Celtics last 12 games of the season

9 games at home, only 3 on the road, only one back to back (a home vs. Cleve then @ Atlanta you're cool going 1-1 on). 

And these are the teams we face:

Washington
Indiana
Phoenix
Miami
Milwaukee 2x
Orlando
New York
Cleveland
Charlotte
Brooklyn
Atlanta

The Knicks, Hornets and Hawks are the only road games. Cleveland the only team likely to win 50+ games.  

Put the Celtics within 1-2 games of the 3rd seed and 3-4 of the 2nd seed before that stretch, and they should easily be going 9-3 or 10-2, wrap up the 3rd seed and maybe even have a shot at the 2nd. Just be within reach and healthy, playing great ball by the first day of spring and we'll be fine.

you make a good argument for Danny keeping the team he has together this year , to see what he has.

Ram wrote:9 games at home, only 3 on the road, only one back to back (a home vs. Cleve then @ Atlanta you're cool going 1-1 on). 

And these are the teams we face:

Washington
Indiana
Phoenix
Miami
Milwaukee 2x
Orlando
New York
Cleveland
Charlotte - I'll be at that game!!
Brooklyn
Atlanta

The Knicks, Hornets and Hawks are the only road games. Cleveland the only team likely to win 50+ games.  

Put the Celtics within 1-2 games of the 3rd seed and 3-4 of the 2nd seed before that stretch, and they should easily be going 9-3 or 10-2, wrap up the 3rd seed and maybe even have a shot at the 2nd. Just be within reach and healthy, playing great ball by the first day of spring and we'll be fine.

Ram

Our current record is barely north of .500 (14-12), but our December schedule has not been (will not be) kind.  We play at home every Friday night (oddly enough, there are 5 of them) and once on a Tuesday (27th).  The rest of the games are away, ten of them.  That totals 6 home games and 10 away games.  We had three back-to-backs in December; one of them home-away (done) and the other two are away-home (coming up).  

If we can finish up the last 8 December games 5-3, we will be lucky, IMO.  There is some tough sledding there; MIA, MEM, IND-OKC, NYK, MEM, CLE-MIA.  The ones with dashes (-) are away-home backs-to-backs.  Bold = home games

It is totally possible that we could finish up the year at .500, or perhaps only a game or two above. We are currently the 3rd seed, but we are in a group of 10 teams that are within 3 games of us. We could easily slip back to the back of the pack and be looking at the playoff seeds from outside at year's end.

gyso

Is being mired in mediocrity once again, something to get excited about. Danny has the chips to move this team up with the elite - if not by next year - certainly by the following. I for one am not content with being an also ran.

swish

Good post. Even if the Celtics continue to hover around 500, if they simply play as expected over those last ten games, they could still be a 50 win team. Makes me feel a little better about their current mediocrity.

Regarding Danny's chips, so far they haven't been enough to land a superstar. As the "treasure trove" of picks turns into actual players picked, do Danny's assets increase or decrease in value?

gyso wrote:
Ram

Our current record is barely north of .500 (14-12), but our December schedule has not been (will not be) kind.  We play at home every Friday night (oddly enough, there are 5 of them) and once on a Tuesday (27th).  The rest of the games are away, ten of them.  That totals 6 home games and 10 away games.  We had three back-to-backs in December; one of them home-away (done) and the other two are away-home (coming up).  

If we can finish up the last 8 December games 5-3, we will be lucky, IMO.  There is some tough sledding there; MIA, MEM, IND-OKC, NYK, MEM, CLE-MIA.  The ones with dashes (-) are away-home backs-to-backs.  Bold = home games

It is totally possible that we could finish up the year at .500, or perhaps only a game or two above.   We are currently the 3rd seed, but we are in a group of 10 teams that are within 3 games of us.  We could easily slip back to the back of the pack and be looking at the playoff seeds from outside at year's end.

gyso

Wow, lots of negative nancies on this thread. 

The C's may be only 14-12, but they are 8-3 in the games their preferred starting 5 is active. One of those 3 losses came early in the season to the Bulls in a close game that both Olynyk and Smart were out of. The only two losses when at full-strength have been by 1 on the missed Horford layup/3 that was ruled a 2 game in Houston and a 7 point fail at home vs. Detroit. 

Yes they may only go 5-3 during a tough stretch the rest of Dec (19-15 overall) but then things get MUCH easier for them the last 48 games of the season. As long as they are healthy I wouldn't be surprised to see them finish something like 34-14.

dboss wrote:It is not really possible to look that far ahead and make assumptions about wins and losses.  On paper that may look favorable.  Teams get hot and teams teams get cold and key players are subject to a twist of the ankle

There is one word that describes the Celtics this year  AVERAGE

We are an average team.  Before the season we spent a lot of time analyzing the team but that analysis was as flawed as our team because other teams made changes as well

This teams needs an extensive run of games where health is not a factor.

Average is not the one word I'd used to describe the Celtics. I'd use words like: Injured, potential, underachieved, incomplete. They currently are an above average team, as they have a better record than 20 other teams.

I absolutely think you can look ahead to March dboss when you are 30+ games into the season. Teams generally are who they are by now. Some obviously will get better if they stay healthy and/or make a trade that improves them (Boston). Others will get worse depending on if they suffer major injuries, trade a star or decide to tank. But there is a lot of statistical evidence showing you can generally predict playoff likelihood and come close on final records by Dec and 25-30 games into the season. 

I deleted from your post the stuff I found inconsequential and just wanted to touch on the fact that this team is clearly better than 'average' since they are 6-2 when fully healthy and that yes, you are correct in saying they need an extensive run where they are healthy b/c they play like a 50-55 win team when they are. 

The Celtics slow start has only managed to drop their over/under wins prediction from Vegas down to 50.5 (from 52.5 end of October).

Being the best of the worst does not in any way elevate the Celts to the potential championship level - they stlll must add a super-super star to the roster.

swish

kdp59 wrote:you  make a good argument for Danny keeping the team he has together this year , to see what he has.

This does not mean I'd like to stand pat and not add a player via trade to help us improve. 

But it would need to be a RFA like Noel, who'd have a low cap hold this summer, or a UFA like Bogut who would come off the books. I wouldn't want to see them add someone like Jon Henson, Tyson Chandler or Marcin Gortat, as helpful as they would be to our post defense and rebounding woe's, b/c of future salary #'s. 

This is the season of Golden State and Cleveland. No need to make huge moves that will drastically alter the direction of this franchise unless it is on a can't miss star and apparently the polarizing Cousins is the only star that might be on the move. Not guys we're REALLY love like Butler, George, Westbrook and Harden, unfortunately. 

If Ainge fails to add that star this summer, and is forced to cross his fingers that Smart (looking unlikely), Brown ( some optimism) and a top 7 pick in a loaded 2017 draft (very optimistic) become all-stars down the road, then he can worry about trying to add a lesser free agent like Ibaka, Noel, Gay, Redick, Gibson or Gallinari and trading for a cost effective vet in the age range of their IT-Bradley-Crowder-Horford core like Henson. 

There is also a slight chance that rebuilding teams like Miami and Dallas part with their big name signings from the summer of 2016 in Whiteside and Barnes. If the Nets 2018 pick + Brown (to the Mavs) or that pick + Zizic, Yabusele and Rozier (to the Heat) could get you either of those players I would be very intrigued.

swish wrote:Being the best of the worst does not in any way elevate the Celts to the potential championship level - they stlll must add a super-super star to the roster.

swish

Not sure your point as it pertains to discussing the Celtics 2016-17 season and the optimism/negativity surrounding this definitely above average team?  So there are two championship level teams, four 'very good teams' with no real shot at unseating the two superpowers and then the Celtics are simply the best of 24 bad teams?

We all know they need to add a superstar (or if not, TWO more all-stars) in order to take down Cleveland. And even if they do, the task of taking down GState will be even harder since they'll have four all-stars in their primes for several years. Much scarier than weak on D Love and Irving and 33-34 year old LBJ with 50,000+ career mins played. 

I mean, the point of this thread is that this Celtic team should still be able to make some noise in the playoffs if they stay healthy, due to an easy end of the year schedule. I know you're on the record as inexplicably saying you'd rather see them lose on purpose, miss the playoffs and develop Brown over playing Brown 'just' 14-18 mins a game and getting the #2 or 3 seed (even though with the Nets pick swap there is ZERO benefit to these young kids missing out on the playoff experience and it would be a HUGE let-down to the veterans and coach working their butts off). 

But, I personally am still excited to see a 50 win team that is 1-2 players away from legit title contention giving it their all in fun round 2/ECF playoff battles this spring.

It appears Ainge should be able to land that star in the 2017 draft, if the team is patient enough and does their homework. 

The top 7-9 picks in this draft are supposedly going to be as good as picking in the top 2-4 in the last few drafts. So even if the Nets pick falls into the 4-7 range, there are really good prospects who will be there like the currently still out with injury Harry Giles (who has similar risk/upside to Embiid and skills like Webber/Bosh), the skinny Johnathan Isaac (similar talent to Ingram), several point guards (Smith, Fox, Ntilikina) who currently have more upside than guys like Exum, Dunn and Smart did and a combo forward with a mid-range game who should be better than Aaron Gordon and similar to Jabari Parker in Jayson Tatum. 

This is assuming PG's Ball and Fultz, who are the most talented guys at that position since Irving and Wall, go in the top 3 along with Josh Jackson, who is similar to Andrew Wiggins but potentially better when it comes to defense and metrics type stuff (and definitely higher rated than Brown was).

So land a star in the draft, see what you can do with your cap space and if it isn't what you hoped for (Griffin or Hayward) then investigate trades later in the summer. With extensions looming for Olynyk, Bradley, Thomas and Smart all by the summer of 2018 the C's likely will have to max out their cap space this summer and hope that it all works out with Brown and the 2017 top 7 pick becoming all-stars and adding 1-2 more veterans who were once starters nut now might be reserves here, improving upon roles once taken up by guys like Turner, Amir and Jerebko the same way Horford is an upgrade to Sully.  

Unfortunately by the time LeBron is really on the decline and 1-2 of our 2016-18 lotto picks actually start playing like all-stars Horford will be 32-33 and Thomas entering his 30's where a guy his size is almost guaranteed to decline quickly. Ah well. We shall see what Ainge can do here. It will be VERY interesting. There is still a treasure trove of assets and cap space to use.

Ram

I consider myself a realest. When handicapping an upcoming season I use just a few simple stats.

#1 The team won at least 50 games the previous season (.610 ball)
# 2 The team must have at least 1 player -
Who was an all league player in 66% of his last 3 seasons - or
Who was an all star in 80% of his last 5 seasons
That's my requirement to be classified as a super-super player - and this league is very much driven by these elite players.

Consider the below

Since the 1980-81 season the championship was won in 35 of those 36 years by a team that met my above requirements. The only exception was the 2014-15 Warriors.

The Celts aren't there yet -

swish

swish wrote:Ram

I consider myself a realest. When handicapping an upcoming season I use just a few simple stats.

#1 The team won at least 50 games the previous season (.610 ball)
# 2 The team must have at least 1 player -
        Who was an all league player in 66% of his last 3 seasons - or
        Who was an all star in 80% of his last 5 seasons
      That's my requirement to be classified as a super-super player -  and this league is very much driven by these elite players.

   Consider the below

 Since the 1980-81 season the championship was won in 35 of those 36 years by a team that met my above requirements. The only exception was the 2014-15 Warriors.

   The Celts aren't there yet -
     
         swish

This takes nothing away from my being optimistic about the end of the season schedule and thinking it would be great if the team win 50 games, get the 2-3 seed and go down fighting in a fun playoff run. I do wish that. So do most fans and the players on the team (if they don't in fact hold loftier goals). If you don't think that is exciting, than so be it. The foundation is being built. 

Next season they will be coming off a 50 win season the year before. Horford will hopefully have collected his second All-NBA 3rd team selection, although both not in the last 3 seasons and will have been an all-star 3 straight years. IT will have been an all-star in 2 straight. 

The 2004 Pistons don't really qualify for your handicap. 

None of their five renowned 'all-star not superstar' starters made 80% of the all-star games the previous 5 years. They make it b/c Ben Wallace was 3rd team All-NBA in 2002 and 2nd team in 2003 despite not being a better overall player than Horford is right now. He wasn't even an all-star in 2002 when the league had to find a center for the 3rd team based on the rules of the award.

It's either 9-3 or 10-3. But in 3 of those games they didn't have Olynyk or Smart and went 2-1. 

It is pretty important that the Celtics top 7 players are healthy for the rest of the season and especially the playoffs. They can survive if one Zeller, Jackson and Green have to replace the mins of Jerebko, Rozier and Brown. But not if they have to help replace Horford, Thomas or Crowder.

Ram wrote:

swish wrote:Ram

I consider myself a realest. When handicapping an upcoming season I use just a few simple stats.

#1 The team won at least 50 games the previous season (.610 ball)
# 2 The team must have at least 1 player -
        Who was an all league player in 66% of his last 3 seasons - or
        Who was an all star in 80% of his last 5 seasons
      That's my requirement to be classified as a super-super player -  and this league is very much driven by these elite players.

   Consider the below

 Since the 1980-81 season the championship was won in 35 of those 36 years by a team that met my above requirements. The only exception was the 2014-15 Warriors.

   The Celts aren't there yet -
     
         swish

This takes nothing away from my being optimistic about the end of the season schedule and thinking it would be great if the team win 50 games, get the 2-3 seed and go down fighting in a fun playoff run. I do wish that. So do most fans and the players on the team (if they don't in fact hold loftier goals). If you don't think that is exciting, than so be it. The foundation is being built. 

Next season they will be coming off a 50 win season the year before. Horford will hopefully have collected his second All-NBA 3rd team selection, although both not in the last 3 seasons and will have been an all-star 3 straight years. IT will have been an all-star in 2 straight. 

The 2004 Pistons don't really qualify for your handicap. 

None of their five renowned 'all-star not superstar' starters made 80% of the all-star games the previous 5 years. They make it b/c Ben Wallace was 3rd team All-NBA in 2002 and 2nd team in 2003 despite not being a better overall player than Horford is right now. He wasn't even an all-star in 2002 when the league had to find a center for the 3rd team based on the rules of the award.

Wallace qualifies based on my criterion
Wallace - 11 all nba - 6 of them all nba defense
Horford - 1 all nba


swish

I'm sorry but an average team is one that wins 38-44 games and ends up with the #7 or 8 seed, like the 2015 Celtics. 

A team on pace for 48-51 wins and the #3 seed in the east in an above average team. No question about it. 

Are the Celtics NBA title contenders? No. 

But for swish to think a team like the 2003-04 Pistons, that needed to TRADE for Rasheed Wallace at the deadline to have any chance to win a championship that year, already qualified as a title contender before the season started b/c Ben Wallace made All-NBA 3rd team in 2002 for a center starved league when he wasn't even an all-star that year is bogus. 

Nowhere have I said the Celtics are title contenders this year. Next year, if they add another all-star like the Pistons added Sheed, I think they could very well be a well-balanced 3-4 all-star, no superstar, very deep title contender. But not right now.

Ram wrote:I'm sorry but an average team is one that wins 38-44 games and ends up with the #7 or 8 seed, like the 2015 Celtics. 

A team on pace for 48-51 wins and the #3 seed in the east in an above average team. No question about it. 

Are the Celtics NBA title contenders? No. 

But for swish to think a team like the 2003-04 Pistons, that needed to TRADE for Rasheed Wallace at the deadline to have any chance to win a championship that year, already qualified as a title contender before the season started b/c Ben Wallace made All-NBA 3rd team in 2002 for a center starved league when he wasn't even an all-star that year is bogus. 

Nowhere have I said the Celtics are title contenders this year. Next year, if they add another all-star like the Pistons added Sheed, I think they could very well be a well-balanced 3-4 all-star, no superstar, very deep title contender. But not right now.

"But for swish to think a team like the 2003-04 Pistons, that needed to TRADE for Rasheed Wallace at the deadline to have any chance to win a championship that year, already qualified as a title contender before the season started b/c Ben Wallace made All-NBA 3rd team in 2002 for a center starved league when he wasn't even an all-star that year is bogus."

Call it bogus if you wish but it has offered up a pool of about six teams a year and over the last 36 years its produced 35 winners.
And now a few facts in response to your above statement.
#1 The 2002-03 Piston team was the top team in the Eastern Conference and led all teams that year in fewest points allowed per game - 87.7
#2 The team starting in 2002-03 through 2007-08 was an outstanding defensive club - with a points per game allowed ranking of #1= 3 times, #2= 2 times, # 3= 1 time   #3 During those 6 years they won one championship, lost in the finals once, and lost in the E conference finals four times.
With Wallace leading the defense the Pistons had a pretty nice run.

swish wrote:

Ram wrote:I'm sorry but an average team is one that wins 38-44 games and ends up with the #7 or 8 seed, like the 2015 Celtics. 

A team on pace for 48-51 wins and the #3 seed in the east in an above average team. No question about it. 

Are the Celtics NBA title contenders? No. 

But for swish to think a team like the 2003-04 Pistons, that needed to TRADE for Rasheed Wallace at the deadline to have any chance to win a championship that year, already qualified as a title contender before the season started b/c Ben Wallace made All-NBA 3rd team in 2002 for a center starved league when he wasn't even an all-star that year is bogus. 

Nowhere have I said the Celtics are title contenders this year. Next year, if they add another all-star like the Pistons added Sheed, I think they could very well be a well-balanced 3-4 all-star, no superstar, very deep title contender. But not right now.

   
  "But for swish to think a team like the 2003-04 Pistons, that needed to TRADE for Rasheed Wallace at the deadline to have any chance to win a championship that year, already qualified as a title contender before the season started b/c Ben Wallace made All-NBA 3rd team in 2002 for a center starved league when he wasn't even an all-star that year is bogus."

  Call it bogus if you wish but it has offered up a pool of about six teams a year and over the last 36 years its produced 35 winners.
     And now a few facts in response to your above statement.
     #1 The 2002-03 Piston team was the top team in the Eastern Conference and led all teams that year in fewest points allowed per game - 87.7
     #2 The team starting in 2002-03 through 2007-08 was an outstanding defensive club  -  with a points per game allowed ranking of #1= 3 times, #2= 2 times, # 3= 1 time        #3  During those 6 years they won one championship, lost in the finals once, and lost in the E conference finals four times.
           With Wallace leading the defense the Pistons had a pretty nice run.
 

Correction to the above - I just noticed that Wallace was only with the Pistons through the 2005-06 season. The numbers are adjusted to 4 years.
Correct #2 above and make that,,,, 1st 2 times, 2nd 1 time and 3rd 1 time
Correct #3 above to read,,, won one championship, lost in the finals once and lost in the E Conference finals 2 times.