Realistic prediction for the east to have a championship team.

[flyerhawk]

With Marcus Smart resigning, the C's now have the band comfortably back together + 2 All Star caliber additions...

The C's have the capacity to play the switching style of defense that was able to be competitive against Golden State (as shown in the Houston series).

So... yeah, Boston certainly belongs within the realm of "realistic possibility."

You know that the Celtics record was nearly identical with Kyrie on the floor as without him last year, right?

 

[msgkings322]

If by realistic you mean like 2%, then I am good with that.

More like 15% with the injury wild card possibly making that higher or lower

 

[tlance]

More like 15% with the injury wild card possibly making that higher or lower

Nah.

Way to high.

Would require 2 injuries to give the Celtics a legit chance. That is possible, but 15% is too much.

 

[Gman]

If by realistic you mean like 2%, then I am good with that.

Nah.

Way to high.

Would require 2 injuries to give the Celtics a legit chance. That is possible, but 15% is too much.

Two injuries? Poo.

The 15% guess is better than 2%... GS showed some humanity (7 game series) as recently as last postseason... and Boston is better than you seem to give them credit for.

 

[Gman]

You know that the Celtics record was nearly identical with Kyrie on the floor as without him last year, right?

Ok, I'll bite.

So what?

 

[flyerhawk]

Ok, I'll bite.

So what?

Pointing out how much more awesome they are going to be when Kyrie returns is a bit of a counter-factual.

 

[Gman]

Pointing out how much more awesome they are going to be when Kyrie returns is a bit of a counter-factual.

No offense... but this is appalling "analysis" on your part.

Just to be clear... you're suggesting that because the Celtics has a similar regular season record with Kyrie playing as they did without Kyrie playing... that means the healthy re-addition of a player of Kyrie's caliber is... what, exactly?

And no other analysis beyond that is needed, apparently?

 

[shopson67]

No offense... but this is appalling "analysis" on your part.

Just to be clear... you're suggesting that because the Celtics has a similar regular season record with Kyrie playing as they did without Kyrie playing... that means the healthy re-addition of a player of Kyrie's caliber is... what, exactly?

And no other analysis beyond that is needed, apparently?

He's merely saying that a fully healthy Kyrie doesn't automatically add a number of wins, as is the case with adding a healthy Hayward. Hayward will be taking minutes from Brown/Tatum, so there's a trade-off there as well.

 

[Gman]

He's merely saying that a fully healthy Kyrie doesn't automatically add a number of wins, as is the case with adding a healthy Hayward.

He's suggesting more than that, IMO... and it's the lack of deeper analysis/insight that's the main problem. But I'll let flyer speak for himself.

Hayward will be taking minutes from Brown/Tatum, so there's a trade-off there as well.

As I've repeated in the past: this is a wonderful, "Boston-is-the-absolute-envy-of-almost-every-team-in-the-league" problem to have.

 

[shopson67]

As I've repeated in the past: this is a wonderful, "Boston-is-the-absolute-envy-of-almost-every-team-in-the-league" problem to have.

It's a good problem to have until you have to re-sign Brown and he's unhappy with his minutes. Depth is the best problem to have, especially when everyone accepts their role within that depth chart.

 

[Gman]

It's a good problem to have until you have to re-sign Brown and he's unhappy with his minutes.

We'll worry about that problem when the time comes to worry about it... a lot of water will go under the bridge between now and then.

I'm fairly confident Brown will get good minutes... with an emphasis on good. They may not be quite as high as they would be if Brown were on a less talented team... but I don't think we're talking about a drastic reduction, either.

 

[shopson67]

We'll worry about that problem when the time comes to worry about it... a lot of water will go under the bridge between now and then.

I'm fairly confident Brown will get good minutes... with an emphasis on good. They may not be quite as high as they would be if Brown were on a less talented team... but I don't think we're talking about a drastic reduction, either.

Marcus Smart has to get his, too.

 

[Gman]

Marcus Smart has to get his, too.

Given that the Celtics are at the forefront of the movement towards 'positionless basketball'... again, I'm confident that Coach Stevens will work it out.

Beyond that... you're still pointing out a problem that is wonderful to have. IOW: it's only a "problem" because the C's roster is incredibly deep and talented.

 

[flyerhawk]

He's suggesting more than that, IMO... and it's the lack of deeper analysis/insight that's the main problem. But I'll let flyer speak for himself.

No. Tlance is about right on it.

Celtics fans, and more than a few pundits, have taken it as a matter of fact that the Celtics will be much better next year because they are not only adding Hayward but also adding Kyrie, despite the fact that Kyrie played 60 games last year.

The Celtics had nearly an identical winning percentage with Kyrie(.680) as they did without(.670) You seem to want to hand wave that away as somehow meaningless, presumably because the Celtics did well in the playoffs without Kyrie. That is pretty weak logic.

You are essentially ignoring the 82 games and focusing on 3 playoff series while ignoring the fact that the Celtics could have been knocked out in the 1st round pretty easily.

 

[flyerhawk]

Given that the Celtics are at the forefront of the movement towards 'positionless basketball'... again, I'm confident that Coach Stevens will work it out.

Beyond that... you're still pointing out a problem that is wonderful to have. IOW: it's only a "problem" because the C's roster is incredibly deep and talented.

Just curious, G, over/under for wins for the Celtics next year?

 

[msgkings322]

No. Tlance is about right on it.

Celtics fans, and more than a few pundits, have taken it as a matter of fact that the Celtics will be much better next year because they are not only adding Hayward but also adding Kyrie, despite the fact that Kyrie played 60 games last year.

The Celtics had nearly an identical winning percentage with Kyrie(.680) as they did without(.670) You seem to want to hand wave that away as somehow meaningless, presumably because the Celtics did well in the playoffs without Kyrie. That is pretty weak logic.

You are essentially ignoring the 82 games and focusing on 3 playoff series while ignoring the fact that the Celtics could have been knocked out in the 1st round pretty easily.

This is fair but it's probably also fair to say that Sixers fans and other fans are doing some handwaving to downplay the best coach in the league getting to add Hayward and Irving to his already formidable young playoff team. A team that now has playoff experience.

 

[Gman]

No. Tlance is about right on it.

Celtics fans, and more than a few pundits, have taken it as a matter of fact that the Celtics will be much better next year because they are not only adding Hayward but also adding Kyrie, despite the fact that Kyrie played 60 games last year.

The Celtics had nearly an identical winning percentage with Kyrie(.680) as they did without(.670) You seem to want to hand wave that away as somehow meaningless, presumably because the Celtics did well in the playoffs without Kyrie. That is pretty weak logic.

Your only 'analysis' is the bare fact that "the Celtics had nearly an identical winning percentage with Kyrie(.680) as they did without(.670). "

^ That is what is weak here. And I'll explain exactly why:

1.) It fails to take into account the front-loaded nature of Boston's schedule last season in terms of number of games... the London trip unbalanced the C's schedule wise and they had a large number of their back-to-backs and such while Kyrie was healthy. Here's a refresher story I was able to locate:

The first two and a half months of the season will be jam-packed for the C’s, as they are scheduled to play 40 of their 82 games before the start of 2018. Boston will play seven games (three home, four away) during the month of October, 16 games (eight home, eight away) during November, and a season-high 17 games (10 home, seven away) during December.

Almost certainly, this had an impact... an impact your simple analysis flat out neglects.

2.) The C's were a very young team in 2017-2018. Guys like Tatum, Brown, Rozier and Ojeleye developed as the season went on... therefore, there is an argument to be made that the uniform winning % before and after Kyrie can be explained as follows:

• Kyrie plus a lesser (because of lack of development) supporting cast equaled around a .685 winning %.
• No Kyrie but a better (because of seasoning and development) supporting cast equaled around the same winning %.

Now that Kyrie is being reintroduced... he's not being added to the same undeveloped team that existed at the beginning of last season... but rather to a team that's at least several stages further down the road, especially in light of the deep playoff run. Oh yeah, Hayward is boarding the train too.

You are essentially ignoring the 82 games and focusing on 3 playoff series while ignoring the fact that the Celtics could have been knocked out in the 1st round pretty easily.

No offense... but the playoffs are a big, big deal in the NBA. I'm fine standing on the claim that the playoffs matter a lot... especially because we're talking about a deep run.

I also feel no need to apologize for the Milwaukee series. Milwaukee is a good squad that has 2 great advantages in a playoff series: 1.) Giannis and 2.) extreme length... both make them a tough out.

 

[flyerhawk]

This is fair but it's probably also fair to say that Sixers fans and other fans are doing some handwaving to downplay the best coach in the league getting to add Hayward and Irving to his already formidable young playoff team. A team that now has playoff experience.

Maybe. I certainly think that the Celtics are one of the best teams in basketball. IMO, they are either the 2nd, 3rd or 4th best team in basketball. But it is certainly possible that other fans take a more dim view of them.

Everyone on the Celtics except for Tatum had playoff experience prior to this season.

Where I start to take exception is when people just assume that the Celtics will.

A. revolutionize basketball
B. take 2 new pieces and automatically be dramatically better.
C. they will more closely reflect their playoff success than their regular season success.

Maybe all those things are true. Maybe not.

 

[flyerhawk]

Your only 'analysis' is the bare fact that "the Celtics had nearly an identical winning percentage with Kyrie(.680) as they did without(.670). "

^ That is what is weak here. And I'll explain exactly why:

1.) It fails to take into account the front-loaded nature of Boston's schedule last season in terms of number of games... the London trip unbalanced the C's schedule wise and they had a large number of their back-to-backs and such while Kyrie was healthy. Here's a refresher story I was able to locate:

The first two and a half months of the season will be jam-packed for the C’s, as they are scheduled to play 40 of their 82 games before the start of 2018. Boston will play seven games (three home, four away) during the month of October, 16 games (eight home, eight away) during November, and a season-high 17 games (10 home, seven away) during December.

Almost certainly, this had an impact... an impact your simple analysis flat out neglects.

Number of games that the Thunder played prior to Jan 1st - 37
Warriors - 37
Wizards - 37

I randomly grabbed those teams. So those 3 extra games were apparently a huge impact for the Celtics?

2.) The C's were a very young team in 2017-2018. Guys like Tatum, Brown, Rozier and Ojeleye developed as the season went on... therefore, there is an argument to be made that the uniform winning % before and after Kyrie can be explained as follows:

• Kyrie plus a lesser (because of lack of development) supporting cast equaled around a .685 winning %.
• No Kyrie but a better (because of seasoning and development) supporting cast equaled around the same winning %.

Now that Kyrie is being reintroduced... he's not being added to the same undeveloped team that existed at the beginning of last season... but rather to a team that's at least several stages further down the road, especially in light of the deep playoff run. Oh yeah, Hayward is boarding the train too.

No offense... but the playoffs are a big, big deal in the NBA. I'm fine standing on the claim that the playoffs matter a lot... especially because we're talking about a deep run.

I also feel no need to apologize for the Milwaukee series. Milwaukee is a good squad that has 2 great advantages in a playoff series: 1.) Giannis and 2.) extreme length... both make them a tough out.

I'm not asking you to apologize for anything. You seems to be blind to ANYTHING that isn't a positive for the Celtics.

You are simply dismissing any empirical data that you don't like but coming up with rationalizations for why it doesn't matter.

I literally could do the same thing for the Sixers if I so chose to do. The Sixers had the best record in the 2nd half in basketball including winning the last 17 games of the season. They comfortably beat the Heat before their complete playoff inexperience got the better of them.

Now both Joel Embiid and Ben Simmons have playoff experience and their first healthy offseasons as pros. Dario Saric has another year and playoffs under his belt. Robert Covington has playoff experience. And the No. 1 overall pick in 2017 got training from the same guy that helped Joel Embiid and Jayson Tatum to be effective shooters.

Sounds super rosy and ignores several concerns the Sixers have. Just like you ignore ANY concerns the Celtics have, or should have.

 

[msgkings322]

Maybe. I certainly think that the Celtics are one of the best teams in basketball. IMO, they are either the 2nd, 3rd or 4th best team in basketball. But it is certainly possible that other fans take a more dim view of them.

Everyone on the Celtics except for Tatum had playoff experience prior to this season.

Where I start to take exception is when people just assume that the Celtics will.

A. revolutionize basketball
B. take 2 new pieces and automatically be dramatically better.
C. they will more closely reflect their playoff success than their regular season success.

Maybe all those things are true. Maybe not.

B and C feel reasonable. A not so much

If Hayward had joined the team this year, which is really what's happening, we would reasonably expect them to be better.