Sanity Check: The elephant(s) in the Room

by drza44 on Mar 8, 2010 3:41 AM EST

We often overthink things.

We often want so much for our team to be good that we convince ourselves that they're bad to soften the blow just in case.

And sometimes we just want to be the contrarian that is proven right.

Frankly, I've got no idea why I spend so much of my time on this board sifting through posts from so-called "realistic" fans talking about how bad the team is. I've posted a few different fan-posts pointing out the obvious: when our best players aren't healthy, the team isn't as good.

That's the huge, gigantic elephant in the room that for some reason many of the "realists" don't spend much time on. Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce are still the two best players on this team. If one or both of them are limping, the team will not be as good. If one or both of them are actually out, the team will struggle even more.

This isn't rocket science. Yet, no matter how many times it's said it doesn't seem to resonate. In my previous fan posts I tried things like breaking down how the team has performed during different points in the season when KG has been at various levels of health. But you know, we don't have to even get that complicated.

When KG and/or Pierce don't play: Celtics are 9 - 10 with a scoring margin of -0.8.

When KG and Pierce both play: Celtics are 31 - 11 with a scoring margin of +7.1.

Just to complete the sanity check, that win percentage and scoring margin with both KG and Pierce playing would currently be second in the NBA, just behind the Cavs and ahead of the Lakers.

And that doesn't even get into the fact that KG and Pierce were both obviously slowed for some of those games when they both played.

I've said before, and I continue to say, if you're a "realist" that just doesn't believe the Cs will stay/be healthy till the end, OK. I can respect that, even if I hope you're wrong. But if you're one that just harps on the team not being "that good" this year because they're lacking athleticism, or lacking heart, or they want to flip the switch, or whatever else the "realists" say...

That's not realism. That opinion isn't grounded in reality. People that espouse that opinion shouldn't call themselves "realists". Maybe "skeptics", or "we just really don't think the Celtics will win-ists". Or keep it simple and call it what it is: pessimists.

Just don't pretend that your opinion reflects the reality of what this team has been. It just doesn't.

Be respectful and keep it clean. Thanks.

Tweet Comment 11 comments | 2 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Nice Post, drza44

Good Point.

Not In My House!

by Celtics18and19 on Mar 8, 2010 5:43 AM EST reply actions

You nailed it.

That is why I was disagreeing with Jeff Clark with him calling the pessimists as realist because that opinion is very biased, although his “Optimistic Realist” argument is I think a correct one.

I believe that anything can happen to this team, may it be good or bad. We can go all the way for banner 18, or we may not even get it past the first round. But with what they have shown us (or me) this past few days, strengthens my faith that this team is capable of going all the way (although I didn’t like how they played their first 3 quarters against Washington).

IF the C’s area healthy, we are a very very dangerous team – even if KG is only around 80%.

"The idea is not to block every shot. The idea is to make your opponent believe that you might block every shot." - Bill Russell

Yes, intimidation is the key to domination.

by Marjun Raposon on Mar 8, 2010 8:08 AM EST reply actions

yawp

by Warrior Spirit on Mar 8, 2010 8:25 AM EST reply actions

I've been thinking the same thing

about these so-called “realists”. I’ve also been thinking that maybe Mike Bibby was right about some of these people.

by rkls134 on Mar 8, 2010 10:50 AM EST reply actions

take any team

and remove there 2 best players and they become a .500 team. Yes, LA, Cleveland, Orlando, ALL OF THEM would be average. I think the true problem is that people whom don’t watch more then 20 games a year have all these opinions about how good or bad the team is. For example, the people who where ready to jump off a cliff because they lost to the Nets last week. Yes they should have beaten them and no it shouldn’t have been close. Throughout the season a PROFESSIONAL basketball team can beat any other PROFESSIONAL team on any given night. There are of course likely hoods that certain teams will win each match up, however NO team has 100% chance to win any game. It may be as high as 99%, but never 100%. The real season will start soon and teams won’t have a one and done chance at the C’s. I like our chances at beating any of the playoff teams in that format. Will they sweep an opponent, probably not. Will they get swept by another team, probably not. 82 games is a long time to put out 110% game in and game out. Four rounds of playoffs are not quite that long and can be pushed though with overall max effort. Natron is a better player then Eddie House. House was a better shooter, but he needed teammates to free him. Nasty Nate just needs time and the ball and will help the 2nd unit with scoring. Finley will ease his way into 8-12 min a game and a couple walk in the park shots for him to make. The major cogs are there and the bit pieces are ready. WHO WANTS SOME? BRING IT TO THE GARDEN COME PLAYOFF TIME.
CELTIC TIME,
OUR TIME is NOW.

Jeffrey M Melhorn

by 18-1 damn on Mar 8, 2010 12:50 PM EST reply actions

I likey : )

If you have a forum account, I’ll give you a TP, easy.

by Tai on Mar 9, 2010 4:39 AM EST up reply actions

+1

Nice post, drza44.

rec’ed.

by mmmmm on Mar 8, 2010 6:27 PM EST reply actions

I hate to be repetitive, but........

Part of this was from my last post, on Feb,20. Apparently, some of the injuries and health conditions have been clearing up, and the rotations are beginning to finally jell a bit more.

The Cs don’t depress me at all, but some of the so-called fan base does.

This season has had its share of ups and downs, and I won’t go into all the details all over again, as they’re well known to the entire fan base, which include a number of fluke and otherwise injuries and illnesses. In spite of the pitfalls and pratfalls that the team has been going through, we are still a winning team, and if the entire team can stay healthy for the balance of the season and reach the playoffs in good health, we will be able to compete with any of the top teams in the east and west, and will have a decent shot at winning no.18. What more can you possibly demand of a team?

We have potentially the finest starting five in the NBA, health and injury apart, and potentially the finest bench as well, given the same parameters, which we have not as yet enjoyed this season.

I’m delighted that Ray Allan was not traded in the end, and look forward to the big three hoisting banner no.18, with the torch eventually being passed to Rondo, Perk, and whomever ever else will be in the mix in the coming years.

Eddy House was an excellent asset to the team for the past 2 1/2 seasons, and I’m saddened to see him traded, but hopefully the man who he was traded for, Nate Robinson, will be the spark that lights the fire under the 2nd unit, now that the health conditions have started to clear up.

Remember, when a player is injured and is out for a length of time, it takes time for his rythym to return to what it was before, and it takes time for a line or shift to gain back the tempo. Any player can have a bad game at any given time, and there is just so much criticism and negativity heaped upon a player or unit that is totally unneccessary.

Be positive and enjoy the balance of the season, as it looks to be a very interesting and hard fought one.

Lygafe

Lionel Gaffen/ Fotomix.

Lygafe

http://lygaffen.blogspot.com/

http://community.webshots.com/user/lygafe

http://forums.internationalhockey.net/showthread.php?t=7448&page=2

http://www.eurohockey.net/news/story.html?id=20090408104226_herzliya_emerges_as_israeli_national_league_champions

by lygafe on Mar 8, 2010 7:02 PM EST reply actions

Insanity Check: TIme to play "If only ... "

If only Pierce and KG had stayed healthy …

Would that 9-10 piece be 15-4? Would the C’s record be 46-15?

Who knows? Anybody got an-inter-dimensional transport with which to go check that other reality?

Odd bits – Actual records vs Pythagorean records (and yeah, including the above mentioned 9-10 bit):



Team        Actual  WL%   Pythagorean  Luck

Cavs        49-15  .766   47.1-16.9    +1.9

Lakers      46-18  .719   44.9-19.1    +1.1

Magic       44-20  .688   45.1-18.9    -1.1

Mavericks   43-21  .672   37.3-26.7    +5.7

Nuggets     42-21  .667   41.6-21.4    +0.4

Celtics     40-21  .656   40.5-20.5    -0.5

Hawks       40-22  .645   40.7-21.3    -0.7

Jazz        40-22  .645   41.7-20.3    -1.7

Suns        40-25  .615   39.6-25.4    +0.4

Thunder     38-24  .613   38.1-23.9    -0.1

Spurs       36-24  .600   39.0-21.0    -3.0

This does not include monday’s games.

For those unfamiliar with it, the Pythagorean W-L is calculated using the points scored and the points allowed by each team in formula that resembles the trigonometric pythagorean theorem. Over the course of many games, it is a pretty good predictor of actual won-loss records, with the difference being due to randomness, or ‘luck’.

The ‘Luck’ column indicates how many wins (or losses) the team can attribute to luck. For example, the Spurs have been pretty unlucky and lost 3 games that they shoulda coulda won. I.E. – they are better than their record indicates. Conversely, the Mavs have been extremely lucky and are nowhere near as good as their record indicates.

Lessee, the C’s winning percentage WITH both KG & Pierce (31-11, or .738) is just a hair ahead of the Cav’s pythagorean winning percentage (.736). Interesting.

Draw your own conclusions.

by mmmmm on Mar 9, 2010 12:41 AM EST reply actions

I.e.,

… you’re showing that the Cavs’ record is inflated by the “luck” factor to the tune of 0.030, and when that’s corrected, the Cs’ record with an intact team edges them out. And, as it happens, it’s also the best record in the league.

Good. This supports my view that the Cs are capable of rolling over its opponents in the playoffs. Bolstering that view is my belief that they – the entire team – have not all brought their best game to the table yet.
- Sheed hasn’t, but is expected to for the playoffs.
- KG is still on the +-slope physical-status curve, currently somewhat less than, but heading right toward, 100%.
- And Paul is just now re-finding his game.
- And Ray’s game was WAY down earlier in the season, much improved now.
- And Nate’s been added.

All of which adds up to a fairly sanguine view of the near future. We should be happy :)

by DRJ1 on Mar 9, 2010 7:14 AM EST up reply actions