Why can't we have offense like that?

[spotatl]

You really don't get it. I'll try this a different way- if Kendrick Perkins where playing for the Hawks this season don't you see that he would have signifcantly fewer turnovers? He wouldn't pick up ridiculous offensive fouls for setting picks that don't lead to anything. (You know that an offensive foul counts as a turnover right?) He wouldn't be getting the ball except when the defense is already in motion. The Hawks scheme keeps the ball mostly in the hands of guys who are the most capable with the ball. They give it to the more limited halfcourt players once the defense is already in motion. Boston does have better ball movement- but that means they are making more passes (leading to more turnovers) and the ball spends mroe time in the hands of guys who are less of a threat on offense (leading to more turnovers). And when Perkins is spending lots of time on the permimeter setting picks for Ray allen it means that he isn't in position to get an offensive rebound.

You say that Turnovers aren't part of the game plan but turnovers are absolutely result of the scheme you choose to run. Finding ways to limit turnovers should absolutely be part of the gameplan. The Hawks scheme limits turnovers, gets more shots for the best offensive players, and for guys who don't create offensive well for themselves it gets them the ball mostly when they are likely to do something positive with it.

If you want to score more points then I think that looking at ways to turn the ball over less and to get offensive rebounds is a pretty great place to start. For some weird reason you don't consider this a legitimate strategy.

Edited February 4, 2010 by spotatl

[dlpin]

You really don't get it. I'll try this a different way- if Kendrick Perkins where playing for the Hawks this season don't you see that he would have signifcantly fewer turnovers? He wouldn't pick up ridiculous offensive fouls for setting picks that don't lead to anything. (You know that an offensive foul counts as a turnover right?) He wouldn't be getting the ball except when the defense is already in motion. The Hawks scheme keeps the ball mostly in the hands of guys who are the most capable with the ball. They give it to the more limited halfcourt players once the defense is already in motion. Boston does have better ball movement- but that means they are making more passes (leading to more turnovers) and the ball spends mroe time in the hands of guys who are less of a threat on offense (leading to more turnovers). And when Perkins is spending lots of time on the permimeter setting picks for Ray allen it means that he isn't in position to get an offensive rebound.

You say that Turnovers aren't part of the game plan but turnovers are absolutely result of the scheme you choose to run. Finding ways to limit turnovers should absolutely be part of the gameplan. The Hawks scheme limits turnovers, gets more shots for the best offensive players, and for guys who don't create offensive well for themselves it gets them the ball mostly when they are likely to do something positive with it.

If you want to score more points then I think that looking at ways to turn the ball over less and to get offensive rebounds is a pretty great place to start. For some weird reason you don't consider this a legitimate strategy.

I'm sorry, but it's obvious you don't watch many celtics games. Perkins has 32 offensive fouls this season, and 115 turnovers, so this whole notion that he gets turnovers setting picks is false. Heck, against the hawks he traveled 4 times in one game. The reason he gets so many turnovers is mostly because of what 82games.com classifies as "ballhandling turnovers." In fact, just compare his numbers with those of Sheed: Perkins turns the ball over in 21.4% of the plays, Sheed, his immediate back up, turns the ball over on 7.7% of the plays. If it was the system and not the player, Sheed would have a similar turnover ratio.

And offensive rebounds has a lot more to do with personnel than game plan. Zaza was a great offensive rebounder even before he came to the hawks, and sheed was an abysmal offensive rebounder even before he went to the celtics.

The fact remains: the celtics score a lot more per shot than the hawks. Another fact: against the top 10 defensive teams, the celtics are 18-9, the hawks 8-12. Another fact: Hawk's average assist on wins 23.9, on losses 17.7. Another fact: JJ's stats on wins: 21.5 ppg, 5.1 ast, in losses: 22.2 ppg, 4.1 ast. Another fact: Paul Pierce's stats on wins: 18.6 ppg, 3.6 ast, on losses: 19.4 ppg, 2.9 ast.

The idea that "iso star player" is a better offensive strategy than sharing the ball is false, and proven by all relevant stats. Both the hawks and the celtics do better when their star players share the ball more, even if they score less. If the celtics played the exact same style, but was better in offensive rebounding, the celtics would have a better offense than the hawks.

[spotatl]

I'm sorry- but its obvious you don't know how stats work. Congratulations on finding out the more points you ahve the more assists you have! Congratulations on finding out that the more points you score the more likely you are to win! Next you will deduce that the more freethrows you shoot the more you win and the less you turn the ball over the more you win. You may also find out that the single most effective play in football is having the quarterback kneel with the ball multiple times in the 4th quarter. Look at how often teams that do that win! Correlation does not mean causation. Just because teams that win have more assists does not mean that teams with better assist rates have more efficient offenses. (and you do understand the Hawks are 6th in the league in assist rate right?)

Last season 1/3rd of Kendrick Perkins turnovers were from offensive fouls. You somehow don't think this is relevant? Do you doubt that he would handle the ball less on the Hawks because of their system? Do you doubt he would be asked to pass as much as he does on the Celtics? Once again- do you really doubt that he would have fewer turnovers if he were on the Hawks?

All I care about on an offense is how many points they score per 100 possessions. I don't care if they do it ugly or pretty. Its not pretty to have a conscious effort to be OK with putting up a lower percentage shot and going after the offensive rebound rather than making more passes and risking a turnover. Its not pretty to run the same play over and over. But if the other team has trouble stopping that play then thats what I am goign to do until the defense compensates enough to hurt me. And then I'll look for ways to hurt them for whatever adjustments they had to make. If Joe were getting shut down 1 on 1 then of course the Hawks need to make a change. But to me most of the complaints about the hawks offense are really about what joe does after he beats his man- and to me this is better than the alternative of Watching Bibby, Josh, Al, or Marvin try and create chances which I think they are absolutely incapable of doing. Some people simply don't care how effective the offense is- they don't think its pretty enough. How often do you score when you get possession of the ball is all that matters to me.

On the Hawks they have only 2 guys who can consistently beat 1 on 1 coverage, draw a double team, and find the open guy. The Hawks have no legitimate post threat on the team. The starting PG isn't a threat against even the poorest defensive PG's. Both bigmen are better suited to getting points in transition than in the halfcourt. With all this the Hawks have a top 4 offense in the league. I just find it hilarious that people still refuse to give Woodson any credit even when he gets great results.

[AHF]

I don't think there is a credible argument to be made that Kendrick Perkins would average the same number of turnovers in our offense. He clearly wouldn't touch the ball or turn it over nearly as much on our team. I'm not rehashing my concerns about not having a Plan B for our halfcourt offense.

[dlpin]

I'm sorry- but its obvious you don't know how stats work. Congratulations on finding out the more points you ahve the more assists you have! Congratulations on finding out that the more points you score the more likely you are to win! Next you will deduce that the more freethrows you shoot the more you win and the less you turn the ball over the more you win. You may also find out that the single most effective play in football is having the quarterback kneel with the ball multiple times in the 4th quarter. Look at how often teams that do that win! Correlation does not mean causation. Just because teams that win have more assists does not mean that teams with better assist rates have more efficient offenses. (and you do understand the Hawks are 6th in the league in assist rate right?)

Last season 1/3rd of Kendrick Perkins turnovers were from offensive fouls. You somehow don't think this is relevant? Do you doubt that he would handle the ball less on the Hawks because of their system? Do you doubt he would be asked to pass as much as he does on the Celtics? Once again- do you really doubt that he would have fewer turnovers if he were on the Hawks?

All I care about on an offense is how many points they score per 100 possessions. I don't care if they do it ugly or pretty. Its not pretty to have a conscious effort to be OK with putting up a lower percentage shot and going after the offensive rebound rather than making more passes and risking a turnover. Its not pretty to run the same play over and over. But if the other team has trouble stopping that play then thats what I am goign to do until the defense compensates enough to hurt me. And then I'll look for ways to hurt them for whatever adjustments they had to make. If Joe were getting shut down 1 on 1 then of course the Hawks need to make a change. But to me most of the complaints about the hawks offense are really about what joe does after he beats his man- and to me this is better than the alternative of Watching Bibby, Josh, Al, or Marvin try and create chances which I think they are absolutely incapable of doing. Some people simply don't care how effective the offense is- they don't think its pretty enough. How often do you score when you get possession of the ball is all that matters to me.

On the Hawks they have only 2 guys who can consistently beat 1 on 1 coverage, draw a double team, and find the open guy. The Hawks have no legitimate post threat on the team. The starting PG isn't a threat against even the poorest defensive PG's. Both bigmen are better suited to getting points in transition than in the halfcourt. With all this the Hawks have a top 4 offense in the league. I just find it hilarious that people still refuse to give Woodson any credit even when he gets great results.

I'm sorry, but if there is anyone clueless about stats here, it's you. I cited turnover percentage, so it already controls for how many times one touches the ball. And, again, if it was something based on gameplan, Sheed would have a similar turnover percentage.

Again, how do you explain the fact that the celtics do better against good defensive teams than the hawks? (by the way, i mixed up the data last post, the celtics are 9-4 against the top 10 defensive teams, not 18-9). How do you explain that, against the top 10 defensive teams Boston has averaged 96.99 points a game, and the hawks just 94.88? Could it be that constant iso plays do not work against top defensive teams?

Oh, and here are the splits for the top 6 players in the hawks team:

In wins:

JJ: 21.9 ppg, 5.1 ast

crawford: 18.6 3.3 ast

Smith: 15.7 3.9

Horford 14.7 2.2

Williams 10.5 1.2

Bibby 9.2 4.6

In losses:

JJ: 22.2 4.1

Crawford: 15.8 2.1

Smith: 13.8 3.5

Horford: 10.9 1.8

Williams : 9.6 0.8

Bibby: 8.2 3.5

Oh, and regarding offensive rebounds: if they are based so much on the game plan, how do you explain the fact that Pachulia had similar offensive rebounding rates before he came to the hawks? And sheed had abysmal offensive rebounding rates before he came to the celtics?

I'm not debating whether or not the hawks are a better offensive team. They are. Im arguing that the celtics run better offensive sets, and that iso plays are awful.

And the evidence is there. How do you explain the fact that the celtics score more against good defensive teams? How do you explain the fact that hawks' wins are directly correlated with JJ scoring less and everyone else scoring more?

[spotatl]

Just because I don't know where you got your numbers I'll do the math on the top defensive teams. The top 6 defensive teams are Boston, Lakers, Cavs, magic, Bobcats and OKC (!). I show Boston averaging 93 points a game against them. Atlanta against the top 6 defensive teams average the same 93 points a game. This is of course thrown off because Orlando just owns the Hawks- the Hawks have scored just 76, 81, and 86 points against the magic. If you want to talk about what the Hawks should be doing differently against the magic then we can have that discussion. (hint- Joe needs to draw more fouls) But other than that I don't see the same evidence that you do that the Hawks are struggling against top defensive teams. I have a feeling that you may be using just PPG for a measure of defenses rather than something that isn't pace adjusted? (the next top defensive teams are Chicago, Milwaukee, Utah, and San Antonio and I didn't include them because I don't consider them elite defensive teams which is what your discussion was talking about) And another hint- if you want to talk about why the Hawks record isn't better against top teams maybe you should notice that the Hawks are not part of the top 10 defensive teams in the league.

On joe's stats in wins and losses- remember that correlation does not equal causation. In a blowout Joe isn't going to play as many minutes and the other guys should get more shots and everyone should have more assists. Jamal Crawford has put up a lot of points with the game out of hand this season.

I think the fundamental mistake you are making is thinking that the Hawks offense is designed for Joe Johnson to not pass the ball. The Hawks are 6th in the league in assist rate so I don't know how its possible you have missed this. The Offense is designed for him to beat his man, draw the double and then get the ball to people when the defense is already in motion. To me this is the proper offense for the team when they have a lot of guys who are better in transition than they are in halfcourt. As I have said- I think the Hawks offense bogs down when Joe draws the double, recognizes the open guy and shoots anyway. But to me the conversation of what Joe should do with the ball is separate from whether its good offense to start the play with him beating his man off the dribble.

The Celtics have had a better offense than the Hawks the past 2 years. I think with equal coaching they would have a better offense than the Hawks this year as well. I just don't see how Woodson is getting no credit at all for the Hawks having a top 4 offense in the league.

Edited February 4, 2010 by spotatl

[TheNorthCydeRises]

I'll just repeat this. Rasheed Wallace has attempted 40 more 3 pointers this season than Paul Pierce. How anyone can be jealous of that offensive scheme is just beyond me.

WHAT??!!! That's pure insanity right there. Isn't Pierce shooting in the mid-40s from 3 point range? WOW @ that stat for Rasheed.

But then again, this is the same fan base that believes in thr eFG% so much, that they view a 34% 3 point shooter as being "good", because the eFG% on his threes is equal to a little over 50% FG when compared to 2 point shots.

No . . a 34% 3FG shooter is usualy a very streaky shooter who shouldn't be jacking up no more than 2 threes a game.

The fact is that a guy who is shooting 34% from three ( and especially if over 30% of his total shot attempts come from 3 ), will literally shoot you right out of most games. Sheed's three point bricks enabled us to come back in one of those Boston games. Boston fans ripped Sheed because he kept jacking up jumpers.

People love Boston's system because of the movement. But like you said, if they're getting guys the ball who probably shouldn't be taking a number of shots in the first place, how good is the system really?

You switch out JosH Smith and Kevin Garnett, and what do you have?

You'll have Smoove taking more open 15 - 20 foot jumpers, while also doing more cutting to the basket to try to get layups. If he got the ball out on the perimeter, but the shot wasn't there, he'd be encouraged to pass the ball, rather than take his man off the dribble.

On our side, you'd have KG ( if healthy ) down on the blocks, going ISO on his man to shoot his patented baseline jumper . . . or passing out to one of our shooters JJ, Bibby, Jamal, etc, if the opponent doubled him.

Which player would be more successful if they were to switch teams?

[dlpin]

my numbers all come from basketball-reference.com and 82games.com

If the celtics had a better offense the past 2 years, and just now the hawks have passed it, wouldn't the obvious conclusion be that the celtics have a better scheme, but the hawks have now passed them with better offensive personnel? Did either team start playing differently this season? Rondo, Perkins, KG and Sheed are all great players, but that is because of their defense, not offense.

Oh, and while Orlando certainly skews the numbers downward for the hawks, the celtics (who cant play against themselves) skew it upwards. In fact, of the top 6 defensive teams, the hawks only has a better offensive production than the celtics against the lakers. If you really think that the top 6 defensive teams are the only elite teams, here's how it breaks down:

BOS ATL

Cha 100 93

LAL 89 110

ORL 86 81

OKC 105 95

Cavs 95 92.5

And the lakers were without Gasol in that matchup. So, again, the celtics have consistently done better than the hawks against good defensive teams. Those numbers are not adjusted for pace, but given the fact that the two teams have almost identical paces (91.5 vs 91) the rest of the season, I doubt that is the explanation.

Edited February 4, 2010 by dlpin

[dlpin]

WHAT??!!! That's pure insanity right there. Isn't Pierce shooting in the mid-40s from 3 point range? WOW @ that stat for Rasheed.

But then again, this is the same fan base that believes in thr eFG% so much, that they view a 34% 3 point shooter as being "good", because the eFG% on his threes is equal to a little over 50% FG when compared to 2 point shots.

No . . a 34% 3FG shooter is usualy a very streaky shooter who shouldn't be jacking up no more than 2 threes a game.

The fact is that a guy who is shooting 34% from three ( and especially if over 30% of his total shot attempts come from 3 ), will literally shoot you right out of most games. Sheed's three point bricks enabled us to come back in one of those Boston games. Boston fans ripped Sheed because he kept jacking up jumpers.

People love Boston's system because of the movement. But like you said, if they're getting guys the ball who probably shouldn't be taking a number of shots in the first place, how good is the system really?

You switch out JosH Smith and Kevin Garnett, and what do you have?

You'll have Smoove taking more open 15 - 20 foot jumpers, while also doing more cutting to the basket to try to get layups. If he got the ball out on the perimeter, but the shot wasn't there, he'd be encouraged to pass the ball, rather than take his man off the dribble.

On our side, you'd have KG ( if healthy ) down on the blocks, going ISO on his man to shoot his patented baseline jumper . . . or passing out to one of our shooters JJ, Bibby, Jamal, etc, if the opponent doubled him.

Which player would be more successful if they were to switch teams?

Regarding Sheed: he shoots so many 3 pointers because he wants to, not because the game plan calls for that. Doc has told Sheed numerous times to not shoot as much, so that is not on the game plan.

And second, it is amazing to me that you still don't understand that eFG% is important precisely because of guys like Sheed. His eFG% on 3 pointers is 45%, his eFG in the paint is 57%, therefore eFG% tells you that he should play in the paint more.

Im not going to discuss eFG% with you again, because its clearly hopeless. But what you tried to pass out as an efg% weakness is actually a strength.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

All I care about on an offense is how many points they score per 100 possessions. I don't care if they do it ugly or pretty. Its not pretty to have a conscious effort to be OK with putting up a lower percentage shot and going after the offensive rebound rather than making more passes and risking a turnover. Its not pretty to run the same play over and over. But if the other team has trouble stopping that play then thats what I am goign to do until the defense compensates enough to hurt me. And then I'll look for ways to hurt them for whatever adjustments they had to make. If Joe were getting shut down 1 on 1 then of course the Hawks need to make a change. But to me most of the complaints about the hawks offense are really about what joe does after he beats his man- and to me this is better than the alternative of Watching Bibby, Josh, Al, or Marvin try and create chances which I think they are absolutely incapable of doing. Some people simply don't care how effective the offense is- they don't think its pretty enough. How often do you score when you get possession of the ball is all that matters to me.

On the Hawks they have only 2 guys who can consistently beat 1 on 1 coverage, draw a double team, and find the open guy. The Hawks have no legitimate post threat on the team. The starting PG isn't a threat against even the poorest defensive PG's. Both bigmen are better suited to getting points in transition than in the halfcourt. With all this the Hawks have a top 4 offense in the league. I just find it hilarious that people still refuse to give Woodson any credit even when he gets great results.

It is hilarious, and they'll never give Woody credit. Even with Crawford, a guy who is having one of his most efficient seasons ever, he'll get no credit whatsoever.

And you're exactly right. Our PG can't beat anybody off the dribble. Our post players struggle to create their own offense down on the blocks. And we really only have 2 players who can create off the dribble ( 2.5 players, if you count Smoove being somewhat successful in taking PFs off the dribble at times ) Yet, people want us to run a Phoenix style offense or some sort of pretty type offense with ball movement.

Bring in Eddie Jordan, and his Princeton offensive system, was the cry from some over the summer. LOL . . we see how that is working out in Philly. They had to bring back a NOTORIOUS ISO PLAYER in Iverson, to help that offense out.

The main goal should be offensive efficiency, no matter which offensive approach we take. People hated the grind it out, low risk of the New York Jets offense at the end of the year. But they went to that after their young QB really started to struggle. So the Jets played to their strengths as a team . . . run the ball extensively . . . and play shut down defense.

The result saw the Jets make it into the playoffs, and make an improbable run to the AFC Championship game. Of course, the better team won, because they have a superstar running their offensive system and a solid defense around him. But Because the Jets played to their strengths, and didn't try to do what everyone else was doing, the made the most out of their season.

[Kimsey]

Nobody in the league can stop Sheed from jacking up those 3s. He is a rebel in that sense. In his defense he did shoot 35% from there his previous 4 seasons but now too infatuated at this point in his career.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Regarding Sheed: he shoots so many 3 pointers because he wants to, not because the game plan calls for that. Doc has told Sheed numerous times to not shoot as much, so that is not on the game plan.

And second, it is amazing to me that you still don't understand that eFG% is important precisely because of guys like Sheed. His eFG% on 3 pointers is 45%, his eFG in the paint is 57%, therefore eFG% tells you that he should play in the paint more.

Im not going to discuss eFG% with you again, because its clearly hopeless. But what you tried to pass out as an efg% weakness is actually a strength.

I was assuming that the number stated of Sheed shooting 34% from three was correct. If he were, that would mean that his eFG% on his 3 point shot would be a little over 50%.

Instead, Sheed is 63 - 210 FG . . . which is actually 30% from three. THAT'S why his eFG% on threes is 45%. AND THAT IS NOT GOOD AT ALL.

And the updated numbers show that Sheed has actually taken 45 more threes than Pierce ( who is shooting a whopping 47% from three ).

Of course Sheed should play in the paint more. That's exactly the point. He shouldn't be taking threes at all if he misses 2 in a row. A 30% three point shooter is Josh Smith like. No way he should be jacking up almost 5 threes a game. If that's what the Celtic offense produces, that is absolute insanity.

But here's what you have to ask yourself. Why is Sheed always out on the perimeter, if Doc doesn't want him shooting so many outside shots? Isn't that the same beef that most of the fan base has with Woody, when we see Smoove constantly 15 - 23 feet away from the basket? So when he gets the ball with the shot clock running down, he's usually 18 feet away? At least now, Smoove won't jack up the 3 pointer, but he'll occasionally take that long 2.

I mean damn . . . over 50% of Sheed's shot attempts come from 3 . . . despite that he's shooting 30% ( oops . . I mean . . . 45% eFG on his jumpers ). I understand the eFG perfectly.

I understand that if the league eFG average from three point range is for a guy to take around 2 threes a game, and make about 0.7 of them ( which turns out to be a 52.7% eFG . . or roughly an actual percentage of 35% 3FG ) . . that a guy shooting 30% eFG ( oops . . 45% eFG ) and taking almost 5 threes a game, has NO BUSINESS doing that. The offensive system shouldn't even be putting him in a position to do that.

That's not a strength . . . that's a GLARING WEAKNESS. That's taking the ball away from the players who can be more efficient scorers.

[Atlantaholic]

The notion that letting one guy dribble it out for 24 seconds and take a shot is better offense then making that guy pass it around to get everyone involved is ridiculous to me. It is ridiculous to anyone who has played or watched basketball before. Even Bob Rathbun and Dominique Wilkins, our two homer announcers, get fed up with us going one on one. the notion that a coach should get credited for a scheme where 70%-80% of the sets consist in going one on one is also ridiculous. When you take into account that our offense is mainly successful because of our fast breaks and our offensive rebounding, it doesn't take a genius to deduce that our half-court execution is not on par with the talent on this team.

Also Northcyde, Josh Smith is taking 3 long twos a game and making 27% of them. That is a lot worse than Sheed making 30% from threes, so I wouldn't praise Woodson for Josh especially since it took him a whopping 5 years to actually stop him from shooting threes, only to see him start taking a WORSE shot instead. And anyway, even if Boston's scheme sucks (Doc Rivers is not even close to a great coach) how does it make our scheme good? We have two frontcourt players who are among the most efficient scorers in their respective positions, and they can't get shots during a game, we are the most talented all around since JJ came over, and yet JJ is having a new Hawk low in assists. Horford's fg% has risen by a massive .05% and he takes ONE more shot a game than last year. Sure, against Toronto and the geriatric Celts it is all good because we run those teams off of the floor, and they have no one who can stop JJ and Jamal. But against any team that is strong on the inside we collapse completely on offense, and it is because we have no way to generate good open shots in a half-court offense, and we can't get the offensive rebounds that we need to give us the extra shots that we require to score the 102 points we average. Woodson doesn't even give a s*** about offense, and the article that went behind the scenes showed that they spend almost all of their time focusing on defense. So adulating Woodson for ignoring an offense that has cost us several huge games just seems crazy to me.

[Atlantaholic]

Nobody in the league can stop Sheed from jacking up those 3s. He is a rebel in that sense. In his defense he did shoot 35% from there his previous 4 seasons but now too infatuated at this point in his career.

Rasheed is fat, old, out of shape and has a massive ego. It is why Detroit made no effort whatsoever to keep him. Rasheed has always pretty much done whatever the hell he wants on every team he has been on.

[AHF]

Rasheed is fat, old, out of shape and has a massive ego. It is why Detroit made no effort whatsoever to keep him. Rasheed has always pretty much done whatever the hell he wants on every team he has been on.

Sheed is what people fear Josh will be if he doesn't shot shooting the long jumpers - someone who wastes their potential and hurts the team with their infatuation with the perimeter.

[Atlantaholic]

Also, most of JJ's Iso's don't even culminate in a drive and dish. Most of his pick and rolls don't either. It is mostly a jumpshot or a floater. Our team doesn't even seem to be in position to score when JJ clears out. The Hawks assist rate is high because of the amount of fast break opportunities we have and because Josh Smith is the best passer at his position. Our Iso's mostly equal contested shots for JJ and Craw... This fact is quite obvious considering that both are averaging career lows in assists per 36 minutes * (well, Hawks low for JJ).You could argue that it is because the first pass off of a double team does not usually lead to the shot, but if you are arguing that we actually swing the ball around off of double teams for open shots than you are being extremely disingenuous because anyone who has watched our games knows the instances were we have had great ball movement of off Iso's can be counted using the fingers on your two hands. I mean, whenever JJ does pass it, we do such a poor job of swinging the ball that the other team gets back into position before we can even get a shot off. Usually we will give it back to JJ or Craw who will take a last second shot. Anyone who has watched our games knows what I'm talking about.... I'm confident that if we could find a stat that shows how many of our assists come from Iso, compared to the ones that don't, it would show that our Iso leads to the least amount of assisted FGs (AKA the least amount of GOOD shots).

Edited February 4, 2010 by Atlantaholic

[dlpin]

I was assuming that the number stated of Sheed shooting 34% from three was correct. If he were, that would mean that his eFG% on his 3 point shot would be a little over 50%.

Instead, Sheed is 63 - 210 FG . . . which is actually 30% from three. THAT'S why his eFG% on threes is 45%. AND THAT IS NOT GOOD AT ALL.

And the updated numbers show that Sheed has actually taken 45 more threes than Pierce ( who is shooting a whopping 47% from three ).

Of course Sheed should play in the paint more. That's exactly the point. He shouldn't be taking threes at all if he misses 2 in a row. A 30% three point shooter is Josh Smith like. No way he should be jacking up almost 5 threes a game. If that's what the Celtic offense produces, that is absolute insanity.

But here's what you have to ask yourself. Why is Sheed always out on the perimeter, if Doc doesn't want him shooting so many outside shots? Isn't that the same beef that most of the fan base has with Woody, when we see Smoove constantly 15 - 23 feet away from the basket? So when he gets the ball with the shot clock running down, he's usually 18 feet away? At least now, Smoove won't jack up the 3 pointer, but he'll occasionally take that long 2.

I mean damn . . . over 50% of Sheed's shot attempts come from 3 . . . despite that he's shooting 30% ( oops . . I mean . . . 45% eFG on his jumpers ). I understand the eFG perfectly.

I understand that if the league eFG average from three point range is for a guy to take around 2 threes a game, and make about 0.7 of them ( which turns out to be a 52.7% eFG . . or roughly an actual percentage of 35% 3FG ) . . that a guy shooting 30% eFG ( oops . . 45% eFG ) and taking almost 5 threes a game, has NO BUSINESS doing that. The offensive system shouldn't even be putting him in a position to do that.

That's not a strength . . . that's a GLARING WEAKNESS. That's taking the ball away from the players who can be more efficient scorers.

You didn't understand anything I said, but its hopeless. I didn't say him taking 3 pointers is a strength. I said that comparing the effectiveness of the 3 pointer vs the 2 pointer is the strength of eFG% as a statistic. And, again, he doesn't take that many 3s by design. It's not in the game plan:

http://celticshub.com/2009/11/19/doc-to-sheed-cut-the-3s/

They live with his 3 point shooting because he is the best Dwight Howard defender in the league.

[MaceCase]

They live with his 3 point shooting because he is the best Dwight Howard defender in the league.

You might get some backlash on that comment. Dwight is considered the boogeyman or juggernaut to many around here.

[Buzzard]

my numbers all come from basketball-reference.com and 82games.com

If the celtics had a better offense the past 2 years, and just now the hawks have passed it, wouldn't the obvious conclusion be that the celtics have a better scheme, but the hawks have now passed them with better offensive personnel? Did either team start playing differently this season? Rondo, Perkins, KG and Sheed are all great players, but that is because of their defense, not offense.

Oh, and while Orlando certainly skews the numbers downward for the hawks, the celtics (who cant play against themselves) skew it upwards. In fact, of the top 6 defensive teams, the hawks only has a better offensive production than the celtics against the lakers. If you really think that the top 6 defensive teams are the only elite teams, here's how it breaks down:

BOS ATL

Cha 100 93

LAL 89 110

ORL 86 81

OKC 105 95

Cavs 95 92.5

And the lakers were without Gasol in that matchup. So, again, the celtics have consistently done better than the hawks against good defensive teams. Those numbers are not adjusted for pace, but given the fact that the two teams have almost identical paces (91.5 vs 91) the rest of the season, I doubt that is the explanation.

This is something we agree on. The Celtics offense is a better scheme than ours and more efficient. I am also not sold on Perkins getting less turnovers due to less touches as has been suggested. Horf has 473 fg attempts and 128 offensive boards so far this season. If you say he took a shot off every one of those boards that means he has 345 fg attempts that were the direct result of a pass being thrown his way.

Perk has 347 attempts and 98 offensive rebounds. Doing the same math with him and he only has had 249 passes thrown his way that resulted in attempts. I know this is not a correct assumption but it is a nice baseline to look at. Now add in turnovers to their touch numbers; Horf has 68 and Perk has 94. With all this added in, Horf still gets more intended touches than Perk; so I do not see why his touches would go down significantly if he was playing for us in our system instead of Horf.

Edited February 5, 2010 by Buzzard

[TheNorthCydeRises]

This is something we agree on. The Celtics offense is a better scheme than ours and more efficient. I am also not sold on Perkins getting less turnovers due to less touches as has been suggested. Horf has 473 fg attempts and 128 offensive boards so far this season. If you say he took a shot off every one of those boards that means he has 345 fg attempts that were the direct result of a pass being thrown his way.

Perk has 347 attempts and 98 offensive rebounds. Doing the same math with him and he only has had 249 passes thrown his way that resulted in attempts. I know this is not a correct assumption but it is a nice baseline to look at. Now add in turnovers to their touch numbers; Horf has 68 and Perk has 94. With all this added in, Horf still gets more intended touches than Perk; so I do not see why his touches would go down significantly if he was playing for us in our system instead of Horf.

Perkins shooting:

at rim . . . .78% FG ( 4.2 attempts ) . . 78% assisted

< 10 ft . . . 52% FG ( 2.1 attempts ) . . 45% assisted

10 - 15 . . .16% FG ( 0.5 attempts ) . . 75% assisted

16 - 23 . . .38% FG ( 0.5 attempts ) . . 50% assisted

Horford shooting:

at rim . . . 71% FG ( 4.0 attempts ) . . 61% assisted

< 10 ft . . .50% FG ( 2.4 attempts ) . . 65% assisted

10 - 15 . . 40% FG ( 1.4 attempts ) . . 59% assisted

16 - 23 . . 47% FG ( 2.0 attempts ) . . 93% assisted

Perkins touches would go down, because he can't or doesn't shoot beyond 10 feet. Horford can score from more areas than Perkins. And like Horford, Perkins' post-up game isn't that reliable enough to just throw the ball down on the blocks to him, and look for him to score on his own. He needs to be set up by someone else, more often than not, to score.