Zach Lowe on Blazers Defense

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

B-Roy

If it takes months
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
31,798
Likes
25,068
Points
113
http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-t...d-trail-blazers-are-scorching-but-can-it-last

Great read here. Some very interesting insights on Stott's conservative defense.

Breaking down Portland’s defense by play type would seem to indicate massive problems. It's dead last in points allowed per possession on both post-ups and isolation plays, per Synergy Sports. Dead stinking last! And it's 23rd in points allowed when the ball handler in a pick-and-roll takes a shot, which would seem like a problem, since the pick-and-roll is the foundation of almost every NBA offense.

But this is all by design, to some degree. Portland is playing the odds in a way that reveals the very close interaction between its analytics-oriented front office and its numbers-friendly coaching staff headed by Stotts, who regularly cites wonky stuff like effective field goal percentage and defensive efficiency in casual hoops conversation.

...

He can generally stay in front of them, though, and the entire strategy is based upon Stotts’s comfort allowing midrange jumpers if doing so prevents more profitable shots. Only six teams have allowed more combined shots from the short midrange (i.e., the paint outside the restricted area) and the long midrange, and five of them play at a faster pace than the Blazers, thus yielding more overall shots, per NBA.com. No team has allowed fewer corner 3s — attempts or makes. Portland opponents have hit just 0.9 corner 3s per game, a remarkable early number. “Teams are shooting well from the midrange against us,” Stotts says, “but we try to keep the bigger picture in mind.”

Sitting back like this has also limited Portland’s fouling, and it has helped the team’s rebounding by keeping both bigs closer to the basket. Portland has allowed just 99.7 points per 100 possessions in the 266 minutes Lopez and Aldridge have shared the floor, equivalent to a top-five team mark, and it has rebounded 76.8 percent of opponent misses in those minutes. That would have led the league last season, a very encouraging sign given the preseason rebounding worries.
 
Yea Zach is on-point these days. Thought this was interesting:

Only Indiana has allowed fewer opponent assists per game than Portland, indicating the Blazers are executing their goal of getting teams to go one-on-one against them. (The link to Indiana is not a coincidence, and touches on another Portland trend: The Blazers aren’t going small much despite having a classic small-ball power forward in Dorell Wright. Vogel and the Pacers have steadfastly kept two big men on the floor at all times, even against small-ball teams, another approach that Stotts says he likes.)
 
Yea Zach is on-point these days. Thought this was interesting: "Only Indiana has allowed fewer opponent assists per game than Portland, indicating the Blazers are executing their goal of getting teams to go one-on-one against them. (The link to Indiana is not a coincidence, and touches on another Portland trend: The Blazers aren’t going small much despite having a classic small-ball power forward in Dorell Wright. Vogel and the Pacers have steadfastly kept two big men on the floor at all times, even against small-ball teams, another approach that Stotts says he likes.)"

It's easy, at first glance, to rip Portland apart on the defensive side of the ball. But this article by Lowe is what good analysts do. It's one thing to point out what seems like glaring deficiencies, but too many people give lousy explanations as to "why" because they can't see the big picture. You can't simply look at deficiencies in a vacuum, it IS by design. BNM hit on this a week ago, and that led me to draw a comparison to Money Ball. There are a lot of knowledgeable people out there, and it's nice to see when they (if only a few of them) view Portland through this lens. I think it leads to a better discussion about what Portland is doing right and wrong. Portland winning isn't a fluke and yet there is still a significant amount of media types that aren't buying it. It's nice to see them warming up to Portland's big picture philosophy (however slowly), and realize that what the Blazers don't do great is more of a natural consequence of capitalizing on what they do really well.

This was a good read. Thanks for posting it. ;)
 
It's easy, at first glance, to rip Portland apart on the defensive side of the ball. But this article by Lowe is what good analysts do. It's one thing to point out what seems like glaring deficiencies, but too many people give lousy explanations as to "why" because they can't see the big picture. You can't simply look at deficiencies in a vacuum, it IS by design. BNM hit on this a week ago, and that led me to draw a comparison to Money Ball. There are a lot of knowledgeable people out there, and it's nice to see when they (if only a few of them) view Portland through this lens. I think it leads to a better discussion about what Portland is doing right and wrong. Portland winning isn't a fluke and yet there is still a significant amount of media types that aren't buying it. It's nice to see them warming up to Portland's big picture philosophy (however slowly), and realize that what the Blazers don't do great is more of a natural consequence of capitalizing on what they do really well.

This was a good read. Thanks for posting it. ;)

If the blazers are lighting it up like they are by mid season, I guarantee many will jump on the bandwagon.
 
BNM hit on this a week ago...
Did you not see the response that torpedoed BNM's post? If you didn't see it please go back and read it.

But this is all by design, to some degree...the entire strategy is based upon Stotts’s comfort allowing midrange jumpers if doing so prevents more profitable shots.
So this right here is the crux of it all. Stotts wants us to defend the 3-point line [check], and give up the mid-range jumper in order to prevent more profitable shots [no check]. We are guarding the perimeter at the expense of the most profitable shots. Only 5 teams allow more point blank attempts than us - LAL/BOS/UTH/HOU(!)/PHI. Aside from HOU, those are all terrible teams that are trying to win the lotto. And then the next closest shot, we rank 3rd worst in OppAtt behind only LAL/SAC. In close mid-range we rank #21. It's only the long mid-range where we rank well (#5), but as a percentage of our opponent's attempts we're giving them 20% more point-blank opportunities than long mid-range (LMR) opportunities. In addition, more 3-point shots (182) have been taken against us than LMR shots (167).

There's some good and some bad here. Our Opp3% is bad (that's bad meaning good for us). But we're allowing essentially the same number of 3s as LMRs - so we're not keeping shooters off the arc as well as we think we are. We're rebounding the ball well. But 51% of our opponents shots are coming within 9' of the hoop, and 38% within 5'.

Any attempt to paint the defense as working "as designed" is just trying to find the right rose-colored lens to look through. It's only taking into account the first half of the sentence and ignoring everything that comes after the metric you want to focus on (defending the 3).
 
Did you not see the response that torpedoed BNM's post? If you didn't see it please go back and read it.

Torpedoed??? Really? I specifically said we need to improve our interior defense, without sacrificing our league leading Opp 3FG%. We're only 11 games into the season, with a new scheme and new personnel that are still learning the system and learning how to play together (yet, we are 9-2, go figure). As I said in the other thread, I'd like to see situational double teaming and help defense, when appropriate, to improve our interior defense. Our overall defense is already much better than it was last season, and should continue to improve. Stotts is a smart coach and will make adjustments when necessary. This is a work in progress, not the final product.

BNM
 
Defending the 3 is key at this point in the NBA. If you give up points in the paint but do not foul things kind of equal out. If the fouls pick up then this team will be in real trouble but forcing teams to settle for mid range 2 pointers is better than free points at the line or open threes. Take the three away from Portland and force them to shoot mid range jumpers and the team is probably 4-7 instead of 9-2.
 
Torpedoed??? Really?
I understand that you weren't saying that our defense is perfect. I'm talking specifically about the comparison you made between our team and the league leaders in Opp3% in previous seasons. People - particularly BF - are hailing that as great analysis and evidence that we're a good defensive team. What that analysis left out - and what response "torpedo" showed - was that those teams were also terrific at defending the interior. Those teams weren't good defensive teams because they defended the 3, they were good defensive teams period.

I'm sorry if my wording came across overly harsh. I enjoyed reading your post, and it gave me something to think about.
 
Here is the main difference right now between this year and last year. Robin Lopez and Joel Freeland last year we were 3rd in 3 pt% allowed, we also had JJ Hickson who was often out of position and dreadful on pick and roll defense. Lopez has not been great in pick and roll but his willingness to at least contest shooters as they come into the lane has helped.
 
I try to go along with people who say the defense is not that bad or giving up points in the paint is by design . . . but then I stop and think about it and have a hard time buying it.

Call me old fashion, but giving up that many points in the paint can not be a good thing in basketball. I'm all for guarding the 3 and forcing midrange shots . . . but if teams continue to be as successful scoring in the paint as they have been, this balloon is going to pop and the Blazers will be coming down to earth fast. And I wish I had more hope for interior defense, but I just don't see right now.

I will say that if the Blazers can dramatically improve their interior defense, then this team will be a force to be dealt with in the Western Conference.
 
I understand that you weren't saying that our defense is perfect. I'm talking specifically about the comparison you made between our team and the league leaders in Opp3% in previous seasons. People - particularly BF - are hailing that as great analysis and evidence that we're a good defensive team. What that analysis left out - and what response "torpedo" showed - was that those teams were also terrific at defending the interior. Those teams weren't good defensive teams because they defended the 3, they were good defensive teams period.

I'm sorry if my wording came across overly harsh. I enjoyed reading your post, and it gave me something to think about.

Fair enough. However, those other league leading Opp 3FG% teams were winning 66 games and NBA championships - and we currently have an even lower Opp 3FG% (lowest since NBA started tracking it seven seasons ago). I don't think were near that level yet. Although I am optimistic that this team will win a lot of regular season games, make the playoffs, and possibly even advance to the second round, I'm not ready to start planning the parade route. Still, winning 50+ and making the playoffs would be a huge improvement.

The other key to Stotts' strategy, and I also touched on this in the other thread, is rebounding. I've mentioned this in several threads, but all 5 of are starters are averaging career highs in RPG, and our guards by a very substantial amount. And I think, like denying the easy 3, his is by design.

So, right now, we're exceptionally good at 2 of the 3 ingredients of playing championship level defense - defending the 3-pointer (especially the corner 3, which is the most efficient offensive weapon in the NBA) and rebounding. Now, if we can improve our interior defense, I may start thinking about that parade route. We may not get there this season, or ever, but I like the improvement we've seen and am enjoying the heck out of the results. It's such a refreshing change from the all-ISO-all-the-time McMillan days. Nice to have a new coach with new ideas.

BNM
 
I try to go along with people who say the defense is not that bad or giving up points in the paint is by design . . . but then I stop and think about it and have a hard time buying it.

Call me old fashion, but giving up that many points in the paint can not be a good thing in basketball. I'm all for guarding the 3 and forcing midrange shots . . . but if teams continue to be as successful scoring in the paint as they have been, this balloon is going to pop and the Blazers will be coming down to earth fast. And I wish I had more hope for interior defense, but I just don't see right now.

I will say that if the Blazers can dramatically improve their interior defense, then this team will be a force to be dealt with in the Western Conference.

I don't think the design is to give up points in the paint, Stotts wants low % shots that's midrange not paint points because those are high % shots
The D is trying to stop the 3 point shot and move those shots a few feet closer but our paint protection is bad so instead of making those shots the midrange jumper teams are just attacking the paint.
Our D needs to get drastically better at protecting the paint while keeping the 3 point protection up to force those long 2s which is what our D Is trying to do

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
 
I try to go along with people who say the defense is not that bad or giving up points in the paint is by design . . . but then I stop and think about it and have a hard time buying it.

Call me old fashion, but giving up that many points in the paint can not be a good thing in basketball. I'm all for guarding the 3 and forcing midrange shots . . . but if teams continue to be as successful scoring in the paint as they have been, this balloon is going to pop and the Blazers will be coming down to earth fast. And I wish I had more hope for interior defense, but I just don't see right now.

I will say that if the Blazers can dramatically improve their interior defense, then this team will be a force to be dealt with in the Western Conference.

The only reasons it's working as well as it is:

Our Opp 3FG% of 29% is the lowest since the NBA started tracking that stat.
We are one of the top rebounding teams in the league (all 5 starters averaging career best RPG, with our guards and wings limiting long offensive rebounds off missed opponent 3-pointers)
We aren't committing a lot of fouls
We are making 42% of our 3-pointers

All of those things are compensating for our high Opp points in the paint. So to keep winning, we either need to continue to be among the best in the league at ALL four of those things, or improve our interior defense. Not sure if we can keep up our current pace on all four of those things, but I do think our interior defense will get better as the players get used to the system and get used to playing together. We did outscore Brooklyn in the paint (40-30) so that's a step in the right direction. I don't think we need to become the best in the league at shutting down points in the paint. If we can just become average at it, and continue to excel in those other 4 areas, we will win a heck of a lot of games.

BNM
 
I try to go along with people who say the defense is not that bad or giving up points in the paint is by design . . . but then I stop and think about it and have a hard time buying it.

Call me old fashion, but giving up that many points in the paint can not be a good thing in basketball. I'm all for guarding the 3 and forcing midrange shots . . . but if teams continue to be as successful scoring in the paint as they have been, this balloon is going to pop and the Blazers will be coming down to earth fast. And I wish I had more hope for interior defense, but I just don't see right now.

I will say that if the Blazers can dramatically improve their interior defense, then this team will be a force to be dealt with in the Western Conference.

I think the plan is to give up jumpers not dunks and layups
 
I'm not excited that I'm the first to bring this up, b/c it will just reinforce that I'm some sort of LMA h8er, but the thing that (11 games into the season, now) doesn't make sense to me is this:

Lowe's just the most recent (many on the board have discussed it already) to note that Stotts is taking away the 3, and giving up single-defended P&R's and one-on-one post play (Leonard v. Dwight?!) to ensure that 3's are defended--to the point of giving semi-wide-open mid-range shots because they're the worst shot a defense can punt on and not be too hurt. Yet the person taking the most shots on offense:

Lowe said:
(Note: Aldridge is on pace to challenge the record for most midrange jumpers attempted in a season, per NBA.com. He’s jacking 12.8 per game, putting him on pace for about 1,050 such shots. Michael Jordan has the highest recorded mark, launching 1,056 midrangers in 2002-03 with the Wiz. Aldridge topped the league last season with 753 midrange jacks. He shoots them well enough that they're effective, and the threat helps Portland’s spacing and movement. But the team could stand exchanging a couple each night for better looks.)

I would submit that he's shooting them well enough right now, and if he continues to do so he will keep it "effective". But what does it say if your highest-volume shooter is shooting more of the shot that you want your opponents to take all night long than anyone else in the NBA by far?
 
I understand that you weren't saying that our defense is perfect. I'm talking specifically about the comparison you made between our team and the league leaders in Opp3% in previous seasons. People - particularly BF - are hailing that as great analysis and evidence that we're a good defensive team. What that analysis left out - and what response "torpedo" showed - was that those teams were also terrific at defending the interior. Those teams weren't good defensive teams because they defended the 3, they were good defensive teams period.

I'm sorry if my wording came across overly harsh. I enjoyed reading your post, and it gave me something to think about.

This is what's called a straw man. I applaud your effort though for going to such length to assert something that no one said. If it's not clear, which seems the be the case: What the Blazers are doing IS by design AND their defense needs to improve.
 
Last edited:
I'm not excited that I'm the first to bring this up, b/c it will just reinforce that I'm some sort of LMA h8er, but the thing that (11 games into the season, now) doesn't make sense to me is this:

Lowe's just the most recent (many on the board have discussed it already) to note that Stotts is taking away the 3, and giving up single-defended P&R's and one-on-one post play (Leonard v. Dwight?!) to ensure that 3's are defended--to the point of giving semi-wide-open mid-range shots because they're the worst shot a defense can punt on and not be too hurt. Yet the person taking the most shots on offense:



I would submit that he's shooting them well enough right now, and if he continues to do so he will keep it "effective". But what does it say if your highest-volume shooter is shooting more of the shot that you want your opponents to take all night long than anyone else in the NBA by far?

It is all about percentages LA is shooting around 50% between 3-15 feet so I am fine with him shooting that all game. However, his favorite shot is 16-23 feet and he is around 40% from there. Less long jumpers and more shots in the post and LA would easily be a 25-10 guy. He is great now but he could be much better.
 
...what does it say if your highest-volume shooter is shooting more of the shot that you want your opponents to take all night long than anyone else in the NBA by far?

I brought that up in another thread. It's certainly a philosophical contradiction. I'd love someone to ask Stotts about that.
 
Last edited:
I brought that up in another thread. It's certainly a philosophical contradiction. I'd love someone to ask Stotts about that.

The difference is Aldridge is good at it. With the increased emphasis on 3-point shooting in recent years, very few players have a solid mid-range game. It seems like most of the scoring in the league these days is either dunks or 3-pointers. This is what kids are learning from an early age - if you aren't big enough, or athletic enough to dunk, you'd better be a damn good 3-point shooter. Very few kids grow up focusing on their mid-range games these days.

BNM
 
By the by, our DRtg has moved up to 15th in the league (104.6) ; it's still below average (104.2), but now it's within shouting distance of average. Our ORtg continues for be 3rd in the league.
 
What a great article. You rarely see stories with this much insight into a team's defensive strategies. I loved learning, for example, that a key part of the Blazers' approach is keeping the other team from shooting 3-pointers. And the fact that Aldridge and Lopez have been told not to jump out on the pick and roll helps explain why Aldridge is rebounding better this year. This kind of stuff is so helpful to us as fans. I think the next time I watch a game I'm going to have a much better understanding of what Stotts is trying to accomplish on the floor.
 
Here is the main difference right now between this year and last year. Robin Lopez and Joel Freeland last year we were 3rd in 3 pt% allowed, we also had JJ Hickson who was often out of position and dreadful on pick and roll defense. Lopez has not been great in pick and roll but his willingness to at least contest shooters as they come into the lane has helped.

The article explains why Hickson seemed out of position. Stotts' defense had him guarding 4 opponents on 3 Blazers. Defending 2 opponents will do it.

The pick-and-roll involves two offensive players, and Stotts in turn wants to contain the play with just two defensive players. Portland has stopped trapping ball handlers high on the floor or having the big men guarding the screeners lunge out aggressively at those opposing ball handlers, as it did last season. That blitzing strategy fit Hickson’s defensive skill set, but it also left Portland with two players chasing the ball far from the hoop — and thus just three defenders patrolling four guys below the ball. The best offenses can pick apart that style of rotating defense, whipping the ball around until they find an easy shot.

The upside of attacking the pick-and-roll like that is forcing point guards to give up the ball. Point guards are dangerous, right? But the Blazers this season are setting up to encourage those pick-and-roll ball handlers to shoot.
 
The downsides are obvious: Opposing point guards can work their way to easy midrange looks if they get some separation jetting around the pick. Lillard and Williams are minus defenders, though Lillard has improved in his second year, and Stotts says the guards will have to be diligent about squeezing around picks. It’s a passive style that doesn’t yield many turnovers; no team has forced fewer turnovers per possession, and the Blazers are on pace for one of the half-dozen lowest opponent turnover rates in history, per Basketball-Reference.

Clicking on that link, the Blazers aren't on the list. That's because they've improved since the article to #25 in the NBA.

http://bkref.com/tiny/JeWxq
 
This is what's called a straw man. I applaud your effort though for going to such length to assert something that no one said. If it's not clear, which seems the be the case: What the Blazers are doing IS by design AND their defense needs to improve.
Really? Many people are saying it. The article said it, and you just said it again: "What the Blazers are doing IS by design...". That's simply NOT true. Only defending the 3-point line is by design. Giving up high-percentage shots near the hoop is most definitely NOT by design. Pointing out that the defense needs to improve does not cover up the fact that the defense isn't working by design.

And, as Brian pointed out (which I've also brought up in the past), there is a clear disconnect in our offensive and defensive philosophies. It's bizarre. I enjoy that it's working at the moment, but question whether it can work over the long haul.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top