The Algebra of the Game: C’s control the defensive boards to repel the Freak-in’ Bucks
Big Dan’s backboard energy spread to his teammates. Would you believe that no Milwaukee Buck player was credited with an offensive rebound during the final 43:51 of this ballgame?
The C’s offense was inconsistent on the evening, never stringing together more than three consecutive conversions – and accomplishing that feat just four times. The offense endured its longest drought of the young season, 12 in a row (the final seven to open the second quarter).
But turn-about was fair play, as the Bucks began the fourth quarter with nine Empty Possessions after closing Q3 with three more – seven “one-and-dones” and five TO’s.
On another good note, the squad’s foul-shooting woes of Week One have dissipated – a mere eight misses (as compared with 25 three-balls) over the past two games. That differential of +8.5 points per game is superior to Houston’s league-leading
The Algebra of the Game
1st Quarter
FG: C’s – 8-17, .471 / Mil – 10-24, .417
3FG: C’s – 2-5, .400 / Mil – 1-6, .167
FT: C’s – 10-10, 1.000 [4] / Mil – 2-2, 1.000 [1]
TO: C’s – 7 / Mil – 3
OR: C’s – 1 + 1 (team) / Mil – 2 + 1 (team)
Poss: C’s – 26 / Mil – 25
CV%: C’s – 12 / 26, .462 / Mil – 11 / 25, .440
2nd Quarter
FG: C’s – 6-22, .273 / Mil – 8-17, .471
3FG: C’s – 1-11, .091 / Mil – 2-3, .667
FT: C’s – 2-2, 1.000 [1] / Mil – 3-5, .600 [2]
TO: C’s – 3 / Mil – 4
OR: C’s – 3 + 0 (team) / Mil – 0 + 0 (team)
Poss: C’s – 23 / Mil – 23
CV%: C’s – 7 / 23, .304 / Mil – 10 / 23, .435
 |
| 12 d-boards in the last two games |
FG: C’s – 10-18, .556 / Mil – 10-20, .500
3FG: C’s – 5-6, .833 / Mil – 2-6, .333
FT: C’s – 4-6, .667 [3] / Mil – 3-7, .429 [3]
TO: C’s – 5 / Mil – 5
OR: C’s – 0 + 0 (team) / Mil – 0 + 1 (team)
Poss: C’s – 26 / Mil – 26
CV%: C’s – 13 / 26, .500 / Mil – 13 / 26, .500
4th Quarter
FG: C’s – 9-21, .429 / Mil – 7-16, .438
3FG: C’s – 3-8, .375 / Mil – 6-10, .600
FT: C’s – 3-4, .750 [2] / Mil – 0-0, .000 [0]
TO: C’s – 1 / Mil – 6
OR: C’s – 2 + 0 (team) / Mil – 0 + 0 (team)
Poss: C’s – 22 / Mil – 22
CV%: C’s – 11 / 22, .500 / Mil – 7 / 22, .318
Full Game
FG: C’s – 33-78, .423 / Mil – 35-77, .455
3FG: C’s – 11-30, .367 / Mil – 11-25, .440
FT: C’s – 19-22, .864 [10] / Mil – 8-14, .571 [6]
TO: C’s – 16 / Mil – 17
OR: C’s – 6 + 1 (team) / Mil – 2 + 2 (team)
Poss: C’s – 97 / Mil – 96
CV%: C’s – 43 / 97, .443 / Mil – 41 / 96, .427
Note re Calculations:
The number of "possessions" is an accurate count, rather than a formula-based estimated calculation.
For purposes of clarity, the bracketed number 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
File this one under “You’re never too old to learn somethin’ new.”
I was not aware that, when an NBA player is assessed a Flagrant Foul (either Level 1 or 2), he is also charged with a Turnover in the box-score. It makes sense, I guess, in that the offending action does indeed cost his team a possession.
Along the same line of thinking, is a player charged with a TO if he gets tied up for a jump ball?
Does it matter whether or not his team ultimately retains possession?
Opinion welcome!!
And check out Tom Lane's review of the C's overall board work on the young season.
