This is quite interesting. Have you or would you be willing to compute team USA opponent FG% from mid-range? I wonder where the frequency or FG% falls against the American defense.
To complete the picture it would be helpful to know team and individual frequency and FG% in the paint to go along with the 3 pt already available and the mid-range you provided. I guess that can be discovered by subtraction of these from the overall shooting totals. Perhaps the Americans got a lot of shots in the paint and scored well there and a byproduct was plays where they couldn't get all the way there and decided to shoot mid-range (with perhaps too much confidence and frequency) when perhaps they should have passed out and tried for either a 3 or another drive toward the paint. That pattern takes anyway from the value of driving, but it is a pattern that can be adjusted.
FTAs received from each distance would further enhance the dataset and interpretation of it.
Last edited by Mark on Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:44 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 03 Jan 2005 Posts: 413 Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:40 pm Post subject:
cherokee_ACB, I love this work on where shots were taken from. I have long believed that a key to winning is avoiding mid-range shots and getting the other team to shoot a lot of them. We don't see the second half of this here, but it is remarkable to see that in 9 games apiece, Spain and Greece shot fewer than 100 mid-range shots combined. That to me is strong evidence that one key "fundamental" to winning is avoiding the mid-range shot whenever possible.
What I can see is:
1.- This "no hand check" generation is losing that mid range shoot because penetrating is a better option today.
2.- The most of those starters are accustomed to be scoring initiators not cutters, and not accustomed to give more than just one only pass.
3.- That is the wrong group to play that Louisville game, not good 3p shooters.
4.- Fastpacing was the correct choice given their bad defense (not in finals), but 76% FG in a final? Thatīs not real, there is some lucky.
Player Made Att FG%
Anthony 34 56 61%
Wade 49 67 73%
James 41 56 73%
Brand 24 45 53%
Howard 20 37 54%
Johnson 9 12 75%
Paul 14 23 61%
Bosh 14 17 82%
Hinrich 2 7 29%
Battier 5 5 100%
Jamison 5 10 50%
Miller 3 8 38%
Team 220 343 64%
Wonder how these team USA performances compare to rest of tournament teams and individuals?
M A FG%
Spain 178 299 60%
Greece 171 294 58%
It appears team USA shot 5-6 more shots per game in the paint and at a slightly better FG% and also about 5 shots more from midrange and 2 more from 3pt land than these 2 other strong teams for the tournament. Given their low midrange % I would indeed encourage they shift more of them to paint or 3 pt if situation allows but defenses can steer or force you into taking midrange shots with pesky perimeter defense and interior zones.
Brand and Howard were modest FG% in the paint but at least got them. while Miller was not surprisingly weak there. Bosh was very good FG% but 2 paint shots a game isnt enough and is probably a combination of heightened defensive attention and not aggessive or at least successful efforts to overcome it. Hinrich didnt penetrate much and had poor small sample results.
Last edited by Mark on Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:02 pm; edited 8 times in total
This was easy to do just by grepping the files and doing a little spreadsheet work. Obtaining the opponent data would require some programming, which I may or may not do. I can tell you that Argentina went 8/13 in the Bronze game (poor scouting anyone?) and Greece 2/2 in the semifinal.
Names include Terry (also high on a 3pt list) and R Bell, previously suggested for team. Also Wally S. is on several of the most accurate lists. Others include Hassell (a good defender) Blount, K Thomas.
That is not a case for US skills getting worse, but for International players getting better.
I think it's a combination of the two.
Dan Rosenbaum wrote:
cherokee_ACB, I love this work on where shots were taken from. I have long believed that a key to winning is avoiding mid-range shots and getting the other team to shoot a lot of them. We don't see the second half of this here, but it is remarkable to see that in 9 games apiece, Spain and Greece shot fewer than 100 mid-range shots combined. That to me is strong evidence that one key "fundamental" to winning is avoiding the mid-range shot whenever possible.
I totally agree with that. But I also believe that a team that is only very effective with penetrations or post play, totally not with the mid range jumper, and so so from 3point land is easier to defend than a team who can mix it up. Only 5 teams did worse than the USA if we look to Cherokee his information. (19 the place). This info seems to suggest that the USA indeed is not so effective when it can't penetrate or score with a post move.
Defense might win championships, but it does not make good copy for a story about the lack of fundamentals of today's American players. So we ignore the fact that Team USA's problem was almost entirely at the defensive end.
Dan, I agree with you. Here is what I wrote in one of my 20SecondTimeout posts:
Quote:
Anyone who believes that Team USA lost to Greece because of poor shooting should carefully compare the boxscores of that game with the Argentina game. Team USA shot 33-66 (.500) from the field versus Greece and a virtually identical 37-72 (.514) from the field versus Argentina; they shot 20-34 (.588) on free throws versus Greece and an even worse 15-30 (.500) versus Argentina. Yes, the three point shooting was a little better versus Argentina (7-18; .389) than versus Greece (9-28; .321) but the real difference was at the defensive end: Team USA held Argentina to 34-75 field goal shooting (.453), including 4-21 (.190) from three point range, while Greece shot a blistering 35-56 (.625), including 8-18 (.444) from three point range. Team USA scored 95 points versus Greece and 96 points versus Argentina. Forgive me for belaboring the point, but scoring is not Team USA's problem, nor is shooting; defending against the pick and roll and guarding three point shooters are the two main things that hurt Team USA against elite FIBA teams. Team USA's poor free throw shooting was an aberration--is anyone seriously considering cutting James because he shot 1-4 versus Greece or Anthony because he shot 6-10 and then 1-6 versus Argentina? I don't think that selecting the team based on the NBA's free throw percentage leaders is a recipe for victory. If anything, those guys were trying too hard and missing more often than usual because they were pressing to make up for the defensive lapses that got them behind in the first place.
As I alluded to in that post, I made the same point throughout the tournament: Team USA's biggest problems happened at the defensive end of the court, not the offensive end.
I also agree with your earlier observation about Anthony's defense. In fact, in one of my posts I quoted you to reinforce an earlier comment that I had made on the subject:
On a different subject, I am not sold on Arenas being the answer at point guard. Just a few days ago in the Washington Post he whined about not being allowed to do his thing on the team and vowed to torch D'Antoni's Suns and McMillan's TrailBlazers next year because he feels that those two Team USA assistant coaches did not give him a fair shot. Since Arenas didn't make the cut this time anyway--and with Kobe, Billups and possibly others likely to be added next time--I suspect that Arenas may have talked himself out of any realistic chance to make the 12 man roster. You can find a link to the article with Arenas' quotes in the first post cited above.
1.- This "no hand check" generation is losing that mid range shoot because penetrating is a better option today.
I don't think there is such a thing as the "no hand check" generation; the rule was reinterpreted two years ago, and it remains unchanged at non-NBA/WNBA levels, so it seems hard to believe it has made much, if any, impact on player development.
Penetrating has always been a better option for young, athletic players of the kind which tend to be superstars on the perimeter. The re-interpretation favored those players; it didn't create them.
You are correct. You canīt loose what you never had, but USA donīt need it, īcause they are the best scorers in the paint of the world, even if you are so athletic to fastpace a whole game, you may fail some shots and it doesnīt matter. My point was not USA lost by offense, and they could have win it all even with their NBA defensive bad habits. I say they lost because Greece was in extasis.
Last edited by Harold Almonte on Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:41 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 14 Jan 2005 Posts: 971 Location: Delphi, Indiana
Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:45 pm Post subject:
I think there's a bit much hand-wringing over a single-elimination tournament of 40-minute games. Greece played 4 of its best quarters all in one game, so they won.
What if the NBA playoffs were 1-game affairs? Then last year, Dallas beat Miami in the Finals. Except that Miami was knocked out in the 2nd round by New Jersey. Oh, but NJ had already lost to Indiana ...
In 5 of 15 playoff series, the winner of the series lost in the first game. Same in 2005.
When the first 40 minutes is also the last 40 minutes, assume the 'better team' wins even less than 2/3 of the time (when teams are as disparate in strength as the NBA playoff field). _________________ 40% of all statistics are wrong.
I think in a single elimination tournament, if you have talent advantage, all odds in your favor, and no hurted players, is a matter of coaching. Is coachīs bussines to get, if possible, 150% from players right those no tomorrow moments, even defense overperformance. Coach K has proven a lot of Marchs, he knows it.
I think there's a bit much hand-wringing over a single-elimination tournament of 40-minute games. Greece played 4 of its best quarters all in one game, so they won.
While there is reason to believe that the U.S. was a better team than Greece, what occurred in this tournament that convinced you they were better than Spain? Or even Argentina -- since the same theory applies to the U.S. winning the bronze-medal game.
I think there's a bit much hand-wringing over a single-elimination tournament of 40-minute games.
Exactly. My thoughts going into the tournament were that the USA's chances of winning the gold, in a single elimination format, were about 50-50, and nothing I saw really changed my opinion on that. We were as good as any team there, but we didn't get the breaks. Replay the tournament and we would win some and lose some.
However, if we want to be more certain about winning, it's not enough to be as good or even better than the other teams there -- we have to be a whole lot better. Is that possible? With some minor tweaks on offense and some major tweaks on defense, do we have the potential to show up with the best team on offense AND defense? Or is that out of reach now?
Last edited by asimpkins on Fri Sep 08, 2006 4:18 pm; edited 1 time in total
Another excuse has been created. It has to do with the knock out format. Every time when I see something like this, I wonder when are you going to respect the opponents. I guess when number 5, number 7 and number I don't know how much, become actually players with names.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Every time when I see something like this, I wonder when are you going to respect the opponents. I guess when number 5, number 7 and number I don't know how much, become actually players with names.