Reply With Quote
Ironic, considering that the Celtics would be the defending champs if not for some careless final minutes.
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/_/p...201/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 compe ion. 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, Dallas, OKC, Toronto, Orlando, Detroit, New Orleans, Chicago, Houston, Washington
, and Phoenix).
Ironic, considering that the Celtics would be the defending champs if not for some careless final minutes.
that entire "Daily Dime" was stupid.
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.
funny he doesn't mension the fact that the spurs were on a back to back against Boston...
agree 100%
Hard to argue with him that the Celts are better... though... MUCH better is a stretch...
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.
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.
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.
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.
The only way we face them in a playoff series is in the Finals and by then...Ill take my chances...
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.
Alot can happen between now and the finals, I like the spurs chances though.
Take out B2B losses, and the Spurs are 40-3.
That made my brain hurt
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.
Funny stat: the Celtics are the worst rebounding team in the NBA
No rebounds, no rings
The comments on the guy's story are about 80-20 "you really don't know what you're talking about."
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
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.
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..
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.
Didnt KG miss that game?
that's due to their slow pace and pretty nifty shooting percentage (50%+). they also don't go for offensive rebounds.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
