Game Thread GAME# 37: BLAZERS @ HEAT - JANUARY 5, 2020 - SUNDAY, 3:00 PM, NBCSNW

I would be so mad if Dame gets hurt chasing that number 7 or 8 seed only to be demolish by either the Lakers or Clippers

 

19/4/4 on 8 of 15 shooting and this is the game you decide to post this?

 

We don't let stats ruin a good narrative around this place!

I thought Ant was decent tonight. Missed a few wide open 3's and is still getting abused on defense, but tonight was one of his better games of the season.

 

no I don't

I'm sorry Tince, I know you've decided to defend Stotts against all the slings and arrows, but on this one point...about the way Portland defended Dragic tonight, it's completely legitimate to criticize that defense

obviously, the instructions weren't to "leave Dragic open"...that's not the issue. What is the issue is the longstanding Blazer defensive scheme that is some hybridized version of the ICE defense. But the way Portland plays it is one of the most passive defenses in the NBA on the ball-handler at screens. Portland's bigs almost always hedge heavily back into the paint and toward the rim. They almost never jump the screen and attack the ball. That was the case with Lopez, Aldridge & Kaman; with Plumlee & Davis; with Nurkic, Davis, and Meyers; and with Nurkic & Zach. And now with Whiteside....

I'm assuming the hope is that Portland's guards can fight around the screen well enough to contest shots from the arc, while baiting opponents into longer mid-range shots as the Blazer bigs defend the rim and paint. It worked better when the Blazers had Matthews because he had the strength, length, and moxie to fight thru screens. But since him, the Blazers have had Dame, CJ, Napier, and Curry, and it's hard to imagine a smaller less physical group of guards who would be more disadvantaged by the physicality of NBA screen-setters

 

yeah, I thought this was the best game for Simons in a month. He looked in control of himself on offense. He did have 2 or 3 ugly turnovers, and he lost his man several times on defense (giving up some three's), but if we're giving demerits for bad defense, every Blazer had a bucketful.

 

This doesn't explain why the majority of years (5 out of 7) under Stotts we are at the league average or better on 3pt% defense and often near the top on fewest 3pt attempts given up. If your theory is true that we just lay off and give up wide open threes to quality shooters, then that would mean the majority of teams decline to attempt those wide open threes. Not only that, but when they do attempt these wide open threes, their percentage isn't great, which over a large sample size seems highly unlikely given that you contend they are wide open.

Can you explain why the data doesn't line up with your narrative?

 

I think the issue defensively is rebounding. So their a mediocre to bad defense right now anyways but they give up the 2nd most opponent offensive rebounds in the NBA, which means a lot of times they get “stops” they dont actually get stops.

Thats where injuries have hurt them, their left with whiteside as the only good rebounder left.

https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/opponent-offensive-rebounds-per-game

 

1st, let's be clear about something...at no point did I say Portland intentionally gives "wide open" three's to quality shooters. That isn't the plan and sometimes Portland executes the plan. But if you think the Blazers haven't been punked by wide open three's by quality shooters I refer you to game 1 of the Warrior series last year and a cat named Curry

2nd, where are you getting those numbers?

Portland opponent 3pt% ranks:

2015-16 - 28th
2016-17 - 27th
2017-18 - 16th
2018-19 - 20th
2019-20 - 17th

that's from bbref

(I didn't feel like posting the numbers from the Aldridge team because as I said, a defense that will work moderately when the defenders are guys like Matthews, Batum, and Crabbe is probably not the same defense you want when the defenders are CJ, Napier, and Curry)

that's simply not good for a playoff team with designs of being a contender. Yes, Portland tends to give up fewer attempts but think about why that may be. When a ball-handler comes around a screen and finds open shooting space, he's also going to find an open driving lane, and a lot of ball-handlers will drive instead of immediately gunning up a three like Dame and CJ. In other words, yeah, Portland gives up fewer three's, but some of that, perhaps a lot of that, is because the lane is open into the paint

and what might be the result if that's true?

2105-16 - Blazers rank 30th in opponent FG% in the 16-23' zone and rank 26th in opponent FT/FGA
2016-17 - Blazers rank 22nd in opponent FG% in the 16-23' zone and rank 28th in opponent FT/FGA
2017-18 - Blazers rank 29th in opponent FG% in the 16-23' zone and rank 18th in opponent FT/FGA
2018-19 - Blazers rank 16th in opponent FG% in the 16-23' zone and rank 16 in opponent FT/FGA

I think the biggest issue people have with that scheme, including me, isn't so much the defense but that it seems un-adaptable and static...always the same no matter the opponent. When was the last time you saw Portland aggressively jumping the PnR like teams always do against Portland & Dame? Yeah, me neither

 

Today

 

Totally agree with you about this year.

My response was regarding to the post that Stotts defensive strategy over the tenure of his time in Portland has been bad, in particular the 3pt defense. I don't think saying Game 1 of the WCF was a mess or Dragic lighting us up tonight should over shadow 600 games worth of data. The data says under Stotts we've been a little better than the league average on 3pt% defense and near the best at limited the number of 3's teams attempt. The data tells me for every time I can recall Curry, Dragic, or JJ Barea going off on us, there must be more times or more teams struggling with than same problem than us.

 

The problem with 'a little better than average' in the Playoffs means you are probably ranked near the bottom of teams that are actually still remaining. We are already last in assists, near the bottom in forcing turnovers, at or near the bottom in fast break points. To be a real contender, those ranking need to be higher....end of story.

 

They were around 20th for opposition Offensive rebounds given up last year and way better the year before top 10(?). I just dont think you can combine mediocre to bad defense and give up tons of offensive boards and expect that to work. Maybe if you’re a good defensive team you can deal with it...

 

that's not true though

yes, Portland was top-10 or close in opponent 3pt% with the Aldridge team, when they had solid defenders at 4 positions. Then that defense made sense. But since 2015-16, the beginning of the Dame/CJ team, Portland's average opponent 3pt% ranking has been 22nd

 

First off, I'm an idiot. The data I was looking at was overall team defensive rating, not 3pt%. I got that off NBA.com and was using this is another thread and somehow got my wires crossed (not the first time).

I haven't double checked your data, but I have zero question it is accurate. Those numbers are not good overall and I'm surprised this year is nearly the best of the past 5 years because I don't think anyone, including myself thinks the perimeter defense is getting better; it seems awful this year.

Your PnR coverage is a great question. Maybe this is why Spoelstra was thrilled to get rid of Whiteside, because in the modern NBA guys with his foot speed can't defend at 30ft. Makes you wonder if you're better with centers like Bam or in our case, Collins, vs Whiteside or Nurk. I'm assuming you don't think Whiteside at 30ft is a good idea, but maybe it is.

 

even before the injuries, this year's team was going to be weaker at rebounding. Aminu was a much better rebounder than Zach. Harkless was a much better rebounder than Hood; Meyers was as about as good a rebounder as Skal; Turner a better rebounder than Bazemore. Portland got worse at rebounding across the rotation except for Whiteside. That was a choice that Olshey made

 

Totally agree. This year we are awful. Being average in all categories would lead to an average team, we agree. If you could pick 3-5 statistical categories that you think represent a team that will win, what would you pick? Obviously every team is average or worse in a handful of statistical categories, so determining which ones actually matter is what I'm always looking for.

 

This last part has been my #1 issue with Stotts. No defense works against every team. Even if Stotts' scheme was by far the best single coverage you could possibly play if you're going to play one type of defense, it still wouldn't be right to only play that style. This is why we struggle in a playoff series or against good teams. If a team knows exactly how you will defend certain situations or PnR then it's too easy for them to get good looks. Stotts actually changed up his defense in the WCF after Game 1 but that leads to the next problem is that the players were trying to figure out how to run a different defense that they hadn't tried all season which meant that the rotations were just a fraction of a second too slow and when you play a well oiled machine like the Warriors they make you pay. Then what happens is the Blazers play that "new" defense the whole game and the Warriors figure it out by halftime and make adjustments while the Blazers continue to run the same coverages.

So not only do you need to run different types of defenses against different teams but you also have to be able to mix up coverages within each game (at least against good teams) if you want to be an elite defensive team. That way when a guy like Goran Dragic is shooting lights out you can throw different things at him. There are lots of good players in this league that can make tough shots and score no matter what the defense is but if you try multiple things you simply tip your cap and try better next time. Instead it's like we just let players get comfortable and into rhythms without trying to alter that.

The funny thing is Stotts has seen first hand how effective traps can be against Dame but if he was coaching against Dame he wouldn't trap him. That's completely insane to me. Plumlee used to BEG Stotts to let him trap and hedge harder off of screens. They actually did it against Harden one game and he shit his pants and Houston blew a big lead. After that game we hedged a few times but it quickly faded back into the old way of doing things.

 

How do you know if Zach was going to become a better rebounder or not? Do you remember where Aminu was when he first got to Portland or his third year in the league?
Aminu’s trb% in year 2 of his career was a tiny bit less than Zachs, in his 2nd year.
I dont know if Zach was going to make a leap this year or not but we never really got to figure that out.

 

no problem man. we all make mistakes, I think my last one was just now

it does bring up the question about traditional C's. Are they becoming obsolete? Whiteside is not good on the perimeter and in the PnR. That's obvious and Nurkic was/is better. I think people have mythologized Nurkic's defense a bit. Still, it's best if he's not out on the edges much.

Collins? maybe but the issues I see with him are 1) in his first 2 seasons, much of his foul trouble came when he had switched on to mobile forwards and 2) he's a crappy rebounder. Collins has a rebound rate of 12%; Abedayo's rate is 17.4%. And we're already talking about Portland's rebounding problems. Imagine how bad they'd be if Collins was the C and not Whiteside or Nurkic