Bragging rights, Predict Celtics Season Record

[Monkhouse]

60

I second this one.

This raises a question that interests me: Are the Celts as constituted more talented than the Hawks from a couple years ago?  I suppose this question merits a thread of its own.

Hawks were super overrated. When they broke the franchise record of games won, I rolled my eyes at people considering them ECF/Finals bound, or even contenders.

Yes they could make the ECF, and they could also not. The Hawks really weren't as good as advertised, and as many people said, it was only the fact they had a really good front court of Horford, Millsap, and backcourt in Teague, Korver, and Carroll, who at the time, were a really nice starting five.

I think talent wise, the Hawks were marginally better than us, but not by much. We had a young supporting cast, and plenty of veterans who couldn't move the needle well enough for us. But we had absolutely no 2nd or 3rd go to scorer next to IT. Injuries are always tough to navigate around, but hopefully our depth this year will help give the necessary rest to our starters to avoid another similar situation.

[kraidstar]

58-24, lose ECF in 6 games to cleveland.

This is after we make a big trade or two, cashing in at least one brooklyn pick for a star.

[apc]

52 - 30. Minimal regular season bump, but finally make it out of the 1st round.

i am with you.
52 wins, 2nd round exit.

[Moranis]

60

I second this one.

This raises a question that interests me: Are the Celts as constituted more talented than the Hawks from a couple years ago?  I suppose this question merits a thread of its own.

no

[libermaniac]

52-30.  Lose to the Cavs in 7 in ECF.  One year away from the finals!

[Celtics17]

This team will be healthy this year, add a new player through trade and have a 55-27 record. They beat the Cavs and go to the Finals.

[celticsclay]

60

I second this one.

This raises a question that interests me: Are the Celts as constituted more talented than the Hawks from a couple years ago?  I suppose this question merits a thread of its own.

no

We definitely have more talent when you look at the benches.


IT significanly better than teague
Horford equals horford
Bradley = Korver (worse scoring, way better on defense)
Johnson significantly worse than Milsap
Crowder = Carroll

So I might give them a slight edge just because of the difference between Milsap and Johnson, but our other 4 starters are definitely better. However, the bench comparison isn't even really a comparison.

Their bench was bazemore, Thabo, Mike Scott, Shelvin Mack and a still extremely raw schroeder.

[MJohnnyboy]

55 wins, good for the second seed (depending on how motivated Lebron is this upcoming regular season). Remember the teams weakness last year was basically that we had nothing special in the frontcourt. Now that we finally have one of the league's better two-way bigs with Horford, that should make a huge difference. He's 3X better than Sullinger at everything except rebounding and is the ideal big for Stevens' style of play. We added Horford, and didn't lose anything substantial unless you include Evan Turner.

That's nothing against ET. I really liked Evan Turner, but I don't think the Celtics will miss him. Even though he played well with our guys, I do think he held Marcus Smart back and didn't mesh completely with him because neither of those guys can shoot from long distance. I am a Smart optimist and now that he's been given the keys to run the 2nd unit, I think we'll finally get to see if he truly is a potential great. I believe he'll be in for a great season because now that the second unit has more shooters (Olynyk, Jerebko, Green), he'll have more room to operate in the post, which is what he should be doing.

I also think the Gerald Green signing will be more pay dividends then people think. I know he fizzled in Miami the same way he fizzled in Indiana, but both of those systems didn't suit him because both of those teams played at a very slow pace in a half-court offense that relied on iso plays. The reason why he thrived in Phoenix was because they played at a very fast pace, shared the ball, and relied heavily on 3s. Does that sound familiar? It should, because that's how the Celtics play, and it's for that reason that I think Green will fit right in with this team.

Last season was so much fun to watch. We were the third seed last year until Crowder busted his ankle. We took Atlanta to six games despite our third best player being out and our second best player being limited with an ankle injury. Now we got two guys who should fit the system very well (Green and Horford) and we even have an intriguing rookie (Jaylen Brown), so now this team has potential to do some real damage.

In Brad We Trust.

[MJohnnyboy]

60

I second this one.

This raises a question that interests me: Are the Celts as constituted more talented than the Hawks from a couple years ago?  I suppose this question merits a thread of its own.

no

We definitely have more talent when you look at the benches.


IT significanly better than teague
Horford equals horford
Bradley = Korver (worse scoring, way better on defense)
Johnson significantly worse than Milsap
Crowder = Carroll

So I might give them a slight edge just because of the difference between Milsap and Johnson, but our other 4 starters are definitely better. However, the bench comparison isn't even really a comparison.

Their bench was bazemore, Thabo, Mike Scott, Shelvin Mack and a still extremely raw schroeder.

Honest question. Were the 2015 Hawks really that good or was the rest of the conference just that bad?

[saltlover]

60

I second this one.

This raises a question that interests me: Are the Celts as constituted more talented than the Hawks from a couple years ago?  I suppose this question merits a thread of its own.

no

We definitely have more talent when you look at the benches.


IT significanly better than teague
Horford equals horford
Bradley = Korver (worse scoring, way better on defense)
Johnson significantly worse than Milsap
Crowder = Carroll

So I might give them a slight edge just because of the difference between Milsap and Johnson, but our other 4 starters are definitely better. However, the bench comparison isn't even really a comparison.

Their bench was bazemore, Thabo, Mike Scott, Shelvin Mack and a still extremely raw schroeder.

For clarification, Pero Antic played more than Shelvin Mack and Thabo.  He was their stretch 5 off the bench, although he was a much better player the prior year.  So if you want to compare top 5 off the bench:

Schroder > Rozier, arguably >> his per 36 was 18/4/7.5, shooting 35% from 3 and with a 2:1 assist-to-turnover ratio.  He had his moments of being a raw 21 year-old, but he was unquestionably good.
Smart >> Thabo
Bazemore > Brown
Jerebko = Scott (although is a much nicer guy)
Olynyk >> Antic

I'd give our bench the edge, mostly due to Smart and KO, either of whom could wind up as starters at some point this season, but I don't think it's miles ahead.  That Hawks team stayed very healthy, especially their top players. 

[snively]

51

[saltlover]

60

I second this one.

This raises a question that interests me: Are the Celts as constituted more talented than the Hawks from a couple years ago?  I suppose this question merits a thread of its own.

no

We definitely have more talent when you look at the benches.


IT significanly better than teague
Horford equals horford
Bradley = Korver (worse scoring, way better on defense)
Johnson significantly worse than Milsap
Crowder = Carroll

So I might give them a slight edge just because of the difference between Milsap and Johnson, but our other 4 starters are definitely better. However, the bench comparison isn't even really a comparison.

Their bench was bazemore, Thabo, Mike Scott, Shelvin Mack and a still extremely raw schroeder.

Honest question. Were the 2015 Hawks really that good or was the rest of the conference just that bad?

A bit of both.  Kyle Korver had a TS% of 70% and was healthy all year.  You couldn't leave him for a second, which really opened up the offense for everyone else.  Last year he was quality, but not game-altering.

[86MaxwellSmart]

The 2015 Hawks...win 60...lose easily in the playoffs.

[Moranis]

60

I second this one.

This raises a question that interests me: Are the Celts as constituted more talented than the Hawks from a couple years ago?  I suppose this question merits a thread of its own.

no

We definitely have more talent when you look at the benches.


IT significanly better than teague
Horford equals horford
Bradley = Korver (worse scoring, way better on defense)
Johnson significantly worse than Milsap
Crowder = Carroll

So I might give them a slight edge just because of the difference between Milsap and Johnson, but our other 4 starters are definitely better. However, the bench comparison isn't even really a comparison.

Their bench was bazemore, Thabo, Mike Scott, Shelvin Mack and a still extremely raw schroeder.

For clarification, Pero Antic played more than Shelvin Mack and Thabo.  He was their stretch 5 off the bench, although he was a much better player the prior year.  So if you want to compare top 5 off the bench:

Schroder > Rozier, arguably >> his per 36 was 18/4/7.5, shooting 35% from 3 and with a 2:1 assist-to-turnover ratio.  He had his moments of being a raw 21 year-old, but he was unquestionably good.
Smart >> Thabo
Bazemore > Brown
Jerebko = Scott (although is a much nicer guy)
Olynyk >> Antic

I'd give our bench the edge, mostly due to Smart and KO, either of whom could wind up as starters at some point this season, but I don't think it's miles ahead.  That Hawks team stayed very healthy, especially their top players.

Hawks were healthy, but I wouldn't call them very healthy.  All of their starters missed at least 6 games (Carroll missed the most at 12).  Only Schroder and Bazemore played in more than 70 games on their bench.  So they didn't have any catastrophic injuries from their main guys, but they weren't pictures of health either.  They were actually much healthier this past year when they won 48 games than they were the 60 win year.  Korver wasn't nearly as effective and as a result they really felt the loss of Carroll a lot more, which accounts for a great deal of the decreased win total despite improved play from Bazemore and Schroder and the better overall health (the rest of the decreased win total is an overall improved Eastern Conference). 

Edit:  I also disagree with the statement that IT is significantly better than Teague was that year (and Teague was even better this past year).  Looking at IT last year and Teague on the 60 win team, they both averaged about 1.3 pps.  Teague was slightly better with the TS%.  Teague had a much higher AST% and they were about the same at grabbing rebounds (IT was slightly better).  Teague however was a better overall defender than IT is.  IT was an all star because he was team's first option and could shoot at will, but that doesn't mean he was supremely efficient at it.  He wasn't.  But even give that, IT was less than 1 PER better than Teague, who was the 3rd option on his team.  Teague was better than IT is during that season and right now.  Teague is pretty underrated on this forum and in general. 

[Timdawgg]

57 Wins, upset Cleveland in the Conference Finals in 7th game of series, lose to Warriors in 5 in the finals.