Will we even make the playoffs next year?

[PhoSita]

I'd consider replacing 4 players essentially bringing the band back together.

I mean, we could get into some semantics here. 

Imagine this -- Ainge trades Bradley and Olynyk to make a possible upgrade in the frontcourt (Greg Monroe, let's say).  Then, he lets Sullinger sign elsewhere and replaces him with a cheaper Andrew Nicholson.  Finally, he lets Turner sign elsewhere and replaces him with Terrence Ross, who the Raps can't afford because they gave Derozan a max.

That's only 4 players, but I wouldn't call that "bringing the band back together."

[straightouttabahstun]

I think we will. This roster is inevitably going to change and get upgraded in some spots in addition to some players getting better. I expect Ainge is gonna make some big trades while keeping Crowder, Smart, Bradley, and IT. They're all important to the team's identity and will keep getting better. If they can add some quality bigs and depth at SF, they will get past the first round next year. I'm calling it, they will make the playoffs as a team between the 2 and 6 seed. It will be a dogfight again, but we'll still be in it.

[loco_91]

the team was largely injury free last year. this year they are not. i dont see the predictive comparison here.

Eh, everybody deals with injuries.

If the difference between competing in a playoff series and not even having a chance is an injury to a decent role player like Avery Bradley or Kelly Olynyk, I think that tells you where the team stands with this group of players.

It's not like the Celts have had some crazy run of major injuries in the last three weeks.  Teams go through stretches where at least a few of their guys are banged up.  The Celts are unlucky because it happened now.  But maybe they would be the seventh or eighth seed if it had happened earlier in the regular season.


The point is, I don't believe that we should just expect that if we bring the same basic group back next season, they're going to be much different than this year -- a nice team with a chance at making it past the first round if everything goes right (matchups, health, shots falling).

I think it's fair to say that the C's have had an unusually bad run of injuries. We're definitely the most injured team in the playoffs right now.

[celticsclay]

the team was largely injury free last year. this year they are not. i dont see the predictive comparison here.

Eh, everybody deals with injuries.

If the difference between competing in a playoff series and not even having a chance is an injury to a decent role player like Avery Bradley or Kelly Olynyk, I think that tells you where the team stands with this group of players.

It's not like the Celts have had some crazy run of major injuries in the last three weeks.  Teams go through stretches where at least a few of their guys are banged up.  The Celts are unlucky because it happened now.  But maybe they would be the seventh or eighth seed if it had happened earlier in the regular season.


The point is, I don't believe that we should just expect that if we bring the same basic group back next season, they're going to be much different than this year -- a nice team with a chance at making it past the first round if everything goes right (matchups, health, shots falling).

I think it's fair to say that the C's have had an unusually bad run of injuries. We're definitely the most injured team in the playoffs right now.

Well surprisingly, I think this is definitely true in the East. However, the warriors, Memphis and Dallas all have much more serious concerns in the West. We are down 2 key players including probably are 3rd best (with the second best player visually banged up). I know it may seem weak to complain about losing a guy like KO because he doesn't play a ton of minutes, however his loss coupled with Bradley's loss took away two players with a skill we could least afford to lose in shooting. I personally think we would have won game 1 if Bradley stayed in. 

[Moranis]

The three worst teams in the Eastern Conference were in the Atlantic Division.  That is a bunch of extra games Boston got to play against the dredge of the conference.  You would have to think those teams all aren't going to be that bad. 

Boston was also pretty darn healthy.  Crowder's 73 games was the lowest total of the top 6 players.  Smart and KO were the next two and had 61 and 69 games respectively.  Jonas is basically 9th with 78 games.  No one else really matters much to the rotation.  You would also think that that sort of health is unlikely to happen again.

Assuming basically everyone is brought back (with the addition of a rookie or two), and without looking at any other factors, I think one could reasonably expect to be 3 to 5 wins worse as a result of injuries and not playing the 3 worst teams more games than everyone else.  Of course 3 to 5 wins worse is still probably a playoff team.

Is a top 5 pick not worth a few wins? Maybe if we get Bender and he is absolutely just not ready to contribute. However, you have to figure the other options Hield, Dunn, Simmons, Ingram would be at least solid rotation players as rookies. Also dismissing any improvement from Smart, KO, Crowder, Rozier, Mickey etc as not being enough to offset some improvement from crappy teams or a few injuries seems clearly pessimistic.

Probably not worth much next year.  Rookies are rarely ready to play and for them to play they have to usurp players getting those minutes.  I mean how many minutes is Hield going to get behind Thomas, Bradley, and Smart and that doesn't even account for Turner.  A top 5 pick is much more about the future than next year.  May be worth a win or two, but that is about it.

You do realize that Winslow, Stanley Johnson and Myles turner are all already playing significant minutes for teams in the playoffs this year right? Josh Richardson and Normal Powell probably have a smaller impact, but have both also started at times and still solidly in the rotation. That is half the playoff field. None of these guys were top 5 picks.

Stanley Johnson's VORP on the season was -0.2.  In other words he was worse than an average replacement.  And while he has improved his playoff VORP to 0.0 (or average).  He has played 38 minutes in the two playoff games and while he might be annoying James, he has done nothing to slow him down (though is at least shooting well).

Turner had a VORP of -0.1.  So again worse than the average player.  He has gone to 0.1 for the playoffs.  Barely above an average player. 

Winslow had a positive VORP at 0.8.  Though the man he replaced for Miami, Deng, was 1.5 last year on a much worse overall team (due to injuries and acquisitions).  Not sure how Winslow is a positive to the wins given that. 

If you are relying on rookies to increase your win total, you will be relying on a losing proposition.  Now sure every once in awhile a monster of a rookie comes into the league and dramatically changes the win total of his team, but those guys are rare.  Even Simmons or Ingram won't do much because for them to get real minutes they would have to replace Crowder, Bradley, or Sullinger in the line-up.  You know three of Boston's four best players.

Not to sound all Charles Barkley on you but this VORP stat doesn't really seem to hold a water beyond the top 10 players in the league. I mean it has Jokic above Anthony Davis. Marvin Williams and Jae Crowder above Cousins. Derozen is behind Danny Green and Miles Plumlee.
I could do hundreds of these. After the top 10 or maybe top 20 the list is just vomit.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2016_advanced.html

This seems like a really weak rebuttal to the point that there 5 rookies in playoff rotations in the east alone that have played significant roles for their teams at other points this season. I will repeat again that the value would be expected to be higher than these guys for a top 5, or potentially top 3 pick. Your consistent pessimism on the celtics (but raving about the 76ers) is a good source of humor though.

Role players don't increase the win totals of teams.  That is what I'm saying.  Sure if the rookie is Lebron James, you can expect he will add a lot of wins, but your normal average rookie, even a top 5 pick, isn't going to increase your win totals his first season and often times for a couple of seasons.  Even those that get big minutes have to replace a veteran in the lineup. Unless that veteran is terrible or the rookie is an absolute stud, that is a losing proposition at least initially.

Again, if any rookie gets more than 15 to 20 minutes a game (which is the point when they could make a difference), that rookie is going to have to replace Thomas, Bradley, Crowder, Sullinger, Johnson, Olynyk, Turner, or Smart in the rotation and perhaps take minutes from multiple players.  I just don't see any rookie, taking those minutes as being a good thing for the wins and losses NEXT year.  Certainly might be beneficial down the line, especially for someone like Simmons or Ingram, but next year even those guys aren't going to affect the win total to the positive and might actually affect it to the negative.

[loco_91]

the team was largely injury free last year. this year they are not. i dont see the predictive comparison here.

Eh, everybody deals with injuries.

If the difference between competing in a playoff series and not even having a chance is an injury to a decent role player like Avery Bradley or Kelly Olynyk, I think that tells you where the team stands with this group of players.

It's not like the Celts have had some crazy run of major injuries in the last three weeks.  Teams go through stretches where at least a few of their guys are banged up.  The Celts are unlucky because it happened now.  But maybe they would be the seventh or eighth seed if it had happened earlier in the regular season.


The point is, I don't believe that we should just expect that if we bring the same basic group back next season, they're going to be much different than this year -- a nice team with a chance at making it past the first round if everything goes right (matchups, health, shots falling).

I think it's fair to say that the C's have had an unusually bad run of injuries. We're definitely the most injured team in the playoffs right now.

Well surprisingly, I think this is definitely true in the East. However, the warriors, Memphis and Dallas all have much more serious concerns in the West. We are down 2 key players including probably are 3rd best (with the second best player visually banged up). I know it may seem weak to complain about losing a guy like KO because he doesn't play a ton of minutes, however his loss coupled with Bradley's loss took away two players with a skill we could least afford to lose in shooting. I personally think we would have won game 1 if Bradley stayed in.

You're right - all of those teams are even worse off than us, except possibly the Warriors, just because Curry will likely be back if they need him in this series. Imo Crowder's injury is as serious a problem for the team as AB's - he has been so much worse than he normally is.

[celticsclay]

The three worst teams in the Eastern Conference were in the Atlantic Division.  That is a bunch of extra games Boston got to play against the dredge of the conference.  You would have to think those teams all aren't going to be that bad. 

Boston was also pretty darn healthy.  Crowder's 73 games was the lowest total of the top 6 players.  Smart and KO were the next two and had 61 and 69 games respectively.  Jonas is basically 9th with 78 games.  No one else really matters much to the rotation.  You would also think that that sort of health is unlikely to happen again.

Assuming basically everyone is brought back (with the addition of a rookie or two), and without looking at any other factors, I think one could reasonably expect to be 3 to 5 wins worse as a result of injuries and not playing the 3 worst teams more games than everyone else.  Of course 3 to 5 wins worse is still probably a playoff team.

Is a top 5 pick not worth a few wins? Maybe if we get Bender and he is absolutely just not ready to contribute. However, you have to figure the other options Hield, Dunn, Simmons, Ingram would be at least solid rotation players as rookies. Also dismissing any improvement from Smart, KO, Crowder, Rozier, Mickey etc as not being enough to offset some improvement from crappy teams or a few injuries seems clearly pessimistic.

Probably not worth much next year.  Rookies are rarely ready to play and for them to play they have to usurp players getting those minutes.  I mean how many minutes is Hield going to get behind Thomas, Bradley, and Smart and that doesn't even account for Turner.  A top 5 pick is much more about the future than next year.  May be worth a win or two, but that is about it.

You do realize that Winslow, Stanley Johnson and Myles turner are all already playing significant minutes for teams in the playoffs this year right? Josh Richardson and Normal Powell probably have a smaller impact, but have both also started at times and still solidly in the rotation. That is half the playoff field. None of these guys were top 5 picks.

Stanley Johnson's VORP on the season was -0.2.  In other words he was worse than an average replacement.  And while he has improved his playoff VORP to 0.0 (or average).  He has played 38 minutes in the two playoff games and while he might be annoying James, he has done nothing to slow him down (though is at least shooting well).

Turner had a VORP of -0.1.  So again worse than the average player.  He has gone to 0.1 for the playoffs.  Barely above an average player. 

Winslow had a positive VORP at 0.8.  Though the man he replaced for Miami, Deng, was 1.5 last year on a much worse overall team (due to injuries and acquisitions).  Not sure how Winslow is a positive to the wins given that. 

If you are relying on rookies to increase your win total, you will be relying on a losing proposition.  Now sure every once in awhile a monster of a rookie comes into the league and dramatically changes the win total of his team, but those guys are rare.  Even Simmons or Ingram won't do much because for them to get real minutes they would have to replace Crowder, Bradley, or Sullinger in the line-up.  You know three of Boston's four best players.

Not to sound all Charles Barkley on you but this VORP stat doesn't really seem to hold a water beyond the top 10 players in the league. I mean it has Jokic above Anthony Davis. Marvin Williams and Jae Crowder above Cousins. Derozen is behind Danny Green and Miles Plumlee.
I could do hundreds of these. After the top 10 or maybe top 20 the list is just vomit.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2016_advanced.html

This seems like a really weak rebuttal to the point that there 5 rookies in playoff rotations in the east alone that have played significant roles for their teams at other points this season. I will repeat again that the value would be expected to be higher than these guys for a top 5, or potentially top 3 pick. Your consistent pessimism on the celtics (but raving about the 76ers) is a good source of humor though.

Role players don't increase the win totals of teams.  That is what I'm saying.  Sure if the rookie is Lebron James, you can expect he will add a lot of wins, but your normal average rookie, even a top 5 pick, isn't going to increase your win totals his first season and often times for a couple of seasons.  Even those that get big minutes have to replace a veteran in the lineup. Unless that veteran is terrible or the rookie is an absolute stud, that is a losing proposition at least initially.

Again, if any rookie gets more than 15 to 20 minutes a game (which is the point when they could make a difference), that rookie is going to have to replace Thomas, Bradley, Crowder, Sullinger, Johnson, Olynyk, Turner, or Smart in the rotation and perhaps take minutes from multiple players.  I just don't see any rookie, taking those minutes as being a good thing for the wins and losses NEXT year.  Certainly might be beneficial down the line, especially for someone like Simmons or Ingram, but next year even those guys aren't going to affect the win total to the positive and might actually affect it to the negative.

I mean I understand  your viewpoint on this, and it isn't outlandish. However, we played someone like Tyler Zeller an average of 12 minutes a game this year and he was pretty awful in just about every game we played. I know it is not apples to apples because they play different position but you give simmons those 12 minutes and maybe 7 of the minutes Jerekbro playing and I think it is a significant improvement. I realize he didn't tear it up in all aspect of the game at LSU, but I would feel really confident as a lead facilitator off the bench playing against other benches he would really make a difference starting next year. I think the same is true of some of the other players I have mentioned like Dunn, Hield or Ingram who could all fill a role on our second team and provide something that our bench units lack.

This has also gotten a little off track from my point that this is just one component of why it would be harder for us to get worse next year. Lets say this top 5 pick is worth 1 win on his own. Let us say we can expect a really modest half win improvement from development of Mickey (makes the leap from rotation player), Smart (just becomes mediocre on offense instead of horrible), Rozier (already showing improvement). That alone should be enough to offset the loss of a few role players. These are all reasons why us having a 10 win drop off seem incredibly unlikely.

[Evantime34]

I don't want to quote all the previous exchanges because these posts are getting too long, but here is my take on whether a rookie could help us improve.

If we get Simmons, I think he would be an upgrade at the 4 as a starter over the course of the season. Sure he might start off slow but I expect his average production to be better than a guy like Sullinger. He absolutely would be better than the current incarnation of Sully we are seeing against the Hawks. It's hard to use statistical evidence to back this up, since more often than not top 5 picks aren't made by teams that won 48 games.

As to another top 5 prospect I think Buddy and Murray could come in and give us better production than what we got out of limited minutes from Zeller, Lee or any of the young guys this year. If we drafted Bender or Brown I wouldn't expect any more out of them than we got from Rozier this year.

That being said, I don't think our draft picks is where people should expect an improvement in wins to come from. Before this season, the statistical models had us winning around 48 games because we have a young team with most players on the positive side of the improvement age curve and depth. Neither of those positive factors should change next year which is why I expect us to continue to get better.

[Evantime34]

I'd consider replacing 4 players essentially bringing the band back together.

I mean, we could get into some semantics here. 

Imagine this -- Ainge trades Bradley and Olynyk to make a possible upgrade in the frontcourt (Greg Monroe, let's say).  Then, he lets Sullinger sign elsewhere and replaces him with a cheaper Andrew Nicholson.  Finally, he lets Turner sign elsewhere and replaces him with Terrence Ross, who the Raps can't afford because they gave Derozan a max.

That's only 4 players, but I wouldn't call that "bringing the band back together."

Yeah, I understand your point, but if we are going to get into semantics...

In this scenario are we keeping Holland, Zeller, Jerebko and Amir? We would need to shed some players other than the guy you mentioned to add rookies, so your scenario seems like it's adding 6 or 8 new players, not 4.

In the end I guess it comes down to what level of change you can make and the team still feels like it's mostly the same. For me, this year, I consider "bringing the band back together", only losing free agents and not making any major trades.

[Moranis]

The three worst teams in the Eastern Conference were in the Atlantic Division.  That is a bunch of extra games Boston got to play against the dredge of the conference.  You would have to think those teams all aren't going to be that bad. 

Boston was also pretty darn healthy.  Crowder's 73 games was the lowest total of the top 6 players.  Smart and KO were the next two and had 61 and 69 games respectively.  Jonas is basically 9th with 78 games.  No one else really matters much to the rotation.  You would also think that that sort of health is unlikely to happen again.

Assuming basically everyone is brought back (with the addition of a rookie or two), and without looking at any other factors, I think one could reasonably expect to be 3 to 5 wins worse as a result of injuries and not playing the 3 worst teams more games than everyone else.  Of course 3 to 5 wins worse is still probably a playoff team.

Is a top 5 pick not worth a few wins? Maybe if we get Bender and he is absolutely just not ready to contribute. However, you have to figure the other options Hield, Dunn, Simmons, Ingram would be at least solid rotation players as rookies. Also dismissing any improvement from Smart, KO, Crowder, Rozier, Mickey etc as not being enough to offset some improvement from crappy teams or a few injuries seems clearly pessimistic.

Probably not worth much next year.  Rookies are rarely ready to play and for them to play they have to usurp players getting those minutes.  I mean how many minutes is Hield going to get behind Thomas, Bradley, and Smart and that doesn't even account for Turner.  A top 5 pick is much more about the future than next year.  May be worth a win or two, but that is about it.

You do realize that Winslow, Stanley Johnson and Myles turner are all already playing significant minutes for teams in the playoffs this year right? Josh Richardson and Normal Powell probably have a smaller impact, but have both also started at times and still solidly in the rotation. That is half the playoff field. None of these guys were top 5 picks.

Stanley Johnson's VORP on the season was -0.2.  In other words he was worse than an average replacement.  And while he has improved his playoff VORP to 0.0 (or average).  He has played 38 minutes in the two playoff games and while he might be annoying James, he has done nothing to slow him down (though is at least shooting well).

Turner had a VORP of -0.1.  So again worse than the average player.  He has gone to 0.1 for the playoffs.  Barely above an average player. 

Winslow had a positive VORP at 0.8.  Though the man he replaced for Miami, Deng, was 1.5 last year on a much worse overall team (due to injuries and acquisitions).  Not sure how Winslow is a positive to the wins given that. 

If you are relying on rookies to increase your win total, you will be relying on a losing proposition.  Now sure every once in awhile a monster of a rookie comes into the league and dramatically changes the win total of his team, but those guys are rare.  Even Simmons or Ingram won't do much because for them to get real minutes they would have to replace Crowder, Bradley, or Sullinger in the line-up.  You know three of Boston's four best players.

Not to sound all Charles Barkley on you but this VORP stat doesn't really seem to hold a water beyond the top 10 players in the league. I mean it has Jokic above Anthony Davis. Marvin Williams and Jae Crowder above Cousins. Derozen is behind Danny Green and Miles Plumlee.
I could do hundreds of these. After the top 10 or maybe top 20 the list is just vomit.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2016_advanced.html

This seems like a really weak rebuttal to the point that there 5 rookies in playoff rotations in the east alone that have played significant roles for their teams at other points this season. I will repeat again that the value would be expected to be higher than these guys for a top 5, or potentially top 3 pick. Your consistent pessimism on the celtics (but raving about the 76ers) is a good source of humor though.

Role players don't increase the win totals of teams.  That is what I'm saying.  Sure if the rookie is Lebron James, you can expect he will add a lot of wins, but your normal average rookie, even a top 5 pick, isn't going to increase your win totals his first season and often times for a couple of seasons.  Even those that get big minutes have to replace a veteran in the lineup. Unless that veteran is terrible or the rookie is an absolute stud, that is a losing proposition at least initially.

Again, if any rookie gets more than 15 to 20 minutes a game (which is the point when they could make a difference), that rookie is going to have to replace Thomas, Bradley, Crowder, Sullinger, Johnson, Olynyk, Turner, or Smart in the rotation and perhaps take minutes from multiple players.  I just don't see any rookie, taking those minutes as being a good thing for the wins and losses NEXT year.  Certainly might be beneficial down the line, especially for someone like Simmons or Ingram, but next year even those guys aren't going to affect the win total to the positive and might actually affect it to the negative.

I mean I understand  your viewpoint on this, and it isn't outlandish. However, we played someone like Tyler Zeller an average of 12 minutes a game this year and he was pretty awful in just about every game we played. I know it is not apples to apples because they play different position but you give simmons those 12 minutes and maybe 7 of the minutes Jerekbro playing and I think it is a significant improvement. I realize he didn't tear it up in all aspect of the game at LSU, but I would feel really confident as a lead facilitator off the bench playing against other benches he would really make a difference starting next year. I think the same is true of some of the other players I have mentioned like Dunn, Hield or Ingram who could all fill a role on our second team and provide something that our bench units lack.

This has also gotten a little off track from my point that this is just one component of why it would be harder for us to get worse next year. Lets say this top 5 pick is worth 1 win on his own. Let us say we can expect a really modest half win improvement from development of Mickey (makes the leap from rotation player), Smart (just becomes mediocre on offense instead of horrible), Rozier (already showing improvement). That alone should be enough to offset the loss of a few role players. These are all reasons why us having a 10 win drop off seem incredibly unlikely.

Bench players don't affect the wins and losses of teams though.  At least not any noticeable amount.  I'm sure that if Boston keeps the BKN pick, that player is going to get at least 15 minutes a game (and will get those minutes you are talking about).  Those 15 minutes just aren't going to do anything really noticeable for the win total.  If the rookie is getting 30 minutes a night, it will probably have a negative affect on the win total because the rookie would be playing for one of the people I identified above and he probably isn't going to be as good as those players would be next year. 

[Celtics4ever]

I think we have  some parts worth keeping, but we have some guys who have shown they do not belong in our future as well.   Much depends on the draft and what happens there, if we are lucky enough to sign a free agent.

I wonder if IT can play dominantly in the playoffs when the ball gets more physical and teams have time to prep for him.    AB getting hurt is bad luck.  Crowder's injury took him out of his game, he has lost all shooting touch and can't D.   I think Amir has played ok, but our other bigs have not played well.   We really need help there, folks.

Depending what happens, I could see us making the playoffs next year, most definitely.