CelticsStrong
Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: footey on October 12, 2017, 12:16:11 PM
-
I noticed Jeff Clark predicts 50 wins.
I think that is too low.
I predict 60. Team chemistry looks great. Bench is stronger than expected. Defense better than expected. Rebounding better than expected. Morris's rust will wear off soon, and frankly they will be fine before it does. Hayward struggling to find his identity, but am confident that will happen very soon.
60 is my number. First in the Eastern Conference. By several games.
What do you project?
-
The Celts were as good as a 48 win team last season (Expect W/L based on point differential).
They added, on net, probably 4-5 wins worth of talent this off-season.
On the other hand, they have no continuity whatsoever in the starting lineup, unless Smart or Brown is starting beside Horford.
I think the lack of continuity is worth 2-3 wins.
So, 48 + 4.5 - 2.5 = 50
I think you maybe could argue for an extra 2-3 wins because the bottom of the conference is really bad this year, but I feel OK about 50.
Setting aside a very specific win total projection, I feel good about expecting the Celts to finish with about the same number of wins as the Cavs, and for the Wiz or Raps to finish ahead of them.
-
57. The east is ridiculously worse then last year.
This team is also a lot , LOT better then last year.
-
I'm going with 56 wins.
I'm not that worried about the team gelling - if Brad could get the 14-15 team to come together midseason he'll do fine with this bunch. But I am worried about whether or not we'll be able to consistently get up for all the games against crappy East opponents. If we don't have that kind of temperament it'll probably be closer to 50.
-
61
-
I will go with 58. We still have players that need to be integrated into the offense (and defense), but as fwf pointed out, Stevens is among the best at this.
Even if we don't reach that #, I think we are a more formidable opponent to Cleveland in the playoffs; I also love the future of this team.
-
I predict 58 wins.
Kyrie, Hayward, and Horford all have high basketball IQ's, and have play styles that mesh well. You have a primary and two secondary ball handlers. All three can shoot the three. In fact, I expect Boston to be one of the best three point shooting teams, along with Golden St and Houston.
We're going to beat up on less talented teams. They may struggle against the elite teams, but I bet they can go roughly .500 against the best of the best.
-
The Celts were as good as a 48 win team last season (Expect W/L based on point differential).
They added, on net, probably 4-5 wins worth of talent this off-season.
On the other hand, they have no continuity whatsoever in the starting lineup, unless Smart or Brown is starting beside Horford.
I think the lack of continuity is worth 2-3 wins.
So, 48 + 4.5 - 2.5 = 50
I think you maybe could argue for an extra 2-3 wins because the bottom of the conference is really bad this year, but I feel OK about 50.
Setting aside a very specific win total projection, I feel good about expecting the Celts to finish with about the same number of wins as the Cavs, and for the Wiz or Raps to finish ahead of them.
Your analysis sounds like the ESPN article that concluded we were 15th in terms of matching up vs. GSW. I prefer the eye test. This team reminds me of the big 3 team of 2007 during pre-season. They just jelled very quickly.
-
I also go for 58 wins. That will bring the 1st seed and will compete with Houston for being the 2nd best record after Golden State.
-
I agree largely with PhoSita's analysis, but I'm going to be more optimistic and say 53 wins just because I think the talent of our top 3 guys will be enough alone to compensate for the lack of cohesiveness early. It is a good point though that we over performed our point differential last year, that kind of stuff evens out in the long run.
-
63 wins
-
63 wins
in the first month!!!!!! ;D
-
56
-
As long as we stay relatively healthy, 60+.
We already look well on our way to developing chemistry, and in the meantime we have enough raw offensive talent that we'll continue to win games as we gel together as a team.
-
62 for me
-
I'm projecting 52. I think this team is capable of more wins (60) but I think CBS will make a conscious effort to develop our youth which ay impact our win total in the short term but be beneficial in the longer term.
-
I'm going to say 59, though i really want to say 61. I think this team will be fantastic this year.
-
put me down for 58
-
59.
The most athletic team the Celtics have ever had.
-
I was thinking about 50 for a while but I'm more impressed with the talent on the team even more so after watching them preseason. The C's will win a lot of games just based on that even if they are shoot bad. CBS will mold this team into something good. A first seed feels attainable. I'll say 56 wins.
-
55
-
82 and anyone who says othah wise is a dirty liah ::spits on ground:: :o
-
56 is my guess.
-
57
-
55
-
54
-
57
-
60 wins. Kyrie focuses on getting the other guys to gel, and it works. We will have games where we run the other team off our home court, and the Garden is at a fever pitch by the end of the year.
-
What do you project?
I am going with 56. I think the East is clearly easier but the West is clearly tougher and they may have a worse record against Western Conference teams.
-
58
-
58 24
-
This feels like 56-26 to me.
-
I'm gonna go with 53 wins. I think this team will go through some slumps as they earn their stripes and that will obviously affect the win total. We are also quite thing at C which could come back to bite us if we suffer an injury there (such as Baynes now).
I think both us and Cleveland will have some tough trips oout West which will supress the win totals as well, I'm certainly not expecting us to hit the 60 mark.
-
57-25.
17-13 against the West.
40-12 against the East.
(I’m playing the Trifecta.)
-
80-2
both losses to BK
:)
-
57-25.
17-13 against the West.
40-12 against the East.
(I’m playing the Trifecta.)
What's the payout if you hit all 3?
-
57-25.
17-13 against the West.
40-12 against the East.
(I’m playing the Trifecta.)
What's the payout if you hit all 3?
People are welcome to give me triple the Tommy Points when this thread is resurrected at the end of the season.
-
61
-
57 wins, but with a point differential that is more indicative of a ~53 win team. Modest improvement from last year, and "overachieving" relative to point differential (again), but the lack of veteran big man depth and working out the kinks chemistry-wise will keep us short of 60 wins. Good for 1st or 2nd in the east, with all of the top 4 seeds having 53+ wins (aka as many or more than the #1 seed last year)
-
Depends on how much progress we see from the youngsters and Hayward's integration to a lesser extent. Last year IT carried this team, had an outrageous shooting year, and had the highest TS% among guards (after tossing out a few guards who played less than 250 minutes). IT was outrageous in the 4th quarter and allowed the Cs to exceed their projected win total based on net points differential by 5 games because they won many close games. That being said, adding more shooting and more depth should allow all players more open shots.
I'll shoot for 55 wins just to throw out a number, but IF the youth (Brown and Tatum) mature their games fast enough or carry their pre-season performances into the regular season (Smart and Rozier), then 60 games is possible. That is a lot of IFs though.
-
My initial projection is too unrealistic, so Im honing in my bias and say 81-1.
-
57-25.
17-13 against the West.
40-12 against the East.
(I’m playing the Trifecta.)
Remind me at the end of the season, but you're on.
What's the payout if you hit all 3?
People are welcome to give me triple the Tommy Points when this thread is resurrected at the end of the season.
-
60-22
-
I'm curious where the people who think the Celts are going to win ~60 think the Celts will rank in Offensive Efficiency and Defensive Efficiency, and what the point differential will be.
Last year, the Celts were 8th in offense and 12th in defense.
They had a point differential of +2.7, which converted to a Simple Rating Score of 2.25, which was 8th best in the league.
The San Antonio Spurs, who won 61 games last year, had a point differential of +7.2, which converted to a Simple Rating Score of +7.13, 2nd best in the league.
The Rockets won 55 games and had a point differential of 5.8, and a SRS of 5.84. That was 3rd best in the league.
The last time a team in the East won 60+ games was in 2015 when the Hawks won it with a point differential of +5.4, and a SRS of +4.75.
Prior to that, the Heat won 66 games in 2013 with a SRS of 7.03.
Based on all that, if you're saying the Celts are going to win 60, you're saying they're going to at least double, possibly triple their point differential from last year.
You're also saying that the Celts will likely end up in the top 5 in either defensive efficiency or offensive efficiency.
That would be a fairly major leap from last season.
-
Hmm, torn between lowering expectations since this roster is a major overhaul from last year and they'll need time to figure out how best to play as a team VS the East is loaded with weak teams that they should easily beat while learning how to play as a team.
I'll go with 58 wins.
-
I am going to go conservative and say 54 wins. I know our offense has looked great at times, but this was in preseason and we only played Philly and Charl. I say we do a slow climb with our 2nd half of the season record better than the first as long as we avoid the injuries.
-
I'm curious where the people who think the Celts are going to win ~60 think the Celts will rank in Offensive Efficiency and Defensive Efficiency, and what the point differential will be.
Last year, the Celts were 8th in offense and 12th in defense.
They had a point differential of +2.7, which converted to a Simple Rating Score of 2.25, which was 8th best in the league.
The San Antonio Spurs, who won 61 games last year, had a point differential of +7.2, which converted to a Simple Rating Score of +7.13, 2nd best in the league.
The Rockets won 55 games and had a point differential of 5.8, and a SRS of 5.84. That was 3rd best in the league.
The last time a team in the East won 60+ games was in 2015 when the Hawks won it with a point differential of +5.4, and a SRS of +4.75.
Prior to that, the Heat won 66 games in 2013 with a SRS of 7.03.
Based on all that, if you're saying the Celts are going to win 60, you're saying they're going to at least double, possibly triple their point differential from last year.
You're also saying that the Celts will likely end up in the top 5 in either defensive efficiency or offensive efficiency.
That would be a fairly major leap from last season.
I think they will win 60.
I think they will double their point differential from last season.
I think they will improve both their offensive efficiency and their defensive efficiency. Only set back is losing IT's efficiency, especially at the foul line, given his volume and accuracy there.
-
Just checked out the schedule, every game looks pretty winnable. I'm refraining from 82-0 and I'll say 68-14.
-
58 wins. The east is weaker, the team filled some (not all) of its holes this summer, and the roster is as versatile as it's ever been in the Brad Stevens era.
I wouldn't be surprised if they surpass 58.
-
51
-
63 wins
3 minutes to go in the first quarter
Irving has 11 points
Hayward 12
Horford 9
Smart - Rozier - Morris/Tatum come onto court and turn opponent's bench into a wet spot.
Rinse and repeat.
-
53 games, 1st or 2nd. They will have a couple new team chemistry losses.
-
58
I feel I am being cautious rather than optimistic.
-
55 wins. The east is week. The offense is going to be humming. And I think the experts are under estimating the Celtics potential on defense. Smart, Brown, Hayward, Morris are very good defenders. Horford, Baynes, Rozier are solid. Irving and Tatum have the physical tools to get there.
The big risk this year is if Horford were to miss significant time. Our bigs depth is thin.
-
I think the chemistry will be tough to regain with only 4 returning players...loss of Crowder and Bradley will hurt...Brown and Tatum have to take their places but won't be able to match their defense and offense.
East is weak but I think it will take the C's a lot of time to gel --- 48 wins
MikeB Celtics fan for 53 years...
-
Anyone ready to change their answers
-
Post-injury, I’m thinking 44.
-
Take whatever your projection was pre-Hayward-injury and subtract, oh, 10.
-
Take whatever your projection was pre-Hayward-injury and subtract, oh, 10.
lol. 72 is still pretty high
-
:-\
-
I'm going to go with 47-53
East is still incredibly weak, and Morris should help.
-
45 games, fifth seed.
Brown/Tatum step up in Haywards absence.
-
Take whatever your projection was pre-Hayward-injury and subtract, oh, 10.
Yeah, I think around 10 wins sounds about right. I went for 61 so about 51 now. That might still be enough to win top seed in the East. No powerhouses in the East.
-
48-34
Good enough for 3 seed in a weak East.
-
45 games, fifth seed.
Brown/Tatum step up in Haywards absence.
5th seed wow. What a drop off
-
48-34. #3 seed.
-
55-60 wins still.
The East is terrible. The Celtics still have about the same talent as they did last year.
-
5th or 6th seed, 43-46 wins.
Cavs, Wizards, Bucks and Toronto are all better now. Going to take the C's some time to adjust without Hayward, they already had to adjust with him considering this was essentially a new team.
Those other four are coming back with similar rosters, there is no doubt in my mind they'll finish better then the C's.
I think we'll be battling Charlotte for the 5th or 6th seed.. maybe Philly surprises also?
-
I had projected 55 wins so I'll drop to 45 wins but I think that may be on the high side. Our depth just isn't that good. We're dependent on several young players who are going to make youthful mistakes and not perform consistently. We can't afford any other significant injuries. Smart may put up bigger number in more minutes but I don't expect significant improvement. Kyrie may press to carry the team to show he's a #1 guy.
-
48-34
Good enough for 3 seed in a weak East.
Yeah, I think we could still win 50 games if we stay reasonably healthy the rest of the way and our young guys progress like they should. We're still capable of being a 2-4 seed.
-
48-34
Good enough for 3 seed in a weak East.
Yeah, I think we could still win 50 games if we stay reasonably healthy the rest of the way and our young guys progress like they should. We're still capable of being a 2-4 seed.
I'm feeling less optimistic.
Without Gordon, we just don't have enough shooting.
Defenses will swarm Kyrie's p&r's because neither Smart nor Brown is good enough 3pt threat to keep their opponents honest.
Hate to say, but I think this is now a 40 win team.
-
48-34
Good enough for 3 seed in a weak East.
Yeah, I think we could still win 50 games if we stay reasonably healthy the rest of the way and our young guys progress like they should. We're still capable of being a 2-4 seed.
I'm feeling less optimistic.
Without Gordon, we just don't have enough shooting.
Defenses will swarm Kyrie's p&r's because neither Smart nor Brown is good enough 3pt threat to keep their opponents honest.
Hate to say, but I think this is now a 40 win team.
You can't seriously think we're on the same level as Miami, Chicago, Denver and Portland's teams of last season, can you?
I get that losing Hayward is a pretty catastrophic event, but Brad had a team last year with similar, if not lesser talent levels than this one, win 53 games.
-
I have us down to 44 wins this year. Don't know where that places us in the playoff seedings but I think people will need to get used to the idea that we are probably a 1st round exit this year.
-
We just lost our best player. Not sure how anyone is still in the 50's.
-
I think Hayward subtracts around 5-10 wins depending on how you value him. Perhaps most importantly our margin for error for a slump year or another injury from being .500 team is now small.
-
We just lost our best player. Not sure how anyone is still in the 50's.
It is all relative, if you were in the high 50s or 60s then low 50s is still possible from that frame of mind.
-
We just lost our best player. Not sure how anyone is still in the 50's.
It is all relative, if you were in the high 50s or 60s then low 50s is still possible from that frame of mind.
Boston won 53 games last year and the team without Hayward is pretty similar.
-
We just lost our best player. Not sure how anyone is still in the 50's.
It is all relative, if you were in the high 50s or 60s then low 50s is still possible from that frame of mind.
Boston won 53 games last year and the team without Hayward is pretty similar.
Eh, somewhat. While it's clear we're much more athletic and have much better size and overall raw talent, we're also much younger and less used to playing together than last year's group.
I think it mainly depends on our core of young guys how far we go this year, specifically Smart, Rozier, Brown, and Tatum. If they progress as well as we think (likely) and perhaps one of them makes a significant leap (my money is on Brown), then I think we could be as good as last year's team, if not even a bit better.
Our play style will determine that, too. If we pick up the pace and continuously push the ball, that bodes well for us, especially the younger core who should thrive in the open court.
-
Boston won 53 games last year and the team without Hayward is pretty similar.
and the team without Hayward ... is much younger
(giving minutes to Brown, Tatum, Rozier, Semi instead of Bradley, Crowder, Green, Olynyk)
and the team without Hayward ... has no experience playing together
(4 returning players)
and the team without Hayward ... has less reliable outside shooting
(compare Bradley, Crowder, Olynyk, Green to Brown, Tatum, Morris, Semi ... not to mention larger roles for Smart and Rozier)
and the team without Hayward ... is much thinner than last year's team
(the Celts are one injury to 31 year old Al Horford away from starting Aron Baynes at C and giving heavy minutes to Semi Ojeleye and Daniel Theis ... they're one Kyrie Irving injury away from starting Marcus Smart and relying on Al Horford or Jaylen Brown to be their #1 offensive option)
Honestly, I might be too optimistic with 45 wins. That feels kind of like a best case scenario. I guess we just need to hope Horford and Kyrie stay healthy and Kyrie has a MVP caliber campaign.
-
I have us down to 44 wins this year. Don't know where that places us in the playoff seedings but I think people will need to get used to the idea that we are probably a 1st round exit this year.
Behind CLE, TOR, WAS, MIL
On par with CHA, MIA
Ahead of DET, PHI
-
Boston won 53 games last year and the team without Hayward is pretty similar.
and the team without Hayward ... is much younger
(giving minutes to Brown, Tatum, Rozier, Semi instead of Bradley, Crowder, Green, Olynyk)
and the team without Hayward ... has no experience playing together
(4 returning players)
and the team without Hayward ... has less reliable outside shooting
(compare Bradley, Crowder, Olynyk, Green to Brown, Tatum, Morris, Semi ... not to mention larger roles for Smart and Rozier)
and the team without Hayward ... is much thinner than last year's team
(the Celts are one injury to 31 year old Al Horford away from starting Aron Baynes at C and giving heavy minutes to Semi Ojeleye and Daniel Theis ... they're one Kyrie Irving injury away from starting Marcus Smart and relying on Al Horford or Jaylen Brown to be their #1 offensive option)
Honestly, I might be too optimistic with 45 wins. That feels kind of like a best case scenario. I guess we just need to hope Horford and Kyrie stay healthy and Kyrie has a MVP caliber campaign.
We have to also take into account of any future injuries besides Gordon Hayward this season. Still have 81 more games to go.
Losing Smart, Brown, Tatum, Kyrie, Horford or Baynes will definitely be devastating.
-
We just lost our best player. Not sure how anyone is still in the 50's.
It is all relative, if you were in the high 50s or 60s then low 50s is still possible from that frame of mind.
Boston won 53 games last year and the team without Hayward is pretty similar.
Well I mean in some ways yes, but in others not at all. We still have an elite PG and Al Horford. But we has lost a lot of shooting with Kelly, Bradley and Jae gone. As Much as I LOVE Brown and Tatum expecting those guys to shoot 40% from 3 like Jae and Avery is not happening. This may cramp our spacing somewhat. Without a secondary creator like Hayward our bench scoring may very well be an issue again, even if Tatum and or Brown steps up on the first unit. We are also relying ALOT more on young players. With GH down we have KI, AL, MS, JB, JT, TR, AB and MM. That's eight guys, and one of them is a nineteen year old rookie! Beyond that its a bunch of huge ????'s. Depth helps win regular season games, we don't have it. Giving minutes to Semi, Yabu and the like hurts more than people realize. Even if Brown can replace what Crowder/Hayward give you on defense we still lost arguably the best perimeter defender and ours guys are so you/new to the team that team defense could be a problem at times. We lost some swhitability with GH out too. We went from lock to get 50, probably mid fifties to very hard to get to fifty, off chance of struggling a lot. I predict 48.
-
Wow. Sky really is falling for some people.
Obviously, health is the biggest X factor as we all should certainly know now.
Still, this team should still win high 40s & maybe even still crack 50. Bench looks like its going to be better than last year. You still have Kyrie who is clearly a difference maker, Jaylen who certainly looks poised to breakout, a rookie in Tatum that adds a dimension that wasn't on this team last year, Smart in a contract year, Rozier who you can see growth with just to name a few. And you still have Brad Stevens.
The key is the kids but I'm not ready to write off this team as still being a top 3-4 seed in the East who can still play a few rounds come playoff time.
-
Boston won 53 games last year and the team without Hayward is pretty similar.
and the team without Hayward ... is much younger
(giving minutes to Brown, Tatum, Rozier, Semi instead of Bradley, Crowder, Green, Olynyk)
and the team without Hayward ... has no experience playing together
(4 returning players)
and the team without Hayward ... has less reliable outside shooting
(compare Bradley, Crowder, Olynyk, Green to Brown, Tatum, Morris, Semi ... not to mention larger roles for Smart and Rozier)
and the team without Hayward ... is much thinner than last year's team
(the Celts are one injury to 31 year old Al Horford away from starting Aron Baynes at C and giving heavy minutes to Semi Ojeleye and Daniel Theis ... they're one Kyrie Irving injury away from starting Marcus Smart and relying on Al Horford or Jaylen Brown to be their #1 offensive option)
Honestly, I might be too optimistic with 45 wins. That feels kind of like a best case scenario. I guess we just need to hope Horford and Kyrie stay healthy and Kyrie has a MVP caliber campaign.
I will take talent over age any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Irving > Thomas
Brown < Bradley
Tatum < Crowder
Morris > Johnson
Horford = Horford
Smart > Smart
Rozier > Rozier
Baynes > Olynyk
Jerebko, Green, Zeller > Yabusele, Larkin, Ojeleye
So I basically see a wash in the starting lineup, but a better main rotation with a weaker deep rotation this year. The teams are about the same, and frankly I wouldn't be all that surprised to see both Brown and Tatum better than Bradley and Crowder by the end of the year.
There is obviously less overall shooting, but I feel much more comfortable with Brown and Tatum as scoring options then I did with Bradley and Crowder in similar roles as Bradley and Crowder were both fairly limited offensively overall (Crowder much moreso than Bradley).
Depth will be a problem and the younger guys will have more "rookie" mistakes, but I also expect more great games from them (like Brown last night).
-
But, but, but... Kyrie Irving has never led a team into the playoffs. WE'RE DOOMED!!!!
😅😅😅😅😅😅
-
While I am concerned about depth in the front-court and we could definitely use more reliable outside shooting, overall, I concur with Moranis that this team is now roughly similar in quality to last year's team. While we lose in experience and outside shooting, we have better size & athleticism in the 2-4 positions.
I was already calling high 50s with Gordon. If losing him costs us 5-ish wins, that puts me at low-50s. The rest of the East is still full of some really, really bad teams, after all.
Let's say: 52 wins and still one of the top 3 seeds in the East.
How well we do in the playoffs could very well depend on if / how well Hayward comes back (and of course, how well / if Thomas comes back for the Cavs).
-
I guess the simplest way to put it is, if you think this team is winning 50+ without Hayward that means you probably thought they were a 60+ win type team with a good chance in a series against any team outside of Oakland.
I liked the potential for this team with Hayward, but I was not nearly that high on them. I saw them as a 50-55 win team at best with a chance at having some struggles in the regular season and finishing below 50 wins.
So, without Hayward, they're a team that should finish above .500 but will have trouble getting HCA or making it out of the 1st round, even in a mediocre East.
-
If you lose a 20PPG All-Star and think your team is only going to lose a few more games to 5 more ganes, I think you are fooling yourself. If Hayward is only worth 3-5 more wins a season then the front office made a huge mistake in giving him $120 million.
-
If you lose a 20PPG All-Star and think your team is only going to lose a few more games to 5 more ganes, I think you are fooling yourself. If Hayward is only worth 3-5 more wins a season then the front office made a huge mistake in giving him $120 million.
Eh I think it's relative. There are guys on bad teams who score 20ppg because someone has to score. But considering adding Hayward was not something done in isolation this offseason, it's hard to say he absolutely adds / subtracts X wins. That's because other guys' roles shift, people take up some of the scoring slack, schemes change, etc. In addition, it gets harder to add wins to the total amount when you get higher in win count. So while subtracting Hayward from a team like this might cause 5 wins, doing so from a team like, say, Brooklyn would cost several more, I imagine, because they have less to replace him with.
We didn't make the moves we made to inflate regular season win total, we did so to become a more dynamic and competitive playoff team. That usually = higher win total but not necessarily. Exhibit A: Last year's Cavs (and many Lebron teams for that matter).
-
Per Ryan Bernardoni:
The most commonly referenced statistical projections from ESPN and 538 now show the Celtics as a below .500 team. Other models probably aren’t likely to be too much better. Those ESPN models, based on Real Plus Minus and Box Plus Minus, didn’t particularly like the C’s to begin with. Removing their best all around player puts them near the bottom of the East’s playoff crawl.
I think those statistical models are a bit too cool on the Celts, but it does show you that it's not crazy to think they may not be in the top half of the East anymore.
-
Per Ryan Bernardoni:
The most commonly referenced statistical projections from ESPN and 538 now show the Celtics as a below .500 team. Other models probably aren’t likely to be too much better. Those ESPN models, based on Real Plus Minus and Box Plus Minus, didn’t particularly like the C’s to begin with. Removing their best all around player puts them near the bottom of the East’s playoff crawl.
I think those statistical models are a bit too cool on the Celts, but it does show you that it's not crazy to think they may not be in the top half of the East anymore.
Don't worry, Pho—according to some, Brown and Tatum are gonna be all-stars or the next coming of Paul Pierce or Larry Bird, or the first coming of Paul Bird or Larry Pierce (depending on whom you ask), Smart's finally gonna get that pesky shooting thing figured out (what a coincidence—just in time for a new contract!), and the Cs still have a reeeeaaaaaalllly good shot of taking down the Cavs in a 7-game series. Sunshine and lollipops for everyone.
-
Well if anything maybe we can all finally agree to pump the brakes on C's season expectations in general, and instead of hoping for another premature ECF or Finals push we can just be happy with development.
Brad Stevens is all about continuous improvement. Win total belies progress - our team was probably not quiiiiite as good as win total last year. I'd prefer a team that's better than win total, or equal to win total, than one that wins more than it should and is badly exposed in the playoffs. Maybe that's just semantics.
So put it this way: This year was not going to result in a Championship either way (IN ALL LIKELIHOOD). Next year, here's hoping we get Gordon back and healthy. Meantime, Jaylen and Jayson get a chance to develop with more minutes than they may otherwise have gotten. So next year's team might just end up being better than it would have, pre-Hayward injury.
How's THAT for some green-colored goggles??
-
If you lose a 20PPG All-Star and think your team is only going to lose a few more games to 5 more ganes, I think you are fooling yourself. If Hayward is only worth 3-5 more wins a season then the front office made a huge mistake in giving him $120 million.
How many games a player is 'worth' becomes marginally reduced as a team gets better.
Hayward would probably be worth over 10+ wins to a bad team. But he's realistically worth closer to +5 wins to a team already as strong as the Celtics. That's not a knock on him. It's the reality that winning those extra games becomes harder.
The reason is because you are already beating the crap teams whether you have that guy or not. The extra wins have to come from the more difficult opponents. When you have only won, say 40 games, you still have a lot of wins that could have been within easy reach if you were 'just a little better'. But when you already won 50 games, then there are fewer wins within easy reach left to get.
So the marginal impact of adding a better player becomes smaller, the better your base team is.
-
So next year's team might just end up being better than it would have, pre-Hayward injury.
How's THAT for some green-colored goggles??
Greener than green, but plausible!
-
If you lose a 20PPG All-Star and think your team is only going to lose a few more games to 5 more ganes, I think you are fooling yourself. If Hayward is only worth 3-5 more wins a season then the front office made a huge mistake in giving him $120 million.
How many games a player is 'worth' becomes marginally reduced as a team gets better.
Hayward would probably be worth over 10+ wins to a bad team. But he's realistically worth closer to +5 wins to a team already as strong as the Celtics. That's not a knock on him. It's the reality that winning those extra games becomes harder.
The reason is because you are already beating the crap teams whether you have that guy or not. The extra wins have to come from the more difficult opponents. When you have only won, say 40 games, you still have a lot of wins that could have been within easy reach if you were 'just a little better'. But when you already won 50 games, then there are fewer wins within easy reach left to get.
So the marginal impact of adding a better player becomes smaller, the better your base team is.
Great post. TP
-
I definitely still think this is a 50+ win team. This year's team, even without Hayward, already looks like a better team than last year's. I expect Kyrie will take over games once he gets comfortable, in much the same fashion IT did last year, except Kyrie is clearly a better passer.
-
I'm dropping from 56 wins to 46 wins. 4th in the East and I think they'll have a good chance of advancing to the second round.
-
If you lose a 20PPG All-Star and think your team is only going to lose a few more games to 5 more ganes, I think you are fooling yourself. If Hayward is only worth 3-5 more wins a season then the front office made a huge mistake in giving him $120 million.
How many games a player is 'worth' becomes marginally reduced as a team gets better.
Hayward would probably be worth over 10+ wins to a bad team. But he's realistically worth closer to +5 wins to a team already as strong as the Celtics. That's not a knock on him. It's the reality that winning those extra games becomes harder.
The reason is because you are already beating the crap teams whether you have that guy or not. The extra wins have to come from the more difficult opponents. When you have only won, say 40 games, you still have a lot of wins that could have been within easy reach if you were 'just a little better'. But when you already won 50 games, then there are fewer wins within easy reach left to get.
So the marginal impact of adding a better player becomes smaller, the better your base team is.
Great post. TP
Yup. Mmmmm nailed it.
-
45 wins.
Need to be very healthy and need a leap from Brown (like he showed last night) also need Tatum to play at ROY level.
Team could battle for a 4/5 seed. Dont see us beating out Cleveland, Washington or Toronto.
Think Milwaukee is a tossup.
-
I'm dropping from 56 wins to 46 wins. 4th in the East and I think they'll have a good chance of advancing to the second round.
I just don't see 46 wins as the 4th seed this year. I think there are going to be a lot of teams in the 45-50 win range, maybe as many as 8 being above 45 wins. There aren't going to be any high 50 or 60 win teams and there are going to be a lot of really bad teams like low 20's or worse.
-
Does the 9-2 start alter the opinions in this thread? Or are we still collectively holding our breath and waiting for the bottom to drop out?
-
Does the 9-2 start alter the opinions in this thread? Or are we still collectively holding our breath and waiting for the bottom to drop out?
The C's aren't going to win 82% of their games. There will be tough stretches. I'm hopeful they can play through those tough stretches with the kind of resolve they've shown so far.
I'm sticking with my post-Hayward injury prediction of 46 games and hoping I'm underselling them.
-
Im still think 46-50 range without Hayward .
-
I predicted 60 before the Hayward injury.
After the injury, I was too depressed to update my projection.
I will stick with my 60, although realistically, I think that is too high, despite our fast start. Our lack of offensive depth is going to catch up with us eventually. We will come to really miss Hayward as the season gets more serious.
-
Anything above 53 is fantastic. 55 is my guess.
If you lose a 20PPG All-Star and think your team is only going to lose a few more games to 5 more ganes, I think you are fooling yourself. If Hayward is only worth 3-5 more wins a season then the front office made a huge mistake in giving him $120 million.
How many games a player is 'worth' becomes marginally reduced as a team gets better.
Hayward would probably be worth over 10+ wins to a bad team. But he's realistically worth closer to +5 wins to a team already as strong as the Celtics. That's not a knock on him. It's the reality that winning those extra games becomes harder.
The reason is because you are already beating the crap teams whether you have that guy or not. The extra wins have to come from the more difficult opponents. When you have only won, say 40 games, you still have a lot of wins that could have been within easy reach if you were 'just a little better'. But when you already won 50 games, then there are fewer wins within easy reach left to get.
So the marginal impact of adding a better player becomes smaller, the better your base team is.
Great post. TP
I think there is more.
This value of player adding a certain number of wins to a team is very tricky and it is a subjective. It is not measurable at all. Even further, it would fluctuate from team to team as you wrote. Lets use Hayward as an example;
- If Hayward goes to 2017/18 Atlanta team, he would (as I said, a very subjective value) add 11 wins and they would go from 24 to 35 wins.
- If he comes here, 53 win base, he adds 5 wins.
- If he goes to GSW, 67 win base, he would add just 2.
It is like GDP. Undeveloped country like Mali or Mongolia can raise its GDP much easier by 10%, than a country like Sweden or Japan could.
Attaching a single number of wins to a player is flawed in its entirety, as it resides on 2 unmeasurable variables.
How much is MJ worth? I say...+16.
Would Michael Jordan add 16 wins to a 67 win team?
-
60
-
80-2
-
Per Ryan Bernardoni:
The most commonly referenced statistical projections from ESPN and 538 now show the Celtics as a below .500 team. Other models probably aren’t likely to be too much better. Those ESPN models, based on Real Plus Minus and Box Plus Minus, didn’t particularly like the C’s to begin with. Removing their best all around player puts them near the bottom of the East’s playoff crawl.
I think those statistical models are a bit too cool on the Celts, but it does show you that it's not crazy to think they may not be in the top half of the East anymore.
looks like those models are a joke
-
Per Ryan Bernardoni:
The most commonly referenced statistical projections from ESPN and 538 now show the Celtics as a below .500 team. Other models probably aren’t likely to be too much better. Those ESPN models, based on Real Plus Minus and Box Plus Minus, didn’t particularly like the C’s to begin with. Removing their best all around player puts them near the bottom of the East’s playoff crawl.
I think those statistical models are a bit too cool on the Celts, but it does show you that it's not crazy to think they may not be in the top half of the East anymore.
looks like those models are a joke
El oh el.
-
i, for one, am glad they play the games instead of awarding wins based upon models.
unless of course it is the models and prediction here on cb. those we can trust. ;D
-
50 and counting. Not gonna make 60 unfortunately.
-
What a year. I predicted 56 wins with Hayward. Without him, they have a chance of matching that.
-
Boston won 53 games last year and the team without Hayward is pretty similar.
and the team without Hayward ... is much younger
(giving minutes to Brown, Tatum, Rozier, Semi instead of Bradley, Crowder, Green, Olynyk)
and the team without Hayward ... has no experience playing together
(4 returning players)
and the team without Hayward ... has less reliable outside shooting
(compare Bradley, Crowder, Olynyk, Green to Brown, Tatum, Morris, Semi ... not to mention larger roles for Smart and Rozier)
and the team without Hayward ... is much thinner than last year's team
(the Celts are one injury to 31 year old Al Horford away from starting Aron Baynes at C and giving heavy minutes to Semi Ojeleye and Daniel Theis ... they're one Kyrie Irving injury away from starting Marcus Smart and relying on Al Horford or Jaylen Brown to be their #1 offensive option)
Honestly, I might be too optimistic with 45 wins. That feels kind of like a best case scenario. I guess we just need to hope Horford and Kyrie stay healthy and Kyrie has a MVP caliber campaign.
I will take talent over age any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Irving > Thomas
Brown < Bradley
Tatum < Crowder
Morris > Johnson
Horford = Horford
Smart > Smart
Rozier > Rozier
Baynes > Olynyk
Jerebko, Green, Zeller > Yabusele, Larkin, Ojeleye
So I basically see a wash in the starting lineup, but a better main rotation with a weaker deep rotation this year. The teams are about the same, and frankly I wouldn't be all that surprised to see both Brown and Tatum better than Bradley and Crowder by the end of the year.
There is obviously less overall shooting, but I feel much more comfortable with Brown and Tatum as scoring options then I did with Bradley and Crowder in similar roles as Bradley and Crowder were both fairly limited offensively overall (Crowder much moreso than Bradley).
Depth will be a problem and the younger guys will have more "rookie" mistakes, but I also expect more great games from them (like Brown last night).
looking back, I hit this pretty much on the head (at least the comments part). I can't wait to see this team with Hayward. They will be so much better next year after missing Hayward this season then they otherwise would have been as Brown and Tatum got a lot more growth then they would have otherwise gotten.
-
Good thread...quite a few posters with egg on their face for doubting this team could win 50 games even without Hayward.
-
I predicted 60. I started this thread just before the start of reg season when Hayward wend down. I have little doubt they would have won at least that many had he not gotten injured. The silver lining of course is that the injuries have enabled our younger players to mature faster and that will only benefit the team next season. I still have guarded hope they can win the Eastern Conference, and yet would not be shocked if we struggle just to get out of the first round.
This team post all star break is playing some of its best ball of the season.
-
Crazy season
-
Per Ryan Bernardoni:
The most commonly referenced statistical projections from ESPN and 538 now show the Celtics as a below .500 team. Other models probably aren’t likely to be too much better. Those ESPN models, based on Real Plus Minus and Box Plus Minus, didn’t particularly like the C’s to begin with. Removing their best all around player puts them near the bottom of the East’s playoff crawl.
I think those statistical models are a bit too cool on the Celts, but it does show you that it's not crazy to think they may not be in the top half of the East anymore.
LOOOOOOOL
-
looks like a couple of guys got it right at 55 wins. I had 54 wins, but that was before Gordo went down, and I wasn't sure how much I should adjust down.
I think it is safe to say 55 wins is more than most people thought we would win this year. Hats off to the players, and Brad and the coaching staff for making lemonade out of that shocking start to the season.
-
looks like a couple of guys got it right at 55 wins. I had 54 wins, but that was before Gordo went down, and I wasn't sure how much I should adjust down.
I think it is safe to say 55 wins is more than most people thought we would win this year. Hats off to the players, and Brad and the coaching staff for making lemonade out of that shocking start to the season.
If not for the 16-game winning streak and the sudden stellar productions of Tatum, Brown, Morris, Rozier and the newly acquired Monroe 55 would not have been possible. Tip my hat off to the squad and CBS.
-
55-60 wins still.
The East is terrible. The Celtics still have about the same talent as they did last year.
Nailed it.
-
I had 56 wins, but I admit I totally missed it.
I thought GH and KI would be available for the whole year.
-
I had 56 wins, but I admit I totally missed it.
I thought GH and KI would be available for the whole year.
I made my comment after the Hayward injury, so I feel pretty good about how I gauged the NBA landscape at the time.
-
This feels like 56-26 to me.
Looks like Hayward going down only cost them 1 win. ;)
Actually, after his injury I think I adjusted my prediction to 46-36 so I'm very happy with this season.
-
I had 56 wins, but I admit I totally missed it.
I thought GH and KI would be available for the whole year.
My prediction of 82-0 would have been correct if those 2 were healthy and I stand by that!
-
I was right on the money but the number 55 just popped in my head instead of it being a product of my analysis.
-
Depends on how much progress we see from the youngsters and Hayward's integration to a lesser extent. Last year IT carried this team, had an outrageous shooting year, and had the highest TS% among guards (after tossing out a few guards who played less than 250 minutes). IT was outrageous in the 4th quarter and allowed the Cs to exceed their projected win total based on net points differential by 5 games because they won many close games. That being said, adding more shooting and more depth should allow all players more open shots.
I'll shoot for 55 wins just to throw out a number, but IF the youth (Brown and Tatum) mature their games fast enough or carry their pre-season performances into the regular season (Smart and Rozier), then 60 games is possible. That is a lot of IFs though.
I hit the number after an exhaustive SWAG, but we could have easily been 60+ without the injuries.
-
I only had us wining 47, so I am pleasantly surprised