Author Topic: Measuring Success for the Celtics  (Read 1160 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Measuring Success for the Celtics
« on: May 23, 2016, 02:07:25 PM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21835
  • Tommy Points: 2182
This morning I was listening to JJ Redick's Vertical podcast.  Specifically, I listened to his interview with his former coach, Stan Van Gundy.  At one point, SVG was talking about measuring his team's success.  He said that look, every team wants to win a championship.  But you can't go into a practice, a game, or even a season, with that as your only goal.  You need to be able to work towards tangible objectives that serve as signposts for your improvement over time.  The championships may or may not come, but you've got to just trust that doing the right thing every day will get you closer and closer.

With that in mind, I want to break away from the frequently reductive big-picture assessment of where the Celts are at and take a look at tangible ways in which they showed improvement this season compared to the season before, and also set my expectations for where I'd like to see them improve next year.  Those goals will provide a basis for how I will judge what the team does this summer to upgrade the roster.


Areas of Improvement in 2015-2015

- Overall, the Celts went from 20th to 13th in Team Offensive Efficiency, and from tied for 13th in Team Defensive Efficiency to tied for 5th.  Those are significant jumps in both categories.

- On the offensive boards, the Celts improved from 16th to 10th (offensive rebound rate).

- Forcing turnovers was a major area of strength for this team.  They went from 11th in Opponent Turnovers per Possession in 14-15 all the way to 3rd in that category in 15-16.  This contributed to the team improving from 12th to 6th in fast break points per game.

- Though they were no great shakes at defending the interior this season -- 14th in opponent points in the paint -- the Celts did manage a major improvement in that area from the previous season, when they were 25th.

- On the other end, the Celts went from 17th in points in the paint per game to 7th, which is also a pretty significant improvement.  I tend to think of the Celts as a team that's very reliant on jumpshots and weak in the interior, lacking any go-to presence in the paint, but they managed above average offensive efficiency in large part because as a team they generated lots of looks inside, making up for their terrible outside shooting.



Where to Focus for 2016-2017

- Defensive Rebounding

Cleaning the glass has been an ongoing problem for this team.  The Celts have ranked 19th, 15th, and 21st in Defensive Rebounding % during Brad Stevens' tenure.  It's tough to be such a good defensive team in other respects, but give the opponent so many second chances.


- Free throw rate

Raising free throws attempted is an easy way to improve offensive efficiency.  The Celts were 21st this season in Free Throw Attempts per Field Goal Attempt.  That was actually an improvement over the previous two seasons, in which they were 27th and 29th in that category. 

It's hard to get a lot of free throws when you don't have stars, but giving lots of offensive touches to guys that take shots but don't get to the line much (e.g. Bradley, Turner, Sullinger) makes it even tougher.


- Three point percentage

While the Celts are doing reasonably well keeping up with the modern trend of shooting lots of three pointers -- 28-30% of their attempts the past two seasons, good for around 12th in the league -- they have been absolutely horrible at hitting those shots, as we all well know. 

Over the last three years the Celts have ranked 28th, 28th, and 29th in Three Point Percentage, although at least this season they managed to shoot 33% as a team, meaning they broke even on those attempts.  Good job, good effort, am I right?

One question I have is how the Celts rank in terms of "open" three pointers taken (however you define that term), and how they rank in terms of shooting percentage on "open" shots.  It seems to me that the Celts have been pretty good at generating good looks, they simply go through stretches where nobody can hit even wide open jumpers.


- Defensive fouls / Opponent Free Throws

Playing great defense doesn't matter if you bail the opponent out with a foul.  During Brad's time as Boston's coach, the Celts have ranked 20th, 19th, and 25th in Personal Fouls per Possession.

In the same vein, the Celts have been a poor team in terms of giving up free throws -- 17th and 16th the last two years and 25th (!) this season.  Perhaps it is in part a sign that the Celts don't allow the opponent easy buckets and instead send them to the free throw line.  The top 10 of this category includes a lot of young teams that probably allow a layup line inside.  But the Spurs were 2nd in this category this season, and other smart, veteran defensive teams like Miami, Charlotte, and Atlanta were in the top 10.

The Celts must get better at defending without fouling.


- Generating and finishing easy baskets

If you have a poor shooting team, like the Celts, it helps to create and complete easy looks.  Unfortunately, the Celts were not so great at doing that this season, ranking 19th in Non-blocked 2 point percentage.  The previous two years the Celts ranked 13th and 27th in this category, so it's been a little bit up and down the last few years.

My guess is this comes down to the Celts taking a fair number of mid-range and close shots as a team, with relatively few attempts at the rim.  The Celts also employ a number of rather weak finishers at the rim, e.g. Turner, Smart, Bradley, and Sullinger. 

Better spacing would certainly help with this.  The best teams in this category this season were Golden State, OKC, Houston, Atlanta, and Cleveland.  Most of those teams have dominant stars who can get inside and finish at a crazy high percentage.  But those teams also have lots of shooters and move the ball quite well, with the exception of Houston.



What do you think?  What were you glad to see the Celts do better this season, and where would you like to see them improve next season?


For the purposes of this discussion, "win more games," "win a playoff series," "win a championship" or "add more talent" are not valid answers.  I think those are pretty obvious and don't merit much in the way of discussion. 
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: Measuring Success for the Celtics
« Reply #1 on: May 23, 2016, 05:36:09 PM »

Offline Greyman

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 784
  • Tommy Points: 211
TP for this discussion. What the analysis reminded me, as we look to the draft, trades and free agency, is that the team has consolidated talent over the last two seasons and we have players still improving. We should be wary of casting off talent for minimal gains.

If no big arrivals come to Boston, I think the areas you really need to look at are the 3 point shooting and defensive rebounding. I am not sure if you do it through addition of players to the same squad or upgrades. It may depend on who is available. If there are no all star additions these are areas where the Celtics could improve relatively cheaply.

Re: Measuring Success for the Celtics
« Reply #2 on: May 23, 2016, 08:04:48 PM »

Offline billysan

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3875
  • Tommy Points: 178
On the subject of Free Throws, first I think that any player who shoots below 60% is simply not practicing or has a serious visual disorder and cant shoot anything well away from the basket. Shooting a basketball or throwing any kind of ball relies on muscle memory and therefore must be repeated at a high rate to improve or stay at an acceptable level.

Second, I think it is easy to see that jump shooting teams take many less trips to the Free Throw line than teams that attack the rim and post up in the paint frequently.  This has nothing to do with stars except that said stars are better at drawing contact by attacking the defense and inviting contact.

Otherwise, well written and thank you for the summary of our improvement. Our record reflects better play and your statistical illustration shows the how and why of it.
"First fix their hearts" -Eizo Shimabuku

Re: Measuring Success for the Celtics
« Reply #3 on: May 23, 2016, 08:59:36 PM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21835
  • Tommy Points: 2182
Houston, Toronto, OKC, LAC were top five in free throws per field goal attempt.

I'd say that the common thread seems to be having a center who is an easy target for fouls inside and at least one shot creator who excels at getting into the paint and creating contact.

I wouldn't say those teams avoid shooting outside shots or post up all that often.

It is true that the three best regular season teams, Golden State, Cleveland and San Antonio, were bottom 10 in that category. So it's not a prerequisite for having an effective offense. It just makes your life a lot easier, especially if you don't have a great shooting team.
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: Measuring Success for the Celtics
« Reply #4 on: May 23, 2016, 09:00:08 PM »

Offline flybono

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1025
  • Tommy Points: 49
Take all of those stats and remember this.
The Celtics were a sub .500 team vs .500 or better teams last season. I forget the record, 18 24 or there abouts.

Bottom line is this, you need free agent or trade help. With the Cap room, 2 more Brooklyn picks and at least 2 or 3 trade chips on the roster, if Ainge doesn't turn this team into a contender next season he never will.

Don't drink the kool-aid


Re: Measuring Success for the Celtics
« Reply #5 on: May 23, 2016, 09:02:41 PM »

Offline ahonui06

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 614
  • Tommy Points: 27
Take all of those stats and remember this.
The Celtics were a sub .500 team vs .500 or better teams last season. I forget the record, 18 24 or there abouts.

Bottom line is this, you need free agent or trade help. With the Cap room, 2 more Brooklyn picks and at least 2 or 3 trade chips on the roster, if Ainge doesn't turn this team into a contender next season he never will.

Don't drink the kool-aid

The conglomerate team effort can never work against teams with bonafide superstars and that is exactly what Boston is missing and trying to land with the cap flexibility and stockpile of draft picks.

Through 1 of those 2 ways, Ainge hopes to get the superstar Boston is missing.  Free agency might be hard given the incentive for stars to remain on their current team given the additional monies they can earn, so the more likely option for Boston seems to be the draft.

Hoping the #3 pick can turn into something amazing for Boston.

Re: Measuring Success for the Celtics
« Reply #6 on: May 23, 2016, 09:21:24 PM »

Offline CoachBo

  • NCE
  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6069
  • Tommy Points: 336
Take all of those stats and remember this.
The Celtics were a sub .500 team vs .500 or better teams last season. I forget the record, 18 24 or there abouts.

Bottom line is this, you need free agent or trade help. With the Cap room, 2 more Brooklyn picks and at least 2 or 3 trade chips on the roster, if Ainge doesn't turn this team into a contender next season he never will.

Don't drink the kool-aid

Nah. It's much more fun to be in perpetually rebuilding mode, according to many on here. Draft a guy third who might be a player in three years, maybe five, maybe not.

SMH.
Coined the CelticsBlog term, "Euromistake."

Re: Measuring Success for the Celtics
« Reply #7 on: May 23, 2016, 09:44:06 PM »

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7842
  • Tommy Points: 770
Success for me usually means progress. The Celtics won more regular season games and more postseason games this year than the previous, so I'd call this year a success. Next year, I'd like to see 50 wins and an appearance in the 2nd round.

But it's also dependent on talent level. If the C's were to consolodate the roster in favor of some trade that brings in a high upside prospect that diminishes the immediate depth of the team, I'd have to readjust.
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008, 2024