Never underestimate the heart of a Champion

[cordobes]

It's always nice to read an optimistic spin but the "heart of a Champion" factor is wildly overrated: in the last decade, only teams with a prime Shaq won back-to-back titles (and in the previous one it was Jordan and Hakeem).

This team has a decent chance of repeating if healthy because they're good, not because of what they've done last season. They're not as dominant as last season because they've slightly regressed (especially defensively) while other teams have improved, but being as dominant as last season isnt' a sine qua non condition to win the championship.

I don't think they have regressed defensively, they're just not as focused as last year, which explains that they are less dominant because they are not playing 100% every night. When they had to step up defensively they did so this season but I acknowledge that they seem to rely on their offensive game a little bit more (and they should sometimes considering how dangerous they are in this area).

Sorry, but it doesn't really matter if you think they regressed or not, it's a matter of fact; your thoughts don't change what objective metrics say. What you're trying to argue is why they regressed, not if they regressed.

Do you have any evidence that the regression is due to that factor and, more importantly, that the team can "turn it on" for the playoffs? Generally, it doesn't happen that way. Teams increase their intensity and focus during the playoffs but so do their competitors: that's why the efficiency margin during the regular season is such a robust predictor of playoff success.

For example, Lakers fans use a very similar argument to yours: they argue their team proved that, when it matters, when they needed it, they stepped up on defence and that most of the season they've been coasting - and once playoffs start, they can get back to the kind of defence they played in the first months of the season and during the "statement games".

IMO, the explanation is more simple: Garnett is older and played less, Pierce has been tired, Rondo has been up and down defensively and we replaced minutes used by good defensive players with players who are not so good on that side of the floor.

Well, I'd like to hear your evidences about the team's regression because, based on objective facts, I don't see a regression. Maybe the statistics will show that they score less points per game and tank more points but it's not a big difference which could explain a "regression". Sure, the team is less dominant than last year but the results are still here and you can't overlook the fact that their opponents, especially in the East, have improved. Plus, the loss of KG, the DPOY, for a long part of the season, just gives more credit to the team's record of this season. Going from a 66-16 season with a healthy roster to a probable 64-22 season with key players hurt is certainly not what we can, in all objectivity, call regression. The others teams have improved a lot, the C's have lost a part of their superb but still they are well positioned to repeat (assuming that KG will play in the playoffs).

The evidence are the defensive efficiency numbers. What's exactly your metric to measure defence?

[Drucci]

The "objective facts" I was referring to were the games I've seen the Celtics play. I don't know the defensive efficiency numbers of the team so I'd be glad to see it, and it would probably make me change my mind but still, from what I've seen this year of the C's it seems that they are pretty much lacking focus and heart, which explain their laziness sometimes on the defensive end. That's why you can't talk of a regression, a regression is the inability to do something that you were able to do before. Are the C's unable to defend as well as last year (or just defend very well)? No, they are just lacking the focus and commitment to do so for 48 minutes.

[Fafnir]

No, they are just lacking the focus and commitment to do so for 48 minutes.

Defense is effort. How is a lesser effort not regressing? The Lakers last year easily had a roster capable of competing in game 6, yet the didn't. I think its understandable that our focus drifted and that the injuries also effected our defense. But it still happened no matter how hard you look through your green colored glasses.

[Drucci]

No, they are just lacking the focus and commitment to do so for 48 minutes.

Defense is effort. How is a lesser effort not regressing? The Lakers last year easily had a roster capable of competing in game 6, yet the didn't. I think its understandable that our focus drifted and that the injuries also effected our defense. But it still happened no matter how hard you look through your green colored glasses.

I agree that the team is less dominant and impressive than last year (as I've said in my first post). But what I mean is that it can't be called regression because it would mean that the team isn't able to defend as well as they did last year anymore. It's a lack of focus and commitment, and injuries are part of the equation as you mentioned it, I think we all agree with that. I know that that the Celtics don't defend as well as they did last season. I'm just trying to explain what is beyond this "setback", but I don't call it regression. The team is capable (that's the point here) of defending very well, we've seen it in some games this season.

Maybe this lack of effort will catch up with the team ultimately in the playoffs, because they're not used anymore to play hard for 48 minutes. But I'm still pretty confident than they will get their "championship mojo" back.

But I'm certainly misinterpreting the word "regression", which could explain our disagreement on the defensive state of the team compared to last year's.