The Algebra of the Game: C’s spelunk their way past Raptors, streak hits 12
Nowadays, when about one in three FG attempts is being launched from what they then called the “hinterlands,” a missed shot is just as likely to initiate a scramble rather than a scrum … and this team that Danny re-built is proving to be rather proficient at that little component of play.
Sunday afternoon against Toronto, the C’s generated second-chance opportunities at a rate of almost three-to-one (20-7) and more than doubled the Raptors in “follow-up” points (21-10). Six different Celtics – three off the bench – grabbed at least five rebounds.
Summative Equation:
Bos – 43 Conversions + [6 “Stripes”] {10 treys “minus” 4 missed FT’s “equals” 6 stripes}
Tor – 42 Conversions + [7 “Stripes”] {10 treys “minus” 3 missed FT’s “equals” 7 stripes}
Expected Outcome -- +1 Conversion + [-1 Stripes] = C’s win by 1 point
Actual Score: Boston 95, Toronto 94
Through 36 minutes of play, Boston had misfired on 42 FGA’s, compared to just 24 errant Raptor attempts. Toronto hadn’t been overly active on the O-glass, but had been amazingly proficient when they were. In the first half, they converted four of their five OR’s for all of their “follow-up” tallies. In Q3, Toronto was shut out on OR’s – they only missed five shots (and still squandered a five-point lead???). The Raptors were off-target on their two Q4 second chances.
Summative Equation (Season-to-date):
Bos – 653 Conversions + [+76 “Stripes”] {152 treys “minus” 76 missed FT’s “equals” 76 stripes}
Opp – 611 Conversions + [+39 “Stripes”] {112 treys “minus” 73 missed FT’s “equals” 39 stripes}
Expected Outcome -- +42 Conversions + [+37 Stripes] = C’s win by (84 + 37) 121 points
Actual Score: Boston 1431, Opponents 1316
In this most improbable of victories, the Stevens Gang nursed a one-point lead through a Fourth Quarter in which they made no three-point shots and attempted no FT’s.
Go figure, huh?
1st Quarter
FG: C’s – 10-25, .400 / Tor – 7-17, .412
3FG: C’s – 1-4, .250 / Tor – 4-9, .444
FT: C’s – 3-5, .600 [2] / Tor – 6-7, .857 [3]
TO: C’s – 5 / Tor – 7
OR: C’s – 7 + 0 (team) / Tor – 2 + 0 (team)
Poss: C’s – 25 / Tor – 25
CV%: C’s – 12 / 25, .480 / Tor – 10 / 25, .400
2nd Quarter
FG: C’s – 6-23, .261 / Tor – 11-20, .550
3FG: C’s – 3-9, .000 / Tor – 2-6, .333
FT: C’s – 5-6, .833 [2] / Tor – 1-2, .500 [0]
TO: C’s – 4 / Tor – 4
OR: C’s – 4 + 3 (team) / Tor – 3 + 0 (team)
Poss: C’s – 22 / Tor – 21
CV%: C’s – 8 / 22, .364 / Tor – 11 / 21, .524
 |
| "You see that leprechaun, man?" |
FG: C’s – 10-20, .500 / Tor – 9-14, .643
3FG: C’s – 6-9, .667 / Tor – 4-5, .800
FT: C’s – 7-8, .875 [4] / Tor – 5-6, .833 [3]
TO: C’s – 2 / Tor – 4
OR: C’s – 3 + 1 (team) / Tor – 0 + 0 (team)
Poss: C’s – 22 / Tor – 21
CV%: C’s – 14 / 22, .636 / Tor – 12 / 21, .571
4th Quarter
FG: C’s – 9-19, .474 / Tor – 5-18, .278
3FG: C’s – 0-4, .000 / Tor – 0-4, .000
FT: C’s – 0-0, .000 [0] / Tor – 8-8, 1.000 [4]
TO: C’s – 4 / Tor – 2
OR: C’s – 1 + 1 (team) / Tor – 1 + 1 (team)
Poss: C’s – 21 / Tor – 22
CV%: C’s – 9 / 21, .429 / Tor – 9 / 22, .409
Full Game
FG: C’s – 35-87, .402 / Tor – 32-69, .464
3FG: C’s – 10-26, .385 / Tor – 10-24, .417
FT: C’s – 15-19, .789 [8] / Tor – 20-23, .870 [10]
TO: C’s – 15 / Tor – 17
OR: C’s – 15 + 5 (team) / Tor – 6 + 1 (team)
Poss: C’s – 90 / Tor – 89
CV%: C’s – 43 / 90, .478 / Tor – 42 / 89, .472
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
Team Rebounds – the ones not awarded to a particular player, like when a missed shot goes out of bounds or when there’s a Loose Ball Foul – were originally created by statisticians as a bookkeeping tool.
Any missed shot – FG or FT, live ball or dead ball – got tallied as a Team Rebound if it could not be awarded to a player. That’s why the shooter’s team gets a TR any time he misses the first of two FT’s, for example.
Consequently, the total of missed shots had to equal the total of rebounds (individual plus team).
In pre-computer times, the stat man always had to double-check his arithmetic. Philadelphia 76er legend Harvey Pollack said he was never so nervous as when he was re-adding Chamberlain’s point total one famous night in a town more renowned for its chocolate.
Technology has made the original need for Team Rebounds obsolete – it’s time for basketball records to track only “significant” team rebounds, the ones that extend a possession or create a new one. (Something of that sort must be in place in order to calculate possessions exactly, rather than to compute formula-based estimates that never really seem to match up with an actual count.)
