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

[Donoghus]

First thing's first;  Shank is a hack.  And he has been the better part of this century.  Really has seemed to have intensified in this age of the hot takez, talking heads, though. 

I was pretty bearish on this team at first but the addition of Kemba has walked me off the ledge a bit and I talked myself into him.  I think it'll be a rollercoaster of a season with some growing points and I'm still concerned about the fluidity of the offense but I am excited to see how the kids can grow.  Morale should better.  People wanted "warm & fuzzy' and I think they're gonna get it.  Personalities seem very likeable.   This is a playoff team.  I'm just concerned that the ceiling, for at least this season, might be low. 

[Banner18now!]

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

Theoretically on paper yes they are a worse team than last year. However, paper means nothing and chemistry means a lot as we learned last year. This team will have a better record and might make it further than last years team. Let’s wait to see what jump Brown and Tatum make by years end.

[SHAQATTACK]

this is more of a CBS group of guys of over achievers .  I really enjoyed watching Kyrie , until the playoff s where he quit on the team after the first game , its was sickening as Boston fan to see a Celtics be quitter.  Thats Cavs basketball.

They shouod be fun to watch ...but the center defense is gonna be ahuge problem .
If Horford was still around with Hayward and Kemba ,  i d be equally happy this year to be rid of the quitter and try again. 

Just have wait and see how badly Horford destroys us when we play Philly .

[Moranis]

There is a difference between having less talent and having a worse team.  In reality, I'm not sure they even have less talent.  Sure KW and EK have less talent than KI and AH, but they added Poirier, and those draft picks over baynes and Yabu.  They certainly upgraded talent at the bottom of the roster, while losing some at the top.  Time will tell, but I can very easily see a better team(more wins) despite less high end talent due to fit, improvements in the JT, JB, GH type players, and better end of roster talent.

Top end talent is what wins in the playoffs though.  The team easily could have more wins than last year in the regular season, but be a worse team come playoff time.  And I'm not so sure the bottom of the roster is actually better.  I mean Theis was basically like the 10th or 11th man last year, and he appears that he is starting this year.  Semi and Wanamaker have seemingly moved up the depth chart a bit as well.  The simple truth is Irving, Horford, Baynes, Morris, and Rozier were basically replaced by Walker, Kanter, Poirier, G. Williams, and Edwards/Langford.  That is a downgrade at every single one of those slots.

Now if Hayward can actually look like Utah Hayward, the team has a chance to be better than last year (even playoff better), but he certainly didn't look like Utah Hayward in the preseason. 

Boston projects as an upper 40's win team and 2nd round at best type team.  They could pretty realistically fall anywhere from 3rd to 9th in the conference in the regular season and could quite easily lose in the 1st round depending on the match-up (even as the 3rd seed).

This post makes it seem as if we were a good playoff team last season. We were far from that.

Even less talented variations of this team over the last 5 years have been better than what our “top-heavy” team last season was able to be.

Last year's team did about what I expected, at least in the playoffs.  I thought they would win more regular season games than they did, but last year's team, like this one lacked true top end talent.  By and large, top end talent wins in the playoffs.  There are the occasional series where that isn't the case and every so often there is an incredibly rare team that lacks true top end talent that make a deep playoff run, but at the end of the day, you should always bet on talent winning in the playoffs.  Basketball is pretty much the one team sport where if you have the best player on the floor and a bunch of scrubs you can win.  You see it time and time again at every single level of the sport.  The Celtics won't have the best player on the floor against virtually every team they could reasonably face in the playoffs, and that is a problem.  And it isn't like Boston is super deep and loaded with quality players at every spot on the floor.  This is not a team built to win in the playoffs and frankly given just how many young (and not highly drafted) players the team is going to be playing regular minutes, I'm not even sure it is going to be a good regular season team either. Shaughnessy may be a hack, but it doesn't mean he is wrong either.

[Muzzy66]

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

On paper yeah, probably. 

If "on paper" was all that mattered, then last year's Celtics probably would have won the East, and the Raptors would have been demolished by the Warriors. 

Fact is the Celtics have made the ECF with less talented teams then this, and with the departure of Kawhi (Raptors), Butler and Reddick (Sixers) and Brogdon (Bucks) you could make an argument that the other top teams in the East have all taken a backward step as well, in terms of pure on-paper talent. 

Boston seems to be the only one of those teams that has potentially made a major upgrade to it's intangibles as a result of it's roster changes.

I think the Bucks are going to be excellent.  They lost Brogdon, but they were without him for much of last season and were still dominant - I expect them to remain dominant. 

The Pacers added Brogdon so I think they are going to be better - a backcourt of Brogdon and Oladipo (if they can stay healthy) will be one of the best in the league. They could be a surprise team.

The Raptors have dropped off in a huge way and I'd be shocked if they finish anywhere above 5.

The Sixers gained Horford but i really don't know how he is going to fit alongside Embiid.  Horford is at his best when teams are playing through his as an interior playmaker, and I just don't see him getting a lot of touches on a team that already has Simmons, Embiid and Tobias Harris.  The Sixers may well run in tot he same type of chemistry issues Boston had last year.  Throw in the loss of Reddick (critical for their spacing) and Butler (critical as their closer) and you have what I see as a bit of a mess on Philly.  I don't think they are going to be as good as they look on paper.  I also question their coaching.

I don't see Boston having a better record then Milwaukee, but I think they are plenty capable of finishing anywhere in the #2 - #5 range.   

[MaxAMillion]

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

Nope...and I will be interested to see who gets blamed for the team not being as good. My guess is Tatum will be the target.

[celticsclay]

The league seems to have zagged a little bit from the stars and scrubs team building we were seeing recently. The raptors obviously had less star power last year than the 76ers or warriors, but beat them both. The Cavs certainly had less stars than the warriors the year they beat them. The heat had three bonafide in their prime superstars but lost to Dallas and San Antonio teams with 1 superstar. Coaching and depth seem to be more highly valued.

[Somebody]

The league seems to have zagged a little bit from the stars and scrubs team building we were seeing recently. The raptors obviously had less star power last year than the 76ers or warriors, but beat them both. The Cavs certainly had less stars than the warriors the year they beat them. The heat had three bonafide in their prime superstars but lost to Dallas and San Antonio teams with 1 superstar. Coaching and depth seem to be more highly valued.

San Antonio didn't even have an MVP caliber talent on their squad-Duncan barely had All-NBA level impact that season, and Leonard was a high level role player. It was Pop's finest hour: he made a hodgepodge of good role players and some low tier stars into a juggernaut that was only a rung or two below the best teams of all time.

[ozgod]

I would much rather be optimistic about things than perpetually miserable like Shank is.

[tazzmaniac]

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.

So you think this team is going to make the ECF.  Putting aside injuries and/or a big trade that seems highly unlikely. 

[Androslav]

IMO, in a playoff series as I see it now:
Milwaukee beats Boston
Boston beats Philly
Philly beats Milwaukee.

No clear favorite, even though Boston currently stands the 3rd of the mentioned group.

[tazzmaniac]

IMO, in a playoff series as I see it now:
Milwaukee beats Boston
Boston beats Philly
Philly beats Milwaukee.

No clear favorite, even though Boston currently stands the 3rd of the mentioned group.

How does Boston beat Philly with the decided weakness at center?  Philly no longer has Redick to exploit defensively. 

[SHAQATTACK]

The league seems to have zagged a little bit from the stars and scrubs team building we were seeing recently. The raptors obviously had less star power last year than the 76ers or warriors, but beat them both. The Cavs certainly had less stars than the warriors the year they beat them. The heat had three bonafide in their prime superstars but lost to Dallas and San Antonio teams with 1 superstar. Coaching and depth seem to be more highly valued.

you ve helped my feelings anyway

[Moranis]

The league seems to have zagged a little bit from the stars and scrubs team building we were seeing recently. The raptors obviously had less star power last year than the 76ers or warriors, but beat them both. The Cavs certainly had less stars than the warriors the year they beat them. The heat had three bonafide in their prime superstars but lost to Dallas and San Antonio teams with 1 superstar. Coaching and depth seem to be more highly valued.

San Antonio didn't even have an MVP caliber talent on their squad-Duncan barely had All-NBA level impact that season, and Leonard was a high level role player. It was Pop's finest hour: he made a hodgepodge of good role players and some low tier stars into a juggernaut that was only a rung or two below the best teams of all time.

Parker was an all star, 2nd Team All NBA, and finished 12th in MVP voting (he finished the 2 prior seasons 5th and 6th).  Duncan also finished 12th in MVP voting (he was 7th in the prior year).  Leonard finished 2nd Team All Defense and was the DPOY the following season (so he was right there on the cusp).  Manu was on the tail end, but still very effective and they went 2-deep at every single position.  They lost the prior year to a better Heat team when they were better, but the 14 Heat were at the end of the line as a truly dominant team.  They really were their big 3 and role players and Wade was fading fast with no way to counteract his loss of production/consistency.

[Moranis]

IMO, in a playoff series as I see it now:
Milwaukee beats Boston
Boston beats Philly
Philly beats Milwaukee.

No clear favorite, even though Boston currently stands the 3rd of the mentioned group.

How does Boston beat Philly with the decided weakness at center?  Philly no longer has Redick to exploit defensively.

I really don't see the narrative that Boston is still better than Philly.  I think we would have seen that last year as well (though I liked the Philly matchup better than Milwaukee).  Milwaukee and Philadelphia are BY FAR the 2 best teams in the East right now.  With load management and what not, they may not pull away record wise, but as playoff rosters go no one else is close to them.