Celts projected for 47 Wins by SI

[D.o.s.]

^ you think any of the other teams in the Atlantic are actively trying to win it?

I don't understand your question.  Is that sarcasm?  I mean, obviously all teams want to win.  Compared to rest of the divisions, I don't think the Atlantic will be that good.  Less than 50 wins won it this past season, and I don't see that changing.  Take the Sixers out obviously.

I'm of the mindset personally, and unfortunately, that the Nets could be better than people think.  I personally think the Deron Williams move is addition by subtraction.  When healthy, Brook Lopez is a very solid player, and Lionel Hollins is a pretty good coach.  The Raptors, albeit a soft team in the postseason, added Demarre Carroll, may take a small step back, but I think will still challenge for the division.  The Knicks, with Melo back, and adding some people will be better and probably steal a game or two from the Cs.

I think it's completely realistic that the Celtics should compete for the division.  But I also don't think it'll be a walkover.  It'll be entertaining, I'll put it that way.

Ok, I agree with you -- not sarcasm, just underdeveloped. I just don't see Brooklyn, New York, or even Toronto seriously competing next season, that might be some unnecessary shade on Toronto but I think they're engaged in the start of a quiet retooling year. Obvs. the 76ers aren't a real NBA team.

I.e. I think the C's win by default with 40-ish wins +/- 4 games or so.

Ok, sorry, but I can't go that far.  The only time in the last 15 years that a team won this division with less than 47 wins was the Celtics in 04-05 with 45 wins.  In the Central division the last 15 years, no team has won the division with less than 49 wins.  Since 04 when the Southeast division was created, the Heat won the division in 06-07 and 11-12 with 44 and 46 wins.  Besides that, it never got below 52 wins.

I just can't foresee a division winner having 36-44 wins, based on your 40 +/- 4 games prediction.  Maybe, maybe 44 wins, but that's it.

And trust me, I hope I'm wrong about the Nets.  And realistically the Knicks probably aren't contenders either.

The Atlantic Division is historically bad, but I'm probably underestimating the rest of the field, sure.

That range is just what wouldn't surprise me as far as our final record, btw, and is not explicitly related to winning the division: I agree that 36 wins doesn't win one, not even the atlantic. Not really having time to flesh out my posts has been a problem today, there should be some actual delineation.

[PhoSita]

I agree with Moranis.


For what it's worth, I did a quick calculation using Win Shares / 48 numbers and estimates of playing time and I got 41.95 WS combined for the main 9 or 10 guys in the rotation.  That seems a lot more reasonable to me.

That is interesting, I'm going to do my own calculation and post it here later. I looked and the players after the 10th spot produced 8.2 wins last year, so just doing the top 10 might not make sense.

I count 6.3 (I use B-Ref), but last year was kind of a strange year given all the trades.

[Evantime34]

I agree with Moranis.


For what it's worth, I did a quick calculation using Win Shares / 48 numbers and estimates of playing time and I got 41.95 WS combined for the main 9 or 10 guys in the rotation.  That seems a lot more reasonable to me.

That is interesting, I'm going to do my own calculation and post it here later. I looked and the players after the 10th spot produced 8.2 wins last year, so just doing the top 10 might not make sense.

I count 6.3 (I use B-Ref), but last year was kind of a strange year given all the trades.

After doing some calculations 47 seems like a reasonable number. I gave all the available minutes to the top 11 guys and came up with 49.88 wins. However, it is likely that almost 1000 minutes go to the last four on the roster which would bring my number down.

Without improvements upon last year or modification for increased minutes I got 36.86 wins using WAR based on ESPNs RPM model. Which I trust a lot more than Win Shares in general. As I said earlier players under 28 tend to improve so that number would go up quite a bit if I knew the degree to which players improve on average.

In the end doing this left less sure of the upcoming season with a range from 37 wins to 50 wins, which seems about right.

[P2]

I'll be happy with a .500 record and the playoffs.

[Moranis]

I again state that any methodology that projects the Raptors at 52.9 wins and the Cavs at 51.4 is nonsense that can be disregarded.

For further proof the average wins for the Eastern Conference is 40.827 and for the Western Conference is 45.113 for an average win total of 42.97.  You know about 2 wins more per team than actually exist in the league.

Crap methodology.  No idea why anyone would waste the time doing this.

[D.o.s.]

I again state that any methodology that projects the Raptors at 52.9 wins and the Cavs at 51.4 is nonsense that can be disregarded.

For further proof the average wins for the Eastern Conference is 40.827 and for the Western Conference is 45.113 for an average win total of 42.97.  You know about 2 wins more per team than actually exist in the league.

Crap methodology.  No idea why anyone would waste the time doing this.

[PhoSita]

Crap methodology.  No idea why anyone would waste the time doing this.

Because we're in the sports

[KG Living Legend]

I'm with you SI plus three wins.

[max215]

I agree with Moranis.


For what it's worth, I did a quick calculation using Win Shares / 48 numbers and estimates of playing time and I got 41.95 WS combined for the main 9 or 10 guys in the rotation.  That seems a lot more reasonable to me.

That is interesting, I'm going to do my own calculation and post it here later. I looked and the players after the 10th spot produced 8.2 wins last year, so just doing the top 10 might not make sense.

I count 6.3 (I use B-Ref), but last year was kind of a strange year given all the trades.

After doing some calculations 47 seems like a reasonable number. I gave all the available minutes to the top 11 guys and came up with 49.88 wins. However, it is likely that almost 1000 minutes go to the last four on the roster which would bring my number down.

Without improvements upon last year or modification for increased minutes I got 36.86 wins using WAR based on ESPNs RPM model. Which I trust a lot more than Win Shares in general. As I said earlier players under 28 tend to improve so that number would go up quite a bit if I knew the degree to which players improve on average.

In the end doing this left less sure of the upcoming season with a range from 37 wins to 50 wins, which seems about right.

TP. Great post and confirmation of the fact that there is an enormous range of outcomes for the 2015/6 Celtics.

[Celtics18]

I agree with Moranis.


For what it's worth, I did a quick calculation using Win Shares / 48 numbers and estimates of playing time and I got 41.95 WS combined for the main 9 or 10 guys in the rotation.  That seems a lot more reasonable to me.

I'm curios what your MPG estimates were?

[Big333223]

I agree with Moranis.


For what it's worth, I did a quick calculation using Win Shares / 48 numbers and estimates of playing time and I got 41.95 WS combined for the main 9 or 10 guys in the rotation.  That seems a lot more reasonable to me.

That is interesting, I'm going to do my own calculation and post it here later. I looked and the players after the 10th spot produced 8.2 wins last year, so just doing the top 10 might not make sense.

I count 6.3 (I use B-Ref), but last year was kind of a strange year given all the trades.

After doing some calculations 47 seems like a reasonable number. I gave all the available minutes to the top 11 guys and came up with 49.88 wins. However, it is likely that almost 1000 minutes go to the last four on the roster which would bring my number down.

Without improvements upon last year or modification for increased minutes I got 36.86 wins using WAR based on ESPNs RPM model. Which I trust a lot more than Win Shares in general. As I said earlier players under 28 tend to improve so that number would go up quite a bit if I knew the degree to which players improve on average.

In the end doing this left less sure of the upcoming season with a range from 37 wins to 50 wins, which seems about right.

TP. Great post and confirmation of the fact that there is an enormous range of outcomes for the 2015/6 Celtics.

Totally. I wouldn't be surprised by 37 or by 50.

[PhoSita]

I agree with Moranis.


For what it's worth, I did a quick calculation using Win Shares / 48 numbers and estimates of playing time and I got 41.95 WS combined for the main 9 or 10 guys in the rotation.  That seems a lot more reasonable to me.

I'm curios what your MPG estimates were?

Thomas - 75 games played - 28 minutes - .175 WS / 48
Smart - 75 games played - 28 minutes - .09 WS / 48
Lee - 70 games played - 26 minutes - .16 WS / 48
Amir - 70 games played - 24 minutes - .13 WS / 48
Zeller - 75 games played - 24 minutes - .18 WS / 48
Bradley - 70 games played - 30 minutes - .05 WS / 48
Crowder - 78 games played - 24 minutes - .12 WS / 48
Turner - 80 games played - 24 minutes - .05 WS / 48
Sullinger / Olynyk - 70 games played - 20 minutes - .12 WS / 48

[mctyson]

Not to rain on everyone's parade, but I'm skeptical that 47 wins is attainable.

• I agree that having Amir and Lee and a full season of Isaiah and Crowder are positives, but 47 wins is an improvement of 7 wins, and would mean going from 2 games under .500 to 12 games over .500—that's a fairly sizable jump in one season, particularly when working several new guys into the mix.

• Last year's scrappy, upstart Celtics surprised a lot of opponents. It's likely that opponents will be prepared for them this season.

• Last year's Celtics were playing with house money, with nothing to lose. There's going to be some pressure on them this year, some higher expectations, and many of the guys don't have much experience with that and may not handle it well (then again, they might handle it just fine).

I like this team and certainly hope for the best. I just think people shouldn't get their hopes too high just yet.

P.S.: There's no way the Celtics finish within 4 games of Cleveland.

47 wins is just 6 games above 500, not 12 games.

Hm. I guess that depends on one's interpretation. I think you're looking at it as: a .500 record at the end of the season would be 41-41, so 47 wins would be 6 more than 41. But adding 6 wins also means subtracting 6 losses, so a team with 47 wins (and thus 35 losses) would (theoretically, if the season was longer) have to lose 12 games in a row to get back down to .500 at 47-47.

I double-checked my view with a couple co-workers who are big sports guys, and they agree with me. I also just read an ESPN story in which Gordon Edes says that the 42-52 Red Sox are 10 games under .500.

Not that I want to get in an argument over this. Take it for what you will.

Nope.  Not left up to interpretation.  It is a mathematical fact that 47 wins is 6 games higher than a .500 winning percentage would give you (.5 * 82 = 41).

[mctyson]

I posted somewhere else that this team projects to Washington of last year.  I agree with SI but I am figuring more like 45 wins and a burst in playoffs.

[Dee Brown]

Not to rain on everyone's parade, but I'm skeptical that 47 wins is attainable.

• I agree that having Amir and Lee and a full season of Isaiah and Crowder are positives, but 47 wins is an improvement of 7 wins, and would mean going from 2 games under .500 to 12 games over .500—that's a fairly sizable jump in one season, particularly when working several new guys into the mix.

• Last year's scrappy, upstart Celtics surprised a lot of opponents. It's likely that opponents will be prepared for them this season.

• Last year's Celtics were playing with house money, with nothing to lose. There's going to be some pressure on them this year, some higher expectations, and many of the guys don't have much experience with that and may not handle it well (then again, they might handle it just fine).

I like this team and certainly hope for the best. I just think people shouldn't get their hopes too high just yet.

P.S.: There's no way the Celtics finish within 4 games of Cleveland.

47 wins is just 6 games above 500, not 12 games.

Hm. I guess that depends on one's interpretation. I think you're looking at it as: a .500 record at the end of the season would be 41-41, so 47 wins would be 6 more than 41. But adding 6 wins also means subtracting 6 losses, so a team with 47 wins (and thus 35 losses) would (theoretically, if the season was longer) have to lose 12 games in a row to get back down to .500 at 47-47.

I double-checked my view with a couple co-workers who are big sports guys, and they agree with me. I also just read an ESPN story in which Gordon Edes says that the 42-52 Red Sox are 10 games under .500.

Not that I want to get in an argument over this. Take it for what you will.

Nope.  Not left up to interpretation.  It is a mathematical fact that 47 wins is 6 games higher than a .500 winning percentage would give you (.5 * 82 = 41).

It is also a mathematical fact that if you 47-35, you would have to lose 12 games to fall back to .500.

Of course it is left up to interpretation.