Volume shooting

Sam has mentioned this so I did a little figureing

Currently we have attempted 644 FG's figures out to be 80.5 FGA per game.
Now I know it's not exact by any means but I am assuming that for the 48 minutes each team has the ball about 1/2 the time.
If that is the case we are shooting the ball on average every 17.8 seconds we have possession.

Over the last 4 games we have attempted 87.5 shots per game, which figures to be about 1 shot every 16.5 seconds that we have the ball. (first 4 games we averaged 72 FGA per game)

Went back to Sam's season of 60-61

That year the C's lauched 9295 field goals in 79 games.......or 117 FGA per game. Again figuring the possession time as equal we were putting up a shot every 12.3 seconds that we had possesion.

Checked the 75-76 season

7901 FGA or 96.3 attempts per game...... or a shot every 14.9 seconds we have the ball.

07-08 season

6286 FGA or 76.6 FGA per game or 18.7 seconds per possession.

Certainly volume shooting will never be what it was years ago and other factors such as turnovers and offensive rebounding factor in but our trend is certainly heading that way.

beat

As Sam also mentioned, Boston's pace can easily lure other teams to get into the same pace of putting up a lot of shots.

This team has a bunch of guys that can get out and run. They could be averaging at least 100 shots per game.




KJ

KJ

Think 100 shots per game is a bit out of reach. We don't have the rebounding offensively or defensively to give us that opportunity. Think the 85-90 range is about all we can expect from this bunch. We have been able to sustain the pace much better but can we find another gear? And would it cause the other factor, turnovers?

Only thing we can do to other teams is put pressure on the ball as much as possible. We really can't force them to take "more" shots but we can affect the shots they do take.

We will see how much pace factors in to whatever happens tonight.

beat

beat,

I think this will help to clarify a few things, specifically, the middle chart: Shot Clock Usage.


http://www.82games.com/1314/1314BOS3.HTM


What this shows is that 40% of our shots come with less than 10 seconds off the shot clock. On the other end of the spectrum, only 17% of our shots come with 21+ seconds gone (i.e. 3 seconds or less left).

I have no idea how this chart would look back in Cowens' or Russell's day, but I suspect it would look like this, perhaps even more so. Tommy's presence on the bench, alone, would suggest higher volume basketball.

And that would include his voice. LOL.


bob


.

Beat, KJ and BobH,

Thanks for picking up on the volume shooting theme, which you know is near and dear to my heart. And double thanks for all the calculations, Beat.

The factor most negating the possibility of hoisting 95-100 shots per game on a regular basis involves the opposition. The Russell Celtics' success with what some people called "racehorse basketball" led most opposing teams to try to adopt that approach during the two or three years between the Celtics' first championship and the 1960-61 season. By that season, up-tempo basketball was in full flower around the league. In the 1965 game-long documentary video I keep talking about between the Celtics and Cincinnati, there's virtually no walking the ball up the court and relatively few instances of jogging it upcourt. And playing against the Celtics spurred other teams to run more than usual. And that's what enabled the Celtics to break the 100 FGA per game on a regular basis.

I marveled then, and I still marvel now, that they were able to operate at that pace and still take such good care of the ball. One reason was that they used the pass versus the dribble FAR more than was the case as the decades went by. The dribble took more time, allowed opponents more opportunity to get back, and resulted in more turnovers and/or contested shots off the break.

Oh, how I wish today's stat categories had been kept back then. I'd be willing—make that "eager")-to bet that a bad game by the Russell Celtics would have featured up to 10 turnovers and would have eventuated in an Auerbachian tongue lashing.

The Celtics proved back then that fierce yet controlled tempo could beat even exceptional height. The main reasons were twofold. (1) The other team almost always had to work harder for their baskets than the Celtics did (given the number of Celtics fast break points). (2) The other team was far more likely to be pooped down the stretch than the deep Celtics were.

By the time of Jo Jo White, the game tempo had declined as demonstrated by Beat. Based on Beat's calculations, the number of Celtics' shots per game in 1975-76 was 18% fewer than in 1960-61. By 2007-08, the decrease since 1960-61 was 35%. I also looked up the Celtics figures from 1985-86, and that team took 24% fewer shots per game than the 1960-61 edition.

Sam

Against MIA, Boston took 89 shots. There were quite a few times when they walked the ball up the court. I think an increase is possible under the proper circumstances.



KJ

KJ

lot of other factors led to those 85 FGA

1) we only attempted 12 foul shots (Miami had 35) which leads to...we committed 25 fouls
2) We only had 12 turnovers.
3) grabbed 11 offensive rebounds

So even with those factors assisting our effort still only got 85 shots up. If Miami was called for more fouls........ if we had more turnovers............. if we got less offensive rebounds our total would have been much much less.


Look at our opening loss to Toronto, we had 66 FGA

1) We shot 29 foul shots (perhaps as many as 12 less shots, compaired to the Miami game)
2) We had 22 turnovers (perhaps 10 less shots)
3) We had 7 offensive rebounds. (perhaps 4 less shots)

So there were perhaps as many as 26 FGA we did not get that game. Could have gotten perhaps as many as 92 shots off. Think getting 100 FGA is a bit of a pipe dream. Too much has to go just right for that to happen.

Think 85-90 FGA is about max given our limitations right now. Too much racehorse will result in more turnovers and perhaps poorer shot selection.

We'll see how this trend goes.

beat

beat wrote:KJ

Think 100 shots per game is a bit out of reach. We don't have the rebounding offensively or defensively to give us that opportunity. Think the 85-90 range is about all we can expect from this bunch. We have been able to sustain the pace much better but can we find another gear? And would it cause the other factor, turnovers?

Only thing we can do to other teams is put pressure on the ball as much as possible. We really can't force them to take "more" shots but we can affect the shots they do take.

We will see how much pace factors in to whatever happens tonight.

It is early in the season, and interpretation of stats is limited due to the sample size, but that didn't stop me from interpreting anyway.

I initially looked at basketball-reference.com and NBA.com:

http://bkref.com/tiny/NuGij

http://stats.nba.com/leagueTeamGeneral.html?MeasureType=Advanced&PerMode=Totals&sortField=PACE&sortOrder=DES&pageNo=1&rowsPerPage=30

While the pace numbers are different, it's notable that both sites show the Celtics as 18th in pace, which is slightly below average. Considering that the general consensus here is that they're playing at an above-average pace, I found that curious.

So I looked a little further.

The common measuring stick for pace is possessions per 48 minutes. I don't know exactly how each site calculates pace, but it seems to me that you can identify a possession by how it ends -- in a field goal attempt, turnover, or free throws. There are nuances to this; in particular, it's not clear how to differentiate between a free throw attempt that is part of two free throws vs. an "and-one" free throw that is in addition to a field goal attempt or a technical-type free throw that is separate from a possession (for a technical, flagrant, illegal defense, or whatever). So I came up with my own crude possession calculator:

Field goal attempts + half of the free throw attempts + turnovers

Then I looked at the four Celtic losses compared to the four wins:

Wins:  http://bkref.com/tiny/WzKm4
Losses: http://bkref.com/tiny/fvJ4O

Using my crude formula above, here are the possessions that I come up with for the four wins:

Utah - 110
Orlando 1 - 119
Miami - 107
Orlando 2 - 105.5
Average - 110.4

Four losses:

Toronto - 102.5
Milwaukee - 112
Detroit - 103
Memphis - 96
Average - 103.4

So they are definitely playing at a faster pace in the winning streak (seven possessions per game, based on my armchair calculation). Even though my figures are inflated due to the free-throw issue, I don't think they're getting 10 "and ones" and technical free throws during a game, so I'd say they can sustain a 100-possession-per-game pace. Indeed, in their wins, they're getting over 100 possessions per game if you count only the field goal attempts and turnovers and don't even count free throws.

Also obvious from looking at the data for wins versus losses is that they've cut down their turnovers considerably (19.75 per game in the losses, 12.5 per game in the wins) and increased the field goal attempts (71.5 per game in the losses, 89.5 per game in the wins). The increase in field goal attempts results from both the reduction in turnovers but also in the increase in pace.

The question it comes down to is this: can Boston average 3 more shot attempts per qtr?



KJ

# shots more a quarter does not sound like much but.......so much has to happen in our favor we have already got the turnovers down, to think we cut them down more is a dream.

we'll see

100FGA is just out of reach given all the factors IMHO..... not saying their won't be a game somewhere where we manage it but they will be few and far between.

beat

Depending on the flow of the game, they may not need to, if the game is anything like Orlando.



KJ

KJ

And one other factor for not getting 100 shots up, when you make 60% like we did the other eve you don't need second chances

beat