SOTD: All Stats from Philly game

[BorisDK1]

Love what you're doing here Boris.

I'm just curios if you do any check sums where you add up all the individual DP's and compare to total shots taken?

Thanks! I appreciate the encouragement. Not only from you, but the other people that I haven't had a chance to thank indivdiually. Thank you, all.

To answer the question, yes, I do check to make sure total FM + Blocks = Opponent FGA - FG, and that FTO + steals = Opponent TO, and that the sums for 2FGA and 3FGA and FFT and FFTM are correct. NBA scorekeepers can be a tad funky as to what they consider a shot attempt and what they don't, especially in rebounding/tapping action. So when odd stuff happens I make a note of it on my sheet and put a question mark with the time and quarter with the result(s) so I can go back and verify how they scored it later. That especially applies to oddball stuff, like when a rebounder grabs a ball and then steps out of bounds. Is that a turnover? Or do they call that a "team rebound"? It's usually a coin toss. So I note when that happens and then check that time in the game with the PBP account later. If it's a team rebound, no result. And if it's called a turnover, then the FTO gets assigned appropriately.

[supersub15]

I think there's a simpler explanation for Jose's poor PDSS results: he's slow, was incredibly disinterested and had singularly poor balance and stance. And there's a good explanation for Bargnani's results: he's really freaking tall with really long arms and, at times, exceptional balance. And he does do some things well, whereas Calderon does nothing well defensively. Now, having said that, Jose has played very hard on the defensive end so far this year. The results aren't always there for him, but he's playing very hard right now and I do respect that.

On a technical note, there is no help on an unpressured straight-line drive, especially to the middle of the floor. It just can't be done. That's why almost every coach in the world wants the ball kept out of the middle of the floor. Keeping ball pressure on a driver and speeding him up is an absolute prerequisite to guarding the ball in driving situations. Even in a situation where you could stop a player at full bore on a straight line, the drop-off pass is too easy: all you can really do on a straight-line drive is foul, give up an open layup or an open three. You have to stop the ball: defense is built on how you guard the basketball first and foremost.

My last point would be that if your theory were true, the PDSS results for Jack, Calderon, Banks, DeRozan, Weems, Turkoglu, etc. would all be more or less similar while playing with Bargnani, were he the ultimate cause of all defensive evils on this team. But that was not the case: some players still managed to defend well, others did not. Calderon last year managed to not defend well at all.

Actually, I did check Synergy Sports' database for Isolation plays against Calderon, Jack, DeRozan, Banks, Weems and Turkoglu

Calderon 123 plays = 0.95 PPP
Jack 129 plays = 0.97 PPP
Weems 80 plays = 1.14 PPP
Turkoglu 73 plays = 0.73 PPP
Banks 17 plays = 1.18 PPP
DeRozan 81 plays = 0.90 PPP

For one, Calderon was not the worst in one-on-one situations, and his PPP was below-average, but definitely not horrid.

Second of all, wings are usually attacked from the elbows, so the distance to the rim is shorter than when a PG is attacked from behind the 3-point line. So, the help has less time to react on wing isolations.

Third of all, there are actually different defensive philosophies. Mitchell wanted his players to funnel the attacker to the middle, which was changed immediately to sideline funneling, once Triano took over. It's hard to argue with the results between those 2 coaches.

[MEDIC]

Thanks for this Boris.

I would have to say that this data is some of the most useful & unbiased data I've seen on here. It paints the whole picture, rather than singling out a particular player............

I've long contested that the most important aspect of defense is at the point of attact (ie. the perimeter). If your guards aren't providing sufficient resistance against a perimter based attack, it really doesn't matter who you have protecting the basket. They are going to have problems. There is not enough time for the interior player to react & it continually ends up allowing high % shots for the opposition.

If your fail at the beginning of your defensive sequence (the perimeter), it will be that much harder to stop the attack as the offensive sequence progresses.

Is Bargnani an elite defender? No & he never will be, but he is nowehere near as bad as some people like to paint him to be.

What we do know is that we have a history of lazy perimeter defenders on this team (Jose, Kapono, Turk, etc) & a defensive system that did not create much ball pressure on the perimeter. That is a recipe for disaster.

The new defensive system has been refreshing to see. I've been wanting to see this type of perimeter pressure/ effort for a long time now.

A lot of people tend to feel that your center is the most important defensive player on the floor. I've always disagreed with this. Your interior defense & your perimeter defense work in unison, but you always try to stop the attack before an offensive player is able to position himself where a high % shot is available (closer to the basket). Keeping the attack on the perimeter also decreases the liklihood of the offensive player drawing a foul. If I was to start building a defensive oriented team, I would start by collecting very good perimeter defenders. Not the other way around.

Elite perimeter defenders can make an average interior defender look very good.

[BorisDK1]

Actually, I did check Synergy Sports' database for Isolation plays against Calderon, Jack, DeRozan, Banks, Weems and Turkoglu

Calderon 123 plays = 0.95 PPP
Jack 129 plays = 0.97 PPP
Weems 80 plays = 1.14 PPP
Turkoglu 73 plays = 0.73 PPP
Banks 17 plays = 1.18 PPP
DeRozan 81 plays = 0.90 PPP

For one, Calderon was not the worst in one-on-one situations, and his PPP was below-average, but definitely not horrid.

Second of all, wings are usually attacked from the elbows, so the distance to the rim is shorter than when a PG is attacked from behind the 3-point line. So, the help has less time to react on wing isolations.

Third of all, there are actually different defensive philosophies. Mitchell wanted his players to funnel the attacker to the middle, which was changed immediately to sideline funneling, once Triano took over. It's hard to argue with the results between those 2 coaches.

We've discussed the limitations of Synergy Sports' method before, as to what they track and what they do not track. Their limitations in tracking transition are frankly quite substantial, as to what they cover and do not cover in rotation or away from the ball: I see these, I track these (when applicable). That aside, using Synergy Sports to (attempt to) correct PDSS data is not going to go well because one sees things the other does not:. IMO, you do not use an apple to attempt to correct an orange. Thirdly, as said before, one-on-one play only accounts for a portion of PDSS results.

The couple of inches difference between the three point line at the free throw line extended is negligible when guys are taking several feet at a time per stride. Even if it were, it wasn't like Jose only guarded players in the Channel. If it's such a big difference, why are Jack's results so much better than Jose's?

What Sam Mitchell did or did not do is not at issue: the Raptors throughout the entirety of last year wanted to keep the ball out of the middle. And, to the best of my knowledge, Sam Mitchell was only reputed to want the ball in the middle as a general rule, since I cannot recall a single specific moment when the Raptors seemed to want to keep the ball in the middle with him here. Nobody does it anymore. It was a popular debate back in the 1980s, but after Dean Smith released Basketball: Multiple Offense and Defense and won his championship in 1982, the issue was more or less resolved. There are some manifestations at the college level of packline defenses that don't deny the ball from the middle (but don't necessarily want it there over the side, they just don't care either way), but even that in the NCAA that is rare. Regardless, for a team that wants the ball on the side (as the 2009-10 Raptors unquestionably did) it is murder to allow the ball into the middle. And, in the overwhelming opinion in the coaching world, you want the ball out of the middle. Even if that weren't true, Jay Triano wanted the ball out of the middle and that is really the only relevant opinion.

At any rate, different players posted different results, and all played with Bargnani. That is either because 1) I'm either lying or making the results up out of whole cloth, 2) they defend at different levels of success. I can assure you the former is not the case.

[Indeed]

I think Kleiza also had above average %DPs. So I am curious if this is the new defensive strategy to hide Bargnani (with Andersen having similar role).

Meanwhile, this is a back to back game, not sure if it affects anyone.

That wasn't any specific attempt to "hide" Bargnani: Kleiza just got beat down the floor several times and was ponderously slow to cover cutters a couple of time and gave up ridiculously easy layups. Somebody else asked me what I think the case was: I just think he wasn't in top mental shape and the quicker Philadelphia players had no mercy on him. I think highly enough of his defense to expect him to bounce back.

Ah, you are right.
I didn't watch the first half, so I probably missed those plays, but I know he is not quick enough against wings/guards from scouting reports and previous games.

It is troublesome, as we can hardly hide his quickness problem if we play him at the 3 with Bargnani; and we will have rebounding problem if we play him at the 4 with Bargnani.

[J-Roc]

I know it's hard for you to realize these stats and trying to find a way to question it, it's kind of hard to realize that bargnani was such a good defender during the preseason when all the naysayers said he wasn't, so who do you believe?

En anglais, s'il vous plait.

In short, I know you're a bargs hater. So keep on trying to discredit these stats.

Except that I'm not a Bargs hater. And I haven't anywhere in this thread tried to discredit these stats (not that I'd be qualified to try anyways).

[dagger]

Thanks for this Boris.

I would have to say that this data is some of the most useful & unbiased data I've seen on here. It paints the whole picture, rather than singling out a particular player............

I've long contested that the most important aspect of defense is at the point of attact (ie. the perimeter). If your guards aren't providing sufficient resistance against a perimter based attack, it really doesn't matter who you have protecting the basket. They are going to have problems. There is not enough time for the interior player to react & it continually ends up allowing high % shots for the opposition.

If your fail at the beginning of your defensive sequence (the perimeter), it will be that much harder to stop the attack as the offensive sequence progresses.

Is Bargnani an elite defender? No & he never will be, but he is nowehere near as bad as some people like to paint him to be.

What we do know is that we have a history of lazy perimeter defenders on this team (Jose, Kapono, Turk, etc) & a defensive system that did not create much ball pressure on the perimeter. That is a recipe for disaster.

The new defensive system has been refreshing to see. I've been wanting to see this type of perimeter pressure/ effort for a long time now.

A lot of people tend to feel that your center is the most important defensive player on the floor. I've always disagreed with this. Your interior defense & your perimeter defense work in unison, but you always try to stop the attack before an offensive player is able to position himself where a high % shot is available (closer to the basket). Keeping the attack on the perimeter also decreases the liklihood of the offensive player drawing a foul. If I was to start building a defensive oriented team, I would start by collecting very good perimeter defenders. Not the other way around.

Elite perimeter defenders can make an average interior defender look very good.

I tend to agree all around. That's why I feel the need for a faster, more athletic PG is compelling, even if it's just an Alvin Williams type who is not a great penetrator/creator but can defend all sizes of guards. (Although a high end rookie with those playmaking skills would be even better.)

As for perceptions of Bargnani's D, I'd say it's because some nights his rotations are poor, and often when he misses a rotation, like a Jacques Laperriere headache, it's a bad one. He looks lost. But because Bargnani divides the fan base like no player since Vince's last year or two in Toronto, those inclined to think of Bargnani is a poor defender cherry pick the bad, and those inclined to defend him probably cherry pick the good. So for Poster A, the three or four missed rotations stand out even if everyone on the team is missing three or four rotations, while for Poster B, his post up D becomes an object of glowing praise, even if he's defending a geriatric Elton Brand.

The proper way to analyze him would be to chart several benchmarks over time, and hope they all move in the right direction over the course of time over the course of weeks or months, because on any single night, some will move up and others down. It's like that with any NBA player.

Boris' analysis of the team probably comes closest to that because he's charting every single Raptor offensively and defensively, rather than relying on third parties.

[BorisDK1]

As for perceptions of Bargnani's D, I'd say it's because some nights his rotations are poor, and often when he misses a rotation, like a Jacques Laperriere headache, it's a bad one. He looks lost. But because Bargnani divides the fan base like no player since Vince's last year or two in Toronto, those inclined to think of Bargnani is a poor defender cherry pick the bad, and those inclined to defend him probably cherry pick the good. So for Poster A, the three or four missed rotations stand out even if everyone on the team is missing three or four rotations, while for Poster B, his post up D becomes an object of glowing praise, even if he's defending a geriatric Elton Brand.

Quite so, and if Poster A is really keying in on Bargnani, the questions must be asked: 1) were the rotations in fact "missed"? 2) If so, were they missed by Bargnani? 3) If so, would it have made a difference anyhow (for example, Reggie Evans and Linas Kleiza gave up numerous layups at the rim last game, no effective help was possible)? 4) If so, was it the cause in fact of the basket being scored? (The cause of the score might have been somebody else falling asleep first, not to excuse Bargnani at all.)

Anyway, I'm starting to see why so many people are excited that not just one or two players are looked at in isolation in this method, based on what I'm gathering about the tone of some of the conversations around here.

[Clutch Carter]

The long time arguement has been that the team is so bad defensively because it lacks a real center and that Bargnani provides zero help defense, that players like Jose Calderon so obviously bad defensively would be better with a real defensive center....

So far this preseason our team defense is much improved so based on Bargnani naysayers comments about Bargnani being the sole reason for our defensive problems the last few years how come I am not seeing those naysayers now praising Bargnani but rather praising everyone but him? I already know the anwser myself but maybe you can figure it out some day unless you have turned into one of the clueless ones as well.......

I remember the classic threads like start Amir, start rasho, start anyone not named Bargnani because he is the root cause of all our defensive problems, the countless stod threads that tried to pinpoint every issue we had on Bargnani.... So hear we sit in preseason form on this board rapin Bargs for all he has done wrong offensively and crediting everyone but Bargnani for our defensive improvements.

If we go on the theory of the defense starts and ends with the bigman, and thats not my theory its people likes yours then its only fair to conclude that Bargnani is playing much improved defense no matter who he is up against.

I remember the start Rasho movement really lost steam when Bargs and I believe Jose were hurt against Memphis? and we got blown out pretty badly. Rasho went from solid vet to washed up in one game around these parts.

Edit: I also want to thank Boris again not just for the stats but his really insightful replies to questions. Really great stuff Boris.

[OvertimeNO]

As for perceptions of Bargnani's D, I'd say it's because some nights his rotations are poor, and often when he misses a rotation, like a Jacques Laperriere headache, it's a bad one. He looks lost. But because Bargnani divides the fan base like no player since Vince's last year or two in Toronto, those inclined to think of Bargnani is a poor defender cherry pick the bad, and those inclined to defend him probably cherry pick the good. So for Poster A, the three or four missed rotations stand out even if everyone on the team is missing three or four rotations, while for Poster B, his post up D becomes an object of glowing praise, even if he's defending a geriatric Elton Brand.

Quite so, and if Poster A is really keying in on Bargnani, the questions must be asked: 1) were the rotations in fact "missed"? 2) If so, were they missed by Bargnani? 3) If so, would it have made a difference anyhow (for example, Reggie Evans and Linas Kleiza gave up numerous layups at the rim last game, no effective help was possible)? 4) If so, was it the cause in fact of the basket being scored? (The cause of the score might have been somebody else falling asleep first, not to excuse Bargnani at all.)

Anyway, I'm starting to see why so many people are excited that not just one or two players are looked at in isolation in this method, based on what I'm gathering about the tone of some of the conversations around here.

+1

It's good to have you here.

[Indeed]

As for perceptions of Bargnani's D, I'd say it's because some nights his rotations are poor, and often when he misses a rotation, like a Jacques Laperriere headache, it's a bad one. He looks lost. But because Bargnani divides the fan base like no player since Vince's last year or two in Toronto, those inclined to think of Bargnani is a poor defender cherry pick the bad, and those inclined to defend him probably cherry pick the good. So for Poster A, the three or four missed rotations stand out even if everyone on the team is missing three or four rotations, while for Poster B, his post up D becomes an object of glowing praise, even if he's defending a geriatric Elton Brand.

Quite so, and if Poster A is really keying in on Bargnani, the questions must be asked: 1) were the rotations in fact "missed"? 2) If so, were they missed by Bargnani? 3) If so, would it have made a difference anyhow (for example, Reggie Evans and Linas Kleiza gave up numerous layups at the rim last game, no effective help was possible)? 4) If so, was it the cause in fact of the basket being scored? (The cause of the score might have been somebody else falling asleep first, not to excuse Bargnani at all.)

Anyway, I'm starting to see why so many people are excited that not just one or two players are looked at in isolation in this method, based on what I'm gathering about the tone of some of the conversations around here.

Hope you enjoy posting here.
You might want to have a defensive stats for posters who defends their players
And guess who has the best %Stop (shut people up %) here.

[Crazy-Canuck]

Love how every thread that knocks Bargs will get 50+ pages, hell even Shaq: bargs is not an AS gets twice the attention of threads that are actual insightful such as this.

Lesson:

Anything that puts Bargs not in a dark light gets thrown to page 2 quite quickly.

[raptorforlife88]

Love how every thread that knocks Bargs will get 50+ pages, hell even Shaq: bargs is not an AS gets twice the attention of threads that are actual insightful such as this.

Lesson:

Anything that puts Bargs not in a dark light gets thrown to page 2 quite quickly.

Probably because this isn't the sort of thread where you just post one line responses. It's a lot more involved then going into a thread and saying, yeah Bargnani sucks, or no you're wrong Bargnani's good. Posting something like that means you're not interacting at all with the subject matter of the thread.

And there's a lot more technical stuff in this thread, both statistically, and about how offenses and defenses actually work, which a lot of people don't actually understand (myself included), so it's easier to not get involved. Which might not be a bad thing, if you're willing to read the thread and gain a better understanding before blindly jumping in.

[OvertimeNO]

Love how every thread that knocks Bargs will get 50+ pages, hell even Shaq: bargs is not an AS gets twice the attention of threads that are actual insightful such as this.

Lesson:

Anything that puts Bargs not in a dark light gets thrown to page 2 quite quickly.

Probably because this isn't the sort of thread where you just post one line responses. It's a lot more involved then going into a thread and saying, yeah Bargnani sucks, or no you're wrong Bargnani's good. Posting something like that means you're not interacting at all with the subject matter of the thread.

And there's a lot more technical stuff in this thread, both statistically, and about how offenses and defenses actually work, which a lot of people don't actually understand (myself included), so it's easier to not get involved. Which might not be a bad thing, if you're willing to read the thread and gain a better understanding before blindly jumping in.

Part of it too is that the biggest threads tend to be flamewars. I wouldn`t necessarily use post count or even views as an indicator of a thread`s value.

For me personally, substantive threads like these are the main reason I use this forum. The other stuff is just hilarious gravy.

[BorisDK1]

Just another quick "thanks" to the posts of encouragement.

I did do PDSS results from last night's game, I'm at work and won't be able to post them until after my shift later this evening some time but they will be up before some ungodly hour of the night.

[Fenris-77]

Just another quick "thanks" to the posts of encouragement.

I did do PDSS results from last night's game, I'm at work and won't be able to post them until after my shift later this evening some time but they will be up before some ungodly hour of the night.

They're going to be pretty ugly, so I'm ok waiting for a bit.

[TMMC]

Just another quick "thanks" to the posts of encouragement.

I did do PDSS results from last night's game, I'm at work and won't be able to post them until after my shift later this evening some time but they will be up before some ungodly hour of the night.

They're going to be pretty ugly, so I'm ok waiting for a bit.

I havn't watched the game yet but it doesn't look pretty on the box score so ya take your time lol

[Indeed]

Just another quick "thanks" to the posts of encouragement.

I did do PDSS results from last night's game, I'm at work and won't be able to post them until after my shift later this evening some time but they will be up before some ungodly hour of the night.

Appreciate for the hard work, please take your time.

[Crazy-Canuck]

Just another quick "thanks" to the posts of encouragement.

I did do PDSS results from last night's game, I'm at work and won't be able to post them until after my shift later this evening some time but they will be up before some ungodly hour of the night.

Mad props for having the courage to watch the first 3 quarters over and over to compile you needed stats.

Im really interested in Jose's numbers that game because he just looked real bad.

[BorisDK1]

Mad props for having the courage to watch the first 3 quarters over and over to compile you needed stats.

Im really interested in Jose's numbers that game because he just looked real bad.

I didn't have to watch them "over and over": just once did it, except one play when I dropped a nacho onto the couch and scrambled to get it before the wife went apoplectic on me. So I had to rewind the good ol' PVR on that one, but that was it.

But you know what? I might get crucified for saying this, I thought they were playing pretty hard to start the game. They couldn't buy a basket early on, Boston hit some really tough shots (they hit three threes as the shot clock was expiring, Garnett hit a couple of tough jumpers and then Daniels hit a halfcourt heave) and they got down and kind of rolled over starting in the last part of the 2nd quarter. That's bad - but it's not as bad as not coming out soft from the get-go, which is what they usually did last year.

Jose wasn't good, but I don't recall him being the worst. Kleiza and Bargnani were plenty bad, IIRC.