Offense this year.

[LooseCannon]

1. Boston was 23rd out of 30 for pace. Is this important?

It's not that important.  Cleveland was 25th.  The Lakers 14th.  Of the 7 teams with a lower pace factor than Boston, 5 made the playoffs.  The top three teams in pace were Golden State, Minnesota, and Indiana.

It merely means the Celtics play a slower game than most teams and that you have to take that into account when analyzing stats.

[BballTim]

1. Boston was 23rd out of 30 for pace. Is this important?

It's not that important.  Cleveland was 25th.  The Lakers 14th.  Of the 7 teams with a lower pace factor than Boston, 5 made the playoffs.  The top three teams in pace were Golden State, Minnesota, and Indiana.

It merely means the Celtics play a slower game than most teams and that you have to take that into account when analyzing stats.

  It's also true that teams play at a slower pace in the playoffs, where it's a big advantage to have a good half court offense (and defense).

[SalmonAndMashedPotatoes]

Interesting thread, everyone.

I'll make one observation.  Regardless of whether we're talking about bad teams like the 2006-2007 team or all-time great teams like the 2007-2008 team, high turnover #s have been a hallmark of the Doc Rivers era. If you want to look at a culprit, look at the offensive system implemented by Doc.  

That said, I expect this year's team to be the best offensive team we've had in Doc's tenure.  Doesn't mean we won't be among the worst teams in the league at keeping possession of the ball though...

[Fan from VT]

1. Boston was 23rd out of 30 for pace. Is this important?

It's not that important.  Cleveland was 25th.  The Lakers 14th.  Of the 7 teams with a lower pace factor than Boston, 5 made the playoffs.  The top three teams in pace were Golden State, Minnesota, and Indiana.

It merely means the Celtics play a slower game than most teams and that you have to take that into account when analyzing stats.

I don't think it's that important either. But what I was wondering was if some people thought that Boston at all benefited from a slow pace, because taking quicker shots, while also cutting down on turnovers, would also increase pace. Therefore, if you thought, say, that our defensive abilities were in part controlled by having a slow pace (even when adjusted for pace), then it would not be worth it to have quicker offensive possessions.

[LooseCannon]

That would be backwards.  Slowing down the pace doesn't help the defense.  Having a good defense is part of what slows the pace.  An unselfish offense where players are willing to make the extra pass also slows the pace.

Cutting down turnovers would slow the pace because your offensive possessions would last longer and your opponents would have fewer quick transition scoring opportunities.

[Roy H.]

That would be backwards.  Slowing down the pace doesn't help the defense. 

I get your point, but I think slowing down the pace also helps the defense.  Teams that play at a really quick pace generally fast break a lot, which in turn leads to their opponents fast-breaking a lot.  This makes it very hard for the fast-paced team's defense to get set, which hurts its defense.

I would guess that teams that are in the top-five in pace factor are rarely in the top-ten in defensive efficiency (i.e., points allowed per 100 possessions).

[moiso]

That would be backwards.  Slowing down the pace doesn't help the defense. 

I get your point, but I think slowing down the pace also helps the defense.  Teams that play at a really quick pace generally fast break a lot, which in turn leads to their opponents fast-breaking a lot.  This makes it very hard for the fast-paced team's defense to get set, which hurts its defense.

I would guess that teams that are in the top-five in pace factor are rarely in the top-ten in defensive efficiency (i.e., points allowed per 100 possessions).

Especially for a team whose bigs are either old, slow, fat, or a combination of one or more.  We will defend the halfcourt well, but centers who can run could give us trouble.