Prediction: C's will be This year's Hawks.

[chambers]

I think we'll be better than last year, but I think we'll be more like last years Bucks than Hawks.
The Hawks are on the 2nd tier of championship contention-if everything went right for them & they got lucky they could make the NBA finals. (Well at least last season). They have multiple 2nd rate All Stars too.

We are young, developing and we are building a system built around defensive awareness and control on the defensive end...which is why I'd prefer a Bucks comparison.
We have a lot of young guys and some solid veterans to guide those younger team members.
The Bucks are in a better position because they have some potential franchise caliber players and I don't think we have anyone like that just yet-with Smart being the only one in that conversation (and even then, very casually being mentioned in that conversation for now).
But yeah, we are about 3 All Stars and especially an All Star big man away from being in the same sentence as the Hawks in my opinion.
Like your optimism though.

[Endless Paradise]

I think they miss the playoffs.

[Surferdad]

Agree with most. Milsap and Horford are better than anyone of the C's and are multiple all-stars. Teague came into his own, Korver is Korver.

50 wins is very optimistic for the Celtics barring a blockbuster trade. I see 45 wins (i.e. a modest improvement) and 1st round exit tho they might win a game or two this time. 2nd round? NO WAY.

[Future Celtics Owner]

I hope we have less than 23 wins. Trade et it ab etc and get picks for 2017 and prospects.

[viulo]

With respect, I disagree with the latest posts. Teague, Millsap, Horford were All-stars because of the Hawks records. They wouldn't have been All-stars if, having played the same (minutes, points, PER, etc..), the Hawks had had a 50% record.
So, if the Celtics go into the all-star break at 43-11, I bet we'll have 4 all-stars too. Whoever starts.
I like all 3, but let's see when next season is over if Thomas isn't rated higher than Teague or Amir Johnson higher than Millsap and/or Horford.

This is kind of a "chicken and egg" type of situation. You basically just said that if the Hawks' top 3 players: 1) didn't play as much 2) didn't score as much 3) weren't as good as they actually were/are then the Hawks would have been a worse team, and the players would not have been all-stars.

I don't think that's what I said. What I was trying to say, anyway, is the opposite - if they had played the same (minutes, points...) but if the Hawks had less depth and had lost a few closed games, ending with a worse record, they might have not been all-stars.
Or to put it another way: their selections were a way to distinguish the team with the better record. Teague's numbers and plays, for instance, had they happened with the Pacers, would probably not have merited a selection.

[viulo]

I think we'll be better than last year, but I think we'll be more like last years Bucks than Hawks.
The Hawks are on the 2nd tier of championship contention-if everything went right for them & they got lucky they could make the NBA finals. (Well at least last season). They have multiple 2nd rate All Stars too.

We are young, developing and we are building a system built around defensive awareness and control on the defensive end...which is why I'd prefer a Bucks comparison.
We have a lot of young guys and some solid veterans to guide those younger team members.
The Bucks are in a better position because they have some potential franchise caliber players and I don't think we have anyone like that just yet-with Smart being the only one in that conversation (and even then, very casually being mentioned in that conversation for now).
But yeah, we are about 3 All Stars and especially an All Star big man away from being in the same sentence as the Hawks in my opinion.
Like your optimism though.

The time to be like last years' Bucks was last year - they ended 41-41, we ended 40-42. I sincerely hope we'll do better. If they improve, maybe we can be like next years' Bucks. But I have strong reservations about them - MCW and Giannis, for me, are overvalued, and I'm not sure Monroe will be a good fit. Let's see what Jabari brings to the table.

[viulo]

With respect, I disagree with the latest posts. Teague, Millsap, Horford were All-stars because of the Hawks records. They wouldn't have been All-stars if, having played the same (minutes, points, PER, etc..), the Hawks had had a 50% record.
So, if the Celtics go into the all-star break at 43-11, I bet we'll have 4 all-stars too. Whoever starts.
I like all 3, but let's see when next season is over if Thomas isn't rated higher than Teague or Amir Johnson higher than Millsap and/or Horford.

Yeah, records influence all-star selections every season. So if we remove that variable and just judge them based on talent, would any one of Teague/Millsap/Horford not be the best player on our team this season? That's a tough argument to make...

Teague > IT (2-way player, inferior 3p shooter, better finisher and facilitator)
Millsap > Sully (hard to even judge Sully, but Millsap still > versatility, 3p%, defense)
Horford > Johnson/KO (across the board)

Maybe so. But I think, especially considering Teague, you're judging Teague after what he did last year - at the start of the season we probably wouldn't have rated him that high (hell, at the start of the season probably noone would have said he was better than Rondo...). What I hope/expect is that Thomas and maybe even Smart will have a production/improvement (coupled with a team record that'll bring attention to them) that, by the end of the year, they'll be valued at least as highly as Teague.

That said, as of right now, of course - theoretically, any one of them would probably be our best player.

[Moranis]

With respect, I disagree with the latest posts. Teague, Millsap, Horford were All-stars because of the Hawks records. They wouldn't have been All-stars if, having played the same (minutes, points, PER, etc..), the Hawks had had a 50% record.
So, if the Celtics go into the all-star break at 43-11, I bet we'll have 4 all-stars too. Whoever starts.
I like all 3, but let's see when next season is over if Thomas isn't rated higher than Teague or Amir Johnson higher than Millsap and/or Horford.

Yeah, records influence all-star selections every season. So if we remove that variable and just judge them based on talent, would any one of Teague/Millsap/Horford not be the best player on our team this season? That's a tough argument to make...

Teague > IT (2-way player, inferior 3p shooter, better finisher and facilitator)
Millsap > Sully (hard to even judge Sully, but Millsap still > versatility, 3p%, defense)
Horford > Johnson/KO (across the board)

Maybe so. But I think, especially considering Teague, you're judging Teague after what he did last year - at the start of the season we probably wouldn't have rated him that high (hell, at the start of the season probably noone would have said he was better than Rondo...). What I hope/expect is that Thomas and maybe even Smart will have a production/improvement (coupled with a team record that'll bring attention to them) that, by the end of the year, they'll be valued at least as highly as Teague.

That said, as of right now, of course - theoretically, any one of them would probably be our best player.

Teague has been pretty consistent the last 3 years and has basically improved all 6 of his years.  You can see the developing trend with him.  He might not have been an all star last year if the Hawks weren't so good, but he would clearly be Boston's best player if he was on the team this year and was clearly better than anyone Boston had last year (even if at the start of the year you might not have thought that was the case). 

[viulo]

With respect, I disagree with the latest posts. Teague, Millsap, Horford were All-stars because of the Hawks records. They wouldn't have been All-stars if, having played the same (minutes, points, PER, etc..), the Hawks had had a 50% record.
So, if the Celtics go into the all-star break at 43-11, I bet we'll have 4 all-stars too. Whoever starts.
I like all 3, but let's see when next season is over if Thomas isn't rated higher than Teague or Amir Johnson higher than Millsap and/or Horford.

Yeah, records influence all-star selections every season. So if we remove that variable and just judge them based on talent, would any one of Teague/Millsap/Horford not be the best player on our team this season? That's a tough argument to make...

Teague > IT (2-way player, inferior 3p shooter, better finisher and facilitator)
Millsap > Sully (hard to even judge Sully, but Millsap still > versatility, 3p%, defense)
Horford > Johnson/KO (across the board)

Maybe so. But I think, especially considering Teague, you're judging Teague after what he did last year - at the start of the season we probably wouldn't have rated him that high (hell, at the start of the season probably noone would have said he was better than Rondo...). What I hope/expect is that Thomas and maybe even Smart will have a production/improvement (coupled with a team record that'll bring attention to them) that, by the end of the year, they'll be valued at least as highly as Teague.

That said, as of right now, of course - theoretically, any one of them would probably be our best player.

Teague has been pretty consistent the last 3 years and has basically improved all 6 of his years.  You can see the developing trend with him.  He might not have been an all star last year if the Hawks weren't so good, but he would clearly be Boston's best player if he was on the team this year and was clearly better than anyone Boston had last year (even if at the start of the year you might not have thought that was the case).

I agree with most of it, especially regarding last year. I'm hopeful, if he was with the Celtics this year, that by the end of the season we would say he wasn't our best player - not because he had regressed, but because others (Thomas, Smart) would have improved.

[MBunge]

Can people stop comparing Boston's players to guys 4 to 7 years older and then acting like the Cs players suck because they aren't already better than guys with a half decade more experience in the NBA.

Horford is 28 and didn't become an above average player 'til his third year in the league.
Teague is 26 and didn't become above average 'til his fourth year.
Milsap is 29 and didn't put up above average numbers 'til his fifth season.

Mike

[DarkAzcura]

but they also happen to have 3 all-star caliber players, any one of whom would be the best player on our team this year.

This about sums it up. Teague/Millsap/Horford are all better than any player on the Celtics. Big difference.

Horford is the only one who is outright the best player of both teams. Don't get me wrong, he makes a huge difference, and the only player on this team with two way potential as good as Horford is Smart, and it would be tough for Smart to actually fulfill his potential (as it is with any young player).

Millsap and Teague, though? Meh. One of Sullinger or Olynyk can potentially play as well as Millsap. Millsap is a nice player, but he's not so far out of range for Sullinger to catch up with in terms of impact. IT is better than Teague. Teague is not that great. Solid but not great.

Horford is the real difference maker here. Great, great two way player.

With respect, I disagree with the latest posts. Teague, Millsap, Horford were All-stars because of the Hawks records. They wouldn't have been All-stars if, having played the same (minutes, points, PER, etc..), the Hawks had had a 50% record.
So, if the Celtics go into the all-star break at 43-11, I bet we'll have 4 all-stars too. Whoever starts.
I like all 3, but let's see when next season is over if Thomas isn't rated higher than Teague or Amir Johnson higher than Millsap and/or Horford.

Yeah, records influence all-star selections every season. So if we remove that variable and just judge them based on talent, would any one of Teague/Millsap/Horford not be the best player on our team this season? That's a tough argument to make...

Teague > IT (2-way player, inferior 3p shooter, better finisher and facilitator)
Millsap > Sully (hard to even judge Sully, but Millsap still > versatility, 3p%, defense)
Horford > Johnson/KO (across the board)

Maybe so. But I think, especially considering Teague, you're judging Teague after what he did last year - at the start of the season we probably wouldn't have rated him that high (hell, at the start of the season probably noone would have said he was better than Rondo...). What I hope/expect is that Thomas and maybe even Smart will have a production/improvement (coupled with a team record that'll bring attention to them) that, by the end of the year, they'll be valued at least as highly as Teague.

That said, as of right now, of course - theoretically, any one of them would probably be our best player.

Teague has been pretty consistent the last 3 years and has basically improved all 6 of his years.  You can see the developing trend with him.  He might not have been an all star last year if the Hawks weren't so good, but he would clearly be Boston's best player if he was on the team this year and was clearly better than anyone Boston had last year (even if at the start of the year you might not have thought that was the case).

You and tarheel are overrating Teague big time, IMO. He would not clearly be the best player on this Celtics team by any stretch of the imagination.

He's a more solid two way option than IT, but IT is a far more explosive scorer. Tarheel said IT was a worse finisher, but that's not actually true. IT has finished at the rim at a higher rate (career) than Teague and also draws more fouls. Teague may be a better two way player, but I don't think it would have significantly more impact on the win column because IT's skillset is much more needed on this team. Smart and Bradley more than make up for IT's defensive issues. For this team, IT is a better fit than Teague which would likely result in more wins with the current backcourt rotation.

[crimson_stallion]

Comparing them as two teams with "no stars" is too vague, though. I'll agree with you that neither team had/has a franchise player, but they also happen to have 3 all-star caliber players, any one of whom would be the best player on our team this year.

I appreciate your optimism, at any rate. I'd be very happy to see them overachieve this year.

The problem with this analysis is, what actually determines whether a player is an "All-Star Caliber" player?

The truth is that although being an "All-Star" is an individual accolade, it's a status that's awarded based very heavily on team success - which I think is flawed, but alas that's how it is.

For example, Atlanta had the best record in the East, and they got three All-Stars.  But would those guys have been All-Stars if Atlanta was a #7 or #8 seed?  Maybe one of them would have (probably Millsap, IMO) but that's about it. 

The reason I say this is that if you look at the past history of those guys, Milsap is the only one of those three guys who has made an all-star team in the past 4-5 years.  Horford's last ASG prior to this was in 2010 (when he was 24 years old), and Korver has never made one in his life.

Truth is that if Boston finished with Atlanta's record, we probably would have had two or three All-Stars too.

At the end of the day, this is what it comes down to:

* If Horford (15/7/3) wasn't on a top 2 seeded team, no way he makes an ASG
* If Korver (12/4/2) wasn't on a top 2 seeded team, no way he makes an ASG

Millsap (17/8/3) had an outside chance, but even he is right on on the borderline. 

There is not a single player on that Hawks roster who is a clear cut all-star.  They are all "borderline" all stars with the exception of Kover who (IMHO) is not even close to one.

We have a number of players on our roster right now who could potentially put up "borderline All-Star" numbers.  Isaiah Thomas, Jared Sullinger, David Lee are the first who come to mind.  KO if he has a breakout year (his Per-36 numbers were Millsap-like).  Smart if he has a breakout year. 

There was really nobody on earth who predicted prior to last season that the Hawks were going to be so dominant.  Everybody expected them to be a fringe playoff team, and some didn't expect them to even make the playoffs at all.  The justification for all this thinking was their lack of stars. 

Will Boston take a similar step? Can't say.  It's not what I would consider "probable", but then it's not out of the question either.     

[tarheelsxxiii]

Can people stop comparing Boston's players to guys 4 to 7 years older and then acting like the Cs players suck because they aren't already better than guys with a half decade more experience in the NBA.

Horford is 28 and didn't become an above average player 'til his third year in the league.
Teague is 26 and didn't become above average 'til his fourth year.
Milsap is 29 and didn't put up above average numbers 'til his fifth season.

Mike

I agree with you re: trajectories, not sure Teague was even a plus defender till year 5. It's well known that Millsap is the Benjamin Button of the NBA. But I'm not at all implying that Cs players suck because they aren't as good as the current Hawks players. In fact, in the "rozier" thread I'm arguing IT's trade value is higher than others believe.

That wasn't the topic of the OP... we were discussing whether or not we could be the Hawks of 15/16, correct? Do you have any reason to believe one of our current players will make a jump above any of ATL's big 3 this season? If so, I'm all ears. But I don't, unless we  successfully roll and IT Smart into one, via science, without losing an arm or testicle.

[crimson_stallion]

With respect, I disagree with the latest posts. Teague, Millsap, Horford were All-stars because of the Hawks records. They wouldn't have been All-stars if, having played the same (minutes, points, PER, etc..), the Hawks had had a 50% record.
So, if the Celtics go into the all-star break at 43-11, I bet we'll have 4 all-stars too. Whoever starts.
I like all 3, but let's see when next season is over if Thomas isn't rated higher than Teague or Amir Johnson higher than Millsap and/or Horford.

Yeah, records influence all-star selections every season. So if we remove that variable and just judge them based on talent, would any one of Teague/Millsap/Horford not be the best player on our team this season? That's a tough argument to make...

Teague > IT (2-way player, inferior 3p shooter, better finisher and facilitator)
Millsap > Sully (hard to even judge Sully, but Millsap still > versatility, 3p%, defense)
Horford > Johnson/KO (across the board)

How can you even make that comparison when every Boston player you listed (bar Johnson) is 25 or younger, and still improving?

How do we know how good Sully / Olynyk / Thomas / Zeller or any manner of other guys on the Celtics roster could be next year?

I would understand if we are comparing to bonafide all-stars, but we aren't.  We're talking about fringe all-stars here. 

I think it's important to acknowledge that the biggest difference with Boston's guys is that none of them (bar Johnson and Lee) have yet reached their prime years.

People assume that the guys on this team don't have much upside, but who knows?

For example if you looked at the Hawks just prior to the 2014/15 season starting, they were coming off a season where they only had one single All-Star (Millsap) and he was a first timer.  Horford hadn't made an ASG since 2010, and neither Korver nor Teague had ever made an All-Star team period.

So the general view of the Hawks was that they were a team full of guys who were pretty good, but not good enough.   Nobody expected them to be any more than about a 7 or 8 seed in the East, to be fair.

They came out, surprised everbody, and then suddenly they have gone from a team with 1 All-Star to a team with 4 All-Stars...even though none of those players really changed (or improved) their game substantially from the season before.  Honestly, I believe improved roll players (Carroll and Schoreder, for example) were the biggest reason for their improvement, but those starters - who were essentially the exact same players - got all the credit.

Looking at the Celtics now, they are similar.  They are a deep team with a lot of guys who are putting up All-Star like numbers (on a per-minute basis) but due to the sheer depth of the team none of those guys have been given enough minutes to put up those numbers in reality.  Thomas, Lee, Sully, Olynyk and Zeller all put up All-Star numbers last year on a Per-36 basis and were all statistically up there with anybody on the Hawks roster.

Of course the argument will be that you can't just 'assume' that a player's Per-36 stats will translate if they actually played those minutes, and that's true.  But you also can't assume that they won't translate, either.

* How do we know that Sully (if he gets in shape) can't put up 17/9/3 in 34 minutes next year?
* How can we know that Thomas can't put up 21/6 in 30 minutes next year?
* How can we know that Olynyk won't put up 15/7/3 in 32 minutes next year?
* How do we know that Zeller won't put up 16/9 in 33 minutes next year?

The reality is, we don't know.  All we know is that those guys are capable of putting up numbers at that rate, and that thus far they haven't been able to get enough court time to put up the actual numbers in reality. 

If Sully's conditioning improves enough for him to lay 34 MPG, then maybe he will put up those numbers. 

* If Olynyk can learn to keep out of foul trouble, then maybe he can average 32 MPG

* If Boston makes a trade and their front-court things out, Zeller may well see his minute jump to 33 MPG

* Thomas could very easily see 30 MPG

If any of the above comes true, then all of those guys will be looking like borderline All-Stars.  That's before we even get started on the wildcards (Smart and Lee). 

Again not saying this will all happen, but I can understand why people are making the comparison.

[D.o.s.]

With respect, I disagree with the latest posts. Teague, Millsap, Horford were All-stars because of the Hawks records. They wouldn't have been All-stars if, having played the same (minutes, points, PER, etc..), the Hawks had had a 50% record.
So, if the Celtics go into the all-star break at 43-11, I bet we'll have 4 all-stars too. Whoever starts.
I like all 3, but let's see when next season is over if Thomas isn't rated higher than Teague or Amir Johnson higher than Millsap and/or Horford.

This is kind of a "chicken and egg" type of situation. You basically just said that if the Hawks' top 3 players: 1) didn't play as much 2) didn't score as much 3) weren't as good as they actually were/are then the Hawks would have been a worse team, and the players would not have been all-stars.

I think the Hawks were getting the benefit of the doubt from the league's PR  (consider the "hero ball" abomination they tried to pitch to everyone or that ridiculous shared Player of the Month award) but it also is an example of a team that played about as well as they could for about as long as they could, and rode it to the kind of record that some people around here extrapolate out for the C's based on the way we closed the year out.