next »

[Edgar]

To be clear I don't think he'll be fired nor should he be,

But I've often wondered why the Celtics offense hasn't been better throughout the years. He's a great play caller out of timeouts, and the roster has always had a good deal of fire power. Never could understand why we're always near the middle of the pack offensively.

an elementary student or a high school dropout could draw up out of timeout basketball plays...completely overrated

Then why is Doc so much better at it than almost all coaches in the league?

yeah because a Paul pierce iso or Rondo to kg alley pop is rocket science....face it they need no coach at all to do these plays

sad but true

[Roy H.]

Oh, so taking raw shooting percentage is "monkeying with stats" now? Or is "look at the bottom line" some sort of new lingo for "just ignore the facts and soldier on".

Our ranks in shooting percentage:

2008: 4th
2009: 2nd
2010: 4th
2011: 1nd
2012: 5th
2013: 6th

We've been a team that consistenty takes good shots. To me, that's a sign of good offensive execution and efficiency. I've never understood why an offensive rebound is not considered an extra possession.

If you look at it as "how likely is a team to score on a trip down the floor", it makes sense.  Offensive efficiency is essentially a measure of how likely a team is to put the ball in the basket.  Likewise, defensive efficiency measures how likely a team is to stop the other team from scoring.  A "possession" only ends when the opposing team gets the ball.

Under our standard, we're very poor relative to our peers.

Right, and why is an offensive rebound not considered a "new trip down the floor"? In my mind, each trip ends with a shot, turnover, or a shooting foul. Not to mention that adding 0.44*PF to the number of possessions is a dodgy mechanic at best.

It's not a new trip down the floor because the same team is keeping possession.

[kozlodoev]

Oh, so taking raw shooting percentage is "monkeying with stats" now? Or is "look at the bottom line" some sort of new lingo for "just ignore the facts and soldier on".

Our ranks in shooting percentage:

2008: 4th
2009: 2nd
2010: 4th
2011: 1nd
2012: 5th
2013: 6th

We've been a team that consistenty takes good shots. To me, that's a sign of good offensive execution and efficiency. I've never understood why an offensive rebound is not considered an extra possession.

It's monkeying around with stats when you take ONE stat and declare that it's the ONLY stat that matters and NOTHING else.

Yes, if the ONLY thing we consider is shooting percentages, Boston's offense looks pretty good.  However, there are several other factors that are also important in truly determining the quality of a team's offense.  I'm not sure what that should be hard for anyone to understand.

Mike

Like, for example, points per game, or something?

[IndeedProceed]

To be clear I don't think he'll be fired nor should he be,

But I've often wondered why the Celtics offense hasn't been better throughout the years. He's a great play caller out of timeouts, and the roster has always had a good deal of fire power. Never could understand why we're always near the middle of the pack offensively.

Pace. They have always been amongst the most efficient offenses since the Big Three Era started but their pace is always one of the slowest in the league so therefore, overall PPG, their offense is middle of the pack.

I don't know what reasonable person would use PPG as a measure of offense. We've been consistently a top team in terms of raw shooting percentage -- including this season (6th in the league). The problem is we can no longer stop anyone (21st in the league in opponent FG%, compare to 2nd in the 2008-2009 season, for example).

You can monkey around with stats to prove almost anything.  Sometimes you just gotta look at the bottom line.

But I mean, what exactly are people proving? Nobody is proving that the C's have a good team this year.

Boston's lost 17 games this year.  In 10 of those losses, they scored less than 90 points.  Even if they were playing excellent defense, there's a pretty good chance they still would have lost most of those games.  So if Boston were playing great D, that would only make the difference between being 14-17 and being...what?  16-15?  17-14?  18-13?  Better, but still faaaaaar below what just about everyone expected of them this season.

Mike

Boston is currently allowing 102.1 points per 100 possessions.

If we're going by points per 100 possessions, Boston's defense is ranked 14th in the league.  That's better than Miami.  Boston's offense per 100 possessions, though, is tied for 20th.  So, even by that standard, it's the offense that's as much or more of a problem than the defense.

Mike

The point I was making was that if our defense were up to the standards its been consistently since KG was here, our offense would be a mild annoyance. Without the defense it means a losing record.

[MBunge]

Oh, so taking raw shooting percentage is "monkeying with stats" now? Or is "look at the bottom line" some sort of new lingo for "just ignore the facts and soldier on".

Our ranks in shooting percentage:

2008: 4th
2009: 2nd
2010: 4th
2011: 1nd
2012: 5th
2013: 6th

We've been a team that consistenty takes good shots. To me, that's a sign of good offensive execution and efficiency. I've never understood why an offensive rebound is not considered an extra possession.

It's monkeying around with stats when you take ONE stat and declare that it's the ONLY stat that matters and NOTHING else.

Yes, if the ONLY thing we consider is shooting percentages, Boston's offense looks pretty good.  However, there are several other factors that are also important in truly determining the quality of a team's offense.  I'm not sure what that should be hard for anyone to understand.

Mike

Like, for example, points per game, or something?

Do you understand how a discussion works, let alone an argument?

Person A makes a point.
Then, Person B makes a point.
Then, Person A responds to Person B's point.
Then, Person B responds to Person A's response.

It's impossible to have a productive discussion or argument is Person A just keeps repeating the same point over and over and over again.  If "shooting percentage!" is all you're going to contribute, there's no way to make this into a conversation.

Mike

[kozlodoev]

Do you understand how a discussion works, let alone an argument?

Person A makes a point.
Then, Person B makes a point.
Then, Person A responds to Person B's point.
Then, Person B responds to Person A's response.

Yes, like for example person A brings in points per game, and person B brings in shooting percentage.

[kozlodoev]

Oh, so taking raw shooting percentage is "monkeying with stats" now? Or is "look at the bottom line" some sort of new lingo for "just ignore the facts and soldier on".

Our ranks in shooting percentage:

2008: 4th
2009: 2nd
2010: 4th
2011: 1nd
2012: 5th
2013: 6th

We've been a team that consistenty takes good shots. To me, that's a sign of good offensive execution and efficiency. I've never understood why an offensive rebound is not considered an extra possession.

If you look at it as "how likely is a team to score on a trip down the floor", it makes sense.  Offensive efficiency is essentially a measure of how likely a team is to put the ball in the basket.  Likewise, defensive efficiency measures how likely a team is to stop the other team from scoring.  A "possession" only ends when the opposing team gets the ball.

Under our standard, we're very poor relative to our peers.

Right, and why is an offensive rebound not considered a "new trip down the floor"? In my mind, each trip ends with a shot, turnover, or a shooting foul. Not to mention that adding 0.44*PF to the number of possessions is a dodgy mechanic at best.

It's not a new trip down the floor because the same team is keeping possession.

Even if the same team is keeping the ball, they get a new clock. That's how I see it.

[Fafnir]

Oh, so taking raw shooting percentage is "monkeying with stats" now? Or is "look at the bottom line" some sort of new lingo for "just ignore the facts and soldier on".

Our ranks in shooting percentage:

2008: 4th
2009: 2nd
2010: 4th
2011: 1nd
2012: 5th
2013: 6th

We've been a team that consistenty takes good shots. To me, that's a sign of good offensive execution and efficiency. I've never understood why an offensive rebound is not considered an extra possession.

If you look at it as "how likely is a team to score on a trip down the floor", it makes sense.  Offensive efficiency is essentially a measure of how likely a team is to put the ball in the basket.  Likewise, defensive efficiency measures how likely a team is to stop the other team from scoring.  A "possession" only ends when the opposing team gets the ball.

Under our standard, we're very poor relative to our peers.

Right, and why is an offensive rebound not considered a "new trip down the floor"? In my mind, each trip ends with a shot, turnover, or a shooting foul. Not to mention that adding 0.44*PF to the number of possessions is a dodgy mechanic at best.

It's not a new trip down the floor because the same team is keeping possession.

It depends on what you want to evaluate.

The ability of a team to score the ball given one 24 second shot clock to work with, or the ability to generate offense over an entire game in totality. Getting more shots than the other team is certainly an offensive "skill" of teams.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that offensive rebounds should be a new possession. It separates out even better "possession creation" that otherwise is limited to steals and/or forced turnovers.

But really either way its all about how you organize the data, creating more shots for your team is a great way to get wins.

[kozlodoev]

Oh, so taking raw shooting percentage is "monkeying with stats" now? Or is "look at the bottom line" some sort of new lingo for "just ignore the facts and soldier on".

Our ranks in shooting percentage:

2008: 4th
2009: 2nd
2010: 4th
2011: 1nd
2012: 5th
2013: 6th

We've been a team that consistenty takes good shots. To me, that's a sign of good offensive execution and efficiency. I've never understood why an offensive rebound is not considered an extra possession.

If you look at it as "how likely is a team to score on a trip down the floor", it makes sense.  Offensive efficiency is essentially a measure of how likely a team is to put the ball in the basket.  Likewise, defensive efficiency measures how likely a team is to stop the other team from scoring.  A "possession" only ends when the opposing team gets the ball.

Under our standard, we're very poor relative to our peers.

Right, and why is an offensive rebound not considered a "new trip down the floor"? In my mind, each trip ends with a shot, turnover, or a shooting foul. Not to mention that adding 0.44*PF to the number of possessions is a dodgy mechanic at best.

It's not a new trip down the floor because the same team is keeping possession.

It depends on what you want to evaluate.

The ability of a team to score the ball given one 24 second shot clock to work with, or the ability to generate offense over an entire game in totality. Getting more shots than the other team is certainly an offensive "skill" of teams.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that offensive rebounds should be a new possession. It separates out even better "possession creation" that otherwise is limited to steals and/or forced turnovers.

But really either way its all about how you organize the data, creating more shots for your team is a great way to get wins.

As I understand is, the idea of PPP is to normalize for the fact that some teams just take less time of the shot clock to work with, thereby resulting in more raw stats per game, for obvious reasons.

I can't agree that having the ability to score more points per one "holding of the ball", irrespective of how long it lasts and how many shots you take in the process is any sort of meaningful measure of how good your team is offensively.

Why should be a team who takes two shots and misses one (1 PPP) considered worse offensively than a team that sandwiches an offensive rebound between the two misses (2 PPP)? It just doesn't make much sense.

[Roy H.]

Oh, so taking raw shooting percentage is "monkeying with stats" now? Or is "look at the bottom line" some sort of new lingo for "just ignore the facts and soldier on".

Our ranks in shooting percentage:

2008: 4th
2009: 2nd
2010: 4th
2011: 1nd
2012: 5th
2013: 6th

We've been a team that consistenty takes good shots. To me, that's a sign of good offensive execution and efficiency. I've never understood why an offensive rebound is not considered an extra possession.

If you look at it as "how likely is a team to score on a trip down the floor", it makes sense.  Offensive efficiency is essentially a measure of how likely a team is to put the ball in the basket.  Likewise, defensive efficiency measures how likely a team is to stop the other team from scoring.  A "possession" only ends when the opposing team gets the ball.

Under our standard, we're very poor relative to our peers.

Right, and why is an offensive rebound not considered a "new trip down the floor"? In my mind, each trip ends with a shot, turnover, or a shooting foul. Not to mention that adding 0.44*PF to the number of possessions is a dodgy mechanic at best.

It's not a new trip down the floor because the same team is keeping possession.

It depends on what you want to evaluate.

The ability of a team to score the ball given one 24 second shot clock to work with, or the ability to generate offense over an entire game in totality. Getting more shots than the other team is certainly an offensive "skill" of teams.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that offensive rebounds should be a new possession. It separates out even better "possession creation" that otherwise is limited to steals and/or forced turnovers.

But really either way its all about how you organize the data, creating more shots for your team is a great way to get wins.

This is basically right.  It depends what you're measuring.

If you're determining which team is most likely to make a shot, then FG% is the stat you'd look at.

If you're trying to get a flavor for how effective an offense is, though, offensive efficiency is the way to go.  To determine that effectiveness, you look at trips down the floor, rather than separating out offensive rebounds.

Example:  Which offense is better?  (Assume no threes or FTs for the moment):

Team A:  50% FG%, grabs offensive rebounds 10% of the time

Team B:  45% FG%, grabs offensive rebounds 35% of the time

With team A, on 100 trips down the floor they'll score 105 points.

With team B, on 100 trips down the floor, they'll score a bit over 107 points.

For a given possession, then, you might prefer Team A, whereas over the course of a team, it might be Team B.

No one stat is ever going to tell the whole story, but Offensive Efficiency probably comes closest.  The best method, though, is probably to look at the "four factors" as identified by basketball-reference:

eFG%: Celtics 11th
TOV%: Celtics 15th
ORB%: Celtics 30th
FT/FGA: Celtics 14th

That paints the picture of a mediocre offense that turns the ball over too much and doesn't get a lot of second chance points.  That's not a recipe for success.

[Roy H.]

Why should be a team who takes two shots and misses one (1 PPP) considered worse offensively than a team that sandwiches an offensive rebound between the two misses (2 PPP)? It just doesn't make much sense.

Sure it does, if the second team does that consistently.

Offense is a measure of putting the ball in the hoop.  If a team does that consistently by dominating rebounds on offense, that's a measure of good offense.

[Moranis]

Why should be a team who takes two shots and misses one (1 PPP) considered worse offensively than a team that sandwiches an offensive rebound between the two misses (2 PPP)? It just doesn't make much sense.

Sure it does, if the second team does that consistently.

Offense is a measure of putting the ball in the hoop.  If a team does that consistently by dominating rebounds on offense, that's a measure of good offense.

exactly, and the difference between those two is obvious i.e. the other team doesn't have a chance to score in between the shots.  The more you have the ball the less your opponent has it.  That is how you win games, limit your opponents scoring opportunities as much as possible, while maximizing your own.

[nickagneta]

Why should be a team who takes two shots and misses one (1 PPP) considered worse offensively than a team that sandwiches an offensive rebound between the two misses (2 PPP)? It just doesn't make much sense.

Sure it does, if the second team does that consistently.

Offense is a measure of putting the ball in the hoop.  If a team does that consistently by dominating rebounds on offense, that's a measure of good offense.

Another measure is getting to the free throw line and hitting your three pointers at a high rate.

Miami has been one of the more efficient offenses in the league when using offensive efficiency as a measuring tool but like Boston has been one of the worse offensive rebounding teams in the league as well.

The difference is Miami goes to the basket a lot, draws a lot of free throws, makes  a lot of their free throws and hits a high percentage of three point shots.

Boston has a highly efficient offense if you consider points per shot taken. You don't necessarily have to rebound the ball well on the offensive side to be an efficient offense, not that I am say anyone is making that claim. But you do need to keep the turnovers down and hit your shots and get your share of FTs.

The continuing reliance on outside jump shooting is starting to kill this team.

[Edgar]

Why should be a team who takes two shots and misses one (1 PPP) considered worse offensively than a team that sandwiches an offensive rebound between the two misses (2 PPP)? It just doesn't make much sense.

Sure it does, if the second team does that consistently.

Offense is a measure of putting the ball in the hoop.  If a team does that consistently by dominating rebounds on offense, that's a measure of good offense.

Another measure is getting to the free throw line and hitting your three pointers at a high rate.

Miami has been one of the more efficient offenses in the league when using offensive efficiency as a measuring tool but like Boston has been one of the worse offensive rebounding teams in the league as well.

The difference is Miami goes to the basket a lot, draws a lot of free throws, makes  a lot of their free throws and hits a high percentage of three point shots.

Boston has a highly efficient offense if you consider points per shot taken. You don't necessarily have to rebound the ball well on the offensive side to be an efficient offense, not that I am say anyone is making that claim. But you do need to keep the turnovers down and hit your shots and get your share of FTs.

The continuing reliance on outside jump shooting is starting to kill this team.

yup
long 2s are slow self infringed dead

The other point is how bad ( and i am not looking at %) but fts in clutch time or during runs, theyre failing.

[kozlodoev]

Why should be a team who takes two shots and misses one (1 PPP) considered worse offensively than a team that sandwiches an offensive rebound between the two misses (2 PPP)? It just doesn't make much sense.

Sure it does, if the second team does that consistently.

Offense is a measure of putting the ball in the hoop.  If a team does that consistently by dominating rebounds on offense, that's a measure of good offense.

That's the point, both teams have put the ball in the hoop exactly the same number of  times, taking roughly the same time off the clock in total (if we assume similar time to taking a shot off). Except the second team boasts PPP that's twice as large.