All good points. There's some correlation between #1 and the fact that for a long, long, time, the winner of the MVP was the best player on the best team. And of course the best team will go on to win the title, right?
Still, the fact that they've been so dominant on both ends (I believe their defense in most metrics is also top 3 in the league even looking outside their offensive playstyle!) and the fact that the path out of the East seems way more clear than the West, and we could end up in a scenario where the Celtics have played 14 games before the finals and the team in the west has already played 18.
I guess another concern is how Porzingis holds up across a 4-series stretch without missing games, and their depth if he goes down - and how that changes their lineup flexibility.
Thinking Basketball just released a pod last night about the Celtics' weaknesses. I'll give it a listen today and loop back...
Yeah, I think they're good points. I just think that we want to believe in the "by committee" teams more than the evidence provides. Maybe Tatum is that guy, but the unfortunate reality is that the playoff format doesn't lend itself well to those teams winning 4 consecutive rounds. But, it's possible that this is the best "by committee" team we've ever seen relative to their league, better than either Pistons era team.
Also, having an MVP doesn't necessarily imply that you will win a championship (the inverse). Barkley, Karl Malone, Nash (sadly), Rose, Westbrook, Harden (so far), and Embiid (so far) never won one, and there seemed to be clear reasons why with most of those guys.
Celtics are historically dominant this season from a Net Rating perspective. They're currently at 11.3 which would rank as the 4th highest NetRtg on record. There are 12 other teams who have posted a Net of 10 or higher. Of those teams:
8 won the championship
1 lost in the Finals (16 Warriors)
2 lost in the conf finals (72 Bucks, 09 Cavs)
1 lost in the semis (16 Spurs)
Interestingly think those 4 teams who didn't win it all all had superstar level talent capable of being the best player in any series. 16 MVP Curry, 16 MVP runner up Kawhi, 72 MVP Kareem, and 09 MVP LeBron
To the point you made though, all the teams that won it did have a superstar who could be the best player in a series. I think the only team you could make an argument against was the 72 Lakers. They had 35yo Wilt and 33yo West who were both past their primes. But still two HOF guys who were both all-nba that year. They actually finished 3rd and 2nd respectively in MVP voting behind the clear winner Kareem
All good points. There's some correlation between #1 and the fact that for a long, long, time, the winner of the MVP was the best player on the best team. And of course the best team will go on to win the title, right?
Still, the fact that they've been so dominant on both ends (I believe their defense in most metrics is also top 3 in the league even looking outside their offensive playstyle!) and the fact that the path out of the East seems way more clear than the West, and we could end up in a scenario where the Celtics have played 14 games before the finals and the team in the west has already played 18.
I guess another concern is how Porzingis holds up across a 4-series stretch without missing games, and their depth if he goes down - and how that changes their lineup flexibility.
Thinking Basketball just released a pod last night about the Celtics' weaknesses. I'll give it a listen today and loop back...
Yeah, I think they're good points. I just think that we want to believe in the "by committee" teams more than the evidence provides. Maybe Tatum is that guy, but the unfortunate reality is that the playoff format doesn't lend itself well to those teams winning 4 consecutive rounds. But, it's possible that this is the best "by committee" team we've ever seen relative to their league, better than either Pistons era team.
Also, having an MVP doesn't necessarily imply that you will win a championship (the inverse). Barkley, Karl Malone, Nash (sadly), Rose, Westbrook, Harden (so far), and Embiid (so far) never won one, and there seemed to be clear reasons why with most of those guys.
This is the content I came to see!
Celtics are historically dominant this season from a Net Rating perspective. They're currently at 11.3 which would rank as the 4th highest NetRtg on record. There are 12 other teams who have posted a Net of 10 or higher. Of those teams:
8 won the championship
1 lost in the Finals (16 Warriors)
2 lost in the conf finals (72 Bucks, 09 Cavs)
1 lost in the semis (16 Spurs)
Interestingly think those 4 teams who didn't win it all all had superstar level talent capable of being the best player in any series. 16 MVP Curry, 16 MVP runner up Kawhi, 72 MVP Kareem, and 09 MVP LeBron
To the point you made though, all the teams that won it did have a superstar who could be the best player in a series. I think the only team you could make an argument against was the 72 Lakers. They had 35yo Wilt and 33yo West who were both past their primes. But still two HOF guys who were both all-nba that year. They actually finished 3rd and 2nd respectively in MVP voting behind the clear winner Kareem