good way -- that the C's are where they are right now.
It should be noted that only 1 of the experts listed above is already 'wrong'. Magic in 6 or 7 is still possible. I don't count chickens.
I have enjoyed the posts in this thread and understand and respect the OPs intent is not to gloat. But in defense of the 'experts' I do want to say that I never hold predictions in sports as a measure of someone's expertise. Yes -- there are terrific handicappers out there who can provide 'prediction' based on likelihood, but even those professionals are just trying to be correct more often than they are incorrect. When someone makes a prediction and is 'wrong' they reveal nothing about their knowledge or competence. They have merely taken a shot based on head or heart or hunch -- something we all do -- and just like the 'experts' we are as frequently incorrect as we are correct.
-
I remain amazed -- stunned in a good way -- that the C's are where they are right now.
It should be noted that only 1 of the experts listed above is already 'wrong'. Magic in 6 or 7 is still possible. I don't count chickens.
I have enjoyed the posts in this thread and understand and respect the OPs intent is not to gloat. But in defense of the 'experts' I do want to say that I never hold predictions in sports as a measure of someone's expertise. Yes -- there are terrific handicappers out there who can provide 'prediction' based on likelihood, but even those professionals are just trying to be correct more often than they are incorrect. When someone makes a prediction and is 'wrong' they reveal nothing about their knowledge or competence. They have merely taken a shot based on head or heart or hunch -- something we all do -- and just like the 'experts' we are as frequently incorrect as we are correct.
It can get lost in a thread this long, but if you go back to the OP, the point of this thread wasn't to point fingers at people that guess wrong. I can see that some of that could definitely happen in a thread like this, but that wasn't the original point.
No, the point was that a lot of times you'll have the writers and "experts" (and even fans) completely change their story after the fact to something they weren't espousing all along. The original examples I used were how the '04 Wolves (that many didn't think would work) in memory became this stacked squad. Similarly, the '08 Celtics were roundly criticized by many because of the lack of depth and lack of proven ability outside of KG/Pierce/Allen, and many questioned whether those 3 alone could do it. But after they won, all of a sudden in hindsight it was like this foregone conclusion that they would be champs.
This thread was meant to counter that for this team. I always figured that this team would win the title (which, of course, is still not yet decided) but there are/were a lot of people that disagreed with me. And that's fine. But if you disagreed that the Celtics could win a title from October to May, I don't want to read any articles in June from these same writers trying to minimize the achievement because "they knew it all along".
This may not be so much of a concern after the way the season went, as pretty much NO expert thought the Cs could win so they can't possibly claim to have known it all along...but at this point I've put in most of a year already to keeping track of these types of articles, so I might as well finish it off strong so we have a somewhat complete timeline of what folks thought of the team through the year.
-
I remain amazed -- stunned in a good way -- that the C's are where they are right now.
It should be noted that only 1 of the experts listed above is already 'wrong'. Magic in 6 or 7 is still possible. I don't count chickens.
I have enjoyed the posts in this thread and understand and respect the OPs intent is not to gloat. But in defense of the 'experts' I do want to say that I never hold predictions in sports as a measure of someone's expertise. Yes -- there are terrific handicappers out there who can provide 'prediction' based on likelihood, but even those professionals are just trying to be correct more often than they are incorrect. When someone makes a prediction and is 'wrong' they reveal nothing about their knowledge or competence. They have merely taken a shot based on head or heart or hunch -- something we all do -- and just like the 'experts' we are as frequently incorrect as we are correct.
It can get lost in a thread this long, but if you go back to the OP, the point of this thread wasn't to point fingers at people that guess wrong. I can see that some of that could definitely happen in a thread like this, but that wasn't the original point.
No, the point was that a lot of times you'll have the writers and "experts" (and even fans) completely change their story after the fact to something they weren't espousing all along. The original examples I used were how the '04 Wolves (that many didn't think would work) in memory became this stacked squad. Similarly, the '08 Celtics were roundly criticized by many because of the lack of depth and lack of proven ability outside of KG/Pierce/Allen, and many questioned whether those 3 alone could do it. But after they won, all of a sudden in hindsight it was like this foregone conclusion that they would be champs.
This thread was meant to counter that for this team. I always figured that this team would win the title (which, of course, is still not yet decided) but there are/were a lot of people that disagreed with me. And that's fine. But if you disagreed that the Celtics could win a title from October to May, I don't want to read any articles in June from these same writers trying to minimize the achievement because "they knew it all along".
This may not be so much of a concern after the way the season went, as pretty much NO expert thought the Cs could win so they can't possibly claim to have known it all along...but at this point I've put in most of a year already to keeping track of these types of articles, so I might as well finish it off strong so we have a somewhat complete timeline of what folks thought of the team through the year.
The only "expert" that has come out of this ahead has been Skip Bayless.
And Legler. Though he picked the Cavs, his analysis has been spot on for the most part.
-
I love this thread! 8)
4 more wins and it will undoubtedly be the thread of the year.
-
No, the point was that a lot of times you'll have the writers and "experts" (and even fans) completely change their story after the fact to something they weren't espousing all along. The original examples I used were how the '04 Wolves (that many didn't think would work) in memory became this stacked squad. Similarly, the '08 Celtics were roundly criticized by many because of the lack of depth and lack of proven ability outside of KG/Pierce/Allen, and many questioned whether those 3 alone could do it. But after they won, all of a sudden in hindsight it was like this foregone conclusion that they would be champs.
This thread was meant to counter that for this team. I always figured that this team would win the title (which, of course, is still not yet decided) but there are/were a lot of people that disagreed with me. And that's fine. But if you disagreed that the Celtics could win a title from October to May, I don't want to read any articles in June from these same writers trying to minimize the achievement because "they knew it all along".
Are there any examples yet of writers who wrote the Celtics off, only to change their tune and say "they knew it all along"?
It would be great to get a list of the writers ("experts" -- hah!) with their original quotes next to their later quotes.
-
I really like Tim Legler...even when he has voted against us, he has had very good reason to do so. He is one of the most leve-headed commentators there.
-
I called Celtics in 6 in all 3 series. I was off by one in the Heat series. But very happy to be right in the last two series.
-
very happy to say my story is yet to change. You can check my thread of the Dawn for that.. Yes i was down a few times on this team but had a gut feeling mid march about this team! Come on Celtics make it so i can change my name to WeMadeIt18!!!!!!
-
I'm with you and couldn't agree more with the revisionism of the media. On paper this the best team of the KG era.
This thread has stood the test of time. Another TP for you my friend.
-
I will come out right now and admit that I was wrong and thought the C's had no chance at getting to the finals. I'm glad to be wrong.
I will also throw out there the thought that the people who did not believe had very good factual reasons not to. We were playing 500 ball most of the season. We were playing worse than that at the end of the season. The team was obviously having chemistry problems. Our rotation was bouncing all over the place. As much credit as I give to those who posted that they still believed we could get to this point, I would also argue that if they were completely honest with themselves it was more HOPE than true belief. If you had to put everything you owned on the line as to who would be in the finals at the end of the regular season I doubt many "believers" would have put the Celtics on the list.
That being said, Crow tastes real good about now. Let's hope the Lakers get drug out to 7 games and we get the rest we need to be healthy.
-
EJ, it's not that people had "very good factual reasons not to", it's that they ignored a lot of other factual reasons.
They were playing .500 ball. Good. But why where they playing .500 ball? Few were willing to go and identify those reasons. They why they were playing as such is way more important than whether they were winning or losing at the time.
But whatever, we're in the finals now... let's go get #18.
-
EJ, it's not that people had "very good factual reasons not to", it's that they ignored a lot of other factual reasons.
They were playing .500 ball. Good. But why where they playing .500 ball? Few were willing to go and identify those reasons. They why they were playing as such is way more important than whether they were winning or losing at the time.
But whatever, we're in the finals now... let's go get #18.
The team was saying all along that it was bored with the reg season. Not being there menatly and having injuries isn't a good formula for winning a championship. People had good reason to doubt this team going in.
-
EJ, it's not that people had "very good factual reasons not to", it's that they ignored a lot of other factual reasons.
They were playing .500 ball. Good. But why where they playing .500 ball? Few were willing to go and identify those reasons. They why they were playing as such is way more important than whether they were winning or losing at the time.
But whatever, we're in the finals now... let's go get #18.
The team was saying all along that it was bored with the reg season. Not being there menatly and having injuries isn't a good formula for winning a championship. People had good reason to doubt this team going in.
So you identify lack of focus and health as the reasons for doubting the team. Is that enough to make proclamations of this team having no chance to win it all?
Doubts are fine, as long as those doubts are grounded with facts. You can doubt we would be able get healthy. OK, but it wasn't an impossibility as some might have wanted to suggest. In fact, as the 2nd half of the season progressed it was quite evident that we were getting healthier, particularly Garnett. So how much did health actually factor in some claiming that the Celtics had little to no chance?
Focus? Well, the reason for lack of focus being given was because there was some boredom playing the season out (which in my opinion was a bit exaggerated). Wouldn't just reaching the playoffs cure that? I mean, isn't that at all possible?
So people want to doubt, hey that's fine. It's normal... but the conclusions being made by many were just based on inaccurate and incomplete facts. It also ignores that other teams we're competing with also have to stay healthy and be focused during the playoffs.
Rashard blew by Garnett <-- "Holy crap, Garnett can no longer defend in this league, we're doomed!!!"
This to me was the epitome of flawed conclusions.
What I find funny is how many of us last year when we got fatigued during the playoffs blamed Doc for losing perspective during the season. So we start focusing on getting healthier during the season, and we're going to once again question the strategy?
It's a given that we shouldn't have been losing as much as we did during the 2nd half. But the reasons for what was happening were very identifiable and were correctable. Particularly when you add the 1st half of the season in which were dominating. There was no reason to simply dismiss many of the explanations given, particularly ones based on facts, for what was happening during the second half. You can doubt all you want, but there was no reason for the types of proclamations being made here by some... and it irked me when when many factors were just ignored and dismissed due to convenience of the argument.
And then we go see the "Experts" opinions and laugh at them, when they're pretty much doing what many here are doing or have done.
-
No, the point was that a lot of times you'll have the writers and "experts" (and even fans) completely change their story after the fact to something they weren't espousing all along. The original examples I used were how the '04 Wolves (that many didn't think would work) in memory became this stacked squad. Similarly, the '08 Celtics were roundly criticized by many because of the lack of depth and lack of proven ability outside of KG/Pierce/Allen, and many questioned whether those 3 alone could do it. But after they won, all of a sudden in hindsight it was like this foregone conclusion that they would be champs.
This thread was meant to counter that for this team. I always figured that this team would win the title (which, of course, is still not yet decided) but there are/were a lot of people that disagreed with me. And that's fine. But if you disagreed that the Celtics could win a title from October to May, I don't want to read any articles in June from these same writers trying to minimize the achievement because "they knew it all along".
Are there any examples yet of writers who wrote the Celtics off, only to change their tune and say "they knew it all along"?
It would be great to get a list of the writers ("experts" -- hah!) with their original quotes next to their later quotes.
I'd love to see this too. As I said in my last post, this season is pretty unique because the Celtics were so universally panned in the media entering the playoffs that I doubt many writers could say with a straight face that they had the Cs all along...at least not yet. But if the Celtics do go ahead and win this whole thing, don't be surprised if once some time has gone by you start seeing more revisionist articles down the line.
Also, important note, other folks are more than welcome to post any article they see that they think the author may one day recant. I post a handful whenever I get a chance, but obviously I'm not getting a universal count. Most of the ones I do post come from FLCelticsFan's excellent Daily Links, and I know I'm not the only one that reads them.
The other big thing I've been noticing is that since so many truly believed the Celtics wouldn't do anything, the trend has been to minimize the Celtics' accomplishments and focus more about how the other team came up short. The Celtics didn't beat the Cavs, LeBron and the Cavs choked. The Celtics didn't beat the Magic, it was that the Magic didn't show up.
Or, the one that is becoming my personal "favorite"...the Celtics aren't better than their opponents, but they're "tougher" or they've got a "championship mindset" and that's the reason that they're winning. It's because LeBron and Howard clown so much, that's the reason they lost. Any and every euphemism besides just, "the Celtics were the better team and I didn't realize it".
Which leads to the other big trend...the "I was wrong but nobody could have seen this coming so I wasn't really wrong" mindset. I've seen this on the message board, obviously, but even among national writers like Hollinger or Simmons, I've been seeing articles to that effect. I've seen Budweiser and a couple of others mention it for our family on this site, but really it applies to the national media as well...there WAS information out there, legitimate and supportable info, to suggest that this championship run was very possible.
I'm willing to give our family here a mulligan since for the most part we aren't professional analysts and fan-dom can often come with a dose of pessimism. But if you're a professional analyst, especially one that is expected to be strongly analytical like Hollinger, claiming I-wasn't-THAT-wrong-because-nobody-knew is just as weak as changing your story to saying "I knew it all along".
/rant
-
I will also throw out there the thought that the people who did not believe had very good factual reasons not to. We were playing 500 ball most of the season. We were playing worse than that at the end of the season. The team was obviously having chemistry problems. Our rotation was bouncing all over the place. As much credit as I give to those who posted that they still believed we could get to this point, I would also argue that if they were completely honest with themselves it was more HOPE than true belief. If you had to put everything you owned on the line as to who would be in the finals at the end of the regular season I doubt many "believers" would have put the Celtics on the list.
I have to admit that I had my doubts that the Celts would turn it around during the postseason after one of those bad losses near the end of the season. Those feelings lasted for a good 10-15 minutes.
The chemistry issues were based on having KG and PP in and out of the lineup or playing below par due to injury for a full 2 months as well as incorporating Rondo's offensive improvement into things. They weren't based on any fatal flaw in personnel and didn't exist before Xmas so I didn't expect them to be permanent.
-
There are a considerable number of writers who have liked the Celts from the beginning of the season but gave up on them for good reason when they fell apart. I really can't fault them.
Some writers correctly predicted that the Celts wouldn't be able to remain healthy in 2009 and would not repeat. The prediction game is purely for entertainment purposes.
-
EJ, it's not that people had "very good factual reasons not to", it's that they ignored a lot of other factual reasons.
They were playing .500 ball. Good. But why where they playing .500 ball? Few were willing to go and identify those reasons. They why they were playing as such is way more important than whether they were winning or losing at the time.
But whatever, we're in the finals now... let's go get #18.
The team was saying all along that it was bored with the reg season. Not being there menatly and having injuries isn't a good formula for winning a championship. People had good reason to doubt this team going in.
So you identify lack of focus and health as the reasons for doubting the team. Is that enough to make proclamations of this team having no chance to win it all?
Doubts are fine, as long as those doubts are grounded with facts. You can doubt we would be able get healthy. OK, but it wasn't an impossibility as some might have wanted to suggest. In fact, as the 2nd half of the season progressed it was quite evident that we were getting healthier, particularly Garnett. So how much did health actually factor in some claiming that the Celtics had little to no chance?
Focus? Well, the reason for lack of focus being given was because there was some boredom playing the season out (which in my opinion was a bit exaggerated). Wouldn't just reaching the playoffs cure that? I mean, isn't that at all possible?
So people want to doubt, hey that's fine. It's normal... but the conclusions being made by many were just based on inaccurate and incomplete facts. It also ignores that other teams we're competing with also have to stay healthy and be focused during the playoffs.
Rasheed blew by Garnett <-- "Holy crap, Garnett can no longer defend in this league, we're doomed!!!"
This to me was the epitome of flawed conclusions.
What I find funny is how many of us last year when we got fatigued during the playoffs blamed Doc for losing perspective during the season. So we start focusing on getting healthier during the season, and we're going to once again question the strategy?
It's a given that we shouldn't have been losing as much as we did during the 2nd half. But the reasons for what was happening were very identifiable and were correctable. Particularly when you add the 1st half of the season in which were dominating. There was no reason to simply dismiss many of the explanations given, particularly ones based on facts, for what was happening during the second half. You can doubt all you want, but there was no reason for the types of proclamations being made here by some... and it irked me when when many factors were just ignored and dismissed due to convenience of the argument.
And then we go see the "Experts" opinions and laugh at them, when they're pretty much doing what many here are doing or have done.
Agreed, it was more pessimism (realistic ..) than anything. It wouldn't have been hard for any real fan to find reasons to believe. They did just win it in '08 for Heaven's sakes.
If you honestly didn't think Rondo and 4 future HOFs couldn't make a run well...(it's probably better I leave this off)
-
Shiny stuff.
First page.
-
I will come out right now and admit that I was wrong and thought the C's had no chance at getting to the finals. I'm glad to be wrong.
I will also throw out there the thought that the people who did not believe had very good factual reasons not to. We were playing 500 ball most of the season. We were playing worse than that at the end of the season. The team was obviously having chemistry problems. Our rotation was bouncing all over the place. As much credit as I give to those who posted that they still believed we could get to this point, I would also argue that if they were completely honest with themselves it was more HOPE than true belief. If you had to put everything you owned on the line as to who would be in the finals at the end of the regular season I doubt many "believers" would have put the Celtics on the list.
That being said, Crow tastes real good about now. Let's hope the Lakers get drug out to 7 games and we get the rest we need to be healthy.
TP for the honesty. Most of us are always hoping, but this team was making it very difficult to believe until about half way through that second round.
-
I just read this whole thread today for the first time (skimming a bit) and it was pretty cool. It was really interesting watching the reactions change over time and then finally coming around to reflect the OP's optimism. This has been a really rewarding playoff run and a finals win would make it an even sweeter story. Go Celtics!
-
The other big thing I've been noticing is that since so many truly believed the Celtics wouldn't do anything, the trend has been to minimize the Celtics' accomplishments and focus more about how the other team came up short. The Celtics didn't beat the Cavs, LeBron and the Cavs choked. The Celtics didn't beat the Magic, it was that the Magic didn't show up.
Or, the one that is becoming my personal "favorite"...the Celtics aren't better than their opponents, but they're "tougher" or they've got a "championship mindset" and that's the reason that they're winning. It's because LeBron and Howard clown so much, that's the reason they lost. Any and every euphemism besides just, "the Celtics were the better team and I didn't realize it".
Which leads to the other big trend...the "I was wrong but nobody could have seen this coming so I wasn't really wrong" mindset. I've seen this on the message board, obviously, but even among national writers like Hollinger or Simmons, I've been seeing articles to that effect. I've seen Budweiser and a couple of others mention it for our family on this site, but really it applies to the national media as well...there WAS information out there, legitimate and supportable info, to suggest that this championship run was very possible.
I'm willing to give our family here a mulligan since for the most part we aren't professional analysts and fan-dom can often come with a dose of pessimism. But if you're a professional analyst, especially one that is expected to be strongly analytical like Hollinger, claiming I-wasn't-THAT-wrong-because-nobody-knew is just as weak as changing your story to saying "I knew it all along".
/rant
Can someone provide the quotes from Hollinger and Simmons?
Otherwise its just speculation.
I still haven't seen what this thread was supposed to be about: quotes from *professional* sports writers saying one thing at one point in time, and then those same writers saying something different at a later point in time.
The OP has done a nice job of pulling quotes from various writers into the thread, but so far none of them (that I've seen) contradict earlier or later statements about the team, by that same writer. In other words, there is ample proof that many writers didn't believe in the Celtics (hats off to Ian Thompsen, though, for his early call that the Finals would be Cs vs. Lakers), but there is as of now no proof that any writers have changed their position.
We'll see if that changes over the course of the next few weeks. Simmons is the most likely candidate for this IMO. So just a general call: please pull quotes from writers into this thread so we can check them against earlier quotes.
-
Which leads to the other big trend...the "I was wrong but nobody could have seen this coming so I wasn't really wrong" mindset. I've seen this on the message board, obviously, but even among national writers like Hollinger or Simmons, I've been seeing articles to that effect. I've seen Budweiser and a couple of others mention it for our family on this site, but really it applies to the national media as well...there WAS information out there, legitimate and supportable info, to suggest that this championship run was very possible.
Can someone provide the quotes from Hollinger and Simmons?
Otherwise its just speculation.
This is from Simmons' latest article:
"If they (the Celtics) win the title, they would …
1. Join the 1978 Bullets (21-24 in their last 45 regular-season games) and 1995 Rockets (12-16 in their last 28) as one of the most improbable "where the hell did this come from?" NBA champs ever. The 2010 Celts went 26-24 in their last 50 regular-season games, were 3-7 in their last 10, and couldn't have looked more lifeless and discombobulated down the stretch. Believe me, I watched them all season. There were no signs of life."
and also
"Please know that I have no regrets for ripping the Celtics in the regular season; they deserved every ounce of it. My father, a season-ticket holder since 1974, told me in April that it was one of the two worst regular seasons he ever paid for, along with the 1978-79 season (the one before Bird), just because he couldn't believe how many home games the team mailed in. Now that we're in the Finals? Dad says, "Yeah, paying for [all the mailed-in home games] was worth it. We're here, and that's all that matters. And it's clear now that we just needed to get healthy. "
Both of which, to me, say essentially that he wasn't really wrong for ripping the Cs before with statements like "I Know the Celtics will lose in round 1...I thought Dwyane Wade could beat by himself what I described in a recent e-mail as a 'decrepit, non-rebounding, poorly coached, dispirited, excuse-making, washed-up sham of a contender'" because nobody could have looked at the available evidence and had another interpretation. And that's not true.
As for Hollinger, I've heard him in Radio interviews (the latest of which was today on Cowherd) where he emphasizes that there was no precedent for a team being this good in the postseason after finishing the season so poorly. He makes no mention of Garnett's injury, Pierce's injuries, or any of the other potential reasons that some have been pointing out for months as to reasons why the Celtics weren't done or maybe didn't fit well into his analytic models. He also has an article titled "Celtics working on surprise ending" that he's referred to on the radio, but it requires Insider. Either way, though, in his case he relies upon the numbers and historical trends to make statements like "They (the Magic) have the best players, more depth and more rest. There's simply no plausible reason to bet against them." When in fact, there were plausible reasons but they didn't register in Hollinger's analysis. If your analysis gives you the wrong answer, say it gave you the wrong answer or that you should have considered some facts that you discounted, don't say that "nobody" could have seen it coming. That's a copout. IMO.
-
A mild example of a "changed story" from Britt Robson, of CNNSI.
From his first round preview, where he picked the Heat to win the series.
"These are not your older brother's Boston Celtics. The 2008 champs went 27-24 since Jan. 1, picking up embarrassing home losses to the Nets and Wizards in the final six weeks of the season. They are constantly out-rebounded, their bench is suspect and their three veteran stars are all clearly on the wane." http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/britt_robson/04/15/east.previews/index.html
From his Finals preview:
"Both teams (Lakers and Celtics) have impeccable credentials -- dominating early in the season as they conducted a talent and chemistry check, then coasting in the latter half of the season to conserve health and energy for June." http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/britt_robson/05/31/finals.lakers.celtics/index.html
You see what he did there? Before the playoffs started the Celtics were old and weak, as evidenced by their 2nd half of the season. But now, the Celtics have "impeccable credentials" because they dominated the early part of the season with absolutely no mention of their 2nd half and what he previously thought.
As a side note, I'm actually a fan of Robson's from his time when he used to run an excellent site that covered the Wolves. But these types of little white lies of omission become more and more common over time, and eventually my experience has been that most people remember only the second sentiment and not the first one.
-
You'll always get that with the media, most writers and talking heads don't like to say "I was wrong". It undercuts their current credibility more than creative editing of what they said and usually they have a co-host or e-mailers bagging them for being wrong.
Quality updates as usual drza, though I wouldn't have the patience to document things like you have had!
-
A mild example of a "changed story" from Britt Robson, of CNNSI.
From his first round preview, where he picked the Heat to win the series.
"These are not your older brother's Boston Celtics. The 2008 champs went 27-24 since Jan. 1, picking up embarrassing home losses to the Nets and Wizards in the final six weeks of the season. They are constantly out-rebounded, their bench is suspect and their three veteran stars are all clearly on the wane." http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/britt_robson/04/15/east.previews/index.html
From his Finals preview:
"Both teams (Lakers and Celtics) have impeccable credentials -- dominating early in the season as they conducted a talent and chemistry check, then coasting in the latter half of the season to conserve health and energy for June." http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/britt_robson/05/31/finals.lakers.celtics/index.html
You see what he did there? Before the playoffs started the Celtics were old and weak, as evidenced by their 2nd half of the season. But now, the Celtics have "impeccable credentials" because they dominated the early part of the season with absolutely no mention of their 2nd half and what he previously thought.
As a side note, I'm actually a fan of Robson's from his time when he used to run an excellent site that covered the Wolves. But these types of little white lies of omission become more and more common over time, and eventually my experience has been that most people remember only the second sentiment and not the first one.
TP (for the above and clarification on Simmons and Holinger).
RE: the above, the "impeccable credentials" is pretty darning on Robinson's part, given what he wrote before.
I look forward to seeing more "changed stories" like the above.
-
This is an amazing thread. I was certainly one of the folks who felt it was arrogant to be "bored" by the regular season, and that teams couldn't just turn it on from either a physical or chemistry perspective after such poor execution to finish the season.
While they continue to be at each others throats much of the time, it does seem to bring out the best in them. I'll be happy eating my words if these boys can win one more game....
-
i'll just add that even though the C's have come back healthier than they were the second half of the season, not everyone was hobbled. It's as simple as they are just playing better. Why does there always have to be a smoking gun?? maybe the bench got more motivated come the playoffs and saw the level of competition rise, and they also rose to the occasion. It's really hard to do that in the regular season. Playing series' against teams is VERY different from 1 tuesday night game against the Thunder in January.
My take is that they got that extra added motivation, and once they (meaning the ENITRE team) realized that they have a legitimate shot at this thing, which i feel happened early on in the Cavs series, they really stepped on the gas.
-
I think it's about time we unsticky this topic. It's kind of a painful reminder of our greatest defeat... especially for all the "believers."
-
I think it's about time we unsticky this topic. It's kind of a painful reminder of our greatest defeat... especially for all the "believers."
While this was a painful final series, this was an accomplishment not a defeat! Despite all odds, after an injury laden year, the Celtics pulled together, fought and scratched, and took the defending Champions to a seven game finals, losing their starting center (their best interior defender) along the way. They came within one quarter, two refs and five points of winning...on the road...the NBA championship. Greatest defeat? I think not. Proof of the will and heart of the Celtics? Absolutely.
-
I've been on the hustle in a series of major time crunches every since I got back from the game, and I just got back from another trip as well. In the near future I still plan to give my opinion on how everything went down as kind of a season summary, but now that we've seen the direction the Celtics are going this offseason I plan to continue this moving into next season.
Whether it remains stickied or not is, of course, up to the Admins. But the Celtics proved themselves in the postseason to be essentially what I thought they were, and I look forward to another season of surprises this year as very few seem (right now) to think they have anything left in the tank at all (Vegas has the Heat 1:1 to win the title, the Lakers 3:1, but I got the Celtics at 12:1 (behind even the Nuggets). I'd be willing to bet that this changes again before this time next year.
-
While this was a painful final series, this was an accomplishment not a defeat! Despite all odds, after an injury laden year, the Celtics pulled together, fought and scratched, and took the defending Champions to a seven game finals, losing their starting center (their best interior defender) along the way. They came within one quarter, two refs and five points of winning...on the road...the NBA championship. Greatest defeat? I think not. Proof of the will and heart of the Celtics? Absolutely.
Worth a TP? Absolutely.
-
While this was a painful final series, this was an accomplishment not a defeat! Despite all odds, after an injury laden year, the Celtics pulled together, fought and scratched, and took the defending Champions to a seven game finals, losing their starting center (their best interior defender) along the way. They came within one quarter, two refs and five points of winning...on the road...the NBA championship. Greatest defeat? I think not. Proof of the will and heart of the Celtics? Absolutely.
Worth a TP? Absolutely.
And 1.
-
I hope Vegas never catches on. At the rate that every one is jumping onto the Miami bandwagon, the Celtics odds may even go higher.
-
Once again, Green Hell, remind me why you have "Never stop believing, baby" in your sig?
-
Sorry delete this.
-
OK, I'm ready to give my personal accounting of 2009-10. The whole point of this thread was to call out folks who change their stories after the fact without ever acknowledging that their original opinion was wrong. So, it's accountability time. If you want to trace my opinions/writings from last season through the months you could probably find most of them in this thread already, but at the bottom of this (long) post I'll link most of my key writings chronologically. And you can judge for yourself if and by how much my story changed through the year. But in the meantime, here's my summary of 09-10 in my own words.
I entered last season with the belief that the Celtics might just win 70 games and were the favorites for the ring. My logic was thus: in '08 the Cs coasted to 66 wins, got over their teamwork hiccups in the postseason and handily defeated two very strong opponents in the last 2 rounds to win the title. In 2009 they were right there again on top of the league through February, then KG went down and thus the title hopes went away. But we had been led to believe that whatever mysterious knee ailment KG had was minor and corrected by offseason surgery, that the team was p---ed for having missed out on another title run, and that Rondo and Perk were both much improved on top of Ray and Paul staying relatively constant. Throw a now healthy, motivated KG as well as another proven vet big like Sheed into the mix, and I thought the 09-10 Celtics would take the league by storm.
And briefly, they did. Despite early rough patches as KG worked himself into shape, the team sat at 23-5 on Christmas day, having won 14 of their last 15 games. Our scoring margin was a league-leading +9.5, almost exactly what it was in 2009 before KG's injury and all-year in 2008. I was feeling smug.
In hindsight, we now know that KG's injury was more severe than they originally told us and his prognosis was always a year from surgery for full recovery. Thus, it's not shocking that at this point he went down for 10 games. Unluckily, Pierce went down in the same time period with his own series of injuries. And in the 19 games that Garnett and/or Pierce missed, the team went 9 - 10, with a scoring margin of -0.8. A huge fall-off from what they were.
And it was over the next 3 months where the faith of the entire Celtics faithful, let alone the general basketball world, was SORELY tested. Because even after KG and Pierce came back...the team kept struggling. They played .500 ball for about 4 months leading up to the playoffs, leading the vast majority to think that this Celtics crew was done as contenders. The veteran players, especially KG, looked run down. Sheed had become public enemy #1 as he seemed to coast through the season, out of shape, not showing any indication he could contribute positively. When the squad lost to the lowly Nets, I think many decided that our window had closed and it was time to blow it up. Even the Celtics fans were feuding, with the "optimists" and the "pessimists" drawing all types of lines in the sand and calling each other out at every opportunity. The Celtics limped into the postseason as a 50-win 4th seed that some thought would be out in round 1, and very few saw any hope for them to get past Cleveland in Round 2. But what about me, Mr. Confident 70-wins guy?
Well, like everyone I had to at least consider the possibility that I had just been flat out wrong. But...I just didn't think so. I thought about what I had seen in the regular season, and proclaimed that the Celtics were still a favorite to win the ring with only the Lakers and possibly the Cavs as potential road blocks. Here was my rationale:
"I believe that the Celtics looked up, after going 9 - 10 in the 19 games where Garnett and/or Pierce sat out, and realized that they couldn't catch the Lakers or Cavs. I think they also were feeling their mortality after losing out on a chance to contend last year due to an injury. And I think the whole focus of the team became: let's make it to the playoffs healthy, and if so we've got a shot. I think they revved it up a bit in March to see if they still had it during a stretch when they went 6 - 1 with a win in Dallas, and I think they revved it up again in their last game against the Cavs as a bit of a measuring stick. Once they proved to themselves they could still do it, they essentially started the end-of-season shut-down that you saw from a lot of the teams who couldn't really change their postseason position...but I think they started it a bit earlier."
There was no proof of that, but it's what I believed at the time. Then the Cs came out and dominated the Heat. And I posted another big prediction article that said the Celtics would beat the Cavs in 6 games. Here was my rationale:
"I think either the Cavs or the Cs could legitimately win what should be a toss-up series. But I think that our vets have been working and planning and conserving all year to be their best for this series. I think that we see the best playoff performance from the Cs since they demolished the Lakers in the Finals. And I think the Cs take this one in 6 games. My inner analyst and my inner fan are both comfortable with that prediction. "
After the Cs did, in fact, beat the Cavs in 6 I wrote another prediction article before the Magic. Here is the money section:
"Finally, and this ties back to my themes from previous articles...the Celtics are just better than the Magic. The Magic, like those Pistons were, are a very good team that is on a roll and has convinced the majority of the experts that they will send the Celtics home. But the Celtics are rottweilers, and as the Captain pointed out last year Orlando looked like poodles against the Lakers. This Magic team is better than they were a year ago, but I'm still confident that the big dogs come out on top. Celtics in 6."
After the Magic series, I was positive that the Cs would win the title. Everything in me just pointed in that direction. I finally felt vindicated, because in the postseason the Celtics had shown themselves to be the team that I thought they were, not the wreck that they had looked in the months leading up to the postseason. I predicted them in 6 over the Lakers. Here's my money quote:
"This matchup could go anywhere from 5 to 7 games without shocking me. My first thought is to say Celtics in 6, though it does give me pause that with the 2 – 3 – 2 format game 6 is in LA. But 5 and 7 are the extremes of when I’d expect the Cs to win, and they’ve been beasts on the road this year anyway, so I’ll go ahead and say it. Celtics in 6. #18 is a reality."
And again, through 5 games I thought I was right on the mark. The Celtics had weathered the early Lakers' storm, were up 3-2 in the series (and really should have won 4-1 if not for a crazy game 3 finish). I thought we had it.
Only to see the team crumble in game 6, especially after Perk got hurt, in a way I just never expected to see. I still can't explain it. They came back and played a valiant game 7, one that I got to witness in person, and the Lakers just squeaked out a close win. I had thought the Celtics would win the title. I had thought it through thick-and-thin, all season long. I was sure of it. Had wrote thousands of words on the subject. Had bet on it in Vegas. I knew.
And I was wrong.
But at the end of the day...at the end of the year...despite being wrong, I don't really feel like I was THAT wrong. The Lakers were just a smidgeon better than I thought. The Celtics, based primarily upon the health of their 2 starting bigs, were just a smidgeon worse than I thought. But they were right there. Oh, were they right there.
And as I bring my thoughts of 2010 to a close, I transition into 2011 with this thought: I don't think it's over.
-
sorry man. That's just too long for anyone to want to read. Try it again with a few key bullet points!
-
Bringing it forward into the 2011 season...I don't think the window is closed at all. In fact, about a year after I first started the thread...I'm again confident that the Cs again have a team that could win 70 games and should win the title. Now I learned from last year that the vets might not think it worth it to go for that many regular season wins...but who knows, they just might. This year they saw how not having HCA in game 7 against the Lakers likely cost them the ring. This year they know they'll have to face the Super Friends in Miami, and likely would prefer to do that with HCA. So maybe they push themselves a bit more this time around, and if so 70 is still in reach.
So, what are my 2011 expectations predicated upon?
1) Garnett's health. The KG that ended the 2010 playoffs was about a C+ version of what we saw in 2008...but was an A++ version of what we saw from January to April. They told us in the spring (well after the fact) that his surgery was always supposed to take a year to recover from. OK, fine. If that's true, then what we saw in the 2010 postseason should be the floor for 2011 KG. If that is true, and we get that version of KG or better all season, then this team is off to a great start.
2) The Big men. With the additions of the O'Neals, the Celtics have the pieces to dominate a lot of games on the interior. They should have the size to more-than-neutralize the Lakers' team strongpoint, they should have the size to exploit the heck out of the Heat frontcourt (think 2010 playoffs against Cleveland), and they should be able to overwhelm Orlando. Age and health are obviously critical components. But if they get to April - June remotely healthy, this team should win with their bigs.
3) Rondo. Rondo proved last season that he is a force in the NBA. I don't think I'm quite as high on him as some, as I don't think he really has best guard in league potential nor that he can carry a team to a title. The good news is that he doesn't have to be that. He absolutely cannot be kept out of the lane, and with the bigs we have even the Lakers/Magic dominant defensive bigs shouldn't be able to sag onto him and prevent him from finishing/creating at will. He should have a big year.
4) Pierce and Allen. They have been the biggest constant on the team for the past 3 years, and I don't see any reason for them to fall off this year. When a wing unit the caliber of Pierce/Allen can be arguably the 3rd most important unit on the squad (behind the bigs and the point guard), you are looking at a team with huge potential. And they, too, should see a benefit in their efficiency and number of open looks as teams have to scheme for another offensive player that can score (either O'Neal).
5) The bench. Having Nate Robinson fully acclimated as the back-up lead guard is huge. Having at least one O'Neal and eventually 2 out of Shaq/Jermaine/Perk off the bench is huge. Even our back-up wings, which are now likely considered the weakness of the team, should be very capable of filling their roles.
This team looks good. So, let me put my 2011 story out there now: the Boston Celtics still look like the best team int he league, as long as injuries don't cripple them. That's a valid concern at their age...but even so, I like them to win the title this year. I think #18 is a reality. I think by this time next year all of the Van Gundys and pundits of the world that are currently all over the Heat will be talking about how obvious it was that the Celtics would be great. I think the same guys now that think Shaq will be outplayed by Darko will be saying that they knew he would be a difference-maker playing next to Garnett. In short, I think a lot of stories will change. But I don't think mine will.
Links to my 2010 blogs/articles and kicking it off for 2011:
September 2009: http://www.celticsblog.com/2009/9/28/1058584/reports-of-our-demise-have-been
January 2010: http://www.celticsblog.com/2010/1/19/1260804/remember-who-we-are
February 2010: http://www.celticsblog.com/2010/2/26/1327792/3-phases-of-kgs-recovery-and
March 2010: http://www.celticsblog.com/2010/3/8/1362216/sanity-check-the-elephant-s-in-the
April 2010 1st round: http://rotosynthesis.rotowire.com/Playoff-Thoughts-The-Celtics-BBD1911.htm
April 2010 2nd round: http://www.celticsblog.com/2010/4/30/1452306/where-are-we-right-now-and-what
May 2010 ECF: http://www.celticsblog.com/2010/5/16/1474165/where-are-we-now-part-2-why-the
June 2010 Finals Preview: http://www.celticsblog.com/2010/6/3/1499575/where-we-are-now-and-why-18-is-a
August 2010 1st look at next season: http://www.celticsblog.com/2010/8/11/1617553/shaq-and-garnett-ill-be-the-one-to
-
sorry man. That's just too long for anyone to want to read. Try it again with a few key bullet points!
LOL. I put it out there for posterity and accountability sake. If nobody chooses to read it, at least I'll know that it's all out there in case anyone ever wants to call me on it.
Besides, if anyone does actually slog through that whole thing they'll be able to, in the words of the immortal 50 Cent, look back one day "and say a genius wrote it"...
8)
-
sorry man. That's just too long for anyone to want to read. Try it again with a few key bullet points!
LOL. I put it out there for posterity and accountability sake. If nobody chooses to read it, at least I'll know that it's all out there in case anyone ever wants to call me on it.
Besides, if anyone does actually slog through that whole thing they'll be able to, in the words of the immortal 50 Cent, look back one day "and say a genius wrote it"...
8)
TP to you. That ALMOST makes me want to go back and read the whole thing. I'm betting there are some pearls of wisdom in there...
-
sorry man. That's just too long for anyone to want to read. Try it again with a few key bullet points!
I read it and liked it.
Just curious, but did you go to college? Cause if you did, you probably had reading assignments (and I mean like a chapter of a book, not the entire book) much longer than that.
-
A few random predictions as camp approaches, just getting them on the record in preparation for the new season.
1) Celtics will win at least 62 games this year. I want to put that number higher, but after winning only 50 last year I don't have to set the bar that high to be making a "bold" prediction. Last year's team seemed to believe that health was more important than HCA...and they were probably right. But with the LA loss in game 7 on top of the media wave from Miami and the increased depth, I expect this year's bunch is going to want to secure as many playoff games in Boston as possible.
2) Rondo will be one of only 2 Celtics All Stars this year. I think the narrative has been established now that Rondo is the new face for the Celtics, and since he is still young and improving he will be the one that catches the kudos for the team's big surge in wins this year. The "Big 3" in Boston are considered to be faded, and Ray is likely the one that starts losing accolades first with either Paul or KG or both not far behind.
3) KG will make you believe it's 2008 again. The established narrative on Garnett is that due to a combo of age/games played he has declined dramatically in the last 2 years. Personally, I believe a lot of his "decline" is more "he got hurt". Now, I have no realistic expectation that we'll ever see 27-year old KG again. Not at age 34. However, I think many will be shocked at how much more 34-year old healthy KG resembles 32-year old KG (as opposed to 33-year old hobbling KG).
4) At least one of the O'Neals, if not both, will be hailed as having a renaissance year. I've seen it happen before, and I expect history likely repeats this year: the Celtics are going to look great, and the O'Neals are going to be scoring more efficiently and looking better on defense as well. Expect them to be getting some nice kudos by next spring.
-
I have always Believed!!!!!! ALWAYYYSSSSSSSS
-
A few random predictions as camp approaches, just getting them on the record in preparation for the new season.
1) Celtics will win at least 62 games this year. I want to put that number higher, but after winning only 50 last year I don't have to set the bar that high to be making a "bold" prediction. Last year's team seemed to believe that health was more important than HCA...and they were probably right. But with the LA loss in game 7 on top of the media wave from Miami and the increased depth, I expect this year's bunch is going to want to secure as many playoff games in Boston as possible.
2) Rondo will be one of only 2 Celtics All Stars this year. I think the narrative has been established now that Rondo is the new face for the Celtics, and since he is still young and improving he will be the one that catches the kudos for the team's big surge in wins this year. The "Big 3" in Boston are considered to be faded, and Ray is likely the one that starts losing accolades first with either Paul or KG or both not far behind.
3) KG will make you believe it's 2008 again. The established narrative on Garnett is that due to a combo of age/games played he has declined dramatically in the last 2 years. Personally, I believe a lot of his "decline" is more "he got hurt". Now, I have no realistic expectation that we'll ever see 27-year old KG again. Not at age 34. However, I think many will be shocked at how much more 34-year old healthy KG resembles 32-year old KG (as opposed to 33-year old hobbling KG).
4) At least one of the O'Neals, if not both, will be hailed as having a renaissance year. I've seen it happen before, and I expect history likely repeats this year: the Celtics are going to look great, and the O'Neals are going to be scoring more efficiently and looking better on defense as well. Expect them to be getting some nice kudos by next spring.
I think they will win at least in the high 50's, possibly 62 depending on who gets hurt.
I agree with #2.
As for #3, I think KG will be somewhere in between 2008 and 2010.
Don't really agree with #4. I expect the O'Neal's to maintain their patterns. Which, I think, translates into Jermaine getting hurt and being considered somewhat of a dissappointment considering his age, salary, and the inflated opinion that many seam to have of him.
As for Shaq, I think that even if he maintains his production from last year off the bench people will be thrilled with his performance. It's going to be great having a guy like that coming off the bench. Compared with some of our past bigs off the bench, Shaq will seem amazing. His offensive efficiency will be pleasing to everyone.
-
Great post by you and i totally agree on it.Thanks for sharing.
-
A few random predictions as camp approaches, just getting them on the record in preparation for the new season.
...
4) At least one of the O'Neals, if not both, will be hailed as having a renaissance year. I've seen it happen before, and I expect history likely repeats this year: the Celtics are going to look great, and the O'Neals are going to be scoring more efficiently and looking better on defense as well. Expect them to be getting some nice kudos by next spring.
Too early to really grade most of my predictions, but I had to laugh when I clicked through FLCeltsfan's links and saw this article titled, you guessed it, "The Renaissance of Shaquille O'Neal"
http://northstationsports.com/administrative/uncategorized/the-renaissance-of-shaquille-oneal/
Just call me Nostra-drz-mas 8)
-
Never got to update this thread at the start of the year like I'd hoped with a lot of the NBA prediction articles around...I may get to go back and do that at some point, but I just ran across the "3peat or Heat" page on Foxsports ( http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/page/heat-or-threepeat ) that is dedicated entirely to the Lakers and Heat over the course of the season, which obviously suggests that that site only expects one of those 2 teams to win. And of course, there's the Heat Index on ESPN ( http://espn.go.com/nba/truehoop/miamiheat/ ). I didn't find a similar page on CNNSI or CBSSportsline, at least in a quick search.
Aw, heck. If I'm going to later be looking for stories that change, I guess I need some baseline stories to work with. While I'm here, some of the early pre-season predictions that the major sites put out:
*ESPN: 10-person panel, all predicted Celtics either 2nd or 3rd in East (avg 2.8 ). http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/preview2010/news/story?page=Predictions1011-Celtics
*Sports Illustrated: 6 person panel, 3 pick Celtics to win East and 2 pick Cs to win title. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/basketball/nba/10/25/2010-11-preseason-crystal-ball/
*Charley Rosen (Foxsports) expected another Lakers/Celtics Final, with the Lakers once again winning. http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/Predictions-for-the-2010-11-NBA-season-102110
*Yahoo's 4-person panel. All 4 pick Lakers out West, 2 pick Celts and 2 pick Heat in East, Woj picks Cs to win title. http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ys-expertpredictions102610
*ESPN's even bigger 25 person panel: 17 pick Heat to win East, 6 pick Cs, 2 pick Magic. http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/preview2010/news/story?page=Predictions1011-East
The panel follows that up with 12 picking the Heat wo win Finals, 12 picking the Lakers, and 1 (Chris FOrsberg) picking the Cs. http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/preview2010/news/story?page=Predictions1011-NBAchamps
*Peter Vecsey doesn't pick the Heat to win the East, but also doesn't pick the Celtics. Picks the Magic to represent the East. http://www.nypost.com/f/print/sports/more_sports/the_time_championship_dwight_for_BYhc6lxjhwuRPeuOSltKwM
*Hollinger's prediction: "Boston will be a huge favorite to win the division -- it might be the only team over .500, in fact -- and still has the trump card that it matches up so well with Orlando. Unfortunately, the Celtics are unlikely to get to the point where it's just them and the Magic left standing, and they still have uppity rivals like the Bulls, Bucks and Hawks nipping at their heels. The Celtics' defense and chemistry will keep them near the top, but I'm not seeing enough firepower to provide a repeat of last season's run. At the end of the day, I think they'll be exactly what they were a year ago from November to April. It's the ending that I see changing.
Prediction: 51-31, 1st in Atlantic, 3rd in Eastern Conference" ( http://celticsgreen.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=bchistorian&action=display&thread=6692 Link is to Celtics board that quotes the entire article)
*Rosenberg from SI not very high on Shaq, but thinks he sure is amusing: "Shaq is in Boston now, hoping to be the final piece that brings the Celtics a championship. Last year, he was supposed to be the Cavs' final piece. Before that, Phoenix's final piece. It hasn't worked yet. Shaq is not the first-generation athletic-freak Shaq, or even the second-generation still-dominant Shaq, and he might not even be the third-generation flashes-now-and-again Shaq." http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/michael_rosenberg/10/11/shaq.celtics/
*Basketball Prospectus (2nd hand, through Celtics site): The book's co-writer Bradford Doolittle writes that "The slippage will be readily apparent on the defensive end in particular. The offseason could have gone very differently for Boston. In a few months, Celtics fans wish it had." http://www.celticsblog.com/2010/10/5/1732170/basketball-prospectus-2010-11-on-the-celtics
-
You know I am really glad when ESPN doesn't pick us because that means good things. They don't know their butts from a hole in the ground most of the time.
-
True! Im excited. We have such a great shot of getting that ring! As long as everyone can stay healthy and on their game..The Celtics are UNSTOPPABLE!
;D
-
rebus is on the record
-
The Perk trade isn't exactly what I had in mind with this thread, but it strikes me that it fits. The trade was a national event that has been weighed in on (heavily) by all of the national pundits. My general impression from the national media was not positive, that the Celtics had weakened themselves. That they are no longer elite defensively, that they no longer can take advantage of their size, and that they may not even be championship contenders anymore. I don't believe any of that to be the case. So, let's record some of the impressions now for posterity so we'll know where people stood on this when it happened.
ESPN John Hollinger: Celtics take risk by dealing Perkins: "But what about the present? This is a team built to win right now, and one can argue today's moves push the Celtics further away from that goal." http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insider/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=Celtics-Thunder-110224
ESPN Ric Bucher: "Celtics have come back to the pack"...Their huge advantage in the Eastern conference, which was their size, is gone...If they get to the NBA Finals, I don't like them against the Lakers now. Or, if they get to the Finals, the Oklahoma City Thunder. I don't like them against them. (embedded video interview inside this link:
http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/nba/news/story?id=6155082 )
ESPN Peter May: Celtics did well. "But to listen to some my colleagues on Thursday afternoon, you'd have thought the Celtics had traded away Bill Russell. ESPN's Jalen Rose flatly declared the Celtics will not get out of the East after this deal. (There was no guarantee they would, had they done nothing.) Ric Bucher and Chris Broussard were baffled that the Celtics would give up such a key player as Perkins."..."Yes, it was a shocker. No, no one saw it coming. Yes, undoubtedly, more is yet to come. But if everyone can step back and examine Perkins and his game unemotionally (admittedly, that's hard, given all that he did to come back), this is a good deal for the Celtics. They got a 7-footer in return. And they got the better player in the deal."
(embedded video: Chris Broussard, Celtics biggest loser at trade deadline and deal makes no sense. )
http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/nba/columns/story?columnist=may_peter&id=6156222
Matt Moore, CBSSportsline: "Basically, Boston has bailed on a centerpiece of their championship title contention, along with a talented backup point guard for an inconsistent, non-rebounding three-point shooting, stretch four and a very stiff center with size." http://eye-on-basketball.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22748484/27642007
Foxsports - NBA trade deadline winners and losers: Loser: Boston Celtics. The Celtics were bigger and tougher than every other team in the league. Now they're not. http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/lists/NBA-trade-deadline-winners-losers-022411#photo-title=Loser:%20Boston%20Celtics&photo=28583027
Kelly Dwyer, Yahoo: Celtics stun NBA with pair of deals. "It's truly hard to see what Danny Ainge sees in these moves." http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ball_dont_lie/post/The-Celtics-stun-the-NBA-with-a-pair-of-deals?urn=nba-325990
TNT crew (Charles Barkley, Kenny Smith): Smith - "Now you go into Boston and the defense isn't there because it wasn't Kendrick (Perkins) by himself and it wasn't Kevin Garnett," TNT analyst Kenny Smith said. "It was a combination of those two guys that made you say, 'beware of dog.' And so when you went to that gate, you were like, 'let me see whats going on' and now that sign isn't there anymore."
Barkley - "Kendrick Perkins was a good solid defender, but with Jeff Green and (Nenad) Krstic, I like this team better now in the playoffs"
http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/138012/302/Celtics-gamble-on-Green
Ian Thomsen CNNSI: Trade yields more questions than answers http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/ian_thomsen/02/24/trade.deadline.roundup/index.html
Ken Berger CBSSporsline: Trade was business, and a risk the Celtics had to take. http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/14735054/the-reason-boston-dealt-favoriteson-perkins-business
My take: Perk was family, and losing that hurts. But on-court, this trade makes the Celtics better. http://www.celticsblog.com/2011/2/25/2014694/the-celtics-are-better-today-for-this-year-than-they-were-yesterday
-
Great moment to bring back this thread. TP.
-
First, I loved Perkins, our scowling, fierce, defensive center. I was blindsided by the trade, like everyone, and cried, like most. After the shock, and after realizing that Perk went to a good system, I am seeing the upside of this trade. I truly believed that we could reach the Grail before the trade, but it might even be a smoother path now. Our team is suddenly healthier, younger, and possibly even more talented.
Now it is up to Doc to assure that the new guys learn the system and morph into UBUNTU. It would have been nice to have a training camp together, but he has two months...on the fly...
-
First, I loved Perkins, our scowling, fierce, defensive center. I was blindsided by the trade, like everyone, and cried, like most. After the shock, and after realizing that Perk went to a good system, I am seeing the upside of this trade. I truly believed that we could reach the Grail before the trade, but it might even be a smoother path now. Our team is suddenly healthier, younger, and possibly even more talented.
Now it is up to Doc to assure that the new guys learn the system and morph into UBUNTU. It would have been nice to have a training camp together, but he has two months...on the fly...
Healthier, younger, more talented, and you get to add more in the 2012 free agent market. And have a future 1st rd Clipper pick to boot.
There is a lot of upside to this move.
-
*ESPN: 10-person panel, all predicted Celtics either 2nd or 3rd in East (avg 2.8 ). http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/preview2010/news/story?page=Predictions1011-Celtics
*ESPN's even bigger 25 person panel: 17 pick Heat to win East, 6 pick Cs, 2 pick Magic. http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/preview2010/news/story?page=Predictions1011-East
The panel follows that up with 12 picking the Heat to win Finals, 12 picking the Lakers, and 1 (Chris FOrsberg) picking the Cs. http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/preview2010/news/story?page=Predictions1011-NBAchamps
*Hollinger's prediction: "Boston will be a huge favorite to win the division -- it might be the only team over .500, in fact -- and still has the trump card that it matches up so well with Orlando. Unfortunately, the Celtics are unlikely to get to the point where it's just them and the Magic left standing, and they still have uppity rivals like the Bulls, Bucks and Hawks nipping at their heels. The Celtics' defense and chemistry will keep them near the top, but I'm not seeing enough firepower to provide a repeat of last season's run. At the end of the day, I think they'll be exactly what they were a year ago from November to April. It's the ending that I see changing.
Prediction: 51-31, 1st in Atlantic, 3rd in Eastern Conference" ( http://celticsgreen.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=bchistorian&action=display&thread=6692 Link is to Celtics board that quotes the entire article)
Mild story-change alert: Stephen A. Smith of ESPN is on Mike & Mike radio show (on ESPN), and if I heard correctly he just said that (paraphrase): Most of us pundits picked the Celtics to beat the Heat this year from the beginning, because of the size difference.
Only thing (look at the quoted above): ESPN OVERWHELMINGLY picked Miami as the preseason favorite out of the East. I don't have a prediction posted for Smith (I don't think), but clearly the majority of his ESPN colleagues did NOT pick the Celtics over the Heat coming into this season. The final chapter isn't written, so this isn't gloating yet, I'm just saying...if you're going to change the story, then change it and admit that you're doing it. But don't say that you all knew something all along when in fact most of you were saying the exact opposite...
-
UNLEASH THE KRAKEN...
-
*ESPN: 10-person panel, all predicted Celtics either 2nd or 3rd in East (avg 2.8 ). http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/preview2010/news/story?page=Predictions1011-Celtics
*ESPN's even bigger 25 person panel: 17 pick Heat to win East, 6 pick Cs, 2 pick Magic. http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/preview2010/news/story?page=Predictions1011-East
The panel follows that up with 12 picking the Heat to win Finals, 12 picking the Lakers, and 1 (Chris FOrsberg) picking the Cs. http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/preview2010/news/story?page=Predictions1011-NBAchamps
*Hollinger's prediction: "Boston will be a huge favorite to win the division -- it might be the only team over .500, in fact -- and still has the trump card that it matches up so well with Orlando. Unfortunately, the Celtics are unlikely to get to the point where it's just them and the Magic left standing, and they still have uppity rivals like the Bulls, Bucks and Hawks nipping at their heels. The Celtics' defense and chemistry will keep them near the top, but I'm not seeing enough firepower to provide a repeat of last season's run. At the end of the day, I think they'll be exactly what they were a year ago from November to April. It's the ending that I see changing.
Prediction: 51-31, 1st in Atlantic, 3rd in Eastern Conference" ( http://celticsgreen.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=bchistorian&action=display&thread=6692 Link is to Celtics board that quotes the entire article)
Mild story-change alert: Stephen A. Smith of ESPN is on Mike & Mike radio show (on ESPN), and if I heard correctly he just said that (paraphrase): Most of us pundits picked the Celtics to beat the Heat this year from the beginning, because of the size difference.
Only thing (look at the quoted above): ESPN OVERWHELMINGLY picked Miami as the preseason favorite out of the East. I don't have a prediction posted for Smith (I don't think), but clearly the majority of his ESPN colleagues did NOT pick the Celtics over the Heat coming into this season. The final chapter isn't written, so this isn't gloating yet, I'm just saying...if you're going to change the story, then change it and admit that you're doing it. But don't say that you all knew something all along when in fact most of you were saying the exact opposite...
Got to hand it to Hollinger, though. Between that pre-season prediction (to be fair, he had us winning fewer games than we did) and his series prediction of Heat in 5, he's looking pretty smart right now.
-
I fell off the bus (duck tour, whatever) yesterday, but thanks to Employee#8's post in the "Ultimate Feel Good about the Heat Series" thread, I have picked myself up out of the muck. If you want to feel better at this point, early in the Heat/Celtics series, give it a peek. Go Celts! Bring it on!
-
I STILL BELIEVE!
-
Yeah, I returned to the game threads last night for the first time and it was really sad to see the number of people who were openly disparaging the Celtics at every opportunity and seemingly was cheering for them to lose just to prove their negativity correct.
I still believe, as every Red Sox fan who lived through 2004 should, that anything in sports is possible and that a 2-0 lead in a series is far from proof that a series or season is over. The Bruins were just down 2-0 to the Canadians and came back to win in seven.
Its not over til its over and this team is too talented, too prideful and too tough to count out just yet. Go Celtics!!!!
I BELIEVE!!!!!
-
I believe!!
-
Yeah, I returned to the game threads last night for the first time and it was really sad to see the number of people who were openly disparaging the Celtics at every opportunity and seemingly was cheering for them to lose just to prove their negativity correct.
I still believe, as every Red Sox fan who lived through 2004 should, that anything in sports is possible and that a 2-0 lead in a series is far from proof that a series or season is over. The Bruins were just down 2-0 to the Canadians and came back to win in seven.
Its not over til its over and this team is too talented, too prideful and too tough to count out just yet. Go Celtics!!!!
I BELIEVE!!!!!
Me too!
-
Yeah, I returned to the game threads last night for the first time and it was really sad to see the number of people who were openly disparaging the Celtics at every opportunity and seemingly was cheering for them to lose just to prove their negativity correct.
I still believe, as every Red Sox fan who lived through 2004 should, that anything in sports is possible and that a 2-0 lead in a series is far from proof that a series or season is over. The Bruins were just down 2-0 to the Canadians and came back to win in seven.
Its not over til its over and this team is too talented, too prideful and too tough to count out just yet. Go Celtics!!!!
I BELIEVE!!!!!
Me too!
Me three 8)
-
I still believe. I'm discouraged. I was disgusted last night. But it's not over yet. We're going back to Boston and hopefully Shaq will play. Those two things alone could get us two wins. If that happens and Shaq stays healthy, I like our chances of taking two our of three the last three games.
-
Yeah, I returned to the game threads last night for the first time and it was really sad to see the number of people who were openly disparaging the Celtics at every opportunity and seemingly was cheering for them to lose just to prove their negativity correct.
I still believe, as every Red Sox fan who lived through 2004 should, that anything in sports is possible and that a 2-0 lead in a series is far from proof that a series or season is over. The Bruins were just down 2-0 to the Canadians and came back to win in seven.
Its not over til its over and this team is too talented, too prideful and too tough to count out just yet. Go Celtics!!!!
I BELIEVE!!!!!
+100. TP
-
I believe.
-
I was bummed out but now I'm feeling better. Miami has been playing great basketball (and shooting the lights out) and we still only lost by nine and 11 points, respectively, while all logic says that those two losses should've been blowouts. The most important thing is the Celts believe they can turn this around. Here's a quote from Ray Allen:
"Being down 2-0 doesn't scare any of us, doesn't make us nervous," Allen said. "It's just an opportunity to come out shining."
Go Celtics!
-
"I'm not the man I once was, but I'm all the man, once, that I ever was."
When I was little, my dad and his friends used to use that quote all the time and laugh about it as they got older. And I was reminded of it as I watched this series play out.
The Celtics were either tied or had the lead in the final minutes of four of the five games in the series, but in the end they just didn't have enough to sustain it. LeBron and Wade were like a wave...relentless and unceasing. In order to dam the waves, the Celtics needed to play at their absolute peak. They needed to be all of the men that they ONCE were. And, to their credit, each of them reached down and found that man as they could. Pierce had his game 3. Ray had his moments. KG reached into the well and pulled out one vintage, turn-back-the-clock 30/20 effort and then found it again for a quarter in game 4.
But they just couldn't sustain it. Not this year. They could be that man ONCE...they just couldn't be that man consistently. That's where age and injury really seemed to tell the story. My lasting impression from this series comes from the sideline snapshots...Rondo and Jermaine O'Neal laying on the sideline getting treatment on their backs...Shaq in a suit...KG trying to surreptitiously rub his knee without anyone noticing...there are no moral victories, but outside of the expected depression of realizing my team is out, in a lot of ways this year feels cleaner than last year's game 7. The 2010 Celtics, to me, really were as good or better than the 2010 Lakers, so it was tragic that they came up short. But after watching this series, at this time...the 2011 Celtics just weren't as good as the 2011 Heat. And it showed.
So, in line with the concept of this thread, it's time for me to say I was wrong. This year, the pundits were right. John Hollinger was right. Those that weren't willing to look at the numbers the way that I did, weren't willing to come to the same conclusions as I did...they were right. It scalds my gut to say it, but the proof is in the pudding.
The 2011 Celtics were a great team, in my eyes. Had they gotten past the Heat, I remain convinced that there is no other team in the NBA that could have beaten them this year. But, as they say, it is what it is. We had a great run this year, but we weren't the best. Here's hoping that at this time next year, I'm writing a very different message in this space.
-
"It's not the name on the back that matters; it's the name on the front."
I, too, was wrong. We couldn't find The Switch. I thought we still had it. Miami had a switch and they turned it up to 11. All calmed down, we realize that the Heat was the best team in the series. Injuries and inconsistency (by the refs and by our players) killed any chances we may have had. Hopefully only this time around. Dreams are for free, right?
Go Celts.
-
*ESPN: 10-person panel, all predicted Celtics either 2nd or 3rd in East (avg 2.8 ). http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/preview2010/news/story?page=Predictions1011-Celtics
*ESPN's even bigger 25 person panel: 17 pick Heat to win East, 6 pick Cs, 2 pick Magic. http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/preview2010/news/story?page=Predictions1011-East
The panel follows that up with 12 picking the Heat to win Finals, 12 picking the Lakers, and 1 (Chris FOrsberg) picking the Cs. http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/preview2010/news/story?page=Predictions1011-NBAchamps
*Hollinger's prediction: "Boston will be a huge favorite to win the division -- it might be the only team over .500, in fact -- and still has the trump card that it matches up so well with Orlando. Unfortunately, the Celtics are unlikely to get to the point where it's just them and the Magic left standing, and they still have uppity rivals like the Bulls, Bucks and Hawks nipping at their heels. The Celtics' defense and chemistry will keep them near the top, but I'm not seeing enough firepower to provide a repeat of last season's run. At the end of the day, I think they'll be exactly what they were a year ago from November to April. It's the ending that I see changing.
Prediction: 51-31, 1st in Atlantic, 3rd in Eastern Conference" ( http://celticsgreen.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=bchistorian&action=display&thread=6692 Link is to Celtics board that quotes the entire article)
Mild story-change alert: Stephen A. Smith of ESPN is on Mike & Mike radio show (on ESPN), and if I heard correctly he just said that (paraphrase): Most of us pundits picked the Celtics to beat the Heat this year from the beginning, because of the size difference.
Only thing (look at the quoted above): ESPN OVERWHELMINGLY picked Miami as the preseason favorite out of the East. I don't have a prediction posted for Smith (I don't think), but clearly the majority of his ESPN colleagues did NOT pick the Celtics over the Heat coming into this season. The final chapter isn't written, so this isn't gloating yet, I'm just saying...if you're going to change the story, then change it and admit that you're doing it. But don't say that you all knew something all along when in fact most of you were saying the exact opposite...
Got to hand it to Hollinger, though. Between that pre-season prediction (to be fair, he had us winning fewer games than we did) and his series prediction of Heat in 5, he's looking pretty smart right now.
He predicted Heat in 5 with a healthy Rondo.
Once Rondos arm went, so did the series.
Really not as smart as he would like people to believe.
He completely undersold the C's and overrated the Heat.
The Heat shot the lights out- which he would never have predicted, and our number one play maker had one arm after the series went 2-1.
Hollinger was way off and he'd admit that I think.
-
Again, folks can opine endlessly that the Celtics were too old and slow this year, but of course, they were never going to be as young and athletic as the Heat. No one EVER claimed that they could or would compete with the Heat in those areas. What we HAD, prior to the trade, was a level of cohesion that the Heat couldn't match. We lost that when The Trade created what amounted to a season re-set, with just a month to go.
It's not hard to figure this out, guys. Have any of you actually played team sports ever? If you have, then you know exactly what I'm talking about. A less athletic team that is more cohesive can defeat a more athletic team. But if you take away that cohesion, well, obviously, then sheer athleticism will win out, most likely. What impresses me about how powerful a team we actually were in 2011 is that, despite The Trade, and despite having no real starting center (JO was great, but come on), we still could have beaten the Heat had they not taken Rondo out.
-
Celtics need to rebuild. We need another Big Three! The Heat will probably win a title eventually, but they will never be a legendary team. I have been a fan of the Celtics since the Bird/McHale/Parish days. Those were the best.
[Edited.]
-
Again, folks can opine endlessly that the Celtics were too old and slow this year, but of course, they were never going to be as young and athletic as the Heat. No one EVER claimed that they could or would compete with the Heat in those areas. What we HAD, prior to the trade, was a level of cohesion that the Heat couldn't match. We lost that when The Trade created what amounted to a season re-set, with just a month to go.
It's not hard to figure this out, guys. Have any of you actually played team sports ever? If you have, then you know exactly what I'm talking about. A less athletic team that is more cohesive can defeat a more athletic team. But if you take away that cohesion, well, obviously, then sheer athleticism will win out, most likely. What impresses me about how powerful a team we actually were in 2011 is that, despite The Trade, and despite having no real starting center (JO was great, but come on), we still could have beaten the Heat had they not taken Rondo out.
Thank God you stopped talking about the trade.......oops! My bad! 8) Once we come to the conclusion that our beloved Celtics had the deck stacked against them for most of the season (injuries to Perk, Shaq, Quis, JO and Rondo, among others), then we can move forward and realize that Danny and company have a job to do and are always trying to do what is best for the team.
Danny gambled that Perk wasn't going to be "Perk" for the rest of the season, and he was mostly right. He also gambled that with Quis' injury, Jeff Green would be the back up wing the Celtics needed in order to get by Miami (Rondo's injury made that a moot point) and he was mostly wrong. Lastly, he gambled that Shaq and JO could be healthy and ready to go for the playoffs. JO's knee was better, but then he sustained that wrist injury. Shaq came back from his original injury for about 5 minutes and then was essentially gone for the season. You win some, you lose some. But, the injury to Rondo guaranteed there wouldn't be a banner hung after this season.
Life happens...
-
It's not hard to figure this out, guys. Have any of you actually played team sports ever?
Does it matter if we have or not? People can understand the team dynamic without having played sports.
If you have, then you know exactly what I'm talking about. A less athletic team that is more cohesive can defeat a more athletic team. But if you take away that cohesion, well, obviously, then sheer athleticism will win out, most likely.
This is not something I agree with. I have seen tremendously athletic and cohesive teams lose to lesser athletic and lesser cohesive teams tons of times.
Athleticism doesn't equal basketball player in my mind. Talent, intelligence and desire do.
Athleticism and cohesion doesn't guarantee championships. Talent, leadership and strength of will and determination have a lot to do with it as well.
The 1984 Celtics, 2006 Heat, 2011 Mavericks, 1995 Rockets, and some of the 1960's Celtics weren't the most athletic teams nor would I say they were any more or less cohesive than the teams they beat. They just had transcendent talent, transcendent leadership, and some good old fashioned luck on their side.
-
Celtics win the championship this year. You heard it here first, in our time of hopelessness.
Also, Jeff Green is a top-5 SF in 2 years.
You heard it from @CelticConcourse first!
-
Lol. The thread LIVES! Well, if the Celtics do thrive down the stretch, this will be a clear instance in which ZERO of the media and only a small fraction of the Celtics' fans would have seen it coming.
For the record, I'm technically NBA media, and I'm already well on the record that barring a KG injury or team-shaking trade this team will finish strong and still contend. As detailed, here: http://www.celticsblog.com/2013/1/28/3924002/celtics-are-still-contenders-rondos-injury-is-not-a-death-knell
-
I will never doubt this team's heart.
I learned that in 2002 when they came back from 20+ points down in the fourth. Never again will I doubt this team.
-
Lol. The thread LIVES! Well, if the Celtics do thrive down the stretch, this will be a clear instance in which ZERO of the media and only a small fraction of the Celtics' fans would have seen it coming.
For the record, I'm technically NBA media, and I'm already well on the record that barring a KG injury or team-shaking trade this team will finish strong and still contend. As detailed, here: http://www.celticsblog.com/2013/1/28/3924002/celtics-are-still-contenders-rondos-injury-is-not-a-death-knell
I'm on the record with those same thoughts as well :)
-
2 kings and 3 two's beats three of a kind, right? I'm keeping the faith. I want to see this team go out swinging anyway.
-
TITLE HOPES ARE STILL ALIVE FOR ME!
-
You heard it here first. Terrence Williams will have a 30-point game in the NBA, get a pretty big contract, average a 15ppg season, and become champion.
-
this team will take the eastern championship from miami
-
I'll go out of my way to say:
Jazz will make the playoffs.
-
I'll go out of my way to say:
Jazz will make the playoffs.
from houston?
-
Who else said that Jeff would score 40 in a game this season? ::) Only me? It was due all along.