Poll: Over Under 47 Wins

[Evantime34]

When it comes to the C's, I'm an optimist.

I think they can win 47 or more games provided several of these things happen
1. Improvements from Young players
2. Solid free agent acquisitions
3. Good minutes from at least one rookie
4. Defense improves and jumps into top 10
5. The Atlantic is again horrendous
6. Brad Stevens continues to be a coaching god

[Celtics18]

The Celtics went 24-12 over their final 36 games, with a roster that for the most part looked like the one we ended the season with as opposed to the fluctuating one we had the first three months.  That's a 54 win pace.  Heck, even if you take away the two wins vs. the resting Cavs at the end of the year, they'd still be on a 50 win pace.  I'm not saying they'll win 54 games with no changes next year, but at the same time, it does imply that 48 wins is well within their reach.  Add to it that they have the flexibility to upgrade the roster, yeah, I'm taking the over.

Sure, if we were only playing teams with the February>April mentality.

The argument that the rest of the league was just coasting down the stretch of the season, but only the Celtics were playing hard strikes me as ludicrous.

I agree that the team overachieved.  If they do it again next year, it will start to look like less of an overachievement and more a result of a well coached team that plays smart offense and hard defense with no stars, but very talented role players. 

I vote for over.  It won't be easy, but I think they can get to 48. 

[Moranis]

The Celtics went 24-12 over their final 36 games, with a roster that for the most part looked like the one we ended the season with as opposed to the fluctuating one we had the first three months.  That's a 54 win pace.  Heck, even if you take away the two wins vs. the resting Cavs at the end of the year, they'd still be on a 50 win pace.  I'm not saying they'll win 54 games with no changes next year, but at the same time, it does imply that 48 wins is well within their reach.  Add to it that they have the flexibility to upgrade the roster, yeah, I'm taking the over.

Sure, if we were only playing teams with the February>April mentality.

The argument that the rest of the league was just coasting down the stretch of the season, but only the Celtics were playing hard strikes me as ludicrous.

I agree that the team overachieved.  If they do it again next year, it will start to look like less of an overachievement and more a result of a well coached team that plays smart offense and hard defense with no stars, but very talented role players. 

I vote for over.  It won't be easy, but I think they can get to 48.

We can't be fooled by the end of last year, just like we should not have been fooled by the deep playoff run in the 11/12 season.  The team that entered the playoff was not a 54 win team.  That should have been very obvious in the first round series against the 53 win team Boston played.

[Celtics18]

The Celtics went 24-12 over their final 36 games, with a roster that for the most part looked like the one we ended the season with as opposed to the fluctuating one we had the first three months.  That's a 54 win pace.  Heck, even if you take away the two wins vs. the resting Cavs at the end of the year, they'd still be on a 50 win pace.  I'm not saying they'll win 54 games with no changes next year, but at the same time, it does imply that 48 wins is well within their reach.  Add to it that they have the flexibility to upgrade the roster, yeah, I'm taking the over.

Sure, if we were only playing teams with the February>April mentality.

The argument that the rest of the league was just coasting down the stretch of the season, but only the Celtics were playing hard strikes me as ludicrous.

I agree that the team overachieved.  If they do it again next year, it will start to look like less of an overachievement and more a result of a well coached team that plays smart offense and hard defense with no stars, but very talented role players. 

I vote for over.  It won't be easy, but I think they can get to 48.

We can't be fooled by the end of last year, just like we should not have been fooled by the deep playoff run in the 11/12 season.  The team that entered the playoff was not a 54 win team.  That should have been very obvious in the first round series against the 53 win team Boston played.

We're talking about 48 wins, not 54.  I'm an optimist, and I even I think over 50 is fairly steep for this team if Danny doesn't make significant changes. 

[saltlover]

The Celtics went 24-12 over their final 36 games, with a roster that for the most part looked like the one we ended the season with as opposed to the fluctuating one we had the first three months.  That's a 54 win pace.  Heck, even if you take away the two wins vs. the resting Cavs at the end of the year, they'd still be on a 50 win pace.  I'm not saying they'll win 54 games with no changes next year, but at the same time, it does imply that 48 wins is well within their reach.  Add to it that they have the flexibility to upgrade the roster, yeah, I'm taking the over.

Sure, if we were only playing teams with the February>April mentality.

Come on. We played 12 of those 34 (thus excluding the two Cavs games at the end of the year) against the Bucks, Nets, Heat, Hornets, Pacers, and Pistons, who were not good but still had stuff to play for.  We played 7 of those games against teams in the top of the West (including Phoenix, who was still in it when we beat them.) We had one vs. Atlanta in February, one vs Cleveland in early March when it mattered.  And Utah also was a team that clearly was playing its best basketball at the time we beat them in March.  22 of those 34 games were against teams that had every reason to put in as much effort as we did.  And we won those at a good clip too.

Anyway, enough of you hedgers out there who say if we make a major move then we can win 48 games.  I'm saying we will win 48 games.  I don't need to hedge.  I hope someone finds this post in April next year so I can show I'm right.

[saltlover]

The Celtics went 24-12 over their final 36 games, with a roster that for the most part looked like the one we ended the season with as opposed to the fluctuating one we had the first three months.  That's a 54 win pace.  Heck, even if you take away the two wins vs. the resting Cavs at the end of the year, they'd still be on a 50 win pace.  I'm not saying they'll win 54 games with no changes next year, but at the same time, it does imply that 48 wins is well within their reach.  Add to it that they have the flexibility to upgrade the roster, yeah, I'm taking the over.

Sure, if we were only playing teams with the February>April mentality.

The argument that the rest of the league was just coasting down the stretch of the season, but only the Celtics were playing hard strikes me as ludicrous.

I agree that the team overachieved.  If they do it again next year, it will start to look like less of an overachievement and more a result of a well coached team that plays smart offense and hard defense with no stars, but very talented role players. 

I vote for over.  It won't be easy, but I think they can get to 48.

We can't be fooled by the end of last year, just like we should not have been fooled by the deep playoff run in the 11/12 season.  The team that entered the playoff was not a 54 win team.  That should have been very obvious in the first round series against the 53 win team Boston played.

My point is for almost half the season we were playing at a level that exceeds 48 wins.  And for the portion of the season we weren't, the roster was very different.  I think that the continued growth of the players (we were still one of the youngest teams in the league last year), coaching staff, and the likelihood of much more roster continuity means this team's best basketball is in the future, and not February to April of last season.

We'll win 48 games.  Book it.

[D.o.s.]

The Celtics went 24-12 over their final 36 games, with a roster that for the most part looked like the one we ended the season with as opposed to the fluctuating one we had the first three months.  That's a 54 win pace.  Heck, even if you take away the two wins vs. the resting Cavs at the end of the year, they'd still be on a 50 win pace.  I'm not saying they'll win 54 games with no changes next year, but at the same time, it does imply that 48 wins is well within their reach.  Add to it that they have the flexibility to upgrade the roster, yeah, I'm taking the over.

Sure, if we were only playing teams with the February>April mentality.

The argument that the rest of the league was just coasting down the stretch of the season, but only the Celtics were playing hard strikes me as ludicrous.

I agree that the team overachieved.  If they do it again next year, it will start to look like less of an overachievement and more a result of a well coached team that plays smart offense and hard defense with no stars, but very talented role players. 

I vote for over.  It won't be easy, but I think they can get to 48.

We can't be fooled by the end of last year, just like we should not have been fooled by the deep playoff run in the 11/12 season.  The team that entered the playoff was not a 54 win team.  That should have been very obvious in the first round series against the 53 win team Boston played.

My point is for almost half the season we were playing at a level that exceeds 48 wins.  And for the portion of the season we weren't, the roster was very different.  I think that the continued growth of the players (we were still one of the youngest teams in the league last year), coaching staff, and the likelihood of much more roster continuity means this team's best basketball is in the future, and not February to April of last season.

We'll win 48 games.  Book it.

I'll take that bet. The C's won a lot of games because opponents played down a little too low. I don't think that happens this year.

[saltlover]

The Celtics went 24-12 over their final 36 games, with a roster that for the most part looked like the one we ended the season with as opposed to the fluctuating one we had the first three months.  That's a 54 win pace.  Heck, even if you take away the two wins vs. the resting Cavs at the end of the year, they'd still be on a 50 win pace.  I'm not saying they'll win 54 games with no changes next year, but at the same time, it does imply that 48 wins is well within their reach.  Add to it that they have the flexibility to upgrade the roster, yeah, I'm taking the over.

Sure, if we were only playing teams with the February>April mentality.

The argument that the rest of the league was just coasting down the stretch of the season, but only the Celtics were playing hard strikes me as ludicrous.

I agree that the team overachieved.  If they do it again next year, it will start to look like less of an overachievement and more a result of a well coached team that plays smart offense and hard defense with no stars, but very talented role players. 

I vote for over.  It won't be easy, but I think they can get to 48.

We can't be fooled by the end of last year, just like we should not have been fooled by the deep playoff run in the 11/12 season.  The team that entered the playoff was not a 54 win team.  That should have been very obvious in the first round series against the 53 win team Boston played.

My point is for almost half the season we were playing at a level that exceeds 48 wins.  And for the portion of the season we weren't, the roster was very different.  I think that the continued growth of the players (we were still one of the youngest teams in the league last year), coaching staff, and the likelihood of much more roster continuity means this team's best basketball is in the future, and not February to April of last season.

We'll win 48 games.  Book it.

I'll take that bet. The C's won a lot of games because opponents played down a little too low. I don't think that happens this year.

100 Tommy Points?

[D.o.s.]

deal.

[LarBrd33]

The Celtics went 24-12 over their final 36 games, with a roster that for the most part looked like the one we ended the season with as opposed to the fluctuating one we had the first three months.  That's a 54 win pace.  Heck, even if you take away the two wins vs. the resting Cavs at the end of the year, they'd still be on a 50 win pace.  I'm not saying they'll win 54 games with no changes next year, but at the same time, it does imply that 48 wins is well within their reach.  Add to it that they have the flexibility to upgrade the roster, yeah, I'm taking the over.

Sure, if we were only playing teams with the February>April mentality.

The argument that the rest of the league was just coasting down the stretch of the season, but only the Celtics were playing hard strikes me as ludicrous.

I agree that the team overachieved.  If they do it again next year, it will start to look like less of an overachievement and more a result of a well coached team that plays smart offense and hard defense with no stars, but very talented role players. 

I vote for over.  It won't be easy, but I think they can get to 48.

We can't be fooled by the end of last year, just like we should not have been fooled by the deep playoff run in the 11/12 season.  The team that entered the playoff was not a 54 win team.  That should have been very obvious in the first round series against the 53 win team Boston played.

My point is for almost half the season we were playing at a level that exceeds 48 wins.  And for the portion of the season we weren't, the roster was very different.  I think that the continued growth of the players (we were still one of the youngest teams in the league last year), coaching staff, and the likelihood of much more roster continuity means this team's best basketball is in the future, and not February to April of last season.

We'll win 48 games.  Book it.

I'll take that bet. The C's won a lot of games because opponents played down a little too low. I don't think that happens this year.

100 Tommy Points?

Heh... there's no way this team wins 48 games as-is...   

But the thing is, we might add Kevin Love or Aldridge or something... and then 48 wins would seem kind of reasonable.   As-is... this team is closer to 25 wins than 45 wins.  You guys should clarify if your bet includes free agent moves... because I have faith in Ainge's ability to get some talent here.  Otherwise, I'd probably just give up on this team... this roster is pretty depressing.

[Celtics18]

The Celtics went 24-12 over their final 36 games, with a roster that for the most part looked like the one we ended the season with as opposed to the fluctuating one we had the first three months.  That's a 54 win pace.  Heck, even if you take away the two wins vs. the resting Cavs at the end of the year, they'd still be on a 50 win pace.  I'm not saying they'll win 54 games with no changes next year, but at the same time, it does imply that 48 wins is well within their reach.  Add to it that they have the flexibility to upgrade the roster, yeah, I'm taking the over.

Sure, if we were only playing teams with the February>April mentality.

The argument that the rest of the league was just coasting down the stretch of the season, but only the Celtics were playing hard strikes me as ludicrous.

I agree that the team overachieved.  If they do it again next year, it will start to look like less of an overachievement and more a result of a well coached team that plays smart offense and hard defense with no stars, but very talented role players. 

I vote for over.  It won't be easy, but I think they can get to 48.

We can't be fooled by the end of last year, just like we should not have been fooled by the deep playoff run in the 11/12 season.  The team that entered the playoff was not a 54 win team.  That should have been very obvious in the first round series against the 53 win team Boston played.

My point is for almost half the season we were playing at a level that exceeds 48 wins.  And for the portion of the season we weren't, the roster was very different.  I think that the continued growth of the players (we were still one of the youngest teams in the league last year), coaching staff, and the likelihood of much more roster continuity means this team's best basketball is in the future, and not February to April of last season.

We'll win 48 games.  Book it.

I'll take that bet. The C's won a lot of games because opponents played down a little too low. I don't think that happens this year.

Can you explain the "playing down" theory a little bit better.  It doesn't really make sense to me. 

We actually had a fairly light schedule over the last 36 games.  Many of the teams we beat were teams that like us were still fighting to get into the playoffs.  A few were playing for playoff positioning.  They were also some wins against considerably worse teams that I doubt were "playing down" against anyone. 

It's a pathetic and unsound theory. 

[D.o.s.]

If you say so, but I think that's just you emoting, because I know you know exactly what I mean.

[D.o.s.]

The Celtics went 24-12 over their final 36 games, with a roster that for the most part looked like the one we ended the season with as opposed to the fluctuating one we had the first three months.  That's a 54 win pace.  Heck, even if you take away the two wins vs. the resting Cavs at the end of the year, they'd still be on a 50 win pace.  I'm not saying they'll win 54 games with no changes next year, but at the same time, it does imply that 48 wins is well within their reach.  Add to it that they have the flexibility to upgrade the roster, yeah, I'm taking the over.

Sure, if we were only playing teams with the February>April mentality.

The argument that the rest of the league was just coasting down the stretch of the season, but only the Celtics were playing hard strikes me as ludicrous.

I agree that the team overachieved.  If they do it again next year, it will start to look like less of an overachievement and more a result of a well coached team that plays smart offense and hard defense with no stars, but very talented role players. 

I vote for over.  It won't be easy, but I think they can get to 48.

We can't be fooled by the end of last year, just like we should not have been fooled by the deep playoff run in the 11/12 season.  The team that entered the playoff was not a 54 win team.  That should have been very obvious in the first round series against the 53 win team Boston played.

My point is for almost half the season we were playing at a level that exceeds 48 wins.  And for the portion of the season we weren't, the roster was very different.  I think that the continued growth of the players (we were still one of the youngest teams in the league last year), coaching staff, and the likelihood of much more roster continuity means this team's best basketball is in the future, and not February to April of last season.

We'll win 48 games.  Book it.

I'll take that bet. The C's won a lot of games because opponents played down a little too low. I don't think that happens this year.

100 Tommy Points?

Heh... there's no way this team wins 48 games as-is...   

But the thing is, we might add Kevin Love or Aldridge or something... and then 48 wins would seem kind of reasonable.   As-is... this team is closer to 25 wins than 45 wins.  You guys should clarify if your bet includes free agent moves... because I have faith in Ainge's ability to get some talent here.  Otherwise, I'd probably just give up on this team... this roster is pretty depressing.

Either way. I don't think Ainge swings anything that'll move the needle to 48 wins. This is a can't lose bet for me: either I win pretend internet points or the C's are a ~50 win team.

[Celtics18]

If you say so, but I think that's just you emoting, because I know you know exactly what I mean.

I'm not emoting.  I guess you can say "I know exactly what you mean," but you can't actually explain it in a way that is convincing.

That's because there's nothing convincing about the theory.

I'd like to see you (or anyone) do a creditable job of explaining this "playing down" theory.  So far, I haven't seen any.

[saltlover]

The Celtics went 24-12 over their final 36 games, with a roster that for the most part looked like the one we ended the season with as opposed to the fluctuating one we had the first three months.  That's a 54 win pace.  Heck, even if you take away the two wins vs. the resting Cavs at the end of the year, they'd still be on a 50 win pace.  I'm not saying they'll win 54 games with no changes next year, but at the same time, it does imply that 48 wins is well within their reach.  Add to it that they have the flexibility to upgrade the roster, yeah, I'm taking the over.

Sure, if we were only playing teams with the February>April mentality.

The argument that the rest of the league was just coasting down the stretch of the season, but only the Celtics were playing hard strikes me as ludicrous.

I agree that the team overachieved.  If they do it again next year, it will start to look like less of an overachievement and more a result of a well coached team that plays smart offense and hard defense with no stars, but very talented role players. 

I vote for over.  It won't be easy, but I think they can get to 48.

We can't be fooled by the end of last year, just like we should not have been fooled by the deep playoff run in the 11/12 season.  The team that entered the playoff was not a 54 win team.  That should have been very obvious in the first round series against the 53 win team Boston played.

My point is for almost half the season we were playing at a level that exceeds 48 wins.  And for the portion of the season we weren't, the roster was very different.  I think that the continued growth of the players (we were still one of the youngest teams in the league last year), coaching staff, and the likelihood of much more roster continuity means this team's best basketball is in the future, and not February to April of last season.

We'll win 48 games.  Book it.

I'll take that bet. The C's won a lot of games because opponents played down a little too low. I don't think that happens this year.

100 Tommy Points?

Heh... there's no way this team wins 48 games as-is...   

But the thing is, we might add Kevin Love or Aldridge or something... and then 48 wins would seem kind of reasonable.   As-is... this team is closer to 25 wins than 45 wins.  You guys should clarify if your bet includes free agent moves... because I have faith in Ainge's ability to get some talent here.  Otherwise, I'd probably just give up on this team... this roster is pretty depressing.

Come on.  You can have in on the bet too.  I'm willing to say right now without knowing what happens to the Celtics this draft, free agency, or next year with injuries, that they will win 48 or more games.  Put your points where your pessimism is