Espn article

[arctic 3.0]

"Are Celtics best team in east?" So asked the headline for insider article.
Anyone care to paraphrase the content?
http://espn.go.com/nba/insider/story/_/id/14324786/boston-celtics-better-chicago-bulls-rest-eastern-conference-nba

[hpantazo]

Whether there is any truth to it or not, I'm loving these articles that are popping up all over the place lately. All this positive publicity on how good the team is will help when it's time to trade or sign a superstar.

[PhoSita]

I imagine it's referring to the fact that the Celts currently have the best point differential in the East (although according to the current standings they wouldn't make the playoffs).

Lesson: It's still really early.

[celticsclay]

We are tied for 8th right now, a win tonight and we could be no worse than tied for 6th and as high as 4th. Lets get some optimism going. I will be pumped if they win.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

It might be early, but point differential is one of the best indicators of success. Last season at this time, many people were looking at the Warriors point differential and doubting whether they were for real or if that stat isn't a good indication of success.

Maybe the Celtics are overperforming, or maybe the games where they got blown out were the result of inconsistency from losing a starter to injury and figuring out continuity and chemistry.

The Celtics are not the Warriors, and I don't think they have been consistent enough to be a true contender, but this negative narrative about the limits of the starless Celtic team is getting tired, and that tired narrative is not jiving with reality on the court or in the advanced stats.

[footey]

If we continue to play intensive, opportunistic defense, few teams can beat us if we are hitting our shots.  I like the way that Stevens has these guys playing.  Very unselfish.

[j804]

Blah no Insider

[colincb]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2016.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2015.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2014.html
etc,

Scroll down to "Miscellaneous Stats" in the links above and sort on MOV (=average margin of victory) and you'll see that the best teams have the best average margin of victory. It's pretty self evident why if you think about it, but there are several models based on it and Pelton (a stat guru) is using that AND our large number of large (15+ point) wins. Since 1996, there have been eight teams with exactly nine 15+ point in their first 21 games. 7 went to the Finals and 1 went to the conference semifinals. The type of stat sports journalists love, but it's a small sample size and a lot less reliable than MOV.

However, while MOV would predict a season worthy of a pretender or contender, we have lost 2-3 more games than we should have according to various models and have not done well in the few close games we have had. For that latter reason, I think it's a lot more likely that we'll end up around 50 games. We're not a contender or even a pretender yet, but a young team on the rise and ahead of schedule. Next year we'll take another step up.

[PhoSita]

It might be early, but point differential is one of the best indicators of success. Last season at this time, many people were looking at the Warriors point differential and doubting whether they were for real or if that stat isn't a good indication of success.

Maybe the Celtics are overperforming, or maybe the games where they got blown out were the result of inconsistency from losing a starter to injury and figuring out continuity and chemistry.

The Celtics are not the Warriors, and I don't think they have been consistent enough to be a true contender, but this negative narrative about the limits of the starless Celtic team is getting tired, and that tired narrative is not jiving with reality on the court or in the advanced stats.

Might make a comparison to the 2013 Nuggets team that ended up winning 57 games.  That team had a +5 point differential, similar to what the Celts have now.

That team also had a killer home court advantage that inflated their win total somewhat, and got demolished in the playoffs.  But losing in the first round in the West doesn't necessarily mean your team wasn't really good (e.g. Spurs last year).

[DefenseWinsChamps]

It might be early, but point differential is one of the best indicators of success. Last season at this time, many people were looking at the Warriors point differential and doubting whether they were for real or if that stat isn't a good indication of success.

Maybe the Celtics are overperforming, or maybe the games where they got blown out were the result of inconsistency from losing a starter to injury and figuring out continuity and chemistry.

The Celtics are not the Warriors, and I don't think they have been consistent enough to be a true contender, but this negative narrative about the limits of the starless Celtic team is getting tired, and that tired narrative is not jiving with reality on the court or in the advanced stats.

Might make a comparison to the 2013 Nuggets team that ended up winning 57 games.  That team had a +5 point differential, similar to what the Celts have now.

That team also had a killer home court advantage that inflated their win total somewhat, and got demolished in the playoffs.  But losing in the first round in the West doesn't necessarily mean your team wasn't really good (e.g. Spurs last year).

Not a bad point. That might be considered an outlier as far as point differential goes. Then again, the Celtics have a similar team-based, uptempo, well-coached, good chemistry squad as that Nuggets team.

[colincb]

One of the closing paragraphs of the Insider article:

Don't start planning the parade route down Causeway Street just yet. The Celtics also have five double-digit losses, so their point differential so far is more consistent with that of a 55-win team than of a 60-win one. And again, the close losses Boston has suffered are banked, so BPI simulations have the Celtics winning an average of 50 games.

It should be noted also that Pelton predicted 50 wins for the Cs before the season based off of Real +/- in another Insider article.

[hwangjini_1]

I imagine it's referring to the fact that the Celts currently have the best point differential in the East (although according to the current standings they wouldn't make the playoffs).

Lesson: It's still really early.

yes, and it still really ESPN.

[celticsclay]

I can't really recall a time the national media and linesmakers respected a team so much more than their own fans. Maybe it is the fact that there is a very vocal minority that constantly talk about how low the celtics cieling is, but it sure seems strange. I am going to enjoy tonights game.

[KGs Knee]

It might be early, but point differential is one of the best indicators of success. Last season at this time, many people were looking at the Warriors point differential and doubting whether they were for real or if that stat isn't a good indication of success.

Maybe the Celtics are overperforming, or maybe the games where they got blown out were the result of inconsistency from losing a starter to injury and figuring out continuity and chemistry.

The Celtics are not the Warriors, and I don't think they have been consistent enough to be a true contender, but this negative narrative about the limits of the starless Celtic team is getting tired, and that tired narrative is not jiving with reality on the court or in the advanced stats.

Might make a comparison to the 2013 Nuggets team that ended up winning 57 games.  That team had a +5 point differential, similar to what the Celts have now.

That team also had a killer home court advantage that inflated their win total somewhat, and got demolished in the playoffs.  But losing in the first round in the West doesn't necessarily mean your team wasn't really good (e.g. Spurs last year).

That Nuggets team actually was pretty good.  They got killed in the playoffs because Danilo Gallinari went down with a torn ACL just a week before the playoffs, and Lawson was having foot problems.  If those two stayed healthy Denver likely does better in the playoffs (still weren't winning the title though).

[PhoSita]

It might be early, but point differential is one of the best indicators of success. Last season at this time, many people were looking at the Warriors point differential and doubting whether they were for real or if that stat isn't a good indication of success.

Maybe the Celtics are overperforming, or maybe the games where they got blown out were the result of inconsistency from losing a starter to injury and figuring out continuity and chemistry.

The Celtics are not the Warriors, and I don't think they have been consistent enough to be a true contender, but this negative narrative about the limits of the starless Celtic team is getting tired, and that tired narrative is not jiving with reality on the court or in the advanced stats.

Might make a comparison to the 2013 Nuggets team that ended up winning 57 games.  That team had a +5 point differential, similar to what the Celts have now.

That team also had a killer home court advantage that inflated their win total somewhat, and got demolished in the playoffs.  But losing in the first round in the West doesn't necessarily mean your team wasn't really good (e.g. Spurs last year).

That Nuggets team actually was pretty good.  They got killed in the playoffs because Danilo Gallinari went down with a torn ACL just a week before the playoffs, and Lawson was having foot problems.  If those two stayed healthy Denver likely does better in the playoffs (still weren't winning the title though).

Fair points.  We never saw what that Nuggets team might have done.