Before the season starts, thought it might be fun for a prediction thread. Add in your specific estimate.
My guess is 33 for sentimental and lottery aspiration reasons.
My guess is 33 for sentimental and lottery aspiration reasons.
Celts 2013 Win Prediction
- Thread starter wutang112878
- Start date
I think if this team stuck together all season, they'd flirt with a playoff spot and be in that 8-12 range in the East.
Unfortunately (fortunately?), there will be a lot of mixing and matching, seeing what they have, who knows where Hump and Wallace will be come midseason (Rondo perhaps as well), etc. and it makes this particularly difficult to predict as a result.
Unfortunately (fortunately?), there will be a lot of mixing and matching, seeing what they have, who knows where Hump and Wallace will be come midseason (Rondo perhaps as well), etc. and it makes this particularly difficult to predict as a result.
26 wins
Philadelphia, Utah, Phoenix, Sacramento finish worse. Probably one other team as well that suffers a lot of injuries.
They get the 6th most ping-pong balls.
Philadelphia, Utah, Phoenix, Sacramento finish worse. Probably one other team as well that suffers a lot of injuries.
They get the 6th most ping-pong balls.
I can see them getting something like 26 wins. The reality is, as bad as this roster is, there are teams equally worse to downright horrible with no intentions other than full-on tanking.
Without Rondo, this team is awful. Talent wise, they're a step above Phoenix and Philadelphia, but probably worse than any other team in the league from a sheer talent stand point. With Rondo, this team is merely really bad.
In my mind, the only teams that the Celtics are better than at full strength are Charlotte (and it's closer than you might think), Philadelphia, Orlando (close), Utah (very close), Phoenix, and Sacramento. They play those teams 15 times. Of course, they won't go 15-0 in those games, nor will they get beat by every team that's better than them. So, I'll say they go 10-5 against bad teams and steal 14 games elsewhere, which means 24 wins. And honestly, I sort of feel like that's generous. This team's going to be really, really ugly.
In my mind, the only teams that the Celtics are better than at full strength are Charlotte (and it's closer than you might think), Philadelphia, Orlando (close), Utah (very close), Phoenix, and Sacramento. They play those teams 15 times. Of course, they won't go 15-0 in those games, nor will they get beat by every team that's better than them. So, I'll say they go 10-5 against bad teams and steal 14 games elsewhere, which means 24 wins. And honestly, I sort of feel like that's generous. This team's going to be really, really ugly.
1. I'm not sold on Wiggins yet, especially in a deep draft where 6-7 guys may be as good or almost as good. Wiggins is no LeBron. As I said in another post, the most "can't miss" guy I see in this draft class is Marcus Smart, not Wiggins. Maybe I'll change my mind if Wiggins starts to play outstanding ball at Kansas.
2. It's better for the young talent you already have to win some games. It increases both their their basketball value (if you keep them) and their trade value (if you don't).
3. Even if they go all out to tank, it's unlikely that they can be worse than Philadelphia or Phoenix.
4. Lastly, even with the worst record in the league, they only have a 25% chance at Wiggins (assuming he's the guy).
32 - rough start with a late rally due to Rondo's return, Wallace's grit and Stevens starting to figure it out
I'd rather a high pick, or even a chance at a high pick, than 30-40 wins which is useless.Brickowski said:
This is interesting:
2013-14 NBA REGULAR SEASON WINS
HAWKS 40.0
CELTICS 28.0 (27.5)
NETS 53 (52.5)
BOBCATS 27.0 (27.5)
BULLS 57.5 (56.5)
CAVALIERS 39.5 (40.5)
MAVERICKS 44.5 (44)
NUGGETS 45 (47)
PISTONS 40.5 (41)
WARRIORS 51.5 (49.5)
ROCKETS 55 (54.5)
PACERS 55.0 (53.5)
CLIPPERS 56.5 (57)
LAKERS 34.5 (33.5)
GRIZZLIES 51.0 (49)
HEAT 60.5 (60)
BUCKS 29.5 (28.5)
TIMBERWOLVES 41.5 (41)
PELICANS 40.5 (40)
KNICKS 49.0 (49.5)
THUNDER 55.5 (50.5)
MAGIC 23.0 (24.5)
76ERS 16.5
SUNS 19.5 (21.5)
TRAILBLAZERS 39.0 (38.5)
KINGS 32.0 (31.5)
SPURS 55.5
RAPTORS 37.5 (36.5)
JAZZ 25.0 (27.5)
WIZARDS 40.5 (42)
ALL SIDES ARE -110; TEAMS MUST PLAY 82 REGULAR SEASON GAMES FOR ACTION; WAGERS DO NOT INCLUDE POST-SEASON GAMES; NO PARLAYS
2013-14 NBA REGULAR SEASON WINS
HAWKS 40.0
CELTICS 28.0 (27.5)
NETS 53 (52.5)
BOBCATS 27.0 (27.5)
BULLS 57.5 (56.5)
CAVALIERS 39.5 (40.5)
MAVERICKS 44.5 (44)
NUGGETS 45 (47)
PISTONS 40.5 (41)
WARRIORS 51.5 (49.5)
ROCKETS 55 (54.5)
PACERS 55.0 (53.5)
CLIPPERS 56.5 (57)
LAKERS 34.5 (33.5)
GRIZZLIES 51.0 (49)
HEAT 60.5 (60)
BUCKS 29.5 (28.5)
TIMBERWOLVES 41.5 (41)
PELICANS 40.5 (40)
KNICKS 49.0 (49.5)
THUNDER 55.5 (50.5)
MAGIC 23.0 (24.5)
76ERS 16.5
SUNS 19.5 (21.5)
TRAILBLAZERS 39.0 (38.5)
KINGS 32.0 (31.5)
SPURS 55.5
RAPTORS 37.5 (36.5)
JAZZ 25.0 (27.5)
WIZARDS 40.5 (42)
ALL SIDES ARE -110; TEAMS MUST PLAY 82 REGULAR SEASON GAMES FOR ACTION; WAGERS DO NOT INCLUDE POST-SEASON GAMES; NO PARLAYS
Love the over for the Pels, esp if Gordon manages to stay healthy. Celtics at 28 seems about right.knucklecup said:
Still better than Gerald Wallace's contract.riboflav said:
But, fine, I'll settle for Parker, Smart, one of the Harrisons, Embiid, etc...
Brickowski said:
Isn't the rub that the Celtics don't really have any young talent? I mean, Sullinger and Olynyk might be okay pieces, but neither is really a building block and I'm not sure the value they'd gain by winning 5 or 6 more games--games they may not even be playing crunch time minutes in--is really quantifiable enough to definitively say it increases their value.
That said, I think it's a moot point. You seem to be framing this as a decision to tank or win, and this team isn't winning either way. Brad Stevens isn't magic. This was a bad offensive team last year, 20th in the league in point per 100 possessions, and it lost its two leading per game scorers and will play half the season without it's third. And while the Celtics were a very good defensive team last year, they were terrible with Garnett off the court. A front court rotation of Olynyk, Green, Humphries, Wallace, Sullinger, and Bass (I'm omitting Faverani from this because I've never seen him play--but the scouting reports have him as a subpar post defender) offers absolutely no rim protection. They're likely going to be pretty bad on both sides of the ball and will be relying on Jeff Green as their go to scorer. It's not a recipe to win many games.
Grin&MartyBarret said:
I agree, there is a huge difference between promising young pieces who can develop and the ultimate ceiling for a player. Sully and Olynyk are going to improve they are a fraction of what they can be, but what they can be is nothing more than the 4th best starter on a championship team and thats best case scenario.
As for the Celts this year, I agree with your assessment 1000% this is exactly how I would summarize their current situation
Sullinger, Olynick, Bradley and perhaps even Faverani and Pressey can be developed. There are also guys like Jeff Green and Courtney Lee, who will have more trade value if the team wins some games.
I don't know how good Sullinger and Olynick can be. IMHO 4th best starter on a championship team as their respective ceilings is pure speculation.
I found last year's team painful to watch during the last half of the season. Most painful of all was watching Schumpert demolish a fading Pierce in the playoffs. I expect that watching this year's team will be less painful, even though they will win fewer games.
I don't know how good Sullinger and Olynick can be. IMHO 4th best starter on a championship team as their respective ceilings is pure speculation.
I found last year's team painful to watch during the last half of the season. Most painful of all was watching Schumpert demolish a fading Pierce in the playoffs. I expect that watching this year's team will be less painful, even though they will win fewer games.
Brickowski said:
Have you seen anything to suggest that either could really realistically be the Ray Allen to a KG and PP combination? Lets be serious.
ifmanis5 said:
Sure it would be great to land one of them. Most likely, a step up from anyone on the current roster. But, I don't see a "game-changer" in next year's draft; a guy who can by himself account for a 20-30 win jump. I think some folks realize this and know the Celtics are at least three (probably 4-5) years away from contending in the East. Yet, many think that by tanking this year, the Celtics will have a dramatic turnaround courtesy of Wiggins. It's understandable in some respects because of how much hype trails that young man with poor practice habits.
Neither one of those guys has played a full season in the NBA. I haven't seen anything to rule out one of those players being a second or third best player on a championship team. I would remind you that the 2004 Pistons were a championship team.
If Ainge really thought Olynick's ceiling were low, then he should have drafted Adetokunbo.
BTW, I think the best bet on the board is Orlando to win more than 23.5.
Wow we see these players very differently. Agree to disagree.Brickowski said:
And if you build to the Pistons model your window better be 20 years because that's the next time a team without a true superstar will win a title again
I think the Bucks suck.
Line is still too low, but I think people like Simmons saying they are good are crazy.
Ridnour
Mayo
Butler
Illyasova
Sanders
and no bench.(Henson, Udoh, Knight, Delfino)
Line is still too low, but I think people like Simmons saying they are good are crazy.
Ridnour
Mayo
Butler
Illyasova
Sanders
and no bench.(Henson, Udoh, Knight, Delfino)
wutang112878 said:
I voted 20-25. But, given that option currently holds over 50% of the vote, don't you think it might be a good idea to have a "below 20" option? I see that as far more probable than either of the top 2 options and it would make it so the poll actually covered all possible win totals.
What makes you say that? I see no reason why a very well coached team with good depth can't win a championship. Indiana is one team that comes to mind, unless you think Paul George is a true superstar. Golden State is another unless you think Curry is a true superstar.
This. I haven't voted in the poll because I think it will be 18. Under 20 should be an option. Maybe I'll be the only one there but I think not having that is skewing the 20-25 number heavily.JakeRae said:
I voted 30-35 wins. They will win more than we expect (and would like) and there will be no sudden, dramatic change to the face of this team over the next 3-4 years.
Just a slow, steady evolution.
Reasons why? Young kids will buy into the system. Green will not regress to his career averages, he will average 22-24 points and will have his best year to overall to date.
Vitor will overachieve and become a fan favorite. Sully will play well when he is not injured.
Most of all, I don't think this group will actively tank as much as the other shitty teams, even if it is instructed from the front office.
Edit: I don't think this is a good team by any metric. I just see more of an Obie era Celtics than an ML Carr era Celtics.
Just a slow, steady evolution.
Reasons why? Young kids will buy into the system. Green will not regress to his career averages, he will average 22-24 points and will have his best year to overall to date.
Vitor will overachieve and become a fan favorite. Sully will play well when he is not injured.
Most of all, I don't think this group will actively tank as much as the other shitty teams, even if it is instructed from the front office.
Edit: I don't think this is a good team by any metric. I just see more of an Obie era Celtics than an ML Carr era Celtics.
JakeRae said:
I added <20 and allowed multiple votes so hopefully people can vote again. I really couldnt see them in the teens for wins, my bad.
Brickowski said:
In general I dont think a non-superstar team can win because this league loves superstars and gives them calls, so a non-superstar team needs to be significantly better than a superstar team so they dont lose the free throw game in close games. History also indicates this is rare. And probably most importantly while superstars take up a lot of cap room, true superstar max guys are still probably some of the better value contracts in the NBA considering their total impact to their team.
I think George could be a superstar in the making, what he does this season will provide a great indication. If there is a non-established superstar team that can do it this year I agree that Indiana has the best chance, I just have a tough time believing the NBA would allow Indiana to knock off Miami. I dont see it with Golden State though, Curry is great but they dont have the offensive firepower to keep up with an OKC and typically teams need to have a solid offense/defense balance
Voted 20-25. This team is pretty awful from a talent perspective, both offensively and defensively, and the parts don't fit together well at all. The only thing preventing them from losing more games is the likelihood that other franchises will actively tank harder.
I also think that the degree to which Rondo's return will actually improve the team is pretty uncertain and potentially very overstated. He'll make us better but if it turns into Rondo hero ball on the offensive end and Rondo matador act on the defensive end then the improvement might be a lot less than one might think.
I also think that the degree to which Rondo's return will actually improve the team is pretty uncertain and potentially very overstated. He'll make us better but if it turns into Rondo hero ball on the offensive end and Rondo matador act on the defensive end then the improvement might be a lot less than one might think.
Disagree on the Rondo part. His involvement is about a 5 win difference. And his defense when paired with Bradley is very good. Agreed, on his own it's all just going for steals, but with Bradley they are effective.Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:
I voted 20-25, FWIW but with more Rondo playing time I could see 30 (and not more than 30). Also, Rondo (National TV Rondo, anyway) brings a certain energy level that raises all boats.
riboflav said:
Those players only exist in Nike commercials. Christ, even everyone's favorite example of a "gamechanger" (Durant) led his team to ten fewer wins his rookie season.There are six to eight cornerstone players in the next draft pool, and that's what you're looking for. Boston currently has zero cornerstone players, and one is greater than zero.
I think they are going to get around 22 wins. If Rondo were back quickly and they wanted to win more I'd put them around 27, but I don't think Ainge will let that happen.
I'm guessing Rondo gets held out longer and he'll be working furiously to move any veteran that he doesn't see being on this team in three years for picks/kids.
I'm guessing Rondo gets held out longer and he'll be working furiously to move any veteran that he doesn't see being on this team in three years for picks/kids.
I went in for 20-25. I think they hold Rondo out as long as possible, and trade any assets as they can over the course of the season. I'm hoping for a bunch on injuries on contending teams, and a decent showing from the likes of Bass, Humphries, Wallace, Lee etc and see what the Celtics can get for them.
I take back what I said about Orlando being better than 23.5 wins. ML Carr would be proud of this:
http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/230504/Vaughn-Benches-Nicholson-In-Favor-Of-Maxiell-In-Midst-Of-Career-Night
http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/230504/Vaughn-Benches-Nicholson-In-Favor-Of-Maxiell-In-Midst-Of-Career-Night
Brickowski said:
This is really next level tanking. Well done. I think we need a tanking thread, because I'm sure this is just the first of many.
Yow. First game of the season and Orlando is already in full on tank mode?Morning Woodhead said:
Multiple teams trying hard to tank is going to screw up everyone's win projections. Especially the Celts, a team with a little bit of talent, just enough to allow them to beat tanking teams with regularity.
Essentially Vaughn said after the game that they were using Nicholson against Scola because they felt he could could score at will on Scola. I can't really see any fault in the reasoning and they certainly busted tail against the T'wolves last night. The press is just too caught up in the tanking thing though to write better stories.
nighthob said:
Durant led the Sonics to less wins...but that maybe had something to do with the team getting rid of its two best players that offseason?
As for the Celtics, after watching last night, I can't see this team winning more than about 25 games. I'll say 24 because they are going to be actively tanking.