Bad Arguments from Dieter Kurtenbach of Fox Sports

There’s nothing more fun than a good old fashioned refutation, so here goes. The words of Fox Sports writer Dieter Kurtenbach will be indented in the block quotes.

“But don’t be surprised if the Bulls give the Celtics everything they can handle in the first round. 

In fact, don’t be shocked if the Bulls win the seven-game series with the Celtics.

Because while Boston might be the No. 1 seed in the East this year, they’re the worst top seed in the history of the NBA.”

Great, this is Kurtenbach’s claim. Completely fair that he can make it, and I’m sure he can back it up with empirical evidence, right?

“Boston won 53 games this year. That’s certainly not the worst mark of a No. 1 seed in NBA history, but it’s not great either.”

Okay, so this isn’t the best start he could’ve had. You don’t start a really good argument by admitting defeat. Unless you’re France. Or the GM of the Jets.

“And in the Eastern Conference, they are, in more ways than their record, the best team. Boston’s place as the worst No. 1 seed in NBA history could merely be a byproduct of being the best team in a pile of seriously flawed teams.”

Of course, this would by definition also be true of all of the teams who finished with #1 seeds with worse records. You just admitted this, did you forget it already? Come on man. Eyes on the prize.

“And while that context is important, it doesn’t matter when it comes to comparing teams throughout the NBA’s history.”

Then why did you bother writing it… it hurts your case, and wastes your readers time. Are you being paid by the word? Why doesn’t it matter when comparing teams? Our friend from Fox Sports needs to give a reason for this. Why?

Out of Context Statistics That He Claims Are Really, Really Important

Boston’s point differential of plus-2.7 and net rating (points per 100 possessions) of plus-3.1 are the worst marks for a No. 1 seed since the 1978-79 Supersonics. 

The 1978-79 Supersonics won the NBA title. So there’s that. Also, pay attention later, as he’s going to unknowingly refute this point himself.

“Those are marks of teams that typically find themselves fighting for home-court advantages in first rounds, not having it until the Finals.”

A source for this would be nice, rather than a naked assertion. This is a bad argument. Show me. Don’t tell me. This comes off as really amateurish. Not like this refutation – which is totally professional. Totally.

“And while point differential or net rating aren’t perfect arbiters, there is a strong correlation between them and the strength of a team — much like run differential is for baseball teams. “

So again, why are you wasting your readers time with a statistic that isn’t perfect? Again, they’re fairly random, when you consider the bomb he’s going to drop on his own argument in a few sentences.

“There are some other teams that have been discussed as the worst No. 1 seeds in NBA history: the 1999 Miami Heat, the 2002 New Jersey Nets, or the 2003 and 2007 Detroit Pistons are all strong competitors.”

Trust him. No need to talk about those teams in context at all.

“But the Celtics finished a full point behind even the worst of those teams in net rating. The 2003 Pistons might have only won 50 games, but they had a point differential of plus-4.2 that year. The 1999 Heat had a net rating of 5.8. 

The Celtics’ plus-3.1 isn’t even in the same ballpark. “

So these net ratings matter again? Of course, this is an average, and doesn’t really tell us anything about the quality of the opponents – because it’s an average. If you’re going to tell me these ratings matter, you’re going to need to make a much better case.

“And that 78-79 Sonics team — the one that had a net rating of plus-2.6? They won the title. The NBA was a much different league back then with far more parity. The worst team in the ’79 Sonics’ division finished with a positive point differential.”

So those Sonics were playing against inferior competition? This was the pre-Bird and Magic NBA – the one those two needed to save. The second best team in their conference had a worse record than this year’s Cavaliers. If you want to argue team for team that the 2017 East is worse than the 1979 West, you can. You won’t win that argument, but you could make it. He doesn’t, because he knows its a loser out of the gate. Check out the standings for yourself.

“The 2016-17 Celtics played four division games each with the Nets, Knicks and 76ers (they went 10-2).”

This year’s defending champion Cavaliers team went 10-0 against those teams. This isn’t Major League Baseball, where you play a schedule that’s hugely unbalanced. They went 43-27 against everybody else in the league.

“Don’t forget what happened on April 5, either”

“Despite winning the top seed, the Celtics are not the favorites to win the East, and frankly, it’s not even close.”

What point is he trying to make again? It used to be that the Celtics were the worst #1 seed ever, now it’s about being favorites in the East.

“The Celtics lost three of four games to the Cavaliers this year, the lone win coming on March 1, when Cleveland was without Kevin Love.”

In what will be a running theme of this article, injuries to other teams matter, but not to the Celtics.

“Don’t take anything away from that win, though — LeBron had a triple-double for the Cavs, but the Celtics held Cleveland to 40 percent shooting and a 10-of-33 night from behind the arc. 

It was the kind of win that allowed people to think that perhaps the Celtics have what it takes to win the top seed (the Celtics were four games behind in the loss column after the contest) and perhaps the Eastern Conference come May.”

Clearly they had what it takes to win the top seed, they did just that. And not to take anything away from that win, but…

“This was the point where Celtics fans and defenders would tell people that Boston’s record with their best starting five (Avery Bradley, Isaiah Thomas, Jae Crowder, Amir Johnson and Al Horford), was really good and that the team’s record and season stats were torpedoed by injuries.

But that starting lineup (which, to be fair, finished 26-10) was on the court to begin the Cavs’ smackdown of the Celtics on April 5 in Boston.”

And BANG – this is where the entirety of his weak argument crumbles to the ground. He’s only now going to mention that the Celtics only had their complete starting 5 on the floor for 36 games, after he’s given you a mountain of statistics based on the whole season of play. Again, you can literally tear up the first entire section of the article. He just burned it.

But then, he makes an argument based on a sample size of … one game. And he picks the biggest most recent one. And then calls it a day. For some reason he goes to April 5th, and not to say… March 8th, where the Celtics went on the road to Golden State, and held a 67-win Warriors team to 86 points on their home floor, and handled them, 99-86.

Of course, if you want to make one game seem much more important than it actually is, use the word “smackdown.” Sounds like wrestling. Maybe growl when you say it for effect, right Dieter.

“Boston had momentum going into that game, but the lopsided contest firmly re-established Cleveland’s dominance in the conference.”

Did it really?

“Cleveland has a lot of problems — it’s unfair to say that they punted the No. 1 seed because the Cavs are so bad defensively right now that it’s difficult to discern if they tried down the stretch or not — but few question that they’re the best team in the East going into the postseason.”

It’s a good thing the season ended on April 5th, right? Wait, you’re saying it didn’t? Are you telling me that the Celtics quickly put that game behind them, and went 3-1 to end the season? The Cavs limped to the finish, losing their last four games? Did that happen? Does defense not matter? This Cavaliers team went 4-7 in it’s last 11 games. How is that historically?

“And those who do think that Cleveland isn’t the best team in the East don’t think it’s the Celtics. Not after April 5.”

So here we get into the third-person stuff. Maybe a quote at this point. A source of some kind, again. There’s about a billion people whose word I would take for this, and none of them are Dieter Kurtenback. Maybe some day you’ll reach the point of Ex Cathedra pronouncements, but not today.

By the way, did anyone else notice that he’s completely wandered away from the subject of his article here? Maybe breadcrumbs this time. Anyway, I’m sure he’ll get back to it before he’s done, right?

Changing the Subject… Again … For Some Reason

“Since the NBA expanded the playoffs to 16 teams in 1984, a top seed has been upset by a No. 8 seed only five times.”

No need to go into the circumstances of those, right? That might provide context. So he’ll skip it.

“Since 2003, when the NBA expanded the first round from five to seven possible games, only three top seeds have been upset.”

Again, no need to mention which times that happened, or give links to something on that, right?

“Again, the eighth-seeded Bulls are a flawed team. They’re miserable, in many ways, and might have been better off missing the playoffs and hoping for another Derrick Rose lottery miracle.”

“But amid all of the NBA’s first-round matchups in the Eastern Conference this year, the Bulls and Celtics have the closest point differential difference.”

Does he forget writing this, “But that starting lineup (which, to be fair, finished 26-10)”? That starting lineup is going to be on the floor Sunday at TD Garden. Think Avery Bradley’s defense doesn’t make a difference? Come on now, let me know you’re paying even a little bit of attention.

“Yes, the 1-v-8 is expected to be the tightest of the four series in the first round of the Eastern Conference playoffs. Only the 4-5 matchup in the West has less between the teams.”

I did my homework. This guy assumes that it’s going to be the tightest of the four series in the East. CBSSports.com doesn’t.

The stat-geeks at fivethirtyeight.com – who should agree with him more than anyone, also disagree. They think the Celtics have a 70% chance of making the conference semis. Which sounds low, until you realize they only give the Cavs a 59% chance.

ESPN’s BPI also doesn’t have the Celtics-Bulls as the tightest of the first round series. They give that honor to the Wizards-Hawks.

So again, expected by who, exactly? He’s making it seem like there’s a consensus here. There isn’t.

He’s gotta have a big finish, right?

Now, we’ve come to the end, and I’m sure he’s going to tie it all up in a little bow, and prove his point, right?

“No one — including the Bulls — knows how Chicago will play in the postseason, but the fact that the most likely true upset in the playoffs is a 1-8 matchup perfectly highlights how historically bad this Celtics team is as a top seed.”

Oh, sad trombone. Again, it’s not “the most likely true upset in the playoffs”, as demonstrated above. So a point you didn’t establish doesn’t seal a point you hadn’t arleady made. Yes, 26-10 matters. No, you can’t pretend that this doesn’t matter.

When the NCAA tournament committee makes its seedings, they take just this sort of thing into account.

When fully healthy, the Celtics were a .722 basketball team. That’s nowhere near the worst #1 seed in NBA history.

Photo by Keith Allison