2023-2024 Celtics Wins Poll

2023-2024 Regular Season Wins


  • Total voters
    239

Light-Tower-Power

ask me about My Pillow
SoSH Member
Jun 14, 2013
16,441
Nashua, NH
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.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
25,317
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.
 

Light-Tower-Power

ask me about My Pillow
SoSH Member
Jun 14, 2013
16,441
Nashua, NH
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.
 

jezza1918

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
2,945
South Dartmouth, MA
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.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,521
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
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,550
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.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,487
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 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.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
13,419
52-55, but it's because I think they'll be very conservative with injuries/rest/development and that the rest of the East won't put pressure on the top 2 teams.
 

Mooch

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,756
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
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.
 

The Social Chair

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 17, 2010
6,296
52 - 55.

Purely based off roster construction, last year's team was better equipped for the regular season and this team for the playoffs.
 

MyDaughterLovesTomGordon

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
14,652
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.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
25,317
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.
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.
 

teddykgb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
11,300
Chelmsford, MA
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
 

PRabbit

New Member
Apr 3, 2022
121
62-20. This team COULD get 70 if they don't let up on the gas, which I think will happen after the ASB. Just depends on how much load management there actually is.

Bucks and Celtics are clearly better than anyone else in the conference. #2 seed at worst.
 

Auger34

used to be tbb
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
11,191
52 - 55.

Purely based off roster construction, last year's team was better equipped for the regular season and this team for 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.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,964
Santa Monica
60+

I'm bullish on Hauser, Kornet, PP & others understanding/executing their roles.

Depth won't be near the problem the media is touting.
 

Tudor Fever

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2004
3,713
Maine
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.
 

bigq

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,666
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.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
43,856
AZ
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.
 

nocode51

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 6, 2006
943
Maine
I think we can hit 60 this year. Also I have to say I saw the title of this thread and wondered "who cares that we won a poll?" before figuring it out.
 

j-man

Member
Dec 19, 2012
3,790
Arkansas
i love the team but i worry about bench denth my 02 u are the 2nd best team in the nba only benind denver
 

j-man

Member
Dec 19, 2012
3,790
Arkansas
i see it like this

1 bos
2 mil
3 mia
4 cle
5 philly
6 nyk
7 brook
8 atl
9 cha
10 indy

west
1 den
2 phx
3 mem
4 la
5 gs
6 okc
7 no
8 lac
9 sac
10 sa
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,922
NYC
This team COULD get 70 if they don't let up on the gas
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.
 

bigq

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,666
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.
 

Mugsy's Jock

Eli apologist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2000
15,300
UWS, NYC
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.
 

PRabbit

New Member
Apr 3, 2022
121
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.
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).
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
49,891
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.
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.
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,922
NYC
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).
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:

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
8,714
Imaginationland
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.
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.
 

timelysarcasm

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2010
1,753
Los Angeles by way of Roxbury
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.
 

kieckeredinthehead

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
8,640
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 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.


72076
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
10,253
San Francisco
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.


View attachment 72076
Is this not purely because Var(X * a ) = a^2 Var(X) or am I missing something?
 

kieckeredinthehead

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
8,640
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.