The myth about Celtic's post ASG record

[incoherent]

Not sure what we are arguing about here

1/ The OP made a point about our performance in the regular season not the playoffs.

 And yes, there are several reasons to think the C's will perform better in the RS than the playoffs in the coming season too. (lack of stars/deep bench).

2/ A win against the SAS and a win against Philly both give you one point.

There is no such thing as "I see you have two wins against the Cavs, but they were clearly tanking, so soz but no points for you".

3/ Our schedule is easier than that of most teams.

We play in the easiest division of the easier conference. This means a few extra wins every season; I can live with that.

Main point is, no one here is arguing the C's are a contender.
A 45 win season many of us anticipate/hope for would put us in the same category as the 'reeling' Toronto and the 'young' Bucks (using Phosita's descriptions).

We are not a contender and we'll lose most games against contenders next season. Question is, what's the problem with that?

Good points, the main reason I made this thread was to object the ongoing idea that the Celtics only got into the playoffs due to teams tanking. The reality is quite the opposite, down the stretch we had a lot of tough games that we won against opponents with nearly identical records as us who were also trying to get into the playoffs. 

[Evantime34]

.

If you are discounting the Celtics winnings at the end of the season due to their performance in the playoffs doesn't their opponent have to factor in?

Simply put, what should we view as more indicative of how good the Celts were last year, their record during the stretch run, or their inability to compete in the playoffs against a legitimate contender?

Overall, I think that means we can expect another middle of the road regular season record and a quick out in the playoffs. 

A major trade or a breakout season from Smart or one of the other young guys could change that trajectory, though.

The stretch run should be taken into more account, because 1. The sample size is bigger 2. They are more likely to face a sample of teams closer to their second half than the Cavs (the Celtics will probably only play 10-20 games the entire year against opponents as good as the Cavs).

What is more indicative of the Hawks season? Their record during the year or their finish against the Cavs. Losing against the second best team in the league is really only indicative of being worse than the best team in the league. Where winning against a large sample of the NBA is a lot more indicative of their performance in terms of the league as a whole.

I think the stretch run indicates we can expect the Celts to continue to play well against teams in the bottom half of the league, while the playoffs indicate the Celts are still nowhere close to competing with the teams in the top third of the league when the games actually matter.

This is a good point, but not in the way you meant it. How many of the top 10 teams in the league are in the east? 2 or 3? So the Celtics could still win 45-50 games without being close to competing with the top third of the league. If they can do that then they would have a similar record to the second half of last year extrapolated over a season.

If the C's can win 45-50 games then they probably won't be playing a team in the top third of the league in the first round of the playoffs and thus could advance.

[slamtheking]

other team's tanking against the C's is not the main argument I see posted to explain why the C's had a good record.

Personally, I think it can be attributed to better team effort, adding a guard that could shoot and an easier schedule than pre-all star game.

I do think the playoffs added some insight to the team's abilities though.  the C's could hang with a good team if they were sloppy and put in less than a full effort but there's talent there that can push the good teams to play with effort for a fair part of the game.  the glaring weaknesses was the ballhandling/passing when the other team applied pressure (something that's noticeably missing without Rondo) and the lack of a go-to scorer who could get his shot off regularly (something that's noticeably missing with PP).

[littleteapot]

Simply put, what should we view as more indicative of how good the Celts were last year, their record during the stretch run, or their inability to compete in the playoffs against a legitimate contender?

There are tons of counterexamples to both. If you want to use overall team performance without looking at how and why they performed the way they did, you need multiple seasons and multiple playoff series' where they played many different opponents.

[KG Living Legend]

Bottom line we are the best team ever.

[PhoSita]

So the Celtics could still win 45-50 games without being close to competing with the top third of the league. If they can do that then they would have a similar record to the second half of last year extrapolated over a season.

Good point, though I must say I'm not exactly excited at the prospect of that happening.

What you describe is pretty much the definition of mediocrity. 

Luckily, the Celts aren't locked into this current group so the treadmill danger is not there, but why waste a season doing that if it's not building toward something?

[Hardwood Harry]

Bottom line we are the best team ever.

This!!
You get a Jerome Moiso point for that!!

[blink]

I don't think that most of us are claiming that other teams tanking is how we made the playoffs.  I think what most people accept is that we didn't beat many good teams during our run at the end of the regular season.  I agree that we did earn our playoff spot, just as much as anyone else earned theirs.  The C's had a good run and exceeded expectations at the end of the year. 

That said, there weren't a whole lot of wins against quality (+50 win) teams in the 2nd half of the season.  I counted (4) quality wins after Jan 1st ( 1/22 @ portland, 2/11/ vs atlanta, 3/11 vs memphis and one of the last wins against Cleveland).  We did well to get into the playoffs and played tough down the stretch but we were getting a lot of those wins against the detroit, orlando and philly type teams.

The part that doesn't make sense to me (which isn't specifically stated by the OP) is where some of us are extrapolating that end of the regular season success last year to a significantly improved team this year.  We have seen time and again how players and teams that do well over a small portion of can't always replicate that the following season.  I hope we improve, I would love to see us get a top 4 seed.

We just honestly don't know if we are going to make any progress this year.  More than likely we are still a lower end playoff team fighting for a playoff spot that will still struggle to win against the better teams in the league

[Evantime34]

So the Celtics could still win 45-50 games without being close to competing with the top third of the league. If they can do that then they would have a similar record to the second half of last year extrapolated over a season.

Good point, though I must say I'm not exactly excited at the prospect of that happening.

What you describe is pretty much the definition of mediocrity. 

Luckily, the Celts aren't locked into this current group so the treadmill danger is not there, but why waste a season doing that if it's not building toward something?

HUGE TP for you for not confusing being mediocre this year with being locked on treadmill! I read too much of that.

I would argue that with only one player over 28 the Celtics are building towards something by developing the young players they have. I feel like some of our young guys will develop I'm just not sure who it will be (my guess is Smart, Crowder and Sully show the most development this year).

[PhoSita]

We are not a contender and we'll lose most games against contenders next season. Question is, what's the problem with that?

Very good question.

My answer is:

What are we doing to move beyond the stage we are currently at (i.e. good enough to beat crappy teams but not good enough to compete with quality opponents)?

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with a middle of the road season.  Yet as I see it, in a rebuild the key question is how the current course is helping to push the team toward the eventual goal, which I assume to be constructing a team that can actually compete with the very best for multiple seasons.

That drags us back into something resembling the tank-or-not-tank debate, so let's sidestep it here.  There's an argument to be made for just enjoying the team that is put in front of you and appreciating whatever success they may have.

Given that, what bothers me is that I feel like I can't even get attached to this team, regardless of whatever success they enjoy, because most of these guys are probably just future trade pieces. 

As things stand, many minutes will probably be given to Isaiah Thomas, Avery Bradley, David Lee, and Amir Johnson.  What are the chances any of those guys is still on the team in two years?

[dreamgreen]

We are not a contender and we'll lose most games against contenders next season. Question is, what's the problem with that?

Very good question.

My answer is:

What are we doing to move beyond the stage we are currently at (i.e. good enough to beat crappy teams but not good enough to compete with quality opponents)?

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with a middle of the road season.  Yet as I see it, in a rebuild the key question is how the current course is helping to push the team toward the eventual goal, which I assume to be constructing a team that can actually compete with the very best for multiple seasons.

That drags us back into something resembling the tank-or-not-tank debate, so let's sidestep it here.  There's an argument to be made for just enjoying the team that is put in front of you and appreciating whatever success they may have.

Given that, what bothers me is that I feel like I can't even get attached to this team, regardless of whatever success they enjoy, because most of these guys are probably just future trade pieces. 

As things stand, many minutes will probably be given to Isaiah Thomas, Avery Bradley, David Lee, and Amir Johnson.  What are the chances any of those guys is still on the team in two years?

Very Low. We have to hope Smart and a rookie step it up and separate themselves from the pack.

[European NBA fan]

One thing to remember about the last part of the season: The Celtics put in the extra effort that many teams don't have at the end of the season in every single game. That brings more victories than you would expect, if you only look at star power and normal productivity.
But to be able to win without star power is a quality in itself, and perhaps the main reason Brad Stevens was hired.
Is that overachieving? To a degree, yes, but overachieving is going to be part of these Celtics DNA. And at one point we will start talking about reaching our potential rather than overachieving...

[aingeforthree]

I don't know why its called a myth.  They won the games, plain and simple.  It's like saying a strike isn't a strike after the umpire called it a strike.  You can't take it back.

Personally, I'm disappointed that they didn't win more.  The first two games in Sacramento and L.A. , should've been the Celtics.  The C's were the better team.  But again, they lost.  Nothing you can do about it.

[incoherent]

I don't know why its called a myth.  They won the games, plain and simple.  It's like saying a strike isn't a strike after the umpire called it a strike.  You can't take it back.

Personally, I'm disappointed that they didn't win more.  The first two games in Sacramento and L.A. , should've been the Celtics.  The C's were the better team.  But again, they lost.  Nothing you can do about it.

The myth is that the Celtics only got into the playoffs because teams tanked. This line of reasoning keeps popping up in various threads and comments on articles.

[PhoSita]

I don't know why its called a myth.  They won the games, plain and simple.  It's like saying a strike isn't a strike after the umpire called it a strike.  You can't take it back.

Personally, I'm disappointed that they didn't win more.  The first two games in Sacramento and L.A. , should've been the Celtics.  The C's were the better team.  But again, they lost.  Nothing you can do about it.

The myth is that the Celtics only got into the playoffs because teams tanked. This line of reasoning keeps popping up in various threads and comments on articles.

It does?  I'm interested to see some examples.