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.
Topic: Remember who really believed when the stories change (Read 88743 times)