Quantcast

Trailing by eight points with eight and a half minutes to go in the third quarter, Marcus Smart committed Boston’s third turnover in their previous four excursions down the floor.

In Q3’s final 16 possessions, the C’s compiled just one more of those pesky TO’s while bottoming out 11 of 13 FG’s, cashing in two “and-1’s” and surging to a double-digit lead.

Their rate of conversion for that stretch was exactly 50% higher than Indiana’s (81%-31%).


Summative Equation:
Bos – 48 Conversions + [9 “Stripes”] {10 treys “minus” 1 missed FT “equals” 1 stripe}
Ind – 45 Conversions + [7 “Stripes”] {7 treys “minus” 0 missed FT’s “equals” 2 stripes}
Expected Outcome -- +3 Conversions + [2 Stripes] = C’s win by 8 points
Actual Score: Boston 108, Indiana 98


Both squads were playing the second night of a back-to-back – and it showed in their 35 combined TO’s.

Apparently muscle memory is impacted less by fatigue than is decision-making – the teams were a combined 23 for 24 from the foul line.


Summative Equation (Season-to-date):
Bos – 992 Conversions + [+121 Stripes] {233 treys minus 112 missed FT’s equals 121 stripes}
Opp – 933 Conversions + [+76 Stripes] {178 treys minus 102 missed FT’s equals 76 stripes}
Expected Outcome -- +59 Conversions + [+45 Stripes] = C’s win by (118 + 45) 163 points
Actual Score: Boston 2176, Opponents 2012


The Celtics shot 50+% in the first, third and fourth quarters – starting with their frantic Q4 comeback in Miami, they’ve turned that little trick in six of their last nine quarters of play.


The Algebra of the Game

1st Quarter
FG: C’s – 12-24, .500 / Ind – 12-17, .706
3FG: C’s – 3-7, .429 / Ind – 4-7, .571
FT: C’s – 0-0, .000 [0] / Ind – 4-4, 1.000 [2]
TO: C’s – 2 / Ind – 6
OR: C’s – 0 + 1 (team) / Ind – 0 + 0 (team)
Poss: C’s – 25 / Ind – 25
CV%: C’s – 12 / 25, .480 / Ind – 14 / 25, .560

2nd Quarter
FG: C’s – 7-19, .368 / Ind – 10-22, .455
3FG: C’s – 1-8, .125 / Ind – 2-5, .400
FT: C’s – 3-3, 1.000 [1] / Ind – 0-0, .000 [0]
TO: C’s – 6 / Ind – 6
OR: C’s – 3 + 0 (team) / Ind – 4 + 1 (team)
Poss: C’s – 23 / Ind – 23
CV%: C’s – 8 / 23, .348 / Ind – 10 / 23, .435

3rd Quarter
FG: C’s – 14-18, .778 / Ind – 6-18, .333
3FG: C’s – 4-5, .800 / Ind – 0-6, .000
FT: C’s – 5-6, .833 [2] / Ind – 4-4, 1.000 [2]
TO: C’s – 4 / Ind – 3
OR: C’s – 1 + 0 (team) / Ind – 1 + 0 (team)
Poss: C’s – 23 / Ind – 22
CV%: C’s – 16 / 23, .696 / Ind – 8 / 22, .364

4th Quarter
FG: C’s – 12-19, .632 / Ind – 10-21, .476
3FG: C’s – 2-5, .400 / Ind – 1-5, .200
FT: C’s – 0-0, .000 [0] / Ind – 7-7, 1.000 [3]
TO: C’s – 3 / Ind – 5
OR: C’s – 0 + 0 (team) / Ind – 5 + 2 (team)
Poss: C’s – 22 / Ind – 22
CV%: C’s – 12 / 22, .545 / Ind – 13 / 22, .591

Full Game
FG: C’s – 45-80, .563 / Ind – 38-78, .487
3FG: C’s – 10-25, .400 / Ind – 7-23, .304
FT: C’s – 8-9, .889 [3] / Ind – 15-15, 1.000 [7]
TO: C’s – 15 / Ind – 20
OR: C’s – 4 + 1 (team) / Ind – 10 + 3 (team)
Poss: C’s – 93 / Ind – 92
CV%: C’s – 48 / 93, .516 / Ind – 45 / 92, .489

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

As the season’s Summative Equation [above} shows, the C’s have accrued 59 more total “conversions” than the other guys – that’s 2.8 per game.

Last season’s final statistics suggest that Boston played relatively even in the “Flow” of the game, and gained its advantage through superior performance at the free-throw and three-point “stripes.”

Genuine, consistent contenders – the Golden States and San Antonios – excel in both Flow and Striping.

From this perspective, are we seeing our team knocking on the door of such elite company?

Abacus Reveals 11/26/2017 12:33:00 PM Edit
_________________________________________________________________________
« Prev Post Next Post »

Recent Posts
_______________________________________________________________________________________

comments powered by Disqus