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

[ahonui06]

I think we can all agree that making the playoffs hurt us in the long run.

Dude.  Speak for yourself.  I don't agree with this at all.

Why don't you agree? What is the benefit of getting swept in the playoffs? If Sullinger and Olynk were the one's contributing to our success, then I would agree, but they aren't. It was role players like Jerebko, turner, and sixth man Thomas that led us.

Even if Boston didn't make the playoffs, there was an extremely high probability they would be picking in the 11-14 range anyways.  The difference in picks wasn't substantial.

I don't mind Boston building camaraderie and making a playoff push.

[ImShakHeIsShaq]

Do we not have the same meaning of the word close? Because we never took the lead (were down only 5) we were never close? Okay, if that's how you see it then, you're right. Going to be a lot of games in history that were never close by that definition. Down 1 after never leading in the 4th, miss the game winner.... NOT CLOSE. Lose by 8 but down 5 with 2 mins isn't close at all.

[PhoSita]

Do we not have the same meaning of the word close?

I think it's pretty obvious by now that we don't.  No need to belabor the point.  I've pretty clearly defined what I mean when I say the game wasn't close.

- The Celts were down by two possessions or more within the last two minutes of each game
- The Celts were never within one basket of tying the game or taking the lead in the last two minutes
- By the same token, the Cavs were never forced to make a game winning play on one end or the other


By that criteria, the Celts were never really close in any of those games.  In two out of the four games, the Cavs had a double digit lead in the last two minutes.

If the Celts had made a meaningful comeback in any of those games after the 2 minute mark, I might feel differently.  But they didn't.  The Cavs didn't actually need to score after that point in any of the games in order to win.

[ImShakHeIsShaq]

I think we can all agree that making the playoffs hurt us in the long run.

Dude.  Speak for yourself.  I don't agree with this at all.

Why don't you agree? What is the benefit of getting swept in the playoffs? If Sullinger and Olynk were the one's contributing to our success, then I would agree, but they aren't. It was role players like Jerebko, turner, and sixth man Thomas that led us.

Maybe you see no benefit but apparently the players who played and talked about it did. Even if there was no benefit, the statement that it hurt us in the long run still doesn't hold much weight to me because we weren't in a tank or no other way situation! Plenty of teams miss the playoffs and never become better than what we are. Many teams with great talents who still have never even had a chance to be swept out of the playoffs!! You may want that player but it doesn't mean it's a better situation. I really like Boogie but I'd take what the Celts did over what he and the Kings have done to this point any day of the week! Yep, call me crazy for wanting to watch winning and competitive games over watching a great player like Boogie wasting his play.

[ImShakHeIsShaq]

Do we not have the same meaning of the word close?

I think it's pretty obvious by now that we don't.  No need to belabor the point.  I've pretty clearly defined what I mean when I say the game wasn't close.

- The Celts were down by two possessions or more within the last two minutes of each game
- The Celts were never within one basket of tying the game or taking the lead in the last two minutes
- By the same token, the Cavs were never forced to make a game winning play on one end or the other


By that criteria, the Celts were never really close in any of those games.  In two out of the four games, the Cavs had a double digit lead in the last two minutes.

If the Celts had made a meaningful comeback in any of those games after the 2 minute mark, I might feel differently.  But they didn't.  The Cavs didn't actually need to score after that point in any of the games in order to win.

Yep, you have a different definition than the dictionary too. Again, there are a lot of games where a team never had a lead but I would guarantee you would say the game was close. I really don't know how you can be arguing this. If you are saying it wasn't close in terms of games won, that's true, but to keep pushing that none of the games were close because we couldn't come back to win a two possession game with 2 minutes to go is absurd!

[LarBrd33]

I think we all just have to accept that for some fans, making the playoffs has inherent worth that by itself justifies the playoff run.  For some other fans, making the playoffs in and of itself does not hold much worth, if at all.

There's a fundamental disagreement there that we're not going to resolve by reiterating the same arguments over and over.

TP.   Maybe Winslow will bust anyways.   We have three cracks at a rotation player.  Here's hoping one of our rookies plays themselves out of d-league... here's hoping Brooklyn falls apart and we end up with a far better player than Winslow.   Here's hoping we build on the fluke success of last season and prove ourselves to be a legitimate playoff team.  Here's hoping Brad continues to work his magic.  I'm not worried about it.  We have two superstars already in Danny Ainge and Brad Stevens.  If there's a way to make this work, they'll find it.

[oldtype]

Let's be honest with ourselves, the series was not competitive at all. I had a lot of fun watching it and I was screaming my lungs out at the Garden along with everyone else, but it wasn't competitive.

The narrative around this team would probably be very different had we won even just one game.

[PhoSita]

Yep, you have a different definition than the dictionary too.

Which dictionary has a definition of "close playoff game"?


And again, I've stated pretty clearly why I feel the games can't be called close.  The fact that two of the four were not embarassing double digit blowouts doesn't mean that the Cavs were ever in danger of losing those games.

[ImShakHeIsShaq]

Yep, you have a different definition than the dictionary too.

Which dictionary has a definition of "close playoff game"?


And again, I've stated pretty clearly why I feel the games can't be called close.  The fact that two of the four were not embarassing double digit blowouts doesn't mean that the Cavs were ever in danger of losing those games.
[/quite]

I can't prove that you never call a game close if a team never takes the lead in the 4th. I'm sure you can guarantee that a team down 5 in the last 2 minutes is a game you would never say is close, I bet you stop watching games in last 2 minutes because by your definition that's a lead that can't be overcome. Were not arguing the fact that our players couldn't overcome it but whether down 5 with 2 minutes is close!

[MBunge]

Do we not have the same meaning of the word close?

I think it's pretty obvious by now that we don't.  No need to belabor the point.  I've pretty clearly defined what I mean when I say the game wasn't close.

- The Celts were down by two possessions or more within the last two minutes of each game
- The Celts were never within one basket of tying the game or taking the lead in the last two minutes
- By the same token, the Cavs were never forced to make a game winning play on one end or the other


By that criteria, the Celts were never really close in any of those games.  In two out of the four games, the Cavs had a double digit lead in the last two minutes.

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

[ImShakHeIsShaq]

Do we not have the same meaning of the word close?

I think it's pretty obvious by now that we don't.  No need to belabor the point.  I've pretty clearly defined what I mean when I say the game wasn't close.

- The Celts were down by two possessions or more within the last two minutes of each game
- The Celts were never within one basket of tying the game or taking the lead in the last two minutes
- By the same token, the Cavs were never forced to make a game winning play on one end or the other


By that criteria, the Celts were never really close in any of those games.  In two out of the four games, the Cavs had a double digit lead in the last two minutes.

It's like saying if a car doesn't hit me, I was never close to being hit.

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

[celticsclay]

Do we not have the same meaning of the word close?

I think it's pretty obvious by now that we don't.  No need to belabor the point.  I've pretty clearly defined what I mean when I say the game wasn't close.

- The Celts were down by two possessions or more within the last two minutes of each game
- The Celts were never within one basket of tying the game or taking the lead in the last two minutes
- By the same token, the Cavs were never forced to make a game winning play on one end or the other


By that criteria, the Celts were never really close in any of those games.  In two out of the four games, the Cavs had a double digit lead in the last two minutes.

It's like saying if a car doesn't hit me, I was never close to being hit.

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

I am totally with ImShakeHeisShaq and Mike. This definition of close reeks of moving the goal posts. If I went to a basketball game and my friend asked me if it was close if I said "Nah we were down 3 with 3 minutes left, but we couldn't get any closer" I would get a really strange look.

A look inside the play by play for game 3 shows quite a few points that we were right there.

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.

 

[PhoSita]

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.

[celticsclay]

I will also add even in our absolute worst game of the series, game 4 where we fell behind by 20 some points at the half, looking back at the play by play we actually had a 3 by Datome miss down 6 with 37 seconds left that would have made it a one possession game.

[celticsclay]

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.

How is us fighting for a defensive rebound down 3 with 2 minutes left not at least threatening to take the game?