Celtics too talented not to win 50 games in the East.

[PhoSita]

Furthermore, that NYK team played no defense whatsoever which makes it unfair to even claim that our current team isn't better than the NYK 08-09 team.

I do think our team will win more than 32 games, and I agree that the biggest reason is because we have a coach that actually values defense and defensive role players to keep opponents from scoring at will on us.

Mostly I'm just trying to suggest taking a look at our roster from an outsider perspective -- if some other team was expecting to get 50 wins out of a core group like the one I mentioned in my original post, what would you say to that?

Simply saying, "Well, our team is the Celtics, and they're the Knicks" isn't the most persuasive argument.



Also, I'm not sure why there's this notion that a team with a relatively young, unproven roster has to have a better record year on year.  Young teams go up and down all the time. 

The biggest reason I think the Celtics will stay at or improve on their win total from last year -- though only by 4 or 5 games, I'd guess -- is that they added two veterans in the frontcourt who can provide consistency and experience, provided they stay healthy.

[PhoSita]

I don't think we are talented enough to win 50 games.  I think we'll get close, though. 

I'm going with 45.

35 to 45 is my guess at the moment.  Wide range due to the fact that we're still months away from the start of the season.

45 if the best guys on the team -- IT, Smart, Lee, Amir -- stay healthy and play big minutes most of the season, and the team never has to rely too much on Bradley, Turner, Sullinger / Olynyk, or any of the rookies.

[td450]

I like you're enthusiasm and I hope you're right.

But there's no guarentee Lee has anything left. The Celtics don't have a legit starting center on the roster. All of our young guys have something to prove in their games. This team snuck up on a lot of people last season and they'll be less likely to do that again this season. Plus, they went on that great streak in the second part of the season when a lot of teams in the East had fully resigned themsevles to tanking.

I still hope you're right, but I'm less certain than you.

Tyler Zeller is probably in the bottom third of the starting centers in the NBA, but he is legitimate. He will get into the middle third if he can just develop a more consistent mental approach. He seems to occasionally get frustrated when someone more athletic pushes him around, and he disappears for stretches. More often than not, though, he plays a nice two way game.

I think many of our fans think this team is all smoke and mirrors. We won 40 with a bullet last year, and as Bill Parcell used to say, you are what your record says you are. We were very young and the roster was very unstable in the first half of last year, but we have some nice players. Given how young it is, the players we had almost have to improve, and we got some new guys that should help with our biggest weaknesses. We aren't going to scare any of the top tier teams, but if Ainge can make one more decent move to balance the roster,  we might just get to 50. The East only has a few decent teams.

[Celtics18]

Furthermore, that NYK team played no defense whatsoever which makes it unfair to even claim that our current team isn't better than the NYK 08-09 team.

I do think our team will win more than 32 games, and I agree that the biggest reason is because we have a coach that actually values defense and defensive role players to keep opponents from scoring at will on us.

Mostly I'm just trying to suggest taking a look at our roster from an outsider perspective -- if some other team was expecting to get 50 wins out of a core group like the one I mentioned in my original post, what would you say to that?

Simply saying, "Well, our team is the Celtics, and they're the Knicks" isn't the most persuasive argument.



Also, I'm not sure why there's this notion that a team with a relatively young, unproven roster has to have a better record year on year.  Young teams go up and down all the time. 

The biggest reason I think the Celtics will stay at or improve on their win total from last year -- though only by 4 or 5 games, I'd guess -- is that they added two veterans in the frontcourt who can provide consistency and experience, provided they stay healthy.

It didn't seem like that was his argument at all. 

[PhoSita]

Simply saying, "Well, our team is the Celtics, and they're the Knicks" isn't the most persuasive argument.

It didn't seem like that was his argument at all.

You're right, that wasn't TA9's argument.

I think it was KG Living Legend who put forth that sentiment a little earlier in the thread.

[MJohnnyboy]

As far as how good the Celtics are next season, I want to be optimistic but 50 wins is pretty high. 50 wins is good for the 4th or 5th seed, which I'm not sure is going to happen because I'm pretty certain the east is going to be better this coming season. The east didn't have Paul George for the whole year and Chris Bosh for about half of it. They're going to be back this coming season and should pick up where they left off.

Cleveland, Miami, Chicago, and Milwaukee I am 100% sure will be better than the Celtics. That hurts the 50 games case. Atlanta and Washington lost valuable pieces but they will still be fighting as much as they can. They won't be as good as they were last year but they'll still be up there. Those 6 teams, I believe, should be better than the Celtics.

We also have to factor the west, who currently have 6 teams (Spurs, Warriors, Clippers, Thunder, Rockets, Grizzlies) that have rosters constructed to win a championship, and they are going to treat every game like its game 7 in the NBA finals because they can't afford to lose homecourt advantage in the west.

I hope the Celtics play well this year, but 50 wins I think is too high of an expectation for them, and, not to sound like a Debbie Downer, but it is possible the Celtics might not make the playoffs this year. I'm not counting on it but it could happen.

[Celtics18]

Simply saying, "Well, our team is the Celtics, and they're the Knicks" isn't the most persuasive argument.

It didn't seem like that was his argument at all.

You're right, that wasn't TA9's argument.

I think it was KG Living Legend who put forth that sentiment a little earlier in the thread.

You mean when he made a comment about the culture of the current Celtics squad being different than the culture of that Knicks squad you randomly listed?

Seems fair to me. 

[LGC88]

Our talent is the players as a team combined with Brad.
It's another form of talent.
It is build for regular season. Once playoff comes, that sort of talent is not enough. We might get swept by the Cavs the same way. But we might pull up some fight and maybe some upsets with other teams.

[Jesus Shuttlesworth #20]

I don't understand the talent comment at all, it would take a miracle by Brad Stevens to win 50 this year. In the Western Conference alone there are a minimum of 8 teams that are indisputably more talented than the Celtics. In the Eastern Conference Atlanta, Cleveland, Chicago, Miami, Washington are clearly more talented than the Celtics and Toronto & Milwaukee are probably more talented making 15 teams that most likely have more talent than Celtics. Where do the 50 wins based on talent come from if the Celtics talent level is exactly average?

[Timdawgg]

I think the Celtics are too talented to not win more than last year...I think that is close to definite in my opinion. That being said my guess is 52 wins. I think the chemistry shown last year, great coaching, the emergence of Smart, Crowder's emergence in the playoffs last year is going to catapult him to another level of player this year(I predict he is the C's MVP this year) and finally adding the new guys puts us in the 50 win territory. 

[PhoSita]

You mean when he made a comment about the culture of the current Celtics squad being different than the culture of that Knicks squad you randomly listed?

Seems fair to me.

The Knicks squad wasn't listed "randomly."

I thought of that team because they also relied heavily on David Lee and a 5'9'' sparkplug point guard, supported by a roster of largely interchangeable role players.

Of course we'd like to believe our team has a superior "culture" and that there's just something different about the way our team approaches the game etc etc but what proof do we really have of that?  A two month stretch where they out-hustled a series of opponents playing out the string until the playoffs started?

[Evantime34]

I think we will be closer to 50 wins than 40 wins. We shouldn't expect 50 wins though because that is our ceiling and there isn't a high chance we win that many games, but there is a chance.

For the Celtics to win 50 games most of the following things need to happen.
1. Top 10 defense
2. Lee and Johnson needs to play like they did in 2013
3. Bradley, Thomas and Crowder need to shoot much better than last year from 3 (all 3 were below career average)
4. Smart needs to take a leap forward
5. Great end of game execution (great record in close games)

[Celtics18]

I don't think we are talented enough to win 50 games.  I think we'll get close, though. 

I'm going with 45.

35 to 45 is my guess at the moment.  Wide range due to the fact that we're still months away from the start of the season.

45 if the best guys on the team -- IT, Smart, Lee, Amir -- stay healthy and play big minutes most of the season, and the team never has to rely too much on Bradley, Turner, Sullinger / Olynyk, or any of the rookies.

Disagree on your exclusion of KO from the list of best guys.  Disagree on Sully too, for that matter, even though I wouldn't mind seeing him traded to relieve some of the glut in the front court. 

[D.o.s.]

At the risk of being called a filthy naysayer who only posts to urinate all over the hopes and dreams of the real Celtics fans who post here, I strongly disagree with the original poster and question the validity of the analysis that lead him or her to this conclusion.

Posting on the internet is risky business.

It doesn't do any good to pout.

I just don't want to hurt anyone's feelings.

[PhoSita]

5. Great end of game execution (great record in close games)

This is an important point.  Last year, the Celts started out the year as one of the worst end-of-game teams in the league, from what I recall. 

Toward the end of the year, a big part of the great run the team went on was their vast improvement in tight game situations.

A big part of that was the addition of Isaiah Thomas and willingness of Bradley, Smart, and Turner to step up to the big moment, unlike guys who had been traded away earlier in the season (Rondo, Green).

Will they be able to keep it up next season, though?