Realistic prediction for the east to have a championship team.

[flyerhawk]

B and C feel reasonable. A not so much

Oh definitely. But I would argue that A is often used to justify why B will occur. There are no concerns about adding another wing who expects a lot of minutes because Stephens has done away with positions so the Celtics will be able to play a team of Horford, Brown, Hayward, Tatum, and Kyrie and teams won't be able to do anything about it because they are all so versatile.

 

[Gman]

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?

I just looked up the Raptors because I remember they and the C's were jockeying for top spot in the East... they totaled 34 games in that time period.

^ Yes, these differences certainly matter. It's often the difference between having a day off or enduring a back-to-back.

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.

You're welcome to your opinion, of course... but I flat out disagree with your take here... furthermore, I don't think you've properly backed it.

You say I'm rationalizing, but haven't really shown it.

In the face of your bald assertions here, I'll simply choose to stand on my arguments.

 

[msgkings322]

Oh definitely. But I would argue that A is often used to justify why B will occur. There are no concerns about adding another wing who expects a lot of minutes because Stephens has done away with positions so the Celtics will be able to play a team of Horford, Brown, Hayward, Tatum, and Kyrie and teams won't be able to do anything about it because they are all so versatile.

Sure, I'm not one of those. But I wouldn't put too much stock in minutes. These guys get paid plenty, that matters more than minutes. A great coach and winning make that irrelevant. And yes having many interchangeable pieces is kind of the current state of the art, that's the point of the Warriors death lineup.

 

[flyerhawk]

I just looked up the Raptors because I remember they and the C's were jockeying for top spot in the East... they totaled 34 games in that time period.

^ Yes, these differences certainly matter. It's often the difference between having a day off or enduring a back-to-back.

So you found a team that played fewer games. Great. Celtics record in the last 15 games that Kyrie played. 7-8. Record in the last 14 games without Kyrie, 9-5.

You're welcome to your opinion, of course... but I flat out disagree with your take here... furthermore, I don't think you've properly backed it.

You say I'm rationalizing, but haven't really shown it.

In the face of your bald assertions here, I'll simply choose to stand on my arguments.

I haven't backed up my opinion? All empirical evidence from last season suggests that the Celtics were about the same with or without Kyrie. You have, so far, provided no empirical evidence.

Does that mean that they won't be better with him next year? No. They could certainly be better with him next year. But basketball isn't NBA2K. You can't just take a sum total of the parts and assume that they will win.

So. Over/Under, G. What you got?

 

[flyerhawk]

Sure, I'm not one of those. But I wouldn't put too much stock in minutes. These guys get paid plenty, that matters more than minutes. A great coach and winning make that irrelevant. And yes having many interchangeable pieces is kind of the current state of the art, that's the point of the Warriors death lineup.

The Warriors death lineup works because they have 3 of the greatest shooters in the history of basketball.

Versatility is great, but arguing that all you need is wings is taking the newish concept of there being only 3 positions and dialing it up to 11 by saying all you need is wings.

 

[Gman]

So you found a team that played fewer games. Great. Celtics record in the last 15 games that Kyrie played. 7-8. Record in the last 14 games without Kyrie, 9-5.

...

I haven't backed up my opinion? All empirical evidence from last season suggests that the Celtics were about the same with or without Kyrie. You have, so far, provided no empirical evidence.

Does that mean that they won't be better with him next year? No. They could certainly be better with him next year. But basketball isn't NBA2K. You can't just take a sum total of the parts and assume that they will win.

IMO, you're just doubling down here on the same (bad) line of argument that I've already spoken against. I'm gonna choose to stand on my previous posts on these points... agree to disagree after that.

So. Over/Under, G. What you got?

I saw your earlier question here... I'm still mulling it over.

I generally dislike blanket, far ranging predictions of this sort... even with caveats such as "assume no injuries or other huge impacting events"

One huge factor is the Hayward injury and his return... doctors say he should be good, 100%... but that was a gnarly injury, and we haven't seen him on the floor yet... I expect him to still be a very good player, but it seems kind of unfair to just assume it...

I'll get back to you after a little thought.

 

[flyerhawk]

IMO, your just doubling down here on the same (bad) line of argument that I've already spoken against. I'm gonna choose to stand on my previous posts on these points... agree to disagree after that.

So Kyrie's performance last year should just be discarded as meaningless? Honestly you argued that the 1st half was much harder so I got rid of 1st half games and focused only on the last 1/3rd of the season and that doesn't count either for some reason.

I saw your earlier question here... I'm still mulling it over.

I generally dislike blanket, far ranging predictions of this sort... even with caveats such as "assume no injuries or other huge impacting events"

One huge factor is the Hayward injury and his return... doctors say he should be good, 100%... but that was a huge injury, and we haven't seen him on the floor yet... I expect him to still be a very good player, but it seems kind of unfair to just assume it...

I'll get back to you after a little thought.

Ok. I have them at about 60 wins which is 5 wins more than last year.

 

[tlance]

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.

A few things here:

1) I am betting next year's Celtics won't be as good as last year's Rockets
2) that series would have been 5 if the Warriors stayed healthy
3) the Warriors will be substantially better in 2019 with Cousins.

All assumptions on my part, but I don't think I am taking any huge leaps here. Celtics have a MUCH higher chance of losing in the East playoffs than they do of beating GS. And that isn't even close.

 

[Gman]

... There are no concerns about adding another wing who expects a lot of minutes because Stephens has done away with positions so the Celtics will be able to play a team of Horford, Brown, Hayward, Tatum, and Kyrie and teams won't be able to do anything about it because they are all so versatile.

The Warriors death lineup works because they have 3 of the greatest shooters in the history of basketball.

Versatility is great, but arguing that all you need is wings is taking the newish concept of there being only 3 positions and dialing it up to 11 by saying all you need is wings.

If you have a roster capable of pulling it off... the main benefit of 'positionless basketball' is the ability to switch defenders effectively in the half court defense... that ability is of immense value in today's NBA.

You make it sound like we're talking hocus pocus here.

The C's had the top defense in basketball last season... they are proven effective on this front. If opponents can exploit a weakness of this "fad"... they really haven't yet.

 

[Gman]

So Kyrie's performance last year should just be discarded as meaningless? Honestly you argued that the 1st half was much harder so I got rid of 1st half games and focused only on the last 1/3rd of the season and that doesn't count either for some reason.

Again: . I wholly, roundly reject the way you're doing business here... just carving up a previous season based on W's and L's in different time frames without even stopping for a moment (by all appearances) to consider any factors you might be leaving out.

For instance: for your new "C's with Kyrie" timeframe, you picked a window that coincides with a mounting amount of nagging injuries that Kyrie was being affected by before he was finally shut down. (Remember: Kyrie's injury wasn't a one time, big event. It was pain and soreness that was lingering)

For refresher purposes.

https://www.foxsports.com/nba/kyrie-irving-player-injuries

Furthermore, I stand by my earlier argument that the C's young players (which they had a load of) got better as the season went on... so this helped even out the before and after of trying to boil the enter equation down to Kyrie.

 

[RobToxin]

There is a better chance of civilized discussion in the PF than there is having an EC team win the 2019 NBA Championship.

 

[Gman]

A few things here:

1) I am betting next year's Celtics won't be as good as last year's Rockets
2) that series would have been 5 if the Warriors stayed healthy
3) the Warriors will be substantially better in 2019 with Cousins.

All assumptions on my part, but I don't think I am taking any huge leaps here. Celtics have a MUCH higher chance of losing in the East playoffs than they do of beating GS. And that isn't even close.

Before I dive in, I want to say you make fair points overall and have a fair take.

1.) Last year's Rocket team was indeed very good. Especially in theory, but also in practice. I will say this, though: I hate their (over)reliance on ISO ball. It works for them and they have the players to execute it, but it will always limit them against the very best, IMO.

2.) Yes, injury played a role. But GS still had... what?... at least the top 4 guys on their roster healthy. So I'd be careful to overstate the injury card... I do really like Iggy in the modern game, though, so you have a point to some extent.

3.) Cousins is a wild card. In theory, it's wonderful... but we're talking a significant injury and we're talking Boogie. If he buys in and humbly plays a role and is healthy... no doubt, he's a fantastic addition. We really got to see how things play out with him, though... his history is full of hard-headed fool.

 

[LogicMan]

If we were only talking a team of wings/positionless players I could see the argument. If we were talking a team of only ISO capability I could see the argument. If you stated that the team wont accept 80% of their normal minutes (injuries assumed to never happen) I "might" see the argument. If you suggested regular season strategy and minutes would be the same as what happens in the playofs I would see the argument. Do not confuse reg season value vs playoff Crunch time seperates the men from the boys. But lets review:

Playing positionless: Tatum, Hayward, Horford, Brown, Kyrie and Morris

Need to play small? Rozier in, Smart in, Semi O, Maybe Bird

Need to Play Big-Bruise a Center? Baynes in, Big Bob

Need to shut down a scorer? Morris, Brown, Semi, Smart

Need to go ISO to close it out? Kyrie, Tatum, Rozier.....maybe Brown

Here is you NBA finals EC team:

Starters: Kyrie, Tatum, Horford, Brown, Hayward

2nd Unit: Rozier, Morris, Baynes, Smart, Semi

Specialists: Semi, Big Bob, Theis

Unknowns: Bird, Yabusule, Wannamaker

The playoffs are about being healthy, being united, and having smart players who know their roles and are used based on how Brad see's match ups.

As most of these players are young and developing more, tatum and Brown to be better, perhaps Rozier and Semi, and having Kyrie and Hayward added, Danny has built a squad to play any type of game that is needed. tatum is going to an even another level.

Why did they play well without Kyrie out.............its not rocket science, it was Jaylen Brown, Terry Rozier and their amazing go to 4th qtr ISO standout player and top 2 rookie, the age of jayson tatum.

Its going to be eye opening for you all

 

[flyerhawk]

If you have a roster capable of pulling it off... the main benefit of 'positionless basketball' is the ability to switch defenders effectively in the half court defense... that ability is of immense value in today's NBA.

Now we just need a team that can do it. Never has been one before.

You make it sound like we're talking hocus pocus here.

Revolutionizing the game based on style is more or less hocus pocus.

The C's had the top defense in basketball last season... they are proven effective on this front. If opponents can exploit a weakness of this "fad"... they really haven't yet.

The Celtics don't play positionless basketball.

 

[flyerhawk]

Again: . I wholly, roundly reject the way you're doing business here... just carving up a previous season based on W's and L's in different time frames without even stopping for a moment (by all appearances) to consider any factors you might be leaving out.

I started off by measuring the net season difference between the Celtics with Kyrie and without. You said that wasn't accurate and we needed to get more granular about it. I point to 1/3rd of the season and you say I'm just carving up the season.

I'm more than willing to consider other factors. And I'm certainly not saying that the evidence is overwhelming. The sample size is too small. But the evidence says what the evidence says.

For instance: for your new "C's with Kyrie" timeframe, you picked a window that coincides with a mounting amount of nagging injuries that Kyrie was being affected by before he was finally shut down. (Remember: Kyrie's injury wasn't a one time, big event. It was pain and soreness that was lingering)

For refresher purposes.

https://www.foxsports.com/nba/kyrie-irving-player-injuries

Furthermore, I stand by my earlier argument that the C's young players (which they had a load of) got better as the season went on... so this helped even out the before and after of trying to boil the enter equation down to Kyrie.

So there is nothing we can learn about Kyrie and the Celtics from last year. We'll just discard that data and assume it will be all awesome. OK, I guess.

 

[flyerhawk]

If we were only talking a team of wings/positionless players I could see the argument. If we were talking a team of only ISO capability I could see the argument. If you stated that the team wont accept 80% of their normal minutes (injuries assumed to never happen) I "might" see the argument. If you suggested regular season strategy and minutes would be the same as what happens in the playofs I would see the argument. Do not confuse reg season value vs playoff Crunch time seperates the men from the boys. But lets review:

Playing positionless: Tatum, Hayward, Horford, Brown, Kyrie and Morris

Need to play small? Rozier in, Smart in, Semi O, Maybe Bird

Need to Play Big-Bruise a Center? Baynes in, Big Bob

Need to shut down a scorer? Morris, Brown, Semi, Smart

Need to go ISO to close it out? Kyrie, Tatum, Rozier.....maybe Brown

Here is you NBA finals EC team:

Starters: Kyrie, Tatum, Horford, Brown, Hayward

2nd Unit: Rozier, Morris, Baynes, Smart, Semi

Specialists: Semi, Big Bob, Theis

Unknowns: Bird, Yabusule, Wannamaker

The playoffs are about being healthy, being united, and having smart players who know their roles and are used based on how Brad see's match ups.

As most of these players are young and developing more, tatum and Brown to be better, perhaps Rozier and Semi, and having Kyrie and Hayward added, Danny has built a squad to play any type of game that is needed. tatum is going to an even another level.

Why did they play well without Kyrie out.............its not rocket science, it was Jaylen Brown, Terry Rozier and their amazing go to 4th qtr ISO standout player and top 2 rookie, the age of jayson tatum.

Its going to be eye opening for you all

So how many wins will the Celtics have next year?

 

[LogicMan]

So how many wins will the Celtics have next year?

barring major injuries they will have enough to get the number one or two seed. what we Celtics fans need is a healthy roster.

Its just that simple FlyerHawk. If we dont make it to the finals the year is a failure

 

[Gman]

Now we just need a team that can do it. Never has been one before.



Revolutionizing the game based on style is more or less hocus pocus.



The Celtics don't play positionless basketball.

Oh, whatever.

They're incorporating the principles of 'postionless basketball'... they do it better than every team in the NBA with the exception of GS... the fact that they had the best defense in basketball says far more than waxing philosophical about whether they are 100% positionless or not.

 

[LogicMan]

They're incorporating the principles of 'postionless basketball'... they do it better than every team in the NBA with the exception of GS

its not just positionless GMan. Its about having the right squad of players to manage any style, and, having great ISO players when needed. Tatum may be 20 but he will be feared in the 4th quarter, kid rises when others crumble

 

[Gman]

I started off by measuring the net season difference between the Celtics with Kyrie and without. You said that wasn't accurate and we needed to get more granular about it. I point to 1/3rd of the season and you say I'm just carving up the season.

I'm more than willing to consider other factors. And I'm certainly not saying that the evidence is overwhelming. The sample size is too small. But the evidence says what the evidence says.



So there is nothing we can learn about Kyrie and the Celtics from last year. We'll just discard that data and assume it will be all awesome. OK, I guess.

I totally disagree with your characterization here... annd we're beating a dead horse. For like the 3rd time, I'm gonna rest on what I've already said and say I'm fine with agreeing to disagree.