With training camp in full swing and preseason starting this weekend, it's time for the annual regular season win prediction poll. For reference, the Celtics went 57-25 last season.
2023-2024 Celtics Wins Poll
- Thread starter Light-Tower-Power
- Start date
60-64. The NBA is so competitive and even in the past unless you were a generational team, you didn't win more than 62 games or so. Plus the Celtics have some guys with injury questions so I think a 62-63 win season (and #1 or #2 seed in the East, depending on how good Milwaukee turns out to be) is a reasonable estimate.
I voted 60-64. This starting 5 is going to end games in the first half against a lot of the lessor teams. They're going to be that good.
56-59. But only because I do think Joe isn't coaching for his job, as it seemed he was last year. And I hope they do lots of load management with #18 being the only thing they are striving for.
56-59, I think they'll be more concerned about with keeping guys health and seeing what the 7-11 guys can do in decent stretches than the #1 seed
If there was a 58-62 band, I would have chosen that option, so I went with 56-59. There's a lot of parity in the league right now, and there will be some bizarre losses in January and February as a result. But the talent alone will win them some games without their breaking too much of a sweat.
Mazzulla's goal should be to develop the chemistry and confidence that the starters will need once the playoff slog begins. Load management will be a thing, but the Jays will still play a lot of regular season minutes, more than many here will want. Joe isn't necessarily coaching for his job, but he will want to avoid a scenario where a 50-win Celtic team enters the playoffs a #5 seed.
Mazzulla's goal should be to develop the chemistry and confidence that the starters will need once the playoff slog begins. Load management will be a thing, but the Jays will still play a lot of regular season minutes, more than many here will want. Joe isn't necessarily coaching for his job, but he will want to avoid a scenario where a 50-win Celtic team enters the playoffs a #5 seed.
I like the optimism, but you think this a generational team? Sentence 1 says you need to be a generational team to win more than 62. Sentence 2 says Celtics have guys with injury questions.
This is where I'm at as well. We may see some load management for the injury prone/older guys that will lead to unexpected losses from time to time. But this is still a top 2-3 seed in the conference regardless.
52 - 55.
Purely based off roster construction, last year's team was better equipped for the regular season and this team for the playoffs.
Purely based off roster construction, last year's team was better equipped for the regular season and this team for the playoffs.
58-25 (cuz I think they're at least in the tournament finals and so play 83 games).
I think basically the team record from last year, with a couple of the frustrating losses replaced by punt-the-game losses.
I think basically the team record from last year, with a couple of the frustrating losses replaced by punt-the-game losses.
I mean that I think they'll be really good like some of the great teams that have won 62-63 games, but they won't be anything like the 86 Celtics or 87 Lakers or 96 Bulls or whatever. Hence my 60-64 pick.
52-55. Real life says that they won’t have their best 5 available all year and there isn’t enough depth to not suffer when a few injuries catch them. Also the downer in all this is that the coach may not be very good. Hopefully he is experimenting more in regular season to better prepare for having more options in the playoffs
This. I voted 52-55 and, if they avoid injury plus let the role players get time to develop their game in preparation for the playoffs, I don't care that they will have less wins.
The regular season doesn't matter much in the NBA. It's all about health and not being tired when the playoffs start. That should be the sole focus of the team.
60+
I'm bullish on Hauser, Kornet, PP & others understanding/executing their roles.
Depth won't be near the problem the media is touting.
I'm bullish on Hauser, Kornet, PP & others understanding/executing their roles.
Depth won't be near the problem the media is touting.
52-55. They will prioritize health over wins, and, given last year’s playoff record, they won’t put too much emphasis on getting home court.
Agree with all of this. I think Coach Mazzulla is going to do a lot of tinkering and experimentation with line ups throughout the 82 game season - not necessarily the starting 5 but more focused on 6-12. I also think injuries are going to happen which will cost some wins.
I'm right on the edge of 59-60. I went 56-59, because I think as the east begins to shake out at they will put a premium on having a rested team for the playoffs and might drop a game or two.
You think so? I feel more that talent levels are really high and there's less margin for error than ever.
Same. Porzingis will be injured/rested at several points this season and you have to factor that in.
Lol, settle down you guys. There are only 3-4 patsies in the entire league right now (WAS, CHA, DET, maybe PDX?) and even they seem much feistier than your average bottom-feeder 7-8 years ago. Then throw in the endless grind of the regular season, with B2Bs, injuries, load management, etc.? 55 wins is a *really* good season given the depth of talent in the league right now, and the nature of variance. And while the Cs look like the best the team in the league #1-6, chemistry takes time.
In Rocco's honor, I'll eat a Wild Harvest Stuffed Log if the Cs or any other team get to 64.
Ha! Hope you don't actually have to eat that. First ingredient is poplar shavings. I guess that counts as fiber.
54 wins. I'm getting so paranoid about Porzingis' feet-knees-back-hips-shoulders-COVID-impetigo-ricketts-biliousness-consumption-grippe...
This is why I can't have nice things.
This is why I can't have nice things.
When I said COULD, that's like a 98th percentile or higher outcome. Everyone is healthy all season (which is extremely unlikely), chemistry is good, and load management isn't really a thing (again, extremely unlikely).
No problem with your win total prediction and even less with your expectations about Porzingis. There will be blood. We should just accept that as a given right now.
I'd say more on the order of 1 in 1,000. The NBA has been around 78 seasons, and it's only happened twice. And beyond the increased depth and breadth of talent league-wide over the last few seasons, I think the nature of three point variance, along with the fact that all 30 teams are now all in with the three-ball era, make getting to 70 significantly tougher now than it was 5, 10, 20, or 30 years ago. The Warriors 2014-16 were I think a bit of a glitch in the system, when much of the league had yet to fully board the three train (or how to figure out Steph and Klay on the other end) and were at a big mathematical disadvantage from the opening tap. That brief era is done.
For the Cs or any of the other top teams: I'd rate under 40 wins as significantly more likely than over 70.
Last edited:
Beyond the style of play and incredible talent everywhere (and the increased variance of the 3 point shot, which obviously Boston is going to lean all the way into), it takes more than instant chemistry and unbelievable injury luck. Tatum/Brown/KP/Holiday could be 100% healthy all season long, and it's a stone cold lock that they'll still miss a combined 25-40 games, that's just how it is now. For comparison, Steph/Klay/Green missed a combined 6 games during their 73 win season. Even looking past the 3 point variance and current talent glut, I don't think it's possible for a team to get to 70 wins in the age of load management.
I think it's 59. This is a damned good team, but I don't think you'll see them run it til the wheels fall off all season. As of bunch of people have said, the seeding is less important than being healthy/on track for the playoffs.
I feel like I’ve seen reference to “three point variance” in a bunch of different threads recently, so I thought I’d take a look at what exactly that means. In theory, binomial outcomes with probabilities closer to 0.5 have greater overall variance than those with smaller or higher probabilities. So what does it really mean that three point shots have higher variance?
Looking just at the 22-23 Celtics and treating each game as an independent measure of 2 pt and 3 pt %… they averaged 56.8% on twos and 37.5% on threes. Interestingly, the standard deviations were almost exactly the same - 0.079 for twos and 0.078 for threes. So why do we say that variance is greater for threes?
Probably because they’re worth more. If we calculate the expected value per shot (I.e. multiply twos made by two and divide by 2PA; multiply the threes made by three and divide by 3PA), you get another interesting outcome. The mean expected value on twos was 1.14, and the mean expected value on three was 1.13: the Celtics almost perfectly distributed their two and three point shooting last season!
But here’s where the variance comes in. The standard deviation on points per attempt on twos was 0.16, but 0.24 for threes. Put another way, in half the games, the Celtics scored between 1.02 and 1.22 points per 2PA. The range for threes was 0.95 to 1.31. Distribution below.
Just thought this was interesting and wanted to share. If anybody knows of good articles that have explored this in more depth I’d appreciate reading them.
Is this not purely because Var(X * a ) = a^2 Var(X) or am I missing something?
Yeah but somebody in the Yankee application thread told me empirical data are better than basic stats. I also thought it was interesting (I.e. counter to theory) that the variance on their 3 pt % was almost exactly equal to the variance on their 2 pt %. And that the expected value of the two were almost exactly equal.