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

[LarBrd33]

I have trouble seeing how this roster can win more than 45 games.  On paper, this team sucks... And it's only through the genius of Brad Stevens that we have a chance at sneaking into the playoffs again.  The good news is, Ainge will be aggressive in the trade market this season and we still have some potentially valuable draft picks (like the Brooklyn picks which may end up late lotto).

[Endless Paradise]

I just don't think the Celtics are going to make the playoffs. They ended last year on a hot streak largely against mediocre/bad teams.

[PhoSita]

Last year, the Hawks -- a perennial 45-50 win, 1st or 2nd round playoff loser with no stand-out stars -- sent 4 players to the All-Star game, locked up the #1 seed in the East with 60 wins, and made it to the Conference Finals.

So, for the Celts to be that kind of surprise, what would it take?

For my money, the Celts would have to send at least one player to the All-Star game, overachieve by at least 10 wins in the regular season (so about 50 wins), and win a playoff series.

I know some people around here think all of those things could plausibly happen this year.  Those people won't be surprised that I disagree. 

[SHAQATTACK]

I think the Celtics will do MORE with even Less Star talent than the Hawks .

Celtics are solid from Top to Bottom

Star laden teams will have to play their main 5 guys a TON or pretty much the whole game pass the Celtics .

A lot of Stars are OLD or getting there .

[CelticGuardian]

There's a shot this team will be better than most in the east but similar to the 14-15' Hawks is a bit of a stretch.

[DarkAzcura]

I have trouble seeing how this roster can win more than 45 games.  On paper, this team sucks... And it's only through the genius of Brad Stevens that we have a chance at sneaking into the playoffs again.  The good news is, Ainge will be aggressive in the trade market this season and we still have some potentially valuable draft picks (like the Brooklyn picks which may end up late lotto).

No, it doesn't. I love Stevens. I love him a lot, but people have to stop with this hyperbole. The Celtics have some of the best collective defensive talent in the league on the wings (1, 2, and 3 positions), and they have one of the best go to scorers in the 4th quarter in the league. You are underrating the base talent on this team by a large extent. They won't win 45 games because Stevens is some genius. If they win 45 or more, they'll win it because they had both the coaching and talent to achieve it. They are going to grind out games (Smart, Bradley, Crowder, Amir defense will be hard to deal with for a lot of teams) and basically rely on players like IT to help close the game. No, they aren't amazing, but they don't suck on paper either.

Also, I always find it interesting to see you predict the absolute worst for the Celtics, but almost expect the best from other teams (BKN a late lotto team? if they are lucky). It's good to keep expectations low, but man, turn that frown upside down!   

Last year, the Hawks -- a perennial 45-50 win, 1st or 2nd round playoff loser with no stand-out stars -- sent 4 players to the All-Star game, locked up the #1 seed in the East with 60 wins, and made it to the Conference Finals.

So, for the Celts to be that kind of surprise, what would it take?

For my money, the Celts would have to send at least one player to the All-Star game, overachieve by at least 10 wins in the regular season (so about 50 wins), and win a playoff series.

I know some people around here think all of those things could plausibly happen this year.  Those people won't be surprised that I disagree. 

They need an Al Horford type talent to get there. We aren't getting that type of talent, though, and I have no idea when that will happen in particular. :/

For me, a surprise would be for them to maintain their 24-12 pace over the course of 82 games. That equates to roughly ~55 wins. I don't think they can do that over the course of a full season, and that would surprise. 50 wins may seem unlikely, but it wouldn't surprise me.

I just don't think the Celtics are going to make the playoffs. They ended last year on a hot streak largely against mediocre/bad teams.

On average, every team in the East is always playing against mediocre/bad teams. There's no sense in devaluing what the Celtics did because they had a weak close out schedule. Plenty of teams had similar schedules but did not perform at the level of the Celtics. The Celtics won't continue that blistering 55 win pace they had over the last 36 games (close to half the season!), but for them not to make the playoffs in the East, they would have to drop from a 55 win pace to a low 30-mid 30 win pace, which is just as unrealistic as expecting 55 wins. They are likely to fall in the middle of those two extremes which = playoffs in the East.

[Endless Paradise]

Plenty of teams had similar schedules but did not perform at the level of the Celtics.

And those teams are bad, too. I've not once claimed otherwise.

[DarkAzcura]

Plenty of teams had similar schedules but did not perform at the level of the Celtics.

And those teams are bad, too. I've not once claimed otherwise.

The point is that you said you can't see the Celtics making the playoffs next season. Being bad =/= not making the playoffs. All you have to do to make the playoffs is be in the top 50% of your conference. Whether you directly made the claim or not is insignificant to your point. The Celtics had the second best record in the East for the final half (well 36 games) of the season. I don't know what to tell you, but ~40 games isn't exactly a small sample size, and 12-13 teams performing below you within the conference is also pretty significant considering most team's have similarly weak schedules.

If the Celtics aren't making the playoffs, who exactly is jumping ahead of them next season? Brooklyn? Miami? Indiana? Orlando? Detroit? All teams who were incredibly mediocre last season, and while some dealt with injuries, none dealt with the amount of roster turnover that the Celtics saw. Even if Miami jumps ahead, that still leaves the Celtics at the 8 spot at worst. Remember, the Celtics didn't exactly just slip into the playoffs. They owned the second half of the season while most teams in the conference couldn't win a game with their weak schedules.

The point is claiming the Celtics had a weak schedule as a building point for why they won't make the playoffs next season is irrelevant if other teams with weak schedules couldn't outperform the Celtics this past season. Other than Indiana and Miami, what do other teams even have as a reason for why they will play better relative to the Celtics if they couldn't do it last season? Why be so positive about other teams that were even more mediocre than the Celtics as a whole?

[D.o.s.]

just as an aside: if Paul George continues to play at the level that he was prior to his injury and the Pacers can keep up some semblance of their defensive intensity it wouldn't shock me to see them making a strong comeback.

[DarkAzcura]

just as an aside: if Paul George continues to play at the level that he was prior to his injury and the Pacers can keep up some semblance of their defensive intensity it wouldn't shock me to see them making a strong comeback.

I'd agree with you if they didn't lose Hibbert. Dude is incredibly underrated and is the main reason the Pacers maintained any semblance of defensive respectability. I'm unsure where the Pacers will land now even with George coming back.

Lance may be a huge knucklehead. Hibbert may be mentally weak. But the trio of George/Hibbert/Lance on defense was way too much for other teams to handle when they won 50+ games. It'll be interesting to see how George performs with this team without those two (especially Roy..). As we saw with Pierce all those years..only one player can do so much..

It may work, though, the Monta/George combo may just end up being those two players taking turns on offense, and then it'll be bleh.

[D.o.s.]

Yeah Hibbert's loss would be a more serious concern for me if he hadn't cratered so spectacularly at the end of last season. That said, it's a good thing to note since he is/was probably the best defensive center (like real center) in the NBA right now.

[86MaxwellSmart]

if by hawks you mean we'll win a lot of games and get bounced early in the playoffs then sure, why not?

I think I stated this in my original post.

I also think we have a better Long Term future than the Hawks....Players are younger, more draft picks etc....Actually sad (in historical terms) that I'm using the Hawks for comparison...but I meant only for this coming season.

[littleteapot]

The Pacers were 2 games worse than us last year with Paul George playing 6 games. I'd say if you take out Hibbert and put in George you certainly shouldn't get worse.

[slamtheking]

If the Celtics aren't making the playoffs, who exactly is jumping ahead of them next season? Brooklyn? Miami? Indiana? Orlando? Detroit? All teams who were incredibly mediocre last season, and while some dealt with injuries, none dealt with the amount of roster turnover that the Celtics saw. Even if Miami jumps ahead, that still leaves the Celtics at the 8 spot at worst. Remember, the Celtics didn't exactly just slip into the playoffs. They owned the second half of the season while most teams in the conference couldn't win a game with their weak schedules.

I'd bank on Miami passing us as well as the 6 teams that finished better than us last year to do so again.

I'm also of the opinion that Indy getting Paul George back and adding Monta Ellis will make them much better and offset the loss of West and Hibbert.  I think that's the team that will nudge us out of the playoffs (by only a game or two).

Detroit and Charlotte made some moves to address their locker room issues and underperformance.  it's not impossible to consider those moves may have worked out for one or both of them.  I don't think they'll do better than the C's personally but I wouldn't be completely surprised if it happened. 

I think Orlando and the Knicks are a step below in terms of talent but the Knicks to have a top 3 that would easily start on this team in Melo, Lopez and Afflalo.  Orlando has a lot of solid young talent that is better balanced across positions than us.  Their youth has looked good during the summer league.  I don't think either team will pass the C's but I wouldn't be completely surprised if either one did.  very surprised, but not completely.

I only see the C's really finishing ahead of Philly and Brooklyn with any certainty.  Philly = dumpster fire.  Brooklyn, I don't see them staying healthy, their roster is worse than last year and I'm anticipating a sell off of their vets for youth and picks as the season progresses.

[DarkAzcura]

The Pacers were 2 games worse than us last year with Paul George playing 6 games. I'd say if you take out Hibbert and put in George you certainly shouldn't get worse.

Basketball isn't really a math equation, though, where if you add a better player that you will automatically have a better record. George is the best overall Pacers player by a longshot the last couple years, but he played a different position than Hibbert. The Pacers' identity was completely revolved around half court, grind it out, defensive first basketball. That identity revolved around Hibbert regardless of the talent gap between Hibbert and George. There's no real way to determine how the Pacers will adapt this year without their defensive anchor.

If the Celtics aren't making the playoffs, who exactly is jumping ahead of them next season? Brooklyn? Miami? Indiana? Orlando? Detroit? All teams who were incredibly mediocre last season, and while some dealt with injuries, none dealt with the amount of roster turnover that the Celtics saw. Even if Miami jumps ahead, that still leaves the Celtics at the 8 spot at worst. Remember, the Celtics didn't exactly just slip into the playoffs. They owned the second half of the season while most teams in the conference couldn't win a game with their weak schedules.

I'd bank on Miami passing us as well as the 6 teams that finished better than us last year to do so again.

I'm also of the opinion that Indy getting Paul George back and adding Monta Ellis will make them much better and offset the loss of West and Hibbert.  I think that's the team that will nudge us out of the playoffs (by only a game or two).

Detroit and Charlotte made some moves to address their locker room issues and underperformance.  it's not impossible to consider those moves may have worked out for one or both of them.  I don't think they'll do better than the C's personally but I wouldn't be completely surprised if it happened. 

I think Orlando and the Knicks are a step below in terms of talent but the Knicks to have a top 3 that would easily start on this team in Melo, Lopez and Afflalo.  Orlando has a lot of solid young talent that is better balanced across positions than us.  Their youth has looked good during the summer league.  I don't think either team will pass the C's but I wouldn't be completely surprised if either one did.  very surprised, but not completely.

I only see the C's really finishing ahead of Philly and Brooklyn with any certainty.  Philly = dumpster fire.  Brooklyn, I don't see them staying healthy, their roster is worse than last year and I'm anticipating a sell off of their vets for youth and picks as the season progresses.

This is a pretty pessimistic outlook for this team, imo, but I won't get on it too much based on your explanations. All of that could occur. I just think it is very unlikely, and I'm personally not fond of hyping up teams that performed terribly/mediocre last season with no real reason of predicting improvement over the Celtics.

Like I said before, basketball is not a 1:1 math equation. George is wicked talented, but no one has any idea how a team that has defined itself as a grind it out, half court defensive team will react after losing its main anchor. Will Monta Ellis and George even work offensively? Will they end up taking turns on offense or actually play with chemistry and cohesion? Who really knows?

If we admit that Detroit addressed its locker room issues with losing Monroe and Smith, how will Monroe work with the Bucks? The Bucks aren't a great shooting team, and we already saw Detroit fall on its face for not having shooters around Monroe for years. Why are you so sure that the 6 teams above us will remain above us? I don't see any reason to believe that the Bucks, Wizards, and Raptors will remain as automatic staples in the top 6 of the East. Too many question marks with the Bucks and how Monroe will work with the team. Too many questions about Nene's health/age, Gortat aging, and Pierce's leadership leaving the Wizards.

The Celtics are one of the few teams in the East that stayed relatively "pat," and there are very few questions as to how they will come into the year relative to teams like the Wizards, Bucks, Heat, Indiana, and Detroit who all made major additions/subtractions that could either positively or negatively impact chemistry.