The myth about Celtic's post ASG record

[incoherent]

"The only reason we did good at the end of last season (or the only reason we got into the playoffs) was because teams tanked against us"

This is something I hear A LOT on this forum, repeated so much that people seem to really believe it and not challenge it.

I remember the Cavs tanking a game against us, one game they played Lebron and KLove 30min each... that is not tanking, considering that most of our own players dont even play more then 30 min.  But surely, according to this narrative, more teams then that one Cavs game tanked against us and let us win, otherwise we wouldnt ever have made the playoffs, right?

Lets look, the Celtics won 10 of their final 13 games to secure a playoff spot... was it just given us to collectively by the league?

Celtics beat Brooklyn 110-91: Nets play all their starters heavy minutes and were also fighting us for a playoff spot.... No Tanking

Celtics beat the Knicks 96-92: TANKED

Celtics beat the Hornets 116-104: Hornets play all of their starters and even play Walker 40 mins as this was a must win for them... No Tanking

Celtics beat the Pacers 100-87: Pacers play all their starters and was a must win game for them... No Tanking

Celtics beat the Raptors 117-116 in OT: Raptors played Derozan 43 mins... No Tanking (Marcus Smart hit game winner)

Celtics beat the Pistons 113-103: Pistons played all their starters, their loss to the C's ended their playoff hopes mathematically... No Tanking

Celtics beat Cavs 99-90: Lebron and Love both played 30 mins and both played well, none of our starters played more then 34 minutes... I do not consider this a tank job by the Cavs, how can it be when the best player in the world is on the court... No Tanking

Celtics beat Cavs 117-78: Cavs rest all starters TANKED

After this 2nd Cavs game, the Celtics officially clinched their playoff spot and went on to win their final 2 games.

Of the all these Final 10 wins only the Cavs and Knicks tanked.  The Knicks tanked versus everyone in the league all season, so I honestly don't see how that can be a knock on us.  We got all of 1 win due to teams actually tanking that could have beat us. 

I find the narrative that we only got into the playoffs because of tanking teams to be completely false.

[oldtype]

I don't think teams tanked against us other than the Cavs. That said, that's a list of some pretty easy games regardless.

[D.o.s.]

As someone who thinks the Celtics overachieved at the end of the year, my suspicion covers and was born out of the 25-12 record they compiled after the All Star Break, not just the last 13 games. It seems peculiar to me that you would pick the last 13 games, and feels rather arbitrary, given that most people talk about the post ASG in total, rather than starting with one game at the end of March.

[RAAAAAAAANDY]

They had a much easier schedule in the 2nd half that helped them. The flip side is true of the first half of the season too.

They're not 25-12 good, but they're not as bad as they were to start the year either.

[PhoSita]

I think you're misunderstanding what people have said about the end of season run.

It's not that people think other teams actually tried to lose games against the Celtics.

Rather, it is the notion that the last two months or so of the regular season are often treated as a sort of "garbage time" by many teams, even some teams that seemingly still have reason to win games for the sake of post-season seeding.



In general, it's best not to assume that what we see a group over players do over a one or two month stretch will be the way that group of players performs over a longer period of time.  The run that the Celts went on at the end of this past season was impressive, regardless of the calendar.  Still, I'm not putting too much stock into it. 

For my money, the way things went in the playoffs was much more indicative of where this team is at from a competitive standpoint.

[littleteapot]

For my money, the way things went in the playoffs was much more indicative of where this team is at from a competitive standpoint.

Four games where we got crushed by the best player in the world are more indicative then more than a third of the season? I wouldn't too much stock into how we closed the regular season, but I would put almost none into the fact that we lost 4 games to Lebron.

[Big333223]

I think you're misunderstanding what people have said about the end of season run.

It's not that people think other teams actually tried to lose games against the Celtics.

Rather, it is the notion that the last two months or so of the regular season are often treated as a sort of "garbage time" by many teams, even some teams that seemingly still have reason to win games for the sake of post-season seeding.



In general, it's best not to assume that what we see a group over players do over a one or two month stretch will be the way that group of players performs over a longer period of time.  The run that the Celts went on at the end of this past season was impressive, regardless of the calendar.  Still, I'm not putting too much stock into it. 

For my money, the way things went in the playoffs was much more indicative of where this team is at from a competitive standpoint.

This.

[LooseCannon]

As someone who thinks the Celtics overachieved at the end of the year, my suspicion covers and was born out of the 25-12 record they compiled after the All Star Break, not just the last 13 games. It seems peculiar to me that you would pick the last 13 games, and feels rather arbitrary, given that most people talk about the post ASG in total, rather than starting with one game at the end of March.

Feel free to do a similar analysis of all the post-ASB games if you think that was cherry-picking.

[LooseCannon]

For my money, the way things went in the playoffs was much more indicative of where this team is at from a competitive standpoint.

Despite getting the swept, the Celtics looked like a team that belonged in the playoffs.  Agree or disagree?

[PhoSita]

For my money, the way things went in the playoffs was much more indicative of where this team is at from a competitive standpoint.

Four games where we got crushed by the best player in the world are more indicative then more than a third of the season? I wouldn't too much stock into how we closed the regular season, but I would put almost none into the fact that we lost 4 games to Lebron.

The Celts were completely non-competitive and got swept pretty easily by a contender that lost one of its three best players a couple games into the series.

I know some around here disagree with the characterization that the Celts weren't competitive, but that's my perspective on the series.

[PhoSita]

For my money, the way things went in the playoffs was much more indicative of where this team is at from a competitive standpoint.

Despite getting the swept, the Celtics looked like a team that belonged in the playoffs.  Agree or disagree?

Disagree.

They never looked like they had a real chance of winning a game in that series.  I don't think they fared much better than any of a handful of teams behind them in the standings would have done.  I think the Nets were a more competitive post-season team than the Celts.

[littleteapot]

The Celts were completely non-competitive and got swept pretty easily by a contender that lost one of its three best players a couple games into the series.

I know some around here disagree with the characterization that the Celts weren't competitive, but that's my perspective on the series.

Man did Houston get embarrassed by Portland in the 2014 playoffs. That roster couldn't possibly make a playoff run.

[LarBrd33]

Utah and Brooklyn both surged at the end of the year as well.

I take our end of year run with a grain of salt for a number of reasons.  We were a bit of an unknown team that people were sleeping on.  A lot of the games down the stretch are basically extended garbage time where young guys get extra minutes and vets rest for the playoffs.  We also just played our butts off as we pushed for the playoffs.

I don't think 40 wins next year is a guarantee.  The addition of David Lee could be an important one, but I think there's a lot of minutes to manage here and the overall talent level of the squad is still lacking.  Brad will have to work magic and the players will need to fully buy in.  A handful of losses could rattle our confidence, guys could stop playing 110%... and our lack of talent could outweigh our overachieving spirit.   When your team is comprised entirely of role players, you need to rely on execution.   Consistent execution is a hard thing to maintain without confidence.

[D.o.s.]

As someone who thinks the Celtics overachieved at the end of the year, my suspicion covers and was born out of the 25-12 record they compiled after the All Star Break, not just the last 13 games. It seems peculiar to me that you would pick the last 13 games, and feels rather arbitrary, given that most people talk about the post ASG in total, rather than starting with one game at the end of March.

Feel free to do a similar analysis of all the post-ASB games if you think that was cherry-picking.

Sure, I can go back and subjectively analyze games and whether or not the other team was "really trying." Seems like a good use of my time.

[incoherent]

My point in making this thread was to show that teams didn't really tank against us, and we deserved to make the playoffs based on our own merits. 

We won a lot of close games against teams in direct competition with us for a playoff spot, and we even reached a couple times to beat teams with better records then us like that Memphis game.

We weren't lucky or handed the playoffs, we out right earned it.