The Celtics and the Four Factors

[PhoSita]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/factors.html

Some Tweets from @hpbasketball got me thinking about this.

Hardwood Paroxysm ‏@HPbasketball  33m33 minutes ago
The Four Factors hate Boston. HATE.

According to Dean Oliver, the "four factors of basketball success" are

(1) Shooting
(2) Turnovers
(3) Rebounding
(4) Free Throws


The preferred measures for these factors are Effective Field Goal Percentage, Turnover Percentage, Offensive and Defensive Rebound Rate, and FT / FGA.



How do the Celts fare in these categories?

(1) Effective Field Goal Percentage: 48.8% . . . . 24th

(2) Turnover Percentage: 12.1% . . . . 3rd

(3) Defensive Rebound Rate: 74.6% . . . . 25th
      Offensive Rebound Rate: 25.1% . . . . 9th

(4) Free Throw Rate: 26.4% . . . . 20th



So given all of that .... what's good old Dean Oliver missing with this team?

One thing I'd note is that the Celts lead the league in Opponent Turnovers per game.  That combined with their very low turnover percentage and above average offensive rebound rate gives them a strong advantage in possessions, which is always a good way to win games.

What else?

[SparzWizard]

Make free throws, control the game, and you win game.

I've never seen a team that's missed so many free throws in every game than the Celtics.

[Rondo9]

The Celtics are an above average free throw team.

[jpotter33]

Pace. The reason we win games is because we put up so many more shots than the other team, which is the sum of pace, not turning the ball over, and offensive rebounds.

[PhoSita]

Doesn't pace tend to slow down a lot in the playoffs?

[Csfan1984]

Pretty bad

[PhoSita]

I suspect a big part of it must be that the Celts defense is good enough that they cause opponents to be poor in some or all of these categories as well

[Chris22]

We have no one who can stop Millsap.

[saltlover]

Often you look at defensive four factors as well (the same four factors as on offense).  We turn over other teams a ton, in addition to not turning the ball over, which is huge.  I also bet were above average on opponent eFG and opponent free throw rate.

[fairweatherfan]

I suspect a big part of it must be that the Celts defense is good enough that they cause opponents to be poor in some or all of these categories as well

Yeah it seems like some of  these should really be differentials.  Otherwise, outside of rebounding it's pretty much restricted to what you're doing when you have the ball, instead of when you don't, which is over half the game.

[Donoghus]

I do have my question marks about how this offense will perform come playoff time.  The game certainly changes and slows down a bit.   Doesn't seem like an environment that the Celtics would be exceptionally equipped to handle although the GSW model has illustrated that the traditional model on offense has shifted a bit  However, we're not exactly on the level of GSW.   However, the Celtics defense can certainly help alleviate some of this concern.

[fairweatherfan]

I do have my question marks about how this offense will perform come playoff time.  The game certainly changes and slows down a bit.   Doesn't seem like an environment that the Celtics would be exceptionally equipped to handle although the GSW model has illustrated that the traditional model on offense has shifted a bit  However, we're not exactly on the level of GSW.   However, the Celtics defense can certainly help alleviate some of this concern.

That's been my concern for awhile - we get a lot of mileage out of playing harder and smarter than other teams, but the playoffs is when every team is playing as hard and smart as they can.  Any edge we get for effort, preparation, and execution is going to be severely decreased if not gone altogether.  Especially against an experienced veteran team like Atlanta

[Donoghus]

I do have my question marks about how this offense will perform come playoff time.  The game certainly changes and slows down a bit.   Doesn't seem like an environment that the Celtics would be exceptionally equipped to handle although the GSW model has illustrated that the traditional model on offense has shifted a bit  However, we're not exactly on the level of GSW.   However, the Celtics defense can certainly help alleviate some of this concern.

That's been my concern for awhile - we get a lot of mileage out of playing harder and smarter than other teams, but the playoffs is when every team is playing as hard and smart as they can.  Any edge we get for effort, preparation, and execution is going to be severely decreased if not gone altogether.  Especially against an experienced veteran team like Atlanta

Hopefully, last year's butt kicking against CLE gave them enough experience to figure things out a bit and how to approach the playoffs this time around.

[PhoSita]

Here's how the Celts rank in the Four Factors from a defensive perspective:

(1) Opponent EFG% - 48.7% . . . . 9th
(2) Opponent TOV% - 14.6% . . . . 3rd
(3) Defensive rebounding was covered above (25th)
(4) Opponent FT/FGA - 23.1% . . . . 27th


Appears that the basis of the Celts success is

- Limiting turnovers
- Forcing opponent turnovers
- Offensive rebounding
- Limiting opponent shooting

Major weaknesses

- Poor defensive rebounding team
- Low free throw rate
- Give up a lot of free throws
- Poor shooting team

[Evantime34]

Where did you get the 4 factors? Basketball reference has different ones.

According to basketball reference:

Offensive 4 factors
eFG%- 24th in NBA
Tov%- 4th
Ord%- 10th
FT/FGA- 14th

Defensive 4 factors
eFG%- 8th
Tov%- 4th
DRB%- 26th
Ft/FGA- 27th

Atlanta's 4 factors
Offense
efg%- 6th
tov%- 22
Orb%- 30th
ft/fga%- 29th

defense
efg%- 3rd
tov%- 5th
drb%- 25th
ft/fga- 5th

These stats tell me that in order to win the C's need to take advantage of Atlanta's poor defensive rebounding and their propensity to turn the ball over. The C's propensity to foul doesn't hurt them as much against the Hawks because the Hawks don't draw many fouls.

3 games between Hawks and Celtics
Four Factors   game 3
        Pace          eFG%   TOV%ORB%FT/FGAORtg
BOS   103.3   .506   13.0   20.4   .178   103.6
ATL   103.3   .619   15.5   14.3   .102   114.2

Game 2
          Pace   eFG%   TOV%   ORB%   FT/FGA   ORtg
ATL   102.5   .489   10.6   19.6   .261   106.3
BOS   102.5   .506   18.8   15.4   .299   98.5

Game 1
        Pace   eFG%TOV%ORB%FT/FGAORtg
ATL   94.3   .513   15.9   13.2   .197   98.6
BOS   94.3   .461   8.5   36.2   .107   112.4

The head to head match ups say that Atlanta is going to outshoot Boston. The first game gives a road map as to how the C's can win, by destroying Atlanta on the glass and winning the turnover battle by a wide margin.

Game 2, the C's lost because they failed to do the things that normally are their strength, mainly losing the turnover battle and the offensive rebounding battle.

In the third game the Hawks shot the lights out to the point that no matter what else Boston did it was going to be hard to win, but eFG% of .619 isn't really repeatable, but more importantly the Celtics didn't win the turnover battle by enough for it to be a clear advantage.

Turnovers and rebounds will be the key, Boston needs to make up for their lack of shooting by turning Atlanta over, and pounding the offensive glass.