Poll: Over Under 47 Wins

[Smokeeye123]

I hope its under 23 games

:') TP my brother

[Evantime34]

I think there are more or less two basic camps:

1. People who thought the success the Celts enjoyed in the last 2-3 months of this past season was due to the Celts actually being good.  Greater than the sum of their parts.

2. People who thought that success was due to the Celts simply trying harder / out-hustling other teams, the Celts having a rotation opponents had never played against before, opponents "playing down / through" the Celtics, or what have you.


There are reasons to think either side could be right.  Obviously I'm in group #2.  I would not call somebody in group #1 delusional.  Just optimistic.  Perhaps obstinately so, depending on how much I think they know about the game and the history of the league.  But I can't criticize somebody for being obstinately optimistic, unless he or she is a jerk to those who choose not to be.

Great post. Tp

I am in crowd number one and I am absolutely optimistic about the C's. That isn't to say I'm not disappointed by the offseason so far. But since I am optimistic I believe that more moves will be made before the season starts.

[hodgy03038]

The poll should actually be over under 30 wins - 47 is a bit high isn't it?

[Celtics18]

I think there are more or less two basic camps:

1. People who thought the success the Celts enjoyed in the last 2-3 months of this past season was due to the Celts actually being good.  Greater than the sum of their parts.

2. People who thought that success was due to the Celts simply trying harder / out-hustling other teams, the Celts having a rotation opponents had never played against before, opponents "playing down / through" the Celtics, or what have you.


There are reasons to think either side could be right.  Obviously I'm in group #2.  I would not call somebody in group #1 delusional.  Just optimistic.  Perhaps obstinately so, depending on how much I think they know about the game and the history of the league.  But I can't criticize somebody for being obstinately optimistic, unless he or she is a jerk to those who choose not to be.

I, on the other hand, would venture to call many of you "obstinately pessimistic." 

Unfortunately, pessimism seems to sell better as "realism," even if it's not necessarily the case.

That's why we get called name like "delusion" for thinking it's not outside the realm of possibility that the 2015-2016 Celtics could win more than forty-five games.

I wish you would try to provide better evidence for your "playing down" theory.  I have repeatedly gone over the fact that a large percentage of the teams we played during our winning streak had as much or more to play for as we did.  I don't see why those teams would have been "playing down" to us.

[PhoSita]

I wish you would try to provide better evidence for your "playing down" theory. 

I don't know that I can really give you evidence.

I just know that it is well "known" (i.e. not proven, but accepted as truth) that the last couple months of the NBA season are kind of an extended garbage time for a lot of teams.

Yes, the Celts played and defeated a number of teams that were also in the playoff hunt, at least ostensibly, but that doesn't mean those teams weren't playing down.  The Celts "played down" to opponents for more than half the 2009-2010 season, and clearly they were "trying" to win.  They also clearly had it in them to play very, very well, as we saw in those playoffs.

The 2015 Celts winning games at a 54 win pace defies reason, based on the players on the roster.  So I believe there were other factors at play.  Factors that won't be in play for most of next season.  I think the team's performance in the playoffs kind of vindicated that belief.


I've made clear that I don't think it's as simple as other teams "playing down," but I do think that was a big part of it.

[kheldar52077]

We got a bunch of role players, 2 starters, and 1 borderline all star. The only guy that can make this team reach 40 wins is not even a player. 

[ahonui06]

I believe 47 wins would be on the high end of the Celtics season. They are still a young team developing chemistry with one another. I would venture to guess Boston would improve their wins to about 45 games.

[fantankerous]

We drastically overachieved last season.  I think we will underachieve this year.  Twenty-five wins. 

[greece66]

We drastically overachieved last season.  I think we will underachieve this year.  Twenty-five wins.

At last a serious argument.

We played well last year = we will play badly this year.

Perfect logic.

[Celtics18]

I wish you would try to provide better evidence for your "playing down" theory. 

I don't know that I can really give you evidence.

I just know that it is well "known" (i.e. not proven, but accepted as truth) that the last couple months of the NBA season are kind of an extended garbage time for a lot of teams.

Yes, the Celts played and defeated a number of teams that were also in the playoff hunt, at least ostensibly, but that doesn't mean those teams weren't playing down.  The Celts "played down" to opponents for more than half the 2009-2010 season, and clearly they were "trying" to win.  They also clearly had it in them to play very, very well, as we saw in those playoffs.

The 2015 Celts winning games at a 54 win pace defies reason, based on the players on the roster.  So I believe there were other factors at play.  Factors that won't be in play for most of next season.  I think the team's performance in the playoffs kind of vindicated that belief.


I've made clear that I don't think it's as simple as other teams "playing down," but I do think that was a big part of it.

I've heard a few people make the argument that a large part of the Celtics late season surge was due to other teams playing down, but it's far from a universally accepted truth.

The fact that it's your opinion--and the opinion of a few others--doesn't put it in the category of "accepted truth."

I find your logic to be highly flawed on this argument.  For you the Celtics success last season "defies reason."  It's fair for you to be of that opinion.  Unfortunately, it seems that you have come to a hasty and easily digestible explanation for that success.  You've latched on to the playing down theory as the most plausible one.

And you're sticking to the theory regardless of any evidence presented to you to the contrary.  It's like you are stubbornly clinging to your theory because it has to be something other than the Celtics actually playing well enough to win games. 

As to the Celtics performance in the playoffs vindicating your belief, the Cleveland Cavaliers were the second best team in all of basketball.  Yes, they beat us fairly handily, but we don't need to be at their level to be a 45+ win team next season. 

[LooseCannon]

The Celtics overachieved after the All-Star break, but the team also underachieved in the first half of the season.  I think that balances out and 40 wins was a reasonable expectation.  If you think the team is improved, both through added players and personal improvement of players already on the roster, you should bet on the team improving its win total.  47 wins might be a bit high, though.

[crimson_stallion]

I wish you would try to provide better evidence for your "playing down" theory. 

I don't know that I can really give you evidence.

I just know that it is well "known" (i.e. not proven, but accepted as truth) that the last couple months of the NBA season are kind of an extended garbage time for a lot of teams.

Yes, the Celts played and defeated a number of teams that were also in the playoff hunt, at least ostensibly, but that doesn't mean those teams weren't playing down.  The Celts "played down" to opponents for more than half the 2009-2010 season, and clearly they were "trying" to win.  They also clearly had it in them to play very, very well, as we saw in those playoffs.

The 2015 Celts winning games at a 54 win pace defies reason, based on the players on the roster.  So I believe there were other factors at play.  Factors that won't be in play for most of next season.  I think the team's performance in the playoffs kind of vindicated that belief.


I've made clear that I don't think it's as simple as other teams "playing down," but I do think that was a big part of it.

You know, the playoff race last year was extremely competitive.  There were a LOT of teams in both the East and the West which had very close records and had to fight until the very last games of the season in order to secure their seed in the playoffs.  There were a LOT of teams at the end of the season who still had a lot to play for.  Boston played a few of those teams towards the end as well.

Anyway regarding our team getting better at the end of the season - there is an theory I can project that can justify this as being more than just a fluke. 

This 'theory' however does involve the use of advanced statistics (specifically the 'Real Plus Minus' stat) so if you get don't believe in these stats stop reading now. 

My intention here is to propose a theory, not start an argument, and people seem to get offended by these stats when they tell a story that said person does not like to hear...so I thought I'd get that out of the way before I go any further.

Now, on to the theory.
 
Our run started pretty much right around the time we:
* Traded away Marcus Thornton, Jeff Green and Rajon Rondo
* Added Crowder, Thomas, Jerebko, Datome
* Had Olynyk return from injury
* Moved Smart to starting PG (and increased his minutes)

Now armed with that knowledge, let me throw out some stats for you:

Rajon Rondo:
ORPM: -3.54
DRPM: +0.34
RPM: -3.20
NBA Rank: 378/475 (top 80%) 

Jeff Green:
ORPM: -1.52
DRPM: -2.05
RPM: -3.57
NBA Rank: 396/475 (top 83%)

Marcus Thornton:
ORPM: -1.42
DRPM: -1.69
RPM:  -3.11
NBA Rank: 373/475 (top 79%)

Marcus Smart:
ORPM: +1.15
DRPM: +1.06
RPM: +2.21
NBA Rank: 67/475 (top 14%)

Kelly Olynyk:
ORPM: +1.80
DRPM: +1.71
RPM: +3.51
NBA Rank: 34/475 (top 7%)

Isaiah Thomas:
ORPM: +4.12
DRPM: -2.67
RPM: +1.45
NBA Rank: 92/475 (top 19%)

Jae Crowder:
ORPM: +0.62
DRPM: -1.06
RPM: -0.44
NBA Rank: 176/475 (top 37%

Jonas Jerebko:
ORPM: +0.93
DRPM: +1.66
RPM: +1.59
NBA Rank: 56/475 (top 12%)

Luigi Datome:
ORPM: -0.19
DRPM: +0.19
RPM: +0.00
NBA Rank: 151/475 (top 32%)

We basically removed three guys from our rotation, all of whom had an RPM that ranked in the bottom fifth of the league.  In theory, the removal of those three guys (on it's own) should have improved our team to some degree, since their stats indicate that they made the team significantly worse while they were on the floor.

We also gave additional court time to 5 players who all had an RPM that was up around the top 1/3 of the league - three positive, one neutral, and one only slightly negative.  Of court the net of all those guys would have been positive, so giving more minutes to those 5 guys should have improved our team once again.

Ironically, the degree of improvement our team showed was pretty much in line with the degree of improvement in RPM those new guys had over the old guys we got rid of.

Now, we all know Brad Stevens is huge on analytics, so you have to ask the question - was this result an accident/coincidence, or did Brad Steven's specifically make those trades/roster changes BECAUSE of those statistics?

We can't possibly know because we can't get in to BS head, but if you look at all the moves we've mad since BS came on board, It's hard not to be convinced that the correlation between those events (the roster changes, the RPM variance, and our great playoff run) were not by accident.

For example, we just signed Amir Johnson and it looks increasingly likely that we are going to let Brandon Bass go as a free agent.  RPM stats for Bass and Johnson...

Brandon Bass:
ORPM: -1.41
DRPM: -0.20
RPM: -1.41
NBA Rank: 249/475 (top 52%)

Amir Johnson:
ORPM: +0.50
DRPM: +1.31
RPM: +1.81
NBA Rank: 85/475 (top 18%)

Since Stevens came on board, all of the guys on our team with significantly negative RPM's have started slowly leaving (either via trades or free agency) and and being rplaced by guys who conveniently have significantly better positive RPM ratings.

It's hard to imagine this is a coincidence, because many of those guys (Datome, Jerebko, Crowder, etc) are guys who half of us had never heard of, and left us thinking "huh..who?".  Yet as soon as those guys came we fell in love with their apparent ability to make winning plays.

Off the top of my head, the only guys on our roster now with an RPM worse tan -0.5 are:

James Young
Phil Pressey
Evan Turner
Gerald Wallace

* Young was a rookie who barely played, so they aren't going to ditch him based on a small sample size of RPM stats in his rookie year.

* Wallace barely played, and would have been gone long ago if anybody wanted him.

* Pressey is highly unlikly to return this year with Thomas, Smart, Bradley, Rozier and Thornton on the team. 

Turner is the only guy who has any real role on the team, yet the re-signing of Crowder and Jerebko (to fairly lucrative deals) combined with the fact that we have Hunter and Young, would indicate that he's probably not sticking around for long.

Just seems to me like all those negative RPM guys are being phased out slowly, with neutral/positive RPM guys being brought in to replace them.  With Steven's known favoritism towards analytics I find it hard to believe that this is coincidental. 

From what I can see Danny's Plan A is to bring star players to Boston.  If/when that fails he moves to Plan B - support/role players who add wins.

Just some food for throught.

[vjcsmoke]

I'm expecting 40-45 wins easily.  I don't see 47+ because we don't have a transcendent player who can taker over games at the end.  Paul Pierce is not walking through those doors.  Still should be an entertaining season, and will be fun to see how our youngsters grow and how Brad Stevens uses Amir Johnson.

Jae Crowder and Jerebko were pretty good keeps for us as well.

[hodgy03038]

I'm expecting 40-45 wins easily.  I don't see 47+ because we don't have a transcendent player who can taker over games at the end.  Paul Pierce is not walking through those doors.  Still should be an entertaining season, and will be fun to see how our youngsters grow and how Brad Stevens uses Amir Johnson.

Jae Crowder and Jerebko were pretty good keeps for us as well.

Man smoke you are on a roll.... 40-45 wins EASILY

[Chris22]

I say over, I don't know why people are so quick to discredit this current Celtics team. Post all star break we were the 2nd best team in the league.

Thank you.

It's a marathon, not a sprint.