Is "Just Like Last Year" Really a Safe Bet?

Note: This post was written prior to Game 2 between the Celtics and Knicks.  You will see as much in the second to last paragraph, when I speculate that the Cs could win that game by nearly 30 points.  I just want that clarified so I'm not accused of overreacting to the Celtics poor game 2 performance.

"Just like last year" has become the common comforting adage being spoken throughout Celtics Nation over the past 6 weeks.  In the face of a major personnel shakeup, injuries to key role players, inconsistent point guard play, a significant drop in offensive production, an occasional huge glaring hole in the center of the defense, and some decisive losses to teams we've all considered inferior for much of the season, this is what we've chosen to cling to: "Just like last year".  It's similar to "Flipping the Switch", except that it takes that a step further.  What it really means is "Flipping the Switch, Again."

What the Celtics did last season was nothing short of amazing.  After finishing with the fourth seed in the East (50-32), they ripped off three consecutive playoff series victories, and found themselves within minutes of winning their 18th NBA championship in game 7 at the Staples Center.  If that's not "Flipping the Switch" then, short of having pulled off the game 7 victory, I don't know what is.

So, we've seen them do it.  Recently.  They are, for the most part, still intact superstar-wise.  That means that they should be able to do it again, right?  This is a notion that I take serious issue with.  I don't think people realize how unlikely last year's outcome was.  In a March article about the Lakers and their chances of a threepeatJohn Hollinger dropped the following knowledge on us regarding the significance of home court advantage:

"Again, here's why it matters: History says it is much, much, MUCH easier to win a title as a second seed than as a third seed; basically, having to survive an additional round without home-court advantage pushes probability to its breaking point. San Antonio won as a third seed in 2007, but only when the West's top seed lost in the first round and the East's top seed went out before the Finals; the Spurs had to play without home-court advantage only once, a statistically improbable scenario for the Lakers should they wind up in a similar position.

In the past 30 years, the only other team to win while seeded below second was the 1995 Houston Rockets (the 2002 Lakers were seeded third, but had the second-best record and homecourt advantage against the No. 2 seed in the second round that year; they were seeded "third" in name only because the NBA automatically gave division winners a better seed, so the Lakers don't really belong on this list). That's your list. Otherwise every team to win the title was seeded first or second; throw in San Antonio's 2007 title team and you can see that two series without home-court advantage is the usual limit."

 

That's two teams in the past 30 years who have won titles from a spot lower than the second seed (and only one of them who had to play more than twice without home court).  Now, you can take issue with Hollinger's stats all that you want (I often do).  But, this particular information is pretty cut and dry.  It's also clearly in line with what common sense would dictate.  The teams who have played the best throughout the first 82 games of the season tend to continue playing the best throughout the postseason.  Furthermore, the teams who gain home court advantage tend to benefit from it tremendously.  So, how unlikely was the Celtics 2010 postseason run?  If they had pulled off the game 7 victory, they would have been only the third team in the past 30 years to win a title having been lower that a second seed.  Even more impressive, they would have been only the second team in 30 years to end up with the title after having to play more than two series without home court.

That's some pretty serious switch flipping.

That doesn't sound like something you'd feel comfortable banking on, does it?  And yet, I can't help being intrigued by the idea of it.  The logical side of me has dismissed the "Just like last year" notion completely.  I understand that there are some pretty clear parallels between this season and last, but I'm comfortable dismissing those parallels because most of the main characters in this story have remained the same so of course there will be some similarities.  In identifying and harping on those parallels, I feel that fans want so desperately to believe that we're in for a repeat performance that they miss out on some key differences between what went down in 2010 and what is currently going down in 2011.

Let's start there.

The similarity between 2010 and 2011 most commonly identified is that both seasons saw the Celtics get off to a hot start, proving to everyone that they were once again one of the league's elite squads, before seeing their record drop off significantly.  On the day of Christmas in 2009, the Celtics defeated the Magic by a score of 86 -77 to push their record to 23-5.  Notice had been served, you could say.  Exactly one year later, they fell to Orlando by a score of 86-78, causing their record to fall to * wait for it * 23-5.  So, in using identical early season performances, you could pretty easily establish some precedent for the team's ability to return to form in the playoffs.  Again, they did it last year.  If you're drinking the Danny Ainge Kool-Aid, you might even make the case that we're in better shape to make a run this season, because the drop off hasn't been as sharp (56 wins this season as opposed to 50 last season).

This all sounds great, and I'd like to buy into it more than anything in the world.  I see those similarities, and I understand how you can allow yourself to be talked into them.  But, there are some key differences.  The first is that sacrificing wins and seeding was a calculated decision by Doc and the players last year.  Doc knew that they had no shot at making a run if they didn't rest their superstars.  So, he made the conscious decision that they were not going to worry about wins and seeding.  That goes a pretty long way in explaining the 27-27 record that we saw in the last 54 games of 2010.  It wasn't ideal, but it was their only shot.

This strategy of sacrificing wins and seeding in the regular season no doubt had an impact on the Celtics in their series with the Lakers.  They have acknowledged as much.  We kept hearing time and time again early in the season, from players and coaches alike, what a difference not having home court made.  This year, they kept saying, they wouldn't be in the same position.  But, they are.  Sure, they're one seed higher, but this will be the last series in which they'll enjoy the benefits of home court advantage.  Last year, that was something they were planning on conceding.  This year, it was not.

Now, whenever I point this out to people, they don't fail to point out that injuries have plagued this team in 2011 just as they did in 2010.  So, maybe the Celtics weren't planning on conceding the regular season due to injuries as they did in 2010, but in both years injuries played a big role in their poor play.  This is one that I don't buy.  These are totally different injury circumstances.  This team lives and dies with its big 4.  Last season, these guys were banged up, so it stands to reason that their record would suffer.  Not the case in 2011.  Rondo has been playing through minor injuries and missed some time with an ankle injury but the big 4 have been, by and large, healthy and effective.  Ray Allen and Paul Pierce have put up great numbers this year.  In fact, this is one of Pierce's most effective seasons ever.  Garnett missed a stretch this winter with a calf injury, and he hasn't received as much attention as Paul or Ray, but he has looked tremendous and just yesterday he finished in second place for Defensive Player of the Year voting.  These guys needed to be healthy in order for the Celtics to snap back to form last season.  This season, with the exception of Rondo's ailments, they have been as healthy and effective as we could have hoped.  So, why haven't the Celtics looked better?

As a final piece, let's just examine how the face of the Eastern Conference has changed this year.  This New York team we currently find ourselves saddled with, when fully healthy, would have been good enough to be a first or second seed in the East last season.  Remember when Dwyane Wade singlehandedly dismantled the Celtics on a Sunday afternoon in game 4 of last year's first round?  That was pretty incredible.  Remember when LeBron James arrived in Boston on a Friday night for game 3 of the second round and eviscerated the Celtics on their home court before mysteriously fading away for the rest of the series?  Well, those two are on the same team now.  This Eastern Conference is much, much more difficult than it was last season.  To think that the Celtics, or any other team, hold major advantages in any of these matchups is foolish.

So, do I believe in "Just like last year"?  No, right now I don't.  That doesn't mean that I don't think the Celtics can find themselves in the same place they did last year.  It just means that I'm not naive enough to think that it's a given.  There are major tests that lie ahead, and this team is dealing with some adversity that is different from what it's dealt with in previous years.  If any team has the right mix of personalities, talent, and character to overcome that adversity, it's the Celtics.  But, it's a long shot.  And if you don't believe that, you're deluded.

Even I couldn't help feeling a bit nostalgic about last season during the second half of game 1 against New York.  The script really was, I'll admit, exactly like game 1 of the playoffs in 2010.  In both cases, fans expected the Celtics to come out looking sharp and reenergized, and in both cases they failed to deliver in the first half.  In both cases they found themselves trailing at halftime before refocusing in the second half, clamping down defensively, and coming away with a victory.  It should be noted, however, that Sunday night's comeback required a higher degree of execution and difficulty than last year's comeback against the Heat.  This is a better opponent, and that will be true in every single round of the Eastern Conference playoffs.

I'm not sure how tonight's game 2 matchup will turn out.  It could very well end up with the Celtics steamrolling the Knicks in a game that will look very similar to the 29 point smackdown they put on the Heat in game 2 of last year's first round (with both games taking place on a Tuesday night, for added effect).  And then we could see them split in New York just like they did in Miami.  You get the point.  This will only serve to strengthen the view of many that there was never anything to worry about, the Celtics are just doing what they did last year.  We knew this would happen all along.

Regardless of whether or not you think the Celtics are likely to do the unlikely again (and if you do, go ahead and reread that statement), I think we can all agree that they're going to win this series against the Knicks.  They'll probably do so in six or fewer games.  That's when the real test will come.  LeBron James and Dwyane Wade will be waiting.  This, to me, will be the most difficult obstacle standing between the Celtics and a return trip to the NBA finals.  We all knew this matchup was coming.  We may have expected it to come one round later, but we've been preparing for it since the night The Decision aired in July.  Believe me when I tell you that this series will go 7 games, and that it will deliver everything a basketball fan could ever want from a playoff matchup.  The Celtics CAN win that series, but it's going to take an incredible performance.  If they do, it won't be a performance just like last year.  It will be better.

Back to the Boston Celtics Newsfeed