Re: Offensive Geometry [www.hardwoodparoxysm.com]
Quote:
Originally Posted by
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.
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.
Re: Offensive Geometry [www.hardwoodparoxysm.com]
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jestersmash
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.
Quote:
Manu and Tony would probably rank very high on such a list while Gary Neal would probably be < 1.00 PPP.
Re: Offensive Geometry [www.hardwoodparoxysm.com]
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ShoogarBear
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.
Re: Offensive Geometry [www.hardwoodparoxysm.com]
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DespЏrado
Besides this statement still ended up being the most wrong in the entire thread.
Quote:
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.
Re: Offensive Geometry [www.hardwoodparoxysm.com]
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jestersmash
: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.
Re: Offensive Geometry [www.hardwoodparoxysm.com]
Quote:
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.
Re: Offensive Geometry [www.hardwoodparoxysm.com]
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DespЏrado
...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
Re: Offensive Geometry [www.hardwoodparoxysm.com]
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jestersmash
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.
Re: Offensive Geometry [www.hardwoodparoxysm.com]
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
Re: Offensive Geometry [www.hardwoodparoxysm.com]
Re: Offensive Geometry [www.hardwoodparoxysm.com]
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.
.
Re: Offensive Geometry [www.hardwoodparoxysm.com]
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.
Re: Offensive Geometry [www.hardwoodparoxysm.com]
Quote:
Originally Posted by
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. 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/syner...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.
Re: Offensive Geometry [www.hardwoodparoxysm.com]
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheSkeptic
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.
Re: Offensive Geometry [www.hardwoodparoxysm.com]
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GSH
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/201...d-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.
Re: Offensive Geometry [www.hardwoodparoxysm.com]
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.
Re: Offensive Geometry [www.hardwoodparoxysm.com]
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheSkeptic
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/201...d-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.
Re: Offensive Geometry [www.hardwoodparoxysm.com]
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GSH
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.
