Quantcast

AP Photo/Nick Wass
In terms of basic back-and-forth “Flow” of play, last night’s Boston Celtic performance against old friend Isaiah Thomas and his mystical mates ranks as their second-worst showing of the season. Brad’s Boys never recovered from their putrid 32% conversion rate (8-for-25) in Q1 – and wound up on the wrong end of things in the Conversion Column, 44 – 50 … only the Sixers have out-played them so handily (54 – 47) on opening night.

The C’s two-game moratorium on long-range shooting (a puny .251 usage rate last weekend) came to an end as their 3PAr returned to the league norm (about 38%) … though not, alas, their accuracy.


Quarterly Converting (since Xmas Day)


Q1 – Bos: 85 conv’s in 176 poss [.483] / Opp: 84 conv’s in 176 poss [.477]
Q2 – Bos: 88 conv’s in 170 poss [.518] / Opp: 79 conv’s in 169 poss [.467]
Q3 – Bos: 92 conv’s in 173 poss [.532] / Opp: 84 conv’s in 175 poss [.480]
Q4 – Bos: 90 conv’s in 170 poss [.529] / Opp: 92 conv’s in 170 poss [.541]
Gm – Bos: 355 conv’s in 689 poss [.515] / Opp: 339 conv’s in 690 poss [.491]



Game 34 at Washington

Boston 94

FG: C’s – 33-85, .347
3FG: C’s – 8-37, .216
FT: C’s – 20-26, .769 [11 conversions]
TS%: C’s – .487
OR: C’s –16 + 7 (team) [minus 1 FT rebound]
DR: C’s – 39 + 0 (team) [minus 4 FT rebounds]
TO: C’s – 16 + 1 (team)
Poss: C’s – 101 {57 “Empty”}
PPP: C’s – 0.931
CV%: C’s – 44 / 101, .436
Stripes: C’s – 2 [1 conversion]
Adjusted CV%: C’s – 45 / 101, .446 {expected production, 90 points}


Washington 99

FG: Wash – 39-84, .464
3FG: Wash – 7-21, .333
FT: Wash – 14-23, .609 [11 conversions]
TS%: Wash – .526
OR: Wash – 7 + 1 (team) [minus 0 FT rebounds]
DR: Wash – 40 + 2 (team) [minus 3 FT rebounds]
TO: Wash – 14 + 0 (team)
Poss: Wash – 101 {51 “Empty”}
PPP: Wash – 0.980
CV%: Wash – 50 / 101, .495
Stripes: Wash – -2 [-1 conversion]
Adjusted CV%: Wash – 49 / 101, .485 {expected production, 98 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

The sport of basketball in this 21st Century bears little resemblance to the game Naismith invented a century or so ago. For instance, in its original iteration, dribbling was illegal … and when the dribble was introduced, a player was prohibited from shooting “off the dribble” and required to pass off.

Share posting up
Through the years, the hoop overlords have repeatedly attempted to moderate the advantage of altitude through rule modification – goal-tending, enlargement of the “key,” prohibition of zone defense. Hell, the NCAA prohibited dunking for about a decade.

One innovation that rears its ugly head from time to time is the notion of raising the height of the rim to 12’.

I had been completely ignorant of this little tidbit of NBA history until just a couple of weeks ago. According to both The Lost Memoirs of Johnny Most as well as Greg Maracek’s Full Court: The Untold Stories of the St. Louis Hawks, the early 1950’s bore witness to a regulation NBA game between the Minneapolis Lakers and the Milwaukee Hawks that utilized 12’ goals --- Maracek even provides some commentary from one of the participants (ironically, the guy that Red Auerbach had drafted in lieu of Bob Cousy back in 1950 – Charley Share).

I haven’t had the time nor energy to run down further detail, but my curiosity has been piqued … does this “tall tale” sound familiar to anyone else’s ears?

Abacus Reveals 1/07/2020 05:50:00 PM Edit
_______________________________________________________________
« Prev Post Next Post »

Recent Posts
_______________________________________________________________

comments powered by Disqus