In basketball, not all assists are created equal. There are assists and then there are assists. It's the difference between passing the ball to the open guy five feet away from you on the perimeter and threading a perfect alley-oop pass over multiple defenders in traffic. Needless to say, the latter takes a lot more skill than the former and results in a much higher percentage shot. Indeed, there's such a big difference that basketball statistic gurus have long lobbied for the creation of new box score stat to reflect so-called "super assists", i.e., assists that involve feeding a player close to the hoop for an easy bucket.
Luckily, the folks at 82games.com keep track of this information, breaking assists down into four groups -- 3pt, jump, close, and dunk -- based on the kind of field goal they result in. For the purposes of determining which point guards produce the most easy buckets for their teams, let's focus on the latter two categories.
In 2008-2009, Chris Paul racked up an incredible 163 dunk assists. Close behind him, at 154, was current Blazer backup point guard Andre Miller. No one else was even close. Only three other point guards had over 100 (Steve Nash with 127; Chauncey Billups and Deron Williams each with 110). When you look at "dunk" and "close" assists combined (what I'm calling "super assists"), Miller recorded 301 last season. That was fourth best in NBA, behind only Nash, Paul, and D. Williams (Nash had 375, Paul 345, and Williams 303). Again, no one else was close.
When you look at those numbers, you can't help but wonder whether the Blazer coaching staff is making proper use of Miller's talents. He's now playing for a team that's as young, tall, and fast as anyone else in the league. Literally everyone in the Blazer rotation, with the exception of Steve Blake, is more than capable of completing the business end of an alley-oop. On paper at least, the combination of Miller and Portland's young, athletic roster should result in obscene numbers of super assists.
But that hasn't happened, at least so far. So what's the problem? Well, for starters, relegating Miller to the backup role probably hasn't helped. It has reduced his overall minutes as well as reducing the number of minutes he's playing alongside the most obvious beneficiaries of his passing abilities (Aldridge, Oden, Webster, and Roy). More importantly, though, Portland's slow tempo, unwillingness to push the ball in transition, and general lack of off-the-ball movement on offense has reduced the opportunities for the kind of passing Andre Miller excels at. Opportunities for super assists don't just materialize on their own. It takes players cutting to the basket, either in fast break situations or as a result of effective pick-and-roll and other off-the-ball movement that generates momentary defensive confusion.
It remains a mystery to me that a team as young and athletic as Portland routinely finishes toward the bottom of the league in transition scoring. LaMarcus Aldridge may well be the most talented transition scorer at his position in the league. On the rare occasions where he gets out ahead on a fast break, he's remarkably graceful, covering huge distances with his long strides and finishing with ease.
On the other end of the spectrum, there is Steve Blake, who when he finds himself in a 3-on-1 fast break situation, all too often telegraphs a pass right at the lone defender, who promptly shuttles it back down the court for a score on the other end. On second thought, I guess it's not such a mystery why the Blazers get so few transition buckets.
Look, I don't mean to pick on Blake. He's a good player who plays hard and does a lot of intangible things that don't show up in the box score. But with Andre Miller, the Blazers finally have the kind of top-notch distributor they have long coveted, a guy who is among the very best in the league at producing easy buckets for his teammates. Given the amount of lineup shuffling and experimenting that has gone on so far this season, I'm surprised that the Blazers haven't tried the most obvious option: turning the keys to the offense over to the one proven point guard on the team and seeing what he can do with it. If it doesn't work out, then it doesn't work out, but at least we'll know. I think it's time to let Miller be Miller and see where that takes us. In time, even Roy may come to appreciate the benefits of being on the receiving end of a super assist.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Regression to the Mean
We Blazer fans tend to live in the moment. When the Blazers are winning, we find reasons to ignore even obvious problems, and when they've lost a few games in row, we enter full-on panic mode. In the last two games, the Blazers have looked really bad, worse than they have in a long time, and so it's understandable that many fans (myself included) are feeling a growing sense of unease.
So what's the matter? What explains these back-to-back blowout losses (including one at the hands of Memphis in the Rose Garden)? Let me start with a (somewhat) reassuring answer. I think, to a large extent, these games can be explained by the basic statistical phenomenon known as regression to the mean. Over the long haul, basketball is a game of skill. But from game to game, chance plays a much bigger factor than we fans (and even most analysts and commentators) tend to acknowledge. The primary way in which chance manifests itself in a basketball game is in shooting percentage. Over the long run, shooting percentages are determined by shooting skill and quality of defense. But the reality is that, in any single game, chance plays a big role. Even great shooting teams occasionally go cold and even poor shooting teams have hot nights. No matter what the quality of defense, in any given game, both teams are going to take a decent number of open jump shots, and the percentage of those shots that go in will fluctuate. On most nights, the number that go in will be at or near a team's typical shooting percentage. But there will always be statistical outliers. There will be nights where nearly everything goes in and nights where seemingly nothing does.
During the decisive stretch of the Memphis game, Memphis went on an absurd 30-2 run. There's no question that Memphis outplayed Portland in all aspects of the game during that stretch, but the scoring differential was magnified by fluky shooting on both sides. Memphis hit nearly every perimeter shot, including a number of long threes by Jamaal Tinsley of all people. Portland, on the other hand, could not hit anything. Shots that would normally fall all missed. When a team is hot from outside, it opens up the floor and makes it much easier to score inside. Conversely, when a team is cold from outside, the defense cheats back and cuts off easy entry to the interior. Thus, when one team goes ice cold at the same time another gets red hot, you end up with something like what happened in the first half of the Memphis game. It's rare, but it happens.
The Utah game was very similar in that, for long stretches of the game, the Jazz simply did not miss from the perimeter. There's no question that the Blazers gave up far too many open jumpers from the foul line area, but on most nights, even very good teams miss a lot of those shots.
In other words, putting defensive effort to one side, the Blazers confronted teams on two straight nights that were knocking down jump shots at a statistically unsustainable rate. I'm not saying that was the only thing going on. Clearly the Blazers weren't on their game offensively or defensively. But take away the fluky shooting and you probably have a narrow win against Memphis and a non blow-out loss at Utah. That's not great, but it wouldn't cause anyone to panic either.
Moreover, this was bound to happen sooner or later. So far this season, the Blazers have benefited from a number of fluky shooting performances by their opponents, games where normally good shooters were missing wide open shots all game long (remember that game against Oklahoma City?). At some point, that luck was going to turn. Regression to the mean was inevitable.
The reality is that the Blazers defense isn't as bad as it looked against Memphis and Utah and it isn't as good as it looked in a number of the games earlier this season.
The key is not to over-correct. The Blazers have been playing a defensive scheme that focuses on denying interior shots while ceding perimeter shots. Up until the last two games, this strategy has served them fairly well. If they now over-correct and try too hard to contest all perimeter shots, they're going to leave too much room in the middle and teams will burn them, likely resulting in easy hoops and/or foul trouble for Portland's bigs.
In all honesty, though, I'm not terribly concerned about the Blazers' defense. I think they've generally been playing improved team defense this season and that, over the course of the full season, their current scheme--with a tweak here and there--will serve them adequately.
I'm much more concerned about the offense. Last year's team had the most efficient offense in the league. This year's offense has not yet come anywhere close to that level, and it's not obvious (to me at least) just what the problem is. In terms of production, Greg Oden is supplying much more from the center position than the Blazers got last year, and Nic Batum was not much of a factor on offense, so his loss does not explain the drop off in offensive production. LaMarcus Aldridge's production is slightly down from last season, but not by much. That leaves Blake, Roy and the bench. Both Blake and Roy are scoring 4 less points per 48 minutes than they did last season, which is significant given the number of minutes they each play. Rudy Fernandez's scoring per 48 is slightly down (but not much) and obviously the loss of Travis Outlaw hurts (though the Blazers' offensive efficiency was significantly down even before his injury).
Though this is purely conjecture on my part, I suspect that one factor at work here is the moving of Joel Przybilla to the bench. As a starter, Przybilla's offensive limitations were better masked as he played alongside the team's best scorers. Now that he's on the second team, his lack of contribution on offense is more pronounced. I'm not suggesting that Przybilla should start (Oden deserves that job), but I think Nate McMillan needs to manage Oden's minutes a little less conservatively and structure his rotation so as minimize (hopefully to zero) the amount of time Oden and Aldridge are on the bench simultaneously.
One final thought. When Oden stands near the foul line on offense, his defender ALWAYS drops back toward the basket and cedes the shot. Yet Oden never takes it. Given that Oden is converting nearly 80% of his free throws, I see no reason why he can't consistently hit an open shot from that range during the game. If Oden starts taking and hitting those shots, it would instantly open up the floor for the rest of his teammates. The dividends would be immediate. I know Oden works on this shot in practice, but I'd really like him to try a few more of them in game situations. If he can add that element to his game, look out.
So what's the matter? What explains these back-to-back blowout losses (including one at the hands of Memphis in the Rose Garden)? Let me start with a (somewhat) reassuring answer. I think, to a large extent, these games can be explained by the basic statistical phenomenon known as regression to the mean. Over the long haul, basketball is a game of skill. But from game to game, chance plays a much bigger factor than we fans (and even most analysts and commentators) tend to acknowledge. The primary way in which chance manifests itself in a basketball game is in shooting percentage. Over the long run, shooting percentages are determined by shooting skill and quality of defense. But the reality is that, in any single game, chance plays a big role. Even great shooting teams occasionally go cold and even poor shooting teams have hot nights. No matter what the quality of defense, in any given game, both teams are going to take a decent number of open jump shots, and the percentage of those shots that go in will fluctuate. On most nights, the number that go in will be at or near a team's typical shooting percentage. But there will always be statistical outliers. There will be nights where nearly everything goes in and nights where seemingly nothing does.
During the decisive stretch of the Memphis game, Memphis went on an absurd 30-2 run. There's no question that Memphis outplayed Portland in all aspects of the game during that stretch, but the scoring differential was magnified by fluky shooting on both sides. Memphis hit nearly every perimeter shot, including a number of long threes by Jamaal Tinsley of all people. Portland, on the other hand, could not hit anything. Shots that would normally fall all missed. When a team is hot from outside, it opens up the floor and makes it much easier to score inside. Conversely, when a team is cold from outside, the defense cheats back and cuts off easy entry to the interior. Thus, when one team goes ice cold at the same time another gets red hot, you end up with something like what happened in the first half of the Memphis game. It's rare, but it happens.
The Utah game was very similar in that, for long stretches of the game, the Jazz simply did not miss from the perimeter. There's no question that the Blazers gave up far too many open jumpers from the foul line area, but on most nights, even very good teams miss a lot of those shots.
In other words, putting defensive effort to one side, the Blazers confronted teams on two straight nights that were knocking down jump shots at a statistically unsustainable rate. I'm not saying that was the only thing going on. Clearly the Blazers weren't on their game offensively or defensively. But take away the fluky shooting and you probably have a narrow win against Memphis and a non blow-out loss at Utah. That's not great, but it wouldn't cause anyone to panic either.
Moreover, this was bound to happen sooner or later. So far this season, the Blazers have benefited from a number of fluky shooting performances by their opponents, games where normally good shooters were missing wide open shots all game long (remember that game against Oklahoma City?). At some point, that luck was going to turn. Regression to the mean was inevitable.
The reality is that the Blazers defense isn't as bad as it looked against Memphis and Utah and it isn't as good as it looked in a number of the games earlier this season.
The key is not to over-correct. The Blazers have been playing a defensive scheme that focuses on denying interior shots while ceding perimeter shots. Up until the last two games, this strategy has served them fairly well. If they now over-correct and try too hard to contest all perimeter shots, they're going to leave too much room in the middle and teams will burn them, likely resulting in easy hoops and/or foul trouble for Portland's bigs.
In all honesty, though, I'm not terribly concerned about the Blazers' defense. I think they've generally been playing improved team defense this season and that, over the course of the full season, their current scheme--with a tweak here and there--will serve them adequately.
I'm much more concerned about the offense. Last year's team had the most efficient offense in the league. This year's offense has not yet come anywhere close to that level, and it's not obvious (to me at least) just what the problem is. In terms of production, Greg Oden is supplying much more from the center position than the Blazers got last year, and Nic Batum was not much of a factor on offense, so his loss does not explain the drop off in offensive production. LaMarcus Aldridge's production is slightly down from last season, but not by much. That leaves Blake, Roy and the bench. Both Blake and Roy are scoring 4 less points per 48 minutes than they did last season, which is significant given the number of minutes they each play. Rudy Fernandez's scoring per 48 is slightly down (but not much) and obviously the loss of Travis Outlaw hurts (though the Blazers' offensive efficiency was significantly down even before his injury).
Though this is purely conjecture on my part, I suspect that one factor at work here is the moving of Joel Przybilla to the bench. As a starter, Przybilla's offensive limitations were better masked as he played alongside the team's best scorers. Now that he's on the second team, his lack of contribution on offense is more pronounced. I'm not suggesting that Przybilla should start (Oden deserves that job), but I think Nate McMillan needs to manage Oden's minutes a little less conservatively and structure his rotation so as minimize (hopefully to zero) the amount of time Oden and Aldridge are on the bench simultaneously.
One final thought. When Oden stands near the foul line on offense, his defender ALWAYS drops back toward the basket and cedes the shot. Yet Oden never takes it. Given that Oden is converting nearly 80% of his free throws, I see no reason why he can't consistently hit an open shot from that range during the game. If Oden starts taking and hitting those shots, it would instantly open up the floor for the rest of his teammates. The dividends would be immediate. I know Oden works on this shot in practice, but I'd really like him to try a few more of them in game situations. If he can add that element to his game, look out.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
What's the Difference Between Derrick Rose and Jerryd Bayless?
Could the answer be as simple as playing time?
I realize this sounds like out-of-control homerism and that Bulls fans, if any are reading this, are probably ready to spit on the screen, but indulge me for a moment.
I'm not suggesting that Jerryd Bayless has accomplished anything close to what Derrick Rose has accomplished during their brief time in the NBA. I'm not suggesting that any GM in the league would consider the two players to be of equal value at the moment. Bayless--to put it mildly--is an unproven commodity. Rose is not. While we may not yet know either of their ceilings as players, we do know Rose's floor, and it's considerably higher than Bayless's.
With that disclaimer out of the way, let's compare these two second year players, starting with the obvious: Bayless and Rose are very similar physically. Bayless is 6'3'', 200 pounds; Rose is 6'3'', 190 pounds. Coming into college, Rose and Bayless were considered comparable recruits. Both were on most top ten lists. The RSCI ranked Rose as the 5th best talent in the class of 2007 and Bayless as the 7th best. Their paths started diverging, however, in their first (and only) year of college.
Rose went to Memphis, where he joined an incredibly talented and well-coached supporting cast. Memphis, at the time, was a well-oiled machine. Bayless, on the other hand, went to Arizona, where he found himself in a program in complete disarray. Soon after his arrival, his coach, Lute Olson, suffered an undiagnosed stroke that caused him to act out in bizarre and unpredictable ways. No one knew what was the matter with him. He was eventually forced to take a leave of absence mid-season, leaving the team in the hands of an assistant. When the year was over, both Rose and Bayless entered the draft. Rose was the #1 overall pick; Bayless was selected #11.
As the #1 pick, Rose was given immediate and sustained playing time his rookie season. And he made the most of it, showcasing his superb ability to get to the rim and eventually winning Rookie of the Year honors. Bayless' first opportunity to showcase his talents was in the Vegas Summer League, where he won MVP honors, averaging 29.8 points, 4.8 rebounds, and 1.3 assists per game. Like Rose, he demonstrated an impressive ability to get to the rim and score. Once the regular season started, however, Bayless found himself buried on one of the league's deepest rosters. He was the fifth guard in the Blazer rotation. Bayless got some run, but it was inconsistent and often limited to scrub time. In those brief stretches he often seemed nervous, like someone who was pushing too hard to prove himself worthy of being on the court. On the rare occasions where he got sustained playing time, however, such as a brief stretch of games mid-season when Steve Blake was injured, Bayless showed real promise. In one of those games, he scored a career high 23 points in just 25 minutes, and looked good doing it.
Even at his best, though, Bayless' game has been rather one-dimensional. While his ability to get to the rim is impressive, he has not yet demonstrated any real court vision or distributive ability. And while he was a good shooter in college (over 40% from 3 point range), he has not yet proven himself to be a good shooter in the NBA. In his spot playing time his rookie season, he shot just 36% from the floor and 26% from 3 point range. Bayless' true shooting percentage (which factors in three pointers and foul shots) was slightly more respectable at 48.7%, aided enormously by his ability to get to the line and make free throws (Bayless had the 5th best free-throw rate among point guards). One other bright spot for Bayless was his defense. Though he had a high foul rate, McMillan often brought him in for stretches to play defense when Steve Blake and Sergio Rodriguez were having trouble containing the other team's point guard.
Despite Derrick Rose's many accomplishments in his rookie season, he too was rather one-dimensional. Like Bayless, he did most of his scoring driving to the hoop. Rose managed to make only 21% of his 3s. And though he converted a decent 43% of his long 2s, his true shooting percentage was only 51.6%, not much better than Bayless's. His true shooting percentage would have been higher if he had gotten to the foul line more often, but as John Hollinger notes, Rose's "free-throw rate ...was well below the league average for point guards and shockingly minuscule given how often he drove to the basket."
Though billed as a true point guard, Rose has--at least to this point in his short career--distinguished himself primarily as a scorer. To quote Hollinger once again:
Though it is still early in the 2009-2010 season, Rose's number are down across the board. His true shooting percentage is below 50% and his PER is 14.32 (down from 16.05 his rookie year). Bayless, on the other hand, while still seeing only spot playing time, has much better numbers than his rookie season. His true shooting percentage his up to 57.1% and his PER is now 15.50. Whether Bayless can sustain or improve upon these number if given more playing time is, of course, an open question, but so far at least, he has performed better when allowed to play for longer stretches.
My point in drawing these comparisons is not to suggest that Bayless is or will be a star in the NBA or that Derrick Rose isn't or won't be. Rather, I think it's possible that differences in playing time have led to a situation where two players of comparable current skill-level and potential (and with very similar strengths and weaknesses) have wildly divergent perceived values. One has been given the opportunity to prove himself and the other really hasn't. Until Bayless is actually given the opportunity to play significant minutes over a sustained period of time, this will remain an academic debate, but at some point, whether on the Blazers or elsewhere, Bayless is going to get that chance, and we'll finally be able to do an apples to apples comparison.
My own personal belief--for which I know I'm inviting mockery and scorn--is that Bayless may well turn out to be the better NBA player. I think Bayless has more potential as a defender, and that he'll eventually be able to shoot from long range with consistency. I think Rose will have to work much harder to improve his game in both of those areas. Bayless is also better at drawing contact and getting to the line. If Rose has a clear edge over Bayless, it's in his distributive abilities. Though he has a long way to go to prove himself a true point guard, I can at least see him eventually becoming one. I don't think Bayless will ever be a true point guard. He'll likely end up as a sixth man combo guard, a designated scorer in the mold of Nate Robinson (only bigger and more dangerous). This may well be Rose's final destination as well. Much will depend on whether he can improve his skills as a passer and facilitator.
It will be interesting to look back on these two players in 10 years and see what they've accomplished. My hunch is that the difference won't be nearly as stark as it is today.
I realize this sounds like out-of-control homerism and that Bulls fans, if any are reading this, are probably ready to spit on the screen, but indulge me for a moment.
I'm not suggesting that Jerryd Bayless has accomplished anything close to what Derrick Rose has accomplished during their brief time in the NBA. I'm not suggesting that any GM in the league would consider the two players to be of equal value at the moment. Bayless--to put it mildly--is an unproven commodity. Rose is not. While we may not yet know either of their ceilings as players, we do know Rose's floor, and it's considerably higher than Bayless's.
With that disclaimer out of the way, let's compare these two second year players, starting with the obvious: Bayless and Rose are very similar physically. Bayless is 6'3'', 200 pounds; Rose is 6'3'', 190 pounds. Coming into college, Rose and Bayless were considered comparable recruits. Both were on most top ten lists. The RSCI ranked Rose as the 5th best talent in the class of 2007 and Bayless as the 7th best. Their paths started diverging, however, in their first (and only) year of college.
Rose went to Memphis, where he joined an incredibly talented and well-coached supporting cast. Memphis, at the time, was a well-oiled machine. Bayless, on the other hand, went to Arizona, where he found himself in a program in complete disarray. Soon after his arrival, his coach, Lute Olson, suffered an undiagnosed stroke that caused him to act out in bizarre and unpredictable ways. No one knew what was the matter with him. He was eventually forced to take a leave of absence mid-season, leaving the team in the hands of an assistant. When the year was over, both Rose and Bayless entered the draft. Rose was the #1 overall pick; Bayless was selected #11.
As the #1 pick, Rose was given immediate and sustained playing time his rookie season. And he made the most of it, showcasing his superb ability to get to the rim and eventually winning Rookie of the Year honors. Bayless' first opportunity to showcase his talents was in the Vegas Summer League, where he won MVP honors, averaging 29.8 points, 4.8 rebounds, and 1.3 assists per game. Like Rose, he demonstrated an impressive ability to get to the rim and score. Once the regular season started, however, Bayless found himself buried on one of the league's deepest rosters. He was the fifth guard in the Blazer rotation. Bayless got some run, but it was inconsistent and often limited to scrub time. In those brief stretches he often seemed nervous, like someone who was pushing too hard to prove himself worthy of being on the court. On the rare occasions where he got sustained playing time, however, such as a brief stretch of games mid-season when Steve Blake was injured, Bayless showed real promise. In one of those games, he scored a career high 23 points in just 25 minutes, and looked good doing it.
Even at his best, though, Bayless' game has been rather one-dimensional. While his ability to get to the rim is impressive, he has not yet demonstrated any real court vision or distributive ability. And while he was a good shooter in college (over 40% from 3 point range), he has not yet proven himself to be a good shooter in the NBA. In his spot playing time his rookie season, he shot just 36% from the floor and 26% from 3 point range. Bayless' true shooting percentage (which factors in three pointers and foul shots) was slightly more respectable at 48.7%, aided enormously by his ability to get to the line and make free throws (Bayless had the 5th best free-throw rate among point guards). One other bright spot for Bayless was his defense. Though he had a high foul rate, McMillan often brought him in for stretches to play defense when Steve Blake and Sergio Rodriguez were having trouble containing the other team's point guard.
Despite Derrick Rose's many accomplishments in his rookie season, he too was rather one-dimensional. Like Bayless, he did most of his scoring driving to the hoop. Rose managed to make only 21% of his 3s. And though he converted a decent 43% of his long 2s, his true shooting percentage was only 51.6%, not much better than Bayless's. His true shooting percentage would have been higher if he had gotten to the foul line more often, but as John Hollinger notes, Rose's "free-throw rate ...was well below the league average for point guards and shockingly minuscule given how often he drove to the basket."
Though billed as a true point guard, Rose has--at least to this point in his short career--distinguished himself primarily as a scorer. To quote Hollinger once again:
[Rose] doesn't see the floor well, ranking only 42nd among point guards in assist ratio, and when he drives, it's usually to score rather than to pass. He also had a near-comic reluctance to throw alley-oop passes despite the long, athletic finishers in his frontcourtAs for defense, Rose has generally gotten poor marks as a defender. Hollinger describes Rose's defense as "horrific."
Though it is still early in the 2009-2010 season, Rose's number are down across the board. His true shooting percentage is below 50% and his PER is 14.32 (down from 16.05 his rookie year). Bayless, on the other hand, while still seeing only spot playing time, has much better numbers than his rookie season. His true shooting percentage his up to 57.1% and his PER is now 15.50. Whether Bayless can sustain or improve upon these number if given more playing time is, of course, an open question, but so far at least, he has performed better when allowed to play for longer stretches.
My point in drawing these comparisons is not to suggest that Bayless is or will be a star in the NBA or that Derrick Rose isn't or won't be. Rather, I think it's possible that differences in playing time have led to a situation where two players of comparable current skill-level and potential (and with very similar strengths and weaknesses) have wildly divergent perceived values. One has been given the opportunity to prove himself and the other really hasn't. Until Bayless is actually given the opportunity to play significant minutes over a sustained period of time, this will remain an academic debate, but at some point, whether on the Blazers or elsewhere, Bayless is going to get that chance, and we'll finally be able to do an apples to apples comparison.
My own personal belief--for which I know I'm inviting mockery and scorn--is that Bayless may well turn out to be the better NBA player. I think Bayless has more potential as a defender, and that he'll eventually be able to shoot from long range with consistency. I think Rose will have to work much harder to improve his game in both of those areas. Bayless is also better at drawing contact and getting to the line. If Rose has a clear edge over Bayless, it's in his distributive abilities. Though he has a long way to go to prove himself a true point guard, I can at least see him eventually becoming one. I don't think Bayless will ever be a true point guard. He'll likely end up as a sixth man combo guard, a designated scorer in the mold of Nate Robinson (only bigger and more dangerous). This may well be Rose's final destination as well. Much will depend on whether he can improve his skills as a passer and facilitator.
It will be interesting to look back on these two players in 10 years and see what they've accomplished. My hunch is that the difference won't be nearly as stark as it is today.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Are the Blazers really too much of a "jump shooting team"?
One persistent criticism of the current incarnation of the Portland Trailblazers is that they are too reliant on jump-shooting. You hear this a lot from commentators, especially Charles Barkley, who repeats it every time the Blazers are discussed. And I have to admit, I often get a similar impression when I watch the Blazers play. But is this critique borne out by the numbers? From what I can tell, the answer is no (or at least not significantly so).
The folks at 82games.com keep a lot of interesting team data, including information about shot selection and distribution of scoring. Here's what we know about the Blazers. This season, 69% of their field goal attempts have been perimeter jump shots, resulting in 48.3% of the Blazers' total points. Last year, 66% of Blazer field goal attempts were perimeter jump shots, resulting in 49.2% of Blazer points. So how do these numbers compare to the numbers of elite teams? Let's compare. Last year, the four best teams in the league were the Lakers, Cavs, Celtics, and Magic. Here are their numbers:
Lakers: 63% jump shots, resulting in 46.4% of their points
Magic: 66% jump shots, resulting in 49.2% of their points
Cavs: 70% jump shots, resulting in 51.6% of their points
Celtics: 64% jump shots, resulting in 46.4% of their points
As you can see, there's not a huge disparity. Cleveland, the team with the best record last year, took a higher percentage of jump shots and was more reliant on them than the Blazers. Orlando was also more reliant on jump shots. And the Celtics and Lakers were only slightly less reliant than the Blazers.
Here are a few more teams worth comparing:
2007-08 Celtics (NBA Champs): 66% jump shots, resulting in 47.8% of their points
2006-07 Spurs (NBA Champs): 67% jump shots, resulting 49.1% of their points
I chose these two teams because they are considered by many to be teams that the Blazers should emulate, slow paced teams that won through solid defense and good offensive efficiency. As you can see, though, the Blazers numbers (both this season and last) are very similar to both the 2007-2008 Celtics and the 2006-2007 Spurs.
None of this means, of course, that the Blazers are currently an elite team. It does suggest, however, that the Blazers are not overly-reliant on perimeter jump shooting. As a percentage of their total shots, the Blazers are well within the normal range for elite teams in the number of perimeter shots they take. And as a percentage of total scoring, the Blazers reliance on perimeter shots is also well within the normal range for elite teams.
It may be the case that the Blazers are settling for too many jump shots and that they could do better if they tried to force the ball inside more often. But there's nothing aberrant or unusual about their shot selection. It does not appear that they are any more of a "jump shooting team" than the 2006-07 Spurs or the 2007-08 Celtics.
The folks at 82games.com keep a lot of interesting team data, including information about shot selection and distribution of scoring. Here's what we know about the Blazers. This season, 69% of their field goal attempts have been perimeter jump shots, resulting in 48.3% of the Blazers' total points. Last year, 66% of Blazer field goal attempts were perimeter jump shots, resulting in 49.2% of Blazer points. So how do these numbers compare to the numbers of elite teams? Let's compare. Last year, the four best teams in the league were the Lakers, Cavs, Celtics, and Magic. Here are their numbers:
Lakers: 63% jump shots, resulting in 46.4% of their points
Magic: 66% jump shots, resulting in 49.2% of their points
Cavs: 70% jump shots, resulting in 51.6% of their points
Celtics: 64% jump shots, resulting in 46.4% of their points
As you can see, there's not a huge disparity. Cleveland, the team with the best record last year, took a higher percentage of jump shots and was more reliant on them than the Blazers. Orlando was also more reliant on jump shots. And the Celtics and Lakers were only slightly less reliant than the Blazers.
Here are a few more teams worth comparing:
2007-08 Celtics (NBA Champs): 66% jump shots, resulting in 47.8% of their points
2006-07 Spurs (NBA Champs): 67% jump shots, resulting 49.1% of their points
I chose these two teams because they are considered by many to be teams that the Blazers should emulate, slow paced teams that won through solid defense and good offensive efficiency. As you can see, though, the Blazers numbers (both this season and last) are very similar to both the 2007-2008 Celtics and the 2006-2007 Spurs.
None of this means, of course, that the Blazers are currently an elite team. It does suggest, however, that the Blazers are not overly-reliant on perimeter jump shooting. As a percentage of their total shots, the Blazers are well within the normal range for elite teams in the number of perimeter shots they take. And as a percentage of total scoring, the Blazers reliance on perimeter shots is also well within the normal range for elite teams.
It may be the case that the Blazers are settling for too many jump shots and that they could do better if they tried to force the ball inside more often. But there's nothing aberrant or unusual about their shot selection. It does not appear that they are any more of a "jump shooting team" than the 2006-07 Spurs or the 2007-08 Celtics.
Reconsidering Blake's Value
I confess to being someone who has been outspoken in opposition to the idea of keeping Steve Blake in the starting lineup. As others have pointed out, it is difficult to find a statistical category in which Blake's production has been anything but mediocre this year, and there are guys on the bench (Rudy, Martell) who would seem, at least on paper, to be better fits in the starting lineup. Blake's offensive production this year has left a lot to be desired and he's never been known to be a good defender. And let's face it, he has virtually none of the skill set of a traditional off-guard.
All that said, as I was watching the Charlotte game last night, a thought occurred to me. Maybe I'm completely wrong about Steve Blake. Maybe there just aren't good ways of measuring what he's bringing to the team right now. I noticed that, on offense, Blake moves without the ball really well. And though he isn't shooting particularly well right now, he's a good enough shooter that someone has to stick with him. And that creates confusion and opens up space for others to operate in. More importantly, though, as I watched the Blazers put on yet another top-notch defensive performance, it occurred to me that Blake may be doing things on defense that he's just not getting credit for. It's certainly true that in a pure man-to-man situation, Blake is no match for most quick or offensively-skilled guards. But the Blazers don't play a strict man-to-man defense most of the time. And with the hand-checking rule, hardly anyone can stay in front of quick guards. The key to a good NBA defense these days is having guys who understand the scheme and know which spaces to be in and which situations to switch off or help out. I realize that the level of competition lately hasn't been great, but it's still worth noting that the Blazers currently rank as the 3rd best defensive team in the league. And they're less than a point away from passing Boston. Given the amount of minutes Blake has been playing lately, he has to be a big part of that.
While plus/minus stats can be over-interpreted, it's worth noting that Blake currently has excellent on court/off court numbers. When he's in the game, the Blazers are +13.3 (per 48 minutes). When he's off, they're only +0.9. The only Blazer with better numbers is Greg Oden (+15.5 per 48). A lot of us wonder why McMillan is giving Blake so many minutes. As a defensive-minded coach, it might very well be that Nate sees Blake doing his job on defense more consistently than others.
This also may explain why McMillan moved to the three guard lineup and has stuck with it. When you're playing a zone or partial zone defense, it is generally more important that the perimeter guys get to the right spaces than that they make great individual defensive plays. The defensive scheme relies on filling lanes and providing timely help, not staying with your man one-on-one. In that set up, three guards may well do just as well as a traditional lineup.
Don't get me wrong. I think the jury is still very much out on the three-guard lineup and Blake's membership in the starting lineup (though with Travis' injury, Roy and Fernandez will have to play big minutes at SF). But based on the team's defensive performance lately, I'm at least re-examining my premises. It may be that Steve Blake is one of those players who contributes to the team's success in ways that just don't show up in the box score.
All that said, as I was watching the Charlotte game last night, a thought occurred to me. Maybe I'm completely wrong about Steve Blake. Maybe there just aren't good ways of measuring what he's bringing to the team right now. I noticed that, on offense, Blake moves without the ball really well. And though he isn't shooting particularly well right now, he's a good enough shooter that someone has to stick with him. And that creates confusion and opens up space for others to operate in. More importantly, though, as I watched the Blazers put on yet another top-notch defensive performance, it occurred to me that Blake may be doing things on defense that he's just not getting credit for. It's certainly true that in a pure man-to-man situation, Blake is no match for most quick or offensively-skilled guards. But the Blazers don't play a strict man-to-man defense most of the time. And with the hand-checking rule, hardly anyone can stay in front of quick guards. The key to a good NBA defense these days is having guys who understand the scheme and know which spaces to be in and which situations to switch off or help out. I realize that the level of competition lately hasn't been great, but it's still worth noting that the Blazers currently rank as the 3rd best defensive team in the league. And they're less than a point away from passing Boston. Given the amount of minutes Blake has been playing lately, he has to be a big part of that.
While plus/minus stats can be over-interpreted, it's worth noting that Blake currently has excellent on court/off court numbers. When he's in the game, the Blazers are +13.3 (per 48 minutes). When he's off, they're only +0.9. The only Blazer with better numbers is Greg Oden (+15.5 per 48). A lot of us wonder why McMillan is giving Blake so many minutes. As a defensive-minded coach, it might very well be that Nate sees Blake doing his job on defense more consistently than others.
This also may explain why McMillan moved to the three guard lineup and has stuck with it. When you're playing a zone or partial zone defense, it is generally more important that the perimeter guys get to the right spaces than that they make great individual defensive plays. The defensive scheme relies on filling lanes and providing timely help, not staying with your man one-on-one. In that set up, three guards may well do just as well as a traditional lineup.
Don't get me wrong. I think the jury is still very much out on the three-guard lineup and Blake's membership in the starting lineup (though with Travis' injury, Roy and Fernandez will have to play big minutes at SF). But based on the team's defensive performance lately, I'm at least re-examining my premises. It may be that Steve Blake is one of those players who contributes to the team's success in ways that just don't show up in the box score.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Trade Machine: Early Season Edition
I know it's very early in the season, and I really doubt that anyone in the Blazer front office is seriously considering making any deals right now. That said, it would surprise me greatly if the Blazers end the season with the same roster they started it with. Obviously if the team struggles, there will be mounting pressure to make a move. But even if the Blazers are playing great, the contract status of several players will create an incentive for management to explore trade options. In this post, I'm going to break down the various trade scenarios. I'll do the same thing periodically as the season progresses and the possibilities start to become clearer.
Before I get to the trade scenarios, though, it's worth looking at which Blazers are potentially on the trading block and why. Here are the Blazers most likely to be traded (in order of likelihood).
1) Travis Outlaw:
Outlaw is probably the only player on the team who can reasonably be said to be likely to be traded before year's end. The reason for that begins with his contract status. Outlaw has an expiring contract, meaning he'll be a free agent at the end of the season. Blazer management has, so far at least, given no indication that it plans to re-sign Outlaw. With both Nic Batum and Martell Webster under long term contract, and Roy playing much of his time at the three-spot, there just doesn't seem to be much room for Outlaw in the Blazers' long term plans. Batum's injury may have changed the short term calculus a little, but in the long term, it's hard to see where Outlaw fits in.
Moreover, the Blazers are going to need much of their long-term cap room to re-sign guys like Oden and Batum, who are part of their long term plans.
So if the team doesn't intend to bring Outlaw back next season, they'll have every incentive to trade him before this year's trading deadline, thereby insuring that they get at least some value for him.
2) Steve Blake:
Steve Blake is also in the final year of his contract, making him a potentially valuable trade asset to a team either needing short-term help at the point (think Orlando last year after Jameer Nelson's injury) or looking to free up cap space for the off-season. With a salary of $4 million, Blake could be packaged with Outlaw to get a player with a salary in the $8-9 million range.
The difference between Blake and Outlaw is that the Blazer management and coaching staff seem to value Blake more. While they don't see him as a long-term solution as starting point guard, they probably wouldn't mind keeping him as the backup, if he's willing to play that role.
On the other hand, the coaching staff clearly doesn't know what to do with Blake at the moment. Seemingly unwilling to demote him to the bench, McMillan has moved Blake over to the two-spot, a move that seems untenable in the long-term. Trading Blake would greatly simplify things.
3) Jerryd Bayless
Bayless is too good a player to be getting so little playing time. He is too good to be a team's fifth guard. But his role in the Blazers' current rotation is insignificant at best. He is therefore an obvious trade candidate. Unlike Blake, however, Bayless is cheaper to keep long term. He's still on his rookie contract and only makes $2 million. He also has much more potential to improve, which is why management is wary of trading him. They don't want a repeat of Jermaine O'Neal. As a part of the right package, though, I can see scenarios where Kevin Pritchard would be willing to part with Bayless.
4) Andre Miller
Though I don't believe (as others have suggested) that the Blazers acquired Andre Miller in order to use him as a trading chip, it is not inconceivable that he could be used as one. He'll be eligible to be traded after December 15 and his contract is a very reasonable one. If a contending team were to lose its starting point guard to injury, Miller is exactly the kind of guy they'd look to acquire. With Steve Blake waiting in the wings, the Blazers could afford to part with Miller if they were getting someone valuable in return.
The only I way I see this happening, though, is if Miller fails to mesh with the rest of the team. If, for instance, he and Roy just can't get comfortable playing together or Miller's presence on the team seems to be disrupting chemistry or causing discord (which seems unlikely), the team could very well decide to trade him.
5) Rudy Fernandez
Though I don't believe that Blazer management has any desire to trade Rudy, he could potentially force their hand. Rudy is leaving a lot of money on the table by playing in the NBA and he's not going to be content with spot playing time. If he becomes disillusioned with his role in the Blazer rotation, he might demand a trade or threaten to return to Europe. If it comes to that, and the Blazers can't accommodate him, I can see them trading him. He'd be quite a valuable trading chip, especially given his $1 million salary.
6) The Sweeteners
Other than five players listed above, the most likely players to be included in a package trade are the ones that haven't seen any real playing time yet: guys like Dante Cunningham, Jeff Pendergraph, Patty Mills, and foreign prospects like Victor Claver. These guys could be used as sweeteners to a deal involving one or more of the players listed above. They can also be used to make the salary math work, depending on the circumstances.
TRADE SCENARIOS
Now the fun part: recklessly speculating about potential trades.
The Blazers' most likely acquisition target is a backup power forward, especially if Travis Outlaw the guy being traded. I think the Blazers would also consider trading for a small forward or point guard, but only if the player offers a significant upgrade over the players currently at those positions. In other words, if they go after a point guard, it will be someone better and younger than Steve Blake. And if they go after a small forward, it will be someone who is currently a bigger contributor than either Martell Webster or Nicolas Batum. As you can imagine, the number of point guards and small forwards in the league who fit those criteria and are realistically obtainable is very small. Moreover, at this point in the season, it is very difficult to tell which players will be available come mid-season. That will, of course, depend on how their teams are doing and what their priorities are (freeing cap space, preparing for a playoff run, etc.). But let's give it a try anyway. Here are three potential trade scenarios.
Orlando is also a team that could use someone like Outlaw as a backup SF/PF. Orlando likes to surround Dwight Howard, whenever possible, with four guys who can spread the court and shoot threes. Currently they are giving heavy minutes to Matt Barnes at the three-spot. Outlaw is a significant upgrade over Barnes in almost every facet of the game.
Perhaps more importantly, Bass and Outlaw make roughly the same salary, making a direct exchange possible. It might be a rare win-win kind of trade.
Before I get to the trade scenarios, though, it's worth looking at which Blazers are potentially on the trading block and why. Here are the Blazers most likely to be traded (in order of likelihood).
1) Travis Outlaw:
Outlaw is probably the only player on the team who can reasonably be said to be likely to be traded before year's end. The reason for that begins with his contract status. Outlaw has an expiring contract, meaning he'll be a free agent at the end of the season. Blazer management has, so far at least, given no indication that it plans to re-sign Outlaw. With both Nic Batum and Martell Webster under long term contract, and Roy playing much of his time at the three-spot, there just doesn't seem to be much room for Outlaw in the Blazers' long term plans. Batum's injury may have changed the short term calculus a little, but in the long term, it's hard to see where Outlaw fits in.
Moreover, the Blazers are going to need much of their long-term cap room to re-sign guys like Oden and Batum, who are part of their long term plans.
So if the team doesn't intend to bring Outlaw back next season, they'll have every incentive to trade him before this year's trading deadline, thereby insuring that they get at least some value for him.
2) Steve Blake:
Steve Blake is also in the final year of his contract, making him a potentially valuable trade asset to a team either needing short-term help at the point (think Orlando last year after Jameer Nelson's injury) or looking to free up cap space for the off-season. With a salary of $4 million, Blake could be packaged with Outlaw to get a player with a salary in the $8-9 million range.
The difference between Blake and Outlaw is that the Blazer management and coaching staff seem to value Blake more. While they don't see him as a long-term solution as starting point guard, they probably wouldn't mind keeping him as the backup, if he's willing to play that role.
On the other hand, the coaching staff clearly doesn't know what to do with Blake at the moment. Seemingly unwilling to demote him to the bench, McMillan has moved Blake over to the two-spot, a move that seems untenable in the long-term. Trading Blake would greatly simplify things.
3) Jerryd Bayless
Bayless is too good a player to be getting so little playing time. He is too good to be a team's fifth guard. But his role in the Blazers' current rotation is insignificant at best. He is therefore an obvious trade candidate. Unlike Blake, however, Bayless is cheaper to keep long term. He's still on his rookie contract and only makes $2 million. He also has much more potential to improve, which is why management is wary of trading him. They don't want a repeat of Jermaine O'Neal. As a part of the right package, though, I can see scenarios where Kevin Pritchard would be willing to part with Bayless.
4) Andre Miller
Though I don't believe (as others have suggested) that the Blazers acquired Andre Miller in order to use him as a trading chip, it is not inconceivable that he could be used as one. He'll be eligible to be traded after December 15 and his contract is a very reasonable one. If a contending team were to lose its starting point guard to injury, Miller is exactly the kind of guy they'd look to acquire. With Steve Blake waiting in the wings, the Blazers could afford to part with Miller if they were getting someone valuable in return.
The only I way I see this happening, though, is if Miller fails to mesh with the rest of the team. If, for instance, he and Roy just can't get comfortable playing together or Miller's presence on the team seems to be disrupting chemistry or causing discord (which seems unlikely), the team could very well decide to trade him.
5) Rudy Fernandez
Though I don't believe that Blazer management has any desire to trade Rudy, he could potentially force their hand. Rudy is leaving a lot of money on the table by playing in the NBA and he's not going to be content with spot playing time. If he becomes disillusioned with his role in the Blazer rotation, he might demand a trade or threaten to return to Europe. If it comes to that, and the Blazers can't accommodate him, I can see them trading him. He'd be quite a valuable trading chip, especially given his $1 million salary.
6) The Sweeteners
Other than five players listed above, the most likely players to be included in a package trade are the ones that haven't seen any real playing time yet: guys like Dante Cunningham, Jeff Pendergraph, Patty Mills, and foreign prospects like Victor Claver. These guys could be used as sweeteners to a deal involving one or more of the players listed above. They can also be used to make the salary math work, depending on the circumstances.
TRADE SCENARIOS
Now the fun part: recklessly speculating about potential trades.
The Blazers' most likely acquisition target is a backup power forward, especially if Travis Outlaw the guy being traded. I think the Blazers would also consider trading for a small forward or point guard, but only if the player offers a significant upgrade over the players currently at those positions. In other words, if they go after a point guard, it will be someone better and younger than Steve Blake. And if they go after a small forward, it will be someone who is currently a bigger contributor than either Martell Webster or Nicolas Batum. As you can imagine, the number of point guards and small forwards in the league who fit those criteria and are realistically obtainable is very small. Moreover, at this point in the season, it is very difficult to tell which players will be available come mid-season. That will, of course, depend on how their teams are doing and what their priorities are (freeing cap space, preparing for a playoff run, etc.). But let's give it a try anyway. Here are three potential trade scenarios.
Trade Scenario #1: Outlaw for Brandon Bass:
One player to keep an eye on this season is Brandon Bass, who signed as a free agent with Orlando during the off-season. Orlando has one of the deepest rotations in the league and with both Rashard Lewis and Ryan Anderson at the PF spot, Bass may find himself being under-utilized in Orlando. The Blazers were in the market for Bass during the off-season to fill the backup PF position, but Orlando ended up nabbing him first.Orlando is also a team that could use someone like Outlaw as a backup SF/PF. Orlando likes to surround Dwight Howard, whenever possible, with four guys who can spread the court and shoot threes. Currently they are giving heavy minutes to Matt Barnes at the three-spot. Outlaw is a significant upgrade over Barnes in almost every facet of the game.
Perhaps more importantly, Bass and Outlaw make roughly the same salary, making a direct exchange possible. It might be a rare win-win kind of trade.
Trade Scenario #2: Outlaw and Blake for Kirk Hinrich
This particular trade scenario was widely rumored to be in the works last season but, for whatever reason, it didn't end up happening. It still makes a lot of sense, though. For the Blazers Kirk Hinrich would offer a clear upgrade over Steve Blake at the point guard position. He does everything that Blake does on offense while adding a much needed defensive presence in the Blazer backcourt. He's young enough to be a potential long-term solution at point guard for the Blazers but is used to coming off the bench, so he'll likely be fine playing behind Miller for now.
As for the Bulls, they'll get two quality rotation players in exchange for one, giving them some added depth going into the playoffs. They'll also get two expiring contracts, freeing up valuable cap space so they can make an off-season run at a major free agent (Lebron, Bosh, D-Wade). Again, it could be a win-win.
One potential wrinkle with this trade scenario is that it would leave the Blazers with an even bigger void at the backup PF spot. Personally, though, I think those 10-15 minutes can be filled adequately by some combination of Juwan Howard, Jeff Pendergraph, or Dante Cunningham without costing the team much.
Trade Scenario #3: A Golden State/Charlotte/Portland three-way deal
At the moment, Golden State is trying desperately to trade SF Stephen Jackson and at least one potential suitor that's been mentioned publicly is the Charlotte Bobcats. I sincerely doubt that Blazer management has any interest in Jackson, but they could potentially facilitate a Jackson trade. If they did so, the person the Blazers would be trying to acquire is Boris Diaw from Charlotte. Diaw is a unique player, a guy who can play both SF and PF and who has unusually good passing and shooting abilities for a big man. He is (at least in my opinion) a better version of Hedu Turkoglu, whom Blazer management aggressively wooed over the summer.
One obvious problem with this scenario is that, if Charlotte is really willing to part with Diaw (as rumored), Golden State would almost surely want him. Thus, the only way the Blazers could insert themselves into this deal is if they offered Charlotte something better than what Golden State can offer on its own. Thus, Portland would likely have to give something to both Charlotte and Golden State. For the math to work, Blake and Outlaw would have be included in the deal (and most likely sent to Golden State). Jackson would go to Charlotte, and Diaw would come to Portland. On top of that, the Blazers would likely have to sweeten the deal for Charlotte by giving them one or more additional assets, which could be a player(s) like Jeff Pendergraph, Dante Cunningham, or Victor Claver and/or draft picks.
This deal is unlikely to say the least, but not inconceivable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
