Rosy predictions from FiveThirtyEight

[loco_91]

Top shelf defense is a good recipe for winning regular season games and making it into the playoffs.  I think we've seen plenty of examples, even just in the last few teams, of teams that get there on the strength of defense and general competency, only to fold when it turns out -- surprise! -- the lack of  of a dangerous offense means they can't cut it against talented opponents.

I think the Celts are in that boat, still.

We may also see in the next year or two that the defense will have to take a step back or two in order to integrate more talented offensive options (similar to what the Bucks are going through this year).

I agree with Nick that 45 or so wins is probably a better estimate for where the team will end up, given what we've seen so far.  I wonder if the team won't regress to the mean just a little bit defensively, however.  Top 5 in defense is a huge leap for this team after finishing last year outside the top 10.  But maybe starting Jae Crowder full time and adding Amir Johnson to the rotation is making that big a difference?  We'll see.

I don't buy the narrative that you can be a good regular season team with defense + depth but that offensive star power is needed to win in the playoffs. I haven't seen any statistical evidence to suggest anything of the sort, and my strong feeling is that winning is winning is winning, no matter what formula you use to do it.

It's possible that the C's defense will regress a bit over the course of the season - they're forcing turnovers at an outlier-y rate, and maybe teams will adapt to that and start taking care of the ball better. But on the other hand, it's a young team that progressed substantially over the course of last season, and maybe they'll progress this season, too.

[bballdog384]

I think they are pretty spot on.

Realistically, who (besides Cleveland) could beat the C's in a 7-game series?

With our depth, coaching, and defense they'll be an extremely tough out.

[KG Living Legend]

 I don't know how they give the Warrior's a 52% chance of winning it all. I give them a 90% chance of Curry, Green, Thompson are healthy

[LarBrd33]

We're playing really well.  If we pull off a big trade this season, I could see us getting 50.

[Celtics18]

Top shelf defense is a good recipe for winning regular season games and making it into the playoffs.  I think we've seen plenty of examples, even just in the last few teams, of teams that get there on the strength of defense and general competency, only to fold when it turns out -- surprise! -- the lack of  of a dangerous offense means they can't cut it against talented opponents.

I think the Celts are in that boat, still.

We may also see in the next year or two that the defense will have to take a step back or two in order to integrate more talented offensive options (similar to what the Bucks are going through this year).

I agree with Nick that 45 or so wins is probably a better estimate for where the team will end up, given what we've seen so far. I wonder if the team won't regress to the mean just a little bit defensively, however.  Top 5 in defense is a huge leap for this team after finishing last year outside the top 10.  But maybe starting Jae Crowder full time and adding Amir Johnson to the rotation is making that big a difference?  We'll see.

On the other hand, our defense has stayed in the top five with our arguably-best defensive player missing more than half the games so far.

It's highly possibly that our defense could get even better once Marcus Smart returns. 

[saltlover]

Top shelf defense is a good recipe for winning regular season games and making it into the playoffs.  I think we've seen plenty of examples, even just in the last few teams, of teams that get there on the strength of defense and general competency, only to fold when it turns out -- surprise! -- the lack of  of a dangerous offense means they can't cut it against talented opponents.

I think the Celts are in that boat, still.

We may also see in the next year or two that the defense will have to take a step back or two in order to integrate more talented offensive options (similar to what the Bucks are going through this year).

I agree with Nick that 45 or so wins is probably a better estimate for where the team will end up, given what we've seen so far.  I wonder if the team won't regress to the mean just a little bit defensively, however.  Top 5 in defense is a huge leap for this team after finishing last year outside the top 10.  But maybe starting Jae Crowder full time and adding Amir Johnson to the rotation is making that big a difference?  We'll see.

I don't buy the narrative that you can be a good regular season team with defense + depth but that offensive star power is needed to win in the playoffs. I haven't seen any statistical evidence to suggest anything of the sort, and my strong feeling is that winning is winning is winning, no matter what formula you use to do it.

It's possible that the C's defense will regress a bit over the course of the season - they're forcing turnovers at an outlier-y rate, and maybe teams will adapt to that and start taking care of the ball better. But on the other hand, it's a young team that progressed substantially over the course of last season, and maybe they'll progress this season, too.

Defense I agree on.  Depth advantages dissipate in the playoffs because there are always off days, sometimes multiple off days, between games, so rotations can become a bit shallower.  This favors top-heavy teams.  LeBron can't go 40 minutes every night in the regular season, but he can if necessary in a tight playoff series.  The depth won't completely vanish (more lineup combinations can make the team more difficult to prepare for, and the defensive intensity doesn't need to lag due to exhaustion), but I'd rather have 40 minutes of LeBron than 20 minutes from Jae Crowder and 20 minutes from his clone.

[MJohnnyboy]

 I don't know how they give the Warrior's a 52% chance of winning it all. I give them a 90% chance of Curry, Green, Thompson are healthy

One reason and one reason only: The Spurs.

[loco_91]

Top shelf defense is a good recipe for winning regular season games and making it into the playoffs.  I think we've seen plenty of examples, even just in the last few teams, of teams that get there on the strength of defense and general competency, only to fold when it turns out -- surprise! -- the lack of  of a dangerous offense means they can't cut it against talented opponents.

I think the Celts are in that boat, still.

We may also see in the next year or two that the defense will have to take a step back or two in order to integrate more talented offensive options (similar to what the Bucks are going through this year).

I agree with Nick that 45 or so wins is probably a better estimate for where the team will end up, given what we've seen so far.  I wonder if the team won't regress to the mean just a little bit defensively, however.  Top 5 in defense is a huge leap for this team after finishing last year outside the top 10.  But maybe starting Jae Crowder full time and adding Amir Johnson to the rotation is making that big a difference?  We'll see.

I don't buy the narrative that you can be a good regular season team with defense + depth but that offensive star power is needed to win in the playoffs. I haven't seen any statistical evidence to suggest anything of the sort, and my strong feeling is that winning is winning is winning, no matter what formula you use to do it.

It's possible that the C's defense will regress a bit over the course of the season - they're forcing turnovers at an outlier-y rate, and maybe teams will adapt to that and start taking care of the ball better. But on the other hand, it's a young team that progressed substantially over the course of last season, and maybe they'll progress this season, too.

Defense I agree on.  Depth advantages dissipate in the playoffs because there are always off days, sometimes multiple off days, between games, so rotations can become a bit shallower.  This favors top-heavy teams.  LeBron can't go 40 minutes every night in the regular season, but he can if necessary in a tight playoff series.  The depth won't completely vanish (more lineup combinations can make the team more difficult to prepare for, and the defensive intensity doesn't need to lag due to exhaustion), but I'd rather have 40 minutes of LeBron than 20 minutes from Jae Crowder and 20 minutes from his clone.

It does make some amount of sense. But you can't just not play your bench. LeBron is always a force in the playoffs, but for a typical star I'm not sure how big an advantage it is to play them 40 minutes instead of 36. I'd still take a deep 52 win team over a top-heavy 50 win team. And there's the injury issue-- top heavy teams can really get bitten hard, as the Cavs found out last year.

[manl_lui]

I think they are pretty spot on.

Realistically, who (besides Cleveland) could beat the C's in a 7-game series?

With our depth, coaching, and defense they'll be an extremely tough out.

personally, I think Indiana, and Chicago will win that 7 game series

I think Miami, Charlotte, Toronto and Atlanta are series we could legit win

edit: also in other words, they also predict nets to be bottom 3...just sayin

[Future Celtics Owner]

Wow's that great.

So to do that they have to go 38 - 23 the rest of the way.

Playing 62% ball the rest of the way?  Seems too hard.

I dunno.
We have to win 6.5 games out of every 10.
I think 6 is pretty realistic and with some luck we could get to 6.5 (65%).
This team is built for the regular season with our depth.
Avery's shooting will cool down, but we'll also get Smart back.
We are an absolute beast defensively.

This team is built for the regular season.......but that means nothing in the playoffs. Chambers you know that playoff ball is completely dif and the guys in the regular season that coasted turn it the hell on in the playoffs.

[loco_91]

I think they are pretty spot on.

Realistically, who (besides Cleveland) could beat the C's in a 7-game series?

With our depth, coaching, and defense they'll be an extremely tough out.

personally, I think Indiana, and Chicago will win that 7 game series

I think Miami, Charlotte, Toronto and Atlanta are series we could legit win

edit: also in other words, they also predict nets to be bottom 3...just sayin

Funny, I'm not scared by Chicago and Indy so much. Bulls look awful on offense, and the Pacers don't have much going for them outside of PG's hot start. Miami and Toronto are legit, though. Really any of these teams could give us a difficult series, though I favor us significantly over Chicago or Charlotte.

[saltlover]

Top shelf defense is a good recipe for winning regular season games and making it into the playoffs.  I think we've seen plenty of examples, even just in the last few teams, of teams that get there on the strength of defense and general competency, only to fold when it turns out -- surprise! -- the lack of  of a dangerous offense means they can't cut it against talented opponents.

I think the Celts are in that boat, still.

We may also see in the next year or two that the defense will have to take a step back or two in order to integrate more talented offensive options (similar to what the Bucks are going through this year).

I agree with Nick that 45 or so wins is probably a better estimate for where the team will end up, given what we've seen so far.  I wonder if the team won't regress to the mean just a little bit defensively, however.  Top 5 in defense is a huge leap for this team after finishing last year outside the top 10.  But maybe starting Jae Crowder full time and adding Amir Johnson to the rotation is making that big a difference?  We'll see.

I don't buy the narrative that you can be a good regular season team with defense + depth but that offensive star power is needed to win in the playoffs. I haven't seen any statistical evidence to suggest anything of the sort, and my strong feeling is that winning is winning is winning, no matter what formula you use to do it.

It's possible that the C's defense will regress a bit over the course of the season - they're forcing turnovers at an outlier-y rate, and maybe teams will adapt to that and start taking care of the ball better. But on the other hand, it's a young team that progressed substantially over the course of last season, and maybe they'll progress this season, too.

Defense I agree on.  Depth advantages dissipate in the playoffs because there are always off days, sometimes multiple off days, between games, so rotations can become a bit shallower.  This favors top-heavy teams.  LeBron can't go 40 minutes every night in the regular season, but he can if necessary in a tight playoff series.  The depth won't completely vanish (more lineup combinations can make the team more difficult to prepare for, and the defensive intensity doesn't need to lag due to exhaustion), but I'd rather have 40 minutes of LeBron than 20 minutes from Jae Crowder and 20 minutes from his clone.

It does make some amount of sense. But you can't just not play your bench. LeBron is always a force in the playoffs, but for a typical star I'm not sure how big an advantage it is to play them 40 minutes instead of 36. I'd still take a deep 52 win team over a top-heavy 50 win team. And there's the injury issue-- top heavy teams can really get bitten hard, as the Cavs found out last year.

I mean, the Cavs were a top-heavy team without one of their best players for the final three rounds, and another one for most of the final two rounds, and still took the NBA finals to 6 games, against a team that literally hasn't lost since game 3 of that series.  The Warriors are a really deep team, but if they lost Thompson and Green they'd be unlikely to win in a 7-game series.

[BornReady]

I think they are pretty spot on.

Realistically, who (besides Cleveland) could beat the C's in a 7-game series?

With our depth, coaching, and defense they'll be an extremely tough out.

personally, I think Indiana, and Chicago will win that 7 game series

I think Miami, Charlotte, Toronto and Atlanta are series we could legit win

edit: also in other words, they also predict nets to be bottom 3...just sayin

I think Indy + chicago + toronto + atlanta can beat us

Miami can beat us depending on health of wade, bosh and bench
 
Charlotte i think we can beat

[loco_91]

Top shelf defense is a good recipe for winning regular season games and making it into the playoffs.  I think we've seen plenty of examples, even just in the last few teams, of teams that get there on the strength of defense and general competency, only to fold when it turns out -- surprise! -- the lack of  of a dangerous offense means they can't cut it against talented opponents.

I think the Celts are in that boat, still.

We may also see in the next year or two that the defense will have to take a step back or two in order to integrate more talented offensive options (similar to what the Bucks are going through this year).

I agree with Nick that 45 or so wins is probably a better estimate for where the team will end up, given what we've seen so far.  I wonder if the team won't regress to the mean just a little bit defensively, however.  Top 5 in defense is a huge leap for this team after finishing last year outside the top 10.  But maybe starting Jae Crowder full time and adding Amir Johnson to the rotation is making that big a difference?  We'll see.

I don't buy the narrative that you can be a good regular season team with defense + depth but that offensive star power is needed to win in the playoffs. I haven't seen any statistical evidence to suggest anything of the sort, and my strong feeling is that winning is winning is winning, no matter what formula you use to do it.

It's possible that the C's defense will regress a bit over the course of the season - they're forcing turnovers at an outlier-y rate, and maybe teams will adapt to that and start taking care of the ball better. But on the other hand, it's a young team that progressed substantially over the course of last season, and maybe they'll progress this season, too.

Defense I agree on.  Depth advantages dissipate in the playoffs because there are always off days, sometimes multiple off days, between games, so rotations can become a bit shallower.  This favors top-heavy teams.  LeBron can't go 40 minutes every night in the regular season, but he can if necessary in a tight playoff series.  The depth won't completely vanish (more lineup combinations can make the team more difficult to prepare for, and the defensive intensity doesn't need to lag due to exhaustion), but I'd rather have 40 minutes of LeBron than 20 minutes from Jae Crowder and 20 minutes from his clone.

It does make some amount of sense. But you can't just not play your bench. LeBron is always a force in the playoffs, but for a typical star I'm not sure how big an advantage it is to play them 40 minutes instead of 36. I'd still take a deep 52 win team over a top-heavy 50 win team. And there's the injury issue-- top heavy teams can really get bitten hard, as the Cavs found out last year.

I mean, the Cavs were a top-heavy team without one of their best players for the final three rounds, and another one for most of the final two rounds, and still took the NBA finals to 6 games, against a team that literally hasn't lost since game 3 of that series.  The Warriors are a really deep team, but if they lost Thompson and Green they'd be unlikely to win in a 7-game series.

Well, the Cavs have LeBron James, you could put him on the Sixers and they might win a playoff series. He put that team on his back-- it was one of the most impressive individual performances in playoff history. You're too quick to say that the W's would be so damaged if they were missing Thompson or Green--I think they would be just fine, especially losing Thompson. My argument is more like you aren't better off being the Pacers than being the C's, since if PG sprains his ankle you have no chance.