Celts projected for 47 Wins by SI

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

Not to rain on everyone's parade, but I'm skeptical that 47 wins is attainable.

• I agree that having Amir and Lee and a full season of Isaiah and Crowder are positives, but 47 wins is an improvement of 7 wins, and would mean going from 2 games under .500 to 12 games over .500—that's a fairly sizable jump in one season, particularly when working several new guys into the mix.

• Last year's scrappy, upstart Celtics surprised a lot of opponents. It's likely that opponents will be prepared for them this season.

• Last year's Celtics were playing with house money, with nothing to lose. There's going to be some pressure on them this year, some higher expectations, and many of the guys don't have much experience with that and may not handle it well (then again, they might handle it just fine).

I like this team and certainly hope for the best. I just think people shouldn't get their hopes too high just yet.

P.S.: There's no way the Celtics finish within 4 games of Cleveland.

47 wins is just 6 games above 500, not 12 games.

Hm. I guess that depends on one's interpretation. I think you're looking at it as: a .500 record at the end of the season would be 41-41, so 47 wins would be 6 more than 41. But adding 6 wins also means subtracting 6 losses, so a team with 47 wins (and thus 35 losses) would (theoretically, if the season was longer) have to lose 12 games in a row to get back down to .500 at 47-47.

I double-checked my view with a couple co-workers who are big sports guys, and they agree with me. I also just read an ESPN story in which Gordon Edes says that the 42-52 Red Sox are 10 games under .500.

Not that I want to get in an argument over this. Take it for what you will.

Nope.  Not left up to interpretation.  It is a mathematical fact that 47 wins is 6 games higher than a .500 winning percentage would give you (.5 * 82 = 41).

It is also a mathematical fact that if you 47-35, you would have to lose 12 games to fall back to .500.

Of course it is left up to interpretation.

Exactly. Enjoy your first TP. 

[LilRip]

Call me pessimistic but I see us struggling to make the 8th seed, let alone the 5th seed.

And maybe I don't believe enough in Carroll but I dont see Toronto having the best record in the east either.

[LarBrd33]

Call me pessimistic but I see us struggling to make the 8th seed, let alone the 5th seed.

And maybe I don't believe enough in Carroll but I dont see Toronto having the best record in the east either.

I'm still interested to see what other moves Danny makes.  There are definitely redundancies on the roster that don't make sense, but adding David Lee should improve us theoretically.  Some people seem to like Amir Johnson.   I think it will be hard enough for us to overachieve to 40 wins again.  47 seems unrealistic.

[ahonui06]

47 wins seems on the optimistic side but the Atlantic Division is the worst in basketball so that definitely helps. It's very possible Boston could be in the 45-47 win category next season.

[Moranis]

Not to rain on everyone's parade, but I'm skeptical that 47 wins is attainable.

• I agree that having Amir and Lee and a full season of Isaiah and Crowder are positives, but 47 wins is an improvement of 7 wins, and would mean going from 2 games under .500 to 12 games over .500—that's a fairly sizable jump in one season, particularly when working several new guys into the mix.

• Last year's scrappy, upstart Celtics surprised a lot of opponents. It's likely that opponents will be prepared for them this season.

• Last year's Celtics were playing with house money, with nothing to lose. There's going to be some pressure on them this year, some higher expectations, and many of the guys don't have much experience with that and may not handle it well (then again, they might handle it just fine).

I like this team and certainly hope for the best. I just think people shouldn't get their hopes too high just yet.

P.S.: There's no way the Celtics finish within 4 games of Cleveland.

47 wins is just 6 games above 500, not 12 games.

Hm. I guess that depends on one's interpretation. I think you're looking at it as: a .500 record at the end of the season would be 41-41, so 47 wins would be 6 more than 41. But adding 6 wins also means subtracting 6 losses, so a team with 47 wins (and thus 35 losses) would (theoretically, if the season was longer) have to lose 12 games in a row to get back down to .500 at 47-47.

I double-checked my view with a couple co-workers who are big sports guys, and they agree with me. I also just read an ESPN story in which Gordon Edes says that the 42-52 Red Sox are 10 games under .500.

Not that I want to get in an argument over this. Take it for what you will.

Nope.  Not left up to interpretation.  It is a mathematical fact that 47 wins is 6 games higher than a .500 winning percentage would give you (.5 * 82 = 41).

It is also a mathematical fact that if you 47-35, you would have to lose 12 games to fall back to .500.

Of course it is left up to interpretation.

It is not left up to interpretation.  If you are 47-35 you are 12 games above .500.  Period. 

[D.o.s.]

The sticking point is that there's no such thing as a 94 game NBA season, and a .500 record would be 41-41, or six wins below a 47-35 record -- point being, if you have a 47-35 record, it's impossible for you to fall back to .500 because the season is over: those 12 games don't exist on the calendar.

Regardless, this is a silly debate.

[Donoghus]

The sticking point is that there's no such thing as a 94 game NBA season, and a .500 record would be 41-41, or six wins below a 47-35 record -- point being, if you have a 47-35 record, it's impossible for you to fall back to .500 because the season is over: those 12 games don't exist on the calendar.

Regardless, this is a silly debate.

Certainly one of the more foolish debates I've seen on here.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

The sticking point is that there's no such thing as a 94 game NBA season, and a .500 record would be 41-41, or six wins below a 47-35 record -- point being, if you have a 47-35 record, it's impossible for you to fall back to .500 because the season is over: those 12 games don't exist on the calendar.

Regardless, this is a silly debate.

Certainly one of the more foolish debates I've seen on here.

And yet you both felt the need to chime in.

[D.o.s.]

I thought my post was constructive, but I guess if it was just chiming in I shouldn't have bothered.

[Donoghus]

The sticking point is that there's no such thing as a 94 game NBA season, and a .500 record would be 41-41, or six wins below a 47-35 record -- point being, if you have a 47-35 record, it's impossible for you to fall back to .500 because the season is over: those 12 games don't exist on the calendar.

Regardless, this is a silly debate.

Certainly one of the more foolish debates I've seen on here.

And yet you both felt the need to chime in.

Relax

[konkmv]

I say we get 3 ( nets) 9 (mavs) and 16 ours.... heat cavs bulls hawks wizzards and milwaukee are better than us... raptors hornetts pacers at the same level with us

[PhoSita]

"I came in here for an argument!"



"Oh, I'm sorry!  This is abuse."

[slamtheking]

I think 47 is waaay too optimistic.  would need a lot of teams considered better than us to perform a lot worse than expected. 

I think 35-38 is more likely.

They're back with virtually the same team that won 40 last year, plus have added Amir Johnson and David Lee.  They better win at least the same amount this season as last.  There's giving the team TOO much credit, but there's also not giving them enough.  And I don't think you're giving them enough.

ok, fair enough.  I still haven't seen anything posted in this thread that suggests which teams in the East are going to take a real tumble for the C's to improve that much. 

sure, the C's are better with Lee and Amir but by how much?  they're taking over for Bass and taking time away from Zeller, KO and Sully.  they should be better than the players they're taking minutes from (or replacing) but it's not like we added all-stars.  Also, even though we added what seems to be 3 solid rookies, none of them will see the court since they're stuck behind better players that'll be taking all the minutes at the guard and PF positions.  no real improvement there except to the team's depth.

here's the crux of my viewpoint:  there were 6 teams that finished better than the C's last year in the East.  Each of those teams still figures to finish better than the C's.  None of them took a real step backwards where the C's would figure to pass them in the standings.  no real reason to expect the C's to fair much better against those teams than last year either.

Now, consider Miami is getting back Bosh, Wade and getting full seasons from Whiteside and Dragic (not to mention adding Winslow).  They finished just behind us.  no reason to think they don't pass us comfortably.  they also figure to match up well against us.

Detroit, Charlotte and Indy all made moves to improve and added rookies that do figure to see the court.  One could argue that they lost players of importance but each of the primary players they moved were causing them headaches either in the lockerroom or on the court (or both).  Addition by subtraction may have a real effect for them.  In any case, they all have at least one player that dominates whoever we would put against them.   The games against these teams will be difficult to win and I think we'll be fighting them for the 8th spot.

NY is getting Melo back and added a couple of solid FAs.  they're better than last year and won't be a cakewalk to beat them.  they won't challenge for the playoffs (I don't think so anyway). 

Brooklyn I see as in decline.  real decline.  doesn't mean that if JJ, Lopez and Young are functioning together well they couldn't steal a game from us.  Only team in the East I really see dropping in the standings.

Philly's just a dumpster fire and still will be next year but they played us tougher than just about any other team.  would expect to sweep them but then again I couldn't figure out how they played us so tough last year.

We play the West teams only a couple of games and while a few dropped in talent like Portland and Dallas, those teams don't play us enough to amount to a lot of wins (that's assuming we could do anything to contain Lillard and Dirk respectively)

so, rather than get into all the projection statistics being kicked around here, gut feeling, who is it you think the C's are going to be beating up on to make that kind of a jump in the standings?  Anyone hanging their hat on how the C's finished last season as a projection for next year is chasing fool's gold.

I'd love to be wrong but I have yet to see anyone make a convincing argument that the C's will have a better record and/or make the playoffs based on an evaluation of the other teams in the East and not just throwing out statistics from last year with expectations that only the C's improved in the offseason.  I enjoyed the playoff run and would like to see another run this year but I just don't see any reasonable expectation that this team gets back there this upcoming year without some major misfortunes hitting other teams.

[Evantime34]

I think 47 is waaay too optimistic.  would need a lot of teams considered better than us to perform a lot worse than expected. 

I think 35-38 is more likely.

They're back with virtually the same team that won 40 last year, plus have added Amir Johnson and David Lee.  They better win at least the same amount this season as last.  There's giving the team TOO much credit, but there's also not giving them enough.  And I don't think you're giving them enough.

ok, fair enough.  I still haven't seen anything posted in this thread that suggests which teams in the East are going to take a real tumble for the C's to improve that much. 

sure, the C's are better with Lee and Amir but by how much?  they're taking over for Bass and taking time away from Zeller, KO and Sully.  they should be better than the players they're taking minutes from (or replacing) but it's not like we added all-stars.  Also, even though we added what seems to be 3 solid rookies, none of them will see the court since they're stuck behind better players that'll be taking all the minutes at the guard and PF positions.  no real improvement there except to the team's depth.

here's the crux of my viewpoint:  there were 6 teams that finished better than the C's last year in the East.  Each of those teams still figures to finish better than the C's.  None of them took a real step backwards where the C's would figure to pass them in the standings.  no real reason to expect the C's to fair much better against those teams than last year either.

Now, consider Miami is getting back Bosh, Wade and getting full seasons from Whiteside and Dragic (not to mention adding Winslow).  They finished just behind us.  no reason to think they don't pass us comfortably.  they also figure to match up well against us.

Detroit, Charlotte and Indy all made moves to improve and added rookies that do figure to see the court.  One could argue that they lost players of importance but each of the primary players they moved were causing them headaches either in the lockerroom or on the court (or both).  Addition by subtraction may have a real effect for them.  In any case, they all have at least one player that dominates whoever we would put against them.   The games against these teams will be difficult to win and I think we'll be fighting them for the 8th spot.

NY is getting Melo back and added a couple of solid FAs.  they're better than last year and won't be a cakewalk to beat them.  they won't challenge for the playoffs (I don't think so anyway). 

Brooklyn I see as in decline.  real decline.  doesn't mean that if JJ, Lopez and Young are functioning together well they couldn't steal a game from us.  Only team in the East I really see dropping in the standings.

Philly's just a dumpster fire and still will be next year but they played us tougher than just about any other team.  would expect to sweep them but then again I couldn't figure out how they played us so tough last year.

We play the West teams only a couple of games and while a few dropped in talent like Portland and Dallas, those teams don't play us enough to amount to a lot of wins (that's assuming we could do anything to contain Lillard and Dirk respectively)

so, rather than get into all the projection statistics being kicked around here, gut feeling, who is it you think the C's are going to be beating up on to make that kind of a jump in the standings?  Anyone hanging their hat on how the C's finished last season as a projection for next year is chasing fool's gold.

I'd love to be wrong but I have yet to see anyone make a convincing argument that the C's will have a better record and/or make the playoffs based on an evaluation of the other teams in the East and not just throwing out statistics from last year with expectations that only the C's improved in the offseason.  I enjoyed the playoff run and would like to see another run this year but I just don't see any reasonable expectation that this team gets back there this upcoming year without some major misfortunes hitting other teams.

So what you failed to mention is our young players getting better. There is an average growth quotient for young players to improve up to the age of 28 in the NBA. So while we can't project improvement in every young player on the C's we can project that as a group 14 of the C's players will improve on the whole. That is driving force behind projections having the Celtics higher than fans would think. That and a full season of Thomas, Jerebko and Crowder who were great in their time with the C's.

As to who I think the C's will pass in the standings, here is are my guesses
1. Toronto: if their offseason moves are any indication they are trying to go small. The problem is, their coach has always played slow and defensive strategies. I don't see DeMarre being as good a fit for that team as Amir was. Losing Lou Williams will hurt their bench production.

2. Washington: They played poorly to end the season but turned it up in the playoff by going small with Pierce at the 4. Pierce is no longer there and the guy replacing him is out 3-4 months with back surgery so I expect them to go back to their big lineups. If they consistently play big I don't think Gortat and Nene will last the entire season. I also don't trust Beal to be healthy and I think Porter looked better than he actually was in the playoffs due to them playing a broken down Toronto team

3. Chicago: Their win total was often inflated with Thibs due to the fact that he would play their best players minutes that were unsustainable long term. This is part of the reason they have a new coach, and with that reduced minutes from their starters could cost them wins. Will Hoidberg be able to flawlessly institute his system to players that have long won under a different system? I don't think so which could cost them more wins. I don't trust Rose, Gasol, Noah and Gibson to stay healthy. I don't trust the small ball 4's to defend. I expect their defensive rating to plummet.

4. Atlanta: Atlanta was about as healthy as possible during the regular season last year. With all of their staters playing at least 70 games (a lot of the missed games were due to rest not injury). They are going to be replacing Carroll with Bazemore or Hardaway Jr. which should be a downgrade and after that their depth isn't great. Teams that have a huge win spike over previous years tend to come back down to earth the next year, the same can be said of teams that win more than their pythagorean win prediction. We might not pass Atlanta but they should be considerably worse next year.

Teams that people assume are going to pass us but I'm not sure
Miami: Wait do people expect Wade to play an entire season? Do people expect Bosh to be 100% after coming back from heart surgery? Do people expect Whiteside to avoid injury and suspension for the entire year? Will Deng stay healthy? Is a bench of Gerald Green, Amare, Chalmers and Birdman going to be able to pick up the slack when the injuries come knocking again?

Indiana: Paul George is back but he might not be 100%. That they are trying to move him to pf when he comes back could cause a dip in production or another injury. Are Ian Mahinmi and Jordan Hill a good enough frontline for this standing jump everyone is expecting? Will Myles Turner be ready?

Detroit: Still too young without enough shooting. I don't trust Stanley Johnson to be the good 3 point shooter they need to space the floor. They have a bright future but I'd be surprised to see them ready to go this year.

Charlotte: They will be better than last year but I don't trust Jefferson to stay healthy and we aren't sure if last year was a down year for Batum or a result of a lot of miles on his tires. They did add a couple bigs who could shoot but those bigs are trash on defense.

[Ilikesports17]

I think 47 is waaay too optimistic.  would need a lot of teams considered better than us to perform a lot worse than expected. 

I think 35-38 is more likely.

They're back with virtually the same team that won 40 last year, plus have added Amir Johnson and David Lee.  They better win at least the same amount this season as last.  There's giving the team TOO much credit, but there's also not giving them enough.  And I don't think you're giving them enough.

ok, fair enough.  I still haven't seen anything posted in this thread that suggests which teams in the East are going to take a real tumble for the C's to improve that much. 

sure, the C's are better with Lee and Amir but by how much?  they're taking over for Bass and taking time away from Zeller, KO and Sully.  they should be better than the players they're taking minutes from (or replacing) but it's not like we added all-stars.  Also, even though we added what seems to be 3 solid rookies, none of them will see the court since they're stuck behind better players that'll be taking all the minutes at the guard and PF positions.  no real improvement there except to the team's depth.

here's the crux of my viewpoint:  there were 6 teams that finished better than the C's last year in the East.  Each of those teams still figures to finish better than the C's.  None of them took a real step backwards where the C's would figure to pass them in the standings.  no real reason to expect the C's to fair much better against those teams than last year either.

Now, consider Miami is getting back Bosh, Wade and getting full seasons from Whiteside and Dragic (not to mention adding Winslow).  They finished just behind us.  no reason to think they don't pass us comfortably.  they also figure to match up well against us.

Detroit, Charlotte and Indy all made moves to improve and added rookies that do figure to see the court.  One could argue that they lost players of importance but each of the primary players they moved were causing them headaches either in the lockerroom or on the court (or both).  Addition by subtraction may have a real effect for them.  In any case, they all have at least one player that dominates whoever we would put against them.   The games against these teams will be difficult to win and I think we'll be fighting them for the 8th spot.

NY is getting Melo back and added a couple of solid FAs.  they're better than last year and won't be a cakewalk to beat them.  they won't challenge for the playoffs (I don't think so anyway). 

Brooklyn I see as in decline.  real decline.  doesn't mean that if JJ, Lopez and Young are functioning together well they couldn't steal a game from us.  Only team in the East I really see dropping in the standings.

Philly's just a dumpster fire and still will be next year but they played us tougher than just about any other team.  would expect to sweep them but then again I couldn't figure out how they played us so tough last year.

We play the West teams only a couple of games and while a few dropped in talent like Portland and Dallas, those teams don't play us enough to amount to a lot of wins (that's assuming we could do anything to contain Lillard and Dirk respectively)

so, rather than get into all the projection statistics being kicked around here, gut feeling, who is it you think the C's are going to be beating up on to make that kind of a jump in the standings?  Anyone hanging their hat on how the C's finished last season as a projection for next year is chasing fool's gold.

I'd love to be wrong but I have yet to see anyone make a convincing argument that the C's will have a better record and/or make the playoffs based on an evaluation of the other teams in the East and not just throwing out statistics from last year with expectations that only the C's improved in the offseason.  I enjoyed the playoff run and would like to see another run this year but I just don't see any reasonable expectation that this team gets back there this upcoming year without some major misfortunes hitting other teams.

We played Philly 4 times and beat them by 11, 18, 11, and 19. Only one of those games was close, and it came while we were playing our worst basketball of the year as it was preceded by 3 losses and followed by 4 more, but even while playing this terrible, with Rondo and Green still on the team, with Marcus Smart out due to injury we still won by 11 points.