Romeo Langford - Pick #14

Smokey Joe

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 9, 2001
704
Well the full season prop market ends after one more exhibition so I can only use the information in front of me. My initial feelings are that I’m not on board with what it seems like he’s looking to do.



Am I the only one who had a flashback to their childhood tv shows?
I was going to mention Romper Room, but I thought that I would only get blank stares.
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
33,313
Melrose, MA
We really need one of Grant, Juancho, Romeo or Nesmith to stand out (be the 3rd wing to the JAYs) and lessen the minutes of Al/TL together.

Sharing/increasing TL & Horford regular-season minutes and forcing Kanter minutes isn't a great idea if DEFENSE is going to be their signature.

I'm hoping Kyle Anderson is a potential option at the trade deadline if one of those first 4 doesn't step it up.
View: https://twitter.com/RedsArmy_John/status/1448402202746368008?s=20

John Karalis: Tonight's Celtics starters: Peyton Pritchard Aaron Nesmith Romeo Langford Grant Williams Robert Wiliams
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
3,775
You raise an interesting point. If TL and Al start, and the starting unit plays - as is traditional - the first 5-7 minutes of each half and the last 4-6 minutes of each half AND the Cs are limiting TL's minutes to no more than 25, then yes Kanter is going to get 10-12 regular minutes in most games.

Which, however, is incongruent with the switch-everything defense that the Cs have been playing throughout this preseason, at least IMO.

I will be very interested in seeing what the closing lineup will be when the real games start. If it's not TL, Al, JB, JT, and MS - and I'm not saying it should be this lineup - Ime will have some egos to massage.
These units are going to be rough too if they do it this way.

If they play mostly a bench unit as starters come out, assuming Al and Rob start with the three obvious starters, they'd have Schroder, Pritchard, and Kanter in the first wave off the bench.

A lineup of their two smallest guys, and cement footed Kanter as their rim protection, is going to be really rough defensively.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
17,728
Gotta love preseason where every player is a stud and is going to get re-signed.


Cant wait until the team starts 10-9 and half of them go back to being bums.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
8,529
Kiev, Ukraine
I only said this about Romeo, because he's improving in specific ways.

If you want to predict that he won't be good, be my guest. Comparing this situation to Edwards is lazy and faux-sophisticated.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
17,728
Are you really drawing parallels between Langford and Edwards?
Anointing anyone as the next coming because of preseason is stupid. These games mean nothing.

I have serious doubts on Romeo Langford and nothing he does in preseason will change my mind. Nothing anyone does in preseason matters.

Got some summer league stats to show me?

Lets wait until the regular season until people start touting their predictions.

And yes, I'm comparing him to Carsen because people did the same thing with Carsen. And Waters.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
1,182
Gotta love preseason where every player is a stud and is going to get re-signed.


Cant wait until the team starts 10-9 and half of them go back to being bums.
To be fair, everyone in the NBA gets re-signed right now.

I only said this about Romeo, because he's improving in specific ways.

If you want to predict that he won't be good, be my guest. Comparing this situation to Edwards is lazy and faux-sophisticated.
Fauxphisticated might be my new favorite portmanteau, at least for today.
 
Apr 14, 2006
39
So, here's a breakdown from this video (Romeo highlights):

1. Langford finishes a layup past Robinson and before Adebayo gets there :)02).
2. Receives a pass from Tatum, drives past Robinson, and pulls up before Adebayo for a short jumper :)17).
3. Steps in front of Robinson for a steak and breakaway :)27).
4. Romeo drains a three from the right corner :)54). No hesitation on the shot and the form looks good.
5. Sidestep three from the right (1:16).
6. Catch and shoot from the left corner (1:26). Again, no hesitation.

It's true that it's just the preseason, but his shooting form seems visibly better (2, 4, 5, 6), which is what he's been working on with coaches for the last two years.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
22,488
Anointing anyone as the next coming because of preseason is stupid. These games mean nothing.

I have serious doubts on Romeo Langford and nothing he does in preseason will change my mind. Nothing anyone does in preseason matters.

Got some summer league stats to show me?

Lets wait until the regular season until people start touting their predictions.

And yes, I'm comparing him to Carsen because people did the same thing with Carsen. And Waters.
How about his leaps last season that resulted in him starting and playing 30+ min in a playoff game? SL means a whole lot less than preseason as the players role is so different. When has Romeo Langford been healthy and not grown as a player? We saw it last year and it has continued into this fall as he’s added a 3-point shot. The kid is a legit rotation player in this league today with more upside ahead with his length and athleticism.
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
6,953
New York, NY
How about his leaps last season that resulted in him starting and playing 30+ min in a playoff game? SL means a whole lot less than preseason as the players role is so different. When has Romeo Langford been healthy and not grown as a player? We saw it last year and it has continued into this fall as he’s added a 3-point shot. The kid is a legit rotation player in this league today with more upside ahead with his length and athleticism.
You and I have our disagreements on the current roster. This isn’t one of them. I wasn’t loving what I saw of Romeo in summer league but his shot looks legitimately different in a very good way in terms of his form, release, and consistency in the exact role of shooting corner threes he’ll be asked to take on this season. We already know the defense is real and his cuts also look sharper on offense too. I’m very high on him going into this season and think he’s the young Celtic most likely to really make a difference for this team.
 

RorschachsMask

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2011
2,061
Lynn
I also think there’s a pretty clear difference between what Carsen did and what Romeo is doing. All Carsen did was what everyone knew he could do, sporadically get hot from outside. He never showed any real
Improvement in the weak parts of his game.

On the other hand, we know Romeo is a good defensive player, and has shown the ability to get to the rim. His biggest question mark (besides health) was and is his outside shot. He shot 35% from deep on 4.3 attempts a game in that Nets series, then 39% on 4 attempts a game in the summer league, and just shot 60% on 4 attempts a game this preseason.

All short sample size of course, but comparing people being excited over him improving his biggest weakness is entirely different than whatever Carsen did in his first preseason. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect him to shoot 35-36% from deep this season, and that makes him a very interesting player, especially when you consider that he doesn’t even turn 22 for 9 days.
 
Last edited:

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
24,398
I also think there’s a pretty clear difference between what Carsen did and what Romeo is doing. All Carsen did was what everyone knew he could do, sporadically get hot from outside. He never showed any real improvement in the weak parts of his game.
Not to pile on Carsen never scored 17 pts in a playoff game. On the other end of the floor, people shot a very high % against Carsen and a very low percentage against Romeo (showing what an extra 5 inches means in the NBA).

Pretty much whenever Romeo has been healthy, he's been a rotation player. The bigger question to me is how high is his ceiling.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
17,728
I also think there’s a pretty clear difference between what Carsen did and what Romeo is doing. All Carsen did was what everyone knew he could do, sporadically get hot from outside. He never showed any real
Improvement in the weak parts of his game.

On the other hand, we know Romeo is a good defensive player, and has shown the ability to get to the rim. His biggest question mark (besides health) was and is his outside shot. He shot 35% from deep on 4.3 attempts a game in that Nets series, then 39% on 4 attempts a game in the summer league, and just shot 60% on 4 attempts a game this preseason.

All short sample size of course, but comparing people being excited over him improving his biggest weakness is entirely different than whatever Carsen did in his first preseason. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect him to shoot 35-36% from deep this season, and that makes him a very interesting player, especially when you consider that he doesn’t even turn 22 for 9 days.
20/45 from 3 in all those games you mentioned.

Talk to me when he's shooting 35% over a sample size of 200 or so.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
22,488
20/45 from 3 in all those games you mentioned.

Talk to me when he's shooting 35% over a sample size of 200 or so.
Small samples are undervalued when they come with visible mechanical improvements when you include subtle factors such as release, arc and rotstion. If Marcus made 50% of his next 50 shots without any changes you can point to luck, variance, etc. That isn’t what is happening to Langford, it’s not what happened to Lonzo Ball two years ago, Horford his first year with Boston, etc.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
8,529
Kiev, Ukraine
Small samples are undervalued when they come with visible mechanical improvements when you include subtle factors such as release, arc and rotstion. If Marcus made 50% of his next 50 shots without any changes you can point to luck, variance, etc. That isn’t what is happening to Langford, it’s not what happened to Lonzo Ball two years ago, Horford his first year with Boston, etc.
You do a good job in general beating the drum on how "sample size" is often misapplied. I'd say similar things about the comfort Langford showed attacking off the dribble and making decisions. These aren't particularly variance-sensitive things.
 

billy ashley

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,054
Washington DC
I think it's fair to say that Romeo's play has been super encouraging, and at the same time, we don't know if these adjustments are real / will last.

I wouldn't dismiss the progress, but yeah. I wouldn't count on the growth, yet. The eye test looks great, though. I'm encouraged.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
8,529
Kiev, Ukraine
I think it's fair to say that Romeo's play has been super encouraging, and at the same time, we don't know if these adjustments are real / will last.

I wouldn't dismiss the progress, but yeah. I wouldn't count on the growth, yet. The eye test looks great, though. I'm encouraged.
Players rarely forget how to attack off the dribble and play defense.

Sample size is a concept that is mistakenly cross-applied from sports like baseball, where the eye test is 1/100 as effective.

It makes sense for analyzing shooting in some cases, but there are a ton of other skill trajectories for which you can observe a lot by watching, to quote Yogi.

The misapplication of sample size is at the root of a ton of disagreements here actually.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
17,728
Well since Carson Edward’s only has 139 3pa in his career I guess we can’t come to any conclusions on him yet.
As a 3 point shooter, you can't. If you think otherwise, you have no clue. Go look at the swings Eric Gordon has some time.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
22,488
As a 3 point shooter, you can't. If you think otherwise, you have no clue. Go look at the swings Eric Gordon has some time.
You mean how the years he was in a dysfunctional offense on lottery teams without a point guard he struggled…….and when he was in a specific role with distributors around him in a functional offense he thrived?

There is always going to be some variance with 3-point shooters but the drastic changes are always accompanied by other factors. Raw percentages tell only a small portion of the story.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
17,728
You mean how the years he was in a dysfunctional offense on lottery teams without a point guard he struggled…….and when he was in a specific role with distributors around him in a functional offense he thrived?

There is always going to be some variance with 3-point shooters but the drastic changes are always accompanied by other factors. Raw percentages tell only a small portion of the story.
I mean even recently. Go look at anyone over the course of 45 3PA. You'll find some pretty crazy stretches. Go look at Steph.

Go look at Marcus Smart. 45 3PA is NOTHING.

I get it though. You and Lovegtm need to overcompensate for Radsoxfan. Have to make all kinds of excuses for him too.

I'll wait and see where he's at 20-30 games into the season, assuming he's not injured.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
22,488
I mean even recently. Go look at anyone over the course of 45 3PA. You'll find some pretty crazy stretches. Go look at Steph.

Go look at Marcus Smart. 45 3PA is NOTHING.
Of course. As I said upthread……small samples mean nothing without other changes. When a player breaks through due to correcting mechanical flaws or developing a new shot that is mechanically sound it isn’t often attributed to “luck” (whereas Smart doing so without these changes would). Shooters don’t forget how to shoot once it is learned unless other factors come into play.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
17,728
Of course. As I said upthread……small samples mean nothing without other changes. When a player breaks through due to correcting mechanical flaws or developing a new shot that is mechanically sound it isn’t often attributed to “luck” (whereas Smart doing so without these changes would). Shooters don’t forget how to shoot once it is learned unless other factors come into play.
We shall see. So what are you predicting Langford will shoot from 3 this year and on how many attempts?
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
22,488
We shall see. So what are you predicting Langford will shoot from 3 this year and on how many attempts?
It depends on his role. If he gets regular consistent minutes (15-18mpg) I don’t see any reason why he can’t make 35% or more of his threes on say 1.5 attempts per game.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
17,728

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
22,488
It's common sense. 45 3PA is not a sample size. Do we talk about a players batting average after 45 PA?

But sure, here's one of a billion topics on the matter. https://www.thestrick.land/strick/a-study-on-3-point-shooting-should-we-change-how-we-contextualize-3-point-defense-in-nba-advanced-stats-analytics
So your point is that there is variation in 3-point shooting? Ground breaking stuff lol.

I’m not sure why you insist on generalizing this subject. Offensive roles matter, offensive system including your distributor matter, as well as other factors (age, injuries, etc). None of this has anything to do with a player who overhauls his mechanics to suggest that he will revert back to his previous poor mechanics or forget that he learned a new skill (Horford, Bruce Bowen, etc).
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
17,728
It depends on his role. If he gets regular consistent minutes (15-18mpg) I don’t see any reason why he can’t make 35% or more of his threes on say 1.5 attempts per game.
So roughly 100 3PA. I wouldn't be shocked either. Of course, he could just as easily go 30/100.

Do you think there's a real difference between 30% and 35% in a sample size that small?
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
17,728
So your point is that there is variation in 3-point shooting? Ground breaking stuff lol.

I’m not sure why you insist on generalizing this subject. Offensive roles matter, offensive system including your distributor matter, as well as other factors (age, injuries, etc). None of this has anything to do with a player who overhauls his mechanics to suggest that he will revert back to his previous poor mechanics or forget that he learned a new skill (Horford, Bruce Bowen, etc).
You are assuming his new mechanics will equal a 35% 3 point shooter based on a very small sample size.

It's not rocket science. Let the new shit play out.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
22,488
So roughly 100 3PA. I wouldn't be shocked either. Of course, he could just as easily go 30/100.

Do you think there's a real difference between 30% and 35% in a sample size that small?
The percentages aren’t really relevant to me in that small of a sample. He went from 18% to 27% while looking like a shotputer until late last season, this summer and the preseason where all aspects of his shot made dramatic improvements. I bring up Bowen bc I see the same similarities from when he couldn’t make an open 15-footer here than after seeing him shoot in Miami (maybe on 10-15 attempts) there was a clear and dramatic change in his mechanics. I’m not saying Romeo is going to lead the league in 3-point shooting like Bowen did but the mechanics he now possesses will allow him the ability to take himself well beyond 35% in the coming years. The number of attempts he takes isn’t relevant at all in this context.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
8,529
Kiev, Ukraine
I get it though. You and Lovegtm need to overcompensate for Radsoxfan. Have to make all kinds of excuses for him too.

I'll wait and see where he's at 20-30 games into the season, assuming he's not injured.
Very little that I've said about Romeo throughout his career has been about his 3-point. "His mechanics have clearly improved" is as far as I've really gone on that front.

For the other aspects of his game: if people aren't comfortable evaluating based on the eye test, that's fine. They should just give credit to those who are able to call it earlier because they are comfortable with it.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
12,782
Santa Monica
Romeo's value will be mainly based on his ability to defend the opponent's best wing, thus giving the JAYs a break on defense. It's the same role JRich will play and Marcus to a lesser extent

If RL shoots 3s at league average, on small volume and plays +defense he'll easily be over 20mpg (Injuries/schedule will drive close to that already). His 3pt% is just a red herring
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
5,580
Palo Alto
It's common sense. 45 3PA is not a sample size. Do we talk about a players batting average after 45 PA?

But sure, here's one of a billion topics on the matter. https://www.thestrick.land/strick/a-study-on-3-point-shooting-should-we-change-how-we-contextualize-3-point-defense-in-nba-advanced-stats-analytics
Thanks, I don't think what a sufficient sample size for 3PA is is at all common sense. I agree its probably not 45, unless someone is extremely bad after 45 attempts. I also very much appreciate linking some attempt at dealing with the problem of what is a sufficient sample for 3PA. I have some issues with the article linked however.

The statistical method used (Kuder-Richardson formulas) does not seem at all well suited to the task at hand for several reasons, and the original article that used it has some claims in it that make me question if the author appreciated the impact of their assumptions. They claim that at least 750 attempts are required to reach merely a 50/50 split between signal and noise, which seems absurd on its face. In particular, I would love to see them apply their method to observations that are 100% signal. I don't have the effort to make a python script for this but I suspect even in the case of a pure signal (say a Bernoulli variable with 38% chance of a 1 and no noise added) their approach is going to yield a large number of trials.

The biggest issue I have is they choose a formula meant to measure internal consistency which is similar to but not quite the same as being predictive of future performance. One of the biggest assumptions of the technique they apply is that the signal being measured is constant, which is clearly not true at all over a 750 shot sample for an NBA player, which in most cases will span multiple seasons.

But back to the larger point, I do find it odd you are criticizing some for drawing conclusions from a statistical POV but then turn around and say ehhh 200 sounds right and justify it with "common sense". Like, what are we doing here?
 

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
Jun 27, 2006
33,569
Haiku
Romeo's value will be mainly based on his ability to defend the opponent's best wing, thus giving the JAYs a break on defense. It's the same role JRich will play and Marcus to a lesser extent

If RL shoots 3s at league average, on small volume and plays +defense he'll easily be over 20mpg (Injuries/schedule will drive close to that already). His 3pt% is just a red herring
The Celtics have lots of players who can defend wings, so I don't see Langford's primary value in that role. Instead, Langford can contribute most by doing what Smart and Pritchard can't do -- shut down opposing point guards. He has the footwork, length and quickness to apply on-the-ball pressure that most other Celtics can't (Schröder might be an exception).
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
12,782
Santa Monica
The Celtics have lots of players who can defend wings, so I don't see Langford's primary value in that role. Instead, Langford can contribute most by doing what Smart and Pritchard can't do -- shut down opposing point guards. He has the footwork, length and quickness to apply on-the-ball pressure that most other Celtics can't (Schröder might be an exception).
PG/ballhandler on-ball defense has been a weakness for a long time. If Romeo is the answer to that question we'll be thrilled.

Does he really have the defensive footwork to pick up PGs on the perimeter?
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
22,488
PG/ballhandler on-ball defense has been a weakness for a long time. If Romeo is the answer to that question we'll be thrilled.

Does he really have the defensive footwork to pick up PGs on the perimeter?
On switches later in shot clocks he does which is crucial nowadays for all wings. I don’t think the OP was referring to pickup up 94 feet or defending an entire rotation as the 1.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
17,728
Very little that I've said about Romeo throughout his career has been about his 3-point. "His mechanics have clearly improved" is as far as I've really gone on that front.

For the other aspects of his game: if people aren't comfortable evaluating based on the eye test, that's fine. They should just give credit to those who are able to call it earlier because they are comfortable with it.
I'm probably coming across as a hater. He's easily getting a 2nd NBA contract and is already a rotation player on most teams because of his D. That also means he'd play in the playoffs in certain situations.

If he becomes an average 3 point shooter on a decent amount of attempts, he goes from a 15 minute player to a 25-30 minute one.

This preseason he averaged 12.5 points, 2.5 rebounds, 0.75 assists, 0.75 steals, 0.33 blocks in 21.75 mpg over 4 games.

To go back in to downer mode: As far as % rate stats go, he didn't show any improvement in those 4 games.
 

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
Jun 27, 2006
33,569
Haiku
On switches later in shot clocks he does which is crucial nowadays for all wings. I don’t think the OP was referring to pickup up 94 feet or defending an entire rotation as the 1.
I think Langford would have difficulty sustaining full-court pressure on a smurf, but he would still be the Celtics' best option as primary defender guarding the 1 in a half-court game. I haven't seen a lot of Schröder on defense, but he's the only real alternative to Langford because Smart lacks the quickness and Pritchard lacks the strength.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
17,728
The biggest issue I have is they choose a formula meant to measure internal consistency which is similar to but not quite the same as being predictive of future performance. One of the biggest assumptions of the technique they apply is that the signal being measured is constant, which is clearly not true at all over a 750 shot sample for an NBA player, which in most cases will span multiple seasons.

But back to the larger point, I do find it odd you are criticizing some for drawing conclusions from a statistical POV but then turn around and say ehhh 200 sounds right and justify it with "common sense". Like, what are we doing here?


There are problems with all of the articles. There are lots on the matter. One of the problems most of them come across is a lot of players improve (especially nowadays where they are adding the shot) while others are pretty consistent (as you noted). My point is we don't really know anything about Romeo Langford after 45 3PA. You know what the funny thing is? He only has 45 3PA in the regular season for his career. Or up until the playoffs last year, he was 11/47 (including the 19/20 playoffs). Since then (playoffs, summer league, preseason), he's 20/45. Add them together and we are at 31/92, .337. If I were to guess, I'd say he's going to settle in around the .325-.340 range. Given the rest of his game, it won't be enough to get on the court for more than 15 minutes a game on a full healthy playoff squad.

I just threw out a number I was comfortable with. 200 sounded like a decent number, but he's probably not going to get 200 attempts this year so meh. If Romeo is 70/200 after starting his career 17/64, I'm going to guess there was a real improvement there even if he isn't a 35% 3 point shooter. Plus it would be incredibly hard for him not to improve from where he was. The question is how big is the improvement. Him going 9/15 from 3 in 4 pre season games is doing a lot of the work here.