Game 2: Just the Number

[Roy Hobbs]

This thread started with the discuss about the stat of the game. At the end of the thread, truth hurts I guess. What is that means?

No matter how a thread a start, about whatever subject. At the end, it is always ended in Celtics are great, Lakers suck.

Both of you just to want to hear other team fan to tell you how great your team are.

I create this thread with the intention of creating a good conservation with the Celtics fan regarding the stat of Game 2.

However, it all ended this way. Celtics is great, Lakers suck.

OK. If that is what you want to hear:

Celtics is greatest team. Lakers suck... Is that the truth...

Two things here:

1) A lot of the overall stats are less relevant here, because the Celtics visibly let up in the fourth quarter.  If they hadn't, the numbers look a lot different.

2) Yes, getting to the free throw line was a big part of why we won, and not getting to the line hurt the Lakers.  That's essentially a truism.  However, the *reasons* for that disparity, as noted by wdleehi (and by others in multiple threads) are because of the respective styles of play and levels of aggression of the two teams.

Since you're stats oriented, check out John Hollinger's take on the Lakers' big problem:

In fact, if you take [KG and Cassell] out of the picture, and then take Kobe out of the L.A. discussion, the disparity [in terms of shooting long range two pointers] becomes really stark. As a shorthand, we'll call these other players "guys you'd really prefer weren't launching from 17."

The Celtics got 11 shots from that crew in Game 1, and 13 shots in Game 2; that's only 24 of the combined 92 shots those players took. In other words, 73.9 percent of their shots have been "good" looks, the kind of shots an offense wants to generate.

In the Lakers' case, that number through the first seven quarters of the series was a jarring 39, on 101 shots. In other words, only 61.4 percent of their shots were the type of quality looks you want for secondary players.

Additionally, these numbers underestimate Boston's quality shot attempts for another reason -- a huge number of Celtics tries would have been registered as close-in shots but for the fact that they were fouled while shooting.

Boston was fouled on a missed shot 14 times, compared to just three for the Lakers. Throw those numbers into the Game 2 shot chart and it's 23 long 2s in 69 "attempts" (shots+fouls) for the Lakers, compared to 14 of 61 for the non-Garnett Celtics. Once you throw in the fouls it becomes apparent that even in Game 2, the Celtics were taking better shots.

Ah yes, the fouls.

Given the shooting-chart disparity, our wonderment at the foul disparity is no longer so puzzling, is it?

Link.

Read the whole article, but that should quantify some of the disparity for you.  The Lakers got to the line less because they were taking a lot of long two-pointers, the type of shots you rarely see fouls on.

[BballTim]

Celtics 108, Lakers 102.

In term of scoring, the FG%, 3FG%, FT% all really does not matter in this game. The biggest different is FT attempt. We all know those numbers. There is no need repeat them.

In other stat, biggest edge for the Celtics is the assist number, 31-20 in favor of the Celtics. This is a really surprise for the Lakers team, since they are excellent passing team until the final. Clearly the Celtics defense had something to do it. But it also showed the Lakers were playing too much one on one basketball. Celtics also had an edge in shot blocking, 3 to 1.

In the game, however, Lakers did a good job in rebounding, with 1 more offensive rebound and 2 less defensive rebound. Lakers is also better in steal and turnover. Those stat usually favor the Celtics. Those stat, especially the steals, was probably how the Lakers went out a huge run in Q4.

  The stats for the game were skewed by the numbers in the 4th quarter, when the Celts weren't really playing. Look at the numbers through the 1st 3 quarters: The Lakers were 27-61 (3-10 on threes). The Celts were 28-52 (8-12 on threes) and the Celts were +3 on the boards and +2 on turnovers. If The Celts hadn't taken a single free throw in the 1st 3 quarters they'd have had 65 or 66 fg attempts (due to the rebounding/turnovers), or 25% more shots than they took. That would roughly translate to 35-65 (10-15 on threes) for 80 points. The Lakers had 61 points at the time. Still game over. All of the Lakers fans are blaming the game on the FT differential, but all the FTs do is mask the real issue: you can't allow the best defensive team in the league to shoot 54% from the field and 67% on threes and expect to be in the game. If your defense doesn't improve it won't be a long series. That's game 2 by the numbers.

[Roy Hobbs]

Nice post, Tim.  TP.

[kgiessler]

Nobody here wants Laker's fans to come here and tell us the Celtics are great.

We already know that.

I think the board is pretty much open to anyone that wants to come in here and have an unbiased, reasonable discussion.  Cherry picking stats to try and make a point is usually frowned upon here.

[seccom]

Nobody here wants Laker's fans to come here and tell us the Celtics are great.

We already know that.

I think the board is pretty much open to anyone that wants to come in here and have an unbiased, reasonable discussion.  Cherry picking stats to try and make a point is usually frowned upon here.

I have no problem with people point out any error is my stat. If I make a mistake, correct me.

Regarding Cherry picking, is that the whole point of the stat? Find a meaningful stat in a sea of number.

When you use the "Truth" as your stat, is that cross the line?

[BballTim]

Celtics 108, Lakers 102.

In term of scoring, the FG%, 3FG%, FT% all really does not matter in this game. The biggest different is FT attempt. We all know those numbers. There is no need repeat them.

In other stat, biggest edge for the Celtics is the assist number, 31-20 in favor of the Celtics. This is a really surprise for the Lakers team, since they are excellent passing team until the final. Clearly the Celtics defense had something to do it. But it also showed the Lakers were playing too much one on one basketball.

  I'd like to also point out that the 31-20 assists in favor of the Celts doesn't show that much about the Lakers offense. If they'd have maintained their playoff average they'd have ended up with 23 assists based on the number of fg attempts. The number to look at is th 31 assists on 36 baskets for the Celts, which is almost unheard of. Again, the problem isn't the Lakers offense, it's their (lack of) defense.

[crownsy]

Just the numbers only tell half the story.

I disagree. The problem is: there is not enough number. The numbers were not detail enough. For example, if there are separate stats for intentional fouls, foul while go to basketball, foul for 3FG, they would give you a much better picture of the game.

Do the numbers show that the Celtics were the more aggressive team?

Do the numbers show that the Celtics were the more physical team?

Do the numbers show that the Celtics played defense with their feet while the Lakers played defense with their hands?

Do the number show how soft the lakers played?

Wdleehi, it is up to you to come with the stat to support your point. For example, you can count shot in the paint or number of dunks. So the answer is yes.

All the terms that you uses such soft, physical, aggressive means different thing to different people.

double edged sword there, its up to you to not ignore stats that disprove your analsis, like total fouls called (take out LA's two intentional fouls, and its 5 total fouls diffrent), shots from inside 17 feet (see holingers article) dunks (useful because this is the nba finals, you should really not allow 8 dunks as the laker d did. thats 16 easy points at the rim. you have to foul when beat)  

the cherry picking comment is justified, you've ignored stats that go contrary to your point in this and other threads. In this thread alone you don't seem to be willing to take out the total fouls called and explain that non-disparity, nor address hollingers shooting chart which shows almost all of the lakers 2pt FG shots from anyone other than kobe were long looks and jumpshots over the top. Those don't result in shooting fouls, going to the rim hard (see: powe, leon) does.

also, how can you ignore visual evidence of your interior D's softness? i'm at work, so i can't hit youtube, but KG's put back in game 1 was a complete defensive lapse, to the point that kobe (rightfuly so) screams at gasol before KG ices the game, leon powe dunking right in your bigs face four times, and once taking the ball by himself at 3 laker big men, none of whom wanted any part of taking a charge/playing D, powe's 4 rebounds over 4 people (these were shown on ESPN this morning while thier nba panel echoed the lack of desire from the lakers big men)

no ones questioning that your a good team, i expect you to win tonight and show some pride, but if someone doesn't get through to your big men that they need to be tough, your going to lose one game at staples, and that will be your doom, because everyone not named kobe looks scared out of thier mind in the garden.

[seccom]

Just the numbers only tell half the story.

I disagree. The problem is: there is not enough number. The numbers were not detail enough. For example, if there are separate stats for intentional fouls, foul while go to basketball, foul for 3FG, they would give you a much better picture of the game.

Do the numbers show that the Celtics were the more aggressive team?

Do the numbers show that the Celtics were the more physical team?

Do the numbers show that the Celtics played defense with their feet while the Lakers played defense with their hands?

Do the number show how soft the lakers played?

Wdleehi, it is up to you to come with the stat to support your point. For example, you can count shot in the paint or number of dunks. So the answer is yes.

All the terms that you uses such soft, physical, aggressive means different thing to different people.

double edged sword there, its up to you to not ignore stats that disprove your analsis, like total fouls called (take out LA's two intentional fouls, and its 5 total fouls diffrent), shots from inside 17 feet (see holingers article) dunks (useful because this is the nba finals, you should really not allow 8 dunks as the laker d did. thats 16 easy points at the rim. you have to foul when beat)  

the cherry picking comment is justified, you've ignored stats that go contrary to your point in this and other threads. In this thread alone you don't seem to be willing to take out the total fouls called and explain that non-disparity, nor address hollingers shooting chart which shows almost all of the lakers 2pt FG shots from anyone other than kobe were long looks and jumpshots over the top. Those don't result in shooting fouls, going to the rim hard (see: powe, leon) does.

also, how can you ignore visual evidence of your interior D's softness? i'm at work, so i can't hit youtube, but KG's put back in game 1 was a complete defensive lapse, to the point that kobe (rightfuly so) screams at gasol before KG ices the game, leon powe dunking right in your bigs face four times, and once taking the ball by himself at 3 laker big men, none of whom wanted any part of taking a charge/playing D, powe's 4 rebounds over 4 people (these were shown on ESPN this morning while thier nba panel echoed the lack of desire from the lakers big men)

no ones questioning that your a good team, i expect you to win tonight and show some pride, but if someone doesn't get through to your big men that they need to be tough, your going to lose one game at staples, and that will be your doom, because everyone not named kobe looks scared out of thier mind in the garden.

Please reread your quoted post. There is nothing specific from wdleehi's posts.

He/she made a very general statement: just the numbers only tell half the story.

All my post from that point on is the disagreement regarding that statement. I even suggest use point in paint, or dunk as the stat to support the Celtics was the more aggressive team.

All my posts other than the first one have nothing to do the stat of Game 2.

I have not even make a defense of my first post.

[Discoflux]

you neglect to mention that total fouls didnt have that much of a discrepancy, only 5 i belive. but you don't get shooting fouls when you play the mid range jump shooting game (see us in atlanta, where these numbers laker fans are fixating on instead of thier real problem of no interior defense are similar. one game where we shot jump shot after jump shot, they shot 42 FT's to our 22 i belive)

also, while the steal and turnover numbers are even, we turned you over 7 more times than your playoff average and converted all but one turnover into points.

LA's problem is simple, no interior defense. either odom and gasol step up for you guys or you lose. its really that simple. offensivly, your a very good team, but if your not going to play defense at all, ala games one and two, you'll lose if we marginaly slow you down.

If you look at the shot chart you'll see the 'mid range jumpshot' assessment is a fallacy.  Shot chart is posted in this blog.

[crownsy]

what does the post not having WDL's post in it matter? you made a statement "its up to you to find stats to prove your point" and i asked you the same question.

WDL doesn't come into the equation. you also didn't bother to adress any of the stats i brought up to you except to in fact to conceed that the celtics were mroe agresive, which in turn leads to more shooting fouls, as we've been arguing.

[wdleehi]

Just the numbers only tell half the story.

I disagree. The problem is: there is not enough number. The numbers were not detail enough. For example, if there are separate stats for intentional fouls, foul while go to basketball, foul for 3FG, they would give you a much better picture of the game.

Do the numbers show that the Celtics were the more aggressive team?

Do the numbers show that the Celtics were the more physical team?

Do the numbers show that the Celtics played defense with their feet while the Lakers played defense with their hands?

Do the number show how soft the lakers played?

Wdleehi, it is up to you to come with the stat to support your point. For example, you can count shot in the paint or number of dunks. So the answer is yes.

All the terms that you uses such soft, physical, aggressive means different thing to different people.

double edged sword there, its up to you to not ignore stats that disprove your analsis, like total fouls called (take out LA's two intentional fouls, and its 5 total fouls diffrent), shots from inside 17 feet (see holingers article) dunks (useful because this is the nba finals, you should really not allow 8 dunks as the laker d did. thats 16 easy points at the rim. you have to foul when beat) 

the cherry picking comment is justified, you've ignored stats that go contrary to your point in this and other threads. In this thread alone you don't seem to be willing to take out the total fouls called and explain that non-disparity, nor address hollingers shooting chart which shows almost all of the lakers 2pt FG shots from anyone other than kobe were long looks and jumpshots over the top. Those don't result in shooting fouls, going to the rim hard (see: powe, leon) does.

also, how can you ignore visual evidence of your interior D's softness? i'm at work, so i can't hit youtube, but KG's put back in game 1 was a complete defensive lapse, to the point that kobe (rightfuly so) screams at gasol before KG ices the game, leon powe dunking right in your bigs face four times, and once taking the ball by himself at 3 laker big men, none of whom wanted any part of taking a charge/playing D, powe's 4 rebounds over 4 people (these were shown on ESPN this morning while thier nba panel echoed the lack of desire from the lakers big men)

no ones questioning that your a good team, i expect you to win tonight and show some pride, but if someone doesn't get through to your big men that they need to be tough, your going to lose one game at staples, and that will be your doom, because everyone not named kobe looks scared out of thier mind in the garden.

Please reread your quoted post. There is nothing specific from wdleehi's posts.

He/she made a very general statement: just the numbers only tell half the story.

All my post from that point on is the disagreement regarding that statement. I even suggest use point in paint, or dunk as the stat to support the Celtics was the more aggressive team.

All my posts other than the first one have nothing to do the stat of Game 2.

I have not even make a defense of my first post.

See that's your issue.   I talked about things you can only see if you watch the game.  These things that help teams win that do not show up on the stat sheet.



Stats are a good tool to reinforce what you saw, but a terrible tool to tell about a game you didn't see.



You can see that the Celtics played good defense by moving their feet, contesting shots, not reaching in.  The Stats reinforce that by showing the Lakers struggled to score the 1st three quarters and didn't get to the line. 

You can see the Lakers were late on defense, committed a lot of reaches on Celtic shots.   The Stats reinforce that by showing the Celtics took a lot of FTs. 


Do it the other way around, and who knows.  Lakers took a lot of jumps shots.  They were just setting for open jumpers (false) 
Lakers didn't shoot alot of FTs.  They were creating so much space for the shooter, there were no Celtics near by to foul (false)



Stats are a tool to reinforce what your eyes see. 

[crownsy]

you neglect to mention that total fouls didnt have that much of a discrepancy, only 5 i belive. but you don't get shooting fouls when you play the mid range jump shooting game (see us in atlanta, where these numbers laker fans are fixating on instead of thier real problem of no interior defense are similar. one game where we shot jump shot after jump shot, they shot 42 FT's to our 22 i belive)

also, while the steal and turnover numbers are even, we turned you over 7 more times than your playoff average and converted all but one turnover into points.

LA's problem is simple, no interior defense. either odom and gasol step up for you guys or you lose. its really that simple. offensivly, your a very good team, but if your not going to play defense at all, ala games one and two, you'll lose if we marginaly slow you down.

If you look at the shot chart you'll see the 'mid range jumpshot' assessment is a fallacy.  Shot chart is posted in this blog.

i looked at the shot chart, and if you take out the ones by kobe, which is what he did, then it in fact proves his point.

it's only a fallacy if you include kobe, which he goes out of his way not to do. His point was that most laker role players (he took out KG and pierce on our side) were shooting over the top jumpers, which they were. odom in particular was guilty of this, he was very hesitant to come to the paint.

by contrast, leon was driving the lane on said shot chart, and got over half our free throws.

[seccom]

what does the post not having WDL's post in it matter? you made a statement "its up to you to find stats to prove your point" and i asked you the same question.

WDL doesn't come into the equation. you also didn't bother to adress any of the stats i brought up to you except to in fact to conceed that the celtics were mroe agresive, which in turn leads to more shooting fouls, as we've been arguing.

Can you repost your question without any quote from WDL? At this point, I have no idea who is saying what.

[crownsy]

in a nut shell, how can you call out people for not respecting stats when you yourself gloss over any stats that are brought up to contridict your point of view.

(shot chart -kobe, total fouls, dunks, points in the paint)

all of which point to a lack of agression on 11/12 lakers part.

[seccom]

in a nut shell, how can you call out people for not respecting stats when you yourself gloss over any stats that are brought up to contridict your point of view.

(shot chart -kobe, total fouls, dunks, points in the paint)

all of which point to a lack of agression on 11/12 lakers part.

First of all, what is my point of view? Am I am talking about fouls? Am I am talking about Rebounding? Am I talking about assist?

Can you find the specific quote from me that you want to discuss?