Author Topic: ESPN projects the Celtics at #2 in the East  (Read 10310 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: ESPN projects the Celtics at #2 in the East
« Reply #15 on: August 19, 2019, 07:33:12 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58549
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
Pelton’s projections are meaningless to me. That said, we will be a very good team.  I would project third.


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

Re: ESPN projects the Celtics at #2 in the East
« Reply #16 on: August 19, 2019, 07:41:59 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48120
  • Tommy Points: 8794
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
These same models of Pelton's also have neither LA team in the top two out West, have Houston as best in the West and has Orlando 4th in the East. What is surprising about Boston being #2 in the East isn't that Pelton thinks Boston will be great as they only project out at 47.4 wins by Pelton's model. That's about where a lot of models, projections and betting lines have the Celtics, within a game or so.

So Pelton's model isn't saying Boston will be a great team, he doesn't even have them at 50 wins. But he is saying the Sixers are not going to be as good as most think and that the East is dreadful as compared to the West.
Can't read the article but having the 2nd best team in the East at 47.4 wins is nonsensical.  Besides the shortened 2011/12 season, the last time the 2nd place team in the East had under 50 wins was 2002/3.  The East is going to have some really bad teams which will pump up the numbers of the top teams in the East.
Yeah, I think it is as nonsensical a model as you can get as it's based, for the most part, on ESPN's garbage RPM stat(which could be Pelton's stat, IDK), which I always have hated, even more so because they refuse to give the formula for the stat.

To me its nuts, right now, not to have the Clippers as a top 2 team out West and to have the Sixers projected as less than 48 wins. Also, there is no way the Magic are a top 4 team in the East.

Re: ESPN projects the Celtics at #2 in the East
« Reply #17 on: August 19, 2019, 09:47:55 PM »

Offline Hoopvortex

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1243
  • Tommy Points: 164
Yeah, I think it is as nonsensical a model as you can get as it's based, for the most part, on ESPN's garbage RPM stat

Vehemence, or just rhetoric?

No, not garbage. Can't tell what your objection to it is - perhaps valid, but it hardly seems likely that it would justify dismissing the stat entirely, as you seem to be doing.

Its big virtue is that it controls for who else is on the floor - that's a big step up from ortg and drtg, and from the raw +/- that you get in the box scores nowadays.

My own objection to it is that using box score priors biases it in favor of players who get more of the countable stuff in the box score. 

Like any statistic, it isn't the whole truth about a player - what you might call the Siren Song of the Single Statistic.

What I like about it most is that for certain players it suggests surprising or provocative things. It doesn't like Klay's defense very much, for example, despite conventional wisdom. Then you can ask yourself, well why not? And look for yourself.

The big problem with all the different types of statistics, including the various flavors of plus/minus, is that the sample sizes are seldom big enough, while the sample sizes for the different players vary so widely.


(which could be Pelton's stat, IDK),

It's not.

which I always have hated, even more so because they refuse to give the formula for the stat.

Yes, what's up with that.

Having said that, I don't think that I could evaluate it anyway.

I do trust that the plus/minus module of it, controlling for who else is on the court, has been done accurately.

I don't know how to evaluate how much weight they've given to box score priors, even if I knew what it was or how they've translated them.

I also wish that they'd make their web page sortable in several dimensions, like by team, and let you search by individual player.

Anyway, I find it to be a very useful stat that is looking at the big picture; that's absolutely essential, and I don't know a better place to get what it gives you.
'I was proud of Marcus Smart. He did a great job of keeping us together. He might not get credit for this game, but the pace that he played at, and his playcalling, some of the plays that he called were great. We obviously have to rely on him, so I’m definitely looking forward to Marcus leading this team in that role.' - Jaylen Brown, January 2021

Re: ESPN projects the Celtics at #2 in the East
« Reply #18 on: August 19, 2019, 09:51:57 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
I hope but #5 is what i expect if that
Who are the 4 teams better than us? The Bucks, 76ers and Pacers are the only teams I can imagine finishing with a better record than us
I have Boston at 5 as well, those 3 and the Nets.
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: ESPN projects the Celtics at #2 in the East
« Reply #19 on: August 19, 2019, 10:12:07 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
Unless he projects an injury to Giannis there is no way the Bucks are only winning 50 games.  Even if they were only 10-20 against the west, I have to think if the East is really that bad they are going to be better than 40-12 (what they were last year in an apparently much more difficult conference).  Of course the Bucks aren't going to be as bad as 10-20 against the West (they were 20-10 last year).  The Sixers have won at least 50 games each of the last 2 seasons and they should be better this year with less trading and turmoil (and continued growth from Embiid and Simmons). 

I actually don't mind the west projections as much, as I do think Houston and Denver are both going to be very good regular season teams (post-season who knows) and Utah should be better as well.  I also think both LA teams are going to have lots of rest and load management because neither of them really cares about the regular season.  They both are eyeing the ultimate prize and will do whatever they need to do to get there.
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: ESPN projects the Celtics at #2 in the East
« Reply #20 on: August 19, 2019, 10:29:46 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48120
  • Tommy Points: 8794
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
Yeah, I think it is as nonsensical a model as you can get as it's based, for the most part, on ESPN's garbage RPM stat

Vehemence, or just rhetoric?

No, not garbage. Can't tell what your objection to it is - perhaps valid, but it hardly seems likely that it would justify dismissing the stat entirely, as you seem to be doing.

Its big virtue is that it controls for who else is on the floor - that's a big step up from ortg and drtg, and from the raw +/- that you get in the box scores nowadays.

My own objection to it is that using box score priors biases it in favor of players who get more of the countable stuff in the box score. 

Like any statistic, it isn't the whole truth about a player - what you might call the Siren Song of the Single Statistic.

What I like about it most is that for certain players it suggests surprising or provocative things. It doesn't like Klay's defense very much, for example, despite conventional wisdom. Then you can ask yourself, well why not? And look for yourself.

The big problem with all the different types of statistics, including the various flavors of plus/minus, is that the sample sizes are seldom big enough, while the sample sizes for the different players vary so widely.


(which could be Pelton's stat, IDK),

It's not.

which I always have hated, even more so because they refuse to give the formula for the stat.

Yes, what's up with that.

Having said that, I don't think that I could evaluate it anyway.

I do trust that the plus/minus module of it, controlling for who else is on the court, has been done accurately.

I don't know how to evaluate how much weight they've given to box score priors, even if I knew what it was or how they've translated them.

I also wish that they'd make their web page sortable in several dimensions, like by team, and let you search by individual player.

Anyway, I find it to be a very useful stat that is looking at the big picture; that's absolutely essential, and I don't know a better place to get what it gives you.
RPM is a stat that projects future performance. An entire part of the stat estimates an impact a player has on his individual team's past net +/- to predict what the player will do going forward.

Year in and year out a look at the RPM standings shows some of the goofiest leaderboards in stats. Danny Young is apparently one of the best RPM players last year, 13th in the league, better than Siakim and Leonard, much better overall and impactful players that was on Green's team. In 2019 Chris Paul had the highest RPM in the league and Robert Covington was 8th. In 2017 Jae Crowder and Amir Johnson had the 20th and 21st highest RPM in the league. That was IT's unreal year where he was almost MVP level. He ended up 59th in RPM that year.



Re: ESPN projects the Celtics at #2 in the East
« Reply #21 on: August 19, 2019, 10:52:23 PM »

Online SparzWizard

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16057
  • Tommy Points: 990
That's really pushing it for #2 seed.

I have this team ranked #5 or #6 seed. Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Brooklyn, Indiana are all stronger than Boston. Orlando can fight our spot too.


#JTJB (Just Trade Jaylen Brown)
#JFJM (Just Fire Joe Mazzulla)

Re: ESPN projects the Celtics at #2 in the East
« Reply #22 on: August 19, 2019, 10:53:46 PM »

Offline Muzzy66

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 768
  • Tommy Points: 121
I hope but #5 is what i expect if that
Who are the 4 teams better than us? The Bucks, 76ers and Pacers are the only teams I can imagine finishing with a better record than us
I have Boston at 5 as well, those 3 and the Nets.

The Nets barely made the playoffs last year with a 0.510 record, and won the 6th seed by tiebreaker.  If KD was healthy I can certainly understand, but he will almost certainly miss the entire season. 

That makes the Nets effectively Kyrie plus a host of role players.  Kyrie is a big addition, but they also had a big loss in Russell (who averaged 21 / 7 / 4) so you have to wonder how much of a net gain that actually is.  It is a net gain yes, but how much?

Looking at the Nets roster versus the Celtics roster - it's really no comparison as far as I can see.  Kyrie is better then Kemba (not by much).  Hayward, Tatum and Brown are all better then the second best guy on the Nets roster.

Re: ESPN projects the Celtics at #2 in the East
« Reply #23 on: August 19, 2019, 10:54:22 PM »

Offline Muzzy66

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 768
  • Tommy Points: 121
That's really pushing it for #2 seed.

I have this team ranked #5 or #6 seed. Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Brooklyn, Indiana are all stronger than Boston. Orlando can fight our spot too.

Wow..

Brooklyn?  Orlando? 

Wow.

Re: ESPN projects the Celtics at #2 in the East
« Reply #24 on: August 19, 2019, 10:55:54 PM »

Offline gouki88

  • NCE
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31552
  • Tommy Points: 3141
  • 2019 & 2021 CS Historical Draft Champion
I find the idea of Brooklyn finishing up above us incredibly unlikely.

Not even going to address Orlando, lol
'23 Historical Draft: Orlando Magic.

PG: Terry Porter (90-91) / Steve Francis (00-01)
SG: Joe Dumars (92-93) / Jeff Hornacek (91-92) / Jerry Stackhouse (00-01)
SF: Brandon Roy (08-09) / Walter Davis (78-79)
PF: Terry Cummings (84-85) / Paul Millsap (15-16)
C: Chris Webber (00-01) / Ralph Sampson (83-84) / Andrew Bogut (09-10)

Re: ESPN projects the Celtics at #2 in the East
« Reply #25 on: August 19, 2019, 10:57:58 PM »

Offline Muzzy66

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 768
  • Tommy Points: 121
I find the idea of Brooklyn finishing up above us incredibly unlikely.

Not even going to address Orlando, lol

I'm with you.

Re: ESPN projects the Celtics at #2 in the East
« Reply #26 on: August 19, 2019, 11:03:05 PM »

Offline Muzzy66

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 768
  • Tommy Points: 121
Yeah, I think it is as nonsensical a model as you can get as it's based, for the most part, on ESPN's garbage RPM stat

Vehemence, or just rhetoric?

No, not garbage. Can't tell what your objection to it is - perhaps valid, but it hardly seems likely that it would justify dismissing the stat entirely, as you seem to be doing.

Its big virtue is that it controls for who else is on the floor - that's a big step up from ortg and drtg, and from the raw +/- that you get in the box scores nowadays.

My own objection to it is that using box score priors biases it in favor of players who get more of the countable stuff in the box score. 

Like any statistic, it isn't the whole truth about a player - what you might call the Siren Song of the Single Statistic.

What I like about it most is that for certain players it suggests surprising or provocative things. It doesn't like Klay's defense very much, for example, despite conventional wisdom. Then you can ask yourself, well why not? And look for yourself.

The big problem with all the different types of statistics, including the various flavors of plus/minus, is that the sample sizes are seldom big enough, while the sample sizes for the different players vary so widely.


(which could be Pelton's stat, IDK),

It's not.

which I always have hated, even more so because they refuse to give the formula for the stat.

Yes, what's up with that.

Having said that, I don't think that I could evaluate it anyway.

I do trust that the plus/minus module of it, controlling for who else is on the court, has been done accurately.

I don't know how to evaluate how much weight they've given to box score priors, even if I knew what it was or how they've translated them.

I also wish that they'd make their web page sortable in several dimensions, like by team, and let you search by individual player.

Anyway, I find it to be a very useful stat that is looking at the big picture; that's absolutely essential, and I don't know a better place to get what it gives you.
RPM is a stat that projects future performance. An entire part of the stat estimates an impact a player has on his individual team's past net +/- to predict what the player will do going forward.

Year in and year out a look at the RPM standings shows some of the goofiest leaderboards in stats. Danny Young is apparently one of the best RPM players last year, 13th in the league, better than Siakim and Leonard, much better overall and impactful players that was on Green's team. In 2019 Chris Paul had the highest RPM in the league and Robert Covington was 8th. In 2017 Jae Crowder and Amir Johnson had the 20th and 21st highest RPM in the league. That was IT's unreal year where he was almost MVP level. He ended up 59th in RPM that year.

None of that is necessarily crazy. 

RPM doesn't presume to tell you how good a player is, just how much impact they have on the scoreboard when they step on the court. Cowder and Amir both had an impressive ability to impact winning when they were on the court, the RPM stats reflected that.  Doesn't mean they were better players then IT. 

IIRC Chris Paul has always rated among the league leaders in RPM.  That's not a shock. The Rockets were mostly garbage when he was out with injuries from what I recall.   

Stats will always have potential for anomalies, doesn't mean said stats can't be useful.

The thing that I like about the RPM stat is that it can potentially show the impact of guys who make game winning plays that don't show up on the stat sheet - good positional defense, setting effective screens, assists leading to assists, or even guys who are vocal leaders on the court and help get their teammates in the right place at the right time.  It can also factor in chemistry - how well certain guys fit in with other guys on the court.  These are things that can massively impact on winning and yet there is really no other way to statistically measure many of those factors.

Re: ESPN projects the Celtics at #2 in the East
« Reply #27 on: August 19, 2019, 11:05:53 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
I hope but #5 is what i expect if that
Who are the 4 teams better than us? The Bucks, 76ers and Pacers are the only teams I can imagine finishing with a better record than us
I have Boston at 5 as well, those 3 and the Nets.

The Nets? :O

They barely made the playoffs last year with a 0.510 record, and won the 6th seed by tiebreaker.  If KD was healthy I can certainly understand, but he will almost certainly miss the entire season. 

The Nets lost their best player (Russell, who averaged 21 / 7 / 4) and replaced him with Kyrie (who averaged 24 / 7 / 5).  They really didn't do much else at all, and while Kyrie is definitely an improvement over Russell, how many wins does he actually add?

Because looking at the Nets roster versus the Celtics roster - it's really no comparison.  Kyrie is better then Kemba (not by much), and the Celtics are pretty much winning every other position. 

Personally I think the finish will be something like:

1 - Bucks
2 - Pacers
3 - Celtics
4 - Sixers
=5 - Raptors
=5 - Nets

With seeds 2 through to 4 (Pacers, Celtics, Sixers) capable of falling in any order. 

The Nets are Kyrie and a team full of role players - I can't see them beating the Bucks, Celtics, Sixers or Pacers.
Brooklyn started off the year very slowly and was sitting at 8-18.  They finished 34-22.  They had several injuries and were a very young team.  I expect Allen, LeVert, Kurucs, and Prince to continue to grow.  They are very deep and have the right mix of veterans and young players.

I think they upgraded their roster a great deal and it is a lot more than just Irving for Russell as I like Jordan, Chandler, Prince, Temple, Nwaba.

PG - Irving, Dinwiddie
SG - Harris, Temple, Nwaba
SF - LeVert, Chandler
PF - Prince, Kurucs
C - Jordan, Allen

I think that is an upper 40's win team.  Same general range as the C's, but I'd put the Nets slightly ahead as I think they have a much more balanced and a much deeper roster, which matters a great deal over the grind of the regular season. 
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: ESPN projects the Celtics at #2 in the East
« Reply #28 on: August 19, 2019, 11:11:17 PM »

Offline gouki88

  • NCE
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31552
  • Tommy Points: 3141
  • 2019 & 2021 CS Historical Draft Champion
I hope but #5 is what i expect if that
Who are the 4 teams better than us? The Bucks, 76ers and Pacers are the only teams I can imagine finishing with a better record than us
I have Boston at 5 as well, those 3 and the Nets.

The Nets? :O

They barely made the playoffs last year with a 0.510 record, and won the 6th seed by tiebreaker.  If KD was healthy I can certainly understand, but he will almost certainly miss the entire season. 

The Nets lost their best player (Russell, who averaged 21 / 7 / 4) and replaced him with Kyrie (who averaged 24 / 7 / 5).  They really didn't do much else at all, and while Kyrie is definitely an improvement over Russell, how many wins does he actually add?

Because looking at the Nets roster versus the Celtics roster - it's really no comparison.  Kyrie is better then Kemba (not by much), and the Celtics are pretty much winning every other position. 

Personally I think the finish will be something like:

1 - Bucks
2 - Pacers
3 - Celtics
4 - Sixers
=5 - Raptors
=5 - Nets

With seeds 2 through to 4 (Pacers, Celtics, Sixers) capable of falling in any order. 

The Nets are Kyrie and a team full of role players - I can't see them beating the Bucks, Celtics, Sixers or Pacers.
Brooklyn started off the year very slowly and was sitting at 8-18.  They finished 34-22.  They had several injuries and were a very young team.  I expect Allen, LeVert, Kurucs, and Prince to continue to grow.  They are very deep and have the right mix of veterans and young players.

I think they upgraded their roster a great deal and it is a lot more than just Irving for Russell as I like Jordan, Chandler, Prince, Temple, Nwaba.

PG - Irving, Dinwiddie
SG - Harris, Temple, Nwaba
SF - LeVert, Chandler
PF - Prince, Kurucs
C - Jordan, Allen

I think that is an upper 40's win team.  Same general range as the C's, but I'd put the Nets slightly ahead as I think they have a much more balanced and a much deeper roster, which matters a great deal over the grind of the regular season.
How exactly are they much more balanced / deeper than us? They have a similar issue to us in that they have no genuine 4. They also have one of the worse defensive back-courts in the league and not great wing depth.
'23 Historical Draft: Orlando Magic.

PG: Terry Porter (90-91) / Steve Francis (00-01)
SG: Joe Dumars (92-93) / Jeff Hornacek (91-92) / Jerry Stackhouse (00-01)
SF: Brandon Roy (08-09) / Walter Davis (78-79)
PF: Terry Cummings (84-85) / Paul Millsap (15-16)
C: Chris Webber (00-01) / Ralph Sampson (83-84) / Andrew Bogut (09-10)

Re: ESPN projects the Celtics at #2 in the East
« Reply #29 on: August 19, 2019, 11:19:09 PM »

Offline celticsclay

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15739
  • Tommy Points: 1386
I hope but #5 is what i expect if that
Who are the 4 teams better than us? The Bucks, 76ers and Pacers are the only teams I can imagine finishing with a better record than us
I have Boston at 5 as well, those 3 and the Nets.

The Nets? :O

They barely made the playoffs last year with a 0.510 record, and won the 6th seed by tiebreaker.  If KD was healthy I can certainly understand, but he will almost certainly miss the entire season. 

The Nets lost their best player (Russell, who averaged 21 / 7 / 4) and replaced him with Kyrie (who averaged 24 / 7 / 5).  They really didn't do much else at all, and while Kyrie is definitely an improvement over Russell, how many wins does he actually add?

Because looking at the Nets roster versus the Celtics roster - it's really no comparison.  Kyrie is better then Kemba (not by much), and the Celtics are pretty much winning every other position. 

Personally I think the finish will be something like:

1 - Bucks
2 - Pacers
3 - Celtics
4 - Sixers
=5 - Raptors
=5 - Nets

With seeds 2 through to 4 (Pacers, Celtics, Sixers) capable of falling in any order. 

The Nets are Kyrie and a team full of role players - I can't see them beating the Bucks, Celtics, Sixers or Pacers.
Brooklyn started off the year very slowly and was sitting at 8-18.  They finished 34-22.  They had several injuries and were a very young team.  I expect Allen, LeVert, Kurucs, and Prince to continue to grow.  They are very deep and have the right mix of veterans and young players.

I think they upgraded their roster a great deal and it is a lot more than just Irving for Russell as I like Jordan, Chandler, Prince, Temple, Nwaba.

PG - Irving, Dinwiddie
SG - Harris, Temple, Nwaba
SF - LeVert, Chandler
PF - Prince, Kurucs
C - Jordan, Allen

I think that is an upper 40's win team.  Same general range as the C's, but I'd put the Nets slightly ahead as I think they have a much more balanced and a much deeper roster, which matters a great deal over the grind of the regular season.
How exactly are they much more balanced / deeper than us? They have a similar issue to us in that they have no genuine 4. They also have one of the worse defensive back-courts in the league and not great wing depth.

Also as far as them being young, they really are not that young. Harris will be 28 when season starts. Dinwiddie is 26. Levers will be 25. Not saying they are washed up, but they are probably not making a dramatic inprovement at that age. Allen is really their only true young guy at 21. I believe Robert Williams, Brown, tatum and Langford are all 22 or under.