Poll: Over Under 47 Wins

[Evantime34]

Catching up on some comments I wanted to respond to:

Thinking about it, this thread is a good case study for recency bias.

Please explain, I think it's the opposite.

With the way the team ended last year, if fans were exhibiting recency bias then the poll would have been overwhelmingly one sided favoring the over.

I had that thought too, but maybe what he's referring to is that the most recent event was us getting swept out of the playoffs by a clearly better team.  That might've weighed heavier on people's estimates than the 24-12 finish.

Good call, that has to be it. TP

[nickagneta]

I voted correctly. I voted that I love Leprechauns and I still do.

I have thought the C's were a 45-46 win team. Hopefully they exceed that but if they don't, so be it.

[kozlodoev]

1. I thought it would be a major achievement if this team turned in anything above 50% this year. I could have never in my wildest dreams imagine that we'd be talking about a having realistic shot at 50 wins with 20 games to go.

2. I think this was all made possible by the emergence of Bradley, Crowder, Turner and Thomas as team leaders.

3. Turner, in particular, looks for the first time like he is is comfortable in his shoes. His role as someone who provides continuity off the bench and can turn it on offensively if the other weapons are struggling has been absolutely invaluable to the team. I see him as this team's third most important player after Thomas and Crowder.

4. Brad Stevens seems to finally feel like he belongs, evidence by the fact that you can now feel his pulse during games

[incoherent]

I dont know if I responded to this thread, didn't look through it, but I am on record of predicting 48 wins at work, and my boss thought I was crazy at the time. Now he's coming to me daily to get my Celtics take.

[CelticPride2016]

These wouldn't happen to be from our resident Celtic ultra-pessimist would they? 

Pho Sita claimed we would win 30-45 games. He really went out on a ledge with that prediction. How does a team have a range of 30 wins or 45? That's quite the meaningless prediction.

Yes, the other quotes were from the poster who claimed the Nets would be good and that Embiid would be finally torching the league.

It is hard to not notice those guys. However, after a while one can see their ideas are not much more than clutter. I'm sure they are great guys, but their basketball knowledge doesn't seem to match that.

I wouldn't mind the bad ideas so much if such people would admit when they're wrong. I never see that, so I stop reading them.

I was wrong about Sullinger in multiple ways. I admit it. I can't figure out that guy. Is he going to get in shape or not? That doesn't matter? It seems to.

I was wrong about Evan Turner. Maybe his aloof body posturing throws me off or I read into things with Turner that aren't true. Maybe Evan is similar to Manny Ramirez in baseball. He is a natural, so maybe some of us think they are aloof players when they are actually a form of truth like Paul Pierce.

Evan Turner has ice in his veins. So does Jerebko, but all one needs to do is watch both of them try to finish at the rim. Having ice in your veins is probably not a good thing for all players. Or maybe this Summer Jerebko can practice 1,000 funky layups a day. It is destroying his career, his inability to finish.

Zeller.

I do not know what is up with a lot of these players. I cannot tell what we have in Ty Zeller. I understand even less what we have in rookies, although I am about to go all in with Jordan Mickey. He seems to be a guaranteed good player. He was selected in the second round everyone knows that. He seems a lot better than Young or Hunter will ever be. Rozier is a question mark. Those guys would definitely have job security in other years, but other than Mickey, I am not sure those guys have much for it. We have too many draft picks coming in. We already have young guys like Bradley, Isaiah, Crowder, Smart, and Olynyk as formed players.

I wish Hunter or Young had emerged at least a little bit this year. We do need a swing guy, the SG to SF player. We don't need much of that because Crowder is so good. But Jerebko is not Crowder's backup and Turner is a kind of unique player and difficult to tell what he is, pg, sg, or sf.

We looked bad against Cleveland in the playoffs, but that experience will help us in round one when we have home court. We may not survive the first round, but we probably will as these guys know what it's like to be embarrassed in the playoffs and should have a greater sense of urgency this time.

We are a much better team than the one at the end of last year.

Isaiah fell on his lower back. Crowder was not this good, not close. Turner, Olynyk, Bradley, and Smart have all become much better players.

And we have Brooklyn's pick for three straight years. No one should have any complaints.

[Vox_Populi]

1. I thought it would be a major achievement if this team turned in anything above 50% this year. I could have never in my wildest dreams imagine that we'd be talking about a having realistic shot at 50 wins with 20 games to go.

2. I think this was all made possible by the emergence of Bradley, Crowder, Turner and Thomas as team leaders.

3. Turner, in particular, looks for the first time like he is is comfortable in his shoes. His role as someone who provides continuity off the bench and can turn it on offensively if the other weapons are struggling has been absolutely invaluable to the team. I see him as this team's third most important player after Thomas and Crowder.

4. Brad Stevens seems to finally feel like he belongs, evidence by the fact that you can now feel his pulse during games

TP for the pleasant summary. You even gave CBS some love.

[kozlodoev]

1. I thought it would be a major achievement if this team turned in anything above 50% this year. I could have never in my wildest dreams imagine that we'd be talking about a having realistic shot at 50 wins with 20 games to go.

2. I think this was all made possible by the emergence of Bradley, Crowder, Turner and Thomas as team leaders.

3. Turner, in particular, looks for the first time like he is is comfortable in his shoes. His role as someone who provides continuity off the bench and can turn it on offensively if the other weapons are struggling has been absolutely invaluable to the team. I see him as this team's third most important player after Thomas and Crowder.

4. Brad Stevens seems to finally feel like he belongs, evidence by the fact that you can now feel his pulse during games

TP for the pleasant summary. You even gave CBS some love.

Take a screenshot before I changed my mind and called him Brad S again

[Evantime34]

These wouldn't happen to be from our resident Celtic ultra-pessimist would they? 

It is hard to not notice those guys. However, after a while one can see their ideas are not much more than clutter. I'm sure they are great guys, but their basketball knowledge doesn't seem to match that.

I don't think this is true. Being pessimistic by nature and expecting the team to do poorly based on that (with some reasonable assumptions behind it) doesn't show a lack of knowledge.

Furthermore, the pundits that are pure old school basketball guys were the ones who had us winning less games and I'd never question their knowledge.

The Celtics have been great this year, pat yourself on the back for being right (I know I am), but there is no reason to say the people who were wrong aren't knowledgable.

[Celtics18]

These wouldn't happen to be from our resident Celtic ultra-pessimist would they? 

It is hard to not notice those guys. However, after a while one can see their ideas are not much more than clutter. I'm sure they are great guys, but their basketball knowledge doesn't seem to match that.

I don't think this is true. Being pessimistic by nature and expecting the team to do poorly based on that (with some reasonable assumptions behind it) doesn't show a lack of knowledge.

Furthermore, the pundits that are pure old school basketball guys were the ones who had us winning less games and I'd never question their knowledge.

The Celtics have been great this year, pat yourself on the back for being right (I know I am), but there is no reason to say the people who were wrong aren't knowledgable.

Which " old school basketball . . . pundits" are you referring to?

[PhoSita]

These wouldn't happen to be from our resident Celtic ultra-pessimist would they? 

Pho Sita claimed we would win 30-45 games. He really went out on a ledge with that prediction. How does a team have a range of 30 wins or 45? That's quite the meaningless prediction.

How does a team have a range of 30-45 wins?

Well, for one thing, the prediction was made in June.  So there's that.

For another, most teams heading into a season have a wide range of outcomes.  If Isaiah blew out his knee in November, how many games would the Celtics have won the rest of the way?  What if the chemistry didn't work out like it has?

To suggest that things like great chemistry, health, pretty good luck in close games, other teams struggling, etc were always a given is to engage in magical thinking.

The Celts have had, I think, something fairly close to a best case scenario this season.  They are probably going to win more than 45 games, so even my best-case-scenario prediction was too low.  I was wrong.

Still, given what we knew back in June, that range, though pretty wide, was a reflection of two conflicting things we had recently seen.

First, the Celts went on a great run toward the end of last season.

Second, they got smacked down by the Cavs in a convincing sweep in the first round (your words: "They looked bad against Cleveland in the playoffs").

Which was the better indicator of how the team would fare over the next 82 games?  I couldn't tell you back then, and I'll wager you couldn't really tell me back then, either.

No, it's not very ballsy to make a prediction within a 15 win window (closer to the start of the season, I revised it and settled on 35-45 wins).  But then, it's silly to try and make exact win-total predictions in June anyway.  There are just too many variables.

It is hard to not notice those guys. However, after a while one can see their ideas are not much more than clutter. I'm sure they are great guys, but their basketball knowledge doesn't seem to match that.

Speaking of ballsy.

I'm sorry, who are you?  What have you contributed to the discussion lately?


I've said this before, but I'll reiterate it -- as a general rule, I try to err on the side of skepticism with regard to the Celts, and I try to be more open-minded about what other teams have got going on.  Why?  Because the Celts are my favorite team, I watch them more than any other team, and it's easy to be biased in the other direction.  And to be honest, the prevailing opinion around these parts tends to be to err on the side of optimism for the home team, and I find it much more interesting to challenge the widely held viewpoint instead of simply affirming it.  I don't think these boards would be very interesting if everybody agreed with one another and was optimistic (or the opposite) all of the time.

For example, Celtics18 and I rarely fully agree on anything, because he takes the opposite tack most of the time.  The forums are a better place because he posts here.  Opposing viewpoints are good.

[Celtics18]

These wouldn't happen to be from our resident Celtic ultra-pessimist would they? 

Pho Sita claimed we would win 30-45 games. He really went out on a ledge with that prediction. How does a team have a range of 30 wins or 45? That's quite the meaningless prediction.

How does a team have a range of 30-45 wins?

Well, for one thing, the prediction was made in June.  So there's that.

For another, most teams heading into a season have a wide range of outcomes.  If Isaiah blew out his knee in November, how many games would the Celtics have won the rest of the way?  What if the chemistry didn't work out like it has?

To suggest that things like great chemistry, health, pretty good luck in close games, other teams struggling, etc were always a given is to engage in magical thinking.

The Celts have had, I think, something fairly close to a best case scenario this season.  They are probably going to win more than 45 games, so even my best-case-scenario prediction was too low.  I was wrong.

Still, given what we knew back in June, that range, though pretty wide, was a reflection of two conflicting things we had recently seen.

First, the Celts went on a great run toward the end of last season.

Second, they got smacked down by the Cavs in a convincing sweep in the first round (your words: "They looked bad against Cleveland in the playoffs").

Which was the better indicator of how the team would fare over the next 82 games?  I couldn't tell you back then, and I'll wager you couldn't really tell me back then, either.

No, it's not very ballsy to make a prediction within a 15 win window (closer to the start of the season, I revised it and settled on 35-45 wins).  But then, it's silly to try and make exact win-total predictions in June anyway.  There are just too many variables.

It is hard to not notice those guys. However, after a while one can see their ideas are not much more than clutter. I'm sure they are great guys, but their basketball knowledge doesn't seem to match that.

Speaking of ballsy.

I'm sorry, who are you?  What have you contributed to the discussion lately?


I've said this before, but I'll reiterate it -- as a general rule, I try to err on the side of skepticism with regard to the Celts, and I try to be more open-minded about what other teams have got going on.  Why?  Because the Celts are my favorite team, I watch them more than any other team, and it's easy to be biased in the other direction.  And to be honest, the prevailing opinion around these parts tends to be to err on the side of optimism for the home team, and I find it much more interesting to challenge the widely held viewpoint instead of simply affirming it.  I don't think these boards would be very interesting if everybody agreed with one another and was optimistic (or the opposite) all of the time.

For example, Celtics18 and I rarely fully agree on anything, because he takes the opposite tack most of the time.  The forums are a better place because he posts here.  Opposing viewpoints are good.

Thanks buddy.

[PhoSita]

2. I think this was all made possible by the emergence of Bradley, Crowder, Turner and Thomas as team leaders.

I agree, they're the heart and soul of the team, with Smart not far behind in importance, and they've all impressed me this year.

I've been critical of Turner, and I'm still not certain about keeping him beyond this year.  Regardless, he's done a lot for the team this year and last.  He's adjusted his game as best he can to fit within the team context, and the team has figured out how to work around him.  He's one of the better backup ball-handlers in the league right now, in my opinion.

Tons of credit to those guys and to Brad Stevens for guiding the team to the point where they just look really comfortable and confident working through their sets and setting those guys up to get good looks or create opportunities for other players. 

They've reached a point now where I see them remaining calm and sticking to what they know even when the shots aren't falling or the opponents are on a run -- which is a quality they very noticeably lacked in the playoffs last year -- and that bodes really well for this team moving forward.

[SHAQATTACK]

 fitty if dey beats Cleveland

[jpotter33]

These wouldn't happen to be from our resident Celtic ultra-pessimist would they? 

Pho Sita claimed we would win 30-45 games. He really went out on a ledge with that prediction. How does a team have a range of 30 wins or 45? That's quite the meaningless prediction.

How does a team have a range of 30-45 wins?

Well, for one thing, the prediction was made in June.  So there's that.

For another, most teams heading into a season have a wide range of outcomes.  If Isaiah blew out his knee in November, how many games would the Celtics have won the rest of the way?  What if the chemistry didn't work out like it has?

To suggest that things like great chemistry, health, pretty good luck in close games, other teams struggling, etc were always a given is to engage in magical thinking.

The Celts have had, I think, something fairly close to a best case scenario this season.  They are probably going to win more than 45 games, so even my best-case-scenario prediction was too low.  I was wrong.

Still, given what we knew back in June, that range, though pretty wide, was a reflection of two conflicting things we had recently seen.

First, the Celts went on a great run toward the end of last season.

Second, they got smacked down by the Cavs in a convincing sweep in the first round (your words: "They looked bad against Cleveland in the playoffs").

Which was the better indicator of how the team would fare over the next 82 games?  I couldn't tell you back then, and I'll wager you couldn't really tell me back then, either.

No, it's not very ballsy to make a prediction within a 15 win window (closer to the start of the season, I revised it and settled on 35-45 wins).  But then, it's silly to try and make exact win-total predictions in June anyway.  There are just too many variables.

It is hard to not notice those guys. However, after a while one can see their ideas are not much more than clutter. I'm sure they are great guys, but their basketball knowledge doesn't seem to match that.

Speaking of ballsy.

I'm sorry, who are you?  What have you contributed to the discussion lately?


I've said this before, but I'll reiterate it -- as a general rule, I try to err on the side of skepticism with regard to the Celts, and I try to be more open-minded about what other teams have got going on.  Why?  Because the Celts are my favorite team, I watch them more than any other team, and it's easy to be biased in the other direction.  And to be honest, the prevailing opinion around these parts tends to be to err on the side of optimism for the home team, and I find it much more interesting to challenge the widely held viewpoint instead of simply affirming it.  I don't think these boards would be very interesting if everybody agreed with one another and was optimistic (or the opposite) all of the time.

For example, Celtics18 and I rarely fully agree on anything, because he takes the opposite tack most of the time.  The forums are a better place because he posts here.  Opposing viewpoints are good.

Hmm, I'm not sure how I missed your quote and saw the other two. Obviously a 30-45 win prediction doesn't fit in with the other quotes of us lucking into the playoffs last year and being a 25-win team tops this year. Those two are clearly LarBrd33-esque posts, while your post was five wins better at the lowest prediction.

Yeah, I don't think a 30-45 win projection in June is unreasonable at all. In fact, when I first saw this thread I thought it was meaning for next year already before realizing it was a bumped thread from this past summer, and I was thinking somewhere between 40 and 60 games, which obviously depends upon what happens in the playoffs, draft, trades, and free agency.

[PhoSita]

Hmm, I'm not sure how I missed your quote and saw the other two. Obviously a 30-45 win prediction doesn't fit in with the other quotes of us lucking into the playoffs last year and being a 25-win team tops this year. Those two are clearly LarBrd33-esque posts, while your post was five wins better at the lowest prediction.

Correct.  The quotes about 25 win team "tops" and "caught teams off guard" were LarBrd33 quotes, I think.

I definitely argued for tempering enthusiasm about the run at the end of last season, in part because of that "catching teams off guard" idea.  I thought once the league had a chance to get used to how the Celts were playing, scout them more, that sort of thing, they'd find ways to exploit the Celts weaknesses, and the Celts would struggle to maintain that kind of pace.

And again, to reiterate, I was wrong about that.  Wrong.  They've been even better this year.

I don't think it was unreasonable to be skeptical about it, though.  We were talking about two months or so of games, at a time of the season when it's widely agreed many teams are no longer really trying.  But as KG Living Legend has pointed out, our sample size is now more than a full season worth of games. 

This is team is high 40's / low 50's caliber.  I don't know what that means for their playoff prospects, and I'm still trying to wrap my head around how they manage it with their personnel, but that's what they are.