Four Factors -- First 20 Games

[PhoSita]

We're officially past the twenty game mark.  We no longer can say "small sample size" when talking about the season.  At least, it's not too small a sample to start to talk about what the team is good at, not good at, and how good or bad they are relative to the rest of the league.


Just as a refresher, the four factors are shooting efficiency, rebounding, turnovers, and free throws.  Those are considered traditionally to be the most important indicators of how good a team is at playing winning basketball.


Here's how the Celts rank in these categories so far, on offense and defense.


Shooting

Effective Field Goal % - 25th  (poor)

opponent EFG% - 2nd (elite)

3-pointers per game - 9th (good)

opponent 3P per game - 2nd (elite)


Rebounding

Defensive Rebound % - 2nd (elite)

Offensive Rebound % - 11th (above average)


Free Throws

FT made per 100 possessions - 7th (good)

opponent FT made per 100 - 6th (good)


Turnovers

TO per possession - 5th (elite)

opponent TO per poss. - 18th (below average)



Overall, we've got an elite defensive squad, forcing low scoring efficiency and a low number of threes, with elite defensive rebounding.  They don't force many turnovers, but their defensive rebounding means they manage the possession battle well.

The offense doesn't score with great efficiency, but they nail a good number of threes, they don't turn it over, and they are decent at creating extra possessions with offensive boards.


The Celts profile as an elite team, even if their record does seem even farther ahead of how good they've been statistically.  I'd be a bit concerned about what would happen to the offense in a post-season series, but the fact that they've got Kyrie to do the end of game magic-making gives me confidence.

I think we should expect opponents to eventually hit some more of their threes, but I also expect the offense to become a bit more efficient as Brad works out his rotations.



What do you think?  What will we see happen with these numbers of the next twenty, forty, sixty games?

[trickybilly]

Not sure what opposition FT% tells us.  Maybe that, whilst good in this area, we could still improve, and hence we should give Nader a full time distraction/towel-waving job.

Seriously though, agree with your points: shooting %'s will normalize.

[loco_91]

I do expect the defense to regress a bit. It just doesn't make sense that we'd be that much better than last year, even if you buy the narrative that AB + Crowder were both overrated defensively.  Overall I think it's still hard to tell how good the C's really are, since there's such a big gap between expectations and what we've seen so far. It's plausible that we'll win 65 games, but also that we'll regress and win 55 or even fewer.

[azzenfrost]

It has a bit. Opponents' score the past 5 games have been 98, 103, 104, 102 and 99.

[colincb]

The opponent's turnover percentage ranking is incorrect. A higher opponent's TOV% is good for us. We're actually tied for 13th and effectively within a hair of being tied for eight best.

The creator of the 4 factors weighed shooting at 40%, rebounding at 25%, turnovers at 15%, and ability to get to the FT line at 10%. I looked at these factors last week and we had the best overall weighted rankings by a decent margin and I haven't seen anything since to lead me to believe that's not still true. What I took from it was that our success was no fluke.

[billysan]

Thanks for the stats tp4u.

Setting them aside for a moment, one area that leaps out at me is our penchant for 4th quarter surges. Seems like we go into hyperactive mode nearly every game during the last quarter. Doesn't hurt that we have kyrie, horford and a few others that are closers both offensively and defensively. It's seems like our shooting percentages must all increase by 20% in the second half as well. It can be scary but I kind of like it because it's like we get on track when it matters.

I think players are still learning each other and we will get even better. Shooting percentages will increase.

I'm going out on a limb to say we could win 60+ this year barring injury.

[cman88]

defense, defense, defense.....when you play suffocating defense like the celtics have you can afford to have poor shooting nights and still win.

[tazzmaniac]

defense, defense, defense.....when you play suffocating defense like the celtics have you can afford to have poor shooting nights and still win.

During the regular season I'd agree but in the playoffs it will be more problematic. 

[footey]

Not sure what opposition FT% tells us.  Maybe that, whilst good in this area, we could still improve, and hence we should give Nader a full time distraction/towel-waving job.

Seriously though, agree with your points: shooting %'s will normalize.

Means we foul Dwight Howard more than other teams LOL.

[footey]

We're officially past the twenty game mark.  We no longer can say "small sample size" when talking about the season.  At least, it's not too small a sample to start to talk about what the team is good at, not good at, and how good or bad they are relative to the rest of the league.


Just as a refresher, the four factors are shooting efficiency, rebounding, turnovers, and free throws.  Those are considered traditionally to be the most important indicators of how good a team is at playing winning basketball.


Here's how the Celts rank in these categories so far, on offense and defense.


Shooting

Effective Field Goal % - 25th  (poor)

opponent EFG% - 2nd (elite)

3-pointers per game - 9th (good)

opponent 3P per game - 2nd (elite)


Rebounding

Defensive Rebound % - 2nd (elite)

Offensive Rebound % - 11th (above average)


Free Throws

FT made per 100 possessions - 7th (good)

opponent FT made per 100 - 6th (good)


Turnovers

TO per possession - 5th (elite)

opponent TO per poss. - 18th (below average)



Overall, we've got an elite defensive squad, forcing low scoring efficiency and a low number of threes, with elite defensive rebounding.  They don't force many turnovers, but their defensive rebounding means they manage the possession battle well.

The offense doesn't score with great efficiency, but they nail a good number of threes, they don't turn it over, and they are decent at creating extra possessions with offensive boards.


The Celts profile as an elite team, even if their record does seem even farther ahead of how good they've been statistically.  I'd be a bit concerned about what would happen to the offense in a post-season series, but the fact that they've got Kyrie to do the end of game magic-making gives me confidence.

I think we should expect opponents to eventually hit some more of their threes, but I also expect the offense to become a bit more efficient as Brad works out his rotations.



What do you think?  What will we see happen with these numbers of the next twenty, forty, sixty games?

Good analysis. TP.

[Fafnir]

My main hope for improvement of our offense is that if Marcus and Terry can shoot just below average instead of NBA record setting bad our eFG% will rise considerably.

[PhoSita]

Not sure what opposition FT% tells us.  Maybe that, whilst good in this area, we could still improve, and hence we should give Nader a full time distraction/towel-waving job.

Seriously though, agree with your points: shooting %'s will normalize.

Opponent free throws per 100 is a measure of how often the Celts commit shooting fouls or allow an opponent to get in the bonus.  That is something at least partially within their control.

[PhoSita]

I do expect the defense to regress a bit. It just doesn't make sense that we'd be that much better than last year, even if you buy the narrative that AB + Crowder were both overrated defensively. 

I think it does make sense actually, when you consider how much smaller the Celts were in the backcourt and on the wing.  In addition to that, exchanging Amir, Kelly, and Jonas for Baynes, Morris, and Theis appears to have been a fairly major upgrade in terms of defensive versatility, mobility, and defensive rebounding.

[PhoSita]

The opponent's turnover percentage ranking is incorrect. A higher opponent's TOV% is good for us. We're actually tied for 13th and effectively within a hair of being tied for eight best.

https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/opponent-turnovers-per-possession

[ThePaintedArea]

Not sure what opposition FT% tells us.  Maybe that, whilst good in this area, we could still improve, and hence we should give Nader a full time distraction/towel-waving job.

Seriously though, agree with your points: shooting %'s will normalize.

Opponent free throws per 100 is a measure of how often the Celts commit shooting fouls or allow an opponent to get in the bonus.  That is something at least partially within their control.

Dean Oliver's measure for free throws is simple but sophisticated: FT Makes per FG Attempt.  So it factors in not only how many free throws you're making, but how often you get to the line, – and it controls for possessions.

 It doesn't look to me as though the site that you're looking at has the stat. I think that his original gives you the most information about how possessions are being used – which is  what the four factors attempt to summarize.