APBRmetrics

Mountain · Joined: 13 Mar 2007 Posts: 1527

Some stray notes arising from beginning to review John Hollnger's release of PER projections & player profiles:

(See ESPN for the material.)

25 over PER 20.

Only 2 SFs. Durant to join them? Eventually. But John has him only gaining less an point on PER this season. And of course he probably actually has to start playing that position.

Half the top 10 under 25, including the top 3.

Jason Kidd 21st by PER at his position (just barely ahead of over the hill Mike Bibby). Viva la "triple ocho"! And of course the other contributions beyond the box score. Kidd did have a +7 adjusted +/-.

Attention to "2 point" / mid-range shooting percentage is a welcome addition of detail in a number of the write-ups but it is worth keeping in mind that the league's best mid-range shooter Steve Nash shot them at an efficiency rate a bit below the average 3 point shooter in the league.

To me that is an imbalance, overweighting the longer hoist; but given that they get rewarded with 3 points, I'd opt for as many of them (or close shots) as possible and as little mid-range shooting as possible. Being above average at the mid-range shot is good as plan C but it is still an efficiency danger. I'd venture to say overused some or a lot especialy by perimeter players and perhaps praise for this skill should be offset with a check on the frequency of use, the appropriateness of that frequency and the efficiency costs to the team.

If others want to add their own comments or questions, of course feel free to do so.

deepak · Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 665

I'd like to get other people's opinions on this as well.

If you look at those players considered among the very best offensive players in the game -- Kobe, Nash, Nowitzki, etc. -- they invariably have a very strong mid-range game. Yet, I often here that the long 2 is the worst shot you can take. Clearly that's the case in terms of eFG%. But I wonder if there are other, indirect effects for a strong mid-range shooter that makes it very worthwhile.

Generally speaking, do we tend to overrate the importance of eFG% over pure FG% on jump shots?

On another note, I noticed when going through these previews that Rafer Alston's 08/09 outlook was missing. Instead, it was discussing DJ Strawberry. Also, if John can chime in here, I wonder why he's so certain that the Rockets will start Artest at PF? I haven't heard that from anyone else, including the beat writers. In fact, not too long ago before Battier sat with the ankle problem, Daryl Morey was suggesting that the coaches were leaning towards Artest coming off the bench.

Kevin Pelton · Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 11:15 am Post subject:

Mountain · Joined: 13 Mar 2007 Posts: 1527

I agree deepak there are indirect effects for a strong mid-range shooter that probably raise its value over what we see. For him and team. So my criticism of it was surface level though it still potentially remains overused in some cases. It helps prevent the defense from smothering the 3- for that guy or others. It could be a substantially better bailout on the margin compared to a pressured rushed shot by a lesser clutch shooter on the team. And it is better than a shot clock expiration.or a block of a shot taken in too far (seeking the higher percentage inside shot. worth trying up to a point for as much as you can get net efficiency on all such takes).

It is logical that a team have at least one strong mid-range shooter, maybe especially the PG or primary ball-handler for when that shot is necessary or for its useful effects.

For the Clips and Celtics Cassell took about 3/4ths of his shots from mid-range. It comes down to whether he took them at the right time and made enough. I can't instantly judge on the former but his FG% went down from 47% on the mid-range shot in LA (which attracted Ainge & Rivers) to just 40% in Boston (that it still pretty strong for this type of shot but very weak compared to all other types). Did Cassell overdo the mid-range shot or just not hit it enough? Closer observers are better equipped to say than me but it seems a worthwhile question. If you don't hit it enough the other options start to look better.

Travis Outlaw as the 8th highest in league on % of shots being mid-rangers at 73%? That seems way way wrong to me. And he is talking like he is going to launch more of them this season. 41% FG% on them isn't bad, compared to others on the mid-ranger, but is Outlaw taking a lot of these shots bad decision-making on his part or a bad offensive system?

Nowitski mid-range at 64% of his attempts. Not a serious problem really given that he makes 49% of them.

Aldridge mid-range at 62% of his attempts. I'd consider it on its face to be somewhat of a problem really given that he only makes 42% of them. Of course this is composite of all such shots designed and bailout but I'd have to be shown that it is a good efficiency shot as a first option on a designed play before I'd call that play much.

Stuckey at 50% mid-range attempts but only hit 35% on them. I'd push to curtail his use of the mid-range. Go all the way for the close shot or foul young man. 24% on the 3 point shot doesn't make that a good option yet.

Jeff Green 50% mid-rangers, hitting 33% FG%. Get better or it should be curtailed. Thornton the same way.

Kobe only 50% mid range shots but hitting just 42%. May have to take some of these but how many are "have to" and how much is star behavior, the "Kobe show", less efficient than some available option? McGrady also at 42% FG% but takes 57% mid-range. Feels like too much to me.

Durant- pretty McGrady like on this, but not passing- 58% mid-range attempts, hitting just 39% FG% on them. Too much on its face.

Roy isn't much different but it looks, feels, gets talked about in a different way. Talk is that he is "getting the job done". Well. maybe moderately successfully but to get the Blazers to elite does he hit the mid-range more or use his other options more? Either or both is fine but which will be his primary direction? And which works? A key to watch.
Roy could be this way, a relief valve, but if Roy, Aldridge and Outlaw are all this way that appears to be a serious issue to me.

There are about 90 players who use the mid-range shot for 50+% of their shots. Using well below 40% FG% as a first cut for criticism, there are about 15 guys who especially need to dial use of that shot back. But use 45% as the standard and about 80 guys need to try to dial it back. Which is right? Would take more thorough review of all costs & benefits. Probably somewhere in the middle.

And of course there are probably dozens or maybe even another hundred who use the mid-range shot less than 50% but still objectively need to try to dial it back given their efficiency compared to whatever the marginal efficiency of the other alternatives are on average when they feel tempted or pressured into that mid-range shot.

One of the main principles of defense in today's NBA would appear to me to be "we want them to take the mid-range shot". Don't make it too easy, but make it the outcome as much as possible- instead of the 3 which many players can produce better efficiency results from or letting them in deep.

bchaikin · Joined: 27 Jan 2005 Posts: 689 Location: cleveland, ohio

another great job by john...

time to play the hollinger game - who is he describing with these classic lines?...

"...If this guy were any softer you'd use him to blow your nose..."

then this one:

"...is a slow-moving defensive specialist who scores once every lunar eclipse..."

loved this one about mark madsen:

"...his offensive skills have waned to the point that he's barely usable even in a limited role, but thanks to the genius of Kevin McHale he's on the books for two more seasons... It must be fun for Randy Wittman to look down the bench and see Madsen, Brian Cardinal and Jason Collins all sitting there -- it's like the Mount Rushmore of deadweight contracts..."[/i]

Mountain · Joined: 13 Mar 2007 Posts: 1527

Looks like team average for midrange shots in somewhere in mid 40%s.

Orlando at the minimum for midrangers at 29% and at the max on 3 pointers at 32%. I might have to upgrade their win projection for that profile. Wondered about but don't see not much slippage against the over .500 teams on 3 pt FG% regular season but in the playoffs there was a little more dropoff.

Unweighted for shot quantity, number of players at 50+% for midrange shots:

Relatively high at 5- Chicago, Cleveland, Clips, Miami

But Bennett's pre-Thunder as staffed by Presti and run by PJ Carlesimo at a ridiculously out of step 9.

Lowest for elites teams- Houston 1, Orlando, Philly and Lakers 2.

Blazers at 4 are probably a bit above average.

5 of the top 10 on % midrange shots made playoffs but only 1 won a series - Detroit, #5 on % midrange, a strength and maybe also a weakness.

Only 5 of lowest 10 on midrange made playoffs but 4 of them won a series and in fact together they won 10 of the 15 series.

Gary C · Joined: 14 Apr 2006 Posts: 69

Indeed, a principal principle of defense is to make them take the long 2 pointer.

But it is also useful to shoot them and make them at a decent clip, in order to keep the defense honest IMO. Something that seems suboptimal now can lead to better inside and 3 point shots later on.

It would be interesting to see how the teams that are best at forcing teams into midrange jumpers (SA is one I assume) fare, relative to "normal" opponents against teams that are proficient at making that shot (Wash? is one off the top of my head). Or awful, the extremes in each case facing up in the 4 possible ways.

Mountain · Joined: 13 Mar 2007 Posts: 1527

I didn't compute exactly what you asked about but I do see that 9 of the best 11 on forcing mid-range shots made playoffs and won 13 of the 16 series.

from this chart
http://www.82games.com/FDTEAM6.HTM

This doesn't seem random but of course I haven't seen previous years.

Utah 8th "weakest" at forcing mid-range shots. An issue.
Portland 10th.

A stray player note- looking at another chart at 82 games I see the main players with the biggest own FG% spread against good teams compared to vs poor are probably Amare (12.5 percentage points 64.5% against poor, 52% against good), Deng (13 % pts) and Yao (10% pts).

Mountain · Joined: 13 Mar 2007 Posts: 1527

Celtics in playoffs forced 54% of opponent shots from mid-range and only allowed 24% from in close. Both substantially better than in regular season (46% of opponent shots from mid-range and only allowed 29% from in close). Enough to survive their own slippage in close shot FG%. Their own midrange % stayed about the same with 3s up a little and in close down a little.

Detroit's inside shot % fell significantly in playoffs. Midrange shooting went from 50% regular season (5th highest) to 59% in playoffs. A big red flag to me. 3 pt shooting fell from 20% (10th least regular season) to under 18%. Bad shot distribution trends.Close shots not much changed.

More Stuckey, Johnson. Brown should help inside shots % next season But it won't help with 3 point shooting which was already bottom 10 in makes per game. Hamilton is the most accurate 3 pt shooting SG but at 2 attempts a game he is 42nd on attempts. Hamilton Stuckey does not seem like that good a combination for 60+ minutes with regard to 3 pt shooting. Michael Redd might be one target for more 3 point shots. I'd think the Bucks would jump at Redd-Hamilton & filler. For Joe D Redd give more size for sliding him some to SF to accomodate the ascension of Stuckey or just covering the power guards they'll see in the playoffs. Higher salary but locked up longer.

Jamal Crawford might be a bigger risk but maybe a better roll with his PG capability. Quietly had a +10 adjusted +/- last season and even with an error of 5 it was a good season on that metric.

Dallas was great at limiting in close shots in '08 playoffs at a very low 18% but everything else was too easy. Not the right balance AJ. In successful 06 playoff run they gave up very high inside shot % but smothered the perimeter from a FG% standpoint. Interesting how folks can slip from a good pattern.

Mountain · Joined: 13 Mar 2007 Posts: 1527

Trading Camby for mainly the trade exception was a shocker but if Chris Andersen works out it will make more sense. Andersen and the option to sign somebody else or not is a flexible though risky play.

Andersen playing PF next to Nene and / or C next to Martin might work alright for that rebounding /defense role.

Mountain · Joined: 13 Mar 2007 Posts: 1527

Durant finally played a game as a forward, though it is pre-season and probably at this point is still just a game necessity. 14 rebounds but 4-16 from field. 3 steals 2 blocks but a big loss. Probably some time at PF as they played small against Warriors.

Fit with Jeff Green as the wings remains highly questionable. As a forward duo remains to be seen. Jackson-Harrington works for the opponent they faced tonight. But they provide far better outside shooting and passing and even defense.

Durant as SF should work, even now. Durant at PF some might make sense when he is strong enough.

Green as a starter at either spot has yet to make much sense. Worked better at PF but right now hard to see that having a real bright longterm future. Could be at the backup at both spots but with neither ideal that isn't that much for a #5 pick.

Westbrook at 7 assists and 13 turnovers.

Presti and his tweener problems. Growing pains or miscalculations? Time will tell, way down the line.

**John** **Hollinger** · Joined: 14 Feb 2005 Posts: 175

Thanks for the props Bob. On OKC, seems to me that they're drafting almost solely on defensive ability if there isn't a master-of-the-obvious selection (ie Durant), but with such high picks they should be gunning for more offense. Presti's done an awesome job in every other respect, but I'm not sure that Westbrook/Green are going to give him decent value for top five picks.

NickS · Joined: 30 Dec 2004 Posts: 384

Mountain · Joined: 13 Mar 2007 Posts: 1527

Presti thought he was getting passing and defense from Green but so far he is a below average passer (even among SFs) and well below on defense. The mock draft consensus was Green was 8=10th best player and as of today that looks closer to right or even generous. But he gets year 2 and even 3 to show improvement and maybe the exceptional grant of playing time will do some good.

He's taken the team to awful on 3 point shooting and very little improvement on defense. Picked a head coach who didn't achieve much positive last season with a terribly inefficient offense under play fast Westhead.
Are the players going to look back and say we sure learned a lot about how to do things "the right way" (?) / used those years wisely? If it is all a tank, you could try to whitewash this but there is damage done.

Trading Landry was wrong. Unexpected quality but a mistake to trade. Gave Sene and Petro option years and gave Swift the 5th year. Does Ibaka eventually come over? I give it 50-50 at best given that he might not develop or if he does the Euro salaries may make it more attractive to stay over there. Was Presti right to get then give Delonte West away? How different will Westbrook's performance be from West's?

Organized his cap without star salaries but among the most bloated with mid-range, little impact players. Could be trade bait but it isn't anything worthwhile for the future yet.

Whether Presti has done an "awesome" job so far will be revealed by where they are 2-3 years from now. Are they going to do be doing fabulous by then? I doubt it.
I'd rate getting back to playoff in 3-4 years a good job. To be awesome it would have to quicker or a fast move to going deep. If Durant walks eventually, I think you'd have to call it a disaster. I'd say the odds of Durant walking have climbed in the last year and will climb further after this year due some of Presti's decisions and what they produce. Right now I'd say PJ is not a strong choice to be developing Durant and Jeff Green is far from the perfect compliment.

Presti's performance vs keeping Lewis and / or Allen- even just for a different later deal- or a rebuild by another GM. Will his path prove better than all others?

He gets his chance but he'll have to deliver.

NickS · Joined: 30 Dec 2004 Posts: 384