APBRmetrics

How many seasons til Celtics win 50 regular season games and / or win a playoff round again? Will Rondo be on that team?

I'd guess 3-4+ years off and without Rondo.

My gut reaction to the dismemberment of the Celtics was that it was a rather very not good idea, another instance of Danny being Danny, exhibiting his inability to just sit still. So in honor of lottery ball, as a self-respecting Boston fan, I just turned away from the whole damn thing... but then Jeremias was kind enough to post 2013 plus/minus data as well as his aging curve, so I felt compelled to look back. And my take is that I think these data redeem my pessimism.

Recognizing, first off, that it is never easy to rebuild, the issue is one of time preference and relative opportunity. If I look at what the un-Brooklynized roster would have been, what I see is essentially all players not named Garnett and Pierce either having had "unexpectedly" down years last year or on the upswing of the aging curve. As such, my expectation is that 2014 would have seen a still very productive Garnett and Pierce and a better team than last year. Championship-caliber? No. But a team which would have better kept fan interest (and dollars) as well as one where Pierce (and hopefully KG) would have retired as Celtics and served as mentors to younger players as well as possible draws for 2015 when money would be freed up for the free agent market.

Instead, the Celtics have swapped minutes of very high quality for something far less and a few first round picks all destined to be high first rounders, tarnishing their brand a bit in the process. Maybe they'll tank enough this year to get a really good pick in the talent-rich 2014 draft, but that isn't built into the incentive structure of those on the floor. Alternatively, perhaps Brad Stevens (who appears to be a smart fellow) adds some value relative to Doc Rivers, the remaining Cs regress to their appropriate means. With a bit of "luck", the Celtics never get a lottery pick for the ultimate rebuild. Then you're playing Moreyball without the Texas tax rates at your back, amongst other things.

All in all, I find the situation rather disheartening. What am I missing?

"Moreyball" may have fulfilled last summer and this summer's shopping list for main players; but the Rockets are making their move from mediocrity to some level of contention, without tanking or otherwise going to the bottom and getting high picks, by mostly paying free agent market pricing, fairly high and very high. They are not benefitting too much in the way of rookie contract bargains. How much are they willing to spend in the next few years in luxury tax to continue to upgrade the support cast? They probably need more than they currently have.


If Ainge is going to follow this basic design, he will face the same costs and questions. Unclear to me how many of those first rounders the Celts have coming will actually be around for the resurgence and how many are just time filling fodder or future trade assets. I guess the choice between build it mainly with draft picks or mainly with free agents / trade acquisitions can be constantly be re-evaluated but I think it is still probably wise to know what your primary strategy is likely to be, even if you are not transparent to outsiders about what that is.


Wonder if Ainge or really any other contender GM will get what appear to be especially helpful transaction assistance from other friendly GMs like Ainge did just prior to the 2008 title, the one and only one of that era.



I don't know if attention should continue to focus mostly on big duos and trios. Seems like a lot of contenders are currently using groups of 4-6+ guys where the line between the very top and the others is not as sharp and the contention strategy is predicated on having all of them.

Not sure how strong each contender will be in getting the cheap extra pieces that might give some edge, possibly decisive edge in the title fight. Maybe Houston will attract a fair amount of this, maybe not as much as they hope or need. Boston is a long way away from that phase. Not sure they get as much next time from this source as last time.

Plenty of soap opera to play out, month by month, year by year.

Ainge seems to be putting a lot of faith in the next few drafts, especially '14. They have a lot of nice pieces but it's really more quantity than quality at this point. Rondo is the only bonafide all-star on the team and no one seems to think he'll be there past the next few years. Can't see Olynyk, Sullinger, Green, Bradley being more than quality role players on a contender.

Wouldn't surprise me to see Ainge take the Morey approach to team building. Remember the Rockets pre-Harden? They just came out of the 2012 draft with 3 decent mid first rounders to compliment their already mediocre roster. A lot of OK assets but nothing special. Then Morey used some of those assets to acquire Harden and freed cap space to get Howard. If Boston doesn't hit in the next draft I could see them doing something similar. Especially with their stockpile of draft picks in the next 5 years.

Since the 90s Bulls, the Spurs are the only title team I'd say built a lot of their core (well more than 1-2 key players) thru the draft. Is thru trades & free agency the modern way? Or was it the modern way, to be replaced with the draft in the future? Or is the modern way best described as a flexible blend? Flexible blend is the easy explanation and though vague might be the right one. Time will tell.

schtevie wrote:My gut reaction to the dismemberment of the Celtics was that it was a rather very not good idea, another instance of Danny being Danny, exhibiting his inability to just sit still. So in honor of lottery ball, as a self-respecting Boston fan, I just turned away from the whole damn thing... but then Jeremias was kind enough to post 2013 plus/minus data as well as his aging curve, so I felt compelled to look back. And my take is that I think these data redeem my pessimism.

Recognizing, first off, that it is never easy to rebuild, the issue is one of time preference and relative opportunity. If I look at what the un-Brooklynized roster would have been, what I see is essentially all players not named Garnett and Pierce either having had "unexpectedly" down years last year or on the upswing of the aging curve. As such, my expectation is that 2014 would have seen a still very productive Garnett and Pierce and a better team than last year. Championship-caliber? No. But a team which would have better kept fan interest (and dollars) as well as one where Pierce (and hopefully KG) would have retired as Celtics and served as mentors to younger players as well as possible draws for 2015 when money would be freed up for the free agent market.

Instead, the Celtics have swapped minutes of very high quality for something far less and a few first round picks all destined to be high first rounders, tarnishing their brand a bit in the process. Maybe they'll tank enough this year to get a really good pick in the talent-rich 2014 draft, but that isn't built into the incentive structure of those on the floor. Alternatively, perhaps Brad Stevens (who appears to be a smart fellow) adds some value relative to Doc Rivers, the remaining Cs regress to their appropriate means. With a bit of "luck", the Celtics never get a lottery pick for the ultimate rebuild. Then you're playing Moreyball without the Texas tax rates at your back, amongst other things.

All in all, I find the situation rather disheartening. What am I missing?

I think you guys have pieces. Rondo is Rondo. Overrated sure, but still well above average starter at PG. Bradley is probably headed for a career somewhere between Ronnie Brewer and Thabo Sefolosha's impact on the game, either way it's a nice chip to have. Green arguably has all-star talent and could go nuts this year. Olynyk looks to have a very high upside, I thought he was the 2nd most talented player in the draft personally behind his Canadian counterpart. Sullinger proved he could play at least a little last year. There's a lot of players on the team who either are starters or have the potential to be and if someone gets enough of those, they can move towards an IND, MEM, DEN like situation quickly, if not more than that if you get your Ainge on in terms of packaging assets for a star.

Realistically you guys went all in on 3 old players in KG, Pierce and Allen and were rewarded for it, but it meant when the clock struck midnight, there would be pains. Yet I think even without sucking yet, I'd say BOS either has as much young talent as a handful of teams who have sucked forever like Charlotte, Sacramento, Toronto, etc. and more picks. Probably not far off from Portland who's had two rough seasons in a row to get their now fairly envious position. I'd rather be in BOS or POR's position than PHI, who's a Thad Young trade or injury away from challenging the 7-59 Bobcats and who are likely years away from any sort of foothold.

Also Boston's plan kind of fits the WWSAD (What Would San Antonio Do) model.. I'm expecting when Duncan and Manu retire, the Spurs are just going to keep chugging along with Parker, Green, Kawhi, Splitter and whatever else their talent evaluation and cap management genius gets for them by then... probably good enough to keep breaking that 50 W barrier. Frankly that Parker/young era looks a lot like the Rondo/young thing the Celtics are doing right now.

Green arguably has all-star talent and could go nuts this year.

Just last December, some here were arguing how terrible Jeff Green was.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8124&hilit=jeff+green

In the playoffs, he was arguably the Celts' best player. At least the coach thought so (43 mpg).

Dr Positivity wrote:
Also Boston's plan kind of fits the WWSAD (What Would San Antonio Do) model.. I'm expecting when Duncan and Manu retire, the Spurs are just going to keep chugging along with Parker, Green, Kawhi, Splitter and whatever else their talent evaluation and cap management genius gets for them by then... probably good enough to keep breaking that 50 W barrier. Frankly that Parker/young era looks a lot like the Rondo/young thing the Celtics are doing right now.

Parker/Danny Green/Kawhi is just miles better than Rondo/Avery/JLG. In terms of potential production, age, contracts, and actual current production.

Bobbofitos wrote:

Dr Positivity wrote:
Also Boston's plan kind of fits the WWSAD (What Would San Antonio Do) model.. I'm expecting when Duncan and Manu retire, the Spurs are just going to keep chugging along with Parker, Green, Kawhi, Splitter and whatever else their talent evaluation and cap management genius gets for them by then... probably good enough to keep breaking that 50 W barrier. Frankly that Parker/young era looks a lot like the Rondo/young thing the Celtics are doing right now.

Parker/Danny Green/Kawhi is just miles better than Rondo/Avery/JLG. In terms of potential production, age, contracts, and actual current production.

Re WWSAD, the correct answer until definitive evidence is offered to the contrary is "who cares?".

The San Antonio model, as I understand it, is as follows: (1) exhibit the skill and wisdom to draft Tim Duncan #1, (2) have the skill and/or luck to draft Manu Ginobili in the second round (a decision not unrelated to having had the skill and wisdom to have drafted both David Robinson and Tim Duncan #1). (3) Enjoy the competitive success that necessarily follows, thereby exempting your franchise from serious (any?) analytically-based criticism. Beyond that, until actual evidence is brought as to explaining exceptional performance, I see nothing to emulate (except asking and hoping to receive a hometown discount, and good luck with that, Tim Duncan is the (an?) exception that proves the rule that it's all about the money).

Second point: When discussing the collective value of a group of players, it's best to compare like to like to the extent possible. As such, I would suggest substituting Jared Sullinger for Avery Bradley, thereby having an age comparable PG/F/F mix. And what does that show? Is there miles of difference between the relevant "core" of the Celtics and Spurs?

In terms of the PG component, Jeremias' data speak quite clearly: Rondo is better than Tony Parker. This is true especially when one compares age equivalent ratings, but even so as a year on year comparison. The caveat, Tony Parker seems to have gained a second life at age 29, and perhaps Rondo will never recover from his injury. But the fact is that Rondo, at comparable ages, has been, on average, 1.6 points per 100 possession more productive, owing to his relative superiority on defense - and that is a large margin of superiority. And it is only owing to last year's ratings that one can possibly construe (in RAPM terms) that Parker has ever been the better player.

But what about the young forwards? Here we deal with the perils of small sample size. Comparing the Greens (again, in J.E.'s RAPM terms) it would seem that Danny is better than Jeff (abstracting from the latter's year off for heart trouble and team change) but by a similar margin separating Rondo from Tony Parker. Then there is Leonard vs. Sullinger. Again, the small sample size favors Leonard, but who knows, and we shall see. (And then let's not forget that the relevant value of Leonard is not his actual performance, but that relative to whom he was traded for, George Hill, and the net benefit of that trade is by no means firmly established, so far being negative in Indiana's favor.)

But then there is the larger, overarching point, and that is how one can hope/dream/expect in this day and age to best regain championship form. And it is not clear to me that circa off-season 2013 it is rational to assume/aspire to a WWSAD model, whatever that is.

schtevie: In vanilla RAPM (see http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/va ... -2012.html etc.) Parker has a higher rating 4 out of 5 times from '08 to '12. Sometimes it can be a good idea to cross-check with those. If they differ to a high degree, the answer is probably somewhere in the middle

Jeremias, I don't know if you would be so inclined, but I (and I suspect others) would profit from a discussion (or reference to same) of the relative merits of RAPM and xRAPM. How would you split differences between such results?

Regarding the particular comparison of Rondo vs. Parker, in terms of non-vanilla vs. vanilla RAPM, and the answer being "probably somewhere in the middle", here are the numbers for "Rondo minus Parker", for offense, defense, and total, for 2009-2012:

Non-vanilla, Rondo minus Parker (straight yearly average): Offense = -0.6, Defense = +2.4, Total 1.9

Vanilla, Rondo minus Parker (not sure if this is a yearly average or 4 year regression): Offense = -0.2, Defense = -1.5, Total = -1.6

So, the serious difference in "opinion" between the two sets of data regards their relative merits on defense. Vanilla says that Rondo was a minor liability (-0.5) whereas Parker was an asset (1.0). Non-vanilla, by contrast, says that Rondo was the asset (1.0) whereas Parker was not very good (-1.4).

Not sure how one should split these, except to say that outside evidence suggests that non-vanilla is a lot closer to the truth. A pass through basketball-reference, and you see that Rondo was the better defensive rebounder, stealer, and shot blocker. Then the relevant WS summary statistic, DWS/48, says that Tony Parker was (approximately) half the defender that Rajon Rondo was: 0.048 vs 0.086 (on a minute-weighted average). And all this also conforms to the conventional wisdom, I think.

That's all, I guess. Thanks for the intervention and reminder. But if I may make a final request, any chance of putting these (and other) pages back on your site? The coaching page in particular?

Avery Bradley started out as most rookies do near -3 on RAPM, went to -1.4 in 2011-12 but drifted back to -2.5 last season. Maybe he is headed for a career somewhere between Ronnie Brewer and Thabo Sefolosha on style and RAPM impact but he is nowhere near their best, positive RAPMs yet.