Blazer's Edge: "Defense May Not Be As Good As It Seems"

[Hey]

http://www.blazersedge.com/2015/1/12/7529953/portland-trail-blazers-nba-three-point-defense-good

An excerpt:

Why are opponents shooting so poorly against the Blazers?

I have no idea. That was all I had. I am officially out of ideas.

This makes me nervous because if there's no basketball reason then the only thing left is luck and luck is one unreliable lady. She tends to run out right when you need her most.

Even if you disagree (I mostly do), it's worth a read.

tl;dr - He argues that the biggest factor behind the Blazer's amazing defense is poor opponent 3pt % and that the Blazers aren't really to credit for it.

 

[Sinobas]

?? The Blazers intentionally emphasize guarding the 3 at the expense of helping out on penetration. They were good at guarding the 3 last year too. I haven't even read the article, but it sounds stupid.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Sounds like what Blazers Edge has become as of late. If the Blazers have problems, they'll quote chapter and verse as to what they are, why they exist, and who's to blame. If the Blazers are succeeding, they'll tell you it's only temporary, where the chinks are, and why it won't last.

Failing that, they apparently just tell us that it's luck, and we should just trust them that we're not really as good as EVERY KNOWN STATISTICAL MEASURE says we are. What a joke that site has become.

 

[Sinobas]

Using a binomial probability calculation, the probability that the Blazer opponents are shooting shooting 28.7% by sheer chance is 1 in 5000.

 

[BrianFromWA]

-by NOT Ben Golliver

:sigh :

(Pours one out for the artist formerly known as BEdge)

 

[Natebishop3]

All I saw was "blah blah blah sour grapes"

 

[Boise Blazer]

It's crazy how go to Blazers Edge was for me in the past and how much I simply avoid it now because of things like this. I won't even click on that link now. If they want to find ACTUAL weaknesses and break those down then I'm fine with that. No team is perfect and there is always room to improve.

But to go after the clear improvement is nothing short of idiotic. This team only needed to get better a defense and instead it has become very good if not great. So even if "luck" caught up with them we would still be a good defensive team with exceptional offense potential.

S...M...H I hate lazy writing like that.

 

[PDXFonz]

I clicked the link and saw there was no video, then I did a search for 'help' and found no mention of help defense, in any manner. I then proceeded to scoff, and close the page.

 

[B-Roy]

Did you guys even read the article? It's not by Ben Golliver, more in the vein of a forum post with a lot of evidence and quoted stats. Even if you disagree with the premise, you should at least READ the damn thing because aside from all the hate Blazersedge gets on here there's actually a lot of good analysis supported by facts.

 

[PDXFonz]

Did you guys even read the article? It's not by Ben Golliver, more in the vein of a forum post with a lot of evidence and quoted stats. Even if you disagree with the premise, you should at least READ the damn thing because aside from all the hate Blazersedge gets on here there's actually a lot of good analysis supported by facts.

Any article written about defense, but not including help defense, is worthless imo.

I scanned it and it mainly seems to focus on how our OPP 3PT% is destined to increase. I did not see any talk about defensive schemes or player adjustment in transition, switching pick and rolls over/under etc... Instead it looks like somebody read a few box scores or went to NBA.com/stats and turned what they saw into a meaningless article.

 

[B-Roy]

Any article written about defense, but not including help defense, is worthless imo.

I scanned it and it mainly seems to focus on how our OPP 3PT% is destined to increase. I did not see any talk about defensive schemes or player adjustment in transition, switching pick and rolls over/under etc... Instead it looks like somebody read a few box scores or went to NBA.com/stats and turned what they saw into a meaningless article.

Okay, from this response, you clearly did not read it. Come back to me once you've actually read the article.

 

[magnifier661]

Did you guys even read the article? It's not by Ben Golliver, more in the vein of a forum post with a lot of evidence and quoted stats. Even if you disagree with the premise, you should at least READ the damn thing because aside from all the hate Blazersedge gets on here there's actually a lot of good analysis supported by facts.

I did read the article and what the writer clearly didn't mention is that the Blazers are also 3rd in the entire league for 2 point FG% allowed. http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/opponent-two-point-pct

So how does this help their 3 point defense? Well it's pretty obvious that only a select few have the ability to drain "out of rhythm 3s", so most good 3 point shooters have players that either slash and kick out or toss it into a big guy that demands attention and kick out to a wide open 3. What makes Portland's defense so amazing is how we single coverage. Read the game threads and you would think teams are having our lunch from the paint, but that is by design. What happens, is that's all they get, and usually every shot is contested. But what we really don't see is that rhythm 3 is gone. Usually shooters are getting them late in the clock or completely out of Rhythm.

So those advanced metrics, which I like as well, don't tell the entire story. And Blazers Edge fail to see the entire picture and focus on just one simple thing (They write like Sinobas). Purely it ain't that simple. Our defense is a "well oiled machine" that have multiple dimensions. If you look at the link I provided, we are doing so many things right, and to top it off with the best rebounding, and we got ourselves a winner here.

So I admire your position to defend "Blazers Edge", but the article really does anything but give us lazy journalism. Instead of trying to explain, they only point out a single thing, decide to sell it for gold, when it's really a pile of shit.

Sorry...

 

[B-Roy]

I did read the article and what the writer clearly didn't mention is that the Blazers are also 3rd in the entire league for 2 point FG% allowed. http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/opponent-two-point-pct

So how does this help their 3 point defense? Well it's pretty obvious that only a select few have the ability to drain "out of rhythm 3s", so most good 3 point shooters have players that either slash and kick out or toss it into a big guy that demands attention and kick out to a wide open 3. What makes Portland's defense so amazing is how we single coverage. Read the game threads and you would think teams are having our lunch from the paint, but that is by design. What happens, is that's all they get, and usually every shot is contested. But what we really don't see is that rhythm 3 is gone. Usually shooters are getting them late in the clock or completely out of Rhythm.

So those advanced metrics, which I like as well, don't tell the entire story. And Blazers Edge fail to see the entire picture and focus on just one simple thing (They write like Sinobas). Purely it ain't that simple. Our defense is a "well oiled machine" that have multiple dimensions. If you look at the link I provided, we are doing so many things right, and to top it off with the best rebounding, and we got ourselves a winner here.

So I admire your position to defend "Blazers Edge", but the article really does anything but give us lazy journalism. Instead of trying to explain, they only point out a single thing, decide to sell it for gold, when it's really a pile of shit.

Sorry...

Just for the record, I don't exactly agree with the conclusions drawn out by the article. There's a lot of factors that it doesn't take into account, but then again, it's hard to take EVERYTHING into account. Your explanations however, are just as much conjecture as the ones presented in the article. Even if you don't agree with the conclusions, (and I don't), there's some puzzling statistics, like how the Blazers are relatively average at contesting shots even though teams shoot terribly on open shots.

The only reason I'm defending the article is because it's stupid to dismiss something without even giving it a chance, just because you're biased against the source. It's not even written by Ben Golliver, who for the record, doesn't even write for Blazersedge anymore, and is now writing stupid articles for SI. There's actually a lot of good discussion in the comments section, multiple people pointing out reasons why the stats may be misleading, or possible things that aren't taken into account but are hard to quantify. The article isn't really even negative, this conclusion sounds more cautiously optimistic to me:

The Portland Trail Blazers are absolutely a title contender and people are finally starting to notice. Enjoy it, revel in it even but let's not pretend there aren't any questions. If opponents start shooting like they did last year Portland's defense would fall all the way back down to average. That's not likely to happen since we're already 37 games into the season but that statement is staggering. This is not a small issue and the chance that the Blazers' defense isn't as good as their numbers suggest is the scariest thing currently facing Rip City.

Luckily, the Blazers are not the only Western Conference playoff team with questions still left to answer. From health to depth to free throw shooting, no one's resume is spotless. It's tempting to see the Blazers' record and feel that they're pulling away from the pack. But this question about whether opponents' poor outside shooting will continue is the biggest thing keeping Portland within the morass of the Western playoff picture rather than above it.

The author even mentions that he thinks the Blazers will still be a top 10 defensive team after some regression. I just don't understand the need to instantly bash something without giving it a chance.

 

[PDXFonz]

Okay, from this response, you clearly did not read it. Come back to me once you've actually read the article.

Why waste my time reading it when I can do a search for words used in the article?

Usage Of the word "three": 31
Two:4
Transition:0
Help(in context of defense):0
Switch:0
Chemistry:0
On ball:0
Zone:0(understandable)
Man:0
Post:0
Paint:0
Steal:0
Block:0
Turnover:0

Also the title of the article might as well have been "How Lhasa Apso's and Shih Tzu's are similar yet different".

 

[magnifier661]

And if you really want to get down to the nitty gritty... I am a huge defense fan. It's what I love watching, when it's done with such fundamentals and thought.

Check out this stat.... http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/opponent-two-point-rate

We are second worst with giving up two point shots. Chicago is worse, while NOLA and SAS aren't too far behind. Why are they doing this? You would think this wouldn't be what a top 2 defensive team does.

But the reality is this. Another genius design on the "team oriented" defensive scheme. Our wings are putting pressure and funneling the players they know love to finish in the paint. They use their bigs to either disrupt or block their shots, but still make them think they are doing so well. But the reality is that's exactly what they want them to think. Then at half time, they take that away and guarding the 3 is much easier.

We really need to give the coaching staff a lot of credit. They are playing the puppet so masterfully! Our players and coaching staff are scouting the hell out of teams, which is why I believe there is absolutely no team that can beat us in a 7 game series.

 

[Boise Blazer]

I could be mistaken but isn't another part of our defense to make players shoot shots in areas on the floor where they don't shoot as well? So although they may seem like opene or easy shots they are lower percentage shots due to where on the floor that they are not as successful at.

 

[magnifier661]

Just for the record, I don't exactly agree with the conclusions drawn out by the article. There's a lot of factors that it doesn't take into account, but then again, it's hard to take EVERYTHING into account. Your explanations however, are just as much conjecture as the ones presented in the article. Even if you don't agree with the conclusions, (and I don't), there's some puzzling statistics, like how the Blazers are relatively average at contesting shots even though teams shoot terribly on open shots.

The only reason I'm defending the article is because it's stupid to dismiss something without even giving it a chance, just because you're biased against the source. It's not even written by Ben Golliver, who for the record, doesn't even write for Blazersedge anymore, and is now writing stupid articles for SI. There's actually a lot of good discussion in the comments section, multiple people pointing out reasons why the stats may be misleading, or possible things that aren't taken into account but are hard to quantify. The article isn't really even negative, this conclusion sounds more cautiously optimistic to me:

The Portland Trail Blazers are absolutely a title contender and people are finally starting to notice. Enjoy it, revel in it even but let's not pretend there aren't any questions. If opponents start shooting like they did last year Portland's defense would fall all the way back down to average. That's not likely to happen since we're already 37 games into the season but that statement is staggering. This is not a small issue and the chance that the Blazers' defense isn't as good as their numbers suggest is the scariest thing currently facing Rip City.

Luckily, the Blazers are not the only Western Conference playoff team with questions still left to answer. From health to depth to free throw shooting, no one's resume is spotless. It's tempting to see the Blazers' record and feel that they're pulling away from the pack. But this question about whether opponents' poor outside shooting will continue is the biggest thing keeping Portland within the morass of the Western playoff picture rather than above it.

The author even mentions that he thinks the Blazers will still be a top 10 defensive team after some regression. I just don't understand the need to instantly bash something without giving it a chance.

I agree mine is also conjecture, but I don't pass myself off as some "Blazer insider that knows what is right and wrong". The way the article was written had this smell all over it. It was like this guy knew what he was doing and played the "negativity sells". They write an opinion and pass it off like it's fact. It's like the national enquirer of Blazer basketball.

I'm not necessarily bashing them. I just think their "I am officially out of ideas" comment was silly... Of course he has ideas, but exposing them would only turn the piece into a fluff article on the Blazers. Sometimes, just sometimes, you can tell the truth and it will be positive all the way around.

 

[tester551]

The only reason I'm defending the article is because it's stupid to dismiss something without even giving it a chance, just because you're biased against the source. It's not even written by Ben Golliver, who for the record, doesn't even write for Blazersedge anymore, and is now writing stupid articles for SI. There's actually a lot of good discussion in the comments section, multiple people pointing out reasons why the stats may be misleading, or possible things that aren't taken into account but are hard to quantify. The article isn't really even negative, this conclusion sounds more cautiously optimistic to me:

I believe that is the point. He was the only good writer they had. He is now onto bigger & better things.... and Blazersedge has gone into the crapper.

I used to go there 1-2 times a day. I don't even bother anymore.

 

[magnifier661]

I could be mistaken but isn't another part of our defense to make players shoot shots in areas on the floor where they don't shoot as well? So although they may seem like opene or easy shots they are lower percentage shots due to where on the floor that they are not as successful at.

EXACTLY! This is called superb scouting! I wanna shake the hand of whomever coach is responsible for gathering all this data. They are like "spot on" with the players they leave open and funnel it to them out of rhythm and usually when the shot clock is at its lowest point.

Example: Did it surprise you that Brewer took so many "wide open threes" on our last loss? Most of his shots also came late in the shot clock too. Why? Well the fucker was shit from outside in Minny. I 100% guarantee that we change the way we defend him the next game. I can't wait for the next game!

 

[B-Roy]

I believe that is the point. He was the only good writer they had. He is now onto bigger & better things.... and Blazersedge has gone into the crapper.

I used to go there 1-2 times a day. I don't even bother anymore.

No, I'm pretty sure people here hate Ben Golliver.

 

[B-Roy]

I agree mine is also conjecture, but I don't pass myself off as some "Blazer insider that knows what is right and wrong". The way the article was written had this smell all over it. It was like this guy knew what he was doing and played the "negativity sells". They write an opinion and pass it off like it's fact. It's like the national enquirer of Blazer basketball.

I'm not necessarily bashing them. I just think their "I am officially out of ideas" comment was silly... Of course he has ideas, but exposing them would only turn the piece into a fluff article on the Blazers. Sometimes, just sometimes, you can tell the truth and it will be positive all the way around.

I don't see him passing himself off as a Blazer insider, but maybe I missed something. Maybe you don't like the way he writes, that's fine, but it doesn't change the integrity of the piece.

And I think the whole point was to generate discussion on why the Blazers are a good 3PT defense team.....which it did in the comments. Even if you hate the way the article is written there's actually a lot of good (civil) discussion in the comments, with many people pointing out reasons that were brought up here as well.

 

[magnifier661]

I don't see him passing himself off as a Blazer insider, but maybe I missed something. Maybe you don't like the way he writes, that's fine, but it doesn't change the integrity of the piece.

And I think the whole point was to generate discussion on why the Blazers are a good 3PT defense team.....which it did in the comments. Even if you hate the way the article is written there's actually a lot of good (civil) discussion in the comments, with many people pointing out reasons that were brought up here as well.

Okay well I guess that's good. Personally, I think the piece was to get hits. And they did well!

 

[Draco]

Ben Golliver wrote interesting articles and was authentic. One thing I can't stand is media that argues points they don't believe. Dave doesn't even live in Portland and has very little basketball knowledge. I doubt he ever played the game. He has some talent as a writer but his tone often comes across as arrogant to me.

 

[BBert]

Luck?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!

Sigh.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Cough. Cough.

Sigh.

 

[e_blazer]

Okay, the guy raises some interesting questions. That said, I just wonder how you write a piece saying that the defense may not be as good as the record shows and not make some mention that it's been achieved without the benefit of our starting center, for the past month, or his backup, for the past two weeks. Lopez and Freeland are our two best rim protectors and teams have been able to get to the hoop much easier with those guys out. The Blazers defense is only going to get better when they return.

 

[BlazerWookee]

All I can say is that it's awfully nice of the other teams to play offense in such a way as to make our defense look better statistically.

 

[BlazerWookee]

No, I'm pretty sure people here hate Ben Golliver.

I love Ben Golliver. Great guy who deserves every bit of his success.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I love Ben Golliver. Great guy who deserves every bit of his success.

"--By Ben Golliver"