The Celtics won 64. That's with them being so far ahead they sat the best players for multiple games late in the season. Pritchard nearly had a triple double and score 38 in the final game. The top three teams in the west were 57, 57 and 56 (TWolves, still playing).
These things aren't really comparable. Anybody who thinks those injuries would have altered the outcome just isn't being realistic, especially if Boston had their starting center.
Now, the winner in the west has the problem Boston had two years ago. Boston had a brutal road to the final and didn't have much in the tank by games 5 and 6 against Golden State.
If you go look at the 4/11 game Celtics fully healthy. Knicks were without Randle but OG was a Knick and Mitch was coming off a long absence. Look at the minutes played by all the stars on both teams, look at where the game was played and look at the final score.
Only argument is that the C’s had already clinched but it was still a statement game to see where each team was.
I think that certainly can be used as an argument that the injuries suffered by the main eastern conference teams did have an impact. The Celtics were the best team but although biased I believe the Knicks with OG ( maybe with or without Randle) could give the Celtics a run.
I also concede that injuries cannot be used as an excuse because this is sports. But do you think the Celtics are where they are without either Tatum or Brown in the playoffs. I use those two because Randle was one of the two best Knicks. Porzingis is good but I think at the center position I take the combination of Robinson (leagues best offensive rebounder) and Hartenstein over Porzingis.
I knew the Celtics would sweep the Pacers with or without Haliburton……do you think that would have happened against a healthy Bucks, Knicks or Sixers team. Everything changed in the east when the Knicks got OG that much I know.
