2023-24 Regular Season

[jasonxxx102]

Its an estimation of gravity and not an exact science. It makes sense that a calculation focused on gravity would boost it up for players that shoot more threes (and of course make more), but that doesn't mean the basketball court follows these results.

Giannis shooting the basketball from three hurts his team. As would Gobert if he started putting them up at low efficiency.

You’re saying it hurts his team but the data clearly shows the floor is more open when he does. Again, I’m not just making this up. The data clearly supports it

I added the following line to my last comment and its really my main takeaway:

An increase in gravity is not always worth the decrease in overall team offensive efficiency.

I do not doubt that shooting threes increases your gravity despite poor efficiency, but I am unsure how well it correlates with an increase in offensive efficiency.

That is the correct question to ask and depends entirely on the rest of the team. If you have elite slashers, you probably have better offensive efficiency because lanes being more open leads to higher quality shots

[jasonxxx102]

I think the bottom line is that if Evan is not going to shoot 3s, he needs to be playing the 5 with 4 other shooters on the floor. The whole 2 non shooting bigs thing ain’t gonna work

[toooskies]

I think the bottom line is that if Evan is not going to shoot 3s, he needs to be playing the 5 with 4 other shooters on the floor. The whole 2 non shooting bigs thing ain’t gonna work

Mobley can't shoot right now and can't play the 5 all that well right now, so I'm not sure either of those outcomes are better than the two-big offense we've been playing that was a top 10 offense last year.

[jbk1234]

Wrong but ok. Just google floor gravity and how it applies the situation.

It's just math, there's an actual calculation behind it.

The formula is not going to apply to Mobley's case who has only shot 23% on all threes and 23.4% on wide open threes for his career.

A team would be wise to allow Mobley to shoot a wide open three on every possession for an entire game. I don't believe Mobley shooting more threes grants him more gravity until he can at least hit above 33-34% wide open as a big. Even then, a team would prefer that shot to most other shots we could generate.



^ stats from NBA.com

If you plot Anthony Davis, Giannis, and Gobert. Calculate off-ball perimeter gravity for each, you will see that both AD and Giannis have a significantly higher number than Gobert.

Again, simply shooting the ball, regardless of your percentage, increases your gravity more than someone who doesn't shoot at all. This is just a fact. It's not really arguable. I'm not just pulling this out of thin air or basing it off anecdote. This is something that is calculated.

Of course there is 1 exception (there's always an exception to a rule), and that's Draymond. We can pretty easily figure out why because he plays next to the 2 greatest shooters in NBA history who you can't even leave open for half a second.

Not in a seven game series where opponents actually scout and/or game plan. Ww just saw that against the Knicks.

[JonFromVA]

Exactly this.

It’s not as much about making 3s as it is taking them.

If Evan took 4 a game and only hit 1 that’s wildly different than not even attempting 1.

Yes, it is wildly different. It would hurt our team and our offensive efficiency and do nothing to improve our floor spacing.

Wrong but ok. Just google floor gravity and how it applies the situation.

It's just math, there's an actual calculation behind it.

[toooskies]

If we've seen anything this year it's that upgrading spacing from Okoro to Strus hasn't exactly made us more efficient like everyone predicted.

[JujitsuFlip]

If we've seen anything this year it's that upgrading spacing from Okoro to Strus hasn't exactly made us more efficient like everyone predicted.

It's about the playoffs, not the regular season, always has been.

Cavs may be handcuffed in that regard, by JB but Strus' ability is needed, in a 7 game series.

[JujitsuFlip]

If things don't improve after the move, and you end up having to trade Mitchell, you'll get low-balled.

Also just wanted to touch on this point by itself, if Mitchell turns down an extension for the 2nd summer in a row, you're going to get low balled anyway, especially if it's off a 3rd straight terrible playoff performance for him.

[JonFromVA]

Yes, it is wildly different. It would hurt our team and our offensive efficiency and do nothing to improve our floor spacing.

Wrong but ok. Just google floor gravity and how it applies the situation.

It's just math, there's an actual calculation behind it.

The formula is not going to apply to Mobley's case who has only shot 23% on all threes and 23.4% on wide open threes for his career.

A team would be wise to allow Mobley to shoot a wide open three on every possession for an entire game. I don't believe Mobley shooting more threes grants him more gravity until he can at least hit above 33-34% wide open as a big. Even then, a team would prefer that shot to most other shots we could generate.



^ stats from NBA.com

Gravity is a function of defensive perception, nothing more, nothing less. Yes, he has to be a threat to make the shots, but that threat has to be worse than the alternative. Some teams will plant 4 defenders with a foot in the paint regardless of who they're defending, and other teams will creep out based on reputation, location, and threat level.

One thing in common is teams would rather run a junk defense with ineffective late contests than allow a wing to drive in from the 3pt line and dunk over and over because the help is too far away.

[jbk1234]

If we've seen anything this year it's that upgrading spacing from Okoro to Strus hasn't exactly made us more efficient like everyone predicted.

Oh, if we were starting Okoro, with Garland and Mitchell slumping at the same time, I suspect we'd be well below .500 right now and JBB would already have gotten the axe.

[jbk1234]

If things don't improve after the move, and you end up having to trade Mitchell, you'll get low-balled.

Also just wanted to touch on this point by itself, if Mitchell turns down an extension for the 2nd summer in a row, you're going to get low balled anyway, especially if it's off a 3rd straight terrible playoff performance for him.

If Mitchell turns down an extension in the summer, there will be multiple bidders as it's a lot easier to make big trades in the summer.

[JonFromVA]

If we've seen anything this year it's that upgrading spacing from Okoro to Strus hasn't exactly made us more efficient like everyone predicted.

Oh, if we were starting Okoro, with Garland and Mitchell slumping at the same time, I suspect we'd be well below .500 right now and JBB would already have gotten the axe.

It's kind of moot because Isaac has been injured for a bunch of games, but he is shooting 38.1% on his 3pters at the moment, and you know there was that time before Mitchell when we were happy to generate a lot of our offense by turning defensive stops in to easy buckets.

So, maybe, maybe not.

[jasonxxx102]

If we've seen anything this year it's that upgrading spacing from Okoro to Strus hasn't exactly made us more efficient like everyone predicted.

Because none of this even matters when you have a coach that can’t game plan and an offense that revolves around hero ball

[jbk1234]

If we've seen anything this year it's that upgrading spacing from Okoro to Strus hasn't exactly made us more efficient like everyone predicted.

Oh, if we were starting Okoro, with Garland and Mitchell slumping at the same time, I suspect we'd be well below .500 right now and JBB would already have gotten the axe.

It's kind of moot because Isaac has been injured for a bunch of games, but he is shooting 38.1% on his 3pters at the moment, and you know there was that time before Mitchell when we were happy to generate a lot of our offense by turning defensive stops in to easy buckets.

So, maybe, maybe not.

Okoro is simply better off the bench on this roster (and most rosters tbh). Stus is right there with Okoro as far as three point percentage. The key difference being that Strus is averaging 7.7 attempts per game while Okoro averages less than 2. Off the top of my head, Strus almost single handily beat the Nets and Raptors. I'm sure there's a couple others as well.

The goal of adding shooters was to make opposing teams pay for packaging the paint. So far Strus has done just that.

[toooskies]

If we've seen anything this year it's that upgrading spacing from Okoro to Strus hasn't exactly made us more efficient like everyone predicted.

Oh, if we were starting Okoro, with Garland and Mitchell slumping at the same time, I suspect we'd be well below .500 right now and JBB would already have gotten the axe.

What if the slump is due to Garland and Mitchell being less comfortable on offense with Strus moving so much than they were running more basic pick-and-rolls with a static Okoro in the corner?

What if Garland is feeling squeezed by Strus taking more usage in the starting lineup, including a ton of the drives with pocket passes to bigs? Garland's shot attempts are down, his 3-point percentages down, his assists are down, his turnovers up. Something's wrong and everyone assumes it's an injury, but maybe he's just not comfortable being even further out of the spotlight?

If the slumps of Mitchell and Garland are at all scheme-related, you have to look at the change in scheme and why it hasn't worked. But everyone is like "Strus is awesome, so the problem can't be him". But maybe Strus is TOO good at being a moving option on the wing that it's throwing off the dynamic? And maybe it's a time thing for them to get used to Strus's style-- or maybe it's not going to work and we need to consider alternatives. And not jumping to fire-the-coach, trade-the-best-player alternatives. Maybe just using Strus off the bench.

It's about the playoffs, not the regular season, always has been.

Cavs may be handcuffed in that regard, by JB but Strus' ability is needed, in a 7 game series.

Spacing doesn't magically start working in the playoffs. It might withstand scheme adjustments better than a lack of it, but it should still have positive effects in the regular season.

[ijspeelman]

Finally finished this project after much deliberation (and sickness).

Next step is the analysis, perhaps some speculative or statistical correlation to things like W-L and injuries?

Do teams play short rotations due to injuries or are the short rotations contributing to injures?

Do we think coaches at one end are more secure in their job than coaches at the other? Do years of pro experience of the roster correlate to the cut off point?

What about blowouts? A team either enjoying or suffering a lot of blowsouts should be playing a longer rotation? What if we filter and only look at close games?

For instance, Porzingis is currently out with a calf strain, but his minutes had been kept relatively low. Playing him at all may be the major risk factor; but at least the Celtics didn't rush him back a game later to see if they couldn't make it worse.

I'm not looking to absolve JBB as I believe developing a bench is an essential part of coaching; but there may be more lessons to be learned besides wow, we're at the wrong end of this list.

I literally was working on both the bolded points as we speak haha. Want to grab injured players per game and also graph against W/L%.

This is all anecdotal, but what is interesting to see is that some of the breakout teams (OKC, IND, ORL) are near the end playing more players with at least 10 MP per game

And some of the underperforming teams (CLE, ATL, MIA) are at the end playing less.

Injuries Per Game v Players (>= 10 MP) Per Game

Correlation Coefficient = -0.23 (basically no correlation)

Injuries Per Game v W/L%

Correlation Coefficient = -0.21 (basically no correlation)

Players (>= 10 MP) Per Game v W/L%

Correlation Coefficient = -0.30 (basically no correlation)

[JonFromVA]

Oh, if we were starting Okoro, with Garland and Mitchell slumping at the same time, I suspect we'd be well below .500 right now and JBB would already have gotten the axe.

It's kind of moot because Isaac has been injured for a bunch of games, but he is shooting 38.1% on his 3pters at the moment, and you know there was that time before Mitchell when we were happy to generate a lot of our offense by turning defensive stops in to easy buckets.

So, maybe, maybe not.

Okoro is simply better off the bench on this roster (and most rosters tbh). Stus is right there with Okoro as far as three point percentage. The key difference being that Strus is averaging 7.7 attempts per game while Okoro averages less than 2. Off the top of my head, Strus almost single handily beat the Nets and Raptors. I'm sure there's a couple others as well.

The goal of adding shooters was to make opposing teams pay for packaging the paint. So far Strus has done just that.

Okoro also has a slight edge in TS% too, but hard to say what happens with the shots they don't take.

I mean, sure, everything you're saying makes perfect sense, but until it shows up in the W-L column and in the statistics, it's just supposition. Basketball is a complex game and we can miss things in our analysis.

That's all I'm saying. Hopefully (for those of us who just want to see the team succeed) they've used this time between games well and we start to see that improvement you and I both hope to see.

[JujitsuFlip]

Next step is the analysis, perhaps some speculative or statistical correlation to things like W-L and injuries?

Do teams play short rotations due to injuries or are the short rotations contributing to injures?

Do we think coaches at one end are more secure in their job than coaches at the other? Do years of pro experience of the roster correlate to the cut off point?

What about blowouts? A team either enjoying or suffering a lot of blowsouts should be playing a longer rotation? What if we filter and only look at close games?

For instance, Porzingis is currently out with a calf strain, but his minutes had been kept relatively low. Playing him at all may be the major risk factor; but at least the Celtics didn't rush him back a game later to see if they couldn't make it worse.

I'm not looking to absolve JBB as I believe developing a bench is an essential part of coaching; but there may be more lessons to be learned besides wow, we're at the wrong end of this list.

I literally was working on both the bolded points as we speak haha. Want to grab injured players per game and also graph against W/L%.

This is all anecdotal, but what is interesting to see is that some of the breakout teams (OKC, IND, ORL) are near the end playing more players with at least 10 MP per game

And some of the underperforming teams (CLE, ATL, MIA) are at the end playing less.

Injuries Per Game v Players (>= 10 MP) Per Game

Correlation Coefficient = -0.23 (basically no correlation)

Injuries Per Game v W/L%

Correlation Coefficient = -0.21 (basically no correlation)

Players (>= 10 MP) Per Game v W/L%

Correlation Coefficient = -0.30 (basically no correlation)

Which makes sense, because JB plays 8 guys, regardless of who they are.

The complaint isn't JB only plays the same 8 guys per night. The complaint is he only plays an 8 man rotation, regardless of who is healthy or not.

So I'm glad the data reflects this.

[JujitsuFlip]

If we've seen anything this year it's that upgrading spacing from Okoro to Strus hasn't exactly made us more efficient like everyone predicted.

Oh, if we were starting Okoro, with Garland and Mitchell slumping at the same time, I suspect we'd be well below .500 right now and JBB would already have gotten the axe.

What if the slump is due to Garland and Mitchell being less comfortable on offense with Strus moving so much than they were running more basic pick-and-rolls with a static Okoro in the corner?

What if Garland is feeling squeezed by Strus taking more usage in the starting lineup, including a ton of the drives with pocket passes to bigs? Garland's shot attempts are down, his 3-point percentages down, his assists are down, his turnovers up. Something's wrong and everyone assumes it's an injury, but maybe he's just not comfortable being even further out of the spotlight?

If the slumps of Mitchell and Garland are at all scheme-related, you have to look at the change in scheme and why it hasn't worked. But everyone is like "Strus is awesome, so the problem can't be him". But maybe Strus is TOO good at being a moving option on the wing that it's throwing off the dynamic? And maybe it's a time thing for them to get used to Strus's style-- or maybe it's not going to work and we need to consider alternatives. And not jumping to fire-the-coach, trade-the-best-player alternatives. Maybe just using Strus off the bench.

It's about the playoffs, not the regular season, always has been.

Cavs may be handcuffed in that regard, by JB but Strus' ability is needed, in a 7 game series.

Spacing doesn't magically start working in the playoffs. It might withstand scheme adjustments better than a lack of it, but it should still have positive effects in the regular season.

Honestly a lot of that sounds bonkers to me, the playground offense is what the Cavs need to strive to do? No thanks. That 100% doesn't work in the post season, I've watched it 2 April's in a row fail.

Strus isn't the problem. A good coach would be able to figure it out, if he was but him and Niang being able to shoot is not the issue.

[JujitsuFlip]

If things don't improve after the move, and you end up having to trade Mitchell, you'll get low-balled.

Also just wanted to touch on this point by itself, if Mitchell turns down an extension for the 2nd summer in a row, you're going to get low balled anyway, especially if it's off a 3rd straight terrible playoff performance for him.

If Mitchell turns down an extension in the summer, there will be multiple bidders as it's a lot easier to make big trades in the summer.

I'm just saying you're going to get pennies on the dollar for a guy on a 1+1 with rumored to have his eye on NYC.