The Algebra of the Game: C’s third-quarter dominance off-paces Indiana
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.
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
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?
