How about... rest the starters?

[chilidawg]

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.

They were supposed to be better than both Cleveland and the Celtics by "most metrics" last year as well.  And Cleveland is well behind both Toronto and Boston in "most metrics".  Lots of basketball will be played and "metrics" won't be on the court.

[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?

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

Good choice, he's the better player

[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.

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.

I actually made no reference at all to Vegas when I said the Raptors would most likely be favored over the Celtics in a playoff series, especially if the Raptors are in fact the higher seed.  And as he said most metrics actually prefer the Raptors to the Celtics.

[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.

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!

take it for whatever you want but I've been pretty good at projecting things on this site over the years, including this year where I have correctly projected almost the entire playoffs and projected the current bottom 5 teams basically on order.  Obviously still basketball to be played but so far my projections have been pretty spot on.

[azzenfrost]

Eh nevermind

[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.

Good choice, he's the better player

I was always liked IronHead Myself. LOL

[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!

take it for whatever you want but I've been pretty good at projecting things on this site over the years, including this year where I have correctly projected almost the entire playoffs and projected the current bottom 5 teams basically on order.  Obviously still basketball to be played but so far my projections have been pretty spot on.

You said Orlando would win 35 games this year like a week and a half ago no?

[celticsclay]

Moranis,

How are you saying you said nothing about Vegas and the raptors???

"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

If you say someone is favored, you realize 99% of the population is going to assume you are talking about vegas lines. Nobody is going to think this is Hollinger's projection system you were referring to. You said something. It was wrong, you were corrected. Own it like every other poster on this site would for the love of god.

[Moranis]

Moranis,

How are you saying you said nothing about Vegas and the raptors???

"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

If you say someone is favored, you realize 99% of the population is going to assume you are talking about vegas lines. Nobody is going to think this is Hollinger's projection system you were referring to. You said something. It was wrong, you were corrected. Own it like every other poster on this site would for the love of god.

As far as I know, there aren't Vegas lines on a potential Toronto v. Boston playoff match-up.  Thus I couldn't have been talking about any sort of Vegas lines, because they don't exist. 

[celticsclay]

Moranis,

How are you saying you said nothing about Vegas and the raptors???

"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

If you say someone is favored, you realize 99% of the population is going to assume you are talking about vegas lines. Nobody is going to think this is Hollinger's projection system you were referring to. You said something. It was wrong, you were corrected. Own it like every other poster on this site would for the love of god.

As far as I know, there aren't Vegas lines on a potential Toronto v. Boston playoff match-up.  Thus I couldn't have been talking about any sort of Vegas lines, because they don't exist.

What there are, is future title and conference odds. I know you know of these because we have repeatedly debated them throughout the season. Even funnier, you referenced them earlier in your post talking about the title odds. This is pretty weak man. Toronto is considered less likely to win the east and less less likely to win the title by a very very significant margin. You said they would "likely be favorite" over Boston in a playoff series. Worse, you added "right now". THIS IS WRONG. What happens if you admit you said something wrong? Does your brain explode?

[Moranis]

Moranis,

How are you saying you said nothing about Vegas and the raptors???

"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

If you say someone is favored, you realize 99% of the population is going to assume you are talking about vegas lines. Nobody is going to think this is Hollinger's projection system you were referring to. You said something. It was wrong, you were corrected. Own it like every other poster on this site would for the love of god.

As far as I know, there aren't Vegas lines on a potential Toronto v. Boston playoff match-up.  Thus I couldn't have been talking about any sort of Vegas lines, because they don't exist.

What there are, is future title and conference odds. I know you know of these because we have repeatedly debated them throughout the season. Even funnier, you referenced them earlier in your post talking about the title odds. This is pretty weak man. Toronto is considered less likely to win the east and less less likely to win the title by a very very significant margin. You said they would "likely be favorite" over Boston in a playoff series. Worse, you added "right now". THIS IS WRONG. What happens if you admit you said something wrong? Does your brain explode?

I know what the future odds say.  And I know, pretty much everyone believes Toronto has a 0% chance of beating Cleveland, thus their Finals Odds are going to be terrible because of that and because not much money will come in on Toronto.  Boston is more likely to beat Cleveland because they match-up with Cleveland better than Toronto does, and thus has better odds to make the Finals.  Toronto, while having basically a 0% chance of beating Cleveland, matches up much better with Boston.  Boston will struggle to defend Toronto and unlike Cleveland can't make Toronto truly pay on the wings or with interior scoring, which is Toronto's main weaknesses defensively.

Finals odds are based on a lot of factors, they aren't based on individual match-ups.  Those come out after the match-ups are determined. 

[celticsclay]

Moranis,

How are you saying you said nothing about Vegas and the raptors???

"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

If you say someone is favored, you realize 99% of the population is going to assume you are talking about vegas lines. Nobody is going to think this is Hollinger's projection system you were referring to. You said something. It was wrong, you were corrected. Own it like every other poster on this site would for the love of god.

As far as I know, there aren't Vegas lines on a potential Toronto v. Boston playoff match-up.  Thus I couldn't have been talking about any sort of Vegas lines, because they don't exist.

What there are, is future title and conference odds. I know you know of these because we have repeatedly debated them throughout the season. Even funnier, you referenced them earlier in your post talking about the title odds. This is pretty weak man. Toronto is considered less likely to win the east and less less likely to win the title by a very very significant margin. You said they would "likely be favorite" over Boston in a playoff series. Worse, you added "right now". THIS IS WRONG. What happens if you admit you said something wrong? Does your brain explode?

I know what the future odds say.  And I know, pretty much everyone believes Toronto has a 0% chance of beating Cleveland, thus their Finals Odds are going to be terrible because of that and because not much money will come in on Toronto.  Boston is more likely to beat Cleveland because they match-up with Cleveland better than Toronto does, and thus has better odds to make the Finals.  Toronto, while having basically a 0% chance of beating Cleveland, matches up much better with Boston.  Boston will struggle to defend Toronto and unlike Cleveland can't make Toronto truly pay on the wings or with interior scoring, which is Toronto's main weaknesses defensively.

Finals odds are based on a lot of factors, they aren't based on individual match-ups.  Those come out after the match-ups are determined.

Sigh. If you think the only reason that Toronto has half the future odds to win the east that the Celtics do because we matchup up well with Cleveland and they would be favored against us in a series you are honestly a lot less intelligent than I thought.

[gift]

Moranis,

How are you saying you said nothing about Vegas and the raptors???

"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

If you say someone is favored, you realize 99% of the population is going to assume you are talking about vegas lines. Nobody is going to think this is Hollinger's projection system you were referring to. You said something. It was wrong, you were corrected. Own it like every other poster on this site would for the love of god.

As far as I know, there aren't Vegas lines on a potential Toronto v. Boston playoff match-up.  Thus I couldn't have been talking about any sort of Vegas lines, because they don't exist.

What there are, is future title and conference odds. I know you know of these because we have repeatedly debated them throughout the season. Even funnier, you referenced them earlier in your post talking about the title odds. This is pretty weak man. Toronto is considered less likely to win the east and less less likely to win the title by a very very significant margin. You said they would "likely be favorite" over Boston in a playoff series. Worse, you added "right now". THIS IS WRONG. What happens if you admit you said something wrong? Does your brain explode?

I know what the future odds say.  And I know, pretty much everyone believes Toronto has a 0% chance of beating Cleveland, thus their Finals Odds are going to be terrible because of that and because not much money will come in on Toronto.  Boston is more likely to beat Cleveland because they match-up with Cleveland better than Toronto does, and thus has better odds to make the Finals.  Toronto, while having basically a 0% chance of beating Cleveland, matches up much better with Boston.  Boston will struggle to defend Toronto and unlike Cleveland can't make Toronto truly pay on the wings or with interior scoring, which is Toronto's main weaknesses defensively.

Finals odds are based on a lot of factors, they aren't based on individual match-ups.  Those come out after the match-ups are determined.

So based on your expectations: "That said, I actually expect Toronto to finish with the 1st seed and thus don't actually think Boston will play Toronto in the playoffs as I see Boston (the 3 seed) losing to Cleveland (the 2 seed) in the 2nd round"

You expect Toronto to play Cleveland in the conference finals where according to you they have "basically a 0% chance of beating Cleveland". By this, I would assume you think Toronto is a 0% contender.

Now, again based on your expectation, Boston "is more likely to beat Cleveland because they match-up with Cleveland better than Toronto does". So let's assume Boston has a 1% chance of beating Cleveland (against Toronto's 0% chance).

You seem to be saying, according to your expectations for how the seeding will play out, that Boston is more of a contender than Toronto, since the probability that Boston beats anyone leading up to Cleveland AND beats Cleveland is higher than 0%. Unless, you want to claim that Boston has a 0% chance of beating Toronto or that some team other than Toronto, Boston, or Cleveland would be in the conference finals. 

Basically, I'm just trying to illustrate that you're throwing numbers out there to support your hunch, and then confusing your hunch with likelihood because there are numbers out there to support it.

Ultimately, the contender status of the Celtics comes down to how you define 'contender'. It's not something you can draw a clear line around using win/loss record or playoff projections in January.

[rochrist]

I know it's against CBS' philosophy to not try their best and they most likely intend to push it through, but after the hell schedule in Dec and the Rockets game the starers should be exhausted, i wonder two days of full rest is enough to full recover, let alone adding practice during it.

So instead of play the starers and risk possible injuries or under-performing(and lose anyway), why not just rest them and play the bench big minutes, therefor the bench get some run and the starters get full rest and can practice.

Afterall the Nets is the one team i can afford to take the lose..if it should be.

They're already getting rest. Playing 30-32 minutes a game is not heavy minutes. LeBron is pushing 38.

[rochrist]

The London game is going to provide us a stretch of one game in nine or so days, which will give us plenty of rest. No reason to rest guys before that, too.

London game includes extensive travel and time away from home - that is as tiring as two away games on the east coast. Stevens does need to play the starters 4-5 less minutes per game. I think Baynes, Morris, Rozier, Smart, Theis, Larkin and Ojeyle would love more minutes and might do just fine with them.

Think Patience & Future.

Nonsense. They play one game in nine days during that stretch. Flying to London is basically flying to the west coast.