Regarding Isolation Stats - Ie: Blazer Offense, interesting stats

[B-Roy]

I was interested in this topic because of the discussion about ball movement. The team takes too many isolation possessions and doesn't move the ball enough, etc. Well the NBA actually tracks this stuff and the data is available for free on NBA.com. Looking through the stats leads some interesting results and may explain why we ISO a lot.

Player stats:
https://stats.nba.com/players/isolation/
Dame uses 4.4 isolation possessions per game. He is 6th in the league behind 1. Harden, 2. Westbrook, 3. LeBron, 4. Giannis and 5. Siakam. His score frequency % on isolation possessions is 51%, far and away higher than anyone else above him (although his volume cannot match Harden, who uses 13.8 iso possessions per game, more than double second place, who is his teammate Westbrook at 6.6 possessions per game). His percentile is 90.7%, also significantly better than just about everyone above and behind him. Only Harden is close at 86.7%, but Harden may be the best isolation scorer in history at least in the regular season. Dame scores 1.16 points per possession on isos, making him probably the second best isolation scorer in the league when you take into account volume.

CJ uses 3.4 isolation possessions per game. He is 12th in the league but his efficiency is above average. He scores 1.00 points per possession, which makes him more efficient than everyone that uses more possessions than him besides Doncic, Ingram, Lillard and Harden.

Rodney Hood uses 1.4 isolation possessions per game but scores a godly 1.42 PPP. So yeah, Rodney has been good.

Team stats:
https://stats.nba.com/teams/isolation/?sort=PPP&dir=1

Unsurprisingly, the Blazers are second in the league in isolation possessions per game. However, they use half as many possessions (11) per game than the Rockets (22) who are first by a large margin. When you look at the 10 teams that use the most isolation possessions per game, you see some patterns.....Houston, Portland, Milwaukee, Lakers, Nets, Pelicans. Basically, they have guys that are incredibly good isolation scorers, and they tend to be star level players.

In terms of efficiency though, the Blazers are tied for first with Washington. 1.06 PPP puts them above Houston at 1.00, and they use twice as many possessions as Washington who also scores 1.06 PPP.

Now personally, I don't like watching isolation basketball. It's not very fun for the other guys on the floor. You can make the argument that other players play worse because they can't get into a rhythm. However the overall results paint Portland as an elite ISO team. As a whole, Portland is 9th in the league in offensive efficiency. They score about 1.08 PPP, so the 1.06 PPP is only slightly below that. 1.06 PPP would be 16th in the league in offensive efficiency if all our possessions were isolations. There are parts of their offense they can improve on but given the rotating door of players due to injury, sucking, etc....there are other more pressing issues to work on. Like defense. Our defense blows.

 

[Scalma]

Shut up, Chris Webber already spoke.

 

[TBpup]

Dame/CJ are good at hitting tough shots....at times. But if Hood is that much better, why aren't they getting him more shots? And if they can hit contested shots at that clip, why wouldn't you try to get them an even better, less contested shot and have that percentage go even higher and be more efficient?

Terry, I'm asking you these questions. @Terry Stotts , feel free to answer with something other than, "we just need to hit shots."

 

[B-Roy]

Dame/CJ are good at hitting tough shots....at times. But if Hood is that much better, why aren't they getting him more shots? And if they can hit contested shots at that clip, why wouldn't you try to get them an even better, less contested shot and have that percentage go even higher and be more efficient?

Terry, I'm asking you these questions. @Terry Stotts , feel free to answer with something other than, "we just need to hit shots."

I hate the iso heavy offense as much as anyone, but the results so far have not exactly been bad all things considered. There's only a limited time to work on stuff during the season and defense is BY FAR a more pressing issue for this team.

 

[CupWizier]

Dame/CJ are good at hitting tough shots....at times. But if Hood is that much better, why aren't they getting him more shots? And if they can hit contested shots at that clip, why wouldn't you try to get them an even better, less contested shot and have that percentage go even higher and be more efficient?

Terry, I'm asking you these questions. @Terry Stotts , feel free to answer with something other than, "we just need to hit shots."

are you saying all iso shots are contested shots? If so, I disagree as ball movement can also lead to contested shots just as an iso play can lead to easy and/ or uncontested shots as well. Lillard and McCollum are excellent at creating separation allowing them an open shot.

PS- the Terry Stotts moniker in this forum is not the real Terry Stotts.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

PS- the Terry Stotts moniker in this forum is not the real Terry Stotts.

 

[Propagandist]

Shut up, Chris Webber already spoke.

Just seeing that guy's name pisses me off.

 

[RipCityWarrior]

Sure Lillard and McCollum hit high difficulty shots regularly and a fair # of those are ISO plays. Adding Anthony to the Iso mix slows up the offense even more often, regardless of effectiveness it hurts the offensive flow within the game and make it easier to defend against.
Other teams know how to throw a wrench into the cog more often than not. Stotts doesn’t like to make in game adjustments (lets his players play) which is why it’s becomes difficult to win against supposed easy opponents.

 

[royo]

It may be just me, but when ball is moving Blazers are winning and ISO turns the game to non watchable heartattack shitshow.

 

[CupWizier]

I agree, some things shouldn't need to be said, but in this forum........

There are some in here that claim every new poster is some guy named tunchi.

 

[julius]

I wonder what CJ's #'s would've been had he not started off the season struggling like he was.

imho, the teams biggest issue isn't offense (tho the bench is down right useless at times), it's their defense.

As long as they don't face the Lakers in the playoffs, I won't be terribly upset.

 

[wizenheimer]

I was interested in this topic because of the discussion about ball movement. The team takes too many isolation possessions and doesn't move the ball enough, etc. Well the NBA actually tracks this stuff and the data is available for free on NBA.com. Looking through the stats leads some interesting results and may explain why we ISO a lot.

Player stats:
https://stats.nba.com/players/isolation/
Dame uses 4.4 isolation possessions per game. He is 6th in the league behind 1. Harden, 2. Westbrook, 3. LeBron, 4. Giannis and 5. Siakam. His score frequency % on isolation possessions is 51%, far and away higher than anyone else above him (although his volume cannot match Harden, who uses 13.8 iso possessions per game, more than double second place, who is his teammate Westbrook at 6.6 possessions per game). His percentile is 90.7%, also significantly better than just about everyone above and behind him. Only Harden is close at 86.7%, but Harden may be the best isolation scorer in history at least in the regular season. Dame scores 1.16 points per possession on isos, making him probably the second best isolation scorer in the league when you take into account volume.

CJ uses 3.4 isolation possessions per game. He is 12th in the league but his efficiency is above average. He scores 1.00 points per possession, which makes him more efficient than everyone that uses more possessions than him besides Doncic, Ingram, Lillard and Harden.

Rodney Hood uses 1.4 isolation possessions per game but scores a godly 1.42 PPP. So yeah, Rodney has been good.

Team stats:
https://stats.nba.com/teams/isolation/?sort=PPP&dir=1

Unsurprisingly, the Blazers are second in the league in isolation possessions per game. However, they use half as many possessions (11) per game than the Rockets (22) who are first by a large margin. When you look at the 10 teams that use the most isolation possessions per game, you see some patterns.....Houston, Portland, Milwaukee, Lakers, Nets, Pelicans. Basically, they have guys that are incredibly good isolation scorers, and they tend to be star level players.

In terms of efficiency though, the Blazers are tied for first with Washington. 1.06 PPP puts them above Houston at 1.00, and they use twice as many possessions as Washington who also scores 1.06 PPP.

Now personally, I don't like watching isolation basketball. It's not very fun for the other guys on the floor. You can make the argument that other players play worse because they can't get into a rhythm. However the overall results paint Portland as an elite ISO team. As a whole, Portland is 9th in the league in offensive efficiency. They score about 1.08 PPP, so the 1.06 PPP is only slightly below that. 1.06 PPP would be 16th in the league in offensive efficiency if all our possessions were isolations. There are parts of their offense they can improve on but given the rotating door of players due to injury, sucking, etc....there are other more pressing issues to work on. Like defense. Our defense blows.

I could be wrong about this, but I have to say, looking at those numbers I'm pretty sketical

to start with, I think the definition they use for 'isolation' has to be extremely narrow. I'm certain that Dame and CJ combine for a hell of a lot more than 7.8 create-own-offense-one-on-one-iso possessions a game. That just doesn't seem to match observation. I'm seeing iso, P-n-R, handoff, & off-screen as some examples of the play types that they track and I think there's probably a lot of distinction without a difference involved there...a lot of bleed-over among those heavily one-on-one possessions

another thing that makes me skeptical: I know they list FT frequency as a factor but I really question the numbers, and if they account for everything, and that would include assists. I'll use CJ vs Harden as an example:

* they say Harden has a 16.6% FT frequency on isolation when his overall FT Rate is 60%. And that CJ's FT frequency is 5.3% when his overall FT rate is 10.2%. Those numbers simply don't track

taking it further:

NBA.com PPP on isolation: CJ 1.00....Harden 1.11

TS%: CJ .536....Harden .634
2ptFG%: CJ .486....Harden .558
FT%: CJ .822....Harden .878
FT Rate: CJ .102....Harden .600
Assist Rate: CJ 16.8%....Harden 35.9%

to summarize: Harden's TS% is 18% higher; his 2ptFG% is 15% higher; his FT% is 7% higher; his FT rate is 6 times higher; and his assist rate is more than twice that of CJ's...yet his PPP on isolation is only 11% higher? Sorry, that just doesn't match well with what appears to be the realities on the floor

for example: Clint Capella averages 14.5 points a game and his assisted FG rate is 84%. He's been assisted on 104 alley oops, dunks and layins in 17 games. That's 12.2 points a game and we know Harden is responsible for a big chunk of that. What would that chunk be? 50%? 60%? Even if it was only 50% that's 6 points a game and I'm guessing those NBA.com isolation stats aren't accounting for plays like that

 

[B-Roy]

I could be wrong about this, but I have to say, looking at those numbers I'm pretty sketical

to start with, I think the definition they use for 'isolation' has to be extremely narrow. I'm certain that Dame and CJ combine for a hell of a lot more than 7.8 create-own-offense-one-on-one-iso possessions a game. That just doesn't seem to match observation. I'm seeing iso, P-n-R, handoff, & off-screen as some examples of the play types that they track and I think there's probably a lot of distinction without a difference involved there...a lot of bleed-over among those heavily one-on-one possessions

another thing that makes me skeptical: I know they list FT frequency as a factor but I really question the numbers, and if they account for everything, and that would include assists. I'll use CJ vs Harden as an example:

* they say Harden has a 16.6% FT frequency on isolation when his overall FT Rate is 60%. And that CJ's FT frequency is 5.3% when his overall FT rate is 10.2%. Those numbers simply don't track

taking it further:

NBA.com PPP on isolation: CJ 1.00....Harden 1.11

TS%: CJ .536....Harden .634
2ptFG%: CJ .486....Harden .558
FT%: CJ .822....Harden .878
FT Rate: CJ .102....Harden .600
Assist Rate: CJ 16.8%....Harden 35.9%

to summarize: Harden's TS% is 18% higher; his 2ptFG% is 15% higher; his FT% is 7% higher; his FT rate is 6 times higher; and his assist rate is more than twice that of CJ's...yet his PPP on isolation is only 11% higher? Sorry, that just doesn't match well with what appears to be the realities on the floor

for example: Clint Capella averages 14.5 points a game and his assisted FG rate is 84%. He's been assisted on 104 alley oops, dunks and layins in 17 games. That's 12.2 points a game and we know Harden is responsible for a big chunk of that. What would that chunk be? 50%? 60%? Even if it was only 50% that's 6 points a game and I'm guessing those NBA.com isolation stats aren't accounting for plays like that

Fairly certain an isolation possession means they shoot. Passing out of an isolation possession would not count.

 

[wizenheimer]

Fairly certain an isolation possession means they shoot. Passing out of an isolation possession would not count.

but if the reality is that somebody like Harden uses isolation to set up easy looks for teammates that result in high efficiency offense, wouldn't that render those isolation stats incomplete and distort the impact? Players like Harden and Dame operating in isolation are going to force defenses into disadvantageous reactions a lot more than when players like CJ or Hood or Derozan or Jamal Murray go iso.

 

[B-Roy]

but if the reality is that somebody like Harden uses isolation to set up easy looks for teammates that result in high efficiency offense, wouldn't that render those isolation stats incomplete and distort the impact? Players like Harden and Dame operating in isolation are going to force defenses into disadvantageous reactions a lot more than when players like CJ or Hood or Derozan or Jamal Murray go iso.

I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm just saying the results are not as bad as people are making it out to be, and the team has much larger issues.

It's also worth noting that even under this assumption, 19% of Houston's offense comes from isolation shots (coming from the iso player itself, ie Harden), and it's only 10% for Portland.

 

[B-Roy]

Houston itself is a weird example because they have the highest isolation player by volume in the league: Harden - who is efficient, but their overall stats are offset by having the second highest isolation player by volume in Westbrook - who is very (and I mean VERY) inefficient.

 

[wizenheimer]

I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm just saying the results are not as bad as people are making it out to be, and the team has much larger issues.

It's also worth noting that even under this assumption, 19% of Houston's offense comes from isolation shots (coming from the iso player itself, ie Harden), and it's only 10% for Portland.

don't get me wrong...I wasn't going after you for posting the numbers

as far as the team iso stats goes, if the individual iso stats are skewed because of incomplete considerations, I'd think the team numbers would have the same issue. For instance, Houston leads the NBA with a 32.3% FT Rate. But the iso stats show them at 13th with a 13.2% FT rate rate 2.45 times less. Doesn't come close to matching

as I said, I think this is a case of NBA.com having a way too narrow definition of iso, or them not accounting for all the factors they'd need to to reflect reality. Maybe some of both. I'm doing a little math here but if you go by NBA.com, Houston scores 2.9 points/game off of FT's from isolation, (which would only be 12.7% of their FT points...3 points from iso and 20 points from other plays...does that match what we've seen from Houston the last 3 seasons?). Meanwhile, Portland scores 1.4 points/game off of iso, only 1.5 points less than Houston. But Houston averages 6 more points/game from the FT line. hmmmm

 

[tlongII]

As B-Roy alluded to, offense isn't the problem with this team.

 

[Natebishop3]

I wonder what CJ's #'s would've been had he not started off the season struggling like he was.

imho, the teams biggest issue isn't offense (tho the bench is down right useless at times), it's their defense.

As long as they don't face the Lakers in the playoffs, I won't be terribly upset.

CJ seems to have benefited the most from having Melo in the lineup.

In his last 10 games he's averaging 25 ppg, shooting 51% from the field, 44% from three, 92% from the line, while also putting up 4.6 assists, 4.6 rebounds, and 1.4 blocks.

In short, he's playing like a superstar right now.

 

[noknobs]

I could be wrong about this

Correct.

 

[julius]

CJ seems to have benefited the most from having Melo in the lineup.

In his last 10 games he's averaging 25 ppg, shooting 51% from the field, 44% from three, 92% from the line, while also putting up 4.6 assists, 4.6 rebounds, and 1.4 blocks.

In short, he's playing like a superstar right now.

Simply put, not having useless players in the starting 5 makes a world of difference.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

CJ seems to have benefited the most from having Melo in the lineup.

In his last 10 games he's averaging 25 ppg, shooting 51% from the field, 44% from three, 92% from the line, while also putting up 4.6 assists, 4.6 rebounds, and 1.4 blocks.

In short, he's playing like a superstar right now.

Made me look it up.

3 players in history (Bird in 86-87 and 87-88, KD in 12-13, and Steph in 15-16) have averaged 25ppg for a season on 50/40/90 splits. Surprised me to see that Booker is currently doing so this year. I swear, that guy is either the most overlooked player or the least impactful superstar in the league.

 

[B-Roy]

don't get me wrong...I wasn't going after you for posting the numbers

as far as the team iso stats goes, if the individual iso stats are skewed because of incomplete considerations, I'd think the team numbers would have the same issue. For instance, Houston leads the NBA with a 32.3% FT Rate. But the iso stats show them at 13th with a 13.2% FT rate rate 2.45 times less. Doesn't come close to matching

as I said, I think this is a case of NBA.com having a way too narrow definition of iso, or them not accounting for all the factors they'd need to to reflect reality. Maybe some of both. I'm doing a little math here but if you go by NBA.com, Houston scores 2.9 points/game off of FT's from isolation, (which would only be 12.7% of their FT points...3 points from iso and 20 points from other plays...does that match what we've seen from Houston the last 3 seasons?). Meanwhile, Portland scores 1.4 points/game off of iso, only 1.5 points less than Houston. But Houston averages 6 more points/game from the FT line. hmmmm

The NBA.com data comes from second spectrum, which is used by pretty much every team in the league. There may or may not be different variables as to how to they determine what an isolation play is. The definition is probably what is causing these discrepancies between what you're seeing and what is being shown.

 

[wizenheimer]

Correct.

Why don't you try and point out what it was I was saying that was wrong?

 

[blazerfan11]

Just watch the 42-point 1st quarter against OKC. How did they do that? The Blazers as currently constructed have been to the finals zero times and were swept in the WC finals last season by a team missing key players.
Because something works OK or is even near the top of the league, doesn't mean you don't try to do even better. Maybe it'll come later in the season. We saw a little of it with Whiteside's passing last game.

 

[Labinot41]

You can play iso ball against garbage teams, Contenders are gonna kill us if we dont move the ball

 

[CupWizier]

Just watch the 42-point 1st quarter against OKC. How did they do that? The Blazers as currently constructed have been to the finals zero times and were swept in the WC finals last season by a team missing key players.
Because something works OK or is even near the top of the league, doesn't mean you don't try to do even better. Maybe it'll come later in the season. We saw a little of it with Whiteside's passing last game.

We weren't missing key players? We also had Kanter and Aminu who had been fasting for religious purposes and were a shell of how they had been playing prior to fasting during that series.

 

[wizenheimer]

The NBA.com data comes from second spectrum, which is used by pretty much every team in the league. There may or may not be different variables as to how to they determine what an isolation play is. The definition is probably what is causing these discrepancies between what you're seeing and what is being shown.

very likely true, but at the same time, when people here talk about and criticize Portland's isolation offense, I'm pretty sure they are thinking about a broader definition than NBA.com/SecondSpectrum uses.

I think just about everybody here would believe that Portland uses isolation a lot more than the 10% of the time NBA.com says the Blazers do. I mean that's only 11.5 plays out of the 114 possessions that Portland averages....really? To me it looks like they end up in isolation that many times during a single quarter in some of their games, but maybe that's me just hating that part of their offense when it seems to be what so much of it is

 

[hoopsjock]

very likely true, but at the same time, when people here talk about and criticize Portland's isolation offense, I'm pretty sure they are thinking about a broader definition than NBA.com/SecondSpectrum uses.

I think just about everybody here would believe that Portland uses isolation a lot more than the 10% of the time NBA.com says the Blazers do. I mean that's only 11.5 plays out of the 114 possessions that Portland averages....really? To me it looks like they end up in isolation that many times during a single quarter in some of their games, but maybe that's me just hating that part of their offense when it seems to be what so much of it is

When Portland runs the weave or does dribble handoffs way away from the basket that probably doesn't qualify as ISO since technically there are multiple players involved even though it often leads to ISO situations.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Are some of you saying the ISO offense is actually ok?