SI Article on Boston (by Wizards fan Andrew Sharp)

[keevsnick]

Guy goes on and on talking about how our young guys are awesome, Brad and Ainge are genius and everything we do has been perfect and all anybody can focus on is one like where he says we probably aren't a top five team. That may actually be true. We need to lighten up and enjoy where we are at.

[celticsclay]

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.

Minnesota has at least played relatively well. The argument that OKC is better at the moment is very strange because they have just been a flat out bad team. The pieces are not fitting together and they have played pretty bad basketball (worse than the celtics in just about stat you can find). I understand the contrarian angle here and not wanting to be a homer, but right now OKC is just not a good basketball team and is not in the conversation with the top team (including the Celtics).

[kozlodoev]

Guy goes on and on talking about how our young guys are awesome, Brad and Ainge are genius and everything we do has been perfect and all anybody can focus on is one like where he says we probably aren't a top five team. That may actually be true. We need to lighten up and enjoy where we are at.

We focus on the only thing that's an actual talking point. The obvious stuff is obvious.

[Moranis]

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.

Minnesota has at least played relatively well. The argument that OKC is better at the moment is very strange because they have just been a flat out bad team. The pieces are not fitting together and they have played pretty bad basketball (worse than the celtics in just about stat you can find). I understand the contrarian angle here and not wanting to be a homer, but right now OKC is just not a good basketball team and is not in the conversation with the top team (including the Celtics).

bball-ref says OKC's expected W/L should be 9-4, which would be good for the 5th best team (Boston is 11-4 in expected W/L).  The early season should always be taken with a grain of salt (both good and bad).  And I don't understand this notion that OKC doesn't fit well together.  They actually have a very strong starting 5 and the pieces seem to all work well together.  Anthony, especially, is playing well at PF (about the same offensive efficiency, but much better defensively than the past couple of seasons).  George has finally gotten comfortable.  Westbrook is still doing his thing.  Adams and Roberson add a lot of defense and intangibles and Grant, Felton, Abrines, and Patterson are playing well enough from their bench.  It obviously has taken them a few weeks to figure it out, but OKC is a very good team. 

[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.

Minnesota has at least played relatively well. The argument that OKC is better at the moment is very strange because they have just been a flat out bad team. The pieces are not fitting together and they have played pretty bad basketball (worse than the celtics in just about stat you can find). I understand the contrarian angle here and not wanting to be a homer, but right now OKC is just not a good basketball team and is not in the conversation with the top team (including the Celtics).

bball-ref says OKC's expected W/L should be 9-4, which would be good for the 5th best team (Boston is 11-4 in expected W/L).  The early season should always be taken with a grain of salt (both good and bad).  And I don't understand this notion that OKC doesn't fit well together.  They actually have a very strong starting 5 and the pieces seem to all work well together.  Anthony, especially, is playing well at PF (about the same offensive efficiency, but much better defensively than the past couple of seasons).  George has finally gotten comfortable.  Westbrook is still doing his thing.  Adams and Roberson add a lot of defense and intangibles and Grant, Felton, Abrines, and Patterson are playing well enough from their bench.  It obviously has taken them a few weeks to figure it out, but OKC is a very good team.

So all teams that play like crap will eventually turn around, and we'll fall off a cliff. Ignoring the fact that what we have right now is the top-seed, EC finalist from last year that has improved, talent-wise, even considering Hayward's injury. Nope, still not convinced.

And please don't bring up Denver ever again in this conversation. I'll just point and laugh.

[celticsclay]

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.

Minnesota has at least played relatively well. The argument that OKC is better at the moment is very strange because they have just been a flat out bad team. The pieces are not fitting together and they have played pretty bad basketball (worse than the celtics in just about stat you can find). I understand the contrarian angle here and not wanting to be a homer, but right now OKC is just not a good basketball team and is not in the conversation with the top team (including the Celtics).

bball-ref says OKC's expected W/L should be 9-4, which would be good for the 5th best team (Boston is 11-4 in expected W/L).  The early season should always be taken with a grain of salt (both good and bad).  And I don't understand this notion that OKC doesn't fit well together.  They actually have a very strong starting 5 and the pieces seem to all work well together.  Anthony, especially, is playing well at PF (about the same offensive efficiency, but much better defensively than the past couple of seasons).  George has finally gotten comfortable.  Westbrook is still doing his thing.  Adams and Roberson add a lot of defense and intangibles and Grant, Felton, Abrines, and Patterson are playing well enough from their bench.  It obviously has taken them a few weeks to figure it out, but OKC is a very good team.

So all teams that play like crap will eventually turn around, and we'll fall off a cliff. Ignoring the fact that what we have right now is the top-seed, EC finalist from last year that has improved, talent-wise, even considering Hayward's injury. Nope, still not convinced.

And please don't bring up Denver ever again in this conversation. I'll just point and laugh.

Got to strongly agree with Koz here. You can't be super pessimistic about the future of the Celtics for the season but than look at all other teams through best case scenario. It doesn't make any sense.

Making things a bit more comical, we actually played them on their homecourt and beat them. They have also had a very easy schedule and are 6-7. They just haven't been as good as us, and it is not particularly close, until they turn it around this is just silly.

[footey]

The article is extremely complimentary about the Celtics. Folks are too hung up on the top 5 line, which was practically a throw away.

Teams I fear:

GSW
MIL
CLE
DEN (don’t laugh; they destroyed us last season, and are underachieving)

Teams I don’t fear:  Everyone else

[kozlodoev]

DEN (don’t laugh; they destroyed us last season, and are underachieving)

They are not underachieving. Denver's top scorer and arguably best player, Nikola Jokic would be third best healthy player if you put him on our team. They are what they are, and what they are isn't great.

[celticsclay]

Also Moranis if you don't understand the notion that OKC is not playing well together, here is an article looking at it... cause they don't...

https://www.theringer.com/nba/2017/11/10/16634306/okc-westbrook-paul-george-carmelo-struggles

[celticsclay]

DEN (don’t laugh; they destroyed us last season, and are underachieving)

They are not underachieving. Denver's top scorer and arguably best player, Nikola Jokic would be third best healthy player if you put him on our team. They are what they are, and what they are isn't great.

Denver went from underrated to overrated pretty quick. Their starting point guard and backup point guard are shooting guards. They have a bunch of nice role players (Harris, Barton in particular). Chandler and Millsap are definitely in pretty big decline. They also have a complete cluster eff of a roster with 8 power forwards on it...

[Celtics4ever]

He is clearly bitter about losing to us for the majority of life.   I think the article is sour grapes.

[safecracker]

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.

It's not politics, it's sports. And personally I appreciate that journalists are open with their biases. The article is actually very well written and overall acknowledges the success of the Celtics.

[RIPRED]

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.

It's not politics, it's sports. And personally I appreciate that journalists are open with their biases. The article is actually very well written and overall acknowledges the success of the Celtics.

Journalism is journalism.

[CelticSooner]

Washington folks aren't so quick to give the C's that much credit. You ever hear Tim Bontemps ever discuss the C's? Looks for any reason he can come up with reasons to discredit them. Is there something in the water there where Washington talks a big game but never actually backs it up?

[chilidawg]

"Jaywatch" is just wrong.  Good article otherwise, I don't get what people here are bent out of shape about.