RealGM

I was thinking about the difference between the Celtics record and New Orleans' who currently holds the top seed in the Western Conference. Right now the difference in record is seven games.

Now is this because the Celtics are 7 games better than the Hornets or because the Celtics play in the weaker EC and play more sub .500 teams? Are the Celtics maybe 3 games better than the Hornets and the other 4 games are accounted for by playing in the EC? What do you guys think? Do Jammer or Bill have any specific numbers on the affect of playing in one conference over the other?

The Celtics have a better record against the west than against the east.

SuperDeluxe wrote:The Celtics have a better record against the west than against the east.

Yeah but we play significantly more games against the East than the West. Where we only have to play San Antonio, Phoenix, LA, Utah and Dallas twice a year, New Orleans is playing them 3 and maybe 4 times a year. Where as our extra games are agains the likes of Miami, Milwaukee, NY, Charlotte, Chicago, and New Jersey who are much weaker teams.

Not only that, the Celtics have a better winning percentage against BOTH the West and the East than the Hornets.

Gant wrote:Not only that, the Celtics have a better winning percentage against BOTH the West and the East than the Hornets.

Excellent point Gant. Are you saying that the Celtics are definitely 7 games better than the Hornets. Is there any positive affect for playing in the East?

DorfonCeltics wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Excellent point Gant. Are you saying that the Celtics are definitely 7 games better than the Hornets. Is there any positive affect for playing in the East?

Maybe a bit due to wearing down. But oddly the Celtics have played better against the West than the East, so maybe it doesn't matter much in this case.

I think the counter argument to the main topic is this: If the Celtics were in the West they might have a BETTER record because they would not be able to let up at all. In the east they are the clear cut best, out in front of the pack. I think this is what the team has wanted, some recognition. In the West it would take a little bit more to get that same recognition. In some of the games we have lost to lesser teams, do you think we would have lost them if we were neck and neck with NO or SA in terms of standings? I think KG would be even more on fire.

Now I'm not saying that I totally agree with that, I more just playing devil's advocate. I think East or West the difference wouldn't be more then a couple games.

Hemingway, that's definitely the counter argument I was looking for. I do however think that playing in the East is worth a few extra wins a year.

Funny thing is 3 of the 5 western losses came in row right after the allstar break when the team was incorporating Garnett andf Perkins back into the lineup. Those were legit losses obviously as every team goes through this, but the Celtics could easily have even a better record against the West.

Still I agree, playing in the West would likely mean a few less wins. At least that seems the intuitive answer.

I think the proposal that the Celtics' record would be as good or better if they were in the West is completely absurd. Regardless of what records and percentages say, the West is a lot better than the East. Logically, if you play against tougher opponents all year long, you will come out with a poorer record than if you play against easier opponents all year long. A 3-7 game difference seems about accurate, depending on the team. For instance, I think Philly ends up with 32-36 in the West, despite already having 39 wins in the East with 6 games to go.

None of this will matter if we win the Championship...The alleged "Team of the 80's" Los Angeles Lakers strolled to the Finals almost every year--Because the West back then was Horrible....I would have liked to see The Lakers and Celtics switch Conferences back then---The C's would have won at least 6 titles.

MaxwellSmart wrote:None of this will matter if we win the Championship...The alleged "Team of the 80's" Los Angeles Lakers strolled to the Finals almost every year--Because the West back then was Horrible....I would have liked to see The Lakers and Celtics switch Conferences back then---The C's would have won at least 6 titles.

Yea I've always heard that argument about how easy it was for the Lakers. Fact of the matter is this type of competitive imbalance tends to cycle like this in every sport where one conference is far superior to the other for a period of time therefore it tends to balance itself out over the longhaul.

Who cares if they're 7 games better or 20 games better in the regular season? What matters is being better than them in the playoffs. And for that, you only have to be one game better.

But in terms of the regular season, I think the Celtics have shown that they have the best record in the league because they've played the best, not because their in the Eastern Conference. But again, the Mavericks were 20+ games better than the Warriors a year ago, and that didn't get them very far.

nasbahceltic wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Yea I've always heard that argument about how easy it was for the Lakers. Fact of the matter is this type of competitive imbalance tends to cycle like this in every sport where one conference is far superior to the other for a period of time therefore it tends to balance itself out over the longhaul.

The West is strong now,cause they sucked for 15 years and got most of the top draft picks...Back in the 80's,the Celtics had to play Philly(Dr.J/Moses/Barkley/Cheeks/Toney)...Detroit(Thomas/Laimbeer/Dumars)
some strong Milwaukee/Atlanta teams...and then the Bulls with Jordan--JUST to make it to the finals...All the Lakers had was a couple of pretty good Houston teams....They always beat up on Golden State/Denver/Dallas/San Antonio/Utah back then.

I was looking at the standings, and Detroit and Boston both seemed to have their way with the West. Interestingly, if you just go by Eastern conference records, Orlando would have a 1/2 game lead on Detroit, and be only a couple games behind us. The conference records are BOS, 35-10, DET 33-13, ORL 34-13. I'm not sure what you can make of this, but it makes me think that Orlando might be a bigger challenge than expected in the playoffs.

No, it's worth more like +20 games.

Put the Celtics in the West and they have 21-22 losses instead of 15. The east is just weak and the Celtics are taking advantage of that right now.

double post

There may be some validity to that, Suns_Fever, but the Celtics' record vs. the West says otherwise.

Bottom line, the Celtics' record is legit and they're ability to win a championship is legit. No matter what conference they're in. It's their's to lose.... just like the Pats.