How did the media underestimate this Celtics team?

[cman88]

even with the addition of walker, all we heard in the off-season was how the celtics were going to take a major step back and maybe were 5th best in the east.

so far, through the first 11 games that is not the case as the celtics are an NBA best 10-1 and have won most of those games missing Hayward or Brown. So, where did the media go wrong?

I think they unfairly assumed no development out of Brown/Tatum and that Hayward would still be his 11ppg he was last year. And that Kemba isnt the talent of kyrie. its like they looked at the stats from last year on paper and said "oh this team isnt going to be as good" without accounting for those top 3 things and better chemistry. But we as celtics fans know that sure Morris/rozier may have more talent than wannamaker/williams and may get more points. but they are selfish gunners who refused to play their roles and defer to whom should be taking the shots.

I always said though, if Tatum/Brown take the next steps in their development and Hayward can return to his all-star form and Kemba gives you 95% of the production Kyrie gave...this team was sneaky scary good and so far all those 4 have come to fruition. We have hit some speed bumps with injuries through the way. but watch out when this team is fully healthy.

[arctic 3.0]

Stars drive clicks.
Media will chase an anointed star around (name a player in LA) until they are way beyond relevance (Melo).

Kind of glad to be outside the spotlight. Gives this team a chance to establish themselves with out the glare.

[Somebody]

The massive disappointment that was last season. The narrative of us underperforming clouded the fact that we had an All-NBA player, an All-Star recovering from his injury plus 3 sub All-Star players in Tatum, Brown and Smart who're 25 or under.

[keevsnick]

even with the addition of walker, all we heard in the off-season was how the celtics were going to take a major step back and maybe were 5th best in the east.

so far, through the first 11 games that is not the case as the celtics are an NBA best 10-1 and have won most of those games missing Hayward or Brown. So, where did the media go wrong?

I think they unfairly assumed no development out of Brown/Tatum and that Hayward would still be his 11ppg he was last year. And that Kemba isnt the talent of kyrie. its like they looked at the stats from last year on paper and said "oh this team isnt going to be as good" without accounting for those top 3 things and better chemistry. But we as celtics fans know that sure Morris/rozier may have more talent than wannamaker/williams and may get more points. but they are selfish gunners who refused to play their roles and defer to whom should be taking the shots.

I always said though, if Tatum/Brown take the next steps in their development and Hayward can return to his all-star form and Kemba gives you 95% of the production Kyrie gave...this team was sneaky scary good and so far all those 4 have come to fruition. We have hit some speed bumps with injuries through the way. but watch out when this team is fully healthy.

Its funny to me that the entire world spent the last five years talking about how important wings are and how playing small can blow other teams out of the water and then the Celtcis g that exact route and people are surprised it works?

To be fair there were a lot of questions about this team before the season. Its gonna take a while before people buy that Brown  is better, that Tatum is better (he is overall, needs to be more efficient), that Hayward is back and that Kemba can be amazing on a team with talent.

[KG Living Legend]

 First and foremost. That scrub Kyrie lowered our stock. Second is the vastly overrated old man Horford and his perceived loss and having no apparent replacement for what he did bring.

 I think however that taking the ball out of Horford's hands and certainly Irving's hands has helped the real future of the team. Brown, Tatum, Walker, Kemba, Smart.

[saltlover]

Kemba was also a little underrated.  Chemistry aside, Kemba might be a straight-up basketball upgrade to Kyrie.  They are night and day different on the defensive end.  The argument was would improved leadership from Kemba offset the basketball ability lost in Kyrie, but perhaps there is a chemistry upgrade with no loss of quality st the PG position.

Also, Marcus Smart shooting over 40% from 3 on 50% more attempts per game is not something that I saw coming, and I was bullish on this team.  I hope it continues.

[footey]

Not just the media.

Fans too. 

I think the following factors were an important reason why we/they miscalculated:

1. The degree to which Kyrie hurt team chemistry, and growth of young players;
2. The impact of losing Horford was exaggerated; his replacement cost through committee has been fine;
3. The early chemistry that would be facilitated by Team USA bonding of 3 Celtics with new Celtic Walker;
4. How good normal Gordon Hayward is, and that he would become normal again;
5. Brown and Tatum would be able to jump back onto the growth curve, after treading water last season; see 1 above;
6. Roster consolidation (i.e. losing Rozier and Morris) enables Brad to jack up minutes of his top 5 players, keeps them happier (we now have 4 potential 20 PPG players, and Smart, who could care less what his PPG are);
7. Media has been caught up in big two musical chairs, and loves to speculate how the rosters with multiple stars (LA, LA, Philly, HOU) will fare;
8.  The Western Conference bias; it's better 1-8, but not 1-5, IMO;
9. How good a coach Brad Stevens really is, when ALL THE PLAYERS buy in, and implement his system; this team is beautiful to watch (first and last games excepted);
10. How much of a leader Kemba Walker is, and how perfectly he fits in with his teammates and coaching staff.

[jpotter33]

Kemba was also a little underrated.  Chemistry aside, Kemba might be a straight-up basketball upgrade to Kyrie.  They are night and day different on the defensive end. The argument was would improved leadership from Kemba offset the basketball ability lost in Kyrie, but perhaps there is a chemistry upgrade with no loss of quality st the PG position.

Also, Marcus Smart shooting over 40% from 3 on 50% more attempts per game is not something that I saw coming, and I was bullish on this team.  I hope it continues.

This is a big component, I think, along with Kemba’s much-less ball-dominant ways. Super impressed with Kemba’s defensive energy and activity.

[Rosco917]

Media doesn't like teams that share the ball in order to win. They like teams that have established stars to swoon over.

Teams the move the ball and share the ball are difficult to write about, the writer has to actually investigate and reason for themselves. While teams with mega-stars are easy to write about.

Honestly, I think we've only seen the tip of the iceberg. We're a veteran bench backup and a defensive minded center away. 

[timpiker]

Take last year's team and take away arguably our best 2 players and that's why the media said we'd be worse.  What the media failed to recognize is that Cryee is poison and addition by subtraction, Kemba is well liked by his teammates and can score at will, that Brown would be so improved, that Marcus Smart is the heart and soul (not Cryee) and that the FIBA games really brought this team together (it was perfect timing for us).

[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).

[SparzWizard]

Also, media hates Boston sports in general so they don't get any respect.

[colincb]

The Cs were widely rated as 3rd-best in the East, but clearly behind the Bucks and 76ers.

It was easy to underestimate the Cs because of how many question marks there were and the loss of KI and AH. Kemba has offset the loss of Irving by himself and the improvement from the returning players has been remarkable. Statistically, the Cs are much better than 2018-19 and we now have 3 starters averaging more than 20 ppg.

I didn't expect that and I don't see how many could have foreseen anything close to this start.

[Ogaju]

because they really have no idea what they are talking about most of the time.

[Ogaju]

 First and foremost. That scrub Kyrie lowered our stock. Second is the vastly overrated old man Horford and his perceived loss and having no apparent replacement for what he did bring.

 I think however that taking the ball out of Horford's hands and certainly Irving's hands has helped the real future of the team. Brown, Tatum, Walker, Kemba, Smart.

yeah Horford who could not get out of town fast enough got a lot of love from the blog. I never thought he would be that big of a loss, but I am not an expert. I just use the eyeballs test.