Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rexhamer
MJ:
There will be a lot more to say during this series, but I must call you and BDJ out on one point. How can you say the Spurs are better than the Celtics? I give them props for being defending champs, but:
Season - Celts 66-10 record, Spurs, 56-26 ( and don't tell me how tough the West was, Celts blew through them all)
Feb. 10 in Boston: Celts 98, Spurs 90
March 17 in SA, Celts 93, Spurs 91
So, please explain how the Spurs are better than the Celts and why that ensures a Lakers win?
Let's take it a step further - Celts just beat the Pistons. Can I say the Pistons were better than the Lakers at 59-23 (Det) vs. 57-25 (LAL)? They split their two games during the regular season.
|
You have good questions and they are very easy to answer. First and foremost, you have to understand that playoffs and regular season are mutually exclusive events. All the regular season does is generate revenue to pay salaries, determine the playoff seedings, and set home court advantage if a series goes to seven games. HCA is not always needed to become NBA champion or a series winner. Have a look this year and last for current relevance.
Regular season is different from the playoffs as well, because you go weeks or months without playing the same team twice. Plus, you see many other teams in between. Playoffs get to see up to 7 games versus the same opponent. Now, preparations become most important.
Eastern Conference was much weaker than the west in terms of the number of quality teams, so their records are a bit higher than they would have been if the east had to play more games in the western conference. Note that Atlanta and Cleveland wouldn't have made the playoffs had they been western teams. Look how they did in the postseason!
To answer your last question first, Detroit at 59-23 is not necessarily better than the Lakers 57-25 because of who they each had to play, and how many times they had to play them.
Now, why is San Antonio better than Boston? First and foremost, they were the defending championships, and their big 3 has been intact since the 2002/03 season. Without Robinson, they won 2 of the previous 3 titles. They won 2 in the 5 years preceeding that, for 4 of 9 overall. Playoff experience does tell a lot, and champions that know how to win always have an edge agasinst teams that don't. This doesn't mean they will always win, as San Antonio never repeated. As pointed out above, the Spurs had every reason in the world to repeat.
As far as the Celtics 2 wins over the Spurs go, remember last year? Cleveland won both their games against San Antonio. Boston won their game in SA with a huge comeback. They were on a roll at this time, sweeping the Texas triangle. SA is good enough to make the playoffs and top seeding isn't their primary concern. Their coach, Greg Popovich, limits the minutes of his key players to keep them fresh for the post season. Arguably, he may be the current greatest Coach in the NBA. Oh, by the way, Phoenix was 3-1 vs. San Antonio in the regular season. Spurs paid them back in the playoffs 4-1. To close this part of the argument, a big 3 with experience a proven coach has to be favored over another big 3 without previous seasons of team experience and an untested coach.
So, even though the Celtics did blow through the west, that was the regular season. Of course you know the Laker team you beat twice isn't the same Laker team that you will meet in 2 days! Look again above my earlier post where I show the Celtics history since the Russell era of how they did when they got NBA or East best record. They failed to even get beyond the ECF more often than not!
To close, if you don't quite understand it, regular season is one thing, playoffs are another. You get game 7 in Boston if it goes that far. Before that, it's all even for home court serve. Lakers in five, six at the most.