The Defense Thread
- Thread starter KqWIN
- Start date
after a too-quick glance at last year's data, the following things popped out to me. I want to find time to investigate each of these things further:
1. Opponents made too many dunks on us last year (easy to penetrate?)
2. Opponents shot over 5% more shots in the 3-10ft range on us versus league average. (easy to penetrate?)
3. We were a below-average rebounding team (enter Collins)
4. we didn't turnover our opponents at a league average rate.
1. Opponents made too many dunks on us last year (easy to penetrate?)
2. Opponents shot over 5% more shots in the 3-10ft range on us versus league average. (easy to penetrate?)
3. We were a below-average rebounding team (enter Collins)
4. we didn't turnover our opponents at a league average rate.
Last edited:
Tremendous Upside
Well-Known Member
We were extremely vulnerable to short, easy jumpers and floaters last year. The point of attack D was an absolute sieve, letting ballhandlers easily into the middle, and Kessler liked to stay in the hole (where he did block a lot of shots if guys made the mistake of venturing that close).
Last edited:
Guys….allowing shots in floater range (3-10 ft) is a good thing. Allowing shots in the mid range general is a good thing, where have you guys been for the last 10 years?
The Jazz were top 5 in the least amount of shots allowed at the rim. If they don’t shoot at the rim, they shoot from somewhere else. It’s zero sum.
The Jazz were top 5 in the least amount of shots allowed at the rim. If they don’t shoot at the rim, they shoot from somewhere else. It’s zero sum.
WELL ACTUALLY...
All data below are from last year:
League average of opponent fG% from 3-10ft: 0.454
from: 10-16ft: 0.447
from 16ft to 3point line: 0.414
Based on ^those data, you obviously want your opponents taking their twos from further out.
jazz average opponent fg% from 3-10ft: 0.461
from: 10-16ft: 0.456
from 16ft to 3point line: 0.462
^In other words, Jazz opponents are converting at above-average rates at every tier. The 16ft to 3pt line tier is particularly alarming in the differential, and is yet another sign of bad perimeter defense.
Last edited:
more WELL ACTUALLY....
While the Jazz were 4th in the league in opponents' percentage of field goals attempted from 0 to 3 feet, the data on that aren't straightforward. Opponents made dunks above league average volume (when they got to the rim), and had a marginally higher percentage of their overall FGAs in the layup zone.
The differences in the different zones of mid range are miniscule compared the difference between a shot at the rim or 3 pointer. Compare the best team at defending the rim FG% versus the worst team at defending floater range shots FG%. It's not close. If you took a 100 shots from floater range against the worst floater defense you would get destroyed by a team who took 100 shots against the very best rim defense at the rim. Of course you want to offenses to take the hardest shot, you can get better EV all the way until a turnover, but if you're forcing them into a lot of short mid range shots (3-10) you're generally doing a good thing.
And yes, you want them to shoot as low of a percentage as possible from any spot on the floor...but to say that a high rate from floater range indicates easy penetration (not saying we don't allow easy dribble penetration) because of a higher percentage of shots from that zone....yeah that doesn't make sense. If you're going to try to derive "easy penetration" from this kind of data, why would you not look at the shots at the rim? Floater range shots usually mean that there is a defender between the shooter and the basket (why else would they not shoot a layup) and/or come from post up shots.
What I'm saying is that if a team allows a lot of shots in the short mid range vs the rim, that's a good thing. The relative performance in those zones is another thing...but if we're just talking about opponent shot location it is better to have as many shots in the mid range (of any distance) because those have below average EV. I'm not trying to make the argument that the Jazz defense was not poor, but it is/was not poor on the basis of how many floaters they give up. As a whole, the Jazz were actually fairly average in opponent eFG% and opponent eFG%. Again, you can always get better, but shot location/shot performance allowed was not the killer. What killed the Jazz defense was being 28th and turnovers and 23rd in rebounding. If those were average, the Jazz would have been an average defense.
This year has been a little different early on. Still not forcing a ton of turnovers, but the only above average four factor is defensive rebounding which has improved to 10th. eFG and fouling has been significantly worse.
"easy to penetrate" was clearly followed by a question mark. And it was preceded by a statement that declared the need for further investigation. Therefore, it was not a conclusion.
If we were able to replace Sexton and Clarkson with league average defenders I wonder how much better the overall D would look.
Well, that's why we're talking about it right? My answer to that question is "no". A high amount of floaters range shots is generally a good thing and those are my reasons why. The ratio of shots at the rim versus floaters was one of the few bright spots of our defense last year.
There's probably some important distinctions here between "forcing a 2pt shot" and "surrendering a 2 point shot". Last year the Jazz obviously did so horribly (relative to league average) from 16ft to the 3pt line, that "surrender" seems to be a reasonable description.