Celts projected for 47 Wins by SI

[tarheelsxxiii]

That model is a joke. I wish people would stop "calculating" such junk.

[JOMVP]

With all that draft capital, and if Sacramento still can't get out of their own way this season, DeMarcus Cousins will be a Celtic next summer.

[D.o.s.]

That model is a joke. I wish people would stop "calculating" such junk.

Offseason, bro.

[Evantime34]

I thought the projection for the Celtics at 47 wins was reasonable. That was with Johnson actually being viewed as a downgrade from Bass. The full season of Isaiah Thomas and Jae Crowder should positively effect our win total as well as development from Marcus Smart.

 I believe Charlotte, Toronto, and Chicago are too high. While Cleveland, Miami, Indiana and Utah are too low.

Johnson is not a downgrade from Bass. As much as I like Bass it's clearly an upgrade.

Completely agree, which I think gets down to the heart of the flaw in the model. I believe he used an equation based on career win shares to predict next season's win shares.

Why guess? It's explained in the article:

In this case, what I’ve done is relatively simple: for every player who changed teams at some point during the 2014-15 season or during this off-season, I’ve transferred the amount of Win Shares each player earned last season to their current team.

Of course, a player’s 2014-15 Win Shares is somewhat reliant upon the quality of the teams he played for. And from season to season, the statistic can be affected by a number of factors—how a player fits into their team's offensive and defensive systems, any change in minutes per game, young players getting better and old players getting worse, etc.

But if you’re going to use one individual statistic to measure team wins, it’s clearly the best metric available. And it’s not as if other statistics aren’t influenced by a team’s favorable (or unfavorable) environment. Any given guard is almost certainly going to have better shooting, passing and defensive numbers on a team like San Antonio than he is with the Sixers.

To project how many Win Shares each first-round pick will produce next season, I calculated the mean amount that rookies from around their draft slot have accounted for over the last five years.

I also projected how superstars returning from injuries (Kevin Durant, Paul George, Carmelo Anthony) could affect the playoff race by extrapolating their Win Shares in the limited time they played last year to a “healthy” season.

Well I guess I failed my reading comprehension test today by skimming the intro. That is pretty weak. He should have taken win shares per 48 then multiplied that by the minutes a player is expected to play.

He also should have used a curve to project player development in terms of win shares.

[Smokeeye123]

I honestly can say that I will be praying, rooting, cheering, and dreaming for us to get under 20 wins.

thinl of the ramifications there. If we win only 19 games that basically means Smart stepped backwards, KO and Sully came back worse, AB regressed, Crowders deal proved to be an overpay, and worst of all, Brad Stevens loses his credibility as a rising young coach. Now we are the lakers of this year. A ton of cap space, a huge negative stigma, 1 quasi-promising player, and a high draft pick. the only difference. We dont have the allure of LA.

Or, you know there were some injuries, Smart and the young guys played great while the old ones stunk, or they trade parts of their team.

[D.o.s.]

I thought the projection for the Celtics at 47 wins was reasonable. That was with Johnson actually being viewed as a downgrade from Bass. The full season of Isaiah Thomas and Jae Crowder should positively effect our win total as well as development from Marcus Smart.

 I believe Charlotte, Toronto, and Chicago are too high. While Cleveland, Miami, Indiana and Utah are too low.

Johnson is not a downgrade from Bass. As much as I like Bass it's clearly an upgrade.

Completely agree, which I think gets down to the heart of the flaw in the model. I believe he used an equation based on career win shares to predict next season's win shares.

Why guess? It's explained in the article:

In this case, what I’ve done is relatively simple: for every player who changed teams at some point during the 2014-15 season or during this off-season, I’ve transferred the amount of Win Shares each player earned last season to their current team.

Of course, a player’s 2014-15 Win Shares is somewhat reliant upon the quality of the teams he played for. And from season to season, the statistic can be affected by a number of factors—how a player fits into their team's offensive and defensive systems, any change in minutes per game, young players getting better and old players getting worse, etc.

But if you’re going to use one individual statistic to measure team wins, it’s clearly the best metric available. And it’s not as if other statistics aren’t influenced by a team’s favorable (or unfavorable) environment. Any given guard is almost certainly going to have better shooting, passing and defensive numbers on a team like San Antonio than he is with the Sixers.

To project how many Win Shares each first-round pick will produce next season, I calculated the mean amount that rookies from around their draft slot have accounted for over the last five years.

I also projected how superstars returning from injuries (Kevin Durant, Paul George, Carmelo Anthony) could affect the playoff race by extrapolating their Win Shares in the limited time they played last year to a “healthy” season.

Well I guess I failed my reading comprehension test today by skimming the intro. That is pretty weak. He should have taken win shares per 48 then multiplied that by the minutes a player is expected to play.

He also should have used a curve to project player development in terms of win shares.

Agreed, but that's real math, not sportswriter math.

[Celtics18]

I thought the projection for the Celtics at 47 wins was reasonable. That was with Johnson actually being viewed as a downgrade from Bass. The full season of Isaiah Thomas and Jae Crowder should positively effect our win total as well as development from Marcus Smart.

 I believe Charlotte, Toronto, and Chicago are too high. While Cleveland, Miami, Indiana and Utah are too low.

Johnson is not a downgrade from Bass. As much as I like Bass it's clearly an upgrade.

Completely agree, which I think gets down to the heart of the flaw in the model. I believe he used an equation based on career win shares to predict next season's win shares.

Why guess? It's explained in the article:

In this case, what I’ve done is relatively simple: for every player who changed teams at some point during the 2014-15 season or during this off-season, I’ve transferred the amount of Win Shares each player earned last season to their current team.

Of course, a player’s 2014-15 Win Shares is somewhat reliant upon the quality of the teams he played for. And from season to season, the statistic can be affected by a number of factors—how a player fits into their team's offensive and defensive systems, any change in minutes per game, young players getting better and old players getting worse, etc.

But if you’re going to use one individual statistic to measure team wins, it’s clearly the best metric available. And it’s not as if other statistics aren’t influenced by a team’s favorable (or unfavorable) environment. Any given guard is almost certainly going to have better shooting, passing and defensive numbers on a team like San Antonio than he is with the Sixers.

To project how many Win Shares each first-round pick will produce next season, I calculated the mean amount that rookies from around their draft slot have accounted for over the last five years.

I also projected how superstars returning from injuries (Kevin Durant, Paul George, Carmelo Anthony) could affect the playoff race by extrapolating their Win Shares in the limited time they played last year to a “healthy” season.

Well I guess I failed my reading comprehension test today by skimming the intro. That is pretty weak. He should have taken win shares per 48 then multiplied that by the minutes a player is expected to play.

He also should have used a curve to project player development in terms of win shares.

Agreed, but that's real math, not sportswriter math.

Again, though, it would have been imperfect.  The bolded portion would be up for some serious debate, I imagine. 

[Ilikesports17]

I honestly can say that I will be praying, rooting, cheering, and dreaming for us to get under 20 wins.

thinl of the ramifications there. If we win only 19 games that basically means Smart stepped backwards, KO and Sully came back worse, AB regressed, Crowders deal proved to be an overpay, and worst of all, Brad Stevens loses his credibility as a rising young coach. Now we are the lakers of this year. A ton of cap space, a huge negative stigma, 1 quasi-promising player, and a high draft pick. the only difference. We dont have the allure of LA.

Or, you know there were some injuries, Smart and the young guys played great while the old ones stunk, or they trade parts of their team.

3 teams in the entire NBA were under 20 wins last year.

[D.o.s.]

I thought the projection for the Celtics at 47 wins was reasonable. That was with Johnson actually being viewed as a downgrade from Bass. The full season of Isaiah Thomas and Jae Crowder should positively effect our win total as well as development from Marcus Smart.

 I believe Charlotte, Toronto, and Chicago are too high. While Cleveland, Miami, Indiana and Utah are too low.

Johnson is not a downgrade from Bass. As much as I like Bass it's clearly an upgrade.

Completely agree, which I think gets down to the heart of the flaw in the model. I believe he used an equation based on career win shares to predict next season's win shares.

Why guess? It's explained in the article:

In this case, what I’ve done is relatively simple: for every player who changed teams at some point during the 2014-15 season or during this off-season, I’ve transferred the amount of Win Shares each player earned last season to their current team.

Of course, a player’s 2014-15 Win Shares is somewhat reliant upon the quality of the teams he played for. And from season to season, the statistic can be affected by a number of factors—how a player fits into their team's offensive and defensive systems, any change in minutes per game, young players getting better and old players getting worse, etc.

But if you’re going to use one individual statistic to measure team wins, it’s clearly the best metric available. And it’s not as if other statistics aren’t influenced by a team’s favorable (or unfavorable) environment. Any given guard is almost certainly going to have better shooting, passing and defensive numbers on a team like San Antonio than he is with the Sixers.

To project how many Win Shares each first-round pick will produce next season, I calculated the mean amount that rookies from around their draft slot have accounted for over the last five years.

I also projected how superstars returning from injuries (Kevin Durant, Paul George, Carmelo Anthony) could affect the playoff race by extrapolating their Win Shares in the limited time they played last year to a “healthy” season.

Well I guess I failed my reading comprehension test today by skimming the intro. That is pretty weak. He should have taken win shares per 48 then multiplied that by the minutes a player is expected to play.

He also should have used a curve to project player development in terms of win shares.

Agreed, but that's real math, not sportswriter math.

Again, though, it would have been imperfect.  The bolded portion would be up for some serious debate, I imagine.

Every projection is imperfect, by nature. Evantime's method accounts for slightly more things than the SI article.

[Evantime34]

I thought the projection for the Celtics at 47 wins was reasonable. That was with Johnson actually being viewed as a downgrade from Bass. The full season of Isaiah Thomas and Jae Crowder should positively effect our win total as well as development from Marcus Smart.

 I believe Charlotte, Toronto, and Chicago are too high. While Cleveland, Miami, Indiana and Utah are too low.

Johnson is not a downgrade from Bass. As much as I like Bass it's clearly an upgrade.

Completely agree, which I think gets down to the heart of the flaw in the model. I believe he used an equation based on career win shares to predict next season's win shares.

Why guess? It's explained in the article:

In this case, what I’ve done is relatively simple: for every player who changed teams at some point during the 2014-15 season or during this off-season, I’ve transferred the amount of Win Shares each player earned last season to their current team.

Of course, a player’s 2014-15 Win Shares is somewhat reliant upon the quality of the teams he played for. And from season to season, the statistic can be affected by a number of factors—how a player fits into their team's offensive and defensive systems, any change in minutes per game, young players getting better and old players getting worse, etc.

But if you’re going to use one individual statistic to measure team wins, it’s clearly the best metric available. And it’s not as if other statistics aren’t influenced by a team’s favorable (or unfavorable) environment. Any given guard is almost certainly going to have better shooting, passing and defensive numbers on a team like San Antonio than he is with the Sixers.

To project how many Win Shares each first-round pick will produce next season, I calculated the mean amount that rookies from around their draft slot have accounted for over the last five years.

I also projected how superstars returning from injuries (Kevin Durant, Paul George, Carmelo Anthony) could affect the playoff race by extrapolating their Win Shares in the limited time they played last year to a “healthy” season.

Well I guess I failed my reading comprehension test today by skimming the intro. That is pretty weak. He should have taken win shares per 48 then multiplied that by the minutes a player is expected to play.

He also should have used a curve to project player development in terms of win shares.

Agreed, but that's real math, not sportswriter math.

Again, though, it would have been imperfect.  The bolded portion would be up for some serious debate, I imagine.

You could figure that out scientifically by using average minutes played for a season (or a floating average over the last 3 seasons) then making sure the total number of minutes played equals that of minutes in a season.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

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.

[RockinRyA]

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.

[Future Celtics Owner]

I honestly can say that I will be praying, rooting, cheering, and dreaming for us to get under 20 wins.

thinl of the ramifications there. If we win only 19 games that basically means Smart stepped backwards, KO and Sully came back worse, AB regressed, Crowders deal proved to be an overpay, and worst of all, Brad Stevens loses his credibility as a rising young coach. Now we are the lakers of this year. A ton of cap space, a huge negative stigma, 1 quasi-promising player, and a high draft pick. the only difference. We dont have the allure of LA.

Or, you know there were some injuries, Smart and the young guys played great while the old ones stunk, or they trade parts of their team.

TP Smoke, mostly through trades and lack of experienced depth. Think I have mentioned a fair amount of times my desire to trade AB, ET, Zeller, KO/Sully, and IT(who is our best player and most valuable asset bc of skill and contract) for prospects and picks(preferably another pick/s in 2017). In all honesty in these situations in which you trade proven players for prospects and picks, usually you give more up and take on more of a risk...naturally.

Don't get me wrong I want Smart to have the best year he can as well as everyone else, including the role players we signed(with added pt they can pad their stats more and then we can get them the hell out of here). But we need a franchise player, then we need another, and then we need some all stars. Funny thing about draft picks....you can trade them or draft them. If we have our own top pick with the Nets, we can make it back to a Banner faster than the way we are going now COMPLETELY IMO.

Also don't worry about Brad Steven's and hurting his legitimacy. He wants to win a championship too and has come close many time in the NCAA and fell short. Heck he did something special this year and almost got Coach of the Year, and I think he deserved it. Nothing can take that away and having younger less experienced players will hurt our short term record but then we will be golden for a decade. I also believe that CBS and Ainge must realize that the contending teams and favorite have gotten better and there is no shot with the talent we have to win a championship.

Trust me, rip the bandaid off and start winning championships. The time is now while Lebron, Spurs, Warriors, Rockets, and a better Eastern Conference. Also, I am pretty sure, we are the only team without an allstar level talent or a franchise player.

[Evantime34]

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.

I don't agree with the teams will be prepared for them. They surprised opponents because of how hard they played. They played hard because of the makeup of who is on the team. It's not like the actions the C's run are revolutionary, a ton of teams run multiple pick and rolls and a spread system like they do.

In general a lot of people want to negate the finish to the season by saying 1. The teams the Celtics were playing didn't have anything to play for 2. We surprised teams through effort and we won't be able to this season.

As far as #1 is concerned the Celtics beat a lot of teams who were playing for playoff positioning. They also fared better against bad teams in the second half, and it's not like those teams had much to play for in the first half of the season.

For #2 it is true that the C's won more games than people thought due to great effort. The reason for this effort was who the C's had on their team. With a team comprised completely of gritty hard working guys why would it be any different this year?

People discount our second half success because it doesn't fit their notion that NBA teams win solely based on the star played they have. The fact of the matter is the C's played better in the second half because they got a group of players together that fit well and played hard. All those players besides Bass are still on the team so I don't see why that wouldn't continue.

Another factor in improvement is that on average players improve statistically until they turn 28 and since our whole team is essentially under 28 I expect internal growth to spur improvement.

[Ilikesports17]

I honestly can say that I will be praying, rooting, cheering, and dreaming for us to get under 20 wins.

thinl of the ramifications there. If we win only 19 games that basically means Smart stepped backwards, KO and Sully came back worse, AB regressed, Crowders deal proved to be an overpay, and worst of all, Brad Stevens loses his credibility as a rising young coach. Now we are the lakers of this year. A ton of cap space, a huge negative stigma, 1 quasi-promising player, and a high draft pick. the only difference. We dont have the allure of LA.

Or, you know there were some injuries, Smart and the young guys played great while the old ones stunk, or they trade parts of their team.

TP Smoke, mostly through trades and lack of experienced depth. Think I have mentioned a fair amount of times my desire to trade AB, ET, Zeller, KO/Sully, and IT(who is our best player and most valuable asset bc of skill and contract) for prospects and picks(preferably another pick/s in 2017). In all honesty in these situations in which you trade proven players for prospects and picks, usually you give more up and take on more of a risk...naturally.

Don't get me wrong I want Smart to have the best year he can as well as everyone else, including the role players we signed(with added pt they can pad their stats more and then we can get them the hell out of here). But we need a franchise player, then we need another, and then we need some all stars. Funny thing about draft picks....you can trade them or draft them. If we have our own top pick with the Nets, we can make it back to a Banner faster than the way we are going now COMPLETELY IMO.

Also don't worry about Brad Steven's and hurting his legitimacy. He wants to win a championship too and has come close many time in the NCAA and fell short. Heck he did something special this year and almost got Coach of the Year, and I think he deserved it. Nothing can take that away and having younger less experienced players will hurt our short term record but then we will be golden for a decade. I also believe that CBS and Ainge must realize that the contending teams and favorite have gotten better and there is no shot with the talent we have to win a championship.

Trust me, rip the bandaid off and start winning championships. The time is now while Lebron, Spurs, Warriors, Rockets, and a better Eastern Conference. Also, I am pretty sure, we are the only team without an allstar level talent or a franchise player.

Ok I guess I just view rooting for 20 wins and rooting for the team to blow it up and win 20 games as different things. My fault there. And you are correct you have been very consistent with your desire to more or less sell off our non-rookies.

I mean if we can move IT, Bradley, Turner, Lee, Zeller, Sully for a high level prospect and a top 10 pick then head into the draft with the newly acquired top 10 pick, the Brooklyn top 10 pick, and ourpick (which would be top 3 in your world) coinciding with Smart being a beast early on then going down with a fluke injury.

Then Rozier, Hunter, Young, Mickey all get big minutes and impress, but by the virtue of being experienceless and young we still suck record wise... then yes 20 wins would be delightful.

Now if the current group plus a few injuries wins less than 20 games i think that is very bad for the future of the boston Celtics

The thing is that I think wed need to lose either to trade or injury like 6 or 7 guys to be that bad. and I dont think thats realistic.

I mean trade Lee, Amir gets hurt, Sully traded, Bradley hurt Thomas and Turner traded. now you have Smart Hunter Crowder Olynyk Zeller with Jerebko Young Rozier Mickey off the bench. That team is garbage but with Brad I honestly dont think they are bad enough to lose 20 games without Smart having a dissapointing season. 20 games is awful... really awful.