Bombastic bombardiering disguises “Fundamental” flaws

In their last three games, the Boston Celtics have attempted 264 shots, exactly half of which (132) have been three-pointers, 44 per game … they’ve knocked down a more than respectable 39 percent of them.

Through six games, the Green Gang had been taking 10 fewer treys a game, making exactly one in three.

That’s what’s been getting all the attention …

… but here’s the real story, and it’s even uglier than all the hair-brained heaving.

In their last three games, Boston has surrendered 55 points off 41 Turnovers – 18.3 points per game. In their first six games, they yielded 67 points on 83 Turnovers – 11.2 points per game.

In both stretches, the C’s committed just under 14 TO’s per game.

(The Celts average about 13 ppg off an equivalent number of opponent errors.)

Unfortunately, a similarly troubling trend is revealing itself on the backboards.

During their first half-dozen games, the Celtics averaged exactly 11 Offensive Rebounds (plus about two Team OR’s), good for 11.8 “Follow-Up” points per game.

The past three outings have produced only 6.3 F-U points per game on 8.7 OR’s (plus 2.7 Team OR’s).

By contrast, the other guys have increased their per-game F-U points from 11.7 to 13.7 over the past three contests.

So – while our heroes were flaunting a downright D’Antonian style of play – the Celtics were losing 5.5 points worth of production per game on the offensive glass, 2.0 ppg on the defensive glass, and a whopping 7.1 ppg off their own TO’s. (The C’s did score 1.2 ppg more off the opposition’s TO’s.)

My simple counting machine calculates that to a 13-and-a-half-point swing on the basis of boxing out and floor balance/transition – every game.

How many times does “three” have to be greater than “two” in order to compensate for such inefficiency?