Quantcast

AP Photo/Winslow Townson
One down, 28 to go – barring the phenomenally unlikely chance that they’ll meet up in The Finals, we’ve seen the last of the franchise originally known as the Rochester Royals for this season.

More likely, these two stout performances over the last eight days against a contending team will serve as primary high points to another less than regal season for the Association’s most transient and widely-traveled franchise.

Through the years, Karma appears often to have made this a star-crossed franchise – from the alleged playoff screw-job vs. the Lakers nearly 20 years ago; despite the best efforts of Tiny Archibald and Bob Cousy; notwithstanding their re-location to Cincinnati in the late ‘50’s in order to better utilize the league’s territorial draft; all the way back to the tragic striking down of Maurice Stokes.

As may well befit a “cursed” franchise, Sacramento lost last night to the C’s despite compiling more “Adjusted Conversions” (and thus more expected “point production”) – arguably the most unusual numerical anomaly I’ve come to recognize in several years of tracking some pretty weird "Basketball Algebra"!!!

The Celtics actually posted a 48 – 44 edge in converted possessions, primarily by virtue of a 10- 7 advantage in Free-throw Conversions. But a 13 – 4 differential in Stripes (the equivalent of 4.5 possessions) gives the Californians a 50.5 – 50 “victory” in Adjusted Conversions.

AP Photo/Winslow Townson
So how did Brad’s boys eke out their win? Credit Enes Kanter and each member of the J Team for earning (and making) an “and-1” … while Buddy Hield misfired on Sacramento’s lone 3-point-possibility.

T’was the 3 – 1 edge in these “ancillary” FTA’s that turned a projected one-point loss into an opportunistic one-point victory.


Game 16 vs Sacramento


Boston 103

FG: C’s – 38-85, .447
3FG: C’s – 7-30, .233
FT: C’s – 20-23, .870 [10 conversions]
TS%: C’s – .541
OR: C’s – 11 + 7 (team) [minus 0 FT rebounds]
DR: C’s – 27 + 3 (team) [minus 3 FT rebounds]
TO: C’s – 11 + 1 (team)
Poss: C’s – 89 {41 “Empty”}
PPP: C’s – 1.157
CV%: C’s – 48 / 89, .539
Stripes: C’s – 4 [2.0 conversions]
Adjusted CV%: C’s – 50 / 89, .562 {expected production, 100 points}


Sacramento 102

FG: Sac – 37-79, .468
3FG: Sac – 18-47, .383
FT: Sac – 10-15, .667 [7 conversions]
TS%: Sac – .596
OR: Sac – 8 + 5 (team) [minus 0 FT rebounds]
DR: Sac – 28 + 1 (team) [minus 0 FT rebounds]
TO: Sac – 14 + 3 (team)
Poss: Sac – 90 {46 “Empty”}
PPP: Sac – 1.133
CV%: Sac – 44 / 90, .489
Stripes: Sac – 13 [6.5 conversions]
Adjusted CV%: Sac – 50.5 / 90, .561 {expected production, 101 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

Monday’s TD Garden party was played at the slowest pace of the season thus far, a mere 89 scoring opportunities for the C’s – it was also only the third time an opponent managed more possessions than did Boston.

Abacus Reveals 11/26/2019 01:34:00 PM Edit
_______________________________________________________________
« Prev Post Next Post »

Recent Posts
_______________________________________________________________________________________

comments powered by Disqus