SI Article on Boston (by Wizards fan Andrew Sharp)

[kozlodoev]

"They probably aren't in the top five (teams) if we're being honest."

I'm not so sure that isn't wrong.  Notice he didn't say in the East.  I think you could make reasonable arguments that at least 5 teams in the west are "better" than Boston, especially without Hayward.  And that doesn't account for the Cavs, who I suspect many believe will be better than Boston when it counts.

I challenge you to name three teams better than the Celtics that aren't named GS or Houston (Houston, btw, has decidedly the weakest SOS at .490 among 10-win teams, but noone is talking about that).

I think you could make reasonable arguments that GS, Houston, San Antonio, Minnesota, and OKC are "better" teams than Boston or at least certainly a better playoff caliber team (and it wouldn't be totally laughable to put a team like Denver in that mix as well).  Then you have Cleveland, Minnesota, Toronto, and Washington from the East, who all could rather easily beat Boston (without Hayward) in the playoffs.

No, it would be totally laughable to put Denver in there. Also mildly laughable to categorically consider teams like Minnesota, Toronto, and Washington better.

[Smitty77]

"They probably aren't in the top five (teams) if we're being honest."

I'm not so sure that isn't wrong.  Notice he didn't say in the East.  I think you could make reasonable arguments that at least 5 teams in the west are "better" than Boston, especially without Hayward.  And that doesn't account for the Cavs, who I suspect many believe will be better than Boston when it counts.

I challenge you to name three teams better than the Celtics that aren't named GS or Houston (Houston, btw, has decidedly the weakest SOS at .490 among 10-win teams, but noone is talking about that).

I think you could make reasonable arguments that GS, Houston, San Antonio, Minnesota, and OKC are "better" teams than Boston or at least certainly a better playoff caliber team (and it wouldn't be totally laughable to put a team like Denver in that mix as well).  Then you have Cleveland, Milwaukee, Toronto, and Washington from the East, who all could rather easily beat Boston (without Hayward) in the playoffs (notice I said could reasonably, not that they will). 

Edit: to fix wrong team name

Astonishingly delusional to put OKC and Minny ahead of us!!

Smitty77

[wdleehi]

"They probably aren't in the top five (teams) if we're being honest."

I'm not so sure that isn't wrong.  Notice he didn't say in the East.  I think you could make reasonable arguments that at least 5 teams in the west are "better" than Boston, especially without Hayward.  And that doesn't account for the Cavs, who I suspect many believe will be better than Boston when it counts.

I challenge you to name three teams better than the Celtics that aren't named GS or Houston (Houston, btw, has decidedly the weakest SOS at .490 among 10-win teams, but noone is talking about that).

I think you could make reasonable arguments that GS, Houston, San Antonio, Minnesota, and OKC are "better" teams than Boston or at least certainly a better playoff caliber team (and it wouldn't be totally laughable to put a team like Denver in that mix as well).  Then you have Cleveland, Milwaukee, Toronto, and Washington from the East, who all could rather easily beat Boston (without Hayward) in the playoffs (notice I said could reasonably, not that they will). 

Edit: to fix wrong team name

I disagree with OKC and Minn because like the Celtics, they have to prove something as well. 


And can all the team in the East listed at least play like a top 5 team in the East first? 

[DefenseWinsChamps]

I mean, "you could argue" that many teams are better than the Celtics, but that doesn't mean they are.

The Celtics continually run contrary to common conceptions of "good teams." We have unconventional stars and, frankly, most media outlets have a bias against the Celtics (the most recent funny example being that, a year after Irving increased his scoring and efficiency, he was traded from the Cavs to the Celtics and dropped like 10 spots in ESPN's player rankings).

We don't fit the narrative, and therefore most don't consider us a top team. They will consider to disregard us until we win a championship.

Whatever. I've come to expect this kind of thinking. It will make it all the more sweet when we do win a championship against all media outlet odds.

[kozlodoev]

The Celtics continually run contrary to common conceptions of "good teams." We have unconventional stars and, frankly, most media outlets have a bias against the Celtics (the most recent funny example being that, a year after Irving increased his scoring and efficiency, he was traded from the Cavs to the Celtics and dropped like 10 spots in ESPN's player rankings).

I think our team is very conventional right now, with the small exception of our third best player being a rookie. Two stars, a handful of roleplayers who can defend. Deep bench.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

The Celtics continually run contrary to common conceptions of "good teams." We have unconventional stars and, frankly, most media outlets have a bias against the Celtics (the most recent funny example being that, a year after Irving increased his scoring and efficiency, he was traded from the Cavs to the Celtics and dropped like 10 spots in ESPN's player rankings).

I think our team is very conventional right now, with the small exception of our third best player being a rookie. Two stars, a handful of roleplayers who can defend. Deep bench.

Al Horford is an unconventional star, though. Then all our young guys being young, but impactful.

[gift]

"They probably aren't in the top five (teams) if we're being honest."

I'm not so sure that isn't wrong.  Notice he didn't say in the East.  I think you could make reasonable arguments that at least 5 teams in the west are "better" than Boston, especially without Hayward.  And that doesn't account for the Cavs, who I suspect many believe will be better than Boston when it counts.

I challenge you to name three teams better than the Celtics that aren't named GS or Houston (Houston, btw, has decidedly the weakest SOS at .490 among 10-win teams, but noone is talking about that).

I think you could make reasonable arguments that GS, Houston, San Antonio, Minnesota, and OKC are "better" teams than Boston or at least certainly a better playoff caliber team (and it wouldn't be totally laughable to put a team like Denver in that mix as well).  Then you have Cleveland, Milwaukee, Toronto, and Washington from the East, who all could rather easily beat Boston (without Hayward) in the playoffs (notice I said could reasonably, not that they will). 

Edit: to fix wrong team name

So a team can be listed as better because there's a hypothetical argument in the ether for their superiority? Meanwhile the actual results point toward a different conclusion and we should devalue those?

Miami could get hot like they did last year. Should we go ahead list them as better than the Celtics too?

Overall, this article was full of praise. So I think that says more than the few slights mentioned. The writer admitted he didn't want these things to be true, but couldn't deny it. Boston is good.

[seancally]

Well-written piece, and I love to bask in the glory of bitter writers praising Boston in the national spotlight.

Understandable dig on not being a top-5 team, though questionable. After Thursday it will either remain questionable or be found essentially untrue.

As for "won't finish the season with the best defense" - I GUESS WE'LL SEE!

The team is good. And if anything, they'll only improve as this group - which has played 15 games together - logs more time on the court.

[Moranis]

"They probably aren't in the top five (teams) if we're being honest."

I'm not so sure that isn't wrong.  Notice he didn't say in the East.  I think you could make reasonable arguments that at least 5 teams in the west are "better" than Boston, especially without Hayward.  And that doesn't account for the Cavs, who I suspect many believe will be better than Boston when it counts.

I challenge you to name three teams better than the Celtics that aren't named GS or Houston (Houston, btw, has decidedly the weakest SOS at .490 among 10-win teams, but noone is talking about that).

I think you could make reasonable arguments that GS, Houston, San Antonio, Minnesota, and OKC are "better" teams than Boston or at least certainly a better playoff caliber team (and it wouldn't be totally laughable to put a team like Denver in that mix as well).  Then you have Cleveland, Milwaukee, Toronto, and Washington from the East, who all could rather easily beat Boston (without Hayward) in the playoffs (notice I said could reasonably, not that they will). 

Edit: to fix wrong team name

I disagree with OKC and Minn because like the Celtics, they have to prove something as well. 


And can all the team in the East listed at least play like a top 5 team in the East first?

They do, but come playoff time, you need to win 4 games, which sets of players would you feel more comfortable with:

Butler, Towns, Wiggins, Teague, Gibson, Crawford, etc. or
Irving, Horford, Brown, Tatum, Smart, Morris, etc. or
Westbrook, George, Anthony, Adams, Roberson, Grant, etc.

It really isn't strange to think that OKC and Minnesota are better teams (or more likely to be a better playoff team) than Boston is without Hayward. 

And BTW, Washington and Toronto are tied for 3rd in the East.  Last time I checked 3rd was in the top 5.  And Milwaukee is tied for 6th, a half game out of 5th.

[colincb]

Of course, here's where we add the disclaimer that the Celtics aren't actually the best team in the NBA. They probably aren't in the top five if we're being honest. Boston's played the easiest schedule in the league so far, and they won't finish the year with the best defense in basketball.

Except that isn't true. In fact, it isn't even close to being true. Boston's Strength of Schedule is .502, which places them in the top half of the NBA (13th to be exact). They are second in the NBA in Relative Percent Index (a composite measure taking 25% of own winning percentage, 50% SoS, and 25% opponents' SOS).

http://www.espn.com/nba/stats/rpi

I'd hazard a guess and say that being a top 5 team and one of the top defensive teams is entirely plausible, much to the chagrin of that one Wizards fan.

TP. Saved me from a reading a dubious article authored by someone too lazy to check a simple stat.

[wdleehi]

"They probably aren't in the top five (teams) if we're being honest."

I'm not so sure that isn't wrong.  Notice he didn't say in the East.  I think you could make reasonable arguments that at least 5 teams in the west are "better" than Boston, especially without Hayward.  And that doesn't account for the Cavs, who I suspect many believe will be better than Boston when it counts.

I challenge you to name three teams better than the Celtics that aren't named GS or Houston (Houston, btw, has decidedly the weakest SOS at .490 among 10-win teams, but noone is talking about that).

I think you could make reasonable arguments that GS, Houston, San Antonio, Minnesota, and OKC are "better" teams than Boston or at least certainly a better playoff caliber team (and it wouldn't be totally laughable to put a team like Denver in that mix as well).  Then you have Cleveland, Milwaukee, Toronto, and Washington from the East, who all could rather easily beat Boston (without Hayward) in the playoffs (notice I said could reasonably, not that they will). 

Edit: to fix wrong team name

I disagree with OKC and Minn because like the Celtics, they have to prove something as well. 


And can all the team in the East listed at least play like a top 5 team in the East first?

They do, but come playoff time, you need to win 4 games, which sets of players would you feel more comfortable with:

Butler, Towns, Wiggins, Teague, Gibson, Crawford, etc. or
Irving, Horford, Brown, Tatum, Smart, Morris, etc. or
Westbrook, George, Anthony, Adams, Roberson, Grant, etc.

It really isn't strange to think that OKC and Minnesota are better teams (or more likely to be a better playoff team) than Boston is without Hayward. 

And BTW, Washington and Toronto are tied for 3rd in the East.  Last time I checked 3rd was in the top 5.  And Milwaukee is tied for 6th, a half game out of 5th.

Boston over the T-Wolves.  Which team has had a player hit the finals winning shot?

And as for the Thunder, I don't believe in a team with Melo until that team does something with Melo.   What is the point of him as a third option when it comes with him having to defend the 4 spot.   

[DooVoo]

I never got why Andrew Sharp gets to write about the NBA while always proclaiming he is a hardcore Wizards fans. He is a journalist. I get people like Bill Simmons who are opinion writers, but Sharp is suppose to be objective and without bias as a journalist. They teach you that in journalism class.

All NBA writers were fans of teams, but when they become journalists they usually lose their allegiances. I guess we are in the Deadspin and blog era of sports journalism where anything goes.

[Moranis]

"They probably aren't in the top five (teams) if we're being honest."

I'm not so sure that isn't wrong.  Notice he didn't say in the East.  I think you could make reasonable arguments that at least 5 teams in the west are "better" than Boston, especially without Hayward.  And that doesn't account for the Cavs, who I suspect many believe will be better than Boston when it counts.

I challenge you to name three teams better than the Celtics that aren't named GS or Houston (Houston, btw, has decidedly the weakest SOS at .490 among 10-win teams, but noone is talking about that).

I think you could make reasonable arguments that GS, Houston, San Antonio, Minnesota, and OKC are "better" teams than Boston or at least certainly a better playoff caliber team (and it wouldn't be totally laughable to put a team like Denver in that mix as well).  Then you have Cleveland, Milwaukee, Toronto, and Washington from the East, who all could rather easily beat Boston (without Hayward) in the playoffs (notice I said could reasonably, not that they will). 

Edit: to fix wrong team name

I disagree with OKC and Minn because like the Celtics, they have to prove something as well. 


And can all the team in the East listed at least play like a top 5 team in the East first?

They do, but come playoff time, you need to win 4 games, which sets of players would you feel more comfortable with:

Butler, Towns, Wiggins, Teague, Gibson, Crawford, etc. or
Irving, Horford, Brown, Tatum, Smart, Morris, etc. or
Westbrook, George, Anthony, Adams, Roberson, Grant, etc.

It really isn't strange to think that OKC and Minnesota are better teams (or more likely to be a better playoff team) than Boston is without Hayward. 

And BTW, Washington and Toronto are tied for 3rd in the East.  Last time I checked 3rd was in the top 5.  And Milwaukee is tied for 6th, a half game out of 5th.

Boston over the T-Wolves.  Which team has had a player hit the finals winning shot?

And as for the Thunder, I don't believe in a team with Melo until that team does something with Melo.   What is the point of him as a third option when it comes with him having to defend the 4 spot.

You are now rating teams by players hitting big shots in big games.  That seems quite dubious.  I mean look at all the players in history that have hit finals winning shots.  A large percentage of them are role players. 

Melo has been in the WCF.  It isn't like he has never had any success in the post season.  In fact, Melo has had far greater playoff success than KG did before Boston. 

[wdleehi]

"They probably aren't in the top five (teams) if we're being honest."

I'm not so sure that isn't wrong.  Notice he didn't say in the East.  I think you could make reasonable arguments that at least 5 teams in the west are "better" than Boston, especially without Hayward.  And that doesn't account for the Cavs, who I suspect many believe will be better than Boston when it counts.

I challenge you to name three teams better than the Celtics that aren't named GS or Houston (Houston, btw, has decidedly the weakest SOS at .490 among 10-win teams, but noone is talking about that).

I think you could make reasonable arguments that GS, Houston, San Antonio, Minnesota, and OKC are "better" teams than Boston or at least certainly a better playoff caliber team (and it wouldn't be totally laughable to put a team like Denver in that mix as well).  Then you have Cleveland, Milwaukee, Toronto, and Washington from the East, who all could rather easily beat Boston (without Hayward) in the playoffs (notice I said could reasonably, not that they will). 

Edit: to fix wrong team name

I disagree with OKC and Minn because like the Celtics, they have to prove something as well. 


And can all the team in the East listed at least play like a top 5 team in the East first?

They do, but come playoff time, you need to win 4 games, which sets of players would you feel more comfortable with:

Butler, Towns, Wiggins, Teague, Gibson, Crawford, etc. or
Irving, Horford, Brown, Tatum, Smart, Morris, etc. or
Westbrook, George, Anthony, Adams, Roberson, Grant, etc.

It really isn't strange to think that OKC and Minnesota are better teams (or more likely to be a better playoff team) than Boston is without Hayward. 

And BTW, Washington and Toronto are tied for 3rd in the East.  Last time I checked 3rd was in the top 5.  And Milwaukee is tied for 6th, a half game out of 5th.

Boston over the T-Wolves.  Which team has had a player hit the finals winning shot?

And as for the Thunder, I don't believe in a team with Melo until that team does something with Melo.   What is the point of him as a third option when it comes with him having to defend the 4 spot.

You are now rating teams by players hitting big shots in big games.  That seems quite dubious.  I mean look at all the players in history that have hit finals winning shots.  A large percentage of them are role players. 

Melo has been in the WCF.  It isn't like he has never had any success in the post season.  In fact, Melo has had far greater playoff success than KG did before Boston.

A young Melo when he was a top 2 SF in the league.   Not the current PF version we see.   


And yes, I trust top level players who have shown the ability to rise to the moment vs. those who haven't had the chance (or haven't done it)

[kozlodoev]

Butler, Towns, Wiggins, Teague, Gibson, Crawford, etc. or
Irving, Horford, Brown, Tatum, Smart, Morris, etc. or
Westbrook, George, Anthony, Adams, Roberson, Grant, etc.

It really isn't strange to think that OKC and Minnesota are better teams (or more likely to be a better playoff team) than Boston is without Hayward. 

And BTW, Washington and Toronto are tied for 3rd in the East.  Last time I checked 3rd was in the top 5.  And Milwaukee is tied for 6th, a half game out of 5th.

But it is, unless all that you're concerned with is individual PPG. In other news, a core of Irving/Horford/Tatum/Brown is every bit as good and possibly as Bulter/Wiggins/Towns/Teague. OKC is more top heavy, but the Celtics are deeper. I have no doubt that we're better than both of those teams, playoffs or otherwise.

OKC, in particular, is a disaster right now as they have a fairly middling record while playing unequivocally the weakest schedule so far.