The C'S Own The Lakers , Team Stats Don't Lie !

[rondohondo]

The C's own the lakers in almost every important statistical catagorey

Points   

 
PPG = Lakers 103.9 ,  # 7
      Boston 100.4 , # 15

OPP PPG =  Boston  90.6 , # 1
           Lakers  95.5  , # 7

PPG DIF  =  Boston +9.8  , # 1
            Lakers + 8.5 , # 2


FG %

Own FG% = Boston 49.4% , # 1
          Lakers  46.3% , # 12

OPP FG% = Lakers 42.7% , # 1
          Boston 43.6% , # 3

3PT FG% = Boston 35.1% , # 15
          Lakers 34.0% , # 18

OPP 3PT% = Lakers 30.2%, # 1
           Boston 31.9%, # 4

    FT% = Lakers 75.4%, # 14
          Boston 74.9%, # 15


Rebounding

Own REB = Lakers  45.3 , # 1
          Boston 38.4 , # 29

OPP REB = Boston  39.3 , # 6
          Lakers  44.0 , # 24

REB DIF = Lakers + 1.2 ,  # 11
          Boston - 0.8 ,  # 17



Miscellaneous

OWN AST = Boston 24.3 , # 2
          Lakers 23.7, # 3

OPP AST  = Boston 18.9 , # 7
           Lakers 21.5 , # 21

OWN STLS = Boston 8.9, # 2
           Lakers 8.4, # 5

OPP STLS = Boston 6.9, # 9
           Lakers 7.2, # 13

BLOCKS =  Boston 5.2, # 14
          Lakers 5.0, # 16

OPP BLKS = Lakers 4.1, # 3
           Boston 4.4, # 10

OWN TO  = Lakers 14.2 , # 6
          Boston 14.7, # 14

OPP TO =  Boston 17.0, # 2
          Lakers  16.2, # 6

 TO DIF =  Boston + 2.3, # 3
           Lakers + 2.0, # 5

AST / TO = Lakers 1.67 ,   #  4
           Boston 1.66 , # 5


TECH FOULS = Boston 31 , # 2
             Lakers 28 , # 3


The C's are take better care of the ball, create more turnovers , are more efficient offensively, and are more dominant defensively. To me it is pretty apparent who the better team is . I know it is early in the season , but I don't see these stats changing much for the rest of the year if both teams stay relatively healthy. Sometimes stats really don't lie!

It is the same thing as 2007 - 2008 where the Lakers get all the media attention , but it has been proven time and again, Defense wins championships. It doesn't hurt to have the most efficient offense either .

[GeoDim]

The way that you worded the subject made me think that the stats were a landslide, when they're actually pretty close.  LA edges out Boston in several stats, especially rebounds.  Boston takes the statistical win here, but not by much.  While the East seems to have the most elite teams, the West is overall a much stronger conference, so Boston's team stats should be better than LA's anyway.

If you want statistical team rankings, just check out Hollinger's Power Rankings.  Sometimes his rankings don't tell the whole story, but here they're are right on the money, with Boston having the slight edge over LA.
http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/powerrankings

[rondohondo]

The way that you worded the subject made me think that the stats were a landslide, when they're actually pretty close.  LA edges out Boston in several stats, especially rebounds.  Boston takes the statistical win here, but not by much.  While the East seems to have the most elite teams, the West is overall a much stronger conference, so Boston's team stats should be better than LA's anyway.

If you want statistical team rankings, just check out Hollinger's Power Rankings.  Sometimes his rankings don't tell the whole story, but here they're are right on the money, with Boston having the slight edge over LA.
http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/powerrankings

To me the Rebounding is way over blown. The lakers get 2 more rebounds a game, but If you think about it the C's are a much more efficient offense which mean there are going  to be fewer chances for offensive rebounds. The C's are actually # 6 in opponent rebounding , while the Lakers are # 24. That is the real stat you should look at for rebounding because like I said the C's are much more efficient shooting 3% higher.


The C's are also # 10 in OPP Offensive rebounds allowing 10.9 per game while the Lakers are ranked # 29 alloing 12.9. The C's aren't letting the opposing team get 2nd and 3rd chances to score .

[Steve Weinman]

The way that you worded the subject made me think that the stats were a landslide, when they're actually pretty close.  LA edges out Boston in several stats, especially rebounds.  Boston takes the statistical win here, but not by much.  While the East seems to have the most elite teams, the West is overall a much stronger conference, so Boston's team stats should be better than LA's anyway.

If you want statistical team rankings, just check out Hollinger's Power Rankings.  Sometimes his rankings don't tell the whole story, but here they're are right on the money, with Boston having the slight edge over LA.
http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/powerrankings

To me the Rebounding is way over blown. The lakers get 2 more rebounds a game, but If you think about it the C's are a much more efficient offense which mean there are going  to be fewer chances for offensive rebounds. The C's are actually # 6 in opponent rebounding , while the Lakers are # 24. That is the real stat you should look at for rebounding because like I said the C's are much more efficient shooting 3% higher.


The C's are also # 10 in OPP Offensive rebounds allowing 10.9 per game while the Lakers are ranked # 29 alloing 12.9. The C's aren't letting the opposing team get 2nd and 3rd chances to score .

A couple of quick thoughts:

Regarding the Celtics being the "much more efficient offense," entering Sunday, they averaged 0.8 more points per 100 possessions than the Lakers, out-ranking LA 9 to 10 in offensive efficiency across the league.

As far as your rebounding numbers are concerned, using flat rebound figures is flawed because it doesn't account for pace. Teams that play at higher paces play games with more possessions, which means more shots taken, which likely means more missed shots, which means more rebound opportunities.  All of that is to say that rebound rate figures paint a more accurate picture: In this case, yes, the Celtics are better on the defensive glass, but not by as wide a gap: they rank 13th to the Lakers' 19th in protecting the defensive glass.

Further, the use of offensive rebound rate instead of flat offensive rebounds accounts for your claim above about the issue of opportunities. And that indicates that the Celtics have been horrific on the offensive glass this year, ranking 29th to the Lakers' 10th in offensive rebound rate.

In a similar vein, in the name of accounting for pace, for the statistics breakdown in your OP, I think you'd get a lot more out of an evaluation conducted using points scored and allowed per 100 possessions (offensive and defensive efficiency) and turnover rate rather than points scored/allowed and turnovers per game.

-sw

[PosImpos]

It seems like we are fairly close; they have a better offense, while we have a better defense.  If we could just improve our rebounding and shoot better from 3, we'd have a clear edge, in my opinion.

It is telling, however, that the Lakers are heralded as far and away the best team in the league, when our stats point to us being at the very least in tight contention with them for the top spot.

[hwangjini_1]

so other interesting stats comparing the celtics and lakers are...

1. the celtics have the better record so far in w/l.

2. the celtics have played 12 of their first 23 games on the road.

3. the lakers have played only 5 of their first 22 games on the road, and are only 3-2 in those five games.

hopefully this means the celtics have an edge in compiling the best regular season record and get home advantage through the playoffs....

now if only the celtics can beat orlando head to head.

[Roy Hobbs]

The numbers I care about:

Offensive efficiency (pts per 100 possessions):

Boston:  109.3 (9th), Lakers: 108.5 (11th)

Defensive efficiency (pts allowed per 100):

Boston: 98.6 (1st), Lakers: 99.7 (2nd)

Offensive eFG%:

Boston: .537 (2nd), Lakers: .501 (13th)

eFG% allowed:

Boston: .472 (2nd), Lakers: .460 (1st)

In other words, the two teams are pretty close, but statistically the Celts probably have the slight edge.  Also, our rebounding isn't as bad as it seems, at least on the defensive boards.  We grab 73.4% of all defensive rebounds, which is 12th in the league (the Lakers are 20th).  The area where we get killed is offensive rebounding, where the Celts pull down 22.9% of all available offensive rebounds.  That's second to last in the NBA (the Lakers are 8th).

All stats from here: Link

EDIT: Pretty much the same stats Steve pointed out.

[Who]

I wouldn't put much stock in the Lakers statistics, particularly on the offensive end, at this stage in the season. Pau Gasol has only played in half their games so far.

I imagine there's a pretty big difference in terms of the Lakers offensive efficiency in games where Pau has played versus not played.

Huge difference in Pau Gasol's on court/off court numbers (124/104) for offensive efficiency plus a solid improvement defensively too (98/102 + Odom now plays on the bench which should improve the Lakers interior D over 48 minutes).

[jdpapa3]

I have to co-sign with Steve and Roy. Gone are the days where you can just pull up raw numbers like rebounds per game and points per game and evaluate 2 teams based on that. The real meat in statistics comes out when you evaluate per 100 possessions.

[Jon Niednagel]

I wouldn't put much stock in the Lakers statistics, particularly on the offensive end, at this stage in the season. Pau Gasol has only played in half their games so far.

I imagine there's a pretty big difference in terms of the Lakers offensive efficiency in games where Pau has played versus not played.

Huge difference in Pau Gasol's on court/off court numbers (124/104) for offensive efficiency plus a solid improvement defensively too (98/102 + Odom now plays on the bench which should improve the Lakers interior D over 48 minutes).

The Lakers have barely left home this season, so that might mitigate the Pau factor some. In general, however, I agree completely with this and it is something to consider when looking at the stats at this point in the season.

[Greenbean]

According to Hollinger's playoff odds, there are 7 teams with a better chance at winning the title than the celts. Hollinger's power rankings also have the Celtics #1. I think he has some splaining to do.

Link: http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/playoffodds?column=champs&sort=false

[Amonkey]

The numbers that I really care about are first, the rebounding.  Whether we make or lose, rebounding creates more opportunities to either score or defend.  This is a category that we need to improve badly.  Defensive numbers!  We must win with defense.  It doesn't matter if we are making shots now, come playoff time the defenses will step up and it's the team with the best defense that will win the championship.  Finally, wins/losses.  Because in the end, those are the only ones that matter.

[jdpapa3]

According to Hollinger's playoff odds, there are 7 teams with a better chance at winning the title than the celts. Hollinger's power rankings also have the Celtics #1. I think he has some splaining to do.

Link: http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/playoffodds?column=champs&sort=false

So we are 8th in terms of being title contenders according to his system...so his system is broken...like it usually is.

[Roy Hobbs]

According to Hollinger's playoff odds, there are 7 teams with a better chance at winning the title than the celts. Hollinger's power rankings also have the Celtics #1. I think he has some splaining to do.

Link: http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/playoffodds?column=champs&sort=false

So we are 8th in terms of being title contenders according to his system...so his system is broken...like it usually is.

His computers are screwy things.  I do find it amusing that at least once, his computer projected the Nets to finish 2-80. 

[Fafnir]

According to Hollinger's playoff odds, there are 7 teams with a better chance at winning the title than the celts. Hollinger's power rankings also have the Celtics #1. I think he has some splaining to do.

Link: http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/playoffodds?column=champs&sort=false

So we are 8th in terms of being title contenders according to his system...so his system is broken...like it usually is.

His computers are screwy things.  I do find it amusing that at least once, his computer projected the Nets to finish 2-80. 

I wonder how he deals with "regressing to the mean", he says his simulations do account for that. That's the only thing that could be keeping the C's "title odds" so low.