Time To Panic? I Think So

[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.

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

If offense has gone up, and ours has gotten significantly worse, then that’s an even bigger indictment, right?

Let’s just use Net Rtg:

Through December 8: +8.8

After December 8: +3.4

That’s simply a significant downturn in play.

[angryguy77]

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.

Instead of looking at the numbers, look at what you're seeing on the court. It's not good. Do you think they can beat Milwaukee or Philly if they play like they have been in a 7 game series?

Our lineups are a mess. They cannot hold onto a lead, nor stop chucking 3's.

The only way they win the finals at this point is if they're on fire from 3 because they are not getting it done anyway else unless something drastically changes.

[The Oracle]

How many games do you think the C's should have won given R. Will has missed 44 games, Smart 18, Horford 16, Brogdon and Brown 12 through 72 games?  The C's have had the starting lineup of Smart, Brown, Tatum, Horford and R. Williams for exactly 5 games in which the C's are 4-1, last year the C's had that starting lineup for 34 games and were 27-7. 

There is a chance the C's will be at full strength for the playoffs.  If the C's are healthy they will have every opportunity at a title once again. 

Selecting arbitrary breaking points in the season that best fit ones own narrative is a pointless exercise.

[Roy H.]

How many games do you think the C's should have won given R. Will has missed 44 games, Smart 18, Horford 16, Brogdon and Brown 12 through 72 games?  The C's have had the starting lineup of Smart, Brown, Tatum, Horford and R. Williams for exactly 5 games in which the C's are 4-1, last year the C's had that starting lineup for 34 games and were 27-7. 

There is a chance the C's will be at full strength for the playoffs.  If the C's are healthy they will have every opportunity at a title once again. 

Selecting arbitrary breaking points in the season that best fit ones own narrative is a pointless exercise.

Since we went 21-5 without Timelord to start the season, it’s hard to attribute many losses to him.  The other injuries are in line with last year.

And, a delineating line between the hot start and play thereafter isn’t arbitrary.  Rather, it’s a obvious break based upon when the level of play significantly decreased.

[celticinorlando]

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.

Instead of looking at the numbers, look at what you're seeing on the court. It's not good. Do you think they can beat Milwaukee or Philly if they play like they have been in a 7 game series?

Our lineups are a mess. They cannot hold onto a lead, nor stop chucking 3's.

The only way they win the finals at this point is if they're on fire from 3 because they are not getting it done anyway else unless something drastically changes.

I am confident they beat the sixers in 5 or 6. Beat the Bucks probably in 6 or 7. But this is assuming the Cs are healthy and engaged

[Neurotic Guy]

How many games do you think the C's should have won given R. Will has missed 44 games, Smart 18, Horford 16, Brogdon and Brown 12 through 72 games?  The C's have had the starting lineup of Smart, Brown, Tatum, Horford and R. Williams for exactly 5 games in which the C's are 4-1, last year the C's had that starting lineup for 34 games and were 27-7. 

There is a chance the C's will be at full strength for the playoffs.  If the C's are healthy they will have every opportunity at a title once again. 

Selecting arbitrary breaking points in the season that best fit ones own narrative is a pointless exercise.

The counterpoint I see being made is they haven’t played like a championship caliber team for a long stretch. No doubt missed games and players playing at less than 100% is a factor. I also see the team over-reliant on the three and not playing team defense as they did 2nd half of last year.  It seems unlikely to me that they’ll return to that defense-focused team - but if 100% healthy, maybe they can. The other point is that Rob and Marcus being 100% healthy for the playoffs seems unlikely. Smart seems to be indicating difficulty this year getting to 100%. Rob is Rob.

They have the second best record in the NBA but it would a tough sell to suggest that Philly and Milwaukee aren’t looking better than the Cs heading into the final phase of the regular season.

[The Oracle]

How many games do you think the C's should have won given R. Will has missed 44 games, Smart 18, Horford 16, Brogdon and Brown 12 through 72 games?  The C's have had the starting lineup of Smart, Brown, Tatum, Horford and R. Williams for exactly 5 games in which the C's are 4-1, last year the C's had that starting lineup for 34 games and were 27-7. 

There is a chance the C's will be at full strength for the playoffs.  If the C's are healthy they will have every opportunity at a title once again. 

Selecting arbitrary breaking points in the season that best fit ones own narrative is a pointless exercise.

Since we went 21-5 without Timelord to start the season, it’s hard to attribute many losses to him.  The other injuries are in line with last year.

And, a delineating line between the hot start and play thereafter isn’t arbitrary.  Rather, it’s a obvious break based upon when the level of play significantly decreased.

It is entirely arbitrary and if I wanted to I could find better dates to prove an opposing narrative.  People have panicked during every losing stretch this year and the C's have responded with better play every time.   

[Roy H.]

How many games do you think the C's should have won given R. Will has missed 44 games, Smart 18, Horford 16, Brogdon and Brown 12 through 72 games?  The C's have had the starting lineup of Smart, Brown, Tatum, Horford and R. Williams for exactly 5 games in which the C's are 4-1, last year the C's had that starting lineup for 34 games and were 27-7. 

There is a chance the C's will be at full strength for the playoffs.  If the C's are healthy they will have every opportunity at a title once again. 

Selecting arbitrary breaking points in the season that best fit ones own narrative is a pointless exercise.

Since we went 21-5 without Timelord to start the season, it’s hard to attribute many losses to him.  The other injuries are in line with last year.

And, a delineating line between the hot start and play thereafter isn’t arbitrary.  Rather, it’s a obvious break based upon when the level of play significantly decreased.

It is entirely arbitrary and if I wanted to I could find better dates to prove an opposing narrative.  People have panicked during every losing stretch this year and the C's have responded with better play every time.   

Prove it.  Find a better date.

[The Oracle]

How many games do you think the C's should have won given R. Will has missed 44 games, Smart 18, Horford 16, Brogdon and Brown 12 through 72 games?  The C's have had the starting lineup of Smart, Brown, Tatum, Horford and R. Williams for exactly 5 games in which the C's are 4-1, last year the C's had that starting lineup for 34 games and were 27-7. 

There is a chance the C's will be at full strength for the playoffs.  If the C's are healthy they will have every opportunity at a title once again. 

Selecting arbitrary breaking points in the season that best fit ones own narrative is a pointless exercise.

Since we went 21-5 without Timelord to start the season, it’s hard to attribute many losses to him.  The other injuries are in line with last year.

And, a delineating line between the hot start and play thereafter isn’t arbitrary.  Rather, it’s a obvious break based upon when the level of play significantly decreased.

It is entirely arbitrary and if I wanted to I could find better dates to prove an opposing narrative.  People have panicked during every losing stretch this year and the C's have responded with better play every time.   

Prove it.  Find a better date.

After a 22-10 start through Dec. 21st the C's have been 27-13 since.  Barely a difference.

[Roy H.]

How many games do you think the C's should have won given R. Will has missed 44 games, Smart 18, Horford 16, Brogdon and Brown 12 through 72 games?  The C's have had the starting lineup of Smart, Brown, Tatum, Horford and R. Williams for exactly 5 games in which the C's are 4-1, last year the C's had that starting lineup for 34 games and were 27-7. 

There is a chance the C's will be at full strength for the playoffs.  If the C's are healthy they will have every opportunity at a title once again. 

Selecting arbitrary breaking points in the season that best fit ones own narrative is a pointless exercise.

Since we went 21-5 without Timelord to start the season, it’s hard to attribute many losses to him.  The other injuries are in line with last year.

And, a delineating line between the hot start and play thereafter isn’t arbitrary.  Rather, it’s a obvious break based upon when the level of play significantly decreased.

It is entirely arbitrary and if I wanted to I could find better dates to prove an opposing narrative.  People have panicked during every losing stretch this year and the C's have responded with better play every time.   

Prove it.  Find a better date.

After a 22-10 start through Dec. 21st the C's have been 27-13 since.  Barely a difference.

The 1-5 record difference doesn’t matter?

[The Oracle]

How many games do you think the C's should have won given R. Will has missed 44 games, Smart 18, Horford 16, Brogdon and Brown 12 through 72 games?  The C's have had the starting lineup of Smart, Brown, Tatum, Horford and R. Williams for exactly 5 games in which the C's are 4-1, last year the C's had that starting lineup for 34 games and were 27-7. 

There is a chance the C's will be at full strength for the playoffs.  If the C's are healthy they will have every opportunity at a title once again. 

Selecting arbitrary breaking points in the season that best fit ones own narrative is a pointless exercise.

Since we went 21-5 without Timelord to start the season, it’s hard to attribute many losses to him.  The other injuries are in line with last year.

And, a delineating line between the hot start and play thereafter isn’t arbitrary.  Rather, it’s a obvious break based upon when the level of play significantly decreased.

It is entirely arbitrary and if I wanted to I could find better dates to prove an opposing narrative.  People have panicked during every losing stretch this year and the C's have responded with better play every time.   

Prove it.  Find a better date.

After a 22-10 start through Dec. 21st the C's have been 27-13 since.  Barely a difference.

The 1-5 record difference doesn’t matter?

You lumped that stretch in with the more recent stretch of games and I lumped them with the prior.  Both are arbitrary breaking points in the data.  Neither prove much of anything.

The truth is the C's have had another tough stretch lately with guys out do to rest and injury.  That paired with some poor play, off shooting nights and clutch play from the opposition has resulted in a few extra losses.  Variance in game outcomes has significantly increased in recent years do to the higher variance increased usage of the 3 point line.  They will likely respond once again.

[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.

If offense has gone up, and ours has gotten significantly worse, then that’s an even bigger indictment, right?

Let’s just use Net Rtg:

Through December 8: +8.8

After December 8: +3.4

That’s simply a significant downturn in play.

the fact that you won't post the teams defensive rank is all anyone needs to know.  Dodging of a simple question proves the point.

[The Oracle]

How many games do you think the C's should have won given R. Will has missed 44 games, Smart 18, Horford 16, Brogdon and Brown 12 through 72 games?  The C's have had the starting lineup of Smart, Brown, Tatum, Horford and R. Williams for exactly 5 games in which the C's are 4-1, last year the C's had that starting lineup for 34 games and were 27-7. 

There is a chance the C's will be at full strength for the playoffs.  If the C's are healthy they will have every opportunity at a title once again. 

Selecting arbitrary breaking points in the season that best fit ones own narrative is a pointless exercise.

The counterpoint I see being made is they haven’t played like a championship caliber team for a long stretch. No doubt missed games and players playing at less than 100% is a factor. I also see the team over-reliant on the three and not playing team defense as they did 2nd half of last year.  It seems unlikely to me that they’ll return to that defense-focused team - but if 100% healthy, maybe they can. The other point is that Rob and Marcus being 100% healthy for the playoffs seems unlikely. Smart seems to be indicating difficulty this year getting to 100%. Rob is Rob.

They have the second best record in the NBA but it would a tough sell to suggest that Philly and Milwaukee aren’t looking better than the Cs heading into the final phase of the regular season.

There really is no such thing as being over reliant on 3's.  A teams shot selection is dictated as much by how you are being defended as it is what you actually want to do.  It would have been a much more futile exercise to try and attack the rim against Utah the other night rather than take the open 3's they were coughing up.  The C's got 17 corner 3's against Utah's defense that was designed to take the ball out of Tatum's hands and to take away the rim, you absolutely must take those and any other open 3's in that situation as the alternative is a far worse expectation.

The team defense is not going to be as dominate without R. Will. being a regular fixture, plain and simple.  The C's just don't have anyone else who can even remotely defend the rim like he can which in turn makes it more difficult to defend the perimeter without that presence in the paint because of being more afraid of getting beat off the dribble.

Getting to and through the playoffs healthy is the most important thing and if the C's can't make that happen then their chances will be significantly reduced.

[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.

Instead of looking at the numbers, look at what you're seeing on the court. It's not good. Do you think they can beat Milwaukee or Philly if they play like they have been in a 7 game series?

Our lineups are a mess. They cannot hold onto a lead, nor stop chucking 3's.

The only way they win the finals at this point is if they're on fire from 3 because they are not getting it done anyway else unless something drastically changes.

As I've said in this thread, I've always felt Milwaukee was the best team in the conference and that I have no real concerns about any other team in the East.

[Goldstar88]

Perhaps not?