http://www.enterprisenews.com/sports/x195968165
Best record doesn’t guarantee best result for Celtics
The Celtics know that the NBA is littered with top teams that lost in the playoffs.
By Jim Fenton
BOSTON — Their at ude about being on top of the NBA standings has been consistent for the past five months.
Having the league’s best record throughout the season has never been something about which the Boston Celtics have made a big deal.
When asked about leading the NBA pack earlier this season, Coach Doc Rivers responded with a question of his own, looking to downplay the significance.
Rivers wanted to know if reporters could remember which team finished with the best record in the 2006-07 season.
The answer — the Dallas Mavericks at 67-15 — proved a point for Rivers since that team failed to make it out of the first round of the playoffs, getting shocked by the eighth-seeded Golden State Warriors.
For all the good the Mavericks did from November through the middle of April, it didn’t help them one bit once the postseason began.
The Celtics, who continue a three-game road trip against the Bucks in Milwaukee tonight, clinched the NBA’s best mark last Saturday night.
It marks the first time since the 1985-86 season — Boston’s last le year — that the Celtics (61-15) will finish first in the overall standings.
Like they did after reaching the 60-win mark last week, the Celtics downplayed the achievement, knowing it will not mean much without taking the next step through the playoffs.
“Nothing we do right now is what we’re trying to do,” Rivers told reporters after a 101-78 win in Charlotte over the Bobcats. “It’s what we’re trying to get to later. That’s how we focus.”
Recent history shows that having the best regular-season record hardly guarantees a celebration in June as the NBA champion.
In the past seven years, only one team that entered the playoffs with the top record has survived the next two months and won the le.
That occurred in the 2002-03 season when the San Antonio Spurs, who tied the Mavericks at 60-22, emerged as the champions.
In the two years before that, the Los Angeles Lakers finished tied for second in the overall standings and won les. The Spurs were on top of the NBA in 2000-01 with 58 wins and the Sacramento Kings were first in 2001-02 with 61 victories, but neither got out of the conference in the playoffs.
The past four seasons, lower seeds have prevailed to win championships, beginning with the Detroit Pistons (sixth overall in 2003-04), the Spurs (tied for second in 2004-05), the Miami Heat (fifth in 2005-06) and the Spurs (third last season).
In each case, teams that won more than 60 games in the regular season to have the best record were unable to parlay that into a le.
The 2003-04 Indiana Pacers went 61-21, then lost in six games to the Pistons in the Eastern Conference finals.
The 2004-05 Phoenix Suns were 62-20, but were eliminated in five games by the Spurs in the Western Conference finals.
The 2005-06 Pistons had a 64-18 record going into the playoffs, but the Heat stopped them in six games in the conference finals.
Last season, the Mavericks had a remarkable regular season, winning six more games than the second-place team in the NBA, but they were ousted, 4-2, by the Warriors.
In the past 18 years, only seven teams with the best record during the 82-game season won les, and Michael Jordan’s Chicago Bulls did it four times.
After playing the Bucks, who are ahead of only the New York Knicks and the Heat in the Eastern Conference, the Celtics finish the trip in Washington Wednesday night.
The Wizards, fifth in the East, can become the only team to win a season series from the Celtics. Washington is 2-1, winning back-to-back games over Boston during a three-night span in January after losing to the Celtics on opening night.
It is expected that Rivers will get more rest time for his key players against the Bucks, though Paul Pierce could return to the lineup. Pierce did not play against the Bobcats after his fiancée, Julie Landrum, gave birth to their daughter, Prianna Lee, last Friday.
The Celtics will also be keeping an eye on the out-of-town scoreboard as the Atlanta Hawks, their likely first-round opponent, can move closer to a playoff berth tonight.
The Hawks (36-41) own a three-game lead over the Pacers (33-44) with seven games remaining, and the two teams meet in Indiana.
The difference if there is one to me is, did any of those teams compare to this Boston squad? Nope.
Detroit/Boston ECF is going to be climatic. Let's hope the best team wins instead of the refs deciding games like they did for the Heat in 06, and the Cavs last year.
I can just as easily see the Celts collective playoff inexperience make them lose just as much as I can see the refs pulling the DWade card on Paul Pierce.
I still haven't seen anything from the Celtics that just make me say "WOW". I think they are in for a surprise in some seven game series. Especially with Detroit. Celtics have a lot of talent, but nothing they've done this year makes me believe they would just coast right through to the finals. I even think Cleavland could take them to a game 7 with a healthy Lebron. Wizards and Orlando could give them some problems too.
The Celtics defense is just staggering.
On top of that, their offense isn't too shabby either.
They have to be the obvious clear cut choice to win a le
Well maybe not as star studded, but the 2006 Detroit Pistons were coming off back-to-back NBA Finals appearances and did have the most stable starting five in the league for a couple seasons. Compare to the individual talent and star level of this year's Boston? No, but more accomplished and probably should have been considered a better bet to win the le than how this year's Celtics are being perceived by many.
Really? Not their 29-3 start of the season? Not their 25-5 record against Western Conference teams, including a road trifecta sweep in Texas? Not the 7-2 record without KG for a 9 game stretch, including wins against Dallas and San Antonio? Not the role players blowing out Charlotte the other night without KG, Pierce, or Ray Allen?
I'm a Pistons fan and I don't like the Celtics. But, they've been extremely impressive this year. They should be the heavy favorites to win the le this year.
Well, they came in and swept all teams in Texas. If you're not impressed with the Celtics, you're not paying attention.
Not that I don't love the Mavs, but a win over my team right now doesn't impress me. Spurs weren't playing at the top of their game when they went up against the Celtics.
Spurs were up 24 and the Celts were missing Allen....on SA's home floor
I still haven't had a good night's sleep since that game!!
Spurs were stinking it up around that time. Boston was their 4th loss in a row which included a loss to the 6ers.
Damn you are stupid! The Celtics were playing without Ray Allen on the road and came back from a 20+ pt deficit to beat the Spurs. They have done everything they possibly could to silence the critics.
you and Rummpd need to collaborate, I'm sure you'd get paid well for your NBA analysis.
For some reason you, of all people, calling me stupid doesn't really bother me. You post some of the stupidest I've ever seen. I lose IQ points every time I read one of your posts.
Just because you pray every night before bed for your Lakers/Celtics finals doesn't mean it's going to be an automatic. Sorry to break it to you.
I don't necessarily disagree with you. Spurs weren't playing great ball at the time. But, those three previous losses were all on the road and two of them were against Detroit and New Orleans. And, the Philly game was at Philly on the second night of a B2B. Plus, Philly has been a beast in the second half of the season. Before that Spurs match up, they were 6-1 while beating both Detroit and Phoenix on the road, and a few games later, they beat the Celtics at Boston. That Philly loss was not a bad loss at all for the Spurs all things considered.
Plus, you neglected to mention that Boston put a stop to the Rockets 22 game win streak during that Texas trip, on a second night of a B2B no less, and beat them by 20 points.
You can downplay the Texas sweep if you want to by saying the Spurs and Mavs weren't playing well at the time. Well, that's true with a lot of games at different points during the season. It was impressive nonetheless. A Texas sweep happens so rarely. The Celts have been impressive. And, that comeback victory in San Antonio was impressive. I certainly said "WOW" at that game.
Who knows if the Celtics win it all this year. We'll have to wait and see. But, to not be impressed by them this regular season is really hard to believe and smells of denial and haterade.
I just haven't seen anything from them this year to get excited about. I'm not saying they don't have a shot at the finals. I'm just saying that it's not going to be a breeze like some people think it is. As poor as the east was this year, there are going to be some good playoff matchups. It should be a of a lot more entertaining that last year's east.
^Idiot.
Eh, I don't know. The Celtics aren't doing it for me either, but I guess I've never been one to get caught up in statistics. Most times, it's a gut feeling for me.
Hey, I don't watch a second of college basketball, and I finished near the top of our work pool...that's amongst people who could run circles around me with their stats.
I've watched the Celtics play plenty this year too.
Certainly, I could be wrong, but I'd take the Pistons over Boston.
Truthfully, no team in this league is really knocking me socks off right now though. That includes the Spurs.
Time will tell.
I'm not the kind of person that gives into the hype. I'd even say that Boston won't make the Finals. Remember the hyped up teams over the past few years.....Dallas, Pistons, Suns....what happened to them? Oh that's right...................
Celts will have to prove themselves in the playoffs. I agree with that and that it wont be a cakewalk. And yes the best record in the nba means nothing come playoff time.
This is how much I do know WILL happen if they are healthy enough. I know Boston is at least going to the ECF. The ing Cavs arent beating them. Boston has way too ing good of a team to lose in the 2nd round against a 1 man team with average to below average role players. Celtics are way more talented and much deeper than the Cavs. Boston should take them in 5 games MAYBE 6 (depends on how well Boston does when in position at closing out the series early) at the very most. No disrespect to the Cavs but that team simply isnt good enough to push Boston to a 7th game let alone beat them 4 times. The ONLY legitimate team I see beating Boston in the East is Detroit and vice versa.
Celtics arent playing a matchup nightmare in the warriors round 1 and have a much better overall D than the Mavs.
The Celtics play D unlike those Suns teams.
This Celtics team has 2 superstars and a deeper team than the 05-06 Pistons had. Pistons had 4 all stars but zero superstars. They also couldnt handle Wade. Celtics wont have to worry about Wade.
Boston has as good of a chance to win the championship as any team has. They are talented, deep, can play shut down type of D, and most of all they are hungry. They arent just hype. They are that damn good. Saying that they are for real doesnt imply no one will beat them. It is implying they are a serious force in the 2008 championship race. To deny that is simply being blinded by your hate.
Just saw a stat in tonight's game: the C's have only lost in double-digits twice this season, tied for fewest ever in a season with the 95-96 Bulls. Anyways, it's Boston's D that makes them so impressive.
Only time will tell if they're able to come through in the playoffs, but I see them as a top-3 favorite for the championship.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
