Putting aside for a second the debate about whether the Celtics should even want to make the playoffs, how likely is it?
Two games past the midpoint of the season the Celtics are (as of this writing) 18-26. How many games would they need to win to get a 7th or 8th seed and sneak into first round annihilation? Well, lets look at how many regular season wins the 8th seed from the Eastern Conference has had since 2000
2000 - 42 (Milwaukee)
2001 - 41 (Indiana)
2002 - 42 (Toronto)
2003 - 42 (Milwaukee)
2004 - 36 (Boston)
2005 - 42 (New Jersey)
This is an interesting trend, since a popular story around the NBA for the last couple years has been the resurgence of the Eastern Conference. What these numbers suggest is that while Shaq going to Miami and Rasheed going to Detroit may have made the top teams better the hurdle you need to get over to make the playoffs remains about the same. With 2004 as an exception, crack a .500 winning percentage on the year and you have a good shot.
So let's say the Celts need to get one game over .500 to land the 8th seed. To finish the season with a 42-40 record Boston would need to go 24-14-- good for a 63% winning percentage-- the rest of the way. To put this in perspective, there are only 4 teams in the NBA who have played that well this year over half a season. Detroit, San Antonio, Dallas and Phoenix all have winning percentages above 63%. 26 other teams do not.
Here's the rub: should the Celtics play San Antonio- or Detroit-quality basketball over the second half of the season their post-season might be a lot more exciting than a perfunctory first round exit. Of course, if anyone reading this thinks it's going to happen they might want to place a call to Vegas. I suspect you can get excellent odds from a lot of people willing to bet against you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Clearly the C's aren't making the playoffs this year unless the bar is significantly lower than .500 ball. And I don't think that's the goal for this team. The second half of the season is going to be devoted to, gasp, developing the young guys. Or playing them more. Take your pick.
B -- I'll have a full reply to your latest minutes post tonight.
No rush, man. I haven't gotten around to the specific questions you asked in the last 'finances' post yet, either. Anything that takes more than 2 minutes to write and post ain't happening right now.
If the second half of the season is going to be devoted to developing the young guys, then why bring in an overpriced veteran?
I agree with mmazzotta that developing young talent should be the Celtics's goal, which is why I'm not as excited about the Wally trade as he is.
Post a Comment