I've said before, and I continue to say, if you're a "realist" that just doesn't believe the Cs will stay/be healthy till the end, OK. I can respect that, even if I hope you're wrong. But if you're one that just harps on the team not being "that good" this year because they're lacking athleticism, or lacking heart, or they want to flip the switch, or whatever else the "realists" say...
That's not realism. That opinion isn't grounded in reality. People that espouse that opinion shouldn't call themselves "realists". Maybe "skeptics", or "we just really don't think the Celtics will win-ists". Or keep it simple and call it what it is: pessimists.
Just don't pretend that your opinion reflects the reality of what this team has been. It just doesn't.
Well, first let me say that I hate this "realist" thing. It is just a throwback to the whole "kool-aid" thing of the Jefferson/Green regime, and it accomplishes nothing to label people with certain opinions.
With that said, I personally think it is hard to argue that this team has been cruising at times, and I would also argue that they have absolutely lacked heart.
This does not change the fact that you are right about Pierce and Garnett being incredibly important to this teams success, as demonstrated by that record. However, I am reserving the right to hold them to a higher standard of "effort" and "heart", after they showed what they are capable of in 2008, and will continue to be disappointed when they do not come out and go the extra mile to win every game the way they should.
Let's be clear, this team has lost a number of games that they should have won this season, if they were giving full effort for 48 minutes. And while those may be irrevalent in May, it certainly does not make me feel better for shelling out thousands of dollars to watch them play, or dedicate so much time to following them.
I respect folks like you and the other mods that have this opinion, even though I strenuously disagree. I think part of the issue is that we don't seem to know how to appreciate a veteran team. The fact that the Celtics are an older team is often used as a criticism for them, but the flip side is hardly ever considered: they may not be ABLE to go full-boar for 100 games anymore. I mean, physically just not able to do it. I was one of the people that really thought this team could win 70 with the idea that if healthy they're the best, but for this season at least it's obvious that KG and Pierce simply could not do that. And maybe they never will be able to again. But the thing is: THAT'S OK.
I think people get hung up on the Shaq/Kobe idea of "coasting" then "flipping the switch". And it's perceived as a negative because 1) they're the Lakers and 2) it seems so obvious that Shaq and Kobe should have won more than they did.
But, in my opinion, they're a
horrible comparison for this team.
That squad was all about Shaq and Kobe being so ridiculously talented that when they worked together at full-speed, they just could overpower just about everyone. But they were primadonnas...both wanted to prove they could win "their" way. Shaq really WAS wilfully out of shape/coasting...just to prove he could. Kobe really DID wilfully take bad shots or pass-just-to-show-what-would-happen-if-he-didn't-shoot.
This team isn't like that. Maybe if they'd been playing together in their 20s (like Shaq and Kobe did) they would have been physically able to dominate like that. In 2008, at the dawn of their 30s, they almost were. But now? Their bodies just aren't at that place. And mentally, they've NEVER been comparable to those Lakers. At all.
This team is MUCH more similar to the Spurs of the previous decade than the Lakers. They are a team built on defense and execution (both of which require a lot more energy and unity than just relying on 2 supremely gifted scorers). They are built around veteran players with minutes limits (much like David Robinson on the early Spurs championships and Tim Duncan on the later title teams).
The regular season win percentage of those Spurs teams? 72.5%, almost EXACTLY the same as this team when KG and Pierce play. And you know what? I'm willing to bet that those Spurs teams also lost or had some close games against teams they should have beaten. But you know what else? I SERIOUSLY doubt that there were many "The Spurs are Pathetic!" topics swirling among their fans at the time. Know why? Because their fans had learned to appreciate what they had: the opportunity to see a great team, built around All-time great players. And more importantly, they (and their fans) knew that
for a contender, the regular season is meant to prepare the team as best as possible for the postseason. Nothing more, nothing less.
Whether we want to hear it or not, last season hammered home the point to this squad that going balls out from October to February is absolutely pointless if that means that you wreck your best player(s) and ruin your shot at a title.
But all of the above DOESN'T MAKE THE TEAM PATHETIC, or not-giving-fans-their-money's-worth, or flip-switchers, or whatever other negative spin folks put on it. This is a team that is doing the best that they can to put themselves in a position to win a title. They aren't having primadonna issues like Shaq and Kobe. They aren't coasting because they're lazy or proving a point like Shaq and Kobe. Maybe they aren't as strong as they were physically in 2008...that's nature. But frankly, if they continue along the trajectory that I've been seeing since all of the negativity began back in January...if they DO continue to build their way up from the ashes of their injuries and age infirmities...if they DO perform in the playoffs the way I think they will if their bodies hold up...to me that is MORE impressive than what they did in 2008 when KG could still hit 101 with his fastball and everyone was healthy and fresh and new.
If they can fight through the aches and pains and continue to march on, that shows more to me than "well, they fought hard every night."
It's show me both the heart AND the intellect of a champion.
Topic: Sanity Check: The Elephant(s) in the Room (Read 8662 times)