Locker room talk: rolling basketball thread

[IdleRich]

L[URL unfurl="true"[/URL]
⁴
83%? a joke.

So that thing has taken the individual stats of the players that make two teams and, based on that says Celtics have an 83% of beating Warriors.

So is that for one game or the whole big series thing?

Is it common to makes predictions based on merely the individuals and with nothing about teamwork or the whole being greater than the sum of its parts?

Is this a well regarded predictor?

How do you check it was right? Supposing Celtics win how do you know if they had an 83 percent chance and did it as expected, or if they in fact only had, say, a 10 percent chance but they made the most of that?

You think 83% is way too high right? Why so? What would you go for?

Is this the total overall final?

 

[Leo]

Caesars Sportsbook installed the Warriors as -160 favorites over the Celtics (+140) in an intriguing best-of-seven series that tips off Thursday in San Francisco. Golden State opened as a 3-point favorite in Game 1.

 

[Leo]

I wonder if rich will have questions about how two expert sources can possibly have such contrasting predictions.

 

[Leo]

So that thing has taken the individual stats of the players that make two teams and, based on that says Celtics have an 83% of beating Warriors.

So is that for one game or the whole big series thing?

Is it common to makes predictions based on merely the individuals and with nothing about teamwork or the whole being greater than the sum of its parts?

Is this a well regarded predictor?

How do you check it was right? Supposing Celtics win how do you know if they had an 83 percent chance and did it as expected, or if they in fact only had, say, a 10 percent chance but they made the most of that?

You think 83% is way too high right? Why so? What would you go for?

Is this the total overall final?

How Our NBA Predictions Work

References Basketball-Reference.com / Elo ratings Monte Carlo simulations / Simple Projection System The Details FiveThirtyEight’s NBA predictions have gone thr…

fivethirtyeight.com

 

[IdleRich]

I wonder if rich will have questions about how two expert sources can possibly have such contrasting predictions.

I actually have an even more basic question, or a more fundamental lack of understanding in that I don't know what this sentence means

"Warriors as -160 favorites over the Celtics (+140)"

Where do that 160 and 140 come from? What do they mean?

 

[linebaugh]

So that thing has taken the individual stats of the players that make two teams and, based on that says Celtics have an 83% of beating Warriors.

So is that for one game or the whole big series thing?

Is it common to makes predictions based on merely the individuals and with nothing about teamwork or the whole being greater than the sum of its parts?

Is this a well regarded predictor?

How do you check it was right? Supposing Celtics win how do you know if they had an 83 percent chance and did it as expected, or if they in fact only had, say, a 10 percent chance but they made the most of that?

You think 83% is way too high right? Why so? What would you go for?

Is this the total overall final?

I don't know the methods but this source had been high on the Celtics even before they made their mid season turn around and looked like they might not even make the playoffs so they've been vindicated quite a bit. 538 is I think generally considered the most trust worthy when I comes to US election predictions aswell so it's a well regarded predictor.

 

[linebaugh]

I actually have an even more basic question, or a more fundamental lack of understanding in that I don't know what this sentence means


Where do that 160 and 140 come from? What do they mean?

-160 means 160 dollars is the amount of money you'd have to bet to win 100 dollars in profit. And +140 means a 100 dollar bet would win you 140 dollars in profit.

 

[IdleRich]

Ah so 8/5 on and 7/5 against.

 

[Leo]

@suspended @linebaugh

We Might Be Overrating The Celtics, But You’re Probably Underrating Them

Why are the Golden State Warriors favorites in the NBA Finals?

fivethirtyeight.com

 

[linebaugh]

celtics were my pre playoffs pick to win it but their inconsistency is confusing. if they didnt lay an egg every 3rd game itd be an easy call but instead Ive got no real sense of whose gonna win

 

[Leo]

I'm torn between Celtics in six or Warriors in seven.

 

[sus]

I'm torn between Celtics in six or Warriors in seven.

I'll help you—Ws in 5

 

[sus]

Let's just pause and take an accounting.

Do Cs have another gear they can shift into? No. They're exhausted from Miami; stopping Butler took everything they had.

Do Ws? Yes. They're getting GPT-2, OP Jr, and Iggy back. Mavs series barely strained them—they basically threw a game (resting their starters, letting their bench continue exhausting Luka)—and otherwise swept with ease. They're the best 3rd quarter team in the NBA and arguably the best set of closers. (Whereas Cs are notoriously unreliable in final minutes.) Their core has been to the finals 5 times before. They're a core that learned their lesson in 2016—burn out in the regular season, or in the early quarters of the game, you'll be tired by finals/2nd half. So they've learned how to pace themselves.

How good is this Ws team? Is it as good as the KD years? IMO, yes—with Poole and Wiggs, they make up for KD scoring with KD-like efficiency. Moreover, they're in some ways a better defensive team despite the liability of Poole: Curry has grown defensively, GP2 is unhinged, and Wiggs is a monster. Their bench is slightly deeper than the KD era—OP and one of Klay/Poole are essentially bench players. That is, we can expect 30+ points from just those two bench guys alone most nights. Bjelica showed sparks during Mavs series. Moody has played real playoff minutes. So Ws can put 9-10 guys on the floor, which is critical if the series drags on. 6 of those guys can score 25+ on a given night. 5 of them can go into double digit rebounds. 3 of them are all-NBA-caliber defenders.

 

[sus]

IMO, if the players are all still healthy, next year will be the strongest Ws squad that's ever played—better than the record-setting 72-win 2016 squad. Bogut for sophomore Wiseman is a downgrade, but Wiggs for Barnes & Poole for Barbosa are enormous upgrades; GP2's defense can match Livingston's shooting, and the core has a lot of playoff experience. IMO you're looking this finals at a team that is on the cusp of being a top 5/top 10 all-time squad in NBA history. That should shake Cs to the bone. They better pull it off this year, because next year? Barring injuries, it's already a Warriors lock.

 

[sus]

Hate coming in here and spitting truth, ruining people's days but...

 

[IdleRich]

Let's just pause and take an accounting.

Do Cs have another gear they can shift into? No. They're exhausted from Miami; stopping Butler took everything they had.

Do Ws? Yes. They're getting GPT-2, OP Jr, and Iggy back. Mavs series barely strained them—they basically threw a game (resting their starters, letting their bench continue exhausting Luka)—and otherwise swept with ease. They're the best 3rd quarter team in the NBA and arguably the best set of closers. (Whereas Cs are notoriously unreliable in final minutes.) Their core has been to the finals 5 times before. They're a core that learned their lesson in 2016—burn out in the regular season, or in the early quarters of the game, you'll be tired by finals/2nd half. So they've learned how to pace themselves.

If I can just interject here on something I know next to nothing about. It sounds as though you're talking about that situation which can arise in almost any knock-out sport, when two teams meet after having had hugely different experiences in the previous round (or it could be different experiences in the last two rounds, or even the whole tournament). If I'm correct then the textbook example is the final when the only remaining game is the decider between Team A and Team B. In the semi Team A cruised through, as they did in every previous round with intimidating ease, completley slaughtering their opponents and barely breaking a sweat - whereas the other team had their nth gruelling battle which went right to the wire, once again their game swang back and forth but was always on a knife-edge, if the sport in question is one where there is some kind of extra-time or other way of separating teams who finish equal then no-doubt it was required in many of their games. More than likely they are depleted by injuries and possibly suspended or banned players.

So in the final, who is the favourite? Most people assume that it's the team who have effortlessly shrugged aside all comers and who now are at full strength for the big game. But there is a fairly compelling opposing argument, that that team has had it too easy, not needing to go to top gear and they mayi find that when they do need to it's not there. The latest example would be Liverpool v Real Madrid the otther day - Liverpool the better side on paper and never having once gone behind in at tie all the way to the final, whereas Real were one minute from being knocked out by Chelse in the quarters but found an equalizer in the dying seconds and won in extrat time. Then in the semi they were two behind with five minutes to go and then from nowhere they found two goals and again won in extra time. In the final they managed one shot in the whole game but it went in, and Liverpool had never behind, they didn't know the way back and although they had something like 12 or 15 shots on target - hit the post and Cortouis made a couple of match-saving stops - they couldn't force their way out of that unknown territory. Now of course there are specifics to the tie you're discussing that I don't know so I'm certainly not telling you that the other team is going to win, but the simple warning is; people tend to give too much weight to the team who has looked better on the way.

 

[Leo]

Let's just pause and take an accounting.

Do Cs have another gear they can shift into? No. They're exhausted from Miami; stopping Butler took everything they had.

Do Ws? Yes. They're getting GPT-2, OP Jr, and Iggy back. Mavs series barely strained them—they basically threw a game (resting their starters, letting their bench continue exhausting Luka)—and otherwise swept with ease. They're the best 3rd quarter team in the NBA and arguably the best set of closers. (Whereas Cs are notoriously unreliable in final minutes.) Their core has been to the finals 5 times before. They're a core that learned their lesson in 2016—burn out in the regular season, or in the early quarters of the game, you'll be tired by finals/2nd half. So they've learned how to pace themselves.

How good is this Ws team? Is it as good as the KD years? IMO, yes—with Poole and Wiggs, they make up for KD scoring with KD-like efficiency. Moreover, they're in some ways a better defensive team despite the liability of Poole: Curry has grown defensively, GP2 is unhinged, and Wiggs is a monster. Their bench is slightly deeper than the KD era—OP and one of Klay/Poole are essentially bench players. That is, we can expect 30+ points from just those two bench guys alone most nights. Bjelica showed sparks during Mavs series. Moody has played real playoff minutes. So Ws can put 9-10 guys on the floor, which is critical if the series drags on. 6 of those guys can score 25+ on a given night. 5 of them can go into double digit rebounds. 3 of them are all-NBA-caliber defenders.

well reasoned and said, spendy. you could also add the notion that only reason the Celtics beat the Bucks is because Middleton was injured.

all that being said, the Celtics are younger, more aggressive defensively (which could lock up Curry and Thompson, just ask KD and Kyrie if you have doubts), scrappier, and maybe more hungry. Being inconsistent is definitely an issue for the Celtics, but don't discount their track record of playoff wins on the road.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Lollll jfc that's one of hotter homer takes I've heard in a good minute

I'll never bet against a healthy Steph Klay Dray core (until they get too old, which is looming) with at least B/B- level supporting talent, and the 538 line was absurd - not in that it favored Cs but 80/20 would be wild for any Finals let alone this one - but c'mon now

Cs have probably the best defense in the NBA, a total nightmare of long athletic wings, Marcus Smart, and a terrifying rim protector/ultimate savvy vet inside presence. Obv depends how healthy Time Lord + Smart are, but they have the personnel to bother Steph if anyone can, gum up the Ws works, make everything into a grinding nightmare. Memphis's D is basically a less good - esp at point of attack - version of Boston, and they made Steph look human.

Cs def had a tougher road getting here, but their main guys, besides Horford, are literally a decade younger than GS, and I'll bet on 24 year old legs to bounce back pretty well after a few days off. And in re that tougher road, the East is a gauntlet these days in a way it just wasn't when LeBron + Co were blazing thru every year (cue pre-Kawhi Raptors sad trombone noises) and running a gauntlet, if it doesn't break you, can sharpen you to a keen edge, as the Ws themselves could tell you, all those years of dogfights with the KD Thunder and the Rockets (cue James Harden verrry sad trombone).

I'm a huge Luka, Jokic even more (how can you -not- love his game?) but Ws lucked into pretty soft draw, 2 essentially one-man teams bc of either chronic injuries (Den) or weird roster construction (Mavs). You can only play who's in front of you, granted.

Agree w/everyone in re Cs inconsistency - I'd guess partly youth and partly stagnant half-court offense. But Tatum is legitimately great, he and Brown are, barring a healthy Kawhi and PG-13, probably the best wing duo in the NBA, and big two-way wings are still currently the most proven way - other than having the greatest shooter in the history of basketball - to a championship.

Experience obv massive Ws edge. The core has seen and done it all, will never panic, will never crack. Cs, idk, being young is a double-edged sword, tho it's not like they just showed up out of nowhere, they've been thru the East wars the last couple years.

Only thing that would shock me is a Cs landslide (Ws landslide would be surprising but not shocking, if they win 1 or 2 big and it just snowballs). That Ws 3Q/2H blitz is no fucking joke - when everyone in the stadium knows what punch you're gonna throw and you throw it and knock a mfer out anyway, that is serious business. But yeah I'd expect a hard-fought series of 6-7 games with most games being close as most likely outcome. We shall see.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Not sure I'd prematurely crown next year's Ws as one of the greatest teams ever either, tho if the core is healthy and other injuries aren't disastrous they'll probably be a bit better than this year, young guys one year older/experienced, old guys not too old yet.

The biggest missing ingredient from the late-10s great Ws, besides KD, is Iguadala - a not too old, washed Iguadala I mean - tho. I agree this Wiggins is a solid upgrade over Barnes, and Poole is a very, very nice secondary scorer, but Iggy (and Draymond's otherworldly defensive abilities) was the final skeleton key that unlocked the Death lineup, much more than Barnes ever was. GS Wiggins is a better scorer than Iggy but not the level of defender (yet) or passer.

And as good they've been there is obv no universe in which the sum of Poole + Wiggins remotely equals, let alone surpasses, KD.

But yeah unless the Suns recover from getting devastatingly sonned (sunned? doesn't really work) by Luka - unlikely? - or Memphis takes another step up - possible - idlk who the other West big dogs are. A healthy LAC maybe. Luka if they ever get him his Middleton (and a real big or 2), so the West seems relatively open.

 

[sus]

Everything @padraig (u.s.) says is true, except this "B/B- supporting cast business around the core." Wiggins, Looney, Poole, Porter, and GP2 are not a "B-level supporting cast." Three of those guys are the second option on most teams—OP had 18PPG on the Wizards, Wiggs and Poole put up similar numbers now. All three are near-max-contract players. Two of those guys are elite defenders, and Porter/Looney are solidly above-average, esp relative to their contracts. In other words, the core trio has three supporting members who could plausibly get a maximum contract in coming years. That's A-level support IMO, even if health/injury issues have frequently pushed it into B-level (e.g. Lee, Bjelica, Moody subbing in as a result).

Boston may well have the best set of wings in the NBA, but worth pointing out—Thompson/Wiggs isn't far-off. Both are monster, all-NBA caliber defenders. Their combined PER is only a few points behind Brown/Tatum and I'd imagine per-possession efficiency is slightly higher.

I think you're right that Iggy's a big loss, but maybe underestimating Wiggins defensively. Wiggs did a very impressive job, I thought, on Luka, who's notoriously unguardable. Led to a lot of driving + passing out, which, if Mavs could hit their open 3s, might've actually forced a G6/7.