No, we aren't just talking about penetration.
And not all shots from 3-10ft are floaters.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Defense Thread
- Thread starter KqWIN
- Start date
And not all shots from 3-10ft are floaters.
No, we aren't just talking about penetration.
And not all shots from 3-10ft are floaters.
Floater range.....I use that because it's easier to than saying 3-10 all the time. Maybe that's only used in bland NBA podcast land and not a universal term. But yeah, as I said in my post not all shots from 3-10 come from dribble penetration. That's also where post up shots tend to land. It reinforces the point that allowing more shots from that zone does not necessarily indicate poor perimeter defense.
Allowing more shots from that range alone should be seen as a positive thing for a defense as a whole.
absolutely nobody arguing with you on this, btw. The data were given to complete the picture, and show the outlines of a more complete story.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)
The data suggest very clearly that you'd rather your opponents take their twos from 10-16ft or from 16ft to the 3pt line. And since Jazz opponents were converting FGs in the 3-10ft range beyond league averages, it seems particularly clear that, for the jazz, things would have been better if their opponents were taking less shots from 3-10ft, and more from further out. The role of penetration in all of this is an open question.Allowing more shots from that range alone should be seen as a positive thing for a defense as a whole.
The data suggest very clearly that you'd rather your opponents take their twos from 10-16ft or from 16ft to the 3pt line. And since Jazz opponents were converting FGs in the 3-10ft range beyond league averages, it seems particularly clear that, for the jazz, things would be better if their opponents were taking less shots from 3-10ft, and more from further out. The role of penetration in all of this is an open question.
Well yeah, but you would rather have them shoot a floater range shot than a shot at the rim, and that's what the real tradeoff is. I think defenses show their strength in forcing more floater range shots in exchange for less shots at the rim. Don't know if I can say the same about forcing more 10-16 and 16-3fg in leiu of floater range shots. There are not a ton of shots taken from 10-16 and 16-3fg to begin with. Look at it the other way. Is allowing a lot of floater shots the result of a failure of forcing more 10-16 and 10-fg shots? Or is it a result of allowing less shots at the rim. For the Jazz, I think it's fairly obvious.
If you want to talk about the Jazz specifically, you provided the numbers. There was almost zero difference between 3-10, 10-16, and 16-3fg%. So it wouldn't matter. But even if you were to take league averages, the real meat and potatoes is still the same. You want to reduce the amount of shots at the rim, three point line, and free throw line. If you've been anywhere around the NBA in the last 10 years you should be able to pick up on that. Of course there are small gains to pick up elsewhere, but like I said, a high amount of shots allowed in floater range is generally a good thing and was one of the few bright spots of the Jazz defense last year.
Tremendous Upside
Well-Known Member
Open threes, layups and dunks. Those are the things a modern NBA offense hunts (duh). For the vast majority of NBA teams trying to score against average defenses, midrange shots (and post-ups, but that's another discussion) are inefficient in the long run. They're frowned upon by the analytics departments. That doesn't mean, though, that you should allow an opposing NBA player to dribble into the paint and feast on push shots, floaters and short middies all night without offering much resistance. That's what we did last season.
Good defenses can make life very hard for ballhandlers when they dribble into the lane and try to score on floaters. It IS a bad option then. But we weren't a good defense last season. We had one good rim protector, but he preferred to chill under the basket instead of closing anyone out, even within the paint.
Good defenses can make life very hard for ballhandlers when they dribble into the lane and try to score on floaters. It IS a bad option then. But we weren't a good defense last season. We had one good rim protector, but he preferred to chill under the basket instead of closing anyone out, even within the paint.
Last edited:
you're having a hard time giving up the strawman AND giving up the repetition of an argument that nobody is arguing with you. And, I love the splash of "if you've been around...", to boot.Well yeah, but you would rather have them shoot a floater range shot than a shot at the rim, and that's what the real tradeoff is. I think defenses show their strength in forcing more floater range shots in exchange for less shots at the rim. Don't know if I can say the same about forcing more 10-16 and 16-3fg in leiu of floater range shots. There are not a ton of shots taken from 10-16 and 16-3fg to begin with. Look at it the other way. Is allowing a lot of floater shots the result of a failure of forcing more 10-16 and 10-fg shots? Or is it a result of allowing less shots at the rim. For the Jazz, I think it's fairly obvious.
If you want to talk about the Jazz specifically, you provided the numbers. There was almost zero difference between 3-10, 10-16, and 16-3fg%. So it wouldn't matter. But even if you were to take league averages, the real meat and potatoes is still the same. You want to reduce the amount of shots at the rim, three point line, and free throw line. If you've been anywhere around the NBA in the last 10 years you should be able to pick up on that. Of course there are small gains to pick up elsewhere, but like I said, a high amount of shots allowed in floater range is generally a good thing and was one of the few bright spots of the Jazz defense last year.
I'll let you know when I need the capital-T Truth about the "real tradeoffs" of basketball. Hopefully you'll have some evidence to support your claims, though.
you're having a hard time giving up the strawman AND giving up the repetition of an argument that nobody is arguing with you. And, I love the splash of "if you've been around...", to boot.
I'll let you know when I need the capital-T Truth about the "real tradeoffs" of basketball. Hopefully you'll have some evidence to support your claims, though.
What exactly is the strawman? I'm just stating my piece about the high amount of shots from floater range. It's a good indicator and I've laid out the reasons in detail. You yourself said that needed further investigation. I don't know if you were just saying that as your personal diary or if you actually wanted a discussion on the topic of allowing a high amount of floaters.
If all you wanted to say is that 10-16 is better than 3-10, cool. Me personally, I don't think it's a key factor to focus in on and believe that the high amount of floater range shots is due to the low amount of shots at the rim.
no you haven't. Your reasons have been very general claims, given without supporting evidence, and you seem to think apply in every context/for every team. That's the opposite of detail.What exactly is the strawman? I'm just stating my piece about the high amount of shots from floater range. It's a good indicator and I've laid out the reasons in detail. You yourself said that needed further investigation. I don't know if you were just saying that as your personal diary or if you actually wanted a discussion on the topic of allowing a high amount of floaters.
If all you wanted to say is that 10-16 is better than 3-10, cool. Me personally, I don't think it's a key factor to focus in on and believe that the high amount of floater range shots is due to the low amount of shots at the rim.
Let's be very clear about something: NOBODY has argued against this claim "You want to reduce the amount of shots at the rim, three point line, and free throw line." Alas, that picture leaves out a huge amount of detail.
no you haven't. Your reasons have been very general claims, given without supporting evidence, and you seem to think apply in every context/for every team. That's the opposite of detail.
Let's be very clear about something: NOBODY has argued against this claim "You want to reduce the amount of shots at the rim, three point line, and free throw line." Alas, that picture leaves out a huge amount of detail.
I've repeated that last point because I find that the difference between shot performance in between the mid range zones is not significant compared to the difference between the mid range shots and other avenues of scoring. If you really need more detail as to why there's an emphasis on those three other areas, I don't honestly know what to tell ya at this point. Those three areas of the court are far more efficient and those are the shots that offenses are trying to create and defenses are trying to take away. Forgive me if I thought it was trivial as to why the three most efficient areas of the court which comprise of the large majority of offense are the most important. Like I said, there is certainly value to be gained in the other areas, but it's not something I would focus on.
What else is lacking detail, I'm happy to explain?
I guess we can start with the capital T Tradeoff. Just from watching basketball, I find it clear that when a team takes more shots from floater range, it usually means it's because there a defender between them and the basket (I already said this). But if you want a different perspective, you can look at the math. What is the (pearson) correlation of 3-10 shots allowed compared to other zones:
Rim: -.75
10-16: 0.06
16-3fg: 0.21
3fg: -0.29
So as you can see, there is not a strong correlation between the amount of shots allowed from 3-10 and 10-16 or 16-3fg. In other words, the amount of shots allowed from 3-10 does not seem to have an effect of shots allowed from further away. However, there is a strong negative correlation with shots at the rim. You take more shots at the rim, you take less from floater and vice versa. Like I said in my first post, it's zero sum.
There we go... some actual grist. Or, almost.I've repeated that last point because I find that the difference between shot performance in between the mid range zones is not significant compared to the difference between the mid range shots and other avenues of scoring. If you really need more detail as to why there's an emphasis on those three other areas, I don't honestly know what to tell ya at this point. Those three areas of the court are far more efficient and those are the shots that offenses are trying to create and defenses are trying to take away. Forgive me if I thought it was trivial as to why the three most efficient areas of the court which comprise of the large majority of offense are the most important. Like I said, there is certainly value to be gained in the other areas, but it's not something I would focus on.
What else is lacking detail, I'm happy to explain?
I guess we can start with the capital T Tradeoff. Just from watching basketball, I find it clear that when a team takes more shots from floater range, it usually means it's because there a defender between them and the basket (I already said this). But if you want a different perspective, you can look at the math. What is the (pearson) correlation of 3-10 shots allowed compared to other zones:
Rim: -.75
10-16: 0.06
16-3fg: 0.21
3fg: -0.29
So as you can see, there is not a strong correlation between the amount of shots allowed from 3-10 and 10-16 or 16-3fg. In other words, the amount of shots allowed from 3-10 does not seem to have an effect of shots allowed from further away. However, there is a strong negative correlation with shots at the rim. You take more shots at the rim, you take less from floater and vice versa. Like I said in my first post, it's zero sum.
You seem to really struggle with a couple of things. First, I've signposted all over the place that this was an initial data exploration, but you seem to think that I'm either dug into a position here or maybe that I'm unaware that I'm lacking information. It's weird. Second, you seem pretty butthurt by the idea that you actually need to explain yourself (this Pearson reference, without any description of the method, is a bare minimum). It's very little-brother of you.
In a discussion about the Jazz's defensive performance, it seems significant that they surrendered shots in the 3-10ft zone at a higher rate than anyone in the league, and that their opponents converted on those attempts at a rate above league average. And since the Jazz forced shots in the 10-16ft + 16ft to 3pt line zones at a rate that was lower than league average, it seems like there might be something worth poking further into here. To brush this off based on generalities and a Pearson reference while acting like your position is obvious to everybody is ****ing hilarious.
To round out the initial exploration—just so we aren't all twisted in some strange way here—the following statistic also seems to point to a problem:There we go... some actual grist. Or, almost.
You seem to really struggle with a couple of things. First, I've signposted all over the place that this was an initial data exploration, but you seem to think that I'm either dug into a position here or maybe that I'm unaware that I'm lacking information. It's weird. Second, you seem pretty butthurt by the idea that you actually need to explain yourself (this Pearson reference, without any description of the method, is a bare minimum). It's very little-brother of you.
In a discussion about the Jazz's defensive performance, it seems significant that they surrendered shots in the 3-10ft zone at a higher rate than anyone in the league, and that their opponents converted on those attempts at a rate above league average. And since the Jazz forced shots in the 10-16ft + 16ft to 3pt line zones at a rate that was lower than league average, it seems like there might be something worth poking further into here. To brush this off based on generalities and a Pearson reference while acting like your position is obvious to everybody is ****ing hilarious.
Last year, Jazz opponents' average FG% from 16ft to the 3pt line was 0.462. That's the second highest FG% allowed in the league last year from that distance.