Are the 2015-2016 Celtics better or worse than the 2014-2015 Celtics?

[bowiac]

There's no clear answer I see there, and I agree with how you phrase the question: there's no way Stevens isn't aware of all this. There are a few theories, none of which are super convincing by themselves:

1. Stevens knows the numbers, but doesn't trust them in the case, or thinks that Turner still has potential by dint of his pedigree, so he wants to keep playing him in hopes that it turns around. This the Stevens is trusting his gut theory essentially.
2. Ainge is more or less forcing Turner on Stevens. I've seen no hint of this however, and it doesn't seem like something Ainge would do.
3. The Celtics have even better numbers that show Turner is actually useful. I find this pretty unlikely. Public "all in one", metrics match propriety stuff pretty well from what I've seen, and Turner doesn't seem to have the kind of skillset that lends itself to this (unlike, say David Lee, where I could see him being underrated).
4. The Celtics didn't really care that much about winning 40 vs. 43 games last year or something, and in fact may have preferred to win fewer. Playing Turner was a subtle tank. We're going to see Turner play surprisingly little this year under that theory, unless the Celtics are in lottery contention again.

But I really don't have a good sense.

 

[CreightonGubanich]

I'm with you guys on the value of shot creation - that's something this team was really struggling with before Thomas got here. I just don't think Turner helps with that. The key with shot creation however, is creating good (or better than the alternative) shots. I just don't think Turner does that. He creates and takes terrible shots it seems. It's aso something a stat like RPM is reasonably well designed to track. Insofar as the team was less efficient scoring without Turner's shot creation, that would be seen in the plus/minus data which ultimately feeds RPM. That didn't show up however - the team was mostly worse offensively with Turner on the court.
 
What RPM might miss is when a role player has useful shot creation skills which get obscured because they're playing on a loaded team like the Thunder. Even though the player has a talent, they're never asked to use it, so it never shows up in the plus/minus data. Turner's in the reverse situation however. He's being asked to create shots, and he's doing a bad job at it.

 
I agree that Turner's not actually good at creating efficient offense. And, in Brad Stevens' system, I think the value of typical iso player is probably less than on other teams. Especially this season, with some continuity to the roster, team offense and ball movement is the shot creator. Finding the right pick-and-roll combinations is probably more important than any individual's ability to go one-on-one. I'm excited for some of those combinations - Smart/Lee and Thomas/Johnson in particular. Spacing shooters around those combinations is critical, and Turner isn't one.
 
Still, there's some possessions at the end of games where running a ball movement offense, particularly with a young team prone to turnovers and a roster unfamiliar with the system, just isn't feasible. There's still a place for a guy who can create a shot out of iso plays. Turner isn't "good" at that, in a broader sense, but he was the best of several bad options prior to IT's arrival. The Celtics lost a lot of close games because they didn't have a guy who could reliably create offense when the pace of the game slows down and plays get broken. This year, if they need that from Turner again, the Celtics won't be a very good team. I'd just as soon not have him on the roster, but they're awfully thin at the 3 spot. If only they could have replaced Turner with Paul Pierce.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

Good to see the discussion moving towards roles and fits---we've historically had some RPM-based discussion here that focused on aggregate impact rather than role/fit, and we're all the better for getting to that deeper level now.
 
I think Stevens may see potential in Turner, e.g. may believe there is more there than has yet been shown.  I think the other likely possibility is that he recognizes the limits of his other options, so really an amplification of the point right above me here.   Turner is clearly not 'good' offensively relative to the NBA as a whole, or other guys who handle the ball a lot.  But last year in particular, Stevens didn't really have the choice of 'good' or Turner he had the choice of Turner or 'even worse' and thus he may have taken the lesser of two evils...while recognizing it was an 'evil'   One can look at RPM and suggest he made the wrong choice there (that 'other' was actually less evil a choice) and I think it's quite possible that's a gap in RPM rather than Stevens assessment.
 
To put that in basketball terms, an offense sometimes needs a player who will 'create' activity which the offense can take advantage of.  Most offensive schemes are premised on creating matchups or opportunities----switches, double-teams, penetration and kicks, etc.   Someone has to initiate that, and players are differentially able to do so.   To take the most obvious example, a big man who is very efficient in his opportunities will be a lot worse than Evan Turner if asked to initiate the offense from the top of the key regularly.    And that is why that big guy is almost never asked to do so (and why his plus-minus does not reflect him being asked to do so).
 
But someone still needs to play that role on the team.  RPM (in my view) correctly assesses that Turner is not especially good at this---however, the alternative to Turner playing this role is not a 'league average' guy doing it, it likely (last year, at least) was an even worse guy trying to create activity.  So I think it's quite possible Stevens assessed things and determined that Turner was the best of bad options to start the offense, and RPM is imperfect in capturing what the true 'alternative' scenario looks like...and thus likely overstates it in the case of last year's Celtics.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Yes. Last year, the C's generally did not use lineups where Smart and Bradley were both on without a ball handler, usually Turner. One reason why is that without a Turner, that backcourt would have been eaten alive.

One thing that would probably rapidly cause Danny and Brad to move Turner into the "expendable" column would be a strong performance from the starting lineup (Smart, Bradley, Crowder, Lee, Zeller). On the other hand, if Smart and Bradley struggle in that lineup you might see Turner start over Crowder.

 

[bowiac]

Final projections, building in adjustments based on preseason results, updated minutes, and some additional schedule/rest effects. This has no subjective components - I'd obviously shade a bunch of these higher/lower. This is just an exercise is algorithm building.
 

 
EDIT: Caught a fat finger error in inputting home court advantage. A couple small changes.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

That would be a great outcome for the Celtics.

 

[RetractableRoof]

This leads too an important question.  Why would an effective (and one who is not unfamiliar with analytics, for whatever that's worth) coach such as Brad Stevens persist in asking Turner to do this if it was, on net, hurting the team?  A lousy coach, or an analytics-hating coach, I could see doing something really dumb.  With Stevens it is a little harder to buy that, a little easier to believe that there is a method to his apparent madness.
 
Regardless, I still think Turner is the rotation guy mostly likely to be crowded out if any of the young guys emerge and demand minutes.

I have one answer to this - and it's just my two cents.  Playoffs.  In my view of the world, Thomas becomes a non factor during the playoffs due to his size.  He gets bounced around physically and fouls are not called for him the way they are in the regular season.  To me that is the one role/time that Turner can provide it.  I'm not sure it's an accurate answer or a good one, but it's the one thing I see.

 

[bowiac]

That would be a great outcome for the Celtics.

Yeah - they bumped up a couple more wins based on some research showing that preseason results have surprisingly strong predictive effects. Celtics gained two wins. The biggest movers were the Hornets (+4 wins), and the Mavericks (-4 wins). That's the biggest shift between this iteration and others. 

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Yeah - they bumped up a couple more wins based on some research showing that preseason results have surprisingly strong predictive effects. Celtics gained two wins. The biggest movers were the Hornets (+4 wins), and the Mavericks (-4 wins). That's the biggest shift between this iteration and others. 

The Dallas and Brooklyn projections would also be great for the Celtics.

 

[bowiac]

Absolutely. I think it's unlikely Brooklyn really reaches those levels sadly, as they're really being dragged down by having three of the seven worst players in the NBA:
 

 
They'll probably cut bait on Bargs sooner than that if he continues being, well, Bargnani.
 
Dallas I mostly believe, although they just have a ton of injury uncertainty that could swing things a lot of different directions.

 

[moondog80]

Absolutely. I think it's unlikely Brooklyn really reaches those levels sadly, as they're really being dragged down by having three of the seven worst players in the NBA:
 

 
They'll probably cut bait on Bargs sooner than that if he continues being, well, Bargnani.
 
Dallas I mostly believe, although they just have a ton of injury uncertainty that could swing things a lot of different directions.

 
 
Dennis Schroder, really?  The scouts and numbers guys both thought he was pretty decent last year and are fairly bullish on him going forward.  Looks like you've got him as a mess defensively?

 

[bowiac]

Dennis Schroder, really?  The scouts and numbers guys both thought he was pretty decent last year and are fairly bullish on him going forward.  Looks like you've got him as a mess defensively?

I'm pretty high on Schroder going forward too. But I don't know any numbers guys who thought Schroder was actually good last year - just that he showed enough promise offensively and athletically to think he's got a good shot of figuring it out.
 
To compare for instance, here's 538's player card on Schroder. They've got almost an identical projection on him (at the bottom, in the "Fine Print" section). This isn't a big surprise however - all these numbers are based on the same metric (RPM), and then just applying different factors to project improvement/decline based on age/role/whatever.

 

[wutang112878]

Final projections, building in adjustments based on preseason results, updated minutes, and some additional schedule/rest effects. This has no subjective components - I'd obviously shade a bunch of these higher/lower. This is just an exercise is algorithm building.
 
 
 
EDIT: Caught a fat finger error in inputting home court advantage. A couple small changes.

 
I'd be overjoyed at this scenario, the Celtics take an incredible jump forward and the Nets completely tank.  I can see the Nets really struggling, I've actually been expecting that to happen for them for some time.  But I'm a little skeptical of the Celts taking that jump.  
 
So I looked at the change in wins for all teams between 2010 and 2015 and I can find 13 instances where a team won 50+ games and they had a win increase of 9 or more from the previous season.  3 of these seem to be caused by a major free agent addition (Lebron X 2 and Dwight Howard), 4 seem to be due to coaching changes, and 6 I cant really put my finger on but 4 of those teams had some studs in place that are really better than anything we have on our roster.  Which leaves me with the 2015 Hawks and 2013 Nuggets who would be most similar to the Celts situation where there wasnt a coaching change, or free agent add, or studs in place and are a bit more of lightning in a bottle.
 
 
 

Team	Years	Win Increase	What Happened	Stud In Place?
Atlanta Hawks	2014 to 2015	22: from 38 to 60	???	???
Chicago Bulls	2010 to 2011	21: from 41 to 62	Tibs arrived
Cleveland Cavaliers	2014 to 2015	20: from 33 to 53	Added Lebron
Denver Nuggets	2012 to 2013	10: from 47 to 57	???	???
Golden State Warriors	2014 to 2015	16: from 51 to 67	Kerr arrived
Houston Rockets	2013 to 2014	9: from 45 to 54	Added Dwight Howard
Indiana Pacers	2011 to 2012	15: from 37 to 52	Jim Obrien departed / Frank Vogel "arrived"??
Los Angeles Clippers	2011 to 2012	18: from 32 to 50	???	Paul/Griffin/Jordan
Miami Heat	2010 to 2011	11: from 47 to 58	Added Lebron
Miami Heat	2012 to 2013	9: from 57 to 66	Heat had crapped 2012???	Lebron/Wade/Bosh
New York Knicks	2012 to 2013	9: from 45 to 54	Mike D'Antoni departed / Mike Woodson "arrived"?
Portland Trail Blazers	2013 to 2014	21: from 33 to 54	???	Aldridge/Lilliar
San Antonio Spurs	2010 to 2011	11: from 50 to 61	???	Parker/Duncan/Ginobli

 
This leads me to my question, in your projections for this year's Celtics who is taking the leap from last year???  I know having Thomas for a full season is going to help and I'm optimistic for Smart's development as well.  But after that I'm guessing the additional improvement is going to come from Crowder development and the addition of Lee and Amir.  I'm just trying to wrap my head around what minutes we are getting improvement from.  If Thomas and an improved Crowder are playing over Bradley, thats going to be good stuff.  And whatever minutes Lee/Amir take away from Sullinger should be good but he only played 8% of all the Celtics minutes last year.  They also have to replace Bass and he was pretty good last season so I'm having a tough time seeing how much improvement we get going from Bass minutes to Lee/Amir minutes.
 
Is there anyway you can kind of put this in perspective looking at the data from last year and comparing it to the projections for this year?  I'm really curious

 

[Eddie Jurak]

 
Is there anyway you can kind of put this in perspective looking at the data from last year and comparing it to the projections for this year?  I'm really curious

The perspective is that the Celtics have already made their jump. They weren't a 40 win team last year - the Rondo/Green Celtics were actually much, much worse than that, whereas the Thomas/Crowder Celtics were much better. So, reasons to be optimistic:

1. The improvement last year was real. Maybe they aren't a 20-10 team like they ended last season but they ended the year as a legitimately better than .500 team.

2. They have made some incremental improvements in the offseason, most notably Johnson and Lee in, Bass out, and they drafted 2 guys who are potential contributors.

3. It seems reasonable to expect some progress from Smart, and to a lesser extent from guys like Bradley and Olynyk, and even from Brad Stevens who is just starting his 3rd year.

4. Good depth which should help them deal with injuries.

5. Plenty of trade assets that could be used to improve the team should Danny elect to go that route.

 

[swingin val]

Couple points regarding teams improving.

ATL - Al Horford only played 29 games in 2014.
DEN - Did not go from 47 to 57 wins. Actually went from 57 to 38 wins in the seasons you stated. Previous year, they did improve, but again, it was after the lockout season.
LAC - 2011 season was a shortened lockout season

 

[wutang112878]

The perspective is that the Celtics have already made their jump. They weren't a 40 win team last year - the Rondo/Green Celtics were actually much, much worse than that, whereas the Thomas/Crowder Celtics were much better. So, reasons to be optimistic:
 

 
I'm not disputing your points, I genuinely agree with them.  
 
But... right or wrong, I think of the 50 win plateau as meaning its a really good team and that team has a realistic chance of winning the title.  The reason I'm a bit skeptical, or at least want to wrap my head around the how, is that typically when I think of team's in that category they almost always have a real stud to build around.  The team might not be perfect, but there is 1 guy who can carry the team at times, or stop and 8-0 run, or find a way to get a win when the team really has no business winning that game, etc.  I think we can all agree that we dont have that one 'stud' guy in place yet but we certainly do have a great coach, great team play and a really, really deep team.  But even in spite of all that, I think eventually that lack of a stud catches up with teams over the long haul.  Take Atlanta as an example, I dont think there is anyway they reach their win total of last year so I can certainly see that 43 wins as a real possibility.  And I can see the Bulls drop especially without Tibs being there.  I obviously dont expect the C's to be worse than last year, its just that jump of 10 games from 40 to 50, thats a big jump.  Going from 20 to 30, or 30 to 40 really isnt terribly difficult, but having +10 wins and getting into 50 land, thats really, really difficult.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

I would not equate 50 wins with "legit title contender", for the reasons you give.

 

[wutang112878]

Couple points regarding teams improving.

ATL - Al Horford only played 29 games in 2014.
DEN - Did not go from 47 to 57 wins. Actually went from 57 to 38 wins in the seasons you stated. Previous year, they did improve, but again, it was after the lockout season.
LAC - 2011 season was a shortened lockout season

 
Missed that on Howard, thanks, that helps my point.
 
As for Den & LAC, I forgot to mention that I adjusted 2011-2 for the lockout to make it an 82 game season.  So Den only won 38 out of 66 games in 11/12 but the adjusted win total was 47 = 82 * ( 38 / 66 )   As for LAC, they won 32 out of 82 in 10/11 and 40 out of 66 in 11/12 which gets adjusted to 50   With them you can certainly make the case that winning 50+ in an 82 game season is more difficult than being on a 50 win pace for 66 games, but now we are really splitting hairs.

 

[wutang112878]

I would not equate 50 wins with "legit title contender", for the reasons you give.

 
Let me clarify a bit.  I dont mean 'really great chance to win a title' ala this year's Spurs or Cavs.  I mean 'if things break their way, I could see them winning it' ala Golden State last year.  They were hot, they are a good team and they can only play their schedule but they had a pretty easy path to the finals so we dont really know how great they are just yet.  

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Would you have said that last year's Hawks could have won a title of everything had broken right for them? Of course they were a 60 win team. Had they only won 50 I don't think anyone would have thought they had much of a chance to win it all.

 

[bowiac]

Let me clarify a bit.  I dont mean 'really great chance to win a title' ala this year's Spurs or Cavs.  I mean 'if things break their way, I could see them winning it' ala Golden State last year.  They were hot, they are a good team and they can only play their schedule but they had a pretty easy path to the finals so we dont really know how great they are just yet.  

A couple points. This same method (slightly less sophisticated, but 90% the same), generated the following projections last year:

Spoiler

Accordingly to this, the Warriors weren't a 50 win team that had everything break right. They came into the season as the best or 2nd best team in the NBA (keep in mind the Cavs projected to 59 in the East). They had a bunch of things break right, but that's what happens to every title winner. So I agree the Celtics aren't a title contender, but that's not because they're not a possible 50 win team. Title contenders tend to be projected to win a good chunk more than that.
 
Second, even if this is correct and the Celtics win 50, I would expect them to be an underdog in the playoffs to much of the Eastern conference. They just happen to be very well designed for regular season success. Here are their player by player projections:

Spoiler

The key takeaway is that they go 11 deep in their rotation (ignoring Young/Rozier/Hunter), and only two players (Turner and Lee), project to be below average. That's not really super helpful for playoff success, where the rotations shorten, and you're playing 7 guys. In that format, their depth, even if things break right, isn't super helpful. But for the regular season, it's key. Rotations are longer, and injuries happen, so being deep is pretty important.
 
Here's Chicago as a comparison:
 

Spoiler

 
Better talent at the top (Butler and Mirotic rate ahead of any Celtic), but they're also giving a bunch of minutes to below average guys (5 of their main rotation players project below average).
 
I agree the Celtics don't look like your normal 50 win team. Maybe that's because they're not a 50 win team. But I think it's plausible that its just because you rarely see this kind of collection of slightly above average talent collected without a bunch of sinkholes somewhere at the bottom who kill you when injuries inevitably arise.

 

[bowiac]

Is there anyway you can kind of put this in perspective looking at the data from last year and comparing it to the projections for this year?  I'm really curious

Most of the projected improvement comes from:
 
1) More minutes from last year's players, namely Smart, Crowder, Thomas.
 
2) Adding Amir Johnson for Brandon Bass. Brandon Bass was fine, but Amir Johnson grades out as the Celtics' best player. It's reasonable to disagree with this, although I think he's a good fit, and I mostly believe it.
 
3) No minutes from Jeff Green or Rajon Rondo. RPM is not kind to either player. Green rates at -2 pts/100 possessions, which is borderline replacement level, while Rondo is -3, which makes him one of the worst players in the NBA. While the Celtics are adding David Lee, who RPM also dislikes, he's an ordinary kind of bad per RPM (-1.3/100 possessions).
 
That's it actually. Nobody is really projected for a big talent improvement. Some slight increases from Smart and Olynyk, but nothing dramatic. They were a 41 win team on point differential last year, and project to improve mostly on the back of what we saw in the second half last year, with Crowder and Thomas replacing Rondo and Jeff Green, and then the addition of Amir Johnson.

 

[wutang112878]

I agree the Celtics don't look like your normal 50 win team. Maybe that's because they're not a 50 win team. But I think it's plausible that its just because you rarely see this kind of collection of slightly above average talent collected without a bunch of sinkholes somewhere at the bottom who kill you when injuries inevitably arise.

 
This pretty much sums up why I'm skeptical and maybe/probably biased.  Its just rare to see this type of team, super deep with no blackhole of talent so I really dont know what to make of it.
 
 

Most of the projected improvement comes from:
 
1) More minutes from last year's players, namely Smart, Crowder, Thomas.
 
2) Adding Amir Johnson for Brandon Bass. Brandon Bass was fine, but Amir Johnson grades out as the Celtics' best player. It's reasonable to disagree with this, although I think he's a good fit, and I mostly believe it.
 
3) No minutes from Jeff Green or Rajon Rondo. RPM is not kind to either player. Green rates at -2 pts/100 possessions, which is borderline replacement level, while Rondo is -3, which makes him one of the worst players in the NBA. While the Celtics are adding David Lee, who RPM also dislikes, he's an ordinary kind of bad per RPM (-1.3/100 possessions).
 
That's it actually. Nobody is really projected for a big talent improvement. Some slight increases from Smart and Olynyk, but nothing dramatic. They were a 41 win team on point differential last year, and project to improve mostly on the back of what we saw in the second half last year, with Crowder and Thomas replacing Rondo and Jeff Green, and then the addition of Amir Johnson.

 
1 & 3 I get, and Rondo and Green are really the epitome of addition by subtraction.  But Amir I'm having a tough time wrapping my head around even though every number I look at says he should be really good here.  He is incredibly efficient like incredibly efficient and that should be a huge help to this team.  And for each season of his career his team has never been better with him off the court defensively, and say what you will about on off but that general trend over many years is telling.  What has me puzzled is how a guy who probably wont take more than 8 shots a night is going to be our most impactful player.  But this brings us right back to the unorthodox thing because this is a very abnormal role for a teams best player to play.
 
 
Another thing we can probably all agree on is that this team is rather unique and most coaches would probably be asking Danny how he expects them to make dinner with this bag of groceries.  I'd argue that Stevens and Popovich are probably the only coaches who are able to put lemonade and chicken salad on the table so we should really be thanking our lucky stars that we are fortunate enough to have Stevens because without him we dont get to 40 wins last year and we are probably wondering if we could even hit 40 this year.

 

[Fishy1]

Bradley still flashing playmaking ability: him and Sullinger were running a simple pick and pop last night, which wasn't all that impressive. What was impressive was the dunk, as was a nice little hesitation dribble move he dropped on Danny Green in the 3rd quarter. He's always had the explosiveness, and because of that explosiveness he doesn't need the fanciest dribble moves. 
 
I'll admit I never thought I'd be saying to myself that I want Bradley going to the rim more, but I'm starting to think that way.
 
EDIT: I'll also admit to not having watched the full replay before posting. He's also making people look silly with a crossover on the regular. All good signs, though it's also possible it's ephemeral and Avery "Long Two" Bradley is his final form.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

I liked the move when it went down, but I am starting to wonder whether we would be better served by having G-Dub as our 13th man instead of David Lee as our 9th. Watching Lee, it is clear that the guy knows how to play the offensive game, but it also looks like he's lost just enough that he can't finish plays where he should. And last night his presence on the court seemed to pull the Celtics out of their defensive rhythym, allowing the Hawks to cut a 15 point lead (built largely with stifling defense) down to 3.

On the more positive side, Smart had a lousy shooting game but he did a fanstastic job on Korver. Korver was 4-6 for the game, including 3-5 from behind the arc, but at least 2 of those threes happened while Marcus was on the bench. Korver was pretty much a non factor in the game when Smart was guarding him.

 

[RedSoxinIsrael]

I liked the move when it went down, but I am starting to wonder whether we would be better served by having G-Dub as our 13th man instead of David Lee as our 9th. Watching Lee, it is clear that the guy knows how to play the offensive game, but it also looks like he's lost just enough that he can't finish plays where he should. And last night his presence on the court seemed to pull the Celtics out of their defensive rhythym, allowing the Hawks to cut a 15 point lead (built largely with stifling defense) down to 3.

I was thinking the same thing. I'll add that it seems Zeller has been almost taken out of the rotation as a result and I believe he fits better as a 4th big after Johnson, Olynyk and Sullinger who have all been playing very well. His length on defense and finishing around the rim adds more than Lee, which as you said hasn't been finishing plays as he used to be able to. This was apparent last night as well. Considering that Stevens like to play small a lot with Jerebko and Crowder at the 4, I think a Johnson/Sullinger/Olynyk/Zeller big rotation makes the most sense at this point.

 

[bowiac]

I agree. I've never believed in Lee as a player overall, but thought he was a fine risk in this spot - see if he can be a better defender in a smaller role, and maybe provide some scoring for those times when Thomas is on the bench. But he adds less offensively than I'd hoped, since he can't really stretch the floor, and is just perpetually out of position defensively. He's the anti-Olynyk, who doesn't have Lee's offensive moves, but can shoot the three, and is always in the right place on defense.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

@KevinOConnorNBA: Mickey off to another great start for Maine. 10 points, 7 rebs, 2 blks in 7 min. Court awareness, body control are big pluses. Very smooth.

@KevinOConnorNBA: Whoa. Jordan Mickey just hit a three off a pick-and-pop and looked very, very smooth doing it. No more hitch at the top of his jumper.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

According to teamrankings.com, https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/steal-pct?date=2015-11-17, C's leading the league with 10.3% steals per defensive play. That's the highest # since 2004-05; next highest was CHA at 9.2% in 2005-06.

Another interesting factoid. When KO and JJ play together, the net rating is plus 72.3. That's insane, SSS and all. http://www.celticsblog.com/2015/11/17/9749876/breaking-down-the-boston-celtics-frontcourt-pairings-jonas-jerebko-nba-sullinger-lee-olynyk-johnson.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

According to teamrankings.com, https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/steal-pct?date=2015-11-17, C's leading the league with 10.3% steals per defensive play. That's the highest # since 2004-05; next highest was CHA at 9.2% in 2005-06.

Another interesting factoid. When KO and JJ play together, the net rating is plus 72.3. That's insane, SSS and all. http://www.celticsblog.com/2015/11/17/9749876/breaking-down-the-boston-celtics-frontcourt-pairings-jonas-jerebko-nba-sullinger-lee-olynyk-johnson.

We are so much more effective, well so is any team, with the type of spacing that JJ and to a degree KO provide. It is like night and day from the early season starting frontcourt disaster of Lee and Zeller.

No surprise our fortunes have turned around with less of Lee The Albatross and more of Isaiah with starters minutes rather than limiting him in his prior role. Great adjustment by Stevens......head scratcher as to why this wasn't the case from Day One. Either way, a win tonight followed by a home-and-home with the Nets.....is a 9-4 start on the horizon?

 

[bowiac]

Celtics now on pace for 51 wins, just based on season-to-date results:

 

[Eddie Jurak]

You have Atlanta winning 44, not getting a playoff spot, and not picking in the lottery?

 

[bowiac]

I need to re-do the lotto seed formula to handle teams in/out of the playoffs correctly. That 17 just means 16 teams project to have worst records than them.

This is in-season results only, with no prior knowledge of team talent levels. Atlanta hasn't played exceptionally well so far this year, so this method doesn't really love them. For what it's worth, this method has been pretty successful at extrapolating results over the rest of the reason based on a pretty small number of games (about 0.6 R^2 at this point in the year historically). There are obviously many exceptions of course, even a 0.6 R^2 leaves a lot of variation unexplained.

 

[Koufax]

Boston winning more games than Cleveland seems pretty unlikely but it's fun to consider.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

If everything broke that way Boston would get 4 number ones, right?

 

[leetinsley38]

If everything broke that way Boston would get 4 number ones, right?

The #1 seed in the East, and 4 #1 picks including #2, #13, #15 overall. Decent. I like this model.

 

[bowiac]

Boston winning more games than Cleveland seems pretty unlikely but it's fun to consider.

The Hawks won 7 games more than Cleveland did last year. It doesn't seem that unlikely to me that Cleveland will continue mostly taking it easy in the regular season.

 

[Koufax]

I hope that your projections come true. That way, there is a chance that the Celtics could make it to the Eastern Conference finals. That would be a blast.

 

[bowiac]

Basketball-reference put their projections live today. These are essentially the same as what I've been posting (R^2 of 0.998), except regressed to the mean about twice as heavily as my method. I add 9.8 "dummy games" to each team's rating to generate projected ratings going forward, so the Celtics are 10 games of actual results, and 9.8 games of league average results, etc... B-Ref is adding 17.4 dummy games meanwhile, which seems too high to me, which is why their projections are so "flat" (nobody winning 60 games).

 

[Eddie Jurak]

The #1 seed in the East, and 4 #1 picks including #2, #13, #15 overall. Decent. I like this model.

Yes. Bowiac, Make. It. Happen.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Jordan Mickey, D-League beast. Last night: 21 points, 12 boards, 6 blocks, 3 assists, 2 steals.

Rozier nearly added a triple double (25/9/8), while J.Young shot 3-14.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

They better be D-League beasts going up against that craptastic level of competition down there. I've given up on Young.......a players first offseason is where you generally see the biggest leap and he's even possibly regressed. That doesn't bode well for his future.

 

[EL Jeffe]

Yeah, Young doesn't seem long for the NBA. I suppose that's what happens when you don't have any league-average skills, beyond a pretty quick release (albeit attached to an inaccurate shot). In fairness, the 2014 draft was pretty thin and it's hard to find too many players selected after him at #17 who are worth a damn themselves.

 

[TheRooster]

Thank God they didn't let their sunk costs with Young dissuade them from drafting Hunter.

 

[Jed Zeppelin]

Much more exciting than Mickey's Melo-esque (Fab, that is) stat line is that he has hit 3 out of 5 three-pointers, 7 of 8 free throws and only has 3 turnovers. If he can consistently hit the J he is a definite rotation player with that shotblocking ability.

 

[bowiac]

Yeah, Young doesn't seem long for the NBA. I suppose that's what happens when you don't have any league-average skills, beyond a pretty quick release (albeit attached to an inaccurate shot). In fairness, the 2014 draft was pretty thin and it's hard to find too many players selected after him at #17 who are worth a damn themselves.

Ainge's disdain for foreign players hurts in this regard. A bunch of the most interesting prospects taken that late are foreign, and Ainge doesn't really go that route.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Much more exciting than Mickey's Melo-esque (Fab, that is) stat line is that he has hit 3 out of 5 three-pointers, 7 of 8 free throws and only has 3 turnovers. If he can consistently hit the J he is a definite rotation player with that shotblocking ability.

His stat-line is not Fab Melo-esque. Other than the , which are similar, he is well above Melo in every respect.

 

[Jed Zeppelin]

His stat-line is not Fab Melo-esque. Other than the , which are similar, he is well above Melo in every respect.

I was mostly joking, but there was an infamous two or three game stretch in 2012 where Melo was close to averaging a triple-double.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

Much more exciting than Mickey's Melo-esque (Fab, that is) stat line is that he has hit 3 out of 5 three-pointers, 7 of 8 free throws and only has 3 turnovers. If he can consistently hit the J he is a definite rotation player with that shotblocking ability.

I think it's a little more than that. He needs to learn the NBA game to even sniff garbage minutes. In the preseason he was clueless on his defensive rotations and was running around like a chicken with his head cut off without any idea of his responsibilities.

 

[Jed Zeppelin]

I think it's a little more than that. He needs to learn the NBA game to even sniff garbage minutes. In the preseason he was clueless on his defensive rotations and was running around like a chicken with his head cut off without any idea of his responsibilities.

Not too surprising from his first attempt at NBA basketball. I'm sure a guy with his leap and wingspan didn't need perfect rotational awareness to excel in NCAA.