Celtics' Schedule if they were in the WC?

[phxspurfan]

I was just reading this week's Power Rankings:

http://www.nba.com/powerrankings/

...and noticed the C's atop the list again. The title of the rankings was 'The East Ain't So Least.'

I would assume, that by saying this, the writers of the article were proposing that since the Celtics and Pistons have been playing so well, that the Eastern Conference wasn't that bad. I would have to disagree...

I, in no way disgree with their ranking the C's at the top, but I did have a question that I thought others may have had. What if the Celtics played in the Western Conference? What would their record be like if they had another schedule, like ours or the Utah Jazz?

I took one look at the Celtics' schedule after viewing the Jazz's schedule and chuckled to myself. The Jazz would have reeled off several multi-game winning streaks if given opponents like New Jersey and Toronto as 'challenges' on a weekly basis.

Now I'm not proposing anything crazy liek adding strength of schedule as a factor in determining any type of rankings. I'd just like to put things in perspective for anyone out there who recently jumped onto the C's bandwagon.

For comparison, the Celtics and Jazz schedule links are below.

http://www.nba.com/jazz/schedule/

http://www.nba.com/celtics/schedule/

http://www.nba.com/spurs/schedule/

[JamStone]

Utah Jazz can't win on the road, why would that differ if they were in the East?

Jazz lost road games in New York, Indiana, Charlotte, Miami, Sacramento, Clippers, Minnesota twice, Chicago, and New Jersey, but if they were in the East somehow they'd be better?

[phxspurfan]

Utah Jazz can't win on the road, why would that differ if they were in the East?

Jazz lost road games in New York, Indiana, Charlotte, Miami, Sacramento, Clippers, Minnesota twice, Chicago, and New Jersey, but if they were in the East somehow they'd be better?


Oh no, I'm not saying that the Jazz road woes would be eliminated if they had an Eastern Conference schedule. I'm saying the Celtics would be staring up at the Spurs and Hornets in the standings and rankings if they played a schedule like the Jazz (or Spurs, or any other Western team) have played this year.

[Mitch Cumsteen]

I don't think there's much argument that the Celtics have been the best team all season long, no matter who they play. Would they have a few more losses if they had to face the rigors of the western conference on a nightly basis? Of course. But I still think they would have the best record if they played in the West. They've been treating every game this season like the playoffs. Good for them. Let's see if they can take it up a level when the games matter.

The C's last 10 games of the season:
Heat
@Bulls
Pacers
@Bobcats
@Bucks
@Wizards
Bucks
@Hawks
@Knicks
Nets

Nothing gets you ready for the rigors of the playoffs like a tour of the Eastern Conference cellar dwellers.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

The Celtics have taken care of most of the Western teams they've played.

I would think they'd still be the 1 seed this year regardless of schedule.

[Allanon]

I think the Celtics playing in the West would be another "elite" team like the Hornets, Spurs, Lakers, and Suns with no clear decisive winner.

Celtics only have to get up for hard games once every 2 weeks. Meanwhile, in the West, practically every week you have a couple hard games.

Playing a good team almost every game takes its toll on you, I think the Celtics would be closer to 20-25 losses by now if they were in the West. Pistons would probably not be a top 4 team unless they're in the Northwest division.

Even West teams who will miss the Playoffs like the Warriors, Trailblazers and Kings would be in the Playoffs in the East. Warriors a #9 seed would probably be a #3 in the East.

The Western Conference runs 11-12 teams deep, the Eastern Conference runs maybe 4 teams deep.

Celtics and Pistons would be very good in the West but in the East, they're godlike.

[FromWayDowntown]

The Celtics are 25-5 (.833) against the West teams this season. If you compared that to the records of the West contenders against West teams, the Celtics are the runaway leaders on a winning percentage basis. The best of the West contenders against West teams is New Orleans, and they're not even playing .700 ball in that situation. And the Celtics built that record by winning a lot of games without Garnett and more without Allen.

I don't think it's entirely fair to say that the Celtics record is the product of playing in the East or to suggest that their record would be significantly diminished if they were playing a western conference schedule.

I take the point about the day-in-day-out nature of playing in such a tough conference and the intermittent nature of the C's need to focus on those games, but still, they've won those games and there's something to be said for that.

[WildcardManu]

Nothing gets you ready for the rigors of the playoffs like a tour of the Eastern Conference cellar dwellers.


:lmao omg that caught me by surprise in the library.

[WildcardManu]

I think the Celtics playing in the West would be another "elite" team like the Hornets, Spurs, Lakers, and Suns with no clear decisive winner.

Celtics only have to get up for hard games once every 2 weeks. Meanwhile, in the West, practically every week you have a couple hard games.

Playing a good team almost every game takes its toll on you, I think the Celtics would be closer to 20-25 losses by now if they were in the West. Pistons would probably not be a top 4 team unless they're in the Northwest division.

Even West teams who will miss the Playoffs like the Warriors, Trailblazers and Kings would be in the Playoffs in the East. Warriors a #9 seed would probably be a #3 in the East.

The Western Conference runs 11-12 teams deep, the Eastern Conference runs maybe 4 teams deep.

Celtics and Pistons would be very good in the West but in the East, they're godlike.


Yeah, it's the mental aspect that they don't have to prepare for elite teams as often as in the west, as to when they start their western conference tours they already come with a mindset that it's tough out here. For West teams it's easy to lose that focus every now and then because of the grind. Sometimes-and maybe not intentionally-teams and players take a break and just don't show up to the game with the kind of energy needed to stay at pace of the opponent. So i call fluke on the Celtics season.

[sandman]

The Celtics are 25-5 (.833) against the West teams this season. If you compared that to the records of the West contenders against West teams, the Celtics are the runaway leaders on a winning percentage basis. The best of the West contenders against West teams is New Orleans, and they're not even playing .700 ball in that situation. And the Celtics built that record by winning a lot of games without Garnett and more without Allen.

I don't think it's entirely fair to say that the Celtics record is the product of playing in the East or to suggest that their record would be significantly diminished if they were playing a western conference schedule.

I take the point about the day-in-day-out nature of playing in such a tough conference and the intermittent nature of the C's need to focus on those games, but still, they've won those games and there's something to be said for that.

While the 25-5 is very impressive, they had to play a total of only 18 games against West playoff contending teams (considering 9 teams are playing .600 ball). 9 of those games had to be on the road and they went 5-4, losing to DEN, GS, PHX and NO. KG played in all 4 of those games. And the Texas Trifecta was a 2-pt win in SA and a 4th quarter comeback 4-pt win in Dallas, which could have easily flipped their road record to 3-6 against West playoff teams.

So essentially they went a combined 20-1 at home against the West and on the road against West scrubs. The definitely did good and deserve the credit; however, their road play out West was not exactly stellar. A 7-game series will expose that a bit, in my humble opinion.

[oboymeetsogirl]

Celtics are real good, but they'll have a helluva time getting past the Pistons. Like the Spurs, Pistons are battle tested, tough as nails, and mad as hornets about losing to the Cavs last year. I give the Celtics a 50/50 chance of making it to the finals.

Finally, recent history tells us that even outstanding regular seasons records don't mean you can even get to conference finals. The Pistons, Mavs, Suns, and even the Spurs in their non-championship years are all explicit examples of this. So it's just plain silly to hold up regular season records as "proof" that any team will get to the top. We'll know soon enough once the playoffs begin -- who's in synch, who's "hot," and who's not. No one can really talk odds in any meaningful way until late May...

[remingtonbo2001]

I think the Celtics playing in the West would be another "elite" team like the Hornets, Spurs, Lakers, and Suns with no clear decisive winner.

Celtics only have to get up for hard games once every 2 weeks. Meanwhile, in the West, practically every week you have a couple hard games.

Playing a good team almost every game takes its toll on you, I think the Celtics would be closer to 20-25 losses by now if they were in the West. Pistons would probably not be a top 4 team unless they're in the Northwest division.

Even West teams who will miss the Playoffs like the Warriors, Trailblazers and Kings would be in the Playoffs in the East. Warriors a #9 seed would probably be a #3 in the East.

Good Take!
The Western Conference runs 11-12 teams deep, the Eastern Conference runs maybe 4 teams deep.

Celtics and Pistons would be very good in the West but in the East, they're godlike.

[m33p0]

its understandable why the Celtics are on top and have been on top for the entire season. winning is all brand-new to them.

[WildcardManu]

its understandable why the Celtics are on top and have been on top for the entire season. winning is all brand-new to them.


my dad and brother said the same thing