Quantcast

Kyrie Irving gets smacked in the face and Charlotte’s Kemba Walker gets two free throws. That play captures the essence of a First Quarter in which whatever could go wrong, did go wrong. The C’s began with five straight one-and-dones countered by five straight conversions; they closed with another five straight “empties” preceding a Smart J while the Hornets had six consecutive conversions prior to missing a buzzer-beating heave.

That added up to a 15-point hole that appeared insurmountable with Irving joining H&H on the shelf.

Summative Equation:
Bos – 41 Conversions + [5 “Stripes”] {9 treys “minus” 4 missed FT’s “equals” 5 stripes}
Char – 45 Conversions + [-8 “Stripes”] {6 treys “minus” 14 missed FT’s “equals” -8 stripes}
Expected Outcome -- -4 Conversions + [+13 Stripes] = C’s win by 5 points
Actual Score: Boston 90, Charlotte 87 

A quick 10-2 Q2 start – four consecutive conversions – cut the deficit to single-digits. But Charlotte soon responded with a seven possession, 14-6 run and had added a point to their edge by halftime. (Even Brad’s Hack-a-Howard seemed to backfire, sparking a 10-4 – four out of five converted possessions – Charlotte counter-attack to end the quarter.)

This night’s Intermission Inspiration from the Brain-trust must have focused on Defense. After allowing 30 conversions on 48 first-half possession (.625), the C’s yielded just nine (.375) in Q3. Offensively, overall shooting remained sour (35% in Q3), but “Striping” was keeping the boys afloat – 7-17 on treys and 14-17 on FT’s in the middle sessions.

Summative Equation (Season-to-date):
Bos – 610 Conversions + [+70 “Stripes”] {142 treys “minus” 72 missed FT’s “equals” 70 stripes}
Opp – 569 Conversions + [+32 “Stripes”] {102 treys “minus” 70 missed FT’s “equals” 32 stripes}
Expected Outcome -- +41 Conversions + [+38 Stripes] = C’s win by (82 + 38) 120 points
Actual Score: Boston 1336, Opponents 1222 

A Cheshire grin?
Still trailing by double-digits, the Boston defense came out with even more focus – and recorded 16 stops (allowing a mere three points) in their first 18 Q4 defensive possessions.

Somehow – even though they could string together back-to-back conversions just once in the final twelve minutes – Brad’s Next-Men-Up took the lead with five-and-a-half minutes to play and held on.

The Hornets actually had more conversions in this game – but their league-worst performance in the area of “Striping” has been hindering them all season.


The Algebra of the Game

1st Quarter
FG: C’s – 5-19, .263 / Char – 9-19, .474
3FG: C’s – 0-7, .000 / Char – 2-5, .400
FT: C’s – 1-2, .500 [1] / Char – 6-11, .545 [5]
TO: C’s – 5 / Char – 2
OR: C’s – 1 + 0 (team) / Char – 0 + 2 (team)
Poss: C’s – 24 / Char – 24
CV%: C’s – 6 / 24, .250 / Char – 14 / 24, .583

2nd Quarter
FG: C’s – 9-21, .429 / Char – 11-22, .500
3FG: C’s – 0-6, .000 / Char – 3-6, .500
FT: C’s – 10-13, .769 [5] / Char – 6-13, .462 [5]
TO: C’s – 4 / Char – 1
OR: C’s – 2 + 0 (team) / Char – 4 + 0 (team)
Poss: C’s – 24 / Char – 24
CV%: C’s – 12 / 24, .500 / Char – 16 / 24, .667

3rd Quarter
FG: C’s – 7-20, .350 / Char – 7-19, .368
3FG: C’s – 2-5, .400 / Char – 1-6, .167
FT: C’s – 7-9, .778 [4] / Char – 4-4, 1.000 [2]
TO: C’s – 3 / Char – 5
OR: C’s – 2 + 2 (team) / Char – 0 + 2 (team)
Poss: C’s – 23 / Char – 24
CV%: C’s – 11 / 23, .478 / Char – 9 / 24, .375

4th Quarter
FG: C’s – 9-21, .429 / Char – 4-20, .200
3FG: C’s – 2-7, .286 / Char – 0-5, .00
FT: C’s – 6-6, 1.000 [3] / Char – 3-5, .600 [2]
TO: C’s – 4 / Char – 6
OR: C’s – 2 + 1 (team) / Char – 3 + 0 (team)
Poss: C’s – 25 / Char – 25
CV%: C’s – 12 / 25, .480 / Char – 6 / 25, .240

Full Game
FG: C’s – 30-84, .357 / Char – 31-80, .388
3FG: C’s – 9-31, .290 / Char – 6-22, .273
FT: C’s – 21-25, .800 [11] / Char – 19-33, .576 [14]
TO: C’s – 13 / Char – 14
OR: C’s – 9 + 3 (team) / Char – 7 + 4 (team)
Poss: C’s – 96 / Char – 97
CV%: C’s – 41 / 96, .427 / Char – 45 / 97, .464

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 

Between the 6:55 mark of Q2 and the 7:22 mark of Q3 – 11:33 worth of PT – the Boston Celtics committed ZERO turnovers.

Abacus Reveals 11/11/2017 02:28:00 PM Edit
_________________________________________________________________________
« Prev Post Next Post »

Recent Posts
_______________________________________________________________________________________

comments powered by Disqus