Couple of points (in outline format) on a great post. Would have been longer, but...
I. Kind of a cherry-picked sample size. I understand the author's reasons for focusing on the late-season and playoff games (more familiar with coach's sets; better chemistry) but if you're going to use film to refute the notion that we had a "stagnant" offense (as some posters want to do) then it makes sense that you use stuff from DEC, JAN and FEB (when posters were complaining about stagnant offenses) mixed in with the newer stuff. But for the author's points: "what are the reasons behind the Blazers' high offensive efficiency" and "what plays did we really run", then it's a good starting point.
II. Problems w/the Blazer Offense
This study does a great job of pointing out some of the problems in the Blazers' offense. For someone that would claim our offense is in good shape, this really is kind of an eye-opener.
A.
The "All we run are iso's and pick-and-xxx's" claim.
1...
I am more than happy to admit that a lot of Blazers' sets are actually straight-up 1-on-1 for Roy, Aldridge and Outlaw. But I'd also argue that 1-on-1 has always been (and will always be) one of the essential plays in basketball of all levels and the Blazers didn't actually call too much 1-on-1 plays compared to other teams, especially those with a superstar wing player plus a borderline all-start (sic) big man[/b]
This is something that the author didn't prove in the post, though I'd like to see/do an analysis of that. How many teams have an all-star wing,
and a good PF? What are the ratios of 1on1's in those offenses? Regardless, though, we run a LOT of 1on1's for Roy and LMA and (how does he fit in to "All-Star Wing" or "borderline All-star big"?) Outlaw.
2. The pick-and-xxx
One of our primary plays was the pick-and-(XXX)...the play starting with a high screen at the top. When executed perfectly (unfortunately it happened few and far between) it led to an easy basket opportunity. However, either because the big man didn't roll or the guard didn't dare to pass or both. While this is definitely an area for improvement for next season, it'd be a huge mistake to write off this play just because it doesn't always result in an easy basket under the rim.
I'll split this up into (a) big man not rolling and (b) guard didn't dare to pass;
(a) Big man didn't roll. One of the problems I had with the offense was the dearth of times the PF (didn't matter if it was LMA or Outlaw or Frye) didn't roll to the hoop. The pick-and-pop is an ok variation of the pick-and-roll, but the two point jumper between 8 and 23 feet is the one of the worst-efficiency shots there is (behind dunks/layups, FTs and 3's). LMA shoots 41% from there, Travis 43%, Frye 42%. Even the author says:
tons of Aldridge & Outlaw's shots were generated from this play.
(b) guard didn't dare to pass---this is a big criticism that most of us have of Blake (and to some extent, Roy). Fortunately, though, this is one of the things I think/hope/pray that Andre Miller will be able to do with his eyes closed: Figure out who needs the ball, and where, and get it to them in a position to score.
3. Roy's mid-range sets. This was the part of the article that changed my mind the most. I, like many, had previously lumped this in as a "Roy Iso". Even the author understands.
"But this play is very little different from just letting Roy play 1-on-1!" Some of you may be arguing now, and to a certain degree I agree.
But after seeing his breakdown, I'm able to break this out as a different play-call that the normal Roy iso at the top of the key. The author said something else I agreed with in this paragraph.
Secondly, without this play Roy's touches would've come from either high pick-and-roll (or isolation without a screen), which is not something you want to run for him all night, or spot-up outside shots, which is grossly inefficient compared to other aspects of Roy's game.
This isn't just a problem for Roy. Outside shots (except for Rudy, Blake and maybe Webster) are the worst part of a players' game. But
outside 2-pointers (as explained up in IIA above) are not only bad parts of players' games; they're the most inefficient. And yet two of our 3 most prolific shooters last year got "tons of their shots" in this inefficient area.
4. The other stuff--I wish we could see more. The author does some good analysis and laying out why they'd work (especially for us), but the numbers of how many times we run these "other stuff" offenses compared to the iso, the P&R and the P&P are anemic.
(a) The Hi-Lo: There were only two clips in there that were of the pure hi-lo, for good reason. We only broke it out for the MIL game. I remember watching that and getting very excited, since it seemed that we were finally opening up the playbook and involving Greg by getting him the ball in position to score. But we didn't continue, and the author takes a lot of space to discuss a play that we used in only one game. We had a couple of Hi-Lo variations off of the pick-and-roll, but even that wasn't used much. One of the great commentaries of the author:
"This was the perfect point for LMA to make a pass (to a wide open Oden at the rim) but he didn't".
(b) Post-initiated offense: I won't talk a lot about this, other than to say we didn't use this much either, though I think that both Oden and LMA are smart enough and decent enough passers to utilize this more.
B.
The "We're only an efficient offense b/c of our offensive rebounding" (I'll call this the "Mediocre Man Special"). The author basically sums up his analysis with this:
In short, Roy's awesomeness and entire team's incredible offensive rebounding rate are no doubt two major reasons for the offensive efficiency number.
He does say that Nate's offensive system is "an equally, if not more important, factor", but I'll address that in the "Logic Jumps" part in section 3.
C.
The "Nate really runs a good offense" claim
The contention that I've made in the past is that, while I'll happily admit Nate's a good coach for the team due to his installation of discipline, the trust the players have in him, etc.; I'm not sure that his game-planning or X's and O's had much to do with the efficiency of the offense. At least, not as much as having Brandon Roy (and to a lesser extent, LMA/Oden/Przy). The author backs that up.
. In fact many times when he only half-started his move he would already find the open teammates. This could be attributed to his ability to draw double-team, his vision, unselfishness and, again, great spacing of our outside shooters. Do those plays have anything to do with coach's X's and O's? No, they are rather instinctive read-and-reaction by Roy.
At another point he states what, to some of us, is painfully obvious
What we've seen from time to time last season is our offense becoming stagnant with hardly any movement and relying too much on 1-on-1.
He's done a good job of breaking up the videos to show the different plays, but he doesn't talk about the percentages of, say, pick-and-pops to hi-los, and his analysis is more damning. But to be fair, when he talks about his optimism for the future, he talks about Andre Miller and organic growth. Maybe Nate's offense is fine, and the players just need to grow into better ball players.
III. There are a couple of odd logic jumps.
A. He says that "But the offensive system that McMillan and assistant coaches have installed for the team is an equally, if not more, important factor (to the team's offensive efficiency)". I disagree with this conclusion. He doesn't really build up to it in any of the video posts or analysis, other than the "spacing" aspect. The author tries to say in the summary that "It features spacing, simplicity and discipline. It puts players in positions where they know how to operate". I submit that this
isn't the case. The author has said that the pick and roll frequently wasn't executed properly because the big man wouldn't roll or the guard wouldn't pass to him. That's not "knowing how to operate". The author said that LMA and Travis got "tons of their shots" on the mid-range jumper, one of the most inefficient shots in basketball and one they're shooting in the low 40%'s on. That's not "knowing how to operate". We had painfully few fast break opportunities off of our outstanding rebounding. Not recognizing that fastbreak dunks and layups are among the most efficient shots in basketball isn't "knowing how to operate".
All in all, great work and good post. My opinion is basically to agree with the premise the author puts out that our efficiency is basically great because of "Roy's awesomeness and offensive rebounding", I
don't think he showed that we have a complex, or varied, or un-stagnant offense. I agree with the author that
Aside from the P&R play in which Oden rolls inside and actually get the ball, this P&R + Hi-Lo play is the one I want to see added to the Blazers' playbook the most in the next season.
)
