We often overthink things.

We often want so much for our team to be good that we convince ourselves that they're bad to soften the blow just in case.

And sometimes we just want to be the contrarian that is proven right.

Frankly, I've got no idea why I spend so much of my time on this board sifting through posts from so-called "realistic" fans talking about how bad the team is.  I've posted a few different fan-posts pointing out the obvious: when our best players aren't healthy, the team isn't as good.

That's the huge, gigantic elephant in the room that for some reason many of the "realists" don't spend much time on.  Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce are still the two best players on this team.  If one or both of them are limping, the team will not be as good.  If one or both of them are actually out, the team will struggle even more.

This isn't rocket science.  Yet, no matter how many times it's said it doesn't seem to resonate.  In my previous fan posts I tried things like breaking down how the team has performed during different points in the season when KG has been at various levels of health.  But you know, we don't have to even get that complicated.

When KG and/or Pierce don't play: Celtics are 9 - 10 with a scoring margin of -0.8.

When KG and Pierce both play: Celtics are 31 - 11 with a scoring margin of +7.1.

Just to complete the sanity check, that win percentage and scoring margin with both KG and Pierce playing would currently be second in the NBA, just behind the Cavs and ahead of the Lakers.

And that doesn't even get into the fact that KG and Pierce were both obviously slowed for some of those games when they both played.

I've said before, and I continue to say, if you're a "realist" that just doesn't believe the Cs will stay/be healthy till the end, OK.  I can respect that, even if I hope you're wrong.  But if you're one that just harps on the team not being "that good" this year because they're lacking athleticism, or lacking heart, or they want to flip the switch, or whatever else the "realists" say...

That's not realism.  That opinion isn't grounded in reality.  People that espouse that opinion shouldn't call themselves "realists".  Maybe "skeptics", or "we just really don't think the Celtics will win-ists".  Or keep it simple and call it what it is: pessimists.

Just don't pretend that your opinion reflects the reality of what this team has been.  It just doesn't.