Yes it does. I appreciate the analysis and will be looking forward for future posts. Again, great job!!
Repped you (but forgot to sign). Thanks for the thread and the breakdown of our defensive principles. I'll refer back to this I know next game I watch.
Id like to call shenanigans, specifically in regards to that Josh Smith rotation analysis, but i dont have the game recorded. I remember multiple poor rotations, that reaching play you excused included.
I would be happy to go through the plays. However, I can guarantee you that the "reaches" when one pass away is not his rotation. Guaranteed. Not helping one pass away is one of the most simple concepts of basketball defense. Also, remember that I confer with others as well to eliminate human error; this is not a solo job.
I would disagree. Thats generally a post up rule, not on straight line drives. Unless of course its a go-ahead play and you're up three.
http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2013/9/10/4715032/nba-help-defense-video-breakdown You almost never help one pass away. There might be one time per 20 games. I do not even like Coach Nick that much; for example, his jab strategy in this video would get destroyed in the college level or above. You do not even give them a daylight to shoot, and that is exactly what helping one pass, or sometimes even a show, can do. Nevertheless, he is still right about helping one pass away.
Just the number of offensive rebounds one of our bigs allowed doesn't paint the entire picture. If you think about this in terms of total rebounding opportunities, however, it paints a clearer picture. For example, on offense, if we miss a shot, its the guard's job to switch ends of the court quickly to prevent easy layups for the opposing team, so they're typically not in the paint vying for offensive rebounds. On defense, once the opposing offense misses their shot, or otherwise loses the possession, the guards will typically try to beat the opposing guards down the court to get easy baskets in transition, rather than trying to secure the defensive boards. In either case, if you compare the rebounding opportunities that perimeter players have versus our bigs in the paint, it will be pretty clear to see that bigs will have more rebounding opportunities. Hence, when looking at the total number of offensive rebounds that a player allowed, you must take into account how this figure compares to their total defensive rebound opportunities. I don't actually have these figures, but just to throw out some numbers, lets say Dwight had 20 defensive rebound opportunities in a game. If on those 20 defensive rebound opportunities, he allowed the offense to snag 2 offensive rebounds, you can say that he allowed an offensive rebound in 10% of his defensive rebounding opportunities. With the other 18 opportunities, maybe D-Mo or Josh Smith secured the board, so you can then say that his defensive rebounding percentage for the game was around 60%, and he allowed another 30% of his opportunities to go to players on his own team. If you did the same analysis for say, Jason Terry, if Terry gave up 1 offensive board, but he only had 4 opportunities for defensive rebounds, he would be giving up an offensive rebound 25% of the time, which is worse than Dwight's 10%, even though Dwight, in terms of raw allowed offensive rebounds, gave up more. Does that make sense?
The reason its important to make that distinction is that you can draw conclusions about how effective a player is at rebounding, and you can look at a guy that, for example, has a low defensive rebounding percentage, and actually look at who ended up with the defensive rebound to get an idea of how well they're boxing out. That's why, in my opinion, there are no "intangibles." An "intangible" is only intangible until that event is measured. The people who decry the use of analytics as not being able to note the intangibles seem to miss that fact entirely.
There should be a distinction, and a bit of a clarification. Distinction: All help is one pass away in reality, but the term applies to helping from the strong side of the perimeter where there is no or an extremely difficult rotation. Clarification: Josh Smith is a shot blocking big and not typically on the perimeter. Now as much as id like to argue the specifics of the play i cant, no material. So i cant just emphatically say you're wrong, but i do have my doubts in regards to that smoove analysis lol
Yea, I get you. The rebounding was something I had just added on (haven't really done many of these things honestly). I had actually already created a 7 column chart for the Jazz game, which includes the original 5 and then RB (rebounding opportunities) and MRO (missed rebound opportunities). I think that is what you were saying before the clarification. Like I stated earlier, I wasn't really thinking of counting the rebounds, but then I realized that I can't just not account a defensive analysis without preventing offensive boards. I am still tinkering it. Josh Smith did not play a shot-blocking position against the Knicks. Both Jason Smith and the backup were shooting from the outside. Yes, if he was inside and didn't help, I would ding him for it. I am sorry, but help is not all one pass away in reality. I don't want to be harsh, but this is completely incorrect... There is reason why "Get on the mid line" phrase is so popular for weak-side, aka 2+ passes away. They got lucky bounces sometimes. Joey Dorsey. And a lot of carelessness.
Hey Johndoe <table border="1" style="width:1000"><tr><td>Player</td><td>Good OB</td> <td>Good R</td><td>Meh</td><td>Bad OB</td><td>Bad R</td><td>RO</td><td>MRO</td></tr><tr><td>Bev</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Harden</td><td>0</td> <td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Ariza</td><td>0</td> <td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Dmo</td><td>0</td> <td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Howard</td><td>0</td> <td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Smith</td><td>0</td> <td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Brewer</td><td>0</td> <td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Terry</td><td>0</td> <td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Papa</td><td>0</td> <td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Dorsey</td><td>0</td> <td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Canaan</td><td>0</td> <td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Shved</td><td>0</td> <td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr></table>
Most of this game was garbage time, in the sense that the Knicks had no chance of winning. I don't mind lazy rotations, as long as it doesn't become a habit vs good teams. Hell Saint Popovich and his lotto candidate Spurs would have sat most of his guys. Now that's lazy.
I just wanted to illustrate the 2 columns that illustrate rebounding opportunities (RO), and missed rebounding opportunities (MRO), and if that was what you were talking about.
Skip passes are designed to be a step ahead of conventional rotations. So, It's skill relative, but my point remains.
Skip passes try to take advantage of over help from 2+ passes away, double teams... Anywho, agree to disagree. Sorry, I missed this question! Well, I don't really spend too much time on Sports VU, but doesn't it track player movement, shot distribution, player percentages, contest range, etc.? To be honest, for the sake of my time, I would rather other posters bring in the Sports VU data and provide more info to the discussion :grin: I would say that the starters vs. bench is still indicative from the above. I mean, how else would to I measure that than comparing the starters' vs bench numbers as above? Yea, I could do that in a close game. Good idea. I will not lie though, I will need a reminder to do such, since it is a special aspect Concerning the end of quarter numbers, I do not believe that would provide much bang for the buck, in my humble opinion.
