Celtics win total set at 49.5 by Vegas

[celticsclay]

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.

I think we probably underachieved by about 7 games last year. I would say 2-3 of that came from Hayward underperforming his talent/not being healthy and playing more minutes than he should in that state and 3-4 from the guys on the team not liking their roles/playing together. I think the chemistry will be tremendously improved with Morris and Irving gone. I also think walker and Irving are a wash and if walker had won the championship with Lebron and Irving spent his years in Charlotte with batum and mkg their reputations would be reversed

[PhoSita]

I've already said that I think 49.5 wins sounds about right.


With that said, I think focusing on the notion of whether last year's team had the "talent of a 59 win team" or the "talent of a 52 win team" is too general and impossible to really argue.  Talent is somewhat subjective.


I don't think losing Kyrie means very much.  He was a great scorer but he was a toxic priss in the locker room and promoted bad habits on the floor.  Also, and more importantly, the team replaced him with a very similar player.

For similar reasons I don't really think it makes a difference that they lost Morris or Baynes.  Both are very replaceable.


Losing Horford is a huge deal.  The team's system on both ends of the floor hinged on Horford's unusual, extremely versatile skillset.  You can't just talk about Horford's talent on its own.  Horford isn't a superstar, in fact isn't even a clear cut All-Star anymore.  But his skillset is very hard to replace and the Celts most certainly did not replace it this off-season.


Even so, I do think the team underachieved last year, both in terms of the actual wins they produced despite their point differential (as saltlover pointed out) and in terms of chemistry ruining their focus and promoting bad habits that contributed to unnecessary losses.



If we assume that this year's team will have renewed focus and buy into the team concepts Brad teaches and preaches, I think it's reasonable to think they will meet or exceed what one would expect from a team with this set of pieces.  It's not entirely a matter of faith to expect that, because we've seen every Brad Stevens team prior to last season do exactly that.  It's hard to remember it now, but the Celts were once known for being a "try hard" team that got greater results than the sum of the pieces on the team should have made possible.


Replacing Horford and Baynes with Kanter and Poirier should make a big (negative) difference on defense.  But it may also result in the Celts being a considerably better team on the boards, especially the offensive boards. 

That combined with projected growth from Tatum and Brown as well as a return to form by Hayward should make the Celts a more dangerous and balanced offensive team.



The defense should be considerably worse, however.  So if you think the drop off on defense will be a bigger deal than the improvement in chemistry and overall offensive potency, it probably makes sense to assume they will have a worse record.


You could also reasonably believe the chemistry problems are not over, that Hayward will never be any better than he was by the end of last season, or that Tatum and Brown will not significantly improve.  I think that would be excessively pessimistic, though.

[celticsclay]

I've already said that I think 49.5 wins sounds about right.


With that said, I think focusing on the notion of whether last year's team had the "talent of a 59 win team" or the "talent of a 52 win team" is too general and impossible to really argue.  Talent is somewhat subjective.


I don't think losing Kyrie means very much.  He was a great scorer but he was a toxic priss in the locker room and promoted bad habits on the floor.  Also, and more importantly, the team replaced him with a very similar player.

For similar reasons I don't really think it makes a difference that they lost Morris or Baynes.  Both are very replaceable.


Losing Horford is a huge deal.  The team's system on both ends of the floor hinged on Horford's unusual, extremely versatile skillset.  You can't just talk about Horford's talent on its own.  Horford isn't a superstar, in fact isn't even a clear cut All-Star anymore.  But his skillset is very hard to replace and the Celts most certainly did not replace it this off-season.


Even so, I do think the team underachieved last year, both in terms of the actual wins they produced despite their point differential (as saltlover pointed out) and in terms of chemistry ruining their focus and promoting bad habits that contributed to unnecessary losses.



If we assume that this year's team will have renewed focus and buy into the team concepts Brad teaches and preaches, I think it's reasonable to think they will meet or exceed what one would expect from a team with this set of pieces.  It's not entirely a matter of faith to expect that, because we've seen every Brad Stevens team prior to last season do exactly that.  It's hard to remember it now, but the Celts were once known for being a "try hard" team that got greater results than the sum of the pieces on the team should have made possible.


Replacing Horford and Baynes with Kanter and Poirier should make a big (negative) difference on defense.  But it may also result in the Celts being a considerably better team on the boards, especially the offensive boards. 

That combined with projected growth from Tatum and Brown as well as a return to form by Hayward should make the Celts a more dangerous and balanced offensive team.



The defense should be considerably worse, however.  So if you think the drop off on defense will be a bigger deal than the improvement in chemistry and overall offensive potency, it probably makes sense to assume they will have a worse record.


You could also reasonably believe the chemistry problems are not over, that Hayward will never be any better than he was by the end of last season, or that Tatum and Brown will not significantly improve.  I think that would be excessively pessimistic, though.

I agree with all those Phosita, and one other factor not really mentioned is that a lot of the teams are worse than last season.

Toronto is the most obvious candidate for a big regression given they lost probably the best player in the game (or at least a top 3). On top of that A lot of their key players are very old (gasol, lowry, ibaka). I would be somewhat surprised if those three all ended the season on the raptors. They probably win at least 10 games less than last year.

Bucks are still good, but still did lose their second or third best player and did not replace him.
 
Hornets went from mediocre to worst team in the league with the loss of walker and lamb.

Wizards went into last season with Howard, Beal, Wall and Porter and Morris. Seemed like a 45 win team if everything broke right. Now could win 20 games?

Knicks are obviously a complete dumpster fire.

Cleveland probably enters the season with less NBA ready talent than they did last season when they still had Hood, Hill and Korver on their roster.  Maybe Love will be healthier this season, but they probably need to move him given he is 10 years older than their building blocks.

Magic are probably about the same. Thought they seem like a young team, something like 5 of their top 6 rotation players were 26 or over last year.

Bulls and Hawks are going to be better from growth of their young players, but are probably still a year away from being legit competitive.

76ers replacing Reddick and Butler with Horford and Richardson is probably a wash or slight downgrade, but simmons and embiid should be a bit better from growth and fitness improvements.

Only teams that really clearly made big upgrades, Pacers and Nets.

Taking all that into account it seemed like we could pick up a win or two from player movement.

[nickagneta]

I've already said that I think 49.5 wins sounds about right.


With that said, I think focusing on the notion of whether last year's team had the "talent of a 59 win team" or the "talent of a 52 win team" is too general and impossible to really argue.  Talent is somewhat subjective.


I don't think losing Kyrie means very much.  He was a great scorer but he was a toxic priss in the locker room and promoted bad habits on the floor.  Also, and more importantly, the team replaced him with a very similar player.

For similar reasons I don't really think it makes a difference that they lost Morris or Baynes.  Both are very replaceable.


Losing Horford is a huge deal.  The team's system on both ends of the floor hinged on Horford's unusual, extremely versatile skillset.  You can't just talk about Horford's talent on its own.  Horford isn't a superstar, in fact isn't even a clear cut All-Star anymore.  But his skillset is very hard to replace and the Celts most certainly did not replace it this off-season.


Even so, I do think the team underachieved last year, both in terms of the actual wins they produced despite their point differential (as saltlover pointed out) and in terms of chemistry ruining their focus and promoting bad habits that contributed to unnecessary losses.



If we assume that this year's team will have renewed focus and buy into the team concepts Brad teaches and preaches, I think it's reasonable to think they will meet or exceed what one would expect from a team with this set of pieces.  It's not entirely a matter of faith to expect that, because we've seen every Brad Stevens team prior to last season do exactly that.  It's hard to remember it now, but the Celts were once known for being a "try hard" team that got greater results than the sum of the pieces on the team should have made possible.


Replacing Horford and Baynes with Kanter and Poirier should make a big (negative) difference on defense.  But it may also result in the Celts being a considerably better team on the boards, especially the offensive boards. 

That combined with projected growth from Tatum and Brown as well as a return to form by Hayward should make the Celts a more dangerous and balanced offensive team.



The defense should be considerably worse, however.  So if you think the drop off on defense will be a bigger deal than the improvement in chemistry and overall offensive potency, it probably makes sense to assume they will have a worse record.


You could also reasonably believe the chemistry problems are not over, that Hayward will never be any better than he was by the end of last season, or that Tatum and Brown will not significantly improve.  I think that would be excessively pessimistic, though.

I agree with all those Phosita, and one other factor not really mentioned is that a lot of the teams are worse than last season.

Toronto is the most obvious candidate for a big regression given they lost probably the best player in the game (or at least a top 3). On top of that A lot of their key players are very old (gasol, lowry, ibaka). I would be somewhat surprised if those three all ended the season on the raptors. They probably win at least 10 games less than last year.

Bucks are still good, but still did lose their second or third best player and did not replace him.
 
Hornets went from mediocre to worst team in the league with the loss of walker and lamb.

Wizards went into last season with Howard, Beal, Wall and Porter and Morris. Seemed like a 45 win team if everything broke right. Now could win 20 games?

Knicks are obviously a complete dumpster fire.

Cleveland probably enters the season with less NBA ready talent than they did last season when they still had Hood, Hill and Korver on their roster.  Maybe Love will be healthier this season, but they probably need to move him given he is 10 years older than their building blocks.

Magic are probably about the same. Thought they seem like a young team, something like 5 of their top 6 rotation players were 26 or over last year.

Bulls and Hawks are going to be better from growth of their young players, but are probably still a year away from being legit competitive.

76ers replacing Reddick and Butler with Horford and Richardson is probably a wash or slight downgrade, but simmons and embiid should be a bit better from growth and fitness improvements.

Only teams that really clearly made big upgrades, Pacers and Nets.

Taking all that into account it seemed like we could pick up a win or two from player movement.

It's true that much of the East is worse but I think there will be a smoothing effect where teams like Philadelphia, Orlando, Miami, Atlanta, Chicago and Detroit all add some wins that offset the losses from the team's you mentioned.

I also see the West being much deeper in quality teams. It would not surprise me to see the West's 9th seed have a record close to the 3rd or 4th seed in the East. I think the W-L record of East v West will have most East teams racking up losing records against the West, which will hold down Eastern teams number of wins.

I think Boston goes a tiny bit under 49.5 wins but still ends up in the 3rd seed. Meanwhile, out West, a team like say San Antonio, could be the West's 9th seed and have the same amount of wins as the Celtics.

As Pho and others have mentioned, the loss of Horford is huge. And to a lesser extent, so is the loss of Baynes. No amount of Timelord, Poirier or Tacko, even combined, is going to replace what Horford and Baynes meant defensively to this team.

[gpap]

My prediction is 50 wins and 3rd seed in the East.

Kawhi going to the Clippers impacted the Celtics in a very positive way.

[celticsclay]

I've already said that I think 49.5 wins sounds about right.


With that said, I think focusing on the notion of whether last year's team had the "talent of a 59 win team" or the "talent of a 52 win team" is too general and impossible to really argue.  Talent is somewhat subjective.


I don't think losing Kyrie means very much.  He was a great scorer but he was a toxic priss in the locker room and promoted bad habits on the floor.  Also, and more importantly, the team replaced him with a very similar player.

For similar reasons I don't really think it makes a difference that they lost Morris or Baynes.  Both are very replaceable.


Losing Horford is a huge deal.  The team's system on both ends of the floor hinged on Horford's unusual, extremely versatile skillset.  You can't just talk about Horford's talent on its own.  Horford isn't a superstar, in fact isn't even a clear cut All-Star anymore.  But his skillset is very hard to replace and the Celts most certainly did not replace it this off-season.


Even so, I do think the team underachieved last year, both in terms of the actual wins they produced despite their point differential (as saltlover pointed out) and in terms of chemistry ruining their focus and promoting bad habits that contributed to unnecessary losses.



If we assume that this year's team will have renewed focus and buy into the team concepts Brad teaches and preaches, I think it's reasonable to think they will meet or exceed what one would expect from a team with this set of pieces.  It's not entirely a matter of faith to expect that, because we've seen every Brad Stevens team prior to last season do exactly that.  It's hard to remember it now, but the Celts were once known for being a "try hard" team that got greater results than the sum of the pieces on the team should have made possible.


Replacing Horford and Baynes with Kanter and Poirier should make a big (negative) difference on defense.  But it may also result in the Celts being a considerably better team on the boards, especially the offensive boards. 

That combined with projected growth from Tatum and Brown as well as a return to form by Hayward should make the Celts a more dangerous and balanced offensive team.



The defense should be considerably worse, however.  So if you think the drop off on defense will be a bigger deal than the improvement in chemistry and overall offensive potency, it probably makes sense to assume they will have a worse record.


You could also reasonably believe the chemistry problems are not over, that Hayward will never be any better than he was by the end of last season, or that Tatum and Brown will not significantly improve.  I think that would be excessively pessimistic, though.

I agree with all those Phosita, and one other factor not really mentioned is that a lot of the teams are worse than last season.

Toronto is the most obvious candidate for a big regression given they lost probably the best player in the game (or at least a top 3). On top of that A lot of their key players are very old (gasol, lowry, ibaka). I would be somewhat surprised if those three all ended the season on the raptors. They probably win at least 10 games less than last year.

Bucks are still good, but still did lose their second or third best player and did not replace him.
 
Hornets went from mediocre to worst team in the league with the loss of walker and lamb.

Wizards went into last season with Howard, Beal, Wall and Porter and Morris. Seemed like a 45 win team if everything broke right. Now could win 20 games?

Knicks are obviously a complete dumpster fire.

Cleveland probably enters the season with less NBA ready talent than they did last season when they still had Hood, Hill and Korver on their roster.  Maybe Love will be healthier this season, but they probably need to move him given he is 10 years older than their building blocks.

Magic are probably about the same. Thought they seem like a young team, something like 5 of their top 6 rotation players were 26 or over last year.

Bulls and Hawks are going to be better from growth of their young players, but are probably still a year away from being legit competitive.

76ers replacing Reddick and Butler with Horford and Richardson is probably a wash or slight downgrade, but simmons and embiid should be a bit better from growth and fitness improvements.

Only teams that really clearly made big upgrades, Pacers and Nets.

Taking all that into account it seemed like we could pick up a win or two from player movement.

It's true that much of the East is worse but I think there will be a smoothing effect where teams like Philadelphia, Orlando, Miami, Atlanta, Chicago and Detroit all add some wins that offset the losses from the team's you mentioned.

I also see the West being much deeper in quality teams. It would not surprise me to see the West's 9th seed have a record close to the 3rd or 4th seed in the East. I think the W-L record of East v West will have most East teams racking up losing records against the West, which will hold down Eastern teams number of wins.

I think Boston goes a tiny bit under 49.5 wins but still ends up in the 3rd seed. Meanwhile, out West, a team like say San Antonio, could be the West's 9th seed and have the same amount of wins as the Celtics.

As Pho and others have mentioned, the loss of Horford is huge. And to a lesser extent, so is the loss of Baynes. No amount of Timelord, Poirier or Tacko, even combined, is going to replace what Horford and Baynes meant defensively to this team.

I am convinced there is no way we enter the playoffs with that frontcourt rotation. I am a bit perplexed we haven't brought in Noah who was more than serviceable for Memphis as a defensive big last year. I also would not be surprised if we ended up with Howard at some point (I know people really hate his personality, but skill wise he would be a perfect fit with our team).

I also would love a Steven Adams trade, but realize his salary makes it quite difficult.

Some other names that are expiring in 2020 that could be had for little or possibly even bought out. I know a lot of these are not sexy names, but if you get past their draft position or the giant underserved contracts they got, I think some can fill a need.

Alex Len
Biyombo
Tristan Thompson
John Henson
Jaun Hernagomez
Thon Maker
Javale McGhee (unlikely but they have a glut of bigs with Cousins, Davis and him)
Miles Plumlee (he may be too awful)
Kelly Olynik
Noah Vonleh
Okafor
Nerlens Noel
Dario Saric
Frank Kaminsky (ainge loves him!)
Whiteside
Poetl
Gasol
Ibaka
Ian Mahimi

[saltlover]

I think people are perhaps a little pessimistic on the defense.  In 2015-2016, the Celtics had the third-best defense in the NBA with IT leading the team in minutes and a bigs rotation that included Sullinger, Zeller, and David Lee combining for over 3000 minutes.

The lack of elite talent upfront may get exposed in specific playoff matchups, but it is well within Stevens’ abilities to design a scheme that produces good results over 82 games, which is all that matters in an over/under discussion.

[nickagneta]

I think people are perhaps a little pessimistic on the defense.  In 2015-2016, the Celtics had the third-best defense in the NBA with IT leading the team in minutes and a bigs rotation that included Sullinger, Zeller, and David Lee combining for over 3000 minutes.

The lack of elite talent upfront may get exposed in specific playoff matchups, but it is well within Stevens’ abilities to design a scheme that produces good results over 82 games, which is all that matters in an over/under discussion.

Sullinger amounted for almost 2000 of those 3000 minutes you listed. The first four in the big man rotation that year was actually Sullinger(81 GP, 1915 MP), Amir Johnson(79 GP, 1800 MP), Olynyk(69 GP, 1395 MP)and Jerebko(78 GP, 1176 MP). Zeller and Lee(especially Lee who was in only 30 games early in the season) were minor contributors that year.

I would argue that those four guys were all much better front court defenders, especially team defenders, than any of our current group of Timelord, Kanter, Poirier, Fall, Williams and either Tatum or Hayward guarding at the PF spot. Theis might be the only guy on this team that was as good or better a defender than Sully, Kelly, Jonas and Amir was for our frontcourt in 2015-16.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

I think people are perhaps a little pessimistic on the defense.  In 2015-2016, the Celtics had the third-best defense in the NBA with IT leading the team in minutes and a bigs rotation that included Sullinger, Zeller, and David Lee combining for over 3000 minutes.

The lack of elite talent upfront may get exposed in specific playoff matchups, but it is well within Stevens’ abilities to design a scheme that produces good results over 82 games, which is all that matters in an over/under discussion.

Sullinger amounted for almost 2000 of those 3000 minutes you listed. The first four in the big man rotation that year was actually Sullinger(81 GP, 1915 MP), Amir Johnson(79 GP, 1800 MP), Olynyk(69 GP, 1395 MP)and Jerebko(78 GP, 1176 MP). Zeller and Lee(especially Lee who was in only 30 games early in the season) were minor contributors that year.

I would argue that those four guys were all much better front court defenders, especially team defenders, than any of our current group of Timelord, Kanter, Poirier, Fall, Williams and either Tatum or Hayward guarding at the PF spot. Theis might be the only guy on this team that was as good or better a defender than Sully, Kelly, Jonas and Amir was for our frontcourt in 2015-16.

Here's the thing: going into that season, no one would have said those guys were good defenders. Sully was slow-footed. Kelly was foul prone. Jerebko struggled to play in Detroit because of his defense. Amir was a solid scheme defender, but it was widely noted that he was losing athleticism and effectiveness.

I think saltlover's point is valid.

The fact is that one of CBS best skills is getting 85% of Al Horford's last season production from scrubs. Admittedly, these bigs on-court production is normally married with team effectiveness in abnormal ways, but they are still effective bigs.

And by the way: it's not like Boston's wings were that great either. Crowder was still not considered a starting wing and Bradley's team defense has always been questionable.

[nickagneta]

I think people are perhaps a little pessimistic on the defense.  In 2015-2016, the Celtics had the third-best defense in the NBA with IT leading the team in minutes and a bigs rotation that included Sullinger, Zeller, and David Lee combining for over 3000 minutes.

The lack of elite talent upfront may get exposed in specific playoff matchups, but it is well within Stevens’ abilities to design a scheme that produces good results over 82 games, which is all that matters in an over/under discussion.

Sullinger amounted for almost 2000 of those 3000 minutes you listed. The first four in the big man rotation that year was actually Sullinger(81 GP, 1915 MP), Amir Johnson(79 GP, 1800 MP), Olynyk(69 GP, 1395 MP)and Jerebko(78 GP, 1176 MP). Zeller and Lee(especially Lee who was in only 30 games early in the season) were minor contributors that year.

I would argue that those four guys were all much better front court defenders, especially team defenders, than any of our current group of Timelord, Kanter, Poirier, Fall, Williams and either Tatum or Hayward guarding at the PF spot. Theis might be the only guy on this team that was as good or better a defender than Sully, Kelly, Jonas and Amir was for our frontcourt in 2015-16.

Here's the thing: going into that season, no one would have said those guys were good defenders. Sully was slow-footed. Kelly was foul prone. Jerebko struggled to play in Detroit because of his defense. Amir was a solid scheme defender, but it was widely noted that he was losing athleticism and effectiveness.

I think saltlover's point is valid.

The fact is that one of CBS best skills is getting 85% of Al Horford's last season production from scrubs. Admittedly, these bigs on-court production is normally married with team effectiveness in abnormal ways, but they are still effective bigs.

I disagree with this. The year before the 2015-16 season, Olynyk and Sully showed they had good team defender potential and were good to very good defensive rebounders. Jerebko came over from Detroit and showed to be a good defender of small ball PFs the last 30 games of 2014-15. And Amir, at 27 years old, was showing in Toronto he was still the the tough, defensive minded player he built his reputation on.

While people may not have thought they could be a good defensive grouping to start the season, those 4 guys did show they could be or were good defenders the year earlier.

We now have Kanter, who has been a very bad defender most of his career. We also have Poirier, Timelord, Grant Williams and Tacko that have shown nothing in the NBA that they could be good defenders this year. And then there are the two SFs, Tatum and Hayward, that will be playing a bunch of PF this year.

Yeah, maybe Stevens works his magic and gets a lot more from them than anyone has a right to expect. But I wouldn't count on it happening just because Stevens had a group 3 years ago that wasn't expected to be as good as they were. That group at least had some history of having the talent and potential to be good NBA team defenders. Our current group has never shown that, except for Theis.

[saltlover]

I think people are perhaps a little pessimistic on the defense.  In 2015-2016, the Celtics had the third-best defense in the NBA with IT leading the team in minutes and a bigs rotation that included Sullinger, Zeller, and David Lee combining for over 3000 minutes.

The lack of elite talent upfront may get exposed in specific playoff matchups, but it is well within Stevens’ abilities to design a scheme that produces good results over 82 games, which is all that matters in an over/under discussion.

Sullinger amounted for almost 2000 of those 3000 minutes you listed. The first four in the big man rotation that year was actually Sullinger(81 GP, 1915 MP), Amir Johnson(79 GP, 1800 MP), Olynyk(69 GP, 1395 MP)and Jerebko(78 GP, 1176 MP). Zeller and Lee(especially Lee who was in only 30 games early in the season) were minor contributors that year.

I would argue that those four guys were all much better front court defenders, especially team defenders, than any of our current group of Timelord, Kanter, Poirier, Fall, Williams and either Tatum or Hayward guarding at the PF spot. Theis might be the only guy on this team that was as good or better a defender than Sully, Kelly, Jonas and Amir was for our frontcourt in 2015-16.

Here's the thing: going into that season, no one would have said those guys were good defenders. Sully was slow-footed. Kelly was foul prone. Jerebko struggled to play in Detroit because of his defense. Amir was a solid scheme defender, but it was widely noted that he was losing athleticism and effectiveness.

I think saltlover's point is valid.

The fact is that one of CBS best skills is getting 85% of Al Horford's last season production from scrubs. Admittedly, these bigs on-court production is normally married with team effectiveness in abnormal ways, but they are still effective bigs.

I disagree with this. The year before the 2015-16 season, Olynyk and Sully showed they had good team defender potential and were good to very good defensive rebounders. Jerebko came over from Detroit and showed to be a good defender of small ball PFs the last 30 games of 2014-15. And Amir, at 27 years old, was showing in Toronto he was still the the tough, defensive minded player he built his reputation on.

While people may not have thought they could be a good defensive grouping to start the season, those 4 guys did show they could be or were good defenders the year earlier.

We now have Kanter, who has been a very bad defender most of his career. We also have Poirier, Timelord, Grant Williams and Tacko that have shown nothing in the NBA that they could be good defenders this year. And then there are the two SFs, Tatum and Hayward, that will be playing a bunch of PF this year.

Yeah, maybe Stevens works his magic and gets a lot more from them than anyone has a right to expect. But I wouldn't count on it happening just because Stevens had a group 3 years ago that wasn't expected to be as good as they were. That group at least had some history of having the talent and potential to be good NBA team defenders. Our current group has never shown that, except for Theis.

If Sully was actually viewed as a capable defender, he would have played more than 11 games and 120 minutes in the NBA after he left the Celtics at the age of 24.  More likely he’s rather limited and Brad was able to design a system that minimized those limitations and emphasized his strengths.

According to NBA.com, Sully and IT were on the court for 1600 minutes, and they had a defensive rating of 102.1, which would have been third in the league for a team that year, and better than the Celtics team Defensive rating. That’s a 5’8” PG who was seen as a defensive liability and a big with questionable conditioning and work ethic who pretty much bounced out of the league after that season. If he gets buy-in, Stevens can coach. 

[Valid]

Celtics lost 3 of their more reliable shooters....way under. 35-40.

Lol. Are you really typing that with a straight face knowing that the 2016 Celtics (you know, the team that had Evan Turner as one of its top options) won 48 games and that the 2017 Celtics won 53? For crying out loud, the freaking 2015 Celtics won 40.

Can you at least make some actual sense when you're trying to be so disgustingly negative?

[Valid]

I think people are perhaps a little pessimistic on the defense.  In 2015-2016, the Celtics had the third-best defense in the NBA with IT leading the team in minutes and a bigs rotation that included Sullinger, Zeller, and David Lee combining for over 3000 minutes.

The lack of elite talent upfront may get exposed in specific playoff matchups, but it is well within Stevens’ abilities to design a scheme that produces good results over 82 games, which is all that matters in an over/under discussion.

This.

Again, the 2016 Celtics won 48 and the 2017 Celtics won 53, and I think it's fair to say that this current Celtics group is more talented than either of those two iterations.

I think we'll be right around 50.

[nickagneta]

I think people are perhaps a little pessimistic on the defense.  In 2015-2016, the Celtics had the third-best defense in the NBA with IT leading the team in minutes and a bigs rotation that included Sullinger, Zeller, and David Lee combining for over 3000 minutes.

The lack of elite talent upfront may get exposed in specific playoff matchups, but it is well within Stevens’ abilities to design a scheme that produces good results over 82 games, which is all that matters in an over/under discussion.

Sullinger amounted for almost 2000 of those 3000 minutes you listed. The first four in the big man rotation that year was actually Sullinger(81 GP, 1915 MP), Amir Johnson(79 GP, 1800 MP), Olynyk(69 GP, 1395 MP)and Jerebko(78 GP, 1176 MP). Zeller and Lee(especially Lee who was in only 30 games early in the season) were minor contributors that year.

I would argue that those four guys were all much better front court defenders, especially team defenders, than any of our current group of Timelord, Kanter, Poirier, Fall, Williams and either Tatum or Hayward guarding at the PF spot. Theis might be the only guy on this team that was as good or better a defender than Sully, Kelly, Jonas and Amir was for our frontcourt in 2015-16.

Here's the thing: going into that season, no one would have said those guys were good defenders. Sully was slow-footed. Kelly was foul prone. Jerebko struggled to play in Detroit because of his defense. Amir was a solid scheme defender, but it was widely noted that he was losing athleticism and effectiveness.

I think saltlover's point is valid.

The fact is that one of CBS best skills is getting 85% of Al Horford's last season production from scrubs. Admittedly, these bigs on-court production is normally married with team effectiveness in abnormal ways, but they are still effective bigs.

I disagree with this. The year before the 2015-16 season, Olynyk and Sully showed they had good team defender potential and were good to very good defensive rebounders. Jerebko came over from Detroit and showed to be a good defender of small ball PFs the last 30 games of 2014-15. And Amir, at 27 years old, was showing in Toronto he was still the the tough, defensive minded player he built his reputation on.

While people may not have thought they could be a good defensive grouping to start the season, those 4 guys did show they could be or were good defenders the year earlier.

We now have Kanter, who has been a very bad defender most of his career. We also have Poirier, Timelord, Grant Williams and Tacko that have shown nothing in the NBA that they could be good defenders this year. And then there are the two SFs, Tatum and Hayward, that will be playing a bunch of PF this year.

Yeah, maybe Stevens works his magic and gets a lot more from them than anyone has a right to expect. But I wouldn't count on it happening just because Stevens had a group 3 years ago that wasn't expected to be as good as they were. That group at least had some history of having the talent and potential to be good NBA team defenders. Our current group has never shown that, except for Theis.

If Sully was actually viewed as a capable defender, he would have played more than 11 games and 120 minutes in the NBA after he left the Celtics at the age of 24.  More likely he’s rather limited and Brad was able to design a system that minimized those limitations and emphasized his strengths.

According to NBA.com, Sully and IT were on the court for 1600 minutes, and they had a defensive rating of 102.1, which would have been third in the league for a team that year, and better than the Celtics team Defensive rating. That’s a 5’8” PG who was seen as a defensive liability and a big with questionable conditioning and work ethic who pretty much bounced out of the league after that season. If he gets buy-in, Stevens can coach.

Yes, I won't refute that Stevens coached that group to be better than people thought they might be to start the season. But that still doesn't change the fact that the four regular guys in the bigs rotation that year, Sully, Kelly, Amir and Jerebko(and not Lee and Zeller who you tried to imply was playing a larger role than they did) has shown much better defensive skills than any big on the Celtics other than Theis.

I just don't see the situations as being similar. That 2015-16 team had vets that had shown they could be good defenders and two young guys that showed potential to be good team defenders, if not good one on one defenders. This team, except for Theis has none of that.

I guess we just see it two different ways. I just don't see the connection.

[celticsclay]

I think people are perhaps a little pessimistic on the defense.  In 2015-2016, the Celtics had the third-best defense in the NBA with IT leading the team in minutes and a bigs rotation that included Sullinger, Zeller, and David Lee combining for over 3000 minutes.

The lack of elite talent upfront may get exposed in specific playoff matchups, but it is well within Stevens’ abilities to design a scheme that produces good results over 82 games, which is all that matters in an over/under discussion.

Sullinger amounted for almost 2000 of those 3000 minutes you listed. The first four in the big man rotation that year was actually Sullinger(81 GP, 1915 MP), Amir Johnson(79 GP, 1800 MP), Olynyk(69 GP, 1395 MP)and Jerebko(78 GP, 1176 MP). Zeller and Lee(especially Lee who was in only 30 games early in the season) were minor contributors that year.

I would argue that those four guys were all much better front court defenders, especially team defenders, than any of our current group of Timelord, Kanter, Poirier, Fall, Williams and either Tatum or Hayward guarding at the PF spot. Theis might be the only guy on this team that was as good or better a defender than Sully, Kelly, Jonas and Amir was for our frontcourt in 2015-16.

Here's the thing: going into that season, no one would have said those guys were good defenders. Sully was slow-footed. Kelly was foul prone. Jerebko struggled to play in Detroit because of his defense. Amir was a solid scheme defender, but it was widely noted that he was losing athleticism and effectiveness.

I think saltlover's point is valid.

The fact is that one of CBS best skills is getting 85% of Al Horford's last season production from scrubs. Admittedly, these bigs on-court production is normally married with team effectiveness in abnormal ways, but they are still effective bigs.

I disagree with this. The year before the 2015-16 season, Olynyk and Sully showed they had good team defender potential and were good to very good defensive rebounders. Jerebko came over from Detroit and showed to be a good defender of small ball PFs the last 30 games of 2014-15. And Amir, at 27 years old, was showing in Toronto he was still the the tough, defensive minded player he built his reputation on.

While people may not have thought they could be a good defensive grouping to start the season, those 4 guys did show they could be or were good defenders the year earlier.

We now have Kanter, who has been a very bad defender most of his career. We also have Poirier, Timelord, Grant Williams and Tacko that have shown nothing in the NBA that they could be good defenders this year. And then there are the two SFs, Tatum and Hayward, that will be playing a bunch of PF this year.

Yeah, maybe Stevens works his magic and gets a lot more from them than anyone has a right to expect. But I wouldn't count on it happening just because Stevens had a group 3 years ago that wasn't expected to be as good as they were. That group at least had some history of having the talent and potential to be good NBA team defenders. Our current group has never shown that, except for Theis.

I think it is fair to say that Amir Johnson was viewed as a better defender than anyone we have coming into the season (although our european center is definitely a complete unknown. I also remember that KO always seemed to have stats that indicated he was a better defender than you would guess based on his limited athletic ability and short arms. That being said, i think it is a stretch to say anyone ever thought Sullinger was a good a defender. A good rebounder sure, but not really sure of anything behind that besides being a nuisance with his big body.