What's the difference between us and the spurs?

[celtsfan84]

If we played in the western conference we wouldn't have as many playoff wins as we do now. Western conference is alot tougher.

  I don't agree at all.

If you think the east is tougher than the west you're delusional lol.

  What's delusional is the claim that we wouldn't be able to beat teams in the west in the playoffs. lol.

Teams in the West won the title in 2009, 2010, and 2011 while we did not.  It is entirely possible that we could have lost to one of those teams during the playoffs if we were in the West.

Or beaten all of them had we been healthy.

Potentially true.  A lot of teams in the NBA can make the "if healthy" claim though.  The Suns lost Joe Johnson one year, lost Amar'e the next, and lost Amar'e to a suspension against the Spurs after that.  Suns fans count three potentially lost titles.

Maybe we beat those teams, maybe not.  I wouldn't say arguing either way is delusional though.

Not a lot of teams.. Only a few. Spurs, Suns, Rockets, Lakers. That's really about it. Detroit never could. Miami couldn't - I don't think. From 1998 - 2004 the east never had a chance.

Yeah, I'd say that's pretty fair for that time period.

Miami did have a banged up Shaq and Wade in a Game 7 of the 2005 playoffs against the Pistons though.

[BballTim]

  I thought the answer was "we've had more recent playoff success than them".

I'd say he is talking about this year.  Every year is different.  For instance, he spoke of roster similarities.  The Celtics roster this year has a lot of turnover.  Context clues, my friend, context clues.

Or maybe that was a sarcastic response to a poster asking a genuine question.  That wouldn't be your style though.

  Haha. I'm surprised you couldn't work Chris Paul into your post.

  And it's great that you were able to tell that he was talking about this year by those hard to decipher context clues, I did too. I don't know if you're new here, but threads like this happen all the time when the Celts go through a slump. I was just pointing out that the team usually plays well in the playoffs despite these issues. I was just adding some perspective, my friend, perspective.

1) Every year is different.  It isn't a definite that a slow start will lead to a nice finish because it happened before.  And our title year happened after a quick start to the season.  Given the choice between being 8-7 or 11-4, I'd prefer to be 11-4, regardless of how we started or finished in prior seasons.

2) The OP, or myself, never said we can't or won't turn it around.  He is just wondering why we are struggling now as compared to other teams, like the Spurs.

  So if you agree that there's no reason to think we can't turn it around, why does it bother you that I pointed that out?

3) Chris Paul. (Who probably appears in a higher % of your posts, as mocking him is oddly your sole means of praising Rondo.)

  I don't have any idea how many of your posts are about Chris Paul. I don't know that I've ever seen a post of yours before yesterday. I keep less track of who posts what than you seem to.

It doesn't bother me at all, but it fails to address the OP's question, which is asking why we look worse than the Spurs to begin this year.  Our finish in 2010 or 2009 isn't the difference between us and the Spurs to begin this season, which is what the question was.  Your post is an answer to a question that nobody asked, in essence, which is all I addressed.

  Are you the thread police? It's not that uncommon for someone to make a comment based on the thread title that doesn't directly address the OP. And, again, I was just injecting a different perspective on the issue.

It's really odd that you said you were surprised that I didn't mention Chris Paul.  You don't "keep track of my posts" but feel the need to point out that I supposedly post about a certain player a lot.  Strange.

  Oh, I knew who you were by your reply to my post, which seems to largely be spillover from the other ongoing thread that I referred to. You posted about Paul a lot in that thread.

Regardless, is it possible that our slumps hurt us in 2010?  Would we have won the NBA Finals in 2010 if we had home court?  Didn't we lose Game 7 in the Lakers building by 4?

  Possibly, but home court would change for the whole series, not just the one game. What if we'd come out flat in game 1 at home instead of in LA? What if we'd come back to Boston down 3-2 instead of going back to LA up 3-2?

Losing a lot of games to begin the year might not hurt us in the long run, but there is no way that it helps.

  Nobody said that losing helps, nobody said that they'd rather have our record than the Spurs.

I'm not the thread police, but I am allowed to point out that every year is different and previous slow starts don't guarantee us more playoff success than the Spurs this year.  Are you the thread police?  Or am I not allowed to respond to your posts?

  I was just being snarky about the thread police thing. You didn't seem to have trouble discussing our playoff success compared to the Spurs with other posters instead of admonishing them for not answering the OP's question. Guess you missed the context clues on that one.

So I posted a lot about Chris Paul in one thread on one night and that leads you to draw the conclusion that you were surprised that I wouldn't post about him in other threads.  Geez, rush to judgment much?

  Obviously not, which is why I said "I don't have any idea how many of your posts are about Chris Paul".

4 games at home is preferable to 4 games on the road, no matter how you slice it.  The end goal is to win the championship.  We did so after a fast start.  We haven't done so after slow starts.

  I don't think that home court is a huge advantage in a 2-3-2, but opinions vary.

Which begs the question why your first reply to me was "Haha. I'm surprised you couldn't work Chris Paul into your post."  Because I posted about him in one completely different thread?  At least it seems that now you are admitting that this initial statement made no logical sense or connection to this thread at all, so that one can be put to rest.

  Your initial response to my post seemed to be based on a discussion in another thread. I was merely responding in kind. It makes logical sense, and it's connected to the thread because it came after your post.

Is home court a big advantage in a 2-2-1-1-1?

  It's definitely a bigger home court advantage than 2-3-2. Would you rather have your home games earlier in a series or later?

My response on this thread was not based on another thread.  My initial post on this thread was not about Chris Paul (nor was any other thread) and did not mention him in any way, so no, that response was not connected to my post or the thread at all.

  You responded to my post to address the fact that it didn't have anything to do with the topic (while discussing the same thing I brought up with other posters) and made a comment about sarcasm being my "style" a few minutes after complaining about my sarcastic posts in another thread. You might have missed the reference but it was fairly obvious.

Anyway, it would certainly hurt us to lose home court in a 2-2-1-1-1 series according to your post.  We risk doing that in the East this year.

  I don't really care a lot about home court in the East except possibly the ECF which we probably won't get anyways. If we can't beat crappy teams on the road then we won't win the title anyways.

[celtsfan84]

  I thought the answer was "we've had more recent playoff success than them".

I'd say he is talking about this year.  Every year is different.  For instance, he spoke of roster similarities.  The Celtics roster this year has a lot of turnover.  Context clues, my friend, context clues.

Or maybe that was a sarcastic response to a poster asking a genuine question.  That wouldn't be your style though.

  Haha. I'm surprised you couldn't work Chris Paul into your post.

  And it's great that you were able to tell that he was talking about this year by those hard to decipher context clues, I did too. I don't know if you're new here, but threads like this happen all the time when the Celts go through a slump. I was just pointing out that the team usually plays well in the playoffs despite these issues. I was just adding some perspective, my friend, perspective.

1) Every year is different.  It isn't a definite that a slow start will lead to a nice finish because it happened before.  And our title year happened after a quick start to the season.  Given the choice between being 8-7 or 11-4, I'd prefer to be 11-4, regardless of how we started or finished in prior seasons.

2) The OP, or myself, never said we can't or won't turn it around.  He is just wondering why we are struggling now as compared to other teams, like the Spurs.

  So if you agree that there's no reason to think we can't turn it around, why does it bother you that I pointed that out?

3) Chris Paul. (Who probably appears in a higher % of your posts, as mocking him is oddly your sole means of praising Rondo.)

  I don't have any idea how many of your posts are about Chris Paul. I don't know that I've ever seen a post of yours before yesterday. I keep less track of who posts what than you seem to.

It doesn't bother me at all, but it fails to address the OP's question, which is asking why we look worse than the Spurs to begin this year.  Our finish in 2010 or 2009 isn't the difference between us and the Spurs to begin this season, which is what the question was.  Your post is an answer to a question that nobody asked, in essence, which is all I addressed.

  Are you the thread police? It's not that uncommon for someone to make a comment based on the thread title that doesn't directly address the OP. And, again, I was just injecting a different perspective on the issue.

It's really odd that you said you were surprised that I didn't mention Chris Paul.  You don't "keep track of my posts" but feel the need to point out that I supposedly post about a certain player a lot.  Strange.

  Oh, I knew who you were by your reply to my post, which seems to largely be spillover from the other ongoing thread that I referred to. You posted about Paul a lot in that thread.

Regardless, is it possible that our slumps hurt us in 2010?  Would we have won the NBA Finals in 2010 if we had home court?  Didn't we lose Game 7 in the Lakers building by 4?

  Possibly, but home court would change for the whole series, not just the one game. What if we'd come out flat in game 1 at home instead of in LA? What if we'd come back to Boston down 3-2 instead of going back to LA up 3-2?

Losing a lot of games to begin the year might not hurt us in the long run, but there is no way that it helps.

  Nobody said that losing helps, nobody said that they'd rather have our record than the Spurs.

I'm not the thread police, but I am allowed to point out that every year is different and previous slow starts don't guarantee us more playoff success than the Spurs this year.  Are you the thread police?  Or am I not allowed to respond to your posts?

  I was just being snarky about the thread police thing. You didn't seem to have trouble discussing our playoff success compared to the Spurs with other posters instead of admonishing them for not answering the OP's question. Guess you missed the context clues on that one.

So I posted a lot about Chris Paul in one thread on one night and that leads you to draw the conclusion that you were surprised that I wouldn't post about him in other threads.  Geez, rush to judgment much?

  Obviously not, which is why I said "I don't have any idea how many of your posts are about Chris Paul".

4 games at home is preferable to 4 games on the road, no matter how you slice it.  The end goal is to win the championship.  We did so after a fast start.  We haven't done so after slow starts.

  I don't think that home court is a huge advantage in a 2-3-2, but opinions vary.

Which begs the question why your first reply to me was "Haha. I'm surprised you couldn't work Chris Paul into your post."  Because I posted about him in one completely different thread?  At least it seems that now you are admitting that this initial statement made no logical sense or connection to this thread at all, so that one can be put to rest.

  Your initial response to my post seemed to be based on a discussion in another thread. I was merely responding in kind. It makes logical sense, and it's connected to the thread because it came after your post.

Is home court a big advantage in a 2-2-1-1-1?

  It's definitely a bigger home court advantage than 2-3-2. Would you rather have your home games earlier in a series or later?

My response on this thread was not based on another thread.  My initial post on this thread was not about Chris Paul (nor was any other thread) and did not mention him in any way, so no, that response was not connected to my post or the thread at all.

  You responded to my post to address the fact that it didn't have anything to do with the topic (while discussing the same thing I brought up with other posters) and made a comment about sarcasm being my "style" a few minutes after complaining about my sarcastic posts in another thread. You might have missed the reference but it was fairly obvious.

Anyway, it would certainly hurt us to lose home court in a 2-2-1-1-1 series according to your post.  We risk doing that in the East this year.

  I don't really care a lot about home court in the East except possibly the ECF which we probably won't get anyways. If we can't beat crappy teams on the road then we won't win the title anyways.

Glad you were able to keep track of my posts yesterday.  Referencing Chris Paul in a reply to one of my posts about Chris Paul would've made more sense to me instead of referencing his name in response to the 2012-2013 Spurs team, which he does not play for.  I would think that would be fairly obvious.  This forum has multiple threads with multiple topics.

I'd say home court helps in every series.  You never know what might happen in terms of injuries that might level the playing field between us and the Nets and Knicks.  What if KG gets injured and has to miss a game or two?  This team should try to maximize its margin for error, not minimize it.  A lot can happen in a short playoff series.  Every little edge helps.

[BballTim]

  I thought the answer was "we've had more recent playoff success than them".

I'd say he is talking about this year.  Every year is different.  For instance, he spoke of roster similarities.  The Celtics roster this year has a lot of turnover.  Context clues, my friend, context clues.

Or maybe that was a sarcastic response to a poster asking a genuine question.  That wouldn't be your style though.

  Haha. I'm surprised you couldn't work Chris Paul into your post.

  And it's great that you were able to tell that he was talking about this year by those hard to decipher context clues, I did too. I don't know if you're new here, but threads like this happen all the time when the Celts go through a slump. I was just pointing out that the team usually plays well in the playoffs despite these issues. I was just adding some perspective, my friend, perspective.

1) Every year is different.  It isn't a definite that a slow start will lead to a nice finish because it happened before.  And our title year happened after a quick start to the season.  Given the choice between being 8-7 or 11-4, I'd prefer to be 11-4, regardless of how we started or finished in prior seasons.

2) The OP, or myself, never said we can't or won't turn it around.  He is just wondering why we are struggling now as compared to other teams, like the Spurs.

  So if you agree that there's no reason to think we can't turn it around, why does it bother you that I pointed that out?

3) Chris Paul. (Who probably appears in a higher % of your posts, as mocking him is oddly your sole means of praising Rondo.)

  I don't have any idea how many of your posts are about Chris Paul. I don't know that I've ever seen a post of yours before yesterday. I keep less track of who posts what than you seem to.

It doesn't bother me at all, but it fails to address the OP's question, which is asking why we look worse than the Spurs to begin this year.  Our finish in 2010 or 2009 isn't the difference between us and the Spurs to begin this season, which is what the question was.  Your post is an answer to a question that nobody asked, in essence, which is all I addressed.

  Are you the thread police? It's not that uncommon for someone to make a comment based on the thread title that doesn't directly address the OP. And, again, I was just injecting a different perspective on the issue.

It's really odd that you said you were surprised that I didn't mention Chris Paul.  You don't "keep track of my posts" but feel the need to point out that I supposedly post about a certain player a lot.  Strange.

  Oh, I knew who you were by your reply to my post, which seems to largely be spillover from the other ongoing thread that I referred to. You posted about Paul a lot in that thread.

Regardless, is it possible that our slumps hurt us in 2010?  Would we have won the NBA Finals in 2010 if we had home court?  Didn't we lose Game 7 in the Lakers building by 4?

  Possibly, but home court would change for the whole series, not just the one game. What if we'd come out flat in game 1 at home instead of in LA? What if we'd come back to Boston down 3-2 instead of going back to LA up 3-2?

Losing a lot of games to begin the year might not hurt us in the long run, but there is no way that it helps.

  Nobody said that losing helps, nobody said that they'd rather have our record than the Spurs.

I'm not the thread police, but I am allowed to point out that every year is different and previous slow starts don't guarantee us more playoff success than the Spurs this year.  Are you the thread police?  Or am I not allowed to respond to your posts?

  I was just being snarky about the thread police thing. You didn't seem to have trouble discussing our playoff success compared to the Spurs with other posters instead of admonishing them for not answering the OP's question. Guess you missed the context clues on that one.

So I posted a lot about Chris Paul in one thread on one night and that leads you to draw the conclusion that you were surprised that I wouldn't post about him in other threads.  Geez, rush to judgment much?

  Obviously not, which is why I said "I don't have any idea how many of your posts are about Chris Paul".

4 games at home is preferable to 4 games on the road, no matter how you slice it.  The end goal is to win the championship.  We did so after a fast start.  We haven't done so after slow starts.

  I don't think that home court is a huge advantage in a 2-3-2, but opinions vary.

Which begs the question why your first reply to me was "Haha. I'm surprised you couldn't work Chris Paul into your post."  Because I posted about him in one completely different thread?  At least it seems that now you are admitting that this initial statement made no logical sense or connection to this thread at all, so that one can be put to rest.

  Your initial response to my post seemed to be based on a discussion in another thread. I was merely responding in kind. It makes logical sense, and it's connected to the thread because it came after your post.

Is home court a big advantage in a 2-2-1-1-1?

  It's definitely a bigger home court advantage than 2-3-2. Would you rather have your home games earlier in a series or later?

My response on this thread was not based on another thread.  My initial post on this thread was not about Chris Paul (nor was any other thread) and did not mention him in any way, so no, that response was not connected to my post or the thread at all.

  You responded to my post to address the fact that it didn't have anything to do with the topic (while discussing the same thing I brought up with other posters) and made a comment about sarcasm being my "style" a few minutes after complaining about my sarcastic posts in another thread. You might have missed the reference but it was fairly obvious.

Anyway, it would certainly hurt us to lose home court in a 2-2-1-1-1 series according to your post.  We risk doing that in the East this year.

  I don't really care a lot about home court in the East except possibly the ECF which we probably won't get anyways. If we can't beat crappy teams on the road then we won't win the title anyways.

Glad you were able to keep track of my posts yesterday.  Referencing Chris Paul in a reply to one of my posts about Chris Paul would've made more sense to me instead of referencing his name in response to the 2012-2013 Spurs team, which he does not play for.  I would think that would be fairly obvious.  This forum has multiple threads with multiple topics.

  I don't know if you're being sarcastic or deliberately obtuse so I'll let this go.

I'd say home court helps in every series.  You never know what might happen in terms of injuries that might level the playing field between us and the Nets and Knicks.  What if KG gets injured and has to miss a game or two?  This team should try to maximize its margin for error, not minimize it.  A lot can happen in a short playoff series.  Every little edge helps.

  Of course home court helps in every series, and obviously the Celts should try and maximize their margin for error. I just think that if the team's a contender they should be able to beat the Knicks or the Nets in any case.
 

[celtsfan84]

Glad you were able to keep track of my posts yesterday.  Referencing Chris Paul in a reply to one of my posts about Chris Paul would've made more sense to me instead of referencing his name in response to the 2012-2013 Spurs team, which he does not play for.  I would think that would be fairly obvious.  This forum has multiple threads with multiple topics.

  I don't know if you're being sarcastic or deliberately obtuse so I'll let this go.

I'd say home court helps in every series.  You never know what might happen in terms of injuries that might level the playing field between us and the Nets and Knicks.  What if KG gets injured and has to miss a game or two?  This team should try to maximize its margin for error, not minimize it.  A lot can happen in a short playoff series.  Every little edge helps.

  Of course home court helps in every series, and obviously the Celts should try and maximize their margin for error. I just think that if the team's a contender they should be able to beat the Knicks or the Nets in any case.

My previous post is fairly obvious from my perspective, no context clues necessary.  If you have something to address on Thread A, doing so on Thread B makes little sense.  It would be best served addressed on Thread A.  Fairly obvious that there is no CP3 relevance here at all.  This forum has multiple threads. You can PM me with any further questions, I'm sure other posters are as bored with this part of our conversation as I am.

I don't agree that a contender should be able to beat the Knicks or Nets in any case.  What if KG goes down for a short stretch like Bosh did for Miami?  We might not be able to beat the Knicks or Nets without him, but we might be able to beat the HEAT with him.

[LooseCannon]

One difference is that the Spurs are willing to do something like this:

With the road miles piling up on his veteran team, the Spurs coach has dispatched four of his top five leading scorers home to San Antonio in advance of tonight’s nationally televised game against the Miami Heat.

Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili and Danny Green did not travel with the team after Wednesday night’s win in Orlando, instead heading back to South Texas this morning for an extra day of rest leading up to Saturday’s sure-to-be-rugged home game against Memphis.

The four were spotted on a Southwest flight making a pre-lunch escape from central Florida.

As a result, the Spurs – who were already without injured small forward Kawhi Leonard and Stephen Jackson – get set to take on the defending NBA champions using a roster of nine players.

[celtsfan84]

One difference is that the Spurs are willing to do something like this:

With the road miles piling up on his veteran team, the Spurs coach has dispatched four of his top five leading scorers home to San Antonio in advance of tonight’s nationally televised game against the Miami Heat.

Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili and Danny Green did not travel with the team after Wednesday night’s win in Orlando, instead heading back to South Texas this morning for an extra day of rest leading up to Saturday’s sure-to-be-rugged home game against Memphis.

The four were spotted on a Southwest flight making a pre-lunch escape from central Florida.

As a result, the Spurs – who were already without injured small forward Kawhi Leonard and Stephen Jackson – get set to take on the defending NBA champions using a roster of nine players.

Decisions like this are intriguing to me.  The implications can't be directly measured - so intangible.  How much does a move like this truly help the veterans stay healthy? Does it build depth amongst the younger players now thrust in a starting role? Was the Miami game chosen purposely because it is Miami (and they are assuming a loss) or because it is on the back-end of a road trip and just prior to a semi-important home game?

[Lightskinsmurf]

I was gonna post that. Decisions like this is why POP is who he is. I personally love the guy. Id trade him for doc straight up.

[Finkelskyhook]

What's the difference between us and the spurs? The coaches.  The GMs.

[SHAQATTACK]

Tony Parker can't whoop Kris Humphries.

With a ladder and baseball bat he could...

[D Dub]

Pop still coaches defense

[Chris]

So the culture that Pop promotes, allows his stars to sit against the best team in the league on national television...and they don't force their way into the lineup?  I am not sure thats a good thing.  Perhaps if Pop instilled a little more pride in his players, they would have laid down against OKC in the WCF last year.  I understand resting guys, but this is sending the wrong message IMO.

[SHAQATTACK]

PoP resting his players , when NON are hurt for a nationally Telvised game is insane. ......

Stern has to do something fast .or else .....all the games will be rigged by the coachs .... 

I mean WHAT fan wants to see on TV or in person the HEAT play the Spurs bench ?

[CelticG1]

Spurs are one of the most boring teams in the NBA and over the last 5 years have been the most overrated team in the league

Uhhhh this is the most overrated stance on the spurs. Good sound basketball isn't boring.
What makes the celtics any more exciting? Kgs chest thumping and screaming on the jumbotron? Not rebounding? Idk

2 big differences.....doc isn't popovich and kg is NOT Tim Duncan sorry

To me. The Celtics are just as boring as the Spurs if not more so.

I'd agree with this.  The Celtics don't play an overly exciting brand of basketball.  For pure entertainment value, I'd probably place the Spurs a bit ahead, but both clearly behind a team like the Thunder.

Your just saying that cause we are losing.

Any person that watches the NBA at all even the casual fan will peg Rondo is as one of if not the most exciting, entertaining players in the game.

KG, Paul pierce? Jet now?

Really how many intriguing rivalries or games do the spurs have?

Tony Parker is similarly entertaining.  Manu is fun to watch.  The team itself also plays a faster and more offense oriented style of play.  The Spurs are 3rd in the league in scoring, the Celtics are 14th.

Not saying that the it is better.  It is just generally more fun to watch.  And no, this isn't because they are losing.

I would think most casual fans would be more interested in a team that scores more and less interested in a team that scores less.

Im sorry but there's a reason why the Celtics bring in such high national ratings.

And comparing Rondo to Parker as far as entertainment goes.its not even close.

[scaryjerry]

Spurs are one of the most boring teams in the NBA and over the last 5 years have been the most overrated team in the league

Uhhhh this is the most overrated stance on the spurs. Good sound basketball isn't boring.
What makes the celtics any more exciting? Kgs chest thumping and screaming on the jumbotron? Not rebounding? Idk

2 big differences.....doc isn't popovich and kg is NOT Tim Duncan sorry

To me. The Celtics are just as boring as the Spurs if not more so.

I'd agree with this.  The Celtics don't play an overly exciting brand of basketball.  For pure entertainment value, I'd probably place the Spurs a bit ahead, but both clearly behind a team like the Thunder.

Your just saying that cause we are losing.

Any person that watches the NBA at all even the casual fan will peg Rondo is as one of if not the most exciting, entertaining players in the game.

KG, Paul pierce? Jet now?

Really how many intriguing rivalries or games do the spurs have?

Tony Parker is similarly entertaining.  Manu is fun to watch.  The team itself also plays a faster and more offense oriented style of play.  The Spurs are 3rd in the league in scoring, the Celtics are 14th.

Not saying that the it is better.  It is just generally more fun to watch.  And no, this isn't because they are losing.

I would think most casual fans would be more interested in a team that scores more and less interested in a team that scores less.

Im sorry but there's a reason why the Celtics bring in such high national ratings.

And comparing Rondo to Parker as far as entertainment goes.its not even close.

Celtics bring in better ratings because of the market they play in...people either love or hate Boston.....they're not better on the eye from a pure basketball standpoint period...they're actually hard to watch right now. Rondo is our only entertaining player and hes not a high flyer and barely a scorer and off the court hes as boring an intercview as bill bellichick