Author Topic: I still have Romeo over Nesmith  (Read 29474 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: I still have Romeo over Nesmith
« Reply #45 on: August 24, 2021, 06:02:20 PM »

Offline footey

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15965
  • Tommy Points: 1833
There's something about Romeo's poise when he's on the court that is enticing. I can't really quantify that, there's just something about the way he moves on the court that makes me think there's something there.

That said, Nesmith has shown more and is a more natural fit alongside the J's as someone who is already good at moving without the ball and spotting up.

It's not just his poise. Something magical often happened when Romeo was on the court last season.

Some things I noticed - They'd be a number of unexpected deflected passes, an opposing shooter unwilling to shoot over him, a blindsided blocked shot, a rebound that leads to a fast break, etc. Unappreciated plays like this is why he got so many minutes. The team as a whole did better when he was on the court. Too many of his naysayers overlook this and only focus on his offense. He has a synergistic effect on those around them and makes them look better.   

He didn't have a good summer league offensively. I thought he was a lot better playing along side the veterans.

I think that your memory may be playing tricks on you. Romeo had the worst plus minus on the team call mom and it wasn’t particularly close.

https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/boston-celtics-player-with-best-plus-minus-2021

You know a guy lost his argument when he resorts to plus minus stats. 

Where were you when we traded Jeff Teague last season? He was our 6th best player (according to your plus/minus stat)!!! 

Holy cow, Green Kornet was our 8th best player, why isn't he still on the roster?

Re: I still have Romeo over Nesmith
« Reply #46 on: August 24, 2021, 06:10:54 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58549
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
There's something about Romeo's poise when he's on the court that is enticing. I can't really quantify that, there's just something about the way he moves on the court that makes me think there's something there.

That said, Nesmith has shown more and is a more natural fit alongside the J's as someone who is already good at moving without the ball and spotting up.

It's not just his poise. Something magical often happened when Romeo was on the court last season.

Some things I noticed - They'd be a number of unexpected deflected passes, an opposing shooter unwilling to shoot over him, a blindsided blocked shot, a rebound that leads to a fast break, etc. Unappreciated plays like this is why he got so many minutes. The team as a whole did better when he was on the court. Too many of his naysayers overlook this and only focus on his offense. He has a synergistic effect on those around them and makes them look better.   

He didn't have a good summer league offensively. I thought he was a lot better playing along side the veterans.

I think that your memory may be playing tricks on you. Romeo had the worst plus minus on the team call mom and it wasn’t particularly close.

https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/boston-celtics-player-with-best-plus-minus-2021

You know a guy lost his argument when he resorts to plus minus stats. 

Where were you when we traded Jeff Teague last season? He was our 6th best player (according to your plus/minus stat)!!! 

Holy cow, Green Kornet was our 8th best player, why isn't he still on the roster?


When somebody makes the claim that “The team as a whole did better when he was on the court”, looking at the teams performance is the only way to validate that claim. It doesn’t hold up.

Or, do you think that the team was in fact playing better with him on the court, despite routinely being outscored?

Do better.  You are single-handedly bringing down the level of discourse around here.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: I still have Romeo over Nesmith
« Reply #47 on: August 31, 2021, 02:19:12 PM »

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7489
  • Tommy Points: 741
There's something about Romeo's poise when he's on the court that is enticing. I can't really quantify that, there's just something about the way he moves on the court that makes me think there's something there.

That said, Nesmith has shown more and is a more natural fit alongside the J's as someone who is already good at moving without the ball and spotting up.

It's not just his poise. Something magical often happened when Romeo was on the court last season.

Some things I noticed - They'd be a number of unexpected deflected passes, an opposing shooter unwilling to shoot over him, a blindsided blocked shot, a rebound that leads to a fast break, etc. Unappreciated plays like this is why he got so many minutes. The team as a whole did better when he was on the court. Too many of his naysayers overlook this and only focus on his offense. He has a synergistic effect on those around them and makes them look better.   

He didn't have a good summer league offensively. I thought he was a lot better playing along side the veterans.

I think that your memory may be playing tricks on you. Romeo had the worst plus minus on the team call mom and it wasn’t particularly close.

https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/boston-celtics-player-with-best-plus-minus-2021

You know a guy lost his argument when he resorts to plus minus stats. 

Where were you when we traded Jeff Teague last season? He was our 6th best player (according to your plus/minus stat)!!! 

Holy cow, Green Kornet was our 8th best player, why isn't he still on the roster?


When somebody makes the claim that “The team as a whole did better when he was on the court”, looking at the teams performance is the only way to validate that claim. It doesn’t hold up.

Or, do you think that the team was in fact playing better with him on the court, despite routinely being outscored?

Do better.  You are single-handedly bringing down the level of discourse around here.

Calm down. I think he has a legit point about +/- numbers not really being a good indicator of what they are used for. The Teague thing is a good example of that.
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008

Re: I still have Romeo over Nesmith
« Reply #48 on: August 31, 2021, 02:23:41 PM »

Online Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
There's something about Romeo's poise when he's on the court that is enticing. I can't really quantify that, there's just something about the way he moves on the court that makes me think there's something there.

That said, Nesmith has shown more and is a more natural fit alongside the J's as someone who is already good at moving without the ball and spotting up.

It's not just his poise. Something magical often happened when Romeo was on the court last season.

Some things I noticed - They'd be a number of unexpected deflected passes, an opposing shooter unwilling to shoot over him, a blindsided blocked shot, a rebound that leads to a fast break, etc. Unappreciated plays like this is why he got so many minutes. The team as a whole did better when he was on the court. Too many of his naysayers overlook this and only focus on his offense. He has a synergistic effect on those around them and makes them look better.   

He didn't have a good summer league offensively. I thought he was a lot better playing along side the veterans.

I think that your memory may be playing tricks on you. Romeo had the worst plus minus on the team call mom and it wasn’t particularly close.

https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/boston-celtics-player-with-best-plus-minus-2021

You know a guy lost his argument when he resorts to plus minus stats. 

Where were you when we traded Jeff Teague last season? He was our 6th best player (according to your plus/minus stat)!!! 

Holy cow, Green Kornet was our 8th best player, why isn't he still on the roster?


When somebody makes the claim that “The team as a whole did better when he was on the court”, looking at the teams performance is the only way to validate that claim. It doesn’t hold up.

Or, do you think that the team was in fact playing better with him on the court, despite routinely being outscored?

Do better.  You are single-handedly bringing down the level of discourse around here.

Calm down. I think he has a legit point about +/- numbers not really being a good indicator of what they are used for. The Teague thing is a good example of that.
except the team didn't actually do better when Langford was on the court.  They were outscored by nearly 11 points per 100 possessions, and were nearly 13 points worse per 100 possessions when Langford was in the game, as opposed to when he was on the bench.  In other words, the exact opposite of what he said is true.  Remember this is what he said: "The team as a whole did better when he was on the court."  That just isn't true.  The team was significantly worse with him on the court.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: I still have Romeo over Nesmith
« Reply #49 on: August 31, 2021, 02:36:46 PM »

Online Celtics2021

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7145
  • Tommy Points: 979
There's something about Romeo's poise when he's on the court that is enticing. I can't really quantify that, there's just something about the way he moves on the court that makes me think there's something there.

That said, Nesmith has shown more and is a more natural fit alongside the J's as someone who is already good at moving without the ball and spotting up.

It's not just his poise. Something magical often happened when Romeo was on the court last season.

Some things I noticed - They'd be a number of unexpected deflected passes, an opposing shooter unwilling to shoot over him, a blindsided blocked shot, a rebound that leads to a fast break, etc. Unappreciated plays like this is why he got so many minutes. The team as a whole did better when he was on the court. Too many of his naysayers overlook this and only focus on his offense. He has a synergistic effect on those around them and makes them look better.   

He didn't have a good summer league offensively. I thought he was a lot better playing along side the veterans.

I think that your memory may be playing tricks on you. Romeo had the worst plus minus on the team call mom and it wasn’t particularly close.

https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/boston-celtics-player-with-best-plus-minus-2021

You know a guy lost his argument when he resorts to plus minus stats. 

Where were you when we traded Jeff Teague last season? He was our 6th best player (according to your plus/minus stat)!!! 

Holy cow, Green Kornet was our 8th best player, why isn't he still on the roster?


When somebody makes the claim that “The team as a whole did better when he was on the court”, looking at the teams performance is the only way to validate that claim. It doesn’t hold up.

Or, do you think that the team was in fact playing better with him on the court, despite routinely being outscored?

Do better.  You are single-handedly bringing down the level of discourse around here.

Calm down. I think he has a legit point about +/- numbers not really being a good indicator of what they are used for. The Teague thing is a good example of that.
except the team didn't actually do better when Langford was on the court.  They were outscored by nearly 11 points per 100 possessions, and were nearly 13 points worse per 100 possessions when Langford was in the game, as opposed to when he was on the bench.  In other words, the exact opposite of what he said is true.  Remember this is what he said: "The team as a whole did better when he was on the court."  That just isn't true.  The team was significantly worse with him on the court.

Plus-minus (and related on-off stats) is a really dumb stat to use for a guy who played 280ish minutes because he was hurt so much.  In fact, most stats are pretty poor with that level of sample size.  In the playoffs (~110 minutes so also a small sample size), the Celtics were outscored by 2 points when Romeo was on the floor, compared to being outscore by 54 in the ~130 minutes he was off the court.  This compares to the Celtics being outscored by 8 points in the 75 minutes Nesmith played and 48 points in the 165 minutes he didn't.

Small sample sizes abound with Romeo.  The only meaningful argument against him is games/minutes played, which is totally fair, because if he can't get on the court he's not worth prioritizing above a guy who can.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2021, 02:42:08 PM by Celtics2021 »

Re: I still have Romeo over Nesmith
« Reply #50 on: August 31, 2021, 02:46:18 PM »

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7489
  • Tommy Points: 741
There's something about Romeo's poise when he's on the court that is enticing. I can't really quantify that, there's just something about the way he moves on the court that makes me think there's something there.

That said, Nesmith has shown more and is a more natural fit alongside the J's as someone who is already good at moving without the ball and spotting up.

It's not just his poise. Something magical often happened when Romeo was on the court last season.

Some things I noticed - They'd be a number of unexpected deflected passes, an opposing shooter unwilling to shoot over him, a blindsided blocked shot, a rebound that leads to a fast break, etc. Unappreciated plays like this is why he got so many minutes. The team as a whole did better when he was on the court. Too many of his naysayers overlook this and only focus on his offense. He has a synergistic effect on those around them and makes them look better.   

He didn't have a good summer league offensively. I thought he was a lot better playing along side the veterans.

I think that your memory may be playing tricks on you. Romeo had the worst plus minus on the team call mom and it wasn’t particularly close.

https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/boston-celtics-player-with-best-plus-minus-2021

You know a guy lost his argument when he resorts to plus minus stats. 

Where were you when we traded Jeff Teague last season? He was our 6th best player (according to your plus/minus stat)!!! 

Holy cow, Green Kornet was our 8th best player, why isn't he still on the roster?


When somebody makes the claim that “The team as a whole did better when he was on the court”, looking at the teams performance is the only way to validate that claim. It doesn’t hold up.

Or, do you think that the team was in fact playing better with him on the court, despite routinely being outscored?

Do better.  You are single-handedly bringing down the level of discourse around here.

Calm down. I think he has a legit point about +/- numbers not really being a good indicator of what they are used for. The Teague thing is a good example of that.
except the team didn't actually do better when Langford was on the court.  They were outscored by nearly 11 points per 100 possessions, and were nearly 13 points worse per 100 possessions when Langford was in the game, as opposed to when he was on the bench.  In other words, the exact opposite of what he said is true.  Remember this is what he said: "The team as a whole did better when he was on the court."  That just isn't true.  The team was significantly worse with him on the court.
As Celtics2021 said above, the stat alone doesn't really make a solid case for what you're claiming it does. For lots of reasons. Sample size, for one, but it's also a very noisy stat that could be affected by all kinds of context that doesn't have to do with Langford's specific impact on the court.
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008

Re: I still have Romeo over Nesmith
« Reply #51 on: August 31, 2021, 02:56:46 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58549
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
There's something about Romeo's poise when he's on the court that is enticing. I can't really quantify that, there's just something about the way he moves on the court that makes me think there's something there.

That said, Nesmith has shown more and is a more natural fit alongside the J's as someone who is already good at moving without the ball and spotting up.

It's not just his poise. Something magical often happened when Romeo was on the court last season.

Some things I noticed - They'd be a number of unexpected deflected passes, an opposing shooter unwilling to shoot over him, a blindsided blocked shot, a rebound that leads to a fast break, etc. Unappreciated plays like this is why he got so many minutes. The team as a whole did better when he was on the court. Too many of his naysayers overlook this and only focus on his offense. He has a synergistic effect on those around them and makes them look better.   

He didn't have a good summer league offensively. I thought he was a lot better playing along side the veterans.

I think that your memory may be playing tricks on you. Romeo had the worst plus minus on the team call mom and it wasn’t particularly close.

https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/boston-celtics-player-with-best-plus-minus-2021

You know a guy lost his argument when he resorts to plus minus stats. 

Where were you when we traded Jeff Teague last season? He was our 6th best player (according to your plus/minus stat)!!! 

Holy cow, Green Kornet was our 8th best player, why isn't he still on the roster?


When somebody makes the claim that “The team as a whole did better when he was on the court”, looking at the teams performance is the only way to validate that claim. It doesn’t hold up.

Or, do you think that the team was in fact playing better with him on the court, despite routinely being outscored?

Do better.  You are single-handedly bringing down the level of discourse around here.

Calm down. I think he has a legit point about +/- numbers not really being a good indicator of what they are used for. The Teague thing is a good example of that.
except the team didn't actually do better when Langford was on the court.  They were outscored by nearly 11 points per 100 possessions, and were nearly 13 points worse per 100 possessions when Langford was in the game, as opposed to when he was on the bench.  In other words, the exact opposite of what he said is true.  Remember this is what he said: "The team as a whole did better when he was on the court."  That just isn't true.  The team was significantly worse with him on the court.
As Celtics2021 said above, the stat alone doesn't really make a solid case for what you're claiming it does. For lots of reasons. Sample size, for one, but it's also a very noisy stat that could be affected by all kinds of context that doesn't have to do with Langford's specific impact on the court.

Except the comment is specifically about the team’s play. And the team did not play better with Romeo in the game. That’s incontrovertible. 


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: I still have Romeo over Nesmith
« Reply #52 on: August 31, 2021, 03:00:09 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58549
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
There's something about Romeo's poise when he's on the court that is enticing. I can't really quantify that, there's just something about the way he moves on the court that makes me think there's something there.

That said, Nesmith has shown more and is a more natural fit alongside the J's as someone who is already good at moving without the ball and spotting up.

It's not just his poise. Something magical often happened when Romeo was on the court last season.

Some things I noticed - They'd be a number of unexpected deflected passes, an opposing shooter unwilling to shoot over him, a blindsided blocked shot, a rebound that leads to a fast break, etc. Unappreciated plays like this is why he got so many minutes. The team as a whole did better when he was on the court. Too many of his naysayers overlook this and only focus on his offense. He has a synergistic effect on those around them and makes them look better.   

He didn't have a good summer league offensively. I thought he was a lot better playing along side the veterans.

I think that your memory may be playing tricks on you. Romeo had the worst plus minus on the team call mom and it wasn’t particularly close.

https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/boston-celtics-player-with-best-plus-minus-2021

You know a guy lost his argument when he resorts to plus minus stats. 

Where were you when we traded Jeff Teague last season? He was our 6th best player (according to your plus/minus stat)!!! 

Holy cow, Green Kornet was our 8th best player, why isn't he still on the roster?


When somebody makes the claim that “The team as a whole did better when he was on the court”, looking at the teams performance is the only way to validate that claim. It doesn’t hold up.

Or, do you think that the team was in fact playing better with him on the court, despite routinely being outscored?

Do better.  You are single-handedly bringing down the level of discourse around here.

Calm down. I think he has a legit point about +/- numbers not really being a good indicator of what they are used for. The Teague thing is a good example of that.
except the team didn't actually do better when Langford was on the court.  They were outscored by nearly 11 points per 100 possessions, and were nearly 13 points worse per 100 possessions when Langford was in the game, as opposed to when he was on the bench.  In other words, the exact opposite of what he said is true.  Remember this is what he said: "The team as a whole did better when he was on the court."  That just isn't true.  The team was significantly worse with him on the court.

Plus-minus (and related on-off stats) is a really dumb stat to use for a guy who played 280ish minutes because he was hurt so much.  In fact, most stats are pretty poor with that level of sample size.  In the playoffs (~110 minutes so also a small sample size), the Celtics were outscored by 2 points when Romeo was on the floor, compared to being outscore by 54 in the ~130 minutes he was off the court.  This compares to the Celtics being outscored by 8 points in the 75 minutes Nesmith played and 48 points in the 165 minutes he didn't.

Small sample sizes abound with Romeo.  The only meaningful argument against him is games/minutes played, which is totally fair, because if he can't get on the court he's not worth prioritizing above a guy who can.

Small sample size doesn’t really apply here. Is there any objective evidence that the team played better with Romeo on the court?  That’s a yes or no question, and the clear answer is no.

Perhaps we can argue about whether that means the team will not be better with him on the court in the future. But, in terms of validating the claim that Romeo has in the past made the team better by his very presence on the court, the numbers suggest otherwise.  The team has played objectively worse with him in the game.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: I still have Romeo over Nesmith
« Reply #53 on: August 31, 2021, 03:11:37 PM »

Online Celtics2021

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7145
  • Tommy Points: 979
There's something about Romeo's poise when he's on the court that is enticing. I can't really quantify that, there's just something about the way he moves on the court that makes me think there's something there.

That said, Nesmith has shown more and is a more natural fit alongside the J's as someone who is already good at moving without the ball and spotting up.

It's not just his poise. Something magical often happened when Romeo was on the court last season.

Some things I noticed - They'd be a number of unexpected deflected passes, an opposing shooter unwilling to shoot over him, a blindsided blocked shot, a rebound that leads to a fast break, etc. Unappreciated plays like this is why he got so many minutes. The team as a whole did better when he was on the court. Too many of his naysayers overlook this and only focus on his offense. He has a synergistic effect on those around them and makes them look better.   

He didn't have a good summer league offensively. I thought he was a lot better playing along side the veterans.

I think that your memory may be playing tricks on you. Romeo had the worst plus minus on the team call mom and it wasn’t particularly close.

https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/boston-celtics-player-with-best-plus-minus-2021

You know a guy lost his argument when he resorts to plus minus stats. 

Where were you when we traded Jeff Teague last season? He was our 6th best player (according to your plus/minus stat)!!! 

Holy cow, Green Kornet was our 8th best player, why isn't he still on the roster?


When somebody makes the claim that “The team as a whole did better when he was on the court”, looking at the teams performance is the only way to validate that claim. It doesn’t hold up.

Or, do you think that the team was in fact playing better with him on the court, despite routinely being outscored?

Do better.  You are single-handedly bringing down the level of discourse around here.

Calm down. I think he has a legit point about +/- numbers not really being a good indicator of what they are used for. The Teague thing is a good example of that.
except the team didn't actually do better when Langford was on the court.  They were outscored by nearly 11 points per 100 possessions, and were nearly 13 points worse per 100 possessions when Langford was in the game, as opposed to when he was on the bench.  In other words, the exact opposite of what he said is true.  Remember this is what he said: "The team as a whole did better when he was on the court."  That just isn't true.  The team was significantly worse with him on the court.

Plus-minus (and related on-off stats) is a really dumb stat to use for a guy who played 280ish minutes because he was hurt so much.  In fact, most stats are pretty poor with that level of sample size.  In the playoffs (~110 minutes so also a small sample size), the Celtics were outscored by 2 points when Romeo was on the floor, compared to being outscore by 54 in the ~130 minutes he was off the court.  This compares to the Celtics being outscored by 8 points in the 75 minutes Nesmith played and 48 points in the 165 minutes he didn't.

Small sample sizes abound with Romeo.  The only meaningful argument against him is games/minutes played, which is totally fair, because if he can't get on the court he's not worth prioritizing above a guy who can.

Small sample size doesn’t really apply here. Is there any objective evidence that the team played better with Romeo on the court?  That’s a yes or no question, and the clear answer is no.

Perhaps we can argue about whether that means the team will not be better with him on the court in the future. But, in terms of validating the claim that Romeo has in the past made the team better by his very presence on the court, the numbers suggest otherwise.  The team has played objectively worse with him in the game.

It's not that there is objective evidence that the team played better.  It's that there's a lack of objective evidence that the team played worse.  That's what sample size is about -- there's not enough to come up with a conclusion either way.  I'm not going to argue that the Celtics are a title team with Romeo in the starting lineup, even though in the playoffs they were 26 points better per 100 with him on than off against a Nets team that people think is a title contender, because the sample size is too small for any conclusion.

The things I know are that Romeo got a real chance to show his stuff in the playoffs, and looked far more like an NBA player over those four games than he had during the regular season, which is born out in every statistic you look at, and that he missed 75% of the regular season and then couldn't even stay healthy for 5 summer league games.

Re: I still have Romeo over Nesmith
« Reply #54 on: August 31, 2021, 03:19:22 PM »

Offline spikelovetheCelts

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1616
  • Tommy Points: 113
  • Peace it's a board. We all will never agree.
I saw Romeo take it to the rack in summer league. It reminded me of Jaylen as rookie. He did not make shots but he was fouled and the shot was close. Romeo being hurt and set back by Covid has him back. He was a top 5 player in HS. His 3 stroke looked better in summer league. I think he will make it and surprise us all this year.
Nesmith missed some open shots in Summer League he should make and his drives were not as good as Romeo's IMO. Romeo even said he believed in his O more than his D. Did you see his Jaylen like Dunk. He has hops you can't teach.  I saw him play at Indy before he hurt himself and he looked good.
Stackhouse raves about Nesmith work ethic and he does seem to go all out on D. His quickness is not as bad as some of you guys say. He shot welll when he had a guy in his face. I am excited for both but i believe in Romeo more.
"People look at players, watch them dribble between their legs and they say, 'There's a superstar.'  Well John Havlicek is a superstar, and most of the others are figments of writers' imagination."
--Jerry West, on John Havlicek

Re: I still have Romeo over Nesmith
« Reply #55 on: August 31, 2021, 03:22:54 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58549
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
There's something about Romeo's poise when he's on the court that is enticing. I can't really quantify that, there's just something about the way he moves on the court that makes me think there's something there.

That said, Nesmith has shown more and is a more natural fit alongside the J's as someone who is already good at moving without the ball and spotting up.

It's not just his poise. Something magical often happened when Romeo was on the court last season.

Some things I noticed - They'd be a number of unexpected deflected passes, an opposing shooter unwilling to shoot over him, a blindsided blocked shot, a rebound that leads to a fast break, etc. Unappreciated plays like this is why he got so many minutes. The team as a whole did better when he was on the court. Too many of his naysayers overlook this and only focus on his offense. He has a synergistic effect on those around them and makes them look better.   

He didn't have a good summer league offensively. I thought he was a lot better playing along side the veterans.

I think that your memory may be playing tricks on you. Romeo had the worst plus minus on the team call mom and it wasn’t particularly close.

https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/boston-celtics-player-with-best-plus-minus-2021

You know a guy lost his argument when he resorts to plus minus stats. 

Where were you when we traded Jeff Teague last season? He was our 6th best player (according to your plus/minus stat)!!! 

Holy cow, Green Kornet was our 8th best player, why isn't he still on the roster?


When somebody makes the claim that “The team as a whole did better when he was on the court”, looking at the teams performance is the only way to validate that claim. It doesn’t hold up.

Or, do you think that the team was in fact playing better with him on the court, despite routinely being outscored?

Do better.  You are single-handedly bringing down the level of discourse around here.

Calm down. I think he has a legit point about +/- numbers not really being a good indicator of what they are used for. The Teague thing is a good example of that.
except the team didn't actually do better when Langford was on the court.  They were outscored by nearly 11 points per 100 possessions, and were nearly 13 points worse per 100 possessions when Langford was in the game, as opposed to when he was on the bench.  In other words, the exact opposite of what he said is true.  Remember this is what he said: "The team as a whole did better when he was on the court."  That just isn't true.  The team was significantly worse with him on the court.

Plus-minus (and related on-off stats) is a really dumb stat to use for a guy who played 280ish minutes because he was hurt so much.  In fact, most stats are pretty poor with that level of sample size.  In the playoffs (~110 minutes so also a small sample size), the Celtics were outscored by 2 points when Romeo was on the floor, compared to being outscore by 54 in the ~130 minutes he was off the court.  This compares to the Celtics being outscored by 8 points in the 75 minutes Nesmith played and 48 points in the 165 minutes he didn't.

Small sample sizes abound with Romeo.  The only meaningful argument against him is games/minutes played, which is totally fair, because if he can't get on the court he's not worth prioritizing above a guy who can.

Small sample size doesn’t really apply here. Is there any objective evidence that the team played better with Romeo on the court?  That’s a yes or no question, and the clear answer is no.

Perhaps we can argue about whether that means the team will not be better with him on the court in the future. But, in terms of validating the claim that Romeo has in the past made the team better by his very presence on the court, the numbers suggest otherwise.  The team has played objectively worse with him in the game.

It's not that there is objective evidence that the team played better.  It's that there's a lack of objective evidence that the team played worse.  That's what sample size is about -- there's not enough to come up with a conclusion either way.  I'm not going to argue that the Celtics are a title team with Romeo in the starting lineup, even though in the playoffs they were 26 points better per 100 with him on than off against a Nets team that people think is a title contender, because the sample size is too small for any conclusion.

The things I know are that Romeo got a real chance to show his stuff in the playoffs, and looked far more like an NBA player over those four games than he had during the regular season, which is born out in every statistic you look at, and that he missed 75% of the regular season and then couldn't even stay healthy for 5 summer league games.

Well, no:  there *is* objective evidence that the team played worse.  This is the statement:

Quote
"The team as a whole did better when he was on the court"

There is no evidence that is true.  All we need to do is look at how the team performed when he played, versus how they played when he wasn't in the game.  And regardless, the argument wasn't "the team didn't play any worse with Romeo in the game".  It was that, in fact, the team played better.  As you concede, there's no evidence of that.

Romeo played 18 regular season games last year.  We were outscored when he was on the floor in 13 of those games.  In another two, we played neutrally.  In only three out of 18 games did we outscore the opponent.  I think it's pretty hard to argue that we played better with him in the game, particularly in light on the on/off numbers Moranis shared. 
« Last Edit: August 31, 2021, 03:30:16 PM by Roy H. »


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: I still have Romeo over Nesmith
« Reply #56 on: August 31, 2021, 03:33:43 PM »

Online Celtics2021

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7145
  • Tommy Points: 979
There's something about Romeo's poise when he's on the court that is enticing. I can't really quantify that, there's just something about the way he moves on the court that makes me think there's something there.

That said, Nesmith has shown more and is a more natural fit alongside the J's as someone who is already good at moving without the ball and spotting up.

It's not just his poise. Something magical often happened when Romeo was on the court last season.

Some things I noticed - They'd be a number of unexpected deflected passes, an opposing shooter unwilling to shoot over him, a blindsided blocked shot, a rebound that leads to a fast break, etc. Unappreciated plays like this is why he got so many minutes. The team as a whole did better when he was on the court. Too many of his naysayers overlook this and only focus on his offense. He has a synergistic effect on those around them and makes them look better.   

He didn't have a good summer league offensively. I thought he was a lot better playing along side the veterans.

I think that your memory may be playing tricks on you. Romeo had the worst plus minus on the team call mom and it wasn’t particularly close.

https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/boston-celtics-player-with-best-plus-minus-2021

You know a guy lost his argument when he resorts to plus minus stats. 

Where were you when we traded Jeff Teague last season? He was our 6th best player (according to your plus/minus stat)!!! 

Holy cow, Green Kornet was our 8th best player, why isn't he still on the roster?


When somebody makes the claim that “The team as a whole did better when he was on the court”, looking at the teams performance is the only way to validate that claim. It doesn’t hold up.

Or, do you think that the team was in fact playing better with him on the court, despite routinely being outscored?

Do better.  You are single-handedly bringing down the level of discourse around here.

Calm down. I think he has a legit point about +/- numbers not really being a good indicator of what they are used for. The Teague thing is a good example of that.
except the team didn't actually do better when Langford was on the court.  They were outscored by nearly 11 points per 100 possessions, and were nearly 13 points worse per 100 possessions when Langford was in the game, as opposed to when he was on the bench.  In other words, the exact opposite of what he said is true.  Remember this is what he said: "The team as a whole did better when he was on the court."  That just isn't true.  The team was significantly worse with him on the court.

Plus-minus (and related on-off stats) is a really dumb stat to use for a guy who played 280ish minutes because he was hurt so much.  In fact, most stats are pretty poor with that level of sample size.  In the playoffs (~110 minutes so also a small sample size), the Celtics were outscored by 2 points when Romeo was on the floor, compared to being outscore by 54 in the ~130 minutes he was off the court.  This compares to the Celtics being outscored by 8 points in the 75 minutes Nesmith played and 48 points in the 165 minutes he didn't.

Small sample sizes abound with Romeo.  The only meaningful argument against him is games/minutes played, which is totally fair, because if he can't get on the court he's not worth prioritizing above a guy who can.

Small sample size doesn’t really apply here. Is there any objective evidence that the team played better with Romeo on the court?  That’s a yes or no question, and the clear answer is no.

Perhaps we can argue about whether that means the team will not be better with him on the court in the future. But, in terms of validating the claim that Romeo has in the past made the team better by his very presence on the court, the numbers suggest otherwise.  The team has played objectively worse with him in the game.

It's not that there is objective evidence that the team played better.  It's that there's a lack of objective evidence that the team played worse.  That's what sample size is about -- there's not enough to come up with a conclusion either way.  I'm not going to argue that the Celtics are a title team with Romeo in the starting lineup, even though in the playoffs they were 26 points better per 100 with him on than off against a Nets team that people think is a title contender, because the sample size is too small for any conclusion.

The things I know are that Romeo got a real chance to show his stuff in the playoffs, and looked far more like an NBA player over those four games than he had during the regular season, which is born out in every statistic you look at, and that he missed 75% of the regular season and then couldn't even stay healthy for 5 summer league games.

Well, no:  there *is* objective evidence that the team played worse.  This is the statement:

Quote
"The team as a whole did better when he was on the court"

There is no evidence that is true.  All we need to do is look at how the team performed when he played, versus how they played when he wasn't in the game.

Okay, fine.

Using BR's data, we can see that weighting on a per-minute basis for his career, including pre-season and post-season numbers, the Celtics are 1.27 points per 100 better with Romeo on the court than off in his 808 career minutes.

Over the course of his short career, the Celtics have played better with Romeo on the court.

(Note: This methodology assumes that the Celtics played at the same pace in both season.  They did not in fact do this, but they played with a slower pace last year, which gives his bad 2020-2021 numbers more weight than they should otherwise get, which means the methodology does not skew in favor of Romeo due to this assumption.)

Re: I still have Romeo over Nesmith
« Reply #57 on: August 31, 2021, 03:35:05 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58549
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
There's something about Romeo's poise when he's on the court that is enticing. I can't really quantify that, there's just something about the way he moves on the court that makes me think there's something there.

That said, Nesmith has shown more and is a more natural fit alongside the J's as someone who is already good at moving without the ball and spotting up.

It's not just his poise. Something magical often happened when Romeo was on the court last season.

Some things I noticed - They'd be a number of unexpected deflected passes, an opposing shooter unwilling to shoot over him, a blindsided blocked shot, a rebound that leads to a fast break, etc. Unappreciated plays like this is why he got so many minutes. The team as a whole did better when he was on the court. Too many of his naysayers overlook this and only focus on his offense. He has a synergistic effect on those around them and makes them look better.   

He didn't have a good summer league offensively. I thought he was a lot better playing along side the veterans.

I think that your memory may be playing tricks on you. Romeo had the worst plus minus on the team call mom and it wasn’t particularly close.

https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/boston-celtics-player-with-best-plus-minus-2021

You know a guy lost his argument when he resorts to plus minus stats. 

Where were you when we traded Jeff Teague last season? He was our 6th best player (according to your plus/minus stat)!!! 

Holy cow, Green Kornet was our 8th best player, why isn't he still on the roster?


When somebody makes the claim that “The team as a whole did better when he was on the court”, looking at the teams performance is the only way to validate that claim. It doesn’t hold up.

Or, do you think that the team was in fact playing better with him on the court, despite routinely being outscored?

Do better.  You are single-handedly bringing down the level of discourse around here.

Calm down. I think he has a legit point about +/- numbers not really being a good indicator of what they are used for. The Teague thing is a good example of that.
except the team didn't actually do better when Langford was on the court.  They were outscored by nearly 11 points per 100 possessions, and were nearly 13 points worse per 100 possessions when Langford was in the game, as opposed to when he was on the bench.  In other words, the exact opposite of what he said is true.  Remember this is what he said: "The team as a whole did better when he was on the court."  That just isn't true.  The team was significantly worse with him on the court.

Plus-minus (and related on-off stats) is a really dumb stat to use for a guy who played 280ish minutes because he was hurt so much.  In fact, most stats are pretty poor with that level of sample size.  In the playoffs (~110 minutes so also a small sample size), the Celtics were outscored by 2 points when Romeo was on the floor, compared to being outscore by 54 in the ~130 minutes he was off the court.  This compares to the Celtics being outscored by 8 points in the 75 minutes Nesmith played and 48 points in the 165 minutes he didn't.

Small sample sizes abound with Romeo.  The only meaningful argument against him is games/minutes played, which is totally fair, because if he can't get on the court he's not worth prioritizing above a guy who can.

Small sample size doesn’t really apply here. Is there any objective evidence that the team played better with Romeo on the court?  That’s a yes or no question, and the clear answer is no.

Perhaps we can argue about whether that means the team will not be better with him on the court in the future. But, in terms of validating the claim that Romeo has in the past made the team better by his very presence on the court, the numbers suggest otherwise.  The team has played objectively worse with him in the game.

It's not that there is objective evidence that the team played better.  It's that there's a lack of objective evidence that the team played worse.  That's what sample size is about -- there's not enough to come up with a conclusion either way.  I'm not going to argue that the Celtics are a title team with Romeo in the starting lineup, even though in the playoffs they were 26 points better per 100 with him on than off against a Nets team that people think is a title contender, because the sample size is too small for any conclusion.

The things I know are that Romeo got a real chance to show his stuff in the playoffs, and looked far more like an NBA player over those four games than he had during the regular season, which is born out in every statistic you look at, and that he missed 75% of the regular season and then couldn't even stay healthy for 5 summer league games.

Well, no:  there *is* objective evidence that the team played worse.  This is the statement:

Quote
"The team as a whole did better when he was on the court"

There is no evidence that is true.  All we need to do is look at how the team performed when he played, versus how they played when he wasn't in the game.

Okay, fine.

Using BR's data, we can see that weighting on a per-minute basis for his career, including pre-season and post-season numbers, the Celtics are 1.27 points per 100 better with Romeo on the court than off in his 808 career minutes.

Over the course of his short career, the Celtics have played better with Romeo on the court.

Pre-season?  Are we including summer league, too? 


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: I still have Romeo over Nesmith
« Reply #58 on: August 31, 2021, 03:36:12 PM »

Online Celtics2021

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7145
  • Tommy Points: 979
There's something about Romeo's poise when he's on the court that is enticing. I can't really quantify that, there's just something about the way he moves on the court that makes me think there's something there.

That said, Nesmith has shown more and is a more natural fit alongside the J's as someone who is already good at moving without the ball and spotting up.

It's not just his poise. Something magical often happened when Romeo was on the court last season.

Some things I noticed - They'd be a number of unexpected deflected passes, an opposing shooter unwilling to shoot over him, a blindsided blocked shot, a rebound that leads to a fast break, etc. Unappreciated plays like this is why he got so many minutes. The team as a whole did better when he was on the court. Too many of his naysayers overlook this and only focus on his offense. He has a synergistic effect on those around them and makes them look better.   

He didn't have a good summer league offensively. I thought he was a lot better playing along side the veterans.

I think that your memory may be playing tricks on you. Romeo had the worst plus minus on the team call mom and it wasn’t particularly close.

https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/boston-celtics-player-with-best-plus-minus-2021

You know a guy lost his argument when he resorts to plus minus stats. 

Where were you when we traded Jeff Teague last season? He was our 6th best player (according to your plus/minus stat)!!! 

Holy cow, Green Kornet was our 8th best player, why isn't he still on the roster?


When somebody makes the claim that “The team as a whole did better when he was on the court”, looking at the teams performance is the only way to validate that claim. It doesn’t hold up.

Or, do you think that the team was in fact playing better with him on the court, despite routinely being outscored?

Do better.  You are single-handedly bringing down the level of discourse around here.

Calm down. I think he has a legit point about +/- numbers not really being a good indicator of what they are used for. The Teague thing is a good example of that.
except the team didn't actually do better when Langford was on the court.  They were outscored by nearly 11 points per 100 possessions, and were nearly 13 points worse per 100 possessions when Langford was in the game, as opposed to when he was on the bench.  In other words, the exact opposite of what he said is true.  Remember this is what he said: "The team as a whole did better when he was on the court."  That just isn't true.  The team was significantly worse with him on the court.

Plus-minus (and related on-off stats) is a really dumb stat to use for a guy who played 280ish minutes because he was hurt so much.  In fact, most stats are pretty poor with that level of sample size.  In the playoffs (~110 minutes so also a small sample size), the Celtics were outscored by 2 points when Romeo was on the floor, compared to being outscore by 54 in the ~130 minutes he was off the court.  This compares to the Celtics being outscored by 8 points in the 75 minutes Nesmith played and 48 points in the 165 minutes he didn't.

Small sample sizes abound with Romeo.  The only meaningful argument against him is games/minutes played, which is totally fair, because if he can't get on the court he's not worth prioritizing above a guy who can.

Small sample size doesn’t really apply here. Is there any objective evidence that the team played better with Romeo on the court?  That’s a yes or no question, and the clear answer is no.

Perhaps we can argue about whether that means the team will not be better with him on the court in the future. But, in terms of validating the claim that Romeo has in the past made the team better by his very presence on the court, the numbers suggest otherwise.  The team has played objectively worse with him in the game.

It's not that there is objective evidence that the team played better.  It's that there's a lack of objective evidence that the team played worse.  That's what sample size is about -- there's not enough to come up with a conclusion either way.  I'm not going to argue that the Celtics are a title team with Romeo in the starting lineup, even though in the playoffs they were 26 points better per 100 with him on than off against a Nets team that people think is a title contender, because the sample size is too small for any conclusion.

The things I know are that Romeo got a real chance to show his stuff in the playoffs, and looked far more like an NBA player over those four games than he had during the regular season, which is born out in every statistic you look at, and that he missed 75% of the regular season and then couldn't even stay healthy for 5 summer league games.

Well, no:  there *is* objective evidence that the team played worse.  This is the statement:

Quote
"The team as a whole did better when he was on the court"

There is no evidence that is true.  All we need to do is look at how the team performed when he played, versus how they played when he wasn't in the game.

Okay, fine.

Using BR's data, we can see that weighting on a per-minute basis for his career, including pre-season and post-season numbers, the Celtics are 1.27 points per 100 better with Romeo on the court than off in his 808 career minutes.

Over the course of his short career, the Celtics have played better with Romeo on the court.

Pre-season?  Are we including summer league, too?

Romeo has played zero pre-season minutes in his career.  That's part of the problem with him.

Re: I still have Romeo over Nesmith
« Reply #59 on: August 31, 2021, 03:37:11 PM »

Offline footey

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15965
  • Tommy Points: 1833
There's something about Romeo's poise when he's on the court that is enticing. I can't really quantify that, there's just something about the way he moves on the court that makes me think there's something there.

That said, Nesmith has shown more and is a more natural fit alongside the J's as someone who is already good at moving without the ball and spotting up.

It's not just his poise. Something magical often happened when Romeo was on the court last season.

Some things I noticed - They'd be a number of unexpected deflected passes, an opposing shooter unwilling to shoot over him, a blindsided blocked shot, a rebound that leads to a fast break, etc. Unappreciated plays like this is why he got so many minutes. The team as a whole did better when he was on the court. Too many of his naysayers overlook this and only focus on his offense. He has a synergistic effect on those around them and makes them look better.   

He didn't have a good summer league offensively. I thought he was a lot better playing along side the veterans.

I think that your memory may be playing tricks on you. Romeo had the worst plus minus on the team call mom and it wasn’t particularly close.

https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/boston-celtics-player-with-best-plus-minus-2021

You know a guy lost his argument when he resorts to plus minus stats. 

Where were you when we traded Jeff Teague last season? He was our 6th best player (according to your plus/minus stat)!!! 

Holy cow, Green Kornet was our 8th best player, why isn't he still on the roster?


When somebody makes the claim that “The team as a whole did better when he was on the court”, looking at the teams performance is the only way to validate that claim. It doesn’t hold up.

Or, do you think that the team was in fact playing better with him on the court, despite routinely being outscored?

Do better.  You are single-handedly bringing down the level of discourse around here.

Calm down. I think he has a legit point about +/- numbers not really being a good indicator of what they are used for. The Teague thing is a good example of that.
except the team didn't actually do better when Langford was on the court.  They were outscored by nearly 11 points per 100 possessions, and were nearly 13 points worse per 100 possessions when Langford was in the game, as opposed to when he was on the bench.  In other words, the exact opposite of what he said is true.  Remember this is what he said: "The team as a whole did better when he was on the court."  That just isn't true.  The team was significantly worse with him on the court.

Plus-minus (and related on-off stats) is a really dumb stat to use for a guy who played 280ish minutes because he was hurt so much.  In fact, most stats are pretty poor with that level of sample size.  In the playoffs (~110 minutes so also a small sample size), the Celtics were outscored by 2 points when Romeo was on the floor, compared to being outscore by 54 in the ~130 minutes he was off the court.  This compares to the Celtics being outscored by 8 points in the 75 minutes Nesmith played and 48 points in the 165 minutes he didn't.

Small sample sizes abound with Romeo.  The only meaningful argument against him is games/minutes played, which is totally fair, because if he can't get on the court he's not worth prioritizing above a guy who can.

Small sample size doesn’t really apply here. Is there any objective evidence that the team played better with Romeo on the court?  That’s a yes or no question, and the clear answer is no.

Perhaps we can argue about whether that means the team will not be better with him on the court in the future. But, in terms of validating the claim that Romeo has in the past made the team better by his very presence on the court, the numbers suggest otherwise.  The team has played objectively worse with him in the game.

Just read that Romeo posted best WAR for Celtics during playoffs vs Nets per 538. Higher than Tatum.  FYI.