Twenty Games In: The Numbers

[PhoSita]

Twenty games.  Very nearly a quarter of the season gone by.  Are we happy with how the Celts have looked so far?  No.  10-10 is not what hardly any of us Celtics fans, or really observers of the NBA in general, expected.

What do the numbers say about this Celtics team?  What are they good at?  What are they bad (atrocious) at?


Right out the gates, it is worth noting the Celts are the #1 team in Defensive Efficiency, tied with the Oklahoma City Thunder at 100.6 points allowed per 100 possessions.

On the other end, the Celts are the 23rd team in Offensive Efficiency, tied with the Memphis Grizzlies at 104.00 points scored per 100 possessions.


Looking closer, I think it makes sense to break down four areas: 

Shooting/scoring, opponent shooting/scoring, rebounding, and turnovers.

*All team stats courtesy of TeamRankings.com*


1. Shooting / Scoring

EFG% - 21st (50.5)

FTA per FGA - 29th (0.219)

3PA - 3rd (35.8 )

2P% - 23rd (49.9%)

PIP - 30th (40.0)

Fastbreak Points - 9th (15.2)


The Celtics attempt a lot of threes, but they are a very poor shooting team.  To make matters worse, they don't get many points near the rim, either.  Worst of all, and perhaps most glaring given the makeup of the roster, the Celts don't generate free throws.

The only saving grace is that they get a good number of fast break points.  The Celts are relatively efficient in scoring on fast breaks (10th).


2. Shooting / Scoring Defense

Opp EFG% - 4th (50.1%)

Opp FTA per FGA - 11th (.255)

Opp 3PA - 24th (33.1)

Opp 2P% - 14th (51.6%)

Opp PIP - 6th (45.1)

Opp Fastbreak - 7th (11.6)


The story is mostly good here, as you'd expect from the #1 defense.  However, the Celts do allow the opponent to attempt a lot of threes.  This could be interpreted, though, as the Celts keeping opponents out of the paint. 

On the positive side, Celtics' opponents shoot the lowest percentage on three pointers in the league (31.8%).  At the same time, if this low number is to some extent due to statistical variance, a regression to the mean could be disastrous given the number of three pointers Celtics opponents attempt.


3. Rebounding

DRB% - 3rd (79.3%)
ORB% - 20th (21.5%)

The Celts are an elite defensive rebounding team, which is another factor that complements the fact that their scheme seemingly forces and/or entices opponents to attempt outside shots.

While the Celts are a poor offensive rebounding squad, this is likely by design.  The lack of offensive boards does mean that the weak shooting offense rarely gets second opportunities, further compounding that weakness.


4. Turnovers

Turnovers per possession - 3rd (13.2%) -- lower is better
Opponent TO per possession - 9th (15.0%)

The news is all good here.  The Celts don't turn the ball over very much at all.  That's good, because with their awful shooting the Celts can't afford to waste possessions.




Why can't the Celtics generate free throws?


Of the top 5 Celtics in field goals attempted, none attempts more than 3.6 free throws a game (Tatum).  Tatum's free throws are slightly up from last year.  Kyrie Irving has never been a big free throw guy, but he's attempting 3.1 a game this year after attempting 4.4 last year and 4.6 the year prior.  Jaylen Brown's minutes are down slightly from last year, but his free throw attempts per 36 are down from 3.9 to 3.1 even though his field goal attempts per minute are about the same.  Al Horford, as usual, attempts very few free throws, though his attempts are slightly down from last year as well.  Morris, likewise, generates very few three throws for such a high usage player.

Speaking generally, the Celts are lacking a player who can generate a good number of free throws.  Gordon Hayward, in his last healthy season, attempted almost 6 per game.  Hayward, unfortunately, is currently nowhere close to the player he was back then.

The Celts probably don't have any answer on their roster for this problem, but even so, they can't afford to have so many of their top guys generating even fewer free throws than before.


Why are the Celtics such a poor shooting team?

Among the top 5 players on the Celtics in three pointers attempted, Kyrie is shooting about the same as in previous years (38.5%).  Morris, a career 36% shooter from deep, is shooting a likely unsustainable 43.5%.  Tatum's 39.5% is less than last season's 43.4% from deep, but he is attempting more threes this year, so he's shooting about as you would expect. 

The main culprits are Jaylen Brown, shooting about 25% on 4.2 attempts per game, and Gordon Hayward, shooting 28.6% on 3.9 attempts per game.  Gordon's poor shooting is easy to explain, though he probably ought to take fewer shots (and play fewer minutes) in general.  Jaylen's shooting is way down from last season's 39.5%, though that was probably a bit of a fluke considering as a rookie he was a 34.5% outside shooter on few attempts. 

Al Horford, 6th on the team in three pointers attempted per game, is also struggling at 31.9% on 3.8 attempts.  That number should go up, though likely not that much given that prior to last year's 42.9%, Al had shot about 35% on threes in the two prior seasons that he attempted a significant number of outside shots per game.


Overall, the answer here seems to be that the Celts have too many mediocre shooters attempting a large number of threes.  It doesn't help matters that among the top 7 players on the team in two point field goals attempted, none shoots better than 58% (Horford).


Bottom line, the Celts really need to figure out how to generate more easy buckets.  Shooting more threes, or hitting a higher percentage of their threes, is probably not the answer to fix this offense.



What has happened in the Celts' 10 losses?

Mavs (11/24) - Celts were beaten by 9 points in a game where the Mavs shot 16-41 from deep against the Celts' 10-28.

Knicks (11/21) - The Knicks shot 49% from the field to the Celts' 39%.

Hornets (11/19) - Hornets shot 15-41 from deep to the Celts' 9-32.

Jazz (11/17) - Utah had the edge in fast break points 11-4, free throws made 17-11, and threes made 11-5.

Blazers (11/11) - Portland killed the Celts inside with 42-26 points in the paint and 8 more rebounds.

Jazz (11/9) - Utah killed the Celts inside 56-35 on the glass, 50-38 points in the paint, 56-44 FG%

Nuggets (11/5) - Denver had a decided edge in rebounds, free throws, and threes made -- all around offensive efficiency.

Pacers (11/3) - In a 1 point game, the Pacers had a 19-6 edge in free throws made.

Magic (10/22) - In a 3 point game, the Celts managed to shoot even worse than the Magic, going 9-40 from deep, while the Magic went 10-35.  FT and boards were even.

Raps (10/19) - Toronto beasted the Celts 46-34 in the paint, and shot 14 free throws to the Celts' 7.



There appear to be two basic flavor of Celtics' losses this year so far.  In one set of games, the Celts got destroyed inside (e.g. Portland, Utah, Toronto), while in another set of games, they lost either because they shot very poorly or their opponent shot very well.

Given that the Celtics have good interior defensive and rebounding numbers overall, the games where they were beaten handily inside suggest that certain opponents have a decided matchup advantage to exploit inside against the Celtics.

Losing games because the opponent gets hot from outside will happen occasionally to even the best teams.  However, the fact that the Celts allow a high number of outside shots does open them up to losing more games due to opponents getting hot.  That the Celts are themselves a terrible shooting team makes it harder for them to keep up in those circumstances.



Bottom line, is there cause for optimism?

The Celts are still, despite several bad outings including last night's game against Dallas, an elite defensive team.  That is consistent with their performance last season, and we should expect that they will continue to defend at a very high level.  That will win them a lot of games.

It's worth noting that Memphis, not quite as good a defensive team as the Celtics and tied with the Celtics in terms of offense, is 12-6 with a very similar point differential.  That suggests that the Celtics may have been a little unlucky so far (and/or the Grizz lucky) in terms of record.


At the same time, the Celts are a team with a very talented roster that somehow is very, very bad at generating high quality looks or converting their shots with good efficiency. 

If you consider that the Celtics were the 18th best offense in the league during last year's regular season, and the 10th best offense in the postseason, you might conclude that there's not a lot of reason to expect the Celts to get a lot better in that area.

In theory, Hayward returning and the continued development of Tatum and Brown was supposed to provide the basis for a jump into the top 10 in offense.  Combine a top 10 offense with the top defense in the league, and you have a contender on your hands.

Unfortunately, Hayward looks a long way off from being the player he was in Utah.  Meanwhile, Tatum has not yet made a leap, even if his overall numbers are up a bit from his rookie season.  Jaylen Brown, far from making a leap, has been considerably worse than last season.


The answer here may simply be that progress in the NBA is not always linear, especially when you are dealing with very young players shouldering a lot of responsibility.  The Celts had a magical playoff run last season, and they are coached by one of the most well regarded minds in the league.  That is why there was a lot of optimism that youth and Hayward's return from a major injury wouldn't prevent the team from winning a lot of games. 

So far, it hasn't worked out that way.




What do you think?  Is there anything you've seen this year that you think is missing from the numbers I've covered here?

Are you optimistic, or pessimistic? 


Personally, I will say that I think the Celts will right the ship at least to some extent.  They'll continue to be great on defense, despite occasionally getting shelled from deep, and the offense will tick up somewhat.  Ultimately I expect them to manage about 50 wins.

Unfortunately, given how the East is looking so far, that will probably mean they won't have home court advantage after the first round (if they even have it in the first), and it will probably be very difficult for them to make another deep run.

[mctyson]

Twenty games.  Very nearly a quarter of the season gone by.  Are we happy with how the Celts have looked so far?  No.  10-10 is not what hardly any of us Celtics fans, or really observers of the NBA in general, expected.

What do the numbers say about this Celtics team?  What are they good at?  What are they bad (atrocious) at?


What do you think?  Is there anything you've seen this year that you think is missing from the numbers I've covered here?

Are you optimistic, or pessimistic? 

Thanks for the break down.  Basically what you have summarized are the stats of a team that would be .500, and that is what the Celtics are.  Unless you think individual performances are going to dramatically change (I do not), then the future is not so bright.

I also think there are a couple of things missing:

1) Need an evaluation of the net ratings by lineups and rotations.  Take a look at who the most played combinations are, particularly 3- and 4-man combinations, and see where the worst (and most played) ones lie. 

2) We need to admit that the excuse "teams are just shooting better than the Celtics" means that teams are better than the Celtics.  Basketball is a game that requires the ball to go through the hoop more, not less, than the opponent.

3) I am not sure why the Celtics were expected to have offensive firepower this season.  They were a mediocre offensive team last year and Kyrie did play a majority of the regular season.  Was it just the addition of Hayward?  If that is the case I think everyone needs to re-evaluate the expectations, and laying out Haywards offensive production throughout his career would highlight that.

[PhoSita]

One thing that is interesting is that the three man combo of Kyrie - Tatum - Horford (arguably the team's three best players) has a Net Rtg of 9.1 with a ORTG of 107 and a DRTG of 98.1.  That trio has played 364 minutes in 18 games.

The trio of Horford, Irving, Brown, however, in 320 minutes, has a -2.5 net rating, with a 100.1 ORTG.


Yet Kyrie - Brown - Tatum in 294 minutes has a Net of 5.2.

I'm not really sure what to make of all that.


What is clear is that the most used lineup - by far - i.e. the starters, is bad.  That lineup has a -4.5 Net Rtg in 137 minutes so far this season.


Overall I'm really not sure how to parse the +/- from the lineup combos apart from saying the most used lineup has been bad.

[LilRip]

I’m not so optimistic. If the Celtics don’t make changes and just rely on the law of averages (eg hoping Brown and Hayward’s shooting will improve), I don’t see this team having home court in the first round. I think something needs to shake up the roster and I don’t necessarily mean a trade. I’m talking like another lineup change, or a role player (Semi?) suddenly getting more minutes, or an extended injury to one of the key guys again.

Tbh I liked the way the team played against Dallas for long stretches. There was a more concerted effort to go inside and not settle for threes. But it seems like when things got tight, guys reverted back to resorting to threes aka making the home run play rather than hitting singles.

[coco]

Some of our players have to find ways to have a positive impact even when they are having trouble offensively.

Rozzier, Brown and Tatum comes to mind.....

[Who]

I still haven't seen anyone in the East that has more talent than Boston. Toronto are a good but not great team. Milwaukee are awkward to play against. Philly have top level talent but questionable depth. Boston has the most balanced and most talented roster in the East.

I care about talent a heck of a lot more than a W-L record (especially over only 20 games).

Boston is the best team in the East.

[PhoSita]

I still haven't seen anyone in the East that has more talent than Boston. Toronto are a good but not great team. Milwaukee are awkward to play against. Philly have top level talent but questionable depth. Boston has the most balanced and most talented roster in the East.

I care about talent a heck of a lot more than a W-L record (especially over only 20 games).

Boston is the best team in the East.

There's talent and then there's how you play.

Where do you think the Celts will improve as the season goes on, and how?

I don't think it's as simple as saying "they're too talented not to figure it out."  Even factoring in Hayward's struggles returning from injury, it doesn't really make sense to me that they are this bad at generating efficient offense.

[Green-18]

TP for taking the time to put that together! 

I'll start by looking into the 4th quarter dynamic of this team compared to last season.  If I remember correctly, Kyrie was closing games at a historically efficient rate throughout the first 20 games.  His two man game with Horford was lethal. 

Didn't Horford also have a crazy streak where he posted a positive +/- throughout the entire first month of the season?  I believe there was a long stretch where Horford lead the entire league in plus/minus, real plus/minus, and net rating.

Let's see if the stats actually back up my memory.....

1.  Kyrie posted a 41.9 net rating in crunch time (last 5 mins, 5 point differential or less) with a 77% EFG during the first 20 games of the season.  His overall 4th quarter net rating was 36.2 on 63% EFG.

This season Kyrie still has a net rating of 25 in crunch time. 

2.  Al Horford posted a 39 net rating in crunch time with an unreal 85% EFG.  His overall 4th quarter net rating was 44.2 on 61% EFG. 

This season his net rating is only 3.3 in crunch time.

I could go down the list but the numbers from last year were absolutely insane.  Their success was predicated on the 4th quarter combo of Kyrie and Horford.  Tatum also emerged as an elite clutch shot maker during this stretch.

My final conclusion is that the win streak from last year covered up a lot of offensive flaws that have carried over to this season.  Combine this with the addition of new players, confusion of roles, and general lack of confidence, and you have a mediocre .500 basketball team. 

Overall I am optimistic that the Celtics will find the grit and desire to become a formidable playoff team.  I also believe that they will be more suited for the grind of playoff basketball.  Unfortunately this alone will not get them through the Conference.  The offense simply needs to become more efficient.  What reason do we have to believe this is possible?  The sample size is far too large dating back to last season.



 








 

[hwangjini_1]

thanks for a great analysis and a boatload of work to put it together. lots of well-deserved tps are migrating towards you.

next, my conclusion is driven as much by preference as stats i suppose. the numbers you give, as you note, lend themselves to a "glass half full/empty" set of conclusions.

defense? they be rocking and stopping other teams as well as anyone. this alone should place them in the winning column. yet, it hasn't.

offense, as you note, the pieces/players are there similar last year, but they dont seem to produce in a way that wins.

this is team on the cusp, at least to me. what separated their losses from their wins, to me, was a combination of factors, no one being the single or sole reason. i cannot match Pho's brilliant stats above, but will provide some observations based upon them.

1. lack of adjustment on defense. this is subjective, but the other teams seem to find a play/tactic that works and the celtics are slow in responding to it. how many times does barea, et al, have to torch rozier before adjustments are made? this, i put more on CBS. he should make quicker adjustments in game.

2. their defense is not consistent. i dont just mean that they take plays off as a team, which they do sometimes, but rather that i see the team will play credible defense, but one player will not make the switch or miss a play properly. the culprit seems to shift as well. this i put on more players, some more than others. they have to play consistent defense for the entire 24 seconds.

3. the celtics have trouble with fast, quick guards on pick and rolls. CBS needs to address this, and he can.

4. on offense, the celtics take a lot of three pointers, and a high percentage of them are open, as has been discussed many times. they are simply missing and no one can figure out why. if they had shot 3 pointers at their historical rates early on, 3 or so losses would now be wins and the level of anxiety, stress, angst, and wailing here would be much, much lower. i expect the shooting to regress to the mean over the course of a season. here, i preach patience....my most common post on CS.

5. the celtics have trouble driving to the basket. i think this is partly connected to 3 point shooting, but this is a guess. teams seem to say "shoot threes, we are defending the basket down low." this invites the celtics into a mid-range/3 point game. result? see #4 above. on this, i think CBS, once more, has to adjust and create more plays that take the ball to the basket. right now, they are way to reliant on kyrie to create points by attacking the basket, which makes them predictable and thus defendable.

6. which leads me to this point - free throw shooting. it is hard to get many free throws when you take so many threes. i do not mind the 3 point shooting, but they celtics also need to be a LOT more aggressive in attacking the basket, and it has to be more than kyrie doing this. to me, this boils down to game-strategy, which means CBS needs to rethink his approach.

7. penultimate whine, take the shot near the basket. so many times this year, hayward and others have driven to the basket but then instead of taking the shot passed it back out. i understand the thinking, collapse the defense, kick out for the open 3. but sometimes they need to take the layup. hayward, to my eyes, seems to do this more than others. but this last point is so subjective and lacking in data that i may simply be full of crap.

8. finally, i think CBS may have planned on hayward being more of a factor than he is. with a healthy hayward, the celtics win 3 or more games. but he isnt healthy. i love his passing, he defense is fine over all, but his shooting is poor and he lacks confidence in it. gutsy move by CBS to put hayward on the bench. not easy to do with stars with large salaries. now CBS needs to adjust the team's offense to include this shift to the bench.

so, my conclusion is that the celtics have the talent to win a lot of games. but they are inconsistent in various areas, each one taking its toll, and collectively they create a lot of losses. add in what i consider to be less than the stellar coaching than we are used to and you can see the thin edge between winning and losing in the nba.

this team will right the ship and still win a lot of games. and those people predicting that the celics will not make the playoffs? ha ha....i would be happy to have you put your tps where your typing-fingers are.

again, thanks Pho. great thread.

[Who]

I still haven't seen anyone in the East that has more talent than Boston. Toronto are a good but not great team. Milwaukee are awkward to play against. Philly have top level talent but questionable depth. Boston has the most balanced and most talented roster in the East.

I care about talent a heck of a lot more than a W-L record (especially over only 20 games).

Boston is the best team in the East.

There's talent and then there's how you play.

Where do you think the Celts will improve as the season goes on, and how?

I don't think it's as simple as saying "they're too talented not to figure it out."  Even factoring in Hayward's struggles returning from injury, it doesn't really make sense to me that they are this bad at generating efficient offense.

How you play in the short term is of little importance.

Talent is king unless talent does not fit together. If you feel the talent cannot function together, then yes, it is time to be worried. I am not there yet. I think this group can function together. I think they have complementary skill-sets.

The main thing will be getting Hayward back healthy. He will create more efficient offense both for himself and for others.

Then they have to go back through Horford and not Kyrie. Horford cares more about his teammates and getting others involved. That will improve shot efficiency for rest of the team.

Jaylen and Tatum are young and will improve.

There are lots of causes for optimism and room for improvement in this team.

[PhoSita]

There are lots of causes for optimism and room for improvement in this team.

I don't necessarily disagree, I just don't think it's a simple problem the solution to which will amount to "talent wins out in the end."


I agree with you about running the offense through Horford more.  Brad's system requires the big men to be really involved, and it seems to run most smoothly when the big men touch the ball a lot.

Hayward will (hopefully) improve over time.  If the Celts had Hayward at 100% I think a lot of their problems would be solved right now.  It doesn't seem likely to me that he'll be at 100% before next season, though.

[Hank Finkel]

There are lots of causes for optimism and room for improvement in this team.

I don't necessarily disagree, I just don't think it's a simple problem the solution to which will amount to "talent wins out in the end."

.   


I agree with you about running the offense through Horford more.  Brad's system requires the big men to be really involved, and it seems to run most smoothly when the big men touch the ball a lot.

Hayward will (hopefully) improve over time.  If the Celts had Hayward at 100% I think a lot of their problems would be solved right now.

  I have a question for someone in the know..   How long before Paul George recovered from his injury to 100%.  His injury was just as bad if I remember right. 

[kmart12]

TP for the breakdown and summary. Much appreciated.

An interesting point, and one that I observed throughout the season, is the team's inability to generate free throws. If there are two guys who should be able to get to the line it would be Brown and Tatum. Both have the length, athleticism, and ability to drive and create contact getting to the rim. If anything, Brown should be honing in on this potential aspect of his game because it could be what propels him from a "good" prospect to "great", considering his isolation skills are not all that impressive. However, he's taking about 40% of his shots from beyond the perimeter and not connecting at a good clip, so there's a lot of room for improvement in Brown's game at the moment.

As for Tatum, he still needs to learn when settling for a mid range jumper is a good idea and when he needs to put his head down and force himself to the basket. Tatum's shooting over four 3's a game and shooting an impressive 40% at that, but he needs to close the gap more frequently when he gets within the 3pt line on the rest of his attempts.

Kyrie and Horford are just not physical basketball players and to with for them to be better at getting to the line is a wish to change their games almost entirely. It's encouraging to see Kyrie be more aggressive towards the hoop, but he's not one to thrive or seek out contact. I agree with your mentioning of Hayward as a source of hope, however; when he's at his best he knows how to pick his spots around the hoop.

[Moranis]

I still haven't seen anyone in the East that has more talent than Boston. Toronto are a good but not great team. Milwaukee are awkward to play against. Philly have top level talent but questionable depth. Boston has the most balanced and most talented roster in the East.

I care about talent a heck of a lot more than a W-L record (especially over only 20 games).

Boston is the best team in the East.

The problem is all 3 of those teams all have the best player in the series when they play Boston and the Sixers probably will have the 2 best players on the floor.  Top end talent is generally what wins playoff series.  It is hard to win a series when you don't have the best player.  I get that Boston did it twice last year, but you can't expect that to repeat itself again and again.  And I think you are really underselling Toronto's talent.  They are very deep and Kawhi just gives them a dimension they haven't had (plus Lebron isn't in the East anymore and he really was Toronto's problem).  Right now Boston would play Philly, Milwaukee, and then Toronto all as the road team.  Boston isn't going through that to make the Finals.  Just too difficult.  Even getting up to the 4/5 slot isn't all that much better as Indiana is no slouch (though at least Boston would have the best player in that series).  Boston has shown that it needs home court advantage as well to beat some of these teams.  Boston has the depth and talent to do it, but they are going to have play a lot better for awhile to show they are the team we thought they might be.

I really think Brown needs to go to the bench.  He has been awful.  It is time to put him in the spot where he can be most useful.  Irving, Smart, Hayward, Tatum, and Horford should start.  Against the teams with a lot of size, then swap in Baynes for Smart or Hayward (depending on the wings).  Brown can lead the second unit where he can have the ball in his hand a lot, which is when he is most effective (he is also better at SF than at SG).

[Csfan1984]

I know I said I'd be lurking till trade deadline but want to chime in.

I feel on offensive there is a flow issue too many guys getting cute with the ball or moving half speed when the ball is not going to them.  (In Hayward's case he is just plain slow right now).

 They need to start practicing at game speed and simplify moments. Brad's offense is spacing and pace which they have none due to iso play and long twos. Clearly the players are not on the same page. Everyone wants to make star plays. Get simple be a machine! Spot up threes are a lot easier then step back twos. They need to look for the open man. Also attack aggressive close outs by getting all the way to the paint unless you see a rotation that leaves a guy wide open. It's basic basketball that they aren't playing.

On defense the guards need to stop gambling on ball movements and just watch their man. If you stay in front of the man it doesn't matter what he does with the ball. And if you dont have a shot blocker in the paint you never lead a guy. Again its all basic. They also need to work on traps. Being sayin it for a while they ice too much. Guards love seeing ice. Between seeing open lead lanes and ice every guard in the league is circling C's games as a easy night.