Define "building around". Why do they keep saying we can't build around Rondo?

[BballTim]

Yeah, in the early part of the season the Celtics looked like the best team out there, no question.

But the biggest reason why the Celtics lost is because they relied upon older players who have become injury risks. Kind of like I said, walking into the season, a lineup of:

Miller/Roy/Fernandez
Brandon Roy (healthy)/Wes Matthews
Nic Batum/Matthews
Aldridge/Cunningham/Camby
Camby/Oden(healthy)/Pryzbilla(healthy)

That's gotta be the best team in the league on paper, right?

  The main reason we lost (by far) was Rondo's injury. I would say your Portland example would be similar if Roy entered the season with no health concerns to his knees. You're expecting Portland's best player to be healthier than it's reasonable to expect, the Celts were hoping to have someone step up and be their 5th best starter by a decent margin.

[indeedproceed]

Yeah, in the early part of the season the Celtics looked like the best team out there, no question.

But the biggest reason why the Celtics lost is because they relied upon older players who have become injury risks. Kind of like I said, walking into the season, a lineup of:

Miller/Roy/Fernandez
Brandon Roy (healthy)/Wes Matthews
Nic Batum/Matthews
Aldridge/Cunningham/Camby
Camby/Oden(healthy)/Pryzbilla(healthy)

That's gotta be the best team in the league on paper, right?

  The main reason we lost (by far) was Rondo's injury. I would say your Portland example would be similar if Roy entered the season with no health concerns to his knees. You're expecting Portland's best player to be healthier than it's reasonable to expect, the Celts were hoping to have someone step up and be their 5th best starter by a decent margin.

Well, the Celtics were counting on a 31 yr old (Jermaine O'Neal, who is not really a real 31 yr old) a 33, 35, 36, and 39 year old to be healthy during the playoffs. I'd say since that was a pretty big part of their plan, that was the biggest reason they lost.

They were 0-2 before Rondo got hurt in game 3, and they were 1-2 after it. I think hoping the Celtics were going to successfully climb out of a 0-2 hole where they were clearly outclassed athletically, and didn't have the bodies to hurt Miami inside like they needed was a bit of a pipe-dream i retrospect.

[BballTim]

Yeah, in the early part of the season the Celtics looked like the best team out there, no question.

But the biggest reason why the Celtics lost is because they relied upon older players who have become injury risks. Kind of like I said, walking into the season, a lineup of:

Miller/Roy/Fernandez
Brandon Roy (healthy)/Wes Matthews
Nic Batum/Matthews
Aldridge/Cunningham/Camby
Camby/Oden(healthy)/Pryzbilla(healthy)

That's gotta be the best team in the league on paper, right?

  The main reason we lost (by far) was Rondo's injury. I would say your Portland example would be similar if Roy entered the season with no health concerns to his knees. You're expecting Portland's best player to be healthier than it's reasonable to expect, the Celts were hoping to have someone step up and be their 5th best starter by a decent margin.

Well, the Celtics were counting on a 31 yr old (Jermaine O'Neal, who is not really a real 31 yr old) a 33, 35, 36, and 39 year old to be healthy during the playoffs. I'd say since that was a pretty big part of their plan, that was the biggest reason they lost.

They were 0-2 before Rondo got hurt in game 3, and they were 1-2 after it. I think hoping the Celtics were going to successfully climb out of a 0-2 hole where they were clearly outclassed athletically, and didn't have the bodies to hurt Miami inside like they needed was a bit of a pipe-dream i retrospect.

  The Celts went to overtime in game 4 despite Rondo's injuries and had chances to win in regulation. I don't think that being tied 2-2 in a series would be an insurmountable situation.

[indeedproceed]

Yeah, in the early part of the season the Celtics looked like the best team out there, no question.

But the biggest reason why the Celtics lost is because they relied upon older players who have become injury risks. Kind of like I said, walking into the season, a lineup of:

Miller/Roy/Fernandez
Brandon Roy (healthy)/Wes Matthews
Nic Batum/Matthews
Aldridge/Cunningham/Camby
Camby/Oden(healthy)/Pryzbilla(healthy)

That's gotta be the best team in the league on paper, right?

  The main reason we lost (by far) was Rondo's injury. I would say your Portland example would be similar if Roy entered the season with no health concerns to his knees. You're expecting Portland's best player to be healthier than it's reasonable to expect, the Celts were hoping to have someone step up and be their 5th best starter by a decent margin.

Well, the Celtics were counting on a 31 yr old (Jermaine O'Neal, who is not really a real 31 yr old) a 33, 35, 36, and 39 year old to be healthy during the playoffs. I'd say since that was a pretty big part of their plan, that was the biggest reason they lost.

They were 0-2 before Rondo got hurt in game 3, and they were 1-2 after it. I think hoping the Celtics were going to successfully climb out of a 0-2 hole where they were clearly outclassed athletically, and didn't have the bodies to hurt Miami inside like they needed was a bit of a pipe-dream i retrospect.

  The Celts went to overtime in game 4 despite Rondo's injuries and had chances to win in regulation. I don't think that being tied 2-2 in a series would be an insurmountable situation.

Right..it wasn't insurmountable, but it was pretty unlikely.Kind of like walking into a casino and throwing $500 down on one hand of blackjack is an unlikely win, but it happens.

[BballTim]

Yeah, in the early part of the season the Celtics looked like the best team out there, no question.

But the biggest reason why the Celtics lost is because they relied upon older players who have become injury risks. Kind of like I said, walking into the season, a lineup of:

Miller/Roy/Fernandez
Brandon Roy (healthy)/Wes Matthews
Nic Batum/Matthews
Aldridge/Cunningham/Camby
Camby/Oden(healthy)/Pryzbilla(healthy)

That's gotta be the best team in the league on paper, right?

  The main reason we lost (by far) was Rondo's injury. I would say your Portland example would be similar if Roy entered the season with no health concerns to his knees. You're expecting Portland's best player to be healthier than it's reasonable to expect, the Celts were hoping to have someone step up and be their 5th best starter by a decent margin.

Well, the Celtics were counting on a 31 yr old (Jermaine O'Neal, who is not really a real 31 yr old) a 33, 35, 36, and 39 year old to be healthy during the playoffs. I'd say since that was a pretty big part of their plan, that was the biggest reason they lost.

They were 0-2 before Rondo got hurt in game 3, and they were 1-2 after it. I think hoping the Celtics were going to successfully climb out of a 0-2 hole where they were clearly outclassed athletically, and didn't have the bodies to hurt Miami inside like they needed was a bit of a pipe-dream i retrospect.

  The Celts went to overtime in game 4 despite Rondo's injuries and had chances to win in regulation. I don't think that being tied 2-2 in a series would be an insurmountable situation.

Right..it wasn't insurmountable, but it was pretty unlikely.Kind of like walking into a casino and throwing $500 down on one hand of blackjack is an unlikely win, but it happens.

  Haha. Because it's almost unheard of for a team that's tied 2-2 in a series to win it.

  It happens much more often than you seem to think.

[indeedproceed]

Yeah, in the early part of the season the Celtics looked like the best team out there, no question.

But the biggest reason why the Celtics lost is because they relied upon older players who have become injury risks. Kind of like I said, walking into the season, a lineup of:

Miller/Roy/Fernandez
Brandon Roy (healthy)/Wes Matthews
Nic Batum/Matthews
Aldridge/Cunningham/Camby
Camby/Oden(healthy)/Pryzbilla(healthy)

That's gotta be the best team in the league on paper, right?

  The main reason we lost (by far) was Rondo's injury. I would say your Portland example would be similar if Roy entered the season with no health concerns to his knees. You're expecting Portland's best player to be healthier than it's reasonable to expect, the Celts were hoping to have someone step up and be their 5th best starter by a decent margin.

Well, the Celtics were counting on a 31 yr old (Jermaine O'Neal, who is not really a real 31 yr old) a 33, 35, 36, and 39 year old to be healthy during the playoffs. I'd say since that was a pretty big part of their plan, that was the biggest reason they lost.

They were 0-2 before Rondo got hurt in game 3, and they were 1-2 after it. I think hoping the Celtics were going to successfully climb out of a 0-2 hole where they were clearly outclassed athletically, and didn't have the bodies to hurt Miami inside like they needed was a bit of a pipe-dream i retrospect.

  The Celts went to overtime in game 4 despite Rondo's injuries and had chances to win in regulation. I don't think that being tied 2-2 in a series would be an insurmountable situation.

Right..it wasn't insurmountable, but it was pretty unlikely.Kind of like walking into a casino and throwing $500 down on one hand of blackjack is an unlikely win, but it happens.

  Haha. Because it's almost unheard of for a team that's tied 2-2 in a series to win it.

  It happens much more often than you seem to think.

Look up the odds of winning one hand of blackjack, and look up the odds of a team coming back from a 0-2 advantage in a 7 game series without homecourt advantage to win. I bet they're close.

[indeedproceed]

Yeah, in the early part of the season the Celtics looked like the best team out there, no question.

But the biggest reason why the Celtics lost is because they relied upon older players who have become injury risks. Kind of like I said, walking into the season, a lineup of:

Miller/Roy/Fernandez
Brandon Roy (healthy)/Wes Matthews
Nic Batum/Matthews
Aldridge/Cunningham/Camby
Camby/Oden(healthy)/Pryzbilla(healthy)

That's gotta be the best team in the league on paper, right?

  The main reason we lost (by far) was Rondo's injury. I would say your Portland example would be similar if Roy entered the season with no health concerns to his knees. You're expecting Portland's best player to be healthier than it's reasonable to expect, the Celts were hoping to have someone step up and be their 5th best starter by a decent margin.

Well, the Celtics were counting on a 31 yr old (Jermaine O'Neal, who is not really a real 31 yr old) a 33, 35, 36, and 39 year old to be healthy during the playoffs. I'd say since that was a pretty big part of their plan, that was the biggest reason they lost.

They were 0-2 before Rondo got hurt in game 3, and they were 1-2 after it. I think hoping the Celtics were going to successfully climb out of a 0-2 hole where they were clearly outclassed athletically, and didn't have the bodies to hurt Miami inside like they needed was a bit of a pipe-dream i retrospect.

  The Celts went to overtime in game 4 despite Rondo's injuries and had chances to win in regulation. I don't think that being tied 2-2 in a series would be an insurmountable situation.

Right..it wasn't insurmountable, but it was pretty unlikely.Kind of like walking into a casino and throwing $500 down on one hand of blackjack is an unlikely win, but it happens.

  Haha. Because it's almost unheard of for a team that's tied 2-2 in a series to win it.

  It happens much more often than you seem to think.

Look up the odds of winning one hand of blackjack, and look up the odds of a team coming back from a 0-2 advantage in a 7 game series without homecourt advantage to win. I bet they're close.

I got somewhere between 43% and 47%. Hmm....I woulda said 40% lose, 60% win. Guess it was closer.

[BballTim]

Look up the odds of winning one hand of blackjack, and look up the odds of a team coming back from a 0-2 advantage in a 7 game series without homecourt advantage to win. I bet they're close.

  I'll go out on a limb and make the claim that it happens much more often when the series is tied 2-2 than in other cases. I'll also bet that it's more likely that there's a successful comeback when the team that's down is within 1 seed of the leading team, like 2v3 or 4v5 as opposed to 3v6 or 1v4. The fact that 1 and 2 seeds win out against 7 and 8 seeds when they're up 2-0 has a lot less bearing on the series in question than you realize.

[Kane3387]

Yeah, in the early part of the season the Celtics looked like the best team out there, no question.

But the biggest reason why the Celtics lost is because they relied upon older players who have become injury risks. Kind of like I said, walking into the season, a lineup of:

Miller/Roy/Fernandez
Brandon Roy (healthy)/Wes Matthews
Nic Batum/Matthews
Aldridge/Cunningham/Camby
Camby/Oden(healthy)/Pryzbilla(healthy)

That's gotta be the best team in the league on paper, right?

One of them. A contender in the West. Still good enough to beat LA? I don't know because we don't really know how good Oden ever was. I mean all three of our centers played in playoff series the previous year at a reasonably healthy aspect. Oden has never played a complete season.. and that's pretty sad, but to me you have to base the best he can provide on the first half of 09-10.  Plus, and I know they didn't have Miller, but when Portland was in the playoffs in 08-09 with a fully healthy Roy they got beat fairly easily by Houston. The following season they didn't put up much of a fight against Phoenix after game 1.

All that being said I completely agree that the team on paper you mentioned above is a top three team in the West and maybe top 5 or 6 in the NBA.

[indeedproceed]

Look up the odds of winning one hand of blackjack, and look up the odds of a team coming back from a 0-2 advantage in a 7 game series without homecourt advantage to win. I bet they're close.

  I'll go out on a limb and make the claim that it happens much more often when the series is tied 2-2 than in other cases. I'll also bet that it's more likely that there's a successful comeback when the team that's down is within 1 seed of the leading team, like 2v3 or 4v5 as opposed to 3v6 or 1v4. The fact that 1 and 2 seeds win out against 7 and 8 seeds when they're up 2-0 has a lot less bearing on the series in question than you realize.

Haha, what's that they say about statistics?

I'm pretty confident that anytime a team is down 0-2, the odds are extremely low.

I'm pretty confident that anytime a team has been down 0-2 and come back to 2-2, they still end up losing a large majority of the time.

I'm pretty confident that anytime a team, even if only separated by 1 seed, when lacking homecourt advantage, after being down 0-2 and coming back to tie it at 2-2, still lose the series a handy majority of the time. I bet they end up winning less than 40% of the time. I bet its somewhere between 25% and 30%.

[BballTim]

Look up the odds of winning one hand of blackjack, and look up the odds of a team coming back from a 0-2 advantage in a 7 game series without homecourt advantage to win. I bet they're close.

  I'll go out on a limb and make the claim that it happens much more often when the series is tied 2-2 than in other cases. I'll also bet that it's more likely that there's a successful comeback when the team that's down is within 1 seed of the leading team, like 2v3 or 4v5 as opposed to 3v6 or 1v4. The fact that 1 and 2 seeds win out against 7 and 8 seeds when they're up 2-0 has a lot less bearing on the series in question than you realize.

Haha, what's that they say about statistics?

I'm pretty confident that anytime a team is down 0-2, the odds are extremely low.

I'm pretty confident that anytime a team has been down 0-2 and come back to 2-2, they still end up losing a large majority of the time.

I'm pretty confident that anytime a team, even if only separated by 1 seed, when lacking homecourt advantage, after being down 0-2 and coming back to tie it at 2-2, still lose the series a handy majority of the time. I bet they end up winning less than 40% of the time. I bet its somewhere between 25% and 30%.

  If you could back up your hunches you could probably make a rather strong case that, statistically speaking, it's slightly improbable that the Celts would prevail.

[K.C.]

Hey everyone, My first post...so please be gentle

I get it, Rondo is a homegrown talent, so we our all attached to him and would love for him to start hitting free throws and 18 ft jumpers. But Chris Paul is essentially what we all hope Rondo can become. This is probably this cores last chance to win a title and if somehow we could flip say Green the Clippers pick and Rondo for Paul. It improves our chances this year, And in my opinion gives us a better shot at Howard next year. If it is somehow possible I think Danny does it without even thinking twice. Some people will be p---y about it, But after watching the big three with Paul for a few games everyone will be on board.

[indeedproceed]

Look up the odds of winning one hand of blackjack, and look up the odds of a team coming back from a 0-2 advantage in a 7 game series without homecourt advantage to win. I bet they're close.

  I'll go out on a limb and make the claim that it happens much more often when the series is tied 2-2 than in other cases. I'll also bet that it's more likely that there's a successful comeback when the team that's down is within 1 seed of the leading team, like 2v3 or 4v5 as opposed to 3v6 or 1v4. The fact that 1 and 2 seeds win out against 7 and 8 seeds when they're up 2-0 has a lot less bearing on the series in question than you realize.

Haha, what's that they say about statistics?

I'm pretty confident that anytime a team is down 0-2, the odds are extremely low.

I'm pretty confident that anytime a team has been down 0-2 and come back to 2-2, they still end up losing a large majority of the time.

I'm pretty confident that anytime a team, even if only separated by 1 seed, when lacking homecourt advantage, after being down 0-2 and coming back to tie it at 2-2, still lose the series a handy majority of the time. I bet they end up winning less than 40% of the time. I bet its somewhere between 25% and 30%.

  If you could back up your hunches you could probably make a rather strong case that, statistically speaking, it's slightly improbable that the Celts would prevail.

In the NBA, in the quarterfinals, when the better-seeded team is up 2-0, they go on to win the series 96.7% of the time.

In the NBA, in the quarterfinals, when the better-seeded team is up 2-1, they go on to win the series 90.6% of the time.

http://www.whowins.com/home.html

I can't find if they're tied 2-2 (which of course isn't really relevant, because we didn't win game 4). However, I think those first two numbers considered, the odds are going to be ~80% that Miami was going to go on to win the series after winning the first 2 games.

[paulcowens]

Yeah, in the early part of the season the Celtics looked like the best team out there, no question.

But the biggest reason why the Celtics lost is because they relied upon older players who have become injury risks. Kind of like I said, walking into the season, a lineup of:

Miller/Roy/Fernandez
Brandon Roy (healthy)/Wes Matthews
Nic Batum/Matthews
Aldridge/Cunningham/Camby
Camby/Oden(healthy)/Pryzbilla(healthy)

That's gotta be the best team in the league on paper, right?

  The main reason we lost (by far) was Rondo's injury. I would say your Portland example would be similar if Roy entered the season with no health concerns to his knees. You're expecting Portland's best player to be healthier than it's reasonable to expect, the Celts were hoping to have someone step up and be their 5th best starter by a decent margin.

Well, the Celtics were counting on a 31 yr old (Jermaine O'Neal, who is not really a real 31 yr old) a 33, 35, 36, and 39 year old to be healthy during the playoffs. I'd say since that was a pretty big part of their plan, that was the biggest reason they lost.

They were 0-2 before Rondo got hurt in game 3, and they were 1-2 after it. I think hoping the Celtics were going to successfully climb out of a 0-2 hole where they were clearly outclassed athletically, and didn't have the bodies to hurt Miami inside like they needed was a bit of a pipe-dream i retrospect.

Really?  Rondo nearly led the Cs back in game 2, and played a big role in the game 3 victory.   His injury was inopportune, to say the least, and appeared even to be opportunistic, looked at from the other point of view.

[indeedproceed]

Yeah, in the early part of the season the Celtics looked like the best team out there, no question.

But the biggest reason why the Celtics lost is because they relied upon older players who have become injury risks. Kind of like I said, walking into the season, a lineup of:

Miller/Roy/Fernandez
Brandon Roy (healthy)/Wes Matthews
Nic Batum/Matthews
Aldridge/Cunningham/Camby
Camby/Oden(healthy)/Pryzbilla(healthy)

That's gotta be the best team in the league on paper, right?

  The main reason we lost (by far) was Rondo's injury. I would say your Portland example would be similar if Roy entered the season with no health concerns to his knees. You're expecting Portland's best player to be healthier than it's reasonable to expect, the Celts were hoping to have someone step up and be their 5th best starter by a decent margin.

Well, the Celtics were counting on a 31 yr old (Jermaine O'Neal, who is not really a real 31 yr old) a 33, 35, 36, and 39 year old to be healthy during the playoffs. I'd say since that was a pretty big part of their plan, that was the biggest reason they lost.

They were 0-2 before Rondo got hurt in game 3, and they were 1-2 after it. I think hoping the Celtics were going to successfully climb out of a 0-2 hole where they were clearly outclassed athletically, and didn't have the bodies to hurt Miami inside like they needed was a bit of a pipe-dream i retrospect.

Really?  Rondo nearly led the Cs back in game 2, and played a big role in the game 3 victory.   His injury was inopportune, to say the least, and appeared even to be opportunistic, looked at from the other point of view.

I'm not getting into whether or not Miami did it on purpose, or pre-meditated doing it, or anything. I have no idea.

I'm saying now, after digesting the loss (which took me a solid couple of months), I think that Rondo being full health could have helped the Celtics succeed where failure was much more likely, and him being hurt surely all but guaranteed the loss.

But it was still a pretty decent longshot to begin with after they let games 1 and 2 slip away.