How did the media underestimate this Celtics team?

[CelticsPoetry]

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.

I don't really believe two rookies, one undrafted one at that (his history of problems could flare up interacting with a guy like Butler), are gonna keep this up/carry that team. I'm just not convinced.

[CelticsPoetry]

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.

It's crazy that he hasnt won't COTY yet, could  have won it in 2017 or 2018. If we stay first in the league, it would be a robbery if Kemba doesnt win MVP and Brad COTY. But of course they wont, I don't know what the Celtics would have to do to win an award, we always get robbed. Last major award won by a Celtics is DPOY by KG if I'm not mistaken. Smart has been robbed of so many All-NBA Defensive teams it's disgusting.

[Valid]

 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.

If you were really using "the eyeballs test," you would have saw that Horford was our best player in all three of his seasons here.

Can we stop rewriting history and suddenly pretending that Horford wasn't that good for us just because he is playing elsewhere now?

Don't get me wrong: I think Philly will end up paying for that contract, because there is no way the 76ers will get four good years out of him, but let's stop with all of the "Horford wasn't that good" nonsense that I have seen posted here numerous times throughout this season. It reeks of homerism.

Put Horford on this Celtics team and they are the clear-cut favorites to win the East with a serious shot at the title. We're still really good without him, but we would be better with him, and anyone who says otherwise is just being biased.

[Valid]

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).

Yeah and that team won 55 games and came within minutes of reaching the finals and WOULD have made the finals had Kyrie not gotten hurt, so I'm not sure why you're using them as an example.

[Tr1boy]

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.

1st let us ask

why did you underestimate? 

more than half of this forum did. Especially after Kyme walked and took Durant with him/AD signed with the Lakers. 

That bozo Mazz, still thinks that this team has no shot to get out of the east.

[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).

Yeah and that team won 55 games and came within minutes of reaching the finals and WOULD have made the finals had Kyrie not gotten hurt, so I'm not sure why you're using them as an example.

I feel like a hard time to be a contrarian or a bit pessimistic is when the team in question has won 9 or 10 straight and has the best record in the league. There will be tougher stretches for sure, but right now if you want to be more negative or a realist on the Celtics you can end up with some strange arguments

[GreenCoffeeBean]

We as fans underestimated this team as well, just look at some of the threads from the summer. It’s still early though and we could easily hit a 5+ game slump. Horford and KI are good players but the former might be past his expiration date and the latter wasn’t happy here. Horford would still be valuable on this team but he does tend to slow things down. I think this team thrives playing fast.

We also can’t overstate the significance of getting rid of Morris and Rozier. In no world should Morris have been starting over Brown. That was weak on Brad’s part. Our bench is also much healthier with Edwards instead of Rozier.

I for one wish this team played every night right now, ignoring the fatigue that would cause.

[footey]

Both the Celtics and the Raptors were underestimated by the media.

I think Raptors are as big a threat to us, if not bigger, than Philly or Milwaukee, to get out of the East.

Have a well earned championship swagger with a chip on their shoulder due to Kawhi departure. Siakam is a problem. I underestimated him. Thought he benefitted from having Kawhi and would struggle creating. I was wrong.

[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.

If you were really using "the eyeballs test," you would have saw that Horford was our best player in all three of his seasons here.

Can we stop rewriting history and suddenly pretending that Horford wasn't that good for us just because he is playing elsewhere now?

Don't get me wrong: I think Philly will end up paying for that contract, because there is no way the 76ers will get four good years out of him, but let's stop with all of the "Horford wasn't that good" nonsense that I have seen posted here numerous times throughout this season. It reeks of homerism.

Put Horford on this Celtics team and they are the clear-cut favorites to win the East with a serious shot at the title. We're still really good without him, but we would be better with him, and anyone who says otherwise is just being biased.

Horford was our best player? Come on now!!?

[Neurotic Guy]

I don't think it's surprising that the media and fans underestimated the team. You'd have to have been remarkably prescient to have predicted the improvement of we've seen in so many players - never mind to have been certain of the chemistry and "fit" provided by Kemba.   Not saying many here didn't play the "what if" game with our roster, but it would have been impossible to know for sure that we'd see clear improvement by Jaylen, Jayson, Marcus, Gordon, Daniel, Brad and Rob - I'd say significant improvement in JB, Rob, GH and Theis.   

And speaking of unpredictable, maybe the most exciting and unforeseen thing about this team is the talent of the rookies.  Three  rookies are already getting real PT (GW, JG, CE) and 3 others seem that they could possibly contribute at some point (TW, RL, and Tacko).  Given the current roster, this team hasn't become what it will -- and then there is the possible use of assets in a trade. 

[tstorey_97]

I'm not a genius, nor can I see the future, but, it really isn't that hard to see where the Celtics were headed this season. Stevens is a master regular season coach. This season he again has a young team the core of which are "his guys."

You add Walker,  the antithesis of Irving, to the Tatum/Brown/Smart/Theis group who've been through plenty of playoff games together why wouldn't they win a zillion games?

Steven's has "the core" and a college all star team on the bench. He has a steady veteran point guard to back up Walker and the NBA east isn't that good....wait a minute...is the NBA west that good?

Take the weight of expectations off of these guys and you have a recipe for 55+ wins.

We could predict most of the above as we've watched Stevens for some years now. The media? Read about the media and you will learn that you will have a much longer happier life if you ignore the media.

 

[ozgod]

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.

Because hindsight is 20/20...at the time most people were cautious because of what happened last year, and nobody knew how they would gel. Nobody knew how Hayward would turn out. People weren't sure if Tatum and Brown would take steps forward. As you say in your last paragraph, there were 4 "ifs" that had to line up.

Personally I thought they would be a lot more fun to watch but probably not a 10-1 team at this point.

[mr. dee]

ESPN and other media outlet are nothing but a bunch of rumormongers and gossipers. Only moronic hot takes without any substances or deep analysis. They treat players like video game characters without really going deep into the players game, strength and weaknesses.

I'd rather watch youtubers like Coach Nick and Heat Check on how and why some teams are successful and why they are not.

[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.

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.

We have a thread on here titled ESPN Projects the Celtics as #2 in the East.  https://forum.celticsstrong.com/index.php?topic=101195.0.  Now granted that was just Pelton and using RPM which is suspect.  There was also another thread on here where they actually showed where they thought teams would finish and several people had Boston at 2, though the vast majority had them at 3 (I think that might have been the annual GM Survey and not ESPN now that I think about it).   

Also, I know they had the Nets ahead of Boston in that one article you cited, but they project them at less wins by all 4 metrics they site (including best case).  It seems strange to have thus ranked the Nets better than the Celtics when you think the Nets will win less games. 

[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.

We have a thread on here titled ESPN Projects the Celtics as #2 in the East.  https://forum.celticsstrong.com/index.php?topic=101195.0.  Now granted that was just Pelton and using RPM which is suspect.  There was also another thread on here where they actually showed where they thought teams would finish and several people had Boston at 2, though the vast majority had them at 3 (I think that might have been the annual GM Survey and not ESPN now that I think about it).   

Also, I know they had the Nets ahead of Boston in that one article you cited, but they project them at less wins by all 4 metrics they site (including best case).  It seems strange to have thus ranked the Nets better than the Celtics when you think the Nets will win less games.

On a scale of one to ten how much have you enjoyed this stretch and start to the season. I’m at a 9 cause I have definitely thought a number of times how much my dad would have enjoyed this and it has been the best stretch they have has since he passed (last year would have driven him nuts)