"We might win the Atlantic!"... (looks at schedule)... N/M

[RyNye]

I am sick of people saying that us beating the Bulls didn't count because Rose wasn't playing. We only lost to Miami when Paul Pierce wasn't playing, so that win shouldn't count either!

 

Look, obviously we are not the favorites. Nobody is stupid enough to believe that. But, so far, this year we have yet to be completely healthy. And, since the All-Star Break, we have the second best record in the NBA, after the Bulls. That's nothing to sneer at.

The month of April is going to be brutal for us. That much is certain. And we might not make it deep into the playoffs. But we have a [dang]ed good chance, especially if we are healthy, to make one last hurrah.

(Besides, as much as I love championships, I hate the "ring or bust" mentality. Think about football, for instance. It sucks if you don't win a SuperBowl, but winning division titles is a mark of pride, too.)

[Employee8]

Just go and tell KG that you don't believe in him.  Do it, I dare you.

[LarBrd33]

Just out of curiosity is there any correlation between the team that wins it all and their record against contenders that year?

Basically none, title teams don't generally overperform against other contenders relative to their expected record in such games.

What are you basing that statement on?   Pretty much every champion you can find over the past 15 years won at least 52 games (63% win percentage).  It was clear with all of them that they were good in the regular season.  Find me a team that just limped into the playoffs with a .500 record and took the whole thing.

The two underlined statements are very different things. Record versus contender in the first statement and overall record in the second statement.

Our overall record is not indicative of us being a contender, but the last lockout season had the Knicks make the Finals and this current group made a big run from the 4 seed after winning 50 games in 09-10.

So while I think its unlikely I'm not going to give up on this team. If you'd rather talk about how much they suck, well however you enjoy rooting for your team.

Well I'm not sure how such a stat would be available since "contender" is subjective and a matter of opinion.  Like for example, I see Chicago, MIami, OKC, Lakers and Dallas as being the only contenders this year.  You might find the Spurs to be a serious threat... and clearly some people on this forum see the "contender" list 16 teams deep (since they are including the Celtics).  In the early 00s when teams like the Nets were making the finals (and Boston was playing in the ECF) there was no point in time when I (or most rational fans) EVER considered them to be legitimate title contenders.  We all knew whoever coming out of the East was fodder for the Lakers and Spurs.  So it might be difficult to determine if record vs "contender" correlates to championship.  However, with that said... I'd LOVE for someone to find me an example of a team who outright failed in EVERY matchup against "contenders" during the regular season and then won the title.  Like, for example... I'm looking at the 2010 Lakers and checking their regular season history.  In 2010 I (and most NBA fans at the time) felt the only real contenders were Orlando, Cleveland, Boston and the Lakers.  The lakers lost both regular season games to the Cavs.  They split their matchups with Orlando and Boston.  That's 2 for 6.  But then again, that's kinda a moot point since the Lakers were seen as a regular season contender themself and finished the season with 57 wins and the 1st seed in the West.   What were talking about with this Celtics team is a squad that will finish anywhere between the 4th and 9th spots, is currently 0-9 against contenders and looks to be on pace for a .500 record.  Clear difference, if you ask me.

[jdz101]

I would honestly prefer to be 6th and play Orlando in the first round than be fourth and play Indiana.

Orlando can catch fire with 3s but they are also very weak mentally and if you get under their skin they can drop the bundle very quickly.

Also (like us) they lack any real depth on the bench. In fact their bench makes ours look like superstars.

The doubters (including the OP) are also assuming the other teams in the East are going to stay completely healthy with no injury worries, which isn't the case at the moment.

[CelticG1]

Just out of curiosity is there any correlation between the team that wins it all and their record against contenders that year?

Basically none, title teams don't generally overperform against other contenders relative to their expected record in such games.

What are you basing that statement on?   Pretty much every champion you can find over the past 15 years won at least 52 games (63% win percentage).  It was clear with all of them that they were good in the regular season.  Find me a team that just limped into the playoffs with a .500 record and took the whole thing.

The two underlined statements are very different things. Record versus contender in the first statement and overall record in the second statement.

Our overall record is not indicative of us being a contender, but the last lockout season had the Knicks make the Finals and this current group made a big run from the 4 seed after winning 50 games in 09-10.

So while I think its unlikely I'm not going to give up on this team. If you'd rather talk about how much they suck, well however you enjoy rooting for your team.

Well I'm not sure how such a stat would be available since "contender" is subjective and a matter of opinion.  Like for example, I see Chicago, MIami, OKC, Lakers and Dallas as being the only contenders this year.  You might find the Spurs to be a serious threat... and clearly some people on this forum see the "contender" list 16 teams deep (since they are including the Celtics).  In the early 00s when teams like the Nets were making the finals (and Boston was playing in the ECF) there was no point in time when I (or most rational fans) EVER considered them to be legitimate title contenders.  We all knew whoever coming out of the East was fodder for the Lakers and Spurs.  So it might be difficult to determine if record vs "contender" correlates to championship.  However, with that said... I'd LOVE for someone to find me an example of a team who outright failed in EVERY matchup against "contenders" during the regular season and then won the title.  Like, for example... I'm looking at the 2010 Lakers and checking their regular season history.  In 2010 I (and most NBA fans at the time) felt the only real contenders were Orlando, Cleveland, Boston and the Lakers.  The lakers lost both regular season games to the Cavs.  They split their matchups with Orlando and Boston.  That's 2 for 6.  But then again, that's kinda a moot point since the Lakers were seen as a regular season contender themself and finished the season with 57 wins and the 1st seed in the West.   What were talking about with this Celtics team is a squad that will finish anywhere between the 4th and 9th spots, is currently 0-9 against contenders and looks to be on pace for a .500 record.  Clear difference, if you ask me.

Somebody is backtracking!!!!

[LarBrd33]

Just out of curiosity is there any correlation between the team that wins it all and their record against contenders that year?

Basically none, title teams don't generally overperform against other contenders relative to their expected record in such games.

What are you basing that statement on?   Pretty much every champion you can find over the past 15 years won at least 52 games (63% win percentage).  It was clear with all of them that they were good in the regular season.  Find me a team that just limped into the playoffs with a .500 record and took the whole thing.

The two underlined statements are very different things. Record versus contender in the first statement and overall record in the second statement.

Our overall record is not indicative of us being a contender, but the last lockout season had the Knicks make the Finals and this current group made a big run from the 4 seed after winning 50 games in 09-10.

So while I think its unlikely I'm not going to give up on this team. If you'd rather talk about how much they suck, well however you enjoy rooting for your team.

Well I'm not sure how such a stat would be available since "contender" is subjective and a matter of opinion.  Like for example, I see Chicago, MIami, OKC, Lakers and Dallas as being the only contenders this year.  You might find the Spurs to be a serious threat... and clearly some people on this forum see the "contender" list 16 teams deep (since they are including the Celtics).  In the early 00s when teams like the Nets were making the finals (and Boston was playing in the ECF) there was no point in time when I (or most rational fans) EVER considered them to be legitimate title contenders.  We all knew whoever coming out of the East was fodder for the Lakers and Spurs.  So it might be difficult to determine if record vs "contender" correlates to championship.  However, with that said... I'd LOVE for someone to find me an example of a team who outright failed in EVERY matchup against "contenders" during the regular season and then won the title.  Like, for example... I'm looking at the 2010 Lakers and checking their regular season history.  In 2010 I (and most NBA fans at the time) felt the only real contenders were Orlando, Cleveland, Boston and the Lakers.  The lakers lost both regular season games to the Cavs.  They split their matchups with Orlando and Boston.  That's 2 for 6.  But then again, that's kinda a moot point since the Lakers were seen as a regular season contender themself and finished the season with 57 wins and the 1st seed in the West.   What were talking about with this Celtics team is a squad that will finish anywhere between the 4th and 9th spots, is currently 0-9 against contenders and looks to be on pace for a .500 record.  Clear difference, if you ask me.

Somebody is backtracking!!!!

How?  Lol.  If Boston was 2 for 6 against "contenders" this year, 1st in the East and on pace to win 57 games (70% win percentage), I'd conceed that we did in fact have a shot at a title.

Unfortunately, we are 0 for 9 against contenders (0-6 if you want to exclude the games where members of the Big 4 were out), 7th in the East and currently on pace for a .500 record if you take look at our next 16 games. 

We are more likely to miss the playoffs than win a championship.  True story.

I'm still waiting for someone to provide me with an example of a team this bad in the regular season that ended up winning the championship. 

Frankly, I'm disappointed in you guys.  There's an obvious answer I'm waiting for someone to bring up.  I already have a sweet rebuttal already in mind and everything. 

[CelticG1]

I am sick of people saying that us beating the Bulls didn't count because Rose wasn't playing. We only lost to Miami when Paul Pierce wasn't playing, so that win shouldn't count either!

 

Look, obviously we are not the favorites. Nobody is stupid enough to believe that. But, so far, this year we have yet to be completely healthy. And, since the All-Star Break, we have the second best record in the NBA, after the Bulls. That's nothing to sneer at.

The month of April is going to be brutal for us. That much is certain. And we might not make it deep into the playoffs. But we have a [dang]ed good chance, especially if we are healthy, to make one last hurrah.

(Besides, as much as I love championships, I hate the "ring or bust" mentality. Think about football, for instance. It sucks if you don't win a SuperBowl, but winning division titles is a mark of pride, too.)

It is banner or bust for the C's but the whole idea of "not caring" or "not watching " unless they are a title contender? Well we all know what that is

[OmarSekou]

It's a good thing they don't play the games on paper.

[chambers]

Just out of curiosity is there any correlation between the team that wins it all and their record against contenders that year?

Basically none, title teams don't generally overperform against other contenders relative to their expected record in such games.

What are you basing that statement on?   Pretty much every champion you can find over the past 15 years won at least 52 games (63% win percentage).  It was clear with all of them that they were good in the regular season.  Find me a team that just limped into the playoffs with a .500 record and took the whole thing.

The two underlined statements are very different things. Record versus contender in the first statement and overall record in the second statement.

Our overall record is not indicative of us being a contender, but the last lockout season had the Knicks make the Finals and this current group made a big run from the 4 seed after winning 50 games in 09-10.

So while I think its unlikely I'm not going to give up on this team. If you'd rather talk about how much they suck, well however you enjoy rooting for your team.

Well I'm not sure how such a stat would be available since "contender" is subjective and a matter of opinion.  Like for example, I see Chicago, MIami, OKC, Lakers and Dallas as being the only contenders this year.  You might find the Spurs to be a serious threat... and clearly some people on this forum see the "contender" list 16 teams deep (since they are including the Celtics).  In the early 00s when teams like the Nets were making the finals (and Boston was playing in the ECF) there was no point in time when I (or most rational fans) EVER considered them to be legitimate title contenders.  We all knew whoever coming out of the East was fodder for the Lakers and Spurs.  So it might be difficult to determine if record vs "contender" correlates to championship.  However, with that said... I'd LOVE for someone to find me an example of a team who outright failed in EVERY matchup against "contenders" during the regular season and then won the title.  Like, for example... I'm looking at the 2010 Lakers and checking their regular season history.  In 2010 I (and most NBA fans at the time) felt the only real contenders were Orlando, Cleveland, Boston and the Lakers.  The lakers lost both regular season games to the Cavs.  They split their matchups with Orlando and Boston.  That's 2 for 6.  But then again, that's kinda a moot point since the Lakers were seen as a regular season contender themself and finished the season with 57 wins and the 1st seed in the West.   What were talking about with this Celtics team is a squad that will finish anywhere between the 4th and 9th spots, is currently 0-9 against contenders and looks to be on pace for a .500 record.  Clear difference, if you ask me.

Somebody is backtracking!!!!

How?  Lol.  If Boston was 2 for 6 against "contenders" this year, 1st in the East and on pace to win 57 games (70% win percentage), I'd conceed that we did in fact have a shot at a title.

Unfortunately, we are 0 for 9 against contenders (0-6 if you want to exclude the games where members of the Big 4 were out), 7th in the East and currently on pace for a .500 record if you take look at our next 16 games. 

We are more likely to miss the playoffs than win a championship.  True story.

I'm still waiting for someone to provide me with an example of a team this bad in the regular season that ended up winning the championship. 

Frankly, I'm disappointed in you guys.  There's an obvious answer I'm waiting for someone to bring up.  I already have a sweet rebuttal already in mind and everything. 

I do not think we are contenders, but didn't the Knicks make the finals from the 8th seed last time there was a lockout?
If you are going to say that the Bulls game doesn't count because Rose was out, I wonder how many of those games we played against your 'contenders' list without one of the big four?
If one of the big four is missing does it mean those games don't count?
I'd also like to know how many of those games we had our full playoff roster playing together. My guess would be maybe 2 games. Might not even be one game.

I don't think we are good enough this year. Even if we added a solid starting big like Kaman we'd be severe long shots.

Either way, you sure do like stirring up the hornets nest around here lol.

[TheReaLPuba]

The Heat still have problems and LBJ isn't healthy.

If the Bulls continue to play without Rose then they are not serious contenders.

Knicks have been playing well but their honeymoon will soon be over.

The C's are better than their record indicates IMO.

Sure they're not a dominant team like in '08 but in this shortened season I like our chances once the playoffs hits....we just have to be playing our best ball at that point.

Our margin for error is slim but we have guys who have been there and done it.

Teams like the Heat and Chicago haven't done jack.

[LarBrd33]

Just out of curiosity is there any correlation between the team that wins it all and their record against contenders that year?

Basically none, title teams don't generally overperform against other contenders relative to their expected record in such games.

What are you basing that statement on?   Pretty much every champion you can find over the past 15 years won at least 52 games (63% win percentage).  It was clear with all of them that they were good in the regular season.  Find me a team that just limped into the playoffs with a .500 record and took the whole thing.

The two underlined statements are very different things. Record versus contender in the first statement and overall record in the second statement.

Our overall record is not indicative of us being a contender, but the last lockout season had the Knicks make the Finals and this current group made a big run from the 4 seed after winning 50 games in 09-10.

So while I think its unlikely I'm not going to give up on this team. If you'd rather talk about how much they suck, well however you enjoy rooting for your team.

Well I'm not sure how such a stat would be available since "contender" is subjective and a matter of opinion.  Like for example, I see Chicago, MIami, OKC, Lakers and Dallas as being the only contenders this year.  You might find the Spurs to be a serious threat... and clearly some people on this forum see the "contender" list 16 teams deep (since they are including the Celtics).  In the early 00s when teams like the Nets were making the finals (and Boston was playing in the ECF) there was no point in time when I (or most rational fans) EVER considered them to be legitimate title contenders.  We all knew whoever coming out of the East was fodder for the Lakers and Spurs.  So it might be difficult to determine if record vs "contender" correlates to championship.  However, with that said... I'd LOVE for someone to find me an example of a team who outright failed in EVERY matchup against "contenders" during the regular season and then won the title.  Like, for example... I'm looking at the 2010 Lakers and checking their regular season history.  In 2010 I (and most NBA fans at the time) felt the only real contenders were Orlando, Cleveland, Boston and the Lakers.  The lakers lost both regular season games to the Cavs.  They split their matchups with Orlando and Boston.  That's 2 for 6.  But then again, that's kinda a moot point since the Lakers were seen as a regular season contender themself and finished the season with 57 wins and the 1st seed in the West.   What were talking about with this Celtics team is a squad that will finish anywhere between the 4th and 9th spots, is currently 0-9 against contenders and looks to be on pace for a .500 record.  Clear difference, if you ask me.

Somebody is backtracking!!!!

How?  Lol.  If Boston was 2 for 6 against "contenders" this year, 1st in the East and on pace to win 57 games (70% win percentage), I'd conceed that we did in fact have a shot at a title.

Unfortunately, we are 0 for 9 against contenders (0-6 if you want to exclude the games where members of the Big 4 were out), 7th in the East and currently on pace for a .500 record if you take look at our next 16 games. 

We are more likely to miss the playoffs than win a championship.  True story.

I'm still waiting for someone to provide me with an example of a team this bad in the regular season that ended up winning the championship. 

Frankly, I'm disappointed in you guys.  There's an obvious answer I'm waiting for someone to bring up.  I already have a sweet rebuttal already in mind and everything. 

LarBrd33, you're an arrogant self-centered egomaniac.  I'm sick of listening to your constant negativity.  If you hate this team so much, stop following them and spare us your blabbering nonsense.  "Delusional"... "Crazy"... I find your allegations personally offensive.  I hope a mod deals with you swiftly and harshly.  Does anyone know if there's a way to just prevent someone's posts from showing up?  I'd like to just block LarBrd33 so I don't have to read this fool's posts.

To answer your question... your "example" of a team that was this bad in the regular season and still won the title... the 94-95 Rockets.  They "limped" into the playoffs with 47 wins (57% win percentage... that's worst than us right now), were terrible in the regular season against contenders and still managed to win a title.  Never underestimate the heart of a champion. 

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

[igorsure]

Even if we'll not take Division, We'll still can beat Atlanta and even Indiana - 4th place is OK, but 6th or 5th is not bad as well. If we'll have playoff schedule whoever->Chicago->Miami->whoever - I'll be OK with it

[LarBrd33]

Just out of curiosity is there any correlation between the team that wins it all and their record against contenders that year?

Basically none, title teams don't generally overperform against other contenders relative to their expected record in such games.

What are you basing that statement on?   Pretty much every champion you can find over the past 15 years won at least 52 games (63% win percentage).  It was clear with all of them that they were good in the regular season.  Find me a team that just limped into the playoffs with a .500 record and took the whole thing.

The two underlined statements are very different things. Record versus contender in the first statement and overall record in the second statement.

Our overall record is not indicative of us being a contender, but the last lockout season had the Knicks make the Finals and this current group made a big run from the 4 seed after winning 50 games in 09-10.

So while I think its unlikely I'm not going to give up on this team. If you'd rather talk about how much they suck, well however you enjoy rooting for your team.

Well I'm not sure how such a stat would be available since "contender" is subjective and a matter of opinion.  Like for example, I see Chicago, MIami, OKC, Lakers and Dallas as being the only contenders this year.  You might find the Spurs to be a serious threat... and clearly some people on this forum see the "contender" list 16 teams deep (since they are including the Celtics).  In the early 00s when teams like the Nets were making the finals (and Boston was playing in the ECF) there was no point in time when I (or most rational fans) EVER considered them to be legitimate title contenders.  We all knew whoever coming out of the East was fodder for the Lakers and Spurs.  So it might be difficult to determine if record vs "contender" correlates to championship.  However, with that said... I'd LOVE for someone to find me an example of a team who outright failed in EVERY matchup against "contenders" during the regular season and then won the title.  Like, for example... I'm looking at the 2010 Lakers and checking their regular season history.  In 2010 I (and most NBA fans at the time) felt the only real contenders were Orlando, Cleveland, Boston and the Lakers.  The lakers lost both regular season games to the Cavs.  They split their matchups with Orlando and Boston.  That's 2 for 6.  But then again, that's kinda a moot point since the Lakers were seen as a regular season contender themself and finished the season with 57 wins and the 1st seed in the West.   What were talking about with this Celtics team is a squad that will finish anywhere between the 4th and 9th spots, is currently 0-9 against contenders and looks to be on pace for a .500 record.  Clear difference, if you ask me.

Somebody is backtracking!!!!

How?  Lol.  If Boston was 2 for 6 against "contenders" this year, 1st in the East and on pace to win 57 games (70% win percentage), I'd conceed that we did in fact have a shot at a title.

Unfortunately, we are 0 for 9 against contenders (0-6 if you want to exclude the games where members of the Big 4 were out), 7th in the East and currently on pace for a .500 record if you take look at our next 16 games. 

We are more likely to miss the playoffs than win a championship.  True story.

I'm still waiting for someone to provide me with an example of a team this bad in the regular season that ended up winning the championship. 

Frankly, I'm disappointed in you guys.  There's an obvious answer I'm waiting for someone to bring up.  I already have a sweet rebuttal already in mind and everything. 

LarBrd33, you're an arrogant self-centered egomaniac.  I'm sick of listening to your constant negativity.  If you hate this team so much, stop following them and spare us your blabbering nonsense.  "Delusional"... "Crazy"... I find your allegations personally offensive.  I hope a mod deals with you swiftly and harshly.  Does anyone know if there's a way to just prevent someone's posts from showing up?  I'd like to just block LarBrd33 so I don't have to read this fool's posts.

To answer your question... your "example" of a team that was this bad in the regular season and still won the title... the 94-95 Rockets.  They "limped" into the playoffs with 47 wins (57% win percentage... that's worst than us right now), were terrible in the regular season against contenders and still managed to win a title.  Never underestimate the heart of a champion. 

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

LarBrd33, I normally wouldn't apologize for "offending" someone.  See this clip by Steve Hughes:  http://www.boreme.com/posting.php?id=29555 ...  You'll live.  But I respect you as a poster and a fellow Celtic fan... so sorry man.  It wasn't personal.  Just having some healthy debate.  No hard feelings.  Please don't block me.  I'll try to tone it down.

To your point on the Rockets... they were a DEFENDING champion who had won 58 games the year before.  They happened to have the best player (post MJ) and most dominant center in the entire league.  Hakeem is the reason why I still consider the Lakers a contender this year... any time you have a dominant 7 footer like that, you have to be included.  The Lakers have 2 of the top 5 big men in the game currently and both of them are over 7 feet.  Combined I see them equaling Hakeem.  Anyhow, it's  important to note that the 95 Rockets traded for Clyde Drexler with only 35 games remaining in the season which partially explains their poor regular-season finish (they were adjusting). Clyde ended up averaging like 20+ points, 7+ assists and 5+ rebounds in the playoffs.  Everything finally just "clicked" for them come playoff time.  Too bad the CEltics didn't go out and add a hall-of-famer at the deadline or I'd be more apt to make the comparison.  And yes, you're right... the Rockets stunk in the regular season.  The contenders that year were Orlando, NY, San Antonio and Utah.  They were 0-2 against Orlando, 0-2 against the Knicks, 1-6 against the Spurs and 2-4 against Utah.  Still a better percentage than our 0-9, but maybe that changes over the final 16 games. 

For what it's worth, I'm rooting for a title.  Hope we can turn it around and actually prove we have ability during the home stretch.  The team will surely have plenty of opportunity to change my mind. 

Thanks for your time. 

[igorsure]

Too early to speak about playoffs, a lot of things could happen, a lot of question marks.

Pietrius health and condition? At all health of all the team. Bradley&Steam have define progress, how far? Hollins, factor or not? etc. Just wait till June

[LarBrd33]

Just out of curiosity is there any correlation between the team that wins it all and their record against contenders that year?

Basically none, title teams don't generally overperform against other contenders relative to their expected record in such games.

What are you basing that statement on?   Pretty much every champion you can find over the past 15 years won at least 52 games (63% win percentage).  It was clear with all of them that they were good in the regular season.  Find me a team that just limped into the playoffs with a .500 record and took the whole thing.

The two underlined statements are very different things. Record versus contender in the first statement and overall record in the second statement.

Our overall record is not indicative of us being a contender, but the last lockout season had the Knicks make the Finals and this current group made a big run from the 4 seed after winning 50 games in 09-10.

So while I think its unlikely I'm not going to give up on this team. If you'd rather talk about how much they suck, well however you enjoy rooting for your team.

Well I'm not sure how such a stat would be available since "contender" is subjective and a matter of opinion.  Like for example, I see Chicago, MIami, OKC, Lakers and Dallas as being the only contenders this year.  You might find the Spurs to be a serious threat... and clearly some people on this forum see the "contender" list 16 teams deep (since they are including the Celtics).  In the early 00s when teams like the Nets were making the finals (and Boston was playing in the ECF) there was no point in time when I (or most rational fans) EVER considered them to be legitimate title contenders.  We all knew whoever coming out of the East was fodder for the Lakers and Spurs.  So it might be difficult to determine if record vs "contender" correlates to championship.  However, with that said... I'd LOVE for someone to find me an example of a team who outright failed in EVERY matchup against "contenders" during the regular season and then won the title.  Like, for example... I'm looking at the 2010 Lakers and checking their regular season history.  In 2010 I (and most NBA fans at the time) felt the only real contenders were Orlando, Cleveland, Boston and the Lakers.  The lakers lost both regular season games to the Cavs.  They split their matchups with Orlando and Boston.  That's 2 for 6.  But then again, that's kinda a moot point since the Lakers were seen as a regular season contender themself and finished the season with 57 wins and the 1st seed in the West.   What were talking about with this Celtics team is a squad that will finish anywhere between the 4th and 9th spots, is currently 0-9 against contenders and looks to be on pace for a .500 record.  Clear difference, if you ask me.

Somebody is backtracking!!!!

How?  Lol.  If Boston was 2 for 6 against "contenders" this year, 1st in the East and on pace to win 57 games (70% win percentage), I'd conceed that we did in fact have a shot at a title.

Unfortunately, we are 0 for 9 against contenders (0-6 if you want to exclude the games where members of the Big 4 were out), 7th in the East and currently on pace for a .500 record if you take look at our next 16 games. 

We are more likely to miss the playoffs than win a championship.  True story.

I'm still waiting for someone to provide me with an example of a team this bad in the regular season that ended up winning the championship. 

Frankly, I'm disappointed in you guys.  There's an obvious answer I'm waiting for someone to bring up.  I already have a sweet rebuttal already in mind and everything. 

LarBrd33, you're an arrogant self-centered egomaniac.  I'm sick of listening to your constant negativity.  If you hate this team so much, stop following them and spare us your blabbering nonsense.  "Delusional"... "Crazy"... I find your allegations personally offensive.  I hope a mod deals with you swiftly and harshly.  Does anyone know if there's a way to just prevent someone's posts from showing up?  I'd like to just block LarBrd33 so I don't have to read this fool's posts.

To answer your question... your "example" of a team that was this bad in the regular season and still won the title... the 94-95 Rockets.  They "limped" into the playoffs with 47 wins (57% win percentage... that's worst than us right now), were terrible in the regular season against contenders and still managed to win a title.  Never underestimate the heart of a champion. 

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

LarBrd33, I normally wouldn't apologize for "offending" someone.  See this clip by Steve Hughes:  http://www.boreme.com/posting.php?id=29555 ...  You'll live.  But I respect you as a poster and a fellow Celtic fan... so sorry man.  It wasn't personal.  Just having some healthy debate.  No hard feelings.  Please don't block me.  I'll try to tone it down.

To your point on the Rockets... they were a DEFENDING champion who had won 58 games the year before.  They happened to have the best player (post MJ) and most dominant center in the entire league.  Hakeem is the reason why I still consider the Lakers a contender this year... any time you have a dominant 7 footer like that, you have to be included.  The Lakers have 2 of the top 5 big men in the game currently and both of them are over 7 feet.  Combined I see them equaling Hakeem.  Anyhow, it's  important to note that the 95 Rockets traded for Clyde Drexler with only 35 games remaining in the season which partially explains their poor regular-season finish (they were adjusting). Clyde ended up averaging like 20+ points, 7+ assists and 5+ rebounds in the playoffs.  Everything finally just "clicked" for them come playoff time.  Too bad the CEltics didn't go out and add a hall-of-famer at the deadline or I'd be more apt to make the comparison.  And yes, you're right... the Rockets stunk in the regular season.  The contenders that year were Orlando, NY, San Antonio and Utah.  They were 0-2 against Orlando, 0-2 against the Knicks, 1-6 against the Spurs and 2-4 against Utah.  Still a better percentage than our 0-9, but maybe that changes over the final 16 games. 

For what it's worth, I'm rooting for a title.  Hope we can turn it around and actually prove we have ability during the home stretch.  The team will surely have plenty of opportunity to change my mind. 

Thanks for your time. 

Somebody is backtracking!!!!

Doesn't KG qualify as your dominant "7 footer"?  If you had been watching the games recently you'd notice these things.