|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
A Mad Chinaman
Star Player
Joined: 07 Apr 2005
Posts: 6492
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 12:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| purple.23 wrote: | | SIT_GOODWIN_SIT! wrote: | | fiendishoc wrote: | | SIT_GOODWIN_SIT! wrote: | Feb 4 vs. Bucks, Lin's last 3 shot in regulation...
I wanted to pose some questions here regarding strategy lest potentially get sucked into the Lin smorgasbord.
When Lin was dribbling about before the shot I initially thought wait, is it possible that Scott drew up a play to reward Lin in some way to take the last shot? Then I thought nah... Then, if so, why not set up some continuous picks and let him drive? He either hopefully draws a foul, makes the shot, or dishes, etc. Otherwise, mathematically, that was probably going to be a tough 3 no matter who took it.
The Bucks don't want to necessarily foul because of the higher probability of Laker points. Intentional or not, Lin took the shot at the very end of the shot clock. Thus, whether or not the shot led to a 24 sec violation wouldn't have been as meaningful other than the possibility of the Lakers getting an offensive rebound (or getting fouled in the process).
Ok..still, let's say Lin goofed on his part. However, getting away from the old banal ' BS sucks' rhetoric, and in trying to give Scott the benefit of the doubt, any thoughts on what/how he envisioned those last minute sequences from a strategic point of view? |
Scott doesn't draw up plays in end of game. He tells the team which player to get the ball to, and maybe diagrams how he wants to get the player the ball in isolation. Once it does get there, he leaves it up to the player to figure out what to do.
So in this case, Lin gets the ball in isolation, and then decides to signal for Boozer to come set a pick for him on the high screen roll. You can see Middleton recognize this and tell Henson to switch with him so he could be the one defending the screen. Boozer comes from the left side. Lin thinks he can use the screen as a decoy and beat Knight going right, but Knight plays him perfectly, cutting him off. Boozer sees this and tries to set a screen for him going middle. But it was poorly executed as either Lin went to early or Boozer slipped to early, which left Lin matched up one on one with the long armed Middleton after the Bucks switched. You could tell Lin was in head down driving mode because he doesn't even look for Boozer on the slip. To make matters worse, Wayne had already come up to the wing as an outlet in the case Lin got trapped- but that had the effect of bringing his man up to contest Lin's drive. If he had stayed in the corner, then there might have been more room for the drive, but it also ran the risk of not having an outlet. But Lin didn't look like he was going to beat his man off the dribble anyway. In the end, Middleton was just too big for Lin to shoot the three over.
Video: http://on.nba.com/1F8p772
Movement: http://on.nba.com/1BYWUw6
It was a case of good defense beating simple offense. |
Yup, got it. Good stuff. Thank you very much. It doesn't matter how many times I've seen those movement clips in the past... I still get a kick out of them! |
to me, this is bad offense. first, there was only 13 sec left in the shot clock, and lin got the ball way off in the corner. second, he wasted too much time, almost 4 sec just standing there. if he was near the 3 pt line then fine, but he wans't even close. thrid, boozer came up to set a screen, lin didn't take it, with young and davis, they clogged up the strong side with no room to penetrate. fourth, ellington came way up bringing his defender up totally cut off the lanes.
what they should've done is inbounded the ball closer, cleared the right side with lin/ed pnr/screen. |
Agree with much that was stated
Since Boozer has not been able to set solid screens, nothing good happen.
With Swaggy not providing the needed spacing, his defender was able to hedge
Since Boozer was the screener, why wasn't the threat of the Pick&Pop more effectively used
Why didn't JLIn reset the play with Davis as the screener.
That Middleton was too big to shoot over or beaten on the dribble is a problem.
If Ellington was maintaining his principals and stay in the designated location, JLin would have found a way to get him the ball while giving JLin more space in the paint.
If JLin realized that he could not beat Middleton, where was Swaggy located at Kr was he pouting that he didn't have the ball at the top of the key to win the game - ala The Black Mamba style |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
fiendishoc
Star Player
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 8488
Location: The (real) short corner
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 3:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Although I wish they had designed a real play out of the timeout, I can't fault any of the decisions of the players, including Ellington, Young, Boozer, Davis, and even Lin, once the action started.
They were set up for maximum spacing for the high pick and roll, so Ellington and Young were correct to be in the corners. Davis also made the right decision, because you see when Boozer does finally set the screen Ed cuts under the basket to the other side to give Boozer space on his roll and to be an easy dump down target if the PG ever turned the corner. Lin knew that the Bucks had been hard showing on the pick and roll all game, and that another defender would be there to cut him off- that's why he used the screen as a fake in order to go away from the trap. Unfortunately, Knight's D was just too good on that possession. By the time he reset for the other Boozer screen, there just wasn't enough time left on the clock.
In hindsight, knowing that the defenders are hard to beat, you could say what that Lin should have taken the first Boozer screen and did a quick pocket pass to Boozer on the short roll. That would have left Boozer matched up with Knight in space and Henson trying to cover Ellington and help at the rim. So Booze possibly could have taken a power dribble into the paint and gotten it to Davis for the dunk. But you would have no way of knowing beforehand that it would have been that hard to beat Knight considering he'd done it several times during the game, so you can't really say that Lin's idea was wrong. (Maybe the only change might have been to tell Davis to come up and screen instead of Booze). Just have to give the Bucks credit, and next time the coach should draw up a real plan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A Mad Chinaman
Star Player
Joined: 07 Apr 2005
Posts: 6492
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fiendishoc wrote: | Although I wish they had designed a real play out of the timeout, I can't fault any of the decisions of the players, including Ellington, Young, Boozer, Davis, and even Lin, once the action started.
They were set up for maximum spacing for the high pick and roll, so Ellington and Young were correct to be in the corners. Davis also made the right decision, because you see when Boozer does finally set the screen Ed cuts under the basket to the other side to give Boozer space on his roll and to be an easy dump down target if the PG ever turned the corner. Lin knew that the Bucks had been hard showing on the pick and roll all game, and that another defender would be there to cut him off- that's why he used the screen as a fake in order to go away from the trap. Unfortunately, Knight's D was just too good on that possession. By the time he reset for the other Boozer screen, there just wasn't enough time left on the clock.
In hindsight, knowing that the defenders are hard to beat, you could say what that Lin should have taken the first Boozer screen and did a quick pocket pass to Boozer on the short roll. That would have left Boozer matched up with Knight in space and Henson trying to cover Ellington and help at the rim. So Booze possibly could have taken a power dribble into the paint and gotten it to Davis for the dunk. But you would have no way of knowing beforehand that it would have been that hard to beat Knight considering he'd done it several times during the game, so you can't really say that Lin's idea was wrong. (Maybe the only change might have been to tell Davis to come up and screen instead of Booze). Just have to give the Bucks credit, and next time the coach should draw up a real plan. |
Players were in the right places, it is just that the needed level of execution was not there. The players on the court don't have the trust to execute well a well-designed play.
Your comments have identified that none of the players are able to beat their own individual defenders hence no demanding any doubleteams - even with the Bucks or with the Magic (a very young but talented team).
Opposing teams have found that attacking JLin/Swaggy on their fav P&Rs, they have limited their effectivsness by allowing little space
These players have problems being their best when the best is required (John Wooden)
In this James Worthy-described "experimental season" - the Lakers don't have a leader or closer on the court. We have discovered that Swaggy P (inconsistent and incomplete game), Boozer and JLin (can and has put up good numbers but unable to consistently execute during clutch time and not the personality to motivate players to be accountable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JLinfanJoe
Starting Rotation
Joined: 10 Dec 2014
Posts: 253
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2015 7:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Did Portland defense yesterday look like what you had discussed earlier in season? (simplified Portland defense you had mentioned Lakers should have adopted much earlier in season):
http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/13/lillard-aldridge-are-nice-but-portlands-improved-defense-makes-them-contender/
(To my eye, Portland defense looked very solid, but Lakers second unit also just missed alot of shots they would normally make (i. e. collectively, their jump shots were already on the All Star Break (e. g. Boozer 1 - 11).
And any updated offensive / defensive stats for latest starting lineup over last 10 games?
Thanks in advance! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fiendishoc
Star Player
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 8488
Location: The (real) short corner
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2015 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I actually haven't had time to finish watching the game, but I'll take a look when I do get back to it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90891
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2015 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JLinfanJoe wrote: | Did Portland defense yesterday look like what you had discussed earlier in season? (simplified Portland defense you had mentioned Lakers should have adopted much earlier in season):
http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/13/lillard-aldridge-are-nice-but-portlands-improved-defense-makes-them-contender/
(To my eye, Portland defense looked very solid, but Lakers second unit also just missed alot of shots they would normally make (i. e. collectively, their jump shots were already on the All Star Break (e. g. Boozer 1 - 11).
And any updated offensive / defensive stats for latest starting lineup over last 10 games?
Thanks in advance! |
You will note that LA got up only 16 threes (some contested) and only got 26 points in the paint. About half of LA's shots were outside the paint but inside the 3 line, and they converted only about a third of those. Most of their paint tries were contested, and they shot well below 50% there as well.
_________________
Hoy por ellos, mañana por nosotros
“You see, in this world, there is one awful thing, and that is that everyone has his reasons“ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A Mad Chinaman
Star Player
Joined: 07 Apr 2005
Posts: 6492
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2015 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 24 wrote: | | JLinfanJoe wrote: | Did Portland defense yesterday look like what you had discussed earlier in season? (simplified Portland defense you had mentioned Lakers should have adopted much earlier in season):
http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/13/lillard-aldridge-are-nice-but-portlands-improved-defense-makes-them-contender/
(To my eye, Portland defense looked very solid, but Lakers second unit also just missed alot of shots they would normally make (i. e. collectively, their jump shots were already on the All Star Break (e. g. Boozer 1 - 11).
And any updated offensive / defensive stats for latest starting lineup over last 10 games?
Thanks in advance! |
You will note that LA got up only 16 threes (some contested) and only got 26 points in the paint. About half of LA's shots were outside the paint but inside the 3 line, and they converted only about a third of those. Most of their paint tries were contested, and they shot well below 50% there as well. |
Few points in the paint and contested 3s, no penetration or movement |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fiendishoc
Star Player
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 8488
Location: The (real) short corner
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
So I finally finished the game. The Blazers played their standard defense, dropping the bigs back on the screens, and giving up the mid range shot. No one on the Lakers could make them pay on pullup mid range J's , except maybe Ellington, so they did a lot of forced drives inside where the Portland bigs were waiting for them. You can see from Lin's shot chart that 5 of his 6 attempts were from that 16-22 foot area.
Team: http://on.nba.com/1AjaVtE
Lin: http://on.nba.com/1uHy1aO
Also the offense sets were the same crappy and predictable ones we've seen all season, and execution was sloppy, which lead to some turnovers. Portland probably knows exactly what the Lakers are doing on every possession by now. The poor spacing made it easy for the weak side wing to help on the roll man and recover back to his man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fiendishoc
Star Player
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 8488
Location: The (real) short corner
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2015 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Now that we're at the all star break, here are the advanced stats by season split again, with two new stretches defined by Kobe's injury and then Hill's injury.
Lakers Advanced Stats by Season Split
| Code: | Section GP Record OffRtg DefRtg NetRtg AST% AST/TO AST Ratio OREB% DREB% TO Ratio eFG% TS% PACE
A 10 1-9 103.6 114.7 -11.1 53.3 1.52 15 28.6 72.6 13.2 46.2 51.7 97.88
B 6 2-4 106.3 112.6 -6.4 50.8 1.66 15.7 28 74.8 12.6 49.7 53.2 96.17
C 4 2-2 104.9 105.2 -0.3 50.3 1.61 15 20.3 73.2 12.1 49.7 53.6 100.68
D 7 3-4 100.3 105.6 -5.3 58.8 2 16.3 24 74.4 10.9 45.5 49.8 96.85
E 9 3-6 102.9 108 -5.1 57.6 1.64 17 23.3 74.4 13.8 50.1 53.3 97.36
F 7 1-6 95.3 101.7 -6.5 59.2 1.22 15.6 25.1 79.1 16.9 45.8 50.4 95.64
G 5 1-4 95.1 102.3 -7.1 53 1.39 14.9 24.2 74.4 14.1 44.4 48.8 94.63
H 5 0-5 99.4 113.6 -14.2 58.4 1.79 16.3 31.3 79.3 12.6 44.9 48 93.19
|
Average Opponent Ratings & Lakers Off/Def performance vs Avg Opponent Ratings
| Code: | Bet Off Def Net Off+- Def+- Net+-
A +9 106 101 4.4 2 9 -7
B +6 104 103 1.3 3 8 -5
C +5 104 103 1.0 2 1 1
D +4 102 104 -2.2 -4 4 -7
E +8 106 102 3.8 1 2 -1
F +5 104 104 -0.5 -9 -2 -7
G +9 103 102 1 -7 -1 -6
H +8 103 103 0 -4 11 -14
|
Reference
| Code: | Section A: Start of the season, before Nick Young returned
Section B: Nick Young returns from injury
Section C: Team adopts a more conservative defensive philosophy
Section D: Boozer and Lin moved to the bench, Davis and Price become starters
Section E: Kobe begins to sit out nights, and plays the facilitator role when he returns
Section F: Tarik Black plays his first meaningful minutes for the team
Section G: Kobe ruled out for the season with shoulder injury. Kelly, Sacre, Clarkson, and Ellington enter starting lineup.
Section H: Hill injured, replaced by Black at PF
OffRtg: Points scored per 100 possessions
DefRtg: Points allowed per 100 possessions
PACE: Possessions per 48 minutes
Off+-: Lakers offensive rating minus average opponent defensive rating
Def+-: Lakers defensive rating minus average opponent offensive rating
Net+-: Off+- minus Def+- (Net Rtg adjusted for strength of schedule)
Bet: Avg betting spread from Teamrankings
|
In the most recent stretch, the Lakers offense has improved somewhat without Hill but their defense has completely collapsed despite Hill not being a good defender. I did notice their defense recently has been looking more like it did at the beginning of the year.
Last edited by fiendishoc on Sat Feb 14, 2015 2:33 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A Mad Chinaman
Star Player
Joined: 07 Apr 2005
Posts: 6492
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2015 11:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fiendishoc wrote: | Now that we're at the all star break, here are the advanced stats by season split again, with two new stretches defined by Kobe's injury and then Hill's injury.
Lakers Advanced Stats by Season Split
| Code: | Section GP Record OffRtg DefRtg NetRtg AST% AST/TO AST Ratio OREB% DREB% REB% TO Ratio eFG% TS% PACE
A 10 1-9 103.6 114.7 -11.1 53.3 1.52 15 28.6 72.6 48.5 13.2 46.2 51.7 97.88
B 6 2-4 106.3 112.6 -6.4 50.8 1.66 15.7 28 74.8 50.3 12.6 49.7 53.2 96.17
C 4 2-2 104.9 105.2 -0.3 50.3 1.61 15 20.3 73.2 46.5 12.1 49.7 53.6 100.68
D 7 3-4 100.3 105.6 -5.3 58.8 2 16.3 24 74.4 47.7 10.9 45.5 49.8 96.85
E 9 3-6 102.9 108 -5.1 57.6 1.64 17 23.3 74.4 49.2 13.8 50.1 53.3 97.36
F 7 1-6 95.3 101.7 -6.5 59.2 1.22 15.6 25.1 79.1 51.8 16.9 45.8 50.4 95.64
G 5 1-4 95.1 102.3 -7.1 53 1.39 14.9 24.2 74.4 49.1 14.1 44.4 48.8 94.63
H 5 0-5 99.4 113.6 -14.2 58.4 1.79 16.3 31.3 79.3 51.9 12.6 44.9 48 93.19
|
Average Opponent Ratings & Lakers Off/Def performance vs Avg Opponent Ratings
| Code: | Bet Off Def Net Off+- Def+- Net+-
A +9 106 101 4.4 2 9 -7
B +6 104 103 1.3 3 8 -5
C +5 104 103 1.0 2 1 1
D +4 102 104 -2.2 -4 4 -7
E +8 106 102 3.8 1 2 -1
F +5 104 104 -0.5 -9 -2 -7
G +9 103 102 1 -7 -1 -6
H +8 103 103 0 -4 11 -14
|
Reference
| Code: | Section A: Start of the season, before Nick Young returned
Section B: Nick Young returns from injury
Section C: Team adopts a more conservative defensive philosophy
Section D: Boozer and Lin moved to the bench, Davis and Price become starters
Section E: Kobe begins to sit out nights, and plays the facilitator role when he returns
Section F: Tarik Black plays his first meaningful minutes for the team
Section G: Kobe ruled out for the season with shoulder injury. Kelly, Sacre, Clarkson, and Ellington enter starting lineup.
Section H: Hill injured, replaced by Black at PF
OffRtg: Points scored per 100 possessions
DefRtg: Points allowed per 100 possessions
PACE: Possessions per 48 minutes
Off+-: Lakers offensive rating minus average opponent defensive rating
Def+-: Lakers defensive rating minus average opponent offensive rating
Net+-: Off+- minus Def+- (Net Rtg adjusted for strength of schedule)
Bet: Avg betting spread from Teamrankings
|
In the most recent stretch, the Lakers offense has improved somewhat without Hill but their defense has completely collapsed despite Hill not being a good defender. I did notice their defense recently has been looking more like it did at the beginning of the year. |
thanks for the large amount of info that will take some time to digest! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JLinfanJoe
Starting Rotation
Joined: 10 Dec 2014
Posts: 253
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2015 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks fiendishoc, both for the updated starting line up stats, and this thread as a whole.
Very constructive and educational. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fiendishoc
Star Player
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 8488
Location: The (real) short corner
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2015 11:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So I've been playing around with the "Play Type" stats from Synergy, newly released to the public on stats.nba.com, and put together a summary (as well as created ranks) for the Lakers.
A couple of things to note before getting into the numbers. There are 10 play types and their definitions are listed here: http://stats.nba.com/playtype/
What was not adequately explained on the site is that all these plays are mutually exclusive. So if CP3 runs a PnR with Griffin, hits him on the short roll, and then Griffin lobs to DJ coming from the short corner, then that's classified as a cutter play and has no impact on the points per possession (PPP) figure for PnR ball handler or roll man. Another example would be Al Jefferson posting up and kicking out to Kemba Walker for the the open J or the driving layup attacking the closeout. That would factor into the spot-up PPP, not the post-up PPP. Get ready to see a lot of journalists misusing these numbers to reach the wrong conclusion.
While this limits the uses of this data, you can still observe some tendencies where a team may or may not be using its personnel correctly, or needs better talent in certain areas.
Below are the offensive stats for the Lakers. I've listed only the frequency of the type of plays that finish possessions, as well as the points per possession of these plays, and the ranks versus the rest of the league (out of 30). If anyone wants to know the other stats like eFG%, TO's or PPP percentile, I have them handy too.
| Code: |
LAKERS Freq Freq Rank PPP PPP Rank Points Avg'd Rank
Transition 11.6% 25 1.14 8 20
Isolation 10.7% 3 0.81 20 5
Ball handler 16.3% 8 0.77 20 9
Roll man 6.7% 18 0.93 20 18
Post up 10.2% 11 0.87 11 10
Spot up 14.0% 29 0.92 23 29
Hand off 4.0% 11 0.85 15 13
Cut 7.4% 14 1.13 23 17
Off screen 6.5% 5 0.89 16 6
Putbacks 6.6% 8 1.05 20 9
Misc 5.9% 22 0.57 3 5
|
You can see that the Lakers are a top ten team in converting on transition attempts but a bottom ten team in attempting them. This says that either they aren't pushing the tempo enough, or their defense is so bad that it prevents them from getting out to run. Probably a little bit of both.
They are 3rd in the league in the proportion of their offense that are isolation attempts, but bottom ten in the league in scoring out of them. They only get 0.81 points per possession out of isolation, so it's a clearly inefficient way to run the offense.
In pick and roll situations, they are above average in ball handler attempts to score, but below average in both converting them and in the frequency they find the roll man.
To me, spot ups are a sign of a well functioning offense if you have shooters, where plays that draw in the defense result in kickout opportunities. This is one of their biggest shortcomings. They are 29th out of 30 in the league in frequency that their plays result in a spot up attempt, and are bottom ten in the league in scoring efficiency off of them, resulting in second worst ranking in average points from spot-ups per game. Given that the Lakers have more decent three point shooters than many teams (a high proportion of our threes are unassisted), this shouldn't be that low.
Basically they tend to run their lower efficiency actions more often than the rest of the league and their higher efficiency actions less often. This is some evidence that the offensive scheme is holding back their scoring potential.
Stay tuned for defensive stats as well as individual player stats by play type. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marauder
Sixth Man
Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Posts: 74
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2015 9:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Thanks for sorting and posting these interesting stats and your analysis. It looks like the points averaged ranking correlates closely with the frequency rank but not the PPP rank. Is the PPP spread among teams not that large? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fiendishoc
Star Player
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 8488
Location: The (real) short corner
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2015 9:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Marauder wrote: | | Thanks for sorting and posting these interesting stats and your analysis. It looks like the points averaged ranking correlates closely with the frequency rank but not the PPP rank. Is the PPP spread among teams not that large? |
Just did some quick coefficients of variations between teams on the PPP within play types, and it tends to be around 6-8% pretty consistently, while for number of possessions running each play type, its roughly around 15-30%, several times as large. Pace also figures into the possessions number, as opposed to in PPP, but the variation for % frequency of play types is just as large. The type of offensive sets run in teams' offensive schemes seems to have a pretty big impact on their relative offensive outcomes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KobesRevenge
Sixth Man
Joined: 14 Jul 2014
Posts: 92
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2015 3:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fiendishoc wrote: |
Basically they tend to run their lower efficiency actions more often than the rest of the league and their higher efficiency actions less often. This is some evidence that the offensive scheme is holding back their scoring potential.
|
So it's been pretty obvious that this is the case from the beginning of the season. From Scott's fascination with isos and his "10-15 threes" comment, it's been pretty obvious that he just doesn't care about weak, effeminate concepts like "efficiency", and would rather have a tough, foaming at the mouth crew that shoots long 2's.
So my question is how can he get away with this? I was thinking that perhaps the stealth tank was on from the very beginning. After all, if you're going to intentionally loose games, but want to look like you're trying to win, what better way than to run an anti-efficiency offense and have your players try as hard as they can? But then it seems like the way he runs this offense may be similar to the way he ran it in Cleveland. So I'm stumped. How has he been a head coach for so long if this is really the way he is? Does the FO really not see this?
By the way, this is a great thread. I've definitely learned a lot by following this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fiendishoc
Star Player
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 8488
Location: The (real) short corner
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2015 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KobesRevenge wrote: | | fiendishoc wrote: |
Basically they tend to run their lower efficiency actions more often than the rest of the league and their higher efficiency actions less often. This is some evidence that the offensive scheme is holding back their scoring potential.
|
So it's been pretty obvious that this is the case from the beginning of the season. From Scott's fascination with isos and his "10-15 threes" comment, it's been pretty obvious that he just doesn't care about weak, effeminate concepts like "efficiency", and would rather have a tough, foaming at the mouth crew that shoots long 2's.
So my question is how can he get away with this? I was thinking that perhaps the stealth tank was on from the very beginning. After all, if you're going to intentionally loose games, but want to look like you're trying to win, what better way than to run an anti-efficiency offense and have your players try as hard as they can? But then it seems like the way he runs this offense may be similar to the way he ran it in Cleveland. So I'm stumped. How has he been a head coach for so long if this is really the way he is? Does the FO really not see this?
By the way, this is a great thread. I've definitely learned a lot by following this. |
I think he's just being old school regarding this, and he's definitely not the only one in the league who doesn't care one bit about statistical efficiency. Phil's triangle offense is also not very analytics friendly outside of maybe defense floor balance. Flip Saunders, Doug Collins, and Randy Wittman are other recent examples. Coaches can still win a lot of games with this approach if they happen to have the right roster, or if they get the team to play good defense, so a lot hang around.
In this situation it helps to have a FO that believes in efficiency to talk the coach into improving some things. But from the exit interview with MDA last year, it seems that they have some resistance to analytics, at least when applied to coaching and team construction. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fiendishoc
Star Player
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 8488
Location: The (real) short corner
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2015 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here are the defensive ranks for the Play Type stats. Keep in mind that it's flipped from the offense and that small number ranks and high PPP = bad defense:
| Code: | LAKERS Freq Freq Rank PPP PPP Rank Pts avg'd rank
Transition 15% 5 1.15 8 3
Isolation 7% 26 0.97 1 19
Ball handler 16% 8 0.86 3 06
Roll man 7% 12 1.04 6 5
Post up 9% 19 0.85 16 21
Spot up 19% 15 1.02 4 10
Hand off 4% 14 0.99 1 5
Cut 7% 22 1.22 6 21
Off screen 6% 4 0.90 12 2
Putbacks 5% 28 1.06 17 28
Misc 6% 23 0.53 8 11
|
First off, its hard to pinpoint specific areas because the Lakers are bad at stopping just about everything. The only things they are OK at are stopping post ups and putbacks, but the post-ups could also be a bad thing if they are giving up something else by helping. They allow too many transition opportunities and tend to be burned off the pick and roll and screens in general. They don't force many isolation situations, but when they do, they are the worst in the league at stopping it. Again these could be down to individual players, or an improper help scheme.
From the numbers, its easy to emphasize some defensive principles that other teams have already figured out and are using. For example, the ball handler on PnR is rarely efficient as a scorer- the Lakers are third worst in the league at giving up points to the ball handler, but the PPP is only 0.86 while roll man and spotter PPP are both over 1 (there is the possibility however that the ball handler PPP is biased downward by passing turnovers). So instead of doing that soft show to contain the guards that they do so often, they may be better served by dropping back to stop the roll man from getting behind the defense, and staying at home on the shooters. Don't help too much on the post players. Getting back on defense should be a priority. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fiendishoc
Star Player
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 8488
Location: The (real) short corner
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2015 6:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here are the player efficiencies by play type, sorted by PPP. Note that these measure scoring attempts only and don't take into account of efficiency from passing.
- First column is average points per possession (PPP) on that play type
- Second column is Percentile for PPP vs the entire league
- Third column is Frequency of a player's own scoring attempts are in that play type
| Code: | | PPP Percentile Freq |
| Code: | | 1.15 58 13% Transition |
| Code: | 1.41 92 09% Ed Davis
1.29 81 14% Nick Young
1.26 77 11% Wayne Ellington
1.24 74 05% Jordan Hill
1.19 66 22% Jordan Clarkson
1.14 58 08% Carlos Boozer
1.05 44 16% Wesley Johnson
1.04 40 12% Kobe Bryant
1.00 31 17% Jeremy Lin
0.90 18 15% Ronnie Price
|
| Code: | 1.25 64 06% Wesley Johnson
1.17 47 16% Jordan Hill
1.12 39 25% Ed Davis
1.11 36 14% Carlos Boozer
1.07 32 11% Robert Sacre
1.00 20 05% Jordan Clarkson
0.81 05 02% Kobe Bryant |
| Code: | | 1.01 45 13% Putbacks |
| Code: | 1.25 80 10% Carlos Boozer
1.13 61 03% Wesley Johnson
1.12 59 22% Tarik Black
1.10 56 27% Ed Davis
1.06 46 14% Jordan Hill
0.83 15 12% Robert Sacre
0.60 01 02% Kobe Bryant
|
| Code: | | 0.94 44 15% Roll man |
| Code: | 1.08 71 15% Tarik Black
1.01 59 17% Ed Davis
0.99 52 19% Carlos Boozer
0.90 34 01% Kobe Bryant
0.87 28 18% Jordan Hill
0.81 19 17% Robert Sacre
|
| Code: | | 0.89 42 18% Spot up |
| Code: | 1.12 81 26% Wesley Johnson
1.07 73 19% Wayne Ellington
1.04 70 26% Ronnie Price
1.01 63 15% Nick Young
0.88 40 16% Jeremy Lin
0.86 36 05% Kobe Bryant
0.84 32 39% Ryan Kelly
0.78 20 16% Jordan Hill
0.77 19 10% Jordan Clarkson
0.73 15 11% Carlos Boozer
0.68 11 12% Robert Sacre |
| Code: | | 0.84 42 06% Handoff |
| Code: | 1.24 94 05% Jeremy Lin
1.00 78 07% Ronnie Price
0.88 48 08% Wayne Ellington
0.86 45 09% Wesley Johnson
0.66 13 04% Kobe Bryant
0.63 10 06% Nick Young
0.59 08 06% Jordan Clarkson |
| Code: | | 0.83 56 15% Post up |
| Code: | 1.09 94 09% Ryan Kelly
1.04 90 12% Ed Davis
1.00 86 03% Wesley Johnson
0.97 80 20% Carlos Boozer
0.86 55 14% Jordan Hill
0.83 50 17% Kobe Bryant
0.82 45 36% Robert Sacre
0.44 03 03% Nick Young
0.38 01 17% Tarik Black |
| Code: | | 0.81 41 09% Off screen |
| Code: | 1.06 78 12% Nick Young
1.05 77 18% Wayne Ellington
0.96 60 14% Wesley Johnson
0.73 27 02% Carlos Boozer
0.69 21 09% Kobe Bryant
0.68 18 04% Jeremy Lin
0.50 07 04% Ronnie Price |
| Code: | | 0.77 46 12% Isolation |
| Code: | 1.00 86 12% Ronnie Price
0.91 71 18% Nick Young
0.87 62 08% Carlos Boozer
0.85 54 07% Wayne Ellington
0.83 53 21% Kobe Bryant
0.79 42 12% Jeremy Lin
0.75 35 08% Jordan Hill
0.51 10 14% Jordan Clarkson
0.44 03 05% Wesley Johnson |
| Code: | | 0.75 55 26% Ball handler |
| Code: | 0.89 81 29% Wayne Ellington
0.88 79 25% Nick Young
0.82 68 35% Jordan Clarkson
0.77 55 23% Kobe Bryant
0.77 57 39% Jeremy Lin
0.70 39 12% Wesley Johnson
0.40 05 23% Ronnie Price |
| Code: | | 0.91 47 14% Grand Total |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fiendishoc
Star Player
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 8488
Location: The (real) short corner
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2015 6:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
And the play type efficiencies by player. The misc category is excluded because it's kind of meaningless:
| Code: | | PPP Percentile Freq |
| Code: | | 0.97 51 93% Carlos Boozer |
| Code: | 1.25 80 10% Putbacks
1.14 58 08% Transition
1.11 36 14% Cut
0.99 52 19% Roll man
0.97 80 20% Post up
0.87 62 08% Isolation
0.73 15 11% Spot up
0.73 27 02% Off screen |
| Code: | | 1.14 67 91% Ed Davis |
| Code: | 1.41 92 09% Transition
1.12 39 25% Cut
1.10 56 27% Putbacks
1.04 90 12% Post up
1.01 59 17% Roll man
|
| Code: | | 0.89 47 93% Jeremy Lin |
| Code: | 1.24 94 05% Handoff
1.00 31 17% Transition
0.88 40 16% Spot up
0.79 42 12% Isolation
0.77 57 39% Ball handler
0.68 18 04% Off screen |
| Code: | | 0.81 32 91% Jordan Clarkson |
| Code: | 1.19 66 22% Transition
1.00 20 05% Cut
0.82 68 35% Ball handler
0.77 19 10% Spot up
0.59 08 06% Handoff
0.51 10 14% Isolation
|
| Code: | | 0.96 44 91% Jordan Hill |
| Code: | 1.24 74 05% Transition
1.17 47 16% Cut
1.06 46 14% Putbacks
0.87 28 18% Roll man
0.86 55 14% Post up
0.78 20 16% Spot up
0.75 35 08% Isolation
|
| Code: | | 0.80 31 94% Kobe Bryant |
| Code: | 1.04 40 12% Transition
0.90 34 01% Roll man
0.86 36 05% Spot up
0.83 50 17% Post up
0.83 53 21% Isolation
0.81 05 02% Cut
0.77 55 23% Ball handler
0.69 21 09% Off screen
0.66 13 04% Handoff
0.60 01 02% Putbacks
|
| Code: | | 0.89 55 93% Nick Young |
| Code: | 1.29 81 14% Transition
1.06 78 12% Off screen
1.01 63 15% Spot up
0.91 71 18% Isolation
0.88 79 25% Ball handler
0.63 10 06% Handoff
0.44 03 03% Post up
|
| Code: | | 0.84 24 87% Robert Sacre |
| Code: | 1.07 32 11% Cut
0.83 15 12% Putbacks
0.82 45 36% Post up
0.81 19 17% Roll man
0.68 11 12% Spot up
|
| Code: | | 0.81 44 86% Ronnie Price |
| Code: | 1.04 70 26% Spot up
1.00 78 07% Handoff
1.00 86 12% Isolation
0.90 18 15% Transition
0.50 07 04% Off screen
0.40 05 23% Ball handler
|
| Code: | | 0.97 63 48% Ryan Kelly |
| Code: | 1.09 94 09% Post up
0.84 32 39% Spot up
|
| Code: | | 0.86 44 53% Tarik Black |
| Code: | 1.12 59 22% Putbacks
1.08 71 15% Roll man
0.38 01 17% Post up
|
| Code: | | 1.00 68 92% Wayne Ellington |
| Code: | 1.26 77 11% Transition
1.07 73 19% Spot up
1.05 77 18% Off screen
0.89 81 29% Ball handler
0.88 48 08% Handoff
0.85 54 07% Isolation
|
| Code: | | 0.95 54 94% Wesley Johnson |
| Code: | 1.25 64 06% Cut
1.13 61 03% Putbacks
1.12 81 26% Spot up
1.05 44 16% Transition
1.00 86 03% Post up
0.96 60 14% Off screen
0.86 45 09% Handoff
0.70 39 12% Ball handler
0.44 03 05% Isolation
|
| Code: | | 0.91 47 Grand Total |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
koen
Sixth Man
Joined: 11 Nov 2014
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2015 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wait, does this say Ronnie Price is the best ISO player on the team? Maybe BS has been seeing something we have missed the whole season. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fiendishoc
Star Player
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 8488
Location: The (real) short corner
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2015 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| koen wrote: | | Wait, does this say Ronnie Price is the best ISO player on the team? Maybe BS has been seeing something we have missed the whole season. |
He's got some one on one moves I'll give him that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fiendishoc
Star Player
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 8488
Location: The (real) short corner
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here are the individual defense Play Type stats. A lot of ugliness and single digit percentile figures here.
By Play Type:
| Code: | | PPP Percentile Freq |
| Code: | | 0.85 35 33% Ball handler |
| Code: | 0.91 21 51% Jeremy Lin
0.81 40 44% Jordan Clarkson
0.79 47 20% Kobe Bryant
0.60 91 28% Nick Young
0.85 28 48% Ronnie Price
0.90 23 17% Ryan Kelly
1.04 08 31% Wayne Ellington
0.91 20 30% Wesley Johnson
|
| Code: | | 0.97 34 08% Handoff |
| Code: | 1.36 02 08% Jeremy Lin
0.89 38 11% Jordan Clarkson
1.09 14 07% Kobe Bryant
0.87 42 09% Nick Young
0.92 33 07% Ronnie Price
0.79 61 09% Wayne Ellington
0.85 46 09% Wesley Johnson |
| Code: | | 1.00 31 09% Isolation |
| Code: | 0.83 53 06% Carlos Boozer
0.61 89 08% Ed Davis
0.83 53 09% Jeremy Lin
1.14 08 08% Jordan Clarkson
1.28 04 04% Jordan Hill
1.00 21 09% Kobe Bryant
0.89 40 10% Nick Young
0.72 76 06% Robert Sacre
1.08 14 10% Ronnie Price
1.34 02 17% Ryan Kelly
1.08 14 13% Tarik Black
1.00 21 07% Wayne Ellington
1.18 06 11% Wesley Johnson |
| Code: | | 0.81 56 08% Off screen |
| Code: | 0.75 72 03% Carlos Boozer
0.20 100 03% Ed Davis
1.32 05 05% Jeremy Lin
0.67 83 10% Jordan Clarkson
0.73 76 02% Jordan Hill
1.26 08 13% Kobe Bryant
0.69 81 13% Nick Young
1.13 14 06% Ronnie Price
0.31 99 09% Ryan Kelly
0.81 62 14% Wayne Ellington
1.06 19 12% Wesley Johnson |
| Code: | | 0.89 52 10% Post up |
| Code: | 0.74 77 13% Carlos Boozer
1.00 22 15% Ed Davis
1.00 22 03% Jeremy Lin
0.73 81 06% Jordan Clarkson
0.75 76 25% Jordan Hill
1.10 13 03% Kobe Bryant
0.82 57 13% Nick Young
0.92 36 17% Robert Sacre
1.50 00 04% Ronnie Price
0.80 64 09% Ryan Kelly
0.62 91 13% Tarik Black
0.72 82 08% Wayne Ellington
0.86 49 06% Wesley Johnson |
| Code: | | 0.94 39 09% Roll man |
| Code: | 0.87 46 10% Carlos Boozer
0.94 33 10% Ed Davis
1.17 08 07% Jordan Hill
0.77 68 10% Robert Sacre |
| Code: | | 1.03 42 25% Spot up |
| Code: | 1.08 28 19% Carlos Boozer
1.10 23 23% Ed Davis
1.05 33 22% Jeremy Lin
1.00 43 20% Jordan Clarkson
0.72 93 14% Jordan Hill
0.92 66 42% Kobe Bryant
0.85 82 24% Nick Young
1.15 15 15% Robert Sacre
1.38 01 23% Ronnie Price
0.92 65 35% Ryan Kelly
1.26 06 34% Tarik Black
0.96 57 28% Wayne Ellington
1.06 32 27% Wesley Johnson |
| Code: | | 0.93 42 15% Grand Total |
By Player
| Code: | | PPP Percentile Freq |
| Code: | | 0.85 55 50% Carlos Boozer |
| Code: | 0.83 53 06% Isolation
0.75 72 03% Off screen
0.74 77 13% Post up
0.87 46 10% Roll man
1.08 28 19% Spot up
|
| Code: | | 0.77 53 59% Ed Davis |
| Code: | 0.61 89 08% Isolation
0.20 100 03% Off screen
1.00 22 15% Post up
0.94 33 10% Roll man
1.10 23 23% Spot up
|
| Code: | | 1.08 23 97% Jeremy Lin |
| Code: | 0.91 21 51% Ball handler
1.36 02 08% Handoff
0.83 53 09% Isolation
1.32 05 05% Off screen
1.00 22 03% Post up
1.05 33 22% Spot up
|
| Code: | | 0.87 49 99% Jordan Clarkson |
| Code: | 0.81 40 44% Ball handler
0.89 38 11% Handoff
1.14 08 08% Isolation
0.67 83 10% Off screen
0.73 81 06% Post up
1.00 43 20% Spot up
|
| Code: | | 0.93 51 53% Jordan Hill |
| Code: | 1.28 04 04% Isolation
0.73 76 02% Off screen
0.75 76 25% Post up
1.17 08 07% Roll man
0.72 93 14% Spot up
|
| Code: | | 1.03 28 95% Kobe Bryant |
| Code: | 0.79 47 20% Ball handler
1.09 14 07% Handoff
1.00 21 09% Isolation
1.26 08 13% Off screen
1.10 13 03% Post up
0.92 66 42% Spot up
|
| Code: | | 0.79 65 96% Nick Young |
| Code: | 0.60 91 28% Ball handler
0.87 42 09% Handoff
0.89 40 10% Isolation
0.69 81 13% Off screen
0.82 57 13% Post up
0.85 82 24% Spot up
|
| Code: | | 0.89 49 48% Robert Sacre |
| Code: | 0.72 76 06% Isolation
0.92 36 17% Post up
0.77 68 10% Roll man
1.15 15 15% Spot up
|
| Code: | | 1.14 15 99% Ronnie Price |
| Code: | 0.85 28 48% Ball handler
0.92 33 07% Handoff
1.08 14 10% Isolation
1.13 14 06% Off screen
1.50 00 04% Post up
1.38 01 23% Spot up
|
| Code: | | 0.85 50 86% Ryan Kelly |
| Code: | 0.90 23 17% Ball handler
1.34 02 17% Isolation
0.31 99 09% Off screen
0.80 64 09% Post up
0.92 65 35% Spot up |
| Code: | | 0.99 37 59% Tarik Black |
| Code: | 1.08 14 13% Isolation
0.62 91 13% Post up
1.26 06 34% Spot up
|
| Code: | | 0.89 48 97% Wayne Ellington |
| Code: | 1.04 08 31% Ball handler
0.79 61 09% Handoff
1.00 21 07% Isolation
0.81 62 14% Off screen
0.72 82 08% Post up
0.96 57 28% Spot up
|
| Code: | | 0.99 29 95% Wesley Johnson |
| Code: | 0.91 20 30% Ball handler
0.85 46 09% Handoff
1.18 06 11% Isolation
1.06 19 12% Off screen
0.86 49 06% Post up
1.06 32 27% Spot up
|
| Code: | | 0.93 42 Grand Total |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90891
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2015 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thought you all might like to read and discuss this:
LINK
_________________
Hoy por ellos, mañana por nosotros
“You see, in this world, there is one awful thing, and that is that everyone has his reasons“ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Inigo Montoya
Sixth Man
Joined: 02 Dec 2014
Posts: 55
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2015 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 24 wrote: | Thought you all might like to read and discuss this:
LINK |
It sounds cool that they think they finally have a good system for judging defense, but it is missing the one key piece that everyone wants: the actual charts and rankings for all the players. Saying "we use sportvu and can spit out some wiz-bang stuff" is nice and all, but there is no practical way to judge it without the code and all the sportvu data they are using.
And most people don't want to judge it, they want to have fun poring over the results. If I can't use it to say my guy is better than your guy... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fiendishoc
Star Player
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 8488
Location: The (real) short corner
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2015 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 24 wrote: | Thought you all might like to read and discuss this:
LINK |
Aeneas linked this article in the Front Office P&M thread earlier, and I replied there. I'll repost my take again here-
---------------------
So I quickly went through the article and both research papers.
They did some interesting things, but I think left some pretty big holes. The technical research paper somehow is more clear on what they were actually doing than the other two pieces.
To summarize they:
1) Designed a process for automatically estimating the defensive matchup responsibilities, including contesting other player's assignments, using the SportVU motion tracking data, without having to rely on manual tagging.
2) Designed another process to model a player's offensive tendencies on the type of shots they tend to take and how efficient they are at them.
3) Combined the two for a measure of a defensive player's impact on both the effectiveness and frequency of the shot attempts that goes beyond alternative defensive measurements because it also accounts for shots prevented.
This all sounds pretty logical and straightforward- but...
It doesn't account for certain very important types of help defense within schemes. Goldsberry does mention that good/bad teammates on the court will impact individual defensive performances with these new measurements, but the problem goes beyond that. Let's use pick and roll defense as an example. If your scheme is say have the weakside wing bump the roll man on screen rolls (or help and recover after the pass/drive), then you could have a case where your wing defender is awesome at completely blowing up the opposing team's pick and rolls, but lets his own man shoot slightly above average- then the new metrics might label him a below average defender, because he isn't properly being assigned his share of defensive responsibility. (This could be why you see MKG getting such a bad rating despite being the key defender for one of the better defensive teams)
What would be more useful, albeit more manually intensive, would be to identify and tag both the offensive play and the scheme to defend against it, while outlining the responsibilities of the 5 defenders on the court in defending the play depending on what happens (and where it happens), and then assigning the results of the efficiency of the play type to the individual defenders proportionally. If you get a big enough sample, then the relative effectiveness of the different defenders would be teased out.
Not saying that their method isn't or won't be useful. But that it likely needs quite a bit of fine tuning before we can start quoting the new stats to compare players against each other. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
