I want to dispel this notion before the season starts.

[Eeyore III]

KJR, I had the exact same reaction when the clock went out.  I could feel the momentum being lost even as it happened, and said as much to VT Hillbilly, with whom I was watching the game.  TP (BTW, your TP-to-post ratio is beyond belief!)

IMHO, one main reason why we had trouble with Atlanta was that the Cs often have trouble with mobile PFs who can shoot from outside; Josh Smith fits the bill, and he absolutely went off during that series.

I'll predict, however, that the Cs sweep the regular-season series against the Hawks.

[ma11l]

In my opinion if that series goes anything less than 7 then we might not have won the title.  That was the hardship we needed to go through to grow and rally together as a team.  We were never challenged in the regular season.


We learned early, and the hard way that it is hard to win on the road in the NBA Playoffs.  Perhaps the lessons learned led to the great road comebacks in Game 6 against Detroit and Game 4 against LA.

[Mr October]

I need to chime in on this topic. I've said this before and i'll probably say it 100x more.

The C's team we saw against ATL was not the same team (in terms of sharpness) that won the title. Heck it wasn't even the same team we saw in the regular season.

The Celtics regular season effectively ended a month early. The starters sat out games and quarters. We saw lots of bench players play. Sam and PJ were still getting used to the team (and getting in shape). And the C's were playing terrible teams for about the last 10 games. Teams that pretty much tanked it at that point.

So the C's were not ready for the first round. They were not sharp. They hadn't played many tight games against even mediocre competition over the past month.

The hawks athleticism and energy gave the C's trouble. But those factors pale in comparison to the lack of competition the C's faced during the last month of the regular season. The C's were not sharp, and thought they could just show up against Atlanta.

That is not going to happen again. The BSPN writers are hanging onto the ATL series as hope that the Lakers will be able to beat them this year. 

[Jeff]

I remember when the Sonics were lucky to get past the Nuggets on their way to the title in 1994...

...what's that?  They weren't so lucky?  Lemme check:

http://www.nba.com/history/94nuggets_moments.html

oh yeah, that's right, they lost that series

I guess upsets do happen in the first round to "great" teams

(p.s. sorry if that came across as snarky - but I couldn't resist)

[KJ33]

Did the Celtics surprisingly get taken to the limit by the Hawks?  Yes.  Did they almost lose the series?  Of course not, any other view just ignores the facts.  Before the series even began, having home court meant if they won every game at home, they would win the series.  Nothing extra is granted by winning in 4 or taken away by winning in 7, the winner advances, the loser goes home, period.  The Celts did in fact win every game at home, quite handily too, since all they had to do was win all their home games, and they were not once challenged, it simply is not true that they almost lost the series, since they had to drop at least 1 home game for that to happen.

In fact, rather than looking back after having dispatched Detroit and LA in 6, and using the 7 games against Atlanta as revealing a chink in their armor, it was the grind of that series that set them up to do so well in later rounds.  You simply cannot separate the Finals from the 1st round the way Stephen A. and others have tried to do.  Precisely because they were taken to the limit by the Hawks, was instrumental in their development.  If you use the, "they almost lost to the Hawks" logic, then you must think the Hawks are better than Detroit or LA since the C's took fewer games to beat those 2 opponents.

If the Celts had to play Cleveland first, and won in 7, then Atlanta, does anyone think that would then have been a 7 game series?  It must be seen as a progression, with the inexperience of the new C's team showing up in the 1st round, after the starters sat for 2 weeks, then steadily working through those first time experiences to achieve the ultimate success.

[Birdbrain]

I remember when the Sonics were lucky to get past the Nuggets on their way to the title in 1994...

...what's that?  They weren't so lucky?  Lemme check:

http://www.nba.com/history/94nuggets_moments.html

oh yeah, that's right, they lost that series

I guess upsets do happen in the first round to "great" teams

(p.s. sorry if that came across as snarky - but I couldn't resist)

I don't get your point though we know what happened in game 7, they beat the Hawks by 30 so how are these analogous?  If they would have won by 2, 4, or 10 then ‘it's they almost lost’ not 30.



Denver outscored Seattle 475 – 471

Boston outscored Atlanta 694 – 507 an average of 27 per game.  Hardly close.

[nickagneta]

When one wins a game 7 by 30 something points, you don't almost lose that game. But if a team has 25 more wins than it's opponents in the regular season and is taken to a game 7, then yes, they almost lost the series.

There's no givens in game 7's. There's no sure things in game 7's. Everything up until that point is thrown out the window because it is winner take all and anything can happen.

Don't believe me, just go ask any professional player of any sport that has ever played in a game 7. Go ask any professional coach that ever coached in a game 7. Any sport. Go ahead, e-mail some, ask anyone. Game 7 means it is all up for grabs, winners advance, losers go home.

A team that is vastly superior to another team that has to play a game 7, no matter what the score in a win in game 7, almost lost that series. Again, you don't have to believe me, just go ask any pro athlete or coach what can happen in game 7's and then decide for yourself.

Here's some people you might want to contact:

Wilt Chamberlain
Rick Barry
The 2004 Yankees
The 1986 California Angels
The 1981 76ers
Tommy Heinsohn
Larry Bird
Magic Johnson
Bill Russell
Tito Francona
The 2003 Colorado Avalanche
The 1975 Pittsburgh Penguins
Bryan Trottier
Dennis Potvin
Billy Smith

The list goes on of crazy things that can happen in game sevens. Take nothing for granted.

The Celtics almost lost that Atlanta series last year simply because they were taken to seven games.

EDIT: Yeah, don't bother with Chamberlain or Donnie Moore of the Angels

[Birdbrain]

That logic does not compute.  We know the outcome of game 7 vs Atlanta and it wasn't close.

Round and round we go...

[Mr October]

The Celtics didn't almost loose the series to the Hawks. That would have implied that the Hawks had them on the ropes or had an advantage.

All the Hawks did was hold serve (barely) in their home court against a team that was rusty after cruising through the last month of the season.

Anyway, the Hawks series going 7 doesn't mean the Lakers are suddenly more empowered to beat the C's in 2009. 

[BballTim]

When one wins a game 7 by 30 something points, you don't almost lose that game. But if a team has 25 more wins than it's opponents in the regular season and is taken to a game 7, then yes, they almost lost the series.

There's no givens in game 7's. There's no sure things in game 7's. Everything up until that point is thrown out the window because it is winner take all and anything can happen.

Don't believe me, just go ask any professional player of any sport that has ever played in a game 7. Go ask any professional coach that ever coached in a game 7. Any sport. Go ahead, e-mail some, ask anyone. Game 7 means it is all up for grabs, winners advance, losers go home.

A team that is vastly superior to another team that has to play a game 7, no matter what the score in a win in game 7, almost lost that series. Again, you don't have to believe me, just go ask any pro athlete or coach what can happen in game 7's and then decide for yourself.

  You seem to be bolstering your opinion by implying that every player or coach who was ever involved in a game 7 agrees with you without offering any proof. If you can find quotes from all of the players/coaches that you listed stating that, no matter how disparate the talent levels or how large the margins of victory are, the team that won the 7 game series almost lost it then your post is meaningless.

  If Boston almost lost the series then Atlanta almost won it. Which was the 4th game they almost won? Or did they almost earn home court advantage and play 4 home games?

[nickagneta]

I will just agree to disagree with you gentlemen because I just don't see how anyone can not understand that between the end of Game 6 and the beginning of Game 7 there was doubt as to the outcome of Game 7.

If there was doubt as to its outcome then it was questionable at that time whether the Celtics would lose that series or not. In a seven game series if you are vastly superior to your opponent then allowing the series to go to seven games means you almost lost because anything can happen in a game seven.

That's my point and the last thing I have to say about it. We'll just have to have constant different opinions regarding the matter.



To BBallTim: BTW, go back and read what I wrote about asking those people something. I said:

"There's no givens in game 7's. There's no sure things in game 7's. Everything up until that point is thrown out the window because it is winner take all and anything can happen.

Don't believe me, just go ask any professional player of any sport that has ever played in a game 7"

Ask a professional player or coach if anything can happen. Ask a professional player or coach if there are no sure things in game sevens. I never stated to ask them the specific scenario that we are discussing. Never wrote it even once.

To better explain myself let me put it this way. Go ask those people if game sevens have outcomes that before the game have no doubt as to the outcome no matter who is playing and no matter where it is. Ask those people because they have all been a part of historic and sometimes stunning game seven results. 

I don't have to go find quotes on video and in written form to back up the logical answer these people are going to tell you. It's pretty self evident. There's no sure thing in game sevens and if a team is pushed that far in a series then anything can happen and it seems pretty reasonable to say that either team could have won the series and either team could have lost the series.

[cons]

 my quick contribution: that was the first time this team was in a playoff situation together. It was rocky, because they'd never been together in those types of games ever before. They cruised through 90% of the regular season.

 the fact that they still were good enough to win it all should only inspire fear in the rest of the league. Now this team (as a whole) is tested, proven, and confident. To me, the starting five already looks so much more comfortable with each other than last year that it's scary.

 it used to be that a team had to have its core players together for a few years before winning it (detroit, chicago) not any more.

[Mr October]

I will just agree to disagree with you gentlemen because I just don't see how anyone can not understand that between the end of Game 6 and the beginning of Game 7 there was doubt as to the outcome of Game 7...

Thats cool. Its kinda pointless to debate this detail at this point anyway.  I do have a follow up question though. The reason this topic was brought up, is because the experts on BSPN point to this series as to why the Celtics should struggle against the other contenders.

Do you think too much was made of the Atlanta series? Was the Cs team we saw against Atlanta made of the same stuff (confidence, sharpness, chemistry) as the team that we saw against the Lakers in the finals?

[hwangjini_1]

 my quick contribution: that was the first time this team was in a playoff situation together. It was rocky, because they'd never been together in those types of games ever before. They cruised through 90% of the regular season.

 the fact that they still were good enough to win it all should only inspire fear in the rest of the league. Now this team (as a whole) is tested, proven, and confident. To me, the starting five already looks so much more comfortable with each other than last year that it's scary.

 it used to be that a team had to have its core players together for a few years before winning it (detroit, chicago) not any more.

that sums it up pretty well.

[nickagneta]

I will just agree to disagree with you gentlemen because I just don't see how anyone can not understand that between the end of Game 6 and the beginning of Game 7 there was doubt as to the outcome of Game 7...

Thats cool. Its kinda pointless to debate this detail at this point anyway.  I do have a follow up question though. The reason this topic was brought up, is because the experts on BSPN point to this series as to why the Celtics should struggle against the other contenders.

Do you think too much was made of the Atlanta series? Was the Cs team we saw against Atlanta made of the same stuff (confidence, sharpness, chemistry) as the team that we saw against the Lakers in the finals?

Once the series is over the only thing that matters is who won. As I said earlier I think it is reasonable to think that the Celtics almost lost to the Hawks but what does that have to do with what will happen this year or the legacy that the 2007-08 Celtics team has?

They are still NBA Champions and what happened then in that specific series has no bearing on what will happen going forward this year. To me it seemed pointless of the Screaming One to even bring up the point. Because they almost lost to Atlanta last year means they are somehow less of a team this year? As always Smith makes no sense.

To answer your question, I think that the Celtics got better with every game they played and every series they played. Win or lose those games, they learned something new about their opponents and something new about themselves. And they applied it and got better. That goes for the coach, too.

They were a much better overall team and coaching staff after Game 6 against the Lakers than they were before Game 1 against the Hawks. No question, without a doubt. So, yeah I think the national media made too much of the fact that, IMO, the Celtics almost lost that series. The reason being that most brought up the fact in a negative sense and, here is where I think we all agree, we looked at it from the positive side.

They knew better who they were and what they could do and how to come up big when they had to and how to overcome and adapt. All things they may not have learned had they swept the series.