Logo
Browse Archives by:

Pushing the Boundaries of the Four Factors

 

Barring a change in the roster or the team’s style of play, the 2010 Celtics have a chance to answer this question: Can a team contend for an NBA title despite ranking near the bottom of the league in three of the so-called Four Factors of winning on offense? No team has come close to doing so in the No Hand Check era (i.e., since 2004). The C’s may provide the best test so far.

Dean Oliver pioneered the so-called Four Factors of winning, the four variables on offense (and the corresponding four on defense) that have the greatest impact in deciding who wins a basketball game. Do these four things well, and your team will usually win.

For the uninitiated, The Four Factors:

1) Effective Field Goal Percentage (offense) and Effective Field Goal Percentage allowed (on defense)—a stat that adjusts regular FG% to account for the fact that three-pointers are worth more than regular field goals.

2) Offensive Rebounding Percentage: The percentage of available offensive rebounds your team gets. If the C’s miss 40 shots and rebound 10 of them, their ORB % is 25 percent. (The defensive version of this factor is Defensive Rebounding Percentage).

3) Turnover Percentage: How many of a team’s offensive possessions end in turnovers? (The defensive version measures how often your team forces turnovers).

4) Free Throw Attempts/Field Goal Attempts: How often does your team get to the foul line on offense? (The defensive version measures how often a team sends opponents to the foul line).

Before addressing the offensive Four Factors, let’s say this up front: The C’s are an incredible defensive team. Right now, they are the only team in the NBA to rank in the top 10 in all Four Factors defensively, according to Basketball Reference.

Still: No team has even gotten to the conference finals since 2004 while ranking as poorly as the C’s project to rank in three of the Four Factors on offense.

Right now, the C’s rank:

2nd in Effective Field Goal %

18th in Turnover %

25th in Offensive Rebounding %

25th in FTA/FGA ratio

In other words: The Celtics shoot exceptionally while turning the ball over a lot and rarely grabbing offensive boards or getting to the foul line. And that 18th ranking in turnover % is a big improvement;  the team finished 29th in that category in each of the last two seasons.

The big drops so far this year have been in free throw attempts and offensive rebounding; the C’s ranked in the top 10 in each category last season. The fall-off isn’t entirely surprising—the C’s lost their best offensive rebounder and most prolific foul-drawer (Leon Powe) and replaced him with Rasheed Wallace, who does little of either at this stage in his career. The team’s other solid offensive rebounder (Glen Davis) punched his friend in the face and broke his thumb.

Davis will eventually help the ORB numbers and the maybe the free throw attempts. But this team projected poorly in each category before Baby’s injury; one of the stat systems they use over at Basketball Prospectus predicted huge drops in each category.

So: Can you win a title ranking, say, 25th or worse in three of the Four Factors on offense? What about 20th or worse? 

Of course, we don’t know. But we do know this: No team has made the conference finals since 2004 while ranking 20th or worse in three of the factors on offense. Of the 20 conference finalists since ’04, only one (the 2006 NBA champion Miami Heat) ranked 15th or worse in three categories (though that Heat team ranked no lower than 18th in any of them) .

A small handful of those 20 teams have been terrible at two of the four factors on offense, but not three. More than a handful have been outstanding at one and league-average at the other three, but, again, none have been truly bad at three of the Four Factors—on offense.

Here are some interesting cases:

The 2008 Spurs ranked 26th in offensive rebounding % and 24th in FTA/FGA but 10th in eFG% and 7th in turnover rate. Any Spurs fan could tell you the team hasn’t pounded the ball inside much in the last two seasons (thus the low foul-drawing rate) and basically punts offensive rebounding to focus on transition defense. Like the C’s, they shot the ball well. Unlike the C’s, they took care of it.

Ditto for the 2007 Spurs. The NBA champs that season ranked 27th in ORB and 20th in FTA/FGA—both well below average. But they ranked 2nd in eFG% and 8th in turnover percentage. Again, a very similar offensive profile to this year’s Celtics—with the (rather large) exception of turnovers.

(The Seven Seconds or Less Suns of 2005 and 2006 put up very similar profiles, with the 2006 squad finishing dead last in ORB% and FTA/FGA but 1st and 2nd in the other two categories).

The 2005 Finals between the Pistons and the Spurs provides some encouragement for the C’s; both teams were mediocre offensive units (especially Detroit) and yet both won because they were outstanding defensively. But even their offensive Four Factor rankings weren’t as extreme as Boston’s might end up:

’05 Spurs: 8th in eFG%, 12th in Turnover %, 13th in ORB% and 21st in FTA/FGA

’05 Pistons: 23rd, in eFG%, 13th in TO%, 4th in ORB% and 14th in FTA/FGA

The thing is, I believe the Celtics can contend for a title as currently constructed. The one offensive factor they are  good at (creating good shots and making those shots) is especially powerful—and the C’s are really good at it. And you can live with a lack of offensive rebounding if it means the team will excel at transition defense.

And the low foul-drawing rate? We’ll see if that holds up when the stakes are highest and Paul Pierce decides to attack the basket more aggressively.

There’s also the hope that the team’s early improvement in turnover rate will last. Rasheed Wallace has an extremely low turnover rate (much lower than Powe’s), and two of the team’s younger guys (Rondo and Perk) will likely turn the ball over less as they mature. (Perk has led the team’s regulars in turnovers the last two seasons, in part because of all those damn moving screen calls).

Can the C’s win the title the way they are now? I say they can. But their job would be a lot easier if they could get better at one of these three factors. Get to it, Doc.

Note: Here’s the ranking of the 20 conference finalists since 2004 based on the sum of their offensive Four Factors rankings. (Example: A team that ranked 1st in all four categories would score a 4; lower is better). The ’06 Mavs blow everyone away. League champions in bold.

1) 2006 Mavericks: 25

2) 2007 Jazz: 32

3) 2009 Lakers: 35

4) 2008 Pistons: 37

5) 2009 Cavs: 39

6) 2008 Lakers: 41

7) 2006 Pistons: 42

8) 2009 Nuggets: 47

9) 2005 Heat: 48

10) 2005 Suns: 50

11) 2007 Pistons: 51

12) 2006 Heat: 52

13) 2005 Spurs: 54

13) 2005 Pistons: 54

13) 2008 Celitcs: 54

16) 2007 Cavs: 55

17) 2009 Magic: 56

18) 2007 Spurs: 57

19) 2006 Suns: 63

20) 2008 Spurs: 67

What’s fascinating about this list and this topic in general is just how many ways there are to be successful in the NBA. The Nuggets win because they play good defense, get to the foul line a lot and pound the hell out of the boards. The Spurs win because they shoot well, take care of the ball and play solid defense. Two completely different offensive styles with similarly successful results.

The NBA is endlessly fascinating.

  • Joel W

    There appears to be a small positive correlation between turnover rate and effective field goal percentage, which makes sense on some level: moving the ball, to create open shots, will lead to a few more turnovers.

  • http://www.celticshub.com Zach Lowe

    @Joel W: I buy that, but the C’s were 6th in eFG% last season and 29th in TOs. So they’ve shown the ability to shoot well and turn the ball over a lot. But I’m with that you that the TO rate will likely improve this season. Will it improve enough?

  • http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com Tim Donahue

    Zach, Great stuff. I do some analysis for the Pacers over at 8pts9secs, and I’ve been looking at these, as well as the idea of style. I am heartened by your comments in the final paragraph.

    I’ve found it worrisome that more and more people in and around the NBA have begun assuming that going slow is the only way to go. As someone who came of age during the ’80′s, this goes against my core understanding of the game. To me, talent, execution, and a good balance of offense and defense are far more important than style.

    Thanks for your work on this.

  • Pingback: Today’s Celtics Links 11/10 « Flceltsfan’s Weblog

  • Joel W

    @Zach I think I meant to say the opposite: if they worry about their turnover rate too much, they won’t find as many open guys, and have a lower EFG%

    A little really dirty math:

    Moving from Worst in the League to Avg. in Turnover rates will save you 175 possessions over the course of a season, or about 200 points.

    Moving from Worst in the League to Avg. in FG% will get you on average about 300 more made baskets over the course of a season, or 660 more points (again really dirty, just making a point).

    Moving from Worst in the League to Avg. in ORB% will get you, I think, about 350 more points (My math: Average FG Missed*ORB%*PPS done sequentially as each time you get an ORB, you have another opportunity to get a missed shot).

    Moving from Worst in the League to Avg. in FTA will get you about 300 points.

    Again really rough estimates, but those feel about right.

    So: yes, turnover rate matters, but not nearly as much as the other three, especially given that I think there’s a correlation btw FG% and TOR. While I find them annoying, I’m not too concerned. The ORB% really scares the crap out of me. FTA are also scary but less so if only because I think they’ll go to the basket when they need to. Insofar as it is a skill that can be leveraged (like the stolen-base) i’m less concerned about it.

  • Sophomore

    Interesting stuff – but don’t put the whole decline in free throw attempts down to the loss of Powe. The Celtics are shooting about five fewer free throws per game this year – and about half of the decline is due to Pierce, Allen and KG. They’re shooting about 3 fewer FTAs than last year per game.

    What’s really striking (though more or less what I expected) is how much PP’s playing style has changed a lot in the last few years. As recently as the 2005-6 season, PP averaged 10.3 free throw attempts/game – this year he’s at half that, 5.3. A little of that is due to reduced minutes, but he’s been in steady decline.

    The change makes sense – he’s a much more efficient player with all the scoring talent around him now, and he should try to avoid the pounding he used to take by hurling himself into the trees – but it really cuts the FTAs/game.

  • Joel W

    Sophomore, good point on PP, but look at the playoffs: 7 FTA/G over the past 2 years, and that’s not based on minutes as they were quite close overall.

    He knows when he needs to get to the line and make it count.

  • Joel W

    Though perhaps that’s just late game free throws becoming more frequent in the playoffs.

  • Pingback: The 10-man rotation, starring ‘Sesame Street’ hoops | Sports News Images and Videos

  • Jeff

    I’m NOT scared by the ORB% because they clearly are committed to getting back on D. Going after ORB’s would lead to a loss on the defensive side of all these categories.
    Seems to me what you want to do is look at all 8 and compare to opponents.
    Re the foul shot thing: I was thinking that as players age and don’t want to take the pounding, they shoot more jump shots, figuring they can win that way. As that happens, is a team like the Celts likely to use less of their 24 sec clock, and create longer rebounds (which they still won’t get), and end up getting burned in transition? Is this something for any of you number-crunchers to look into?

  • Joel W

    Jeff, for what it’s worth I don’t really see a correlation between the ORB and defensive rating. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, but I’m not seeing it.

  • http://howtogetpregnanttips.net/ CB

    Interesting stuff – but don’t put the whole decline in free throw attempts down to the loss of Powe. The Celtics are shooting about five fewer free throws per game this year – and about half of the decline is due to Pierce, Allen and KG. They’re shooting about 3 fewer FTAs than last year per game.

    What’s really striking (though more or less what I expected) is how much PP’s playing style has changed a lot in the last few years. As recently as the 2005-6 season, PP averaged 10.3 free throw attempts/game – this year he’s at half that, 5.3. A little of that is due to reduced minutes, but he’s been in steady decline.

    The change makes sense – he’s a much more efficient player with all the scoring talent around him now, and he should try to avoid the pounding he used to take by hurling himself into the trees – but it really cuts the FTAs/game.

  • Pingback: When Shots Fall, Blowouts Happen: C’s 105, Jazz 86 » Boston Celtics Basketball – Celtics news, rumors and analysis – CelticsHub.com

  • Pingback: A Quick Note on Rebounding » Boston Celtics Basketball – Celtics news, rumors and analysis – CelticsHub.com

  • Pingback: Friday Positive Stat of the Day: Return of the Free Throws » Boston Celtics Basketball – Celtics news, rumors and analysis – CelticsHub.com

  • Pingback: A Reason for Hope: The Biggest Surprise in Boston’s Season » Boston Celtics Basketball – Celtics news, rumors and analysis – CelticsHub.com

  • Pingback: Is This the Worst Pacer Team Ever?

  • Pingback: By the Numbers 2012: The Pacers’ First Ten Games | Eight Points, Nine Seconds

no prescription xenical bupropion tab zithromax 500 mg pfizer viagra on line buy deltasone online cipro in south africa purchase viagra without a prescription levitra website orlistat price discount cialis online cialis online us paxil lexapro cheap cialis in uk canadian propecia buy cipro in usa cheap viagra no prescription generic levitra canada viagra tab generic levitra mastercard natural alternative to paroxetine buying viagra from india purchase discount cialis buy prednisone online without a prescription lowest cost levitra best and cheapest viagra pills cialis pricing nolvadex price no prescription how to order cialis online celebrex price where to buy cialis cheap non prescription generic cialis top selling herbal viagra cialis discount overnight viagra sales in uk alternative paxil genuine cialis online viagra online stores online rx diflucan buy cheap generic viagra zithromax dosing how much is accutane cialis com purchase cytotec online azithromycin cheapest cheapest viagra online online pharmacies uk amoxicillin canada diflucan buy daily cialis online accutane oklahoma viagra cheap canada viagra discount sales purchase viagra in uk buy amoxicillin online xenical pharmacy ordering levitra buying viagra online legal cheap authentic viagra one day shipping amoxil side effects viagra how to buy cialis online best best price celebrex generic cialis lowest price buy cialis in canada us cialis propecia mexico online prescription viagra azithromycin purchase online cheap cialis online without a persciption cialis order on line dose amoxicillin levitra canadian cialis canada 5mg celebrex cost australia azithromycin 500 mg viagra online sale buy levitra in europe wellbutrin online pharmacy viagra canada pharmacies order nolvadex viagra professional pfizer cymbalta australia for sale buy online purchase viagra flagyl buy generic cymbalta 20mg wellbutrin online prescription cialis online american internet viagra pharmacy buy cipro online cheap viagra pill viagra approved viagra buy usa side effects for zithromax viagra 25 mg canadian pharmacy cheap generic viagra cipro generic 100mg of paxil real cialis pharmacies herbal alternative to lasix order viagra in canada cipro xr bayer discount clomid levitra online sales cheap levitra prescription cialis brand approved cialis cheap viagra discount generic viagra professional viagra pfizer 50 mg female viagra europe furosemide 40mg tab