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

[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.

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.

  So, slightly better than the odds the Heat would win the Finals or the odds we'd have beaten the Lakers last year, or the same as the odds that we'd lose against the Cavs in the 2010 playoffs? A little better than the odds we'd beat the Magic in 2009?

[paulcowens]

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.

Are you so sure that Chris Paul represents everything Rondo could be, everything we hope for from Rondo?  I think that if Rondo becomes a better shooter, he's going set new standards for point guard play, because it seems to me that his vision, -by which i mean his view of the floor, his ability to anticipate and see ahead, and above all his overall sense of the game - is genuinely extraordinary.  And even if Rondo's shooting doesn't improve, I don't know that I take Paul over Rondo.

I'm not as worried about Rondo's shooting, anyway, as much as his consistency.

[paulcowens]

[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

It would have been a tough upset to pull off, but losing Rondo pretty much seemed to seal our doom, and I think that says a lot about how important he is to us now, and that says a lot to answer the question about whether or not we can build around him in the future.

[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.

  So, slightly better than the odds the Heat would win the Finals or the odds we'd have beaten the Lakers last year, or the same as the odds that we'd lose against the Cavs in the 2010 playoffs? A little better than the odds we'd beat the Magic in 2009?

Well it has nothing to do with the Finals. I quoted NBA quarterfinals numbers, for the history of the league. You're listing anecdotes. What I'm saying is that you probably won't win the lottery. What you're telling me is that your uncle did. 

[K.C.]

Well in my opinion Paul and Rondo are very close in terms of vision and playmaking. It also depends on what Danny is thinking when it comes Howard. Rondo and Howard would be great in the open court but come playoff time when the games slow down and go halfcourt I just think it wouldnt go so well. Both are bad free throw shooters. A Rondo Howard pick and roll would be rough, Defenders can just drop down and double Howard, which leaves Rondo uncovered from the perimeter. I can't even think of a team whose two best players were horrible freethrow shooters. I know some dont want Howard, But the alternative is depressing. We'll be watching the big three age and retire then its onto years of hoping on ping pong balls.

[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.

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.

  So, slightly better than the odds the Heat would win the Finals or the odds we'd have beaten the Lakers last year, or the same as the odds that we'd lose against the Cavs in the 2010 playoffs? A little better than the odds we'd beat the Magic in 2009?

Well it has nothing to do with the Finals. I quoted NBA quarterfinals numbers, for the history of the league. You're listing anecdotes. What I'm saying is that you probably won't win the lottery. What you're telling me is that your uncle did. 

  Or, that he did 3 times in 2 years.

[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.

  So, slightly better than the odds the Heat would win the Finals or the odds we'd have beaten the Lakers last year, or the same as the odds that we'd lose against the Cavs in the 2010 playoffs? A little better than the odds we'd beat the Magic in 2009?

Well it has nothing to do with the Finals. I quoted NBA quarterfinals numbers, for the history of the league. You're listing anecdotes. What I'm saying is that you probably won't win the lottery. What you're telling me is that your uncle did. 

  Or, that he did 3 times in 2 years.

No, you're listing anecdotes after you challenged me to give you numbers, because you didn't like the numbers.

On top of that, your anecdotes are incredibly flawed. Which one of those series started out 0-2? Right..none of them.

[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.

  So, slightly better than the odds the Heat would win the Finals or the odds we'd have beaten the Lakers last year, or the same as the odds that we'd lose against the Cavs in the 2010 playoffs? A little better than the odds we'd beat the Magic in 2009?

Well it has nothing to do with the Finals. I quoted NBA quarterfinals numbers, for the history of the league. You're listing anecdotes. What I'm saying is that you probably won't win the lottery. What you're telling me is that your uncle did. 

  Or, that he did 3 times in 2 years.

No, you're listing anecdotes after you challenged me to give you numbers, because you didn't like the numbers.

On top of that, your anecdotes are incredibly flawed. Which one of those series started out 0-2? Right..none of them.

And, I'm sure you can go back and find proper anecdotes that will suit what you want. What I'm telling you is that its a longshot to come back from 0-2 when you don't have homecourt.

[PosImpos]

You can call it ridiculous, but I see a team that fell short as a team that wasn't quite good enough to win a championship. 

  Agreed that the team fell short and wasn't quite good enough to win the title. Same with the 07-08 Lakers, same with last year's Heat. That's not ridiculous. Claiming that teams like these weren't contenders because they didn't win the title, possibly another story.

The 2010 Celtics were a great defensive team that was below average on offense.  As long as the Celtics offense is inconsistent and prone to collapse in crunch time, without any go-to scorer who can find a way to score regardless of the situation, I can't see the Celtics as a true contender.

  Clearly the Celts don't fit your preconceived notion of what a contending team should look like. But they're contenders nonetheless. And the Celts died down the stretch in that game 7, but collapses in crunch time wasn't really a recurring theme during the 2010 playoffs.

Contenders they were.  Teams who had what it took to win a championship they were not.

[BballTim]

You can call it ridiculous, but I see a team that fell short as a team that wasn't quite good enough to win a championship. 

  Agreed that the team fell short and wasn't quite good enough to win the title. Same with the 07-08 Lakers, same with last year's Heat. That's not ridiculous. Claiming that teams like these weren't contenders because they didn't win the title, possibly another story.

The 2010 Celtics were a great defensive team that was below average on offense.  As long as the Celtics offense is inconsistent and prone to collapse in crunch time, without any go-to scorer who can find a way to score regardless of the situation, I can't see the Celtics as a true contender.

  Clearly the Celts don't fit your preconceived notion of what a contending team should look like. But they're contenders nonetheless. And the Celts died down the stretch in that game 7, but collapses in crunch time wasn't really a recurring theme during the 2010 playoffs.

Contenders they were.  Teams who had what it took to win a championship they were not.

  I'd have to assume that you're using "had what it took to win a championship" to mean "won the championship". If Gasol gets injured instead of Perk and the Lakers lose game 7 do they suddenly become a team that didn't have what it took to win? It seems like a fairly meaningless designation.

[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.

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.

  So, slightly better than the odds the Heat would win the Finals or the odds we'd have beaten the Lakers last year, or the same as the odds that we'd lose against the Cavs in the 2010 playoffs? A little better than the odds we'd beat the Magic in 2009?

Well it has nothing to do with the Finals. I quoted NBA quarterfinals numbers, for the history of the league. You're listing anecdotes. What I'm saying is that you probably won't win the lottery. What you're telling me is that your uncle did. 

  Or, that he did 3 times in 2 years.

No, you're listing anecdotes after you challenged me to give you numbers, because you didn't like the numbers.

On top of that, your anecdotes are incredibly flawed. Which one of those series started out 0-2? Right..none of them.

And, I'm sure you can go back and find proper anecdotes that will suit what you want. What I'm telling you is that its a longshot to come back from 0-2 when you don't have homecourt.

  Statistically it may have been something of a longshot but I don't think historical trends guarantee future results. I don't think that, if the Celts went back to Miami 2-2, that whether they won games 2 and 3 or games 3 and 4 would have a tremendous impact on the rest of the series.

[Celtics4ever]

I don't know if you get into LeBron's head he can be mistake prone.   They were stoked against us, we were their final.  After us, their intensity dropped off a bit, and it hit them in the finals.

[mgent]

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.

  So, slightly better than the odds the Heat would win the Finals or the odds we'd have beaten the Lakers last year, or the same as the odds that we'd lose against the Cavs in the 2010 playoffs? A little better than the odds we'd beat the Magic in 2009?

Well it has nothing to do with the Finals. I quoted NBA quarterfinals numbers, for the history of the league. You're listing anecdotes. What I'm saying is that you probably won't win the lottery. What you're telling me is that your uncle did. 

  Or, that he did 3 times in 2 years.

No, you're listing anecdotes after you challenged me to give you numbers, because you didn't like the numbers.

On top of that, your anecdotes are incredibly flawed. Which one of those series started out 0-2? Right..none of them.

And, I'm sure you can go back and find proper anecdotes that will suit what you want. What I'm telling you is that its a longshot to come back from 0-2 when you don't have homecourt.

1969, Celtics were down 0-2 and 2-3, didn't win on the road til game 7.

I agree it's a long shot, but in this specific matchup I don't think it would've been anywhere close to 80/20.  Miami was winning games because LeBron was hitting contested pull up 3s at really key moments.  The chances of him continuing that at such a ridiculous percentage aren't that good.  After watching the regular season matchups, I don't see how anybody could say the Celtics had such a slim shot at coming back.

[Moranis]

]Even if we would have beaten the Heat last year, the Heat will be much better next year (if there is a season) and we will be worse without making signficant moves.  The Celtics are an old team and it showed down the stretch against the Heat.  The C's just flat out faded in the 4th quarter of virtually every game because the old guys just didn't have the legs to play playoff basketball at a high rate night in and night out.  That will only get worse next year.

  The only way the Heat will be significantly better next year is if Wade or LeBron start shooting like Ray, or at least like PP. They dominate the game too much for role players to have a big impact. The old guys on the Celts don't have the legs to play every night without a healthy Rondo or a healthy center. They didn't look appreciably older last year than in 2010 when they went to the finals.

So a healthy Haslem and Miller and Bibby for a full season won't make the Heat better.  I found that incredibly hard to believe.  A full season of playing together won't make the Heat better.  I found that incredibly hard to believe.  You know what else I found incredibly hard to believe, that the Heat won't sign a center in the offseason.  Sure Lebron and Wade will dominate the ball, but the rest of the team will be better.

And KG and Pierce absolutely looked older in the playoffs last year then they did in 2010.  Maybe it was because the C's were a bit understaffed and they felt they had to do more, but they faded down the stretch in virtually every game. 

[Moranis]

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.

  So, slightly better than the odds the Heat would win the Finals or the odds we'd have beaten the Lakers last year, or the same as the odds that we'd lose against the Cavs in the 2010 playoffs? A little better than the odds we'd beat the Magic in 2009?

Well it has nothing to do with the Finals. I quoted NBA quarterfinals numbers, for the history of the league. You're listing anecdotes. What I'm saying is that you probably won't win the lottery. What you're telling me is that your uncle did. 

  Or, that he did 3 times in 2 years.

No, you're listing anecdotes after you challenged me to give you numbers, because you didn't like the numbers.

On top of that, your anecdotes are incredibly flawed. Which one of those series started out 0-2? Right..none of them.

And, I'm sure you can go back and find proper anecdotes that will suit what you want. What I'm telling you is that its a longshot to come back from 0-2 when you don't have homecourt.

1969, Celtics were down 0-2 and 2-3, didn't win on the road til game 7.

I agree it's a long shot, but in this specific matchup I don't think it would've been anywhere close to 80/20.  Miami was winning games because LeBron was hitting contested pull up 3s at really key moments.  The chances of him continuing that at such a ridiculous percentage aren't that good.  After watching the regular season matchups, I don't see how anybody could say the Celtics had such a slim shot at coming back.

So you are planning on an injury to the opposing teams best player, because in 69 West pulled a hammy at the end of the Lakers game 5 win and was hobbled the rest of the series.  And then in game 7, Chamberlain sprained an ankle late in the 4th quarter and did not return to the game (even though he told Bill Van Breda Kolff he was ready to come back in - Van Breda Kolff was fired at the end of the season). 

I mean I suppose both James and Wade could get hurt in the same series, but that doesn't seem like odds I'd be betting on.