Celtics PNR Ball Handler — Outcome Decomposition (2025-26)

Generated 2026-05-19. Companion to reports/celtics_pnr_dho_action_analysis_REPAIRED.md. Same authoritative source: stats.nba.com/stats/synergyplaytype via nba_api 1.10.2.

---

1. What outcome fields does Synergy provide?

Inspected headers of all four PRBallHandler JSON files (Regular Season / Playoffs × Team / Player). Identical 22-column shape in each:

SEASON_ID, TEAM_ID, TEAM_ABBREVIATION, TEAM_NAME, PLAY_TYPE, TYPE_GROUPING, PERCENTILE, GP, POSS_PCT, PPP, FG_PCT, FT_POSS_PCT, TOV_POSS_PCT, SF_POSS_PCT, PLUSONE_POSS_PCT, SCORE_POSS_PCT, EFG_PCT, POSS, PTS, FGM, FGA, FGMX

Available outcome fields, decoded:

Identity (approximate): FGA / POSS + TOV_POSS_PCT + FT_POSS_PCT ≈ 1.0. Each possession ends one of three ways: a field-goal attempt, a turnover, or a foul that sends the handler to the FT line without a logged FGA.

2. Can Synergy tell us if PNR ball-handler possessions ended in pass-outs?

No. Synergy classifies pass-outs by the receiver's play type. When a PNR handler kicks to a spot-up shooter, the resulting possession shows up under Spotup. When the handler dumps to the roll man and the roll man finishes, that goes under PRRollMan. When the handler dumps to a cutter, it's under Cut.

That means the team's PRBallHandler row at 20.2 POSS/game (regular season) and 21.9 POSS/game (playoffs) represents only the possessions the handler ENDED. The true volume of PNR actions Boston initiated is higher; some unknown share of it leaks into the Spotup, PRRollMan, and Cut rows.

Pass-out quality (kickout-three PPP, roll-finish PPP) requires either the receiver's play type row OR play-by-play tracking event data, which this Synergy aggregate does not contain.

3. Boston PNR ball-handler outcomes — Regular Season

From data/celtics_pnr_ballhandler_team_outcomes.csv:

Read: Boston ended 82% of its PNR-handler possessions with a shot. Of those, made 41.7%. 11.6% ended in turnover, 7.8% at the FT line. 40.3% of all PNR-handler possessions scored at least one point. The 93rd percentile efficiency was driven by good shot-making (EFG 48.8%) plus a manageable turnover rate, not by drawing fouls.

4. Boston PNR ball-handler outcomes — Playoffs

Read: Boston ran more PNR-handler in the playoffs (+1.7 poss/game, +2pp frequency), but the action was meaningfully less efficient. The 4.6pp FGA-share drop and 5.3pp FT-share rise mean a chunk of would-be shots were converted into trips to the FT line, but the converted FGAs that remained went in less often.

5. Which Celtics handlers were efficient or inefficient?

Regular Season (all Boston PNR-handlers above 1 POSS/game):

Brown had the highest FG% on a real-volume basis; Tatum the highest PPP percentile. Brown's TOV rate (15.2%) was a watchpoint even in the regular season.

Playoffs (Boston PNR-handlers, 7-game sample):

Pritchard was the only Celtics handler above the playoff median by PPP. The rest clustered between 34th and 38th percentile.

6. Did Tatum / Brown PNR-handler efficiency drop in playoffs?

Yes, both — by different mechanisms.

Tatum's playoff PNR-handler share JUMPED 11.1pp (33.2% → 44.3% — he ran nearly half his playoff offense as a PNR-handler in his 6-game return), his FG% fell 9pp AND his TOV rate jumped to 19.0%. Both mechanisms hurt him — turnovers up, shot-making down. He was clearly still rounding into form post-Achilles.

Brown's drop was almost entirely shot-making, not turnovers (TOVs actually improved). His FG% fell 6.4pp, but he kept the ball clean.

7. Did turnovers or missed shots explain the team-level playoff drop?

Missed shots, not turnovers.

At the team level, the playoff PPP fell 0.067. Decomposing:

• TOV rate barely moved (+0.2pp). Turnovers were not the issue at the team level.
• FG% fell 2.2pp and EFG% fell 2.6pp. This is the dominant driver.
• FT-possession rate rose 5.3pp, which actually offsets some of the shot-making loss (FTs PPP ~0.79 is above pure-missed-shot PPP of 0).
• The team-level result reflects the player-level mix: Brown and White both had stable-or-improving TOV rates, only Tatum's TOV spiked. His TOV impact at the team level was diluted by the rest.

Net: Boston shot worse off PNR in the playoffs. They did not turn it over more (Tatum aside). Pritchard was the only one who shot well in the action.

8. Was Pritchard meaningfully better as a PNR handler in the playoffs?

Yes. Pritchard's playoff PNR-handler line:

• 4.1 POSS/game, 1.172 PPP, 51.9% FG, 61.1% EFG, 3.4% TOV, 88th percentile, 9th of 65 ball-handlers in the playoff pool.

This is the cleanest single-action profile on the roster. Low volume (only 4.1 poss/game), but elite efficiency, near-zero turnover rate, high-quality shot diet (EFG 61%, suggesting heavy threes). His playoff PPP (1.172) crushed Tatum's (0.776), Brown's (0.762), and White's (0.750). And he was the only Boston handler above the playoff median.

This is a real lineup-construction signal: Pritchard playing in high-leverage PNR reps was Boston's most efficient option. The team gave that role to Tatum at 9.7 poss/game and Brown at 6.0 poss/game.

9. Does this change the Queta-roll conclusion?

No — it strengthens it. When the handler ENDED the playoff PNR, Boston scored at 0.856 PPP (73rd percentile). When Queta finished the PNR as the roll man, Boston scored at 1.786 PPP (96th percentile).

The handler-shoots branch was below-average. The Queta-rolls-and-finishes branch was top-of-league. Boston ran the bad branch (handler-shoots) 21.9 times per game and the good branch (Queta-roll-finish) 2.0 times per game. The under-deployment is even more visible from this angle: the pass-out-to-Queta option was the most efficient available outcome of every PNR Boston started.

Caveat: We don't see how often the handler had the option to pass to Queta. Some of the 21.9 handler-ended possessions were three-handler PNRs (Brown/Pritchard/Tatum with a Hauser or Garza screen, no roll threat). Without play-by-play action labels we can't isolate Queta- screened PNRs specifically. But the macro signal is unambiguous: the roll-to-Queta resolution was the most efficient finish in the entire playoff action portfolio.

10. What remains unproven

• Pass-out quality directly. Synergy attributes kickouts to the receiver's play type, not to PRBallHandler. So "what fraction of Boston PNRs ended in a kickout-three by Hauser" cannot be answered from this aggregate. It would require play-by-play action labels or tracking event data.
• Queta-specific PNR initiation rate. We can't isolate how many of Boston's 21.9 playoff PNR-handler possessions had Queta as the screener vs. a stretch big (Hauser, Garza).
• 3PA / 3PM split inside PNR-handler. Only EFG_PCT hints at it; no direct 3PA field in the Synergy aggregate.
• Defensive scheme response by Philly. Whether they switched, ICEd, dropped, or trapped Boston's PNR-handler reps is a defensive Synergy fetch (TypeGrouping=defensive) that we have not pulled.
• Single-game variance within the 7-game playoff sample. A 7-game ledger is suggestive, not dispositive, for any individual player rate.

11. RealGM-ready paragraph

The actual outcome decomposition of Boston's PNR ball-handler possessions does not blame turnovers for the playoff drop — TOV rate was 11.6% in the regular season and 11.8% in the playoffs, basically flat at the team level. What dropped was shot-making: EFG fell from 48.8% to 46.2%, FG% from 41.7% to 39.5%. Boston actually drew MORE shooting fouls in the playoff sample (FT-possession rate jumped from 7.8% to 13.1%), which softened the impact. The drop traces to two specific players: Tatum, in 6 games back from Achilles, ran PNR- handler on 44% of his offense and turned it over 19% of the time at 35% FG; Brown shot 41% on his PNR-handler reps. Pritchard, by contrast, was a 88th-percentile playoff PNR-handler at 1.172 PPP on 52% FG and a 3.4% TOV rate. He took the action 4.1 times per game. Tatum and Brown took it 15.7 times per game combined. And none of this changes the Queta point: when the PNR ended at the handler's shot, Boston scored at 0.856 PPP; when the PNR ended at Queta rolling and finishing, Boston scored at 1.786 PPP. The wrong branch got 22 reps a game and the right branch got 2.

---

Sources

• stats.nba.com/stats/synergyplaytype (PRBallHandler, T and P, Regular Season + Playoffs) via nba_api 1.10.2
• Raw JSON: data/raw/action_types/nba_api/synergy_2025_26_*_PRBallHandler_*_offensive_PerGame.json
• Parsed CSVs:
  • data/celtics_pnr_ballhandler_team_outcomes.csv
  • data/celtics_pnr_ballhandler_player_outcomes.csv
• Companion analysis: reports/celtics_pnr_dho_action_analysis_REPAIRED.md

Limits, declared (one more time, plainly)

• Synergy "PRBallHandler" rows are END-of-PNR-handler outcomes only. Pass-out outcomes are NOT captured here.
• The 7-game playoff sample is small. Player rates are directional, not population estimates.
• Vucevic appears as a PNR-handler in zero playoff possessions for Boston (excluded from the player table by minimum threshold).
• Defensive Synergy (how the opponent ended these actions) not pulled.