Anyone wanna address the elephant in the room??

here's a rebuttal from another board:

"Wizenheimer wrote:my first reaction was: this is bull$hit

after I thought about it a while, my second reaction is: this is still bull$hit

that's not to say I discount the value of having good 3 point defense. I think it can help a lot.

But in the interest of possibly refuting my own perspective on this...which I've advanced here a few times...I'll 'examine' the argument and post the 'results' in this reply as I find them. I could end up looking dumb at the end of this post (ha!...as if that would be a big change)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

I think it would be pretty simple to boil it down into the only statistical support for the argument in the OP, that being this list:

2007-08, BOS, 66-16
2008-09, CLE. 66-16
2009-10, LAL, 57-25
2010-11, CHI, 62-25
2011-12, BOS, 39-27 (lockout shortened season)
2012-13, IND, 49-32
----------------------------------------------------------------------

ok then....the first thing I notice, since my memory is freshest, is the 2012-13 season. Indiana led the league in 3 point% and of course was a top team. But then, I remember something else about 2012: Portland was 3rd in the NBA in opponent 3pt% last season at 0.340

Wait a minute, opponent 3 pt % was a key to success, and the Blazers were 3rd in that metric last year, why did they suck?

hmmm...what I wonder is that while the Blazers were 3rd in this supposed critical metric, how did they do in opponent points in the paint?...well will you look at that, they were dead last in the league allowing 47.4 a game. Of course, that could just be an anomaly. How to test it further?

I know, how did Indiana do?...gosh, they were 1st in opponent points in the paint allowing 35.5. So, the Pacers somehow managed to have the best 3 point defense and the best in-the-paint defense. Kind of difficult to say one (3pt%) was responsible for their success and the other was irrelevant.

as long as we're dealing with last season, how about this:

top-10 opponent 3pt% teams:

Indiana Pacers*
Memphis Grizzlies*
Portland Trail Blazers
Boston Celtics*
Oklahoma City Thunder*
Chicago Bulls*
Golden State Warriors*
Milwaukee Bucks*
Philadelphia 76ers
Washington Wizards

that's 6 playoff teams and 4 lottery teams. Doesn't really seem to support the argument that well

how about bottom-10 points-in-the-paint teams:

Orlando
Detroit
New Orleans
Brooklyn
Charlotte
LA Lakers
Sacramento
Phoenix
Milwaukee
Portland

lol...I see 2 playoff teams and 8 lottery teams. And one of those playoff teams (LAL) would have been a lottery team without the aid of some really questionable officiating in 3 or 4 games

that sure doesn't support the argument in the OP, but maybe last season was some sort of outlier
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

how about the rest of the examples?

2007-08...so Boston leads the league in 3 point defense. how did they do in paint defense?

well look at that...the team that led the league in opponent paint scoring was...wait for it...the Boston Celtics

so now we have the bookend teams, Boston in 07/08 and Indiana last season, that are used as examples of success being dependent on 3 point percentage also being tops in paint defense

not looking good for the argument
----------------------------------------------------------------
2008-09, CLE. ? they were 4th in the NBA in paint defense

2009-10, LAL ? they were 10th in the NBA in paint defense

2010-11, CHI ? they were 2nd in the NBA in paint defense

2011-12, BOS ? they were 10th in the NBA in paint defense (but 3rd the year before)

in case you're keeping track, that's a 1st, 4th, 10th, 2nd, 10th, 1st...all top-10 teams, and 4 out of 6 were top-4 teams
------------------------------------------------------------------

now, I'm not going to post the lists here, but as I was 'investigating' those numbers, what I noticed was that top-10 teams in opponent points in the paint were mostly playoff teams, and a lot of those teams were in the conference finals. Meanwhile, the bottom-10 teams in paint defense were in most cases, lottery teams...like to the tune of around 80% of the time
-------------------------------------------------------------------

So, it sure looks like in order to have success as a top 3 point% defense team, you actually need to be a good defensive team overall.

in other words, My 1st and 2nd reactions to this argument as being bull$hit were the same as my 3rd reaction

it's great to be good at defending the 3 point line, but if the goal is actually to be a horrible team at opponent points in paint....which is exactly what is argued in the OP....then the goal sure seems like total idiocy - See more at: http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=1284560&p=37506785#p37506785

 

I'd just like to point out that ORL tried this already, and they actually did it the right way by putting a guy in the middle who could dominate the paint. And it didn't quite work out for them. I don't see how a worse version of that system, in a much stronger conference, is expected to have better results.
With that said, if we could somehow ride this system to the Finals I'd be ecstatic! I just think it's a seriously flawed system AND a flawed roster to implement that system.

 

Surprisingly I like Lopez more on offense than I do on defense

 

Thanks! That's what I suspected, but didn't feel like doing the leg-work to confirm.

 

With that avatar and dropping basketball knowledge on this site . . . hate to tell you that you have more than one stalker.

 

I nominate this post for post of the year so far. (can we do that?)

Repped!

 

Really? After the hole that was poked in it?

 

lol, may that rebuttal I posted from another board should instead get nominated?

 

BNM is pointing out that Portland is using a system that focuses on both ends of the floor on three point shooting. He's not saying that if we just stop 3's, we'll win. The system is predicated on stopping threes and making a shit-ton of them on the other end. No effort was made in that reply to address our own three point shooting. I suspect a lot of those lotto teams with great 3pt% defense happen to be pretty lousy at shooting threes, unlike Portland.

I would also add that the real focus is to force teams to take long twos. You start by eliminating threes. Check! Next, you eliminate points at the rim. Not-so-check. We're better than we were last year with Hickson, but we have a ways to go. Now that they've got opponent 3pt% dialed in as well as any team can hope to, I hope they start moving the focus to rim protection. You have to guard the three point shot, but if it's clear the guy with the ball is going to force it to the rim we need to sag off, and in a hurry.

 

Currently teams are shooting 42% of their shots against us within 5' of the hoop and they're scoring on 59% of those attempts.
Last season teams shot 43% of their shots within 5' of the hoop and scored on 60% of those attempts.

So, the difference between Lopez and Hickson (1%) isn't that great. Perhaps a stats major can tell us if 1% is even statistically relevant at this point in the season?

 

Agreed. Im not sure why some people seem to think that just because we are focusing on defending 3's that in turn that means that we arent trying to get better with our interior defense or that we wont in fact actually get better as the season goes on.

 

Worse in what way? Better results??? Orlando made the finals that year. The ONLY better result would be to win the NBA championship. Please show me where I predicted that level of success. Right now, given recent history, I'd be happy to make the playoffs and ecstatic to advance to the second round.

Sure, Orlando had a better rim protector with Dwight Howard in his prime. That was their biggest strength. But Portland (so far) is VASTLY superior to that Orlando team in both 3FG% and Opp 3FG%. That is our biggest strength.

2013-14 Portland Trail Blazers:
3FG% = 42
Opp 3FG = 29
Diff = +13

2008-09 Orlando Magic:
3FG% = 38.1
Opp 3FG = 34.2
Diff = +3.9

So yeah, Orlando had better post defense, but Portland is WAY, WAY better at making and denying the 3.

Plus, just look at the rosters (beyond Dwight):

Power Forward:
Portland: LaMarcus Aldridge, 22.2ppg, 9.3rpg, PER = 19.9
Orlando: Rashard Lewis: 17.7ppg, 5.7rpg, PER = 16.8
Huge Advantage Portland

Small Forward:
Portland: Nicolas Batum, 14.1ppg, 6.4rpg, 5.3apg PER = 17.1
Orlando: Hedo Turkoglu: 16.8ppg, 5.3rpg, 4.9apg PER = 14.8
Advantage Portland

Shooting Guard:
Portland: Wesley Matthews, 15.2ppg, 5.1rpg, 1.7apg PER = 18.0
Orlando: Courtney Lee: 8.4ppg, 2.3rpg, 1.2apg PER = 10.7
Huge Advantage Portland

Point Guard:
Portland: Damian Lillard, 20.1ppg, 4.8rpg, 5.8apg PER = 18.7
Orlando: Jameer Nelson: 16.7ppg, 3.5rpg, 5.4apg PER = 20.6

I was all set to call this one a draw. Lillard obviously has better raw stats, but Nelson shot the ball incredibly well that season (.503 FG%, .453 FG%). Then I remembered Nelson was injured and missed the entire second half of the season and the first three rounds of the playoffs. He did come back for the finals against the Lakers, but didn't start and flat out sucked (PER 4.9, 'nuff said). If we really want to get a good comparison of starting PGs, we really need to also consider Nelson's replacement for the second half of the season and the playoffs.

Orlando: Rafer Alston: 12.0ppg, 2.9rpg, 5.1apg PER = 15.6
Advantage Portland

So, other than the obvious fact that Orlando had the best center in the game at that time, the rest of the Portland starters are significantly better than the Orlando starters.

The benches are also interesting. Orlando's best bench player was Marcin Gortat. While not exactly a poor man's Dwight Howard, Gortat did replicate the strengths of Howard's game - good rebounding and good interior defense. The problem is, playing behind Howard, his minutes were limited to 12.6mpg.

At the wing and guard position, Portland's bench is far superior to Orlando's. So, our bench is built on our strengths: 3-point shooting and denying the 3.

Of course, that Orlando team won 59 games and made it to the NBA finals. I'm not saying we will equal that success, but if that's who you're comparing us to, I'll take it.

BNM

 

The difference is last season, we doubled more and played more aggressive help defense. Hickson had more help, but at the expense of the rest of our defense.

BNM

 

Speaking for myself, I don't think we're purposely allowing points in the paint, and I don't think we're satisfied with our defense. I'm just pointing out that, to this point, our defense ISN'T working how Stotts wants it to and that the interior defense really isn't any better than it was last year. It's disingenuous to say that great 3-point defense is key to winning. As illustrated in the "rebuttal" post, those teams that were great at defending the 3-point line were also great at defending that basket.

 

I think you can definitely win a lot of regular season games that way ... it won't stand up in a 7 game playoff series however.

 

I understand that. But the results are fairly similar.

Location---------13/14-------------12/13

<5'---------------42% (59%)------43% (60%)
5-9'--------------14% (43%)-------11% (45%)
10-14'-------------6% (40%)--------8% (42%)
15-19'------------18% (39%)------16% (40%)
3pt----------------20% (34%)------22% (37%)

The first % is the attempts made, the second (%) is how often they connect on those shots. I don't know if any of the differences are statistically significant at this point, but only the 5-9' and 3pt appear to have enough separation to say that there's a difference in the defensive results.

Granted, we're only 10 games into the season so much can change over the next 72 games. I hope it does! I certainly like Lopez in the middle, and this winning streak is nice. I'm just concerned about being able to sustain our shooting and improve our defense.

 

Yep, it's a work in progress. We have a new starting center, an entirely different bench and a new defensive scheme. It takes a while to get it all to click. With all the changes, I'm very pleasantly surprised we are off to an 8-2 start. Look at how poorly other teams are adjusting to significant changes in personnel and coaching.

Yes, our interior defense needs to improve, but not at the expense of giving up wide open 3-pointers. As the season progresses, I'd like to see more situational help defense and maybe double teaming - depending on the match-ups. When the other team plays a stretch 4 that can hit the 3 (like Ryan Anderson), Aldridge will need to stay on his man and not leave him open at the 3-point line, but when playing a team with a low post banger at the 4, Aldridge can help Lopez (and vise-versa). When the other team has a weak shooting 2 or 3, Wes and Nic can cheat off and double team the dominant low post threat. I think and hope this type of situational awareness will come as the players get more comfortable with the system and more comfortable playing with Robin Lopez.

BTW, I also think the lack of double teaming has helped out team rebonding. Last season, LaMarcus often left his man to help Hickson, which then allowed Aldridge's man to crash the offensive boards uncontested. This year, with no double teaming and everyone staying at home on their man, our team rebounding is MUCH better than last season.

BNM

 

Yeah, I suppose I should be specific that my concern is playoffs, not regular season. I think this team can win a lot of regular season games, and maybe even get to the second round, but I don't think it's built to contend. We've seen teams deploy better versions of what we're trying to do, and only DAL got lucky on a blue moon. I would never model a team after the Mavs.

 

We are in a small market, why not? No superstar free agent is coming here.