Who's better...'16 or '17 Celtics?

[Fan from VT]

We'll have to see if it continues, but right now, definitely '17. Last year was great, no doubt, but we were a little overrated. Our margin of victory was only 2.6, and our "expected" pythagorean wins were only 48 compared to 53 actual wins, indicating we were statistically lucky to win 5 extra games, making us look better than we actually were. SRS (simple rating, taking into account margin of victory and strength of schedule) was 2.25, or 8th place.

This year, our pythagorean expected wins are 9 and we have 9 wins, so we are not abnormally lucky. Our margin of victory is up to 9, and SRS is up to 7, for 3rd in the league.

So, thus far, better this year.

[mmmmm]

We'll have to see if it continues, but right now, definitely '17. Last year was great, no doubt, but we were a little overrated. Our margin of victory was only 2.6, and our "expected" pythagorean wins were only 48 compared to 53 actual wins, indicating we were statistically lucky to win 5 extra games, making us look better than we actually were. SRS (simple rating, taking into account margin of victory and strength of schedule) was 2.25, or 8th place.

This year, our pythagorean expected wins are 9 and we have 9 wins, so we are not abnormally lucky. Our margin of victory is up to 9, and SRS is up to 7, for 3rd in the league.

So, thus far, better this year.

Out-performing the pythagorean W-L isn't necessarily about 'luck'.   Teams that have very good half-court execution tend to do well in games that come down to a few possessions.   I.E., 'crunch time' favors half-court execution.   And the Celtics last year were extremely good in half-court / crunch-time execution because of their devastating pick & roll game (fueled by a certain little guy).

I totally agree that this year's team is significantly better than last year's.  This year's roster is just so much more balanced.  Last year's lineups were way too small-guard-centric.  This year we are depending on and getting way more out of our bigs and our swings.   

But I disagree that last year's was 'overrated' or 'lucky'.   They went to 5 games in the ECF and if not for devastating injury, might have taken that series further.   Their record and seeding were legit.

I've been calling for this years team to do better all along.  Both before and after the IT/KI trade, I was calling for 55+ wins, threatening 60 if things all went well.   I didn't see any reason to change that prediction after the trade.   I admit that I hedged and revised my projection to ~54 wins after Hayward was lost, but given how fast Jaylen and Jason have developed to take up the slack, I'm back on my original 55+ projection.   Barring injury, of course.

[footey]

17, but either way, Horford would be exhausted after that game.

TP. Quote of the day! Very funny!!

[footey]

This year’s defense and point differential is much better so far.  The offense has thus far taken a step back, but the overall team has played better.

That said, we’ve played something like the 8th easiest schedule, so it’s tough to say conclusively.

Where did you get that from?  According to ESPN:

"The Celtics are currently projected to go 60-22, which is the second-best projected record in the league. The strength of their schedule so far is tied for 15th -- right in the middle -- so it's not as if they've had an easy slate of games."

Is it 15th, or is it 8th?  Big difference.

[Donoghus]

Last year's team was "the little engine that could".  This year's team is a locomotive.  More refined and more serious of a contender.

[Boris Badenov]

This year’s defense and point differential is much better so far.  The offense has thus far taken a step back, but the overall team has played better.

That said, we’ve played something like the 8th easiest schedule, so it’s tough to say conclusively.

Where did you get that from?  According to ESPN:

"The Celtics are currently projected to go 60-22, which is the second-best projected record in the league. The strength of their schedule so far is tied for 15th -- right in the middle -- so it's not as if they've had an easy slate of games."

Is it 15th, or is it 8th?  Big difference.

This says 8th:

http://www.espn.com/nba/stats/rpi/_/sort/EWL

[saltlover]

This year’s defense and point differential is much better so far.  The offense has thus far taken a step back, but the overall team has played better.

That said, we’ve played something like the 8th easiest schedule, so it’s tough to say conclusively.

Where did you get that from?  According to ESPN:

"The Celtics are currently projected to go 60-22, which is the second-best projected record in the league. The strength of their schedule so far is tied for 15th -- right in the middle -- so it's not as if they've had an easy slate of games."

Is it 15th, or is it 8th?  Big difference.

This says 8th:

http://www.espn.com/nba/stats/rpi/_/sort/EWL

BPI and RPI are different rankings.  RPI straight up uses the winning percentage of opponents.   BPI measures the strength of opponents, including such things as opponents’ point-differential, home-away of games, relative amount of rest and travel for each team before games, and other factors.  Not saying which is better in this short post — just that they’re different.

[Fan from VT]

We'll have to see if it continues, but right now, definitely '17. Last year was great, no doubt, but we were a little overrated. Our margin of victory was only 2.6, and our "expected" pythagorean wins were only 48 compared to 53 actual wins, indicating we were statistically lucky to win 5 extra games, making us look better than we actually were. SRS (simple rating, taking into account margin of victory and strength of schedule) was 2.25, or 8th place.

This year, our pythagorean expected wins are 9 and we have 9 wins, so we are not abnormally lucky. Our margin of victory is up to 9, and SRS is up to 7, for 3rd in the league.

So, thus far, better this year.

Out-performing the pythagorean W-L isn't necessarily about 'luck'.   Teams that have very good half-court execution tend to do well in games that come down to a few possessions.   I.E., 'crunch time' favors half-court execution.   And the Celtics last year were extremely good in half-court / crunch-time execution because of their devastating pick & roll game (fueled by a certain little guy).

I totally agree that this year's team is significantly better than last year's.  This year's roster is just so much more balanced.  Last year's lineups were way too small-guard-centric.  This year we are depending on and getting way more out of our bigs and our swings.   

But I disagree that last year's was 'overrated' or 'lucky'.   They went to 5 games in the ECF and if not for devastating injury, might have taken that series further.   Their record and seeding were legit.

I've been calling for this years team to do better all along.  Both before and after the IT/KI trade, I was calling for 55+ wins, threatening 60 if things all went well.   I didn't see any reason to change that prediction after the trade.   I admit that I hedged and revised my projection to ~54 wins after Hayward was lost, but given how fast Jaylen and Jason have developed to take up the slack, I'm back on my original 55+ projection.   Barring injury, of course.

Eh, you'd expect it to be more consistent year to year if that were the case. This year we match evenly (small sample). Last year +5. 2 years ago -2.

Golden state: This year matches, last year even, 2 years ago +8.

OKC: -3/+4/-4

Memphis: 0/+1/+7

San Antonio: 0/+1/+1

Cleveland: 0/+2/0.

Generally, teams are right on, or pretty close. When there are big divergences (either positive or negative) they are not typically sustained year to year, even without major coaching or player changes.

[Fafnir]

Yeah I'm fully on board with wins in close games being pretty random.

I mean the Cavs got a wide open Channing Fyre 3 that missed and a Wade tip in miss against the Hawks, the C's got the Kyrie 3 to go at end of the clock and then Tatum hits his wide open look. Just make or miss when its a one possession game, even with superior talent/shooters.

[kraidstar]

17 by a landslide

For starters, let's go with the bigs

17 Horford is playing with better efficiency in my opinion than 16
Baynes > Amir Johnson
Theis > Theis

our rebounding has been MY biggest surprise of the season

a more matured Rozier, and a surprise in Semi

Irving > Thomas (I love Thomas but I'll take a 6'2 over 5'9 any time, I think our defense last year also had to cover for Thomas' flaws. This year is different, I think Irving can hold his own

Great points. The rebounding is much better because you have 5-6 guys that can gather 5-8 rebounds verses IT, KO, Amir, AB would couldn't really rebound. You don't have to have 10+ rebounds but collective rebounding is just as important.

Another big factor is that, unlike IT, Kyrie isn't constantly getting gashed on the perimeter, putting our bigs out of position as they try to help on defense. Once our bigs are out of position it's easy for opposing players to swoop in for the offensive rebound.

[mmmmm]

This year’s defense and point differential is much better so far.  The offense has thus far taken a step back, but the overall team has played better.

That said, we’ve played something like the 8th easiest schedule, so it’s tough to say conclusively.

Where did you get that from?  According to ESPN:

"The Celtics are currently projected to go 60-22, which is the second-best projected record in the league. The strength of their schedule so far is tied for 15th -- right in the middle -- so it's not as if they've had an easy slate of games."

Is it 15th, or is it 8th?  Big difference.

This says 8th:

http://www.espn.com/nba/stats/rpi/_/sort/EWL

And this says 2nd (easiest):

https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2018.html#misc_stats::8

[Larry for 3]

Last year's team was "the little engine that could".  This year's team is a locomotive.  More refined and more serious of a contender.

Hit the nail on the head, excellent post

[mmmmm]

We'll have to see if it continues, but right now, definitely '17. Last year was great, no doubt, but we were a little overrated. Our margin of victory was only 2.6, and our "expected" pythagorean wins were only 48 compared to 53 actual wins, indicating we were statistically lucky to win 5 extra games, making us look better than we actually were. SRS (simple rating, taking into account margin of victory and strength of schedule) was 2.25, or 8th place.

This year, our pythagorean expected wins are 9 and we have 9 wins, so we are not abnormally lucky. Our margin of victory is up to 9, and SRS is up to 7, for 3rd in the league.

So, thus far, better this year.

Out-performing the pythagorean W-L isn't necessarily about 'luck'.   Teams that have very good half-court execution tend to do well in games that come down to a few possessions.   I.E., 'crunch time' favors half-court execution.   And the Celtics last year were extremely good in half-court / crunch-time execution because of their devastating pick & roll game (fueled by a certain little guy).

I totally agree that this year's team is significantly better than last year's.  This year's roster is just so much more balanced.  Last year's lineups were way too small-guard-centric.  This year we are depending on and getting way more out of our bigs and our swings.   

But I disagree that last year's was 'overrated' or 'lucky'.   They went to 5 games in the ECF and if not for devastating injury, might have taken that series further.   Their record and seeding were legit.

I've been calling for this years team to do better all along.  Both before and after the IT/KI trade, I was calling for 55+ wins, threatening 60 if things all went well.   I didn't see any reason to change that prediction after the trade.   I admit that I hedged and revised my projection to ~54 wins after Hayward was lost, but given how fast Jaylen and Jason have developed to take up the slack, I'm back on my original 55+ projection.   Barring injury, of course.

Eh, you'd expect it to be more consistent year to year if that were the case. This year we match evenly (small sample). Last year +5. 2 years ago -2.

Golden state: This year matches, last year even, 2 years ago +8.

OKC: -3/+4/-4

Memphis: 0/+1/+7

San Antonio: 0/+1/+1

Cleveland: 0/+2/0.

Generally, teams are right on, or pretty close. When there are big divergences (either positive or negative) they are not typically sustained year to year, even without major coaching or player changes.

You'd think that all teams would thus cluster around .500 in 'close games' (games decided by just a couple of possessions) if close-game out-comes were truly random.

But they don't.   Last year the Celtics were 4th best in 'close' games with a .643 W/L percentage.   The teams at the top of the rankings were all 'good teams':  WA, HOU, UTA, BOS and the teams at the bottom were crappy teams:  MIN, DEN, CHA, LAL, BKN.    All those teams had terrible half-court efficiencies on both ends of the court.

https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/win-pct-close-games?date=2017-06-13

The Pythagorean W/L projection does have fairly strong correlation overall, but it can be skewed if a team has just a handful of anomalous games.   The Cs last year had several notable 'blow-out losses', especially early in the season (Anyone remember the DEN, WA & GSW games?).   Even late in the year, they had a 16 point loss to the freaking Kings as well as the 23 point blow-out to the Cavs. 

Certainly, random luck IS a factor for deviations from Pythagorean W-L.  But it is not the only factor.

[Fan from VT]

We'll have to see if it continues, but right now, definitely '17. Last year was great, no doubt, but we were a little overrated. Our margin of victory was only 2.6, and our "expected" pythagorean wins were only 48 compared to 53 actual wins, indicating we were statistically lucky to win 5 extra games, making us look better than we actually were. SRS (simple rating, taking into account margin of victory and strength of schedule) was 2.25, or 8th place.

This year, our pythagorean expected wins are 9 and we have 9 wins, so we are not abnormally lucky. Our margin of victory is up to 9, and SRS is up to 7, for 3rd in the league.

So, thus far, better this year.

Out-performing the pythagorean W-L isn't necessarily about 'luck'.   Teams that have very good half-court execution tend to do well in games that come down to a few possessions.   I.E., 'crunch time' favors half-court execution.   And the Celtics last year were extremely good in half-court / crunch-time execution because of their devastating pick & roll game (fueled by a certain little guy).

I totally agree that this year's team is significantly better than last year's.  This year's roster is just so much more balanced.  Last year's lineups were way too small-guard-centric.  This year we are depending on and getting way more out of our bigs and our swings.   

But I disagree that last year's was 'overrated' or 'lucky'.   They went to 5 games in the ECF and if not for devastating injury, might have taken that series further.   Their record and seeding were legit.

I've been calling for this years team to do better all along.  Both before and after the IT/KI trade, I was calling for 55+ wins, threatening 60 if things all went well.   I didn't see any reason to change that prediction after the trade.   I admit that I hedged and revised my projection to ~54 wins after Hayward was lost, but given how fast Jaylen and Jason have developed to take up the slack, I'm back on my original 55+ projection.   Barring injury, of course.

Eh, you'd expect it to be more consistent year to year if that were the case. This year we match evenly (small sample). Last year +5. 2 years ago -2.

Golden state: This year matches, last year even, 2 years ago +8.

OKC: -3/+4/-4

Memphis: 0/+1/+7

San Antonio: 0/+1/+1

Cleveland: 0/+2/0.

Generally, teams are right on, or pretty close. When there are big divergences (either positive or negative) they are not typically sustained year to year, even without major coaching or player changes.

You'd think that all teams would thus cluster around .500 in 'close games' (games decided by just a couple of possessions) if close-game out-comes were truly random.

But they don't.   Last year the Celtics were 4th best in 'close' games with a .643 W/L percentage.   The teams at the top of the rankings were all 'good teams':  WA, HOU, UTA, BOS and the teams at the bottom were crappy teams:  MIN, DEN, CHA, LAL, BKN.    All those teams had terrible half-court efficiencies on both ends of the court.

https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/win-pct-close-games?date=2017-06-13

The Pythagorean W/L projection does have fairly strong correlation overall, but it can be skewed if a team has just a handful of anomalous games.   The Cs last year had several notable 'blow-out losses', especially early in the season (Anyone remember the DEN, WA & GSW games?).   Even late in the year, they had a 16 point loss to the freaking Kings as well as the 23 point blow-out to the Cavs. 

Certainly, random luck IS a factor for deviations from Pythagorean W-L.  But it is not the only factor.

It's not quite that close games are 50/50, but the deviation from pythagorean wins IS mostly random. As easily demonstrated that MOST teams cluster very close in terms of actual wins vs pythagorean wins, and, as I showed you a few examples, when teams DO stray from their pythagorean win expectations, either positively nor negatively, they then tend to return to zero or even the opposite by the next year. If deviating from pythagorean wins was a skill, or depended on certain skills, then it would be repeatable year to year, but it's not.

What it shows is that if we kept the same roster as last year and everyone played the same, we probably would have won 49 or so games without actually being a "worse" team.

[SparzWizard]

'16 Celtics did not ride on a 9-game winning streak, and winning games at hostile environments like OKC and beating teams like the Spurs. Also 2016 did not have a #1 ranked defense in the NBA.