#NBAFrontOffice on the Celtics Rebuild

[Big333223]

I'm optimistic about the Nets being bad and missing the playoffs but I can't be so sure. There are just too many variables with health and in-season transactions.

Plus, a big reason I'm assuming the Nets will miss the playoffs has to do with thinking the teams at the bottom of the East are going to improve but this is the time of year when everyone looks like they're going to get better and it just doesn't work that way.

[PhoSita]

Edit: I'll be honest your predictions for the nets, with no explanations, really just come off as extremely pessimistic.

Okay, I'll bite.


I did a relatively quick calculation based on a WS / 48 for the 10 guys I'd project to be in the Nets' rotation on opening night.  I left out RHJ in favor of Sergey Karasev, because there's no data on him. 

Assuming a fairly short rotation that uses Jack, Joe, Thad, and Lopez fairly heavily, and then projecting that out to 82 games, I got an outcome of 32.5 wins.

Now, that assumes that nobody drastically outperforms or underperforms their recent level of productivity.  Probably not a good assumption for any individual player, but not crazy to assume for the team as a whole.

So this is why I say it comes down to Lopez going down.  He's far and away the most productive player on the team.  If he's playing 30+ minutes a night for most of the season, I think they can finish with 30 wins or so.  If he goes down, who knows.

[celticsclay]

Edit: I'll be honest your predictions for the nets, with no explanations, really just come off as extremely pessimistic.

Okay, I'll bite.


I did a relatively quick calculation based on a WS / 48 for the 10 guys I'd project to be in the Nets' rotation on opening night.  I left out RHJ in favor of Sergey Karasev, because there's no data on him. 

Assuming a fairly short rotation that uses Jack, Joe, Thad, and Lopez fairly heavily, and then projecting that out to 82 games, I got an outcome of 32.5 wins.

Now, that assumes that nobody drastically outperforms or underperforms their recent level of productivity.  Probably not a good assumption for any individual player, but not crazy to assume for the team as a whole.

So this is why I say it comes down to Lopez going down.  He's far and away the most productive player on the team.  If he's playing 30+ minutes a night for most of the season, I think they can finish with 30 wins or so.  If he goes down, who knows.

There bench is so bad I honestly can't even figure out what 10 guys you would use in this kind of analysis

Brook Lopez
Joe Johnson
Jarret Jack
Thaddeus Young
Andrea Bargs
Bojan Bogdanovic
Sergey Karasev
Shane Larkin? (we need a backup point guard)
Jerome Jordan? (we need a backup center)
Ellington? 

Also do you think Joe Johnson will play 35 minutes again at age 35? It seems crazy he did that last year, I don't know how he can do that again. How many minutes does a 32 year old Jack playing guarding point guards?

[Beat LA]

Edit: I'll be honest your predictions for the nets, with no explanations, really just come off as extremely pessimistic.

Okay, I'll bite.


I did a relatively quick calculation based on a WS / 48 for the 10 guys I'd project to be in the Nets' rotation on opening night.  I left out RHJ in favor of Sergey Karasev, because there's no data on him. 

Assuming a fairly short rotation that uses Jack, Joe, Thad, and Lopez fairly heavily, and then projecting that out to 82 games, I got an outcome of 32.5 wins.

Now, that assumes that nobody drastically outperforms or underperforms their recent level of productivity.  Probably not a good assumption for any individual player, but not crazy to assume for the team as a whole.

So this is why I say it comes down to Lopez going down.  He's far and away the most productive player on the team.  If he's playing 30+ minutes a night for most of the season, I think they can finish with 30 wins or so.  If he goes down, who knows.

There bench is so bad I honestly can't even figure out what 10 guys you would use in this kind of analysis

Brook Lopez
Joe Johnson
Jarret Jack
Thaddeus Young
Andrea Bargs
Bojan Bogdanovic
Sergey Karasev
Shane Larkin? (we need a backup point guard)
Jerome Jordan? (we need a backup center)
Ellington? 

Also do you think Joe Johnson will play 35 minutes again at age 35? It seems crazy he did that last year, I don't know how he can do that again. How many minutes does a 32 year old Jack playing guarding point guards?

Don't forget Markel Brown and Ryan Boatright (who we should have signed, imo).  Now, I very well might have heard this incorrectly, but during some playoff game it was mentioned that Lebron is the only guy to play more minutes than Joe Johnson over the last decade.  Wow.   

[celticsclay]

Edit: I'll be honest your predictions for the nets, with no explanations, really just come off as extremely pessimistic.

Okay, I'll bite.


I did a relatively quick calculation based on a WS / 48 for the 10 guys I'd project to be in the Nets' rotation on opening night.  I left out RHJ in favor of Sergey Karasev, because there's no data on him. 

Assuming a fairly short rotation that uses Jack, Joe, Thad, and Lopez fairly heavily, and then projecting that out to 82 games, I got an outcome of 32.5 wins.

Now, that assumes that nobody drastically outperforms or underperforms their recent level of productivity.  Probably not a good assumption for any individual player, but not crazy to assume for the team as a whole.

So this is why I say it comes down to Lopez going down.  He's far and away the most productive player on the team.  If he's playing 30+ minutes a night for most of the season, I think they can finish with 30 wins or so.  If he goes down, who knows.

There bench is so bad I honestly can't even figure out what 10 guys you would use in this kind of analysis

Brook Lopez
Joe Johnson
Jarret Jack
Thaddeus Young
Andrea Bargs
Bojan Bogdanovic
Sergey Karasev
Shane Larkin? (we need a backup point guard)
Jerome Jordan? (we need a backup center)
Ellington? 

Also do you think Joe Johnson will play 35 minutes again at age 35? It seems crazy he did that last year, I don't know how he can do that again. How many minutes does a 32 year old Jack playing guarding point guards?

Don't forget Markel Brown and Ryan Boatright (who we should have signed, imo).  Now, I very well might have heard this incorrectly, but during some playoff game it was mentioned that Lebron is the only guy to play more minutes than Joe Johnson over the last decade.  Wow.

It is unclear if Boatright will make the team right? Markel Brown will play, he probably should be in there, but I don't think he can play point guard and center and they really don't have players at those two positions. 1 player that appeared to be in their plans was Thomas Robinson, however he just had surgery on his knee.

[Beat LA]

Edit: I'll be honest your predictions for the nets, with no explanations, really just come off as extremely pessimistic.

Okay, I'll bite.


I did a relatively quick calculation based on a WS / 48 for the 10 guys I'd project to be in the Nets' rotation on opening night.  I left out RHJ in favor of Sergey Karasev, because there's no data on him. 

Assuming a fairly short rotation that uses Jack, Joe, Thad, and Lopez fairly heavily, and then projecting that out to 82 games, I got an outcome of 32.5 wins.

Now, that assumes that nobody drastically outperforms or underperforms their recent level of productivity.  Probably not a good assumption for any individual player, but not crazy to assume for the team as a whole.

So this is why I say it comes down to Lopez going down.  He's far and away the most productive player on the team.  If he's playing 30+ minutes a night for most of the season, I think they can finish with 30 wins or so.  If he goes down, who knows.

There bench is so bad I honestly can't even figure out what 10 guys you would use in this kind of analysis

Brook Lopez
Joe Johnson
Jarret Jack
Thaddeus Young
Andrea Bargs
Bojan Bogdanovic
Sergey Karasev
Shane Larkin? (we need a backup point guard)
Jerome Jordan? (we need a backup center)
Ellington? 

Also do you think Joe Johnson will play 35 minutes again at age 35? It seems crazy he did that last year, I don't know how he can do that again. How many minutes does a 32 year old Jack playing guarding point guards?

Don't forget Markel Brown and Ryan Boatright (who we should have signed, imo).  Now, I very well might have heard this incorrectly, but during some playoff game it was mentioned that Lebron is the only guy to play more minutes than Joe Johnson over the last decade.  Wow.

It is unclear if Boatright will make the team right? Markel Brown will play, he probably should be in there, but I don't think he can play point guard and center and they really don't have players at those two positions. 1 player that appeared to be in their plans was Thomas Robinson, however he just had surgery on his knee.

Yeah, I'm not sure if he was signed through training camp, but I think it's safe to say that he'll make it given his summer league performance (even though Hollins doesn't like or play rookies ), and also because Williams' departure has left quite the hole in their starting five, and I think that Jack is the most qualified to replace him.  I also read that the Nets think that Brown can play point guard, and maybe he can, but he's a sg to me.  Either way, both guys should be able to help off of the bench, imo.

[LooseCannon]

I'm optimistic about the Nets being bad and missing the playoffs but I can't be so sure. There are just too many variables with health and in-season transactions.

Plus, a big reason I'm assuming the Nets will miss the playoffs has to do with thinking the teams at the bottom of the East are going to improve but this is the time of year when everyone looks like they're going to get better and it just doesn't work that way.

The Nets have two ways to be bad.  They can outright suck or they can not suck but be too injured to be competitive, with the chance of a perfect storm of both sucking and being injured.

Do you trust in the Nets having a karmic tendency to under-perform expectations, even when those expectations are low?

[Celtics18]

I'd be thrilled with 32 wins for the Nets.  That would very likely net us a top ten pick.

I'll take them simply missing the playoffs and getting a lottery ticket.

I'm not greedy. 

[BDeCosta26]

I think we should be fairly optimistic about the Nets picks. Every time we talk about where the C's will finish this year, people say "Well, the East improved so much this year we'll probably miss the playoffs."

The east did seem to improve, but if that's true and our chances of a playoff run are lower, then the Nets almost surely won't make it. They actually seemed to get worse, depending on how you view cutting ties with D-Will. The other variable is that, other than the sixers, who else is clearly tanking? You could get a top ten pick without trying to lose because LA, NY, MIN, PHI and such were all tanking hard. This year I think being almost as good as they were last year gets us a top 10 pick. In all honesty, I think it could even get worse (or better, for us) without them even REALLY sucking. (6-11 range.)

What's really gonna make the difference is what happens with Lopez. Unequivocally, any chance they have of being decent enough to push for an 8th seed is dependent on Lopez being healthy AND matching that impressive level of production he ended the season with last year. His track record doing both those things is pretty suspect. I also think that when the trade deadline comes around, some playoff team might offer up a conditional 1st for Joe Johnson and the Nets will jump on it in a second. But if Lopez goes down for any significant period, it would seem like we could be looking at a top 5 pick.

Overall, I'd say the Brooklyn pick ends up somewhere in the 5-10 range, the Dallas pick lands somewhere between 8-13 and ours is like 14-19. I think that's fairly realistic.

[crimson_stallion]

I can see how it would be a lot more comforting for us if we were not relying on other teams failures as you say. The Dallas pick in particular I really have very little confidence projecting because I think Carlisle is a good coach, they have some decent veterans and a few guys you could envision really having bounce back campaigns (for example Deron Williams). If everything breaks right for them they could be a 6th seeded playoff team.

However, with the Nets pick I don't understand why we can't be really optimistic. Yes they will not not shut it down like a traditional bad team because they won't reap the rewards, but where is the upside on their roster? Joe Johnson is 35 years old. I do not believe there has been a 35 year old in the history of the NBA that has not at least slightly regressed at that age. Many players that age have seen their games fall off a cliff. He is their second best player.

You then have Lopez. Even if he stays healthy, he is what he is at this point with a number of years experience playing in the league. He gets a few boards, and is a really good post scorer, but he is a below average defensive player.

They then have thaddeus young who is really not much different from Jeff Green.

All their other players would be off the bench off on other teams and their young guys are for the most part late first, second round drafts picks or undrafted guys. They don't have a team full of lottery picks.

Why is this not an awful team?

Yeah, to be honest I don't think the Nets are that much better than we were in 2013/14 when we finished 6th last.

We had Jeff Green, Avery Bradley and Jared Sullinger as our best players (as Rondo was injured).  I really don't think the Nets 'top 3' of Lopez / Johnson / Young is a whole lot better than that.

Lopez averaged 21/9/1 Per 36 last year while shooting 51%/10%/81%.  Sully averaged 17/11/2 Per 36 while shooting 43%/27%/78% in 2013/14.

Joe Johnson averaged 15/4/4 Per 36 last year while shooting 44% / 37% / 80%.  Jeff Green averaged 18/5/2 Per 36 while shooting 41% / 34% / 80% in 2013/14. 

Young averaged 16/6/3 Per 36 last year while shooting 46%/33%/66%.  Avery Bradley averaged 17/4/2 Per 36 while shooting 44%/39%/80% in 2013/14. 

Obviously out of those three Lopez (over Sully) is the biggest win, but then you also have to consider that we had quite a bit of depth in 2013/14 while the Nets have very little...plus the probability of Lopez getting injured again (which is high) and Johnson even further declining (also high) plus the fact that we have superior coaching staff.

I think it's very possible that the Nets could be a bottom 6 team this year.  I see Philly, New York, Orlando, Denver, Indiana, Charlotte, Detroit and the Lakers as about the only teams in the league who I think have a solid chance at being as bad as (or worse than) the Nets.

If I'm right, then we should end up with a pick somewhere in the top 9, or top 11 at the absolute worst case (if Sacramento and Minnesota don't improve, which I suspect they will). 

[PhoSita]

There bench is so bad I honestly can't even figure out what 10 guys you would use in this kind of analysis

Here's the rotation I used:


Jack (30), Larkin (18)
Bogdanovic (28), Ellington (20)
Johnson (34), Karasev (14)
T. Young (34), Bargnani (12)
B. Lopez (34), T. Robinson (18)


It's a rough estimation based on a quick and flawed process, but I find that going on WS / 48 tends to yield results that sound about right.  It can't, of course, account for surprising swings in performance in one direction or the other, nor can it account for injuries.

I agree with C18 -- if the Nets win only 32 games, that would be a fine outcome.  Might even be top 10.

Still, if we want to get a really exciting pick from them, I think we'll be hoping on Lopez to miss significant time, or for Jack and Joe to experience a precipitous decline.

[celticsclay]

There bench is so bad I honestly can't even figure out what 10 guys you would use in this kind of analysis

Here's the rotation I used:


Jack (30), Larkin (18)
Bogdanovic (28), Ellington (20)
Johnson (34), Karasev (14)
T. Young (34), Bargnani (12)
B. Lopez (34), T. Robinson (18)


It's a rough estimation based on a quick and flawed process, but I find that going on WS / 48 tends to yield results that sound about right.  It can't, of course, account for surprising swings in performance in one direction or the other, nor can it account for injuries.

I agree with C18 -- if the Nets win only 32 games, that would be a fine outcome.  Might even be top 10.

Still, if we want to get a really exciting pick from them, I think we'll be hoping on Lopez to miss significant time, or for Jack and Joe to experience a precipitous decline.

You have kind of proved my point with how you did this calculation. You have given the absolute best possible scenario and rotations to these guys to eek the way to 32 wins.

A few points - Joe Johnson is 35 years old. Not sure if you are just ignoring this fact or what. Yes he has been an iron man of sorts, but projecting him to play 34 minutes at his age and 70 games is something that just doesn't happen. Literally. The only guy to do that at his age in the last 15 years was ray allen. 

http://bit.ly/1E8v820

Brook Lopez playing 34 minutes (and staying healthy) is also something that does not jive with reality. He played 29 minutes a game last year in a season he was pretty healthy. You think they are jacking that up by 5 minutes this year in the first season of a big expensive contract?

Also, for what it is worth, Thomas Robinson had arthroscopic surgery two weeks ago to repair a tear in the meniscus of his right knee. It is unknown when he will be ready to play. I think playing him 18 minutes presumably with a lot of minutes at center at 237 pounds coming off knee surgery is a little silly.

This may seem like splitting hairs, but it is kind of the whole point of why they will be terrible. They have the worst depth of any team in the NBA right now. There are going to be games where players like Boatright, Jerome James, Shane Larkin and others see major minutes, even without injuries. Still going with the ridiculous premise they all stay healthy, if you adjust your rotations to things that are possible historically they will end up in the high 20's of wins max. This, on paper, is a team that projects to finish with the 7th or 8th worst record if everything breaks right. Twisting the rotations and numbers to reach a more favorable situation that is not ground in data is kind of silly.

[PhoSita]

You have kind of proved my point with how you did this calculation. You have given the absolute best possible scenario and rotations to these guys to eek the way to 32 wins.

I think I made that pretty clear.


No team ends up spending the entire 82 games with their projected 10 man rotation at the start of the year, though.

So yeah, you can come up with all kinds of reasons why things will go wrong for them, or why their best players won't play that many minutes or games.

Yes, the Nets are lacking in depth, which makes them more susceptible to things going wrong.

Still, 30 wins or so sounds right to me, barring a catastrophic injury or Joe Johnson falling off a cliff.  I don't know about the former, but I doubt that the latter is going to happen. 


The Nets may not get much higher than 30 wins due to their lack of depth, but this is the Eastern Conference, and a well coached team that gets some unexpected contributions from some scrappy bench guys and rides their core guys hard (as the Nets did at the end of this past season) can win 5-8 more games than expected.   The Celts did it, after all.


The Nets might bottom out and finish with a terrible record.  I'm not placing any bets on it.  There will be teams that are doing poorly sometime in February and decide to pack it in.  The Nets have no reason to do that.  They will keep fighting to get the most out of their roster for the entire season.  In the East, that should be enough to remain in the playoff hunt until April.


We like to talk about all the reasons why the Celts will continually exceed expectations.  Why no willingness to do that for the Nets?  They've got a nice coach, too.  Lionel Hollins isn't perfect, but I don't think he's likely to let that team fall into the gutter.  He's done a good job with that team so far.

[Celtics18]

You have kind of proved my point with how you did this calculation. You have given the absolute best possible scenario and rotations to these guys to eek the way to 32 wins.

I think I made that pretty clear.


No team ends up spending the entire 82 games with their projected 10 man rotation at the start of the year, though.

So yeah, you can come up with all kinds of reasons why things will go wrong for them, or why their best players won't play that many minutes or games.

Yes, the Nets are lacking in depth, which makes them more susceptible to things going wrong.

Still, 30 wins or so sounds right to me, barring a catastrophic injury or Joe Johnson falling off a cliff.  I don't know about the former, but I doubt that the latter is going to happen. 


The Nets may not get much higher than 30 wins due to their lack of depth, but this is the Eastern Conference, and a well coached team that gets some unexpected contributions from some scrappy bench guys and rides their core guys hard (as the Nets did at the end of this past season) can win 5-8 more games than expected.   The Celts did it, after all.


The Nets might bottom out and finish with a terrible record.  I'm not placing any bets on it.  There will be teams that are doing poorly sometime in February and decide to pack it in.  The Nets have no reason to do that.  They will keep fighting to get the most out of their roster for the entire season.  In the East, that should be enough to remain in the playoff hunt until April.

You're funny. 

[PhoSita]

You're funny.

Unintentional humor is the best humor.  Please enlighten me, how do I amuse you in this instance?

I should be clear, when I say "in the playoff hunt" I mean, "in theory, if they went on a 10 game winning streak, they could make the playoffs." 

Again, this is the East.  You can have a really horrible team and still be in the hunt in March unless you really pack it in.