How about... rest the starters?

[Moranis]

Boston is not a contender so resting starters is just silly.

Unless the only team in the league who you consider a contender is GS, then this statement is nonsense. We’re just as much of a true contender as Cleveland, SAS, Houston, etc.

No we aren't.  Cleveland and Houston, especially both have significantly higher title odds than Boston does.  They aren't close (and that accounts for Houston having to beat not only GS but also a team like SA just to make the finals).  San Antonio's are about inline with Boston, but that is really only because they would have to beat both Houston and Golden State just to make the finals.  Then you have teams like Toronto, which right now would likely be favored to beat Boston in a playoff series (especially if Toronto ends up with home court where they are 14-1). 

It is fun to think of Boston as a contender, but that 16 game win streak was a fluke.  Boston is closer to the .500 team it has been since the team started 22-4 than it is to a 22-4 juggernaut.  And that is ok, but there are going to be a lot of very disappointed Celtics fans when the C's lose in the 1st or 2nd round even though the team should be applauded for turning the season around after losing Hayward 5 minutes in.

I would suggest that you are over-correcting the projection.

I think Boston is probably a 50ish win team, though with the hot start will probably finish around 55.  A 50 win pace is around 60%, that is closer to 50% than it is to 85% (a 22-4 start).  Even 55 wins is a 67% pace, which is still closer to 50% than it is to 85%.

You're using the wrong argument. For instance, if they finish with 56 wins they'd be closer to the "juggernaut" percentage. Finishing with 56 wins over 55 doesn't mean that much. Similarly, their record over 15-20 game stretches of the season doesn't necessarily represent the whole of the team in either direction.

There's truth to what you are saying, but I think you're over-correcting.

If Boston finishes with 56 wins it will go 26-16, which is 62% the rest of the way and closer to 50% than 85%.

[celticsclay]

Boston is not a contender so resting starters is just silly.

Unless the only team in the league who you consider a contender is GS, then this statement is nonsense. We’re just as much of a true contender as Cleveland, SAS, Houston, etc.

No we aren't.  Cleveland and Houston, especially both have significantly higher title odds than Boston does.  They aren't close (and that accounts for Houston having to beat not only GS but also a team like SA just to make the finals).  San Antonio's are about inline with Boston, but that is really only because they would have to beat both Houston and Golden State just to make the finals. Then you have teams like Toronto, which right now would likely be favored to beat Boston in a playoff series (especially if Toronto ends up with home court where they are 14-1). 

It is fun to think of Boston as a contender, but that 16 game win streak was a fluke.  Boston is closer to the .500 team it has been since the team started 22-4 than it is to a 22-4 juggernaut.  And that is ok, but there are going to be a lot of very disappointed Celtics fans when the C's lose in the 1st or 2nd round even though the team should be applauded for turning the season around after losing Hayward 5 minutes in.

Toronto is currently 9-1 to win the east, boston is 4-1. That is isn't even close. The Celtics are 25 to 1 to win championship right now, Toronto is 50-1. Where are you getting your numbers that Toronto would be favored over us?

[gift]

Boston is not a contender so resting starters is just silly.

Unless the only team in the league who you consider a contender is GS, then this statement is nonsense. We’re just as much of a true contender as Cleveland, SAS, Houston, etc.

No we aren't.  Cleveland and Houston, especially both have significantly higher title odds than Boston does.  They aren't close (and that accounts for Houston having to beat not only GS but also a team like SA just to make the finals).  San Antonio's are about inline with Boston, but that is really only because they would have to beat both Houston and Golden State just to make the finals.  Then you have teams like Toronto, which right now would likely be favored to beat Boston in a playoff series (especially if Toronto ends up with home court where they are 14-1). 

It is fun to think of Boston as a contender, but that 16 game win streak was a fluke.  Boston is closer to the .500 team it has been since the team started 22-4 than it is to a 22-4 juggernaut.  And that is ok, but there are going to be a lot of very disappointed Celtics fans when the C's lose in the 1st or 2nd round even though the team should be applauded for turning the season around after losing Hayward 5 minutes in.

I would suggest that you are over-correcting the projection.

I think Boston is probably a 50ish win team, though with the hot start will probably finish around 55.  A 50 win pace is around 60%, that is closer to 50% than it is to 85% (a 22-4 start).  Even 55 wins is a 67% pace, which is still closer to 50% than it is to 85%.

You're using the wrong argument. For instance, if they finish with 56 wins they'd be closer to the "juggernaut" percentage. Finishing with 56 wins over 55 doesn't mean that much. Similarly, their record over 15-20 game stretches of the season doesn't necessarily represent the whole of the team in either direction.

There's truth to what you are saying, but I think you're over-correcting.

If Boston finishes with 56 wins it will go 26-16, which is 62% the rest of the way and closer to 50% than 85%.

You were just using win totals for the season, not finishing stretches, so that's what I did: "A 50 win pace is around 60%, that is closer to 50% than it is to 85% (a 22-4 start).  Even 55 wins is a 67% pace, which is still closer to 50% than it is to 85%. "

But again, you're not using the argument you want to be using. And you're also intentionally limiting your sample size when you have a much larger sample in front of you.

Every team has hot streaks and cold streaks, better and worse starts/finishes. Those things make up the whole record. A team isn't its 22-4 start and its not its 30-11 finish (2016-2017 Miami Heat). If you are going to use a team's record to prove its contender status, you must include the best sample, which outside of variables (injuries, roster changes etc.), would be the largest sample possible, which is the entire record and not arbitrary streaks within. Yes, the Celtics last 14 games is as arbitrary as their first 26. Less arbitrary is all 40.

The Celtics won't win 85% of their games, but the 22-4 stretch is part of their record. It is an indicator. Don't be fooled just because it was at the beginning of the season.

Now, we also have yet to tie your arbitrary win percentage to contender status. You simply say that being closer to .500 than to .850 disqualifies you as a contender. Again, pretend it's not the Celtics and pretend some other team wins 56 games instead of 55. Would they have significantly less chance of contending had they lost one more game?

You're using the wrong argument.

[Moranis]

Boston is not a contender so resting starters is just silly.

Unless the only team in the league who you consider a contender is GS, then this statement is nonsense. We’re just as much of a true contender as Cleveland, SAS, Houston, etc.

No we aren't.  Cleveland and Houston, especially both have significantly higher title odds than Boston does.  They aren't close (and that accounts for Houston having to beat not only GS but also a team like SA just to make the finals).  San Antonio's are about inline with Boston, but that is really only because they would have to beat both Houston and Golden State just to make the finals.  Then you have teams like Toronto, which right now would likely be favored to beat Boston in a playoff series (especially if Toronto ends up with home court where they are 14-1). 

It is fun to think of Boston as a contender, but that 16 game win streak was a fluke.  Boston is closer to the .500 team it has been since the team started 22-4 than it is to a 22-4 juggernaut.  And that is ok, but there are going to be a lot of very disappointed Celtics fans when the C's lose in the 1st or 2nd round even though the team should be applauded for turning the season around after losing Hayward 5 minutes in.

I would suggest that you are over-correcting the projection.

I think Boston is probably a 50ish win team, though with the hot start will probably finish around 55.  A 50 win pace is around 60%, that is closer to 50% than it is to 85% (a 22-4 start).  Even 55 wins is a 67% pace, which is still closer to 50% than it is to 85%.

You're using the wrong argument. For instance, if they finish with 56 wins they'd be closer to the "juggernaut" percentage. Finishing with 56 wins over 55 doesn't mean that much. Similarly, their record over 15-20 game stretches of the season doesn't necessarily represent the whole of the team in either direction.

There's truth to what you are saying, but I think you're over-correcting.

If Boston finishes with 56 wins it will go 26-16, which is 62% the rest of the way and closer to 50% than 85%.

You were just using win totals for the season, not finishing stretches, so that's what I did: "A 50 win pace is around 60%, that is closer to 50% than it is to 85% (a 22-4 start).  Even 55 wins is a 67% pace, which is still closer to 50% than it is to 85%. "

But again, you're not using the argument you want to be using. And you're also intentionally limiting your sample size when you have a much larger sample in front of you.

Every team has hot streaks and cold streaks, better and worse starts/finishes. Those things make up the whole record. A team isn't its 22-4 start and its not its 30-11 finish (2016-2017 Miami Heat). If you are going to use a team's record to prove its contender status, you must include the best sample, which outside of variables (injuries, roster changes etc.), would be the largest sample possible, which is the entire record and not arbitrary streaks within. Yes, the Celtics last 14 games is as arbitrary as their first 26. Less arbitrary is all 40.

The Celtics won't win 85% of their games, but the 22-4 stretch is part of their record. It is an indicator. Don't be fooled just because it was at the beginning of the season.

Now, we also have yet to tie your arbitrary win percentage to contender status. You simply say that being closer to .500 than to .850 disqualifies you as a contender. Again, pretend it's not the Celtics and pretend some other team wins 56 games instead of 55. Would they have significantly less chance of contending had they lost one more game?

You're using the wrong argument.

Sure, there is a much larger sample, but that includes a 16 game winning streak which was a fluke.  And I know it was a fluke because I've watched the rest of the season when Boston is 14-10 and 8-6 in the last 14.  I know that 16 game stretch was a fluke because I can see the "talent" of this team and know it isn't that type of winning good.  The talent level on this team (without Hayward) is around 50 wins (and that is with reasonable health from everyone else).  That isn't an over-correction or an over-reaction.  Whether this current team wins 50 games or 60 games (as result of that 16 game fluke), won't change the fact that it is not a contender as currently constructed.  Even with Hayward it would have been a large uphill battle, but Boston would have had a chance.  This team has no realistic chance at winning the title. 

[CF033]

Boston is not a contender so resting starters is just silly.

Unless the only team in the league who you consider a contender is GS, then this statement is nonsense. We’re just as much of a true contender as Cleveland, SAS, Houston, etc.

No we aren't.  Cleveland and Houston, especially both have significantly higher title odds than Boston does.  They aren't close (and that accounts for Houston having to beat not only GS but also a team like SA just to make the finals).  San Antonio's are about inline with Boston, but that is really only because they would have to beat both Houston and Golden State just to make the finals.  Then you have teams like Toronto, which right now would likely be favored to beat Boston in a playoff series (especially if Toronto ends up with home court where they are 14-1). 

It is fun to think of Boston as a contender, but that 16 game win streak was a fluke.  Boston is closer to the .500 team it has been since the team started 22-4 than it is to a 22-4 juggernaut.  And that is ok, but there are going to be a lot of very disappointed Celtics fans when the C's lose in the 1st or 2nd round even though the team should be applauded for turning the season around after losing Hayward 5 minutes in.

I would suggest that you are over-correcting the projection.

I think Boston is probably a 50ish win team, though with the hot start will probably finish around 55.  A 50 win pace is around 60%, that is closer to 50% than it is to 85% (a 22-4 start).  Even 55 wins is a 67% pace, which is still closer to 50% than it is to 85%.

You're using the wrong argument. For instance, if they finish with 56 wins they'd be closer to the "juggernaut" percentage. Finishing with 56 wins over 55 doesn't mean that much. Similarly, their record over 15-20 game stretches of the season doesn't necessarily represent the whole of the team in either direction.

There's truth to what you are saying, but I think you're over-correcting.

If Boston finishes with 56 wins it will go 26-16, which is 62% the rest of the way and closer to 50% than 85%.

You were just using win totals for the season, not finishing stretches, so that's what I did: "A 50 win pace is around 60%, that is closer to 50% than it is to 85% (a 22-4 start).  Even 55 wins is a 67% pace, which is still closer to 50% than it is to 85%. "

But again, you're not using the argument you want to be using. And you're also intentionally limiting your sample size when you have a much larger sample in front of you.

Every team has hot streaks and cold streaks, better and worse starts/finishes. Those things make up the whole record. A team isn't its 22-4 start and its not its 30-11 finish (2016-2017 Miami Heat). If you are going to use a team's record to prove its contender status, you must include the best sample, which outside of variables (injuries, roster changes etc.), would be the largest sample possible, which is the entire record and not arbitrary streaks within. Yes, the Celtics last 14 games is as arbitrary as their first 26. Less arbitrary is all 40.

The Celtics won't win 85% of their games, but the 22-4 stretch is part of their record. It is an indicator. Don't be fooled just because it was at the beginning of the season.

Now, we also have yet to tie your arbitrary win percentage to contender status. You simply say that being closer to .500 than to .850 disqualifies you as a contender. Again, pretend it's not the Celtics and pretend some other team wins 56 games instead of 55. Would they have significantly less chance of contending had they lost one more game?

You're using the wrong argument.

Sure, there is a much larger sample, but that includes a 16 game winning streak which was a fluke.  And I know it was a fluke because I've watched the rest of the season when Boston is 14-10 and 8-6 in the last 14.  I know that 16 game stretch was a fluke because I can see the "talent" of this team and know it isn't that type of winning good.  The talent level on this team (without Hayward) is around 50 wins (and that is with reasonable health from everyone else).  That isn't an over-correction or an over-reaction.  Whether this current team wins 50 games or 60 games (as result of that 16 game fluke), won't change the fact that it is not a contender as currently constructed.  Even with Hayward it would have been a large uphill battle, but Boston would have had a chance.  This team has no realistic chance at winning the title.

A 16 game winning streak is not really a fluke IMO. Maybe a 4 or 5 game winning streak but not 16. That's around 1/5 of the entire season. Generally, teams don't accidentally win 16 consecutive games.

I think they proved the level of basketball that they are capable of playing. Yea, it let down a  bit, I think in part because they got tired from an aggressive schedule and having a young team that is acclimating to the long NBA season. The question is can they get back up to that level come playoff time? Playoff series on the line have a way of getting teams back up to a high level.

IMO they have just as good a chance (or better) as anyone in the east of making the finals. Time will tell I guess.

[Dannys Chipotle Guy]

Boston is not a contender so resting starters is just silly.

Unless the only team in the league who you consider a contender is GS, then this statement is nonsense. We’re just as much of a true contender as Cleveland, SAS, Houston, etc.

No we aren't.  Cleveland and Houston, especially both have significantly higher title odds than Boston does.  They aren't close (and that accounts for Houston having to beat not only GS but also a team like SA just to make the finals).  San Antonio's are about inline with Boston, but that is really only because they would have to beat both Houston and Golden State just to make the finals.  Then you have teams like Toronto, which right now would likely be favored to beat Boston in a playoff series (especially if Toronto ends up with home court where they are 14-1). 

It is fun to think of Boston as a contender, but that 16 game win streak was a fluke.  Boston is closer to the .500 team it has been since the team started 22-4 than it is to a 22-4 juggernaut.  And that is ok, but there are going to be a lot of very disappointed Celtics fans when the C's lose in the 1st or 2nd round even though the team should be applauded for turning the season around after losing Hayward 5 minutes in.

I would suggest that you are over-correcting the projection.

I think Boston is probably a 50ish win team, though with the hot start will probably finish around 55.  A 50 win pace is around 60%, that is closer to 50% than it is to 85% (a 22-4 start).  Even 55 wins is a 67% pace, which is still closer to 50% than it is to 85%.

You're using the wrong argument. For instance, if they finish with 56 wins they'd be closer to the "juggernaut" percentage. Finishing with 56 wins over 55 doesn't mean that much. Similarly, their record over 15-20 game stretches of the season doesn't necessarily represent the whole of the team in either direction.

There's truth to what you are saying, but I think you're over-correcting.

If Boston finishes with 56 wins it will go 26-16, which is 62% the rest of the way and closer to 50% than 85%.

You were just using win totals for the season, not finishing stretches, so that's what I did: "A 50 win pace is around 60%, that is closer to 50% than it is to 85% (a 22-4 start).  Even 55 wins is a 67% pace, which is still closer to 50% than it is to 85%. "

But again, you're not using the argument you want to be using. And you're also intentionally limiting your sample size when you have a much larger sample in front of you.

Every team has hot streaks and cold streaks, better and worse starts/finishes. Those things make up the whole record. A team isn't its 22-4 start and its not its 30-11 finish (2016-2017 Miami Heat). If you are going to use a team's record to prove its contender status, you must include the best sample, which outside of variables (injuries, roster changes etc.), would be the largest sample possible, which is the entire record and not arbitrary streaks within. Yes, the Celtics last 14 games is as arbitrary as their first 26. Less arbitrary is all 40.

The Celtics won't win 85% of their games, but the 22-4 stretch is part of their record. It is an indicator. Don't be fooled just because it was at the beginning of the season.

Now, we also have yet to tie your arbitrary win percentage to contender status. You simply say that being closer to .500 than to .850 disqualifies you as a contender. Again, pretend it's not the Celtics and pretend some other team wins 56 games instead of 55. Would they have significantly less chance of contending had they lost one more game?

You're using the wrong argument.

Sure, there is a much larger sample, but that includes a 16 game winning streak which was a fluke.  And I know it was a fluke because I've watched the rest of the season when Boston is 14-10 and 8-6 in the last 14.  I know that 16 game stretch was a fluke because I can see the "talent" of this team and know it isn't that type of winning good.  The talent level on this team (without Hayward) is around 50 wins (and that is with reasonable health from everyone else).  That isn't an over-correction or an over-reaction.  Whether this current team wins 50 games or 60 games (as result of that 16 game fluke), won't change the fact that it is not a contender as currently constructed.  Even with Hayward it would have been a large uphill battle, but Boston would have had a chance.  This team has no realistic chance at winning the title.

A 16 game winning streak is not really a fluke IMO. Maybe a 4 or 5 game winning streak but not 16. That's around 1/5 of the entire season. Generally, teams don't accidentally win 16 consecutive games.

I think they proved the level of basketball that they are capable of playing. Yea, it let down a  bit, I think in part because they got tired from an aggressive schedule and having a young team that is acclimating to the long NBA season. The question is can they get back up to that level come playoff time? Playoff series on the line have a way of getting teams back up to a high level.

IMO they have just as good a chance (or better) as anyone in the east of making the finals. Time will tell I guess.

The 16 game win streak was a fluke in the sense that they were lucky to win all 16 games given how well they played in all 16 games. It was also a little flukey in the sense that they played above their talent level. Since then, theyve played a bit below their talent level.

They've out performed their expected win % by 3 wins or 7.5% in terms of win %. That might seem unsustainable but when you have a great coach, one of the best closers in the NBA in Irving and roleplayers like Smart I dont think its unreasonable to outpace expected w/l by a bit. Last years team outpaced their expected w/l by 6% on the back of an elite closer and good coaching.

They arent quite as good as their 30-10 record suggests, but they arent that far from it.

[spikelovetheCelts]

Sit back and enjoy. Danny is not done. Heyward (mistype) may play this year. We all thought 2019. I am happy with watching the kids grow. Rest the vets.

[kozlodoev]

Sit back and enjoy. Danny is not done. Heyward may play this year. We all thought 2019. I am happy with watching the kids grow. Rest the vets.

Would  that be Jason or Jacob?

[mainevent]

Boston is not a contender so resting starters is just silly.

Unless the only team in the league who you consider a contender is GS, then this statement is nonsense. We’re just as much of a true contender as Cleveland, SAS, Houston, etc.

No we aren't.  Cleveland and Houston, especially both have significantly higher title odds than Boston does.  They aren't close (and that accounts for Houston having to beat not only GS but also a team like SA just to make the finals).  San Antonio's are about inline with Boston, but that is really only because they would have to beat both Houston and Golden State just to make the finals.  Then you have teams like Toronto, which right now would likely be favored to beat Boston in a playoff series (especially if Toronto ends up with home court where they are 14-1). 

It is fun to think of Boston as a contender, but that 16 game win streak was a fluke.  Boston is closer to the .500 team it has been since the team started 22-4 than it is to a 22-4 juggernaut.  And that is ok, but there are going to be a lot of very disappointed Celtics fans when the C's lose in the 1st or 2nd round even though the team should be applauded for turning the season around after losing Hayward 5 minutes in.

I would suggest that you are over-correcting the projection.

I think Boston is probably a 50ish win team, though with the hot start will probably finish around 55.  A 50 win pace is around 60%, that is closer to 50% than it is to 85% (a 22-4 start).  Even 55 wins is a 67% pace, which is still closer to 50% than it is to 85%.

You're using the wrong argument. For instance, if they finish with 56 wins they'd be closer to the "juggernaut" percentage. Finishing with 56 wins over 55 doesn't mean that much. Similarly, their record over 15-20 game stretches of the season doesn't necessarily represent the whole of the team in either direction.

There's truth to what you are saying, but I think you're over-correcting.

If Boston finishes with 56 wins it will go 26-16, which is 62% the rest of the way and closer to 50% than 85%.

You were just using win totals for the season, not finishing stretches, so that's what I did: "A 50 win pace is around 60%, that is closer to 50% than it is to 85% (a 22-4 start).  Even 55 wins is a 67% pace, which is still closer to 50% than it is to 85%. "

But again, you're not using the argument you want to be using. And you're also intentionally limiting your sample size when you have a much larger sample in front of you.

Every team has hot streaks and cold streaks, better and worse starts/finishes. Those things make up the whole record. A team isn't its 22-4 start and its not its 30-11 finish (2016-2017 Miami Heat). If you are going to use a team's record to prove its contender status, you must include the best sample, which outside of variables (injuries, roster changes etc.), would be the largest sample possible, which is the entire record and not arbitrary streaks within. Yes, the Celtics last 14 games is as arbitrary as their first 26. Less arbitrary is all 40.

The Celtics won't win 85% of their games, but the 22-4 stretch is part of their record. It is an indicator. Don't be fooled just because it was at the beginning of the season.

Now, we also have yet to tie your arbitrary win percentage to contender status. You simply say that being closer to .500 than to .850 disqualifies you as a contender. Again, pretend it's not the Celtics and pretend some other team wins 56 games instead of 55. Would they have significantly less chance of contending had they lost one more game?

You're using the wrong argument.

Sure, there is a much larger sample, but that includes a 16 game winning streak which was a fluke.  And I know it was a fluke because I've watched the rest of the season when Boston is 14-10 and 8-6 in the last 14.  I know that 16 game stretch was a fluke because I can see the "talent" of this team and know it isn't that type of winning good.  The talent level on this team (without Hayward) is around 50 wins (and that is with reasonable health from everyone else).  That isn't an over-correction or an over-reaction.  Whether this current team wins 50 games or 60 games (as result of that 16 game fluke), won't change the fact that it is not a contender as currently constructed.  Even with Hayward it would have been a large uphill battle, but Boston would have had a chance.  This team has no realistic chance at winning the title.

We should be grateful to have such an expert on this site! If only we all were as smart and as insightful as you are regarding our favorite team and it's future! You and Charles Barkley should go into the prediction business together and like him when he spouts his pearls of wisdom and knowledge of what's going to happen before it actually happens, a simple guy like me can only wonder...if a guy like him can make millions making an a**hole of himself time and time again nationally, how much do YOU get paid for your sparkling knowledge of past, present & future successes and failures of this team? If by chance the answer is $0.00 then that mean your words, comments, breakdowns, and analysisssssses are rhetoric which are usually reserved for people that just LOVE to hear themselves talk in order to make others believe they are intelligent (see how I just did that) - but please...continue!

[celticsclay]

Boston is not a contender so resting starters is just silly.

Unless the only team in the league who you consider a contender is GS, then this statement is nonsense. We’re just as much of a true contender as Cleveland, SAS, Houston, etc.

No we aren't.  Cleveland and Houston, especially both have significantly higher title odds than Boston does.  They aren't close (and that accounts for Houston having to beat not only GS but also a team like SA just to make the finals).  San Antonio's are about inline with Boston, but that is really only because they would have to beat both Houston and Golden State just to make the finals.  Then you have teams like Toronto, which right now would likely be favored to beat Boston in a playoff series (especially if Toronto ends up with home court where they are 14-1). 

It is fun to think of Boston as a contender, but that 16 game win streak was a fluke.  Boston is closer to the .500 team it has been since the team started 22-4 than it is to a 22-4 juggernaut.  And that is ok, but there are going to be a lot of very disappointed Celtics fans when the C's lose in the 1st or 2nd round even though the team should be applauded for turning the season around after losing Hayward 5 minutes in.

I would suggest that you are over-correcting the projection.

I think Boston is probably a 50ish win team, though with the hot start will probably finish around 55.  A 50 win pace is around 60%, that is closer to 50% than it is to 85% (a 22-4 start).  Even 55 wins is a 67% pace, which is still closer to 50% than it is to 85%.

You're using the wrong argument. For instance, if they finish with 56 wins they'd be closer to the "juggernaut" percentage. Finishing with 56 wins over 55 doesn't mean that much. Similarly, their record over 15-20 game stretches of the season doesn't necessarily represent the whole of the team in either direction.

There's truth to what you are saying, but I think you're over-correcting.

If Boston finishes with 56 wins it will go 26-16, which is 62% the rest of the way and closer to 50% than 85%.

You were just using win totals for the season, not finishing stretches, so that's what I did: "A 50 win pace is around 60%, that is closer to 50% than it is to 85% (a 22-4 start).  Even 55 wins is a 67% pace, which is still closer to 50% than it is to 85%. "

But again, you're not using the argument you want to be using. And you're also intentionally limiting your sample size when you have a much larger sample in front of you.

Every team has hot streaks and cold streaks, better and worse starts/finishes. Those things make up the whole record. A team isn't its 22-4 start and its not its 30-11 finish (2016-2017 Miami Heat). If you are going to use a team's record to prove its contender status, you must include the best sample, which outside of variables (injuries, roster changes etc.), would be the largest sample possible, which is the entire record and not arbitrary streaks within. Yes, the Celtics last 14 games is as arbitrary as their first 26. Less arbitrary is all 40.

The Celtics won't win 85% of their games, but the 22-4 stretch is part of their record. It is an indicator. Don't be fooled just because it was at the beginning of the season.

Now, we also have yet to tie your arbitrary win percentage to contender status. You simply say that being closer to .500 than to .850 disqualifies you as a contender. Again, pretend it's not the Celtics and pretend some other team wins 56 games instead of 55. Would they have significantly less chance of contending had they lost one more game?

You're using the wrong argument.

Sure, there is a much larger sample, but that includes a 16 game winning streak which was a fluke.  And I know it was a fluke because I've watched the rest of the season when Boston is 14-10 and 8-6 in the last 14.  I know that 16 game stretch was a fluke because I can see the "talent" of this team and know it isn't that type of winning good.  The talent level on this team (without Hayward) is around 50 wins (and that is with reasonable health from everyone else).  That isn't an over-correction or an over-reaction.  Whether this current team wins 50 games or 60 games (as result of that 16 game fluke), won't change the fact that it is not a contender as currently constructed.  Even with Hayward it would have been a large uphill battle, but Boston would have had a chance.  This team has no realistic chance at winning the title.

We should be grateful to have such an expert on this site! If only we all were as smart and as insightful as you are regarding our favorite team and it's future! You and Charles Barkley should go into the prediction business together and like him when he spouts his pearls of wisdom and knowledge of what's going to happen before it actually happens, a simple guy like me can only wonder...if a guy like him can make millions making an a**hole of himself time and time again nationally, how much do YOU get paid for your sparkling knowledge of past, present & future successes and failures of this team? If by chance the answer is $0.00 then that mean your words, comments, breakdowns, and analysisssssses are rhetoric which are usually reserved for people that just LOVE to hear themselves talk in order to make others believe they are intelligent (see how I just did that) - but please...continue!

I'm still curious how he thinks the Raptors, currently 9-1 to win the east would be favored over the Celtics at 4-1 to win the east.. being inaccurate and pessimistic is a woeful combination.

[Dannys Chipotle Guy]

Boston is not a contender so resting starters is just silly.

Unless the only team in the league who you consider a contender is GS, then this statement is nonsense. We’re just as much of a true contender as Cleveland, SAS, Houston, etc.

No we aren't.  Cleveland and Houston, especially both have significantly higher title odds than Boston does.  They aren't close (and that accounts for Houston having to beat not only GS but also a team like SA just to make the finals).  San Antonio's are about inline with Boston, but that is really only because they would have to beat both Houston and Golden State just to make the finals.  Then you have teams like Toronto, which right now would likely be favored to beat Boston in a playoff series (especially if Toronto ends up with home court where they are 14-1). 

It is fun to think of Boston as a contender, but that 16 game win streak was a fluke.  Boston is closer to the .500 team it has been since the team started 22-4 than it is to a 22-4 juggernaut.  And that is ok, but there are going to be a lot of very disappointed Celtics fans when the C's lose in the 1st or 2nd round even though the team should be applauded for turning the season around after losing Hayward 5 minutes in.

I would suggest that you are over-correcting the projection.

I think Boston is probably a 50ish win team, though with the hot start will probably finish around 55.  A 50 win pace is around 60%, that is closer to 50% than it is to 85% (a 22-4 start).  Even 55 wins is a 67% pace, which is still closer to 50% than it is to 85%.

You're using the wrong argument. For instance, if they finish with 56 wins they'd be closer to the "juggernaut" percentage. Finishing with 56 wins over 55 doesn't mean that much. Similarly, their record over 15-20 game stretches of the season doesn't necessarily represent the whole of the team in either direction.

There's truth to what you are saying, but I think you're over-correcting.

If Boston finishes with 56 wins it will go 26-16, which is 62% the rest of the way and closer to 50% than 85%.

You were just using win totals for the season, not finishing stretches, so that's what I did: "A 50 win pace is around 60%, that is closer to 50% than it is to 85% (a 22-4 start).  Even 55 wins is a 67% pace, which is still closer to 50% than it is to 85%. "

But again, you're not using the argument you want to be using. And you're also intentionally limiting your sample size when you have a much larger sample in front of you.

Every team has hot streaks and cold streaks, better and worse starts/finishes. Those things make up the whole record. A team isn't its 22-4 start and its not its 30-11 finish (2016-2017 Miami Heat). If you are going to use a team's record to prove its contender status, you must include the best sample, which outside of variables (injuries, roster changes etc.), would be the largest sample possible, which is the entire record and not arbitrary streaks within. Yes, the Celtics last 14 games is as arbitrary as their first 26. Less arbitrary is all 40.

The Celtics won't win 85% of their games, but the 22-4 stretch is part of their record. It is an indicator. Don't be fooled just because it was at the beginning of the season.

Now, we also have yet to tie your arbitrary win percentage to contender status. You simply say that being closer to .500 than to .850 disqualifies you as a contender. Again, pretend it's not the Celtics and pretend some other team wins 56 games instead of 55. Would they have significantly less chance of contending had they lost one more game?

You're using the wrong argument.

Sure, there is a much larger sample, but that includes a 16 game winning streak which was a fluke.  And I know it was a fluke because I've watched the rest of the season when Boston is 14-10 and 8-6 in the last 14.  I know that 16 game stretch was a fluke because I can see the "talent" of this team and know it isn't that type of winning good.  The talent level on this team (without Hayward) is around 50 wins (and that is with reasonable health from everyone else).  That isn't an over-correction or an over-reaction.  Whether this current team wins 50 games or 60 games (as result of that 16 game fluke), won't change the fact that it is not a contender as currently constructed.  Even with Hayward it would have been a large uphill battle, but Boston would have had a chance.  This team has no realistic chance at winning the title.

We should be grateful to have such an expert on this site! If only we all were as smart and as insightful as you are regarding our favorite team and it's future! You and Charles Barkley should go into the prediction business together and like him when he spouts his pearls of wisdom and knowledge of what's going to happen before it actually happens, a simple guy like me can only wonder...if a guy like him can make millions making an a**hole of himself time and time again nationally, how much do YOU get paid for your sparkling knowledge of past, present & future successes and failures of this team? If by chance the answer is $0.00 then that mean your words, comments, breakdowns, and analysisssssses are rhetoric which are usually reserved for people that just LOVE to hear themselves talk in order to make others believe they are intelligent (see how I just did that) - but please...continue!

I'm still curious how he thinks the Raptors, currently 9-1 to win the east would be favored over the Celtics at 4-1 to win the east.. being inaccurate and pessimistic is a woeful combination.

Most metrics suggest the Raptors are better than us at basketball and most projections have them finishing above us.

[celticsclay]

Boston is not a contender so resting starters is just silly.

Unless the only team in the league who you consider a contender is GS, then this statement is nonsense. We’re just as much of a true contender as Cleveland, SAS, Houston, etc.

No we aren't.  Cleveland and Houston, especially both have significantly higher title odds than Boston does.  They aren't close (and that accounts for Houston having to beat not only GS but also a team like SA just to make the finals).  San Antonio's are about inline with Boston, but that is really only because they would have to beat both Houston and Golden State just to make the finals.  Then you have teams like Toronto, which right now would likely be favored to beat Boston in a playoff series (especially if Toronto ends up with home court where they are 14-1). 

It is fun to think of Boston as a contender, but that 16 game win streak was a fluke.  Boston is closer to the .500 team it has been since the team started 22-4 than it is to a 22-4 juggernaut.  And that is ok, but there are going to be a lot of very disappointed Celtics fans when the C's lose in the 1st or 2nd round even though the team should be applauded for turning the season around after losing Hayward 5 minutes in.

I would suggest that you are over-correcting the projection.

I think Boston is probably a 50ish win team, though with the hot start will probably finish around 55.  A 50 win pace is around 60%, that is closer to 50% than it is to 85% (a 22-4 start).  Even 55 wins is a 67% pace, which is still closer to 50% than it is to 85%.

You're using the wrong argument. For instance, if they finish with 56 wins they'd be closer to the "juggernaut" percentage. Finishing with 56 wins over 55 doesn't mean that much. Similarly, their record over 15-20 game stretches of the season doesn't necessarily represent the whole of the team in either direction.

There's truth to what you are saying, but I think you're over-correcting.

If Boston finishes with 56 wins it will go 26-16, which is 62% the rest of the way and closer to 50% than 85%.

You were just using win totals for the season, not finishing stretches, so that's what I did: "A 50 win pace is around 60%, that is closer to 50% than it is to 85% (a 22-4 start).  Even 55 wins is a 67% pace, which is still closer to 50% than it is to 85%. "

But again, you're not using the argument you want to be using. And you're also intentionally limiting your sample size when you have a much larger sample in front of you.

Every team has hot streaks and cold streaks, better and worse starts/finishes. Those things make up the whole record. A team isn't its 22-4 start and its not its 30-11 finish (2016-2017 Miami Heat). If you are going to use a team's record to prove its contender status, you must include the best sample, which outside of variables (injuries, roster changes etc.), would be the largest sample possible, which is the entire record and not arbitrary streaks within. Yes, the Celtics last 14 games is as arbitrary as their first 26. Less arbitrary is all 40.

The Celtics won't win 85% of their games, but the 22-4 stretch is part of their record. It is an indicator. Don't be fooled just because it was at the beginning of the season.

Now, we also have yet to tie your arbitrary win percentage to contender status. You simply say that being closer to .500 than to .850 disqualifies you as a contender. Again, pretend it's not the Celtics and pretend some other team wins 56 games instead of 55. Would they have significantly less chance of contending had they lost one more game?

You're using the wrong argument.

Sure, there is a much larger sample, but that includes a 16 game winning streak which was a fluke.  And I know it was a fluke because I've watched the rest of the season when Boston is 14-10 and 8-6 in the last 14.  I know that 16 game stretch was a fluke because I can see the "talent" of this team and know it isn't that type of winning good.  The talent level on this team (without Hayward) is around 50 wins (and that is with reasonable health from everyone else).  That isn't an over-correction or an over-reaction.  Whether this current team wins 50 games or 60 games (as result of that 16 game fluke), won't change the fact that it is not a contender as currently constructed.  Even with Hayward it would have been a large uphill battle, but Boston would have had a chance.  This team has no realistic chance at winning the title.

We should be grateful to have such an expert on this site! If only we all were as smart and as insightful as you are regarding our favorite team and it's future! You and Charles Barkley should go into the prediction business together and like him when he spouts his pearls of wisdom and knowledge of what's going to happen before it actually happens, a simple guy like me can only wonder...if a guy like him can make millions making an a**hole of himself time and time again nationally, how much do YOU get paid for your sparkling knowledge of past, present & future successes and failures of this team? If by chance the answer is $0.00 then that mean your words, comments, breakdowns, and analysisssssses are rhetoric which are usually reserved for people that just LOVE to hear themselves talk in order to make others believe they are intelligent (see how I just did that) - but please...continue!

I'm still curious how he thinks the Raptors, currently 9-1 to win the east would be favored over the Celtics at 4-1 to win the east.. being inaccurate and pessimistic is a woeful combination.

Most metrics suggest the Raptors are better than us at basketball and most projections have them finishing above us.

He said they would be favorites referring to Vegas. Its flat out false (and not close). No way to spin it. If I said the New York times ran a negative piece on Trump I don't expect someone to reply talking about what the Washington post wrote. Pretty silly reply here.

[Dannys Chipotle Guy]

Boston is not a contender so resting starters is just silly.

Unless the only team in the league who you consider a contender is GS, then this statement is nonsense. We’re just as much of a true contender as Cleveland, SAS, Houston, etc.

No we aren't.  Cleveland and Houston, especially both have significantly higher title odds than Boston does.  They aren't close (and that accounts for Houston having to beat not only GS but also a team like SA just to make the finals).  San Antonio's are about inline with Boston, but that is really only because they would have to beat both Houston and Golden State just to make the finals.  Then you have teams like Toronto, which right now would likely be favored to beat Boston in a playoff series (especially if Toronto ends up with home court where they are 14-1). 

It is fun to think of Boston as a contender, but that 16 game win streak was a fluke.  Boston is closer to the .500 team it has been since the team started 22-4 than it is to a 22-4 juggernaut.  And that is ok, but there are going to be a lot of very disappointed Celtics fans when the C's lose in the 1st or 2nd round even though the team should be applauded for turning the season around after losing Hayward 5 minutes in.

I would suggest that you are over-correcting the projection.

I think Boston is probably a 50ish win team, though with the hot start will probably finish around 55.  A 50 win pace is around 60%, that is closer to 50% than it is to 85% (a 22-4 start).  Even 55 wins is a 67% pace, which is still closer to 50% than it is to 85%.

You're using the wrong argument. For instance, if they finish with 56 wins they'd be closer to the "juggernaut" percentage. Finishing with 56 wins over 55 doesn't mean that much. Similarly, their record over 15-20 game stretches of the season doesn't necessarily represent the whole of the team in either direction.

There's truth to what you are saying, but I think you're over-correcting.

If Boston finishes with 56 wins it will go 26-16, which is 62% the rest of the way and closer to 50% than 85%.

You were just using win totals for the season, not finishing stretches, so that's what I did: "A 50 win pace is around 60%, that is closer to 50% than it is to 85% (a 22-4 start).  Even 55 wins is a 67% pace, which is still closer to 50% than it is to 85%. "

But again, you're not using the argument you want to be using. And you're also intentionally limiting your sample size when you have a much larger sample in front of you.

Every team has hot streaks and cold streaks, better and worse starts/finishes. Those things make up the whole record. A team isn't its 22-4 start and its not its 30-11 finish (2016-2017 Miami Heat). If you are going to use a team's record to prove its contender status, you must include the best sample, which outside of variables (injuries, roster changes etc.), would be the largest sample possible, which is the entire record and not arbitrary streaks within. Yes, the Celtics last 14 games is as arbitrary as their first 26. Less arbitrary is all 40.

The Celtics won't win 85% of their games, but the 22-4 stretch is part of their record. It is an indicator. Don't be fooled just because it was at the beginning of the season.

Now, we also have yet to tie your arbitrary win percentage to contender status. You simply say that being closer to .500 than to .850 disqualifies you as a contender. Again, pretend it's not the Celtics and pretend some other team wins 56 games instead of 55. Would they have significantly less chance of contending had they lost one more game?

You're using the wrong argument.

Sure, there is a much larger sample, but that includes a 16 game winning streak which was a fluke.  And I know it was a fluke because I've watched the rest of the season when Boston is 14-10 and 8-6 in the last 14.  I know that 16 game stretch was a fluke because I can see the "talent" of this team and know it isn't that type of winning good.  The talent level on this team (without Hayward) is around 50 wins (and that is with reasonable health from everyone else).  That isn't an over-correction or an over-reaction.  Whether this current team wins 50 games or 60 games (as result of that 16 game fluke), won't change the fact that it is not a contender as currently constructed.  Even with Hayward it would have been a large uphill battle, but Boston would have had a chance.  This team has no realistic chance at winning the title.

We should be grateful to have such an expert on this site! If only we all were as smart and as insightful as you are regarding our favorite team and it's future! You and Charles Barkley should go into the prediction business together and like him when he spouts his pearls of wisdom and knowledge of what's going to happen before it actually happens, a simple guy like me can only wonder...if a guy like him can make millions making an a**hole of himself time and time again nationally, how much do YOU get paid for your sparkling knowledge of past, present & future successes and failures of this team? If by chance the answer is $0.00 then that mean your words, comments, breakdowns, and analysisssssses are rhetoric which are usually reserved for people that just LOVE to hear themselves talk in order to make others believe they are intelligent (see how I just did that) - but please...continue!

I'm still curious how he thinks the Raptors, currently 9-1 to win the east would be favored over the Celtics at 4-1 to win the east.. being inaccurate and pessimistic is a woeful combination.

Most metrics suggest the Raptors are better than us at basketball and most projections have them finishing above us.

He said they would be favorites referring to Vegas. Its flat out false (and not close). No way to spin it. If I said the New York times ran a negative piece on Trump I don't expect someone to reply talking about what the Washington post wrote. Pretty silly reply here.

Fail to see the silliness.

If I said the Times wrote and article saying Trump would probably win reelection and then someone else chimed in with a 538 article saying Trump was likely to win reelection, Id deem it relevant info even if the Times article was misrepresented in the first place and actually argued that Trump didnt have much of a chance.

[spikelovetheCelts]

Sit back and enjoy. Danny is not done. Heyward may play this year. We all thought 2019. I am happy with watching the kids grow. Rest the vets.

Would  that be Jason or Jacob?

Jason, I bet all the Celtic bloggers laughed. Not.

[celticsclay]

Boston is not a contender so resting starters is just silly.

Unless the only team in the league who you consider a contender is GS, then this statement is nonsense. We’re just as much of a true contender as Cleveland, SAS, Houston, etc.

No we aren't.  Cleveland and Houston, especially both have significantly higher title odds than Boston does.  They aren't close (and that accounts for Houston having to beat not only GS but also a team like SA just to make the finals).  San Antonio's are about inline with Boston, but that is really only because they would have to beat both Houston and Golden State just to make the finals.  Then you have teams like Toronto, which right now would likely be favored to beat Boston in a playoff series (especially if Toronto ends up with home court where they are 14-1). 

It is fun to think of Boston as a contender, but that 16 game win streak was a fluke.  Boston is closer to the .500 team it has been since the team started 22-4 than it is to a 22-4 juggernaut.  And that is ok, but there are going to be a lot of very disappointed Celtics fans when the C's lose in the 1st or 2nd round even though the team should be applauded for turning the season around after losing Hayward 5 minutes in.

I would suggest that you are over-correcting the projection.

I think Boston is probably a 50ish win team, though with the hot start will probably finish around 55.  A 50 win pace is around 60%, that is closer to 50% than it is to 85% (a 22-4 start).  Even 55 wins is a 67% pace, which is still closer to 50% than it is to 85%.

You're using the wrong argument. For instance, if they finish with 56 wins they'd be closer to the "juggernaut" percentage. Finishing with 56 wins over 55 doesn't mean that much. Similarly, their record over 15-20 game stretches of the season doesn't necessarily represent the whole of the team in either direction.

There's truth to what you are saying, but I think you're over-correcting.

If Boston finishes with 56 wins it will go 26-16, which is 62% the rest of the way and closer to 50% than 85%.

You were just using win totals for the season, not finishing stretches, so that's what I did: "A 50 win pace is around 60%, that is closer to 50% than it is to 85% (a 22-4 start).  Even 55 wins is a 67% pace, which is still closer to 50% than it is to 85%. "

But again, you're not using the argument you want to be using. And you're also intentionally limiting your sample size when you have a much larger sample in front of you.

Every team has hot streaks and cold streaks, better and worse starts/finishes. Those things make up the whole record. A team isn't its 22-4 start and its not its 30-11 finish (2016-2017 Miami Heat). If you are going to use a team's record to prove its contender status, you must include the best sample, which outside of variables (injuries, roster changes etc.), would be the largest sample possible, which is the entire record and not arbitrary streaks within. Yes, the Celtics last 14 games is as arbitrary as their first 26. Less arbitrary is all 40.

The Celtics won't win 85% of their games, but the 22-4 stretch is part of their record. It is an indicator. Don't be fooled just because it was at the beginning of the season.

Now, we also have yet to tie your arbitrary win percentage to contender status. You simply say that being closer to .500 than to .850 disqualifies you as a contender. Again, pretend it's not the Celtics and pretend some other team wins 56 games instead of 55. Would they have significantly less chance of contending had they lost one more game?

You're using the wrong argument.

Sure, there is a much larger sample, but that includes a 16 game winning streak which was a fluke.  And I know it was a fluke because I've watched the rest of the season when Boston is 14-10 and 8-6 in the last 14.  I know that 16 game stretch was a fluke because I can see the "talent" of this team and know it isn't that type of winning good.  The talent level on this team (without Hayward) is around 50 wins (and that is with reasonable health from everyone else).  That isn't an over-correction or an over-reaction.  Whether this current team wins 50 games or 60 games (as result of that 16 game fluke), won't change the fact that it is not a contender as currently constructed.  Even with Hayward it would have been a large uphill battle, but Boston would have had a chance.  This team has no realistic chance at winning the title.

We should be grateful to have such an expert on this site! If only we all were as smart and as insightful as you are regarding our favorite team and it's future! You and Charles Barkley should go into the prediction business together and like him when he spouts his pearls of wisdom and knowledge of what's going to happen before it actually happens, a simple guy like me can only wonder...if a guy like him can make millions making an a**hole of himself time and time again nationally, how much do YOU get paid for your sparkling knowledge of past, present & future successes and failures of this team? If by chance the answer is $0.00 then that mean your words, comments, breakdowns, and analysisssssses are rhetoric which are usually reserved for people that just LOVE to hear themselves talk in order to make others believe they are intelligent (see how I just did that) - but please...continue!

I'm still curious how he thinks the Raptors, currently 9-1 to win the east would be favored over the Celtics at 4-1 to win the east.. being inaccurate and pessimistic is a woeful combination.

Most metrics suggest the Raptors are better than us at basketball and most projections have them finishing above us.

He said they would be favorites referring to Vegas. Its flat out false (and not close). No way to spin it. If I said the New York times ran a negative piece on Trump I don't expect someone to reply talking about what the Washington post wrote. Pretty silly reply here.

Fail to see the silliness.

If I said the Times wrote and article saying Trump would probably win reelection and then someone else chimed in with a 538 article saying Trump was likely to win reelection, Id deem it relevant info even if the Times article was misrepresented in the first place and actually argued that Trump didnt have much of a chance.

Alright cool. Lets just all say false things and run with them. Sounds like a good forum.