The unspoken "real" issue with these celtics...

[cman88]

I kind of stopped reading Moranis ridiculous post when he said that we are overachievers because Tatum is just a top 20 player (brown isn't anywhere near that) and that harden/Embiid /maxey is way more talented than our team last year.....had to doubletake.

So to get this straight let's ignore our history of blowing leads, giving inconsistent efforts and lapses mentally that we all can clearly see.

Because despite all odds of having just 2 all NBA players who are trash we overachieved! Has to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. And is taking this thread off the rails.

Give me a break. Only times Celtics overachieved their way to the ECF was with Isaiah Thomas and that Celtics team without kyrie. Those teams clearly didn't belong there.

But last 2 years they were a top seed in the east and a clear contender. I don't see how any same rational person can say it's an overachievement for a team with the 2nd best record in all the NBA to lose to an 8th seed play in team.

[Vermont Green]

Yes, the narrative I disagree with is the one that says Boston is the most talented and deepest team in the sport.  I think that is nonsense and no where near accurate and hasn't been since that started a season or two ago. I believe there are at least 6 teams with more talent than Boston. Boston may very well again beat some of them in the playoffs, but that is more about Boston over achieving than anything else.

Boston has over achieved for years and it is that over achieving that has created this doom and gloom approach to the blog.  The only other team I can think of that won at around the level of Boston over multiple seasons with no top 5 player and only 1 top 20 player are the early 2000's Pistons.  Boston has over achieved for years.  Tatum is getting close to the top 5 level where you'd expect this level of success and Brown is close enough to top 20 that they are only right now looking like what historical champions look like (especially with Zinger as a 3rd option).

When I read this, I started to understand.  If you think there are "at least 6" teams with more talent, with a better roster, then I can see how you disagree with most of the mainstream narrative on the Celtics.  I think this stems from you not feeling Tatum and Brown are as good as the rest of the world seems to, which is fine.  Like I said, I think I finally understand.

Tatum is a multi-year All-NBA.  Brown is now second team All-NBA.  Add to that former all stars like Porzingis and 6thmoy Brogdon and most look at the Celtics and see a top NBA roster, I know that I do.  But you don't see Tatum and Brown that way so you don't see the team that way.  But don't make the narrative into this thing where everyone is saying that the Celtics are by far the best roster.  No one is saying that.  The Celtics are viewed as one of the top rosters.  That is the narrative.

[Moranis]

I have Tatum at 7th in my list (behind Jokic, Giannis, Curry, Durant, Embiid, and Luka).  He could get up to 3 depending on the season and health of others, but I suspect he will be around that spot all year (and if guys like Kawhi, Davis, etc. somehow stay healthy they could move ahead of him). I have been one of the biggest Tatum supporters on this blog.  I've said for years, the team needs to build around him and play to his strengths as the team goes as he goes.  Tatum drives the wins and losses and has since his rookie year.  All that said, he isn't a top 5 player and only recently became a top 10 player.  The team having the level of sustained success it has had is a testament to coaching and overachieving players, as this team has pretty consistently defied historical precedent in the playoffs (i.e. winning series when the best player was on the other team).

[Moranis]

I kind of stopped reading Moranis ridiculous post when he said that we are overachievers because Tatum is just a top 20 player (brown isn't anywhere near that) and that harden/Embiid /maxey is way more talented than our team last year.....had to doubletake.

So to get this straight let's ignore our history of blowing leads, giving inconsistent efforts and lapses mentally that we all can clearly see.

Because despite all odds of having just 2 all NBA players who are trash we overachieved! Has to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. And is taking this thread off the rails.

Give me a break. Only times Celtics overachieved their way to the ECF was with Isaiah Thomas and that Celtics team without kyrie. Those teams clearly didn't belong there.

But last 2 years they were a top seed in the east and a clear contender. I don't see how any same rational person can say it's an overachievement for a team with the 2nd best record in all the NBA to lose to an 8th seed play in team.

I never said Tatum was just a top 20 player, I said the team only had 1 top 20 player.  I chose that line because Brown is not a top 20 player. 

Embiid>Tatum
Harden>Brown
Maxey>Smart
Harris>Brogdon

After that Boston was better through the rotation, but it is top end talent that typically wins in the playoffs and in that Philly was better.  It is also top end talent that people think of when they say talented roster also, not bench guys.

[green_bballers13]

I kind of stopped reading Moranis ridiculous post when he said that we are overachievers because Tatum is just a top 20 player (brown isn't anywhere near that) and that harden/Embiid /maxey is way more talented than our team last year.....had to doubletake.

So to get this straight let's ignore our history of blowing leads, giving inconsistent efforts and lapses mentally that we all can clearly see.

Because despite all odds of having just 2 all NBA players who are trash we overachieved! Has to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. And is taking this thread off the rails.

Give me a break. Only times Celtics overachieved their way to the ECF was with Isaiah Thomas and that Celtics team without kyrie. Those teams clearly didn't belong there.

But last 2 years they were a top seed in the east and a clear contender. I don't see how any same rational person can say it's an overachievement for a team with the 2nd best record in all the NBA to lose to an 8th seed play in team.

I never said Tatum was just a top 20 player, I said the team only had 1 top 20 player.  I chose that line because Brown is not a top 20 player. 

Embiid>Tatum
Harden>Brown
Maxey>Smart
Harris>Brogdon

After that Boston was better through the rotation, but it is top end talent that typically wins in the playoffs and in that Philly was better.  It is also top end talent that people think of when they say talented roster also, not bench guys.

I think the challenge with reading Mo's posts is that he doesn't say "I think". He makes very subjective assessments appear as if they are declarations of truth and science. Saying that JB isn't a top 20 player when he was named 2nd Team All NBA is a good example of this opinion presented as fact.

When you zag on a Celtics blog about Celtics players, you're likely to cause waves. When you present such information as facts (when they are opinions), people start to tune out.

I'm not offended by his lack of love for the Celtics roster, though. I too think that Vegas has overrated this current squad. I still would take DEN, GSW, and MIL in a playoff matchup vs. the Celtics.

[Kernewek]

I think you're correct, gbb13, but I also believe there's a pretty reasonable understanding that someone posting on a subjective topic is offering their opinion on that topic, regardless of whether or not they preface it with the phrase(s) I think, I believe, in my opinion, &c.

[green_bballers13]

I think you're correct, gbb13, but I also believe there's a pretty reasonable understanding that someone posting on a subjective topic is offering their opinion on that topic, regardless of whether or not they preface it with the phrase(s) I think, I believe, in my opinion, &c.

I disagree. I think there's a difference in the two following sentences (but maybe you don't):

Jaylen Brown is the 5th best player on this team.
I think Jaylen Brown is the 5th best player on this team.

The second sentence is a hot take. The first sentence is lunacy.

[Kernewek]

I think you're correct, gbb13, but I also believe there's a pretty reasonable understanding that someone posting on a subjective topic is offering their opinion on that topic, regardless of whether or not they preface it with the phrase(s) I think, I believe, in my opinion, &c.

I disagree. I think there's a difference in the two following sentences (but maybe you don't):

Jaylen Brown is the 5th best player on this team.
I think Jaylen Brown is the 5th best player on this team.

The second sentence is a hot take. The first sentence is lunacy.

No, I don't see a meaningful difference in either sentence, because the (clearly incorrect*) opinion underpinning the position is the same. Not that I put so much stock in Strunk & White overall, but there's something to be said for 'omit unnecessary words.'

*when presented devoid of additional context, at least.

I do think being more explicit online is usually better, but I'm not sure it's fair to presume that everyone has time to underline the fact that their opinions are their opinions. :p

[green_bballers13]

I think you're correct, gbb13, but I also believe there's a pretty reasonable understanding that someone posting on a subjective topic is offering their opinion on that topic, regardless of whether or not they preface it with the phrase(s) I think, I believe, in my opinion, &c.

I disagree. I think there's a difference in the two following sentences (but maybe you don't):

Jaylen Brown is the 5th best player on this team.
I think Jaylen Brown is the 5th best player on this team.

The second sentence is a hot take. The first sentence is lunacy.

No, I don't see a meaningful difference in either sentence, because the (clearly incorrect*) opinion underpinning the position is the same. Not that I put so much stock in Strunk & White overall, but there's something to be said for 'omit unnecessary words.'

*when presented devoid of additional context, at least.

Isn't that the point though? Zagging without preventing additional information, such as "this is just my opinion- I know that the consensus differs".

Stating that Jaylen Brown isn't a top 20 player sounds like fact. Maybe you took it as "this is just what I think, regardless of the voting, analysis, etc. being done across the nation". I read it as simply "Jaylen isn't a top 20 player" without any additional information, and that's why I thought it came off as a declaration vs. an opinion.

I know I'm getting into the weeds here. Sometimes the context matters. For instance, the sky was pink last night after a storm. I could say "skies are pink", or I could say "last night after a storm, the sky looked pink". The additional info helps.

I've read what Moranis has stated about Jaylen (he doesn't contribute to winning, he's not a #1, etc), but he still hasn't shown that there were 10 players better than Jaylen last year that were omitted from 1st/2nd team NBA. He's used often injured/older players like AD and Kawhi (56 and 52 games played) to add over Jaylen Brown, but I don't think that qualifies as evidence/context.

[Kernewek]

I think you're correct, gbb13, but I also believe there's a pretty reasonable understanding that someone posting on a subjective topic is offering their opinion on that topic, regardless of whether or not they preface it with the phrase(s) I think, I believe, in my opinion, &c.

I disagree. I think there's a difference in the two following sentences (but maybe you don't):

Jaylen Brown is the 5th best player on this team.
I think Jaylen Brown is the 5th best player on this team.

The second sentence is a hot take. The first sentence is lunacy.

No, I don't see a meaningful difference in either sentence, because the (clearly incorrect*) opinion underpinning the position is the same. Not that I put so much stock in Strunk & White overall, but there's something to be said for 'omit unnecessary words.'

*when presented devoid of additional context, at least.

Isn't that the point though? Zagging without preventing additional information, such as "this is just my opinion- I know that the consensus differs".

Stating that Jaylen Brown isn't a top 20 player sounds like fact. Maybe you took it as "this is just what I think, regardless of the voting, analysis, etc. being done across the nation". I read it as simply "Jaylen isn't a top 20 player" without any additional information, and that's why I thought it came off as a declaration vs. an opinion.

I know I'm getting into the weeds here. Sometimes the context matters. For instance, the sky was pink last night after a storm. I could say "skies are pink", or I could say "last night after a storm, the sky looked pink". The additional info helps.

I agree that the context matters - but where we differ, perhaps, is that the absence of context is equally illustrative.

If you say "The best Celtics jerseys are the White and Green home jerseys", it's fairly clear that you are voicing your opinion on a subjective topic. If you say "the White and Green home jerseys are the best-selling Celtics Jerseys", it's fairly clear you are voicing a fact. We don't need additional context.

I put it to you that most sports discussions, including the relative pole positions of the Celtics players, trend much closer to shared opinions rather than facts.

----

I don't share Moranis's opinion on an instinctual level, but I don't think I've ever had any difficulties separating his opinions from his facts (or his use of facts to ground his opinions, as you've added for ex: AD).

[Vermont Green]

I have Tatum at 7th in my list (behind Jokic, Giannis, Curry, Durant, Embiid, and Luka).  He could get up to 3 depending on the season and health of others, but I suspect he will be around that spot all year (and if guys like Kawhi, Davis, etc. somehow stay healthy they could move ahead of him). I have been one of the biggest Tatum supporters on this blog.  I've said for years, the team needs to build around him and play to his strengths as the team goes as he goes.  Tatum drives the wins and losses and has since his rookie year.  All that said, he isn't a top 5 player and only recently became a top 10 player.  The team having the level of sustained success it has had is a testament to coaching and overachieving players, as this team has pretty consistently defied historical precedent in the playoffs (i.e. winning series when the best player was on the other team).

That is not unreasonable.  Jokic, Giannis, and Embiid are clearly the top 3 in my mind, when you get to Curry, Durant, Luka, and Tatum, I think the order could be anything.  Curry was better in the 2021-22 finals, but that is now two years ago.  Durant was not better in either recent playoff.  And Luka got fat, so hard to know with him.

The thing with Embiid, he is just about in the same category as Davis and Kawhi in terms of injury.  Not quite yet, but getting close.

So take your pick.

[mobilija]

I kind of stopped reading Moranis ridiculous post when he said that we are overachievers because Tatum is just a top 20 player (brown isn't anywhere near that) and that harden/Embiid /maxey is way more talented than our team last year.....had to doubletake.

So to get this straight let's ignore our history of blowing leads, giving inconsistent efforts and lapses mentally that we all can clearly see.

Because despite all odds of having just 2 all NBA players who are trash we overachieved! Has to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. And is taking this thread off the rails.

Give me a break. Only times Celtics overachieved their way to the ECF was with Isaiah Thomas and that Celtics team without kyrie. Those teams clearly didn't belong there.

But last 2 years they were a top seed in the east and a clear contender. I don't see how any same rational person can say it's an overachievement for a team with the 2nd best record in all the NBA to lose to an 8th seed play in team.

I never said Tatum was just a top 20 player, I said the team only had 1 top 20 player.  I chose that line because Brown is not a top 20 player. 

Embiid>Tatum
Harden>Brown
Maxey>Smart
Harris>Brogdon

After that Boston was better through the rotation, but it is top end talent that typically wins in the playoffs and in that Philly was better.  It is also top end talent that people think of when they say talented roster also, not bench guys.

The fact that the worse roster, in your eyes, has for several years (in regular season and in the playoffs) beaten the better roster tells me that either 1) top end talent is not as good of a predictor as you think or 2) your talent evaluation is not as good as you think.

Regardless, I agree that there can be a media narrative that puffs up the greatness of players and teams. And the Celtics were beneficiaries(?) of that. When in fact there is a lot more parity in the contending teams talent level. Health, luck and team dynamics play a much bigger role in winning and losing than some people want to admit. That being said, last year's Celtics playoff squad was not dialed in enuff to overcome those factors, maybe that's due to some team dynamics, idk.

[Moranis]

Brown deserved his 2nd team appearance, but that doesn't mean he is a top 10 player.  Top 10 season, sure, player, nope.  Those are no where near the same thing. 

On June 14, the Ringer put out a list of the top 125 for the up coming season, and Brown was not in the top 20.  He was 22. They had Tatum at 6 (he was ahead of Luka who was 7, but the other 5 I had they had though a different order).  Brown was  between Bam and Trae with Edwards and George rounding out the top 25.  They had Towns outside the top 30 at 31.  Irving came in at 40 (which seems low even for me).  Porzingis was the next Celtic at 61 (listed as a wizard). Horford was 67, White 68, Rob 70 (Smart was 71), and Brogdon was 87.

So that list says what I've been saying, the Celtics are very good in the 4-7 range of the roster, but lack a lot of the top end talent that traditionally wins post season series.  And for as good as Tatum is, he isn't in that first class of player (at least not yet , if ever).

[cman88]

Brown deserved his 2nd team appearance, but that doesn't mean he is a top 10 player.  Top 10 season, sure, player, nope.  Those are no where near the same thing. 

On June 14, the Ringer put out a list of the top 125 for the up coming season, and Brown was not in the top 20.  He was 22. They had Tatum at 6 (he was ahead of Luka who was 7, but the other 5 I had they had though a different order).  Brown was  between Bam and Trae with Edwards and George rounding out the top 25.  They had Towns outside the top 30 at 31.  Irving came in at 40 (which seems low even for me).  Porzingis was the next Celtic at 61 (listed as a wizard). Horford was 67, White 68, Rob 70 (Smart was 71), and Brogdon was 87.

So that list says what I've been saying, the Celtics are very good in the 4-7 range of the roster, but lack a lot of the top end talent that traditionally wins post season series.  And for as good as Tatum is, he isn't in that first class of player (at least not yet , if ever).

Tatum isn't in that first class of plaers yet Embiid is? The guy who hasn't made it past the 2nd round?

If he's not he's om the cusp of it. I think the majority of the league would disagree with you and take Tatum in a heartbeat. Only Celtic to average over 30ppg. Yet he's not on a path to be a great player...

[Who]

On June 14, the Ringer put out a list of the top 125 for the up coming season, and Brown was not in the top 20.  He was 22. They had Tatum at 6 (he was ahead of Luka who was 7, but the other 5 I had they had though a different order).  Brown was  between Bam and Trae with Edwards and George rounding out the top 25.  They had Towns outside the top 30 at 31.  Irving came in at 40 (which seems low even for me).  Porzingis was the next Celtic at 61 (listed as a wizard). Horford was 67, White 68, Rob 70 (Smart was 71), and Brogdon was 87.

So that list says what I've been saying, the Celtics are very good in the 4-7 range of the roster, but lack a lot of the top end talent that traditionally wins post season series. 

That looks a good list. I like those rankings. I'd probably have Brogdon a bit higher bt I like the other five. Porzingis is tough to rank. I like the other 4 I should say. Tatum & Jaylen are reasonable as well.