The Algebra of the Game: Celts elude Nets’ mousetrap, streak reaches 13
Oh, and a home showdown with the reigning-and-defendings looming.
The Celtics were coming off three home wins in which they’d overcome overall 38% FG shooting, but had outplayed the other guys by an average of three conversions in those Q4’s to eke out victory …
… and for the first six minutes and 11 possessions, the game played out like a glorified Pop-a-Shot contest. Nothing but FG attempts and defensive boards – no OR’s or TO’s. Brooklyn took the only three Q1 free throws.
Summative Equation:
Bos – 52 Conversions + [4 “Stripes”] {9 treys “minus” 5 missed FT’s “equals” 4 stripes}
Bro – 46 Conversions + [8 “Stripes”] {14 treys “minus” 6 missed FT’s “equals” 8 stripes}
Expected Outcome -- +6 Conversions + [-4 Stripes] = C’s win by 8 points
Actual Score: Boston 109, Brooklyn 102
Including the Nets last night, Boston’s last four opponents have all shot 50+% from the field during Q2 – while they were missing 63% of their own. Brad’s boys did work their way to nine FTA’s, but a three-point lead after 12 minutes had become a six-point deficit at the intermission.
Again, the Stevens sermonizing seemed to straighten the shooting (10-22 in Q3) and stiffen the D. After an opening 9-5 Net scoring burst had opened a double-digit lead, Brooklyn would go on to shoot 4-19 the rest of the quarter.
Summative Equation (Season-to-date):
Bos – 705 Conversions + [+80 “Stripes”] {161 treys “minus” 81 missed FT’s “equals” 80 stripes}
Opp – 657 Conversions + [+47 “Stripes”] {126 treys “minus” 79 missed FT’s “equals” 47 stripes}
Expected Outcome -- +48 Conversions + [+33 Stripes] = C’s win by (96 + 33) 129 points
Actual Score: Boston 1540, Opponents 1418
Over the game’s final 5:12 and 13 possessions, the Celtics attempted just one (unsuccessful) 3FG while Brooklyn went four-for-eight from three-point land.
The Algebra of the Game
1st Quarter
FG: C’s – 12-26, .462 / Bro – 9-22, .409
3FG: C’s – 6-11, .545 / Bro – 1-6, .167
FT: C’s – 0-0, .000 [0] / Bro – 2-3, .667 [1]
TO: C’s – 2 / Bro – 3
OR: C’s – 2 + 1 (team) / Bro – 1 + 0 (team)
Poss: C’s – 25 / Bro – 25
CV%: C’s – 12 / 25, .480 / Bro – 10 / 25, .400
2nd Quarter
FG: C’s – 8-19, .421 / Bro – 11-22, .500
3FG: C’s – 0-4, .000 / Bro – 5-10, .500
FT: C’s – 6-9, .667 [4] / Bro – 4-5, .500 [2]
TO: C’s – 4 / Bro – 3
OR: C’s – 1 + 2 (team) / Bro – 3 + 0 (team)
Poss: C’s – 24 / Bro – 24
CV%: C’s – 12 / 24, .500 / Bro – 13 / 24, .542
 |
| Named -- if not born -- to be a hoopster. |
FG: C’s – 10-22, .455 / Bro – 8-23, .348
3FG: C’s – 2-7, .286 / Bro – 2-7, .286
FT: C’s – 6-6, 1.000 [3] / Bro – 1-4, .250 [2]
TO: C’s – 5 / Bro – 4
OR: C’s – 5 + 0 (team) / Bro – 4 + 0 (team)
Poss: C’s – 25 / Bro – 25
CV%: C’s – 13 / 25, .520 / Bro – 10 / 25, .400
4th Quarter
FG: C’s – 9-18, .500 / Bro – 11-22, .500
3FG: C’s – 1-5, .200 / Bro – 6-13, .462
FT: C’s – 10-12, .833 [6] / Bro – 3-4, .750 [2]
TO: C’s – 3 / Bro – 4
OR: C’s – 1 + 0 (team) / Bro – 2 + 0 (team)
Poss: C’s – 26 / Bro – 26
CV%: C’s – 15 / 26, .577 / Bro – 13 / 26, .500
Full Game
FG: C’s – 39-85, .459 / Bro – 39-89, .438
3FG: C’s – 9-27, .333 / Bro – 14-36, .444
FT: C’s – 22-27, .789 [13] / Bro – 10-16, .625 [7]
TO: C’s – 14 / Bro – 14
OR: C’s – 9 + 3 (team) / Bro – 10 + 0 (team)
Poss: C’s – 100 / Bro – 100
CV%: C’s – 52 / 100, .520 / Bro – 46 / 100, .460
Note re Calculations:
The number of “possessions” is an accurate count, not a formula-based estimated value.
For purposes of clarity, the bracketed digit following the FT% is the exact count of “conversions” represented by those FTA’s.
“Possessions” calculation: FGA’s + FT conversions + TO’s – OR’s (including Team OR’s)
“Conversions” calculation: FG’s + FT conversions
Abacus Revelation for the Road
For the second time this season, the Celtics’ leader in minutes played was a bench player – in actuality, the same bench player, Marcus Smart.
Through last night’s game, the four players who returned from last year’s roster rank among the team’s top six in MP. ‘Twas not for no reason that they were retained, eh?
