Quantcast

It was a purposeful contingent of Boston Celtics that recorded as many Conversions in Q2 of Monday’s Game Five against the Toronto Raptors as the defending champions could eke out in the entire First Half, harassing them into a 27 percent rate of conversion and a 27-point hole at the intermission.

Looking rather professorial, isn't he?
In the game’s first 12 minutes, Coach Nick Nurse’s troops could muster a measly five conversions in 23 opportunities. By contrast, Boston’s “Red on Roundball”-worthy Q2 performance produced 16 “cash-ins” on 25 tries (an astounding CV% of .640).

Game, set, match – though not quite “series” (but that’s lookin’ a tad bit better than it did a day ago, I daresay).

The Raps did begin Q3 with a spurt of energy and efficiency. They matched their Q1 output of Conversions within seven possessions, shaving six points from the lead and inducing a quick Brad Stevens TO – but the Celts regrouped quickly, and Toronto wouldn’t draw so close again until the onset of Garbage Time.

Has COVID created “Three Fever”?

In their tough Game Three loss, the C’s attempted 29 treys, 35 percent of their 83 total FGA’s – the only time this series a team launched fewer than 30 long balls or recorded a usage rate (3PAr) below .400.

During the season’s 979 pre-hiatus contests, “Team Average” took 34 three-pointers per game and posted a 3PAr of .382 (the highest seasonal rate ever). In the first round of this season’s playoffs (42 games), those numbers have risen to 37.7 per-game 3FGA’s with 3PAr at an eye-popping .433.

Nevertheless – and for the first time this series – the team with more successful treys did NOT win.

Pascal Siakam, the new Heartbreak Kid?



BOSTON 111

FG: C’s – 38-77, .494
3FG: C’s – 11-34, .324
FT: C’s – 24-27, .889 [12 conversions]
TS%: C’s – .624
OR: C’s – 4 + 2 (team) [minus 0 FT rebounds]
DR: C’s – 41 + 2 (team) [minus 2 FT rebounds]
TO: C’s – 11 + 2 (team)
Poss: C’s – 96 {46 “Empty”}
PPP: C’s – 1.156
CV%: C’s – 50 / 96, .521
Stripes: C’s – 8 [4 conversions]
Adjusted CV%: C’s – 54 / 96, .563 {expected production, 108 points}


TORONTO 89

FG: Tor – 33-85, .385
3FG: Tor – 12-40, .300
FT: Tor – 11-13, .846 [6 conversions]
TS%: Tor – .489
OR: Tor – 10 + 1 (team) [minus 0 FT rebounds]
DR: Tor – 26 + 6 (team) [minus 0 FT rebounds]
TO: Tor – 13 + 1 (team)
Poss: Tor – 94 {55 “Empty”}
PPP: Tor – 0.947
CV%: Tor – 39 / 94, .415
Stripes: Tor – 10 [5 conversion]
Adjusted CV%: Tor – 44 / 94, .468 {expected production, 88 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

Please explain this to me –

Through four games, the Celtics had shot more accurately (.456 to .447), attempted more free throws (28-26), scored over twice as many Second-Chance points (25-11) and allowed roughly half as many opponent points off turnovers (23-40) during their two LOSSES than in their two wins ????

Abacus Reveals 9/08/2020 01:32:00 PM Edit
_______________________________________________________________
« Prev Post Next Post »

Recent Posts
_______________________________________________________________

comments powered by Disqus