Why Do 20+ Point Leads Keep Getting Blown?

[Bankai]

Cause Defense is discreetly being phased out, like the All Star game.

[jbk1234]

I think pace is a huge component. Teams like to get in their offensive set early and take shots early in order to win the possession game. If you're playing a really good defensive team like the Thunder, or a team that likes to press like the Pacers ,you're encouraged to push the pace even more before the defense sets up or to punish the opponent for pressing. The problem is that if you're pushing a high tempo offense with a large lead, it's not just your team that's getting more possessions.

[Liam_Gallagher]

Threes, and more specifically, the 14-second shot clock after an offensive rebound.

Almost always leads to a 3.

Another interesting experiment would be to put in the old shot clock rules to see what effect it has on this. When did it start that you only get 14 seconds after an offensive rebound? 15 years ago?

2017.

Three point shooting skyrocketed starting that season. Someone made a post about it a couple years ago.

[nate33]

The team leading by 20 doesn't adjust their game and go for high % shots that earn fouls. Maybe because they lack those options. Instead they chuck 3s.

I actually think its the other way around. Teams leading by 20 start trying to milk the clock and protect the lead even when they lack a reliable 2P shooter. They end up killing 22 seconds and coming away with no points on every possession, when they would have been better off running their normal stuff, killing 13 seconds and coming away with 2 or 3 points every other possession.

[og15]

Dumb ass modern players and stubborn coaches. It’s not just threes. Most teams are missing smart veteran point guards to calm the team down on the court and go back to running the offense instead of panic isoing or panic chucking. It’s maddening to watch as a basketball fan

Is this really it? I've seen equal criticisms of comebacks based on:
1) they were playing too fast and taking "bad shots", etc and on the other end
2) they started playing too safe, too much half court and trying to milk the clock

So it seems like comebacks happene regardless of the method employed, but of course if you are able to build a large lead, then a worthy opponent should be able to come back from it too. There's no prescribed formula that prevents losing leads.

Faster pace of course means more possessions to build a larger lead, but also more possessions to catch up, and more three's similarly allows you to build a lead faster and lose it faster.

Many of these "stubborn coaches" are the same guys who were coaching 20 years ago, and they would have been just as stubborn then, so that can't be it.

[K N U C K L E S]

The team leading by 20 doesn't adjust their game and go for high % shots that earn fouls. Maybe because they lack those options. Instead they chuck 3s.

I actually think its the other way around. Teams leading by 20 start trying to milk the clock and protect the lead even when they lack a reliable 2P shooter. They end up killing 22 seconds and coming away with no points on every possession, when they would have been better off running their normal stuff, killing 13 seconds and coming away with 2 or 3 points every other possession.

That's another question I have. Is killing the clock really a thing in the NBA? Isn't at least 20 seconds of the shot clock used 90+ percent of the time anyway? So isn't killing the clock just an illusion in the NBA?

When collage basketball had a 35 second shot clock, killing the clock was a thing, but now that it's down to 25 seconds(I think), everything I said above probably applies to college too.

[desitmac91]

To the people saying it's just threes: I saw way less 10 point leads blown in the 2000's.

[CIN-C-STAR]

I think the lack of post play and the way the rules disincentivize it plays a big role. In prior eras, you could slow the game down, get a post touch, and either get an easy basket or some FTs. But modern zones/double teams and the difference in physicality allowed defending the post vs perimeter makes that style extremely difficult.

And the lack of post play contributes to the pace I think.
Longer shots often lead to longer rebounds and the other team getting shots up before the defense is fully set.

[tsherkin]

Cause Defense is discreetly being phased out, like the All Star game.

This isn't actually true. At least the defense part.

And the lack of post play contributes to the pace I think.
Longer shots often lead to longer rebounds and the other team getting shots up before the defense is fully set.

For the teams who don't have a lot of post play... but the Pacers use Siakam in the post pretty regularly, and the Knicks guard-posted Brunson a lot.

To the people saying it's just threes: I saw way less 10 point leads blown in the 2000's.

3s are easier to get up. Pace is nearly at 80s levels, which makes for a big difference. If you can kill it in transition, that's high-efficiency offense and if you're missing, then those swings get big.

Consider that league-average 3P% was 36.0% this year. So you take a squad like OKC, who took 38.8 of those per game (41.9% of their FGA) and it's easy to see how at 100 possessions per game, you're going to get some bad runs. Especially in a game like Game 1 of the Finals, where they were shooting terribly as a team despite SGA doing work. It's the same thing which happened to Boston, too, though that was more exaggerated because OKC was 16th in 3PAr and Boston was losing its damned mind.

At slower pace, it's harder to get the ball back. If, on the other team is running and gunning and missing a ton, so long as your defensive rebounding is on point, you've got tons of shots. That game was all decided in the 4th. OKC was +9, +3, and -3. All pretty standard stuff. But they were -10 in the fourth. The Pacers were 12/24 FG and 6/10 from 3, and 5/7 at the line. Meantime, OKC was 7/19 (36.8%), 0/5 from 3, and 11/13 at the line.

Indy had them 15-6 on the boards in that quarter, of which 5 were offensive rebounds.

So they were killing OKC's possessions with defensive rebounds and preserving their possessions with offensive rebounds, plus they were on fire from the field. And then Hali stuck that last jumper. Again.

That's a comeback recipe, as a specific example.

It was much the same for the Knicks against Boston... Boston dried up from 3 in the second halves and were shooting it in huge volume. The Knicks handled their business on the boards and just kept coming at them, wearing them down, and it worked.

[nate33]

The team leading by 20 doesn't adjust their game and go for high % shots that earn fouls. Maybe because they lack those options. Instead they chuck 3s.

I actually think its the other way around. Teams leading by 20 start trying to milk the clock and protect the lead even when they lack a reliable 2P shooter. They end up killing 22 seconds and coming away with no points on every possession, when they would have been better off running their normal stuff, killing 13 seconds and coming away with 2 or 3 points every other possession.

That's another question I have. Is killing the clock really a thing in the NBA? Isn't at least 20 seconds of the shot clock used 90+ percent of the time anyway? So isn't killing the clock just an illusion in the NBA?

When collage basketball had a 35 second shot clock, killing the clock was a thing, but now that it's down to 25 seconds(I think), everything I said above probably applies to college too.

An average NBA team averages 98.8 possessions per 48 minutes. 48 minutes is 2880 seconds. So two teams together take 2880 seconds to play 197.6 possessions. That's 14.57 seconds per possession.

[seren]

I blame live betting. We need a deep investigation on not only refs, but coaches, players, even clock keepers.

[magee]

Because three points are worth more than two, so if a team makes a three pointer, then the other team missed, then the first team makes a three pointer, then the other team makes a two, then the other team makes a three pointer, then the other team turns the ball over, then the first team makes a three pointer, and at this point you see how the Knicks blew their lead in their Game 1 series to Indiana.

[durden_tyler]

To the people saying it's just threes: I saw way less 10 point leads blown in the 2000's.

They just can’t state the obvious: it’s all about Vegas— regardless of era or style of play, that one is the most obvious and consistent. LOL


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk