No offense?

[BballTim]

This past season, the Celtics team took 6883 shots. Of those shots:

14% (963.62 FGA) of them occurred after 21 seconds passed on the 24 sec shot clock.

Of the 96.2 ppg, 9.4 ppg (9.77%) were produced "late in the shot clock" on eFG% 0.402, yuck!

How bout champs Spurs? Total FGA = 6844, Late shot clock: 12% or 821.28 fga on eFG% 0.461 producing 9.2ppg or 8.72% (105.4 ppg)

Heat? Total FGAs = 6272, late shot clock:  18% or 1128.96 fga !!! on  eFG% 0.477 producing 13.2 ppg !! Or 12.91% (102.2 ppg).

League AVG - 6806 total FGA / 13.433 % late in clock (914.25 fga) / on 0.429 eFGA

So Celtics did shoot more (83.9 FGA/G) than the league average of 83.0/g, and the C's did shoot more late in shot clock shots, 14% to 13.433%....but not by much.

On those late shot clock shots, what the C's did (0.402 eFG%) was shoot less than the league avg (0.429 eFG%)

These stats reflect that our team needs better quality shooters. We are 3rd to last in eFG%. Taking these shots with the clock winding down, isn't going to help our kinds of players. But we don't take these kinds of shots aggregiously more so than the average team, only slightly more.

Another key aspect to look at is maybe we shouldn't be taking 70% of our FGAs as jump shots. But remember, a basketball offense isn't strictly dependent on the 0-playbook. Opposing defenses play a factor too. If they know we are weak shooting team, they are going to give us the open jumper, on purpose.

Please don't ask me how long this research took LOL!

  One small point, those breakdowns of points for different times in the shot clock don't include FTs, so it's 9.4 out of 80 or so, not 96.

  But more to the point, all of that ball-pounding by Rondo led to the exact same percentage of end of shot clock FGAs as our opponents, and about 4% more than the league average. That's rougly 1 more end of the shot clock FGA every other game.  In other words, the effect of Rondo's "ball pounding" on the number of end of shot clock FGAs we take is too small for anyone to notice if they watch the games.

[LB3533]

  One small point, those breakdowns of points for different times in the shot clock don't include FTs, so it's 9.4 out of 80 or so, not 96.

  But more to the point, all of that ball-pounding by Rondo led to the exact same percentage of end of shot clock FGAs as our opponents, and about 4% more than the league average. That's rougly 1 more end of the shot clock FGA every other game.  In other words, the effect of Rondo's "ball pounding" on the number of end of shot clock FGAs we take is too small for anyone to notice if they watch the games.

The complaints placed upon our upper echlon players (Rondo, JGreen) need to be put to rest. The overabundance of praise on our younger, but less talented players need to be less significant. It's nice and good to root for our youngsters, but they are not the caliber of talent to lead this team, anywhere, except maybe to another lottery.

Rondo's fictitious "pounding the ball" until the clock runs out, isn't a detriment to the team. I trust the football in Tom Brady's hands. I trust the basketball in Rondo's hands. I prefer the rest of the C's teammates touch/hold the ball as little as possible, and the touch of the ball they do feel is just the touch right before a scoring attempt.

This past season the C's have had an AVG age below the league average for the first time in Rondo's career. Every other season Rondo has played in, he has been on a team with an average age greater than the league AVG. When Rondo was blessed to be apart of the Big 4, the average age of them ranged from 27.4 - 29.5 yrs old. This past season? 25.4 y/o average age. Tied for 7th youngest in the league, and below the league AVG of 26.6 y/o.

9 / 11 teams (82%) above that league AVG (26.6 y/0) went to the playoffs. Two did not. (LAL + NYK)

7 out of 19 teams (37%) below that league AVG (26.6 y/o) went to the playoffs. 63% did not. We don't need to get younger. We don't need MORE in experience, less talented players.

We should be doing everything in our power to placate Rondo's wishes.

[Mazingerz]

We had trouble scoring late in games with Ray Allen, PP and KG.   We are really going to have it now.

Because Doc would give the ball to PP and say do your thang baby.

[TeamGreen.dm]

We had trouble scoring late in games with Ray Allen, PP and KG.   We are really going to have it now.

Because Doc would give the ball to PP and say do your thang baby.

Problem is we don't have a PP. We don't have a player for anyone to feel comfortable asking for them to "do their thang". I'm hoping as are most that Marcus Smart or James Young become that person but on the current roster we don't have a go to or an offensively elite player.

[hwangjini_1]

This past season, the Celtics team took 6883 shots. Of those shots:

14% (963.62 FGA) of them occurred after 21 seconds passed on the 24 sec shot clock.

Of the 96.2 ppg, 9.4 ppg (9.77%) were produced "late in the shot clock" on eFG% 0.402, yuck!

How bout champs Spurs? Total FGA = 6844, Late shot clock: 12% or 821.28 fga on eFG% 0.461 producing 9.2ppg or 8.72% (105.4 ppg)

Heat? Total FGAs = 6272, late shot clock:  18% or 1128.96 fga !!! on  eFG% 0.477 producing 13.2 ppg !! Or 12.91% (102.2 ppg).

League AVG - 6806 total FGA / 13.433 % late in clock (914.25 fga) / on 0.429 eFGA

So Celtics did shoot more (83.9 FGA/G) than the league average of 83.0/g, and the C's did shoot more late in shot clock shots, 14% to 13.433%....but not by much.

On those late shot clock shots, what the C's did (0.402 eFG%) was shoot less than the league avg (0.429 eFG%)

These stats reflect that our team needs better quality shooters. We are 3rd to last in eFG%. Taking these shots with the clock winding down, isn't going to help our kinds of players. But we don't take these kinds of shots aggregiously more so than the average team, only slightly more.

Another key aspect to look at is maybe we shouldn't be taking 70% of our FGAs as jump shots. But remember, a basketball offense isn't strictly dependent on the 0-playbook. Opposing defenses play a factor too. If they know we are weak shooting team, they are going to give us the open jumper, on purpose.

Please don't ask me how long this research took LOL!

Great work lb. thanks for the time and effort. It really is good to see this. Tp for the work.

As far as to what this indicates about rondo, the data is not disaggregated enough to conclude diddly squat. That is, the data lumps together both rondo-games and non-rondo- games, correct?

What would be interesting would be seeing if there was a significant difference in late-clock shots when rondo was in as opposed to out.

[BballTim]

This past season, the Celtics team took 6883 shots. Of those shots:

14% (963.62 FGA) of them occurred after 21 seconds passed on the 24 sec shot clock.

Of the 96.2 ppg, 9.4 ppg (9.77%) were produced "late in the shot clock" on eFG% 0.402, yuck!

How bout champs Spurs? Total FGA = 6844, Late shot clock: 12% or 821.28 fga on eFG% 0.461 producing 9.2ppg or 8.72% (105.4 ppg)

Heat? Total FGAs = 6272, late shot clock:  18% or 1128.96 fga !!! on  eFG% 0.477 producing 13.2 ppg !! Or 12.91% (102.2 ppg).

League AVG - 6806 total FGA / 13.433 % late in clock (914.25 fga) / on 0.429 eFGA

So Celtics did shoot more (83.9 FGA/G) than the league average of 83.0/g, and the C's did shoot more late in shot clock shots, 14% to 13.433%....but not by much.

On those late shot clock shots, what the C's did (0.402 eFG%) was shoot less than the league avg (0.429 eFG%)

These stats reflect that our team needs better quality shooters. We are 3rd to last in eFG%. Taking these shots with the clock winding down, isn't going to help our kinds of players. But we don't take these kinds of shots aggregiously more so than the average team, only slightly more.

Another key aspect to look at is maybe we shouldn't be taking 70% of our FGAs as jump shots. But remember, a basketball offense isn't strictly dependent on the 0-playbook. Opposing defenses play a factor too. If they know we are weak shooting team, they are going to give us the open jumper, on purpose.

Please don't ask me how long this research took LOL!

Great work lb. thanks for the time and effort. It really is good to see this. Tp for the work.

As far as to what this indicates about rondo, the data is not disaggregated enough to conclude diddly squat. That is, the data lumps together both rondo-games and non-rondo- games, correct?

What would be interesting would be seeing if there was a significant difference in late-clock shots when rondo was in as opposed to out.

  I'd guess it would be hard to find that out, but I think you'd find little to no change. The percentage of our shots at the end of the clock didn't really change after Rondo's knee injuryin 2013, and it didn't really change after his return from his knee surgery in 2014.