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

[PhoSita]

I think it's foolish to try and guess what will happen as far as injuries and guys having up and down seasons.

What I feel confident saying at this point is that of the 15 teams in the East, only one of them for sure will not be in the playoff hunt, only a handful will definitely make the playoffs barring catastrophic injuries, and there are like 7-9 teams that could plausibly finish the season in any particular order. 

The Celts are one of those 7-9 "might make the playoffs" teams.  Anything from the 4th seed to finishing a few spots out of the playoffs is on the table.

[DarkAzcura]

I think it's foolish to try and guess what will happen as far as injuries and guys having up and down seasons.

What I feel confident saying at this point is that of the 15 teams in the East, only one of them for sure will not be in the playoff hunt, only a handful will definitely make the playoffs barring catastrophic injuries, and there are like 7-9 teams that could plausibly finish the season in any particular order. 

The Celts are one of those 7-9 "might make the playoffs" teams.  Anything from the 4th seed to finishing a few spots out of the playoffs is on the table.

I think the list of viable playoff teams is a little smaller, but I totally agree with your point.

[littleteapot]

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.

True, they have to figure out a new style and need to have a better offense than in years past. But as far as talent goes, they got a major upgrade this year.

[viulo]

Still concerning the Teague/IT debate and the fact that it was Teague's last year record/production which changed people's perception:
At the beggining of last season, in SI's top 100 player list, Teague was 92nd, IT was 90th.
http://www.si.com/nba/2014/top-100-nba-players-2015-list

Rondo, coincidentally, was 40th...

Now, I know SI's ranking is debatable, but it gives you the perception of how players are valued. Teague got better, obviously, but it was also the colective improvement of the Hawks that allow Teague to be 41st this year, ahead of Derrick Rose or Ty Lawson or Tony Parker.

Because judging by individual production alone (even by record, if you factor in IT's games in Phoenix and Boston), there's no reason for IT to climb only 2 places and Teague 51.

[tarheelsxxiii]

Still concerning the Teague/IT debate and the fact that it was Teague's last year record/production which changed people's perception:
At the beggining of last season, in SI's top 100 player list, Teague was 92nd, IT was 90th.
http://www.si.com/nba/2014/top-100-nba-players-2015-list

Rondo, coincidentally, was 40th...

Now, I know SI's ranking is debatable, but it gives you the perception of how players are valued. Teague got better, obviously, but it was also the colective improvement of the Hawks that allow Teague to be 41st this year, ahead of Derrick Rose or Ty Lawson or Tony Parker.

Because judging by individual production alone (even by record, if you factor in IT's games in Phoenix and Boston), there's no reason for IT to climb only 2 places and Teague 51.

It's a good point. SI comes out with some wonky ish, but yeah ... guys (across all sports, actually) definitely benefit in individual stats/rankings with team success. After all, we are quick to bash the "good player on a bad team," but don't recognize the shift in evaluation for guys on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Despite what may be egregious shifts, though, I do think there's something to be said for a guy playing much better on a very good team, especially if he is playing a primary role and not just a spot-up shooter (looking at you D. Jones, J. Jones, K. Korver). If you're stepping your game up on a bigger stage with more responsibility/higher expectations, you're probably doing a lot of things right. This is why I was so pro-Rondo, despite the strong (over time) interpretation that he sucked for X,Y,Z.

[Moranis]

Still concerning the Teague/IT debate and the fact that it was Teague's last year record/production which changed people's perception:
At the beggining of last season, in SI's top 100 player list, Teague was 92nd, IT was 90th.
http://www.si.com/nba/2014/top-100-nba-players-2015-list

Rondo, coincidentally, was 40th...

Now, I know SI's ranking is debatable, but it gives you the perception of how players are valued. Teague got better, obviously, but it was also the colective improvement of the Hawks that allow Teague to be 41st this year, ahead of Derrick Rose or Ty Lawson or Tony Parker.

Because judging by individual production alone (even by record, if you factor in IT's games in Phoenix and Boston), there's no reason for IT to climb only 2 places and Teague 51.

Are you accounting for defensive production as well or just offensive.  Teague made a significant leap defensively last year as well.

[LooseCannon]

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).

I think it is easy to see how this roster can win more than 45 games.  On paper, this team has a good chance of being a top ten defense.  If they can do that, I have trouble seeing how a team with a top ten defense doesn't have a shot at winning more than 45 games.

[slamtheking]

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).

the team doesn't "suck" on paper or otherwise.  Philly is a team that sucks.  C's have 11 guys that are rotation-quality players.  The C's problem is that none of them are clear starter-quality players. 

They'll be in the playoff chase which isn't a team that sucks.  They'll beat teams better than them (on paper) more often than you'd expect.  in the end, I think they'll be somewhere around 38-40 wins this year -- that doesn't "suck".  mediocre, sure.  sucks, no.

[crimson_stallion]

I think it's foolish to try and guess what will happen as far as injuries and guys having up and down seasons.

What I feel confident saying at this point is that of the 15 teams in the East, only one of them for sure will not be in the playoff hunt, only a handful will definitely make the playoffs barring catastrophic injuries, and there are like 7-9 teams that could plausibly finish the season in any particular order. 

The Celts are one of those 7-9 "might make the playoffs" teams.  Anything from the 4th seed to finishing a few spots out of the playoffs is on the table.

We all have the right to our own opinions (after all, these are predictions so nobody is right or wrong yet) but I see it quite differently.

I think there are two teams in the East who have absolutely no hope of making the playoffs:

1. Philly
2. New York

I also think there are a number of teams who are very unlikely to make the playoffs, but if the basketball gods bless them and everything goes their way then they might have the tiniest outside chance:

1. Charlotte
2. Brooklyn
3. Orlando
4. Detroit
5. Indiana

Finally, I feel there are a few teams who are pretty much certain to make the playoffs:

1. Cleveland
2. Washington
3. Toronto
4. Milwaukee
5. Atlanta


That's 12 of the East's 15 teams accounted for, which leaves 3 remaining teams who, I believe, will (fairly) comfortably secure the other 4 playoff spots:

1. Chicago
2. Boston
4. Miami

The only other team I can really envision having much hope is maybe Indiana (based on Paul George's return and the addition of Monta Ellis) but I honestly think they are way too weak in terms of depth (after losing Hibbert, West and Stephenson over the past two seasons) to make much of an impact.  Paul George might be a big star, but a big star can only take a really crappy team so far - just ask Kevin Love and Demarcus Cousins.

I know people will call me crazy for having Chicago and Miami on the 'battling for the final spots' list, but I have my reasons for this:

1) I think Jimmy Butler is the only sure thing in Chicago since Thibbs is gone, Gasol just turned 35, Noah declined in a huge way last year, and you never depend on Rose to actually suit up.  They have survived up until now on their defense, which looks almost certain to fall apart after the decline of Noah and firing of Thibbs.

2) I think Miami is far too dependent on the Wade/Bosh duo both remaining healthy though at least 75% of the season.  Last season made it clear as day that Miami can't make the playoffs behind just Wade, or just Bosh.  They need both of those guys on the court together if they want to make some real noise in the East, and last year they played around 100 games combined.  I also don't believe that Miami is a good enough (at their strongest) to build enough of a lead in the standings to absorb the hit if they lose Wade / Bosh for significant time. 

If anything I actually think Boston are the surest thing out of those three teams.  They are a team that wins by sharing the load, rather then depending on any one / two guys to carry the team.  This means that they if any of their players get hurt or go through a cold streak, they will pretty much always have another guy ready to step up and take his place.  Where other teams will go through hot and cold streaks (as their key players go through injuries and/or streaks of their own), the Celtics should be able to remain consistently strong throughout the course of the year on the strength of their depth.

We will see.

[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.

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?

My definition of a bad team is a team that finishes with an under .500 record at the end of the year. Missing the playoffs doesn't mean you're a bad team (were the Thunder bad last year or the 2013-14 Suns bad?), but making the playoffs also doesn't mean you're a good team (the Nets sucked and the Celtics were bad last year).

As for why I don't believe in the Celtics this next year: I just don't. It's not that deep. I think they benefitted from a weak schedule against neutered teams and the Cavaliers blatantly throwing two games down the stretch of the season (there is no way I'm going to be convinced otherwise on that last point, much like no one will ever convince me Golden State didn't tank in 2012 to keep their draft pick and that the Hawks weren't subtly trying to tank their way out of the playoffs in 2014).

[slamtheking]

I think it's foolish to try and guess what will happen as far as injuries and guys having up and down seasons.

What I feel confident saying at this point is that of the 15 teams in the East, only one of them for sure will not be in the playoff hunt, only a handful will definitely make the playoffs barring catastrophic injuries, and there are like 7-9 teams that could plausibly finish the season in any particular order. 

The Celts are one of those 7-9 "might make the playoffs" teams.  Anything from the 4th seed to finishing a few spots out of the playoffs is on the table.

We all have the right to our own opinions (after all, these are predictions so nobody is right or wrong yet) but I see it quite differently.

I think there are two teams in the East who have absolutely no hope of making the playoffs:

1. Philly
2. New York

I also think there are a number of teams who are very unlikely to make the playoffs, but if the basketball gods bless them and everything goes their way then they might have the tiniest outside chance:

1. Charlotte
2. Brooklyn
3. Orlando
4. Detroit
5. Indiana

Finally, I feel there are a few teams who are pretty much certain to make the playoffs:

1. Cleveland
2. Washington
3. Toronto
4. Milwaukee
5. Atlanta


That's 12 of the East's 15 teams accounted for, which leaves 3 remaining teams who, I believe, will (fairly) comfortably secure the other 4 playoff spots:

1. Chicago
2. Boston
4. Miami

The only other team I can really envision having much hope is maybe Indiana (based on Paul George's return and the addition of Monta Ellis) but I honestly think they are way too weak in terms of depth (after losing Hibbert, West and Stephenson over the past two seasons) to make much of an impact.  Paul George might be a big star, but a big star can only take a really crappy team so far - just ask Kevin Love and Demarcus Cousins.

I know people will call me crazy for having Chicago and Miami on the 'battling for the final spots' list, but I have my reasons for this:

1) I think Jimmy Butler is the only sure thing in Chicago since Thibbs is gone, Gasol just turned 35, Noah declined in a huge way last year, and you never depend on Rose to actually suit up.  They have survived up until now on their defense, which looks almost certain to fall apart after the decline of Noah and firing of Thibbs.

2) I think Miami is far too dependent on the Wade/Bosh duo both remaining healthy though at least 75% of the season.  Last season made it clear as day that Miami can't make the playoffs behind just Wade, or just Bosh.  They need both of those guys on the court together if they want to make some real noise in the East, and last year they played around 100 games combined.  I also don't believe that Miami is a good enough (at their strongest) to build enough of a lead in the standings to absorb the hit if they lose Wade / Bosh for significant time. 

If anything I actually think Boston are the surest thing out of those three teams.  They are a team that wins by sharing the load, rather then depending on any one / two guys to carry the team.  This means that they if any of their players get hurt or go through a cold streak, they will pretty much always have another guy ready to step up and take his place.  Where other teams will go through hot and cold streaks (as their key players go through injuries and/or streaks of their own), the Celtics should be able to remain consistently strong throughout the course of the year on the strength of their depth.

We will see.

I think it breaks down a little differently but the overall strata makes sense.

BARRING SIGNIFICANT INJURIES TO TOP PLAYERS OR MAJOR TRADES THAT SHAKE UP THE ROSTERS (for better or worse).

7 locks for the playoffs (no particular order)
1. Cle
2. Mil
3. Chi
4. Tor
5. Atl
6. Wash
7. Miami

There's the playoff-chase group
1. Indy
2. Bos

Then there's the playoff longshots where everything has to break their way but they'll likely finish behind the playoff-chase group
1. Detroit
2. Charlotte
3. Orlando
4. NY

the no-way, no-how team is
Philly.

I think Indy outlasts Boston for that last spot by 1-2 games.  it'll be close.  I just think the presence of Paul George and Monte Ellis as their go-to guys down the stretch of games is better than what the C's will be doing which is relying on closing by committee.

[greece66]

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

I hope not. Just look at this year's Hawks.

[Vermont Green]

C's have 11 guys that are rotation-quality players.  The C's problem is that none of them are clear starter-quality players. 

Interesting statement.  I don't know if you are right or wrong about the Cs but this made me wonder what it says about the league if a team without any "clear starter-quality players" can make the playoffs.

[Vermont Green]

I think there are two teams in the East who have absolutely no hope of making the playoffs:

1. Philly
2. New York

I don't know about NYKs.  They are essentially adding Carmelo to the team.  That is a really big upgrade over a team without Carmelo.  I think that elevates them well above Philly certainly and I think the NYKs will find a way to contend for the playoffs.

[D.o.s.]

C's have 11 guys that are rotation-quality players.  The C's problem is that none of them are clear starter-quality players. 

Interesting statement.  I don't know if you are right or wrong about the Cs but this made me wonder what it says about the league if a team without any "clear starter-quality players" can make the playoffs.

That's why they call it the (L)Eastern Conference.