How did the media underestimate this Celtics team?

[Ogaju]

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).

At some point you will believe  just like the experts in the media. This team is a very good team and it is ready to win now as long as it is not hindered by injuries or the NBA refs.

[footey]

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).

Many in national media had Celtics pegged as 2nd seed?  LOL

[Ogaju]

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).

Many in national media had Celtics pegged as 2nd seed?  LOL

Yeah, get ready for the revisions. Celtics were not even a blip on the leader board. I saw people rationalize that Celtics would be behind the likes of Indiana and even Brooklyn.

[colincb]

nm

[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).

Many in national media had Celtics pegged as 2nd seed?  LOL

Yep, there was an ESPN publication where they listed where they thought everyone would be seeded and like 5 of their experts had Boston as the 2nd seed.  That said, every single one of them had them losing to the Sixers or Bucks in the ECS as every single ESPN expert had the Sixers and Bucks playing for the ECF.  ESPN has pretty consistently held them out as the 3rd seed, though, which is a far cry from 5th. 

[Phantom255x]

I had them as a 3 or 4 seed in the East. Felt MIL/PHI would be better and that 3-5 seeds would be some order of Boston/Indiana/Toronto. But I'll be honest, this team has defied my expectations so far AND I feel MIL/PHI aren't "unbeatable". They've got flaws themselves. Miami is also looking like a threat in the East.

[PhoSita]

Carry over from last year when everybody thought they would be really good and they were just OK.

[saltlover]

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).

Many in national media had Celtics pegged as 2nd seed?  LOL

Yep, there was an ESPN publication where they listed where they thought everyone would be seeded and like 5 of their experts had Boston as the 2nd seed.  That said, every single one of them had them losing to the Sixers or Bucks in the ECS as every single ESPN expert had the Sixers and Bucks playing for the ECF.  ESPN has pretty consistently held them out as the 3rd seed, though, which is a far cry from 5th.

Yeah, I think you’re going to need to link that ESPN 2nd forecast.

There’s this one, where we’re 3rd in the East, but with a projected record as close to Orland at 8 as Philly at 2, and the 9th overall record in the NBA.

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/27426015/nba-preseason-predictions-our-experts-picks-2019-20

There’s their rankings after the preseason, where we’re 4th in the East (behind Brooklyn in addition to Milwaukee and Philly), and 11th in the NBA.

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/27844219/nba-preview-2019-rankings-projections-big-questions-all-30-teams

2nd in the East was just not a position anyone staked to unless they were just being bold for the sake of being bold.  Furthermore, the forecasts with us 3rd tended to show us in a clump of teams in the 3-6 range, and not near the top 2.

Now, who knows how the season will turn out, but it is not remotely unreasonable to say, based on 11 games, that the national basketball media underrated the Celtics rather significantly.

[nickagneta]

Not mentioned at all is that part of the reason the Celtics were so disappointing last year was that one of the best coaches in the league had a terrible year coaching.

Brad Stevens has definitely bounced back. He has this team prepared. His defensive stamp is all over this squad. He has developed the youth and is getting great results out of them. His 1PG 3Wing 1Big offense is the best in the league.

Brad Stevens as one of the best or the best coach in the league is back. He definitely has this team playing once again in his usual(other than last year) "the total is better than the sums of it's parts" manner.

[GreenFaith1819]

From my observations the media has always seemingly been unkind to BOS...maybe it's the blue collar allure that makes us less appealing....our current lack of superstars....

I will say this though - there is increasing talk on NBA TV and ESPN about us meeting the Lakers in June....seeing how we're both leading the NBA.

Bring. It. On. (With Gordon healthy, though).

[Ogaju]

Not mentioned at all is that part of the reason the Celtics were so disappointing last year was that one of the best coaches in the league had a terrible year coaching.

Brad Stevens has definitely bounced back. He has this team prepared. His defensive stamp is all over this squad. He has developed the youth and is getting great results out of them. His 1PG 3Wing 1Big offense is the best in the league.

Brad Stevens as one of the best or the best coach in the league is back. He definitely has this team playing once again in his usual(other than last year) "the total is better than the sums of it's parts" manner.

And it gets closer to confirming the suspicion that Brad does better as a giant killer. He needs a team that buys into his philosophy and not a star laden team that chooses to improvise rather than play the coach's system. Team got rid of the improvising players like Kyrie, Rozier, and Morris. The returning stars were humbled by last year therefore more open to coaching, and BINGO Brad has his team back.

[Ogaju]

From my observations the media has always seemingly seemed unkind to BOS...maybe it's the blue collar allure that makes us less appealing....our current lack of superstars....

I will say this though - there is increasing talk on NBA TV and ESPN about us meeting the Lakers in June....seeing how we're both leading the NBA.

Bring. It. On. (With Gordon healthy, though).

With both teams healthy, I like Brad as the X-factor. I believe the Cs win the East... I dont know who will win the West.

[Phantom255x]

Not mentioned at all is that part of the reason the Celtics were so disappointing last year was that one of the best coaches in the league had a terrible year coaching.

Brad Stevens has definitely bounced back. He has this team prepared. His defensive stamp is all over this squad. He has developed the youth and is getting great results out of them. His 1PG 3Wing 1Big offense is the best in the league.

Brad Stevens as one of the best or the best coach in the league is back. He definitely has this team playing once again in his usual(other than last year) "the total is better than the sums of it's parts" manner.

Yeah a lot of reports said Kyrie and Brad didn't get along and agree with each other. I think that affected a lot of things last season. But now, we got rid of the locker room cancer and also got rid of Rozier and Morris. I don't hate Rozier/Morris and thank them for everything over the years, but it also seemed like last season those two were only playing for new contracts. And I guess it worked, but it made it so that the team took so many dumb shots and there was no chemistry on the court. Brown, Tatum and Hayward never got as many opportunities as a result too.

[SHAQATTACK]

Kemba.allows himself to be coached ,  Kyrie trained by Bron ...does not respect authority or a coach .   

The individuality of Irving threw CBS off his mark.  And pretty much the whole team .  Kyrie was doing his thing and the rest of the team did not know what to do....play with Kyrie or play CBS team ball.

Guys like Lebron , wade , and Kyrie only jell on  certain teams with players such as themsélves , ones where the coach is second , or submitts to street ball game  .   Notice Rick. Carlisle can't operate with Lebron personality either. 

[celticsclay]

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).

Many in national media had Celtics pegged as 2nd seed?  LOL

Yep, there was an ESPN publication where they listed where they thought everyone would be seeded and like 5 of their experts had Boston as the 2nd seed.  That said, every single one of them had them losing to the Sixers or Bucks in the ECS as every single ESPN expert had the Sixers and Bucks playing for the ECF.  ESPN has pretty consistently held them out as the 3rd seed, though, which is a far cry from 5th.

Yeah, I think you’re going to need to link that ESPN 2nd forecast.

There’s this one, where we’re 3rd in the East, but with a projected record as close to Orland at 8 as Philly at 2, and the 9th overall record in the NBA.

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/27426015/nba-preseason-predictions-our-experts-picks-2019-20

There’s their rankings after the preseason, where we’re 4th in the East (behind Brooklyn in addition to Milwaukee and Philly), and 11th in the NBA.

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/27844219/nba-preview-2019-rankings-projections-big-questions-all-30-teams

2nd in the East was just not a position anyone staked to unless they were just being bold for the sake of being bold.  Furthermore, the forecasts with us 3rd tended to show us in a clump of teams in the 3-6 range, and not near the top 2.

Now, who knows how the season will turn out, but it is not remotely unreasonable to say, based on 11 games, that the national basketball media underrated the Celtics rather significantly.

Great receipts on this one. Also Vegas had the 76ers at 54.5 wins. We were at 48.5 the pacers and raptors were right there with us at 47, and 46.5. The idea that people thought we would be the second seed seems to not be based on anything I can find.