Turnovers: Achillies Heel?
by Jeff Clark on Feb 13, 2009 9:55 AM EST
in Articles
80 comments
I've done my best to look for positives in the losses that we've had, so I think it is only fair to do my best Doc impression and point out a troubling issue after a nice win. We never would have had to come back in dramatic fashion if the team hadn't gotten down by 15 points in the first place.
Sure, you can credit the Mavs with playing good basketball and hitting thier shots. They played ok defense for much of the night, but nothing I'd really call lock-down defense. For much of the first half the Celtics were simply beating themselves.
For one thing their shots were not falling early on. But I'm not that worried about that. The law of averages for a good shooting team will even things out. The other reason they were beating themselves is more concerning because it has been going on all year. Turnovers.
The Celtics are 4th worst in the league in turnovers (15.7), behind only the Thunder, Suns, and Kings. Let that soak in for a moment or two. As a point of reference, the best teams in the league (Pistons & Spurs) at holding onto the ball turn it over 12.1 to 12.2 times a game.
Nobody has made a really big deal about this till now because after all, the team is headed into the All Star break with a 44-11 record. How wrong could things be with that record?
I'm not a huge stats guy, but I wanted to see if there was any correlation to turnovers and this team's success. The Celtics turned the ball over an average of 16.8 times in their 11 losses. I don't really think one more turnover a game is really going to be the difference between winning and losing.
With that said, if the Celtics could reduce the number of turnovers, it would put them in a better position to win. On the Celtics own website, Mike Zarren looks at the impact of turnovers (this article is a few years old, so the stats are out-dated):
First, the biggest cost of a turnover is that the team who turned the ball over loses an offensive scoring opportunity. This, and not the opponent's next possession, is the most important cost of committing a turnover. Teams only get about 94 offensive possessions per game, and the loss of one of these scoring opportunities, much like an out in baseball, is not something you can get back. The Celtics average about 1.21 points per possession when they don't commit a turnover; so each turnover, on average, costs the team one of these opportunities.
Second, the opponent often gets an improved scoring opportunity off a turnover. This varies by type of turnovers, however; an offensive foul after which the defense is able to set up will not improve the opponent's chances of scoring against that defense - they are as likely to score as they would have been had they scored and called a timeout. In contrast, a steal leading to a high-percentage fast break can be a particularly costly turnover. On average, Celtic opponents score 0.08 more points following our turnovers than they do when they get the ball at other times.
So we've cleared that up. Turnovers = bad. Right?
Not so fast.
On the Celtics the biggest culprits are the guys that have the ball in their hands the most: Paul Pierce (2.8) and Rajon Rondo (2.7).
Pierce is our best pure scorer and fantastic at getting to the line. To get to the line he has to throw his body into the lane and create contact with the defenders. Often enough that puts him in awkward positions with his momentum sending him out of control. He gets more than his fair share of "star" calls, so he's motivated to keep using the same tricks. However, sometimes the refs swallow the wistle and let the play go, resulting in an ugly turnover for Paul. For all the good that comes of his forays into the lane, I'll take the handful of turnovers that result.
Rondo also gets a bit of a pass because he happens to own the 5th best assist-to-turnover ratio in the league. When you handle the ball for as long as he does, you are bound to make some mistakes and lose the ball from time to time. One of Doc's prime directives to Rondo is to push the ball, drive the lane, and basically create havoc for the opposing defense. I wouldn't trade that aggressivness for a lower turnover ratio ever. One of the prime complaints that Toronto fans have with Calderon is that he's so careful with the ball that it stifles the offense. An aggressive Rondo is an effective Rondo.
Certainly they aren't the only ones turning the ball over. We have 7 guys on the team averaging a turnover a game or more (Tony Allen averages 1.7 on just 19 min. a game). Still, you can see a lot of times when the team is looking to make the extra pass only to see it go off someone's fingers out of bounds. This team passes up more open shots than any I can remember seeing.
Sometimes they get caught up with trying to make a difficult or fancy pass (looking at you Rondo with your fake-behind-the-back thing). Sometimes they lock in on getting the ball to Pierce or KG and telegraph the pass too much. You could say that Ubuntu has created a culture of unselfishness almost to a fault. But I wouldn't want them to stop setting each other up and looking for the best shot.
So are turnovers simply a reasonable price to pay for playing a certain style? Maybe. Maybe not. It is hard to tell from where I sit.
For the most part, if you can reduce errors, you put yourself a better position as long as it doesn't come at the expense of what makes this team great. You want this team to keep sharing the ball and aggressively putting pressure on the defense. With that said, we can't be over-aggressive to the point of handing the game over to the other team.
I suppose it comes down to a balance. We have to hope that the team can reduce its mistakes without losing that edge. That may mean picking and chosing when to turn up the heat and when to slow it down and play it safe. The trick is knowing when.
Doc is a big believer in improvement throughout the year. I think this is one of the finer points that this team needs to focus on down the stretch. Considering how great this team is in so many other aspects of the game, we're in a very good position moving forward.
0 recs |
80 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
We’ve made some progress. A couple of weeks ago we were the worst team in the league for turnovers. Still way too many though. I think most of their turnovers are the result of the lack of focus.
Perk and Powe... the Next Big Thing
by FLCeltsFan on Feb 13, 2009 10:01 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Why use
a photo that makes turnovers look good?
by Bankshot on Feb 13, 2009 10:02 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
read the article first!
they can be good and bad
"Would I rather be feared or loved? Easy. Both. I want people to be afraid of how much they love me." Michael Scott
by Jeff Clark on Feb 13, 2009 10:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
there's no way...
that you two read the article already LOL
didn’t anyone teach you that you have two ears (and eyes) and one mouth so you should listen/read twice as much as you talk? ok, so you have two hands, so you can type pretty fast, but still
;)
"Would I rather be feared or loved? Easy. Both. I want people to be afraid of how much they love me." Michael Scott
by Jeff Clark on Feb 13, 2009 10:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Better metric to look
is turnovers per possession. Turnovers per game (or points scored/allowed per game) is very misleading. We rank 3rd worst in the league when pace is factored, with 17.2 turnovers per 100 possessions. That makes us the 3rd worst team in the league turning over the ball. Considering we have around 90 possessions per game, we’re really playing a heavy price.
There are lot of other metrics to evaluate the “who, why, how” about turnovers. For example, expected turnovers: if Pierce goes to the line x times, and scores y, etc., how many turnovers is he expected to commit, assuming the correlation between those acts and turnovers? Another interesting thing is to deconstruct the turnovers by type (bad passes, ball-handling, offensive foul) and compare with the rest of the league. I have this more or less done, I just need time to write my opinions on how to fix this thing.
I personally believe turnovers are the most underrated stat among fans. Mike Z explains very well why. Plus, you can bet there’s a high correlation between turnovers and team success. They’re basically one of the 4 key factors that determine who wins and losses NBA games.
by cordobes on Feb 13, 2009 10:12 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I'll take your word for it
but after a while, stats make my head hurt :)
"Would I rather be feared or loved? Easy. Both. I want people to be afraid of how much they love me." Michael Scott
by Jeff Clark on Feb 13, 2009 10:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If there's such a high correlation between turnovers and team success
Then why are we 44-11 again?
by SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on Feb 13, 2009 12:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Are you sure you know the meaning of "correlation"?
by cordobes on Feb 13, 2009 12:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How high is the correlation?
Specifically, at the NBA level, the general ranking of importance of the Four Factors is
1. Shooting percentage (10)
2. Turnovers per possession (5-6)
3. Offensive rebounding percentage (4-5)
4. Getting to the foul line (2-3)
The number after each of the factors is an approximate weight on the factor, on a scale from one to ten, that indicates how important it is to winning a game. So, with shooting being most important, turnovers and offensive rebounds end up about half as important. Getting to the line is half again as important.
by cordobes on Feb 13, 2009 12:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
from Dean Oliver, Basketball on Paper
by cordobes on Feb 13, 2009 12:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
interesting
thanks for that
"Would I rather be feared or loved? Easy. Both. I want people to be afraid of how much they love me." Michael Scott
by Jeff Clark on Feb 13, 2009 12:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Correlation=the relationship between two variables
So, Mr. Dictionary, when you say “I bet there’s a high correlation between turnovers and team success” how would you characterize the relationship between turnovers and team success? It seems from other posts that you saying that high turnover #s and low team success go together. If true (and a faithful representation of your position), I’d say you’re making another gross over-simplification.
by SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on Feb 13, 2009 5:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
See the comment above
about the four factors. Turnovers have the highest correlation for team success after FG%.
by cordobes on Feb 13, 2009 5:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
A heavy price?
I’ll take 44-11 vs. a much better turnovers per possession but fewer wins and more losses. This issue is frustrating to watch at times, but the Celtics are so proficient in other areas, as is obvious by their league-leading record, that it cannot be overblown. Many other teams do better in the turnover area, but shoot worse, teams shoot better against them, have fewer assists, and fewer wins. I’ll take the sum of the Celtics strengths and weaknesses any day. If turnovers are the result of the team always looking for each other, within the context of being 44-11, they’ll be OK.
by KJ33 on Feb 13, 2009 1:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, turnovers
carry a heavy bill. Mark Z explains that very well in that article from celtics.com Jeff linked.
I think you’re misunderstanding the point. Nobody is saying “I’d rather have fewer turnovers and fewer wins!”. We all know this team is good, we’re just talking about a glaring flaw that, if corrected, could make this team even better.
by cordobes on Feb 13, 2009 2:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, but
You’re ignoring the context in which the Cs high turnover culture has arisen. Sure, we could work to limit our turnovers, but at what cost to FG percentage? Looking at our record, I think it’s safe to say we’re walking the turnover/offensive efficiency line just right. As KJ33 said above, “I’ll take the sum of the Celtics strengths and weaknesses any day.”
Sure, it’d be great to limit our turnovers, especially the unforced ones (which are a product of mental lapses and not ball pressure or good defense). I expect that with more maturation, Rondo will get smarter about limiting these unforced errors. Also, come playoff time, with proper rest between games, I think our mental lapses will lessen as well.
by SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on Feb 13, 2009 5:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I don't disagree
I’d rather have the best offence in the league, but I can live with a top 5 one.
I have no idea why I am ignoring the context. There are teams with a higher eFG percentage than ours that don’t turnover the ball as much as we do. You can’t stay happy with what you’re doing, that’s the easiest and quickest way of dropping from excellence.
by cordobes on Feb 13, 2009 5:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
True 'dat
I agree about not staying happy, but I think alot of our improvement in the turnover department is going to come from within—Rondo’s maturity, less mental fatigue in the 2nd half of the season. To me, the big problem with the turnovers isn’t the overall number, it’s the amount of them that are unforced. What’s the correlation between unforced turnovers and easy buckets on the other end? Think about the 76ers game—almost all those TOs in the 2nd quarter were unforced and it seemed the 76ers converted every one of them.
Getting a real point guard for the 2nd unit would also improve that unit’s TO problem. That, or playing Rondo for more minutes, which isn’t a bad idea.
by SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on Feb 13, 2009 6:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What's the difference between forced and unforced turnovers?
That distinction is somewhat difficult to make. I’ve seen plenty of formulas to chart turnovers, but never that one – it’s complicated to separate a bad pass from a good interception. Anyway, I’d say that unforced turnovers tend to be less dangerous and have a smaller correlation to points off turnovers.
by cordobes on Feb 13, 2009 6:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You'd have to count them
I’m sure the Cs count the amount of unforced turnovers, which I’d define as a turnover caused by carelessness or lack of due care by the ball handler. Examples would include bad passes (where the passer was not being overly harassed by the defender), traveling (when not under duress), dribbling the ball off your foot (when not under duress), moving picks, carrying or double dribbling, stepping over the inbounds line, jumping in the air to pass and finding no one, etc… Basically, plays where the defense doesn’t cause the turnover, but instead it’s caused by the offense being careless. Of course, there are huge gray areas where causation is hard to determine.
Outright steals (where the defense takes the ball away) probably have the highest correlation to points on the other end, but careless turnovers have something else that really can’t be measured—a momentum component—which incentivizes the other team to score, while demoralizing the other team (because the turnover was unforced).
by SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on Feb 13, 2009 11:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Turnovers are certainly this teams achilles heel..A steady hand at backup point could help this, but alot of our guys are turnover prone.
by TheAncientRivalry on Feb 13, 2009 10:23 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
The starters combined have averaged 10+ turnovers for their careers, and we have no legit backup point.
by TheAncientRivalry on Feb 13, 2009 10:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Dirk
had to hide your comment because of a swear – please don’t curse, thanks
FYI: here’s the PG version of what he said:
How about counting the number of passes too
Doesn’t the number of passes directly relate to the number of assists, AND the number of turnovers?
Perhaps we’re passing a [bunch] more often? I’m just throwing some thoughts out there though :x
- Dirk
"Would I rather be feared or loved? Easy. Both. I want people to be afraid of how much they love me." Michael Scott
by Jeff Clark on Feb 13, 2009 10:24 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Yeps
A part of our turnovers (or excess of them) come with the territory, as you correctly suggested in your post. We make a lot of passing and run less clearouts and ISOs than most teams. Also very important: we’re very aggressive screening and making the upcourt pass in the fastbreak – and that also causes turnovers.
Plus, we indeed have lots of turnover prone players: Tony Allen, Powe, Pierce, Rondo, Perkins….
by cordobes on Feb 13, 2009 10:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Apologies sir, slipped and fell, will try to keep the swearing away from these here parts of the internet ;)
- Dirk
by Kiorrik on Feb 13, 2009 12:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But compared to last year...
we were just as bad. Data here
6th in the league in total turnovers. On a pace adjusted basis (per cordobes suggestion) 2nd worst.
So maybe this is a good sign…..
When Perk was asked what he thought of Howard winning the gold medal this summer, he responded: "What’s his impression of me after I won a ring?"
by Green17 on Feb 13, 2009 10:30 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I think the key
is that our defense creates a lot of turnovers – so they cancel each other out somewhat
"Would I rather be feared or loved? Easy. Both. I want people to be afraid of how much they love me." Michael Scott
by Jeff Clark on Feb 13, 2009 10:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So last year we turned it over 15.2 times per game, but created 16.0, for a net of nearly 1 turnover per game.
This year we’re turning it over 15.8 times, but only creating 15.2 turnover per game, for a net loss of 0.6 per game. That’s actually a pretty big swing from +.8 to -.6
When Perk was asked what he thought of Howard winning the gold medal this summer, he responded: "What’s his impression of me after I won a ring?"
by Green17 on Feb 13, 2009 10:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Except teams make it a point to convert on our turnovers alot more this year..last year they werent as conscious about it, but after studying why they got knocked out last year, the other elite teams around the league are built to try and beat us…the cavs and lakers are tops in the league at converting turnovers into buckets
by TheAncientRivalry on Feb 13, 2009 10:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
.....?
what? Can you back that up with some stats?
I don’t get the logic that last year teams didn’t try and convert on our turnovers as much as they do this year.
When Perk was asked what he thought of Howard winning the gold medal this summer, he responded: "What’s his impression of me after I won a ring?"
by Green17 on Feb 13, 2009 10:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They are more aware of our sloppy turnovers…last year in the finals the lakers seemingly couldnt convert on any of them, this year they have scored a ton of points off our turnovers and its been the difference in the game.. I dont know where to find the stats, Ive heard it on Tv the cavs and lakers lead the league in points off of turnovers
by TheAncientRivalry on Feb 13, 2009 10:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ok, but we’ve played those teams 4x total in 55 games. So what about the remaining 51 games?
When Perk was asked what he thought of Howard winning the gold medal this summer, he responded: "What’s his impression of me after I won a ring?"
by Green17 on Feb 13, 2009 10:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It goes for all the teams…thats top on the scouting report
turn sloppy celtics turnovers into quick transition buckets
by TheAncientRivalry on Feb 13, 2009 10:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I still don’t get your logic. That’s a basic tenant of the game – I don’t see why it would be different this year.
When Perk was asked what he thought of Howard winning the gold medal this summer, he responded: "What’s his impression of me after I won a ring?"
by Green17 on Feb 13, 2009 11:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
EXACTLY
This team moves the ball a lot more and has substantially more playmakers in their starting 5 than most teams – hence the ball moves more frequently and the degree of difficulty that some of the players utilize in their playmaking is also a factor – the team averages a bunch of assists and make many spectacular plays from 4 positoins that most team may get out of 1 or 2…
The team won the title last year and somebody put up a real smart statistic showing where all the Celtics title teams ranked in TOs — the Bird/Parish/McHale C’s were consistently bad at turning the ball over – but they were a highly efficient offense outside of the turnovers…
I think having big time playmakers causes some big time TO games every once in a while – but the raw number of TO, while high typically, isn’t indicative of how the team is performing – there are many nights when this team has 15-18 TO and they’ve moved the ball fantastically and simply had a bad stretch in the game where they’ve picked up 3-4 in a concentrated space of time…
This team will always be a high TO team because of the personnel, but as long as they don’t have prolonged stretches of poor decision making throughout a game and they focus down the stretch and play deliberately – they’ll be just as dangerous as they were last year I think – TO or not…
by BillfromBoston on Feb 13, 2009 10:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I have no way of backing this up with any stats, but they seem to run very hot and cold; a stretch where they’re taking great care of the basketball, followed by stretches where they seem to keep doing dumb things with the ball. As someone else mentioned, lacking a true backup PG hurts (Eddie shouldn’t be handling the rock any more than he has to).
Also, Tony Allen. If his 1.7/game is 1.0/game, the team number’s going to drop from 15.1/gm to 14.4/gm (not exactly, since he hasn’t played every game but close enough). That puts the team number pretty close to the League average. I don’t know how to calc this, but most of the 2/3 types I see playing 20 minutes a game are averaging less than 1 per game. Take Tony’s number down to the League average, and we’re not particularly STRONG with respect to turnovers per game, but it’s not as glaring.
by theBird on Feb 13, 2009 10:42 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Eddie doesn't turnover the ball
It’s one of the advantages of players like him. And the “hot and cold” modus operandi is true for every team.
by cordobes on Feb 13, 2009 10:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Amen to that!
I am tired of people ragging House and his “alleged” turnover problems. The guy ratio is averaging HALF of the turnovers per minute that Rondo does on the floor. Yes Rondo monopolizes the dribble for much of the shot clock while in there and House comes up and dishes it quicker, but it is still HALF. One rough game against Detroit and the guy will wear that label forever… For what he gives this team it isn’t really fair.
by EJPLAYA on Feb 13, 2009 10:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Um no
Eddie never even has the ball. He gets it and flings it up there immediately. When he dribbles or passes, its a turnover.
How can you turn the ball over if you dont even handle it? He definitely is prone to turnovers if hes the primary ball controller. Thats why he is so much more effective when hes on the court with Rondo. Last year Lindsey Hunter of all people was giving him fits
by shiggins on Feb 13, 2009 11:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Have you ever even WATCHED a Celtics game?!
There is that bad stereotype of him getting picked again and again by the Pistons. I think that might have been the only game you even watched. Were you aware that in 9 games last year against the Pistons that he had 2 total turnovers?! NONE in the playoffs… Sam had 3 in the playoffs in one game alone in mop up duty.
Since Gabe hasn’t been playing much the last 10 or so game he has EXCLUSIVELY been the backup PG bringing the ball up the floor.
I would suggest that you actually look at some facts before throwing out labels that aren’t accurate. If it wasn’t for House playing like he is playing we wouldn’t be in the position that we are with the best record in the East and barely behind the Lakers in the entire league.
by EJPLAYA on Feb 13, 2009 11:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Uh?
1. He’s been bringing the ball up a lot. But why should a catch and shoot player be blamed for not turning over the ball? That’s a ridiculous reasoning: it’s one of the advantages of players like House, not a disadvantaged. Tony Allen also has bad handling and he still has an incredible high turnover rate.
2. FYI, Lindsay Hunter is/was one of the best on-the-ball defenders in the last 30 years in the league. He’s still excellent putting pressure on the point of attack.
3. You’re making up stuff: House is better when he’s on the court with Tony Allen that when he’s on the court with Rondo.
by cordobes on Feb 13, 2009 11:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Eddie’s TO numbers aren’t that bad. I’ll contend, though, that when the offense isn’t running as smoothly and that the team turns the ball over more in general. Now, I can’t prove this, but guys like Pierce tend to turn the ball over a lot more (of course) when the ball isn’t moving around as smoothly. That’s an indirect outcome of not having a traditional PG on the floor.
Now, is Eddie the reason that we’re high in turnovers? Of course not – but the offense not running as smoothly overall when he’s handling the point does cause issues.
by theBird on Feb 13, 2009 11:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You have a point, but there are ways to prove that when House is on the floor there’s barely any change on the amount of team turnovers, so that effect isn’t really significant. Sometimes the offense runs more smoothly when House is running the point – for example, when more spacing puts the other team defense in trouble. The idea that you need to have a “true pg” to be a good ofence is a myth. Some of the best offenses in the league – Cleveland, Portland, LAL – don’t have typical ball-dominant point-guards who run the offense.
Personally, I strongly dislike ball-dominant pgs like Rondo sometimes tends to be (and Doc called him out for that recently), especially in a team like this one, with plenty of shot-creators. Just a bad trade-off.
by cordobes on Feb 13, 2009 12:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, he just makes the offense go impotent
Eddie may be good at keeping the ball from being turned over, but he’s also bad at initiating the offense, running a pick and roll or penetrating….which are the high turnover activities for a ball handler. So, it only makes sense that he should have a small turnover rate. But there’s a difference between cautiousness and good PG play—Eddie at point still runs this team into the ground and takes him away from his greatest weapon—the standstill jumper. So, yes, less turnovers, but also worse offense.
by SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on Feb 13, 2009 12:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And This Is Why The Celtics Are Playing House Differently
House loses his effectiveness as a pg. That is why he is used less at that position or is playing that position with a guy like Ray who can also handle the ball. House might be designated as the backup point, but as the season is progressing Doc is designing ways to get House back to his natural position. It’s usually by playing him with other players who are scoring threats and more recently he’s playing with Rondo. House is a scoring machine. He’s also become a tough-nosed defender and brings energy whenever he’s on the court. He rarely does things that hurt the team.
"I don't come to play, I come to WIN"--Larry Bird
by TrueGreen on Feb 13, 2009 9:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Meh, hard-nosed defender?
House is most effective off-the-ball and I think Doc knows that. Unfortunately, he still has the handle the ball time to time, especially when TA’s healthy and when he does that, well, everybody suffers. Doc’s challenge is to get TA and Eddie to play well together, and he’s needs a true point guard to do that. Unfortunately, I think Doc is still trying to get Eddie and TA to share the PG responsibilities and I think that only brings out the weaknesses in both of their games.
House is a hustle guy and that goes a long way towards making his defense seem decent. But in reality he can easily be beaten off the dribble by most point guards. And it’s extremely easy for opposing point guards to shoot over the top of him or lose him off the ball through a series of screens. Eddie is not a good help defender, though a majority of his steal come when he helps off his man and gets in the passing lanes. And Eddie is probably the worst Celtic in terms of fouling people on the shot and letting them get an And-1 opportunity. Eddie has yet to learn the importance of giving a hard foul. He just pats them on the arm as they’re shooting a layup.
by SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on Feb 13, 2009 11:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Turnovers
1. Love the picture. Now I’m hungry
2. There are three types of turnovers associated with the C’s:
a. unforced—usually, in my opinion, caused by fatique or trying to “hit the home run” with
with a pass or over passing when a shot should be taken.
b. legitimate—caused by good opponent defense
c. by nature—the fact that we are a passing team. “He who does the most painting spills the most paint”—Bill Fitch—referring to Larry Bird a long time ago.
3. Turnovers have been discussed in almost every game for the past two years. I think we, as fans, just need to accept them as fact and not get too tied up in figuring out the cause. We also shouldn’t make a big deal of it with coaching not correcting it. I think it’s obvious that the team is aware of the problem and try to not turnover the ball.
"I don't come to play, I come to WIN"--Larry Bird
by TrueGreen on Feb 13, 2009 10:53 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Well, they aren't being very successfull, are they?
What’s exactly the problem of we, as fans, to discuss something that this team is really lousy at?
by cordobes on Feb 13, 2009 10:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Think I'm Not Making Myself Clear
When I say we need to accept the turnovers, I didn’t mean to imply that we can’t discuss them. Also, and please take this as a joke, when you say we are “lousy” at turnovers you are mistaken. We are really good at turning over the ball. Again, this is a joke, or at least an attempt at one.
"I don't come to play, I come to WIN"--Larry Bird
by TrueGreen on Feb 13, 2009 11:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
To Add
We seem to commit the unforced turnovers early in a game. When the game is on the line in the 2nd half, especially the 4th quarter, the turnovers seem to be reduced. Maybe increased focus or going to certain plays or players which has been determined by the way the game is going. That is in place of going thru the playbook early in games when the options are more plentiful. In other words, as the game progresses, we reduce the type of plays being considered.
"I don't come to play, I come to WIN"--Larry Bird
by TrueGreen on Feb 13, 2009 10:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
One turnover may not seem like much...
However if we had one less turnover in the Lakers game and converted we would have won that game instead of losing in OT.
I think the turnovers that kill us are the ones in the 1st quarter. This year we seem to be coming out and playing sloppy which is usually preventing us from getting that 10-15 point lead early we were so accustomed to last year. If we are going to beat these better teams with more consistency we need to play the 1st and third quarters like we did last year. We would come out and jump out to an early lead, play even usually with the bench in the second quarter, and then put the nail in the coffin in the third. That is what made us special last year. If the bench was extra hot we’d have them blown out by halftime or early 4th and the starters could sit. We don’t see near enough of that this year.
by EJPLAYA on Feb 13, 2009 10:54 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Turnovers, refs and paying attention
Just 2 points:
1) Some of our turnovers are the refs making ridiculously wrong calls. Which we know are ridiculous because we have DVR (got that NBA? we can see everything now… it’s 2009). That “offensive foul” on KG last night was not a foul and we all know it. Do all teams get the same number of bad calls, does it all even out for the season? I don’t think so. I think the C’s get it worse than most.
2) Can’t excuse the MANY thoughtless, silly turnovers with any of this article’s arguments. Ray’s gotta pay more attention to protecting the rock on his passes, PP’s gotta pay more attention to when they’re double teaming him, Rondo needs to take the game seriously from beginning to end, and TA… well, he just needs a brain transplant.
by DRJ1 on Feb 13, 2009 11:21 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
not about the overall record
we are good enough to beat most teams but lets look at the record against the title contenders then its a worry…
we are 1-4 against the spurs, lakers and cavs (leaving out the magic cos i have never considered them as a title contender)
the one win came at the first game of the season when the cavs didnt get the chemistry yet….
worrying
by hiro on Feb 13, 2009 11:39 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Not Too Worry
Cavs-We’re 1-1—Game one was the nite the banner was raised. Pierce was totally emotional and it was a wonder he was able to play. Yet we beat the Cavs that nite. We lost to them on the road. Just didn’t play well
LA—We had a chance to win both games. There were extenuating circumstances in both games.
SA—We had a chance to win and again, extenuating circumstances.
The playoffs level off the playing field. Same schedule, same travel, etc. In this regular season the C’s have played more games than any team except the Raptors. They played the equivalent of an extra quarter of a season in last year’s playoffs. The had a short summer. Last year was intense thruout and there has been no loss of intensity this season. There has been precious little practice time so far this season. The C’s are just plain worn out physically and mentally so they may lose some of these games during the regular season. We have a more favorable schedule the remainder of the year leading up to the playoffs. So I don’t see any reason for concern here. We have a way of winning when we really have to. I’m not sure the Cavs and LA do. The Spurs probably do.
"I don't come to play, I come to WIN"--Larry Bird
by TrueGreen on Feb 13, 2009 11:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Luck
Some games are lost to simple bad luck. An unlucky rebound bounce or two. A ref whose incompetence happens to manifest itself at just the wrong time. And do you think Bonner AIMED for the backboard on that 3 he made? No, he just got lucky (on that and a few other plays… the guy’s actually very mediocre).
We were so close with both the Lakers and Spurs that it could have gone either way. We win but for ill fortune. In both cases, the opponent was playing at playoff level. We have not been doing that in every quarter of every game.
I think we got it. An extra big would be nice, as would a spare PG. But I think we’re good to go anyway.
by DRJ1 on Feb 13, 2009 12:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Works both ways
We could be 0-5 against those teams. We could be 0-2 versus the Hawks. Or 1-2 versus the Pacers. Etc. etc.
by cordobes on Feb 13, 2009 12:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not worried about the record against the Cavs,Spurs and lakers at all..the Magic are are 5-0 against those teams, what good is that gonna do them? tottally irrelevant, we should all know this team is capable of beating all those teams in a 7 game series
by TheAncientRivalry on Feb 13, 2009 12:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Here’s my take on this, and it’s short and sweet: last year’s turnover rate was high, but it didn’t matter as much because
A. The Celts’ D more than made up for the difference.
B. Turnovers were a natural result of moving the ball, making the extra pass — and more often than not, the C’s were converting on those plays.
This year, the two things that seem to highlight the turnover situation are:
A. The defense is not as tight as it was last year, certainly not early in games, so we are not seeing those first quarter blowouts like we did last year.
B. The offense has been less in sync than it was last year. I seem to remember every other play looking like a Sportscenter highlight, whereas this season, those points are more often than not the result of scrappy, less well-executed plays (with the exception of the 9 to 5 alley oops and the Ray pick-and-pops).
So, while in my opinion the turnovers are not the issue by themselves, the way this team is playing in general — plus, let’s just come out and say it, the lack of a bench iceman like Posey — makes the turnovers more relevant than they were last year.
Nuff said?
by Hal Jordan on Feb 13, 2009 11:49 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I disagree with both points B.
The biggest differences in our game style from last season are:
- we’re handling the ball less and passing it more. Therefore, we’re making more bad passes but we’re also committing less ball-handling turnovers.
- we’re committing more offensive fouls.
I think the biggest reason for the (slight) increment on the turnover rate is basically due to the fact that Posey’s minutes (Posey is an excellent player keeping the ball safe) went to players who are somehow turnover prone (Perkins, TA, Powe). I think that the absence of Posey is also the reason why our turnovers caused slightly diminished.
by cordobes on Feb 13, 2009 12:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Over-analyze this!
C’mon guys. We have the best record in the league and have probably played more games to this point than anyone. From best team to worst team in TO’s is a matter of 3 TO’s. We haven’t been run off court by anyone which TO prone teams are. As someone pointed out, remove TO prone Tony Allen and we’re league average. I also agree with EJPlaya that Eddie gets a bad rap. That Detroit game aside I think he’s done a good job protecting the ball. I am surprised though that our TO’s aren’t down because Perk is a helluva lot better on the catch and on the low post dribble.
by Wildblu1 on Feb 13, 2009 12:53 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Small differences
There’s so little separation between the top teams in the league that the fact that we are truly horrible in one of the most important aspects of the game is huge and worth every analysis. If we improve enough to turnover the ball at the league average rate, then, ceteris paribus, it’d be very difficult for everyone to beat us.
by cordobes on Feb 13, 2009 1:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It is the thing that frightens me the most about this team. We all know how evenly matched up we are against the Cavs; one or two possessions per game could well prove the difference. I’d feel even better about our prospects for #18 if I wasn’t worried about the team seeming to get into bad habits with respect to taking care of the ball.
by theBird on Feb 13, 2009 3:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Rondo Gets Sloppy
1. Rondo gets sloppy at times. We love his aggressiveness but that comes at a price.
2. The Celtics’ offense is also heavily pick-oriented, including picks at the top of the key and at the elbows, plus the baseline picks that Ray allen uses on almost every possession. Alot of the turnovers have been calls for moving picks. That can happen if the timing of the play is a little off.
So turnovers are just a price they pay for the style they have adopted.
by Brickowski on Feb 13, 2009 1:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Just a price....
there’s some true about that often repeated theory, but not a lot of it. Plenty of teams use offenses with even more passing and screening than the C’s – the Jazz are an extreme case of that – and they aren’t as reckless with the ball. The Spurs are always one of the bests teams in the league and their offense isn’t exactly a ISO and create off the dribble one, or a run’n’gun.
by cordobes on Feb 13, 2009 1:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Spurs are better at running their offense than the Celtics are at running theirs. And the Spurs don’t take nearly as many chances.
by Brickowski on Feb 13, 2009 3:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
lol
The Spurs are better running their offense because they don’t turnover the ball…
Turnover rate is a factor of good offense, not the other way around..
by cordobes on Feb 13, 2009 4:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, yes and no. First, Parker is more experienced than Rondo and takes fewer chances. Parker also shoots more jumpers as opposed to heading for the rack, where turnovers can happen. (Parker’s misses are still empty trips, however).
Swecond, their go-to guy isn’t nicknamed the “Big Fundamental” for nothing. He turns the ball over less than either Garnett or Pierce.
Pierce and Tony Allen are two other players who drive to the basket and generate turnovers. But these drives also generate free throws, both on the play itself and also when the other teams gets into early foul trouble.
The problem with turovers is that they kill you at the end of a close game.
by Brickowski on Feb 13, 2009 7:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Are alot of turnovers a problem?
Yes, if it is observed in a vacuum. But look at where the C’s rank in every other category, the most important being Ws and Ls. What if they led the league in fewest turnovers, but had 5 more losses? Would we be puffing out our chest about how well the C’s take care of the ball? It is irrelevant to break down one category without viewing it in the context of the overall result. Doc preached constantly last year right up until Game 6 of the NBA Finals about taking care of the ball better. Not sure they ever really tackled it, yet…..they won it all. Until and unless the bottom line starts to reflect a big drop-off, it just isn’t that big a deal.
by KJ33 on Feb 13, 2009 1:54 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
So, your theory is that once you’re good you shouldn’t be looking for improvement? Turnovers keep this team from being better and can keep it from repeating. Why isn’t that a big deal?
by cordobes on Feb 13, 2009 2:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How much better are you looking for than .800?
Of course they can get better, but if their turnover rate doesn’t go down, I won’t view at as an “Achilles Heel” which of course was a fatal injury. Many things “can” keep the C’s from repeating, that argument doesn’t hold water. As I said, Doc has been mentioning it for 2 years, and of course they are looking to and can improve. Your take is far more dire.
by KJ33 on Feb 13, 2009 3:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Many things?
Maybe.
But there are 4 factors that basically decide wins/losses and we’re incredibly bad at one of them. There are “many things that can keep the C’s from repeating”; but none comes close to the turnover rate. The fact that Doc has been talking about it for 2 years and there aren’t many signs of improvement prove it’s a big deal, no?
I suspect that if we were the last team in the league in opponent FG% allowed people wouldn’t take it so lightly….
by cordobes on Feb 13, 2009 4:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
too much turnover yesterday vs. mavs we almost lose that game because of the 20+ turnover
by celt4ever on Feb 13, 2009 2:07 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Ever since I saw that picture. I could go for a pastry right now…that is a good turnover. Sorry, off topic. LOL
by NoraG1 on Feb 13, 2009 2:10 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Cordobes...Relax!
Your points are analytically logical but so what. If we shot terribly we could lead the league in rebounding
by Wildblu1 on Feb 13, 2009 3:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
well those turnovers had me worried for a while, but hey we were 4th worst in the league in turnovers last year too so maybe it ain’t all that significant..
By the way, i think they showed a stat last night that the team is 3-0 this season when trailing by double-digits at halftime. Now that’s something you don’t see that often..
by MunichsNo.1CeltsFan on Feb 13, 2009 5:12 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Can We Agree On This?
Turnovers are bad. But they are and probably will be a way of life with this team. Whether the cause is because we pass alot, are sloppy, are more aggressive, don’t get the calls, etc. it’s always gonna be this way. But the important thing is to win games and today the Celtics have the highest winning percentage in the NBA. Also, this year the C’s seem to be becoming more of a 4th quarter team. Last year it was the third quarter. Turnovers put the C’s into situations where they can lose games, but they turn the ball over very little in the 4th quarter and very little in crunch time late in close games. It doesn’t always work out this way, but it does more often than not. And they’ve won an awful lot of games in the last 5 or less minutes.
"I don't come to play, I come to WIN"--Larry Bird
by TrueGreen on Feb 13, 2009 9:16 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
