Author Topic: Kanter pulling a Lopez  (Read 12006 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Kanter pulling a Lopez
« Reply #45 on: August 22, 2019, 09:15:40 AM »

Offline DefenseWinsChamps

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6043
  • Tommy Points: 766
Baynes shot 34% on 1.2 attempts per 16 minutes.  I feel like he wasn't completely ignored, but I'd like defenses to pay a little more attention than they did to him.  ~3 attempts in 26 minutes I think would do the trick if he can hit at > 34%

You raise an interesting point: if he takes more, the defenses have to pay more attention.  But if the defenses are paying more attention, that means more of his shots are challenged, and the % likely goes down as well.

The more that defenses pay attention to him, the more open the lane is. there are a lot of moving parts here.

There are, but I'm not sure I've ever seen it happen where an added 3 point shot hurt a team.

Re: Kanter pulling a Lopez
« Reply #46 on: August 22, 2019, 12:16:28 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
I don't think Kanter will be an issue.

It's a given Kanter will not disappoint us.

The problem is the Celts still need another star player.

If the Celts add a guy like Kevin Love or acquire a player like Bradley Beal, Kanter will prosper even more.

Just don't expect Kanter to be like Horford when it comes to pick and roll defense.

Disagree

Celts have the talent

Kevin Love?

Cmon now

Yeah I agree - Kevin Love is pretty much shot. 

He's not a star and hasn't been for several years now.  He's basically a better (but smaller) version of Kelly Olynyk these days.  He's an above average pretty good (but not elite) rebounder and he's a skilled passer, but his jumper isn't what it once was, his post game left him years ago, and his defense has been consistently mediocre.

In terms of intangibles he's also a proven choker in the playoffs, he's highly injury prone, he has known emotional/mental problems that he's admitted to struggling with (not a good mix for a team that had all sorts of chemistry issues last year), he struggles with leadership roles, and  and he struggles to deal with pressure.  He's proven to be incapable as a leader. 

I can see how Love could be a nice fit on the right team (he'd actually probably be a great fit on the Clippers, Lakers or Warriors right now)  but he's just not a good fit on a Celtics team that already has too many wannabe stars and who's biggest concern right now is defense.
I don't think Love is shot at all.  He averaged 17 and 11 in 27 mpg last year and spent much of the season rehabbing his foot injury.  he absolutely can still play, especially if he is healthy.  The Cavs were also a much better team with Love playing (7-10 in the games he started after finally shutting it down, 12-53 the rest of the season).  The problem with Love is he makes 29 million this year which makes it basically impossible for Boston to acquire him without giving up arguably better players (like Hayward or Smart + a combination of players).  Boston quite simply has no real way to acquire Love.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Kanter pulling a Lopez
« Reply #47 on: August 22, 2019, 01:51:36 PM »

Offline hwangjini_1

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17837
  • Tommy Points: 2661
  • bammokja
I believe Gandhi is the only person who knew about real democracy — not democracy as the right to go and buy what you want, but democracy as the responsibility to be accountable to everyone around you. Democracy begins with freedom from hunger, freedom from unemployment, freedom from fear, and freedom from hatred.
- Vandana Shiva

Re: Kanter pulling a Lopez
« Reply #48 on: August 22, 2019, 03:00:23 PM »

Offline Hoopvortex

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1243
  • Tommy Points: 164
a video!!! life is better with videos. kanter can do, at least in this video of three point shooting.

https://twitter.com/EnesKanter/status/1164357647472254981?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1164357647472254981&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs9e.github.io%2Fiframe%2F2%2Ftwitter.min.html%231164357647472254981

Thanks for posting this.

He brings the ball below his waist. The motion looks consistent and smooth, but he’ll need to be real open.
'I was proud of Marcus Smart. He did a great job of keeping us together. He might not get credit for this game, but the pace that he played at, and his playcalling, some of the plays that he called were great. We obviously have to rely on him, so I’m definitely looking forward to Marcus leading this team in that role.' - Jaylen Brown, January 2021

Re: Kanter pulling a Lopez
« Reply #49 on: August 22, 2019, 03:51:30 PM »

Offline hwangjini_1

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17837
  • Tommy Points: 2661
  • bammokja
a video!!! life is better with videos. kanter can do, at least in this video of three point shooting.

https://twitter.com/EnesKanter/status/1164357647472254981?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1164357647472254981&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs9e.github.io%2Fiframe%2F2%2Ftwitter.min.html%231164357647472254981

Thanks for posting this.

He brings the ball below his waist. The motion looks consistent and smooth, but he’ll need to be real open.
i think baynes was similar in that he needed lots of open space to get his shot off. with repetition i am sure kanter will speed up as well.
I believe Gandhi is the only person who knew about real democracy — not democracy as the right to go and buy what you want, but democracy as the responsibility to be accountable to everyone around you. Democracy begins with freedom from hunger, freedom from unemployment, freedom from fear, and freedom from hatred.
- Vandana Shiva

Re: Kanter pulling a Lopez
« Reply #50 on: August 22, 2019, 06:18:22 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5308
  • Tommy Points: 862
Baynes shot 34% on 1.2 attempts per 16 minutes.  I feel like he wasn't completely ignored, but I'd like defenses to pay a little more attention than they did to him.  ~3 attempts in 26 minutes I think would do the trick if he can hit at > 34%

You raise an interesting point: if he takes more, the defenses have to pay more attention.  But if the defenses are paying more attention, that means more of his shots are challenged, and the % likely goes down as well.

The more that defenses pay attention to him, the more open the lane is. there are a lot of moving parts here.

There are, but I'm not sure I've ever seen it happen where an added 3 point shot hurt a team.

Well, too many of them taken at lower efficiency starts to erode your overall scoring efficiency.   And even a lot of them taken at "ok" scoring efficiency still has the problem of low field goal efficiency, which means despite scoring an okay amount of points, you are fundamentally missing shots (compared to scoring at the same efficiency on 2PT shots).

Scoring efficiency (as measured by TS%) loves the 3PT shot and is rightfully one of the most important metrics.   But classic FG% is still important because a low FG% means you are missing a lot of shots and it is a fundamental of basketball that the other team will grab about 75% of your missed shots.    I.E, each missed shot is almost 75% as bad as a turnover.   Not quite as bad, but bad.

One other fundamental that is important:  Teams score more efficiently off defensive rebounds than when they have to in-bound from under their basket.   So when you miss a shot, you are helping their offense.

Excess misses have a real cost that impacts winning.  Just plain old FG% still correlates heavily with contending for titles.   This last year, here were the top 5 teams by FG%:

1. GSW
2. SAS
3. MIL
4. IND
5. TOR

and here are the top 5 teams by lowest opponent FG%:

1. MIL
2. MIA
3. GSW
4. BOS
5. TOR

No surprise that TOR and GSW were on both lists.   This has been the case forever in basketball.

Because of this, it is not really true that a 33% three point shot is just as good as a 50% 2PT shot.   To be equally scoring efficient net the negative cost of the extra missed shots, a three point shot needs to be well above that.   

Now, compared to long 2PT jumpers that are typically hit at say, a 40-45% clip, you don't need a super-elite 3PT% in order to overcome that cost and to be a better, more valuable option.

But for players like Baynes, Kanter, Lopez -- the opportunity cost isn't really a long 2PT jumper.   If those guys aren't taking threes, the bulk of their shots are high percentage layups, dunks & tip-ins within 3 feet of the hoop.  Those are shots hit at ~60% or even higher.

So to equal the scoring efficiency of THOSE shots, again, accounting also for negative cost of increased missed shots, a 'stretch 5' type player really needs to be hitting well above 35% and probably needs to be close to 40% if he's taking a lot of threes.   Because that may make his individual TS% look good but it isn't necessarily helping the team versus scoring down low.

The Bucks ostensibly want Lopez outside the arc taking a lot of three in order to try to keep the low paint clear for Giannis to drive at.    But I personally don't think that's really the best way to do this.

Brook Lopez shot 6.3 threes per game at 36.5%.    But only 0.4 of those attempts per game had a defender within 4 feet and on 4.0 of those he had no defender within even 6 feet.    That tells me that he wasn't really pulling his defender way outside with him.   

So this tells me that the effect of a 'Stretch Center" might be seriously over-rated.   I think big men defenders were still willing to give Lopez that shot.

And having Lopez way outside like that definitely had a rebounding cost as Lopez' own ORB% dropped to a microscopic 1.5% this last year.   He's a career 8.1% offensive rebounder, a huge 7 footer who was arguably that team's best pure rebounder yet he's contributing pretty much zero to that end on the floor.

And at 36.5%, that's imho, not really all that efficient to justify not using Lopez' impressive low-post skills.  The guy has a career FG% within 3 ft of 66% and really, since around his 4th season, it's been closer to ~70%.   Earlier in his career he used to take twice as large a percentage of his shots down low and was a beast at it.

If you ask me, I would rather use guys like that to facilitate attacks at the hoop the old-fashioned way:  With their bodies.  Hold a seal.  Set a baseline pick.   Footwork and muscle.  This is basic fundamental basketball.

I know, I'm sounding like an old curmudgeon.   In truth I don't mind if our bigs add the extended range.  Versatility is good and the ability of Baynes before and maybe Kanter this year to once in a while pop out to launch a 3PT bomb can add an edge.  Keep the defenders on their toes.    But I am not convinced that we want these guys really going all out and launching over half their shots from out there, ala Brook Lopez.   

We aren't dependent on a lead scorer (Giannis) who isn't a deep threat and who's own defender often sags in anticipation of a drive.  ALL of our non-center players are decent-to-very-good outside shooters.   If we play with 4 wing/guard shooters on the floor with a single post big, there is really only going to be one defender in the paint that our 5 needs to seal off the play to support a driving attack by one of our wings.

If Kanter takes 10 FGA in a game, I darn well want 8 or more of them to be from within 6 feet of the hoop.  Or we are just plain doing something wrong.

Golden State has quietly made heavy use of and been extremely successful giving large minutes to 'true bigs' who don't shoot threes.   Bogut.  Zaza.  Javale.  Looney.  Ezekiel.  Names I'm forgetting.   These guys all logged huge minutes on the Warriors over the last half-dozen years and all now have championship rings.  And they have combined to shoot probably less than a dozen 3pt shots.   The only two big men during this run by GSW who shot more than a couple of threes were Speights and Cousins.   Speights was mostly a 3rd stringer while at GSW and Cousins missed a ton of games (and ultimately is the only big man I just named who didn't get a ring).

Okay.  I've rambled enough on this topic.  I'll go back to my dark room now and huddle in the corner watch old vids of 1970s & 80s basketball ...
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.

Re: Kanter pulling a Lopez
« Reply #51 on: August 22, 2019, 09:17:14 PM »

Offline Hoopvortex

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1243
  • Tommy Points: 164
a video!!! life is better with videos. kanter can do, at least in this video of three point shooting.

https://twitter.com/EnesKanter/status/1164357647472254981?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1164357647472254981&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs9e.github.io%2Fiframe%2F2%2Ftwitter.min.html%231164357647472254981

Thanks for posting this.

He brings the ball below his waist. The motion looks consistent and smooth, but he’ll need to be real open.
i think baynes was similar in that he needed lots of open space to get his shot off. with repetition i am sure kanter will speed up as well.

The other issue in starting his shooting motion so low is that it’s easier to get stripped.
'I was proud of Marcus Smart. He did a great job of keeping us together. He might not get credit for this game, but the pace that he played at, and his playcalling, some of the plays that he called were great. We obviously have to rely on him, so I’m definitely looking forward to Marcus leading this team in that role.' - Jaylen Brown, January 2021

Re: Kanter pulling a Lopez
« Reply #52 on: August 22, 2019, 10:45:04 PM »

Offline hwangjini_1

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17837
  • Tommy Points: 2661
  • bammokja
a video!!! life is better with videos. kanter can do, at least in this video of three point shooting.

https://twitter.com/EnesKanter/status/1164357647472254981?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1164357647472254981&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs9e.github.io%2Fiframe%2F2%2Ftwitter.min.html%231164357647472254981

Thanks for posting this.

He brings the ball below his waist. The motion looks consistent and smooth, but he’ll need to be real open.
i think baynes was similar in that he needed lots of open space to get his shot off. with repetition i am sure kanter will speed up as well.

The other issue in starting his shooting motion so low is that it’s easier to get stripped.
yes, yet baynes made it work. kanter? let's see what happens.
I believe Gandhi is the only person who knew about real democracy — not democracy as the right to go and buy what you want, but democracy as the responsibility to be accountable to everyone around you. Democracy begins with freedom from hunger, freedom from unemployment, freedom from fear, and freedom from hatred.
- Vandana Shiva

Re: Kanter pulling a Lopez
« Reply #53 on: August 23, 2019, 03:30:55 AM »

Offline Somebody

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7816
  • Tommy Points: 560
  • STAND FIRM, SAY NO TO VIBE MEN
Baynes shot 34% on 1.2 attempts per 16 minutes.  I feel like he wasn't completely ignored, but I'd like defenses to pay a little more attention than they did to him.  ~3 attempts in 26 minutes I think would do the trick if he can hit at > 34%

You raise an interesting point: if he takes more, the defenses have to pay more attention.  But if the defenses are paying more attention, that means more of his shots are challenged, and the % likely goes down as well.

The more that defenses pay attention to him, the more open the lane is. there are a lot of moving parts here.

There are, but I'm not sure I've ever seen it happen where an added 3 point shot hurt a team.

Well, too many of them taken at lower efficiency starts to erode your overall scoring efficiency.   And even a lot of them taken at "ok" scoring efficiency still has the problem of low field goal efficiency, which means despite scoring an okay amount of points, you are fundamentally missing shots (compared to scoring at the same efficiency on 2PT shots).

Scoring efficiency (as measured by TS%) loves the 3PT shot and is rightfully one of the most important metrics.   But classic FG% is still important because a low FG% means you are missing a lot of shots and it is a fundamental of basketball that the other team will grab about 75% of your missed shots.    I.E, each missed shot is almost 75% as bad as a turnover.   Not quite as bad, but bad.

One other fundamental that is important:  Teams score more efficiently off defensive rebounds than when they have to in-bound from under their basket.   So when you miss a shot, you are helping their offense.

Excess misses have a real cost that impacts winning.  Just plain old FG% still correlates heavily with contending for titles.   This last year, here were the top 5 teams by FG%:

1. GSW
2. SAS
3. MIL
4. IND
5. TOR

and here are the top 5 teams by lowest opponent FG%:

1. MIL
2. MIA
3. GSW
4. BOS
5. TOR

No surprise that TOR and GSW were on both lists.   This has been the case forever in basketball.

Because of this, it is not really true that a 33% three point shot is just as good as a 50% 2PT shot.   To be equally scoring efficient net the negative cost of the extra missed shots, a three point shot needs to be well above that.   

Now, compared to long 2PT jumpers that are typically hit at say, a 40-45% clip, you don't need a super-elite 3PT% in order to overcome that cost and to be a better, more valuable option.

But for players like Baynes, Kanter, Lopez -- the opportunity cost isn't really a long 2PT jumper.   If those guys aren't taking threes, the bulk of their shots are high percentage layups, dunks & tip-ins within 3 feet of the hoop.  Those are shots hit at ~60% or even higher.

So to equal the scoring efficiency of THOSE shots, again, accounting also for negative cost of increased missed shots, a 'stretch 5' type player really needs to be hitting well above 35% and probably needs to be close to 40% if he's taking a lot of threes.   Because that may make his individual TS% look good but it isn't necessarily helping the team versus scoring down low.

The Bucks ostensibly want Lopez outside the arc taking a lot of three in order to try to keep the low paint clear for Giannis to drive at.    But I personally don't think that's really the best way to do this.

Brook Lopez shot 6.3 threes per game at 36.5%.    But only 0.4 of those attempts per game had a defender within 4 feet and on 4.0 of those he had no defender within even 6 feet.    That tells me that he wasn't really pulling his defender way outside with him.   

So this tells me that the effect of a 'Stretch Center" might be seriously over-rated.   I think big men defenders were still willing to give Lopez that shot.

And having Lopez way outside like that definitely had a rebounding cost as Lopez' own ORB% dropped to a microscopic 1.5% this last year.   He's a career 8.1% offensive rebounder, a huge 7 footer who was arguably that team's best pure rebounder yet he's contributing pretty much zero to that end on the floor.

And at 36.5%, that's imho, not really all that efficient to justify not using Lopez' impressive low-post skills.  The guy has a career FG% within 3 ft of 66% and really, since around his 4th season, it's been closer to ~70%.   Earlier in his career he used to take twice as large a percentage of his shots down low and was a beast at it.

If you ask me, I would rather use guys like that to facilitate attacks at the hoop the old-fashioned way:  With their bodies.  Hold a seal.  Set a baseline pick.   Footwork and muscle.  This is basic fundamental basketball.

I know, I'm sounding like an old curmudgeon.   In truth I don't mind if our bigs add the extended range.  Versatility is good and the ability of Baynes before and maybe Kanter this year to once in a while pop out to launch a 3PT bomb can add an edge.  Keep the defenders on their toes.    But I am not convinced that we want these guys really going all out and launching over half their shots from out there, ala Brook Lopez.   

We aren't dependent on a lead scorer (Giannis) who isn't a deep threat and who's own defender often sags in anticipation of a drive.  ALL of our non-center players are decent-to-very-good outside shooters.   If we play with 4 wing/guard shooters on the floor with a single post big, there is really only going to be one defender in the paint that our 5 needs to seal off the play to support a driving attack by one of our wings.

If Kanter takes 10 FGA in a game, I darn well want 8 or more of them to be from within 6 feet of the hoop.  Or we are just plain doing something wrong.

Golden State has quietly made heavy use of and been extremely successful giving large minutes to 'true bigs' who don't shoot threes.   Bogut.  Zaza.  Javale.  Looney.  Ezekiel.  Names I'm forgetting.   These guys all logged huge minutes on the Warriors over the last half-dozen years and all now have championship rings.  And they have combined to shoot probably less than a dozen 3pt shots.   The only two big men during this run by GSW who shot more than a couple of threes were Speights and Cousins.   Speights was mostly a 3rd stringer while at GSW and Cousins missed a ton of games (and ultimately is the only big man I just named who didn't get a ring).

Okay.  I've rambled enough on this topic.  I'll go back to my dark room now and huddle in the corner watch old vids of 1970s & 80s basketball ...
Excellent points. TP for the insight.
Jaylen Brown for All-NBA

Re: Kanter pulling a Lopez
« Reply #54 on: August 23, 2019, 06:48:17 AM »

Offline footey

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15965
  • Tommy Points: 1833
Baynes shot 34% on 1.2 attempts per 16 minutes.  I feel like he wasn't completely ignored, but I'd like defenses to pay a little more attention than they did to him.  ~3 attempts in 26 minutes I think would do the trick if he can hit at > 34%

You raise an interesting point: if he takes more, the defenses have to pay more attention.  But if the defenses are paying more attention, that means more of his shots are challenged, and the % likely goes down as well.

The more that defenses pay attention to him, the more open the lane is. there are a lot of moving parts here.

There are, but I'm not sure I've ever seen it happen where an added 3 point shot hurt a team.

Well, too many of them taken at lower efficiency starts to erode your overall scoring efficiency.   And even a lot of them taken at "ok" scoring efficiency still has the problem of low field goal efficiency, which means despite scoring an okay amount of points, you are fundamentally missing shots (compared to scoring at the same efficiency on 2PT shots).

Scoring efficiency (as measured by TS%) loves the 3PT shot and is rightfully one of the most important metrics.   But classic FG% is still important because a low FG% means you are missing a lot of shots and it is a fundamental of basketball that the other team will grab about 75% of your missed shots.    I.E, each missed shot is almost 75% as bad as a turnover.   Not quite as bad, but bad.

One other fundamental that is important:  Teams score more efficiently off defensive rebounds than when they have to in-bound from under their basket.   So when you miss a shot, you are helping their offense.

Excess misses have a real cost that impacts winning.  Just plain old FG% still correlates heavily with contending for titles.   This last year, here were the top 5 teams by FG%:

1. GSW
2. SAS
3. MIL
4. IND
5. TOR

and here are the top 5 teams by lowest opponent FG%:

1. MIL
2. MIA
3. GSW
4. BOS
5. TOR

No surprise that TOR and GSW were on both lists.   This has been the case forever in basketball.

Because of this, it is not really true that a 33% three point shot is just as good as a 50% 2PT shot.   To be equally scoring efficient net the negative cost of the extra missed shots, a three point shot needs to be well above that.   

Now, compared to long 2PT jumpers that are typically hit at say, a 40-45% clip, you don't need a super-elite 3PT% in order to overcome that cost and to be a better, more valuable option.

But for players like Baynes, Kanter, Lopez -- the opportunity cost isn't really a long 2PT jumper.   If those guys aren't taking threes, the bulk of their shots are high percentage layups, dunks & tip-ins within 3 feet of the hoop.  Those are shots hit at ~60% or even higher.

So to equal the scoring efficiency of THOSE shots, again, accounting also for negative cost of increased missed shots, a 'stretch 5' type player really needs to be hitting well above 35% and probably needs to be close to 40% if he's taking a lot of threes.   Because that may make his individual TS% look good but it isn't necessarily helping the team versus scoring down low.

The Bucks ostensibly want Lopez outside the arc taking a lot of three in order to try to keep the low paint clear for Giannis to drive at.    But I personally don't think that's really the best way to do this.

Brook Lopez shot 6.3 threes per game at 36.5%.    But only 0.4 of those attempts per game had a defender within 4 feet and on 4.0 of those he had no defender within even 6 feet.    That tells me that he wasn't really pulling his defender way outside with him.   

So this tells me that the effect of a 'Stretch Center" might be seriously over-rated.   I think big men defenders were still willing to give Lopez that shot.

And having Lopez way outside like that definitely had a rebounding cost as Lopez' own ORB% dropped to a microscopic 1.5% this last year.   He's a career 8.1% offensive rebounder, a huge 7 footer who was arguably that team's best pure rebounder yet he's contributing pretty much zero to that end on the floor.

And at 36.5%, that's imho, not really all that efficient to justify not using Lopez' impressive low-post skills.  The guy has a career FG% within 3 ft of 66% and really, since around his 4th season, it's been closer to ~70%.   Earlier in his career he used to take twice as large a percentage of his shots down low and was a beast at it.

If you ask me, I would rather use guys like that to facilitate attacks at the hoop the old-fashioned way:  With their bodies.  Hold a seal.  Set a baseline pick.   Footwork and muscle.  This is basic fundamental basketball.

I know, I'm sounding like an old curmudgeon.   In truth I don't mind if our bigs add the extended range.  Versatility is good and the ability of Baynes before and maybe Kanter this year to once in a while pop out to launch a 3PT bomb can add an edge.  Keep the defenders on their toes.    But I am not convinced that we want these guys really going all out and launching over half their shots from out there, ala Brook Lopez.   

We aren't dependent on a lead scorer (Giannis) who isn't a deep threat and who's own defender often sags in anticipation of a drive.  ALL of our non-center players are decent-to-very-good outside shooters.   If we play with 4 wing/guard shooters on the floor with a single post big, there is really only going to be one defender in the paint that our 5 needs to seal off the play to support a driving attack by one of our wings.

If Kanter takes 10 FGA in a game, I darn well want 8 or more of them to be from within 6 feet of the hoop.  Or we are just plain doing something wrong.

Golden State has quietly made heavy use of and been extremely successful giving large minutes to 'true bigs' who don't shoot threes.   Bogut.  Zaza.  Javale.  Looney.  Ezekiel.  Names I'm forgetting.   These guys all logged huge minutes on the Warriors over the last half-dozen years and all now have championship rings.  And they have combined to shoot probably less than a dozen 3pt shots.   The only two big men during this run by GSW who shot more than a couple of threes were Speights and Cousins.   Speights was mostly a 3rd stringer while at GSW and Cousins missed a ton of games (and ultimately is the only big man I just named who didn't get a ring).

Okay.  I've rambled enough on this topic.  I'll go back to my dark room now and huddle in the corner watch old vids of 1970s & 80s basketball ...

TP. One of the best posts I’ve ever read.

Re: Kanter pulling a Lopez
« Reply #55 on: August 23, 2019, 08:45:54 AM »

Offline The Oracle

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1197
  • Tommy Points: 597
Baynes shot 34% on 1.2 attempts per 16 minutes.  I feel like he wasn't completely ignored, but I'd like defenses to pay a little more attention than they did to him.  ~3 attempts in 26 minutes I think would do the trick if he can hit at > 34%

You raise an interesting point: if he takes more, the defenses have to pay more attention.  But if the defenses are paying more attention, that means more of his shots are challenged, and the % likely goes down as well.

The more that defenses pay attention to him, the more open the lane is. there are a lot of moving parts here.

There are, but I'm not sure I've ever seen it happen where an added 3 point shot hurt a team.

Well, too many of them taken at lower efficiency starts to erode your overall scoring efficiency.   And even a lot of them taken at "ok" scoring efficiency still has the problem of low field goal efficiency, which means despite scoring an okay amount of points, you are fundamentally missing shots (compared to scoring at the same efficiency on 2PT shots).

Scoring efficiency (as measured by TS%) loves the 3PT shot and is rightfully one of the most important metrics.   But classic FG% is still important because a low FG% means you are missing a lot of shots and it is a fundamental of basketball that the other team will grab about 75% of your missed shots.    I.E, each missed shot is almost 75% as bad as a turnover.   Not quite as bad, but bad.

One other fundamental that is important:  Teams score more efficiently off defensive rebounds than when they have to in-bound from under their basket.   So when you miss a shot, you are helping their offense.

Excess misses have a real cost that impacts winning.  Just plain old FG% still correlates heavily with contending for titles.   This last year, here were the top 5 teams by FG%:

1. GSW
2. SAS
3. MIL
4. IND
5. TOR

and here are the top 5 teams by lowest opponent FG%:

1. MIL
2. MIA
3. GSW
4. BOS
5. TOR

No surprise that TOR and GSW were on both lists.   This has been the case forever in basketball.

Because of this, it is not really true that a 33% three point shot is just as good as a 50% 2PT shot.   To be equally scoring efficient net the negative cost of the extra missed shots, a three point shot needs to be well above that.   

Now, compared to long 2PT jumpers that are typically hit at say, a 40-45% clip, you don't need a super-elite 3PT% in order to overcome that cost and to be a better, more valuable option.

But for players like Baynes, Kanter, Lopez -- the opportunity cost isn't really a long 2PT jumper.   If those guys aren't taking threes, the bulk of their shots are high percentage layups, dunks & tip-ins within 3 feet of the hoop.  Those are shots hit at ~60% or even higher.

So to equal the scoring efficiency of THOSE shots, again, accounting also for negative cost of increased missed shots, a 'stretch 5' type player really needs to be hitting well above 35% and probably needs to be close to 40% if he's taking a lot of threes.   Because that may make his individual TS% look good but it isn't necessarily helping the team versus scoring down low.

The Bucks ostensibly want Lopez outside the arc taking a lot of three in order to try to keep the low paint clear for Giannis to drive at.    But I personally don't think that's really the best way to do this.

Brook Lopez shot 6.3 threes per game at 36.5%.    But only 0.4 of those attempts per game had a defender within 4 feet and on 4.0 of those he had no defender within even 6 feet.    That tells me that he wasn't really pulling his defender way outside with him.   

So this tells me that the effect of a 'Stretch Center" might be seriously over-rated.   I think big men defenders were still willing to give Lopez that shot.

And having Lopez way outside like that definitely had a rebounding cost as Lopez' own ORB% dropped to a microscopic 1.5% this last year.   He's a career 8.1% offensive rebounder, a huge 7 footer who was arguably that team's best pure rebounder yet he's contributing pretty much zero to that end on the floor.

And at 36.5%, that's imho, not really all that efficient to justify not using Lopez' impressive low-post skills.  The guy has a career FG% within 3 ft of 66% and really, since around his 4th season, it's been closer to ~70%.   Earlier in his career he used to take twice as large a percentage of his shots down low and was a beast at it.

If you ask me, I would rather use guys like that to facilitate attacks at the hoop the old-fashioned way:  With their bodies.  Hold a seal.  Set a baseline pick.   Footwork and muscle.  This is basic fundamental basketball.

I know, I'm sounding like an old curmudgeon.   In truth I don't mind if our bigs add the extended range.  Versatility is good and the ability of Baynes before and maybe Kanter this year to once in a while pop out to launch a 3PT bomb can add an edge.  Keep the defenders on their toes.    But I am not convinced that we want these guys really going all out and launching over half their shots from out there, ala Brook Lopez.   

We aren't dependent on a lead scorer (Giannis) who isn't a deep threat and who's own defender often sags in anticipation of a drive.  ALL of our non-center players are decent-to-very-good outside shooters.   If we play with 4 wing/guard shooters on the floor with a single post big, there is really only going to be one defender in the paint that our 5 needs to seal off the play to support a driving attack by one of our wings.

If Kanter takes 10 FGA in a game, I darn well want 8 or more of them to be from within 6 feet of the hoop.  Or we are just plain doing something wrong.

Golden State has quietly made heavy use of and been extremely successful giving large minutes to 'true bigs' who don't shoot threes.   Bogut.  Zaza.  Javale.  Looney.  Ezekiel.  Names I'm forgetting.   These guys all logged huge minutes on the Warriors over the last half-dozen years and all now have championship rings.  And they have combined to shoot probably less than a dozen 3pt shots.   The only two big men during this run by GSW who shot more than a couple of threes were Speights and Cousins.   Speights was mostly a 3rd stringer while at GSW and Cousins missed a ton of games (and ultimately is the only big man I just named who didn't get a ring).

Okay.  I've rambled enough on this topic.  I'll go back to my dark room now and huddle in the corner watch old vids of 1970s & 80s basketball ...

TP. One of the best posts I’ve ever read.
I don't know how to say this without coming across as rude but his entire post is a logic exercise that was not taken to its logical conclusion.  He got 2 or 3 steps into a 5+ step problem and declared the problem solved, in doing so the conclusions he makes are under informed and incorrect.  Virtually everything he posted can be easily refuted by math, logic and analytics.  The NBA and the analytic community have spent large amounts of time and money and the resulting evidence is clearly in complete disagreement with mmmmm's post.

Re: Kanter pulling a Lopez
« Reply #56 on: August 23, 2019, 10:01:17 AM »

Offline mmmmm

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5308
  • Tommy Points: 862
Baynes shot 34% on 1.2 attempts per 16 minutes.  I feel like he wasn't completely ignored, but I'd like defenses to pay a little more attention than they did to him.  ~3 attempts in 26 minutes I think would do the trick if he can hit at > 34%

You raise an interesting point: if he takes more, the defenses have to pay more attention.  But if the defenses are paying more attention, that means more of his shots are challenged, and the % likely goes down as well.

The more that defenses pay attention to him, the more open the lane is. there are a lot of moving parts here.

There are, but I'm not sure I've ever seen it happen where an added 3 point shot hurt a team.

Well, too many of them taken at lower efficiency starts to erode your overall scoring efficiency.   And even a lot of them taken at "ok" scoring efficiency still has the problem of low field goal efficiency, which means despite scoring an okay amount of points, you are fundamentally missing shots (compared to scoring at the same efficiency on 2PT shots).

Scoring efficiency (as measured by TS%) loves the 3PT shot and is rightfully one of the most important metrics.   But classic FG% is still important because a low FG% means you are missing a lot of shots and it is a fundamental of basketball that the other team will grab about 75% of your missed shots.    I.E, each missed shot is almost 75% as bad as a turnover.   Not quite as bad, but bad.

One other fundamental that is important:  Teams score more efficiently off defensive rebounds than when they have to in-bound from under their basket.   So when you miss a shot, you are helping their offense.

Excess misses have a real cost that impacts winning.  Just plain old FG% still correlates heavily with contending for titles.   This last year, here were the top 5 teams by FG%:

1. GSW
2. SAS
3. MIL
4. IND
5. TOR

and here are the top 5 teams by lowest opponent FG%:

1. MIL
2. MIA
3. GSW
4. BOS
5. TOR

No surprise that TOR and GSW were on both lists.   This has been the case forever in basketball.

Because of this, it is not really true that a 33% three point shot is just as good as a 50% 2PT shot.   To be equally scoring efficient net the negative cost of the extra missed shots, a three point shot needs to be well above that.   

Now, compared to long 2PT jumpers that are typically hit at say, a 40-45% clip, you don't need a super-elite 3PT% in order to overcome that cost and to be a better, more valuable option.

But for players like Baynes, Kanter, Lopez -- the opportunity cost isn't really a long 2PT jumper.   If those guys aren't taking threes, the bulk of their shots are high percentage layups, dunks & tip-ins within 3 feet of the hoop.  Those are shots hit at ~60% or even higher.

So to equal the scoring efficiency of THOSE shots, again, accounting also for negative cost of increased missed shots, a 'stretch 5' type player really needs to be hitting well above 35% and probably needs to be close to 40% if he's taking a lot of threes.   Because that may make his individual TS% look good but it isn't necessarily helping the team versus scoring down low.

The Bucks ostensibly want Lopez outside the arc taking a lot of three in order to try to keep the low paint clear for Giannis to drive at.    But I personally don't think that's really the best way to do this.

Brook Lopez shot 6.3 threes per game at 36.5%.    But only 0.4 of those attempts per game had a defender within 4 feet and on 4.0 of those he had no defender within even 6 feet.    That tells me that he wasn't really pulling his defender way outside with him.   

So this tells me that the effect of a 'Stretch Center" might be seriously over-rated.   I think big men defenders were still willing to give Lopez that shot.

And having Lopez way outside like that definitely had a rebounding cost as Lopez' own ORB% dropped to a microscopic 1.5% this last year.   He's a career 8.1% offensive rebounder, a huge 7 footer who was arguably that team's best pure rebounder yet he's contributing pretty much zero to that end on the floor.

And at 36.5%, that's imho, not really all that efficient to justify not using Lopez' impressive low-post skills.  The guy has a career FG% within 3 ft of 66% and really, since around his 4th season, it's been closer to ~70%.   Earlier in his career he used to take twice as large a percentage of his shots down low and was a beast at it.

If you ask me, I would rather use guys like that to facilitate attacks at the hoop the old-fashioned way:  With their bodies.  Hold a seal.  Set a baseline pick.   Footwork and muscle.  This is basic fundamental basketball.

I know, I'm sounding like an old curmudgeon.   In truth I don't mind if our bigs add the extended range.  Versatility is good and the ability of Baynes before and maybe Kanter this year to once in a while pop out to launch a 3PT bomb can add an edge.  Keep the defenders on their toes.    But I am not convinced that we want these guys really going all out and launching over half their shots from out there, ala Brook Lopez.   

We aren't dependent on a lead scorer (Giannis) who isn't a deep threat and who's own defender often sags in anticipation of a drive.  ALL of our non-center players are decent-to-very-good outside shooters.   If we play with 4 wing/guard shooters on the floor with a single post big, there is really only going to be one defender in the paint that our 5 needs to seal off the play to support a driving attack by one of our wings.

If Kanter takes 10 FGA in a game, I darn well want 8 or more of them to be from within 6 feet of the hoop.  Or we are just plain doing something wrong.

Golden State has quietly made heavy use of and been extremely successful giving large minutes to 'true bigs' who don't shoot threes.   Bogut.  Zaza.  Javale.  Looney.  Ezekiel.  Names I'm forgetting.   These guys all logged huge minutes on the Warriors over the last half-dozen years and all now have championship rings.  And they have combined to shoot probably less than a dozen 3pt shots.   The only two big men during this run by GSW who shot more than a couple of threes were Speights and Cousins.   Speights was mostly a 3rd stringer while at GSW and Cousins missed a ton of games (and ultimately is the only big man I just named who didn't get a ring).

Okay.  I've rambled enough on this topic.  I'll go back to my dark room now and huddle in the corner watch old vids of 1970s & 80s basketball ...

TP. One of the best posts I’ve ever read.
I don't know how to say this without coming across as rude but his entire post is a logic exercise that was not taken to its logical conclusion.  He got 2 or 3 steps into a 5+ step problem and declared the problem solved, in doing so the conclusions he makes are under informed and incorrect.  Virtually everything he posted can be easily refuted by math, logic and analytics.  The NBA and the analytic community have spent large amounts of time and money and the resulting evidence is clearly in complete disagreement with mmmmm's post.

You obviously haven't been watching closely at how Golden State has actually made use of bigs the last few years, have you?
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.

Re: Kanter pulling a Lopez
« Reply #57 on: August 23, 2019, 11:57:14 AM »

Offline Walker Wiggle

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 613
  • Tommy Points: 125
There are multiple ways for bigs to space the floor in today's NBA. One way is for them to shoot the 3 (think Brook Lopez). But another way is to "rim run", eg. be a threat to catch lobs in the pick and roll (think DeAndre Jordan in his prime), which sucks help defenders towards the paint and leaves shooters open on the perimeter.

I think the Celtics value all of it. One of the things about Horford was that he was skilled in pretty much anything, such that depending on who was guarding him or the opposing team's scheme, he could punish that. Got a slow-footed big defending him? Put in him the pick and roll and have him pop to the top of the key and shoot the 3. Got a little guy defending him? Put Horford in the post and have him punish him down low.

They may be trying out Kanter in this mold. He's already good at rolling to the rim on the pick and roll and finishing. Perhaps they're trying out different skills and seeing what he can do.

Re: Kanter pulling a Lopez
« Reply #58 on: August 23, 2019, 12:57:33 PM »

Offline Hoopvortex

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1243
  • Tommy Points: 164
There are multiple ways for bigs to space the floor in today's NBA. One way is for them to shoot the 3 (think Brook Lopez). But another way is to "rim run", eg. be a threat to catch lobs in the pick and roll (think DeAndre Jordan in his prime), which sucks help defenders towards the paint and leaves shooters open on the perimeter.

Hence the emphasis that Robert Williams is getting from the coaching staff on finding spot-ups (and cutters, too, btw) off the pick and roll.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2019, 01:07:53 PM by Hoopvortex »
'I was proud of Marcus Smart. He did a great job of keeping us together. He might not get credit for this game, but the pace that he played at, and his playcalling, some of the plays that he called were great. We obviously have to rely on him, so I’m definitely looking forward to Marcus leading this team in that role.' - Jaylen Brown, January 2021

Re: Kanter pulling a Lopez
« Reply #59 on: August 23, 2019, 01:07:07 PM »

Offline Hoopvortex

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1243
  • Tommy Points: 164

I don't know how to say this without coming across as rude but his entire post is a logic exercise that was not taken to its logical conclusion.

And yet, people like you and me should figure out how to not come across as rude. Apart from being a good citizen and communitarian, it is also crucial for finding common ground and building a "listening" for your point of view.

I've noticed your posts from time to time, and I look forward to seeing them - even when I don't necessarily agree.
'I was proud of Marcus Smart. He did a great job of keeping us together. He might not get credit for this game, but the pace that he played at, and his playcalling, some of the plays that he called were great. We obviously have to rely on him, so I’m definitely looking forward to Marcus leading this team in that role.' - Jaylen Brown, January 2021