RealGM

this is from another board but I thought it very interesting so I am posting it here, makes sense to me with Stotts as our coach

"Since the subject of the pachyderm in the parlor has been broached, I will offer this observation...

Our high rate of points allowed in the paint is by design. This is the new defensive philosophy Stotts was talking about during training camp. Our major off season acquisitions were all made to give Stotts the personnel he desired to implement his system at both ends of the court.

Clearly Stotts places a premium the 3-point shot as an offensive weapon. That's precisely why Olshey signed Dorrel Wright and Mo Williams, two very prolific 3-point shooters to fill major roles off our bench. It is also why C.J. McCollum, a very prolific 3-point shooter in college, was chosen with the 10th pick in the draft.

So, if he places such a high premium on 3-point shooting at one end of the court, it is only natural he wants to take away that same advantage at the other end. Stotts' defense is not designed to limit points in the paint, it is designed to limit opponents making 3-pointers.

This is where the Lopez acquisition comes in. Yes, other teams are killing us inside, because we don't double team inside or play aggressive help defense. Why, because when you do, you leave someone open at the 3-point line, and a wide open, uncontested 3-pointer is the most effective offensive weapon in all of basketball. So, in the Stotts defense, Robin Lopez is left on an island, to defend his man one-on-one and to defend the paint against guards and wings penetrating - which happens a lot because our perimeter defenders overplay the 3, which means they are more likely to get beaten off the dribble. And while this makes Lopez look like he's losing the battle with his counterpart, the team, by shutting down the 3-point line, is winning the war - to to the tune of an 8-2 record.

And, if you think Lopez is getting abused by opposing centers, imagine how bad it would be if J.J. Hickson was alone on that same island. And that's why Hickson had to go and they brought in Lopez. Let's face it, a talented offensive player, close to the basket has a decided advantage, even over an above average defender, and would absolutely kill an inferior defender like Hickson. That's why most teams elect to double team when an opponent receives the ball with deep post position.

So, with Lopez, the team no longer doubles in the post or plays aggressive help defense. All other defenders stay home on their man and extent the perimeter defense all the way to beyond the 3-point line.

And it's working. The Blazers are 1st in the league in opponent's 3FG% at 29%. That's amazing 3-point defense (lowest Opp 3FG% in the nba.com database that goes back to 2007-08). The Blazers are doing a fantastic job of taking the most effective offensive weapon away from their opponents. All the while using that same weapon very effectively at the other end, where the Blazers are 4th in the league in 3FG% at 42% - that's a 13% advantage in 3FG% the Blazers have over their opponents. The Blazers are averaging over twice as many made 3-pointers per game (10.0) as their opponents (4.9). On offense, the Blazers are 4th in both 3FG% and 3FGM per game. On defense, they are 1st in both opponent 3FG% and 3FGM allowed per game.

This combination of great 3-point shooting on offense, the best 3-point defense in the league and great team rebounding is exactly why the Blazers are 8-2. THAT'S the new defensive philosophy Stotts was talking about. He now he has the personnel to implement it, and we are seeing the results.

And if anyone thinks shutting down your opponent from 3-point point range is a gimmick, or some kind of fool's gold, here are the won-loss records of the teams that led the league in Opp 3FG% over the past six regular seasons (as far back as the database at nba.com goes):

2007-08, BOS, 66-16
2008-09, CLE. 66-16
2009-10, LAL, 57-25
2010-11, CHI, 62-25
2011-12, BOS, 39-27 (lockout shortened season)
2012-13, IND, 49-32

That's an average winning percentage of .712, which equates to a 58-24 record over an 82-game schedule. I'm not predicting the Blazers will win 58 games, there are a lot of other factors involved, I'm just pointing out that in today's NBA, league leading 3-point defense has a very strong correlation to a good won-loss record.

BNM"

We are nothing like those teams that are listed in comparison.

I have my doubts about how good our three point defense is as well. Houston, Toronto, Sacramento, Boston and Detroit are all shooting the three under 33%. And we've played Sacramento twice. That's 6 of our 10 games against the bottom 8 of the league in three point shooting.

The only teams we've played that are in the top 10 in three point shooting are San Antonio and Denver. San Antonio hit 6 of 12 against us and Denver hit 6 of 18 (without Wilson Chandler).

fishnc wrote:We are nothing like those teams that are listed in comparison.

I have my doubts about how good our three point defense is as well. Houston, Toronto, Sacramento, Boston and Detroit are all shooting the three under 33%. And we've played Sacramento twice. That's 6 of our 10 games against the bottom 8 of the league in three point shooting.

The only teams we've played that are in the top 10 in three point shooting are San Antonio and Denver. San Antonio hit 6 of 12 against us and Denver hit 6 of 18 (without Wilson Chandler).

agree and it's early in the season, especially for "stats", we'll have to see how this develops

TBpup wrote:Excellent re-post. If that is the strategy, they are executing it well. The problem from a simple math standpoint is if they are making 5 more 3's per game than their opponent, that is an additional 15 points ahead. Sadly, on most nights they are giving up WAY more than that in terms of the deficit of points-in-the-paint.

Further math happily shows the Blazers' offense scores more than its defense gives. So what's the problem of which you speak?

Quite simply if your efg% is higher than your opponent's and the number of shots is about the same and you foul at the same rate ( a minor variable in net points on the average), you win. Number of shots is largely a function of not turning the ball over and getting offensive rebounds. Efg% is largely a function of shooting well where the baskets count the most, thus the beauty of the three point shot when you have good 3 point shooters. Shooting well is largely the function of shooting ability and getting the ball at the right place (your hot spots) at the right time (when opponent is steps away and in your rhythm).

Defense is not allowing the opponent to do the above.

my first reaction was: this is bull$hit

after I thought about it a while, my second reaction is: this is still bull$hit

that's not to say I discount the value of having good 3 point defense. I think it can help a lot.

But in the interest of possibly refuting my own perspective on this...which I've advanced here a few times...I'll 'examine' the argument and post the 'results' in this reply as I find them. I could end up looking dumb at the end of this post (ha!...as if that would be a big change)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

I think it would be pretty simple to boil it down into the only statistical support for the argument in the OP, that being this list:

2007-08, BOS, 66-16
2008-09, CLE. 66-16
2009-10, LAL, 57-25
2010-11, CHI, 62-25
2011-12, BOS, 39-27 (lockout shortened season)
2012-13, IND, 49-32
----------------------------------------------------------------------

ok then....the first thing I notice, since my memory is freshest, is the 2012-13 season. Indiana led the league in 3 point% and of course was a top team. But then, I remember something else about 2012: Portland was 3rd in the NBA in opponent 3pt% last season at 0.340

Wait a minute, opponent 3 pt % was a key to success, and the Blazers were 3rd in that metric last year, why did they suck?

hmmm...what I wonder is that while the Blazers were 3rd in this supposed critical metric, how did they do in opponent points in the paint?...well will you look at that, they were dead last in the league allowing 47.4 a game. Of course, that could just be an anomaly. How to test it further?

I know, how did Indiana do?...gosh, they were 1st in opponent points in the paint allowing 35.5. So, the Pacers somehow managed to have the best 3 point defense and the best in-the-paint defense. Kind of difficult to say one (3pt%) was responsible for their success and the other was irrelevant.

as long as we're dealing with last season, how about this:

top-10 opponent 3pt% teams:

Indiana Pacers*
Memphis Grizzlies*
Portland Trail Blazers
Boston Celtics*
Oklahoma City Thunder*
Chicago Bulls*
Golden State Warriors*
Milwaukee Bucks*
Philadelphia 76ers
Washington Wizards

that's 6 playoff teams and 4 lottery teams. Doesn't really seem to support the argument that well

how about bottom-10 points-in-the-paint teams:

Orlando
Detroit
New Orleans
Brooklyn
Charlotte
LA Lakers
Sacramento
Phoenix
Milwaukee
Portland

lol...I see 2 playoff teams and 8 lottery teams. And one of those playoff teams (LAL) would have been a lottery team without the aid of some really questionable officiating in 3 or 4 games

that sure doesn't support the argument in the OP, but maybe last season was some sort of outlier
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

how about the rest of the examples?

2007-08...so Boston leads the league in 3 point defense. how did they do in paint defense?

well look at that...the team that led the league in opponent paint scoring was...wait for it...the Boston Celtics

so now we have the bookend teams, Boston in 07/08 and Indiana last season, that are used as examples of success being dependent on 3 point percentage also being tops in paint defense

not looking good for the argument
----------------------------------------------------------------
2008-09, CLE. ? they were 4th in the NBA in paint defense

2009-10, LAL ? they were 10th in the NBA in paint defense

2010-11, CHI ? they were 2nd in the NBA in paint defense

2011-12, BOS ? they were 10th in the NBA in paint defense (but 3rd the year before)

in case you're keeping track, that's a 1st, 4th, 10th, 2nd, 10th, 1st...all top-10 teams, and 4 out of 6 were top-4 teams
------------------------------------------------------------------

now, I'm not going to post the lists here, but as I was 'investigating' those numbers, what I noticed was that top-10 teams in opponent points in the paint were mostly playoff teams, and a lot of those teams were in the conference finals. Meanwhile, the bottom-10 teams in paint defense were in most cases, lottery teams...like to the tune of around 80% of the time
-------------------------------------------------------------------

So, it sure looks like in order to have success as a top 3 point% defense team, you actually need to be a good defensive team overall.

in other words, My 1st and 2nd reactions to this argument as being bull$hit were the same as my 3rd reaction

it's great to be good at defending the 3 point line, but if the goal is actually to be a horrible team at opponent points in paint....which is exactly what is argued in the OP....then the goal sure seems like total idiocy

Edit: Wiz beats me to the punch...once again.

I'd be interested in seeing the OVERALL opponent fg% allowed for those 6 teams above. Something tells me those stellar W/L records were a function of good perimeter defense AND interior defense.

Where do this Blazer team's other Defensive numbers correlate with those teams mentioned?

Wizenheimer wrote:my first reaction was: this is bull$hit

after I thought about it a while, my second reaction is: this is still bull$hit

that's not to say I discount the value of having good 3 point defense. I think it can help a lot.

But in the interest of possibly refuting my own perspective on this...which I've advanced here a few times...I'll 'examine' the argument and post the 'results' in this reply as I find them. I could end up looking dumb at the end of this post (ha!...as if that would be a big change)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

I think it would be pretty simple to boil it down into the only statistical support for the argument in the OP, that being this list:

2007-08, BOS, 66-16
2008-09, CLE. 66-16
2009-10, LAL, 57-25
2010-11, CHI, 62-25
2011-12, BOS, 39-27 (lockout shortened season)
2012-13, IND, 49-32
----------------------------------------------------------------------

ok then....the first thing I notice, since my memory is freshest, is the 2012-13 season. Indiana led the league in 3 point% and of course was a top team. But then, I remember something else about 2012: Portland was 3rd in the NBA in opponent 3pt% last season at 0.340

Wait a minute, opponent 3 pt % was a key to success, and the Blazers were 3rd in that metric last year, why did they suck?

hmmm...what I wonder is that while the Blazers were 3rd in this supposed critical metric, how did they do in opponent points in the paint?...well will you look at that, they were dead last in the league allowing 47.4 a game. Of course, that could just be an anomaly. How to test it further?

I know, how did Indiana do?...gosh, they were 1st in opponent points in the paint allowing 35.5. So, the Pacers somehow managed to have the best 3 point defense and the best in-the-paint defense. Kind of difficult to say one (3pt%) was responsible for their success and the other was irrelevant.

as long as we're dealing with last season, how about this:

top-10 opponent 3pt% teams:

Indiana Pacers*
Memphis Grizzlies*
Portland Trail Blazers
Boston Celtics*
Oklahoma City Thunder*
Chicago Bulls*
Golden State Warriors*
Milwaukee Bucks*
Philadelphia 76ers
Washington Wizards

that's 6 playoff teams and 4 lottery teams. Doesn't really seem to support the argument that well

how about bottom-10 points-in-the-paint teams:

Orlando
Detroit
New Orleans
Brooklyn
Charlotte
LA Lakers
Sacramento
Phoenix
Milwaukee
Portland

lol...I see 2 playoff teams and 8 lottery teams. And one of those playoff teams (LAL) would have been a lottery team without the aid of some really questionable officiating in 3 or 4 games

that sure doesn't support the argument in the OP, but maybe last season was some sort of outlier
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

how about the rest of the examples?

2007-08...so Boston leads the league in 3 point defense. how did they do in paint defense?

well look at that...the team that led the league in opponent paint scoring was...wait for it...the Boston Celtics

so now we have the bookend teams, Boston in 07/08 and Indiana last season, that are used as examples of success being dependent on 3 point percentage also being tops in paint defense

not looking good for the argument
----------------------------------------------------------------
2008-09, CLE. ? they were 4th in the NBA in paint defense

2009-10, LAL ? they were 10th in the NBA in paint defense

2010-11, CHI ? they were 2nd in the NBA in paint defense

2011-12, BOS ? they were 10th in the NBA in paint defense (but 3rd the year before)

in case you're keeping track, that's a 1st, 4th, 10th, 2nd, 10th, 1st...all top-10 teams, and 4 out of 6 were top-4 teams
------------------------------------------------------------------

now, I'm not going to post the lists here, but as I was 'investigating' those numbers, what I noticed was that top-10 teams in opponent points in the paint were mostly playoff teams, and a lot of those teams were in the conference finals. Meanwhile, the bottom-10 teams in paint defense were in most cases, lottery teams...like to the tune of around 80% of the time
-------------------------------------------------------------------

So, it sure looks like in order to have success as a top 3 point% defense team, you actually need to be a good defensive team overall.

in other words, My 1st and 2nd reactions to this argument as being bull$hit were the same as my 3rd reaction

it's great to be good at defending the 3 point line, but if the goal is actually to be a horrible team at opponent points in paint....which is exactly what is argued in the OP....then the goal sure seems like total idiocy

LOL! Wiz I knew I could post this here and you would come up with an excellent rebuttal if there was one to be found! Nice job and thanks for the work

Yeah this isn't true

Lots of words for both/and being better than either/or. The issue, as I understand, is which either is better when you can't do both. That would be--take away the three (both in attempts and in success).

How best to minimize the opponents' attempts and efg% when you must choose between defending the three or the paint (not pure black/white here, of course)?

zzaj wrote:I'd be interested in seeing the OVERALL opponent fg% allowed for those 6 teams above. Something tells me those stellar W/L records were a function of good perimeter defense AND interior defense.

Where do this Blazer team's other Defensive numbers correlate with those teams mentioned?

I got into that, in part, in my post

there are a lot of defensive metrics that would give a more complete picture

you could go to ESPN and use Hollinger's DefEfficiency rating which is simply opponent points per possession. That seems to be a great predictor of playoff teams and lottery teams

last season, Portland ranked 3rd in opponent 3pt% but last in opponent-points-in-the-paint. They ranked 26th in Def Efficiency

http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/teamstats/_/sort/defensiveEff/year/2013

this season, Portland ranks 20th.

I do not believe portland can continue to shoot 42% from 3 point range. That would be the 2nd best mark of all time in the NBA, and only 3 teams (might be 4) have shot over 40% over the last decade.

so, if Portland's 3 point efficiency drops down to say the 38% range (they were 35% last year) and they are still giving up points-in the paint at a near record pace, the losses will start to pile up...IMO

Yes, all things being equal, a reduction of .1% in efg-oefg is worth 3.5 wins per season. Of course, if the Blazers do lower their three conversions and not make up for it elsewhere, it is still possible that they prevent the opponents from doing as well as they now are doing. I think that is why the games are played rather than just use projections based upon previous seasons.

Wizenheimer wrote:

zzaj wrote:I'd be interested in seeing the OVERALL opponent fg% allowed for those 6 teams above. Something tells me those stellar W/L records were a function of good perimeter defense AND interior defense.

Where do this Blazer team's other Defensive numbers correlate with those teams mentioned?

I got into that, in part, in my post

there are a lot of defensive metrics that would give a more complete picture

you could go to ESPN and use Hollinger's DefEfficiency rating which is simply opponent points per possession. That seems to be a great predictor of playoff teams and lottery teams

last season, Portland ranked 3rd in opponent 3pt% but last in opponent-points-in-the-paint. They ranked 26th in Def Efficiency

http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/teamstats/_/sort/defensiveEff/year/2013

this season, Portland ranks 20th.

I do not believe portland can continue to shoot 42% from 3 point range. That would be the 2nd best mark of all time in the NBA, and only 3 teams (might be 4) have shot over 40% over the last decade.

so, if Portland's 3 point efficiency drops down to say the 38% range (they were 35% last year) and they are still giving up points-in the paint at a near record pace, the losses will start to pile up...IMO

If we stick with this overall philosophy which seems likely then if we really want to be a serious threat we have to improve out points in the paint D. That's IMO is a good reason to try to add a C like Asik, and KEEP Lopez. We'd have two guys who are overall good defenders and would be fresh and not worry about foul trouble. If we could do a 3-way to get Asik and give up McCollum and Leonard and Claver if needed I'd be all for it.

Maybe I misunderstood something along the way, but I thought the Blazers' defensive strategy was to defend BOTH the 3 pt line and the paint, forcing our opponents to shoot mid-range jumpers. Mid-range jumpers tend to provide the lowest return.

I think Wiz's comments really underscore this. It looks like the best teams in recent memory defend both really well, forcing opponents into low percentage mid range opportunities.

The Blazers definitely have a way to go to achieve that. They've taken a good first step in defending the 3 pt line, but have to improve in the paint, no question.

I'd say the 8-2 start is a combination of defending the 3 pt line better along with playing weaker opponents. Wiz/et all are completely correct to suggest that our winning ways will not continue if we can't tighten up in the paint.

TBFan4Life wrote:Maybe I misunderstood something along the way, but I thought the Blazers' defensive strategy was to defend BOTH the 3 pt line and the paint, forcing our opponents to shoot mid-range jumpers. Mid-range jumpers tend to provide the lowest return.

I think Wiz's comments really underscore this. It looks like the best teams in recent memory defend both really well, forcing opponents into low percentage mid range opportunities.

The Blazers definitely have a way to go to achieve that. They've taken a good first step in defending the 3 pt line, but have to improve in the paint, no question.

I'd say the 8-2 start is a combination of defending the 3 pt line better along with playing weaker opponents. Wiz/et all are completely correct to suggest that our winning ways will not continue if we can't tighten up in the paint.

Yes, again, both/and is better than either/or. But if only one can be emphasized, defending the 3 is better. Yes in time both will be needed for the best record possible.

Blazinaway wrote:
2007-08, BOS, 66-16
2008-09, CLE. 66-16
2009-10, LAL, 57-25
2010-11, CHI, 62-25
2011-12, BOS, 39-27 (lockout shortened season)
2012-13, IND, 49-32
"

All either elite or very respectable defensive teams with killer half court sets and great in the paint. You have to be able to defend the 3 point line, but that should be a bi-product of a scheme, not an entire scheme.