Shaughnessy: "For this year's Celtics, optimism may be trumping reality"

[wiley]

Optimism is supposed to have an excellent chance at trumping reality. 
It's a feeling.  Can't argue with feelings.  In any case, this will be a feel-good team, possibly an overachieving team, a team that other teams hate to play.

I would consider this team a contender if they had a stud big man defender.  Without that, I think the chances of reaching the finals are very slim. 

I'm still more excited about watching this team than I've been in a long while.
Mainly because I think the teamwork will be excellent.

Are there people out there predicting a title?  I have no problem with the optimist/hopeful crowd.  That's sports.

[dreamgreen]

Anything with the word "trump" in it makes me want to throw up!!

But I'm excited to see a team that I enjoy watching vs. last year when I found myself turning off the games for the first time in my life!

[droopdog7]

He isn't wrong though.  The team is worse than last year's team.

Depends on how you define worse.  I think it's conceivable that the team will win as many or more games and probably will get at least as far.

I think the miscalculation is about last year's team.  It wasn't very good and the combination of not having such an aloof star to shedding me first guys like Morris and Rozier and the incremental growth of brown and tatum and an improved hayward suggest this team could surprise.

Are we a title contender?  No, but we weren't one at any point last year once the actual games began.

[PhoSita]

I'm pretty tired of Shaughnessy's whole shtick at this point.

He's always the smartest guy in the room fighting against the "homerism" and "excessive optimism" of the townie fans who are too emotionally invested in the team.


You know, these days I have access to plenty of national media outlets and national voices / writers on sports who can give me the unvarnished, uninvested take on my favorite team.  It's not special or edgy or interesting to be the guy in the home town who is so "objective."  In fact, pretending that you don't have emotional stakes just comes across as disingenuous.  Every human being alive, and especially those who exclusively follow or cover the teams of one particular town, have some kind of emotional stakes, positive or negative.  It's better to be up front about that than to pretend like you're the exception.


CHB doesn't offer anything remarkable at this point.  The national media people are more objective on Boston area teams than CHB's supposedly "objective" takes because they are actually removed from it all, rather than pretending to be removed from it in order to get a reaction from locals.

[footey]

He isn't wrong though.  The team is worse than last year's team.

Don't they have to play the games first before we determine that?

[aefgogreen]

One thing I keep coming back to is how does Walker make us better than Kyrie.  I don't think he will shoot better or defend better.  Is he going to create for others any better? I get he will be much less of a distraction off the court, but how many wins does that get you on it?

[footey]

Teams are not defined by clouds of statistics on paper. They define themselves.

This line alone warrants a TP!!

[footey]

One thing I keep coming back to is how does Walker make us better than Kyrie.  I don't think he will shoot better or defend better.  Is he going to create for others any better? I get he will be much less of a distraction off the court, but how many wins does that get you on it?

Kemba is good.  Kyrie was poison. That simple.

[aefgogreen]

One thing I keep coming back to is how does Walker make us better than Kyrie.  I don't think he will shoot better or defend better.  Is he going to create for others any better? I get he will be much less of a distraction off the court, but how many wins does that get you on it?

Kemba is good.  Kyrie was poison. That simple.

But what specifically will Kemba do more effectively than what Kyrie did?  Are we really going to win more games because we no longer have Kyrie's baggage?  Or is it something else?

[wiley]

One thing I keep coming back to is how does Walker make us better than Kyrie.  I don't think he will shoot better or defend better.  Is he going to create for others any better? I get he will be much less of a distraction off the court, but how many wins does that get you on it?

Kemba is good.  Kyrie was poison. That simple.

But what specifically will Kemba do more effectively than what Kyrie did?  Are we really going to win more games because we no longer have Kyrie's baggage?  Or is it something else?

It doesn't work that way. Sometimes teams lose a star (without a replacement) and then have a better record the following year.  There is no one to one comparison of Kemba verses Kyrie that should say anything about our record, especially given all the other changes...no Horford, etc...  You've taken the wrong angle..

[footey]

One thing I keep coming back to is how does Walker make us better than Kyrie.  I don't think he will shoot better or defend better.  Is he going to create for others any better? I get he will be much less of a distraction off the court, but how many wins does that get you on it?

Kemba is good.  Kyrie was poison. That simple.

But what specifically will Kemba do more effectively than what Kyrie did?  Are we really going to win more games because we no longer have Kyrie's baggage?  Or is it something else?

You mean besides not undermine the coach and ruin the team chemistry? 

[Surferdad]

One thing I keep coming back to is how does Walker make us better than Kyrie.  I don't think he will shoot better or defend better.  Is he going to create for others any better? I get he will be much less of a distraction off the court, but how many wins does that get you on it?

Kemba is good.  Kyrie was poison. That simple.

But what specifically will Kemba do more effectively than what Kyrie did?  Are we really going to win more games because we no longer have Kyrie's baggage?  Or is it something else?

It doesn't work that way. Sometimes teams lose a star (without a replacement) and then have a better record the following year.  There is no one to one comparison of Kemba verses Kyrie that should say anything about our record, especially given all the other changes...no Horford, etc...  You've taken the wrong angle..

The next year, or even right away.  I'm sure no one saw LAC's success after trading away Tobias Harris.

It's called 'chemistry' and is not reflected in stats.

[ChillyWilly]

I didn't know he was still a thing. 

[jpotter33]

He isn't wrong though.  The team is worse than last year's team.

Maybe on paper, but as last year proved what looks good on paper doesn’t always translate to real life.

I’d put money on this team having a better overall record and advancing further in the playoffs than last year’s team. They already look to fit much better together than last year’s team, and all three of Tatum, Brown, and Hayward look to have improved and/or gotten healthier/more confident since last year.

[mobilija]

He isn't wrong though.  The team is worse than last year's team.

Depends on how you define worse.  I think it's conceivable that the team will win as many or more games and probably will get at least as far.

I think the miscalculation is about last year's team.  It wasn't very good and the combination of not having such an aloof star to shedding me first guys like Morris and Rozier and the incremental growth of brown and tatum and an improved hayward suggest this team could surprise.

Are we a title contender?  No, but we weren't one at any point last year once the actual games began.

^This
TP