'98 Celtics went 36-46 in Pitino's first year

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: '98 Celtics went 36-46 in Pitino's first year

    ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: '98 Celtics went 36-46 in Pitino's first year

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: '98 Celtics went 36-46 in Pitino's first year

    ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: '98 Celtics went 36-46 in Pitino's first year

    ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from puddinpuddin. Show puddinpuddin's posts

    Re: '98 Celtics went 36-46 in Pitino's first year

    The fungus seems to be investing quarters in this thread... and getting back barely nickles.

    "Quite an awesome return" fungus thinks to himself as our idiot savant does the math on his fingers and toes!

    "One of his more lucrative investments of recent" I  say to myself.

    Pud

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Gasthoerer. Show Gasthoerer's posts

    Re: '98 Celtics went 36-46 in Pitino's first year

    In response to rameakap's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Thanks for acknowledging how badly I school Fiercy around here. 

    Sorry if calling people 'foolish' for thinking we have 'no chance' at 30 wins sounds like poor sportsmanship. It was just meant as common sense.

    ...

    All Houston had to do was take Bass/Lee and the Clippers '15 pick and this team would probably have Toronto's 42-31 record right now (barring injuries).

    [/QUOTE]

    You are welcome, nice win. But no, it was not common sense.

    Actually it would have been more realistic, that we downgrade the rooster more than we did instead of imrpoving it. But obviously there were no takers. Also many players and IMO also the coach exceeded expectation (Crawford, Lee, Bass, Sully - fast return from injury - and now Oly) so your calculation that we are "close" to 30 wins and only bad luck is the reason for the missing wins is weak. Also consider that we play in a historically bad conference. In a normal year we would have much less wins.

    Finally: Even the Asik trade would not neccesarily made us better this year, as:

    1) Bass having a good year

    2) Asik was injured most of the year

    3) Asik is a horrible offensive player

    It is unlikely to improssible that Asik would have given us +20 Wins this year.

     

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: '98 Celtics went 36-46 in Pitino's first year

    ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

     

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from celticelmo. Show celticelmo's posts

    Re: '98 Celtics went 36-46 in Pitino's first year

    "IF" the Celts would have won the Tim Duncan sweepstakes.................

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Gasthoerer. Show Gasthoerer's posts

    Re: '98 Celtics went 36-46 in Pitino's first year

    In response to rameakap's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    With stats, facts and FAR more reality based intelligence than Fiercy provided (did he provide anything?) I have made a superior defense of my opinion than he has.

    NOBODY can win this... you can't prove they wouldn't have. I can't 100% prove they would have... duh.

    So now you just look worse than me for providing NOTHING to support why a 10-12 team in November couldn't have gone 30-30 to get to my prediction of 40-45 wins with Asik.

    [/QUOTE]

    Rame, I gave you some facts. Kevin Durant is hunting the MVP and has sth. like 18 win shares. Do you really belive that Asik in 42 games would have given us sth similiar? He would be in the hunt for MVP (actually better cause he played only half the games)? Really?

    You assumption is mainly based on the 10-12 record at the beginnign of the season. Unfortunately the Cs, just overachieved like many young teams at the beginning of the season (gave examples for this as well). This doesn't mean the Cs were a .500 team to begin width. It is just the typical mixture of enthusiasm and the other teams not being well prepared/montivated against a team of nonames.

    You really showed some knowledge in many discussions, but in this particular discussion you were wrong. No big deal. This (nonsense) dispute with fiercy obviously makes you blind or afraid to accept the truth.

    Both of you can give sth to this forum when you stop the nitpicking. By the way: If I remember correctly, fierce never voted for less than 20 wins, but also thought we would be much better with asik.

     

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share