Nylon Calculus Projected Wins-Sweet!!

[littleteapot]

Not really.  Millsap and Horford were maybe a little better than KO and Sully, but not that much, and most of their other "stars" last season looked like anything but in years 1-3 of their career.  You'd be hard pressed to argue that Jeff Teague was a more impressive rookie than Smart.

Mike

Either you expect them to be as good as Millsap and therefore would be disappointed if you got 80% of him out of either of them, or you don't expect them to be as good as Millsap and therefore at this time wouldn't say our team has a better top 3 players than Atlanta. Which is it?

[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.

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.

For the record, I do not think the Celtics will win 52 games.  I think the algorithm gave too much weight to our depth of average to slightly above average players.  If you could play 10 players at once, the Celtics might be that good but since you only can play 5 at a time, your best 2 or 3 make a big difference (no big news with that).  Since our top 3 are not as good as most other teams' top 3 (including Atlanta), our 4-12 will not be able to make up for that.

That is the flaw that I see in this projection.  But we shall see.  I actually don't care if we make the playoffs this year or not.  Clearly it will be a little more interesting if we do win more games but whether we do or not, we still have some team building to do.

[BDeCosta26]

I feel like these computer algorithms have done more to fuel our excitement than anything we've seen on the court.  Well, the 6-1 pre-season did its part but all these stories really escalated things.  Heck, I was going into this season hoping for the team to go .500, but now it feels like getting to 45 is set in stone with exceeding that being no surprise at all.

I think your right about the algorithms raising expectations a bit LHR, but I also think it's a valid correction that the MSM is taking the C's a bit more seriously.

We finished the year 24-12 after the core of our current roster came together and managed to finish the year one game under .500 after a god awful start to the season. Considering how bright of a coach Stevens is and how hard this team plays on a nightly basis (that alone can win you some games in this league), plus how we improved on our biggest weaknesses with Amir, David Lee and the continued development of our young guys I think it's more of a stretch to say we barely make .500 than it is to say, win 45-48 games. We were pretty much .500 last year and we've really improved. I think it's more likely that improvement carries over this year than it stagnating.

Btw, I love CelticsBeat and listen every Monday on my way to work, you always have excellent guests and it's a great place for Celtics talk. Keep up the good work.

[TheTruthFot18]

This would be great but I think that Lakers pick owed to Philly will be a huge x-factor in the draft. If the records fall this way Lakers keep the pick, but I don't think they will be one of the 3 worst teams. That means Philly could very easily get two top 5 picks. Maybe use one and package the other with Noel/Embiid for a superstar.

That said, as long as the Nets do that bad I think the Celtics will be fine.

[sofutomygaha]

Fivethirtyeight put up a follow-on piece this morning based on the CARMELO projection system. There is a similar optimism about the Celtics in that analysis, so I hope you don't mind if I just post it to the hot thread...

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-53-best-franchise-players-in-the-nba/

Like nyloncalculus, the carmelo system really likes Marcus Smart. 538 takes it a step further and projects Smart to actually be the 13th most valuable player in the entire league over the next six years (the horizon of the projection)-- that puts him just a little above several all-stars, including Paul George, Blake Griffin, Jimmy Butler, and Kevin Love but not quite in the inner circle with superstars like Durant, James, Davis, etc

It's a bold prediction, and they note that the baseball version has projected superstar futures for some interesting busts in the past (for example, it thought Wily Mo Pena would be Giancarlo Stanton).

[LooseCannon]

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.

For the record, I do not think the Celtics will win 52 games.  I think the algorithm gave too much weight to our depth of average to slightly above average players.  If you could play 10 players at once, the Celtics might be that good but since you only can play 5 at a time, your best 2 or 3 make a big difference (no big news with that).  Since our top 3 are not as good as most other teams' top 3 (including Atlanta), our 4-12 will not be able to make up for that.

That is the flaw that I see in this projection.  But we shall see.  I actually don't care if we make the playoffs this year or not.  Clearly it will be a little more interesting if we do win more games but whether we do or not, we still have some team building to do.

I think some of the difference of opinion comes from a belief that the Celtics have talent that is more than just slightly above average.  They are projecting over 20% of minutes going to star-level production, similar to the Bucks and Pacers, who they have at around 38 wins, and more than the Wizards, who they have at 46 wins.  Their methodology has Washington as the team with the most comparable talent distribution, but rates Boston as better.

[Yoki_IsTheName]

52 wins!?

I'm all for improving, and I think we have a better team than the one we had last year that had the big run that propelled us to the 7th seed.

But a 12 win improvement is probably too rich. I think we are in the 45 win range. I'd be elated with 52 wins, especially next year when we get the cap room and show the free agents that we can win despite not having an All-Star. But I'm not sure we're good enough to do that.

But hey, bring it.

[LooseCannon]

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.

What nutjobs have been telling you that Shane Larkin is a below-average starter?

Yes, that seems crazy.  Below-average backup seems like a better description.

[PhoSita]

That is the flaw that I see in this projection.  But we shall see.  I actually don't care if we make the playoffs this year or not.  Clearly it will be a little more interesting if we do win more games but whether we do or not, we still have some team building to do.

The Celts have gone all in for the 5th seed for this season, albeit without leveraging future assets, so I want them to do as well as possible.  I'll be bummed if they give lots of minutes to guys with no future here like David Lee and Amir Johnson only to end up missing the playoffs, or getting swept in the 1st round again.

So long as we get a lottery pick or two from the Nets / Mavs, I'm just fine with the Celts pushing hard for the middle.

[MBunge]

Not really.  Millsap and Horford were maybe a little better than KO and Sully, but not that much, and most of their other "stars" last season looked like anything but in years 1-3 of their career.  You'd be hard pressed to argue that Jeff Teague was a more impressive rookie than Smart.

Mike

Either you expect them to be as good as Millsap and therefore would be disappointed if you got 80% of him out of either of them, or you don't expect them to be as good as Millsap and therefore at this time wouldn't say our team has a better top 3 players than Atlanta. Which is it?

Since, you know, Atlanta won 60 games last year with veteran players largely in the prime of their careers, a person would kind of have to be an idiot to say that we have a better top 3 right now.

But while you can look at Millsap and Horford and argue that they were better at the same than KO and Sully are now, you absolutely CANNOT make that argument about the Hawks as a whole.  Teague, DeMarre Carrol, Sefolosha and Dennis Schroder weren't anything to write home about as young players.  Heck, Carrol was a total scrub until he turned 27 and Kyle Korver could barely get on the court as a rookie.

Mike

[littleteapot]

Since, you know, Atlanta won 60 games last year with veteran players largely in the prime of their careers, a person would kind of have to be an idiot to say that we have a better top 3 right now.

But while you can look at Millsap and Horford and argue that they were better at the same than KO and Sully are now, you absolutely CANNOT make that argument about the Hawks as a whole.  Teague, DeMarre Carrol, Sefolosha and Dennis Schroder weren't anything to write home about as young players.  Heck, Carrol was a total scrub until he turned 27 and Kyle Korver could barely get on the court as a rookie.

Mike

I don't think Millsap was better at 23 than those guys, but I thought the argument was about if the Hawks last year were an example of a team getting a top 3 seed with a roster like the C's have, which I don't.

BTW, I don't really like the who was this player like at 23 argument because most players who play like Millsap at 23 don't develop to the point of playing like Millsap has in the past 5 seasons.

[Moranis]

Not really.  Millsap and Horford were maybe a little better than KO and Sully, but not that much, and most of their other "stars" last season looked like anything but in years 1-3 of their career.  You'd be hard pressed to argue that Jeff Teague was a more impressive rookie than Smart.

Mike

Either you expect them to be as good as Millsap and therefore would be disappointed if you got 80% of him out of either of them, or you don't expect them to be as good as Millsap and therefore at this time wouldn't say our team has a better top 3 players than Atlanta. Which is it?

Since, you know, Atlanta won 60 games last year with veteran players largely in the prime of their careers, a person would kind of have to be an idiot to say that we have a better top 3 right now.

But while you can look at Millsap and Horford and argue that they were better at the same than KO and Sully are now, you absolutely CANNOT make that argument about the Hawks as a whole.  Teague, DeMarre Carrol, Sefolosha and Dennis Schroder weren't anything to write home about as young players.  Heck, Carrol was a total scrub until he turned 27 and Kyle Korver could barely get on the court as a rookie.

Mike

Korver played 12 minutes a game as a rookie and by year 2 was basically a starter playing 33 minutes a game.  He also showed an incredible skill set immediately in his shooting, which he has maintained his entire career.  Korver was basically the same player in his 2nd year as he was last year.  This goes to little's point about player development.  It is rare for players to make gigantic leaps like Millsap has done.  Generally players have a general progression upward to their peak. 

[PhoSita]

Zach Lowe:

That said, projection systems pegging them for 50 wins might be overdoing it. A lot of that is based on Boston’s strong play after the trade deadline, when Brad Stevens played a ton of small-ball units around Isaiah Thomas’s go-go pick-and-roll game. Those units scored well and juiced up individual player stats — numbers that figure into some of those projection systems spitting out gaudy win totals. It’s unclear if Boston can keep up that production playing with bigger groups, especially when teams wise up and drop far back on David Lee pick-and-rolls, so that he isn’t starting at an easy 4-on-3 whenever a point guard slips him the ball.

[PhoSita]

  Teague, DeMarre Carrol, Sefolosha and Dennis Schroder weren't anything to write home about as young players.  Heck, Carrol was a total scrub until he turned 27 and Kyle Korver could barely get on the court as a rookie.

I agree that the Celts have a lot of guys who could "pop" like the ones you mentioned if they found themselves in the right situation.

Having two All-Stars in the frontcourt has a tendency to allow that to happen.  I think Teague was a bit of a late bloomer, too, though he always had the core prototype point guard skills to make a leap.  Kyle Korver, as a pure shooter with below average athleticism, is a classic late bloomer, as well, though I don't think anybody expected him to shoot dang near 50% on a very high volume of three pointers for an entire season.

[Vermont Green]

I don't get the debate about Atlanta.  Their top 3 and possibly even top 4 played better last than anyone on the Celtics is going to play this year in all likelihood.  Starting with Horford and Milsap, they are good, there is no way we are going to get that kind of play out of say Amir Johnson and Sullinger.  Sullinger may be able to play as well as Milsap did last season some day but I don't see it next season.

As for Teague, he had a great year last year.  Smart may never be that good (he may also be better someday) much less this season and Thomas can't be what Teague was last year either.  Thomas is great off the bench, very productive, but not steer a team to 60 wins kind of play.

As for the fourth (Carroll), he may well have benefited from being on such a balanced team but I am not sure we have anyone who can score as he did.

Atlanta had a special year, a couple players "broke out" all at the same time which in theory could happen to Boston I guess (Teague, Carroll and Korver I consider broke out, Horford and Milsap are just that good).  More realistically, even Atlanta might not win 52 games, and the Celtics are a poor man's Hawks at best (barring multiple breakout surprise seasons).