ESPN Bahstan writer: Celtics. not Spurs, "far and away the best team in basketball"

[CubanMustGo]

Surprise, surprise, an ESPN Boston writer viewing the world through green-tinted glasses. I have no problem making the argument that Boston could be the best team in the NBA, but calling them "far and away the best" is overkill. Comic Sans seems the best font for this 'analysis.'

http://espn.go.com/nba/dailydime/_/page/dime-110201/daily-dime

By Chris Forsberg
ESPN Boston.com


The San Antonio Spurs have far and away the best record in basketball, but don't be deceived. The Boston Celtics are far and away the best team in basketball as the calendar flips to February.

After Boston's 109-96 thumping of the Los Angeles Lakers (who had lost at home to Sacramento two days earlier) on Sunday at the Staples Center, there can be no argument (what, no mention of the previous game thumping at the hands of the Phoneyix Suns?). The Celtics wrapped up the month of January with a glossy 5-1 record against teams with records better than .500, including a 105-103 triumph over those very Spurs (which, if not for some careless final moments, wouldn't have been as close as the final score suggests).

It's clear the Celtics have saved their best basketball for top competition. For the season, they have a 17-5 mark overall against teams above .500. In fact, against the seven other Eastern Conference teams that would currently qualify for the postseason, Boston boasts a 13-2 mark, falling only to Chicago (the second night of a back-to-back to wrap up a slate of six games in nine days in January) and Orlando (a Christmas Day battle in which Boston fumbled away a double-digit second-half lead). (two of the other seven EC playoff contenders mentioned here aren't even capable of playing .500 ball).

Boston is not too shabby against the potential West playoff squads either, with a 6-3 mark against the eight current qualifiers (those losses being to Oklahoma City, New Orleans and Dallas). For what it's worth, the Spurs' seven losses this season include Boston, Orlando, Dallas, New York, the LA Clippers and a pair against New Orleans. (and for what it's worth, the Celtics' 11 losses are against Cleveland :lol, Dallas, OKC, Toronto, Orlando, Detroit, New Orleans, Chicago, Houston, Washington :lmao, and Phoenix).

[Seventyniner]

including a 105-103 triumph over those very Spurs (which, if not for some careless final moments, wouldn't have been as close as the final score suggests).

Ironic, considering that the Celtics would be the defending champs if not for some careless final minutes.

[honestfool84]

that entire "Daily Dime" was stupid.

[benefactor]

I wouldn't go as far as the writer is suggesting, but I definitely take a healthy Celtics team over anyone in the league right now in a seven game series.

[Pauleta14]

funny he doesn't mension the fact that the spurs were on a back to back against Boston...

[cheguevara]

agree 100%

[Sec24Row7]

Hard to argue with him that the Celts are better... though... MUCH better is a stretch...

[cheguevara]

I still like the Spurs vs. them in a playoff series. Like someone mentioned we match up well, defend a Rondo led attack better than most and they cannot stop Ginobili.

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

Setting records aside Boston's style looks more like what the Spurs looked like in their championship years so it's not a crazy argument. The guy's paid to have an opinion but I think the reality is that if they played a seven game series right now it would be a terrific battle and could very well just boil down to who had home court advantage.

[Sense]

I've come to realize that the Spurs tend to do bad with teams that are missing some sort of star... and then they play the team again with the star and it's like they've lost their fire...


This is why I think I would take the Spurs over the Celtics.

[ElNono]

They certainly play 'far and away' better defense than we do, especially when they absolutely need stops. They've also weathered the storm of injuries fairly well.

[sa_butta]

I still like the Spurs vs. them in a playoff series. Like someone mentioned we match up well, defend a Rondo led attack better than most and they cannot stop Ginobili.
The only way we face them in a playoff series is in the Finals and by then...Ill take my chances...
:flag:

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

I don't have a problem with anyone's right to have an opinion, however, when he's overly apologetic about the Celtics losses and conveniently dissmisses the reasons for the Spurs losses, it weakens his point dramatically.

[Cessation]

Alot can happen between now and the finals, I like the spurs chances though.

[Cry Havoc]

Take out B2B losses, and the Spurs are 40-3.

[howbouthemspurs]

That made my brain hurt

[Kindergarten Cop]

that entire "Daily Dime" was stupid.

I agree.

Not that I'd expect writers from a given city to be overly objective about it, but I found it comical that two of the ten pieces in the Daily Dime were short-selling the Spurs and stating how their home-town teams are better.

[lefty]

Funny stat: the Celtics are the worst rebounding team in the NBA

No rebounds, no rings

[CubanMustGo]

The comments (http://myespn.go.com/s/conversations/show/story/6078273) on the guy's story are about 80-20 "you really don't know what you're talking about."

[cutewizard]

Take out B2B losses, and the Spurs are 40-3.


Cry Havok man,

i think you are one of the best analysts here

if i may request you man, to make a comparative analysis of the Spurs vs the Celtics if you have time please, as i think this could be the finals

thanks a lot man, you are the best

kudos

[K-State Spur]

Some things he left out:

* In head-to-head matchup, Spurs were on the second half of a B2B, Boston had the night before off.

* Boston needed to shoot 61% to beat the Spurs that night - primarily on jumpshots (Ray Allen is a terrific shooter, but he's not going to hit 80% too often).

* Game was in the Garden, all Boston did was hold serve.

* Spurs have compiled their record against a significantly more difficult schedule (30 points higher in Opp W%).

* He points out that Boston is 17-5 against .500+ opposition and tries to frame the Spurs as getting fat on crappy teams. ...San Antonio is 18-6 against .500+ opposition.

Now, in Boston's favor, they are only 4 games behind the Spurs despite facing the injury bug. As they get healthy, they're going to be a bear to deal with.

So to claim that either team is "far and away" better at this juncture is crap.

[Tbiggums47]

Spurs fans..Take it as a compliment...Our team is unproven..yet the best Teams writers and coaches keep comparing themselves to us...Looks like we are the standard of winning..:flag::lobt:

[Hoops Czar]

Take out B2B losses, and the Spurs are 40-3.

Should we just deduct the b2b losses? B2b's are a part of the game. Every team has them. BTW, the Spurs are actually 36-3 and Boston is 30-5 if you deduct b2b's. For Spurs fans crying the blues about how many b2b's were playing, Boston's older and played 4 more than us.

[JoshO501]

Didnt KG miss that game?

[m33p0]

Funny stat: the Celtics are the worst rebounding team in the NBA

No rebounds, no rings

that's due to their slow pace and pretty nifty shooting percentage (50%+). they also don't go for offensive rebounds.

[toki9]

I don't think the Celtics have that much more room to improve, whereas the Spurs have quite a bit more to go.

[rascal]

ESPN is pro big market and northeast teams. Headquaters are in Connecticut.

[m33p0]

I don't think the Celtics have that much more room to improve, whereas the Spurs have quite a bit more to go.

this

[MaNu4Tres]

Who cares

[Mugen]

i think we match up better with Boston then we do with the Lakers.

But as of now, the Celtics are a better team than the spurs mostly due to their superior defense but a lot can change from now to june.

[Hoops Czar]

Some things he left out:

* In head-to-head matchup, Spurs were on the second half of a B2B, Boston had the night before off.

Meh, Boston played 4 games in 6 days prior to the Spurs.




* Boston needed to shoot 61% to beat the Spurs that night - primarily on jumpshots (Ray Allen is a terrific shooter, but he's not going to hit 80% too often).

Boston is the #1 FG% shooting team in the League. What do you expect when you leave shooters wide open all night. This shouldn't really be news anymore.



* Game was in the Garden, all Boston did was hold serve.

Good point.



* Spurs have compiled their record against a significantly more difficult schedule (30 points higher in Opp W%).


* He points out that Boston is 17-5 against .500+ opposition and tries to frame the Spurs as getting fat on crappy teams. ...San Antonio is 18-6 against .500+ opposition.

Bahstan was a bit foggy with his details. Amongst SA's 18 wins, many of them were with the opposition's best player(s) sidelined.



Now, in Boston's favor, they are only 4 games behind the Spurs despite facing the injury bug. As they get healthy, they're going to be a bear to deal with.

So to claim that either team is "far and away" better at this juncture is crap.

Boston has been in the finals two of the past three seasons. The Spurs haven't sniffed the Finals since 2007. Boston tops the league in defense while the Spurs are middle of the pack defensively and since defense wins championships, I have no problem with one person in the media claiming that Boston is "far and away" the best team in basketball.

[Rummpd]

In response to HoopsCzar above:

Spurs are not middle of the pack defensively:http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/teamstats/_/sort/defensiveEff/order/false

Furthermore since the end of December Spurs defense has been an upswing despite Spurs playing a rough and tougher schedule than Boston (and much tougher overall for the year)


They are 7th in the league on defense by these metrics and while tied for 2nd on offense with the Lakers while Boston IS MORE MIDDLE OF THE PACK offiensively at 10th and while they are 2nd in defense the gap in the metrics is not as much as they trail the Spurs in offense from what the Spurs trail Boston in defensively = all with Duncan our best interior defender playing limited minutes.

http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/teamstats/_/order/true

Spurs are the top team in Hollingers ratings that use SOS and point differential and the overly IMO vaunted Celtics sit at 5:

http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/powerrankings

LAL is a much tougher matchup for the Spurs and still the team to fear IMO and not the Celtics - who by the time they have to get by Chicago/Heat/Orlando and possibly the Hawks may either not reach the finals or will be worn out by tough competitive series in the East. If Spurs get past the LAL they can win the whole thing Boston or anyone else over there bring it on!

Sure Boston has made the finals the last two years but they did so going through the East that until this year 2-4 had flaws (stop one player you beat those teams) and unlike the Spurs never swept the Cavs with James. Boston had some tough series and are not an unbeatable team; and Perkins for one is very over-rated.

[bus driver]

....even better when the spurs kick their asses in the finals

[Hoops Czar]

@Rummpd

giving up .452% (12th) and .392% (29th) is too much.

Boston .438% (3rd) .343% (6th)

Thus, Boston is the better team.

[tmtcsc]

A tough stretch of Western opponents in the playoffs could help prepare the Spurs for the Celtics. We have youth on our side (that's strange to say) compared to the Celts. We might run them out of the building. Ray Allen can't perform consistently but is good for a monster game here and there. The key to stopping them is bottling up Rondo.

[Horse]

Should we just deduct the b2b losses? B2b's are a part of the game. Every team has them. BTW, the Spurs are actually 36-3 and Boston is 30-5 if you deduct b2b's. For Spurs fans crying the blues about how many b2b's were playing, Boston's older and played 4 more than us.
Do you think anyone give a fuck what a cleveland fan thinks? Go jerkoff in a tube sock to old videos of lebron.

[Hoops Czar]

Do you think anyone give a fuck what a cleveland fan thinks? Go jerkoff in a tube sock to old videos of lebron.

Hey, horsefly, does anyone give a shit what a 33 year old transvestite living in his parents basement thinks. Say, isn't Tuesday's family F@#K fest at the horse household followed by old reruns of Mr. Rogers neighborhood and Teletubbies?

[YODA]

Funny stat: the Celtics are the worst rebounding team in the NBA

No rebounds, no rings

Havent checked, but you sure about this?

[Budkin]

If we can crank up our defense it won't even be close.

[jjktkk]

Meh. Boston is one of the top teams and the very fact that they are located on the East Coast and have a long rich history in the NBA, of course they are gonna be overhyped a bit.

[K-State Spur]

Boston has been in the finals two of the past three seasons. The Spurs haven't sniffed the Finals since 2007. Boston tops the league in defense while the Spurs are middle of the pack defensively and since defense wins championships, I have no problem with one person in the media claiming that Boston is "far and away" the best team in basketball.

1) If this were 2008-2010, Boston's more recent Finals appearances would be important. But this is now, and both of these teams have Championship experience, so I don't see how the last 3 years (player in the much weaker conference) skew to Boston's favor much. There resume is pretty strong for this year alone, let's stick to that.

2) Actually Chicago has the best defense in the league...so if defense wins championships - let's crown the Bulls. Last year Charlotte had the league's best D, didn't get them out of the top 4. FWIW, Spurs are #7, not "middle of the pack."

Defense AND offense win championships.

[xtremesteven33]

Duncan>Garnett
-By a hair. You really cant go wrong with either player right now in this stage of thier career but Id go with Timmy strictly cause his style of play is closer to the basket than KG.

Pierce=Ginobili
Both are the closers to thier team with the ball in thier hand to make plays and have both proved to be the best clutch players on thier teams so its hard to say who would be better in a 7 game series. If Manu can not get turnover prone due to the Boston defense than Manu could win this matchup.

Rondo>Parker
Rondo is more vital to the Boston offense than Parker to the Spurs offense. Plus Rondo is a better defender than Parker. Capable of rebounding and blocking shots better than Parker, I can see Rondo having a better impact on the game than Parker.

The key guy in a 7 game series would have to be George Hill. The Celtics have a deep guard rotation as well as a deep frontcourt rotation. Rondo,Robinson,Allen and West could prove to be deeper than our guard rotation. But if George Hill can work better on guarding around screens and develop his playmaking that would be huge for the Spurs

[Hoops Czar]

1) If this were 2008-2010, Boston's more recent Finals appearances would be important. But this is now, and both of these teams have Championship experience, so I don't see how the last 3 years (player in the much weaker conference) skew to Boston's favor much. There resume is pretty strong for this year alone, let's stick to that.

2) Actually Chicago has the best defense in the league...so if defense wins championships - let's crown the Bulls. Last year Charlotte had the league's best D, didn't get them out of the top 4. FWIW, Spurs are #7, not "middle of the pack."

Defense AND offense win championships.

Offense wins games.... Defense wins championships. Who's ruling out the Bulls? The Bulls are every bit as good as the Celtics, they just lack that Championship pedigree. If it weren't for that, the Bulls would get my vote.

BTW, as I stated earlier, giving up .452% (12th) and .392% (29th) is a far cry from Boston .438% (3rd) .343% (6th).

Now go back in the NBA archives and let me know the last team to win an NBA championship ranked 12th in fg% and/or 7th in defensively efficiency other than possibly the Lakers last year. This actually isn't a trick question. I seriously have no idea.

[EricB]

Could be true. We shall see.

The March home game will be an interesting gauge for the Spurs to see where they are championship contender wise.

[EricB]

Offense wins games.... Defense wins championships. Who's ruling out the Bulls? The Bulls are every bit as good as the Celtics, they just lack that Championship pedigree. If it weren't for that, the Bulls would get my vote.

BTW, as I stated earlier, giving up .452% (12th) and .392% (29th) is a far cry from Boston .438% (3rd) .343% (6th).

Now go back in the NBA archives and let me know the last team to win an NBA championship ranked 12th in fg% and/or 7th in defensively efficiency other than possibly the Lakers last year. This actually isn't a trick question. I seriously have no idea.

Championship pedigree and no one outside of Kyle Korver can make a jump shot.

[Ice009]

Well DPG is right in that the Spurs just seem to have really bad losses for a team that is supposed to be a Championship contender.

Boston are definitely better than us right now.

[DPG21920]

This was a terrible performance, but I don't classify this as one of the terrible losses.

[Ice009]

This was a terrible performance, but I don't classify this as one of the terrible losses.

Fair enough and looking back it's not one of those games. Having said that I still thought it was a horrible game and is a good example to point out that Boston don't usually cave like this. Boston may have a bad game, but they don't usually cave in like this if they got a good lead on the other teams home court.

Spurs got lots of work to do.

[TD 21]

Typical Spurs fans. I don't even need to (nor did I) bother reading a single response because I already know what it will be. "Actually, I agree with the writer", "the Celtics are definitely better because they play defense", etc.

Only the Spurs could have by far the best record in the league (in the tougher conference, no less), not be playing a single player even 33 mpg and not be widely considered the best team in the league. Could you imagine if the Spurs were the Celtics and the Celtics were the Spurs? You think anyone would consider them the best team in the league then? Not a chance.

ESPN is a joke. Filled with blatant homers left and right. These guys don't even attempt to conceal their biases anymore. In fact, they practically flaunt them. It's pathetic.

[DPG21920]

Boston is better at the moment.

[TD 21]

I knew you'd claim that. Who gives a shit at the moment? The Spurs have been the best at the most moments this season, so wouldn't that make them the best overall? How could anyone claim the Celtics are "far and away the best" and expect to have credibility? It's another blatant example of disrespect. If the Lakers or Celtics had this record, no one would be claiming another team were the best.

Best record by far and all I hear is "the Hornets are the best at the moment" or "the Celtics are the best at the moment" or "the Heat are the best at the moment" or some other team that's on a hot streak. Never the Spurs, yet somehow they've managed to do what they've done.

[DPG21920]

Just because you have the best record, doesn't make you the best. We all knew CLE wasn't the best team, even with their records.

[Ice009]

Boston are definitely better right now and there is no debate.

I don't know why you're bringing the Hornets into this. At no point this season so far did I think they're the best.

I thought Boston was better than us before the season started, I thought they are better after the season started, but that doesn't mean we can't improve and be better later in the season.

You also have to realize that Boston have had a lot more injuries than us to key pieces of their teams that has missed games. Looking at the record only and not taking things like that into account is stupid. Spurs have also played teams that are banged up so you can't really point to the record to say we're better.

[timtonymanu]

Can't say I disagree with this although saying far and away is stretching it.

Boston has better defense and better execution. Spurs are very good, but still have alot of work to do defensively. Plus I prefer Big Baby over Blair any day.

Boston is better but not as much as this guy claims.

[TD 21]

Just because you have the best record, doesn't make you the best. We all knew CLE wasn't the best team, even with their records.

Did I say that? What I said was, if any other team had the record the Spurs have, none of these biased clowns would pretend any other team were better than them. It's more blatant disrespect.

If you want to reason the Celtics are better at the moment or a slightly better team, fine, there's a case to be made. But "far and away"?

If this team won 20 in a row by 20 a game, but they played a joke team or two in that stretch, maybe faced a team missing their best player or one of their best players, people wouldn't focus on what they'd done, but rather that. It's always something. There's always some reason why someone else is better.

[Ice009]

Can't say I disagree with this although saying far and away is stretching it.

Boston has better defense and better execution. Spurs are very good, but still have alot of work to do defensively. Plus I prefer Big Baby over Blair any day.

Boston is better but not as much as this guy claims.

Yeah, you are right. They are just a bit better, but still better. Hopefully the Spurs realize this and start actually improving instead of minimal to no improvement from game to game.

Right now the Spurs are only showing minimal improvement if any at all the last couple of weeks.

Boston are getting healthier and are actually looking better IMO.

[Capt Bringdown]

Right now the Spurs are only showing minimal improvement if any at all the last couple of weeks.

Boston are getting healthier and are actually looking better IMO.

This is the critical point. If anything, our D seems to moving backwards.
Celtics are the best team right now.

[Danny.Zhu]

He was right.

:depressed

[DPG21920]

Did I say that? What I said was, if any other team had the record the Spurs have, none of these biased clowns would pretend any other team were better than them. It's more blatant disrespect.

If you want to reason the Celtics are better at the moment or a slightly better team, fine, there's a case to be made. But "far and away"?

If this team won 20 in a row by 20 a game, but they played a joke team or two in that stretch, maybe faced a team missing their best player or one of their best players, people wouldn't focus on what they'd done, but rather that. It's always something. There's always some reason why someone else is better.

No. I don't think anyone in here agreed with the writer that Boston was far and away better. But it's pretty clear they are better at the moment and that is all that matters.

[TD 21]

No. I don't think anyone in here agreed with the writer that Boston was far and away better. But it's pretty clear they are better at the moment and that is all that matters.

So short of winning the championship (and even then, I'm not so sure with you), what does this team have to do to be considered the best at the moment? Go unbeaten the rest of the season and have a point differential of 50? What will it take? Because nothing seems to be good enough. There's always some reason to doubt them, or question the legitimacy of their record.

[Spursfanfromafar]

Can't say I disagree with this although saying far and away is stretching it.

Boston has better defense and better execution. Spurs are very good, but still have alot of work to do defensively. Plus I prefer Big Baby over Blair any day.

Boston is better but not as much as this guy claims.

This.

If there is any team fan who has a right to boast about his team, it is Boston right now.

They seem to have enough savvy to be in a position to get it done and are winning with defense rather than offense as the Spurs are doing.

Having said that, they do go through periods of inconsistent play that makes them vulnerable. They are not so far away and ahead of the Spurs as is made out to be.

[DPG21920]

So short of winning the championship (and even then, I'm not so sure with you), what does this team have to do to be considered the best at the moment? Go unbeaten the rest of the season and have a point differential of 50? What will it take? Because nothing seems to be good enough. There's always some reason to doubt them, or question the legitimacy of their record.

They have to play better. They have to be better defensively. They have to pass the eyeball test and not have so many moments, past & present, that make you question them.

Quit with the woe is me, spurs don't get enough credit act. That is a typical spurs fan.

[TD 21]

They have to play better. They have to be better defensively. They have to pass the eyeball test and not have so many moments, past & present, that make you question them.

Quit with the woe is me, spurs don't get enough credit act. That is a typical spurs fan.

The Celtics have lost to a lot more shit teams than the Spurs have. They've had a lot of moments where they looked old and slow. The difference is, you watch (presumably) every Spurs game, so you nitpick every down moment they have. The reality is, every single team in the league has a lot of moments throughout the season where it's easy to question them.

What act? It's completely true. You know full well that if the Lakers or Celtics had this record, no one would question who the best team in the league is. I'm sick of arrogant punks like you, who want to pretend you're different and not a homer, so you veer so far the other way that you're practically biased against the team. You can be complimentary of the team you go for and not be a homer.

[024]

in a seven game series, i doubt any team can beat a healthy celtics team. they are way too deep and their stars don't seemed to have aged much. i don't know if they can stay healthy all season though.

[DPG21920]

The Celtics have lost to a lot more shit teams than the Spurs have. They've had a lot of moments where they looked old and slow. The difference is, you watch (presumably) every Spurs game, so you nitpick every down moment they have. The reality is, every single team in the league has a lot of moments throughout the season where it's easy to question them.

What act? It's completely true. You know full well that if the Lakers or Celtics had this record, no one would question who the best team in the league is. I'm sick of arrogant punks like you, who want to pretend you're different and not a homer, so you veer so far the other way that you're practically biased against the team. You can be complimentary of the team you go for and not be a homer.

No. I watch plenty of Celtics games, enough to know what I am talking about. Even with their injuries (which the Spurs haven't had) they have maintained an elite defense and one of the most efficient offenses. They have been to the finals 2 out of the last 3 seasons.

They are better at the moment and have earned the benefit of the doubt. You are the typical Spurs fan constantly whining about how the Spurs are disrespected.

Saying Boston is better is not disrespecting the Spurs. It's making an honest assessment. Things can change, but at this moment, they are better.

[TD 21]

No. I watch plenty of Celtics games, enough to know what I am talking about. Even with their injuries (which the Spurs haven't had) they have maintained an elite defense and one of the most efficient offenses. They have been to the finals 2 out of the last 3 seasons.

They are better at the moment and have earned the benefit of the doubt. You are the typical Spurs fan constantly whining about how the Spurs are disrespected.

Saying Boston is better is not disrespecting the Spurs. It's making an honest assessment. Things can change, but at this moment, they are better.

So do I. But I don't watch every second of every game and I doubt you do, either. I don't want to hear about this injury bullshit. Their payroll is almost $15 million more than the Spurs'. That allows them to have more depth, which allows them to sustain injuries easier.

Who cares about at the moment? It's a long season and so far, the Spurs have been better at more moments than anyone. If that doesn't make a team the best, I don't know what does.

I'm not at all the typical Spurs fan, guys like you and SolidD are. With your deferential, the Spurs-have-500-problems-and-every-half-decent-team-is-better-than-them bullshit.

"Far and away the best" is complete and utter disrespect. How is it honest? What's it based on? There's nothing you can point to that indicates they're clearly better. It's just this typical someone's always got to be better than the Spurs nonsense. They're having one of the greatest seasons (record-wise) of all-time, yet very few times this season can I remember where the consensus was they were playing the best or the best team in the league. That would never happen if the Lakers, Celtics, or Heat, had this record and you know it.