Lowe - Excerpt from Hornets article on Celtics' draft day offer

[PhoSita]

For example, with 2:45 Avery Bradley hits a 3 to make it 95-92, Cleveland then missed a shot. If we grab the rebound there with 2:17 left we have a chance to tie. Unfortunately, Thompson got the offensive rebound and Love drilled an absolute dagger. The teams then exchanged stops before crowder got fouled with a chance to get us within 4. Unfortunately we missed a free throw. We stopped them on the other end, but again, we were foiled by an offensive rebound by Tristan Thompson leading to a second 3 point dagger from Love. We get those rebounds or even if Love just misses the 3's we are very much in the game. I don't know how that is not close, everyone watching them was on the edge of their seat including you.

Thank you for that unpleasant trip down memory lane.

What it all reminds me of is that yes, the Celts conceivably could have pulled within a possession toward the end of those games.  But they consistently failed to make the plays necessary to keep the games close, while the Cavs made those plays, pretty much every time they had an opportunity to do so.  I remember in one of those games the Cavs grabbed something like 5 offensive rebounds in one possession to kill almost a minute and a half of clock time.  The Celts were utterly helpless to do anything about it.

Again, this is what makes me feel it wasn't a particularly close series.  When it came time to seal the deal at the end of the game, the Cavs crushed the life out of the Celts, while the Celts really couldn't make any of the necessary plays.

That happened in two out of the four games.  In the other two, the Cavs were up by double digits.

All of this is what made me feel that the series was similar to what happens when the high school JV team faces off with the varsity squad.

[ImShakHeIsShaq]

For example, with 2:45 Avery Bradley hits a 3 to make it 95-92, Cleveland then missed a shot. If we grab the rebound there with 2:17 left we have a chance to tie. Unfortunately, Thompson got the offensive rebound and Love drilled an absolute dagger. The teams then exchanged stops before crowder got fouled with a chance to get us within 4. Unfortunately we missed a free throw. We stopped them on the other end, but again, we were foiled by an offensive rebound by Tristan Thompson leading to a second 3 point dagger from Love. We get those rebounds or even if Love just misses the 3's we are very much in the game. I don't know how that is not close, everyone watching them was on the edge of their seat including you.

Thank you for that unpleasant trip down memory lane.

What it all reminds me of is that yes, the Celts conceivably could have pulled within a possession toward the end of those games.  But they consistently failed to make the plays necessary to keep the games close, while the Cavs made those plays, pretty much every time they had an opportunity to do so.

Again, this is what makes me feel it wasn't a particularly close series.  When it came time to seal the deal at the end of the game, the Cavs crushed the life out of the Celts, while the Celts really couldn't make the necessary plays.

That happened in two out of the four games.  In the other two, the Cavs were up by double digits.

All of this is what made me feel that the series was similar to what happens when the high school JV team faces off with the varsity squad.

"failed to make the necessary plays to keep the games close"

How can you keep a game close that was never close? Righhht...

[celticsclay]

For example, with 2:45 Avery Bradley hits a 3 to make it 95-92, Cleveland then missed a shot. If we grab the rebound there with 2:17 left we have a chance to tie. Unfortunately, Thompson got the offensive rebound and Love drilled an absolute dagger. The teams then exchanged stops before crowder got fouled with a chance to get us within 4. Unfortunately we missed a free throw. We stopped them on the other end, but again, we were foiled by an offensive rebound by Tristan Thompson leading to a second 3 point dagger from Love. We get those rebounds or even if Love just misses the 3's we are very much in the game. I don't know how that is not close, everyone watching them was on the edge of their seat including you.

Thank you for that unpleasant trip down memory lane.

What it all reminds me of is that yes, the Celts conceivably could have pulled within a possession toward the end of those games.  But they consistently failed to make the plays necessary to keep the games close, while the Cavs made those plays, pretty much every time they had an opportunity to do so.  I remember in one of those games the Cavs grabbed something like 5 offensive rebounds in one possession to kill almost a minute and a half of clock time.  The Celts were utterly helpless to do anything about it.

Again, this is what makes me feel it wasn't a particularly close series.  When it came time to seal the deal at the end of the game, the Cavs crushed the life out of the Celts, while the Celts really couldn't make any of the necessary plays.

That happened in two out of the four games.  In the other two, the Cavs were up by double digits.

All of this is what made me feel that the series was similar to what happens when the high school JV team faces off with the varsity squad.

I don't know where the heck you went to high school but if your varsity team needed an offensive rebound with 2 minutes left to protect a 3 point lead against the JV squad they were pretty awful.

[PhoSita]

I just want to reiterate that saying it wasn't a close series is not suggesting that the Celts didn't try hard, or that they should be embarrassed by how they performed.

They gave it their all.  Brad Stevens got the very most he could out of a team that resembled the cast of characters from the Island of Misfit Toys.

Sadly, it was the Aztecs vs Cortez.

If I make a big deal about underlining that point, it's because I think it'd be folly to expect to go into the playoffs with spears again and expect a different result against the muskets and armored horsemen.

[PhoSita]

I don't know where the heck you went to high school but if your varsity team needed an offensive rebound with 2 minutes left to protect a 3 point lead against the JV squad they were pretty awful.

^ They were. 


Though I played soccer in high school, so I'm projecting the dynamics of that sort of matchup onto a hypothetical high school basketball game.

How can you keep a game close that was never close? Righhht...

Look, I don't think we're going to ever understand each other on this point.  You think the games were close and the Celts made an admirable fight and weren't really that far from making it a competitive series.  Right?

I agree that they fought hard; I disagree as to the rest.  End of story.

[D.o.s.]

I would say that there were never more than fleeting moments where it looked like the Celtics could steal a game, let alone make it a competitive series.

Those are not the hallmarks of "close games" to me.

[celticsclay]

I would say that there were never more than fleeting moments where it looked like the Celtics could steal a game, let alone make it a competitive series.

Those are not the hallmarks of "close games" to me.

Unfortunately this thread has unraveled to the point of splitting hairs (for which I am probably guilty of doing too) and we are left with matters of verbal jousting rather than any real substance. I don't think the series was close, I don't think the Celtics had any chance of making the series as a whole competitive. I do think that the Celtics were close in at least one of the games as evidence by them being down 1 possession with about 2:20 left. However, in the big scheme that small fact, debatable or not, does not really matter. We are not in the same league as the Cavs. Hopefully this year we can make some moves, our young players improve and we have a competitive first round series where we win multiple games, if not the series. God the summer sucks.

[PhoSita]

I would say that there were never more than fleeting moments where it looked like the Celtics could steal a game, let alone make it a competitive series.

Those are not the hallmarks of "close games" to me.

Why must I always work so hard over many posts to say what you get across in two sentences?

[D.o.s.]

Possibly because I have a much easier time with the idea that people think I'm an elitist jerk who doesn't feel the need to explain myself than you do. 

I would say that there were never more than fleeting moments where it looked like the Celtics could steal a game, let alone make it a competitive series.

Those are not the hallmarks of "close games" to me.

Unfortunately this thread has unraveled to the point of splitting hairs (for which I am probably guilty of doing too) and we are left with matters of verbal jousting rather than any real substance. I don't think the series was close, I don't think the Celtics had any chance of making the series as a whole competitive. I do think that the Celtics were close in at least one of the games as evidence by them being down 1 possession with about 2:20 left. However, in the big scheme that small fact, debatable or not, does not really matter. We are not in the same league as the Cavs. Hopefully this year we can make some moves, our young players improve and we have a competitive first round series where we win multiple games, if not the series. God the summer sucks.

Agreed.

[celticsclay]

I would say that there were never more than fleeting moments where it looked like the Celtics could steal a game, let alone make it a competitive series.

Those are not the hallmarks of "close games" to me.

Why must I always work so hard over many posts to say what you get across in two sentences?

Cause (in this thread at least)  have a habit of exaggerating things to try and make your points, other posters get enraged or caught up on said exaggerations and the conversation derails. It also helps to give an inch occasionally. There are good exchanges with Dos because he will regularly say things like  "fair enough" or "fair point" which makes those engaging with him feel like they are having a productive dialogue. At least that has been my experience.

[Donoghus]

The "close" semantics battle can't be any worse than the whole ".500 winning percentage" nonsense from last week.   

[celticsclay]

Possibly because I have a much easier time with the idea that people think I'm an elitist jerk who doesn't feel the need to explain myself than you do. 

I would say that there were never more than fleeting moments where it looked like the Celtics could steal a game, let alone make it a competitive series.

Those are not the hallmarks of "close games" to me.

Unfortunately this thread has unraveled to the point of splitting hairs (for which I am probably guilty of doing too) and we are left with matters of verbal jousting rather than any real substance. I don't think the series was close, I don't think the Celtics had any chance of making the series as a whole competitive. I do think that the Celtics were close in at least one of the games as evidence by them being down 1 possession with about 2:20 left. However, in the big scheme that small fact, debatable or not, does not really matter. We are not in the same league as the Cavs. Hopefully this year we can make some moves, our young players improve and we have a competitive first round series where we win multiple games, if not the series. God the summer sucks.

Agreed.

somehow you have gone from someone I constantly disagreed with to someone I agree with 90% of the time.

[D.o.s.]

Obviously it's because you've started thinking correctly (and not at all that I've tempered my occasionally gratuitous way of explaining my point of view). 

Anyway this blog very rarely gets super contentious, and generally there are extraneous factors to blame when it does.

[LarBrd33]

I would just like to point out that by your definition, teams that lose are hardly ever "close".  Even in the playoffs, the number of games that end with one team being ahead by at least three points for the last two minutes and the other team never having to make a "game winning play" is likely VERY high.

By this standard, for example, there were only two close games in the Finals.

Mike

Ahead by at least four points.  Important difference, since four point plays almost never happen.

In any case, yes, I agree.  Many, many playoff games are not particularly close.

I think what gets people riled up about that is they feel calling a game "not close" is the same as saying it was a blowout.  I'm saying nothing of the sort.

But to my mind, a playoff series being "close" requires that both teams win at least one game.  Failing that, I'd expect to see the team that got swept actually threaten to win one of the games at the end of the fourth.

If the game is decided before we even get to crunch time, it's not a close game.  If you have a seven game series in which every game is decided by single digits, you could call that a close series even if none of the games meets my definition of "close."  But when it's a sweep, I think that leaves little doubt.

I don't really see the point in debating about whether Zach Lowe is right in his suggestion that we "got demolished by a Cavs team in chill mode".   I saw the same thing as it was happening.  At no point did I feel like the games were winnable.  Any time there was any doubt, the Cavs would flip a switch and turn it into a multi-possession lead.   They kept a buffer for most of the games that was insurmountable.  If it makes people feel better to believe we had a chance, so be it.  We'll see how the team plays this year.  Hopefully they can improve.  As-is, I could see them winning a max of 45 games, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them win less than 40.  We aren't going contend without pulling off a significant move or two.  It's nice to hear that Danny is willing to swing for the fences by packaging lots of middling assets for a potential game-changer.  That's obviously the kind of mentality we'll need to have any hope of becoming a relevant team again.  Good to see that Danny pegged a guy he liked (Winslow) and was willing to trade the farm for him.

[PhoSita]

I would say that there were never more than fleeting moments where it looked like the Celtics could steal a game, let alone make it a competitive series.

Those are not the hallmarks of "close games" to me.

Why must I always work so hard over many posts to say what you get across in two sentences?

Cause (in this thread at least)  have a habit of exaggerating things to try and make your points, other posters get enraged or caught up on said exaggerations and the conversation derails. It also helps to give an inch occasionally. There are good exchanges with Dos because he will regularly say things like  "fair enough" or "fair point" which makes those engaging with him feel like they are having a productive dialogue. At least that has been my experience.

I've made a point of saying the same things, though I'll concede that perhaps it gets lost in longer posts that I have a tendency of making.

In general, I tend towards verbosity that is unnecessary.

I agree that this can make my posts seem more aggressive than they are intended to be.  I have a way of making agreement seem like argument.

I don't think exaggeration is quite right, but sometimes these arguments can go on for longer than makes any sense.  I do think some people are determined not to agree with me, no matter how hard I try to state things with equanimity.