Please explain
SI.com Top 100 Players......
- Thread starter dipship31
- Start date
Please explain
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Seriously? How could I have possibly made it more obvious that is what I though. If your post has something to do with something else, why don't you just say what it is?
GVC
Well-Known Member
Yikes.
Aldridge and Favors aren't in the same league as scorers. Aldridge fills two high-value roles very efficiently: as a post-up option, providing good possessions when the defense is set, when the offense breaks down/in late shot clocks, and to provide rest and space for perimeter creators and shooters; and as a floor-spacer. To date, Favors is slightly above average finishing garbage buckets and pick-and-rolls, barely adequate spotting up, and a disaster on-ball. LMA's aggregate shooting statistics (TS%, eFG) are poor because of the role he fills (and the corresponding shot type distribution).
The Synergy Sports data bears this out:
[TABLE="width: 500"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]LMA[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Favs[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Shot Type[/TD]
[TD]Freq.[/TD]
[TD]PPP[/TD]
[TD]Perc.[/TD]
[TD]Freq.[/TD]
[TD]PPP[/TD]
[TD]Perc.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Transition[/TD]
[TD]4.6[/TD]
[TD]1.23[/TD]
[TD]75.1[/TD]
[TD]4.9[/TD]
[TD]1.41[/TD]
[TD]95.0[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Putback[/TD]
[TD]7.9[/TD]
[TD]1.37[/TD]
[TD]95.1[/TD]
[TD]10.7[/TD]
[TD]1.19[/TD]
[TD]72.7[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Cut[/TD]
[TD]4.0[/TD]
[TD]1.21[/TD]
[TD]56.4[/TD]
[TD]22.5[/TD]
[TD]1.23[/TD]
[TD]60.3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Post-up[/TD]
[TD]36.5[/TD]
[TD]0.96[/TD]
[TD]82.8[/TD]
[TD]24.4[/TD]
[TD]0.78[/TD]
[TD]38.2[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Iso[/TD]
[TD]6.9[/TD]
[TD]0.86[/TD]
[TD]63.0[/TD]
[TD]2.4[/TD]
[TD]0.83[/TD]
[TD]56.3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Spot-up[/TD]
[TD]18.6[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]62.9[/TD]
[TD]8.6[/TD]
[TD]0.80[/TD]
[TD]26.7[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]PnR Finisher[/TD]
[TD]15.5[/TD]
[TD]0.83[/TD]
[TD]19.5[/TD]
[TD]20.7[/TD]
[TD]0.98[/TD]
[TD]53.8[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
I'll break this down into three categories:
- High efficiency garbage buckets: Transition, Putbacks, Cuts (it seems most cuts are just dump-offs in the data)
- Low efficiency on-ball attempts: Isos and Post-ups
- Medium efficiency specialist big attempts: PnR Roll man and Spot-ups
1. High Efficiency Garbage Buckets (transition, putback, cut)
[TABLE="width: 500"]
[TR]
[TD]Player[/TD]
[TD]Frequency[/TD]
[TD]PPP[/TD]
[TD]PPP (other player's Dist'n)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]LMA[/TD]
[TD]16.5[/TD]
[TD]1.29[/TD]
[TD]1.26[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Favs[/TD]
[TD]38.1[/TD]
[TD]1.24[/TD]
[TD]1.26[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
These are by and large hard-to-create, opportunistic buckets. Largely because LMA is used as either an on-ball post-up scorer and true floor-spacer, he gets far fewer putback and cut (dump-off) opportunities (they're pretty close in transition opportunities), as evidenced by the large frequency discrepancy - 38.1% of Favors attempts come out of transition, putbacks and cuts; only 16.5% of LMA's attempts are accounted for. Still, LMA is more efficient than Favs on garbage bucket attempts (1.29 PPP v. 1.24 PPP), even after accounting for the different shot-type distributions (1.26 v. 1.24 or 1.29 v. 1.26). Due to the opportunistic nature of these shot types, there shouldn't be much of a volume-efficiency trade-off, as there is with on-ball, PnR and spot-up opportunities which induce defensive planning/focus.
The one plus for Favors is his apparent ability to get into position for cuts (again, I'm fairly certain these are mostly dump-offs). He was second in the league in total field goal attempts off cuts (after Marcin Gortat), and ranked a decent 35th in PPP of the 93 players with 57+ field goal attempts out of cuts. I've always thought Favors had good positional awareness, and this provides some support for that conclusion. Favors is very good at being in the right place at the right time.
2. Low Efficiency On-Ball Attempts (post-up, iso)
A quick note before the stats: NBA defenses are good. When they successfully stop transition opportunities and offensive rebounds, they focus their energy on taking away open 3s and layups/dunks. A couple years ago I looked at the league-wide team SynergySports data, and this was confirmed rather emphatically. Despite league-wide efficiency of 0.8 PPP, about 43% of NBA halfcourt attempts (taking out transition and putback attempts) came out of post-ups, isos and from the pick-and-roll ball handler. Off-ball attempts, which accounted for about 57% of halfcourt attempts, were worth about 1.0 points per possession. Without belaboring the point, effective offenses require good on-ball scorers to bend defenses to create high efficiency off-ball looks and to get decent shots when the defense is set, the offense breaks down and/or the shot clock is running out.
[TABLE="width: 500"]
[TR]
[TD]Player[/TD]
[TD]Frequency[/TD]
[TD]PPP[/TD]
[TD]PPP (other player's Dist'n)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]LMA[/TD]
[TD]43.4[/TD]
[TD]0.94[/TD]
[TD]0.95[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Favs[/TD]
[TD]26.8[/TD]
[TD]0.78[/TD]
[TD]0.79[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
This is one of two areas where Aldridge shines. He took the second most field goal attempts out of post-ups this season, and was still 14th in PPP among the 90 players with 55+ post-up field goal attempts. If you've got nothing going, you can give LMA the ball, and let him go to work. Favors was 72nd in PPP of 90 players with 55+ post-up field goal attempts. Both players did alright out of isos on limited attempts, many of which were likely opportunistic (only 2.4% of Favors attempts came out of isos). As is clear from the stats, Aldridge is one of the very best on-ball bigs, while Favs is solidly below average.
3. Medium Efficiency Specialist Big Attempts (PnR roll man, Spot-up)
These two shot types are listed together only because they represent the two main offensive off-ball specialist roles filled by NBA bigs. Combining the two into aggregate efficiency makes very little sense, although doing so would still favor LMA.
Pick-and-Roll Roll Man
[TABLE="width: 500"]
[TR]
[TD]Player[/TD]
[TD]Frequency[/TD]
[TD]PPP[/TD]
[TD]Percentile[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]LMA[/TD]
[TD]15.5[/TD]
[TD]0.83[/TD]
[TD]19.5[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Favs[/TD]
[TD]20.7[/TD]
[TD]0.98[/TD]
[TD]53.8[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Spot-Up
[TABLE="width: 500"]
[TR]
[TD]Player[/TD]
[TD]Frequency[/TD]
[TD]PPP[/TD]
[TD]Percentile[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]LMA[/TD]
[TD]18.6[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]62.9[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Favs[/TD]
[TD]8.6[/TD]
[TD]0.80[/TD]
[TD]26.7[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
LMA is a very good spot-up shooter for a big, scoring 1.0 PPP on his attempts. Favors, on the other hand, is still a work-in-progress spotting up. LMA was terrible in pick-and-rolls this past season, while Favs was just a touch above average, ranking 38th in PPP of 90 players with 60+ PnR roll man field goal attempts. LMA has shown more as a shooting specialist than Favors has shown as a pick-and-roll big to date. With that said, Utah has had poor pick-and-roll ball handlers and Favors may improve as the perimeter players grow (although Favors sets poor screens IMO).
As scorers, Favors and Aldridge aren't comparable. LMA competently fills two high-value roles (floor-spacer, on-ball scorer), Favors is really just a garbage man and average-ish PnR finisher.
Last edited:
Great breakdown, but I didn't say they are similar players. They are very different in the things they do well and the things they don't do well. In my hypothetical scenario when Favors gets 20 possessions a game, of course you would give Favors more of the type of possessions he's good at and less of the type he's not... That of course would rely heavily on us having a good pnr PG and aggressive ballhandlers that would secure more dump offs(cuts). Aldridge is more skillful against set defense, but again - I keep stressing - he's good in the worst type of possessions in the league and average in everything else. The question is if you can get Favors to 20 possessions while not giving him too many of the type of possessions he's not great at. It might prove impossible, but then again... I still might prefer his better defense + adequate and efficient offense vs worse defense and more expansive but less efficient offense of Aldridge.
In general if you rely on Aldridge to get you points with the volume and the way he does with the efficiency he has, you are not doing great job at both constructing your offense and assigning scoring responsibilities. Why would him using a ton of scoring opportunities in horrible type of possessions be a good thing? 43% of his possessions are on low-efficiency shots. Either their offense is constructed horribly or he personally ball-hogs and stops the ball in order to iso or post up.
I guess we will see this year, whether or not his shot distribution was because of the offensive scheme in Portland or simply because he cannot get more efficient shots and resorts to the least efficient ones to pile up points.
Last edited:
GVC
Well-Known Member
1. It would prove impossible.
2. LMA was still more efficient than Favs on non-post-ups, so a similar argument could be applied to LMA and the Spurs. Why wouldn't the Spurs just get LMA more high efficiency opportunities, where he's proven to be better than Favors?
I wouldn't say a player is better when his use of those types of possessions is much lower. For example Favors might bang with 2 defenders for a rebound and tip in, which makes his tip much harder to score, while LMA might do tip ins primarily on uncontested rebounds(much easier to score the put back), which would signal higher %, but wouldn't mean he's better at it, it would mean he gets to the easiest ones and goes nowhere near the additional 30% or so that Favors gets to through contact. Same goes for cuts, pnr, etc. Lower use of those types of possessions(especially cuts 4% vs 20%+!!!) might signify that one of the players is better moving without the ball for example and so on and so forth.
If Portland knew he's great at high efficiency shots, why didn't they give him more of them, but rather relied on postups and isos and long 2 spot ups? I think the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. We will see how the Spurs will utilize him. I might be completely wrong and will gladly eat crow if he proves me wrong, but for the time being color me unimpressed with Aldridge.
Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
Isn't Quin's offense built on PnR's from multiple spots on the floor? Looks like Favors is good on the P&R and likely would be a lot better if we had an NBA-quality PG that knew how to run it.
Simplify this a bit by noting LMA takes almost 7 more shots per game than Favors. Since Derrick's overall FG% is 53%, you'd expect him to score 7 more points off those shots, which would up his scoring average to 23.0. Now, I do acknowledge that LMA has more range. However, this was the first year he shot a significant volume of 3's (105). But 1+ per game...is that enough to really consider him a threat from deep or for other teams to fear that from him? His overall FG% was 47%; Favors was 53%. Different types of players, but Derrick is actually just as efficient. It's only number of attempts which separate their scoring averages. And Favors is WAY better on defense.
Simplify this a bit by noting LMA takes almost 7 more shots per game than Favors. Since Derrick's overall FG% is 53%, you'd expect him to score 7 more points off those shots, which would up his scoring average to 23.0. Now, I do acknowledge that LMA has more range. However, this was the first year he shot a significant volume of 3's (105). But 1+ per game...is that enough to really consider him a threat from deep or for other teams to fear that from him? His overall FG% was 47%; Favors was 53%. Different types of players, but Derrick is actually just as efficient. It's only number of attempts which separate their scoring averages. And Favors is WAY better on defense.
The point GVC is making and I would gladly concede it is that it might be really hard for Favors to get those 7 more attempts if he's not the primary option in end of clock situations or against set defense. We might try to get him more in the PnR, but it's almost impossible to get him 7 more possessions there. He would have to get probably 4-5 of them on lower efficiency shots and that might lower his FG%.
Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
Fair enough. I think it wouldn't be that difficult to get him 4-5 more attempts of the same type, though. Of course some of that is pace. Jazz are one of the slowest teams in the league. And certainly, having a couple of guards who were actually 3PT threats would open up the middle for him. Dante, Elijah and Trey only struck fear in the hearts of fellow teammates when they launched up shots from behind the arc. Well, all except Rudy; he knew he'd have an excellent chance at an offensive rebound.
GVC
Well-Known Member
This is just incorrect. Getting open 3s and layups/dunks in under 24 seconds against NBA defenses is very difficult.
I went ahead and plugged the Synergy Sports Team Halfcourt stats into a spreadsheet (I omitted transition, putbacks and misc attempts):
42.5% of primary halfcourt possessions ended on-ball (isos, post-ups, and PnR ball handlers), with extremes of 34.3% (Golden State) and 50.2% (Cleveland). League average PPP on-ball was 0.816, with extremes of 0.683 (Philadelphia) and 0.900 (Clippers). The Jazz ranked 4th (from lowest to highest) in on-ball frequency at 36.8%, and 29th in on-ball efficiency at 0.719 PPP.
The remaining 57.5% of primary halfcourt possessions ended off-ball (PnR roll man, spot-ups, cuts, hand-offs, off-screen). League average PPP off-ball was 0.994, with extremes of 0.869 (Philadelphia) and 1.075 (Clippers, just a hair ahead of Golden State). The Jazz ranked 18th in on-ball efficiency at 0.979 PPP.
Should I conclude that since 42.5% of these possessions end in an inefficient shot, the average team (and most teams) has a horribly constructed offense and a bunch of chuckers? It's simply difficult to create good shots. On the plus side, despite being terrible on-ball, the Jazz got a lot of off-ball shots at a decent efficiency (a bit below average). Golden State was ridiculous last season, getting the most off-ball attempts at the second highest efficiency.
To lend some support for your LMA-as-chucker narrative, Portland ranked 3rd overall in on-ball efficiency, but was only 18th overall (from highest to lowest) in off-ball frequency. This despite ranking a solid 9th in off-ball efficiency. Not the worst example ever, but not a great sign. Cleveland, for example, ranked roughly the same in on-ball efficiency and better in off-ball efficiency, but were last in off-ball frequency.
GVC
Well-Known Member
Wrong.
GVC
Well-Known Member
It might mean that. Then again, LMA is used primarily in two spots: on the low block on-ball, and at the elbow/wing (free throw line extended) off-ball. Favors doesn't operate on-ball much at all, and is generally positioned at the weakside short corner and elbow off-ball, putting him in better position for drop-offs and offensive rebounds. Unfortunately, the counterfactual is far from obvious here.
They did it because NBA halfcourt offenses are generally built around on-ball players/plays and spacing. These are the two key elements in creating efficient off-ball shots. LMA provides a terrific combination of on-ball scoring and spacing. His real offensive weakness is as a passer, which partly explains why Portland didn't do a great job turning on-ball opportunities into off-ball attempts.
edit: It'll be interesting to see how Pops plays Duncan and LMA together, since Duncan generally is a left block/elbow/short corner guy. I'm guessing Aldridge will be camped out on the right elbow/wing a lot when they share the floor. Just checked the stats, and surprisingly Timmy was still a pretty effective pick-and-roll finisher last season.
GVC
Well-Known Member
Just to elaborate:
If it were so easy to turn inefficient on-ball shots into efficient off-ball shots, Kyle Korver would shoot 50+ 3s per game. Coach Bud and the Hawks are only able to get him 6, however. Do the Hawks have a team full of chuckers, or has Coach Bud just constructed a ****ty offense?
Here's an exercise: Name five current players who are arguably able to get decent off-ball shots fairly consistently without a decent on-ball player bending the defense. I'll give you two:
1. Kyle Korver
2. Klay Thompson
No it's not incorrect really...
It's kind of disingenuous to include the pnr ball handler possessions in that figure if you want to make that point since I did count only isos and post ups as the low-efficiency shots that Aldridge uses and since he has no ball-handling responsibilities. What % of possessions do teams use on isos and post ups is the real question? I would guess it'd be around 25-30? Or am I wrong? 30 vs 43 paints much different picture. How many teams use 43% of their possessions on ISOs and postups specifically? How many pnr ball-handler possessions do Portland use when Aldridge is on the floor and what % of their possessions are on-ball(iso, postup, ballhandler in pnr)? Because from what I'm seeing Lillard himself uses 44% of his possessions as pnr ballhandler.
There will always be some % of inefficient possessions in any case, I am perfectly aware that creating great looks is not easy and some portion of them will be low-efficiency shots. My point is that 43% on isos and postups is way too high and either shows badly constructed offense and/or chucking tendencies.
We will get to see how Aldridge is this year. If the Spurs get to the Finals it will be hard to argue against Aldridge anymore.
GVC
Well-Known Member
It's not disingenuous in the least. Those three shot types - isos, pick and roll ball handlers, and post-ups - belong together because they're the three on-ball shot types, generally used to initiate offenses and to get buckets when the offense breaks down and/or the shot clock is short.
1. What teams do v. what specific players do isn't relevant. Presumably you want your best on-ball players using more on-ball possessions than your worst on-ball players. As such, since LMA has proven to be efficient out of post-ups, even at high volume, he's going to get more on-ball opportunities than other players on his team or other teams.
2. I'd love to have on-court/off-court play type statistics, but as far as I know they aren't available (for free anyway). What we do know, however, is that Portland's offense was 7.3 pts/100 possessions better with LMA on-court v. off-court. It's unclear how much of that is attributable to LMA, and how much is attributable to teammates.
A couple things:
1. We should be careful with the word "inefficient." Once you remove putbacks and transition (and misc) attempts, and look at just halfcourt offense, league average scoring efficiency is 0.918 PPP. If you can get 0.96 PPP on post-ups, which generally occur when the defense is already set, you're golden. If you can leverage/bend the defense with those post-ups to create open looks for your teammates, even better.
FWIW, league-wide post-ups (0.853 PPP) were more efficient than either isos (0.839) or pick-and-roll handlers (0.784) this past season. In fact, they were more efficient than combined pick-and-roll handlers and finishers (0.844 PPP). Despite this, there were nearly twice as many terminal possessions used by pick-and-roll handlers (40220) than out of post-ups (22537) (ignoring entirely the 17967 terminal possessions used by roll men). Why? Two reasons come to mind: first, for most players, it's easier to create space dribbling around a screen than it is isolating or posting up; second, I'd guess pick-and-rolls generally leverage/bend the defense better than isos or post-ups, creating better/open shots for players off-ball.
2. It's not just that creating good looks is hard, and teams are left with only on-ball options in short shot clocks, but also that it's good on-ball offense that bends defenses early in the shot clock to create open looks off-ball. Defenses will (continue to) play straight up if on-ball players don't prove they can score against them. How much offense do you think is initiated through passes by stationary players to teammates either standing still, cutting, or coming off screens? I'd guess very little. The vast majority of halfcourt offense is created through pick-and-rolls, isos and post-ups.
Last edited:
My whole point is that Aldridge uses too many in situations that do not require it(the offense is not broken down and there is plenty of time on the shotclock). There also will always be some portion of possessions used by the pnr ball-handler simply because that's the main way offense is initiated in the NBA. Those possessions are in addition to what Aldridge uses, some portion of them will be there whether or not Aldridge uses as many possessions as he does on low-efficiency shots.
Agreed. What I don't agree with is more subtle - I don't have problem with him getting the load of broken possessions. I have a problem with him taking non-broken possessions and turning them into the equivalent of broken ones.
Yah, it's hard to pinpoint individual contributions in that context and the on-off offensive differential might have more to do with who's behind him on the depth chart than him. I guess at the very least what we can say is that their offense works well with him on the court(111 ortg with him on the floor vs 106 average for the league), so I have to admit at the very least that.
[/QUOTE]
some great points and stats here, but again, I think my contention is more subtle - my problem is not with his efficiency on low-efficiency shots, my problem is with the frequency with which he uses low-efficiency shots. I realize that a good post player might turn a post-up into a better option than other players using other types of possession badly. My point is that he uses more of those than it is optimal, especially when he's not a great or willing passer out of the post, thus you can't really say that they use him to initiate the offense and create looks for others out of the post. He eliminates the possibility of getting better possessions in the situations when he posts up with 16 seconds on the clock. I'd run PnR in an attempt to create advantage(leverage/bend the defense as you call it) for creating better looks any time before I go to Aldridge in the post for creating better looks(both because of what you outline as a reason for using PnR more and because Aldridge specifically doesn't pass much out of the post). On the other hand I'd use him as much as possible when my offense is broken and it doesn't seem like I can get quality possessions.
Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
GVC
Well-Known Member
1. Once again, his post-ups aren't inefficient. On initial halfcourt shots, league average is under 0.92 PPP. LMA's scoring at a 0.96 PPP clip on post-ups.
2. I get your point, and recognize that LMA isn't renowned as a passer. I posted some team stats that show how Portland did a poor job of turning their (relatively) efficient on-ball offense into off-ball looks to support said point.
3. So...you'd run PnR every time down the floor? How might the defense adjust to that? What happens to Lillard's efficiency when his offensive workload, as well as defensive focus/planning, goes up? Is CJ McCollum - the only other competent scorer out of PnR's on Portland's roster - ready to pick up that slack? How might opposing teams adjust their lineups when they know they have fewer LMA post-ups to defend?
4. Basketball is a dynamic game; you can't just change one set of possessions without that change affecting a bunch of other **** (not that you've said otherwise). That people frequently assert that you can just wave your hand and "get" easy buckets blows my mind. It's the same dynamism that makes measures like ts% and eFG% worthless without context (LMA v. Favors is a perfect example).
To get back to my initial point, LMA and Favs aren't in the same league offensively. Whether LMA demands post touches too frequently or his coaches have over-used him in the post is immaterial. Dude's a terrific scorer/offensive player regardless. He's not a great fit next to Tim Duncan IMO, so it'll be interesting to see how he's utilised this season, and whether Pops staggers their minutes as much as possible.