Points in the paint vs 3-pointers

[B-Roy]

As of today, the Blazers are last in points in the paint at 30.3 per game. They are also 29th in opponents points in the paint at 48.0. This latest Pistons game probably won't change that.

And yet they are 5-2. Are points in the paint just not that important anymore? Indiana is undefeated and they only score 35 points in the paint (5th worst in the league). However, they only allow 32.2 as well. (2nd best in the league) Portland's disparity is interesting (and somewhat troubling). I don't know if they can keep winning while keeping this up but it does speak volumes about the 3 point shot.

Another interesting stat is that Portland is only allowing 15.5 points from 3 point range. (3rd best in the league) They also get 29.9 points from three (4th best in the league). Obviously the three ball is emphasized, but it looks like defending the three is as well.

 

[Natebishop3]

As of today, the Blazers are last in points in the paint at 30.3 per game. They are also 29th in opponents points in the paint at 48.0. This latest Pistons game probably won't change that.

And yet they are 5-2. Are points in the paint just not that important anymore? Indiana is undefeated and they only score 35 points in the paint (5th worst in the league). However, they only allow 32.2 as well. (2nd best in the league) Portland's disparity is interesting (and somewhat troubling). I don't know if they can keep winning while keeping this up but it does speak volumes about the 3 point shot.

Another interesting stat is that Portland is only allowing 15.5 points from 3 point range. (3rd best in the league) They also get 29.9 points from three (4th best in the league).

This team is built for shooting. Live with it, or die with it, that's who we are now. Part of the problem is that we don't double team, so someone like Cousins just eats us up.

 

[Yoda_of_the_MODA]

It's always a concern, especially on defense. Offensively, simple math says that shooting 33.3% from 3 point is the same as shooting 50% from 2 point. The problem is that you aren't going to get on the line as much being 3-point heavy on offense. That isn't reflected in the 'points in the paint' numbers, though.

I'll have to wait until 20 games to see if the points in the paint thing is really a concern.

 

[Natebishop3]

It's always a concern, especially on defense. Offensively, simple math says that shooting 33.3% from 3 point is the same as shooting 50% from 2 point. The problem is that you aren't going to get on the line as much being 3-point heavy on offense. That isn't reflected in the 'points in the paint' numbers, though.

I'll have to wait until 20 games to see if the points in the paint thing is really a concern.

What annoys me is that I see our guys going into the paint, but they don't get calls. Lillard drives quite a bit, but he certainly doesn't get the kind of calls I would expect for the reigning ROY. Aldridge as well, never gets the kind of calls that a two-time All-Star should get. I saw him draw contact multiple times tonight, but almost never gets a call. Getting hammered in the post with no call will absolutely affect your points in the paint.

 

[B-Roy]

It's always a concern, especially on defense. Offensively, simple math says that shooting 33.3% from 3 point is the same as shooting 50% from 2 point. The problem is that you aren't going to get on the line as much being 3-point heavy on offense. That isn't reflected in the 'points in the paint' numbers, though.

I'll have to wait until 20 games to see if the points in the paint thing is really a concern.

Yes, but the standard for a good shooting team isn't 33% anymore. Players are regularly topping 40% and it wouldn't surprise me if the Blazers end the season somewhere near that.

 

[Draco]

Is the low 3point % our defense has allowed due to our play on defense or random good luck against teams shooting the 3 poorly?

Now with points in the paint, I think what matters is the quality of shots we are giving up. Yes Detroit had 60 points in the paint but they said on the radio they took 55 shots to get those. That doesn't hurt us. Now if we are giving up 50 points on 70% shooting its a major problem.

Our PG defense, and particularly Lillards individual defense, has been a major problem. The points in the paint are usually from PG pick and roll or PG drives. The putbacks that are points in the paint are often when our center has to come over and help defend someone elses man; which they do successfully; but then the opponents center is uncovered for an easy putback.

So I don't think the points in the paint was much of a problem against Detroit but yes over the season PG defense is a major concern and that breakdown is leading to many bad things on defense including points in the paint.

 

[Natebishop3]

Is the low 3point % our defense has allowed due to our play on defense or random good luck against teams shooting the 3 poorly?

Now with points in the paint, I think what matters is the quality of shots we are giving up. Yes Detroit had 60 points in the paint but they said on the radio they took 55 shots to get those. That doesn't hurt us. Now if we are giving up 50 points on 70% shooting its a major problem.

Our PG defense, and particularly Lillards individual defense, has been a major problem. The points in the paint are usually from PG pick and roll or PG drives. The putbacks that are points in the paint are often when our center has to come over and help defend someone elses man; which they do successfully; but then the opponents center is uncovered for an easy putback.

So I don't think the points in the paint was much of a problem against Detroit but yes over the season PG defense is a major concern and that breakdown is leading to many bad things on defense including points in the paint.

I think it has a lot to do with not double teaming. We aren't leaving anyone open, which is helping our defense against the three, but it's making it very difficult to stop someone like Cousins.

 

[magnifier661]

The advantage with having such a deadly three ball offense is having the ability to get offensive boards. The three ball spreads the defense and rebounders have a tougher time establishing position. I think our team benefits from this.

As much of a fan of the inside game I am, I understand the concept of the three ball. It's devastating to work soooo hard to get two, then your opponent comes back and hits a three. If we are shooting 40% or higher throughout the season, it's more valuable to our team than 50% from 2 (insert Brian's point per possession concept here).

3 things in really keeping an eye on is the rebounding, three point shooting and perimeter defense. Those are the stats that will make this model work!

 

[illmatic99]

Once the teams start closing out on us on the three, the lanes should open up for Dame/Wes/Nic to drive and improve our paint production. It's starting already. But we won't ever get to the top of the league in that category with LA's primary scoring options all being 15-20' out. Not sure it matters, either way.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Points in the paint are important for playoff success.


The only real issue with out teams offense right now is that the ball doesn't go into the post enough. Shooting threes is fine, but it shouldn't be your teams first option. First option should be pounding the ball down low and kicking if necessary, or driving and kicking if necessary.

having great 3 point shooting only helps those two things

 

[magnifier661]

Once the teams start closing out on us on the three, the lanes should open up for Dame/Wes/Nic to drive and improve our paint production. It's starting already. But we won't ever get to the top of the league in that category with LA's primary scoring options all being 15-20' out. Not sure it matters, either way.

I don't know if you saw the shot chart for Aldridge, but 70% of his shots are coming from 0-15 feet. 30% of his shots are 16-23. And more importantly, his right elbow and block shooting is above 50%

 

[blue9]

I don't know if you saw the shot chart for Aldridge, but 70% of his shots are coming from 0-15 feet.

Link? I don't believe this at all. Unfortunately hoopdata doesn't have 13/14 data at this point, but 82games shows that 83% of LMA's shots are jumpers, with only 15% being "close" and only 2% being dunks:
http://www.82games.com/1314/13POR13.HTM

 

[magnifier661]

Link? I don't believe this at all. Unfortunately hoopdata doesn't have 13/14 data at this point, but 82games shows that 83% of LMA's shots are jumpers, with only 15% being "close" and only 2% being dunks:
http://www.82games.com/1314/13POR13.HTM

http://sportstwo.com/threads/250313-Positive-Blazer-Stats?p=3145402&viewfull=1#post3145402

71 shots from 0-12 feet, 52 shots outside 12 ft. Some are the 15 footers, which are money shots.

 

[magnifier661]

Hello blue? Where ya go bro?!?!

 

[blue9]

Hello blue? Where ya go bro?!?!

What the fuck is wrong with you? Give me a minute to look at shit. Plus, I'm doing other things besides posting here.

 

[magnifier661]

What the fuck is wrong with you? Give me a minute to look at shit. Plus, I'm doing other things besides posting here.

Nothing is wrong, just pointing out how clearly wrong you are.

 

[blue9]

http://sportstwo.com/threads/250313-Positive-Blazer-Stats?p=3145402&viewfull=1#post3145402

71 shots from 0-12 feet, 52 shots outside 12 ft. Some are the 15 footers, which are money shots.

Okay, now that I've had a chance to look, it appears you're trying to frame the numbers to make it look like LMA takes more "close" shots than he actually does. Why frame it as "0-15 footers", when the chart you're looking at clearly shows that only 38 of his 142 shots (26.7%) come near the hoop? That's actually semi-encouraging to see that a quarter of his offense is coming near the basket. It's also encouraging to see that it appears he's stepped into a better range - in years past he use to live at the top-left of the key, and this year he's moved in a tad to the left elbow (and left baseline, based on the games I've seen). It's funny that the top-left of the key use to be his "money shot", and this year he hasn't hit from that spot at all.

 

[magnifier661]

Okay, now that I've had a chance to look, it appears you're trying to frame the numbers to make it look like LMA takes more "close" shots than he actually does. Why frame it as "0-15 footers", when the chart you're looking at clearly shows that only 38 of his 142 shots (26.7%) come near the hoop? That's actually semi-encouraging to see that a quarter of his offense is coming near the basket. It's also encouraging to see that it appears he's stepped into a better range - in years past he use to live at the top-left of the key, and this year he's moved in a tad to the left elbow (and left baseline, based on the games I've seen). It's funny that the top-left of the key use to be his "money shot", and this year he hasn't hit from that spot at all.

The knock was never the 15 footer. It was always the 17-23 footers that everyone bitched about. And looking at the chart, it's pretty easy to understand where he is "money" from. And if you actually watched games, you would see that most of his action are coming from the "blocks". The shots at the rim are usually by him creating those shots. I would recommend you using this link. It will give you a better idea on just how important a player is, then trying to go geek and rate a player by box scores.

http://stats.nba.com/?ls=iref:nba:gnav&PlayerOrTeam=Player&StatCategory=Points

 

[blue9]

Nothing is wrong, just pointing out how clearly wrong you are.

What did I say that's incorrect? Both 82games AND your shot chart show that his "near the hoop" numbers aren't as high as you're trying to make them out to be. So while you may be technically correct, you're grouping numbers to paint a pretty picture rather than reporting the numbers that are actually presented in the source(s).

 

[magnifier661]

What did I say that's incorrect? Both 82games AND your shot chart show that his "near the hoop" numbers aren't as high as you're trying to make them out to be. So while you may be technically correct, you're grouping numbers to paint a pretty picture rather than reporting the numbers that are actually presented in the source(s).

I said 70% of his shots are coming from 0-15 ft. Obviously you are having a serious "reading comprehension" problem.

 

[blue9]

I would recommend you using this link. It will give you a better idea on just how important a player is, then trying to go geek and rate a player by box scores.

You giving someone advice on how to rate a player is funny.
Box scores are but one tool I use. If I solely used the box score, or even if I thought it was the most important of many measures, I would love LMA as a player. But it's watching him play that makes me dislike his game.

 

[magnifier661]

You giving someone advice on how to rate a player is funny.
Box scores are but one tool I use. If I solely used the box score, or even if I thought it was the most important of many measures, I would love LMA as a player. But it's watching him play that makes me dislike his game.

It must be getting sooooo deep under your skin that Aldridge is playing so well? I'm glad peeps like you are in small company. You can think you are a realist, but then we see how "homer" you were and are about Batum. Whatever the case that has gotten Aldridge to be on your "public enemy #1" is fucking laughable. It's actually embarrassing on your part.

 

[Jayps15]

http://sportstwo.com/threads/250313-Positive-Blazer-Stats?p=3145402&viewfull=1#post3145402

71 shots from 0-12 feet, 52 shots outside 12 ft. Some are the 15 footers, which are money shots.

Mags, you're not reading that chart properly, the circle inside the 3pt arc isn't 12ft (where you're getting 52 from beyond 12ft). It's a minimum of 16ft, because the FT line is 15ft and it's beyond that.

Here's an actual breakdown, by several distance and shot types:
http://stats.nba.com/playerStats.ht...plitsShooting&MeasureType=Base&PerMode=Totals

And actually blue isn't that far off (and he's only off because 82games isn't updated daily like NBA.com), 112 of LMA's 142 FGA (79%) have been 'jumpers' as blue put it.
By FGA
Turnaround J 23
Turnaround Fadeaway 6
Stepback J 4
J 75
Banked J 1
Fadeaway J 3

 

[magnifier661]

Mags, you're not reading that chart properly, the circle inside the 3pt arc isn't 12ft (where you're getting 52 from beyond 12ft). It's a minimum of 16ft, because the FT line is 15ft and it's beyond that.

Here's an actual breakdown, by several distance and shot types:
http://stats.nba.com/playerStats.ht...plitsShooting&MeasureType=Base&PerMode=Totals

And actually blue isn't that far off (and he's only off because 82games isn't updated daily like NBA.com), 112 of LMA's 142 FGA (79%) have been 'jumpers' as blue put it.
By FGA
Turnaround J 23
Turnaround Fadeaway 6
Stepback J 4
J 75
Banked J 1
Fadeaway J 3

The link shows 83 shots are 0-16 and 60 are outside that range. 58% of his shots are the money shots.

 

[Jayps15]

The link shows 83 shots are 0-16 and 60 are outside that range. 58% of his shots are the money shots.

Yea, still not 70%, and like I pointed out Blue wasn't that far off when he said Aldridge was still shooting a ton of jumpers (79%) and not getting many 'close' or 'dunk' shots. Seems like the two of you aren't talking about the exact same thing, apples and oranges really.

 

[blue9]

I said 70% of his shots are coming from 0-15 ft. Obviously you are having a serious "reading comprehension" problem.

No, I understood you perfectly. And when I had a chance to look at the numbers I saw the trick you pulled to try and make that true. The numbers - while somewhat encouraging - aren't as rosy as you make them out to be. To this point he's taken 58 shots from 16'+ (40.8%). So, actually, YOU are incorrect - there's no way that 70% of his shots can come from 0-15' if 40.8% have come from 16'+. The chart you're using doesn't even have 15' as a cut-off point, but assuming you meant 16', he's taken 58% of his shots from within 16' (like I said - somewhat encouraging). However, only 26.7% of his shots are near the hoop - nothing close to the 70% you're trying to use by lumping in his mid-range game.

As per usual, you're unable to understand what I said and why it matters and so you accuse me of a "comprehension problem" to avoid the issues in your post that I brought up. And because you're more concerned with making BS arguments and trying to "call me out", I'm done.

 

[magnifier661]

No, I understood you perfectly. And when I had a chance to look at the numbers I saw the trick you pulled to try and make that true. The numbers - while somewhat encouraging - aren't as rosy as you make them out to be. To this point he's taken 58 shots from 16'+ (40.8%). So, actually, YOU are incorrect - there's no way that 70% of his shots can come from 0-15' if 40.8% have come from 16'+. The chart you're using doesn't even have 15' as a cut-off point, but assuming you meant 16', he's taken 58% of his shots from within 16' (like I said - somewhat encouraging). However, only 26.7% of his shots are near the hoop - nothing close to the 70% you're trying to use by lumping in his mid-range game.

As per usual, you're unable to understand what I said and why it matters and so you accuse me of a "comprehension problem" to avoid the issues in your post that I brought up. And because you're more concerned with making BS arguments and trying to "call me out", I'm done.

I never said "Near the Hoop". Show me where I said that?

 

[BigGameDamian]

Well every player wants to have an outside shot nowadays, So this doesn't surprise me. Power forwards and even the centers want to shoot outside the paint. Very few players in the NBA play with power in today's NBA.

 

[magnifier661]

Well every player wants to have an outside shot nowadays, So this doesn't surprise me. Power forwards and even the centers want to shoot outside the paint. Very few players in the NBA play with power in today's NBA.

Greg Monroe, Howard, Bynum, Cousins, Asiks, Larry Sanders, Bogut, and countless others score mainly inside. I will agree that most players want to shoot the outside shot, but there are plenty of inside post players. Good 3 point shooting teams usually have at least one player that demands a double down low.

 

[jlprk]

I said 70% of his shots are coming from 0-15 ft. Obviously you are having a serious "reading comprehension" problem.

Mags, you're not reading that chart properly, the circle inside the 3pt arc isn't 12ft (where you're getting 52 from beyond 12ft). It's a minimum of 16ft, because the FT line is 15ft and it's beyond that.

Here's an actual breakdown, by several distance and shot types:
http://stats.nba.com/playerStats.ht...plitsShooting&MeasureType=Base&PerMode=Totals

And actually blue isn't that far off (and he's only off because 82games isn't updated daily like NBA.com), 112 of LMA's 142 FGA (79%) have been 'jumpers' as blue put it.

No, I understood you perfectly. And when I had a chance to look at the numbers I saw the trick you pulled to try and make that true. The numbers - while somewhat encouraging - aren't as rosy as you make them out to be. To this point he's taken 58 shots from 16'+ (40.8%). So, actually, YOU are incorrect - there's no way that 70% of his shots can come from 0-15' if 40.8% have come from 16'+. The chart you're using doesn't even have 15' as a cut-off point, but assuming you meant 16', he's taken 58% of his shots from within 16' (like I said - somewhat encouraging). However, only 26.7% of his shots are near the hoop - nothing close to the 70% you're trying to use by lumping in his mid-range game.

On Jayps' link, the first two charts are titled "Shot Distance (5 ft)" and "Shot Distance (8 ft)." The first chart enumerates Aldridge's shots in increments of 5 feet; the second, 8.

The first chart says that half (71 of 142) of his FGAs have been from 14 feet and under. The second chart says that 83 of 142 (58%) have been from 16 feet and under. It follows that 12 (83-71) have been from either 15 or 16 feet. As Blue says, Mags' claim for 70% being from 15 feet or less is impossible.

On another note...last season I checked and posted that over 50% of all Blazer FGAs within the 3-point line (that means, the majority of the team's 2-point shots) came from ONE player...LaMarcus Aldridge. I said that that should change.