Celtics 39.4 projected wins by box score geeks

[More Banners]

If I were just BSing in the sense that I wouldn't be held to it, I'd guess that the high end of productivity of our roster with Rondo available for most of the season and at allstar level might be just under .500, or a 37-39 win team.

Most likely, we're more like a 25-29 win team.

But if I were overly optimistic, I'd look at how well Wallace/Bradley/Green could defend the perimeter, and boost everyone's production by 20% for playing with Rondo, and we might have 39 in us.

[Fafnir]

I think their methodology is interesting for team aggregates, but it assigns value to some funny players.

JJ Hickson is an all-star level player compared to Aldridge being below average. Which is a very different result from every other type of analysis, from adjusted +/-, traditional stats, scouts, etc.

[LooseCannon]

I think when you get results like this from your simulation, it's time to look at your simulation and question your methods.  It simply flies in the face of all common sense basketball analysis.

You can check their predictions from last year and decide whether or not their methods (which they have tweaked in an attempt to improve) are worth it.

Of course, their whole point is that the math shows that conventional wisdom is sometimes wrong, so they want their model to spit out some controversial predictions.

[LooseCannon]

JJ Hickson is an all-star level player compared to Aldridge being below average. Which is a very different result from every other type of analysis, from adjusted +/-, traditional stats, scouts, etc.

Is that such a bad thing?  From that Ainge article linked to in another recent thread:

When he was coaching in Phoenix, Ainge thought the front office was too large and that the best information wasn’t coming from the veteran basketball men on the staff, but from a pair of interns in the video room. Since then, Ainge has stayed away from old-guard basketball men. “I really don’t owe anybody anything,” he says. “I don’t owe a friend a job.”

I tend to believe that Ainge and Doc both believed they should part ways once it became clear the team was going to trade KG/PP because they knew they were going to clash over who should play, with Ainge relying on advanced metrics and Doc being more traditional.

[dark_lord]

they are morons if they think we are a 39 win team with the roster as it is now.

[SHAQATTACK]

It was a typeo  in their article......

They surely meant

3.94   Wins

[Fafnir]

JJ Hickson is an all-star level player compared to Aldridge being below average. Which is a very different result from every other type of analysis, from adjusted +/-, traditional stats, scouts, etc.

Is that such a bad thing?

I think its a bad way to analyze basketball when your methodology screws up so badly in assigning value.

Hickson is bad defensively, his team rebounded the same with him on and off the court, his team was better on both ends when he sat, and adjusted plus/minus puts him solidly in the negative.

But he's efficient at dunking the ball and gobbles up rebounds like crazy, so he grades out at an high level because of that.

Now Hickson is an outlier, but its outliers like him that make me question the entire methodology they use. I fully believe that their predictions make sense given that a regression of team boxscores they use is a very good predictor of wins.

But when it comes to individual player evaluation, I don't value it much.

[Rondohara]

That is a different methods of analysis, not just a hunch (and most hunches are very good, but sometimes they're way off and the calculations method can perform better.)
Everyone knows whether a team is good, "reasonable" or just sucks, but injuries will define the final standings more than any other factors (a lot of trades will still happen, and that also changes a lot). The Celtics could go "somewhat reasonably" end up having from 15 to 45+ wins, (with a number under 35 being more likely,) depending on trades and injuries in the Celtics and in other teams.

[Snakehead]

JJ Hickson is an all-star level player compared to Aldridge being below average. Which is a very different result from every other type of analysis, from adjusted +/-, traditional stats, scouts, etc.

Is that such a bad thing?

I think its a bad way to analyze basketball when your methodology screws up so badly in assigning value.

Hickson is bad defensively, his team rebounded the same with him on and off the court, his team was better on both ends when he sat, and adjusted plus/minus puts him solidly in the negative.

But he's efficient at dunking the ball and gobbles up rebounds like crazy, so he grades out at an high level because of that.

Now Hickson is an outlier, but its outliers like him that make me question the entire methodology they use. I fully believe that their predictions make sense given that a regression of team boxscores they use is a very good predictor of wins.

But when it comes to individual player evaluation, I don't value it much.

Yeah it's kind of wonky but I at least have found Hickson to be a bit underrated.. at least if you get him the right fit.  When he was back on the Cavs I really liked him a lot when all he needed to really do was yes, finish at the rim and grab some boards (and then Mike Brown benched him come playoff time after when he started really playing they became an amazing team in the regular season... always a head scratcher for me, but hey Mike Brown).

I'll be interested to see how these projections show up... I just can't see some of them obviously.  I really like the Pacers personally so that's one.

[KCattheStripe]

... I'd love to see a fan who looks at those projections and goes, "Yes!  see! ... I told you!... Boston will be the 8th seed. Woo hoo!"...  Cuz if that fan were to scroll down they'd see these same projections have the Lakers winning the Wiggins sweepstakes.   Talk about a nightmare projection. 

Philly winning 35 is hilarious.

Looking reasonable tonight.

[Who]

JJ Hickson is an all-star level player compared to Aldridge being below average. Which is a very different result from every other type of analysis, from adjusted +/-, traditional stats, scouts, etc.

Is that such a bad thing?

I think its a bad way to analyze basketball when your methodology screws up so badly in assigning value.

Hickson is bad defensively, his team rebounded the same with him on and off the court, his team was better on both ends when he sat, and adjusted plus/minus puts him solidly in the negative.

But he's efficient at dunking the ball and gobbles up rebounds like crazy, so he grades out at an high level because of that.

Now Hickson is an outlier, but its outliers like him that make me question the entire methodology they use. I fully believe that their predictions make sense given that a regression of team boxscores they use is a very good predictor of wins.

But when it comes to individual player evaluation, I don't value it much.

Yeah it's kind of wonky but I at least have found Hickson to be a bit underrated.. at least if you get him the right fit.  When he was back on the Cavs I really liked him a lot when all he needed to really do was yes, finish at the rim and grab some boards (and then Mike Brown benched him come playoff time after when he started really playing they became an amazing team in the regular season... always a head scratcher for me, but hey Mike Brown).

I'll be interested to see how these projections show up... I just can't see some of them obviously.  I really like the Pacers personally so that's one.

I liked that Hickson started to hit a few jump-shots last season. He needed to add that weapon to his game to be a starting PF. Tough to get on the floor as a PF when you can't make a shot outside of five feet.

So, I think that will help him a good bit. Help him get on the floor more as a PF than a C where he is less of a liability defensively. Still needs to make more of them, jump-shots I mean, but it's nice to see finally see some progress there. Long overdue.

[Fafnir]

If he's at PF he won't maintain that rebounding level though, especially if he plays with a player who actually boards more than Aldridge.

[Celtics18]

they are morons if they think we are a 39 win team with the roster as it is now.

They probably think that Rondo will be back some time in late November/early December, which could drastically change the way this team looks.

[thirstyboots18]

they are morons if they think we are a 39 win team with the roster as it is now.

They probably think that Rondo will be back some time in late November/early December, which could drastically change the way this team looks.

Hi, Guys.  Moron here.  I actually projected 42 wins, optimistic, I know but I would not be surprised to see a 39 win season.

That said, I would also like you to know that I enjoy your posts.  (To save you embarrassment, you do not have to admit that your posts are admired by a moron.    )

[Moranis]

Rondo 10.9 wins, Sullinger 8.2 wins.  So the projection rests almost entirely on those two guys one of which who has no return date and the other who is coming back from injury.  I'd say they missed the mark here.

The other interesting thing Jeff Green is only projected at 2.9 wins well behind Wallace, Lee, and Humphries.