Celtics win total set at 49.5 by Vegas

[mmmmm]

Under, unless C's all join FIBA. I think bonding and getting a jump on chemistry during that could equal 5 to 8 more wins.

but how much do they lose with less talent, especially down low?

Well, do they really have that much less talent?

Assuming Gordon, Jaylen & Jayson all show natural positive regression / progress they should be better than last year.

Kemba v Kyrie is close enough to be considered a wash.

Smart is Smart.

Certainly, Kantor and the other bigs are a step down from Horford and Baynes.  They aren't without their own strengths and positives (size, rebounding, offensive scoring).   But sure, less talented.

But looking at the top-6 spots of the rotation, that's 1 that's less talented, 2 that are about the same and 3 that should be better.

The talent will be distributed differently.  And the team needs to play differently.

[bellerephon]

Under, unless C's all join FIBA. I think bonding and getting a jump on chemistry during that could equal 5 to 8 more wins.

but how much do they lose with less talent, especially down low?

Well, do they really have that much less talent?

Assuming Gordon, Jaylen & Jayson all show natural positive regression / progress they should be better than last year.

Kemba v Kyrie is close enough to be considered a wash.

Smart is Smart.

Certainly, Kantor and the other bigs are a step down from Horford and Baynes.  They aren't without their own strengths and positives (size, rebounding, offensive scoring).   But sure, less talented.

But looking at the top-6 spots of the rotation, that's 1 that's less talented, 2 that are about the same and 3 that should be better.

The talent will be distributed differently.  And the team needs to play differently.

The offense should be good, perhaps better, although Horford's passing will be missed. The defense, however, could be a big problem. In his career Kantor hasn't just been a bad defender, he's been really bad. Switching an excellent defender out for a bad defender could be a big problem.

[nickagneta]

Under, unless C's all join FIBA. I think bonding and getting a jump on chemistry during that could equal 5 to 8 more wins.

but how much do they lose with less talent, especially down low?

Well, do they really have that much less talent?

Assuming Gordon, Jaylen & Jayson all show natural positive regression / progress they should be better than last year.

Kemba v Kyrie is close enough to be considered a wash.

Smart is Smart.

Certainly, Kantor and the other bigs are a step down from Horford and Baynes.  They aren't without their own strengths and positives (size, rebounding, offensive scoring).   But sure, less talented.

But looking at the top-6 spots of the rotation, that's 1 that's less talented, 2 that are about the same and 3 that should be better.

The talent will be distributed differently.  And the team needs to play differently.

The offense should be good, perhaps better, although Horford's passing will be missed. The defense, however, could be a big problem. In his career Kantor hasn't just been a bad defender, he's been really bad. Switching an excellent defender out for a bad defender could be a big problem.

I am really concerned with the team's defense. Horford was an excellent defensive QB and great switching big man. His loss is huge. I just don't buy that the defense will be fine because Timelord, Poirier and Tacko are tall, can jump and have long arms. It takes more than that to be a great team defender that plays in the front court.

[Moranis]

Under, unless C's all join FIBA. I think bonding and getting a jump on chemistry during that could equal 5 to 8 more wins.

but how much do they lose with less talent, especially down low?

Well, do they really have that much less talent?

Assuming Gordon, Jaylen & Jayson all show natural positive regression / progress they should be better than last year.

Kemba v Kyrie is close enough to be considered a wash.

Smart is Smart.

Certainly, Kantor and the other bigs are a step down from Horford and Baynes.  They aren't without their own strengths and positives (size, rebounding, offensive scoring).   But sure, less talented.

But looking at the top-6 spots of the rotation, that's 1 that's less talented, 2 that are about the same and 3 that should be better.

The talent will be distributed differently.  And the team needs to play differently.

The offense should be good, perhaps better, although Horford's passing will be missed. The defense, however, could be a big problem. In his career Kantor hasn't just been a bad defender, he's been really bad. Switching an excellent defender out for a bad defender could be a big problem.

I am really concerned with the team's defense. Horford was an excellent defensive QB and great switching big man. His loss is huge. I just don't buy that the defense will be fine because Timelord, Poirier and Tacko are tall, can jump and have long arms. It takes more than that to be a great team defender that plays in the front court.

This is what I was getting at.  The frontcourt is just so much worse and the team is so much smaller (and was small last year), that I have real concerns about the team overall.  In addition, for all his flaws, Rozier was a much more capable PG than anyone on the bench will be this year.  In addition, losing Morris will hurt as well. 

So in sum, the front court is significantly less talented and the bench is worse.  That doesn't bode well for a team that was clearly outclassed and less talented than several teams in the conference were.  If everything goes well Boston could pretty easily end up as the 3rd seed, but the season could also go in a way where Boston doesn't even make the playoffs.  I projected Boston as the 5th seed in the predictions thread and I'm sticking with that, but I have real concerns about the composition and make-up of the team. 

[celticsclay]

Under, unless C's all join FIBA. I think bonding and getting a jump on chemistry during that could equal 5 to 8 more wins.

but how much do they lose with less talent, especially down low?

Well, do they really have that much less talent?

Assuming Gordon, Jaylen & Jayson all show natural positive regression / progress they should be better than last year.

Kemba v Kyrie is close enough to be considered a wash.

Smart is Smart.

Certainly, Kantor and the other bigs are a step down from Horford and Baynes.  They aren't without their own strengths and positives (size, rebounding, offensive scoring).   But sure, less talented.

But looking at the top-6 spots of the rotation, that's 1 that's less talented, 2 that are about the same and 3 that should be better.

The talent will be distributed differently.  And the team needs to play differently.

The offense should be good, perhaps better, although Horford's passing will be missed. The defense, however, could be a big problem. In his career Kantor hasn't just been a bad defender, he's been really bad. Switching an excellent defender out for a bad defender could be a big problem.

I am really concerned with the team's defense. Horford was an excellent defensive QB and great switching big man. His loss is huge. I just don't buy that the defense will be fine because Timelord, Poirier and Tacko are tall, can jump and have long arms. It takes more than that to be a great team defender that plays in the front court.

This is what I was getting at.  The frontcourt is just so much worse and the team is so much smaller (and was small last year), that I have real concerns about the team overall.  In addition, for all his flaws, Rozier was a much more capable PG than anyone on the bench will be this year.  In addition, losing Morris will hurt as well. 

So in sum, the front court is significantly less talented and the bench is worse.  That doesn't bode well for a team that was clearly outclassed and less talented than several teams in the conference were.  If everything goes well Boston could pretty easily end up as the 3rd seed, but the season could also go in a way where Boston doesn't even make the playoffs.  I projected Boston as the 5th seed in the predictions thread and I'm sticking with that, but I have real concerns about the composition and make-up of the team.

Wait what? Rozier shot 38% from the field, was a net negative on advanced stats. Rozier May have some talent but he was objectively awful last year

[Moranis]

Under, unless C's all join FIBA. I think bonding and getting a jump on chemistry during that could equal 5 to 8 more wins.

but how much do they lose with less talent, especially down low?

Well, do they really have that much less talent?

Assuming Gordon, Jaylen & Jayson all show natural positive regression / progress they should be better than last year.

Kemba v Kyrie is close enough to be considered a wash.

Smart is Smart.

Certainly, Kantor and the other bigs are a step down from Horford and Baynes.  They aren't without their own strengths and positives (size, rebounding, offensive scoring).   But sure, less talented.

But looking at the top-6 spots of the rotation, that's 1 that's less talented, 2 that are about the same and 3 that should be better.

The talent will be distributed differently.  And the team needs to play differently.

The offense should be good, perhaps better, although Horford's passing will be missed. The defense, however, could be a big problem. In his career Kantor hasn't just been a bad defender, he's been really bad. Switching an excellent defender out for a bad defender could be a big problem.

I am really concerned with the team's defense. Horford was an excellent defensive QB and great switching big man. His loss is huge. I just don't buy that the defense will be fine because Timelord, Poirier and Tacko are tall, can jump and have long arms. It takes more than that to be a great team defender that plays in the front court.

This is what I was getting at.  The frontcourt is just so much worse and the team is so much smaller (and was small last year), that I have real concerns about the team overall.  In addition, for all his flaws, Rozier was a much more capable PG than anyone on the bench will be this year.  In addition, losing Morris will hurt as well. 

So in sum, the front court is significantly less talented and the bench is worse.  That doesn't bode well for a team that was clearly outclassed and less talented than several teams in the conference were.  If everything goes well Boston could pretty easily end up as the 3rd seed, but the season could also go in a way where Boston doesn't even make the playoffs.  I projected Boston as the 5th seed in the predictions thread and I'm sticking with that, but I have real concerns about the composition and make-up of the team.

Wait what? Rozier shot 38% from the field, was a net negative on advanced stats. Is like that comedy bit you did a few months back where you said the equally awful Jonathan Simmons was a quality bench player? Rozier May have some talent but he was objectively awful last year

So the guy that just signed a 19 million a year contract, who was not replaced at all, isn't a loss.  The only comedy bit is yours.

[gouki88]

Under, unless C's all join FIBA. I think bonding and getting a jump on chemistry during that could equal 5 to 8 more wins.

but how much do they lose with less talent, especially down low?

Well, do they really have that much less talent?

Assuming Gordon, Jaylen & Jayson all show natural positive regression / progress they should be better than last year.

Kemba v Kyrie is close enough to be considered a wash.

Smart is Smart.

Certainly, Kantor and the other bigs are a step down from Horford and Baynes.  They aren't without their own strengths and positives (size, rebounding, offensive scoring).   But sure, less talented.

But looking at the top-6 spots of the rotation, that's 1 that's less talented, 2 that are about the same and 3 that should be better.

The talent will be distributed differently.  And the team needs to play differently.

The offense should be good, perhaps better, although Horford's passing will be missed. The defense, however, could be a big problem. In his career Kantor hasn't just been a bad defender, he's been really bad. Switching an excellent defender out for a bad defender could be a big problem.

I am really concerned with the team's defense. Horford was an excellent defensive QB and great switching big man. His loss is huge. I just don't buy that the defense will be fine because Timelord, Poirier and Tacko are tall, can jump and have long arms. It takes more than that to be a great team defender that plays in the front court.

This is what I was getting at.  The frontcourt is just so much worse and the team is so much smaller (and was small last year), that I have real concerns about the team overall.  In addition, for all his flaws, Rozier was a much more capable PG than anyone on the bench will be this year.  In addition, losing Morris will hurt as well. 

So in sum, the front court is significantly less talented and the bench is worse.  That doesn't bode well for a team that was clearly outclassed and less talented than several teams in the conference were.  If everything goes well Boston could pretty easily end up as the 3rd seed, but the season could also go in a way where Boston doesn't even make the playoffs.  I projected Boston as the 5th seed in the predictions thread and I'm sticking with that, but I have real concerns about the composition and make-up of the team.

Wait what? Rozier shot 38% from the field, was a net negative on advanced stats. Is like that comedy bit you did a few months back where you said the equally awful Jonathan Simmons was a quality bench player? Rozier May have some talent but he was objectively awful last year

So the guy that just signed a 19 million a year contract, who was not replaced at all, isn't a loss.  The only comedy bit is yours.

Addition by subtraction has simply never ever occurred

[Moranis]

Under, unless C's all join FIBA. I think bonding and getting a jump on chemistry during that could equal 5 to 8 more wins.

but how much do they lose with less talent, especially down low?

Well, do they really have that much less talent?

Assuming Gordon, Jaylen & Jayson all show natural positive regression / progress they should be better than last year.

Kemba v Kyrie is close enough to be considered a wash.

Smart is Smart.

Certainly, Kantor and the other bigs are a step down from Horford and Baynes.  They aren't without their own strengths and positives (size, rebounding, offensive scoring).   But sure, less talented.

But looking at the top-6 spots of the rotation, that's 1 that's less talented, 2 that are about the same and 3 that should be better.

The talent will be distributed differently.  And the team needs to play differently.

The offense should be good, perhaps better, although Horford's passing will be missed. The defense, however, could be a big problem. In his career Kantor hasn't just been a bad defender, he's been really bad. Switching an excellent defender out for a bad defender could be a big problem.

I am really concerned with the team's defense. Horford was an excellent defensive QB and great switching big man. His loss is huge. I just don't buy that the defense will be fine because Timelord, Poirier and Tacko are tall, can jump and have long arms. It takes more than that to be a great team defender that plays in the front court.

This is what I was getting at.  The frontcourt is just so much worse and the team is so much smaller (and was small last year), that I have real concerns about the team overall.  In addition, for all his flaws, Rozier was a much more capable PG than anyone on the bench will be this year.  In addition, losing Morris will hurt as well. 

So in sum, the front court is significantly less talented and the bench is worse.  That doesn't bode well for a team that was clearly outclassed and less talented than several teams in the conference were.  If everything goes well Boston could pretty easily end up as the 3rd seed, but the season could also go in a way where Boston doesn't even make the playoffs.  I projected Boston as the 5th seed in the predictions thread and I'm sticking with that, but I have real concerns about the composition and make-up of the team.

Wait what? Rozier shot 38% from the field, was a net negative on advanced stats. Is like that comedy bit you did a few months back where you said the equally awful Jonathan Simmons was a quality bench player? Rozier May have some talent but he was objectively awful last year

So the guy that just signed a 19 million a year contract, who was not replaced at all, isn't a loss.  The only comedy bit is yours.

Addition by subtraction has simply never ever occurred

Sure, that is why the team could be better without Irving and having him replaced by a lesser player in Walker.  But losing Rozier and not replacing him at all is not that.

Overall the PG position is worse, the PF position is worse, and the center position is worse.  I expect to see improvement from the SG and SF positions, but they are basically the same players as last year so who knows what will ultimately happen.  If Tatum (or Hayward) can handle PF alright, then I think some of the concern is lessoned, but I certainly wouldn't count on either of them being able to handle the physical toll of playing against bigger/stronger players all season long. 

[celticsclay]

Under, unless C's all join FIBA. I think bonding and getting a jump on chemistry during that could equal 5 to 8 more wins.

but how much do they lose with less talent, especially down low?

Well, do they really have that much less talent?

Assuming Gordon, Jaylen & Jayson all show natural positive regression / progress they should be better than last year.

Kemba v Kyrie is close enough to be considered a wash.

Smart is Smart.

Certainly, Kantor and the other bigs are a step down from Horford and Baynes.  They aren't without their own strengths and positives (size, rebounding, offensive scoring).   But sure, less talented.

But looking at the top-6 spots of the rotation, that's 1 that's less talented, 2 that are about the same and 3 that should be better.

The talent will be distributed differently.  And the team needs to play differently.

The offense should be good, perhaps better, although Horford's passing will be missed. The defense, however, could be a big problem. In his career Kantor hasn't just been a bad defender, he's been really bad. Switching an excellent defender out for a bad defender could be a big problem.

I am really concerned with the team's defense. Horford was an excellent defensive QB and great switching big man. His loss is huge. I just don't buy that the defense will be fine because Timelord, Poirier and Tacko are tall, can jump and have long arms. It takes more than that to be a great team defender that plays in the front court.

This is what I was getting at.  The frontcourt is just so much worse and the team is so much smaller (and was small last year), that I have real concerns about the team overall.  In addition, for all his flaws, Rozier was a much more capable PG than anyone on the bench will be this year.  In addition, losing Morris will hurt as well. 

So in sum, the front court is significantly less talented and the bench is worse.  That doesn't bode well for a team that was clearly outclassed and less talented than several teams in the conference were.  If everything goes well Boston could pretty easily end up as the 3rd seed, but the season could also go in a way where Boston doesn't even make the playoffs.  I projected Boston as the 5th seed in the predictions thread and I'm sticking with that, but I have real concerns about the composition and make-up of the team.

Wait what? Rozier shot 38% from the field, was a net negative on advanced stats. Is like that comedy bit you did a few months back where you said the equally awful Jonathan Simmons was a quality bench player? Rozier May have some talent but he was objectively awful last year

So the guy that just signed a 19 million a year contract, who was not replaced at all, isn't a loss.  The only comedy bit is yours.

Addition by subtraction has simply never ever occurred

Sure, that is why the team could be better without Irving and having him replaced by a lesser player in Walker.  But losing Rozier and not replacing him at all is not that.

Overall the PG position is worse, the PF position is worse, and the center position is worse.  I expect to see improvement from the SG and SF positions, but they are basically the same players as last year so who knows what will ultimately happen.  If Tatum (or Hayward) can handle PF alright, then I think some of the concern is lessoned, but I certainly wouldn't count on either of them being able to handle the physical toll of playing against bigger/stronger players all season long.

I don’t believe using a Charlotte hornets contract is necessarily strong evidence of a guy’s worth. Zeller is making 15 million, MKG 13, Batum 25. I don’t think any of those guys are starters on a championship level teams. I’m not even sure zeller is a rotation player (plus he can’t stay healthy)

[nickagneta]

Enough with the "comedy"
personal shots at each other. Stop making this personal and keep it on subject.

[Vermont Green]

Most of the replacements for this team over last season line up pretty easily,

Walker for Irving
Kanter for Horford
Edwards for Rozier
Poirier for Baynes

Those to me seem like downgrades in all cases.  The hardest one to assign a replacement to is Morris (28 min/gm last season).  There is not a specific new player that you can slot to replace his minutes.  Some contend that Hayward will replace him but then you have to consider who will replace the minutes by Hayward (26 min last season) off the bench.

To my logic, some combination of Ojeleye, Theis and Robert William will replace Morris through increased minutes.  That means that we will have downgrades due to Irving (starter), Horford (starter), Morris (starter), Rozier (rotation), and Baynes (rotation), to varying degrees.  This team is not as talented, not even close.

So how are they setting the O/U wins at 0.5 more than last season?  They must be figuring that we will achieve or overachieve (not underachieve) plus there must be the assumption of improvement from Smart, Brown, Tatum, and Hayward.  I think further, someone like Ojeleye, Theis, or RWilliams is going to have to take a leap and assume the second big role.  That is asking for a lot to go right to match last season.

[Moranis]

Most of the replacements for this team over last season line up pretty easily,

Walker for Irving
Kanter for Horford
Edwards for Rozier
Poirier for Baynes

Those to me seem like downgrades in all cases.  The hardest one to assign a replacement to is Morris (28 min/gm last season).  There is not a specific new player that you can slot to replace his minutes.  Some contend that Hayward will replace him but then you have to consider who will replace the minutes by Hayward (26 min last season) off the bench.

To my logic, some combination of Ojeleye, Theis and Robert William will replace Morris through increased minutes.  That means that we will have downgrades due to Irving (starter), Horford (starter), Morris (starter), Rozier (rotation), and Baynes (rotation), to varying degrees.  This team is not as talented, not even close.

So how are they setting the O/U wins at 0.5 more than last season?  They must be figuring that we will achieve or overachieve (not underachieve) plus there must be the assumption of improvement from Smart, Brown, Tatum, and Hayward.  I think further, someone like Ojeleye, Theis, or RWilliams is going to have to take a leap and assume the second big role.  That is asking for a lot to go right to match last season.

That is where I'm at. 

[Birdman]

50 games and i be happy

[CF033]

I agree that overall we've probably downgraded on talent a bit but you have to take into account that the team chemistry was horrid last year. How many games did we play where we phoned in at least one quarter of a game?

Let's wait and see how these guys play together as a group.

[saltlover]

4 pages of back and forth and the issue largely rests on an unknowable: By what degree do you think the Celtics underachieved last year?

I think we should all be able to agree that they underachieved by some amount.  They returned all of their major rotation players from a 55 win team, excepting the 3rd or 4th string PG (Shane Larkin).  They were also healthier and more experienced.  Even their scoring differential was that of a 52-win team last season, and 6th in the NBA.  The oddsmakers (according to basketball reference) set their over-under at 59.

So what level of talent do you think the Celtics were, last year? 52 wins? 55?  59?  If you think they were a 52-win team, it’s easy to see the loss of talent as worth far more than three games, and that improved chemistry, as well as growth from a few key players, won’t be enough to make up the difference.  But if you think they were a 55-win team in terms of talent, 50 wins could seem plausible.  And if you thought the Celtics were 59 wins in terms of talent, then truly those who think that improved chemistry won’t outweigh the loss of talent must sound insane to you.

As someone in the 55-59 win camp, I acknowledge the loss of talent but expect an improvement in overall wins from last season.  I do have some concern about Jaylen Brown’s contract situation — I would really like that resolved before the season begins.  I’ve seen enough poor play from guys entering free agency the last few seasons to not want another key player in the same boat.