Celtics, turnovers and the playoffs

campybatman · Post #1 » by **campybatman** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 8:45 pm

That is to say, rather than teams such as Detroit or Orlando being examples of potential challenges to Boston to reach the NBA finals, if they should reach the eastern conference finals. Could not committing as many team turnovers be the biggest challenge for the Celtics during the playoffs?

Boston's a tasty jar of pickles. The Celtics have been, by far, the best NBA team this season. They have an absolutely dominant defense, as good as those the Spurs have presented during their title era. The offense is quite good, too -- #11 in the league.

But there are questions about Boston. As the quality of competition rises, ball-handling takes on increased import. And the Celtics are the absolute worst team in the league in turnover ratio (in other words, Boston's possessions end in turnovers more than any other team in the entire league ... even the Knicks). The Celtics also foul quite a bit, ranking #23 in defensive free throw rate. The playoffs are filled with exactly the sort of star players (LeBron, Kobe, Amare, Bosh, Billups, Gilbert, Manu) who draw a ton of fouls. (But yeah, Boston is tremendous.)

http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2008/04/ ... nba-title/

Post #2 » by **tlee324** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 9:24 pm

Digging deep, it's not that they amass a lot of turnovers overall, but when looking at their low FGA in comparison to their turnovers, the ratio comes up big. I would like to see, however, how they would rank in terms of FG% to turnover ratio. To me, their redeeming quality on offense is that they work to gain high-percentage baskets. They also get to the FT line quite a lot, 9th in the NBA. The big number statistically is their lack of FGAs... but with the defense playing as well as they have, and the offense being efficient-but-non prolific, this ratio is more of a statistical aberration than an indication of major weakness or a future hindrance come playoff time. If they continue to play the way they're playing, the stats will be what they are, but the wins will still come.... and the championship as well.

Athanacropolis · Post #3 » by **Athanacropolis** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:51 am

BadMuthaCeltic wrote:Digging deep, it's not that they amass a lot of turnovers overall, but when looking at their low FGA in comparison to their turnovers, the ratio comes up big. I would like to see, however, how they would rank in terms of FG% to turnover ratio. To me, their redeeming quality on offense is that they work to gain high-percentage baskets. They also get to the FT line quite a lot, 9th in the NBA. The big number statistically is their lack of FGAs... but with the defense playing as well as they have, and the offense being efficient-but-non prolific, this ratio is more of a statistical aberration than an indication of major weakness or a future hindrance come playoff time. If they continue to play the way they're playing, the stats will be what they are, but the wins will still come.... and the championship as well.

What you said BadMutha. Exactly what I thought upon reading this little blurb. I think the most glaring example of the Celtics beating themselves was in New Orleans, so against quality teams they'll have to take care of the ball. Which is something I'm sure that they'll be keyed into come playoff time when the play quality teams in the second and third rounds.

campybatman · Post #4 » by **campybatman** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 3:19 am

I feel you're probably apt to have a high turnover to assist ratio if you're a team that spreads the ball around as often as the Celtic players do. They've done so this season to a fault. I mean I've watched sequences when the Celtics have possession and they've had a shot clock violation or a blown layup due to passing one too many times or too late on a fast break where the number of players favor Boston.

Oftentimes, I'll watch these Boston games wishing the Celtics were a more traditional team where the point guard dominates the ball as oppose to having multiple players alternate with handling the ball. You can see Rondo getting frustrated at times because he's calling for the ball and Ray Allen or Pierce will bring the ball up or the in bounding player (usually Perkins) doesn't get the ball into play fast enough. Rondo wants to run... How many times is he at the other end of the court and his teammates are behind him? If he waits... The defense is able to adjust accordingly. If he goes it alone. No one's there to rebound if Rondo misses the layup or is blocked.

billfromBoston · Post #5 » by **billfromBoston** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 4:13 am

BadMuthaCeltic wrote:Digging deep, it's not that they amass a lot of turnovers overall, but when looking at their low FGA in comparison to their turnovers, the ratio comes up big. I would like to see, however, how they would rank in terms of FG% to turnover ratio. To me, their redeeming quality on offense is that they work to gain high-percentage baskets. They also get to the FT line quite a lot, 9th in the NBA. The big number statistically is their lack of FGAs... but with the defense playing as well as they have, and the offense being efficient-but-non prolific, this ratio is more of a statistical aberration than an indication of major weakness or a future hindrance come playoff time. If they continue to play the way they're playing, the stats will be what they are, but the wins will still come.... and the championship as well.

...an extention of that is there ast/fga ratio, which has to be tops in the league or top 3 at least...they are extremly efficient scoring...

Also, I think you've got to look at these numbers more closely...what is there TO/FGA ratio against playoff teams? How about the top 10 teams record-wise? I'd bet its much better than most of those same top 10 against each other...

I think Boston has been pretty good at protecting the ball when they're focused...they don't seem to make costly TO's against tough competition too often...

Post #6 » by **Bleeding Green** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 5:32 am

Three things that taste delicious with ice cream.

Relative Autonomy · Post #7 » by **Relative Autonomy** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 12:43 pm

that article is awesome.

this is chart is a type of analysis taken out of a chunk of sociology called field theory. Pierre Bourdieu was the first to do work like that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Bourdieu#Field

basically you come up with at least two variables (offensive ability and defensive ability) and you map them out relative to each other to get a look at "the field of forces" (here, the nba) that all the points (in this case the nba teams) constitute.

You could add a third axis, cap flexibility or really anything else you think you could quantify. You even could look at it over time.

its more traditional contexts, this is used to map out whole societies and or intellectual debates. in politics the two classic varibles used are economic capital $$$$ and status capital or prestige.

you can really apply this method to anything. right now i am reading a book that applies to the break down the soviet union and the war in Chechnya its pretty awesome to see it applied to sports.