If the Season Ended Today

[LatterDayCelticsfan]

If the reason ended today, th Eastern Conference 4th v. 5th seed playoff match would be Raptors v. Wizards, while the Western conference 4th v. 5th seed match would be Rockets v. Clippers

[Moranis]

If the reason ended today, th Eastern Conference 4th v. 5th seed playoff match would be Raptors v. Wizards, while the Western conference 4th v. 5th seed match would be Rockets v. Clippers

and Boston would miss the playoffs and be slotted as the 10th pick in the draft.

[acieEarl]

We need to pay attention to the bottom feeders. While right now we are somewhere around the 10th pick, we are close to getting passed by 8 or 9 other teams. A bunch of teams are at that 11 win margin. I don't see us being as bad as Milwaukee, but we could easily drop in the top 5 in the next few weeks. Rondo may screw this up coming back.

Glad the season isn't ending today. Lose, Lose, Lose

[SHAQATTACK]

Last night was huge , with certain teams winning and others losing ......we are on the verge of dip downward with upcoming road trip.

Get the feeling we are in a race to the bottom with the Lakers 

[Vermont Green]

Come on, last night the Nets beat OKC (albeit without Westbrook) and the Knicks beat SAN.  I think that is a sign that these two teams will make runs and pass the Celtics and probably some of the other weaker playoff teams.

Injuries can change things in a hurry but I think Orlando could move up and pass the Celtics as well as SAC.  I think CLE is on the edge of which way they may go.  PHI, MIL, UTAH, and of course LAL are likely to continue down with the Celtics.

Due to the pick switch with ATL, I see no reason not to root for the Nets.
So if we get lucky, we could be in top 3 but more likely something in the 6-8 range.

[Quetzalcoatl]

I mean I guess Rondo could single single handedly win us some games, but how many times are we going to be nationally televised with this team?   

[slamtheking]

Come on, last night the Nets beat OKC (albeit without Westbrook) and the Knicks beat SAN.  I think that is a sign that these two teams will make runs and pass the Celtics and probably some of the other weaker playoff teams.

Injuries can change things in a hurry but I think Orlando could move up and pass the Celtics as well as SAC.  I think CLE is on the edge of which way they may go.  PHI, MIL, UTAH, and of course LAL are likely to continue down with the Celtics.

Due to the pick switch with ATL, I see no reason not to root for the Nets.
So if we get lucky, we could be in top 3 but more likely something in the 6-8 range.

we're also only 3 games out of the 4 seed so let's not get ahead of ourselves. I think it's more likely we move up in the standings than sink considering how bad the Leastern conference teams are this year

[mmmmm]

Just to clarify the debated odds of a 10th worst record ('seed') landing ANY of the top 3 picks:

Nick is correct as to the odds of getting any ONE of the top three picks are all small, prior to the lottery.  They are:

1st:  11 in 1000
2nd:  13 in 1000
3rd:  16 in 1000

Larry is correct that the odds as you progress to the next pick depend on who picked before you.  This is because they are dependent events.   Even though the combinations for a picked team remain in the tumbler, the fact that they are ignored means they are not part of the result domain. 

However that doesn't mean the odds are any different than expressed above.  The above numbers already fold that in.

Let's walk through the actual calculation.

The odds of the 10th seed getting the first pick are .011.  That one is simple.

Once the first pick is made, the maximum chance the 10th seed would have would in the case where the first pick went to the 1st seed, because that would remove 250 combinations from the result domain, which would mean the 10th seed would have 11 in 750 chances of getting the 2nd pick, or .0146667.  But that scenario only occurs if the first seed got the first pick - which is only 1 in 4 chance.    That means that scenario only has a .0366667 chance of occurring.

 If the 2nd seed got the 1st pick, then the 10th pick would have odds of 11 in 801, or .01373 of getting the 2nd pick.  But the odds of the 2nd seed getting the first pick are 199 in 1000, so the total odds of that scenario occurring are just .0027328.

Similarly, if the 3rd seed got the 1st pick, the 10th pick would have just a .002033 chance of getting the 2nd pick.   And if the 4th seed got the 1st pick, the 10th seed would have just a .0014858 chance at the 2nd pick.  And so on, if the 5th seed got the first pick, the 10th seed would have a  .0010614 chance of getting the 2nd pick.

There are 13 different scenarios where the 10th seed ends up with the 2nd pick, all based on one of the other 13 teams getting the 1st pick.   When you add the odds for any one of these 13 scenarios occurring all up together you get a total probability for the 10th seed getting the 2nd pick of (writing a quick little beanshell script): 


int[] C2 = new int[]{250, 199, 156, 119, 88, 63, 43, 28, 17, 8, 7, 6, 5};

P2 = 0.0;
for(int combinations : C2){
 P2+=(11*combinations)/((1000.0-combinations)*1000.0);
}
P2;

0.013008772045002403

So, the total odds of getting any of the 13th scenarios that result in the 10th seed getting the 2nd pick are, indeed, .013.  Just like the original tables said.

Similarly (requires an extra level of iteration), the total odds of getting any of the 156 (13*12) scenarios that result in the 10th seed getting the 3rd pick are .016.

Thus the total odds of any of the 1+13+156 scenarios that lead to the 10th seed getting ANY of the top 3 picks is .011+.013+.016 = .040.

So, the odds of the 10th seed getting a Top 3 pick is just 4%.

This is really just basic common sense.  The table indicates the odds of a seed getting each pick and for each seed, all those chances must add up to 1.0.

Every seed has the largest chance of getting it's own pick.  I.E., the 10th seed has the largest chance of getting the 10th pick.  In fact it is an 87% chance that happens.  That means that the chances of getting any of the other 5 allowed picks must add up to no more than 13%.

In the interest of competitive balance, the lottery is slotted to favor the lower seeds.  So the bulk of that extra 13% (9%, in fact) is actually loaded towards a chance of ending up with a _worse_ pick.

Basically, the 10th seed has a greater chance of ending up with the 11th pick than it does any of the top 3 picks.

[BballTim]

  TP for that explanation.

[LarBrd33]

Just to clarify the debated odds of a 10th worst record ('seed') landing ANY of the top 3 picks:

Nick is correct as to the odds of getting any ONE of the top three picks are all small, prior to the lottery.  They are:

1st:  11 in 1000
2nd:  13 in 1000
3rd:  16 in 1000

Larry is correct that the odds as you progress to the next pick depend on who picked before you.  This is because they are dependent events.   Even though the combinations for a picked team remain in the tumbler, the fact that they are ignored means they are not part of the result domain. 

However that doesn't mean the odds are any different than expressed above.  The above numbers already fold that in.

Let's walk through the actual calculation.

The odds of the 10th seed getting the first pick are .011.  That one is simple.

Once the first pick is made, the maximum chance the 10th seed would have would in the case where the first pick went to the 1st seed, because that would remove 250 combinations from the result domain, which would mean the 10th seed would have 11 in 750 chances of getting the 2nd pick, or .0146667.  But that scenario only occurs if the first seed got the first pick - which is only 1 in 4 chance.    That means that scenario only has a .0366667 chance of occurring.

 If the 2nd seed got the 1st pick, then the 10th pick would have odds of 11 in 801, or .01373 of getting the 2nd pick.  But the odds of the 2nd seed getting the first pick are 199 in 1000, so the total odds of that scenario occurring are just .0027328.

Similarly, if the 3rd seed got the 1st pick, the 10th pick would have just a .002033 chance of getting the 2nd pick.   And if the 4th seed got the 1st pick, the 10th seed would have just a .0014858 chance at the 2nd pick.  And so on, if the 5th seed got the first pick, the 10th seed would have a  .0010614 chance of getting the 2nd pick.

There are 13 different scenarios where the 10th seed ends up with the 2nd pick, all based on one of the other 13 teams getting the 1st pick.   When you add the odds for any one of these 13 scenarios occurring all up together you get a total probability for the 10th seed getting the 2nd pick of (writing a quick little beanshell script): 


int[] C2 = new int[]{250, 199, 156, 119, 88, 63, 43, 28, 17, 8, 7, 6, 5};

P2 = 0.0;
for(int combinations : C2){
 P2+=(11*combinations)/((1000.0-combinations)*1000.0);
}
P2;

0.013008772045002403

So, the total odds of getting any of the 13th scenarios that result in the 10th seed getting the 2nd pick are, indeed, .013.  Just like the original tables said.

Similarly (requires an extra level of iteration), the total odds of getting any of the 156 (13*12) scenarios that result in the 10th seed getting the 3rd pick are .016.

Thus the total odds of any of the 1+13+156 scenarios that lead to the 10th seed getting ANY of the top 3 picks is .011+.013+.016 = .040.

So, the odds of the 10th seed getting a Top 3 pick is just 4%.

This is really just basic common sense.  The table indicates the odds of a seed getting each pick and for each seed, all those chances must add up to 1.0.

Every seed has the largest chance of getting it's own pick.  I.E., the 10th seed has the largest chance of getting the 10th pick.  In fact it is an 87% chance that happens.  That means that the chances of getting any of the other 5 allowed picks must add up to no more than 13%.

In the interest of competitive balance, the lottery is slotted to favor the lower seeds.  So the bulk of that extra 13% (9%, in fact) is actually loaded towards a chance of ending up with a _worse_ pick.

Basically, the 10th seed has a greater chance of ending up with the 11th pick than it does any of the top 3 picks.

Thanks.  It really deviated off topic. 

My main issue with it is that the team with the worst record has the following odds heading into the lotto:

#1 pick = 25%
#2 pick = 21.5%
#3 pick = 17.8%
#4 pick = 35.7%

Add those up:  100%

But as the lotto process progresses... if team with the 2nd worst record gets the #1 pick and the team with the 3rd worst record gets the #3 pick... you can't possibly say that the odds remain:

#3 pick = 17.8%
#4 pick = 35.7%

That = 53.5% total.  This is inaccurate.  THE ODDS HAVE CHANGED

Nick kept arguing that the odds remained the same and there was still a 17.8% chance at the #3 pick.  That was our point of contention.   More accurately, it would be about a 38.7% chance at the #3 pick and a 61.3% chance at the #4 pick.

To reiterate...

While the odds heading into the lotto may indeed be that the worst team has a 25% chance at #1, 21.5% chance at #2, 17.8% chance at #3 and a 35.7% chance at #4....  If the first pick goes to the team with the worst record... do they still have a 21.5% chance at the 2nd pick?  No... of course not.  They have a 0% chance at the #2.  They have a 0% chance at #3.   They have a 0% chance at #4.  What Nick was arguing was that the odds don't change.  This is false. THE ODDS HAVE CHANGED   

[mmmmm]

Just to clarify the debated odds of a 10th worst record ('seed') landing ANY of the top 3 picks:

Nick is correct as to the odds of getting any ONE of the top three picks are all small, prior to the lottery.  They are:

1st:  11 in 1000
2nd:  13 in 1000
3rd:  16 in 1000

Larry is correct that the odds as you progress to the next pick depend on who picked before you.  This is because they are dependent events.   Even though the combinations for a picked team remain in the tumbler, the fact that they are ignored means they are not part of the result domain. 

However that doesn't mean the odds are any different than expressed above.  The above numbers already fold that in.

Let's walk through the actual calculation.

The odds of the 10th seed getting the first pick are .011.  That one is simple.

Once the first pick is made, the maximum chance the 10th seed would have would in the case where the first pick went to the 1st seed, because that would remove 250 combinations from the result domain, which would mean the 10th seed would have 11 in 750 chances of getting the 2nd pick, or .0146667.  But that scenario only occurs if the first seed got the first pick - which is only 1 in 4 chance.    That means that scenario only has a .0366667 chance of occurring.

 If the 2nd seed got the 1st pick, then the 10th pick would have odds of 11 in 801, or .01373 of getting the 2nd pick.  But the odds of the 2nd seed getting the first pick are 199 in 1000, so the total odds of that scenario occurring are just .0027328.

Similarly, if the 3rd seed got the 1st pick, the 10th pick would have just a .002033 chance of getting the 2nd pick.   And if the 4th seed got the 1st pick, the 10th seed would have just a .0014858 chance at the 2nd pick.  And so on, if the 5th seed got the first pick, the 10th seed would have a  .0010614 chance of getting the 2nd pick.

There are 13 different scenarios where the 10th seed ends up with the 2nd pick, all based on one of the other 13 teams getting the 1st pick.   When you add the odds for any one of these 13 scenarios occurring all up together you get a total probability for the 10th seed getting the 2nd pick of (writing a quick little beanshell script): 


int[] C2 = new int[]{250, 199, 156, 119, 88, 63, 43, 28, 17, 8, 7, 6, 5};

P2 = 0.0;
for(int combinations : C2){
 P2+=(11*combinations)/((1000.0-combinations)*1000.0);
}
P2;

0.013008772045002403

So, the total odds of getting any of the 13th scenarios that result in the 10th seed getting the 2nd pick are, indeed, .013.  Just like the original tables said.

Similarly (requires an extra level of iteration), the total odds of getting any of the 156 (13*12) scenarios that result in the 10th seed getting the 3rd pick are .016.

Thus the total odds of any of the 1+13+156 scenarios that lead to the 10th seed getting ANY of the top 3 picks is .011+.013+.016 = .040.

So, the odds of the 10th seed getting a Top 3 pick is just 4%.

This is really just basic common sense.  The table indicates the odds of a seed getting each pick and for each seed, all those chances must add up to 1.0.

Every seed has the largest chance of getting it's own pick.  I.E., the 10th seed has the largest chance of getting the 10th pick.  In fact it is an 87% chance that happens.  That means that the chances of getting any of the other 5 allowed picks must add up to no more than 13%.

In the interest of competitive balance, the lottery is slotted to favor the lower seeds.  So the bulk of that extra 13% (9%, in fact) is actually loaded towards a chance of ending up with a _worse_ pick.

Basically, the 10th seed has a greater chance of ending up with the 11th pick than it does any of the top 3 picks.

Thanks.  It really deviated off topic. 

My main issue with it is that the team with the worst record has the following odds heading into the lotto:

#1 pick = 25%
#2 pick = 21.5%
#3 pick = 17.8%
#4 pick = 35.7%

Add those up:  100%

But as the lotto process progresses... if team with the 2nd worst record gets the #1 pick and the team with the 3rd worst record gets the #3 pick... you can't possibly say that the odds remain:

#3 pick = 17.8%
#4 pick = 35.7%

That = 53.5% total.  This is inaccurate.  THE ODDS HAVE CHANGED

Nick kept arguing that the odds remained the same and there was still a 17.8% chance at the #3 pick.  That was our point of contention.   More accurately, it would be about a 38.7% chance at the #3 pick and a 61.3% chance at the #4 pick.

To reiterate...

While the odds heading into the lotto may indeed be that the worst team has a 25% chance at #1, 21.5% chance at #2, 17.8% chance at #3 and a 35.7% chance at #4....  If the first pick goes to the team with the worst record... do they still have a 21.5% chance at the 2nd pick?  No... of course not.  They have a 0% chance at the #2.  They have a 0% chance at #3.   They have a 0% chance at #4.  What Nick was arguing was that the odds don't change.  This is false. THE ODDS HAVE CHANGED   

Well, that's probably more a indicative of communication break down.

The odds of getting the 3rd pick DO change, depending on who got the 1st and 2nd picks.  But that's not really a very useful thing.   Odds have to be retired to get through those first two events.

Globally, going into the lottery, the odds are what they are.

[LarBrd33]

I'm not sure who is right here, Nick or LB33.  I'll admit that my math skills aren't good enough to even want to bother to pipe in on this debate.  Either way, it doesn't change the fact that all teams in the lottery have a shot at a top three pick, but at the same time, the further away you get from the worst record, those odds start to become awfully small. 

I wouldn't expect a top three pick from a seventh worst record or below.  The odds (whatever number they actually are) are very small.

The debate is kind of off topic anyways.  I'm just saying that at the moment, I'd prefer to be in Chicago's shoes.  Same record, but the 9th best odds in the lotto.  As opposed to Boston's shoes:  8th seed and 15th pick.

We can revisit this again as the season progresses.

I'd rather be the 8th seed with a 15th pick.  I just think that after the top five, who you pick is way more important than where you pick.  If you look closely at the history of the draft, you'll see that there's nowhere near a direct correlation between where guys were picked in the draft and how good they become as pros (after the top five, of course). 

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the draft is a crap shoot, but it is far, far from being an exact science.  It's far enough away from being an exact science that I am not going to root for my team to lose themselves into barely missing the playoffs to raise our chances at a superstar in the draft by a minuscule percentage. 

I'd rather take my chances in the playoffs as a scrappy underdog.  Personally, I think it would be fun.

Kinda like in 2004??  Were you around back then?  I was.  We won 36 games, made the playoffs with the 8th seed.  Lost game 1 by 16 points.  Lost game 2 by 13 points.  Lost game 3 by 23 points.  Lost game 4 by 15 points.   Coincidentally, the sweep was by Indiana.  We were nowhere near in Indiana's class. They won 61 games that year... just ripped us to shreads.  Not fun at all, imo.   

Granted, we ended up with the #15 pick and lucked into Al Jefferson.  A massive steal.  For the record, the 9th pick went to Philly that year and they took Andre Iguodala.  So yes, I see your point... theoretically there isn't going to be a major difference between picks #9 and #15 in this draft... MAYBE.  This draft is already 7 stars deep... by March we might see a consensus Top 10.  That's probably mostly hype though.  This draft is unique.  NBADraft.net has Dante Exum going #7... Some scouts think he might be the best player in the entire draft.

So yeah... I'm with you.  Maybe we should let history repeat itself... Dropping 5 spots in the draft for a chance to get curb-stomped 4 games in a row by Indiana sounds like a real blast.    This year, Indiana is on pace to win 67 games.  We're on pace to win 34.  But hey... maybe you're right and our scrappy underdog could pull off a victory in the midst of getting blown out by 30.  I've said it before, but good lord... I admire your optimism.

I don't subscribe to the theory of "competition" that the best way to avoid getting completely spanked is to just not compete.  Yeah, it's competition.  You run the risk of getting embarrassed, but if my team tries to compete, I can live it. 

What's it more about for you?  Is it more about the draft pick, or is it more about avoiding embarrassment? 

Remember 2012?  It's more recent.  There was a vocal group of fans who didn't want to make the playoffs that year, because they didn't want to see the team get embarrassed.  They were too old, it was going to be a bloodbath when we faced the elite teams.

That team ended up making me proud as a fan by taking the Heat to seven in the conference finals.  I'm glad that team made the playoffs, they gave me some fantastic moments. 

You play to win and let the chips fall where they may.  That's my very basic take on sports, both playing and watching.  I've suffered some embarrassing moments as both a participant and a spectator.  But, you always give it your best shot.  In my opinion, not doing so is more embarrassing than suffering a lopsided loss.

I understand that I'm in the minority on this.  I'll take the sarcastic comments, and I'll keep rooting for my Celtics to go out and try to win basketball games.

I do remember 2012.  It was a shortened season.  We finished 12 games over .500 ... in a regular season our win percentage would result in 48 wins.  We came on strong late primarily due to the rejuvenated play of a Hall of Fame big man.  We also had the 4th seed.  Our main competition was Miami and Chicago.  Chicago lost their star player.  We beat a Horford-less Atlanta in Round 1.  We beat the 8th seed 76ers in round 2 (barely).  Then we lost to Miami.  I agree, it was fun.

Quite a bit different this year.  Baring some major fluke, this team will finish with a losing record.  This is not a good team.  This team is a loser.    If you manage to scrape by 34 wins... that's still a losing record.  The team is a loser. ... If a loser meets a 67 win winner... you get a fly on a windshield.  Kind of like in 2004.  There's no hall of fame big man looking to have a late-season rejuvenation.  Whether we accidentally make the playoffs or not... this team is a below average NBA team.

Also, bringing up 2012 to prove your point just strengthens mine.  In 2012, the difference between the #15 pick (Maurice Harkness... currently stinking it up in Orlando) and the #9 pick (Andre Drummond... well on his way to being a franchise big man) was DRAMATIC.   

2012 Boston is a bad example... but for your purposes, 2012 Philly would make more sense.  They get into the playoffs with the 8th seed... thanks to some injury, they upset the league favorites.  They then inevitably fell in round 2.  2012 Philly represents THE ABSOLUTE BEST-CASE SCENARIO for your dream.   Squeaking into the playoffs (note, Philly actually had a winning record that year... the East wasn't descimated), upsetting the favorites in Round 1 and inevitably falling.   Ask yourself this... Would you rather take 2012 Philly's path (with the best case scenario of a shocking upset of the Pacers after Paul George gets injured) ... ending up with Maurice Harkness.   Or would you have rather missed the playoffs and ended up with the #9 pick (Andre Drummond)?   

For all the glory of Philly's 2012 run... what do they have to show for it 2 years later?   34 wins last year and a dud of a season this year.  Would you rather have a franchise building block like Drummond to expedite the winning?  I'm sure that shocking upset of the 1st seed went a long way towards building Philly's winning culture in 2012... so much for that winning culture.  They are brutal 2 years later.

[wdleehi]

I still believe the Celtics lack talent.


I want Ainge, who is a good drafter, to have the best spot possible to pick from so he has a better chance to get who he wants, not just the best of what he thinks is left. 


Now it is possible that guy will be there later, but I rather the Celtics not to have to take that chance until they have better talent. 

[PhoSita]

I still believe the Celtics lack talent.


I want Ainge, who is a good drafter, to have the best spot possible to pick from so he has a better chance to get who he wants, not just the best of what he thinks is left. 


Now it is possible that guy will be there later, but I rather the Celtics not to have to take that chance until they have better talent.

I agree with everything you said here. 

[Celtics18]

I'm not sure who is right here, Nick or LB33.  I'll admit that my math skills aren't good enough to even want to bother to pipe in on this debate.  Either way, it doesn't change the fact that all teams in the lottery have a shot at a top three pick, but at the same time, the further away you get from the worst record, those odds start to become awfully small. 

I wouldn't expect a top three pick from a seventh worst record or below.  The odds (whatever number they actually are) are very small.

The debate is kind of off topic anyways.  I'm just saying that at the moment, I'd prefer to be in Chicago's shoes.  Same record, but the 9th best odds in the lotto.  As opposed to Boston's shoes:  8th seed and 15th pick.

We can revisit this again as the season progresses.

I'd rather be the 8th seed with a 15th pick.  I just think that after the top five, who you pick is way more important than where you pick.  If you look closely at the history of the draft, you'll see that there's nowhere near a direct correlation between where guys were picked in the draft and how good they become as pros (after the top five, of course). 

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the draft is a crap shoot, but it is far, far from being an exact science.  It's far enough away from being an exact science that I am not going to root for my team to lose themselves into barely missing the playoffs to raise our chances at a superstar in the draft by a minuscule percentage. 

I'd rather take my chances in the playoffs as a scrappy underdog.  Personally, I think it would be fun.

Kinda like in 2004??  Were you around back then?  I was.  We won 36 games, made the playoffs with the 8th seed.  Lost game 1 by 16 points.  Lost game 2 by 13 points.  Lost game 3 by 23 points.  Lost game 4 by 15 points.   Coincidentally, the sweep was by Indiana.  We were nowhere near in Indiana's class. They won 61 games that year... just ripped us to shreads.  Not fun at all, imo.   

Granted, we ended up with the #15 pick and lucked into Al Jefferson.  A massive steal.  For the record, the 9th pick went to Philly that year and they took Andre Iguodala.  So yes, I see your point... theoretically there isn't going to be a major difference between picks #9 and #15 in this draft... MAYBE.  This draft is already 7 stars deep... by March we might see a consensus Top 10.  That's probably mostly hype though.  This draft is unique.  NBADraft.net has Dante Exum going #7... Some scouts think he might be the best player in the entire draft.

So yeah... I'm with you.  Maybe we should let history repeat itself... Dropping 5 spots in the draft for a chance to get curb-stomped 4 games in a row by Indiana sounds like a real blast.    This year, Indiana is on pace to win 67 games.  We're on pace to win 34.  But hey... maybe you're right and our scrappy underdog could pull off a victory in the midst of getting blown out by 30.  I've said it before, but good lord... I admire your optimism.

I don't subscribe to the theory of "competition" that the best way to avoid getting completely spanked is to just not compete.  Yeah, it's competition.  You run the risk of getting embarrassed, but if my team tries to compete, I can live it. 

What's it more about for you?  Is it more about the draft pick, or is it more about avoiding embarrassment? 

Remember 2012?  It's more recent.  There was a vocal group of fans who didn't want to make the playoffs that year, because they didn't want to see the team get embarrassed.  They were too old, it was going to be a bloodbath when we faced the elite teams.

That team ended up making me proud as a fan by taking the Heat to seven in the conference finals.  I'm glad that team made the playoffs, they gave me some fantastic moments. 

You play to win and let the chips fall where they may.  That's my very basic take on sports, both playing and watching.  I've suffered some embarrassing moments as both a participant and a spectator.  But, you always give it your best shot.  In my opinion, not doing so is more embarrassing than suffering a lopsided loss.

I understand that I'm in the minority on this.  I'll take the sarcastic comments, and I'll keep rooting for my Celtics to go out and try to win basketball games.

I do remember 2012.  It was a shortened season.  We finished 12 games over .500 ... in a regular season our win percentage would result in 48 wins.  We came on strong late primarily due to the rejuvenated play of a Hall of Fame big man.  We also had the 4th seed.  Our main competition was Miami and Chicago.  Chicago lost their star player.  We beat a Horford-less Atlanta in Round 1.  We beat the 8th seed 76ers in round 2 (barely).  Then we lost to Miami.  I agree, it was fun.

Quite a bit different this year.  Baring some major fluke, this team will finish with a losing record.  This is not a good team.  This team is a loser.    If you manage to scrape by 34 wins... that's still a losing record.  The team is a loser. ... If a loser meets a 67 win winner... you get a fly on a windshield.  Kind of like in 2004.  There's no hall of fame big man looking to have a late-season rejuvenation.  Whether we accidentally make the playoffs or not... this team is a below average NBA team.

Also, bringing up 2012 to prove your point just strengthens mine.  In 2012, the difference between the #15 pick (Maurice Harkness... currently stinking it up in Orlando) and the #9 pick (Andre Drummond... well on his way to being a franchise big man) was DRAMATIC.   

2012 Boston is a bad example... but for your purposes, 2012 Philly would make more sense.  They get into the playoffs with the 8th seed... thanks to some injury, they upset the league favorites.  They then inevitably fell in round 2.  2012 Philly represents THE ABSOLUTE BEST-CASE SCENARIO for your dream.   Squeaking into the playoffs (note, Philly actually had a winning record that year... the East wasn't descimated), upsetting the favorites in Round 1 and inevitably falling.   Ask yourself this... Would you rather take 2012 Philly's path (with the best case scenario of a shocking upset of the Pacers after Paul George gets injured) ... ending up with Maurice Harkness.   Or would you have rather missed the playoffs and ended up with the #9 pick (Andre Drummond)?   

For all the glory of Philly's 2012 run... what do they have to show for it 2 years later?   34 wins last year and a dud of a season this year.  Would you rather have a franchise building block like Drummond to expedite the winning?  I'm sure that shocking upset of the 1st seed went a long way towards building Philly's winning culture in 2012... so much for that winning culture.  They are brutal 2 years later.

Sure, the Sixers took the wrong guy at fifteen in the 2012 draft.  They probably would have taken the wrong guy at nine, as well.