Steve Bulpett: Next year's team could be worse than this years

[LarBrd33]

Makes sense.  As is, this is a 32-45 win team.

That is such a wide range. So given this past season we could be either Washington or Charlotte. You're given yourself a lot of margin for error (aka hedging your bets).

13 games isn't that wide of a margin. 

Charlotte could have won 45 games this year.   They could have won 32.  Injuries and luck were a big part of it.   Boston overachieved to 40 wins.  I honestly think that's the high end of the spectrum for us.   In the "How many games will the 2016 Celtics win?" thread, I picked 36-40.  Hopefully we can overachieve to 40 again next year. 

[Hemingway]

Way to early to project, there is almost 0% chance we roll out the exact same roster next year so we might as well try to predict out 16-17 record.

But even if we did absolutely nothing, (resign guys and trade picks for future picks) I think its 50-50 on doing better or worse next year. Maybe we just got a lot of luck, maybe things really clicked and we'd keep the momentum.

[TheFlex]

Makes sense.  As is, this is a 32-45 win team.

That is such a wide range. So given this past season we could be either Washington or Charlotte. You're given yourself a lot of margin for error (aka hedging your bets).

13 games isn't that wide of a margin. 

Charlotte could have won 45 games this year.   They could have won 32.  Injuries and luck were a big part of it.   Boston overachieved to 40 wins.  I honestly think that's the high end of the spectrum for us.   In the "How many games will the 2016 Celtics win?" thread, I picked 36-40.  Hopefully we can overachieve to 40 again next year.

This is blatantly false. The Celtics team being described (Smart, IT, AB, Turner, Crowder, Sullynyk, Bass, Zeller) is entirely different from the one that contributed most negatively to last year's sub-.500 finish (Rondo, Smart, Bradley, Thornton, Turner, Sullynyk, Bass, Zeller). The former squad had a winning percentage well over .500. Thus finishing under .500 again over 82 games with the squad that dominated the final 35-40 games would accurately be described as underachieving, not "overachieving again."

[MBunge]

Without an elite player to build around, it's hard to see the team getting a lot better...but that's considering they had one of the better records on the league after the all-star break.

But be a lot worse?  C'mon!  Our young players are going to improve just like everyone else's, it's pretty likely Ainge is going to get at least one or two decent players out of the draft and I'd almost guarantee that Ainge is signing a significant FA this offseason.  And by significant I mean at least someone like Asik.  This team with Stevens is too good to get a high lottery pick and the cap is going through the roof, so there's no reason to go to go to extremes to try and preserve cap space.

Mike

[Eddie20]

Makes sense.  As is, this is a 32-45 win team.

That is such a wide range. So given this past season we could be either Washington or Charlotte. You're given yourself a lot of margin for error (aka hedging your bets).

13 games isn't that wide of a margin. 

Charlotte could have won 45 games this year.   They could have won 32.  Injuries and luck were a big part of it.   Boston overachieved to 40 wins.  I honestly think that's the high end of the spectrum for us.   In the "How many games will the 2016 Celtics win?" thread, I picked 36-40.  Hopefully we can overachieve to 40 again next year.

This is blatantly false. The Celtics team being described (Smart, IT, AB, Turner, Crowder, Sullynyk, Bass, Zeller) is entirely different from the one that contributed most negatively to last year's sub-.500 finish (Rondo, Smart, Bradley, Thornton, Turner, Sullynyk, Bass, Zeller). The former squad had a winning percentage well over .500. Thus finishing under .500 again over 82 games with the squad that dominated the final 35-40 games would accurately be described as underachieving, not "overachieving again."

That's a key point. The Crowder and Thomas additions, combined with Rondo's departure, provided a huge improvement. We'll also be helped by not having such a high turnover rate/more roster stability next season. Plus, I expect Stevens to continue to improve as a HC.

[tazzmaniac]

Makes sense.  As is, this is a 32-45 win team.

That is such a wide range. So given this past season we could be either Washington or Charlotte. You're given yourself a lot of margin for error (aka hedging your bets).

13 games isn't that wide of a margin. 

Charlotte could have won 45 games this year.   They could have won 32.  Injuries and luck were a big part of it.   Boston overachieved to 40 wins.  I honestly think that's the high end of the spectrum for us.   In the "How many games will the 2016 Celtics win?" thread, I picked 36-40.  Hopefully we can overachieve to 40 again next year.

This is blatantly false. The Celtics team being described (Smart, IT, AB, Turner, Crowder, Sullynyk, Bass, Zeller) is entirely different from the one that contributed most negatively to last year's sub-.500 finish (Rondo, Smart, Bradley, Thornton, Turner, Sullynyk, Bass, Zeller). The former squad had a winning percentage well over .500. Thus finishing under .500 again over 82 games with the squad that dominated the final 35-40 games would accurately be described as underachieving, not "overachieving again."

It matters who you play.  The sub-.500 team faced an extremely difficult November schedule.  The well above .500 team got to play a much easier schedule mostly against the weaker East.  You forgot to include Green in your player list. 

[TheFlex]

Makes sense.  As is, this is a 32-45 win team.

That is such a wide range. So given this past season we could be either Washington or Charlotte. You're given yourself a lot of margin for error (aka hedging your bets).

13 games isn't that wide of a margin. 

Charlotte could have won 45 games this year.   They could have won 32.  Injuries and luck were a big part of it.   Boston overachieved to 40 wins.  I honestly think that's the high end of the spectrum for us.   In the "How many games will the 2016 Celtics win?" thread, I picked 36-40.  Hopefully we can overachieve to 40 again next year.

This is blatantly false. The Celtics team being described (Smart, IT, AB, Turner, Crowder, Sullynyk, Bass, Zeller) is entirely different from the one that contributed most negatively to last year's sub-.500 finish (Rondo, Smart, Bradley, Thornton, Turner, Sullynyk, Bass, Zeller). The former squad had a winning percentage well over .500. Thus finishing under .500 again over 82 games with the squad that dominated the final 35-40 games would accurately be described as underachieving, not "overachieving again."

It matters who you play.  The sub-.500 team faced an extremely difficult November schedule.  The well above .500 team got to play a much easier schedule mostly against the weaker East.  You forgot to include Green in your player list.

Thought I was missing someone.

Sure, injuries, a tougher schedule and a stagnation in player development could lead to a significant regression. But if the assumed goal of all this "not so fast" rhetoric is objectivity, it's realist to assume that such a regression would lead to .500 ball (down from .645 ball following the ASB), while pessimist to assume that such a regression would lead to sub-.500 ball.

[rondohondo]

This is basically a free pass for danny this year. We can sign a max free agent this year without worrying about it being an overpay because the cap is rising so much in 2016. At worst we will sign a Middleton type plus our draft picks. I don't see how this team will be worse in a weak East...

[tarheelsxxiii]

Makes sense.  As is, this is a 32-45 win team.

That is such a wide range. So given this past season we could be either Washington or Charlotte. You're given yourself a lot of margin for error (aka hedging your bets).

13 games isn't that wide of a margin. 

Charlotte could have won 45 games this year.   They could have won 32.  Injuries and luck were a big part of it.   Boston overachieved to 40 wins.  I honestly think that's the high end of the spectrum for us.   In the "How many games will the 2016 Celtics win?" thread, I picked 36-40.  Hopefully we can overachieve to 40 again next year.

Please see "standard deviation" for an idea of what is and is not a wide margin.

[BornReady]

i agree with bulpett
as it probably caught ainge by surprise that hes rebuilding plan had a minor disruption and that we improved drastically from last year

if we dont make the playoffs and are in the tank then we would have the chance to get one of the top 8 guys and perhaps add a player that could possibly become a part of our own big 3

[RockinRyA]

Washington aside (who I think were playing really well before the Wall injury) I think these playoff games prove that the Celtics really were the no.2 team in the East after the break.

[Greyman]

The only thing certain is uncertainty, draft - free trade - what else does DA have up his sleeve? I like to think that if DA does very little or even continues to accumulate (not sure how), he sees a bigger picture with greater gains down the track. One that will result with the team getting something closer to 'the players we want' than 'the players available.'

I doubt that nothing much at all will happen, the opportunity to tank this year has passed and there is no going back so some improvement should happen, even if most of the war chest is held back.

[TheTruthFot18]

Anige was upset? Any proof of that or he's just being negative for sake of it?

I mean, he covers the team, so if anyone would know, he would.  And I think he's right.  Ainge did his weekly interview on 98.5 when they were in the middle of the race for a spot, and he did noooot sound excited at all.  If I remember correctly, he said something along the lines of "I'm happy for the guys on this specific team, but if I'm being totally honest, making the playoffs isn't what's good for the long-term future of the franchise.

I also remember near the end of the season where it was one of the buzzer-beater wins, or a win that came down to the final minute.  And when they put the camera on him after the clinching shot, fans all around him were standing and going nuts and he was sitting in his chair with a pretty uninspired look.

I don't think Danny is the emotive type. He always has that uninspired look on his face.

Would you prefer the complete opposite of DA? I find it difficult to take Cuban seriously when he ends up in NBA headlines as much as JR Smith for the same shenanigans.

[Smitty77]

Makes sense.  As is, this is a 32-45 win team.

That is such a wide range. So given this past season we could be either Washington or Charlotte. You're given yourself a lot of margin for error (aka hedging your bets).

13 games isn't that wide of a margin. 

Charlotte could have won 45 games this year.   They could have won 32.  Injuries and luck were a big part of it.   Boston overachieved to 40 wins.  I honestly think that's the high end of the spectrum for us.   In the "How many games will the 2016 Celtics win?" thread, I picked 36-40.  Hopefully we can overachieve to 40 again next year.

If you lived just outside of Charlotte like I do, you would know that the Hornets HORRIBLY disappointing season also had a LOT to do with the offensively limited coaching of Steve Clifford and him trying to play a 6' back court TOGETHER!!  It also had to do with a lack of quality depth on their team.  It was NOT just bad LUCK and INJURIES!!

Smitty77

[spikelovetheCelts]

Way to early to project, there is almost 0% chance we roll out the exact same roster next year so we might as well try to predict out 16-17 record.

But even if we did absolutely nothing, (resign guys and trade picks for future picks) I think its 50-50 on doing better or worse next year. Maybe we just got a lot of luck, maybe things really clicked and we'd keep the momentum.

I agree. If we just add a shot blocker type 20 minute guy and with our players growth. We would be in the playoffs. Our Coach knows how to win clsoe games. Ainge is going to do all he can to improve thsi team.