The Defense Thread
- Thread starter KqWIN
- Start date
after a too-quick glance at last year's data, the following things popped out to me. I want to find time to investigate each of these things further:
1. Opponents made too many dunks on us last year (easy to penetrate?)
2. Opponents shot over 5% more shots in the 3-10ft range on us versus league average. (easy to penetrate?)
3. We were a below-average rebounding team (enter Collins)
4. we didn't turnover our opponents at a league average rate.
1. Opponents made too many dunks on us last year (easy to penetrate?)
2. Opponents shot over 5% more shots in the 3-10ft range on us versus league average. (easy to penetrate?)
3. We were a below-average rebounding team (enter Collins)
4. we didn't turnover our opponents at a league average rate.
Last edited:
Tremendous Upside
Well-Known Member
We were extremely vulnerable to short, easy jumpers and floaters last year. The point of attack D was an absolute sieve, letting ballhandlers easily into the middle, and Kessler liked to stay in the hole (where he did block a lot of shots if guys made the mistake of venturing that close).
Last edited:
Guys….allowing shots in floater range (3-10 ft) is a good thing. Allowing shots in the mid range general is a good thing, where have you guys been for the last 10 years?
The Jazz were top 5 in the least amount of shots allowed at the rim. If they don’t shoot at the rim, they shoot from somewhere else. It’s zero sum.
The Jazz were top 5 in the least amount of shots allowed at the rim. If they don’t shoot at the rim, they shoot from somewhere else. It’s zero sum.
WELL ACTUALLY...
All data below are from last year:
League average of opponent fG% from 3-10ft: 0.454
from: 10-16ft: 0.447
from 16ft to 3point line: 0.414
Based on ^those data, you obviously want your opponents taking their twos from further out.
jazz average opponent fg% from 3-10ft: 0.461
from: 10-16ft: 0.456
from 16ft to 3point line: 0.462
^In other words, Jazz opponents are converting at above-average rates at every tier. The 16ft to 3pt line tier is particularly alarming in the differential, and is yet another sign of bad perimeter defense.
Last edited:
more WELL ACTUALLY....
While the Jazz were 4th in the league in opponents' percentage of field goals attempted from 0 to 3 feet, the data on that aren't straightforward. Opponents made dunks above league average volume (when they got to the rim), and had a marginally higher percentage of their overall FGAs in the layup zone.
The differences in the different zones of mid range are miniscule compared the difference between a shot at the rim or 3 pointer. Compare the best team at defending the rim FG% versus the worst team at defending floater range shots FG%. It's not close. If you took a 100 shots from floater range against the worst floater defense you would get destroyed by a team who took 100 shots against the very best rim defense at the rim. Of course you want to offenses to take the hardest shot, you can get better EV all the way until a turnover, but if you're forcing them into a lot of short mid range shots (3-10) you're generally doing a good thing.
And yes, you want them to shoot as low of a percentage as possible from any spot on the floor...but to say that a high rate from floater range indicates easy penetration (not saying we don't allow easy dribble penetration) because of a higher percentage of shots from that zone....yeah that doesn't make sense. If you're going to try to derive "easy penetration" from this kind of data, why would you not look at the shots at the rim? Floater range shots usually mean that there is a defender between the shooter and the basket (why else would they not shoot a layup) and/or come from post up shots.
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) because those have below average EV. I'm not trying to make the argument that the Jazz defense was not poor, but it is/was not poor on the basis of how many floaters they give up. As a whole, the Jazz were actually fairly average in opponent eFG% and opponent eFG%. Again, you can always get better, but shot location/shot performance allowed was not the killer. What killed the Jazz defense was being 28th and turnovers and 23rd in rebounding. If those were average, the Jazz would have been an average defense.
This year has been a little different early on. Still not forcing a ton of turnovers, but the only above average four factor is defensive rebounding which has improved to 10th. eFG and fouling has been significantly worse.
"easy to penetrate" was clearly followed by a question mark. And it was preceded by a statement that declared the need for further investigation. Therefore, it was not a conclusion.
If we were able to replace Sexton and Clarkson with league average defenders I wonder how much better the overall D would look.
Well, that's why we're talking about it right? My answer to that question is "no". A high amount of floaters range shots is generally a good thing and those are my reasons why. The ratio of shots at the rim versus floaters was one of the few bright spots of our defense last year.
There's probably some important distinctions here between "forcing a 2pt shot" and "surrendering a 2 point shot". Last year the Jazz obviously did so horribly (relative to league average) from 16ft to the 3pt line, that "surrender" seems to be a reasonable description.
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.
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.
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.
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.