OT- NBA playoffs Lillard

[HuskyHawk]

Why do players take any shots other than 38 foot shots if they are such good ideas? It isn't like there will be a lot of defense out there in most cases.

38 feet is generally a bad shot. But..

Brad Stevens on the 3-pointer’s future: Think deeper

As one of the most progressive coaches in the most forward-thinking league in professional sports, Brad Stevens has his eyes on the outer reaches, literally.

www.bostonherald.com

“Twenty-eight, 30 feet I would say is the answer I would give,” the Celtics coach said when asked about the future of the 3-pointer.

“When you think about how freely people shoot it now off the dribble, how bigs can be going away from the basket, set their feet and make a 23-footer – I just think it will continue,” he said. “Range will continue to be expanded. It will be an even bigger emphasis to defend it. That’s one of the things that makes it so hard. Layups are I’m sure up as well, and I don’t know that for a fact, but I’m guessing they’re up from 10, 15 years ago. Much more space, and it’s really hard to do it. I’d be shocked if it gets stopped anytime soon.”

“For sure. No question, that’s the Steph Curry effect, right?” said Stevens. “When you pick up Kyrie Irving, Steph Curry, Kemba Walker, at 22 feet you’re dead. You’d better pick them up higher than that, because they’re so good scoring off the dribble into their shot from 25, 26 feet and in, I just think that’s the game right now.

“And that’s something that is stretching defenses out, and the best offenses get to the rim because of that,” he said. “That’s what we’re trying to get better at.”

 

[Dogdeacon]

Why do players take any shots other than 38 foot shots if they are such good ideas? It isn't like there will be a lot of defense out there in most cases.

No, give me the analysis of 'hero ball' iso plays at the end of tie games versus your prescription. What is the comparative effectiveness? We've got 1 W on the ledger. You brought up sample size - so let's see it.

This is likely rhetorical because just as I know (and can prove) that increasingly longer shots are going in at increasingly higher rates, I also know you don't have much more than 'a 38 [sic 37] footer is a bad shot b/c I said so'.

 

[Crank]

Round 1 -
Jokic - 37/9/6/3/2 with 2 TOs, plus 16, 60% from 3.
Lillard - 39/3/6/1/0 with 6 TOs, minus 6, 33% from 3.

Round 1 - JOKIC.

FIGHT!

 

[Walker11]

If 38 foot shots are such good ideas, why doesn't he take 10 a game? Why doesn't everyone do them? 12 shots is not statistically significant, and those were all shots from 30+, not 38 feet. And we aren't even getting into the fact that an NBA all-star with a 6 inch height advantage (probably 8-9 inch when you factor in wingspan) was defending Lillard.

Conventional wisdom was to give the ball to the team's best player and let him do whatever he wanted. That is as archaic an approach to basketball as there is. Hero ball is not cutting edge, it has been around forever, and if it worked, Carmelo Anthony would still be playing in the NBA. With advanced statistics, we have learned that hero ball fails much more often than it succeeds.

It was a bad shot. Don't go looking for justifications for hero ball.

The idea that hero basketball is archaic is an archaic take in itself, as shown by advanced statistics. Why is the most forward thinking team in the Rockets the most heavy iso team? Why do the Raptors and Warriors play so much iso? These are 3 of the most efficient offense in the League.

I will concede that the math only checks out for the elite of the elite. That said, Harden scores 1.1 point per possession on ISO possessions. 1.06 and 1.05 for KD and Kawhi respectively. League average total point per possession is something like .86. For the top 20 scorers in the NBA, only 3 players even average 1.1 ppp cumulatively throughout all possessions - Kawhi, Curry, AD.

As for the Dame shot - I think it was a mediocre shot. Not because of the depth, but because of the contest and the step aside. Smarter teams are having players shoot from deeper and deeper because it opens the floor more and a shot 4-5 ft. deeper but uncontested is better than a contested normal 3. Again, look to the Rockets and Ryan Anderson for the advent of this trend. Check out the best regular season offense this year and notice where Brook Lopez's sets up from.

 

[Walker11]

On the topic of Iso basketball - this is not ideal.



.63 ppp. Not good

 

[the Q]

On the topic of Iso basketball - this is not ideal.



.63 ppp. Not good

Yeah, celts are gonna be ok dealing him for brow.

It’s not ideal. But they’ll survive.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

The idea that hero basketball is archaic is an archaic take in itself, as shown by advanced statistics. Why is the most forward thinking team in the Rockets the most heavy iso team? Why do the Raptors and Warriors play so much iso? These are 3 of the most efficient offense in the League.

I will concede that the math only checks out for the elite of the elite. That said, Harden scores 1.1 point per possession on ISO possessions. 1.06 and 1.05 for KD and Kawhi respectively. League average total point per possession is something like .86. For the top 20 scorers in the NBA, only 3 players even average 1.1 ppp cumulatively throughout all possessions - Kawhi, Curry, AD.

As for the Dame shot - I think it was a mediocre shot. Not because of the depth, but because of the contest and the step aside. Smarter teams are having players shoot from deeper and deeper because it opens the floor more and a shot 4-5 ft. deeper but uncontested is better than a contested normal 3. Again, look to the Rockets and Ryan Anderson for the advent of this trend. Check out the best regular season offense this year and notice where Brook Lopez's sets up from.

You are conflating a few items. Let's breakdown my problem with Lilliard's shot.

1) it was from 38 feet
2) It was an ISO pull up
3) He had a top notch defender on him who was also much taller
4) He didn't really run an ISO, he just dribbled the clock out and jacked up a shot.

The NBA website has a lot of sortable data, and it all says the same thing. Catch and Shoot % is about 2-3% higher than shooting off the dribble, and a catch and shoot 3 is about 4 percentage points better. A touch in the paint is close to 60% shooting percentage. Contested shots are lower percentage than uncontested shots.

I don't have good data on shots from 30+ feet. I can't find them on the NBA site in any event. Generally closer is better. I have no problem with setting up a few feet behind the 3 point line to space the floor, but that is not what Lillard did. He did a 38 foot pull up over a much taller defender.

Portland didn't need a 3 pointer. The better play was probably to break George down or run a pick and roll, not pull up from 38 feet. It was a bad shot.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

No, give me the analysis of 'hero ball' iso plays at the end of tie games versus your prescription. What is the comparative effectiveness? We've got 1 W on the ledger. You brought up sample size - so let's see it.

This is likely rhetorical because just as I know (and can prove) that increasingly longer shots are going in at increasingly higher rates, I also know you don't have much more than 'a 38 [sic 37] footer is a bad shot b/c I said so'.

I am guessing that I am one of the few people on this board that still plays basketball on a regular basis, but if you are also one of those, I suggest that next time you play, start launching shots from 38 feet and see how your teammates react.

 

[superjohn]

I am guessing that I am one of the few people on this board that still plays basketball on a regular basis, but if you are also one of those, I suggest that next time you play, start launching shots from 38 feet and see how your teammates react.

You've really jumped the shark. You've been twisting yourself in a pretzel the whole thread but comparing yourself and some message board posters taking a shot to Damian Lillard taking a shot takes the cake.

 

[Dogdeacon]

You've really jumped the shark. You've been twisting yourself in a pretzel the whole thread but comparing yourself and some message board posters taking a shot to Damian Lillard taking a shot takes the cake.

The entire point is that for guys like Steph and Dame those formerly bad shots are becoming better and better shots. But let's go backwards and compare them to a bunch of over-the-hill yahoos at the YMCA. He refused to answer my question about effectiveness of iso's vs set plays in tie games. Why? Because as I predicted and dictated to him he has no data & just uses rebuttals like sample size because that's what the kids are saying these days. And the shot was 37' not 38

 

[nelsonmuntz]

You've really jumped the shark. You've been twisting yourself in a pretzel the whole thread but comparing yourself and some message board posters taking a shot to Damian Lillard taking a shot takes the cake.

If dribbling the clock out and jacking up a contested 3 is such a good idea, why doesn't he do it every time?

 

[Walker11]

You are conflating a few items. Let's breakdown my problem with Lilliard's shot.

1) it was from 38 feet
2) It was an ISO pull up
3) He had a top notch defender on him who was also much taller
4) He didn't really run an ISO, he just dribbled the clock out and jacked up a shot.

The NBA website has a lot of sortable data, and it all says the same thing. Catch and Shoot % is about 2-3% higher than shooting off the dribble, and a catch and shoot 3 is about 4 percentage points better. A touch in the paint is close to 60% shooting percentage. Contested shots are lower percentage than uncontested shots.

I don't have good data on shots from 30+ feet. I can't find them on the NBA site in any event. Generally closer is better. I have no problem with setting up a few feet behind the 3 point line to space the floor, but that is not what Lillard did. He did a 38 foot pull up over a much taller defender.

Portland didn't need a 3 pointer. The better play was probably to break George down or run a pick and roll, not pull up from 38 feet. It was a bad shot.

My main point was about you saying iso is archaic. In which you were clearly way off. I don't care about enough about the Lillard . It was a tough shot.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

My main point was about you saying iso is archaic. In which you were clearly way off. I don't care about enough about the Lillard # 2. It was a tough shot.

ISOs and pick and roll were pretty much all anyone did 20 years ago because of the illegal defense rules. When zones became legal, traditional ISOs, even in end of game situations, became more difficult. Traditional ISOs starting 35+ feet out are old fashioned.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

The entire point is that for guys like Steph and Dame those formerly bad shots are becoming better and better shots. But let's go backwards and compare them to a bunch of over-the-hill yahoos at the YMCA. He refused to answer my question about effectiveness of iso's vs set plays in tie games. Why? Because as I predicted and dictated to him he has no data & just uses rebuttals like sample size because that's what the kids are saying these days. And the shot was 37' not 38

I don't answer your questions because your point keeps changing. My post to Walker above spells my position out clearly.

 

[Walker11]

ISOs and pick and roll were pretty much all anyone did 20 years ago because of the illegal defense rules. When zones became legal, traditional ISOs, even in end of game situations, became more difficult. Traditional ISOs starting 35+ feet out are old fashioned.

You didn't even read my post. So archaic that the most progressive franchise is the most iso heavy. Pick and roll and iso is all anyone runs end of game still.

The Rockets boring offense where 4 players stand and do nothing and harden goes ISO is literally called math ball.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

You didn't even read my post. So archaic that the most progressive franchise is the most iso heavy. Pick and roll and iso is all anyone runs end of game still.

The Rockets boring offense where 4 players stand and do nothing and harden goes ISO is literally called math ball.

8 of the 16 playoff teams this year assisted on more than 60% of their made fieldgoals. 2 assisted on less than 50%. You are arguing that the NBA should mimic the 2.

 

[Dream Jobbed 2.0]

Reminds me of this

 

[Walker11]

8 of the 16 playoff teams this year assisted on more than 60% of their made fieldgoals. 2 assisted on less than 50%. You are arguing that the NBA should mimic the 2.

I don't know if there is as strong a correlation between iso and lack of assists as you seem to think but we can probably stop boring everyone. If you have a really elite offensive player, you go iso a lot. How many Bucks corner 3s come from Giannis drives against overmatched big men?

 

[Robertelamin]

You've really jumped the shark. You've been twisting yourself in a pretzel the whole thread but comparing yourself and some message board posters taking a shot to Damian Lillard taking a shot takes the cake.

So you aren’t going to buy a pair of Air Nelsons?

 

[Dogdeacon]

I don't answer your questions because your point keeps changing. My post to Walker above spells my position out clearly.

Stats on iso vs other plays at end of tie games please, else shh.
3pt Stats

 

[Crank]

Round 2
Lillard - 14/4/4/2/1, 3TOs, 1 of 7 from 3, +4.
Jokic - 16/14/7/1/0, 2TOs, 0 of 1 from 3, +2.

Round 2 - JOKIC.

FIGHT!

 

[Dogdeacon]

Round 2
Lillard - 14/4/4/2/1, 3TOs, 1 of 7 from 3, +4.
Jokic - 16/14/7/1/0, 2TOs, 0 of 1 from 3, +2.
Round 2 - JOKIC.

Not sure I agree with your scoring system, the other 2 judges gave the round to Lillard 97-90 on their scorecards.

Neither had their best game judging from the box score, I didn't see the game, but seems like it was decided early:
"With Jokic taking -- and missing -- just one shot in the first quarter and scoring six points in the first half, the Nuggets trailed 50-35 at halftime after the franchise's worst quarter ever at home in the playoffs, one in which they made just 5 of 23 shots and missed all 10 of their 3-pointers. "

 

[Crank]

Not sure I agree with your scoring system, the other 2 judges gave the round to Lillard 97-90 on their scorecards.

Neither had their best game judging from the box score, I didn't see the game, but seems like it was decided early:
"With Jokic taking -- and missing -- just one shot in the first quarter and scoring six points in the first half, the Nuggets trailed 50-35 at halftime after the franchise's worst quarter ever at home in the playoffs, one in which they made just 5 of 23 shots and missed all 10 of their 3-pointers. "

Come on man, "15 point lead at the half" is not, in today's NBA "decided early."
Jokic had 3 assists, 8 boards, and 6 points in the 1st Half.
Jokic only took one shot in the 1st quarter? They were down by only 5 at the end of the 1st quarter.

But the question isn't "did Jokic have a good game?" The question is, "who had the better game."
Lillard shot 1 of 7 from 3, had only one more assist than turnovers, and only had 4 boards. He plainly had the worse game of the two, and it doesn't seem close.

I don't follow either guy or either team, and I'm just having a bit of fun.

Jokic had 2 more points, 10 more boards, 3 more assists, and 1 fewer Turnover, and shot about 12% higher.

Second Round Winner - Jokic. And it's not even close.

 

[Dogdeacon]

It is all in good fun, yet it shouldn't have taken that much effort to counter my point that he whose team wins, wins. Why didn't you do PER for the game? What about +/- as ultimate arbiter? Lillard was obviously a decoy, though he may have had fewer individual counting stats, he was instrumental in helping his team rack up points and render the Joker humorless. Think of the stats deficit as a basketball rope-a-dope. Your scorecard is duly noted and recorded, nonetheless the ruling and decision for game two goes to Lillard 2-1 or 97-90, take your pick.

 

[superjohn]

Not sure I agree with your scoring system, the other 2 judges gave the round to Lillard 97-90 on their scorecards.

Neither had their best game judging from the box score, I didn't see the game, but seems like it was decided early:
"With Jokic taking -- and missing -- just one shot in the first quarter and scoring six points in the first half, the Nuggets trailed 50-35 at halftime after the franchise's worst quarter ever at home in the playoffs, one in which they made just 5 of 23 shots and missed all 10 of their 3-pointers. "

Nuggets had a million chances and were destroying the Blazers on the offensive glass in the 4th quarter. All they had to do was make a couple shots, they couldn't even make chippies last night. Jokic looked a bit gassed.