New perspective

[perks-a-beast]

It's all up to the players and how hard they're going to play. The thing is that the celtics are not playing like a battle tested team. Pierce, Allen, Rondo, and Perkins who all played in 26 rigorous playoff games last year should have enough tricks up their sleeves to AT LEAST put away the very inexperienced Chicago Bulls at home, but instead they let them come into the garden, gain all the confidence in the world and pour in 220 points on our home floor. That's just unnaceptable.

I definantly wouldnt go as far as to say that the celts only have a 1% chance to win the title. IF we play with some urgency and some of that passionate defense that won us the title last season then we will get out of the first 2 rounds. After that, I think KG will decide to play in the ECF. Then we will have a great chance of winning the title.

Always have hope, Libermaniac.

[threats13]

Im a New York Giants fan and I witnessed the most unlikely Super Bowl victory of all time.  So if you want to count out the Celts now that is your decision.  But the fact that were in the playoffs gives us as good a chance as everyone else.  Whose to say the Cavs and Lakers make it to the 2nd round whose to say they make it out the 2nd round.  No one actually knows you gotta play every game cant just assume the winner.

LETS GO CELTICS!!

[LarBrd33]

Im a New York Giants fan and I witnessed the most unlikely Super Bowl victory of all time.  So if you want to count out the Celts now that is your decision.  But the fact that were in the playoffs gives us as good a chance as everyone else.  Whose to say the Cavs and Lakers make it to the 2nd round whose to say they make it out the 2nd round.  No one actually knows you gotta play every game cant just assume the winner.

LETS GO CELTICS!!

I dunno man... in football it only takes a few games and you are holding a title.  The NBA is about 7 games series.  You get upsets once in a while (Denver beating Seattle back in 94 and Golden State beating Dallas are the two series that come to mind), but when have you seen a major underdog win four series in a row? 

When have you ever seen an "upset" champion?   Maybe the closest I can think of is Detroit beating the Lakers in 2004. 

Celtics are good without KG, but I don't think they are a contender.

[CoachBo]

I get what the OP is saying, in a way.  Last year, entering the playoffs the team was expected to win, or at the very least make the Finals.  To a lot of fans, each game took on a "win at all costs" feel, where it became hard to enjoy each individual game, especially the losses.

This year's team is much more of an underdog.  They're expected to make it out of the first round, but after that they're facing an uphill climb.  Maybe it's possible to enjoy the playoffs more when you *hope* to win, rather than *expect* it.  Maybe being the underdog allows fans to have higher highs, and lower lows.

Also, I won't get on the OP too much for doubting the Celtics chances.  A few weeks back, I think I described the chances of the Celtics winning without KG as "0.0%".  While I'll still be rooting hard and hoping, I can't say that I truly believe the team is going to win this year.  I wouldn't have used some of the language libermaniac used (especially the "we all know" stuff), but I think the sentiment is at least understandable.

Quoted for truth.

The quality of a season isn't solely defined by a championship. I plan on making the ride, but frankly, given the obstacles I'm not sure there's a result that I'm going to find all that upsetting.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Im a New York Giants fan and I witnessed the most unlikely Super Bowl victory of all time.  So if you want to count out the Celts now that is your decision.  But the fact that were in the playoffs gives us as good a chance as everyone else.  Whose to say the Cavs and Lakers make it to the 2nd round whose to say they make it out the 2nd round.  No one actually knows you gotta play every game cant just assume the winner.

LETS GO CELTICS!!

I dunno man... in football it only takes a few games and you are holding a title.  The NBA is about 7 games series.  You get upsets once in a while (Denver beating Seattle back in 94 and Golden State beating Dallas are the two series that come to mind), but when have you seen a major underdog win four series in a row? 

When have you ever seen an "upset" champion?   Maybe the closest I can think of is Detroit beating the Lakers in 2004. 

Celtics are good without KG, but I don't think they are a contender.

How are the Celtics, #2 Seed, major underdogs? You guys are treating this team as if they were a piece of crap team lucky to even be in the playoffs.

[libermaniac]

How are the Celtics, #2 Seed, major underdogs? You guys are treating this team as if they were a piece of crap team lucky to even be in the playoffs.

This is not the NCAA tourney.  They are not seeded based on perceived odds.  They compiled the 2nd best record in the NBA, thanks in large part to a 27-2 start.  They are missing a Hall-of-Fame PF and a solid backup PF.  Their front court now consists of two foul-prone legit bigs, a third big who gets about a foul a minute and plays horrible defense, and a fourth who hasn't played in 2 months due to concussion problems.  They are not necessarily underdogs to lose to the Bulls, but they will be underdogs in every series after that - which makes them serious longshots to win it all. 

[angryguy77]

addmitting there is a problem is the first step to recovery.

[BudweiserCeltic]

How are the Celtics, #2 Seed, major underdogs? You guys are treating this team as if they were a piece of crap team lucky to even be in the playoffs.

This is not the NCAA tourney.  They are not seeded based on perceived odds.  They compiled the 2nd best record in the NBA, thanks in large part to a 27-2 start.  They are missing a Hall-of-Fame PF and a solid backup PF.  Their front court now consists of two foul-prone legit bigs, a third big who gets about a foul a minute and plays horrible defense, and a fourth who hasn't played in 2 months due to concussion problems.  They are not necessarily underdogs to lose to the Bulls, but they will be underdogs in every series after that - which makes them serious longshots to win it all. 

This is pretty ridiculous in my opinion, in as far as being underdogs in EVERY series after that. Orlando is having some trouble against Philadelphia, an inferior team to the Celtics. The Celtics have beaten EVERYONE in the East while severely shorthanded, some multiple times. We finished the season very strong, which earned Rivers the Coach of the Month Award. The Magic finished the year quite weak, and they haven't been playing well.

We're currently playing a much improved Bulls team, one that finished the season very very strongly. Of the lower seeds, you can easily make the case that they're the best team because of this.

The ONLY team that is clearly better and more powerful than the Celtics in the East is Cleveland. To suggest that every other team are better than them, or that we will be underdogs against them is very ridiculous.

Just because the Celtics aren't as good as they could be, it doesn't make them weak sauce, and it doesn't catapult every other team in the playoffs to some sort of powerhouse.

Championship level experience should count for something. NBA Finals MVP should count for something.

[libermaniac]

This is pretty ridiculous in my opinion, in as far as being underdogs in EVERY series after that. Orlando is having some trouble against Philadelphia, an inferior team to the Celtics. The Celtics have beaten EVERYONE in the East while severely shorthanded, some multiple times. ld count for something.

Um, except Orlando, who beat us twice without KG. 

Ever heard of Dwight Howard?  Don't you think some front court depth would be required for a team to effectively handle him? 

[BudweiserCeltic]

That's true, but it doesn't negate the fact that Orlando hasn't been playing well over the last two-three weeks or so. It doesn't negate that Dwight hasn't really stepped up his game during the playoffs in his career (he had a great game 1, a poor game 2). It doesn't also negate that Dwight also gets in foul trouble (something you're worried about our bigs). It doesn't negate the fact that they could lose to Philly (the series is 1-1 just like ours).

Also, we played some of our worst games in those two loses, and we still almost came out with wins. In one game we were also without Rondo. Scal was a bit effective out there against Orlando... I don't have hopes of him playing this playoffs, or being that much of a factor, but it is something to consider in case he does return, and adding to our depth especially perimeter defense on the 4.

You're focusing too much in our weaknesses and in our opponents' strengths.

[libermaniac]

Ok, so I'll be generous here:  Let's say the odds of the C's winning each of the following series is:

Bulls:  60%
Orlando: 50%
Cle:     25%
Lakers:  25%

Then, their odds of winnig it all are:  .6*.5*.25*.25 = 1.875%

I think that' sufficient to call it a long shot.  Can we drop this?

[zerophase]

Ok, so I'll be generous here:  Let's say the odds of the C's winning each of the following series is:

Bulls:  60%
Orlando: 50%
Cle:     25%
Lakers:  25%

Then, their odds of winnig it all are:  .6*.5*.25*.25 = 1.875%

I think that' sufficient to call it a long shot.  Can we drop this?

except the statistic that they win any series is 50% since the only outcomes are win or loss.

[LarBrd33]

How are the Celtics, #2 Seed, major underdogs? You guys are treating this team as if they were a piece of crap team lucky to even be in the playoffs.

This is not the NCAA tourney.  They are not seeded based on perceived odds.  They compiled the 2nd best record in the NBA, thanks in large part to a 27-2 start.  They are missing a Hall-of-Fame PF and a solid backup PF.  Their front court now consists of two foul-prone legit bigs, a third big who gets about a foul a minute and plays horrible defense, and a fourth who hasn't played in 2 months due to concussion problems.  They are not necessarily underdogs to lose to the Bulls, but they will be underdogs in every series after that - which makes them serious longshots to win it all. 

This is pretty ridiculous in my opinion, in as far as being underdogs in EVERY series after that. Orlando is having some trouble against Philadelphia, an inferior team to the Celtics. The Celtics have beaten EVERYONE in the East while severely shorthanded, some multiple times. We finished the season very strong, which earned Rivers the Coach of the Month Award. The Magic finished the year quite weak, and they haven't been playing well.

We're currently playing a much improved Bulls team, one that finished the season very very strongly. Of the lower seeds, you can easily make the case that they're the best team because of this.

The ONLY team that is clearly better and more powerful than the Celtics in the East is Cleveland. To suggest that every other team are better than them, or that we will be underdogs against them is very ridiculous.

Just because the Celtics aren't as good as they could be, it doesn't make them weak sauce, and it doesn't catapult every other team in the playoffs to some sort of powerhouse.

Championship level experience should count for something. NBA Finals MVP should count for something.

We have won games without KG.   We were able to beat the Cavs 105-94 on 3/6.   Powe had 20 and 11 off the bench.   That's probably our most impressive non-KG win.

We then lost to Orlando twice and got crushed by 30 against the Cavs on 4/12.

We haven't proved capable of beating the Lakers at all this year with or without KG.  

I understand our team is good.  But without KG our defense is significantly worse.  If you can't see that then you aren't watching the Bulls series.  They have been able to score at will on us.   Big Baby doesn't have the intelligence, mobility or 8 foot wingspan to do what KG does for this team on defense.  It's nice to see him knock down half of his 40 jumpers and pull down a few rebounds, but Baby can't replace our savior and best player.   Without our best player we are not a contender.  If you think some little 2nd year 2nd round fatass can replace one of the greatest players of all time... a former MVP and the reigning defensive player of the year... who our team is built around....  you're nuts.

But it will be fun to watch.  A lot of people believed those Walker/Pierce Celtic teams had a shot to beat the Shaq/Kobe Lakers, too.  Sure they had a shot... as much as the Iverson 76ers or Kidd Nets had...   but comeonnn....

[libermaniac]

Ok, so I'll be generous here:  Let's say the odds of the C's winning each of the following series is:

Bulls:  60%
Orlando: 50%
Cle:     25%
Lakers:  25%

Then, their odds of winnig it all are:  .6*.5*.25*.25 = 1.875%

I think that' sufficient to call it a long shot.  Can we drop this?

except the statistic that they win any series is 50% since the only outcomes are win or loss.

Wow!  I'm speechless.

[LarBrd33]

Ok, so I'll be generous here:  Let's say the odds of the C's winning each of the following series is:

Bulls:  60%
Orlando: 50%
Cle:     25%
Lakers:  25%

Then, their odds of winnig it all are:  .6*.5*.25*.25 = 1.875%

I think that' sufficient to call it a long shot.  Can we drop this?

except the statistic that they win any series is 50% since the only outcomes are win or loss.

Wow!  I'm speechless.

Heh well according to John Hollinger's wonky statistics:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2009/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=PERDiem-090417

Chances of winning the title based on computer projection
Team    Odds of winning title
Cleveland  31.3
L.A. Lakers  19.3
Orlando    15.7
Portland  11.8
Denver  4.4
Boston  4.1
Houston  4.1

But hey if zerophase actually thinks there's a 50% chance for the Celtics to win the title simply due to his "win/loss" theory I highly suggest he puts his life savings on Philly winning the title.   I mean... 50% shot he ends up being right.