'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

    Yup

    Called the season pretty close.

    Especially when you factor in the 15-20 or so blown 4th quarter leads and/or games lost by 5 pts or less. Faverani and Wallace season ending injuries as well. There's the 3-4 games I'll have overshot them right there:

    - 28-32 wins if Rondo is held out into mid-January, not 100% until almost the deadline and Ainge makes a trade of either Rondo, several veterans, or both, that reduces current talent while not solving any of the 11-12 guys deserve minutes issue. 

    Rondo returned AFTER mid-Jan, I was predicting 28-32 wins if he made it back AT mid-Jan. Ainge's trades boiled down to a 2-1 that reduced talent (Lee/Craw to Bayless). Faverani and Wallace were in an 11-12 man rotation before getting hurt, and all predictions come with the 'no injuries' disclaimer anyhow. Bradley was hurt for 6 weeks. Is Rondo 100% yet? He wasn't at the deadline that is for sure. 

    So yeah, I said 28-32... would have been there without injuries. But they'll get 25-26 so I was basically spot on. Epic amount of close games lost. 

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

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

    This post has been removed

     
  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

    Ummm... the July post again from the BANNED name with a couple thousand removed posts between then and when you became Fiercy in January?

    HA!

    Reading comprehension issues again? I have to repeat myself?

    Well, last one of the night:

    We all know you had changed your July tune to 17-18 wins by October.

    You FAILED... and the reason you are so quick to say we won't find you predicting they win in the teens is because you were BANNED... tool. Your old posts are gone. 


    Winning. But keep posting the drivel. Keeps me amused.

     
  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

     

    - 28-32 wins if Rondo is held out into mid-January, not 100% until almost the deadline and Ainge makes a trade of either Rondo, several veterans, or both, that reduces current talent while not solving any of the 11-12 guys deserve minutes issue.


    Boom

    You lose

    Later

     
  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

    This post has been removed


     

     
  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.

     

     

     

Share