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

[nighthob]

I think subtracting Hibbert and West and adding Paul George isn't as clear cut of an upgrade as you make it seem. Their big man rotation consists of Ian Mahinmi, Luis Scola, Lavoy Allen and Chris Copeland at the moment. They already struggled mightily to score--even when Paul George was healthy--and they've lost their second option. And that doesn't even address the fact that the year they were good, Hibbert was an elite defensive player and they wont have that.

To be brutally frank, I don't think that Myles Turner is much of a downgrade from 2015 Hibbert. And Indiana just gained a huge trade exception to use to add another body at the 4/5. Their second offensive option next year is going to be a lot better than Hibbert, and, beyond all that they're getting Paul George back for the year. Of course they struggled to score last year, their top offensive options were David West and Roy Hibbert, a couple of complementary players. Unless you think that Paul George is only worth two wins to the '16 Pacers, then he's a gigantic upgrade.

The other claim is that a full season of a 5'8" bench scorer that can't defend anyone and Jae Crowder is worth tons of wins, but somehow a full season of two NBA all stars (Bosh & Dragic for the Heat) is not is just flat out bizarre.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

To be brutally frank, I don't think that Myles Turner is much of a downgrade from 2015 Hibbert. And Indiana just gained a huge trade exception to use to add another body at the 4/5. Their second offensive option next year is going to be a lot better than Hibbert, and, beyond all that they're getting Paul George back for the year. Of course they struggled to score last year, their top offensive options were David West and Roy Hibbert, a couple of complementary players. Unless you think that Paul George is only worth two wins to the '16 Pacers, then he's a gigantic upgrade.

The other claim is that a full season of a 5'8" bench scorer that can't defend anyone and Jae Crowder is worth tons of wins, but somehow a full season of two NBA all stars (Bosh & Dragic for the Heat) is not is just flat out bizarre.

 
A couple of things:
 
1. I like Turner, but expecting too much, on either end, from a rookie big is a mistake. 
 
2. Roy Hibbert had the 8th highest usage rate on the Pacers last year. He was not their second option. Their second option was one of CJ Miles, Rodney Stuckey, or George Hill. In fact, for stretches last season each of those guys functioned as the second option. And as of right now, one of them will be the second option next year, too.
 
3. I think Paul George is worth several wins to the Pacers. I think losing David West and Roy Hibbert hurts them though, as I said before. They haven't addressed their inability to score--which was a problem when George had his career year--and they'll see a regression on defense. 
 
4. I posted that I thought the Heat were being underrated. Why you think otherwise is just flat out bizarre.  

 

[bowiac]

Myles Turner is 19 years old. Who was the last good 19 year old NBA player?
 
Edit - Okay, it was Anthony Davis, but generally, these guys are awful. Myles Turner is not Anthony Davis...

 

[Cellar-Door]

Myles Turner is 19 years old. Who was the last good 19 year old NBA player?

Anthony Davis.
 
There are 14 players with a VORP of at least 1 as 19 year olds. Most recent 3 are Davis and Drummond with Kyrie the year before.
Edit- Which should be a good indicator of how few guys are good at that young an age since it goes all the way back to KG.

 

[bowiac]

Anthony Davis.
 
There are 14 players with a VORP of at least 1 as 19 year olds. Most recent 3 are Davis and Drummond with Kyrie the year before.
Edit- Which should be a good indicator of how few guys are good at that young an age since it goes all the way back to KG.

It gets even bleaker using RPM (true adjusted plus minus, rather than box-score plus/minus). Going back to 2003, there have been seven guys who were above replacement level at all, none of whom reached the 1 VORP level (Drummond was the best, at 0.6). That's Drummond, Davis, Josh Smith, Thad Young, Luol Deng, Andris Biedrins (?!), and LeBron.
 
But sure, it happens. It would just be a major shock.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

GMB nailed it I think. It's hard to know what to make of Jabari, but it would be pretty surprising if he were good this year. Monroe is a good add, but Knight/MCW is a major issue. They also threw away Dudley, and while you can doubt how good he is going forward, he was an important shooter for them.
 
The Bucks are a higher upside team than the Celtics, but in terms of mean expectation, I think the Celtics are probably a hair better. They're young, they won 40 games last year, they weren't especially healthy (Smart, Sullinger, Olynyk), and they made two somewhat significant additions (Johnson, Thomas), and their most significant departure is Brandon Bass. This does not look like a team primed for regression.

Those games missed were only 15-20 per player for Smith, Sully, and Olynyk while everyone else was healthy for the entire season. That is a very strong record of health for an NBA team especially last year in comparison to others in the East that may be difficult to duplicate......it certainly isn't likely to improve.

 

[bowiac]

Those games missed were only 15-20 per player for Smith, Sully, and Olynyk while everyone else was healthy for the entire season. That is a very strong record of health for an NBA team especially last year in comparison to others in the East that may be difficult to duplicate......it certainly isn't likely to improve.

Missing 57 games of Smith, Sullinger and Olynyk is more significant in my evaluation of the team than getting 82 games of Evan Turner. Your mileage may vary depending on your estimate of the talent levels of Turner, Bass, Zeller, and Bradley. Two of those guys are replacement level players, while the other two are average-ish.
 
I don't think they were crippled by injury (like you said, it's only 15-20 games from the good players), but I don't think they were especially lucky with health when you consider their three good players were the ones who got hurt.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

Missing 57 games of Smith, Sullinger and Olynyk is more significant in my evaluation of the team than getting 82 games of Evan Turner. Your mileage may vary depending on your estimate of the talent levels of Turner, Bass, Zeller, and Bradley. Two of those guys are replacement level players, while the other two are average-ish.
 
I don't think they were crippled by injury (like you said, it's only 15-20 games from the good players), but I don't think they were especially lucky with health when you consider their three good players were the ones who got hurt.

When you look at it historically over the past decade we did very well last year. When you compare it to our competitors who lost their best player and/or other starters for the year or part of the year we were extremely fortunate and that type of luck generally balances out eventually (the following year?). Bosh, Parker, George, and Carmelo. We were on the other end with teams like Toronto who only lost DeRozan for 22 and Lowry for 12. Even the Bulls who lost a ton of man-games but it wasn't as noticeable since none of them were lost for the year.....Rose (31), Gibson (20), Dunleavy (19), Noah (15), Butler (17).

 

[radsoxfan]

Well, that's the benefit of the C's not really having any great players. Who is the C's Bosh or Melo?

It's next level stuff from Danny, the new market inefficiency.

Never get any really good players, and no matter who gets hurt, you never downgrade much. A permanently healthy roster... Genius.

 

[nighthob]

A couple of things:
 
1. I like Turner, but expecting too much, on either end, from a rookie big is a mistake. 

I'm actually not expecting much, but by the end last year Hibbert wasn't delivering much.
 

2. Roy Hibbert had the 8th highest usage rate on the Pacers last year. He was not their second option. Their second option was one of CJ Miles, Rodney Stuckey, or George Hill. In fact, for stretches last season each of those guys functioned as the second option. And as of right now, one of them will be the second option next year, too.

This is what I said, their primary options last year were complementary players, so of course they struggled to score. Their second option nerxt year, Monta Ellis, is going to give them more offensively than Hibbert. I'm not sure how that can be argued. Their primary option was a legitimate MVP level player when healthy, it may take him a while to work the rust out, but not a full season.
 

4. I posted that I thought the Heat were being underrated. Why you think otherwise is just flat out bizarre.

That comment wasn't targeted at you, I should have been clearer about that. Sorry.

I was sort of addressing the continuing drumbeat that this year Boston would have a full season of Lil Zeke and Jae Crowder which will increase their awesomeness, while waving off the suggestion that the same would be true of Miami for having a pair of all stars for a full season. Usually with the suggestion that it doesn't count because the Heat "have no depth" despite having bench players better than some of Boston's starters (I'm not a huge McBob guy, but he's clearly better than any Celtic PF, possibly even Amir Johnson). I mean, yes, you can probably chalk in Wade to miss 20-25 games this year. But that's not catastrophic when you have Dragic at the point and Justise Winslow to plug into the starting lineup.

 

[bowiac]

When you look at it historically over the past decade we did very well last year. When you compare it to our competitors who lost their best player and/or other starters for the year or part of the year we were extremely fortunate and that type of luck generally balances out eventually (the following year?). Bosh, Parker, George, and Carmelo. We were on the other end with teams like Toronto who only lost DeRozan for 22 and Lowry for 12. Even the Bulls who lost a ton of man-games but it wasn't as noticeable since none of them were lost for the year.....Rose (31), Gibson (20), Dunleavy (19), Noah (15), Butler (17).

Who is Parker? Edit - just occurred to me you meant Jabari. That's like losing Evan Turner. Jabari's a good prospect, but that didn't have a big impact on them in 2014-15. 
 
But yes, I agree, I think all these teams will likely be healthier too. What's your point?

 

[Cellar-Door]

Who is Parker?

Jabari I assume?

 

[bowiac]

I was sort of addressing the continuing drumbeat that this year Boston would have a full season of Lil Zeke and Jae Crowder which will increase their awesomeness, while waving off the suggestion that the same would be true of Miami for having a pair of all stars for a full season. Usually with the suggestion that it doesn't count because the Heat "have no depth" despite having bench players better than some of Boston's starters (I'm not a huge McBob guy, but he's clearly better than any Celtic PF, possibly even Amir Johnson). I mean, yes, you can probably chalk in Wade to miss 20-25 games this year. But that's not catastrophic when you have Dragic at the point and Justise Winslow to plug into the starting lineup.

Who has waived off the suggestion here that Miami will improve? Maybe I missed a post, but posters have been pretty optimistic about the Heat here, no?

 

[nighthob]

Who has waived off the suggestion here that Miami will improve? Maybe I missed a post, but posters have been pretty optimistic about the Heat here, no?

You have, I have, HRB has. But the "Miami has no depth!!!" thing keeps getting repeated. I'm on my phone in the theatre, so I can't go look it up now, but when I go home I'll trawl the thread for you.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

Who is Parker? Edit - just occurred to me you meant Jabari. That's like losing Evan Turner. Jabari's a good prospect, but that didn't have a big impact on them in 2014-15. 
 
But yes, I agree, I think all these teams will likely be healthier too. What's your point?

Of course he didn't have a big impact.....he missed 50 games after tearing up his knee! You're saying Parker didn't have an impact yet pointing to games that Kelly Olynyk (and Sully and Smart) missed as us being hurt by injuries. It's the NBA....ALL teams suffer injuries over the course of the season, comparatively speaking the injury factor during last season greatly benefitted last years Celtics.

My point is that when Team A gets Paul George back, another gets Jabari Parker back (who is more impactful than any of those Celtics), one more gets Chris Bosh back, and the 4th get a handful of games back from SOS (Sully Smart Olynyk)......it is the latter who loses ground.

 

[bowiac]

My point is that when Team A gets Paul George back, another gets Jabari Parker back (who is more impactful than any of those Celtics), one more gets Chris Bosh back, and the 4th get a handful of games back from SOS (Sully Smart Olynyk)......it is the latter who loses ground.

The bolded this is really the core of our disagreement. I think each of Smart, Sullinger and Olynyk is likely to be better than Parker next year. Parker's a great prospect, but that's because he's younger and a better athlete. For next year, I'd take any of those 3 guys however (I'd also take Smart longterm). I won't belabor this however - reasonable minds can differ I suppose.
 
To reiterate, I don't think the Celtics were ravaged by injuries. I just don't think they were especially healthy either when you consider who got hurt. I was trying to point out that talking about the return of Bosh and George but leaving out that the three best Celtics players missed time last year is missing part of the picture.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

The bolded this is really the core of our disagreement. I think each of Smart, Sullinger and Olynyk is likely to be better than Parker next year. Parker's a great prospect, but that's because he's younger and a better athlete. For next year, I'd take any of those 3 guys however (I'd also take Smart longterm). I won't belabor this however - reasonable minds can differ I suppose.
 
To reiterate, I don't think the Celtics were ravaged by injuries. I just don't think they were especially healthy either when you consider who got hurt. I was trying to point out that talking about the return of Bosh and George but leaving out that the three best Celtics players missed time last year is missing part of the picture.

Yes, we agree on what we disagree on (which is nice around here sometimes). I just don't think it mattered very much, or at all really, if those games were missed by Smart, Olynyk, and Sullinger.......or by Bradley, Bass, and Crowder. Those other teams I've mentioned lost true impact players or in the case of Milwaukee a soon-to-be impact player. I'd take Parker this season over any of our three guys being discussed 7 days a week and twice on Sundays.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

Another way to describe it is that if we project the 'most likely' scenario, Parker's value next year might be close to (say) Sullinger because the variance is higher and he might just not be very good.  But we also probably should recognize that there's a material (1/3? 1/4?) chance that Parker is an impact guy, or close, and there's almost no chance that Sullinger is.  In most of those scenarios, Bucks make a leap that Celts have little chance of making.  This is why PECOTA projected guys with a range not a single number, and I think that distinction is part of the gap between your two assessments.

 

[bowiac]

Another way to describe it is that if we project the 'most likely' scenario, Parker's value next year might be close to (say) Sullinger because the variance is higher and he might just not be very good.  But we also probably should recognize that there's a material (1/3? 1/4?) chance that Parker is an impact guy, or close, and there's almost no chance that Sullinger is.  In most of those scenarios, Bucks make a leap that Celts have little chance of making.  This is why PECOTA projected guys with a range not a single number, and I think that distinction is part of the gap between your two assessments.

If that's part of it, it's not a significant part of it. If I were projecting the "most likely" scenario, Parker's value next year would be far lower than Sullinger's. Yes, there's a material chance he makes a leap, and if he does that, he can maybe become as good as Sullinger. I think the chance that he becomes an "impact guy" this year however is far lower than anything on the scale of 1/3 or 1/4 however.
 
It's not a range/upside differential. I just like Sullinger more, and like Parker less. This is mostly being skeptical of Parker - I think I'm pretty close to most people on Sullinger.
 
Mean projection vs. upside could explain something like why I like Smart more than Giannis (I like Smart more, but I think there's some ~25% shot Giannis's be a star this year, while Smart probably not). With Parker/Sullinger however, that's not the issue.

 

[nighthob]

It's next level stuff from Danny, the new market inefficiency.

Never get any really good players, and no matter who gets hurt, you never downgrade much. A permanently healthy roster... Genius.

This post has not gotten enough credit for its pure genius.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

I'm actually not expecting much, but by the end last year Hibbert wasn't delivering much.
 
This is what I said, their primary options last year were complementary players, so of course they struggled to score. Their second option nerxt year, Monta Ellis, is going to give them more offensively than Hibbert. I'm not sure how that can be argued. Their primary option was a legitimate MVP level player when healthy, it may take him a while to work the rust out, but not a full season.
 
That comment wasn't targeted at you, I should have been clearer about that. Sorry.

I was sort of addressing the continuing drumbeat that this year Boston would have a full season of Lil Zeke and Jae Crowder which will increase their awesomeness, while waving off the suggestion that the same would be true of Miami for having a pair of all stars for a full season. Usually with the suggestion that it doesn't count because the Heat "have no depth" despite having bench players better than some of Boston's starters (I'm not a huge McBob guy, but he's clearly better than any Celtic PF, possibly even Amir Johnson). I mean, yes, you can probably chalk in Wade to miss 20-25 games this year. But that's not catastrophic when you have Dragic at the point and Justise Winslow to plug into the starting lineup.

 
Totally forgot about the Ellis signing, which is a nice enough signing, but he's hardly the sort of player to take a an offense from bad to good on his own. I'm not sure who Indiana plans to bring in to add to their big rotation. It's possible the answer is nobody, and they intend to go extended stretches with George at the 4. Their crunch time lineups will be something like Hill/Ellis/S. Hill/George/Mahinmi against small lineups and Hill/Ellis/George/Scola/Mahinmi against big lineups. 
 
That just doesn't strike me as a great lineup. They're not going to outscore teams, even though they'll likely improve on that end, and I'm just not sure where that leaves them exactly. 

 

[luckiestman]

I.Thomas and Lee on the floor at the same time is going to be the most potent offense we've had in years. Might need to play them with Johnson, Crowder and Smart if we want to stop anyone on the other end.

 

[radsoxfan]

I.Thomas and Lee on the floor at the same time is going to be the most potent offense we've had in years. Might need to play them with Johnson, Crowder and Smart if we want to stop anyone on the other end.

 
Pretty good chance this is the crunch time lineup (non small ball version at least). 

 

[HomeRunBaker]

I.Thomas and Lee on the floor at the same time is going to be the most potent offense we've had in years.

For which team?

 

[bowiac]

Pretty good chance this is the crunch time lineup (non small ball version at least). 

While I don't think Sullinger is likely to be on the team at this point, he's probably a better player than Lee at this point, and a better fit with Thomas on the floor.

 

[luckiestman]

Just for fun. Here is the opening night 2013-2014 roster.
 
Starters:
Gerald Wallace
Jeff Green 
Avery Bradley 
Vitor Faverani
Brandon Bass
 
Bench:
Kris Humphries
Jordan Crawford
Kelly Olynyk
Courtney Lee
Phil Pressey 
 
Jared Sullinger (suspended)
Keith Bogans 
Marshan Brooks

 

[luckiestman]

While I don't think Sullinger is likely to be on the team at this point, he's probably a better player than Lee at this point, and a better fit with Thomas on the floor.

 
 
I'm so up and down on Sullinger. I think one game the dude had 25 points and 20 boards but other games he will just plod around out there. 
 
Edit: 20 boards not 25

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

 
Just for fun. Here is the opening night 2013-2014 roster.
 
Starters:
Gerald Wallace
Jeff Green 
Avery Bradley 
Vitor Faverani
Brandon Bass
 
Bench:
Kris Humphries
Jordan Crawford
Kelly Olynyk
Courtney Lee
Phil Pressey 
 
Jared Sullinger (suspended)
Keith Bogans 
Marshan Brooks
 

 
Man, that was a blast. 

 

[radsoxfan]

While I don't think Sullinger is likely to be on the team at this point, he's probably a better player than Lee at this point, and a better fit with Thomas on the floor.

Agreed. But I'm also buying the idea Sully is most likely to be gone, in which case that might be our best lineup.

At the same time, I'd also expect small ball down the stretch a significant amount of the time given those 2 bigs don't stretch the floor.

 

[jscola85]

Here's the moves so far by team:
 
1. Hawks - Lost Carroll, Antic, Jenkins.  Gained Splitter, Hardaway Jr, Holiday, Tavares
2. Cavs - Lost Perkins. Gained Williams.  TBD on Smith.
3. Bulls - Gained Portis.
4. Raptors - Lost Johnson, Williams, Fields.  Gained Carroll, Joseph, Scola, Biyombo, Wright.  TBD on Hansbrough
5. Wizards - Lost Pierce, Butler.  Gained Anderson, Neal, Dudley, Oubre.  TBD on Seraphin, Gooden.
6. Bucks - Lost Williams, Butler. Gained Monroe, Parker (de facto), Vazquez, Vaughn.
7. Celtics - Lost Wallace, Bass, Datome.  Gained Johnson, Lee, Rozier, Hunter.
8. Nets - Lost Anderson.  Added Hollis-Jefferson.  TBD on Teletovic
9. Pacers - Lost Hibbert, Scola, West, Watson.  Gained George (de facto), Ellis, Turner.  TBD on Copeland.
10. Hornets - Lost Henderson, Williams.  Gained Batum, Kaminsky, Lin.
11. Pistons - Lost Monroe.  Gained Morris, Baynes, Johnson.
12. Heat - Lost Beasley.  Gained Winslow.
 
Hawks got a bit worse, Cavs, Bulls and Raptors all treadmilled.  Wizards IMO got worse, swapping Pierce for a bunch of veteran JAGs.  Bucks are clearly better, Nets clearly worse.  Pacers are different, and probably a bit better just getting George back, but not a lot.  Hornets are better but only by a material amount if Batum really bounces back.  Pistons will be about the same.  Don't know what to think of the Heat.  They should be better with Bosh back and a full year of Dragic, but last season they were just 19-25 with Bosh and didn't play that well even with Whiteside and Dragic.  Talent is there to be a 50-win team but I am a bit skeptical.
 
I see the Celtics in the same spot as last year, fighting for a spot in the 6-9 range of the conference.  They could win 4-5 more games this year and still fall a spot in the conference, as I think the East is incrementally better than last year.
 
EDIT - forgot the Heat

 

[Devizier]

A healthy Paul George makes the Pacers a lot better, even without West and Hibbert. "How healthy" is a big question, though.

 

[jscola85]

Agreed that a George for Hibbert/West swap is one the Pacers will take, but it's not like that alone will vault them up 10 games or something.  They only won 38 games last year.  Even if George helps them jump 4-5 wins, that simply puts them in the same mix as the Celtics, Wizards, and Heat in my opinion.

 

[nighthob]

Adding a legitimate MVP candidate is going to be good for more than 4 to 5 win net.

 

[bowiac]

First cut of 2015-2016 standings, using almost an identical methodology to this the 538 method here (down to using Rotoworld for depth charts).
 
These win numbers are pretty wonky still, since I'm only using a 2-deep rotation everywhere, but it should give a decent sense of ordering. As I put in more third and fourth string minutes, the best and worst teams will compress a good amount.
 
 

 

[ALiveH]

Celtics jumping 12 wins without adding any stars would be...impressive (borderline unprecedented?).  i hope you're right.  i'd be very happy with a 5-win improvement.

 

[Koufax]

If Dallas is as bad as you say, they'll tank to preserve their draft pick.  That would be a shame.  That Nets pick is looking good, though.
 
How can the 76ers keep getting top draft picks and continue to be at the bottom of the barrel?

 

[bowiac]

Celtics jumping 12 wins without adding any stars would be...impressive (borderline unprecedented?).  i hope you're right.  i'd be very happy with a 5-win improvement.

I don't think it's especially unusual actually. Atlanta had a 22 win improvement this year for instance. Could be wrong though. Worth poking around. This is mostly the result of adding Amir Johnson, who RPM loves however. From the point of view of RPM, the Celtics did add a star.
 
There is no schedule adjustment there yet either (since we don't have a schedule yet). That's just point differential plugged into a pythagorean formula. When we get a schedule, I'll do a full projection.

 

[Cellar-Door]

If Dallas is as bad as you say, they'll tank to preserve their draft pick.  That would be a shame.  That Nets pick is looking good, though.
 
How can the 76ers keep getting top draft picks and continue to be at the bottom of the barrel?

Only 2 of 4 are likely to play and the rest of the roster is full of non-nba players

 

[bowiac]

If Dallas is as bad as you say, they'll tank to preserve their draft pick.  That would be a shame.  That Nets pick is looking good, though.
 
How can the 76ers keep getting top draft picks and continue to be at the bottom of the barrel?

Well, it helps that their picks won't play. Saric and Embiid aren't projected to play presently, while I gave Okafor (and all rookies) a -1.5 RPM projection.

 

[radsoxfan]

I figure I'm probably more bullish on the Celtics than most, but even I can't get close to a 52 win prediction. Hope you're right (and you should bet a ton on the over line in Vegas if you are at all confident in those numbers).
 
I understand the reason to keep all rookies the same in the projections, but that would seem to be a minor problem with the projections of some teams that expect to give those guys minutes.  Not worth adjusting based on draft selection or college stats at least a bit?

 

[bowiac]

While I expect I again end up heavy on the Celtics over (as I was last year), I don't have much faith in a 52 win projection. All those numbers will smooth out once I add in minutes for David Lee for instance (he's 3rd on the rotoworld depth chart, and thus gets 0 minutes presently).

I understand the reason to keep all rookies the same in the projections, but that would seem to be a minor problem with the projections of some teams that expect to give those guys minutes.  Not worth adjusting based on draft selection or college stats at least a bit?

That's why I've given them a somewhat generous -1.5 RPM projection. That's actually a good bit above where most rookies end up. This might be unfair to Kaminsky or someone however (older rookies tend to be better at first).

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Well, looking at last season as a whole, the Celtics gave a lot of minutes to Rondo, Green, Bass, and others and (relatively) few minutes to Crowder, Thomas, Jerebko, Amir Johnson, etc.

 

[radsoxfan]

 
That's why I've given them a somewhat generous -1.5 RPM projection. That's actually a good bit above where most rookies end up. This might be unfair to Kaminsky or someone however (older rookies tend to be better at first).

 
I would assume picks 1-5 typically do better than 10-14 (just to look at lottery picks who will at least likely get some playing time). I don't know if thats true, since maybe rookie performance is more age based than pick based.  
 
But if there is some general trend, wouldn't it be better to have the average stay at -1.5, but spread it out from -2.5 to -0.5 base on age and draft position (just as an example).  Maybe the total number of minutes these guys get it so small it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things.  
 
Just seems like a broad brush to simplify it so much every rookie gets the exact same projection. 

 

[nighthob]

First cut of 2015-2016 standings, using almost an identical methodology to this the 538 method here (down to using Rotoworld for depth charts).
 
These win numbers are pretty wonky still, since I'm only using a 2-deep rotation everywhere, but it should give a decent sense of ordering. As I put in more third and fourth string minutes, the best and worst teams will compress a good amount.
 
 

If OKC were smart enough to send us Durant for our roleplayers they'd win 75 games!

 

[bowiac]

Well, looking at last season as a whole, the Celtics gave a lot of minutes to Rondo, Green, Bass, and others and (relatively) few minutes to Crowder, Thomas, Jerebko, Amir Johnson, etc.

Yeah, this is why they have a pretty big jump here. RPM hates Rondo, Green and Bass, while it likes Crowder, Thomas, Jerebko and Thomas.
 

But if there is some general trend, wouldn't it be better to have the average stay at -1.5, but spread it out from -2.5 to -0.5 base on age and draft position (just as an example).  Maybe the total number of minutes these guys get it so small it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things.  

You're right it's simplistic, but it doesn't have an especially big impact simply because most rookies don't play that much. I will add in some more in depth projections for the rookies in time however, as you're right, it's not a total black box.
 
Here's a more granular depth chart, with which the Celtics drop to 48 wins:
 

 

[Cellar-Door]

 
I would assume picks 1-5 typically do better than 10-14 (just to look at lottery picks who will at least likely get some playing time). I don't know if thats true, since maybe rookie performance is more age based than pick based.  
 
But if there is some general trend, wouldn't it be better to have the average stay at -1.5, but spread it out from -2.5 to -0.5 base on age and draft position (just as an example).  Maybe the total number of minutes these guys get it so small it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things.  
 
Just seems like a broad brush to simplify it so much every rookie gets the exact same projection. 

I don't think that's true.
Looking at the last two years:
Last year's top 5 averaged a -2.5 RPM, all of them were worse than -1.5
The year before it was - 3.7 with only 1 player above -1.5

 

[bowiac]

If OKC were smart enough to send us Durant for our roleplayers they'd win 75 games!

If only. The Thunder's projection is so low because of Enes Kanter mostly. He's one of the worst projected starters in the NBA by RPM.

 

[radsoxfan]

I don't think that's true.
Looking at the last two years:
Last year's top 5 averaged a -2.5 RPM, all of them were worse than -1.5
The year before it was - 3.7 with only 1 player above -1.5

 
I just used the -1.5 number because Bowiac did.  I have no idea what the midpoint projection is, maybe it should be -2.5 then.
 
My point is that all rookies aren't created equal.  Might be best to spread them out from -4.0 to -1.0 based on some combination of age, draft position, and college stats rather than make the all identical. 
 
 
Bowiac, how are the minutes allocated out of curiosity?  Why is Marcus Thornton getting 12 min/game for example, while Rozier, RJ, and Young all each get 5.  Seems high for Thornton (though I guess if all rookies are the same, it doesn't matter if he and Rozier swap minutes). 

 

[Cellar-Door]

 
I just used the -1.5 number because Bowiac did.  I have no idea what the midpoint projection is, maybe it should be -2.5 then.
 
My point is that all rookies aren't created equal.  Might be best to spread them out from -4.0 to -1.0 based on some combination of age, draft position, and college stats rather than make the all identical. 
 
 
Bowiac, how are the minutes allocated out of curiosity?  Why is Marcus Thornton getting 12 min/game for example, while Rozier, RJ, and Young all each get 5.  Seems high for Thornton (though I guess if all rookies are the same, it doesn't matter if he and Rozier swap minutes). 

Just looking through, the problem is I don't think there is a way to do it. The RPM results for rookies run the gamut, some of the worst RPM came from top picks, There doesn't seem to be any kind of linear relationship to be drawn.

 

[bowiac]

Bowiac, how are the minutes allocated out of curiosity?  Why is Marcus Thornton getting 12 min/game for example, while Rozier, RJ, and Young all each get 5.  Seems high for Thornton (though I guess if all rookies are the same, it doesn't matter if he and Rozier swap minutes). 

It's fairly "dumb" presently. All the minutes are allocated based on the Rotoworld depth charts.
 
It's a two stage process. Stage 1 is:
 
1) If you're listed as the starter, you get the greater of how many minutes you played last year, or 30 minutes.
2) If you're #2, you get however many minutes you played last year.
3) If you're #3, you get 6 minutes; if you're #4, you get 2 minutes.
 
Stage 2 then adds up the total minutes per position based on Step 1-3 above, and adjusts everyone proportionately so that total minutes per position add up to 48.
 
Thornton is actually a screwup however. It's flagging him as having played 15 minutes per game last year, because of his eponymous-self. (Like I said, this is a first-cut).