Offensive Geometry [www.hardwoodparoxysm.com]

[td_tp_manu]

http://www.hardwoodparoxysm.com/2012/05/10/offensive-geometry/

Nice graph that shows the number of times a team runs certain offense and pts per possession.

http://www.hardwoodparoxysm.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/SASShape.png

[celldweller]

http://cisr.ucr.edu/images/brown_widow_spider_large.jpg

[jestersmash]

Focusing on PPP, nothing really surprises me here.

I (like most fans) cringe when I see Blair post-up, but he's very competent as the roller on the PnR.

Not surprised to see Manu/Tony-Splitter PnR with Splitter receiving the ball on the roll is by far the most efficient offense we have.

Not surprised at Tiago's poor post-up PPP. Not surprised at Duncan's poor post-up PPP.

[Dex]

Not surprised at Tiago's poor post-up PPP. Not surprised at Duncan's poor post-up PPP.

At this stage of his career, I'm not surprised at Duncan's poor post-up PPP, especially since we see it on the court.

What does surprise me is that it's the second most utilized offensive method, despite it being the third least effective.

I know posting up Tim often opens up plays for spot-ups and cutters, and otherwise keeps him involved in the offense....but tbh, I think Pop just can't quit his love affair with four-down. :blah

[timvp]

So the order of best pick-and-roll operators goes: Gary Neal > Tony Parker > Manu Ginobili

Most Spurs fans would probably guess the reverse. I guess Neal doesn't suck :stirpot:

[TheSkeptic]

So the order of best pick-and-roll operators goes: Gary Neal > Tony Parker > Manu Ginobili

Most Spurs fans would probably guess the reverse. I guess Neal doesn't suck :stirpot:

Do you think it's because Neal mostly plays with Tiago though? If he's either shooting the ball or giving it to Splitter on the roll that could explain it.

Though I have to say, it's stuff like that which makes me question claims that Splitter's ceiling is limited by his point guard tbh. Neal is probably not the best at in terms of point guard skills...


Nvm Jetersmash.

[AztecSpur]

I'm a newbie trying to learn this stuff.

What is PPP? Four-down? Spot-up? Post-up?

I know, I know, google it!

[ShoogarBear]

PPP = points per possession

Four-down: dump the ball to Duncan (4=power forward) in the post and let him operate

Spot-up: outside shooter is stationary on the court waiting for the ball to be kicked out to him

Post-up: shooter gets ball in the blocks with his back to the basket and operates (4-down often results in a post-up)

[jestersmash]

So the order of best pick-and-roll operators goes: Gary Neal > Tony Parker > Manu Ginobili

Most Spurs fans would probably guess the reverse. I guess Neal doesn't suck :stirpot:

Well, to be fair, I'd say "operator" is probably the wrong term to use. PnR "ball-handler" in this context specifically refers to instances where the ball handler picks off his man and then (ultimately) takes the shot himself. Gary loves the simple pick --> 3 point shot, but as we've all seen, he's relatively inept at finding the roller when playing PnR.

Manu tends to look for the roller more often (especially Splitter), but all of the credit is going to Splitter under "PnR Screener" in that graphic.

[ShoogarBear]

I like these graphs, but there needs to be more explanation of how he accounts for the fact that plays are not independent of each other.

For example, if TP drives the lane of a PnR, then kicks it out to Bonner for a three, is that counted as a TP PnR, or a Bonner spot-up, or both? Presumably that's a PnR PPP. So then a pure "Bonner spot-up" would presumably only be when they swing the ball around the perimeter. If that's the case, then obviously that's not something you can run all the time: a Bonner or Green spot-up only works because of the threat of another play.

Duncan's post-up game clearly is not what it used to be, but without it the Spurs have no low-post game at all. There's probably an advantage to at least making the defense have to account for that on a regular basis, even if it may not be as efficient as the other plays.

[DespЏrado]

So the order of best pick-and-roll operators goes: Gary Neal > Tony Parker > Manu Ginobili

Most Spurs fans would probably guess the reverse. I guess Neal doesn't suck :stirpot:

This doesn't surprise me as Neal also throws the best lobs on the team, As in his lobs are soft/ on target/ and hit the receiver in stride. Manu is the best passer but sometimes his passes get away from him. Parker tends to hit players too low and fast, but has improved immensely over the years.

[jestersmash]

This doesn't surprise me as Neal also throws the best lobs on the team, As in his lobs are soft/ on target/ and hit the receiver in stride. Manu is the best passer but sometimes his passes get away from him. Parker tends to hit players too low and fast, but has improved immensely over the years.

:lol pretty sure you don't understand the graphic at all.

Gary Neal being adequate at PnR "ball handler" has nothing to do with his ability to throw soft lobs inside. PnR "ball handler" is not measuring point production from the roller. It's measuring point production from the ball handler when he takes the shot himself (jump shot or drive into the lane layup/floater/whatever).

:lol @ "This doesn't surprise me." Pretty sure 99%+ spurs fans routinely lament about Gary's inability to find the roller on PnR's, but his point guard play is still semi-effective because he has an effective, quick-release jumpshot.

[ShoogarBear]

Well, to be fair, I'd say "operator" is probably the wrong term to use. PnR "ball-handler" in this context specifically refers to instances where the ball handler picks off his man and then (ultimately) takes the shot himself. Gary loves the simple pick --> 3 point shot, but as we've all seen, he's relatively inept at finding the roller when playing PnR.

Manu tends to look for the roller more often (especially Splitter), but all of the credit is going to Splitter under "PnR Screener" in that graphic.

So you say "PnR Handler" is defined as the ball handler taking the shot? I think you're right, I just don't see where it's defined.


This doesn't surprise me as Neal also throws the best lobs on the team, As in his lobs are soft/ on target/ and hit the receiver in stride. Manu is the best passer but sometimes his passes get away from him. Parker tends to hit players too low and fast, but has improved immensely over the years.

In contrast, you are saying the "PnR Handler" play gets credit if he passes it off. I think jestersmash has it right, if there's a pass, it's no longer a "PnR Handler" play.

[jestersmash]

I like these graphs, but there needs to be more explanation of how he accounts for the fact that plays are not independent of each other.

For example, if TP drives the lane of a PnR, then kicks it out to Bonner for a three, is that counted as a TP PnR, or a Bonner spot-up, or both? Presumably that's a PnR PPP. So then a pure "Bonner spot-up" would presumably only be when they swing the ball around the perimeter. If that's the case, then obviously that's not something you can run all the time: a Bonner or Green spot-up only works because of the threat of another play.

Duncan's post-up game clearly is not what it used to be, but without it the Spurs have no low-post game at all. There's probably an advantage to at least making the defense have to account for that on a regular basis, even if it may not be as efficient as the other plays.

It's counted as a Bonner spot-up.

It's not counted as a Parker PnR "ball-handler."

[jestersmash]

But I'm glad you brought it up, it's a really critical part of PnR play that's being ignored by the graphic.

Splitter's fantastic PnR "screener" PPP is a result of Manu and Tony delivering the ball to him in the right spot off PnR, but Manu and Tony aren't getting any credit for it on the graphic.

The same holds true for a PnR play that ultimately leads to a wide open, spot-up 3 point shot.

[ShoogarBear]

It's counted as a Bonner spot-up.

It's not counted as a Parker PnR "ball-handler."

Again, I think you're right, but it's not accurate to look at the graph and think that (for example) spot-up plays are independent of PnRs and post-ups.

[DespЏrado]

:lol pretty sure you don't understand the graphic at all.

Gary Neal being adequate at PnR "ball handler" has nothing to do with his ability to throw soft lobs inside. PnR "ball handler" is not measuring point production from the roller. It's measuring point production from the ball handler when he takes the shot himself (jump shot or drive into the lane layup/floater/whatever).

:lol @ "This doesn't surprise me." Pretty sure 99%+ spurs fans routinely lament about Gary's inability to find the roller on PnR's, but his point guard play is still semi-effective because he has an effective, quick-release jumpshot.
Ppp = points per possession which means the graph says exactly what I thought it meant, whether Gary Neal takes the shot himself per not is pretty irrelevant.

My argument that his lob passes are deadly is true as well, the pick 'n roll with Neal is textbook, for a less skilled ball handler who can shoot, he either makes a perfect lob pass or as often is the case can't see over the trees and shoots the ball himself after a stepback on the hedge. I wouldn't want him trying to out think his talents, he's not a great passer other than the lob.

[ShoogarBear]

But I'm glad you brought it up, it's a really critical part of PnR play that's being ignored by the graphic.

Splitter's fantastic PnR "screener" PPP is a result of Manu and Tony delivering the ball to him in the right spot off PnR, but Manu and Tony aren't getting any credit for it on the graphic.

The same holds true for a PnR play that ultimately leads to a wide open, spot-up 3 point shot.

Exactly.

I think the guy is on to something, though. What I would do is have a separate category for "initiate" plays, which can be PnRs, isos, post-ups, etc. If you get a 3-point shot out of a PnR, it counts in that category. Then you could compare the efficiency of the different sets.

What he has here are the "finishes", which are also interesting, but don't tell the whole story.

[jestersmash]

Again, I think you're right, but it's not accurate to look at the graph and think that (for example) spot-up plays are independent of PnRs and post-ups.

"Accurate" is maybe the wrong term to use. It's just an incomplete and somewhat useless graph when trying to assess PnR prowess.

The graph is accurate, but incomplete/deceptive.

They should have - at minimum - another category titled PnR "ball-handler pass to roller." Manu and Tony would probably rank very high on such a list while Gary Neal would probably be < 1.00 PPP.

Of course, even that wouldn't really be enough to completely encapsulate what PnR is all about. There are so many times where Manu or Tony get "hockey assists" by delivering a fantastic pass to Splitter who ends up doubled near the rim and passes out to a wide open corner 3 point shot. All of that fantastic PnR play initiated by Manu/Tony and Splitter is being credited to "Bonner spot up" in the graphic.

But yeah we're on the same page. Just quibbling over terms.

[Venti Quattro]

This OP is poetry. The Spurs play like they all have beautiful minds. I can see the little graphics of angles and advanced mathematics flying around their heads. Seriously, maybe one of the highest BBIQ teams in awhile.

[DespЏrado]

They should have - at minimum - another category titled PnR "ball-handler pass to roller." Manu and Tony would probably rank very high on such a list while Gary Neal would probably be < 1.00 PPP.


It says ppp in the legend unless my eyes decieve me.

[ShoogarBear]

Ppp = points per possession which means the graph says exactly what I thought it meant, whether Gary Neal takes the shot himself per not is pretty irrelevant.


If that's right, then what distinguishes a "PnR Ball Handler" score from the "PnR Screener" score?

[jestersmash]

Ppp = points per possession which means the graph says exactly what I thought it meant, whether Gary Neal takes the shot himself per not is pretty irrelevant.

My argument that his lob passes are deadly is true as well, the pick 'n roll with Neal is textbook, for a less skilled ball handler who can shoot, he either makes a perfect lob pass or as often is the case can't see over the trees and shoots the ball himself after a stepback on the hedge. I wouldn't want him trying to out think his talents, he's not a great passer other than the lob.


It says ppp in the legend unless my eyes decieve me.


If you want to willingly have a wrong interpretation of the graph, then that's your prerogative I suppose :lol

ShoogarBear and I have explained exactly what the terms mean.

Points per possession isn't the what's ambiguous here. "PnR ball-handler" is what's ambiguous, but at the same time it makes sense that the graph wouldn't give credit to both Manu (on PnR "ball-handler") and Splitter (on PnR screener) when the Spurs run an effective Manu-Splitter PnR that leads to a Splitter layup.

But even ignoring your incorrect interpretation of the graph, I'm somewhat surprised that your casual viewing of the game led you to believe that Gary Neal was somehow fantastic at throwing lobs to the roller on PnR plays (not just fantastic, but you actually thought Gary's been a more effective PnR passer than Manu/Tony).

[DespЏrado]

If that's right, then what distinguishes a "PnR Ball Handler" score from the "PnR Screener" score?

Why should it? They should both get points on a graph like this, if it didn't it should be harder to determine optimal player pairings.

[DespЏrado]

If you want to willingly have a wrong interpretation of the graph, then that's your prerogative I suppose :lol


Manu and Tony would probably rank very high on such a list while Gary Neal would probably be < 1.00 PPP.

You= owned.

[ShoogarBear]

Why should it? They should both get points on a graph like this, if it didn't it should be harder to determine optimal player pairings.

So you're saying that the graph includes both how the play was initiated AND how it finished (i.e., double counting)? That may be right, but jestersmash's interpretation is equally logical (and I'm guessing the more plausible one).

Unless someone has a link with the explanations, it's all guessing.

[jestersmash]

You= owned.

This thread
Your head

[DespЏrado]

So you're saying that the graph includes both how the play was initiated AND how it finished (i.e., double counting)? That may be right, but jestersmash's interpretation is equally logical (and I'm guessing the more plausible one).

Unless someone has a link with the explanations, it's all guessing.

PPP deletes the ambiguity, it can't mean anything more than points per possession. :bang

In a PnR whether it results foul shots, a tiago dunk, a weakside three, or a stepback on the hedge that possession and the players that took part of the play would be rewarded.

[DespЏrado]

This thread
Your head

Don't get mad at me, you owned your own self. You said if it had included PPP it would be a different result, when I point out the fact that it measured PPP, you resorted to insults.

[jestersmash]

So you're saying that the graph includes both how the play was initiated AND how it finished (i.e., double counting)? That may be right, but jestersmash's interpretation is equally logical (and I'm guessing the more plausible one).

Unless someone has a link with the explanations, it's all guessing.

Yeah, trying to find a site that clearly lays out the definitions now, but I'm 95% certain P&R ball-handler looks at 3 possible scenarios:

1) P&R Ball handler comes off the pick and makes a shot himself (jump shot, layup, runner, etc.)
2) P&R Ball handler comes off the pick and misses the shot
3) P&R Ball handler comes off the pick, tries to make the pass to the roller, but turns it over

Even if subjectively we feel like it's the roller's fault for turning the ball over, the turnover will always be affixed to the handler as far as synergy is concerned.

Here's strong evidence that this is, indeed, the case - http://www.bulls101.com/2012/04/09/the-chicago-bulls-derrick-rose-and-hero-ball/


Rose > P&R Ball Handler > Turnover

Rose > ISO > Jumper > Miss 2

Rose > ISO > Turnover

Rose > P&R Ball Handler > Jumper > Miss 3

Rose > ISO > Jumper > Miss 2

*Deng and Rose take turns missing two free throws each

Rose > ISO > Jumper > Miss 2

*Game heads to OT

Rose > P&R Ball Handler > Jumper > Miss 2

*Noah grabs rebound of Rose miss and splits free throws

Noah > P&R Roll Man > Layup > Make 2 > And 1

Rose > Transition > Layup > Make 2

Rose > P&R Ball Handler > Jumper > Make 2

Noah > P&R Roll Man > Turnover

Rose > P&R Ball Handler > Jumper > Miss 2

Korver > Off Screen > Jumper > Miss 3

Rose > P&R Ball Handler > Turnover

Rose > Hand Off > Jumper > Miss 2

*Game Over

A Rose-Noah P&R that resulted in a Noah layup was credited to Noah under "P&R Roll man" but not Rose.

The only situations for P&R Ball Handler are if the ball handler makes the shot himself, misses the shot, or turns the ball over.

[tesseractive]

Why should it? They should both get points on a graph like this, if it didn't it should be harder to determine optimal player pairings.

Really, if you're going to do it that way, you're effectively analyzing the effectiveness of whole 5 man units -- if you count the pass out to the spot-up shooter toward the screener and the handler, you're also measuring his effectiveness as a spot up shooter, and bad shooters will have an effect on the overall success of the play (because defenders will more readily leave a bad shooter to provide help defense).

Even then, it would be useful to analyze which types of shots lead to the most successful outcome -- shots by the screener (whether spotting up or rolling to the basket), shots by the handler (whether pulling up or driving), or shots taken by other spot up shooters or players on cuts.

That kind of data is a lot harder to aggregate sensibly, I think, so I'd say this chart's simpler analysis (who took the shot, what kind of shot) is probably nearly as good and much easier to perform.

[jestersmash]

So you're saying that the graph includes both how the play was initiated AND how it finished (i.e., double counting)? That may be right, but jestersmash's interpretation is equally logical (and I'm guessing the more plausible one).

Unless someone has a link with the explanations, it's all guessing.

Here we go, here's another site that strongly suggests that Synergy's "PnR ball handler" only refers to when the Ball handler actually shoots (or turns the ball over) and does not credit the ball handler for making a pass to the roller who then lays the ball in -

http://www.bballbreakdown.com/breaking-down-the-celtics-and-sixers-offenses/



Stats provided by Synergy Sports

Rajon Rondo Running The Show
It’s interesting that the Celtics are merely average at Spotting Up, even though that’s the play they do the most by far. But I find it even more fascinating that the play they run 3rd most – the Pick And Roll with the Ball Handler shooting – is 2nd to last in the league in efficiency.

He reiterates "with the ball handler shooting" when discussing the Synergy "P&R Ball Handler" play type.

[ShoogarBear]

Yeah, under DespUrado's interpretation, the Noah layup should have had and entry for both the Handler and the Roll Man. Also, Korver's "Off Screen" jumper should have had somebody passing him the ball.

I think it's only counting how the play finished, not how it started.

[jestersmash]

Another site - http://www.stepienrules.com/2012-articles/march/synergy-sports-breakdowns-for-cavaliers-this-season.html


According to Synergy Sports, the percentage of times the Cavaliers ran each of the following Offensive Play Types for this season breakdown like this:

The Cavaliers were in Spot Up situations for 20.9% of the 5,034 total offensive possessions they've had through the first 47 games. They've been in Pick and Roll Situations with the ball handler shooting 13.9% of the time, Transition 12.9%, Isolation 9.3%, Cutting situations 9.1%, Miscellaneous sets 7.6%, Post-Up 6.9% of the time, shooting off Put Backs 6.8%, P&R where the pick man is shooting 6.5%, shooting Off Screens 3.2%, shooting off a Hand Off 1.9%, and for the other 1% of the time the video was not available.

[DespЏrado]

Another site - http://www.stepienrules.com/2012-articles/march/synergy-sports-breakdowns-for-cavaliers-this-season.html

Then the PPP term is being misused by the graph maker as PPP has to include assists, it's to bad he didn't include the raw numbers from the graph as it would be really easy to add an assist stat into the equation. You could approximate it.

I'll see if I can whip it up.

[timvp]

Synergy Stat Definitions

Offense – Plays

How we select the player - Synergy tracks the final play “type” in every offensive possession of the game. We always log the player responsible for the ending action which can be a shot attempt, turnover or drawing a foul that results in free throws.

So yeah, it's the ending action.

But I see where Despurado is coming from. When breaking down the Spurs offense, it's much more noteworthy to figure out which ballhandlers create the most points per play in the pick-and-roll. The ballhandler shooting himself is just a small part of the story. And since spot-up jumpers and pick-and-roll finishes don't create themselves, it's pretty pointless to figure the PPP of those occurrences.

[ShoogarBear]

So yeah, it's the ending action.

But I see where Despurado is coming from. When breaking down the Spurs offense, it's much more noteworthy to figure out which ballhandlers create the most points per play in the pick-and-roll. The ballhandler shooting himself is just a small part of the story. And since spot-up jumpers and pick-and-roll finishes don't create themselves, it's pretty pointless to figure the PPP of those occurrences.

Which goes back to my point: it would be much more interesting to see the efficiency of each initial set (i.e., TP PnR vs. Manu PnR :stirpot: vs. 4-down), and the see the breakdown of the finish (i.e., Ball Handler finish vs. Roller Finish vs. Spot-Up)

[pgardn]

What is ultimately beautiful about this game is when plays do breakdown how players adjust to the new situation. Many teams panic and one guy overhandles. We actually move the ball around. Which imo, is rather amazing as we have some very new fellows making some very nice passes.


We would definitely be a team that would earn a high number of assists one or two passes before the statistical assist. They used to keep track of this in hockey I think.

[jestersmash]

Which goes back to my point: it would be much more interesting to see the efficiency of each initial set (i.e., TP PnR vs. Manu PnR :stirpot: vs. 4-down), and the see the breakdown of the finish (i.e., Ball Handler finish vs. Roller Finish vs. Spot-Up)

Agreed. My "eyeball test" tells me that Tim Duncan tends to get better looks at the pick and pop with Tony handling the ball, while Splitter tends to get cleaner looks around the rim with Manu handling the PnR with him, but again this is all just speculation and could be wrong. It'd be nice to have the data.

I can safely say I don't actually remember the last time Gary Neal even attempted a pass to the roller on a PnR, which is why above anything else, I was surprised when Despurado nonchalantly found it unremarkable when he (albeit incorrectly) interpreted the OP data to mean Neal's overall PnR (passes included) > Manu/Tony's overall PnR.

Gary Neal's M.O. on PnR has been for him to look for his own shot most of the time, not necessarily because he's selfish or a ball hog, but because he's just not good enough to make the pass to the roller.

On the rare occasion I see Neal actually attempting to look for the pass first, he tends to go into somewhat of a defensive back-to-the-defender "crab dribble" while laboriously looking over his shoulder to see if he can get the ball to Splitter, but he's so slow at it that by the time he looks for the roll, the play is pretty much over and someone has to bail him out.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

js showed empirical evidence that both were not counted with the Bulls example. I see nothing else that proves the contrary.

[DespЏrado]

And just so we are clear the original graph was using a PPS meaning points per shot and shouldn't be labeled PPP. IMHO.


Ok so Assists per possession breaks down according to the formula at this link (http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=344&t=1114588) to

Parker .444 APP
Manu .352 APP
Neal .233 APP

Edit - strike the rest of this as it was bad math on my part.
Add that to the eyeball guesstimate of the original graph numbers (which does leave something out, in that we have to know how many of those assists were on a Pick'n roll but will might as well categorize this as good enough.)

Tony (~.75 on the graph + .444) = 1.194
Manu (~.78 on the graph + .352) = 1.132
Neal (1.0 on the graph + .233) = 1.233

Meaning Neal even though he is a much worse passer given his assists per possession still can run a possibly more effective pick 'n Roll. Unless we up the ante and count the assists as 2 points rather than 1.


If an assist is 2 points which seems more relevant
it would break down more like this.
Tony 1.6338 points per pick n'roll
Manu 1.484 points per pick n'roll
Neal 1.466 points per pick n'roll

[El Jefe]

Synergy keeps track of PnR's where a pass leads to spot ups, cuts etc. For MySynergySports.com, it gets simplified to the ending action. So if a Parker PnR leads to a Bonner Spot Up, only the Bonner Spot Up gets counted on that site.

I don't have a link to offer as verification, but I can tell you the total Points per Possession on all PnR's this season including the passes.

Neal - 1.116
Manu - 1.065
Tony - .982

Keep in mind, Neal and Manu are roughly equal in # of possessions, and Parker has twice as many as the other two combined.

[DespЏrado]

Nice find El Jefe, definitely didn't want to take my numbers as perfect beyond the Assists per possession.

The spurs as a total do 110.9 pts per 100 possessions so that breaks down to 1.109 PPP for the team.

[jestersmash]

Synergy keeps track of PnR's where a pass leads to spot ups, cuts etc. For MySynergySports.com, it gets simplified to the ending action. So if a Parker PnR leads to a Bonner Spot Up, only the Bonner Spot Up gets counted on that site.

I don't have a link to offer as verification, but I can tell you the total Points per Possession on all PnR's this season including the passes.

Neal - 1.116
Manu - 1.065
Tony - .982

Keep in mind, Neal and Manu are roughly equal in # of possessions, and Parker has twice as many as the other two combined.

Interesting, thanks for the data :tu

Neal's love affair with the simple screen --> 3 point shot attempt (coupled with the fact that he ends up making those 3s at a very respectable percentage) really helps him out here.

Manu hasn't been looking for the 3 off the PnR as much this year as he's admittedly tried to embrace more of a "facilitator" role on offense. If he can't get the pass to, say, Splitter, his second option is usually to drive in for the layup around the rim (or draw contact, although refs have been somewhat inconsistent at calling said contact for Manu this season).

Tony obviously doesn't have a reliable 3 point shot, so his PPP ends up suffering a bit there.

[jestersmash]

And just so we are clear the original graph was using a PPS meaning points per shot and shouldn't be labeled PPP. IMHO.


Ok so Assists per possession breaks down according to the formula at this link (http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=344&t=1114588) to

Parker .444 APP
Manu .352 APP
Neal .233 APP

Add that to the eyeball guesstimate of the original graph numbers (which does leave something out, in that we have to know how many of those assists were on a Pick'n roll but will might as well categorize this as good enough.)

Tony (~.75 on the graph + .444) = 1.194
Manu (~.78 on the graph + .352) = 1.132
Neal (1.0 on the graph + .233) = 1.233

Meaning Neal even though he is a much worse passer given his assists per possession still can run a possibly more effective pick 'n Roll. Unless we up the ante and count the assists as 2 points rather than 1.


If an assist is 2 points which seems more relevant
it would break down more like this.
Tony 1.6338 points per pick n'roll
Manu 1.484 points per pick n'roll
Neal 1.466 points per pick n'roll

At the risk of looking like I'm bullying you in this topic, this is a flawed analysis. Assists per possession includes all assists - not just assists made as the primary ball handler on the PnR.

You can't look at APP, multiply it by 2, add it to PnR "ball-handler" PPP and then claim that the final result is points "per pick n'roll."

[DespЏrado]

At the risk of looking like I'm bullying you in this topic, this is a flawed analysis. Assists per possession includes all assists - not just assists made as the primary ball handler on the PnR.

You can't look at APP, multiply it by 2, add it to PnR "ball-handler" PPP and then claim that the final result is points "per pick n'roll."

I know, just as close as I thought I could get without more data, especially just guessing what the graphs numbers were, accuracy wasn't possible. The APP is the only stat number I would use from there.

[DespЏrado]

Despurado nonchalantly found it unremarkable when he (albeit incorrectly) interpreted the OP data to mean Neal's overall PnR (passes included) > Manu/Tony's overall PnR.



Also this is patently false. I said Neal's pick n' roll was more likely to lead to points hence why I was arguing the PPP notation in the legend, not that he was in any way a better passer other than lobs (which Tony is horrible at and Manu is inconsistent at.)


El Jefe's numbers seem to back my original assertions up if they are true to source. And mean that my argument while procedurally wrong was still the correct assessment of the game and Neal's ability to provide instant offense in spurts.

That said there is no way I would play him more than spot minutes in the backup point when we need to jump start the offense or hit a 3.

Tony is a much better passer, paces the game better, breaks down defenses at will (his ISO stat attests to this.) and can actually play defense.

[jestersmash]

Also this is patently false. I said Neal's pick n' roll was more likely to lead to points hence why I was arguing the PPP notation in the legend, not that he was in any way a better passer other than lobs (which Tony is horrible at and Manu is inconsistent at.)


You said it doesn't surprise you as Neal throws the best lobs on the team (his lobs are soft and "on target"), while Manu's passes "get away from him" and Parker hits players too low.

You did not say (in that initial post) that Neal's pick and roll was more likely to lead to points. You incorrectly interpreted the data and emphasized Neal's "lobbing" ability while juxtaposing it to Manu's occasional turnovers and Tony's penchant to hit players too low.

Actually, here, I'll just post your original argument -


This doesn't surprise me as Neal also throws the best lobs on the team, As in his lobs are soft/ on target/ and hit the receiver in stride. Manu is the best passer but sometimes his passes get away from him. Parker tends to hit players too low and fast, but has improved immensely over the years.

Seriously there's no need to backpedal anymore. You were wrong. It's ok, it's not the end of the world.

I've been wrong plenty of times on this forum.

[DespЏrado]

No you assumed that was what I was arguing, I was trying to be complimentary of Neal who is already mostly known for shooting it, it would have been redundant to say Neal can hit the a jumpshot. It's Gary fucking Neal, He shoots, it's what he does.

He can occasionally connect the screening bigman with some of the best lobs a guard for the Spurs is capable of throwing, the most important part about his pick n' roll though is that he doesn't attempt a pass if he isn't sure of connecting the pass. His shot is as likely to connect as his pass, so he does exactly what a coach would tell him to do to make his PnR effective, don't hesitate to fire to get the best shot, pass only if you are going to connect it.

A great example of a lob though not on a PnR would be at the :25 second mark of this video Youtube. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZogpcsT0KWc&feature=related) The next shot is of him hitting a 3 on a PnR behind Tiago.

[ShoogarBear]

So the hard data we have from the initial PnR sets:
Neal 1.116 PPP
Manu 1.065 PPP
Tony 0.982 PPP

While Neal is obvious not in Manu or Tony's class as a passer, he's got pretty clever moves to the basket and so nobody cringes when he runs the PnR. Still, those numbers are surprising, and have to be due to Neal's quick release behind the pick.

I also suspect Neal benefits from being a change of pace (and playing against second-string) and think his PPP would drop if his minutes went up significantly.

Without any more data, one could guess that the breakdown of the finishes would be something like:
Neal: 70% shot, 10-20% roll man, 10-20% spot up
Manu: 50% shot, 30-40% roll man, 10% spot up
Tony: 60-70% shot (but more at the basket as opposed to Neal), 20% roll man, 10% spot up

[jestersmash]

No you assumed that was what I was arguing, I was trying to be complimentary of Neal who is already mostly known for shooting it, it would have been redundant to say Neal can hit the a jumpshot. It's Gary fucking Neal, He shoots, it's what he does.

He can occasionally connect the screening bigman with some of the best lobs a guard for the Spurs is capable of throwing, the most important part about his pick n' roll though is that he doesn't attempt a pass if he isn't sure of connecting the pass. His shot is as likely to connect as his pass, so he does exactly what a coach would tell him to do to make his PnR effective, don't hesitate to fire to get the best shot, pass only if you are going to connect it.

Your backpedaling throughout the thread is plainly evident to anyone who reads the topic, so I'll leave it at that :lol.

Half of your posts involve vehemently arguing your incorrect interpretation of "PnR ball-handler."

You started off emphasizing Gary Neal's magical "lobbing" abilities. Guess what? That's what I'm disagreeing with and frankly speaking there isn't any data on hand to corroborate either of our positions. Neal's lob pass to the roller on PnR is just about the last thing I would emphasize when trying to rationalize why he scores more PPP on PnR plays (including assists per jefe's data). This isn't an empirical claim - it's a claim based totally off watching the games. I'm saying there's (maybe) something wrong with your memory, whether it's confirmation bias or something else.

Subjectively if you were to ask most Spurs fans "Who throws the best lob passes to the roller on PnR," most of them would probably answer "Manu" (on Manu-Splitter PnR, just based on watching the games). Again, I doubt Synergy keeps track of "lob passes" off PnR play so we have no empirical data to go by.

By the way, you're attacking a straw man with your entire second paragraph :lol.

[DespЏrado]

Your backpedaling throughout the thread is plainly evident to anyone who reads the topic, so I'll leave it at that :lol.

Half of your posts involve vehemently arguing your incorrect interpretation of "PnR ball-handler."

You started off emphasizing Gary Neal's magical "lobbing" abilities. Guess what? That's what I'm disagreeing with and frankly speaking there isn't any data on hand to corroborate either of our positions. Neal's lob pass to the roller on PnR is just about the last thing I would emphasize when trying to rationalize why he scores more PPP on PnR plays (including assists per jefe's data). This isn't an empirical claim - it's a claim based totally off watching the games. I'm saying there's (maybe) something wrong with your memory, whether it's confirmation bias or something else.

Subjectively if you were to ask most Spurs fans "Who throws the best lob passes to the roller on PnR," most of them would probably answer "Manu" (on Manu-Splitter PnR, just based on watching the games). Again, I doubt Synergy keeps track of "lob passes" off PnR play so we have no empirical data to go by.

By the way, you're attacking a straw man with your entire second paragraph :lol.

No dude, I am arguing that when Neal connects a pass on a PnR its usually because he has 2 things 1) line of sight 2) it's usually a lob style pass as opposed to the through the knees passes of Manu's pick and roll or the wraparound style pass that Tony usually connects with.

These are just generalizations, but that is what they seem to go to as their go to passing style.

I didn't even notice the term "PnR ball-handler" until page 2, I was looking at the legend which says most ambiguously PPP which usually in most real world scenarios mean points per possession and not points per shot.

Besides this statement still ended up being the most wrong in the entire thread.
Manu and Tony would probably rank very high on such a list while Gary Neal would probably be < 1.00 PPP.

[El Jefe]

Without any more data, one could guess that the breakdown of the finishes would be something like:
Neal: 70% shot, 10-20% roll man, 10-20% spot up
Manu: 50% shot, 30-40% roll man, 10% spot up
Tony: 60-70% shot (but more at the basket as opposed to Neal), 20% roll man, 10% spot up

% Shooting:
Neal - 57%
Tony - 45%
Manu - 36.5%

When passing out, Parker and Manu are mostly an even split with a slight lean towards Spot Ups. Neal actually surprises me. So of the 43% of his PnR's that result in a pass, only 35% are to the screener, and 55% are out to Spot Ups. I would have easily thought those numbers would have been flipped.

[jestersmash]

Besides this statement still ended up being the most wrong in the entire thread.


Manu and Tony would probably rank very high on such a list while Gary Neal would probably be < 1.00 PPP.

:lol right. Making a speculative statement like "Manu and Tony would probably rank high while Gary's PPP would probably be < 1.00 is the most wrong in the entire thread.

Get over yourself.

Yeah, my speculation that Manu and Tony would probably have higher PPP on PnR play (including assists) was wrong. I'm not going to back pedal like I was trying to argue something else all along. I made a wrong speculation there. Unlike you, I have no problem admitting it.

[DespЏrado]

:lol right. Making a speculative statement like "Manu and Tony would probably rank high while Gary's PPP would probably be < 1.00 is the most wrong in the entire thread.

Get over yourself.

I made a wrong speculation there.....

...And there. And there. And there.

Yeah right, I was using definitions accepted by the NBA to mean one thing and was incorrectly used in this case. And you can't get off my case about it. But you've been wrong on all of your conclusions in this thread. You may have driven the car in this journey son, but you sure as hell drove to my front porch and forgot the lube.

[DespЏrado]

This doesn't surprise me as Neal also throws the best lobs on the team, As in his lobs are soft/ on target/ and hit the receiver in stride. Manu is the best passer but sometimes his passes get away from him. Parker tends to hit players too low and fast, but has improved immensely over the years.
Did you notice the word also in their son? Also as in my first statement was that he "also" happens to sometimes pass a lob well IE- it wasn't the primary reason he was the leading PPP player in terms of running the PnR. Also is a big little word. It means something.

[jestersmash]

...And there. And there. And there.

Yeah right, I was using definitions accepted by the NBA to mean one thing and was incorrectly used in this case. And you can't get off my case about it. But you've been wrong on all of your conclusions in this thread. You may have driven the car in this journey son, but you sure as hell drove to my front porch and forgot the lube.

Not at all surprised at the "taking it up the ass" joke, given that you're an immature faggot :lol

[DespЏrado]

Not at all surprised at the "taking it up the ass" joke, given that you're an immature faggot :lol

Like I said you're the one driving.

[Obstructed_View]

Gary Neal manages to get himself a shot, and he's deadly on the three when they go under the pick, but it's pretty funny to take away from this that he's a great passer. :lol

[DeadlyDynasty]

Gay thread.

[GSH]

Awwww hell. I had written a couple of things about this, and then I noticed a problem with the graph. Check out the scale on the rings. Each one should represent .20 PPP. The inner ring would be .20 PPP, the second ring would be .40 PPP, etc. Right?

Now look really carefully at the outer rings. There aren't enough of them to go with the numbers; i.e. you need 8 rings to represent 1.60 PPP, and there are only 7 rings. The graph should end at 1.40 PPP, not 1.60, unless the scale gets skewed the further out you go. (And I doubt that.) It's a little easier to understand Tiago's efficiency as PnR Screener to be 1.20 than 1.40.

Any comments? Did I miss something? Is it possible that the center point represents .20 PPP? Because it really becomes a problem.

For instance, take a look at the Thunder's graph. They averaged 109.8 PPP this season. But the only play they have that goes appreciably beyond the 5th ring (1.00 PPP) is the Serge Ibaka Cut - and it doesn't happen frequently enough to bring the average up that far.

The Thunder's most frequent play, Westbrook PnR Ball Handler, is somewhat short of the 4th ring, which should represent .80 PPP. With that graph, labeled the way it is, there's no way the Thunder could have averaged 109 PPP.

Someone please tell me what's going on with the graph, if you can. I don't want to waste any time analyzing skewed data. The only thing that even sort of makes sense to me is if the bullseye really is .20 PPP. At least that would just make it odd, and not skewed.


.

[GSH]

One more thing. When it comes to the other piece of the graph, each ring is supposed to represent 100 plays. And based on the article, the first ring represents 100 plays, not the bullseye. So did he just handle the two data sets differently? Or is the whole thing skewed?

Like I said, I don't want to waste time analyzing and commenting on a skewed graph.


Edit Again: Dammit, I just thought of another problem with analyzing this. How are FT's figured into PPP? I won't bother to go into all the different ways it might have been handled (or not handled). But it makes a big difference if you are really trying to analyze this thing. If one PnR Handler gets to the line a lot more than another, it's definitely going to increase the team's PPG. Does it increase his PPP on the graph, or does that only count made FG's?

Kevin Durant's efficiency as PnR Ball Handler doesn't look especially high. But you know that he gets to the line constantly. If his FT's aren't in there, there's not much use trying to use this graph.

[TheSkeptic]

Awwww hell. I had written a couple of things about this, and then I noticed a problem with the graph. Check out the scale on the rings. Each one should represent .20 PPP. The inner ring would be .20 PPP, the second ring would be .40 PPP, etc. Right?

Now look really carefully at the outer rings. There aren't enough of them to go with the numbers. The graph should end at 1.40 PPP, not 1.60, unless the scale gets skewed the further out you go. (And I doubt that.) It's a little easier to understand Tiago's efficiency as PnR Screener to be 1.20 than 1.40.

Any comments? Did I miss something? Is it possible that the center point represents .20 PPP? Because it really becomes a problem.

For instance, take a look at the Thunder's graph. They averaged 109.8 PPP this season. But the only play they have that goes appreciably beyond the 5th ring (1.00 PPP) is the Serge Ibaka Cut - and it doesn't happen frequently enough to bring the average up that far.

The Thunder's most frequent play, Westbrook PnR Ball Handler, is somewhat short of the 4th ring, which should represent .80 PPP. With that graph, labeled the way it is, there's no way the Thunder could have averaged 109 PPP.

Someone please tell me what's going on with the graph, if you can. I don't want to waste any time analyzing skewed data. The only thing that even sort of makes sense to me is if the bullseye really is .20 PPP. At least that would just make it odd, and not skewed.

I think they got the raw numbers from Synergy Sports or a place that bases its data on their findings. The graph is more or less in line with what they have.

Taking your example, for instance, right now Synergy has Splitter at 1.35 PPP on the PnR so that's more or less about right since I think he was at 1.39 PPP as the roll man recently.

Speaking of the devil btw, according to San Antonio's regular season Synergy numbers Splitter's sitting at 2.00 PPP on hand offs right now. :wow

Tim at 0.81 PPP from the post but better at cutting and screening than posting up.

Here's the link:http://www.mysynergysports.com/synergystats/?away=spurs&home=mavericks

Just click regular season and hopefully you'll see what I'm talking about. I know very little about advanced stats in sports but I'm not sure how the data would be skewed if these guys are basically just plugging the numbers into graph form. I'll bet they used Excel or something.

[GSH]

Taking your example, for instance, right now Synergy has Splitter at 1.35 PPP on the PnR so that's more or less about right since I think he was at 1.39 PPP as the roll man recently.

Just click regular season and hopefully you'll see what I'm talking about. I know very little about advanced stats in sports but I'm not sure how the data would be skewed if these guys are basically just plugging the numbers into graph form. I'll bet they used Excel or something.


Okay, that just means that the bullseye represents .20 PPP, and the first ring represents .40 PPP. It's a little odd, but at least the scale isn't skewed in the outer rings. The skewing is just in the labels, and where they are on the graph. Thanks for that.

I still wonder about the FT's. Kobe is another good example. I haven't checked this year specifically, but for his career he has gotten to the line with incredible frequency. If the PPP doesn't include the points off FT's, there's no way to really compare different players.

[TheSkeptic]

Okay, that just means that the bullseye represents .20 PPP, and the first ring represents .40 PPP. It's a little odd, but at least the scale isn't skewed in the outer rings. The skewing is just in the labels, and where they are on the graph. Thanks for that.

I still wonder about the FT's. Kobe is another good example. I haven't checked this year specifically, but for his career he has gotten to the line with incredible frequency. If the PPP doesn't include the points off FT's, there's no way to really compare different players.

Apparently it does.

"In other words, an (offensive) possession used includes field goal attempts, free throws, and turnovers. Note that it doesn't account for possessions that a player creates through rebounding or steals, although as we will see later, there are other stats that do so."

Here's the link for that one:
http://www.goldenstateofmind.com/2011/12/6/2602153/advanced-stats-primer

I'm getting the impression that this stat penalizes turnovers a lot though so it'll be a bit lower when comparing smalls to bigs I think.

[skulls138]

Numbers and graphs are one thing but when Duncan REALLY wants to score posting up, he'll do it and make it look easy. His biggest problem is that he gets too indecisive. He needs to stay patient and keep his dribble and get inside of the defense instead of doing that "jump to the left, while shooting to the right of where he think its going to go" shot. (though he made shots like that against Utah)

Ive seen Timmeh look great in the post but it has been when he's been decisive.

[GSH]

Apparently it does.

"In other words, an (offensive) possession used includes field goal attempts, free throws, and turnovers. Note that it doesn't account for possessions that a player creates through rebounding or steals, although as we will see later, there are other stats that do so."

Here's the link for that one:
http://www.goldenstateofmind.com/2011/12/6/2602153/advanced-stats-primer

I'm getting the impression that this stat penalizes turnovers a lot though so it'll be a bit lower when comparing smalls to bigs I think.


Ah... okay. They're pulling it off the box score and using the .44 FTA to estimate possessions. I've heard of some stat organizations that are going over every play, and actually counting things like that.

To give you some idea why I'd rather know something like that, consider - OKC had three of the top 10 players in the NBA in FTA's this season. (Their efficiency changes drastically if you can keep from getting whistles.) I've seen articles by some serious experts fail to take things like that into account. I always get a little more suspicious when I see something like a screwed up scale on a graph.

If you're comparing Manu to Neal, it makes a difference that Manu goes to the line about 2.4X more often than Neal, on a Per 36 minute basis. And over 2.6X more often on a FTA/FGA basis. I don't know how Manu is doing on drawing and-1 opportunities this year, but I'm sure it's a lot more than Neal. So when you're using that .44 FTA method to estimate possessions, it can really be misleading.

It's another example of something I say here periodically: the numbers never lie, but they don't always say what you think they are saying.


BTW - thanks for checking that out. I think you know more about the stats than you give yourself credit for.

[El Jefe]

For instance, take a look at the Thunder's graph. They averaged 109.8 PPP this season. But the only play they have that goes appreciably beyond the 5th ring (1.00 PPP) is the Serge Ibaka Cut - and it doesn't happen frequently enough to bring the average up that far.


First thing to note, I'm not sure where the 109.8 points per 100 possessions number came from. Synergy has the PPP for OKC at .968 overall, so you would expect 96.8 points per 100 possessions. That .968 number includes made FT's, but it also counts each shot as it's own possession. So if a player takes a shot and misses, and then there are 3 tip attempts before putting it home on the 4th tip, that's 2 points on 5 possessions total (initial shot + 4 tip attempts)

Second, the author states that he ignored all transition and o-reb play types, as those were more about opportunity and less about deliberate offensive choices. Transition and O-reb plays are usually right there with the Cut play type as the highest PPP. In the Thunder's case, Transition accounted for 14% of their total offense, their 3rd highest category. At 1.17 PPP, I imagine that would move the needle on their total PPP.