How Real Is The Boston Celtics’ 4-1 Record?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/hunterfelt/2019/11/03/how-real-is-the-boston-celtics-4-1-record/#5a1eb84537a9



How Real Is The Boston Celtics’ 4-1 Record?




Hunter Felt
Contributor





Marcus Smart of the Boston Celtics scores in the second half against the New York Knicks at TD ... [+]GETTY IMAGES




It’s a truth about basketball that a single shot can change the narrative of a team. Had Jayson Tatum missed the game-winner in Friday’s back-and-forth contest against the lowly New York Knicks, the Boston Celtics’ record would be a mere 3-2. Instead, Tatum’s step-back jumper not only sealed a 104-102 victory it extended their win streak to four games. With their only loss occurring in the season opener against the still unbeaten Philadelphia 76ers, the Celtics’ young season looks impressive in terms of the win-loss column. The question is: are the Celtics really as good as their 4-1 record suggests?

First, let’s admit that it’s a bit tricky to judge this team because we mostly haven’t seen the full Celtics starting lineup. Theoretical starting center Enes Kanter has been out with a knee injury, leaving them thin in the already unsettled big man position. Jaylen Brown, who just signed a contract extension potentially worth $115 million, was in extreme foul trouble for most of his team’s Game 1 loss and has missed the last two games due to illness. The Celtics had built-in excuses if they had faltered early on.

They haven’t, however. While two of the Celtics’ victories can be discounted by the fact that they were against the last place Knicks, the other two victories were against the Toronto Raptors, still a formidable team even without Kawhi Leonard, and the Milwaukee Bucks. The latter game was especially instructive. Another team—including perhaps last year’s Celtics team—would have folded after falling behind by 19 points against a Bucks team that embarrassed them in the playoffs a few months prior. The Celtics not only came back in the second half but won by a comfortable 116-105 margin, without two-fifths of their Opening Night starting rotation.

So, this means that the Celtics are doing great, right? Well, maybe. Boston has had a few impressive comebacks, but the thing about comeback wins is that they require you to fall behind first. This team is rightfully drawing positive comparisons between the short-handed 2017-18 team and the overachieving Isaiah Thomas-led squads before it, but it wasn’t a positive that those teams were constantly playing from behind. After the 19-point deficit in the game against the Bucks—and the fact that they entered the fourth quarter against the Raptors down by six points—it’s clear that they need to show more consistency. It wouldn’t hurt if they weren’t so Jekyll and Hyde at the free throw line, either.

Right now, these hiccups are understandable. This Celtics team is only five games old and is a long way from its final form. Even if injuries hadn’t pressed the likes of Robert Williams and Grant Williams into service earlier than expected, the center position would have been a question mark. One can’t imagine Boston can expect too much from their mostly inexperienced bench yet (heck, their top draft pick Romeo Langford, hasn’t even seen the court yet).

With that in mind, this feels like the best case scenario for the start of the season. Kemba Walker is looking exactly like the All-Star he was with the Charlotte Hornets. Walker has scored at least 30 points, six rebounds and four assists in the last three games, a streak that puts him in Paul Pierce territory. Beyond his clutch shot on Friday, Tatum has been averaging 22 points a game. Gordon Hayward genuinely looks like Gordon Hayward again, driving to the basket with an ease that we haven’t seen from him in a Celtics uniform. And again, this is all without Brown, who had 25 points and 9 rebounds in their big win over the Raptors.

So, the Celtics are about as good as a fan could have hoped for at this point, but they probably aren’t quite 4-1 good, yet. It’s reasonable to expect that they will take some rough losses as the season progresses, but it looks like they have the tools to establish themselves as one of the best teams in the Eastern Conference. There’s a reason for cautious optimism, but with an emphasis on the “cautious.”



bob
MY NOTE:  I posted another article by this author and thought his reasoning was flawed, and this is another.  He said "Had Jayson Tatum missed the game-winner in Friday’s back-and-forth contest against the lowly New York Knicks, the Boston Celtics’ record would be a mere 3-2.".  That is flat-out wrong.  If Tatum had missed that shot we would have gone into OT and might have won, on our home court.  The score was tied when Tatum took the shot, we weren't behind.  Therefore, his conclusion that we would be a "mere 3-2", and therefore unimpressive, is wrong too.  Did we fall behind and have to comeback?  Yes, but why does that make us no better, or even worse, than the team that had the big lead and then lost it to us?  One of those teams was Milwaukee, which is considered one of the top 2 teams in the EC.  Why isn't coming back from 19 down to the top team in the East not evidence of this team being special, rather than suspect, or that Milwaukee (who lost a big lead to Miami, in Milwaukee, and ended up losing that game) is unimpressive?

For some people comebacks are always half-empty, never half-full.



.