Poll: Over Under 47 Wins

[straightouttabahstun]

I always thought the second half of last season wasn't a fluke and they'd be better, but better to me was simply locking down the 7th or 8th seed and the realistic "reach" goal was the 6th seed. Happy that they surpassed my expectations as well. Let's finish this season on a high note and make some noise in the playoffs!!

[PhoSita]

I'm pretty surprised at how good the team is presently. I thought it would take  longer for the Celts to be a top-4 team in the East.

I think it's fair to point out that many of us were looking at the Eastern Conference heading into this season and it seemed like it was a deeper, more competitive conference.  In some ways that's true, but it also seems to me that this year there's a huge gap between the best team (the Cavs) and everybody else.

I'm not sure the Raps are really any better than they were last year, while teams like the Bulls and Hawks are notably worse, and the Wizards have fallen out of the hunt completely.  So while the Celts have risen into the top 4, and they are absolutely better than they were last year, I think it still should be taken with a little bit of a grain of salt.

It's not like the East was 5 years ago, for example, when a 50 win Celts team was the 4th seed ahead of the 47 win Heat and the 46 win Bucks.

[KG Living Legend]

 No more Grain of salt talk Pho. This is a full NBA season. It's a 50 lb bag of salt at this point when you add in the second half of last year.

[wayupnorth]

Since I don't see fireworks on the horizon, I'm saying under.

Agreed.

It's very early right now, a lot of variables for this summer, but I'd ballpark next year at 30-45 wins.  My expectation skews toward the lower half of that range, but I wouldn't blame somebody for leaning toward the higher end.

as-is i don't think this roster would get back to the playoffs next year.  They overachieved and caught teams off guard.

Lol

[mmmmm]

I called 48 wins in a similar front-page thread.  Now I'm starting to wonder if I was being too pessimistic.

This thread has some pretty hilarious stuff in it.

[Evantime34]

I'm pretty surprised at how good the team is presently. I thought it would take  longer for the Celts to be a top-4 team in the East.

I think it's fair to point out that many of us were looking at the Eastern Conference heading into this season and it seemed like it was a deeper, more competitive conference.  In some ways that's true, but it also seems to me that this year there's a huge gap between the best team (the Cavs) and everybody else.

I'm not sure the Raps are really any better than they were last year, while teams like the Bulls and Hawks are notably worse, and the Wizards have fallen out of the hunt completely.  So while the Celts have risen into the top 4, and they are absolutely better than they were last year, I think it still should be taken with a little bit of a grain of salt.

It's not like the East was 5 years ago, for example, when a 50 win Celts team was the 4th seed ahead of the 47 win Heat and the 46 win Bucks.

I understood the reasoning behind the predictions. But I'm not sure the Celtics finishing so well should be taken with a grain of salt because you were wrong about how good the other teams in the east would be.

Again, I'm not saying your initial logic wasn't sound, but sound logic doesn't make you guys any less wrong.

The 538 projections site has the Celtics winning 50 games, the Heat winning 47 and the Hornets behind them at 45 wins. So it's not really all that different from the example you listed from 5 years ago.

[mmmmm]

I'm pretty surprised at how good the team is presently. I thought it would take  longer for the Celts to be a top-4 team in the East.

I think it's fair to point out that many of us were looking at the Eastern Conference heading into this season and it seemed like it was a deeper, more competitive conference.  In some ways that's true, but it also seems to me that this year there's a huge gap between the best team (the Cavs) and everybody else.

I'm not sure the Raps are really any better than they were last year, while teams like the Bulls and Hawks are notably worse, and the Wizards have fallen out of the hunt completely.  So while the Celts have risen into the top 4, and they are absolutely better than they were last year, I think it still should be taken with a little bit of a grain of salt.

It's not like the East was 5 years ago, for example, when a 50 win Celts team was the 4th seed ahead of the 47 win Heat and the 46 win Bucks.

I don't get the "grain of salt".

The C's rank 9th in ORtg and 3rd in DRtg (the latter is virtually tied for 2nd).
They are among only five teams that is top 10 in both ORtg and DRtg.
They are 7th in SRS rating.
They are 5th in pythagorean wins (meaning they'v actually been a bit unlucky in close games).
They are 7th in margin of victory.

We are on 'pace' to win 49 games based on our season W/L of .597.  But we have been winning at a .750 clip since Jan 13, a span of 24 games.   It is not a stretch at this point to anticipate breaking the 50 win barrier, since that would require going 'only' .650 over the remaining games.

The Celtics' standing is very much legit.  This is a very, very good team.

Five years ago, the Celtics actually won 56 games and were also the 3rd seed.   But East was a lot more top-heavy then.   The 8th seed that year (Pacers) had only a .451 record, compared to Detroit's .508 right now.   Detroit's SRS rating right now is +0.92 (11th in the NBA) compared to the Pacers' -1.38 (19th) way back then.

I think we should be able to eat our crow without any grains of salt.

[saltlover]

I'm pretty surprised at how good the team is presently. I thought it would take  longer for the Celts to be a top-4 team in the East.

I think it's fair to point out that many of us were looking at the Eastern Conference heading into this season and it seemed like it was a deeper, more competitive conference.  In some ways that's true, but it also seems to me that this year there's a huge gap between the best team (the Cavs) and everybody else.

I'm not sure the Raps are really any better than they were last year, while teams like the Bulls and Hawks are notably worse, and the Wizards have fallen out of the hunt completely.  So while the Celts have risen into the top 4, and they are absolutely better than they were last year, I think it still should be taken with a little bit of a grain of salt.

It's not like the East was 5 years ago, for example, when a 50 win Celts team was the 4th seed ahead of the 47 win Heat and the 46 win Bucks.

I don't get the "grain of salt".

The C's rank 9th in ORtg and 3rd in DRtg (the latter is virtually tied for 2nd).
They are among only five teams that is top 10 in both ORtg and DRtg.
They are 7th in SRS rating.
They are 5th in pythagorean wins (meaning they'v actually been a bit unlucky in close games).
They are 7th in margin of victory.

We are on 'pace' to win 49 games based on our season W/L of .597.  But we have been winning at a .750 clip since Jan 13, a span of 24 games.   It is not a stretch at this point to anticipate breaking the 50 win barrier, since that would require going 'only' .650 over the remaining games.

The Celtics' standing is very much legit.  This is a very, very good team.

Five years ago, the Celtics actually won 56 games and were also the 3rd seed.   But East was a lot more top-heavy then.   The 8th seed that year (Pacers) had only a .451 record, compared to Detroit's .508 right now.   Detroit's SRS rating right now is +0.92 (11th in the NBA) compared to the Pacers' -1.38 (19th) way back then.

I think we should be able to eat our crow without any grains of salt.

To put it a different way -- just because you don't know why this team is really good doesn't in fact mean that it's not a really good team.

[KG Living Legend]

 61 wins and 37 defeats in the last 98 games. That's a chunk of cheese, not a grain of salt.

[PhoSita]

I don't get the "grain of salt".

The C's rank 9th in ORtg and 3rd in DRtg (the latter is virtually tied for 2nd).
They are among only five teams that is top 10 in both ORtg and DRtg.
They are 7th in SRS rating.
They are 5th in pythagorean wins (meaning they'v actually been a bit unlucky in close games).
They are 7th in margin of victory.

We are on 'pace' to win 49 games based on our season W/L of .597.  But we have been winning at a .750 clip since Jan 13, a span of 24 games.   It is not a stretch at this point to anticipate breaking the 50 win barrier, since that would require going 'only' .650 over the remaining games.

The Celtics' standing is very much legit.  This is a very, very good team.

The Celts are a good team.  I'd rank them behind only the Warriors, Spurs, Thunder, Cavs, Clips. 

Top 10 in Offensive Efficiency.  Top 5 in Defensive Efficiency.  Both of those are much higher than I'd ever have thought they could reach this season.


With all of that said, the Celts don't have a prayer at winning the title, and this group hasn't proven they can win even a single playoff game yet.  I reserve my skepticism about their chances as a playoff squad, for the reasons I mentioned earlier in the thread.

So, to me, that feels like a somewhat weak team to be at #6 league-wide, which makes me think it's a bit of a down year for the league overall.



Evantime is absolutely right to say that the "sound logic" that went into the too-low win predictions last summer were wrong, wrong, wrong despite that "sound logic."  The "sound logic," at least in my case, has to be judged as a case of excessive optimism for a number of other teams in the playoff hunt and excessive pessimism for the Celts.

I'm OK with that.  As a general rule, I prefer to be more skeptical of my home town team and more bullish about other teams, since homer bias tends to cut the other way.

The 538 projections site has the Celtics winning 50 games, the Heat winning 47 and the Hornets behind them at 45 wins. So it's not really all that different from the example you listed from 5 years ago.

I guess that's true, but it seems to me when I think back to those KG years, there were at least 3-4 teams that seemed to have a shot at going all the way to the Finals.

Even more recently, say 2012, you had the Heat, Bulls, Pacers, Celts.  This year I really don't think anybody has a hope of stopping Cleveland, and Cleveland doesn't seem like a great team.  Maybe it's recency bias / nostalgia at work.

[mctyson]

I said under but I think it will be slightly under.  Max upside is 50 in my view, max down side is 36, so I will take the middle and say 43-44 wins.

They are beating me thats or sure.  Though I think I revised my prediction to 47-48 after the first few weeks of the season.

[PhoSita]

To put it a different way -- just because you don't know why this team is really good doesn't in fact mean that it's not a really good team.

That's a fair point -- it's basically what I said to Who over in the Blazers thread.

I think I mostly understand what makes the Celts a "good" team.  Depth, versatility, aggression on defense, fast pace, taking lots of outside shots (despite poor shooting overall), forcing turnovers, and excellent coaching.

I suppose I don't know how they manage to be a "really good" team, even with all of that, when I think there might not be a top 20 player on the roster, and aside from their intense defensive aggression in the backcourt, I can't think of one defining characteristic or set of go-to plays that is this team's calling card, the thing it does better than anybody else.

So yeah, I'll admit to being mystified by the level of success at times.

With that said, I also have to ask what you want to define as "really good."  For me the measuring stick always has to be a level of play that allows you to go deep in the playoffs and compete in the conference finals for a chance at a Finals berth and a shot at a title. 

50 wins, point differential, top 10 efficiency ratings are what I often look for as indicators of that.  The Celts are hitting a lot of those marks, might even hit all of them this year. 

Still, I have trouble believing that Celts even belong in the "dark horse" category, occupied by teams like the Clippers and Grizzlies in years past.  Maybe I'm just a hater.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Tell you what, though, whether they're just "good" or "really good," they're a heck of a lot of fun, and I'm thankful we get to watch them. 

[saltlover]

I don't get the "grain of salt".

The C's rank 9th in ORtg and 3rd in DRtg (the latter is virtually tied for 2nd).
They are among only five teams that is top 10 in both ORtg and DRtg.
They are 7th in SRS rating.
They are 5th in pythagorean wins (meaning they'v actually been a bit unlucky in close games).
They are 7th in margin of victory.

We are on 'pace' to win 49 games based on our season W/L of .597.  But we have been winning at a .750 clip since Jan 13, a span of 24 games.   It is not a stretch at this point to anticipate breaking the 50 win barrier, since that would require going 'only' .650 over the remaining games.

The Celtics' standing is very much legit.  This is a very, very good team.

The Celts are a good team.  I'd rank them behind only the Warriors, Spurs, Thunder, Cavs, Clips. 

Top 10 in Offensive Efficiency.  Top 5 in Defensive Efficiency.  Both of those are much higher than I'd ever have thought they could reach this season.


With all of that said, the Celts don't have a prayer at winning the title, and this group hasn't proven they can win even a single playoff game yet.  I reserve my skepticism about their chances as a playoff squad, for the reasons I mentioned earlier in the thread.

So, to me, that feels like a somewhat weak team to be at #6 league-wide, which makes me think it's a bit of a down year for the league overall.



Evantime is absolutely right to say that the "sound logic" that went into the too-low win predictions last summer were wrong, wrong, wrong despite that "sound logic."  The "sound logic," at least in my case, has to be judged as a case of excessive optimism for a number of other teams in the playoff hunt and excessive pessimism for the Celts.

I'm OK with that.  As a general rule, I prefer to be more skeptical of my home town team and more bullish about other teams, since homer bias tends to cut the other way.

The 538 projections site has the Celtics winning 50 games, the Heat winning 47 and the Hornets behind them at 45 wins. So it's not really all that different from the example you listed from 5 years ago.

I guess that's true, but it seems to me when I think back to those KG years, there were at least 3-4 teams that seemed to have a shot at going all the way to the Finals.

Even more recently, say 2012, you had the Heat, Bulls, Pacers, Celts.  This year I really don't think anybody has a hope of stopping Cleveland, and Cleveland doesn't seem like a great team.  Maybe it's recency bias / nostalgia at work.

I think you have a false version of expectation for the 6th-7th best team in the league.  Going back 20 seasons, only once has a team with the 6th-best record in the NBA won the title.  That was the Pistons.  Generally it's a top 3 record that comes out on top.  There's nothing unusual about this season to think that the Celtics could be the 6th or 7th best team in the league and think they don't have a shot at the title.  They don't, but they virtually never do.  Even the finalists tend to come from the top 2 teams in each conference (especially once there was a switch to 3 divisions, so that a weaker two seed didn't get home-court against a stronger 3-seed.)

Realistically the Celtics are most likely to get to the 2nd round and lose to the Raptors, who are likely to lose to the Cavs (although that could be a great series).  And the winner of that series has no chance against the Warriors or Spurs, because wow are those teams great.

But being a 3-seed and winning around 50 games is nothing to scoff at in any measure.  And as I pointed out over 8 months ago in this thread, the team's core is still young either -- just reaching its peak or yet to reach it -- so further improvement next year is not a far-fetched motion, even if they strike out again in free agency/trades/the lottery. This team has a lot of complimentary pieces and a coach who knows how to fit the pieces together. 

And if a talent upgrade over the summer, then that might launch the team into the top 3-4 tier that you really need to be in for title contention.  But it's a very good team this year, so let's enjoy the ride as far as it takes us, even if it doesn't end in a banner.

[Evantime34]

I don't get the "grain of salt".

The C's rank 9th in ORtg and 3rd in DRtg (the latter is virtually tied for 2nd).
They are among only five teams that is top 10 in both ORtg and DRtg.
They are 7th in SRS rating.
They are 5th in pythagorean wins (meaning they'v actually been a bit unlucky in close games).
They are 7th in margin of victory.

We are on 'pace' to win 49 games based on our season W/L of .597.  But we have been winning at a .750 clip since Jan 13, a span of 24 games.   It is not a stretch at this point to anticipate breaking the 50 win barrier, since that would require going 'only' .650 over the remaining games.

The Celtics' standing is very much legit.  This is a very, very good team.

The Celts are a good team.  I'd rank them behind only the Warriors, Spurs, Thunder, Cavs, Clips. 

Top 10 in Offensive Efficiency.  Top 5 in Defensive Efficiency.  Both of those are much higher than I'd ever have thought they could reach this season.


With all of that said, the Celts don't have a prayer at winning the title, and this group hasn't proven they can win even a single playoff game yet.  I reserve my skepticism about their chances as a playoff squad, for the reasons I mentioned earlier in the thread.

So, to me, that feels like a somewhat weak team to be at #6 league-wide, which makes me think it's a bit of a down year for the league overall.



Evantime is absolutely right to say that the "sound logic" that went into the too-low win predictions last summer were wrong, wrong, wrong despite that "sound logic."  The "sound logic," at least in my case, has to be judged as a case of excessive optimism for a number of other teams in the playoff hunt and excessive pessimism for the Celts.

I'm OK with that.  As a general rule, I prefer to be more skeptical of my home town team and more bullish about other teams, since homer bias tends to cut the other way.

The 538 projections site has the Celtics winning 50 games, the Heat winning 47 and the Hornets behind them at 45 wins. So it's not really all that different from the example you listed from 5 years ago.

I guess that's true, but it seems to me when I think back to those KG years, there were at least 3-4 teams that seemed to have a shot at going all the way to the Finals.

Even more recently, say 2012, you had the Heat, Bulls, Pacers, Celts.  This year I really don't think anybody has a hope of stopping Cleveland, and Cleveland doesn't seem like a great team.  Maybe it's recency bias / nostalgia at work.

I don't think it's a down year for the league, I think the talent is just distributed differently than we have seen. We have two teams at the top that are both historically good. The next 3 teams would probably be championship contenders in a down year (LAC, OKC, CLE),  then the next group of teams is probably much worse than the group ahead.

I think the C's are probably a top 8 team in a average year, the difference is that the quality of the teams ahead of them is much greater than in an average year, making it less likely they are going to have a chance against the top tier teams.

Miami, Chicago, and Washington were my picks for teams to regress this year. I also didn't think the talent around George was great enough to make Indiana a top level team so they are performing at about my expectations. I was absolutely wrong on Miami (I thought they would have injury issues that hurt them, which they did but it hasn't negatively effect them too much)

[PhoSita]

Realistically the Celtics are most likely to get to the 2nd round and lose to the Raptors, who are likely to lose to the Cavs (although that could be a great series).  And the winner of that series has no chance against the Warriors or Spurs, because wow are those teams great.

But being a 3-seed and winning around 50 games is nothing to scoff at in any measure.  And as I pointed out over 8 months ago in this thread, the team's core is still young either -- just reaching its peak or yet to reach it -- so further improvement next year is not a far-fetched motion, even if they strike out again in free agency/trades/the lottery. This team has a lot of complimentary pieces and a coach who knows how to fit the pieces together. 

And if a talent upgrade over the summer, then that might launch the team into the top 3-4 tier that you really need to be in for title contention.  But it's a very good team this year, so let's enjoy the ride as far as it takes us, even if it doesn't end in a banner.

Agreed.  50 wins and a top 3 seed in the conference is a major accomplishment for this group and this coach, regardless of what any other teams are doing, and it's a fun ride we're on.  Like I've said, I'm excited to see what this team can do in the playoffs; even though my expectations are low, I'm eager to see if, and how, the Celts will exceed my expectations once again.

Maybe you're right, too, that I'm just exaggerating how good the 6th or 7th best team in the league is in any particular year.

I suppose it may be that often the 6th/7th team is one that has at least one or two really good players, but the group around them is flawed or shallow, which prevents them from having a real chance to go far.  Whereas this Celts team has little to no top talent, depending on how you see Isaiah Thomas, but they're a deep group that's squeezing everything they can out of the talent they have.  You might compare them to the 56 win Nuggets from a few years ago in that regard.

But you're right, the Celts are in a good spot.  They could get a top 5 pick in the draft and then head into free agency with a persuasive pitch to make to a free agent like Al Horford.  They could very easily be top 3 or 4 again next year, only with the personnel to give the Cavs a run for their money.

It's a good place the Celts are at right now.  A lot could change in the next 6-8 months, but it's possible not much changes ... which wouldn't be a doomsday outcome by any means.