CelticsStrong
Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: Phantom255x on February 12, 2018, 02:04:46 PM
-
So what do you guys think?
My Guess? They finish 55-27 (so 55 wins). Which means they finish 15-9 the rest of the way.
They are certaintly stuttering towards the break, but the fact that they lost Hayward 6 minutes into the season and still look poised to match last year's win total (or at least reach 50+ wins) is incredible.
That said, Hayward's absence is now being felt and the lack of a true #2 scorer is showing now, especially when playing against elite teams.
I have hope he comes back by late March-early April and plays off the bench as a legit scorer (and finishes games), but it also wouldn't surprise me if they held him out the rest of the year for precautionary reasons.
-
55 sounds right
-
55 sounds right
Question is, will 55 be enough for #1 seed, or will it only be #3 seed.
Frankly I think it will take 59-60 wins to get #1 seed in the East (welp).
-
55 sounds right
Question is, will 55 be enough for #1 seed, or will it only be #3 seed.
Frankly I think it will take 59-60 wins to get #1 seed in the East (welp).
The Cavs would need to win 22 out of 27 remaining games in order to get to 55.
By comparison the Celts would need to go 15-9.
I highly doubt the Cavs will win 81.5% of their remaining games.
-
So what do you guys think?
My Guess? They finish 55-27 (so 55 wins). Which means they finish 15-9 the rest of the way.
They are certaintly stuttering towards the break, but the fact that they lost Hayward 6 minutes into the season and still look poised to match last year's win total (or at least reach 50+ wins) is incredible.
That said, Hayward's absence is now being felt and the lack of a true #2 scorer is showing now, especially when playing against elite teams.
I have hope he comes back by late March-early April and plays off the bench as a legit scorer (and finishes games), but it also wouldn't surprise me if they held him out the rest of the year for precautionary reasons.
I think part of this is that Tatum is just wiped right now because this is so much more basketball than he has ever played before. I think the break could really help him.
-
55 wins without Hayward would be awesome.
-
All. All of the wins..
-
Looking at the schedule I figure 14 wins and 10 losses, so I'd say 54-28. A couple of losses in either direction wouldn't be all that surprising.
I can actually see the Cavs going 22-5. I don't think they will, but their schedule is pretty weak. They have 13 road games and one long road streak, but the only teams with winning records they play on the road are OKC, Denver, Portland, Miami, LAC, and Philly (not exactly a whose who). At home they have Toronto and Washington twice each, Milwaukee, San Antonio, Philly, and New Orleans. I can absolutely see them winning the vast majority of those games as well as all of their other games. That said, while 22-5 is possible, I think they are much more likely to go 18-9, which puts them at 51-31.
Looking at their schedule, I think Toronto will lose between 8 and 10 games for a record ranging from 58-24 to 56-26, and thus think they will finish with the best record.
Washington has an incredibly difficult schedule. They will lose at least 10 more games, meaning they have no real chance to get the 3rd seed and could realistically fall out of the 4th seed. The only reason they won't is Milwaukee also has a pretty difficult schedule. I mean the Bucks have a long stretch to close the year where every 2 days they have a game in a different city starting at home against Atlanta March 17, then to Cleveland, then home (LAC), then to Chicago, then home (San An), then to LAC, then to San Fran, then to LAL (this one is back to back with the Warriors), then to Denver, then home for 2 games (Boston then BKN), then NY, then home (ORL), then Philly to close out the year. I mean that is an awful way to close the season for the Bucks.
-
Looking at the schedule I figure 14 wins and 10 losses, so I'd say 54-28. A couple of losses in either direction wouldn't be all that surprising.
I can actually see the Cavs going 22-5. I don't think they will, but their schedule is pretty weak. They have 13 road games and one long road streak, but the only teams with winning records they play on the road are OKC, Denver, Portland, Miami, LAC, and Philly (not exactly a whose who). At home they have Toronto and Washington twice each, Milwaukee, San Antonio, Philly, and New Orleans. I can absolutely see them winning the vast majority of those games as well as all of their other games. That said, while 22-5 is possible, I think they are much more likely to go 18-9, which puts them at 51-31.
Looking at their schedule, I think Toronto will lose between 8 and 10 games for a record ranging from 58-24 to 56-26, and thus think they will finish with the best record.
Washington has an incredibly difficult schedule. They will lose at least 10 more games, meaning they have no real chance to get the 3rd seed and could realistically fall out of the 4th seed. The only reason they won't is Milwaukee also has a pretty difficult schedule. I mean the Bucks have a long stretch to close the year where every 2 days they have a game in a different city starting at home against Atlanta March 17, then to Cleveland, then home (LAC), then to Chicago, then home (San An), then to LAC, then to San Fran, then to LAL (this one is back to back with the Warriors), then to Denver, then home for 2 games (Boston then BKN), then NY, then home (ORL), then Philly to close out the year. I mean that is an awful way to close the season for the Bucks.
Another day, another Moranis post looking at Boston from a pessimistic perspective and Cleveland from an optimistic perspective.
-
Another day, another Moranis post looking at Boston from a pessimistic perspective and Cleveland from an optimistic perspective.
Shocking, I know.
-
put me down as the optimist. I say 56 wins (16-8 rest of the way). Marcus coming back and some Brad Stevens magic down the stretch. It will be close with Toronto I believe, no idea if we will be 1 or 2.
56-26
-
I guess it depends. If the last four games are an indication of who they're becoming (two blowout losses against good teams, a narrow loss and a narrow win against mediocre teams) it's going to be rough sledding.
-
Looking at the schedule I figure 14 wins and 10 losses, so I'd say 54-28. A couple of losses in either direction wouldn't be all that surprising.
I can actually see the Cavs going 22-5. I don't think they will, but their schedule is pretty weak. They have 13 road games and one long road streak, but the only teams with winning records they play on the road are OKC, Denver, Portland, Miami, LAC, and Philly (not exactly a whose who). At home they have Toronto and Washington twice each, Milwaukee, San Antonio, Philly, and New Orleans. I can absolutely see them winning the vast majority of those games as well as all of their other games. That said, while 22-5 is possible, I think they are much more likely to go 18-9, which puts them at 51-31.
Looking at their schedule, I think Toronto will lose between 8 and 10 games for a record ranging from 58-24 to 56-26, and thus think they will finish with the best record.
Washington has an incredibly difficult schedule. They will lose at least 10 more games, meaning they have no real chance to get the 3rd seed and could realistically fall out of the 4th seed. The only reason they won't is Milwaukee also has a pretty difficult schedule. I mean the Bucks have a long stretch to close the year where every 2 days they have a game in a different city starting at home against Atlanta March 17, then to Cleveland, then home (LAC), then to Chicago, then home (San An), then to LAC, then to San Fran, then to LAL (this one is back to back with the Warriors), then to Denver, then home for 2 games (Boston then BKN), then NY, then home (ORL), then Philly to close out the year. I mean that is an awful way to close the season for the Bucks.
Another day, another Moranis post looking at Boston from a pessimistic perspective and Cleveland from an optimistic perspective.
Yea it really is over the top. Everyone on the board knows what the post is going to say before it is finished. TP potter for being here and honest.
-
Looking at the schedule I figure 14 wins and 10 losses, so I'd say 54-28. A couple of losses in either direction wouldn't be all that surprising.
I can actually see the Cavs going 22-5. I don't think they will, but their schedule is pretty weak. They have 13 road games and one long road streak, but the only teams with winning records they play on the road are OKC, Denver, Portland, Miami, LAC, and Philly (not exactly a whose who). At home they have Toronto and Washington twice each, Milwaukee, San Antonio, Philly, and New Orleans. I can absolutely see them winning the vast majority of those games as well as all of their other games. That said, while 22-5 is possible, I think they are much more likely to go 18-9, which puts them at 51-31.
Looking at their schedule, I think Toronto will lose between 8 and 10 games for a record ranging from 58-24 to 56-26, and thus think they will finish with the best record.
Washington has an incredibly difficult schedule. They will lose at least 10 more games, meaning they have no real chance to get the 3rd seed and could realistically fall out of the 4th seed. The only reason they won't is Milwaukee also has a pretty difficult schedule. I mean the Bucks have a long stretch to close the year where every 2 days they have a game in a different city starting at home against Atlanta March 17, then to Cleveland, then home (LAC), then to Chicago, then home (San An), then to LAC, then to San Fran, then to LAL (this one is back to back with the Warriors), then to Denver, then home for 2 games (Boston then BKN), then NY, then home (ORL), then Philly to close out the year. I mean that is an awful way to close the season for the Bucks.
Another day, another Moranis post looking at Boston from a pessimistic perspective and Cleveland from an optimistic perspective.
That wasn't that at all. I looked at the schedule. I could easily see Boston going anywhere from 16-8 to 12-12, so I went in the middle at 14-10. I think Boston pretty clearly will be the underdog in these 7 games so I made those 7 losses - @ Houston, @ Minnesota, Oklahoma City, @ Portland, @ Milwaukee, @ Toronto, @ Washington. I think Boston will lose at least 1 of these games and feel 3 losses is reasonable - LAC, @ Detroit, Indy, Washington, @ New Orleans, @ Utah (the last game in a 4 game trip), Toronto.
Cleveland on the other hand has far fewer sure loss type games, 1 of which is their next game @ Oklahoma City. I think these are the other games that Cleveland would be the underdog or at least could easily lose - San Antonio, @ Denver, @ LAC, @ Portland, @ Miami, @ Philly, though I would expect them to win a couple of those. The other games that will be difficult are Washington at home twice, Toronto at home twice, Denver, Detroit, New Orleans, and Milwaukee. I don't see them losing more than 4 of those home games and 2 or 3 is probably more realistic. I figured they would pick up another loss or two to a lesser team along the way and thus see a 18-9 finish as about right.
-
51 wins, second-round exit. Great defense, but not enough offense generated to beat elite teams in the postseason.
And you need good offense to win championships.
-
51 wins, second-round exit. Great defense, but not enough offense generated to beat elite teams in the postseason.
And you need good offense to win championships.
I wish I could disagree on the "2nd round exit" part, but yeah I don't see us beating TOR or CLE in 2nd round even if we are 2 seed with home court.
Now if we are 1 seed OR through some seeding "magic" can avoid any of TOR/CLE until ECF, we have a chance, but it's slim it turns out that way.
-
54-28. Really good record for this team.
-
Mid 50's. Could see us making the ECF again, as I'm expecting (or hoping lol) that we find our legs again
-
54-28. Really good record for this team.
Without Hayward, absolutely.
-
51 wins, second-round exit. Great defense, but not enough offense generated to beat elite teams in the postseason.
And you need good offense to win championships.
an 11-13 finish?
seems harsh.
-
I really wish we had beat the cavs. This board is going to be tough over the all-star break
-
I really wish we had beat the cavs. This board is going to be tough over the all-star break
yeah, overreaction city
-
51 wins, second-round exit. Great defense, but not enough offense generated to beat elite teams in the postseason.
And you need good offense to win championships.
an 11-13 finish?
seems harsh.
Losing 8 of their last 14 games is recipe for panic mode. Not to mention about 4 of those wins came down to the wire. Their only convincing win came against an 11th-seeded team in the East.
You DO NOT lose to the Cavaliers at the TD Garden in front of some of the Celtics greats watching the game, especially when they gave you a handicap by overhauling more than half their roster over the weekend, and had zero practice time together and first time playing with each other on the floor.
Harsh is the word.
-
Sticking with it
55-60 wins still.
The East is terrible. The Celtics still have about the same talent as they did last year.
-
61-63 wins with an ECF berth at least as the 1 seed, we've been gassed and when we get a breather with the ASB watch out.
-
55-56 wins is my guess.
This team isn’t as bad as a lot seem to believe. We’ve been outworked the past few weeks and that’s not normal (IMO). We’ll get back on track in time for playoffs. That said, I think we’ll be the underdogs vs Cavs and Raps, even if we land the #1 seed.
-
56-57 wins,
We have a relatively easy 5-game stretch after the ASB that we should take advantage of. If we do so, we will have a fighting chance for #1 seed against Toronto/Cleveland. If we don't, we might call it a season and end up with around 50-51 wins and #3 seed, which almost definitely means a 2nd round exit.
-
54 or 55. Have to think they find their stride again down the stretch. Second in the East come playoff time.
-
I really wish we had beat the cavs. This board is going to be tough over the all-star break
yeah, overreaction city
what is the overreaction exactly? The Celtics have been a mid-tier level playoff team for a couple of months now. They are 18-14 since starting the year 22-4. The recent stuff is a much larger sample and probably more indicative of the actual ability of the team. The Cleveland hype is a bit much, but the Cavs clearly got better with the trade and they've always had the best player in the world. Winning a series against the Cavs was always an uphill battle because James is still that good.
-
iirc i think anywhere between 50-55 wins, still on pace to meet it or break it :)
-
I really wish we had beat the cavs. This board is going to be tough over the all-star break
yeah, overreaction city
what is the overreaction exactly? The Celtics have been a mid-tier level playoff team for a couple of months now. They are 18-14 since starting the year 22-4. The recent stuff is a much larger sample and probably more indicative of the actual ability of the team. The Cleveland hype is a bit much, but the Cavs clearly got better with the trade and they've always had the best player in the world. Winning a series against the Cavs was always an uphill battle because James is still that good.
TP. The East always went through CLE and LeBron. Most weren't willing to acknowledge that, nor that the trades made CLE better. And now after one game, it's all the way doom and gloom. The Celts can still make the Finals, but it was always going to be an uphill battle.
-
56-26, finish the year on a 16-8 clip.
-
what is the overreaction exactly? The Celtics have been a mid-tier level playoff team for a couple of months now. They are 18-14 since starting the year 22-4. The recent stuff is a much larger sample and probably more indicative of the actual ability of the team. The Cleveland hype is a bit much, but the Cavs clearly got better with the trade and they've always had the best player in the world. Winning a series against the Cavs was always an uphill battle because James is still that good.
The Cavs have been a trash tier team for several months now. The recent stuff is a much larger sample and probably much more indicative of the actual ability of the team.
And now the addition of Jordan Clarkson, Larry Nance, George Hill, and Rodney Hood --- none of whom has helped their previous teams win games this season -- is enough to have you saying the East once again belongs to the Cavs?
Talk about overreactions.
Look, if you want to say the middle of the season doesn't matter that much and at the end of the day we should focus on the talent at the top of the roster, that's fine.
Just be consistent about it.
-
The Celtics were on pace for 60 but they have slowed down considerably. Looks like the growing pains are kicking in as Tatum has hit the rookie wall. Going to have to find a way to integrate Monroe while hiding his weakness on defense. Gotta wait for Smart to come back healthy. We don't know if Hayward will return before the year ends.
And our offense and defense were both struggling against the Cavs. Particularly our defense. I'd say that we have our work cut out for us.
With that said I'm going to say 55 wins again. 15-9 down the stretch is definitely achievable. We are an above average NBA team but still have consistency issues. We will fall behind 10+ points in same games but we are capable of coming back. It's just not something I would want to count on.
-
what is the overreaction exactly? The Celtics have been a mid-tier level playoff team for a couple of months now. They are 18-14 since starting the year 22-4. The recent stuff is a much larger sample and probably more indicative of the actual ability of the team. The Cleveland hype is a bit much, but the Cavs clearly got better with the trade and they've always had the best player in the world. Winning a series against the Cavs was always an uphill battle because James is still that good.
The Cavs have been a trash tier team for several months now. The recent stuff is a much larger sample and probably much more indicative of the actual ability of the team.
And now the addition of Jordan Clarkson, Larry Nance, George Hill, and Rodney Hood --- none of whom has helped their previous teams win games this season -- is enough to have you saying the East once again belongs to the Cavs?
Talk about overreactions.
Look, if you want to say the middle of the season doesn't matter that much and at the end of the day we should focus on the talent at the top of the roster, that's fine.
Just be consistent about it.
Thank you phosita. This is beautifully said and is what is so maddening about Some of this stuff. The blind "negative view of celtics" "super optimistic view about cavs/rival" across every topic becomes so tired and infuriating (on a Celtics fan board no less) I am giving you at least 5 tps for this post today.
-
what is the overreaction exactly? The Celtics have been a mid-tier level playoff team for a couple of months now. They are 18-14 since starting the year 22-4. The recent stuff is a much larger sample and probably more indicative of the actual ability of the team. The Cleveland hype is a bit much, but the Cavs clearly got better with the trade and they've always had the best player in the world. Winning a series against the Cavs was always an uphill battle because James is still that good.
The Cavs have been a trash tier team for several months now. The recent stuff is a much larger sample and probably much more indicative of the actual ability of the team.
And now the addition of Jordan Clarkson, Larry Nance, George Hill, and Rodney Hood --- none of whom has helped their previous teams win games this season -- is enough to have you saying the East once again belongs to the Cavs?
Talk about overreactions.
Look, if you want to say the middle of the season doesn't matter that much and at the end of the day we should focus on the talent at the top of the roster, that's fine.
Just be consistent about it.
the Cavs are a different team. If they made no moves and still had the same team, then absolutely their last two months would be indicative of their team. But the Cavs didn't sit pat, they made 2 moves (I'm not counting the Wade trade as that really was unnecessary), and those 2 moves completely remade their roster. Before those guys ever set foot on the floor, I said it made the Cavs the clear favorites in the East, because the 4 new players provided exactly what the Cavs needed to put around James. Much better 2-way players, that play much better off the ball, are great shooters, and better defenders. They removed the cancer that was IT from the locker-room, that alone was a big positive as you can see what James can do when he is happier and more engaged. Cleveland is now the favorite to come out of the East, not because they destroyed Boston, but because they have the best player in the world on their team and now have a team that better suits his skill set.
-
59 wins, 19-5 stretch to finish the season.
-
I really wish we had beat the cavs. This board is going to be tough over the all-star break
yeah, overreaction city
what is the overreaction exactly? The Celtics have been a mid-tier level playoff team for a couple of months now. They are 18-14 since starting the year 22-4. The recent stuff is a much larger sample and probably more indicative of the actual ability of the team. The Cleveland hype is a bit much, but the Cavs clearly got better with the trade and they've always had the best player in the world. Winning a series against the Cavs was always an uphill battle because James is still that good.
The overreaction is the dude above me saying we are all of a sudden gonna finish the season 11-13.
Or the thread saying this team doesnt give effort and that we miss the toughness of Kelly Olynyk. That would be the overreaction city.
-
I really wish we had beat the cavs. This board is going to be tough over the all-star break
yeah, overreaction city
what is the overreaction exactly? The Celtics have been a mid-tier level playoff team for a couple of months now. They are 18-14 since starting the year 22-4. The recent stuff is a much larger sample and probably more indicative of the actual ability of the team. The Cleveland hype is a bit much, but the Cavs clearly got better with the trade and they've always had the best player in the world. Winning a series against the Cavs was always an uphill battle because James is still that good.
The overreaction is the dude above me saying we are all of a sudden gonna finish the season 11-13.
Or the thread saying this team doesnt give effort and that we miss the toughness of Kelly Olynyk. That would be the overreaction city.
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/e82c2cd09db0bf410917cda2ef22ffd4/tenor.gif?itemid=4986298)
-
52 wins
-
I really wish we had beat the cavs. This board is going to be tough over the all-star break
yeah, overreaction city
what is the overreaction exactly? The Celtics have been a mid-tier level playoff team for a couple of months now. They are 18-14 since starting the year 22-4. The recent stuff is a much larger sample and probably more indicative of the actual ability of the team. The Cleveland hype is a bit much, but the Cavs clearly got better with the trade and they've always had the best player in the world. Winning a series against the Cavs was always an uphill battle because James is still that good.
The overreaction is the dude above me saying we are all of a sudden gonna finish the season 11-13.
Or the thread saying this team doesnt give effort and that we miss the toughness of Kelly Olynyk. That would be the overreaction city.
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/e82c2cd09db0bf410917cda2ef22ffd4/tenor.gif?itemid=4986298)
Thank you both for being reasonable people!
-
what is the overreaction exactly? The Celtics have been a mid-tier level playoff team for a couple of months now. They are 18-14 since starting the year 22-4. The recent stuff is a much larger sample and probably more indicative of the actual ability of the team. The Cleveland hype is a bit much, but the Cavs clearly got better with the trade and they've always had the best player in the world. Winning a series against the Cavs was always an uphill battle because James is still that good.
The Cavs have been a trash tier team for several months now. The recent stuff is a much larger sample and probably much more indicative of the actual ability of the team.
And now the addition of Jordan Clarkson, Larry Nance, George Hill, and Rodney Hood --- none of whom has helped their previous teams win games this season -- is enough to have you saying the East once again belongs to the Cavs?
Talk about overreactions.
Look, if you want to say the middle of the season doesn't matter that much and at the end of the day we should focus on the talent at the top of the roster, that's fine.
Just be consistent about it.
the Cavs are a different team. If they made no moves and still had the same team, then absolutely their last two months would be indicative of their team. But the Cavs didn't sit pat, they made 2 moves (I'm not counting the Wade trade as that really was unnecessary), and those 2 moves completely remade their roster. Before those guys ever set foot on the floor, I said it made the Cavs the clear favorites in the East, because the 4 new players provided exactly what the Cavs needed to put around James. Much better 2-way players, that play much better off the ball, are great shooters, and better defenders. They removed the cancer that was IT from the locker-room, that alone was a big positive as you can see what James can do when he is happier and more engaged. Cleveland is now the favorite to come out of the East, not because they destroyed Boston, but because they have the best player in the world on their team and now have a team that better suits his skill set.
Well we're missing Hayward, Smart, are still integrating Monroe to the system and are trying to get Brad to be less autistic about small ball, not to mention trying to fix Horford and Tatum's heads. They're certainly good, but we're still waiting for our reinforcements and we've been a very good team over the course of the season, even with a slump.
-
Didn't we already do this...like twice?
Way back I went with 53 as Hayward was the upgrade....then I looked like nuttin' when they couldn't lose....now it looks about right which sucks cause their not playing well.
The ship shall be righted for the playoffs. Bone crushing D. Threes flyin' through de air.
I wanted Cav's to crash so bad.
-
I really wish we had beat the cavs. This board is going to be tough over the all-star break
yeah, overreaction city
what is the overreaction exactly? The Celtics have been a mid-tier level playoff team for a couple of months now. They are 18-14 since starting the year 22-4. The recent stuff is a much larger sample and probably more indicative of the actual ability of the team. The Cleveland hype is a bit much, but the Cavs clearly got better with the trade and they've always had the best player in the world. Winning a series against the Cavs was always an uphill battle because James is still that good.
The overreaction is the dude above me saying we are all of a sudden gonna finish the season 11-13.
Or the thread saying this team doesnt give effort and that we miss the toughness of Kelly Olynyk. That would be the overreaction city.
the C's are 6-8 in their last 14 games. I don't see it as a 1 game overreaction to think they might just continue at the pace they were on before that game and to finish the season below .500. I don't believe they will but I can certainly see someone believing they will finish like their last 14 games
-
I really wish we had beat the cavs. This board is going to be tough over the all-star break
yeah, overreaction city
what is the overreaction exactly? The Celtics have been a mid-tier level playoff team for a couple of months now. They are 18-14 since starting the year 22-4. The recent stuff is a much larger sample and probably more indicative of the actual ability of the team. The Cleveland hype is a bit much, but the Cavs clearly got better with the trade and they've always had the best player in the world. Winning a series against the Cavs was always an uphill battle because James is still that good.
The overreaction is the dude above me saying we are all of a sudden gonna finish the season 11-13.
Or the thread saying this team doesnt give effort and that we miss the toughness of Kelly Olynyk. That would be the overreaction city.
the C's are 6-8 in their last 14 games. I don't see it as a 1 game overreaction to think they might just continue at the pace they were on before that game and to finish the season below .500. I don't believe they will but I can certainly see someone believing they will finish like their last 14 games
If you don't believe it's that bad, then I think it's pretty safe to call it an overreaction.
-
I really wish we had beat the cavs. This board is going to be tough over the all-star break
yeah, overreaction city
what is the overreaction exactly? The Celtics have been a mid-tier level playoff team for a couple of months now. They are 18-14 since starting the year 22-4. The recent stuff is a much larger sample and probably more indicative of the actual ability of the team. The Cleveland hype is a bit much, but the Cavs clearly got better with the trade and they've always had the best player in the world. Winning a series against the Cavs was always an uphill battle because James is still that good.
The overreaction is the dude above me saying we are all of a sudden gonna finish the season 11-13.
Or the thread saying this team doesnt give effort and that we miss the toughness of Kelly Olynyk. That would be the overreaction city.
the C's are 6-8 in their last 14 games. I don't see it as a 1 game overreaction to think they might just continue at the pace they were on before that game and to finish the season below .500. I don't believe they will but I can certainly see someone believing they will finish like their last 14 games
If you don't believe it's that bad, then I think it's pretty safe to call it an overreaction.
The C's had four days of rest after their London game. And guess what? They lost 4 in a row, in which three of them came at the TD Garden and a nailbiter to the franchise's hated rival. And then their last five games? Either came down to the wire or get blown into bits by elite teams in the East.
Right now, this team is a lost identity. It's like after that 16-game winning streak they suddenly fell apart. I can see them finish 11-13 with the way they have been playing. I really hope they prove me wrong by turning it around after the all-star break, but man, even they were given an extended break before and after the London game and they just couldn't capitalize it. Call it overreaction or whatever, but this team needs to find themselves and stop starting games by trailing 20+ and actually beat their opponents comfortably on a consistent basis.
-
Just looking at their schedule it looks rather easy. I say 16 more wins sounds right.
-
Went with 56, they seem to be trending down and I don't have faith that CBS can get the team to pass and rebound. It is a consistent problem with his teams.
-
I really wish we had beat the cavs. This board is going to be tough over the all-star break
yeah, overreaction city
what is the overreaction exactly? The Celtics have been a mid-tier level playoff team for a couple of months now. They are 18-14 since starting the year 22-4. The recent stuff is a much larger sample and probably more indicative of the actual ability of the team. The Cleveland hype is a bit much, but the Cavs clearly got better with the trade and they've always had the best player in the world. Winning a series against the Cavs was always an uphill battle because James is still that good.
The overreaction is the dude above me saying we are all of a sudden gonna finish the season 11-13.
Or the thread saying this team doesnt give effort and that we miss the toughness of Kelly Olynyk. That would be the overreaction city.
the C's are 6-8 in their last 14 games. I don't see it as a 1 game overreaction to think they might just continue at the pace they were on before that game and to finish the season below .500. I don't believe they will but I can certainly see someone believing they will finish like their last 14 games
If you don't believe it's that bad, then I think it's pretty safe to call it an overreaction.
Just because you and I don't think they will go 11-13 doesn't mean someone else doesn't based on more than just 1 game. It isn't a 1 game overreaction if they base that belief on more than 1 game.
I looked at the schedule and believe they will go anywhere from 16-8 to 12-12, so I voted for 14-10 right in the middle, but I could easily see them getting their groove back and playing more like the start of the season or continuing there below .500 play of the last 14 games.
-
what is the overreaction exactly? The Celtics have been a mid-tier level playoff team for a couple of months now. They are 18-14 since starting the year 22-4. The recent stuff is a much larger sample and probably more indicative of the actual ability of the team. The Cleveland hype is a bit much, but the Cavs clearly got better with the trade and they've always had the best player in the world. Winning a series against the Cavs was always an uphill battle because James is still that good.
The Cavs have been a trash tier team for several months now. The recent stuff is a much larger sample and probably much more indicative of the actual ability of the team.
And now the addition of Jordan Clarkson, Larry Nance, George Hill, and Rodney Hood --- none of whom has helped their previous teams win games this season -- is enough to have you saying the East once again belongs to the Cavs?
Talk about overreactions.
Look, if you want to say the middle of the season doesn't matter that much and at the end of the day we should focus on the talent at the top of the roster, that's fine.
Just be consistent about it.
the Cavs are a different team. If they made no moves and still had the same team, then absolutely their last two months would be indicative of their team. But the Cavs didn't sit pat, they made 2 moves (I'm not counting the Wade trade as that really was unnecessary), and those 2 moves completely remade their roster. Before those guys ever set foot on the floor, I said it made the Cavs the clear favorites in the East, because the 4 new players provided exactly what the Cavs needed to put around James. Much better 2-way players, that play much better off the ball, are great shooters, and better defenders. They removed the cancer that was IT from the locker-room, that alone was a big positive as you can see what James can do when he is happier and more engaged. Cleveland is now the favorite to come out of the East, not because they destroyed Boston, but because they have the best player in the world on their team and now have a team that better suits his skill set.
Well we're missing Hayward, Smart, are still integrating Monroe to the system and are trying to get Brad to be less autistic about small ball, not to mention trying to fix Horford and Tatum's heads. They're certainly good, but we're still waiting for our reinforcements and we've been a very good team over the course of the season, even with a slump.
I don't think Hayward comes back this year and even if he does, he isn't going to be the Hayward that signed this summer. Smart is a bench player. A good one, but still a bench player and the team has still gone 18-14 since the 22-4 start, much of that with Smart playing. Monroe is a nice player, but he isn't shifting the wins more than a game or two. Boston didn't dramatically overhaul its team and make itself significantly better. Not like Cleveland.
-
I think it's well within reason to expect 55 wins (finish the season 15-9), and I think more likely we would exceed that than fall short. One source has our strength of remaining schedule ranked 25th - meaning there are 5 teams with a cushier schedule left. Those are MIL, BKN, PHX, ATL, IND. Dunno how legit the source is, but there's one thing.
For what it's worth, this team isn't the 22-4 group that started the year and it's also not the 18-14 group of late. Somewhere in the middle. And for as much as Cleveland improved their roster, the biggest factor is that Lebron wants to play hard now - he wants to play for his teammates. If he's engaged, the team is good. He wasn't engaged with that last group of scrubs. We'll see how that translates in the playoffs when you need other stars to step up. Those early Lebron-led CLE teams were great regular season teams but lacked firepower in the playoffs.
-
Went with 56, they seem to be trending down and I don't have faith that CBS can get the team to pass and rebound. It is a consistent problem with his teams.
How about just getting them to block out?
-
put me down as the optimist. I say 56 wins (16-8 rest of the way). Marcus coming back and some Brad Stevens magic down the stretch. It will be close with Toronto I believe, no idea if we will be 1 or 2.
56-26
So the raging pessimist, Moranis, predicts 54, and the cock-eyed optimist, blink, predicts 56. The reasonable seancally predicts 55. Not much daylight in between, it looks like.
There's enough chance - and other factors beyond how "good" a team is - in an 82-game season that those predictions are actually all about the same.
If you look at point differential (a better measure than wins for how good a team is), Boston is in the second tier. The first tier is Golden State, Toronto, and Houston. The second tier is Boston, OKC, Spurs, and T-Wolves. If Cleveland's new-found momentum is real, then that might change things.
-
I don't think Hayward comes back this year and even if he does, he isn't going to be the Hayward that signed this summer.
It's not an injury that's very common, so it's hard to compare outcomes. Paul George was similarly injured before the 2015 season; he played six games at the end of the season, to no great effect. He then played 81 games the following year and made the all-star team.
Obviously Hayward is not George, and there are differences between how fast an individual heals, how bad the injury is, how good the rehab is, how devoted they are to it, etc., etc. It sounds like Hayward could be back this season, but you're probably right that he won't match his pre-injury play this year.
Smart is a bench player. A good one, but still a bench player and the team has still gone 18-14 since the 22-4 start, much of that with Smart playing.
Smart has consistently averaged the fifth-most minutes on the team. Obviously Stevens likes what he brings. So - he's literally a bench player, but he plays starter's minutes. On the other hand, he did not play well for an extended period before he hurt himself (reportedly, he was mad at himself for his play). The turnovers, especially, have been alarming.
Monroe is a nice player, but he isn't shifting the wins more than a game or two. Boston didn't dramatically overhaul its team and make itself significantly better. Not like Cleveland.
If Monroe shifted the wins by a game, that would be a big contribution! But likely it'll be more modest than that.
I've always felt that he was misused and underappreciated in his previous gigs. Stan VG's idea of playing him with Drummond in twin-towers lineups was refreshingly counter-conventional, but got mediocre results and took away some of his strengths.
Whether or not Cleveland made itself significantly better is an open question, I think. Addition by subtraction? They had Nance in at crunchtime last night, and he delivered; and it's hard to believe that Hill has lost his defensive mojo for good - probably that was more a function of the team he was on.
So far it looks like Thomas and Crowder have been re-born in their new surroundings.
I'm skeptical about the Lakers' recent personnel choices. The purpose, apparently, was to clear cap room - but are they really such a plum free agent destination this upcoming off-season? Off-loading Nance was a mistake, and IT's hip does not inspire confidence. They shed Clarkson's salary, but if a star or two don't want to play for them it doesn't amount to much. And their plan is to play both Ingram and Paul George together? Maybe, maybe not. At any rate, if I were George I'd consider my legacy and my chance at a ring.
-
I don't think Hayward comes back this year and even if he does, he isn't going to be the Hayward that signed this summer.
It's not an injury that's very common, so it's hard to compare outcomes. Paul George was similarly injured before the 2015 season; he played six games at the end of the season, to no great effect. He then played 81 games the following year and made the all-star team.
Obviously Hayward is not George, and there are differences between how fast an individual heals, how good the rehab is, how devoted they are to it, etc., etc. It sounds like Hayward could be back this season, but you're probably right that he won't match his pre-injury play.
George was injured August 1st. Hayward was injured October 17. George played his 1st game April 5 and played from 13:54 minutes to 17:46 minutes in those 6 games. He shot 36.7% in those 6 games. His career low aside from those 6 games was the following season at 41.8%.
If Hayward needs the exact same amount of recovery time as George, the earliest he would suit up is the middle of June and if Boston is actually still playing then, I can't see them inserting Hayward into the NBA Finals when he will be a shell of himself. Now maybe Hayward heals up a month faster than George, but that is still mid-May, and again I just can't see Boston inserting Hayward in the middle of a heated 2nd round match-up with the Cavs or the ECF with the Raptors (those are the two most likely playoff scenarios for those rounds).
-
I don't think Hayward comes back this year and even if he does, he isn't going to be the Hayward that signed this summer.
It's not an injury that's very common, so it's hard to compare outcomes. Paul George was similarly injured before the 2015 season; he played six games at the end of the season, to no great effect. He then played 81 games the following year and made the all-star team.
Obviously Hayward is not George, and there are differences between how fast an individual heals, how good the rehab is, how devoted they are to it, etc., etc. It sounds like Hayward could be back this season, but you're probably right that he won't match his pre-injury play.
George was injured August 1st. Hayward was injured October 17. George played his 1st game April 5 and played from 13:54 minutes to 17:46 minutes in those 6 games. He shot 36.7% in those 6 games. His career low aside from those 6 games was the following season at 41.8%.
If Hayward needs the exact same amount of recovery time as George, the earliest he would suit up is the middle of June and if Boston is actually still playing then, I can't see them inserting Hayward into the NBA Finals when he will be a shell of himself. Now maybe Hayward heals up a month faster than George, but that is still mid-May, and again I just can't see Boston inserting Hayward in the middle of a heated 2nd round match-up with the Cavs or the ECF with the Raptors (those are the two most likely playoff scenarios for those rounds).
The rehab variables are just too great, and the frequency of this type of injury too small. Kudos, though, for looking up all of that. In any case, your main point is likely - even if Hayward does come back this year, he's not likely to be much of a factor. Then again, he may surprise us.
-
Call me crazy but I think how the team performed in November and December is just as indicative of post-All-Star performance as how they performed in the doldrums of late December, January, and February.
I agree that Hayward isn't coming back, for what it's worth.
Kyrie, Brown, Tatum, Horford is still a quality top group.
Monroe will help.
Morris, Rozier, Smart, Theis, Baynes ... I think the bench will be adequate.
-
Call me crazy but I think how the team performed in November and December is just as indicative of post-All-Star performance as how they performed in the doldrums of late December, January, and February.
I agree that Hayward isn't coming back, for what it's worth.
Kyrie, Brown, Tatum, Horford is still a quality top group.
Monroe will help.
Morris, Rozier, Smart, Theis, Baynes ... I think the bench will be adequate.
Plus it seems like we may still add a buyout player.
-
If you look at point differential (a better measure than wins for how good a team is), Boston is in the second tier. The first tier is Golden State, Toronto, and Houston. The second tier is Boston, OKC, Spurs, and T-Wolves. If Cleveland's new-found momentum is real, then that might change things.
Point Diff is telling, with the exception of Cleveland. They are better than their Point Diff and probably should be in the top tier along with Toronto (or maybe Tier 1B).
Monroe is our wild card, much like Ibaka was for Toronto last season (Ibaka did not end up making much of an impact last season). I believe we are Tier 2 right now as our Point Diff indicates. Still some time to improve that though.
-
If you look at point differential (a better measure than wins for how good a team is), Boston is in the second tier. The first tier is Golden State, Toronto, and Houston. The second tier is Boston, OKC, Spurs, and T-Wolves. If Cleveland's new-found momentum is real, then that might change things.
Point Diff is telling, with the exception of Cleveland. They are better than their Point Diff and probably should be in the top tier along with Toronto (or maybe Tier 1B).
Monroe is our wild card, much like Ibaka was for Toronto last season (Ibaka did not end up making much of an impact last season). I believe we are Tier 2 right now as our Point Diff indicates. Still some time to improve that though.
Boston's expected W/L on basketball-reference is 36-22 (4th). Cleveland is 28-28 (15th), but Toronto's expected W/L is actually better than their actual record at 42-14 (tied with Houston for 1st - GS is 3rd at 42-15).
-
Haven't the Celtics played much better than their point differential the last 3 years?
-
If you look at point differential (a better measure than wins for how good a team is), Boston is in the second tier. The first tier is Golden State, Toronto, and Houston. The second tier is Boston, OKC, Spurs, and T-Wolves. If Cleveland's new-found momentum is real, then that might change things.
Point Diff is telling, with the exception of Cleveland. They are better than their Point Diff and probably should be in the top tier along with Toronto (or maybe Tier 1B).
Monroe is our wild card, much like Ibaka was for Toronto last season (Ibaka did not end up making much of an impact last season). I believe we are Tier 2 right now as our Point Diff indicates. Still some time to improve that though.
Boston's expected W/L on basketball-reference is 36-22 (4th). Cleveland is 28-28 (15th), but Toronto's expected W/L is actually better than their actual record at 42-14 (tied with Houston for 1st - GS is 3rd at 42-15).
I wouldn't use point differential for ranking teams much beyond good, mediocre and bad. Just compare how the best teams perform against each other.
-
If you look at point differential (a better measure than wins for how good a team is), Boston is in the second tier. The first tier is Golden State, Toronto, and Houston. The second tier is Boston, OKC, Spurs, and T-Wolves. If Cleveland's new-found momentum is real, then that might change things.
Point Diff is telling, with the exception of Cleveland. They are better than their Point Diff and probably should be in the top tier along with Toronto (or maybe Tier 1B).
Monroe is our wild card, much like Ibaka was for Toronto last season (Ibaka did not end up making much of an impact last season). I believe we are Tier 2 right now as our Point Diff indicates. Still some time to improve that though.
Boston's expected W/L on basketball-reference is 36-22 (4th). Cleveland is 28-28 (15th), but Toronto's expected W/L is actually better than their actual record at 42-14 (tied with Houston for 1st - GS is 3rd at 42-15).
I wouldn't use point differential for ranking teams much beyond good, mediocre and bad. Just compare how the best teams perform against each other.
Yea we have done pretty well against the top teams this year with wins over Houston, Golden State, Cleveland, Toronto, San Antonio and OKC. Its really tough to handle how down everyone is on the team because they have struggled recently (which has also coincided with them losing their best perimeter defender)
-
Just reading some of the posts here, I agree this team is inexperienced and w/o our 2nd best player (Hayward), we're certainly feeling his loss now and are struggling as of late.
THAT SAID, it seems pretty ridiculous to me seeing people on here saying this is a bad team. Overachieving? That's fine, and I agree. But in reality, they are a bad team? LOL no...
And honestly if this team does finish the last 24 games of the year with less than 11 wins, then it probably means first round exit, but I doubt it. They've had a mediocre stretch lately, but it's not like they've gone on some 10 game losing streak either...
-
Some games coming up the rest of the season:
@NY
MEM
CHAR
@CHI
@ORL
@SAC
@PHO
CHI
ATL
BRK
That should be 10 wins. ToThink the team won't win 5 or 6 of the remaining 14 games I think is unreasonable given this team's defensive chops. And if they do lose 1 or 2 of these, I can easily see them winning 1 or 2 that people might think they won't.
Hence my prediction of going 16-8 to finish the season.
-
Some games coming up the rest of the season:
@NY
MEM
CHAR
@CHI
@ORL
@SAC
@PHO
CHI
ATL
BRK
That should be 10 wins. ToThink the team won't win 5 or 6 of the remaining 14 games I think is unreasonable given this team's defensive chops. And if they do lose 1 or 2 of these, I can easily see them winning 1 or 2 that people might think they won't.
Hence my prediction of going 16-8 to finish the season.
BUT CLEVELAND WON TWO GAMES WITH THEIR NEW GUYS AND WE ARE AWFUL
-
Some games coming up the rest of the season:
@NY
MEM
CHAR
@CHI
@ORL
@SAC
@PHO
CHI
ATL
BRK
That should be 10 wins. ToThink the team won't win 5 or 6 of the remaining 14 games I think is unreasonable given this team's defensive chops. And if they do lose 1 or 2 of these, I can easily see them winning 1 or 2 that people might think they won't.
Hence my prediction of going 16-8 to finish the season.
Idk man, we've seen them grinding out wins against CHA, BKN, ATL, get blown out by CHI and ORL, PHX's Booker putting up 70 points against Boston at one point, and falling to NYK.
On paper yeah they should go 10-0 on these teams. but 5-6 wins look possible with the way they been playing.
-
Some games coming up the rest of the season:
@NY
MEM
CHAR
@CHI
@ORL
@SAC
@PHO
CHI
ATL
BRK
That should be 10 wins. ToThink the team won't win 5 or 6 of the remaining 14 games I think is unreasonable given this team's defensive chops. And if they do lose 1 or 2 of these, I can easily see them winning 1 or 2 that people might think they won't.
Hence my prediction of going 16-8 to finish the season.
Idk man, we've seen them grinding out wins against CHA, BKN, ATL, get blown out by CHI and ORL, PHX's Booker putting up 70 points against Boston at one point, and falling to NYK.
On paper yeah they should go 10-0 on these teams. but 5-6 wins look possible with the way they been playing.
I'm glad you mentioned Booker's 70 point night from last year in a blowout Celtics win.
If you can find a less relevant piece of evidence I'd be impressed
-
OK, let's look at this in more detail ....
Homes games
LAC, IND, WAS, OKC, TOR . . . .
Those are 50/50 matchups, let's say, but since they're at home it's 55%
MEM, CHI, ATL, BRK, CHA . . . .
Those are bad teams, and the Celts are at home, so let's give them 80%.
Let's say 6/10 there. Seems reasonable to me. 7/10 also seems doable.
Now, road games.
HOU, TOR ... those are rough games, I'll give the Celts 33% to win.
CHI, NYK, PHX, SAC, ORL ... those are bad tanking teams, I'll give the Celts 67% to win.
DET, MIN, NOR, POR, UTA, MIL, WAS ... Let's say here the C's have a 40% chance on the road.
All told, let's go with 7/14 on the road.
In total, if I'm looking at this from a granular perspective, it seems totally reasonable to think they might go 13-11 or 14-10.
I really don't see it for the people who think they're gonna go <.500 the rest of the way.
-
Some games coming up the rest of the season:
@NY
MEM
CHAR
@CHI
@ORL
@SAC
@PHO
CHI
ATL
BRK
That should be 10 wins. ToThink the team won't win 5 or 6 of the remaining 14 games I think is unreasonable given this team's defensive chops. And if they do lose 1 or 2 of these, I can easily see them winning 1 or 2 that people might think they won't.
Hence my prediction of going 16-8 to finish the season.
Idk man, we've seen them grinding out wins against CHA, BKN, ATL, get blown out by CHI and ORL, PHX's Booker putting up 70 points against Boston at one point, and falling to NYK.
On paper yeah they should go 10-0 on these teams. but 5-6 wins look possible with the way they been playing.
I'm glad you mentioned Booker's 70 point night from last year in a blowout Celtics win.
If you can find a less relevant piece of evidence I'd be impressed
70 points from last year, 38 points from this year coming from the same player at the Garden same crap. Can't keep letting that happen where Booker goes off.
And even right now the Celtics are struggling to even bury the lowly Clippers. They had 2 days of rest and aren't even traveling- what is their excuse. I want to see the Celtics dismantle them after their two days of rest and getting blown out at home on PP34 night, not just barely beating them. (Written at the time 72-70 LAC lead)
-
OK, let's look at this in more detail ....
Homes games
LAC, IND, WAS, OKC, TOR . . . .
Those are 50/50 matchups, let's say, but since they're at home it's 55%
MEM, CHI, ATL, BRK, CHA . . . .
Those are bad teams, and the Celts are at home, so let's give them 80%.
Let's say 6/10 there. Seems reasonable to me. 7/10 also seems doable.
Now, road games.
HOU, TOR ... those are rough games, I'll give the Celts 33% to win.
CHI, NYK, PHX, SAC, ORL ... those are bad tanking teams, I'll give the Celts 67% to win.
DET, MIN, NOR, POR, UTA, MIL, WAS ... Let's say here the C's have a 40% chance on the road.
All told, let's go with 7/14 on the road.
In total, if I'm looking at this from a granular perspective, it seems totally reasonable to think they might go 13-11 or 14-10.
I really don't see it for the people who think they're gonna go <.500 the rest of the way.
basic conclusion i reached as well when actually looking at the schedule.
-
Well, the way they are playing, reaching 53 wins (last year's total) might not be a given :(
-
Haven't the Celtics played much better than their point differential the last 3 years?
They played worse in 2015/16, but you're right that that's true for 2016/17 and so far this year.
On the other hand I doubt your premise. Since point differential is a better measure of playoff success than win/loss record, it is surely also a better measure of how well a team has played, so a team cannot outplay its point differential.
As Brad recently said, the team is not as good as its record.
-
I voted 49-50 which obviously would be hugely disappointing. I'm concerned guys. I don't expect Marcus to come back and just be able to flip a switch. Even if they go 53-29 the first round series is going to be a long one which could easily go either way. If Hayward returns I will be more optimistic about going deeper in the playoffs.
-
Well, the way they are playing, reaching 53 wins (last year's total) might not be a given :(
I think we need context. Let's consider that many thought this team was going to come back to earth before signing Hayward. A win total in the high 40's seemed reasonable.
Then Hayward. Then Kyrie. Minus Hayward. Trade out veterans and add in inexperienced players......
If the Celtics finish in the low-mid 50's, this regular season is a success. Especially since our young players are going to develop as if they were on a bad team, considering the minutes they are getting.
-
Well, the way they are playing, reaching 53 wins (last year's total) might not be a given :(
I think we need context. Let's consider that many thought this team was going to come back to earth before signing Hayward. A win total in the high 40's seemed reasonable.
Then Hayward. Then Kyrie. Minus Hayward. Trade out veterans and add in inexperienced players......
If the Celtics finish in the low-mid 50's, this regular season is a success. Especially since our young players are going to develop as if they were on a bad team, considering the minutes they are getting.
Just the way I look at it. Never thought we wrre a Finals team without Hayward and am glad this team is developing their youth. Brown, Tatum, Rozier, Theis and Ojeleye have had a bunch of PT to develop and had great results. I think we can get to 55-56 wins and think the ECFs are still very much in reach. But I never thought they would be a Finals team, nevermind contend in the Finals.