Concerning Early Season Trends

[jpotter33]

Yes, it's still very early in the season, we don't have KP yet, and we're still at a 75% winning percentage. But still, there have been some very concerning trends thus far, which I think largely boil down to two things: an overall lack of effort/engagement and an extreme/exaggerated focus on the three point shot.

Lack of effort/engagement - call it "championship hangover" or whatever you want to call it, but it is clear that we're not playing as hard or as engaged as we did last year. This shows up most clearly on the defensive end, where we struggle to keep anyone in front of us, don't make great efforts to get around screens, don't crash the boards, etc. But offensively this also leads to poor quality early jump shots, poor passing leading to turnovers, and overall forced possessions not within the flow of the offense. All of these issues were on clear display tonight against a severely inferior and undermanned Hawks team, but they've been present in large portions of games throughout the year, especially the last two weeks or so.

Exaggerated three point volume - holy hell. We came into tonight's game shooting greater than 56% of our total shots from three point range, and we shot 60% of our shots from three point range tonight. These are extreme numbers, even for a Mazzulla team. And I think a lot of this boils down to the issue of lack of effort/engagement, too, as many times these are the "easy" and lazy shots to take.

So, yes, while we're still winning 75% of our games and can likely get away with this in the terrible East, at what point do you worry about these concerning trends of a team coming off of a championship, which trend towards these very effort/engagement-oriented problems?

[SparzWizard]

Start worrying today, esp when the Knicks start finding their chemistry and punching them in the mouth. The Cavs, who are clearly the team to beat in the East, punch them hard in the mouth. You want home-court adv? Then start playing like the 73-9 Warriors or the 67-win team Warriors from 10 years ago. Don't start complaining if you have to play at Cleveland in Games 1 and 2 or play at OKC, Phoenix, or Golden State for Games 1 and 2

I'm glad we're still beating some of these bottom-dwelling teams/teams with a loss of team identity tho

[jambr380]

I said it in the other thread, but a lot of things [finally] went right for us in our run to a championship last year, which really helped because we were missing KP. I love Al, but his age is seemingly starting to catch up with him and our attempt to piece together the rest of our center rotation has only been okay.

With KP, we are an entirely different team and should be favorites to win the Title again. I understand that losses like last night can be extremely frustrating, but we always knew a championship hangover was a possibility and missing a two-way star who can totally break the game does matter. We traded our 3rd best player for him - and it was a no-brainer of a trade. That's how important he is to our success and that shouldn't be understated.

I do agree on 3-point volume, but I think that's also a product of not being as hungry as we have been in past years. It's annoying that we've already reached the point where this team doesn't feel the urgency to win random regular season games; but as long as we can remain a top seed - and most importantly, go into the playoffs healthy, I like our chances as much as anybody.

[Kernewek]

I think for me the first heuristic at this point is: Do we make this thread if last night's score is 117-116 the other way? If no, then there's nothing to worry about.

By that rule, then, there's nothing to worry about so far.

Personally, I would say it's safe to start looking at trends between the 14 and 25 game mark - 10-20 games is really too small for most things to be statistically significant, but most 'streaks' in the NBA (hot/cold/win/loss/&c.) tend to resolve within that window and this is just for fun anyway (plus you do have to say something definitively at some point, rather than equivocating).

[celticinorlando]

Start worrying today, esp when the Knicks start finding their chemistry and punching them in the mouth. The Cavs, who are clearly the team to beat in the East, punch them hard in the mouth. You want home-court adv? Then start playing like the 73-9 Warriors or the 67-win team Warriors from 10 years ago. Don't start complaining if you have to play at Cleveland in Games 1 and 2 or play at OKC, Phoenix, or Golden State for Games 1 and 2

I'm glad we're still beating some of these bottom-dwelling teams/teams with a loss of team identity tho

First off it is November. You marking the Cavs as the team to beat in the East after 12 games is par for the course. No one is worried about having to play in Cleveland in the playoffs. Cav fans don't even think they can beat the Celtics in a series. Last I checked the Celtics have been a great road team in the playoffs....the last few seasons. Seeding means nothing to this team. Make the playoffs with health.

You soon forget the Cavs went on a 17-1 stretch last season and couldn't make it out of round two. Barely survived round one.

Do the Cs need to start better? Yes. Will we remember November come the spring. No. Celtics are still the team to beat in all of the NBA.

[Donoghus]

Checks calendar.  November 13. 

[Phantom255x]

For me it's the 3-point volume being excessive, and that also sort of plays into the "lack of effort" some nights. It's easy to just jack up a bunch of 3s, even if contested or early in the shotclock. There are a ton of easy 2s to be had and they just don't go for them, and in games like last night where they shoot poorly from 3 they can lose just like that.

One takeaway for me is, they need Porzingis this spring. I like what I'm seeing from Queta in terms of growth but overall I think to beat CLE, NY, IND and/or OKC in the playoffs they'll NEED Porzingis.

That's why I'm fine unleashing him in the Spring. Keep him bubblewrapped until then. The way the East is, the C's may still have zero problem securing a Top-2 seed in the East. 

[Yuckabuck33]

You want home-court adv? Then start playing like the 73-9 Warriors or the 67-win team Warriors from 10 years ago.

I'd be happy with them just playing like the 23-24 Celtics.

[jpotter33]

I think for me the first heuristic at this point is: Do we make this thread if last night's score is 117-116 the other way? If no, then there's nothing to worry about.

By that rule, then, there's nothing to worry about so far.

Personally, I would say it's safe to start looking at trends between the 14 and 25 game mark - 10-20 games is really too small for most things to be statistically significant, but most 'streaks' in the NBA (hot/cold/win/loss/&c.) tend to resolve within that window and this is just for fun anyway (plus you do have to say something definitively at some point, rather than equivocating).

I think regardless of how last night ended up, a lot of people are feeling these exact concerns. I know I certainly wouldn't have left last night's game feeling good regardless if we had won.

I mean, even Joe - who has been someone who rarely if ever critiques our guys or the way we played - said we didn't play hard enough last night, which I think says a lot.

Again, yes - it's very early, and we're in the East where this realistically doesn't matter. But for a team coming off of a championship and who has long had concerns about taking stretches off, I think there has to be at least some level of concern there.

[Goldstar88]

I think for me the first heuristic at this point is: Do we make this thread if last night's score is 117-116 the other way? If no, then there's nothing to worry about.

By that rule, then, there's nothing to worry about so far.

Personally, I would say it's safe to start looking at trends between the 14 and 25 game mark - 10-20 games is really too small for most things to be statistically significant, but most 'streaks' in the NBA (hot/cold/win/loss/&c.) tend to resolve within that window and this is just for fun anyway (plus you do have to say something definitively at some point, rather than equivocating).

Will you stop being reasonable already. It?s very annoying. 

[Kernewek]

  Sorry I'll try harder next time Golds.

I think regardless of how last night ended up, a lot of people are feeling these exact concerns. I know I certainly wouldn't have left last night's game feeling good regardless if we had won.

I mean, even Joe - who has been someone who rarely if ever critiques our guys or the way we played - said we didn't play hard enough last night, which I think says a lot.

Again, yes - it's very early, and we're in the East where this realistically doesn't matter. But for a team coming off of a championship and who has long had concerns about taking stretches off, I think there has to be at least some level of concern there.

Yeah I think the biggest argument for this thread is that inconsistent effort has been an absolute hallmark of the J&J C's,
and it's a good barometer to look at - I'm just not convinced tracking it on a game-to-game level is that helpful, especially since we're out to such a hot start.

I'm also not entirely convinced that shooting so many threes is an effort thing vs. a strategy thing - but, again, hard to say in a meaningful way on a game-by-game level.

[Vermont Green]

55.9% of FGAs for BOS are 3PA so far this year, the highest in the league a fair bit.  The average is about 42% (estimate), about where CLE is at.  TOR is the lowest at 34.5%.  The stat for last season for BOS was 47.1%  I understand we are a team that can win taking a lot of 3s, but is there a point of diminishing return?  A point where more is not better?  I don't know.

The thing with a high volume of 3PA is that there will inherently be more variability in the outcome.  BOS is making 57.3% of their 2s and 37.3% of their 3s.  Just doing simple math on that, we average 1.146 pts per 2PA and 1.119 pts per 3PA.  So even variability aside, it is more points per shot with 2PA on average.

Not to get too wonky, but it is easy to have a 5 percentage point swing in 3p% game to game.  At bad game we are 32.3% and a good game we are 42.3% (our best game is 48% and our worst is 26%).  If we take exactly 50.4 3PA (or current average) that is a swing of 5 made 3 and 15 points.  The same swing with 2PA with 40 2PA per game is only an 8 point swing.

So are we taking too many 3s?  I don't know, but I do think it is contributing to the inconsistency that we see.  Even with that, when we win ORebs and win TOs, we tend to win the game.

[Vermont Green]

I am still trying to make sense of the 2PA vs 3PA data .  I looked at it another way.  We have scored a high of 60 pts and a low of 32 pts on 2PA (range 28) and a high of 87 pts and a low of 39 pts on 3PA (a range of 48).  So points on 3PA is much more variable than points on 2PA.

Anybody better at stats than me who can help with this would be welcomed.

[mobilija]

I am still trying to make sense of the 2PA vs 3PA data .  I looked at it another way.  We have scored a high of 60 pts and a low of 32 pts on 2PA (range 28) and a high of 87 pts and a low of 39 pts on 3PA (a range of 48).  So points on 3PA is much more variable than points on 2PA.

Anybody better at stats than me who can help with this would be welcomed.

Part of the problem is you can?t look at them independently. For instance, teams know that the Celtics strategy is to take lots of 3s, they game plan for it. That likely opens up lots of opportunities for high percentage 2pt shots. So, just noticing we score more per shot on 2pt field goals isn?t necessarily telling in itself bc it?s quite possible that some of that is driven by the fact we take lots of 3s.

Sorry, not all that helpful for your stats adventure but it?s pretty complicated and messy for just straight statistical analysis.

[Kernewek]

I am still trying to make sense of the 2PA vs 3PA data .  I looked at it another way.  We have scored a high of 60 pts and a low of 32 pts on 2PA (range 28) and a high of 87 pts and a low of 39 pts on 3PA (a range of 48).  So points on 3PA is much more variable than points on 2PA.

Anybody better at stats than me who can help with this would be welcomed.

Part of the problem is you can?t look at them independently. For instance, teams know that the Celtics strategy is to take lots of 3s, they game plan for it. That likely opens up lots of opportunities for high percentage 2pt shots. So, just noticing we score more per shot on 2pt field goals isn?t necessarily telling in itself bc it?s quite possible that some of that is driven by the fact we take lots of 3s.

Sorry, not all that helpful for your stats adventure but it?s pretty complicated and messy for just straight statistical analysis.

More things to keep in mind:

• NBA players, writ large, do not shoot significantly better from mid-range than from deep
• Mid-range shots are easier for defenses to contest, all else being equal
• A three-point shot is worth 1.5x of a two-point shot, so you only need to convert on 33% of them to match making 50% two-point shots.
• Any team looking to optimise for points on the board should naturally favour three-point shots.
• Teams won't just let you in for layups if you stop taking shots from deep
• Fastbreak points, defensive collapses, cuts, &c. all inflate 2PT FG%.

Easy shots at the rim happen throughout every game, and they happen whether a team is actively hunting for 3pt or 2pt shots - therefore actively seeking out the less efficient/higher variance shot (the mid-range two) is not ideal - keep in mind that a team like the Celtics (or a little further back, the Peak-Harden Rockets) would almost always take an uncontested layup over an uncontested three because an uncontested layup is the 'easiest' shot to make.