Where We Stand: It’s the Offense, and the Rebounding, And…
Posted by Zach Lowe on Feb 12, 2010
The guys at the always entertaining Red’s Army decided to summon a half-dozen C’s bloggers to discuss the state of the team at the All-Star break. It was a wide-ranging discussion, but one consistent theme emerged: People assume that the C’s problems—they are 9-13 in their last 22 games, if you haven’t heard—are the result of everything but a lack of talent.
People cited all sorts of things—chemistry issues, complacency and a belief that the team can “flip the switch,” occasional selfishness, a possible divide between older and younger players.
John from Red’s Army wrapped the discussion by asking everyone to break down, in percentages, what was to blame for the C’s recent troubles. John pegged it at 70 percent mental issues, 15 percent talent, 10 percent chemistry and 5 percent wild card.
Everyone else chimed in as follows:
Jeff Clark, CelticsBlog: “can’t argue with those percentages really – I chalk it up to mostly mental”
Nick Gelso, North Station: “I agree w john and jeff, mental is majority of the issue here but I also feel their strength has always been their ability to overcome mental lapses, adv ersity through teamwork. Cohesiveness… ubuntu. Their confidence always stemmed from the strong belief in the team.”
Loscy, Loscy: Definitely mental. Definitely mental. Definitely mental. 95% mental, 4% health, 1% wildcard.
All of this got me wondering: Are we all letting our hopes get the best of us, assuming that the talent remains, waiting to be unleashed the post-season?
Don’t misunderstand. I believe completely that good teams—good veteran teams—coast through games, play down to their competition and generally save their best stuff for rivalry games and the post-season. Coaches and players basically acknowledge that reality.
And I am far, far from the point of declaring that the Celtics, as presently constructed, are not good enough to win the title, precisely because the nature of the 82-game season means we may not have seen their best stuff yet. And when they have shown an urgency, as they did against the Lakers, it was like a flash back to 2008 and early 2009. Even though they lost that game, the team played wonderfully and showed its defensive teeth.
But I can’t ignore the numbers, and the numbers say this team, right now, isn’t as good as the 2008 and 2009 teams. Those teams had perhaps one or two flaws. This team has more.
Below is a comparison of where the Celtics stood in various key categories at the All-Star break last season and where they stand now. Let’s start with the offense:
OFFENSIVE EFFICIENCY (points per 100 possessions)
2009 All-Star break: 110.7 points/100 possessions
2010 All-Star break: 107.2 points/100 possessions
FIELD-GOAL %:
2009: 48.4 %
2010: 48.4 %
THREE-POINT %:
2009: 38.4%
2010: 34.7%
OFFENSIVE REBOUNDS/G:
2009: 10.9
2010: 8.7
OFFENSIVE REBOUND PERCENTAGE (the percentage of their misses the C’s rebound)
2009: 28.4 %
2010: 23.2%
FREE THROW ATTEMPTS/G:
2009: 25.9
2010: 25.7
TURNOVER PERCENTAGE (the percentage of possessions on which Boston turns it over):
2009: 14.9%
2010: 15.3%
The offense has slipped badly this year. A dip of 3.5 points per 100 possessions doesn’t sound like much, but it’s huge. It represents the difference between a top-five or top-three offense and a league average offense, which is what the C’s are right now; they rank 14th in offensive efficiency.
As much as we (meaning: I) focus on the team’s continued sloppiness with the basketball, the team’s turnover rate this season—the worst in the league—is consistent with where it has been the last two seasons. But here’s the thing: You can be horrible in a category such as turnovers and get away with it if you’re good at everything else. Last year, the Celtics were good at everything else. They were the best three-point shooting team in the league, and they were among the top 10 in offensive rebounding and getting to the foul line.
Now? They’re 16th in three-point shooting and 28th in offensive rebounding. It will be very difficult for the Celtics to push the offense back towards the top of the league if they don’t improve in one of these categories. My guess: The turnovers will remain awful and the offensive rebounding will improve slightly if Glen Davis stays healthy and plays well.
The wild card? The three-point shot. The C’s need it to win. Without it, they are an average offensive club, and that doesn’t appear to be good enough.
Now let’s look at the defensive numbers, again comparing where the C’s stood at last year’s All-Star break and where they stand now:
DEFENSIVE EFFICIENCY:
2009 All-Star break: 100.5 points allowed/100 possessions
2010 All-Star break: 101.7 points allowed/100 possessions
OPPONENT SHOOTING %:
2009: 42.3%
2010: 44.4%
OPPONENT THREE-POINT %:
2009: 33.9%
2010: 33.7%
DEFENSIVE REBOUNDING %: (percentage of opponent misses the C’s rebound)
2009: 76.5%
2010: 73.9%
TURNOVER RATE (percentage of opponent possessions that end in turnovers)
2009: 14.1 %
2010: 15.1%
OPPONENT FREE THROWS/G:
2009: 26.2
2010: 25.3
The Celtics remain the top defensive team in the league, though the margin between Boston, Orlando, the Thunder and the Lakers is small. And you can see from the numbers how they have managed to do it: The team is forcing more turnovers and fouling less, trends that are (to a degree) making up for a slightly higher overall opponent field-goal percentage and a disastrous decline in defensive rebounding. (The C’s ranked 2nd in the league in defensive rebounding percentage at this point last season; they rank 14th right now).
And they continue to defend the three-point shot well; only four teams allow a lower percentage from deep, and the difference between 2nd (the Thunder) and 5th (the C’s) is four-tenths of a percentage point—33.3% to 33.7%.
If you can find one over-arching theme to these numbers, it is this: The Celtics need to rebound better if they want to reclaim their status among the elite. If they don’t improve their rebounding, they better improve something else, whether it’s three-point shooting or defending the mid-range area, where teams shoot a decent percentage against Boston.
In any case: This team is clearly more flawed than either of the last two versions, and the numbers confirm that.
The hope has to be that as players get healthy and the games get bigger, some of these numbers—particularly the rebounding numbers—will reverse themselves.
And if there’s one thing yesterday’s discussion at Red’s proved, it’s that C’s fans have a full tank of hope.
The Ticker