Author Topic: ESPN projects the Celtics at #2 in the East  (Read 10307 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: ESPN projects the Celtics at #2 in the East
« Reply #45 on: August 20, 2019, 12:11:35 PM »

Offline Hoopvortex

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1243
  • Tommy Points: 164
LeVert was in the same draft as Brown.  He is older than Brown, but has the same level of NBA experience,

On the whole, your point is a good one, and well-taken.

But Caris has had injuries that have limited his court time: he's played 168 games plus 5 playoffs versus Brown's 222 plus 44 playoffs, a more-than-a-season difference of 93 games, even if you don't value playoff experience more than regular season experience, which I think that you should.

There's another question around LeVert, inevitably: is he injury-prone? I don't have an opinion about that, and beyond that, I have my doubts that there is such a thing as "injury-prone". But he has missed a lot of time.

Experience is far more important to growth than physical age.

This is a fascinating question.

I guess I'd say that it's difficult to separate them; and that there are other factors as well, like physiology and anatomy.

Having said that, I mostly come down on the Experience side with you - it's the "Rule of 10,000 hours" thing.

I'd take the under on Boston, which is why I think Brooklyn finishes ahead of Boston in the regular season standings.

Your argument makes perfect sense to me, especially on the Boston side of things. Irving is a better player than Walker, and they have not really replaced Al Horford. Etc.

And yet, I believe that the wing trio plus Smart that is the core group for Boston's future will get the responsibility that it didn't have last year, and that they will respond with winning basketball. I've got the over on this one.

Irrational? I admit it.
No question LeVert is a gigantic injury question mark, but the injuries also work against the argument that he isn't going to get better.  If he stays healthy, then the fact that he has played so little actually makes him more likely to take a big leap because quite simply you get better at something the more you do it (until you top out of course).

I would certainly not argue that he isn't going to get better; and given his age, and, as you point out, good health, I'd agree that he could have a breakout year.
'I was proud of Marcus Smart. He did a great job of keeping us together. He might not get credit for this game, but the pace that he played at, and his playcalling, some of the plays that he called were great. We obviously have to rely on him, so I’m definitely looking forward to Marcus leading this team in that role.' - Jaylen Brown, January 2021

Re: ESPN projects the Celtics at #2 in the East
« Reply #46 on: August 20, 2019, 12:12:18 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
I hope but #5 is what i expect if that
Who are the 4 teams better than us? The Bucks, 76ers and Pacers are the only teams I can imagine finishing with a better record than us
I have Boston at 5 as well, those 3 and the Nets.

The Nets? :O

They barely made the playoffs last year with a 0.510 record, and won the 6th seed by tiebreaker.  If KD was healthy I can certainly understand, but he will almost certainly miss the entire season. 

The Nets lost their best player (Russell, who averaged 21 / 7 / 4) and replaced him with Kyrie (who averaged 24 / 7 / 5).  They really didn't do much else at all, and while Kyrie is definitely an improvement over Russell, how many wins does he actually add?

Because looking at the Nets roster versus the Celtics roster - it's really no comparison.  Kyrie is better then Kemba (not by much), and the Celtics are pretty much winning every other position. 

Personally I think the finish will be something like:

1 - Bucks
2 - Pacers
3 - Celtics
4 - Sixers
=5 - Raptors
=5 - Nets

With seeds 2 through to 4 (Pacers, Celtics, Sixers) capable of falling in any order. 

The Nets are Kyrie and a team full of role players - I can't see them beating the Bucks, Celtics, Sixers or Pacers.
Brooklyn started off the year very slowly and was sitting at 8-18.  They finished 34-22.  They had several injuries and were a very young team.  I expect Allen, LeVert, Kurucs, and Prince to continue to grow.  They are very deep and have the right mix of veterans and young players.

I think they upgraded their roster a great deal and it is a lot more than just Irving for Russell as I like Jordan, Chandler, Prince, Temple, Nwaba.

PG - Irving, Dinwiddie
SG - Harris, Temple, Nwaba
SF - LeVert, Chandler
PF - Prince, Kurucs
C - Jordan, Allen

I think that is an upper 40's win team.  Same general range as the C's, but I'd put the Nets slightly ahead as I think they have a much more balanced and a much deeper roster, which matters a great deal over the grind of the regular season.
How exactly are they much more balanced / deeper than us? They have a similar issue to us in that they have no genuine 4. They also have one of the worse defensive back-courts in the league and not great wing depth.

Also as far as them being young, they really are not that young. Harris will be 28 when season starts. Dinwiddie is 26. Levers will be 25. Not saying they are washed up, but they are probably not making a dramatic inprovement at that age. Allen is really their only true young guy at 21. I believe Robert Williams, Brown, tatum and Langford are all 22 or under.
Dude, did you even read my post.  I mean seriously, I mentioned Allen, Kurucs, LeVert, and Prince.  Then you go off on this weird tangent about players I didn't mention at all.  If you are going to respond to my posts, you need to actually respond to my posts and not just say whatever the hell you want with almost no relation to my post at all.

I thought I made a pretty respectful reasonable response. I apologize that I mentioned dinwiddie when you didn’t specifically mention him. I don’t think that really warrants this kind of response. You mentioned Harris as their starter in your previous post. I also did specifically mention levert and Allen and was pointing out that levert is not that young. My point is the same with Prince as he is going to be 26 in March. He is two weeks younger than Marcus smart and I don’t think anyone considers smart a young guy that is going to make a big jump from being a young player. I did already acknowledge that Allen is their one young potentially higher end talent in my eyes. kurucs is young too but I just don’t see him as more than bench player on a good team (you have him as the backup also) that doesn’t have the upside of our young guys like brown, Tatum and possibly timelord.
I probably overreacted some and I'm sorry about that, but I'm tired of you constantly responding to my posts about things that have nothing to do with my post.  It just wears on someone.

LeVert was in the same draft as Brown.  He is older than Brown, but has the same level of NBA experience, which I've pretty consistently argued is far more relevant to growth than someone's actual age.  I mean how else do you explain someone like Hield taking a gigantic leap forward while Irving has plateaued.  They are basically the same age, yet their growth is significantly different in the last few seasons.  Experience is far more important to growth than physical age.

Not including Durant, the Nets have 9 players that started at least 25 games last year, 7 of which started at least 46 games (LeVert 25 and Chandler 33).  Nwaba started 14 and while Dinwiddie only started 4 he played over 28 mpg.  That is what I mean when I say the Nets have a deep squad.  They have 10 players that have 3 or less years experience entering the season (including the TW contracts), but do have 6 players with at least 5 years of experience (Jordan, Chandler, Temple, Irving, Harris, Dinwiddie).  So they have the right mix of veterans and young guys, and have a lot of experience.  They won 42 games last year and improved their roster overall.  I really can't see them winning less than 45 games and would probably peg them more in the 48 or 49 range.  Boston could certainly be better than that, but Boston could also pretty easily be worse than that.  Given the grind of the season and the really young and shallow bench, I'd take the under on Boston, which is why I think Brooklyn finishes ahead of Boston in the regular season standings.

I really thought my response was about the Nets age and I though didn't go through the exact same players systematically, my point is, from a chronological perspective they really are not a very young team. Their only guy that is under 23 that probably projects as a starter long term is Allen. Even him I am now worried is going to have his growth stunted by the Nets bringing in Durant and Irving's friend to be the starter in Jordan.

However, I think it is a bit fair to look at the Nets and get confused and think they have been younger they were this year and last year cause they have had a couple of guys like Levert and Dinwiddie that came into the league a year or two older than their classmates (Dinwiddie has played 5 seasons and is 26). Prince also fits in this mold, it is actually a bit crazy he is going to turn 26 in his 4th season. That is pretty unusual. They actually lost one of their youngest players with a lot of upside in russell who is still only 23 (and obviously made a big leap last seasons.

I guess it is possible that some of these guys improve more than a fellow 25 or 26 year old, but I personally don't really agree with this way of thinking. I don't think NBA evaluators really agree with this way of thinking either as prospects constantly fall in the draft if they are a bit older and rise up if they are younger. I think a player like Hield is really the exception rather than the rule. There are also physical changes like adding muscle mass that a player can physiologically do a lot easier at 21-23 than 24-26 due to higher hormone levels and other small physiological differences.
All you have to do is look at drafts when all of the players were college seniors to see steady progression from older players.  Players generally make pretty solid growth strides their first 3-4 years in the league, some nominal improvement the next couple, and then a 4-6 year period of prime before they start the downslide in the 11-13 year range.  This same progression was true in the 80's and it is true today.  the difference, of course, is the age from which the players enter the league.  There are clearly players that are exceptions of course, and certainly injuries (and playing time) change a great deal, but I think if you actually studied drafts from the 80's and compared them to today, the only change in the growth curve, would be the age of the player.  The growth curve would look pretty similar though.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: ESPN projects the Celtics at #2 in the East
« Reply #47 on: August 20, 2019, 12:38:10 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5308
  • Tommy Points: 862
Yeah, I think it is as nonsensical a model as you can get as it's based, for the most part, on ESPN's garbage RPM stat

Vehemence, or just rhetoric?

No, not garbage. Can't tell what your objection to it is - perhaps valid, but it hardly seems likely that it would justify dismissing the stat entirely, as you seem to be doing.

Its big virtue is that it controls for who else is on the floor - that's a big step up from ortg and drtg, and from the raw +/- that you get in the box scores nowadays.

My own objection to it is that using box score priors biases it in favor of players who get more of the countable stuff in the box score. 

Like any statistic, it isn't the whole truth about a player - what you might call the Siren Song of the Single Statistic.

What I like about it most is that for certain players it suggests surprising or provocative things. It doesn't like Klay's defense very much, for example, despite conventional wisdom. Then you can ask yourself, well why not? And look for yourself.

The big problem with all the different types of statistics, including the various flavors of plus/minus, is that the sample sizes are seldom big enough, while the sample sizes for the different players vary so widely.


(which could be Pelton's stat, IDK),

It's not.

which I always have hated, even more so because they refuse to give the formula for the stat.

Yes, what's up with that.

Having said that, I don't think that I could evaluate it anyway.

I do trust that the plus/minus module of it, controlling for who else is on the court, has been done accurately.

I don't know how to evaluate how much weight they've given to box score priors, even if I knew what it was or how they've translated them.

I also wish that they'd make their web page sortable in several dimensions, like by team, and let you search by individual player.

Anyway, I find it to be a very useful stat that is looking at the big picture; that's absolutely essential, and I don't know a better place to get what it gives you.
RPM is a stat that projects future performance. An entire part of the stat estimates an impact a player has on his individual team's past net +/- to predict what the player will do going forward.

Year in and year out a look at the RPM standings shows some of the goofiest leaderboards in stats. Danny Young is apparently one of the best RPM players last year, 13th in the league, better than Siakim and Leonard, much better overall and impactful players that was on Green's team. In 2019 Chris Paul had the highest RPM in the league and Robert Covington was 8th. In 2017 Jae Crowder and Amir Johnson had the 20th and 21st highest RPM in the league. That was IT's unreal year where he was almost MVP level. He ended up 59th in RPM that year.

"Danny Young" - I think that you mean Danny Green?

First, you've made a couple of mistakes:

In 2019, it was Paul George who had the highest RPM in the league, not Chris Paul. Similar names?

In 2019, Covington was 8th among small forwards, not overall.

We don't need to say much about IT's defense; as I think you surely noticed, it sucked. If you just look at RPM for offense for him, he was indeed, as you say, "almost MVP level", at 6th overall. But RPM is not measuring just the offensive contribution, nor is it being used to pick MVP candidates.

It doesn't look worth it to do a whole big thing here.  I'll just return briefly to a point I was making earlier: it's more useful to ask why the stat is giving you what it's giving you than to just take the conventional wisdom and see if the stat fits it.

You can't win without big-time shot creators, and those are the players that are commonly thought of as the best players - AND you can't win without them. But if you've got them (like Toronto did last season), then the complementary players like Danny Green don't have to do what they don't do well.

It happened that Green was entirely healthy as well, and was playing D like he used to a couple of seasons ago. More than that, though: the gravity that Green had (he shot a tremendous .455 from 3 on a big sample size) helped create that phenomenal ball movement they had last year, and the single coverage and spacing that Leonard and Lowry and Siakam enjoyed (and Norman Powell and Fred, too...).

So while Green didn't have to create shots, and in fact it was better if he wasn't creating shots, all the same he was key to them creating shots, and their effectiveness as a team in doing that bumps up his RPM.

Enough. I don't need to spend more time on this one.


Two fundamental problems I have with ESPN's RPM:

1) They don't publish the actual formula and along with that we don't have the actual uncertainty.   We don't know how they are dealing with the collinearity problem of adjusted-plus-minus (likely they aren't doing much at all, judging by the published results) and that is a huge weakness of this approach.

2) There are multiple other similar 'adjusted plus minus' methodologies which people have applied to NBA data and based on those models, the uncertainties on such tiny data sets such as a single season are simply ridiculously broad.   In particular, this makes the idea of 'ranking' the ~450 players completely dubious since statistically there is almost no real difference between a guy ranked ~100 and a guy ranked ~300.   The stat is really providing no significantly useful information about the differences between those players.

I'm with nickagneta on this one:  It's a bad stat that is made worse (garbage) by the way people make use of it.

I'm a "stats guy" so this isn't me hating on the use of numbers.  This is me hating on a poor use of numbers.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.

Re: ESPN projects the Celtics at #2 in the East
« Reply #48 on: August 20, 2019, 05:04:59 PM »

Offline Bobshot

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2050
  • Tommy Points: 141
I think most people would think lots of things have to go right for the Celtics to finish ahead of Philly. That sounds like an optimistic prediction. The Celtics are coming off a disappointing season, and they will have to rebound strongly. I guess that's what the ESPN guy is predicting. Maybe he thinks Tacko will dominate.  :laugh:

Re: ESPN projects the Celtics at #2 in the East
« Reply #49 on: August 20, 2019, 05:39:01 PM »

Offline celticsclay

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15739
  • Tommy Points: 1386
I think most people would think lots of things have to go right for the Celtics to finish ahead of Philly. That sounds like an optimistic prediction. The Celtics are coming off a disappointing season, and they will have to rebound strongly. I guess that's what the ESPN guy is predicting. Maybe he thinks Tacko will dominate.  :laugh:

I think the 76ers have a lot variability themselves. Does Simmons have even a 12 foot jumper? If he does, it really will open up the offense a bit for them, especially in the playoffs.

How much does Horford have left in the tank. I think he could still be a very solid contributor, and we obviously wanted him back, but it definitely possible he really falls off. http://wagesofwins.com/nba-players-age-like-milk/

If he is even more diminished from last season, the losses of Reddick and Butler could really result in a step back. I think Richardson is solid, but nothing to get overly excited about it.

Then there is Embid's conditioning. Rumors are that he has really stepped up his conditioning and he may be able to play a managed season and be ready for a full healthy playoff run for the first time in his career. That would really elevate their team (though perhaps not matter as much for regular season wins).

Our main question marks are how much better Tatum and Brown play, just how bad our frontcourt is, and how big a difference chemistry makes for the teams production (Rozier, Irving and Morris all seemed to play big roles in the lockerroom tension last year).

Re: ESPN projects the Celtics at #2 in the East
« Reply #50 on: August 20, 2019, 07:59:10 PM »

Offline Fierce1

  • NGT
  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2630
  • Tommy Points: 121
The Celts team we'll be seeing at the start of the season will not be the same team that will finish the season.

Ainge is not done dealing.
I think Ainge will make a move to improve the team on or before the trade deadline.

So I will not be surprised if the Celts are #2 in the east once the playoffs start.


Re: ESPN projects the Celtics at #2 in the East
« Reply #51 on: August 20, 2019, 08:27:04 PM »

Online Who

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 47136
  • Tommy Points: 2401
I think most people would think lots of things have to go right for the Celtics to finish ahead of Philly. That sounds like an optimistic prediction. The Celtics are coming off a disappointing season, and they will have to rebound strongly. I guess that's what the ESPN guy is predicting. Maybe he thinks Tacko will dominate.  :laugh:

I expect Philly to be a much better playoff team than a regular season team.

They are my favourite to win the East right now but I wouldn't be surprised to see them win anywhere from 48-54 wins. I do not expect them to be a regular season juggernaught. I think they'll be inconsistent.

But in the playoffs? I think their defense will carry them and make them so dangerous in a playoff series.

Re: ESPN projects the Celtics at #2 in the East
« Reply #52 on: August 20, 2019, 11:44:50 PM »

Offline tstorey_97

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3667
  • Tommy Points: 586
Bucks 56 wins
Celtics 56 wins

Everybody else.

Re: ESPN projects the Celtics at #2 in the East
« Reply #53 on: August 21, 2019, 12:38:15 AM »

Offline Muzzy66

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 768
  • Tommy Points: 121
I think most people would think lots of things have to go right for the Celtics to finish ahead of Philly. That sounds like an optimistic prediction. The Celtics are coming off a disappointing season, and they will have to rebound strongly. I guess that's what the ESPN guy is predicting. Maybe he thinks Tacko will dominate.  :laugh:

I expect Philly to be a much better playoff team than a regular season team.

They are my favourite to win the East right now but I wouldn't be surprised to see them win anywhere from 48-54 wins. I do not expect them to be a regular season juggernaught. I think they'll be inconsistent.

But in the playoffs? I think their defense will carry them and make them so dangerous in a playoff series.

I think the complete opposite for Philly.

Historically Simmons and Embiid have both proven that they are prone to choking on the big stage.  Simmons has a tendency to disappear entirely, while Embiid tends to go into desperation mode and starts forcing stupid low percentage shots and making bonehead low IQ plays. 

Last season was the only time the Sixers actually made a hard playoff push, and I can guarantee you that had a lot to do with the fact that it was also the only time they have had a legitimate big stage performer / closer in Jimmy Butler - who happened to play incredibly well in that series.

With Butler gone the Sixers are likely to choke in the playoffs once again, just like they always have.  And don't think Horford will change that, because he's not exactly the ultimate playoff closer himself, and he's proving less effective as each season passes.

The fact that they lost Reddick (who was so crucial in creating the space Simmons and Embiid needed to work in the paint) is only going to add to the problems. 

I actually think the Sixers will be pretty strong in the regular season, but then get dissapointingly knocked out in the playoffs in a first or second round upset from a lower seed team.

Re: ESPN projects the Celtics at #2 in the East
« Reply #54 on: August 21, 2019, 08:20:46 AM »

Offline MichiganAdam

  • Derrick White
  • Posts: 260
  • Tommy Points: 16
I still think philly is "TOO BIG" and does not have near enough outside shooting.  Simmons, Horford, and Harris are pretty mobile for their size, but they will suffer against quicker teams who can hit from outside. 

Re: ESPN projects the Celtics at #2 in the East
« Reply #55 on: August 21, 2019, 09:11:11 AM »

Offline gpap

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8224
  • Tommy Points: 417
I say Celts come in 3rd behind Milwaukee and Philly.

Hopefully this time we can avoid Milwaukee in the 2nd round and make it back to the ECF.

Re: ESPN projects the Celtics at #2 in the East
« Reply #56 on: August 21, 2019, 09:47:56 AM »

Offline footey

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15965
  • Tommy Points: 1833
Eastern Conference Finals exposed Giannis.  Smart teams can learn from that series how to defend and frustrate him. I see Milwaukee taking a step back this season. 

Philadelphia will probably destroy the weak teams, but struggle against the better teams. A lot will depend on whether Embiid gets in shape and stays healthy.  Lack of outside shooting, and inability to defend against fast agile PGs, will haunt them.

I really don't know what to make of the Celtics. I think we either will be really good (1st in Eastern Conference) or mediocre (middle of the pack).  I just don't have a feel for how Stevens will adjust his system to account for the loss of Horford, the addition of the new bigs, and the development of R Williams.

Re: ESPN projects the Celtics at #2 in the East
« Reply #57 on: August 21, 2019, 11:09:23 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
Eastern Conference Finals exposed Giannis.  Smart teams can learn from that series how to defend and frustrate him. I see Milwaukee taking a step back this season. 

Philadelphia will probably destroy the weak teams, but struggle against the better teams. A lot will depend on whether Embiid gets in shape and stays healthy.  Lack of outside shooting, and inability to defend against fast agile PGs, will haunt them.

I really don't know what to make of the Celtics. I think we either will be really good (1st in Eastern Conference) or mediocre (middle of the pack).  I just don't have a feel for how Stevens will adjust his system to account for the loss of Horford, the addition of the new bigs, and the development of R Williams.
Giannis shot 48% from 2 and 33% from 3 in the ECF.  He averaged 22.7/13.5/5.5.  He inexplicably shot a paltry 58% from the line.  Had he shot his regular season average from the line, he would have added 9 points in the series or an additional 1.5 ppg, getting him up to 24.2.  In addition, game 3 he only scored 12 points, but scored at least 21 points in every other game in that series.  So I don't really see how he was exposed.  he had a pretty poor scoring game in game 3 (though did snag 23 rebounds and dished out 7 assists in that one), but other than that he was basically himself in that series (except at the line).  The Bucks did not lose because Giannis was exposed, they lost because Middleton, Bledsoe, and Mirotic were mostly terrible. 
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: ESPN projects the Celtics at #2 in the East
« Reply #58 on: August 21, 2019, 11:28:37 AM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21835
  • Tommy Points: 2182
Feels optimistic.  Would be pleased with 3rd.

That said, the Celts' best players are on team USA right now spending time getting to know each other better, developing chemistry.  Hopefully that will give the Celts a boost heading into the season and propel them to a strong start.


It's really hard to project the Celtics right now though.


Some things that seem likely:



Kemba - 80 games, 34 mpg

Kanter - 70 games, 24 mpg

Hayward - 75 games, 32 mpg

Tatum - 80 games, 32 mpg

Smart - 70 games, 29 mpg

Brown - 75 games, 28 mpg

Theis - 16 mpg, 65 games

Semi - 16 mpg, 65 games


That's just based on averaging out the last few years and making some safe guesses.


That leaves almost 60 minutes per game left in the rotation.


I think we know what to expect from Kemba, Kanter, Smart, and Theis.  Semi probably is what he is.

Tatum and Brown are the wildcards in terms of how effective they'll be.  I think we probably know how much they're going to play, relatively speaking.


Hayward could come all the way back to the guy he was in Utah a few years ago.  He could continue to be more or less the guy he was last year.  Or he could be somewhere in between.  The average of the two would be my guess.


The back end of the roster is rookies and unproven guys.



I think we could see anything between a roughly .500 team (in a super pessimistic scenario) or a team with a shot at winning 55 games and earning a #1 or #2 seed (in a wildly optimistic scenario the involves Tatum and Brown or Hayward making the All-Star team).
« Last Edit: August 21, 2019, 12:05:20 PM by PhoSita »
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: ESPN projects the Celtics at #2 in the East
« Reply #59 on: August 21, 2019, 01:18:24 PM »

Offline footey

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15965
  • Tommy Points: 1833
Eastern Conference Finals exposed Giannis.  Smart teams can learn from that series how to defend and frustrate him. I see Milwaukee taking a step back this season. 

Philadelphia will probably destroy the weak teams, but struggle against the better teams. A lot will depend on whether Embiid gets in shape and stays healthy.  Lack of outside shooting, and inability to defend against fast agile PGs, will haunt them.

I really don't know what to make of the Celtics. I think we either will be really good (1st in Eastern Conference) or mediocre (middle of the pack).  I just don't have a feel for how Stevens will adjust his system to account for the loss of Horford, the addition of the new bigs, and the development of R Williams.
Giannis shot 48% from 2 and 33% from 3 in the ECF.  He averaged 22.7/13.5/5.5.  He inexplicably shot a paltry 58% from the line.  Had he shot his regular season average from the line, he would have added 9 points in the series or an additional 1.5 ppg, getting him up to 24.2.  In addition, game 3 he only scored 12 points, but scored at least 21 points in every other game in that series.  So I don't really see how he was exposed.  he had a pretty poor scoring game in game 3 (though did snag 23 rebounds and dished out 7 assists in that one), but other than that he was basically himself in that series (except at the line).  The Bucks did not lose because Giannis was exposed, they lost because Middleton, Bledsoe, and Mirotic were mostly terrible.

Yeah, poor foul shooting is a bummer.  Missed out on 9 additional points through 6 games.  But fact remains he played, by his standards, poorly. Most of those who watched the series (including GA) reached the same conclusion. He was repeatedly frustrated vs. Raptor defensive scheme. Despite the fact that Toronto's best defender was playing throughout the series on a bad leg, limping throughout.  A Raptor team that was lucky to scrape by a very flawed Sixers team despite a much healthier Leonard playing then, and Embiid clearly hurting with a very sore knee. 

The fact that, as you pointed out, his teammates played bad just made his poor play even more harmful to his team's performance. 

What both you and I are missing here, of course, is that the refs swallowed their whistles a lot in the playoffs, and this added to his frustration throughout the series.  So I guess in that respect I may be wrong come this next regular season, if they go back to giving him the benefit of fouls, in which case they could still rack up a lot of regular season wins.

But come playoff time, they are probably going to face the same music.