Time To Panic? I Think So

[slamtheking]

I think being hot is generally better when you enter the playoffs, but I'm not sure historically that matters.  Last year the final 4 teams over their last 20 games were a mixed bag.  The Heat were 12-8 which is worse than the overall season. The C's were 15-5 or better.  Out west the Warriors were 10-10 (and going back further were 12-15 in their last 27) while the Mavs were 15-5 (better).  So 2 of the final 4 teams entered the playoffs performing worse than their overall season for over a month, including the eventual champion.

and while the eventual champion was underperforming once they got to the playoffs, they stepped up their game, suggesting their experience helped them turn it up a notch.  C's did not have that championship experience and faltered.  Of course, Tatum having a stinker of a finals (as well as most of the team) played an even bigger part in that title loss.

[Moranis]

I think being hot is generally better when you enter the playoffs, but I'm not sure historically that matters.  Last year the final 4 teams over their last 20 games were a mixed bag.  The Heat were 12-8 which is worse than the overall season. The C's were 15-5 or better.  Out west the Warriors were 10-10 (and going back further were 12-15 in their last 27) while the Mavs were 15-5 (better).  So 2 of the final 4 teams entered the playoffs performing worse than their overall season for over a month, including the eventual champion.

and while the eventual champion was underperforming once they got to the playoffs, they stepped up their game, suggesting their experience helped them turn it up a notch.  C's did not have that championship experience and faltered.  Of course, Tatum having a stinker of a finals (as well as most of the team) played an even bigger part in that title loss.

I was replying to Roy's statement about how it is better to be good late as opposed to good early and that wasn't the case last year for the actual champion.  Seasons are long, they go through ebs and flows, but the better teams tend to win when it matters regardless of how they enter the playoffs.  Boston has been a top 2 team in the sport most of the year.  That is what matters.

[celticsclay]

Boston was 1-2 with Timelord in that series and 3-1 in the games he didn't play.  He obviously wasn't at full strength, but I don't think he would have made nearly as much a difference as Middleton would have.  It was a close 7 game series after all.  Middleton was better than Rob and more important to Milwaukee's success than Rob was to Boston's.  That isn't some crazy statement and given how close the series is, it seems quite logical to assume that with both teams at full health that Milwaukee would have won the series.  The Middleton and Rob comparison is more like Brook (or Portis) vs. Jaylen i.e. really no comparison.  One teams loss is significantly greater than the others.  In a close series, that matters a lot.

I think the stats back up that we were a much better team with a healthy Timelord than we were without him.  Hobbled Timelord wasn't super impactful, just like hobbled Middleton wouldn't have been.  But full-strength Boston vs. full-strength Milwaukee?  I'm taking Boston.

I guess in fairness, we did lose an April regular season game by 6 points, in which the Bucks were at full strength and we were missing Tatum, Timelord and Horford.

Sure and Christmas without Horford, or the OT win Boston had where Giannis and Middleton were out (as was Brown).  Boston won the only game the only starter out was Brook Lopez, but it was mid-December before all the trade deadline moves by both teams. 

So in other words two relatively matched teams.  In that, I'm taking the team adding its 2nd best player vs. the one adding its 5th best player to a series that went 7 games where the 2nd best player didn't play at all and the 5th best player managed 3 of the 7.

Middleton hasn't been Milwaukee's second best player in awhile, for whatever it's worth.

he was last year.

Nope.

https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1=holidjr01&p1yrfrom=2022&player_id2=middlkh01&p2yrfrom=2022

Middleton scored more points, on more shots and a higher usage.

Jrue scored nearly as many points, while leading in assists, steals, blocks, turnovers, FG%, 3PT%, eFG%, TS%, PER, OWS, DFS, WS/48, VORP, BPM, etc.  Jrue's Net Rating was significantly better, and Jrue had a giant lead in on-off (an elite 14.0 for Jrue -- better than Giannis -- and a decent +5.4 for Middleton).

Based upon your own posting history, you've got to concede this one, right?

I know the numbers, greater impact on winning and better player aren't the same thing.  I mean Curry had significantly better on/off numbers than Durant during their time together, but I don't think anyone would say Curry was better than Durant.  Heck on our team, Brown's on/off numbers aren't good at all (as we all know), but I would never suggest he isn't Boston's 2nd best player. 

Last year, Middleton was Milwaukee's 2nd best player, though I do think because of the defense and passing you could easily argue that Holiday was a more important or impactful player.  They needed Middleton's shot creation though badly in the series with Boston.  It was readily apparent that Milwaukee needed someone else that could create for himself and others, and that Holiday just wasn't good enough in that role.  Holiday is an excellent 3rd man on offense, but he isn't a 2nd man on offense type player.  If Milwaukee loses this year, it will be for that reason as well (assuming they don't have a major injury of course).  They need Middleton to get back to at least 70% of what he was pre-injury because they need that guy.  Holiday has done a bit more this year, and I do like the addition of Crowder, but Crowder is a 4th or 5th option on offense type part-time player, not a full-time 2nd or 3rd.  He can't make up the difference that not having Middleton is.  Even without Middleton at at least 70%, Milwaukee could still win the title because Giannis is just that good, but if they don't win, it will likely be for that reason.

The guy who puts up better numbers, plays (much) better defense and has a much bigger impact on winning isn't the better player?

it's called "Moving those Goalposts!" baby   

I’m just sitting back and enjoying it. Middleton being basically Michael jordan last year as a way of discrediting the Celtics finals trip is becoming his moby d.

[celticsclay]

I think being hot is generally better when you enter the playoffs, but I'm not sure historically that matters.  Last year the final 4 teams over their last 20 games were a mixed bag.  The Heat were 12-8 which is worse than the overall season. The C's were 15-5 or better.  Out west the Warriors were 10-10 (and going back further were 12-15 in their last 27) while the Mavs were 15-5 (better).  So 2 of the final 4 teams entered the playoffs performing worse than their overall season for over a month, including the eventual champion.

and while the eventual champion was underperforming once they got to the playoffs, they stepped up their game, suggesting their experience helped them turn it up a notch.  C's did not have that championship experience and faltered.  Of course, Tatum having a stinker of a finals (as well as most of the team) played an even bigger part in that title loss.

I was replying to Roy's statement about how it is better to be good late as opposed to good early and that wasn't the case last year for the actual champion.  Seasons are long, they go through ebs and flows, but the better teams tend to win when it matters regardless of how they enter the playoffs.  Boston has been a top 2 team in the sport most of the year.  That is what matters.

I do agree with Mo on this one. Tommy point.

[Phantom255x]

I think being hot is generally better when you enter the playoffs, but I'm not sure historically that matters.  Last year the final 4 teams over their last 20 games were a mixed bag.  The Heat were 12-8 which is worse than the overall season. The C's were 15-5 or better.  Out west the Warriors were 10-10 (and going back further were 12-15 in their last 27) while the Mavs were 15-5 (better).  So 2 of the final 4 teams entered the playoffs performing worse than their overall season for over a month, including the eventual champion.

and while the eventual champion was underperforming once they got to the playoffs, they stepped up their game, suggesting their experience helped them turn it up a notch.  C's did not have that championship experience and faltered.  Of course, Tatum having a stinker of a finals (as well as most of the team) played an even bigger part in that title loss.

I was replying to Roy's statement about how it is better to be good late as opposed to good early and that wasn't the case last year for the actual champion.  Seasons are long, they go through ebs and flows, but the better teams tend to win when it matters regardless of how they enter the playoffs.  Boston has been a top 2 team in the sport most of the year.  That is what matters.

I do agree with Mo on this one. Tommy point.

Everyone screenshot this. History has been made. Moranis and Clay are in agreement on something 

[slamtheking]

Boston was 1-2 with Timelord in that series and 3-1 in the games he didn't play.  He obviously wasn't at full strength, but I don't think he would have made nearly as much a difference as Middleton would have.  It was a close 7 game series after all.  Middleton was better than Rob and more important to Milwaukee's success than Rob was to Boston's.  That isn't some crazy statement and given how close the series is, it seems quite logical to assume that with both teams at full health that Milwaukee would have won the series.  The Middleton and Rob comparison is more like Brook (or Portis) vs. Jaylen i.e. really no comparison.  One teams loss is significantly greater than the others.  In a close series, that matters a lot.

I think the stats back up that we were a much better team with a healthy Timelord than we were without him.  Hobbled Timelord wasn't super impactful, just like hobbled Middleton wouldn't have been.  But full-strength Boston vs. full-strength Milwaukee?  I'm taking Boston.

I guess in fairness, we did lose an April regular season game by 6 points, in which the Bucks were at full strength and we were missing Tatum, Timelord and Horford.

Sure and Christmas without Horford, or the OT win Boston had where Giannis and Middleton were out (as was Brown).  Boston won the only game the only starter out was Brook Lopez, but it was mid-December before all the trade deadline moves by both teams. 

So in other words two relatively matched teams.  In that, I'm taking the team adding its 2nd best player vs. the one adding its 5th best player to a series that went 7 games where the 2nd best player didn't play at all and the 5th best player managed 3 of the 7.

Middleton hasn't been Milwaukee's second best player in awhile, for whatever it's worth.

he was last year.

Nope.

https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1=holidjr01&p1yrfrom=2022&player_id2=middlkh01&p2yrfrom=2022

Middleton scored more points, on more shots and a higher usage.

Jrue scored nearly as many points, while leading in assists, steals, blocks, turnovers, FG%, 3PT%, eFG%, TS%, PER, OWS, DFS, WS/48, VORP, BPM, etc.  Jrue's Net Rating was significantly better, and Jrue had a giant lead in on-off (an elite 14.0 for Jrue -- better than Giannis -- and a decent +5.4 for Middleton).

Based upon your own posting history, you've got to concede this one, right?

I know the numbers, greater impact on winning and better player aren't the same thing.  I mean Curry had significantly better on/off numbers than Durant during their time together, but I don't think anyone would say Curry was better than Durant.  Heck on our team, Brown's on/off numbers aren't good at all (as we all know), but I would never suggest he isn't Boston's 2nd best player. 

Last year, Middleton was Milwaukee's 2nd best player, though I do think because of the defense and passing you could easily argue that Holiday was a more important or impactful player.  They needed Middleton's shot creation though badly in the series with Boston.  It was readily apparent that Milwaukee needed someone else that could create for himself and others, and that Holiday just wasn't good enough in that role.  Holiday is an excellent 3rd man on offense, but he isn't a 2nd man on offense type player.  If Milwaukee loses this year, it will be for that reason as well (assuming they don't have a major injury of course).  They need Middleton to get back to at least 70% of what he was pre-injury because they need that guy.  Holiday has done a bit more this year, and I do like the addition of Crowder, but Crowder is a 4th or 5th option on offense type part-time player, not a full-time 2nd or 3rd.  He can't make up the difference that not having Middleton is.  Even without Middleton at at least 70%, Milwaukee could still win the title because Giannis is just that good, but if they don't win, it will likely be for that reason.

The guy who puts up better numbers, plays (much) better defense and has a much bigger impact on winning isn't the better player?

it's called "Moving those Goalposts!" baby   

I’m just sitting back and enjoying it. Middleton being basically Michael jordan last year as a way of discrediting the Celtics finals trip is becoming his moby d.

it's his usual view point of "Everything Celtics is bad and everything not Celtic is so much better".  I'm waiting for the post where he states Tatum would be coming off the Bucks bench if he was on that team   

[slamtheking]

I think being hot is generally better when you enter the playoffs, but I'm not sure historically that matters.  Last year the final 4 teams over their last 20 games were a mixed bag.  The Heat were 12-8 which is worse than the overall season. The C's were 15-5 or better.  Out west the Warriors were 10-10 (and going back further were 12-15 in their last 27) while the Mavs were 15-5 (better).  So 2 of the final 4 teams entered the playoffs performing worse than their overall season for over a month, including the eventual champion.

and while the eventual champion was underperforming once they got to the playoffs, they stepped up their game, suggesting their experience helped them turn it up a notch.  C's did not have that championship experience and faltered.  Of course, Tatum having a stinker of a finals (as well as most of the team) played an even bigger part in that title loss.

I was replying to Roy's statement about how it is better to be good late as opposed to good early and that wasn't the case last year for the actual champion.  Seasons are long, they go through ebs and flows, but the better teams tend to win when it matters regardless of how they enter the playoffs.  Boston has been a top 2 team in the sport most of the year.  That is what matters.

we shall see.  if ever there was a post of yours where I wanted you to be right and for the rest of the board to be wrong, it's this one.

[Moranis]

Boston was 1-2 with Timelord in that series and 3-1 in the games he didn't play.  He obviously wasn't at full strength, but I don't think he would have made nearly as much a difference as Middleton would have.  It was a close 7 game series after all.  Middleton was better than Rob and more important to Milwaukee's success than Rob was to Boston's.  That isn't some crazy statement and given how close the series is, it seems quite logical to assume that with both teams at full health that Milwaukee would have won the series.  The Middleton and Rob comparison is more like Brook (or Portis) vs. Jaylen i.e. really no comparison.  One teams loss is significantly greater than the others.  In a close series, that matters a lot.

I think the stats back up that we were a much better team with a healthy Timelord than we were without him.  Hobbled Timelord wasn't super impactful, just like hobbled Middleton wouldn't have been.  But full-strength Boston vs. full-strength Milwaukee?  I'm taking Boston.

I guess in fairness, we did lose an April regular season game by 6 points, in which the Bucks were at full strength and we were missing Tatum, Timelord and Horford.

Sure and Christmas without Horford, or the OT win Boston had where Giannis and Middleton were out (as was Brown).  Boston won the only game the only starter out was Brook Lopez, but it was mid-December before all the trade deadline moves by both teams. 

So in other words two relatively matched teams.  In that, I'm taking the team adding its 2nd best player vs. the one adding its 5th best player to a series that went 7 games where the 2nd best player didn't play at all and the 5th best player managed 3 of the 7.

Middleton hasn't been Milwaukee's second best player in awhile, for whatever it's worth.

he was last year.

Nope.

https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1=holidjr01&p1yrfrom=2022&player_id2=middlkh01&p2yrfrom=2022

Middleton scored more points, on more shots and a higher usage.

Jrue scored nearly as many points, while leading in assists, steals, blocks, turnovers, FG%, 3PT%, eFG%, TS%, PER, OWS, DFS, WS/48, VORP, BPM, etc.  Jrue's Net Rating was significantly better, and Jrue had a giant lead in on-off (an elite 14.0 for Jrue -- better than Giannis -- and a decent +5.4 for Middleton).

Based upon your own posting history, you've got to concede this one, right?

I know the numbers, greater impact on winning and better player aren't the same thing.  I mean Curry had significantly better on/off numbers than Durant during their time together, but I don't think anyone would say Curry was better than Durant.  Heck on our team, Brown's on/off numbers aren't good at all (as we all know), but I would never suggest he isn't Boston's 2nd best player. 

Last year, Middleton was Milwaukee's 2nd best player, though I do think because of the defense and passing you could easily argue that Holiday was a more important or impactful player.  They needed Middleton's shot creation though badly in the series with Boston.  It was readily apparent that Milwaukee needed someone else that could create for himself and others, and that Holiday just wasn't good enough in that role.  Holiday is an excellent 3rd man on offense, but he isn't a 2nd man on offense type player.  If Milwaukee loses this year, it will be for that reason as well (assuming they don't have a major injury of course).  They need Middleton to get back to at least 70% of what he was pre-injury because they need that guy.  Holiday has done a bit more this year, and I do like the addition of Crowder, but Crowder is a 4th or 5th option on offense type part-time player, not a full-time 2nd or 3rd.  He can't make up the difference that not having Middleton is.  Even without Middleton at at least 70%, Milwaukee could still win the title because Giannis is just that good, but if they don't win, it will likely be for that reason.

The guy who puts up better numbers, plays (much) better defense and has a much bigger impact on winning isn't the better player?

it's called "Moving those Goalposts!" baby   

I’m just sitting back and enjoying it. Middleton being basically Michael jordan last year as a way of discrediting the Celtics finals trip is becoming his moby d.

it's his usual view point of "Everything Celtics is bad and everything not Celtic is so much better".  I'm waiting for the post where he states Tatum would be coming off the Bucks bench if he was on that team   

This discussion had nothing to do at all with the Celtics.  So I'm not sure what your point is other than to be an ****.

[Roy H.]

I think being hot is generally better when you enter the playoffs, but I'm not sure historically that matters.  Last year the final 4 teams over their last 20 games were a mixed bag.  The Heat were 12-8 which is worse than the overall season. The C's were 15-5 or better.  Out west the Warriors were 10-10 (and going back further were 12-15 in their last 27) while the Mavs were 15-5 (better).  So 2 of the final 4 teams entered the playoffs performing worse than their overall season for over a month, including the eventual champion.

Err.  The Warriors circumstances are pretty unique, since Curry missed the last 12 regular season games, and played 13 minutes immediately before going out.  Curry played four healthy games out of the Warriors' last 18.  The Dubs won all four of those games, and went 6 - 8 in the other four.  Notably, even without Curry, they won their five games leading into the playoffs.

Also notable:  Draymond missed 32 of his last 52 games, Klay missed 52 on the season, and Porter missed 8 of 17 games to end the season. 

[Moranis]

I think being hot is generally better when you enter the playoffs, but I'm not sure historically that matters.  Last year the final 4 teams over their last 20 games were a mixed bag.  The Heat were 12-8 which is worse than the overall season. The C's were 15-5 or better.  Out west the Warriors were 10-10 (and going back further were 12-15 in their last 27) while the Mavs were 15-5 (better).  So 2 of the final 4 teams entered the playoffs performing worse than their overall season for over a month, including the eventual champion.

Err.  The Warriors circumstances are pretty unique, since Curry missed the last 12 regular season games, and played 13 minutes immediately before going out.  Curry played four healthy games out of the Warriors' last 18.  The Dubs won all four of those games, and went 6 - 8 in the other four.  Notably, even without Curry, they won their five games leading into the playoffs.

Also notable:  Draymond missed 32 of his last 52 games, Klay missed 52 on the season, and Porter missed 8 of 17 games to end the season.

The year before, the Bucks finished the year 14-8 (and 17-12).  The Suns finished at 14-6, which was actually off their pace and the Suns played the Clippers that actually limped into the playoffs at 4-6 in their last 10. The Hawks were about the same. 

Going back further (not the bubble year), the champion Raptors entered the playoffs having won 7 of 8, but over their last 20 were 13-7.  The Warriors were 14-7 in their prior 21 games that year, also off their regular season pace.  The Bucks were 12-8 (worse) and the Blazers were 15-5 (better).  So 3 of the 4 teams were worse down the stretch than as the season as a whole. 

Year before Cavs 14-7, Warriors 7-9 (11-9 if you go back 20), Celtics were 13-7, and the Rockets were 16-4.  So the Cavs and Rockets were better, the Warriors (the champion) and Celtics were worse.

The most important thing for teams entering the playoffs, is to enter healthy and rested.  It really doesn't matter if they win or lose, they just need to be ready to go when the playoffs start. 

The season is long, there are ebbs and flows, but as the season goes Boston has the 2nd best record in the league and many of the advanced metrics also have them as a top 2 team.  If they are healthy for the playoffs, that is what matters.  As I've said all year, I think Milwaukee is the only team in the East that can beat Boston in the playoffs, and I still maintain that.  Nothing I've seen yields a different conclusion for me.

[celticsclay]

I think being hot is generally better when you enter the playoffs, but I'm not sure historically that matters.  Last year the final 4 teams over their last 20 games were a mixed bag.  The Heat were 12-8 which is worse than the overall season. The C's were 15-5 or better.  Out west the Warriors were 10-10 (and going back further were 12-15 in their last 27) while the Mavs were 15-5 (better).  So 2 of the final 4 teams entered the playoffs performing worse than their overall season for over a month, including the eventual champion.

and while the eventual champion was underperforming once they got to the playoffs, they stepped up their game, suggesting their experience helped them turn it up a notch.  C's did not have that championship experience and faltered.  Of course, Tatum having a stinker of a finals (as well as most of the team) played an even bigger part in that title loss.

I was replying to Roy's statement about how it is better to be good late as opposed to good early and that wasn't the case last year for the actual champion.  Seasons are long, they go through ebs and flows, but the better teams tend to win when it matters regardless of how they enter the playoffs.  Boston has been a top 2 team in the sport most of the year.  That is what matters.

I do agree with Mo on this one. Tommy point.

Everyone screenshot this. History has been made. Moranis and Clay are in agreement on something 

I actually agree with Mo a decent amount of the time believe it or not (not saying I don’t disagree with him a lot, I do) I just wouldn’t be surprised to find out I have given him the most Tommy points of any poster on here.

[Roy H.]

I think being hot is generally better when you enter the playoffs, but I'm not sure historically that matters.  Last year the final 4 teams over their last 20 games were a mixed bag.  The Heat were 12-8 which is worse than the overall season. The C's were 15-5 or better.  Out west the Warriors were 10-10 (and going back further were 12-15 in their last 27) while the Mavs were 15-5 (better).  So 2 of the final 4 teams entered the playoffs performing worse than their overall season for over a month, including the eventual champion.

Err.  The Warriors circumstances are pretty unique, since Curry missed the last 12 regular season games, and played 13 minutes immediately before going out.  Curry played four healthy games out of the Warriors' last 18.  The Dubs won all four of those games, and went 6 - 8 in the other four.  Notably, even without Curry, they won their five games leading into the playoffs.

Also notable:  Draymond missed 32 of his last 52 games, Klay missed 52 on the season, and Porter missed 8 of 17 games to end the season.

The year before, the Bucks finished the year 14-8 (and 17-12).  The Suns finished at 14-6, which was actually off their pace and the Suns played the Clippers that actually limped into the playoffs at 4-6 in their last 10. The Hawks were about the same. 

Going back further (not the bubble year), the champion Raptors entered the playoffs having won 7 of 8, but over their last 20 were 13-7.  The Warriors were 14-7 in their prior 21 games that year, also off their regular season pace.  The Bucks were 12-8 (worse) and the Blazers were 15-5 (better).  So 3 of the 4 teams were worse down the stretch than as the season as a whole. 

Year before Cavs 14-7, Warriors 7-9 (11-9 if you go back 20), Celtics were 13-7, and the Rockets were 16-4.  So the Cavs and Rockets were better, the Warriors (the champion) and Celtics were worse.

The most important thing for teams entering the playoffs, is to enter healthy and rested.  It really doesn't matter if they win or lose, they just need to be ready to go when the playoffs start. 

The season is long, there are ebbs and flows, but as the season goes Boston has the 2nd best record in the league and many of the advanced metrics also have them as a top 2 team.  If they are healthy for the playoffs, that is what matters.  As I've said all year, I think Milwaukee is the only team in the East that can beat Boston in the playoffs, and I still maintain that.  Nothing I've seen yields a different conclusion for me.

As I've mentioned several times, it's not wins and losses, it's level of play.  Did any of those teams go from the #1 offense to the #16 offense? 

But, I can manipulate the wins/losses, too.  The Celts are 14-11 in their past 25.  Our winning percentage is indicative of a team trying to stay in the top-10, not a top-2 team.

[Moranis]

I think being hot is generally better when you enter the playoffs, but I'm not sure historically that matters.  Last year the final 4 teams over their last 20 games were a mixed bag.  The Heat were 12-8 which is worse than the overall season. The C's were 15-5 or better.  Out west the Warriors were 10-10 (and going back further were 12-15 in their last 27) while the Mavs were 15-5 (better).  So 2 of the final 4 teams entered the playoffs performing worse than their overall season for over a month, including the eventual champion.

Err.  The Warriors circumstances are pretty unique, since Curry missed the last 12 regular season games, and played 13 minutes immediately before going out.  Curry played four healthy games out of the Warriors' last 18.  The Dubs won all four of those games, and went 6 - 8 in the other four.  Notably, even without Curry, they won their five games leading into the playoffs.

Also notable:  Draymond missed 32 of his last 52 games, Klay missed 52 on the season, and Porter missed 8 of 17 games to end the season.

The year before, the Bucks finished the year 14-8 (and 17-12).  The Suns finished at 14-6, which was actually off their pace and the Suns played the Clippers that actually limped into the playoffs at 4-6 in their last 10. The Hawks were about the same. 

Going back further (not the bubble year), the champion Raptors entered the playoffs having won 7 of 8, but over their last 20 were 13-7.  The Warriors were 14-7 in their prior 21 games that year, also off their regular season pace.  The Bucks were 12-8 (worse) and the Blazers were 15-5 (better).  So 3 of the 4 teams were worse down the stretch than as the season as a whole. 

Year before Cavs 14-7, Warriors 7-9 (11-9 if you go back 20), Celtics were 13-7, and the Rockets were 16-4.  So the Cavs and Rockets were better, the Warriors (the champion) and Celtics were worse.

The most important thing for teams entering the playoffs, is to enter healthy and rested.  It really doesn't matter if they win or lose, they just need to be ready to go when the playoffs start. 

The season is long, there are ebbs and flows, but as the season goes Boston has the 2nd best record in the league and many of the advanced metrics also have them as a top 2 team.  If they are healthy for the playoffs, that is what matters.  As I've said all year, I think Milwaukee is the only team in the East that can beat Boston in the playoffs, and I still maintain that.  Nothing I've seen yields a different conclusion for me.

As I've mentioned several times, it's not wins and losses, it's level of play.  Did any of those teams go from the #1 offense to the #16 offense? 

But, I can manipulate the wins/losses, too.  The Celts are 14-11 in their past 25.  Our winning percentage is indicative of a team trying to stay in the top-10, not a top-2 team.

You keep talking about the offense, but what happened to the defense over the same period.

[Roy H.]

I think being hot is generally better when you enter the playoffs, but I'm not sure historically that matters.  Last year the final 4 teams over their last 20 games were a mixed bag.  The Heat were 12-8 which is worse than the overall season. The C's were 15-5 or better.  Out west the Warriors were 10-10 (and going back further were 12-15 in their last 27) while the Mavs were 15-5 (better).  So 2 of the final 4 teams entered the playoffs performing worse than their overall season for over a month, including the eventual champion.

Err.  The Warriors circumstances are pretty unique, since Curry missed the last 12 regular season games, and played 13 minutes immediately before going out.  Curry played four healthy games out of the Warriors' last 18.  The Dubs won all four of those games, and went 6 - 8 in the other four.  Notably, even without Curry, they won their five games leading into the playoffs.

Also notable:  Draymond missed 32 of his last 52 games, Klay missed 52 on the season, and Porter missed 8 of 17 games to end the season.

The year before, the Bucks finished the year 14-8 (and 17-12).  The Suns finished at 14-6, which was actually off their pace and the Suns played the Clippers that actually limped into the playoffs at 4-6 in their last 10. The Hawks were about the same. 

Going back further (not the bubble year), the champion Raptors entered the playoffs having won 7 of 8, but over their last 20 were 13-7.  The Warriors were 14-7 in their prior 21 games that year, also off their regular season pace.  The Bucks were 12-8 (worse) and the Blazers were 15-5 (better).  So 3 of the 4 teams were worse down the stretch than as the season as a whole. 

Year before Cavs 14-7, Warriors 7-9 (11-9 if you go back 20), Celtics were 13-7, and the Rockets were 16-4.  So the Cavs and Rockets were better, the Warriors (the champion) and Celtics were worse.

The most important thing for teams entering the playoffs, is to enter healthy and rested.  It really doesn't matter if they win or lose, they just need to be ready to go when the playoffs start. 

The season is long, there are ebbs and flows, but as the season goes Boston has the 2nd best record in the league and many of the advanced metrics also have them as a top 2 team.  If they are healthy for the playoffs, that is what matters.  As I've said all year, I think Milwaukee is the only team in the East that can beat Boston in the playoffs, and I still maintain that.  Nothing I've seen yields a different conclusion for me.

As I've mentioned several times, it's not wins and losses, it's level of play.  Did any of those teams go from the #1 offense to the #16 offense? 

But, I can manipulate the wins/losses, too.  The Celts are 14-11 in their past 25.  Our winning percentage is indicative of a team trying to stay in the top-10, not a top-2 team.

You keep talking about the offense, but what happened to the defense over the same period.

Before December 8, our DRtg was 112.5.  Since, it’s been 113.2.  So, it’s actually got worse.

[Moranis]

I think being hot is generally better when you enter the playoffs, but I'm not sure historically that matters.  Last year the final 4 teams over their last 20 games were a mixed bag.  The Heat were 12-8 which is worse than the overall season. The C's were 15-5 or better.  Out west the Warriors were 10-10 (and going back further were 12-15 in their last 27) while the Mavs were 15-5 (better).  So 2 of the final 4 teams entered the playoffs performing worse than their overall season for over a month, including the eventual champion.

Err.  The Warriors circumstances are pretty unique, since Curry missed the last 12 regular season games, and played 13 minutes immediately before going out.  Curry played four healthy games out of the Warriors' last 18.  The Dubs won all four of those games, and went 6 - 8 in the other four.  Notably, even without Curry, they won their five games leading into the playoffs.

Also notable:  Draymond missed 32 of his last 52 games, Klay missed 52 on the season, and Porter missed 8 of 17 games to end the season.

The year before, the Bucks finished the year 14-8 (and 17-12).  The Suns finished at 14-6, which was actually off their pace and the Suns played the Clippers that actually limped into the playoffs at 4-6 in their last 10. The Hawks were about the same. 

Going back further (not the bubble year), the champion Raptors entered the playoffs having won 7 of 8, but over their last 20 were 13-7.  The Warriors were 14-7 in their prior 21 games that year, also off their regular season pace.  The Bucks were 12-8 (worse) and the Blazers were 15-5 (better).  So 3 of the 4 teams were worse down the stretch than as the season as a whole. 

Year before Cavs 14-7, Warriors 7-9 (11-9 if you go back 20), Celtics were 13-7, and the Rockets were 16-4.  So the Cavs and Rockets were better, the Warriors (the champion) and Celtics were worse.

The most important thing for teams entering the playoffs, is to enter healthy and rested.  It really doesn't matter if they win or lose, they just need to be ready to go when the playoffs start. 

The season is long, there are ebbs and flows, but as the season goes Boston has the 2nd best record in the league and many of the advanced metrics also have them as a top 2 team.  If they are healthy for the playoffs, that is what matters.  As I've said all year, I think Milwaukee is the only team in the East that can beat Boston in the playoffs, and I still maintain that.  Nothing I've seen yields a different conclusion for me.

As I've mentioned several times, it's not wins and losses, it's level of play.  Did any of those teams go from the #1 offense to the #16 offense? 

But, I can manipulate the wins/losses, too.  The Celts are 14-11 in their past 25.  Our winning percentage is indicative of a team trying to stay in the top-10, not a top-2 team.

You keep talking about the offense, but what happened to the defense over the same period.

Before December 8, our DRtg was 112.5.  Since, it’s been 113.2.  So, it’s actually got worse.

what about rank?  offense has gone up across the league.