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 packing 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.
While I knew that we were never going to get more than a 5 game series, I was pleasantly surprised in the first two games to see us have double digit leads over the Cavs, as opposed to it being the other way around. We attacked, they fought back and took the lead, we came back and could have won both of those games, imo. Only being down 5 points with 2-3 minutes to go, on the road, against the team favored to at least make it out of the eastern conference, was nice to see. At least we didn't quit, and we kept scrapping until the end. I still think that making the playoffs was a waste of time, though, and we would have been better served to have gotten Winslow, and Vonleh (via trade, perhaps), etc., for next year. At that point, you can start trying to make the playoffs, imo, but to do so without first getting the talent does more harm than good. The only way the situation could have produced anything that might have been able to entice a team like Charlotte to trade the 9th pick, imo, was if Sully and/or KO (who looked great in the first half of game one, and then he started thinking again, not to mention the fact that his defense was so poor that he couldn't even stay out there. Ugh.) had the postseason of their lives, driving their value up in the process, and enabling us to get something/someone good for them, but it was a sim hope, at best. Sigh.
Topic: Lowe - Excerpt from Hornets article on Celtics' draft day offer (Read 39586 times)