How did the media underestimate this Celtics team?

[keevsnick]

I don't see the local Boston media, but the national media pretty consistently pegged Boston as the 3rd best team in the East behind Milwaukee and Philadelphia.  Many had them as the 2nd seed (figuring Philly would have rest and load management thus decreasing their record).  So I'm not sure of this underestimating by the media that this thread is about.  Now clearly Boston is off to a great start, but I don't think anyone expects Boston to continue to win more than 90% of their games so at some point the record will even out a bit.  Remember Kyrie's first year the team started off 16-2 winning 16 straight games.  Some times the newness provides an immediate boost.  Eventually the team will be what it is.  Now what that is, is up in the air.  Is Boston a 60+ win team, a 55 win team, a 50 win team, or something in the 40's (though that one seems unlikely given the hot start).  What Boston is, is still up in the air, but an 11 game hot streak to start the year is not necessarily indicative of what the team is (just like a cold start by a team like Portland doesn't mean Portland is one of the worst teams in the league either).

Many in national media had Celtics pegged as 2nd seed?  LOL

Yep, there was an ESPN publication where they listed where they thought everyone would be seeded and like 5 of their experts had Boston as the 2nd seed.  That said, every single one of them had them losing to the Sixers or Bucks in the ECS as every single ESPN expert had the Sixers and Bucks playing for the ECF.  ESPN has pretty consistently held them out as the 3rd seed, though, which is a far cry from 5th.

Yeah, I think you’re going to need to link that ESPN 2nd forecast.

There’s this one, where we’re 3rd in the East, but with a projected record as close to Orland at 8 as Philly at 2, and the 9th overall record in the NBA.

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/27426015/nba-preseason-predictions-our-experts-picks-2019-20

There’s their rankings after the preseason, where we’re 4th in the East (behind Brooklyn in addition to Milwaukee and Philly), and 11th in the NBA.

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/27844219/nba-preview-2019-rankings-projections-big-questions-all-30-teams

2nd in the East was just not a position anyone staked to unless they were just being bold for the sake of being bold.  Furthermore, the forecasts with us 3rd tended to show us in a clump of teams in the 3-6 range, and not near the top 2.

Now, who knows how the season will turn out, but it is not remotely unreasonable to say, based on 11 games, that the national basketball media underrated the Celtics rather significantly.

We have a thread on here titled ESPN Projects the Celtics as #2 in the East.  https://forum.celticsstrong.com/index.php?topic=101195.0.  Now granted that was just Pelton and using RPM which is suspect.  There was also another thread on here where they actually showed where they thought teams would finish and several people had Boston at 2, though the vast majority had them at 3 (I think that might have been the annual GM Survey and not ESPN now that I think about it).   

Also, I know they had the Nets ahead of Boston in that one article you cited, but they project them at less wins by all 4 metrics they site (including best case).  It seems strange to have thus ranked the Nets better than the Celtics when you think the Nets will win less games.

On a scale of one to ten how much have you enjoyed this stretch and start to the season. I’m at a 9 cause I have definitely thought a number of times how much my dad would have enjoyed this and it has been the best stretch they have has since he passed (last year would have driven him nuts)

9 as well only reason not a 10 is Hayward's broken hand.  It has been a great start.  Lots of fun to watch.

Thoughts on whether we have the top end talent to contend?

don't think so. at least not this year.  Tatum needs another year or two to really reach that level.

What about Brown?

Tatum is better than Brown.  Even this year by most metrics (not defensively of course, but pretty much every where else).  Tatum is the one with the Gold Medal Superstar potential.  Brown tops out, at absolute best, as a Paul Pierce type player.  Which is very good, but is more along the Conference Finals type superstar as the team's best player (which Pierce hit exactly once pre-KG). 

This team isn't winning a championship unless Tatum hits that next level.  Right now he isn't at that level.  He isn't consistent enough and hasn't honed his overall game enough to be considered that level of player.  He absolutely has the talent and potential to reach that level though.

At the current level of play Boston has 3 or 4 top 25ish players on the roster (depending on what Hayward looks like when he comes back).  That makes them a very good team, but contenders almost always have multiple top 10-15 players or a top 5 level talent and a quality/deep team around that player.  Very rarely do teams win titles or even make the finals that don't fit that mold.  Boston doesn't fit that mold.

The bolded just isnt true. These guys are posting largely identical raw numbers like points, rebounds, assists. But Brown has a higher Ast%, lower Trn%, higher RB% and FAR higher TS%. Basically he's posting Tatum's numbers only more efficiently. I think Brown is the better defender, although I actually think Tatum is above average in that regard. The only area in which Tatum is doing better than Brown this year is +/-, but that number is so noisy this early as too be just about meaningless. At this point Brown has been better this year. And maybe that doesn't continue, maybe Tatum overtakes him, but they are at least similar so its going to come down to who make the biggest leap over the next couple seasons. I think you can reasonably say given Tatum is 1.5 years younger with a year less experience that Tatum will be that guy, but I wouldn't count  out Brown. He's already made big leaps year 1-->year 2 and year 3-->year 4.

[Hoopvortex]

I think Brown is the better defender, although I actually think Tatum is above average in that regard.

Thank you.

The only area in which Tatum is doing better than Brown this year is +/-, but that number is so noisy this early as too be just about meaningless.

It’s suspect even at the end of the season, in fact, except as a ‘broad brush’ measurement. It doesn’t control for who else is on the floor.

... I wouldn't count  out Brown. He's already made big leaps year 1-->year 2 and year 3-->year 4.

Not to mention the huge leap he took from college to year 1.

His driving wizardry this season, the phenomenal ballhandling and finishing - even while reducing his turnovers to microscopic levels - seems sudden, but his work ethic has been constant throughout his pro career. Work ethic plus fine motor skills plus athleticism plus feel for the game plus competitive fire has started to pay off with big dividends. Inevitable?

It only seems to come out of the blue.

I’m not very interested in who’s better, in the end. Tatum and Brown are not redundant, they’re complementary.

[Moranis]

I don't see the local Boston media, but the national media pretty consistently pegged Boston as the 3rd best team in the East behind Milwaukee and Philadelphia.  Many had them as the 2nd seed (figuring Philly would have rest and load management thus decreasing their record).  So I'm not sure of this underestimating by the media that this thread is about.  Now clearly Boston is off to a great start, but I don't think anyone expects Boston to continue to win more than 90% of their games so at some point the record will even out a bit.  Remember Kyrie's first year the team started off 16-2 winning 16 straight games.  Some times the newness provides an immediate boost.  Eventually the team will be what it is.  Now what that is, is up in the air.  Is Boston a 60+ win team, a 55 win team, a 50 win team, or something in the 40's (though that one seems unlikely given the hot start).  What Boston is, is still up in the air, but an 11 game hot streak to start the year is not necessarily indicative of what the team is (just like a cold start by a team like Portland doesn't mean Portland is one of the worst teams in the league either).

Many in national media had Celtics pegged as 2nd seed?  LOL

Yep, there was an ESPN publication where they listed where they thought everyone would be seeded and like 5 of their experts had Boston as the 2nd seed.  That said, every single one of them had them losing to the Sixers or Bucks in the ECS as every single ESPN expert had the Sixers and Bucks playing for the ECF.  ESPN has pretty consistently held them out as the 3rd seed, though, which is a far cry from 5th.

Yeah, I think you’re going to need to link that ESPN 2nd forecast.

There’s this one, where we’re 3rd in the East, but with a projected record as close to Orland at 8 as Philly at 2, and the 9th overall record in the NBA.

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/27426015/nba-preseason-predictions-our-experts-picks-2019-20

There’s their rankings after the preseason, where we’re 4th in the East (behind Brooklyn in addition to Milwaukee and Philly), and 11th in the NBA.

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/27844219/nba-preview-2019-rankings-projections-big-questions-all-30-teams

2nd in the East was just not a position anyone staked to unless they were just being bold for the sake of being bold.  Furthermore, the forecasts with us 3rd tended to show us in a clump of teams in the 3-6 range, and not near the top 2.

Now, who knows how the season will turn out, but it is not remotely unreasonable to say, based on 11 games, that the national basketball media underrated the Celtics rather significantly.

We have a thread on here titled ESPN Projects the Celtics as #2 in the East.  https://forum.celticsstrong.com/index.php?topic=101195.0.  Now granted that was just Pelton and using RPM which is suspect.  There was also another thread on here where they actually showed where they thought teams would finish and several people had Boston at 2, though the vast majority had them at 3 (I think that might have been the annual GM Survey and not ESPN now that I think about it).   

Also, I know they had the Nets ahead of Boston in that one article you cited, but they project them at less wins by all 4 metrics they site (including best case).  It seems strange to have thus ranked the Nets better than the Celtics when you think the Nets will win less games.

On a scale of one to ten how much have you enjoyed this stretch and start to the season. I’m at a 9 cause I have definitely thought a number of times how much my dad would have enjoyed this and it has been the best stretch they have has since he passed (last year would have driven him nuts)

9 as well only reason not a 10 is Hayward's broken hand.  It has been a great start.  Lots of fun to watch.

Thoughts on whether we have the top end talent to contend?

don't think so. at least not this year.  Tatum needs another year or two to really reach that level.

What about Brown?

Tatum is better than Brown.  Even this year by most metrics (not defensively of course, but pretty much every where else).  Tatum is the one with the Gold Medal Superstar potential.  Brown tops out, at absolute best, as a Paul Pierce type player.  Which is very good, but is more along the Conference Finals type superstar as the team's best player (which Pierce hit exactly once pre-KG). 

This team isn't winning a championship unless Tatum hits that next level.  Right now he isn't at that level.  He isn't consistent enough and hasn't honed his overall game enough to be considered that level of player.  He absolutely has the talent and potential to reach that level though.

At the current level of play Boston has 3 or 4 top 25ish players on the roster (depending on what Hayward looks like when he comes back).  That makes them a very good team, but contenders almost always have multiple top 10-15 players or a top 5 level talent and a quality/deep team around that player.  Very rarely do teams win titles or even make the finals that don't fit that mold.  Boston doesn't fit that mold.

Interesting stuff as always. I think Brown's ceiling is higher than what you think, his playmaking numbers would jump to pretty respectable levels (~4 APG) if he had a larger role on another team, and I'm confident in him making at least one more leap on offense. Combining that type of offense (the type that I'm projecting) with elite wing defense usually results in a fringe MVP player like PG last season, which is better than Pierce's peak.

Is Kemba Walker not a top 15 player? I think he's one of the best guards out there save Harden and with Curry out. Imo he's close enough to that level where he can get hot and pull a Billups 2.0 in the playoffs to lead us to a title, and even if he doesn't our wings can catch fire to push us to that level. I think 3-4ish All-Star calibre players with 1 of them being an All-NBA guy (Walker) plus a fringe All-Star in Smart is a really sneaky team that might break the mould of a traditional title contender. I don't remember many teams having this type of balanced top 5 where everyone's at least at a fringe All-Star level.

No Kemba is not a top 15 player.  I don't even think he makes the All NBA Team as a top 6 guard on the season (and that is with Curry out).  Harden, Lillard, Beal, and Doncic are all clearly better.  Irving and Young have significantly better numbers.  Booker and Mitchell also have better numbers right now.  Then you have players like Simmons, Westbrook, Brogdon, etc. who have excellent counting stats.  The C's record and Kemba's veteran status might give him the edge on some of those players, but they are discussions to be had.  Then of course you have all of the forwards and bigs.  So no Kemba is not a top 15 player (which btw matches all of the preseason rankings, none of which had him in the top 15). 

[blink]

I don't see the local Boston media, but the national media pretty consistently pegged Boston as the 3rd best team in the East behind Milwaukee and Philadelphia.  Many had them as the 2nd seed (figuring Philly would have rest and load management thus decreasing their record).  So I'm not sure of this underestimating by the media that this thread is about.  Now clearly Boston is off to a great start, but I don't think anyone expects Boston to continue to win more than 90% of their games so at some point the record will even out a bit.  Remember Kyrie's first year the team started off 16-2 winning 16 straight games.  Some times the newness provides an immediate boost.  Eventually the team will be what it is.  Now what that is, is up in the air.  Is Boston a 60+ win team, a 55 win team, a 50 win team, or something in the 40's (though that one seems unlikely given the hot start).  What Boston is, is still up in the air, but an 11 game hot streak to start the year is not necessarily indicative of what the team is (just like a cold start by a team like Portland doesn't mean Portland is one of the worst teams in the league either).

Many in national media had Celtics pegged as 2nd seed?  LOL

Yep, there was an ESPN publication where they listed where they thought everyone would be seeded and like 5 of their experts had Boston as the 2nd seed.  That said, every single one of them had them losing to the Sixers or Bucks in the ECS as every single ESPN expert had the Sixers and Bucks playing for the ECF.  ESPN has pretty consistently held them out as the 3rd seed, though, which is a far cry from 5th.

Yeah, I think you’re going to need to link that ESPN 2nd forecast.

There’s this one, where we’re 3rd in the East, but with a projected record as close to Orland at 8 as Philly at 2, and the 9th overall record in the NBA.

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/27426015/nba-preseason-predictions-our-experts-picks-2019-20

There’s their rankings after the preseason, where we’re 4th in the East (behind Brooklyn in addition to Milwaukee and Philly), and 11th in the NBA.

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/27844219/nba-preview-2019-rankings-projections-big-questions-all-30-teams

2nd in the East was just not a position anyone staked to unless they were just being bold for the sake of being bold.  Furthermore, the forecasts with us 3rd tended to show us in a clump of teams in the 3-6 range, and not near the top 2.

Now, who knows how the season will turn out, but it is not remotely unreasonable to say, based on 11 games, that the national basketball media underrated the Celtics rather significantly.

We have a thread on here titled ESPN Projects the Celtics as #2 in the East.  https://forum.celticsstrong.com/index.php?topic=101195.0.  Now granted that was just Pelton and using RPM which is suspect.  There was also another thread on here where they actually showed where they thought teams would finish and several people had Boston at 2, though the vast majority had them at 3 (I think that might have been the annual GM Survey and not ESPN now that I think about it).   

Also, I know they had the Nets ahead of Boston in that one article you cited, but they project them at less wins by all 4 metrics they site (including best case).  It seems strange to have thus ranked the Nets better than the Celtics when you think the Nets will win less games.

On a scale of one to ten how much have you enjoyed this stretch and start to the season. I’m at a 9 cause I have definitely thought a number of times how much my dad would have enjoyed this and it has been the best stretch they have has since he passed (last year would have driven him nuts)

9 as well only reason not a 10 is Hayward's broken hand.  It has been a great start.  Lots of fun to watch.

Thoughts on whether we have the top end talent to contend?

don't think so. at least not this year.  Tatum needs another year or two to really reach that level.

What about Brown?

Tatum is better than Brown.  Even this year by most metrics (not defensively of course, but pretty much every where else).  Tatum is the one with the Gold Medal Superstar potential.  Brown tops out, at absolute best, as a Paul Pierce type player.  Which is very good, but is more along the Conference Finals type superstar as the team's best player (which Pierce hit exactly once pre-KG). 

This team isn't winning a championship unless Tatum hits that next level.  Right now he isn't at that level.  He isn't consistent enough and hasn't honed his overall game enough to be considered that level of player.  He absolutely has the talent and potential to reach that level though.

At the current level of play Boston has 3 or 4 top 25ish players on the roster (depending on what Hayward looks like when he comes back).  That makes them a very good team, but contenders almost always have multiple top 10-15 players or a top 5 level talent and a quality/deep team around that player.  Very rarely do teams win titles or even make the finals that don't fit that mold.  Boston doesn't fit that mold.

Interesting stuff as always. I think Brown's ceiling is higher than what you think, his playmaking numbers would jump to pretty respectable levels (~4 APG) if he had a larger role on another team, and I'm confident in him making at least one more leap on offense. Combining that type of offense (the type that I'm projecting) with elite wing defense usually results in a fringe MVP player like PG last season, which is better than Pierce's peak.

Is Kemba Walker not a top 15 player? I think he's one of the best guards out there save Harden and with Curry out. Imo he's close enough to that level where he can get hot and pull a Billups 2.0 in the playoffs to lead us to a title, and even if he doesn't our wings can catch fire to push us to that level. I think 3-4ish All-Star calibre players with 1 of them being an All-NBA guy (Walker) plus a fringe All-Star in Smart is a really sneaky team that might break the mould of a traditional title contender. I don't remember many teams having this type of balanced top 5 where everyone's at least at a fringe All-Star level.

No Kemba is not a top 15 player.  I don't even think he makes the All NBA Team as a top 6 guard on the season (and that is with Curry out).  Harden, Lillard, Beal, and Doncic are all clearly better.  Irving and Young have significantly better numbers.  Booker and Mitchell also have better numbers right now.  Then you have players like Simmons, Westbrook, Brogdon, etc. who have excellent counting stats.  The C's record and Kemba's veteran status might give him the edge on some of those players, but they are discussions to be had.  Then of course you have all of the forwards and bigs.  So no Kemba is not a top 15 player (which btw matches all of the preseason rankings, none of which had him in the top 15).

I am not sure if Kemba is a top 15 player or not, but he is close.  No other top point guard has 3 other guys on his team averaging 19+ppg.  So if you base a top 15 on scoring numbers alone, he isn't going to achieve those numbers because he has one of the lowest FGA in the top 15.  Harden 26 FGA / game, Beal + Irving 23 FGA / game.  Kemba 18 FGA / game.

Also, it is somewhat hard to quantify stat wise what he is doing for our team.  He has been a supportive leader who has helped our other fringe star players improve.  That isn't a stat but it sure makes him good in my mind.  He has been one of the top 4th quarter players so far this year as well.  So he has been pretty clutch.  If he improves his fg% as the year goes on I can see him as a top level player.  Give him a year to see how he does with better teammates, a better coach, a better organization.