Pierce top efficiency - but Celtics as a team? (was Athlon Sports on scoring efficiency)

["Thomas Murphy" <tfmiii@worldnet.att.net>]

Just a few quick notes:

- I was under the impression that all performances were included (extremely
good and extremely bad) so the measure in effect does seek out the players
median which is then quantified versus the league average.

- The league average was selected so that one could generate a % (how many
performances above a certain %) to use as a scale to evaluate different
players. The measure would not have changed if they had presented us with
the raw data but it is easier to read when placed on a percent scale. There
is therefore no guarantee that an 'above average performance' would result
in a win, just the assumption (a reasonable one I thought) that players
whose median performance are more 'efficient' than average give their teams
a better chance of winning than those who tend to be less efficient than
average (without getting into other factors such as reb, ast, etc).

What has really struck me however is that regardless of the measure one uses
Paul Pierce was the 2nd most efficient scorer in the entire NBA - and
despite that fact the Celts had one of the worst offenses in the league!?!
Think about that for a second - how bad must our team offense truly be if a
major chunk of it is more efficient than anyone except Shaq and yet the
offense as a whole it ranks somewhere in the bottom tier of the NBA?
94.6 PPG - 16th in the league
42.8 FG% - 25th in the league
20.8 APG - 20th in the league (22nd in league when measured ast/to)
and 22nd in pts per possession
http://cbs.sportsline.com/superstats/data/nba/ (They also have this measure
for players though I'm not quite sure how they derive it.)

This is why I think JO'B needs to focus on the offense A LOT more than he
has done up to this point. He's had a major role on this team for years,
he's been the head man since the start of the calendar year, and yet we
still seem to have the same pathetic offensive scheme that managed to swamp
the 2nd most efficient scoring performance by an individual last season! It
is truly refreshing to see them running but the halfcourt 'offense' still
looks awful (as is evident from the shooting %). I was surprised to read an
insightful probing of this problem in an article in the Patriot Ledger
online. (Too bad Eric McHugh doesn't write for one of the major dailies. If
this one article is indicative, it sounds as if he's easily got more on the
ball than Cofman and Springer combined.)
-------------
Celtics still seeking some shooting stars

By ERIC McHUGH
The Patriot Ledger

BOSTON - To the surprise of the media surrounding his locker, Antoine Walker
completed his postgame attire last night by donning a pair of stylish
eyeglasses.

Turns out it was just for show. The glasses were a prop, he revealed. No
prescription, just a fashion statement.

Too bad, a cynic might have suggested, because ever since the preseason
began two weeks ago, Walker and his Celtics teammates have looked like they
were begging for a field trip to the optometrist.

The Celtics lugged the NBA's worst shooting percentage (.370) into last
night's exhibition game against the Andre Miller-less Cavaliers, a stat
coach Jim O'Brien called "troubling." So, the best part of the 96-88 victory
over Cleveland was that the Celtics bumped that number up a bit. Hitting 35
of 86 (40.7 percent) from the floor didn't exactly qualify as robust, but it
was an improvement. More important, the Celtics insist, it is a sign of
better things to come.

They had better be right because the brick-layer numbers they've tossed up
lately (26.6 percent against San Antonio, 36.7 percent against Charlotte, to
name a couple) won't cut it once the regular season starts next Tuesday in
Cleveland.

"We haven't shot the ball great this preseason," Walker said, "but we feel
like that's going to come with time. We feel like we're good enough that we
can do that."

Walker, who came into the game as one of the main culprits (38.2 percent),
hit 8 of 17 shots to finish with a game-high 26 points. That performance,
coming on the heels of his 13-for-23, 38-point effort against Milwaukee, was
heartening.

Not so with Paul Pierce (12 points on 6-for-21 shooting), who continues to
struggle. Still, the Celtics picked up the slack with a balanced attack that
featured 12 points each from Milt Palacio and Mark Blount, plus 10 points
from rookie Joe Johnson.

"That was good to see," Pierce said. "We had a number of guys who really
stepped up tonight. It was a team effort. It didn't just have to come from
me and Antoine. (The offense) is really starting to catch up to the
 defense."

That's the Celtics' party line - that O'Brien and the coaching staff spent
so much time early in the preseason concentrating on defense and rebounding
that the offensive section of the lesson plan got ignored.

Whatever the reason, the shooting numbers have certainly suffered. Entering
last night's game Walker had plenty of company in the cold-hand department.
Palacio (.452) and Kenny Anderson (.421) were respectable, but the likes of
Tony Battie (.385), Blount (.286) and Vitaly Potapenko (.250) weren't. The
rookies - Johnson (.333), Joseph Forte (.323) and Kedrick Brown (.313) - get
passes, but what about the rest of them?

"That's some of the things we tried to clean up in practice (the last few
days) - moving the ball around a little more, getting our plays done, going
with what works," Palacio said. "That's the big thing we try to do - go with
what works, and that's getting the ball to our two scorers and feeding off
them."

One of those scorers, Pierce, has been uncharacteristically spotty from the
floor, though. After hitting at a 45-percent clip last season (when he
averaged 25 points, eighth best in the league), he's at 39.4 percent right
now. He's been especially brutal from 3-point range - 31.3 percent overall
after an 0-for-5 last night. He also attempted only one free throw in 35
minutes. Remember, he set a franchise record with 738 trips to the line last
season.

"I got a lot of good shots up," said Pierce, who had two dunks and a layup
among his six baskets. "I didn't really force a lot of shots; they were
wide-open shots I normally knock down. But it's nothing I'm really worried
about. I'm never going to lose my confidence. I'm going to keep shooting the
ball. They'll fall. They'll fall when it counts."

O'Brien acknowledged that Pierce struggled with his touch but pointed to his
10 rebounds, six assists and two blocks as evidence that "there are ways to
contribute to a basketball team other than points."

Overall, O'Brien sounded pleased with the progress (slow as it may be) that
the offense has made. The Celtics scored 106 points in an overtime loss to
Milwaukee last Friday and would have cracked triple digits again last night
if they hadn't gone cold late (one basket in the final four minutes).

O'Brien also saw good omens in their preseason-high 26 assists and a
deceptive total of 18 turnovers, five of which came in the final 2:49 when
the Cavs applied a full-court press during garbage time. The Celtics came in
averaging 19.5 turnovers per game, fifth worst in the league, and O'Brien
boldly declared, "Turnovers to me are more of a concern (at this point than
shooting percentage) because I really believe we have enough firepower to
put points on the board."

That's debatable since the Celtics averaged 94.6 points last season, only
16th best in the league, despite having two of the top 11 individual
scorers. They also shot just 42.8 percent, better than only four other
teams. When asked about the never-ending search for a reliable third scoring
option, O'Brien volunteered the names of Eric Williams (6 points last night,
averaging 7.6 in the preseason) and Anderson, who is averaging 6.3 points
but sat out with a sore knee.

"I don't have to look any further than Kenny and Eric to find somebody else
to score on our basketball team," O'Brien said.

Assuming, of course, that they find their shooting touch. So far, that's
been an elusive commodity for the Celtics.
--
The win snapped a four-game preseason losing streak for the Celtics (3-4),
who finish up the campaign tomorrow night at Mohegan Sun Arena in
Uncasville, Conn., against Michael Jordan and the Washington Wizards ...
Point guard Chris Herren saw his first significant playing time of the
preseason, scoring 3 points in 19 minutes with five rebounds, three steals,
two turnovers and an assist. He had played in only one of the previous six
games ... The Celtics are holding opponents to 41.3 percent from the floor,
an improvement on last year's mark of 45.9. However, opponents are shooting
a whopping 40 percent from 3-point range after the Cavs nailed 10 of 21 from
behind the arc last night ... Center Tony Battie was active with eight
points, five rebounds and three blocks.
--------------
> When I called the cut off point "arbitrary" I meant that there is no
> specific reason for putting it where it is.  I don't have the original
post
> anymore, but my recollection of the rationalization is that any
performance
> that exceeds the league average efficiency helps your team win, and any
that
> falls short of it does not.  I think that's an entirely unsafe assumption.
> There are countless factors other than the league average efficiency to
> consider.  For instance, if Milwaukee allow their opponents to score much
> more efficiently than New York, then their own players need to score more
> efficiently to "help their team win".  Conversely, a player on the Celtics
> may help his team win against New York with a much less efficient game
than
> in a game against Milwaukee.  Another example would be that it would be
much
> harder to score efficiently in a game where the referees were not calling
> many fouls.  A below average efficiency in that game might actually do the
> job.  Applying the same standard to every game on the calendar seems bound
> to produce misleading results.  This is why I feel like this rating is
> claiming to measure something it can't possibly measure, which is the
number
> of games that a player's scoring was good enough to help his team win the
> game.
>
> It also seems misleading to me that extraordinarily good games are
included
> in this measure, but poor ones are not.  We can't expect Walter McCarty to
> have another 6-6 3pt. shooting night like he did a couple of years ago,
but
> his rating would be helped by that game.  Why is this method better than
> taking the median?  That would seem to more fairly account for both
positive
> and negative outliers.