Nylon Calculus Projected Wins-Sweet!!

[The One]

Man, if this is how it plays out...

http://nyloncalculus.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2015/10/lakers_fixed.png


Mavericks with the 11th worst record!

Nets with the worst record!!

And the Celtics with 52 wins!!!

Oh my grand!

[PhoSita]

It sure would be sweet.

[fairweatherfan]

One thing I've noticed about our current team is that we have maybe the biggest positive discrepancy between how good we look on paper and how good we look in statistical models. 

I think that's partly by design - Danny seems to prioritize underrated talent with good advanced stats profiles, and partly a testament to how Stevens' system works with the guys that are here.

Great news anyway, let's see how it shakes out.

[tarheelsxxiii]

How these were calculated is probably worth looking into, but whatever ...

How cool would it be for the most steadfast of homers to be proven right this year? The forum would explode if we reached the #2 seed.

[littleteapot]

This is the article where they discuss these rankings:
http://nyloncalculus.com/2015/10/24/usage-adjusted-win-projections-for-2016-part-1/

And their preview on the C's:
http://nyloncalculus.com/2015/10/22/2015-16-season-preview-boston-celtics/

[sofutomygaha]

One thing I've noticed about our current team is that we have maybe the biggest positive discrepancy between how good we look on paper and how good we look in statistical models. 

Us and Portland, apparently. We can try to minimize our homer bias when receiving this prediction by asking ourselves, "how do I feel about the Trailblazers going .500?"

[PhoSita]

One thing I've noticed about our current team is that we have maybe the biggest positive discrepancy between how good we look on paper and how good we look in statistical models. 

I think that's partly by design - Danny seems to prioritize underrated talent with good advanced stats profiles, and partly a testament to how Stevens' system works with the guys that are here.

Great news anyway, let's see how it shakes out.

I'm also curious how these statistical models work.

When I see the Celts rated so highly, I can only imagine that depth is given a lot of weight, while the lack of stand-out individual production is discounted. 

While the team got a bit better this summer from a talent perspective, and will be even deeper than last year, I think the team's biggest issues from last season are still there.

On paper at least, the Celts still lack an inside presence on defense, and they still figure to rely a great deal on outside shooting despite a lack of quality outside shooters.

Based on that, I don't expect the Celts to perform up to what so many of these models say they will do.  But I could be missing something the models are recognizing.

[snively]

One thing I've noticed about our current team is that we have maybe the biggest positive discrepancy between how good we look on paper and how good we look in statistical models. 

Us and Portland, apparently. We can try to minimize our homer bias when receiving this prediction by asking ourselves, "how do I feel about the Trailblazers going .500?"

I watched the Blazers once this preseason.

They look pretty good despite their extreme youth.  The combination of shooting bigs and Lillard's offensive brilliance makes them very difficult to guard. 

[snively]

One thing I've noticed about our current team is that we have maybe the biggest positive discrepancy between how good we look on paper and how good we look in statistical models. 

I think that's partly by design - Danny seems to prioritize underrated talent with good advanced stats profiles, and partly a testament to how Stevens' system works with the guys that are here.

Great news anyway, let's see how it shakes out.

I'm also curious how these statistical models work.

When I see the Celts rated so highly, I can only imagine that depth is given a lot of weight, while the lack of stand-out individual production is discounted. 

While the team got a bit better this summer from a talent perspective, and will be even deeper than last year, I think the team's biggest issues from last season are still there.

On paper at least, the Celts still lack an inside presence on defense, and they still figure to rely a great deal on outside shooting despite a lack of quality outside shooters.

Based on that, I don't expect the Celts to perform up to what so many of these models say they will do.  But I could be missing something the models are recognizing.

A lot of these models depend heavily on plus-minus stats. And the Celts are loaded with rock-solid plus-minus guys.  And they replaced their worst plus-minus offender Bass with a comparative stud in Amir Johnson.

It's the same reason why the models hate the Nets. Chock full of massive negatives in leading roles. For instance, most people would agree that Jack and Larkin are below-average starters, but RPM has them as below-average 3rd-stringers.

[PhoSita]

One thing I've noticed about our current team is that we have maybe the biggest positive discrepancy between how good we look on paper and how good we look in statistical models. 

I think that's partly by design - Danny seems to prioritize underrated talent with good advanced stats profiles, and partly a testament to how Stevens' system works with the guys that are here.

Great news anyway, let's see how it shakes out.

I'm also curious how these statistical models work.

When I see the Celts rated so highly, I can only imagine that depth is given a lot of weight, while the lack of stand-out individual production is discounted. 

While the team got a bit better this summer from a talent perspective, and will be even deeper than last year, I think the team's biggest issues from last season are still there.

On paper at least, the Celts still lack an inside presence on defense, and they still figure to rely a great deal on outside shooting despite a lack of quality outside shooters.

Based on that, I don't expect the Celts to perform up to what so many of these models say they will do.  But I could be missing something the models are recognizing.

A lot of these models depend heavily on plus-minus stats. And the Celts are loaded with rock-solid plus-minus guys.  And they replaced their worst plus-minus offender Bass with a comparative stud in Amir Johnson.

It's the same reason why the models hate the Nets. Chock full of massive negatives in leading roles. For instance, most people would agree that Jack and Larkin are below-average starters, but RPM has them as below-average 3rd-stringers.

Hm.  It makes sense that they depend on plus-minus.  I must admit I've always been dubious of plus-minus.  I look at the RPM rankings, for example, and I see enough listings that make me go, "Huh?" that I question how effective it is at quantifying how valuable players are in relation to one another.

[Vermont Green]

This projection system gave the Celtics a bunch of points because they have the most "above average players".  Although accurate, I am not sure I buy that this is going to translate as effectively into wins.  I guess it kind of worked for Atlanta last year so who knows.

[PhoSita]

This projection system gave the Celtics a bunch of points because they have the most "above average players".  Although accurate, I am not sure I buy that this is going to translate as effectively into wins.  I guess it kind of worked for Atlanta last year so who knows.

Atlanta also had at least three players who are better than anyone the Celts currently have, so I've always thought it was kind of a weak comparison aside from the way the teams like to run their offenses.

[ImShakHeIsShaq]

Now, I'm a huge homer, I mean like it's almost sad but #2 in the east? I hope so, but I can't even wrap my head around that LOL.

I'm actually sad that so many people are on the Celts train, I haven't really heard anyone say we won't make the playoffs and I haven't seen them say we are going to back our way in either. A lot of people say we will win around 45.

PLEASE OUTSIDERS START DOUBTING AND HATING ON US!!

[snively]

One thing I've noticed about our current team is that we have maybe the biggest positive discrepancy between how good we look on paper and how good we look in statistical models. 

I think that's partly by design - Danny seems to prioritize underrated talent with good advanced stats profiles, and partly a testament to how Stevens' system works with the guys that are here.

Great news anyway, let's see how it shakes out.

I'm also curious how these statistical models work.

When I see the Celts rated so highly, I can only imagine that depth is given a lot of weight, while the lack of stand-out individual production is discounted. 

While the team got a bit better this summer from a talent perspective, and will be even deeper than last year, I think the team's biggest issues from last season are still there.

On paper at least, the Celts still lack an inside presence on defense, and they still figure to rely a great deal on outside shooting despite a lack of quality outside shooters.

Based on that, I don't expect the Celts to perform up to what so many of these models say they will do.  But I could be missing something the models are recognizing.

A lot of these models depend heavily on plus-minus stats. And the Celts are loaded with rock-solid plus-minus guys.  And they replaced their worst plus-minus offender Bass with a comparative stud in Amir Johnson.

It's the same reason why the models hate the Nets. Chock full of massive negatives in leading roles. For instance, most people would agree that Jack and Larkin are below-average starters, but RPM has them as below-average 3rd-stringers.

Hm.  It makes sense that they depend on plus-minus.  I must admit I've always been dubious of plus-minus.  I look at the RPM rankings, for example, and I see enough listings that make me go, "Huh?" that I question how effective it is at quantifying how valuable players are in relation to one another.

Yeah, Zaza Pachulia ranking as the #2 center in the league last year is a big Edited.  Profanity and masked profanity are against forum rules and may result in discipline., but generalized over 10 rotation guys with likely minutes taken into account and I think it's a pretty good predictive tool for records.

Watching a lot of Celtic and Net basketball this season will be a good chance to see if it holds up. Very few other teams where the RPM-based predictions vary so wildly from the conventional wisdom (though conventional wisdom is catching up with extreme pessimism for the Nets in a hurry).

[BDeCosta26]

This projection system gave the Celtics a bunch of points because they have the most "above average players".  Although accurate, I am not sure I buy that this is going to translate as effectively into wins.  I guess it kind of worked for Atlanta last year so who knows.

Atlanta also had at least three players who are better than anyone the Celts currently have, so I've always thought it was kind of a weak comparison aside from the way the teams like to run their offenses.

Well besides maybe Horford, no one on that team was really looked at as better than anyone on their current Celtics team until they had their great season last year. I think if were good enough to win almost. 50 games this year, Smart could easily look as good as Teague looks now, or Crowder could look as good as DeMarre Carroll after this year if he improved his shooting. Olynyk could look as good as Millsap if he takes a leap.

Point being, it's worth noting that it took good-great seasons from those guys for Atlanta to play as well as they did last year. If we play well enough to win 50 odd games, well have a few guys who have increased their value as well.