ESPN Rates Celtics Schedule as the Easiest in the League

Ranked #1 = hardest, #30 = easiest


30. Boston Celtics (3.34 extra wins)
The Celtics get plenty of the Knicks, Nets and Sixers. Seven of their 17 back-to-backs finish in Boston. They have 17 long-rest games and their 25 games with a rest advantage ranks third. It all adds up.



And it gets even better:


1. Brooklyn Nets (5.32 extra losses)
The Nets are early in their rebuild and the schedule does them no favors. They are tied for the fewest games with two or three days of rest (13) and while they play just 14 back-to-backs, only four of those have the back end at the Barclays Center.



bob
MY NOTE:  How does having another year together, with only the losses of Sully (not that big a deal) and Turner (that one could hurt) but with the addition of Horford (Big!) and Brown, and the easiest schedule in the league only translate into 3.38 additional wins?  

Brooklyn had 21 wins last year.  They are predicting 5.32 fewer?  With virtually NO additions of note but the loss of Thaddeus Young and Jarrett Jack?  They are so fragile, depth-wise, that any injuries at all could send them into a tail-spin.  Last year, the Sixers won 10 games and the Lakers won 17.  The Lakers will be better this year.  How much better, I don't know, but better.  The Sixers will be better as well.  Not only has Destructor been replaced with Colangelo but Embiid is supposedly back, they have Simmons and Saric is supposedly coming over.  Those are some serious upgrades in talent.  They might not make HUGE noise this year but I have to believe they could/should win 10 more games.   Phoenix had injuries last year that killed them, they should be past them this year and be back on track with a pretty athletic roster.  It is quite possible, QUITE possible, we will have the #1 pick in next year's draft.

51-52 wins, minimum, and the #1 pick.  Lookin' good, lookin' real good.  Trader Danny is looking more and more like a magician everyday.


.

When you play the exact same teams for the exact same number of games I am not sure that the schedule is easier. For every extra day of possible rest or "break" (of some sort) there will be some other factor to make most every game in the NBA tough to win.

The roster is much better with Horford, but the other big improvement will come from the individual improvements made by the returning players. I would suggest that Rozier may turn out to be the most improved, but Stevens and his staff have made great strides with just about every one of the players that they have had on the team that I see even more improvements coming from guys like Smart, Bradley, Crowder, Jerebko, Johnson, etc, etc and even some more improvement from Thomas (our one all star from last season). I will bet the ranch that the new rookies will be also vastly improved by about January even if they are not all part of the team's rotation.

Individual player improvement is the best of many excellent things that Stevens accomplishes every season since arriving in Boston.

But don't forget about those other youthful teams around the league - that can be expected to show improvement next year as a little more veteran experience starts to make its presence felt. Certainly a factor to be considered.


swish

What I want to know is how do we win .34ths of a game?

gyso wrote:Bob,

I think that having the easiest schedule, by itself, relates to 3.34 extra wins.  It doesn't consider the roster, additions or subtraction, just the schedule.

Losing Sully and Turner, while adding Horford and Brown is an entirely different calculation.

gyso

That's what I saw it as too. 

So prior to the schedule release I was thinking 54-57 wins from this club and now I could be inclined to say 57-60 just b/c their schedule is that easy.

Ram wrote:

gyso wrote:Bob,

I think that having the easiest schedule, by itself, relates to 3.34 extra wins.  It doesn't consider the roster, additions or subtraction, just the schedule.

Losing Sully and Turner, while adding Horford and Brown is an entirely different calculation.

gyso

That's what I saw it as too. 

So prior to the schedule release I was thinking 54-57 wins from this club and now I could be inclined to say 57-60 just b/c their schedule is that easy.

We won a few games with somewhat lucky breaks and shots, yeah we had a plan and a play but even then some of those last second heroics could easily been losses. Thus our win total last year was a little bit fortunate. That said getting to the 50-52 area would be  my expectation and anything above that absolutly great.

beat

beat wrote:

Ram wrote:
That's what I saw it as too. 

So prior to the schedule release I was thinking 54-57 wins from this club and now I could be inclined to say 57-60 just b/c their schedule is that easy.

We won a few games with somewhat lucky breaks and shots, yeah we had a plan and a play but even then some of those last second heroics could easily been losses. Thus our win total last year was a little bit fortunate. That said getting to the 50-52 area would be  my expectation and anything above that absolutly great.

beat

The C's lost just as many or more games by like 6-10 points that they held huge 3rd quarter leads in or ran out of gas in at the end as they won games with last minute stuff. I think they lost to the Nets twice. Lakers once. Ugh. 

Last year's squad was a 45-50 win 4-6 seed club on talent alone. I don't think they were fortunate to win 48 games at all. I doubt they set win total goals, but if they did, I'd guess 50 wins and the 3 seed was their goal and 45 wins and the 6 seed the worst case scenario. They did not overachieve despite only one all-star and mostly role-players. The East is weak after Cleveland. It was the mis-mashed 2014-15 club with all the vets traded and roster turnover that really overachieved in getting close to .500 and the 7th seed. 

The natural progression for this club is to nail down the #2 seed with 55-60 wins and with what is apparently the easiest schedule in the league that appears even more doable. But it is of course still just August and health will be VERY important.

Ram wrote:

beat wrote:

Ram wrote:
That's what I saw it as too. 

So prior to the schedule release I was thinking 54-57 wins from this club and now I could be inclined to say 57-60 just b/c their schedule is that easy.

We won a few games with somewhat lucky breaks and shots, yeah we had a plan and a play but even then some of those last second heroics could easily been losses. Thus our win total last year was a little bit fortunate. That said getting to the 50-52 area would be  my expectation and anything above that absolutly great.

beat

The C's lost just as many or more games by like 6-10 points that they held huge 3rd quarter leads in or ran out of gas in at the end as they won games with last minute stuff. I think they lost to the Nets twice. Lakers once. Ugh. 

Last year's squad was a 45-50 win 4-6 seed club on talent alone. I don't think they were fortunate to win 48 games at all. I doubt they set win total goals, but if they did, I'd guess 50 wins and the 3 seed was their goal and 45 wins and the 6 seed the worst case scenario. They did not overachieve despite only one all-star and mostly role-players. The East is weak after Cleveland. It was the mis-mashed 2014-15 club with all the vets traded and roster turnover that really overachieved in getting close to .500 and the 7th seed. 

The natural progression for this club is to nail down the #2 seed with 55-60 wins and with what is apparently the easiest schedule in the league that appears even more doable. But it is of course still just August and health will be VERY important.

Ram I'm talking about the last second shot games ONLY, I believe there were at least 3 of them where we buried a last second shot to win (Turner Crowder and Thomas all had 1 that I remember....I"M not talking about 4th quarter collapses.  Where did I say anything about 6-10 point losses? I didn't.  

I do NOT recall another team beating us at the buzzer with a winner. Not saying it didn't happen but I don't recall it.

I believe we were fortunate to win those 3 I mentioned. Be it luck or whatever...we complain about our shooting well THOSE shots went in.

Bad losses happen to everyone.

Big leads are lost by everyone now and then we are no different.

beat

How could I have forgot Bradley's buzzer beater against the Cavs? That would be 4

beat wrote:
Ram I'm talking about the last second shot games ONLY, I believe there were at least 3 of them where we buried a last second shot to win (Turner Crowder and Thomas all had 1 that I remember....I"M not talking about 4th quarter collapses.  Where did I say anything about 6-10 point losses? I didn't.  

I do NOT recall another team beating us at the buzzer with a winner. Not saying it didn't happen but I don't recall it.

I believe we were fortunate to win those 3 I mentioned. Be it luck or whatever...we complain about our shooting well THOSE shots went in.

Bad losses happen to everyone.

Big leads are lost by everyone now and then we are no different.

beat

How could I have forgot Bradley's buzzer beater against the Cavs?  That would be 4

And I'm saying that I disagree with you saying we were really a 45 win 7th seed team based on the talent we had and overachieved at 48 wins and the 5 seed b/c we were lucky to win 3-4 games with buzzer-beaters.

You could say the C's were unfortunate to lose 10-12 games they held big leads in or had great 4th quarter opportunities in and that the injury bug or having a guy like Sully slowly fall out of favor due to conditioning or Danny not making a deadline deal were all reasons this team was not the 50-51 win team and 3 seed it could have been. 

The point is, I went into 2015-16 thinking this was a 45-50 win 3-6 seed team. I disagree with anyone who says we were lucky to finish in that tier. 

I now go into 2016-17 thinking this is a 53-57 win team that should lock down the #2 seed. If healthy, anything less than the 3rd seed and 53+ wins will be a disappointment to me. Just like 44 wins and the 7 seed would have been last year. The fact that the C's have the easiest schedule in the league makes me think I can up those 53-57 win expectations to 57-60, but I won't go that far yet. 56 wins and the 2 seed is my August 15th prediction.

Ram wrote:

beat wrote:
Ram I'm talking about the last second shot games ONLY, I believe there were at least 3 of them where we buried a last second shot to win (Turner Crowder and Thomas all had 1 that I remember....I"M not talking about 4th quarter collapses.  Where did I say anything about 6-10 point losses? I didn't.  

I do NOT recall another team beating us at the buzzer with a winner. Not saying it didn't happen but I don't recall it.

I believe we were fortunate to win those 3 I mentioned. Be it luck or whatever...we complain about our shooting well THOSE shots went in.

Bad losses happen to everyone.

Big leads are lost by everyone now and then we are no different.

beat

How could I have forgot Bradley's buzzer beater against the Cavs?  That would be 4

And I'm saying that I disagree with you saying we were really a 45 win 7th seed team based on the talent we had and overachieved at 48 wins and the 5 seed b/c we were lucky to win 3-4 games with buzzer-beaters.

You could say the C's were unfortunate to lose 10-12 games they held big leads in or had great 4th quarter opportunities in and that the injury bug or having a guy like Sully slowly fall out of favor due to conditioning or Danny not making a deadline deal were all reasons this team was not the 50-51 win team and 3 seed it could have been. 

The point is, I went into 2015-16 thinking this was a 45-50 win 3-6 seed team. I disagree with anyone who says we were lucky to finish in that tier. 

I now go into 2016-17 thinking this is a 53-57 win team that should lock down the #2 seed. If healthy, anything less than the 3rd seed and 53+ wins will be a disappointment to me. Just like 44 wins and the 7 seed would have been last year. The fact that the C's have the easiest schedule in the league makes me think I can up those 53-57 win expectations to 57-60, but I won't go that far yet. 56 wins and the 2 seed is my August 15th prediction.

Geesh I'm ONLY talking about 3-4 games !! Your the one throwing extra stuff out there

That's it nothing more

We were DAM lucky to win those 3-4 games.


Seems YOU are changing the parameters of my thought and MY opinion.

That's it nothing more.

beat

beat wrote:What I want to know is how do we win .34ths of a game?

by losing .66th of a game

beat wrote:

Ram wrote:

beat wrote:
Ram I'm talking about the last second shot games ONLY, I believe there were at least 3 of them where we buried a last second shot to win (Turner Crowder and Thomas all had 1 that I remember....I"M not talking about 4th quarter collapses.  Where did I say anything about 6-10 point losses? I didn't.  

I do NOT recall another team beating us at the buzzer with a winner. Not saying it didn't happen but I don't recall it.

I believe we were fortunate to win those 3 I mentioned. Be it luck or whatever...we complain about our shooting well THOSE shots went in.

Bad losses happen to everyone.

Big leads are lost by everyone now and then we are no different.

beat

How could I have forgot Bradley's buzzer beater against the Cavs?  That would be 4

And I'm saying that I disagree with you saying we were really a 45 win 7th seed team based on the talent we had and overachieved at 48 wins and the 5 seed b/c we were lucky to win 3-4 games with buzzer-beaters.

You could say the C's were unfortunate to lose 10-12 games they held big leads in or had great 4th quarter opportunities in and that the injury bug or having a guy like Sully slowly fall out of favor due to conditioning or Danny not making a deadline deal were all reasons this team was not the 50-51 win team and 3 seed it could have been. 

The point is, I went into 2015-16 thinking this was a 45-50 win 3-6 seed team. I disagree with anyone who says we were lucky to finish in that tier. 

I now go into 2016-17 thinking this is a 53-57 win team that should lock down the #2 seed. If healthy, anything less than the 3rd seed and 53+ wins will be a disappointment to me. Just like 44 wins and the 7 seed would have been last year. The fact that the C's have the easiest schedule in the league makes me think I can up those 53-57 win expectations to 57-60, but I won't go that far yet. 56 wins and the 2 seed is my August 15th prediction.

Geesh I'm ONLY talking about 3-4 games !! Your the one throwing extra stuff out there

That's it nothing more

We were DAM lucky to win those 3-4 games.


Seems YOU are changing the parameters of my thought and MY opinion.

That's it nothing more.

beat

Geez is right. I'm just saying for every game the team should have lost (5-6-7?) there is at least another two (10-12-14?) I think we should have won. I don't think last years team should be viewed as a 45 win team or so that was lucky to win 48 and wasn't one of the best 5 in the east. You can just as easily say they are unlucky to not have won 51-53.

Waiting for ESPN to do some actual reporting.

It's not the Celtics' fault that this division, outside of Boston and Toronto, is rather weak. In either case, they'll play the best teams in the west at least twice and many of the better teams in the east 3 or 4 times.

I highly doubt SOS means anything over the course of 82 games.


KJ