Celtics: playoff hopes

[Alexander Wang <awang@MIT.EDU>]

My take on the Eastern Conference playoff picture:

On paper, it almost always looks like the teams at the bottom improved more 
during the offseason. First, they draft near the top of the lottery. 
Second, they have so much more room for improvement. It's easy for them to 
add a starting player because many of last year's starting players really 
should have been backups. At the same time, it always looks unlikely that 
strong playoff teams are going to fall out of their positions. So for the 
past couple years, the Celtics have been picked by many experts near the 
bottom of the Conference. According to that consensus (I'm talking about 
non-list), the Celtics have actually consistently overachieved! The reality 
is that the Celtics are stuck where they are because it really is hard to 
climb over other teams; on the other hand it's hard for other teams to 
climb over you too.

But I do believe that the Eastern Conference is going to be more 
competitive this year. Atlanta managed to exploit Vancouver/Memphis' 
chronic incompetence to improve their team; they also have Theo Ratliff 
returning. New Jersey will likely be stronger because they suffered really 
bad luck with injury last year. Washington may have Jordan coming back, 
along with the #1 draft pick, and finally a proven coach.

Looking above us, Mourning will be returning to Miami. Grant Hill will be 
returning for Orlando. Few of those teams lost key players. New York always 
looks shaky but always manages to pull through, due to their excellent 
coach and $100M budget. The only question mark team is Indiana.

But when it comes down to it, 42-45 wins will most likely get you into the 
playoffs. There's always surprises each season, freak injuries, coaching 
implosions, etc. If you feel that the Celtics can win that many games in 
this tougher conference, then you don't have to worry about the specifics 
of who they passed; that's impossible to predict. Whether you believe that 
or not depends on your views on several things:
   - Was losing Battie and Kenny Anderson last season a major minus, no 
effect, or a blessing in disguise?
   - Will our young roster improve with age, or is it that "they are what 
they are"?
   - Is Joe Johnson a Pierce type contributor, a Stith type contributor, or 
in the worst case, someone who has bad on-court chemistry with Walker and 
Pierce? Can K. Brown and Forte give you anything?
   - Was last year's .500 play just a "honeymoon period" aberration or a 
reflection of O'Brien's coaching skill?
   - Does Jim O'Brien know how to coach beyond "isolate Walker and Pierce"?
My natural tendency as an optimistic fan is to envision the best case for 
all of these, but I've been wrong in the prediction column for the past 
several years.

Alex