PDA

View Full Version : Taking a closer look at the team with regards to shooting (3rd edition for the colorblind)



Hicks
01-10-2010, 07:49 PM
I need to spend a long time looking at this site. The site being HoopData.com.

I'd only recently become aware of it, but it's pretty sweet.

There are stats kepts here that I don't usually see anywhere else, and what's great is you can sort by any of them to easily see where your team ranks.

To keep this from being too all over the place, I'm going to look at some shooting percentages.

For above average.
For below average.

===================================

First I'm going to look at not HOW WELL we shoot, but WHERE we shoot.

Included in this link are stats on the % of FG's taken by you and your opponent at various distances to the goal (under the rim, then out to 10 feet, then 10-15, then 16-23, then three pointers).

http://hoopdata.com/teamxefg.aspx

Offensively, here is how the Pacers add up. Remember this isn't how well they shot, but how often they shot from each distance. In parentheses is the NBA average %.

Rim: 29th, 26.8% (32.4%)
Short: 10th, 12.5% (11.0%)
Mid: 15th, 8.8% (9.0%)
Long: 10th, 26.6% (25.6%)
Three: 6th, 25.2% (21.8%)

Here are those same categories for our opponents.

Rim: 26th, 29.5% (32.4%)
Short: 13th, 11.6% (11.0%)
Mid: 12th, 9.4% (9.0%)
Long: 2nd, 29.9% (25.6%)
Three: 27th, 19.6% (21.8%)

===================================

Now let's switch from WHERE to HOW WELL. Threes will be eFG%, not FG% In parentheses is the NBA average %.

http://hoopdata.com/teamshotlocs.aspx
http://hoopdata.com/oteamshotlocs.aspx

Rim: 26th, 57.5% (60.4%)
Short: 8th, 45.9% (44.0%)
Mid: 24th, 37.4% (39.8%)
Long: 14th, 39.6% (39.6%)
Three: 24th, 48.7% (52.5%)

Our opponents:

Rim: 10th, 58.8% (60.4%)
Short: 24th, 46.3% (44.0%)
Mid: 12th, 38.8% (39.8%)
Long: 17th, 39.6% (39.6%)
Three: 20th, 54.0% (52.5%)


===================================

Lastly, let's take a look at what % of each kind of shot was assisted. In parentheses is the NBA average %.

For us:

Rim: 16th, 50.2% (51.4%)
Short: 25th, 33.5% (38.7%)
Mid: 26th, 30.2% (39.1%)
Long: 18th, 54.9% (56.6%)
Three: 3rd, 93.3% (84.5%)

Our opponents:

Rim: 3rd 46.7% (51.4%)
Short: 9th 34.6% (38.7%)
Mid: 3rd 31.1% (39.1%)
Long: 19th 58.0% (56.6%)
Three: 22nd 86.8% (84.5%)

.

Some things to think about.

duke dynamite
01-10-2010, 07:52 PM
More red than green there...

Hicks
01-10-2010, 07:54 PM
Added NBA averages to the first set of data (mistakenly left them out for a few minutes after posting).

Hicks
01-10-2010, 10:16 PM
No commentary? Was I expected to provide my own? I thought it would be best to provide the facts and let others analyze it. Kind of surprised no one has done so yet.

PacerDude
01-10-2010, 10:24 PM
I'm color blind ..................

BlueNGold
01-10-2010, 10:38 PM
Very interesting stats. I really think these are pretty good as stats go.

I think the fact our opponents are 3rd in the league at getting to the rim without needing an assist, tells you a whole lot about our interior defense. IMO, these stats indicate that our interior defense is our greatest weakness.

The numbers also indicate we try a lot of 3's, but are not that effective at it. Also, they tell us we don't try to get to the rim that often...and are not that effective when we do try it.

The stats seem to back up what I see on the court.

Ballerzfan
01-10-2010, 10:40 PM
I would bet that with TJ sitting the bench, our percentage at the rim is climbing...

Hicks
01-10-2010, 10:50 PM
I think the fact our opponents are 3rd in the league at getting to the rim without needing an assist, tells you a whole lot about our interior defense. IMO, these stats indicate that our interior defense is our greatest weakness.

It could mean people post us more and/or dribble-drive more, or it could mean we deny passes to cutters. Or of course a combination.

Well, it could mean people dribble-drive to the rim easier on us, but it can also mean we're better at denying passes to people cutting to the hoop or waiting around the hoop for an easy dunk/layup.


Also, they tell us we don't try to get to the rim that often...and are not that effective when we do try it.

Again, maybe, but maybe not. It could also mean when we look to score at the rim, we post up or dribble-drive more than we dish off to someone cutting, or, again, a combination.

BlueNGold
01-10-2010, 11:11 PM
Again, maybe, but maybe not. It could also mean when we look to score at the rim, we post up or dribble-drive more than we dish off to someone cutting, or, again, a combination.

On your last point, we don't really have many people cutting to the rim, particularly with Granger out much of the season. When D Jones does it, he's usually taking it one-on-one. Also, that TJ guy wasn't exactly the greatest distributor...:devil:

As for our attempts in the paint, they seem to come from good fortune or we have Roy posting. Rarely do I see an assist going to the rim. The rest of what we do originates behind the 3 point line...

Edit: ...this may have something to do with our athleticism at the big positions too. Only McBob is getting alley oops these days...and he is firmly planted for the remainder of this season.

Unclebuck
01-10-2010, 11:16 PM
I think the fact our opponents are 3rd in the league at getting to the rim without needing an assist, tells you a whole lot about our interior defense. IMO, these stats indicate that our interior defense is our greatest weakness.



I've said all season long our interior defense is the worst in the NBA. Glad the stats back that up. but I think it is rather obvious how bad our interior defense is, especially without Foster. Our perimeter defense is better this season with Watson, Jones, Head

cordobes
01-11-2010, 03:18 AM
The Pacers allow less shots at the rim and at a lower efficiency than the league average. This shows their forcing their opponents to take the kind of shots they want them to take (obviously at the cost of not contesting those "allowed shots" very well and fouling more than they'd like to).

Los Angeles
01-11-2010, 01:26 PM
I think the most telling part of this data is everything in the 3 category.

Volume of threes: 6th place
eFG of threes: 24th place
Assited threes by percentage: 3rd place.

What this says: the players don't match the system. Nobody is getting open with the ball. Instead, they need to get a pass at the arc and once they get the ball, they instantly chuck the three and don't hit it as often as needed for the system to work.

Los Angeles
01-11-2010, 01:30 PM
I'm color blind ..................

Yeah, red/green colorblindness is an issue faced by every information graphic designer. I have been told never to use the combination again, and I will follow.

Light to medium blue/dark red is a combination that even people with severe colorblindness can tell apart easily. Even if the colors are not recognized, the difference in light/dark value is still clear.

Putnam
01-11-2010, 01:34 PM
Nobody is getting open with the ball they need a pass instead and once they get the ball, they instantly chuck the three and don't hit it.


Is the "needs an assist" part a bad thing? Reggie usually need an assist on his Boom Babies. And it was a thing of beauty.


The "don't hit it" part is the problem!


.

Hicks
01-11-2010, 01:40 PM
Yeah, red/green colorblindness is an issue faced by every information graphic designer. I have been told never to use the combination again, and I will follow.

Light to medium blue/dark red is a combination that even people with severe colorblindness can tell apart easily. Even if the colors are not recognized, the difference in light/dark value is still clear.

Well, I've learned something.

Let's see....


Test information 1
Test information 2

How's that?

Hicks
01-11-2010, 01:42 PM
Is the "needs an assist" part a bad thing? Reggie usually need an assist on his Boom Babies. And it was a thing of beauty.


The "don't hit it" part is the problem!


.

I was thinking that having a higher then league average number of assisted 3's meant we were making a more concerted effort to kick the ball out for a 3 than most teams do.

I wonder how often (if at all) it's at the expense of something else. Like an open 20 footer, a cutter that wasn't seen in time, or simply driving around a defender.

Los Angeles
01-11-2010, 01:49 PM
Well, I've learned something.

Let's see....


Test information 1
Test information 2

How's that?

Yeah, that works. Might clash a little. Let's try something in the blue family.

Test information 1
Test information 2

That's just a nit-pick. either way works. :)

Bball
01-11-2010, 01:58 PM
I'm voting for LA's colors... The CYAN thing is just too hard to read/not easy on the eyes...

Brad8888
01-11-2010, 02:40 PM
I'm voting for LA's colors... The CYAN thing is just too hard to read/not easy on the eyes...

Agreed. I have a red-green colorblind issue to an extent, too. LA's color scheme is easy for me to distinguish due to being at opposite ends of the spectrum. Thanks Hicks for making the effort to change your post to help us out!

Hicks
01-11-2010, 03:11 PM
Yeah, that works. Might clash a little. Let's try something in the blue family.

Test information 1
Test information 2

That's just a nit-pick. either way works. :)

Yeah, that's better. I've updated the first post again. From now on I'll go with RoyalBlue and DarkRed.

Bball
01-11-2010, 03:46 PM
Yeah, that's better. I've updated the first post again. From now on I'll go with RoyalBlue and DarkRed.

I assume my eyes are normal...

The latest two colors are easy to distinguish and easy on the eyes as well for me....

Speed
01-11-2010, 03:54 PM
I'll say this, I'm glad Hasheem Thabeet isn't in this draft cuz they'd look at these stats and draft him.

With that said being as bad as they are at defending rim, short, and medium shots, it's obvious to me, it's not just one thing.

Bad perimeter D, Bad shot blocking, bad help D, bad scheme, I mean take your pick.

I think you have guys who can play good perimeter D, but back to a discussion this summer and Hollinger talking about it, those guys aren't good offensive players. No two way players, here, nothing to look at, move along. So D Jones and BRush you'd think could help those D ratings, but hurt the O ratings.

Flip it for Dunleavy and Murphy.

So really this just tells us what I think we emphirically know. We can shoot 3s and we can't defend.

Funny the one thing they are good at, is the problem du jour, shooting 3s.

Naptown_Seth
01-11-2010, 05:06 PM
I took these numbers and plotted out "points by area" basically, simply multiplying the FG% by the Loc% (the 3s are already converted to eFG%).

The NBA average of Points/FG% points per area:
19.6
4.8
3.6
10.1
11.1
49.6% total eFG%

So teams don't score much from short and midrange period, mostly due to low attempts. Of course defenses have a lot to do with that since the short shot is better than a mid....although note that mid and long is about a wash on make rate, so once you are inside the arc it doesn't help much to step in another 2-3 feet.

Anyway, both teams score well below the norm from at the rim, but the Pacers are a full -4.0 from there. This is the major factor in their below average eFG%. This is mostly due to far less at the rim shooting.

Their opponents run -2.0 at the rim as well, but that 2.0 difference is more than enough to make up for the points they give up from 3. The Pacers are +0.9 from 3, their opponents are -0.9, an advantage of 1.8.

Combine that with the +1.7 from long (+1.4 over the Pacers) and you have the advantage for the opponents.

It's basically this - they sacrifice the 6% attempts from 3 (compared to Indy, 25 vs 19) and split it between long shots (bad for them) and rim shots (good for them, no puns please). Since the FG% at the rim is still much higher than the eFG% from 3, this is a decent trade-off.


Let's look at it another way, if you took the Pacers from 25.3% deep shots and made that 22.3% instead, just slightly above the average, and then apply that 3% to shots at the rim, increasing that rate to 30.1% (still lower than average), the Pacers eFG% would rise to 47.6. That's not a ton, but it's without improving any shooting ability nor asking for anything beyond the average in selection.

If that selection also included improving the eFG% of 3 to 52%, the NBA average, by making those shots more selective, then the eFG% goes to 48.3.



Here's a really disturbing trend. The team is shooting the 3 well below NBA average, yet well above the NBA average for assists on that shot. This implies either that they can ONLY make a 3 when assisted or they assist on nearly every 3PA anyway.

My feeling is it's the latter, and that's because so much of the play is 2 man games out at the arc along with generic ball reversal. Your attempts at the rim are very low which adds to this opinion since it discounts "inside out" play as a possibility.


The assist data also suggests a ton of iso play on both sides. In the case going against the Pacers their opponents shoot better on short and mid range and get more assists on those shots (not by accident IMO).



And the Pacers are technically playing good FG DEFENSE, holding teams to 48.8 vs 49.6 NBA average. The caveat not shown here is the amount of FTAs they have to give up to keep that average so low. Defense is great if you can play it without constantly fouling, otherwise you are just shifting where the points come from.

And for a team relying on the 3P% instead of the FTAs themselves that make rate needs to be WAY ABOVE average, let alone way below. Yikes.

Naptown_Seth
01-11-2010, 05:14 PM
Hicks FTW with this thread btw.

Naptown_Seth
01-11-2010, 05:32 PM
Also just to disprove myself slightly, I plotted the Free Throw Rates against the 3PA% and found no correlation, just a big blob of dots rather than a nice line going up (or down).

Part of that is probably due to the make up of teams. For example, Orlando takes a ton of 3s and has a ton of FTAs. Not hard to see the Howard factor there, either drawing fouls or kicking it to the arc.


From this and my previous post I have two simple, strong beliefs. Not surprising ones, but still.
1) The main offensive problem is not giving up FTAs for long jumpers nearly as much as it's simply not creating good 3P looks to keep that make rate up. If they were shooting the 3 well the "plan" would be working on that end.

2) The main defensive problem is they can't contain teams without fouling. So they are keeping the FG% down, but at the expense of FTAs.

Both suggest scheme issues to me, not creating good looks, not being able to work the ball inside better on offense and not working as a 5 man unit on the other end, thus seeing help fouls and reaches as guys go past.