Teams are shooting 29% on 3’s against us, while we are shooting 42%! Right now the league average is 36%. We have very good shooters on this roster so I do expect great perimeter shooting to be one of this teams strengths. I’m not terribly surprised we are hitting over 40%. Opponents have shot 49 of 169 on 3’s against us, while we’ve hit 100 of 238. But do we have really good beyond the arc defense? Anyone concerned it may be a random 10 games of very good luck?
Even if we dropped to a little about league average of 36%, our 29% defense is such a huge advantage. I understand points in the paint is a concern, but the three point difference is sooooooo huge. The 3 point shot is a moral killer, like the paint dominance that used to be the killer back in the 90's. What I would really like to see is our 4th quarter stats on paint defense. I feel like it steps up in the 3rd and 4th quarters. So while we suck by average, I think it's more of a plan by Stotts to take them out of the perimeter for the first 2-3 quarters, then take the paint away late in the 3rd and 4th quarters.
I don't have time to do this while at work (shocking!) but I'd really like to know if the teams that we have faced are good three point shooting teams aside from when they have played us. That is to say what is the 3PT% differential against us and against all other opponents. If the gulf is significant then maybe we are doing something real closing out on long distance shooters.
This offense and how we play defense is one reason I'd really like to add Asik and keep Lopez. When he was out due to foul trouble yesterday it really hurt us. He's likely a better overall defender than Lopez who I like. I want to have two big C's available so foul trouble is not a worry and these guys can each go really hard all game. I'd ideally give up McCollum and Leonard and maybe a Claver to get it done, would likely take a 3-way with HOU.
well here is a rebuttal (from another board) to some of those stats on how our poor points in the paints numbers are because of our stellar 3 pt defense and what it implies for our teams success "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
Well we've played Phoenix, SacTown, SAS, Houston, Detroit, Boston, Denver, and Raptors Phoenix's %: 35.7% SacTown: 31.8% SAS: 37.6% Houston: 32.9% Detroit: 28.1% Boston: 31.7% Denver: 37.6% Raptors: 32.6% So holding opponents to 29% is well below the averages of all but one team's we faced.
I was more interested in their percentages against us and then calculated against all of their other foes (excluding us). EDIT: and no, only two teams show any sizable marginal difference. everybody else is +/- 2-3 points which is well within sampling error this early in the season.
If your interior defense is weak, why would teams shoot a high number of treys? It's easy to defend shots the offense doesn't want to take.
Good question, here's a quick look PHX in 2 games vs the Blazers- 9 for 34 - 26.5% PHX vs rest of league- 65 for 173 - 37.6% -11.1% difference DEN vs Blazers - 6 for 18 - 33.3% DEN vs rest of league- 62 for 163 - 38.0% -4.7% difference SAS vs Blazers- 6 for 12 - 50% SAS vs rest of league- 68 for 185 - 36.8% +13.2% difference HOU vs Blazers- 6 for 22 - 27.3% HOU vs rest of league- 90 for 270 - 33.3% -6.0% difference SAC vs Blazers- 9 for 34 - 26.5% SAC vs rest of league - 55 for 167 - 32.9% -6.4% difference DET vs Blazers- 3 for 14- 21.4% DET vs rest of league- 51 for 178- 28.7% -7.3% difference BOS vs Blazers- 7 for 18- 38.9% BOS vs rest of league- 53 for 171- 31.0% +7.9% difference TOR vs Blazers- 3 for 17- 17.6% TOR vs rest of league- 69 for 204- 33.8% -16.2% difference TOTALS vs Blazers- 49 for 169- 29.0% vs rest of league- 513 for 1511 - 34.0% -5.0% difference
Congratulations on creating the biggest straw man argument ever! Ok I liked most of your post, great info and research. But I never said anything that you claim. I was curious if our opponents poor 3 point shooting is a result of Blazers defense or random good luck. Edit: Woops didn't realize this was a post from another board, my bad.
He's quoting someone else on another board responding to the argument about a good 3point shooting team and a good 3point defending team being successful.
That would explain the low quantity of 3 pointers shot against us but it doesn’t explain the league lowest rate of making them. If anything you would expect opponents to shoot a higher percentage against us since they are passing up the marginal looks and only taking the easy ones.
That is exactly what I was screaming at the TV for in the Toronto game. They had terrible shooters on the floor but had a layup fest going against us. One thing I thought Nate did well is mix up the zone defense. I have hardly noticed us playing any zone this year.
I was interested in that too. Wish I had read the whole thread before looking into it. But we've held 8 opponents below their average, and only two exceeded their average (SAN and BOS). PHX = -14.6% DEN = -4.3% SAN = +12.4% HOU = -5.6% SAC = -4.5% SAC = -6.8% DET = -6.7% PHX = -2.4% BOS = +7.2% TOR = -15% As with most stuff, I think the sample size is too small. But it's a good trend!
