How worried are you about Celtics closing this out?

How nervous are you about Celtics closing this series out?

  • Not at all - this ends Monday night

    Votes: 195 44.4%
  • Not at all - they may not win G5 but will win G6 or G7 for sure

    Votes: 115 26.2%
  • A little concerned - there are some warning signs

    Votes: 87 19.8%
  • More than a little concerned but not panicking just yet

    Votes: 29 6.6%
  • Very concerned - hold me!

    Votes: 9 2.1%
  • They’re going to blow it - congrats on the ring, Luka

    Votes: 1 0.2%
  • Other (please specify)

    Votes: 3 0.7%

  • Total voters
    439

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,923
End of the day, they’re still up 3-1 and it’s a position we all would have signed up for after 4 games. Had they lost G1 but won 3 straight, we’d all be supremely confident. Had they won G1, lost G2, but then won 2 straight in Dallas, we’d all be supremely confident. Had they won the first 2, dropped G3, and rebounded to take G4, we’d all be supremely confident.

At least for me, it was the lopsided loss that created a disproportionate amount of angst. I’m like 80-90% confident of a G5 win but I also think it’s possible that they lose a close game. If that happens, all the pressure shifts to Boston and I would be legitimately concerned.

If it gets to a Game 7, the Garden would be tight and the players would be even tighter. And the thought of Kyrie celebrating a title on our court absolutely sickens me.

So, just end this G5 and make the brief angst an immediate distant memory.
 

astrozombie

New Member
Sep 12, 2022
527
So, I want to apologize to everyone for jinxing the game last night by stating my confidence in this year's team before watching them promptly do all the things that have sunk them in the past (slow start, cold shooting, letting Dallas score at will in the paint, running into 3 defenders in the paint themselves). Luka even looked like he gave a shit on D so I turned it off in the second to go spend time with my significant other.
Everyone has bad nights/games and last night was one for the Cs. Shit happens and I am willing to believe that they are more the team we saw for the first 3 games than frauds who revealed themselves in game 4. Hopefully they pull it out in game 5 and spare everyone stress, as well as get a chance to celebrate in Boston.
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
47,883
Hartford, CT
End of the day, they’re still up 3-1 and it’s a position we all would have signed up for after 4 games. Had they lost G1 but won 3 straight, we’d all be supremely confident. Had they won G1, lost G2, but then won 2 straight in Dallas, we’d all be supremely confident. Had they won the first 2, dropped G3, and rebounded to take G4, we’d all be supremely confident.

At least for me, it was the lopsided loss that created a disproportionate amount of angst. I’m like 80-90% confident of a G5 win but I also think it’s possible that they lose a close game. If that happens, all the pressure shifts to Boston and I would be legitimately concerned.

If it gets to a Game 7, the Garden would be tight and the players would be even tighter. And the thought of Kyrie celebrating a title on our court absolutely sickens me.

So, just end this G5 and make the brief angst an immediate distant memory.
I largely agree with this, but I’ve never really bought the idea that the team who claws back doesn’t have pressure on them as they get closer, too. The Mavs may very well never get as close to a title with this core again, nothing is guaranteed, and I really don’t think players at this level of competition generally walk around thinking the other team should beat them or that they’re playing with ‘house money.’ If they lose it’ll fucking suck, period, and they know it.

Fully realize I’m swimming against the prevailing tide of conventional wisdom on this one, to be clear.
 

sezwho

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
2,133
Isle of Plum
More than a little: Luka is the best closer so if it’s close at the end the Mavs can win and I don’t want to see Dallas on road if they do…as it would signal an unraveling. The Cs are better and certainly good enough to be winning by a lot (10+) late 4th, but it’s far from certain. Ideally our non-Js unshit their pants back at home and the Mavs bench remember their true talent so it’s moot and we’re toasting a Js led Cs ascendency!
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
47,883
Hartford, CT
More than a little: Luka is the best closer so if it’s close at the end the Mavs can win and I don’t want to see Dallas on road if they do…as it would signal an unraveling. The Cs are better and certainly good enough to be winning by a lot (10+) late 4th, but it’s far from certain. Ideally our non-Js unshit their pants back at home and the Mavs bench remember their true talent so it’s moot and we’re toasting a Js led Cs ascendency!
Someone shared these figures the other day, but the Celtics have been better, and the Mavs worse, in close and late situations in the playoffs than perception suggests. Ie, there is reason to be skeptical that Luka (and/or Kyrie) are trump cards against the Celtics in those situations.

https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/clutch-advanced
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,923
I largely agree with this, but I’ve never really bought the idea that the team who claws back doesn’t have pressure on them as they get closer, too. The Mavs may very well never get as close to a title with this core again, nothing is guaranteed, and I really don’t think players at this level of competition generally walk around thinking the other team should beat them or that they’re playing with ‘house money.’ If they lose it’ll fucking suck, period, and they know it.

Fully realize I’m swimming against the prevailing tide of conventional wisdom on this one, to be clear.
Fair. Dallas would still have some pressure because there is no guarantee of a return but the Celtics would be facing 2004 Yankees territory and something like 156-0. When you combine that with how biased and unreasonable the media has been against them this year, I think there is a big chance of them being super tight and playing poorly in a hypothetical Game 7 that I certainly hope never materializes.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,825
Not terribly. Every once in a while they mail in games like they did last night. They aren't going to work for the post office anytime soon, though.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,841
I voted "a little concerned" for the following reasons:

- Dallas no longer has to win 4 straight going forward. 3 straight is still very difficult, but easier than 4.

- Concern that Kidd and the Mavs figured out something with the Celtics offense and defense that they'll be able to exploit the rest of the way. Yes, the Celtics should be able to make adjustments, but sometimes those adjustments are harder to make than they appear

- Concern about the impact of losing Porzingis. Yes, the Celtics have done well without him for stretches. But not for as long as a stretch against a team as good as Dallas. The lack of KP takes a big chunk out of the Celtics depth, and leaves them vulnerable inside, and Dallas was able to exploit that vulnerability in Game 4. There is a big drop-off in the Celtics reserves after KP, and Dallas seems to have the ability to rotate 9 or 10 players for good minutes vs. Boston's reliance on 5 plus spot minutes from Hauser/Pritchard/Tillman. And Game 4 also exposed the limitations of those Celtics reserves in a big way.

- The Celtics got blown out despite Luka and Kyrie shooting meh from 3 point range.

- Boston looked tired. Shouldn't be an issue with 2 days off again between games, but again, combined with the issues above, the mild concern feels warranted.

I could come up with a much longer list as to why the Celtics should still win #18, and I do think they will come out with a purpose in Game 5 that was lacking last night. But I cannot help feeling mildly concerned.
 

sezwho

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
2,133
Isle of Plum
Someone shared these figures the other day, but the Celtics have been better, and the Mavs worse, in close and late situations in the playoffs than perception suggests. Ie, there is reason to be skeptical that Luka (and/or Kyrie) are trump cards against the Celtics in those situations.

https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/clutch-advanced
Thanks, I’ll take the optimism! I’m sure any close/late analysis may constrained by sample sizes anyway, but for me its actually less that Luka is J-Krypotnite (he is ridiculous for sure) as much as the Cs have left me feeling they can grip-the-stick-too-tight and suddenly not be able to execute at an elite level. They should win, and I think they win Monday, but still more than a little.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
62,391
New York City
- The Celtics got blown out despite Luka and Kyrie shooting meh from 3 point range.
Far worse than meh. They were 1/14. That's atrocious. Meh is 4/14.

That's the only thing I'm concerned about. And KP. Otherwise, the Celtics are in the driver's seat and will win.
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
12,636
Far worse than meh. They were 1/14. That's atrocious. Meh is 4/14.

That's the only thing I'm concerned about. And KP. Otherwise, the Celtics are in the driver's seat and will win.
Washington, jones and Lively were 4-6.. the cs Tatum, Holiday, PP, Brown, Horford, DW were 8-28 with White going 2-8.. obv better than Luka and KI but not like they killed it… where the Dallas role players I’m guessing aren’t going to hit at 67%.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
62,391
New York City
Washington, jones and Lively were 4-6.. the cs Tatum, Holiday, PP, Brown, Horford, DW were 8-28 with White going 2-8.. obv better than Luka and KI but not like they killed it… where the Dallas role players I’m guessing aren’t going to hit at 67%.
They weren't part of this conversation but it's kind of perfect that 8-28 is exactly meh.
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
12,636
They weren't part of this conversation but it's kind of perfect that 8-28 is exactly meh.
I didn’t add in Hauser or Svi because I didn’t really think their shots were really part of non garbage time.
 

pk1627

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 24, 2003
2,604
Boston
The 86 team lost some games. it simply happens. Best basketball team I’ve seen and it happens.

I was one who thought this would be another year of getting bounced unexpectedly and unhappily. But the Celts have 3 shots to close it out and well, they will.
 

j-man

Member
Dec 19, 2012
3,816
Arkansas
u are not losing 3 games in a row the 96 bills were up 3-0 on sea then sea woke up but it was far too late out of the top 7 players in the series u have 5 they have two

but that said dont lose monday and thurday or all the preeser is on u
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
25,478
Of course I'm nervous. I'm nervous whenever my team is playing for a title. Especially when they looked as bad as they did last night. I will be petrified if they lose game 5.

The odds are still way in their favor to win the title. Like, huge odds in their favor. But....crazier things have happened.

But of all the kinds of games we have seen so far, one we haven't is: Jayson and Jaylen both go OFF. So maybe we get one of those and Boston wins in a laugher.
 

Jake Peavy's Demons

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 13, 2013
553
Fair. Dallas would still have some pressure because there is no guarantee of a return but the Celtics would be facing 2004 Yankees territory and something like 156-0. When you combine that with how biased and unreasonable the media has been against them this year, I think there is a big chance of them being super tight and playing poorly in a hypothetical Game 7 that I certainly hope never materializes.
Didn't someone here do the maths last year about 0-3 deficits in the NBA and the summary was basically that an outcome where a team comes back to win 4-3 is arguably 'due soon'?

I searched the pre-game posts of last year's Game 7 ECF, & post-game posts of last year's Game 6, but couldn't find it. (I even searched through @Brand Name's posts around that time, but couldn't find it there either.)

I swear I saw something like that from someone.

That is 1 of the main reasons I chalked myself down for a 'More than a little concerned' vote.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
14,188
Didn't someone here do the maths last year about 0-3 deficits in the NBA and the summary was basically that an outcome where a team comes back to win 4-3 is arguably 'due soon'?

I searched the pre-game posts of last year's Game 7 ECF, & post-game posts of last year's Game 6, but couldn't find it. (I even searched through @Brand Name's posts around that time, but couldn't find it there either.)

I swear I saw something like that from someone.

That is 1 of the main reasons I chalked myself down for a 'More than a little concerned' vote.
Not to go too far down this probability rabbit hole...... but things that are "due soon" are not any more or less likely to happen based on what didn't happen in the past.

If an outcome is going to happen 10% of the time and the last 9 times it didn't happen, the next time the scenario comes up the chances are still just 10% it will happen.

Ignoring home court issues, if the Celtics and Mavs were exactly even teams, the Mavs would win 3 in a row at this point 12.5% of the time. Given home court and the Celtics edge (unfortunately less with KP hurt) I guessed it's about 5%. Maybe you could argue it's closer to 10%. How worried should we be about something that will occur 5-10% of the time? Everyone has their own perspective on that.

Regardless, the fact that a bunch of other teams down 0-3 over the years didn't come back is entirely meaningless.
 
Last edited:

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
45,958
Here
$10 won't move the needle. We're going to need you to make that $100.
Here you go. The $1,000 is risk-free, since my prolific gambler wife signed up a new account. This is my justification for buying Boston-born Dallas friend Game 6 tickets: Now one of us either sees a title won in person, or I get money back for the tickets and we pretend none of this ever happened.

 

Brand Name

make hers mark
Moderator
SoSH Member
Oct 6, 2010
4,678
Moving the Line
Didn't someone here do the maths last year about 0-3 deficits in the NBA and the summary was basically that an outcome where a team comes back to win 4-3 is arguably 'due soon'?

I searched the pre-game posts of last year's Game 7 ECF, & post-game posts of last year's Game 6, but couldn't find it. (I even searched through @Brand Name's posts around that time, but couldn't find it there either.)

I swear I saw something like that from someone.

That is 1 of the main reasons I chalked myself down for a 'More than a little concerned' vote.
Yeah, I might say the odds of a given team coming back are 1 in X applied against a given game or series, but that won't show that across a wider spectrum. The fact the Warriors led 3-0 to win 4-2 over the Stags in 1947 in the first ever NBA Finals has no bearing on the Celtics and Mavericks today. Each team has a different composition of how you weight their parts, if you're building like a model to project that. The inverse is also not true, that because no team has ever blown 3-0, means it won't happen here. Obviously, there is a finite chance of each outcome or team winning this series. Assuming neither team has won four games, no matter game you're at, this is true.

The problem too here is cluster data. I think hot hand shooting (but not defense) is an exception in basketball, but in the other sports: In baseball, just because a guy manages to get 50% of his balls in play to be hits over a stretch doesn't mean that's going to keep happening (essentially 1871 Levi Meyerle!), or 18/5% of his shots on net are potted means he's a better shooter now for hockey (2019-20 Noel Acciari), and football more sacks in isolation doesn't mean you're a better pass rusher and have broken out (2016 Lorenzo Alexander).

In short, past performance is not an indicator of future performance. You want to find the correlated variables that are likely to carry over from one game to the next. History of teams is neat for writing books and winning trivia night at the bar for free beers, but it doesn't help you know who is going to win the next game.

This does not concern me as a reason for anything. I'm sticking with my vote pre-series. It's really basic analysis here since I can't be too specific given my work and job, but the simple underlying element of my zero concern here is Dallas has a greater number of players you'd deem as role level, on the spectrum of players, from G-League scrub to inner-circle HOF. Typically, those guys perform well over their baseline at home, under it on the road. Not convinced Luka has the stamina for all 48, and Kyrie likely isn't winning a game of this caliber by himself, on the road. It's what a guy like Pritchard needs to get unfucked. The additional rest (contrasted with the lack of it for Game 4!) is huge for Horford. I'm resting really easily but honestly waiting for tip off above all because I'm getting antsy and frankly that encouraged, both emotionally and mentally.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,629
I don't know if anyone would change their votes in the poll but if the question is "are you as confident about the Celtics closing this out as you were yesterday?" we might get a different result.
Because those are fundamentally different things. One is a 3-0 series and one is a 3-1 series.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
50,717
Because those are fundamentally different things. One is a 3-0 series and one is a 3-1 series.
Are they? If someone confidently had the Celtics sweeping or winning in five it seems like you either just got one wrong or are right on target. It feels like those people should not be worried at all, even in response to that question.

That said, to me it feels as if anyone who watched the way Dallas mucked up the Celtics offense last night should have, at least, a tiny bit more concern that Dallas can continue to adjust to prolong this series. The Celtics need one win to finish the job. Dallas just needs one win to stay alive - and they appear to be all-in on survival.

At this point, if this series ends on Monday it won't be a surprise but we also shouldn't be completely shocked if it goes back to Dallas.
 

ObstructedView

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
3,547
Maine
I'm fairly confident that they'll roll in Game 5. But if they get off to a slow start, or if they're trailing or narrowly ahead after the first half, I will start to sweat.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
25,478
Boston is 5-1 against Dallas this year, with two of those wins being without KP. Dallas is 1-4 this season against Boston with their current roster.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
60,299
San Andreas Fault
if i was dallas coach i wouild be showing the 2004 red sox non stop
I thought of that too, but the problem for Dallas doing it is that it was a Boston team that came all the way back in 2004. Every time they see Papi, or Manny, or Damon, or Lowe or Schilling do something awesome, the players would think yeah, but those were Boston guys that did that.
 

HurstSoGood

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2006
2,338
I'll be concerned if they don't win on Monday. I expect them to win at home. Not doing so sets themselves up to choke magnificently and never have to buy a drink in Atlanta ever again.

I voted for a sweep when the last poll came out: believed this Celtics team was capable and liked the matchup.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
8,930
Coming into the series, I was concerned about Luka being a closer, but after 4 games I’m skeptical he’d really have much left in a close and late situation. First part of game 4 he was unstoppable, but he obviously didn’t play in the 4th and all the other games I feel like he wasn’t a factor late in the game. So, I’m less concerned about the Celtics losing a close one. I think the remaining game(s) will all be comfortable win(s) for the winning team.
 

jasail

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,203
Boston
I had the C's winning in 5. I figured Dallas would grab one at home with the crowd behind them, roll players stepping up, and the NBA putting Scott Foster in the black and white. This turned out to be prescient. Granted the G4 loss was worse than I could have imagined, but thankfully it still only counts as one. Now the C's can go back home and finish this out in front of a raucous crowd and the national media can go back to ballwashing Luka. Nearly full faith this gets done tomorrow and I'm not too shook about last night. Clunkers happen. I was far more worried after the G2 loss to Miami and that turned out to be a nothingburger. However, in the unlikely event that they lose on Monday, I'm in full panic mode.
 

jsinger121

@jsinger121
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
17,766
Is it weird to see Florida get blasted tonight (NHL) and feel a bit better?
Not at all. Sweeps aren't supposed to happen in the finals of sports. Last hockey one was 1998. And its only happened 9 times in the NBA Finals. Its supposed to be hard.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
76,435
Not at all. Sweeps aren't supposed to happen in the finals of sports. Last hockey one was 1998. And its only happened 9 times in the NBA Finals. Its supposed to be hard.
It's only common in sports when the Red Sox are in the WS
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
8,883
Imaginationland
I'm wondering how differently I'd feel if one of the following happened:

-Instead of losing by 40, we lost by 15. Not so close that we let an opportunity get away but not so embarrassing that it actually puts Dallas ahead point differential for the series. A loss is a loss (and as noted, title teams have had some major losses in the finals before), but this one leaves a real bitter taste.
-If the results of games 3 and 4 were flipped. We'd be coming home with the momentum of a win, but Dallas would have a path to a more realistic comeback (since coming back down 3-1 has actually happened before).

My head isn't worried, but this team has been knocking on the door for so long that I'll be nervous until the final whistle sounds (unless it's a 2008 like ending).
 

Auger34

used to be tbb
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
11,345
To me, the biggest thing that happened in Game 4 had 0 to do with adjustments, Kidd’s raalizations about length or whatever, different defensive coverages, or any of that shit.

it was Boston missing shots and The Extender allowing the Mavs to play physical as fuck while not doing the same for Boston.
That won’t happen in Boston. Celtics roll in game 5
 

jsinger121

@jsinger121
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
17,766
Look back at two series that had massive blowout games

1984 NBA Finals Game 3 - Boston losses by 33 points to go down 2-1 in the series. They rally to win in 7 games
1985 NBA Finals Game 1 - Los Angeles gets blown out by 34 points on Memorial Day and they rally to win the series in 6 games underneath the banners of the Boston Garden.

Lots went wrong last night to get blown out but the biggest issue is Boston hit nothing in terms of shots.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
25,478
The greatest teams of all time and their finals:

1997 Bulls (69-13): Won finals 4-2 over Utah (64-18)
1996 Bulls (70-12): Won finals 4-2 over Seattle (64-18)
1992 Bulls (67-15): Won finals 4-2 over Portland (57-25)
2008 Celtics (66-16): Won finals 4-2 over LA Lakers (57-25)
1986 Celtics (67-15): Won finals 4-2 over Houston (51-31)
1965 Celtics (62-18): Won finals 4-1 over LA Lakers (49-31)
1983 76ers (65-17): Won finals 4-0 over LA Lakers (58-24)
1967 76ers (68-13): Won finals 4-2 over San Francisco (44-37)
1989 Pistons (63-19): Won finals 4-0 over LA Lakers (57-25)
2013 Heat (66-16): Won finals 4-3 over San Antonio (58-24)
2009 Lakers (65-17): Won finals 4-1 over Orlando (59-23)
2000 Lakers (67-15): Won finals 4-2 over Indiana (56-26)
1987 Lakers (65-17): Won finals 4-2 over Boston (59-23)
2017 Warriors (67-15): Won finals 4-1 over Cleveland (51-31)
2016 Warriors (73-9): Lost finals 4-3 to Cleveland (57-25)
2015 Warriors (67-15): Won finals 4-2 over Cleveland (53-29)
1971 Bucks (66-16): Won finals 4-0 over Baltimore (42-40)

So of these 17 teams, 16 won the championship (only the 2016 Warriors failed). Of those 16, only 3 of them swept in the finals (one of those was against a team that went 42-40).

Of the 16 teams here to win the title:

- 2 lost 3 games in the finals
- 9 lost 2 games in the finals
- 3 lost 1 game in the finals
- 3 lost 0 games in the finals

So by far the most common outcome - even for the all-time greatest teams (yes you can quibble with this list) - is a 4-2 series. And here's the average W-L record of those finals losers in those 4-2 series: 56-26. Good, but not elite, opponents.

So even though this Celtics team is tremendous, it was always silly to expect them to sweep Dallas, or, if we're being perfectly honest, to even win in just 5 games. 11 of the 16 titles won by these great teams (69%) went 6 or 7 games, even against far inferior opponents.

As @jsinger121 said: It's supposed to be hard. And it is.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,893
I was asked this by a friend today and said I was at 3 out of 10 on the concern-meter.

If KP can give them five minutes per half and hit a shot, I think they win easily. The crowd response to him hitting the floor and making a shot will be deafening.

I just don't see any way they shoot as poorly as they did last night. Jrue had the worst game I can remember as a Celtic last night. They seemed WAY more scared of Lively as a shot-blocker than I thought was reasonable - go at him and make him prove he can get a clean block. Anyway, I like their chances Monday night.

Edited to add - funny that the Panthers did the same thing as the Celts: they got up 3-0 and got annihilated on the road today.
 
Last edited:

jsinger121

@jsinger121
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
17,766
The greatest teams of all time and their finals:

1997 Bulls (69-13): Won finals 4-2 over Utah (64-18)
1996 Bulls (70-12): Won finals 4-2 over Seattle (64-18)
1992 Bulls (67-15): Won finals 4-2 over Portland (57-25)
2008 Celtics (66-16): Won finals 4-2 over LA Lakers (57-25)
1986 Celtics (67-15): Won finals 4-2 over Houston (51-31)
1965 Celtics (62-18): Won finals 4-1 over LA Lakers (49-31)
1983 76ers (65-17): Won finals 4-0 over LA Lakers (58-24)
1967 76ers (68-13): Won finals 4-2 over San Francisco (44-37)
1989 Pistons (63-19): Won finals 4-0 over LA Lakers (57-25)
2013 Heat (66-16): Won finals 4-3 over San Antonio (58-24)
2009 Lakers (65-17): Won finals 4-1 over Orlando (59-23)
2000 Lakers (67-15): Won finals 4-2 over Indiana (56-26)
1987 Lakers (65-17): Won finals 4-2 over Boston (59-23)
2017 Warriors (67-15): Won finals 4-1 over Cleveland (51-31)
2016 Warriors (73-9): Lost finals 4-3 to Cleveland (57-25)
2015 Warriors (67-15): Won finals 4-2 over Cleveland (53-29)
1971 Bucks (66-16): Won finals 4-0 over Baltimore (42-40)

So of these 17 teams, 16 won the championship (only the 2016 Warriors failed). Of those 16, only 3 of them swept in the finals (one of those was against a team that went 42-40).

Of the 16 teams here to win the title:

- 2 lost 3 games in the finals
- 9 lost 2 games in the finals
- 3 lost 1 game in the finals
- 3 lost 0 games in the finals

So by far the most common outcome - even for the all-time greatest teams (yes you can quibble with this list) - is a 4-2 series. And here's the average W-L record of those finals losers in those 4-2 series: 56-26. Good, but not elite, opponents.

So even though this Celtics team is tremendous, it was always silly to expect them to sweep Dallas, or, if we're being perfectly honest, to even win in just 5 games. 11 of the 16 titles won by these great teams (69%) went 6 or 7 games, even against far inferior opponents.

As @jsinger121 said: It's supposed to be hard. And it is.
Out of that list the only shock sweep was the 1983 Sixers over the Lakers as that was basically a prime Lakers team coming off the 82 title while the 89 team was kinda washed and hurt and were lucky to have repeated as champions in 1988. They probably should have been swept again in 1991 by Chicago but somehow won Game 1.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
14,188
Here you go. The $1,000 is risk-free, since my prolific gambler wife signed up a new account. This is my justification for buying Boston-born Dallas friend Game 6 tickets: Now one of us either sees a title won in person, or I get money back for the tickets and we pretend none of this ever happened.
I love twisted gambler/fan logic.

My brothers have tix to game 5 and were close to each putting 3k on the Mavs to win game 4.

They figured if the Mavs won, they'd be going to Game 5 for free. If the Celtics won, the Celtics are champs, they get their money back from the Game 5 tickets that never happened, and they're basically where they figured they would be financially anyway.

Unfortunately for them, they didn't go through with the bet.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,841
Out of that list the only shock sweep was the 1983 Sixers over the Lakers as that was basically a prime Lakers team coming off the 82 title while the 89 team was kinda washed and hurt and were lucky to have repeated as champions in 1988. They probably should have been swept again in 1991 by Chicago but somehow won Game 1.
That 1983 Sixers team was built specifically to beat the Lakers in the Finals with Moses Malone, Julius Erving, and Andrew Toney in their primes. Malone especially was signed as he was one player that could handle Kareem, far better than Darryl Dawkins. The sweep was indeed surprising, and 3 of the games were fairly close affairs. But that Sixer team was not going to be stopped, even by the Showtimes.
 

Bergs

funky and cold
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2005
22,053
I picked other, because in the deepest sense, I don't like the NBA anymore.

But I do still love the Boston Celtics.

If they were to botch this, I would consider it the worst choke in sports history, easily eclipsing the 2003 Yankees. That said, I don't think they will. Ball rarely lies for more than a game or 2 in the NBA, and the Celtics are a better team.