2017 Celtics Offseason: News and General Discussion

tbb345

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
978
One never knows what rivalry, agenda, or just outright falsehood might influence a media report like above, even a sourced one. But that acknowledged, WOW does that make Kyrie look bad.
That does look really bad for Kyrie but that whole thing seems fishy to me. McMenamin is sitting on this juicy piece of information, especially with the context of everyone fiending for news about Kyrie with his trade request, and he just casually drops it on a podcast?

I don't know, McMenamin is normally a good reporter and seems pretty well sourced with Cleveland but something about that seems off to me
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
3,268
On the other hand though, teams will be far less inclined to help make that happen for them because they understand the bargaining leverage they'll have in free agency.

Edit: It's also worth mentioning in this discussion how few players will actually be eligible for the designated player exception. Taking Porzingis as an example, I think we can all agree he's unlikely to ever win DPOY (even though he's solid) and MVP's a stretch too. So how likely is Porzingis to make an all NBA team over the next 5 years. There's basically 9 spots a year -- a chunk of which will be filled in perpetuity by Leonard, Davis, Towns, Durant, LeBron, Giannis, Gobert, Draymond, etc. Throw in guys like Griffin, Gordon Hayward, Embiid, Jokic, Paul George, etc. and it's entirely possible Porzingis never makes an all-NBA team, and let alone makes one in the two years before his free agency.
I would say unlikely, but it doesn't really matter.

All that matters is if Porzingis thinks Porzingis can make an all NBA team over the next 5 years. I'd guess he probably thinks he can.
 

Soxfan in Fla

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 30, 2001
7,122
That does look really bad for Kyrie but that whole thing seems fishy to me. McMenamin is sitting on this juicy piece of information, especially with the context of everyone fiending for news about Kyrie with his trade request, and he just casually drops it on a podcast?

I don't know, McMenamin is normally a good reporter and seems pretty well sourced with Cleveland but something about that seems off to me
Maybe because it looks so bad for Kyrie he wanted to drop it in a way that maybe wouldn't be noticed by many.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
40,409
deep inside Guido territory
Woj on Kyrie Irving trade talks and the Celtics.

The Cavaliers find themselves far more fixated on a young star, including New York's Kristaps Porzingis, Boston's Jayson Tatum, Phoenix's Josh Jackson and Denver's Jamal Murray, league sources told ESPN.

Boston has expressed interest in Irving and could offer the best combination of short-term (Isaiah Thomas and Jae Crowder) and long-term (Jaylen Brown, Jayson Tatum, picks) assets. The Celtics have made no formal offer, and it is against Boston's front-office DNA to push out front with the most generous offer. Boston knows that Cleveland is mostly intrigued with Tatum, but the sides have not formally discussed that deal, league sources said.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/20343088/lebron-future-impacts-cavaliers-kyrie-irving-trades
 

Sox Puppet

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2016
346
To me, IT4 versus Kyrie is more or less a push. Great offensive players, suspect (to put it generously) on defense. Isaiah has one more year before free agency, Kyrie two. So any discussion of including one of our most popular players for Kyrie should begin with the fact that we'd only be buying one extra year of essentially the same player.

To give up Tatum for that? AND Jaylen? And/or picks? I just don't see it. And I hope these rumors don't keep dragging on throughout the offseason.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
17,776
Portsmouth, NH
Except that IT4 - as great of a season he just had - is 4 years older, six inches shorter, has a potentially chronic hip injury, is a complete liability on defense (whereas Irving can man up when he chooses to), can't stay healthy through a full season and playoffs and is looking for a max deal.

Yes, he's a great player and had a great year and he's fun and I agree to pull it off would require an overpay, but equating the two is homerism. From day one going forward, Irving is the better player to have in pretty much every category.
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
5,751
NYC
Except that IT4 - as great of a season he just had - is 4 years older, six inches shorter, has a potentially chronic hip injury, is a complete liability on defense (whereas Irving can man up when he chooses to), can't stay healthy through a full season and playoffs and is looking for a max deal.
Three years older (not four), with a better history of durability, and extremely similar career numbers, both traditional and advanced (slightly better regular season, slightly worse playoffs), without the benefit of playing alongside LeBron.

Also: a reputation for being a fantastic teammate and emotional team leader, where Kyrie has a rep for being a bit of a reclusive loner.

And how sure are we that he's looking for a max deal? Anecdotally, I get the sense he'd be a lot more amenable to a friendly discount below the max than Kyrie would.

I mean, I'd take Kyrie over IT, but I think you're overstating the margin between them.
 
Last edited:

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
3,268
Except that IT4 - as great of a season he just had - is 4 years older, six inches shorter, has a potentially chronic hip injury, is a complete liability on defense (whereas Irving can man up when he chooses to), can't stay healthy through a full season and playoffs and is looking for a max deal.

Yes, he's a great player and had a great year and he's fun and I agree to pull it off would require an overpay, but equating the two is homerism. From day one going forward, Irving is the better player to have in pretty much every category.
This is a bit much. IT has been here two full seasons. In 2015-16 he stayed healthy through a full season and playoffs, he played all 88 regular season and post-season games. In 2016-17 he played 91 out of 100.

In comparison, Kyrie missed three games in 2016-17 with a bad hamstring, and the first 24 games of 2015-16 recovering from the broken kneecap that knocked him out of the playoffs the year before.

They've both been in the league six years, including regular season and playoffs IT has appeared in 466 total games, while Kyrie has appeared in 433 even though he's had more opportunity with extra playoff games.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
17,776
Portsmouth, NH
This is a bit much. IT has been here two full seasons. In 2015-16 he stayed healthy through a full season and playoffs, he played all 88 regular season and post-season games. In 2016-17 he played 91 out of 100.

In comparison, Kyrie missed three games in 2016-17 with a bad hamstring, and the first 24 games of 2015-16 recovering from the broken kneecap that knocked him out of the playoffs the year before.

They've both been in the league six years, including regular season and playoffs IT has appeared in 466 total games, while Kyrie has appeared in 433 even though he's had more opportunity with extra playoff games.
Poorly worded on my part.

My point is that we've seen that he gets the shit kicked out him come playoff time because of his small stature. Maybe that will change with another primary scoring threat (Hayward) being added, maybe it won't. Bottom line is when it comes down to it, he can be physically impacted even if he's "healthy".

Irving, well, I wouldn't exactly cite a broken knee cap or a hamstring pull as equal to an arthritic hip. I'd also ask the honest question of how many healthy scratches he's taken the last few years. As we've seen, even LBJ takes nights off because they know it's all about the playoffs.

Edit: I'll add that the rumors being floated are absurd and I wouldn't do them. But, I would do IT4 and Crowder for him.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
3,268
Poorly worded on my part.

My point is that we've seen that he gets the shit kicked out him come playoff time because of his small stature. Maybe that will change with another primary scoring threat (Hayward) being added, maybe it won't. Bottom line is when it comes down to it, he can be physically impacted even if he's "healthy".

Irving, well, I wouldn't exactly cite a broken knee cap or a hamstring pull as equal to an arthritic hip. I'd also ask the honest question of how many healthy scratches he's taken the last few years. As we've seen, even LBJ takes nights off because they know it's all about the playoffs.

Edit: I'll add that the rumors being floated are absurd and I wouldn't do them. But, I would do IT4 and Crowder for him.
He's taken ten rest games total over the last two years, no rest games his first four seasons, they affect his total but I didn't count those against him for injury. I only counted games he missed due to injury the last two years vs IT.
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
5,751
NYC
Irving, well, I wouldn't exactly cite a broken knee cap or a hamstring pull as equal to an arthritic hip.
It's been quite a bit more than that: he's had one ding or another every season, including his one year at Duke.



Games missed by year, starting with his year at Duke: 26, 15, 23, 11, 29, 10.

Could just be a run of bad luck, but I think it's reasonable to suggest that going forward he's not gonna be LeBron in terms of durability.

Edit: the major knee injury was also non-contact, which are always more concerning.
 

DrewDawg

Dorito Dink
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
37,381
https://sports.yahoo.com/brad-stevens-really-loves-ms-pac-man-guys-205710976.html

Stevens has picked up less than a handful of technical fouls in his four years on the Boston Celtics’ bench, and is generally the kind of guy who, after getting ejected from a game, stops to make sure the opposing head coach sees him saying, “Good job,” before hitting the showers. To what can we attribute the coach’s calm demeanor? A lot of things, probably, but on this particular day, I’m choosing to go with, “He plays ‘Ms. Pac-Man’ every day.”
 

DrewDawg

Dorito Dink
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
37,381
RPM isn't a big fan of the Celtics: http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/20495172/comparing-las-vegas-nba-unders-espn-rpm-projections-kevin-pelton

Boston Celtics
Line: 56.5 wins
RPM projection: 44.8 wins
Difference: 11.7 wins

Even before last week's trade for Kyrie Irving, the Celtics would have ranked near the top of this list after sacrificing depth to add Gordon Hayward in free agency. Because the Celtics gave up a pair of starters (All-Star Isaiah Thomas and Jae Crowder) to get Irving, their RPM projection actually dropped after the trade, giving them the largest differential between their projection and their Westgate line for any team in the NBA.

Note that Boston may still hold the top spot even if the trade for Irving is called off because of Thomas' hip injury. That outcome would suggest Thomas could miss time during the regular season. He's currently projected to play 77 games.
 

Nick Kaufman

protector of human kind from spoilers
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2003
10,102
A Lost Time
It wouldn't surprised me one bit if the Celtics backtracked. The talent is there, but there very well experience growing pains until they find their bearings. I am also worried that if for one reason or another Kyrie doesn't play as well as expected, some fans & media might turn against him. That's going to depend on what fan favorite Isaiah Thomas is doing in Cleveland.

I am not saying that anything above is likely or probable, but I definitely think it's possible.
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
6,402
New York, NY
Jesus, you would think that they'd figure out their RPM projections were junk.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/whats-new-in-our-nba-player-projections-for-2017-18/
In 2015-16, our projections were based on a combination of Real Plus-Minus (RPM), a system that rates each player primarily based on how his team performs when that player is on or off the court, and Box Plus/Minus (BPM), a system that rates players using traditional box-score statistics such as assists and steals. Last year, we switched to using BPM only. Why? There are a lot of things to like about BPM, including that it’s considerably more transparent than RPM, and it can be calculated going back several decades, making for easier historical comparisons.

But as a predictive tool, BPM does not appear to be as accurate as RPM. Instead, BPM has trouble picking up on factors such as defense and team cohesion. That led CARMELO to overrate teams such as the Minnesota Timberwolves and underrate more defensive teams such as the San Antonio Spurs last year. If we’d run the numbers using RPM instead of BPM in 2016-17, our projections would have been above-average again as compared with the projection systems that APBRmetrics tracks, we discovered.

All of this stuff gets complicated, and discussions can quickly devolve into alphabet soup. But for better or worse, the choice of metric matters quite a lot. According to BPM, Russell Westbrook’s 2016-17 season was easily the greatest in NBA history. According to RPM, he was only the ninth-best player in the league last season.

The upshot is that in the short run, we’re using a blend of two-thirds RPM and one-third BPM for this edition of the CARMELO projections. In the long run, we’re interested in developing our own plus-minus stat (but no promises about that quite yet).
This isn't a commentary on ESPN RPM projections, and a brief search didn't turn anything up, but it does indicate that your baseless assertion is probably also meritless.
 

Fishy1

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
3,351
Jesus, you would think that they'd figure out their RPM projections were junk.
45 wins for this group is a joke.
I'd be disappointed if they didn't beat out 45 wins, but it could happen. I balk, like anybody else, at the "difference" between Amir and Morris: I can't wait to see Morris in the flow of the Celtics offense -- a team with a plan, very good distributors, and functional spacing. I expect his 3pt% to go return to its previous highs.

But a real problem for this team is depth: almost half of the rotation will be rookies or second/third year players (Brown, Rozier, Tatum, Yabusele) RPM blasts rookies, and for good reason: even if they're talented offensively, very few do anything but blow on the defense end. Tatum and Yabusele (assuming a ten man rotation) will be two very young guys getting minutes, and I expect both of them to struggle on both ends for substantial parts of the next season. Jaylen, as much as I liked what he offered on defense in the playoffs, played like butt a lot of the time last year, and will up his minutes next year. Which -- as excited as I am to watch Jaylen grow -- could be a huge problem if he's still making unforced errors on both ends. And Rozier is whatever: it'd be great if his FG% finally broke 40%.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
22,203
I believe continuity is a factor in the model showing such a low projection, as well as depth. Those are both reasonable.

In the case of continuity I think Stevens is really the reason to hope they do better; in terms of depth, I think it's a bet on youth (and again on Stevens).

I wouldn't be surprised if they are in the low 50s, personally, and with a slower first half. I think it's a roster that will be better in the playoffs than it was opening night and that's really what matters.
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
35,666
Feel like any win projections for a team that has barely played together at all is going to have a hard time hitting the mark, especially a rating based partly on team context.

C's will have high variance as it pertains to their depth but if a guy like Theis surprises and so on they'll be fine. This is also why I'd support starting Brown and running Smart as the 2nd unit ball handler. Post Irving trade we'll still have a roster spot to fill with another credible vet.
 

DannyDarwinism

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 7, 2007
3,920
I'm not too surprised by the 45. The Celtics out-performed their pythagorean (48) by 5 wins last year and lost a couple of RPM binkies in Crowder and Amir. I'd settle around the midpoint of Vegas and Pelton.
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
6,402
New York, NY
What does any of that have to do with his dismissal of an RPM-based projection of 45 wins for the 2018 Celtics?
It points out that RPM is a really good measure for predicting future team performance in the NBA. There are good reasons to think the Celtics will overperform their RPM projection, but there is no good reason to dismiss the projection because some NBA fans don't like that there are stats that disagree with their impressions of the game.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
29,964
It points out that RPM is a really good measure for predicting future team performance in the NBA. There are good reasons to think the Celtics will overperform their RPM projection, but there is no good reason to dismiss the projection because some NBA fans don't like that there are stats that disagree with their impressions of the game.
The bolded may be correct, but I simply don't agree with it.


In all seriousness, I think we've been spoiled in these parts the last few years with the job that Ainge and Stevens have done in retooling the roster and maximizing player skill-sets. The problem is that improvement isn't always linear and, as others have noted, the team has had a lot of turnover and depth depletion. You can waive it away with, yeah, but Stevens... and you may be right. However it wouldn't surprise me to see the team take a step back this year while everyone learns to play together and the newcomers adapt to a different system.
 

bosox79

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
10,408
I think it's very possible they are a worse regular season team this year but a better playoff team. The depth will be more of an issue in the regular season.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
3,132
around the way
It points out that RPM is a really good measure for predicting future team performance in the NBA. There are good reasons to think the Celtics will overperform their RPM projection, but there is no good reason to dismiss the projection because some NBA fans don't like that there are stats that disagree with their impressions of the game.
What part in your quoted post said any of that?
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
7,885
I'm not too surprised by the 45. The Celtics out-performed their pythagorean (48) by 5 wins last year and lost a couple of RPM binkies in Crowder and Amir. I'd settle around the midpoint of Vegas and Pelton.
The Pythagorean Win projection is based on points scored (technically team points^14/team points^14+opponent points^14 multiplied 82), so teams that play a lot of close games can fool it (they weren't alone in this regard last year, the Hawks, for example, had a winning record despite the negative point differential). You can't really do those projections ahead of time, of course.

As for projections based on black box numbers, BBN's tend to overvalue efficiency and undervalue star players. And I say this because in many cases one player's efficiency is a function of a better player's talent. It's a lot easier to score efficiently when the entire defense is keyed on slowing Russell Westbrook down.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
3,132
around the way
"If we’d run the numbers using RPM instead of BPM in 2016-17, our projections would have been above-average again as compared with the projection systems that APBRmetrics tracks, we discovered."
That's the closest part, but it doesn't come close to claiming what you say it does.

His RPM projections would have been above average? What's the error band on above average? And even with that error band, he goes on to write that his next projection will use two thirds RPM only, cut with another third of the clearly inferior (I'll take his word on that) BPM.
 
Last edited:

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
22,203
I certainly don't think RPM is junk. That said, it would be interesting to know why he moved from the 2015-16 blended model to BPM only for 2016-17. He's not an idiot and he had a reason (almost surely beyond transparency) and that reason likely points up a gap/weakness of RPM. Which doesn't mean it isn't still valuable, of course.
 

Light-Tower-Power

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 14, 2013
8,244
I think it's very possible they are a worse regular season team this year but a better playoff team. The depth will be more of an issue in the regular season.
I don't know, as we saw with the Wizards last season, depth matters. I'd take our starting lineup over theirs, but as we've seen, you can't have a zero bench and expect to compete for a championship or even a conference championship. Maybe Danny will pick up some bench depth at the deadline if the rookies aren't working out, and I still would love them to sign Tony Allen for some defense and veteran leadership off the bench.
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
6,402
New York, NY
That's the closest part, but it doesn't come close to claiming what you say that it does.

His RPM projections would have been above average? What's the error band on above average? And even with that error band, he goes on to write that his next projection will use two thirds RPM only, cut with another third of the clearly inferior (I'll take his word on that) BPM.
Above average is pretty clearly a lot better than "junk" as described by nighthob in a post that simultaneously provided no support for that claim. The decision of Nate Silver to heavily weight it also supports this. Do you plan to actually argue for a contrary position and actually support that position with evidence?
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
3,132
around the way
Above average is pretty clearly a lot better than "junk" as described by nighthob in a post that simultaneously provided no support for that claim. The decision of Nate Silver to heavily weight it also supports this. Do you plan to actually argue for a contrary position and actually support that position with evidence?
I'm trying to get the love for RPM. If you're going to post-stomp people who question it, "because Nate says that it's above average" is not good enough IMO. Nate's about the smartest stat guy motherfucker on earth, and the process that you quoted in your post is slightly more scientific that the old Italian ladies who tried to guess our baby's gender from which way the ring swing on the string over my wife's belly. That's my position.
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
6,402
New York, NY
I certainly don't think RPM is junk. That said, it would be interesting to know why he moved from the 2015-16 blended model to BPM only for 2016-17. He's not an idiot and he had a reason (almost surely beyond transparency) and that reason likely points up a gap/weakness of RPM. Which doesn't mean it isn't still valuable, of course.
His stated reason was that plus issues with the lack of historical data when CARMELO is based on historical comps.

I don't think RPM is perfect. It is a closed box, which is problematic, especially since the formula seems to vary somewhat year to year. Still, there is a fair bit of evidence that adjusted plus minus metrics are the best current statistical tools for predicting future performance we currently have. Bowiac's posts here have provided much more persuasive defenses of them than I am capable of.

On the other side, the majority of the stridently anti-RPM posters tend to essentially rest on the idea that they don't like how it evaluates certain players so the statistics is worthless. RPM likely does screw up some roleplayers evaluations, but it also, as Bowiac has pointed out in past posts that I am too busy to look up, is robust across player seasons and team/coaching changes in a way that makes the context factors less concerning.
 

moly99

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 28, 2007
939
Seattle
For those of you who have a problem with RPM, what specifically is your objection? Do you think that there are better statistics out there? Or do you simply object to the idea of players being judged on stats instead of popularity and the eyeball test?

Personally I think that this team is more talented than last year's team, but the performance will be worse. People are seriously underestimating the impact of role players even in the playoffs.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
7,885
For those of you who have a problem with RPM, what specifically is your objection? Do you think that there are better statistics out there? Or do you simply object to the idea of players being judged on stats instead of popularity and the eyeball test?
We weren't discussing ESPN's stat as an evaluation tool for individual performance. We were discussing it as a means of projecting win totals.

And, yes, the 45 win projection for Boston is actually laughable (right up there with the people forecasting the 2008 Celtics as a 48 win team due to lack of depth). It's a star's league, and Boston now has two (I would actually say three, but Horford clearly doesn't get the same consideration the other two do).

Boston is going to struggle in the first half, because for the first half of the season they're playing a 2017 style schedule. They'll probably play .600 ball or so that first 40 odd games. But after they get back from London? They're going to roll into the playoffs playing .700 or better over the back nine with all the time off.

Personally I think that this team is more talented than last year's team, but the performance will be worse. People are seriously underestimating the impact of role players even in the playoffs.
In the playoffs you will likely see most of the bench minutes taken by Smart, Rozier, and Baynes. Because with all the days off teams rarely go deeper than eight guys.

If you want to say that Washington might beat them in the second round, maybe (I'm a Wall believer, but a noted Beal skeptic, and Boston is far better positioned to deal with them this year). Personally I'm expecting a return to the ECF and a loss to the Cavs in six or seven games, but with the games far tighter this time around.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
8,011
The fact that Nate Silver loves the RPM system does not mean it's infallible. The 538 guys were (and still are) laughably wrong about the Patriots and their lack of fumbles being the result of some sort of nefarious cheating. The 45 win projection in an Eastern Conference that no longer has Paul George or Jimmy Butler is truly laughable. None of Toronto, Washington, Chicago, Indiana, Atlanta, Detroit, Charlotte, New York, Miami, nor Orlando got measurably better. The Bucks should be better as their young players continue up the growth curve. Same could be said for the Sixers (barring injury). The Nets probably will win more than 20 games. Fortunately, Ainge and the Celtics use their own internal and proprietary evaluation systems.

However, in defense of the system's proponents, it's not necessarily how one team fares against the projections, but basically how all 30 do on average. Given the roster turnover, the Celtics probably are the most difficult team for such a system to accurately project.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
22,203
His stated reason was that plus issues with the lack of historical data when CARMELO is based on historical comps.

I don't think RPM is perfect. It is a closed box, which is problematic, especially since the formula seems to vary somewhat year to year. Still, there is a fair bit of evidence that adjusted plus minus metrics are the best current statistical tools for predicting future performance we currently have. Bowiac's posts here have provided much more persuasive defenses of them than I am capable of.

On the other side, the majority of the stridently anti-RPM posters tend to essentially rest on the idea that they don't like how it evaluates certain players so the statistics is worthless. RPM likely does screw up some roleplayers evaluations, but it also, as Bowiac has pointed out in past posts that I am too busy to look up, is robust across player seasons and team/coaching changes in a way that makes the context factors less concerning.
I think there's a group of posters who dislike RPM who sound roughly like Nick Cafardo about it, and that's just silly. There's others who recognize it has value, but do not think it is necessarily correct in all cases (I take this to be where nighthob is). This is no doubt true----it being the best metric across all teams includes it being way off on some and being close on many. I don't know which group the Celtics next year will be in as to RPM projections but we don't need to say someone is wrong for picking either, since we pretty much know that RPM will be (on average) among the best projection systems across all teams and will also significantly miss on some teams for various reasons.

That points up the other side of this discussion, a point I have noted here for a couple years that there's also a problem with folks who look just at RPM in making evaluative statements and treat it as infallable. Some of those just like there being 'an answer' and others actually don't understand the metric well enough to recognize its limitations and assumptions. Some who are big RPM fans fail on this the same way folks used to argue on the main board "Manny Ramirez is a below average player, look at the defense...." before we understood the danger of small-sample size defense and smoothed out the numbers. To be more specific, RPM does depend on how the coach deploys guys matchup-wise, and thus RPM is limited by the combinations that are played on the floor and the sample size of each; etc. .

Advanced metrics are very valuable, and also imperfect. We tend to have folks who miss the former fact, and also who miss the latter one.
 
Last edited:

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
22,376
Melrose, MA
Crowder's RPM is a reason why this deal caused the Celtics' projection to fall and the Cavs to improve. Will be interesting to see whether that holds up.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
7,885
Crowder's RPM will stay high for being the other guy on the floor in Cleveland. His eFG% should go up in Cleveland with more wide open threes available to him. I'm not sure what happens to his rebounding numbers on a team with Love and Thompson, though.

I have a tough time with the Cavs' over/under line simply because I think Thomas is going to be out for blood once he gets back on the floor, but I also suspect that the Cavs are going to try and use him in a sixth man role to keep him healthy for the games that matter.
 

sezwho

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
500
Brooklyn by way of Orono
Not sure if this moves the RPM discussion forward, but one of the lessons I took from financial analytics is from Long Term Capital. The collection of Nobel Prize winners, physicists and mathemeticians associated with making their investment decisions was astonishing...and its complete failure not only cost its investors everything but nearly took down a huge chunk of the greater economy down with it. One could argue that it was a Black Swan event (thanks Mr Taleb) that took it down, but its still an excellent reminder that such mathematics has its limitations. In my past I have worked in modeling and simulation (though not always in finance) and one of my mentors said this to me early in my career: "Simulation is like masturbation, it serves an important purpose and is basically harmless, just never confuse it for the real thing."
 

moly99

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 28, 2007
939
Seattle
I do not understand why so many Celtics fans have a hard time believing that Crowder is a great player.

Throw RPM out the window. The last two seasons Crowder has averaged 7.0 win shares, 2.2 BPM, and 2.4 VORP. Meanwhile Kyrie averaged 7.0 win shares, 2.0 BPM, and 2.2 VORP. Crowder has played 145 games vs 125 for Kyrie, but durability matters too. This is not a case where one weird stat overvalues Crowder; he really is very good at basketball.

Crowder's RPM will stay high for being the other guy on the floor in Cleveland. His eFG% should go up in Cleveland with more wide open threes available to him.
I am not sure if he will actually get more open shots with the Cavs. The Celtics are pretty good at getting guys open too.

Last year the Celtics had a slightly higher percentage of wide open shots than the Cavs. (This image was from mid-season, but still interesting: http://i.imgur.com/Nvn1JBz.png.) It's curious to note that bad shooters are sometimes intentionally left open, which makes the stat fairly meaningless.