[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: .449 not bad



Is it really possible they held the Magic to 45% last night?  It seemed
more like 89%.  I don't think any statistical magic can explain away
giving up 117 points.  To me, the score is the only stat that really
matters.
I don't say that to be self-righteous; I just never find statistical
analysis
useful, unless it's an overwhelming figure, like 1-17 on the road, or 
an amazing stat line, like Herren's the other night.

Josh Ozersky	
Marketing Communications Specialist 
Corning Museum of Glass

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Hironaka [SMTP:j.hironaka@unesco.org]
> Sent:	Tuesday, October 24, 2000 1:01 PM
> To:	celtics@igtc.com
> Subject:	.449 not bad
> 
> I somehow recall reading that Pitino felt his defensive system could
> translate into consistent NBA wins if the Celts could hold opponents to,
> I think, less than .460FG%.
> 
> Whether he actually said this or not, this notion does make great sense
> to me (since the Celts gamble and force so many turnovers).
> 
> But after getting pasted twice to start the preseason, the Celtics have
> not only held opponents to a low FG% in the past four games (.449) but
> they have done so with terrific consistency (44.6, 44.8, 44.6, 45.6).
> Call it "Fo-Fo, Fo-Fo, Fo-Fo, Fo-Five".
> 
> Now consistency against four teams (none of whom incidentally made the
> playoffs last year, although Orlando came closest) does not a winning
> season make, but it is a positive sign regardless. A very positive sign
> maybe.
> 
> These numbers would have placed the Celtics 14th in the league last
> season, which puts us well within the margin of error for making the
> playoffs given last year's ninth ranked offense in points per game.
> 
> Since I'm on this subject, I'll try to break it down just a little
> further using the NBA.COM stats.
> 
> There is no stat for missed or avoided shot attempts, but the actual
> numbers on our team shotblocks over the last four games has been fairly
> unimpressive at 4.25 (which would have only ranked 25th in the league
> last year).
> 
> As for rebounding and rebounding differential (a huge concern coming in)
> the Celtics have averaged 40 a game in that span (3.0 less than last
> season and sadly the equivalent of dead last in last season's NBA). They
> have also been outrebounded by 3.5 per game (versus a plus 1.6 total
> last year due to the Fortson-effect, with his 6.7 in 15.6 minutes).
> 
> Last year, the Celts averaged a whopping 3.0 more offensive boards last
> season than their opponents, but thus far they have given up 56
> offensive boards (a rather high total) and managed 47 themselves.
> 
> So lets hope we get better on the boards once the real games begin!
> There could be upside once Batgirl stops moping about his empty,
> idiotic, all-talk boast that he would start all 82 games at center, and
> once Eurobattie stops doing the "tapisserie" (being a  wallflower) as
> the French say. Moiso has what could be a painful to watch,
> underachiever mentality mixed with his desire to contribute. I hope Bill
> Russell and the other old-school people in camp grasp the level of his
> innate talent and find a way to light a fire under him. He's slid into a
> 12th man slot in the past four games, averaging just 2.5 ppg.
> 
> I need to end with good news.  The Celtics are forcing a whopping 24.25
> turnovers per game, 6.5 more than any team in the NBA last year. The
> Celtics were fifth overall last year and if they are healthy, it is safe
> to say that even Dan Forant would predict they can maintain or improve
> on that level this year.
> 
> But the last stat also demonstrates why you can't read too much into
> these mixed trends, because this is the (sloppy) preseason and just one
> bad or good game tonight could blow up these emerging statistical
> patterns (I do expect however that we can hold Atlanta to a "fo-fo"
> shooting night). I know this post is an example of over-kill analysis,
> but I guess this level of information is part of what this list exists
> for.
> 
> Go Celts!
> 
> 
> Joe
> 
> -------
> 
>