Quantcast

In their last two visits to the TD Garden, Coach Pop’s Spurs have made 23 of 50 three-point shots, an impressive 46 percent. The Celtics matched them in makes, but it took 15 additional attempts.

Here’s a little trivia question – when was the last time a non-playoff-qualifier finished their regular season ranked in the Top Ten in both making and defending the three-ball?

While San Antonio has never been a high-usage team (No. 24 last year) when it comes to treys, they have been damn efficient in their usage. Two seasons ago, they and GSW pretty much went box-to-wire in the top two slots on both ends of 3FG% -- and they were the most accurate (.391) distance shooters last season.

[The Spurs’ 2015 playoff implosion against the Clippers might have been presaged by their No. 24 ranking in Three-D.]

It’d be nice to see Boston improve on last season’s middling (No. 14) defensive rank – through seven games, opponents are connecting on 33.0% of their tries from behind the stripe, below the league average (thru Mon.) of 35.6%.


The Algebra of the Game

1st Quarter
FG: C’s – 12-24, .500 / SA – 10-21, .476
3FG: C’s – 1-5, .200 / SA – 3-6, .500
FT: C’s – 5-5, 1.000 [2] / SA – 3-7, .429 [3]
TO: C’s – 1 / SA – 2
OR: C’s – 3 + 0 (team) / SA – 2 + 0 (team)
Poss: C’s – 24 / SA – 24
CV%: C’s – 14 / 24, .583 / SA – 13 / 24, .542

2nd Quarter
FG: C’s – 10-21, .476 / SA – 9-24, .375
3FG: C’s – 0-4, .000 / SA – 5-9, .444
FT: C’s – 4-6, .750 [2] / SA – 0-2, .000 [1]
TO: C’s – 6 / SA – 4
OR: C’s – 5 + 0 (team) / SA – 5 + 0 (team)
Poss: C’s – 24 / SA – 24
CV%: C’s – 12 / 24, .500 / SA – 10 / 24, .417

How soon till this kid is getting MVP mention?
3rd Quarter
FG: C’s – 9-21, .429 / SA – 7-21, .333
3FG: C’s – 4-11, .364 / SA – 2-6, .333
FT: C’s – 4-4, 1.000 [2] / SA – 2-3, .667 [1]
TO: C’s – 3 / SA – 2
OR: C’s – 3 + 0 (team) / SA – 1 + 1 (team)
Poss: C’s – 23 / SA – 22
CV%: C’s – 11 / 23, .478 / SA – 8 / 22, .364

4th Quarter
FG: C’s – 11-22, .500 / SA – 10-21, .476
3FG: C’s – 6-11, .545 / SA – 2-5, .400
FT: C’s – 0-1, .000 [0] / SA – 5-8, 1.000 [4]
TO: C’s – 5 / SA – 3
OR: C’s – 4 + 0 (team) / SA – 4 + 2 (team)
Poss: C’s – 22 / SA – 22
CV%: C’s – 11 / 22, .500 / SA – 14 / 22, .636

Full Game
FG: C’s – 42-88, .477 / SA – 36-87, .414
3FG: C’s – 11-31, .355 / SA – 12-26, .462
FT: C’s – 13-16, .813 [6] / SA – 10-20, .500 [9]
TO: C’s – 15 / SA – 11
OR: C’s – 15 + 0 (team) / SA – 12 + 3 (team)
Poss: C’s – 93 / SA – 92
CV%: C’s – 48 / 93, .516 / SA – 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

The C’s only outplayed SA by three conversions in this game, but the Spurs squandered their 12 treys with ten missed FT’s – a gain of only two points to Boston’s +8 (11 3FG’s, three off-target FT’s).

Six points in “Flow” plus six points in “Striping” equals a reasonably stress-free victory.


images: bostonherald.com

Abacus Reveals 11/01/2017 01:39:00 PM Edit
_________________________________________________________________________
« Prev Post Next Post »

Recent Posts
_______________________________________________________________________________________

comments powered by Disqus