Poll: Over Under 47 Wins

[D.o.s.]

If you say so, but I think that's just you emoting, because I know you know exactly what I mean.

I'm not emoting.  I guess you can say "I know exactly what you mean," but you can't actually explain it in a way that is convincing.

That's because there's nothing convincing about the theory.

I'd like to see you (or anyone) do a creditable job of explaining this "playing down" theory.  So far, I haven't seen any.

The KG/Pierce Celtics used to do it all the time, so either you've got a memory like a sieve or you've intentionally forgotten: when a team thinks they "should" beat another team, they play through the game expecting to win. Often times this is when upsets occur. Many people on this board call them "trap games."

After the Rondo + Green trade, particularly, the C's were viewed around the league as having given up on the season. Teams expected to beat them. Teams played down to them. This is not a particularly controversial fact: you're just being obstinate and/or cognitively disabled.

You can sit there and say "you didn't convince me so you're wrong!" but then I remember that you are the guy who always thinks the Celtics can do no wrong, and that various Celtics are beyond reproach, and I remember that inserting anything like realism in a conversation with you about our shared team is a waste of time because you live in an isolated bubble of idyllic Celtics fandom where the Celtics are just destined for greatness in every aspect of every moment in every season and everyone else is just being debbie downers and haters.

[Celtics18]

If you say so, but I think that's just you emoting, because I know you know exactly what I mean.

I'm not emoting.  I guess you can say "I know exactly what you mean," but you can't actually explain it in a way that is convincing.

That's because there's nothing convincing about the theory.

I'd like to see you (or anyone) do a creditable job of explaining this "playing down" theory.  So far, I haven't seen any.

The KG/Pierce Celtics used to do it all the time, so either you've got a memory like a sieve or you've intentionally forgotten: when a team thinks they "should" beat another team, they play through the game expecting to win. Often times this is when upsets occur. Many people on this board call them "trap games."

After the Rondo + Green trade, particularly, the C's were viewed around the league as having given up on the season. Teams expected to beat them. Teams played down to them. This is not a particularly controversial fact: you're just being obstinate and/or cognitively disabled.

You can sit there and say "you didn't convince me so you're wrong!" but then I remember that you are the guy who always thinks the Celtics can do no wrong, and that various Celtics are beyond reproach, and I remember that inserting anything like realism in a conversation with you about our shared team is a waste of time because you live in an isolated bubble of idyllic Celtics fandom where the Celtics are just destined for greatness in every aspect of every moment in every season and everyone else is just being debbie downers and haters.

The problem with your theory is that many of our wins came against teams that weren't "playing down" to us.  We were playing a bunch of teams that were in a similar boat with us--teams like Miami, Indiana, Brooklyn, and Charlotte. 

We also beat a number of teams that were clearly worse like Orlando, Minnesota, Philly and Detroit. 

We beat Toronto in a game that they wanted to win.  Ditto for Memphis.  Maybe we snuck up on a tired Atlanta team, and the last four games were fairly meaningless for the opposition.

Still, we clearly had to earn our way in by winning some very competitive games along the way.

Now, if you were to say that part of the reason for our late season run was because of a relatively easy schedule, that I would agree with, but the "playing down" theory is nonsense as an overall rationale for why this team exceeded expectations and made the playoffs. 

The doldrums, or let downs, may affect a game here or there, but it's a lousy excuse for why our Celtics were able to surprise many of the fans who had written them off. 

I'll just ignore the rest of your nonsense about my "isolated bubble of idyllic fandom."

I use actual reality to explain my reasoning; like many others, you unfortunately think just calling me a "wild eyed optimist" wins you the argument without you having to back up any of your assertions.

Lame. 

[Celtics18]

If you say so, but I think that's just you emoting, because I know you know exactly what I mean.

I'm not emoting.  I guess you can say "I know exactly what you mean," but you can't actually explain it in a way that is convincing.

That's because there's nothing convincing about the theory.

I'd like to see you (or anyone) do a creditable job of explaining this "playing down" theory.  So far, I haven't seen any.

After the Rondo + Green trade, particularly, the C's were viewed around the league as having given up on the season. Teams expected to beat them. Teams played down to them. This is not a particularly controversial fact: you're just being obstinate and/or cognitively disabled.

At first, maybe that was true.  Even this bubble boy had pretty much given up on them.  It became clear fairly quickly though that the team was continuing to compete and going out and trying to win games--and actually winning their fair share in trying.

The Cs earned a lot of those wins down the stretch against some teams who "wanted it" (or at least should have "wanted it") just as bad as the Celtics.

If you weren't watching and just listening to the opinions of a bunch of talking heads who weren't really watching either and going for an easy story line, you might have missed it.

Hurling vaguely disguised insults at me doesn't change the fact that you completely seem to have missed what actually transpired for the Celtics during the 2014-2015 season.

Too bad for you. 

[LarBrd33]

The Celtics went 24-12 over their final 36 games, with a roster that for the most part looked like the one we ended the season with as opposed to the fluctuating one we had the first three months.  That's a 54 win pace.  Heck, even if you take away the two wins vs. the resting Cavs at the end of the year, they'd still be on a 50 win pace.  I'm not saying they'll win 54 games with no changes next year, but at the same time, it does imply that 48 wins is well within their reach.  Add to it that they have the flexibility to upgrade the roster, yeah, I'm taking the over.

Sure, if we were only playing teams with the February>April mentality.

The argument that the rest of the league was just coasting down the stretch of the season, but only the Celtics were playing hard strikes me as ludicrous.

I agree that the team overachieved.  If they do it again next year, it will start to look like less of an overachievement and more a result of a well coached team that plays smart offense and hard defense with no stars, but very talented role players. 

I vote for over.  It won't be easy, but I think they can get to 48.

We can't be fooled by the end of last year, just like we should not have been fooled by the deep playoff run in the 11/12 season.  The team that entered the playoff was not a 54 win team.  That should have been very obvious in the first round series against the 53 win team Boston played.

My point is for almost half the season we were playing at a level that exceeds 48 wins.  And for the portion of the season we weren't, the roster was very different.  I think that the continued growth of the players (we were still one of the youngest teams in the league last year), coaching staff, and the likelihood of much more roster continuity means this team's best basketball is in the future, and not February to April of last season.

We'll win 48 games.  Book it.

I'll take that bet. The C's won a lot of games because opponents played down a little too low. I don't think that happens this year.

100 Tommy Points?

Heh... there's no way this team wins 48 games as-is...   

But the thing is, we might add Kevin Love or Aldridge or something... and then 48 wins would seem kind of reasonable.   As-is... this team is closer to 25 wins than 45 wins.  You guys should clarify if your bet includes free agent moves... because I have faith in Ainge's ability to get some talent here.  Otherwise, I'd probably just give up on this team... this roster is pretty depressing.

Come on.  You can have in on the bet too.  I'm willing to say right now without knowing what happens to the Celtics this draft, free agency, or next year with injuries, that they will win 48 or more games.  Put your points where your pessimism is

As-is, this roster probably doesn't win 40 again.  But I think it's very unlikely we'll have the same roster next season.  Ainge will make some additions.   We kind of need to.  We have to make use of our cap space this summer or we'll be in trouble a year from now when every team in the league has cap space.

[TheTruthFot18]

I think if anything we'll end up around the same 40-42 (+/- 3).

Our young core had a great season and some guys got (brief) playoff experience. We will likely lose veterans like Bass and impact bench guys Jerebko and Datome but for the most part the important people will stay put (contract wise) assuming we re-sign Crowder as well. Couple of draft picks (traded or move up/down) and barring any major FA's like Love or LMA, we will be very similar.

Problem is the East will (should?) be better this year.
1. Indy and Miami will likely be back in the playoffs
2. ATL, Cleveland, and CHI are still at the top
3. Young teams in Washington, Toronto, MIL, Orlando, and possibly Philly will likely be better than their 14-15 team.
4. Given the current roster and possible draft picks/re-signings/trades CHA, Detroit, and Brooklyn could maneuver their way towards an 8th spot.

IMO I think we'll land the 9-10 spot with Brooklyn landing in that spot or lower if they really mess up (it's possible). Then given a strong West Dallas could drop below a young Utah and NOH to finish 9-10 which would give us 3 picks in the 8-14 range next year. Either way I think those picks will be combined to get a top 5 even top 3 pick.

[greece66]

The Celtics went 24-12 over their final 36 games, with a roster that for the most part looked like the one we ended the season with as opposed to the fluctuating one we had the first three months.  That's a 54 win pace.  Heck, even if you take away the two wins vs. the resting Cavs at the end of the year, they'd still be on a 50 win pace.  I'm not saying they'll win 54 games with no changes next year, but at the same time, it does imply that 48 wins is well within their reach.  Add to it that they have the flexibility to upgrade the roster, yeah, I'm taking the over.

Sure, if we were only playing teams with the February>April mentality.

The argument that the rest of the league was just coasting down the stretch of the season, but only the Celtics were playing hard strikes me as ludicrous.

I agree that the team overachieved.  If they do it again next year, it will start to look like less of an overachievement and more a result of a well coached team that plays smart offense and hard defense with no stars, but very talented role players. 

I vote for over.  It won't be easy, but I think they can get to 48.

We can't be fooled by the end of last year, just like we should not have been fooled by the deep playoff run in the 11/12 season.  The team that entered the playoff was not a 54 win team.  That should have been very obvious in the first round series against the 53 win team Boston played.

My point is for almost half the season we were playing at a level that exceeds 48 wins.  And for the portion of the season we weren't, the roster was very different.  I think that the continued growth of the players (we were still one of the youngest teams in the league last year), coaching staff, and the likelihood of much more roster continuity means this team's best basketball is in the future, and not February to April of last season.

We'll win 48 games.  Book it.

I'll take that bet. The C's won a lot of games because opponents played down a little too low. I don't think that happens this year.

100 Tommy Points?

Heh... there's no way this team wins 48 games as-is...   

But the thing is, we might add Kevin Love or Aldridge or something... and then 48 wins would seem kind of reasonable.   As-is... this team is closer to 25 wins than 45 wins.  You guys should clarify if your bet includes free agent moves... because I have faith in Ainge's ability to get some talent here.  Otherwise, I'd probably just give up on this team... this roster is pretty depressing.

Come on.  You can have in on the bet too.  I'm willing to say right now without knowing what happens to the Celtics this draft, free agency, or next year with injuries, that they will win 48 or more games.  Put your points where your pessimism is

As-is, this roster probably doesn't win 40 again.  But I think it's very unlikely we'll have the same roster next season.  Ainge will make some additions.   We kind of need to.  We have to make use of our cap space this summer or we'll be in trouble a year from now when every team in the league has cap space.

Starting with the first claim, how do you know this roster cannot win more than 40?
It won 40 last year, despite being in constant flux and its arguably best player (IT) joining rather late and missing several crucial games due to injury.
It is only natural to think that young players will play better  with every year that passes, and that a team that was built on the fly last year will benefit from playing together more time under the guidance of CBS and the summer break.
Nothing wrong with you speaking your mind, but if you are going to make such extravagant claims you'd better present some evidence to back them up.

Now, to the second claim, about spending money now rather than next year.
What is this even supposed to mean? If you have five dollars and you know that I will have five dollars too tomorrow,would you also say that you would be better off if you spent your money before I got mine?
I do not see any connection between the rise of the cap next summer and our supposed need to spend money this summer. And FYI we are not the only team with money even this summer, so what's the big deal?

[LGC88]

I think he was mentioning the fact that next season 30 teams will have cap space for FA market. So less chance to get players from FA.

[saltlover]

The Celtics went 24-12 over their final 36 games, with a roster that for the most part looked like the one we ended the season with as opposed to the fluctuating one we had the first three months.  That's a 54 win pace.  Heck, even if you take away the two wins vs. the resting Cavs at the end of the year, they'd still be on a 50 win pace.  I'm not saying they'll win 54 games with no changes next year, but at the same time, it does imply that 48 wins is well within their reach.  Add to it that they have the flexibility to upgrade the roster, yeah, I'm taking the over.

Sure, if we were only playing teams with the February>April mentality.

The argument that the rest of the league was just coasting down the stretch of the season, but only the Celtics were playing hard strikes me as ludicrous.

I agree that the team overachieved.  If they do it again next year, it will start to look like less of an overachievement and more a result of a well coached team that plays smart offense and hard defense with no stars, but very talented role players. 

I vote for over.  It won't be easy, but I think they can get to 48.

We can't be fooled by the end of last year, just like we should not have been fooled by the deep playoff run in the 11/12 season.  The team that entered the playoff was not a 54 win team.  That should have been very obvious in the first round series against the 53 win team Boston played.

My point is for almost half the season we were playing at a level that exceeds 48 wins.  And for the portion of the season we weren't, the roster was very different.  I think that the continued growth of the players (we were still one of the youngest teams in the league last year), coaching staff, and the likelihood of much more roster continuity means this team's best basketball is in the future, and not February to April of last season.

We'll win 48 games.  Book it.

I'll take that bet. The C's won a lot of games because opponents played down a little too low. I don't think that happens this year.

100 Tommy Points?

Heh... there's no way this team wins 48 games as-is...   

But the thing is, we might add Kevin Love or Aldridge or something... and then 48 wins would seem kind of reasonable.   As-is... this team is closer to 25 wins than 45 wins.  You guys should clarify if your bet includes free agent moves... because I have faith in Ainge's ability to get some talent here.  Otherwise, I'd probably just give up on this team... this roster is pretty depressing.

Come on.  You can have in on the bet too.  I'm willing to say right now without knowing what happens to the Celtics this draft, free agency, or next year with injuries, that they will win 48 or more games.  Put your points where your pessimism is

As-is, this roster probably doesn't win 40 again.  But I think it's very unlikely we'll have the same roster next season.  Ainge will make some additions.   We kind of need to.  We have to make use of our cap space this summer or we'll be in trouble a year from now when every team in the league has cap space.

Hedging.  Making predictions about the "as is" roster when it's obvious there will be some change.  No good.  And also, "probably doesn't win 40 again"?  I thought you said this was a 25-win roster... 40 wins is very different, and probably is yet another hedge.  If you're going to be a pessimist, that's fine.  Pessimists are often right.  But own it.  No more hemming and hawing.

[tarheelsxxiii]

So much aggression in this thread. Very interesting

I agree with everyone. Go Maple Leafs.

[saltlover]

I still think the Celtics get at least 48 wins.  Tripling down, if you will.

[colincb]

The Celtics went 24-12 over their final 36 games, with a roster that for the most part looked like the one we ended the season with as opposed to the fluctuating one we had the first three months.  That's a 54 win pace.  Heck, even if you take away the two wins vs. the resting Cavs at the end of the year, they'd still be on a 50 win pace.  I'm not saying they'll win 54 games with no changes next year, but at the same time, it does imply that 48 wins is well within their reach.  Add to it that they have the flexibility to upgrade the roster, yeah, I'm taking the over.

Sure, if we were only playing teams with the February>April mentality.

The argument that the rest of the league was just coasting down the stretch of the season, but only the Celtics were playing hard strikes me as ludicrous.

I agree that the team overachieved.  If they do it again next year, it will start to look like less of an overachievement and more a result of a well coached team that plays smart offense and hard defense with no stars, but very talented role players. 

I vote for over.  It won't be easy, but I think they can get to 48.

We can't be fooled by the end of last year, just like we should not have been fooled by the deep playoff run in the 11/12 season.  The team that entered the playoff was not a 54 win team.  That should have been very obvious in the first round series against the 53 win team Boston played.

My point is for almost half the season we were playing at a level that exceeds 48 wins.  And for the portion of the season we weren't, the roster was very different.  I think that the continued growth of the players (we were still one of the youngest teams in the league last year), coaching staff, and the likelihood of much more roster continuity means this team's best basketball is in the future, and not February to April of last season.

We'll win 48 games.  Book it.

I'll take that bet. The C's won a lot of games because opponents played down a little too low. I don't think that happens this year.

100 Tommy Points?

Heh... there's no way this team wins 48 games as-is...   

But the thing is, we might add Kevin Love or Aldridge or something... and then 48 wins would seem kind of reasonable.   As-is... this team is closer to 25 wins than 45 wins.  You guys should clarify if your bet includes free agent moves... because I have faith in Ainge's ability to get some talent here.  Otherwise, I'd probably just give up on this team... this roster is pretty depressing.

Come on.  You can have in on the bet too.  I'm willing to say right now without knowing what happens to the Celtics this draft, free agency, or next year with injuries, that they will win 48 or more games.  Put your points where your pessimism is

As-is, this roster probably doesn't win 40 again.  But I think it's very unlikely we'll have the same roster next season.  Ainge will make some additions.   We kind of need to.  We have to make use of our cap space this summer or we'll be in trouble a year from now when every team in the league has cap space.

Hedging.  Making predictions about the "as is" roster when it's obvious there will be some change.  No good.  And also, "probably doesn't win 40 again"?  I thought you said this was a 25-win roster... 40 wins is very different, and probably is yet another hedge.  If you're going to be a pessimist, that's fine.  Pessimists are often right.  But own it.  No more hemming and hawing.

15-25 wins was his estimate.

[goCeltics]

Under but not by enough, thats the problem

[Hawkeye199]

under

[greece66]

With recent developments in mind. Over.
Easily
We won 40 last year, and until the trade that brought us IT we sucked big time.

We've kept both Jonas and Jae.
Replaced Bass with Johnson.
And have three new players Young, Hunter and Rozier ready to help.

Given that much of the playing time will go to players we added only last year, it is only fair to assume team chemistry will improve too.

Finally, I think this forum needs a bit of optimism, after all the recent doom and gloom, so I say we go for 60 wins and second place in the Eastern Conference. Problem?

[PhoSita]

Under.

35.