Thursday, February 10, 2011

Biggest Win For LA? TNT Would Have You Think So...

I shouldn't even bother to blog about this because the loss isn't really a big deal when you think about it. Here's why:

Let's first take a look at the lineups for the game tonight.
For the Celtics we had:

Ray Allen
Rajon Rondo
Kevin Garnett
Kendrick Perkins
Paul Pierce (even though he was visibly weak due to the flu)

Glen Davis
Nate Robinson (injured early)
Von Wafer
Avery Bradley

The Lakers had:

Bryant
Gasol
Bynum
Fisher
Artest

Odom
Blake
Brown
Walton
and 3-4 random people I've never heard of, but at least they had bodies to put out on the floor if necessary.

So with Robinson out and Pierce not a big factor due to illness, the Celtics trotted out a whopping 7 healthy players. And even THAT is debatable because Perk's probably not 100% yet. So, let's say 6 and 1/2. And we lost by only 6 points.

Second, based on that, it just becomes more obvious that the Celtics are in a completely different league. Throughout the first half, we were fresh and full of energy. We built up a 15 point lead (8 by halftime) and it would have almost certainly continued that pattern had we had fresh legs to sub in for our starters. Unfortunately, as we all saw, this wasn't the case, and by the time the 4th quarter came around, everyone was winded, and rightfully so. I mean, just look back to the game in LA. We blew them away in the 4th and we were healthier then than now (the Lakers, meanwhile, were the same). So, if A + B = C, that proves that when even a when we're just a LITTLE BIT healthier, we're far better. Again, the Lakers essentially scraped by with a 6 point victory tonight.

Here's a couple more points of interest:


Boston is 11-6 against the so-called "elite teams." (For my money, San Antonio, Dallas, LA, Miami, Chicago, Atlanta, OKC, and Orlando.)

LA is 2-6. And yes, I counted tonight's win for them even though we were absolutely decimated.

The Celtics have had one of the hardest schedules in the league in the first half of the season. I'm too lazy to go and look at our strength-of-schedule and all that percentages, but just look above. We've played 17 games against teams above .600 so far. The Lakers have played 8. I went through their schedule and results and they didn't play an elite team until almost A MONTH after the season started! The Celtics started against Miami.

By the way, know what really pisses me off? How the Lakers play in the same arena as the Clippers. It's actually kinda unfair when you think about it. When they play the Clippers "on the road" it's not really a "road" game. They're playing at home and most of the fans there are Lakers fans to begin with. Completely takes home court advantage away from it. It's also unfair for the rest of the league. All teams play 41 games on the road, but the Lakers really only play 39. I know I'm being nitpicky, but wouldn't you like the Celtics to play 2 fewer games on the road and add 2 more to play in Boston? Actually, let's take this a bit further. There are 4 teams that play in California: the Warriors, Kings, Lakers, and Clippers. Now, sure, California is kind of a big state and all, but FOUR TEAMS?! And it's not like you're going from the northernmost point to the border of Mexico here. The plane ride is apparently about 1:30. I dunno, this just pisses me off because it's all in the same state/area and the travel seems not nearly as taxing as other NBA teams have to do.

While we're here, I also want to point out that LA used to be in Minneapolis and won a few championships there. Why do they count towards LA's total?? Do we say, "Here they are! You're 1-time NBA Champion Thunder!!!!" just because that same franchise won a title back in Seattle? No. The Lakers don't have 16 titles. They have 11.


Anyway, the point of this was just to show that tonight's loss is essentially meaningless because of our lack of players. Meanwhile, LA is all healthy and beat us by two possessions. Yeah. Nice job.