If I were coaching an NBA team, here’s a competitive strategy I’d think about using – intentionally allowing the opposing team to get the ball on the opening tip-off. I contend that this ploy provides better odds that your team will end up with more possessions during the game than the other guys.

concordmonitor.com |

Milwaukee had the final official possession of Q4 – two Khris Middleton FT’s – as Boston proceeded to dribble out the closing seconds. But as tends to happen, it is the scoreboard that will dictate how Q4 ends, rather than the kind of clock management that is exercised during the earlier sessions.

In a game of alternating possessions, the only way to gain more opportunities to score than your opponent is when you get both the first and last chance during a timed segment of play, right?

concordmonitor.com |

Just a thought…

**The Invaluable Player**

I’ve said before and I’ll say again, Marcus Smart has got to rank at the top of the NBA’s “I Don’t Wanna Be Guarded by THAT Guy” list.

I believe a certain Greek Freak is the newest convert.

Game 4 vs Milwaukee

Boston 116

FG: C’s – 41-92, .446

3FG: C’s – 17-41, .415

FT: C’s – 17-21, .810 [9 conversions]

TS%: C’s – .521

OR: C’s – 5 + 6 (team) [minus 1 FT rebound]

DR: C’s – 40 + 2 (team) [minus 4 FT rebounds]

TO: C’s – 9 + 1 (team)

Poss: C’s – 101 {51 “Empty”}

PPP: C’s – 1.149

CV%: C’s – 50 / 101, .495

Stripes: C’s – 13 [6.5 conversions]

Adjusted CV%: C’s – 56.5 / 101, .559 {expected production, 113 points}

Milwaukee 105

FG: Mil – 38-82, .463

3FG: Mil – 14-45, .311

FT: Mil – 15-24, .625 [9 conversions]

TS%: Mil – .488

OR: Mil – 5 + 2 (team) [minus 1 FT rebound]

DR: Mil – 40 + 2 (team) [minus 2 FT rebounds]

TO: Mil – 15 + 0 (team)

Poss: Mil – 100 {53 “Empty”}

PPPs: C’s – 1.050

CV%: Mil – 47 / 100, .470

Stripes: Mil – 5 [2.5 conversions]

Adjusted CV%: Mil – 49.5 / 100, .495 {expected production, 99 points}

**Note re Calculation & Notation:**

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) – FT OR’s

“Conversions” calculation: FG’s + FT conversions

“Stripes” calculation: 3FG’s – missed FTA’s

TS% = True Shooting Percentage

PPP = Points per Possession

CV% = Conversion Percentage

*Abacus Revelation for the Road*(just for the Stat Geeks)

You might have noticed I provide an expected point total for each team along with its Adjusted-for-Striping Conversion Percentage ... the "estimate" is simply twice the adjusted number of conversions.

The projection rarely matches a squad's actual output -- the difference comes from the extraneous free throws (e.g. techs, and-1's, the third attempt when fouled on a 3FGA).

Boston had 21 FTA's and nine FT conversions -- two "times" the conversions (i.e. 18) deducted from the attempts gives us three extraneous FT's, which, when added to the expected score (113), produces the actual score (116).

I have a sneaking suspicion that a Lane Violation by an offensive player will "muddy up" this simple addition. Sooner or later, I'll find out -- probably later since Mook ain't around no more!!

_______________________________________________________________

« Prev Post
Next Post »