I've been keeping track of PER. I haven't adusted for pace yet, but Gasol is #1 by a lot (think around 35), followed by Anthony, Wade, Schortsianitis, and Yao in a cluster, and Brezec, Mancinelli, Ginobili, Bosh, and Scola round out the top ten. Dirk is 12th. LeBron is 13th. People looking forward to this year's draft will be happy to know that Splitter has been a stud.
When the tourney's done, I'll finalize my spreadsheet and post PER for everyone.
Awesome, thanks for your (and everyone else's) work.
Joined: 03 Jan 2005 Posts: 413 Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:09 am Post subject:
According to my calculations, Team USA had an offensive efficiency of 128.1 points per 100 possessions in the loss against Greece. To put that into perspective, the difference between 128.1 and the best team in the NBA last season (Phoenix at 114.1) was larger than the difference between the best team in the NBA and the worst (Portland at 103.3). So, according to NBA standards, Team USA had a phenomenal offensive game.
But if you go to the polling at ESPN.com, most respondents to a poll are blaming "poor outside shooting" as the #1 reason Team USA lost. Of course, Team USA could have shot better from the three-point line, but with their off the charts offensive efficiency, it seems remarkable that most people are pointing to the offense as the excuse for the loss.
To further drive home this point, 62.2% of the respondents say that Michael Redd or another outside shooter would have made the difference in this game. Again that is remarkable.
Team USA lost this game because it could not defend Greece. Plain and simple. Our defensive efficiency was 136.2 points per 100 possessions. Greece did shoot the ball pretty well, but that was not the main story here. Greece got a lot of layups, mismatches, and wide open looks at threes. And they converted on those high percentage opportunities.
And this is not a matter of teams playing more efficient offense in international basketball. Spain and Argentina averaged 101 points per 100 possessions in their semi-final match-up, which is lower than that of any NBA team.
This was not a matter of Team USA not playing hard or even smart on defense. Or "a lack of fundamentals." To me it looked like Team USA was executing the defensive game plan, but the defensive game plan had no answer for the pick and roll. And with Team USA forcing just 4 steals for the whole game, the pressure defense that bothered lesser teams had no positive effect. What happened was that the pressure defense led to Team USA defending the pick and roll with no help defense and I just don't think there is much of a track record of that working well against skilled professionals.
Playing the type of defense that Team USA plays, it can be OK if they are able to force 10 or more steals a game like they did in the earlier contests. But against better teams where it is hard to force so many steals, this defensive strategy of pressuring the ball and playing the passing lanes makes it impossible for even good athletes like those on Team USA to play effective defense.
Remember at the end of the day, if Team USA was able to play defense at the level of the worst defensive team in the NBA last season - Seattle at 116.5 points per 100 possessions - we win this game by almost 10 points.
But before I close, I should add that it is possible that the type of defense that Coach K put in may be the best we can do in the short period of time we have to put together a team. Putting in a San Antonio-type keep-players-out-of-the-middle-and-off-the-three-point-line defense takes a lot of time, and maybe we don't have the time to do that on Team USA. Playing that type of defense may help us with the good teams, but against the lesser teams it may open us up to embarrassing defeats while we are still working out the kinks. There are a lot of tough choices to make - choices that need to be made by folks who know a helluva lot more about basketball than I do.
Joined: 30 Dec 2004 Posts: 410 Location: Near Philadelphia, PA
Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:50 am Post subject:
Screen and roll death.
Defense does win championships. And loses them.
I think Greece ran screen-roll every halfcourt possession in the 2nd half. I didn't chart, but I'd guess that 90% of their points were as a result of screen-roll. Either directly or indirectly -- lots of post ups that came about after a switch on screen-roll.
What makes international screen-roll so good, too, is that they move very well away from the ball, whether it's part of the play or not. So the help is constantly confused. It does help that the 3pt line is so short. It can be stopped a lot better than we did, in part by knowing how to play a zone (which is much harder to do in the NBA), but even playing man. (In the first half, we weren't handling other sets very well either, but once they figured out that we could not handle screen-roll, they never stopped with it.)
As an American, I feel horrible about this. (I've been feeling horrible about other American activities for a while, so I can deal with a basketball loss.) As a basketball purist, I don't feel bad about this at all. International basketball is FUN to watch. Competition is good and quality among the best teams is outstanding. The best international teams play great offensive ball tactically. Each player knows how to read ball, man, teammate and be a threat. Defensively, international teams know a lot better how to use zone principles than we know. It may not be as macho as straight man, but it's good basketball given the court dimensions and rules.
And I believe 100% that stats could have helped win this tournament. Hopefully, we'll be involved in 2008. _________________ Dean Oliver
Author, Basketball on Paper
http://www.basketballonpaper.com
Joined: 30 Dec 2004 Posts: 410 Location: Near Philadelphia, PA
Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:13 am Post subject:
I did want to make clear that I think our players made a great showing. They could have lost earlier to worse teams. They lost to a good team. The players should feel bad -- I would personally hate it. But it is a team in every sense -- communication is important, tactics are important, system is important. These players and coaches aren't playing against a world that is 20 or 30 pts worse than we are, as was the case in the 1990's. They are playing teams at or near our level talent-wise. The rest of the world has gotten better, a lot better. Losses will happen now and into the future. Golds aren't a given. They are really something to be earned and proud of. And, given our opponent tomorrow, a bronze this year would be quite impressive.
(At the end of our game, ESPN showed that the US has actually done only so-so for the last 30+ years in the World Championships, having won only twice since 1970, finishing 3rd or worse 5 times.) _________________ Dean Oliver
Author, Basketball on Paper
http://www.basketballonpaper.com
Which NBA coach has the best pick n roll defense? If they werent on the sideline, was this something that should have been foreseen and addressed?
Which NBA players are the best pick n roll defenders?
Would Tayshaun Prince, Gerald Wallace, Josh Howard, Haslem, Posey or others grade well on this? Should Bowen have been retained?
Or going the other way...
Any of the international coaches at World Championships worth considering for NBA? Or even just schemes, plays that worked well against team USA to beef up on?
Last edited by Mark on Fri Sep 01, 2006 1:54 pm; edited 5 times in total
How much is scouting to blame for this loss? It seemed like the US was absolutely clueless on how to guard pick and rolls. It's not like these players haven't seen this play time and time again in the NBA (and any other level of basketball they've played in). Is it really that hard to guard?
If it's true that we don't have the roster stability/cohesion to put together a good (or even average) team defense, maybe we should try to win with better shooters. Dwyane Wade and LeBron James couldn't hit a jumper and were erratic from the free throw line all game. When they're your primary playmakers and (supposedly) the best offensive players on the team, that's unbelievable. Was fatigue an issue? Perhaps all the racing up and down the court in previous tournament games tired them out?
Also, does anyone know if play by plays for these games are on the FIBA site? I remember seeing them before, but I can't find them now.
(At the end of our game, ESPN showed that the US has actually done only so-so for the last 30+ years in the World Championships, having won only twice since 1970, finishing 3rd or worse 5 times.)
Yeah but the USA used no nba players before 1994 (on WK's). Otherwise they would have done much better.
Last edited by Analyze This on Fri Sep 01, 2006 1:17 pm; edited 1 time in total
Team USA lost this game because it could not defend Greece. Plain and simple. Our defensive efficiency was 136.2 points per 100 possessions.
To me it looked like Team USA was executing the defensive game plan, but the defensive game plan had no answer for the pick and roll. And with Team USA forcing just 4 steals for the whole game, the pressure defense that bothered lesser teams had no positive effect. What happened was that the pressure defense led to Team USA defending the pick and roll with no help defense and I just don't think there is much of a track record of that working well against skilled professionals.
I agree that the pick and roll killed the USA and they lost because they could not defend it. But defending that is a part of basketball. If you can't do that anymore against a country with 11 million inhabitants their is something wrong with your defensive fundamentals. Because they could not disturb the Greek ball handlers the big men got the ball in a good position. But then again if those players would have made their ft's at let us say 79 % they would have probably won against the Greek pick and roll team. And if players like for example Wade also had an efficient mid range jumper the usa would have won. A lot of the usa players are driving more on their athletic abilities than on basketball fundamentals. And that's the real problem.
Was 6-7 Theodoros PAPALOUKAS the main initiator of the pick n roll? From his 12 assists I assume so. Who guarded him? Was he too big for Paul? Too fast or crafty for Hinrich? Did they put Wade or Johnson on him?
"How much is scouting to blame for this loss?"
Head scout Rudy T. Doubt he would have been my first choice right now, despite the resume that suggests he would be a good choice.
But in his defense, PAPALOUKAS only 3 assists per game prior didnt seem a huge threat on paper.
Was the pick n roll defense bad for team USA for both parts or particularly bad for one part?
Last edited by Mark on Fri Sep 01, 2006 2:21 pm; edited 2 times in total
Joined: 30 Dec 2004 Posts: 410 Location: Near Philadelphia, PA
Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 1:57 pm Post subject:
Analyze This wrote:
Dan Rosenbaum wrote:
Team USA lost this game because it could not defend Greece. Plain and simple. Our defensive efficiency was 136.2 points per 100 possessions.
To me it looked like Team USA was executing the defensive game plan, but the defensive game plan had no answer for the pick and roll. And with Team USA forcing just 4 steals for the whole game, the pressure defense that bothered lesser teams had no positive effect. What happened was that the pressure defense led to Team USA defending the pick and roll with no help defense and I just don't think there is much of a track record of that working well against skilled professionals.
I agree that the pick and roll killed the USA and they lost because they could not defend it. But defending that is a part of basketball. If you can't do that anymore against a country with 11 million inhabitants their is something wrong with your defensive fundamentals.
Well, it is harder to defend in international basketball. A couple guys just aren't used to having to defend it -- Carmelo, Lebron - because they usually play the 3 and screen-roll isn't done much with 3s. And our game plan wasn't well designed for screen-roll. We didn't see it that much in earlier games, but we here and Sheridan at ESPN kept talking about it as a weakness. Finally, a team just hammered it down our throats. I've got to think the staff knew it was a weakness, but didn't feel that they could fix it.
Analyze This wrote:
A lot of the usa players are driving more on their athletic abilities than on basketball fundamentals. And that's the real problem.
Tempting to say this, but I think it is too broad. When you play pick-up ball with guys you don't know all that well, it's hard to rely on coordinated tactics and guys rely more on individual skills. This was more than a pick-up squad -- they had good practice time, though perhaps not enough. They played pretty well as a team in a lot of ways. But putting in a good defense and adjusting to international rules (that seriously impact your defensive instincts) and knowing your teammates -- that is a lot. It can be done, I have no doubt.
But laying it at the feet of players relying on athletic abilities -- that is a shallow explanation, neither helpful (which, from Belgium, may not be your goal ) nor getting at the underlying causes. _________________ Dean Oliver
Author, Basketball on Paper
http://www.basketballonpaper.com
Joined: 30 Dec 2004 Posts: 410 Location: Near Philadelphia, PA
Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 2:06 pm Post subject:
Mark wrote:
"How much is scouting to blame for this loss?"
Head scout Rudy T.
Was 6-7 Theodoros PAPALOUKAS the main initiator of the pick n roll? From his 12 assists I assume so. Who guarded him? Was he too big for Paul? Too fast or crafty for Hinrich? Did they put Wade or Johnson on him?
We often trapped it with a big. Sometimes we trapped it way too high on the court, making for easy open shots. If we didn't trap it, someone would help and he'd dish to the guy who was left open. It's not a Paul/Hinrich thing. Johnson did get beat straight up in a couple isos early on that had me shaking my head. But the screen-roll was a coordination problem - the big and the guard have to work together. And then you have to have the other guys know what the rotation is after the screen-roll. It's a great tactic and very hard to defend against people who know how to run it. We could have done better. _________________ Dean Oliver
Author, Basketball on Paper
http://www.basketballonpaper.com
Joined: 03 Jan 2005 Posts: 413 Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 2:44 pm Post subject:
Analyze This wrote:
Dan Rosenbaum wrote:
Team USA lost this game because it could not defend Greece. Plain and simple. Our defensive efficiency was 136.2 points per 100 possessions.
To me it looked like Team USA was executing the defensive game plan, but the defensive game plan had no answer for the pick and roll. And with Team USA forcing just 4 steals for the whole game, the pressure defense that bothered lesser teams had no positive effect. What happened was that the pressure defense led to Team USA defending the pick and roll with no help defense and I just don't think there is much of a track record of that working well against skilled professionals.
I agree that the pick and roll killed the USA and they lost because they could not defend it. But defending that is a part of basketball. If you can't do that anymore against a country with 11 million inhabitants their is something wrong with your defensive fundamentals. Because they could not disturb the Greek ball handlers the big men got the ball in a good position. But then again if those players would have made their ft's at let us say 79 % they would have probably won against the Greek pick and roll team. And if players like for example Wade also had an efficient mid range jumper the usa would have won. A lot of the usa players are driving more on their athletic abilities than on basketball fundamentals. And that's the real problem.
I think the problem is that Coach K does not see a lot of pick and roll in the college game, especially with big guys who can stick a three pointer or go into the post. In the NBA teams defend this play with carefully orchestrated help defense. Team USA, for the most, did not help - not because they were lazy or lacked fundamentals, but because that was the defensive strategy we were employing. And so, for the most part, the two guys defending the pick and roll were left on an island to sink or swim. If they switched, they got killed on post plays or drives to the basket and if they did not switch, they got killed on three pointers or drives to the basket. In my opinion, this seems like we were using a defensive strategy that was destined to fail against good teams. And so like Dean, I just do not think it is right to blame the players for the defensive problems; for the most part, I think they were doing what they were instructed to do. It just was not going to work against a team like Greece.
And once again, we had a phenomenal offensive game, so while we could always be better offensively, it seems bizarre to blame the loss on a lack of good shooters. The USA/Greece game had the same number of possessions as Spain/Argentina and look at how few points were scored in that game. Our offense was an order of magnitude more efficient than the offenses of Spain or Argentina.
Our problems were almost entirely on the defensive end.
Our problems were almost entirely on the defensive end.
This brings me back to thinking about the makeup of the team. As much as everyone talked about building a team with role players rather than just a collection of stars, the final result was a roster made up of stars + Battier. And the stars are stars in the NBA because of their offense, not their defense. Outside Battier, Hinrich & Wade everyone on the roster looks like an average or worse defender to me (obviously this is highly debatable given the current lack of defensive statistics). Maybe Bowen shouldn't have been cut and more initial consideration should have been given to excellent defenders. Maybe some guys like Rasheed Wallace, Quinton Ross, Gerald Wallace, etc. (I am aware that some good defenders like Tayshaun Prince declined invitations.)
Joined: 03 Jan 2005 Posts: 413 Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 3:09 pm Post subject:
John Quincy wrote:
Dan Rosenbaum wrote:
Our problems were almost entirely on the defensive end.
This brings me back to thinking about the makeup of the team. As much as everyone talked about building a team with role players rather than just a collection of stars, the final result was a roster made up of stars + Battier. And the stars are stars in the NBA because of their offense, not their defense. Outside Battier, Hinrich & Wade everyone on the roster looks like an average or worse defender to me (obviously this is highly debatable given the current lack of defensive statistics). Maybe Bowen shouldn't have been cut and more initial consideration should have been given to excellent defenders. Maybe some guys like Rasheed Wallace, Quinton Ross, Gerald Wallace, etc. (I am aware that some good defenders like Tayshaun Prince declined invitations.)
I suspect this could have helped some, but I don't think it would have helped a lot given the strategy we employed on defense. A lot of those defenders are good in the context of the type of help defense played in the NBA. I am not sure they would have been that effective in the scheme Team USA was playing. And then, of course, with some of those players we likely would not have been as efficient on the offensive end.
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
) nor getting at the underlying causes.