16 replies to this topic

[thejohnnygold]

Since we hijacked the "Coaching" Thread for a bit I thought I'd start one just for talking offense.  (probably should have done this sooner)

 

NBA.com's stats has some interesting stuff.  (Warning: long post with lots of numbers)

 

They break down our three point shooting %'s based on how far away defenders are from the shooter.  It's not good.

 

0-2 feet - 0.2-0.5 (33.5%) (rank: 3rd)

2-4 feet - 2.3-6.9 (33.4%) (rank: 7th)

4-6 feet - 4.3-13.0 (33.2%) (rank: 21st)

6+  feet - 4.0-10.4 (38.6%) (rank: 15th)

 

Knowing that we shoot 30 3's per game and only 10 of those are going in at a decent clip (and low given they are open) is not good.

 

It is more interesting to note the % of our three-point shots that are open.  According to NBA.com it is 12.6% or nearly 1/8.  How does that compare to other teams?

 

That number is good for 12th in the league.  Atlanta leads the league getting 15.7 open wide looks per game (18.9% of their total 3's taken), but they fail by converting only 33.8% of those shots.

 

Since we have to look at Golden State...they take 11.8 open 3's per game (13.6 of total taken) and convert at 47.8%.  Only SA comes close to that.

 

My point is that we shoot much better when we're open (Duh!); thus, creating more open looks would be advantageous.

 

Now, here is where it gets interesting.  Overall, (meaning 2's and 3's) we shoot 13.9 wide open shots per game.  That means we only get 3.5 open looks inside the arc and convert them at 60.1%.  Compared to other teams we are coming up short here.  Not in percentage, but in volume.

 

We rank 18th in total open shots taken per game.  There aren't a lot of highly regarded coaches beneath us on that list.  Stan Van Gundy, Spoelstra, Dwayne Casey (does he count?), Hoiberg?...Kidd?...Quin Snyder?...

 

Given that we rank 5th in eFG% on open shots it is a shame we don't take more of them.  It doesn't seem like a big deal, but a few extra points per game and, subsequently, a few extra defensive possessions in the half court versus transition would make all the difference in our overall record.

 

Conversely, we take the  6th most shots in the league in terms of total shots taken with a defender within 2-4 ft.  We shoot 33.2 of those per game and convert at an eFG% of 50.8%.  That's pretty decent conversion....

 

We rank 25th in the league in shots taken with a defender 4-6 feet away (considered "open" versus "wide open").  We shoot those at an eFG% of 51.0 (good for 13th in the league).

 

Sorry, I know this is a lot of numbers.  It might be easier to go to the page and click around: LINK

 

To no one's surprise, we take the 5th most shots in the league at the end of the shots clock (0-4 seconds left).  We shoot 6.3 per game and convert at an eFG% of 40.5.  That's not helping.  Half of those shots are from 3 and we convert them at 30.6%.  That's not helping.

 

We rank 28th in terms of total shots taken between 15-7 seconds (considered average clock use).  We take 28.9 shots/game in that block and convert at an efg% of 50.5.  The top 10 teams in the league shoot between 36-39 of these shots per game and convert at a similar rate.  Advantage: THEM.

 

In the 18-15 second block we rank 16th, shooting 11.3 shots/game at an eFG% of 51.6 (notice how it rises).  Not only do half the teams in the league shoot more of these than us, but they convert more as well.  Advantage: THEM.

 

And then there is the 18-22 second window.  We rank 4th in overall attempts for this group at 12.9/game.  We convert at an eFG% of 61.0 (still climbing!)  We hit 39.3% of our 3 pointers.  Further, that 60.1 eFG% is good for 6th in the league.  Advantage: US!....oops, GSW shoots 68.6% on those and takes 13.6/game.  Wow.

 

Somehow, there is a section for 24-22 seconds.  Houston comes in at 7th with 4.4 shots/game and converts at an eFG% of 60.0 (good for 6th in the league).  Advantage: US.

 

What I am belaboring the heck out of is how our offensive system is predisposed to putting us in low percentage situations.  We take a lot of shots in the "bad" zones and not enough in the "good" zones.  I'd like us to find a way to create more of the good and less of the bad.  I'm not married to any one way; although, I am drawn to a motion offense.  I'll take anything though.  Better clock usage and more open shots equal much better efficiency.

 

I realize that fast breaks skew the short clock numbers, but that applies to every team so it should balance out.

 

We have the 4th best eFG% on catch and shoots in the league (54.1%).  Yet, we rank 24th in total number taken.

 

We have the 4th best eFG% on pull-up jumpers in the league (42.6%....not that great, really) and we rank 23rd in total taken/game (19.3).  This one is unclear....but I think the lower volume is to our advantage despite the eFG% rank.

 

Basically, no matter what you look at (touch time, number of dribbles, etc) Houston is not taking advantage of efficiency opportunities.  I have little doubt the eggheads at mission control (the Rockets' front office) aren't aware of this.

 

Ball movement.  Player movement.  A sense of urgency.  These are the things that we must add to the Morey-Core philosophy.  If JB can't do it then I think we need to bring in someone who will (Now I'm bringing the coach aspect back  ).

 

If anyone made it this far, what do you think?

[thejohnnygold]

Given the overwhelming interest in this thread I thought I would add some more to it.    I found this graphic and thought it was pretty cool.

 

 

To no one's surprise, McHale faired poorly,  but I would not have guessed JB would be up top.  Assuming this data is accurate (not sure of the source) and ignoring the small sample size of 1/2 a season (what I presume they used) that is a nice feather in the cap for JB.

[slick shoes]

JG this is good stuff, keep it coming. Is there a shot chart for this infographic? I'm interested to see certain coaches' out of time out plays.

[Willk]

Good research JG. My opinion is that this team was built to run. It is extremely difficult to run when you are taking the ball out of the basket. By getting stops, the team will be able to run more which could add a couple of points to the average. The offense does not need much work.

[thejohnnygold]

JG this is good stuff, keep it coming. Is there a shot chart for this infographic? I'm interested to see certain coaches' out of time out plays.

 

Well, I'm not so sure of the source.  It just seems to be some Polish dude who really likes basketball (but not enough to not be a Lakers fan).  Seems he just sits around and watches film.  Check out some of his other graphics.  You can also visit his Twitter: @HermmanM

 

This is % of turnovers coming out of timeouts. (the title is in Polish...I think)

 

 

McHale, again, was abysmal.  JB seems to be right in the middle of things, more or less.

 

Here is a chart he did from last night's games.  It shows first play of each quarter (similar to coming out of a timeout, I suppose, if you don't count the jump ball as anything... )

 

 

What does it mean?  Not much.  Teams that won this match-up went 3-2 overall.  Still, it's just like looking at any smaller part of the game (i.e transition, half-court, etc.).  We want to be as efficient/effective as possible over those 9 possessions.  Houston posted a solid 1.5 ppp against Miami.  Compare that to Miami's .4 ppp and that is nearly half of the winning margin of the game (115-102).

 

I am looking through Basketball-reference.com's team splits for Houston trying to find anything good.  A positive trend, a telling factor, whatever.  Once again, what I find is that this team is...weird.

 

It seems the difference between winning and losing is all on the defense.  In victories, we average 109.0 ppg and in losses it is 101.5 ppg.  This is a combination of 1 extra made 3, 1 extra ft, and a couple of extra fg's according to the averages.

 

Now, what we see when looking at our opponent's stats is that when we win, they score 101.1 ppg, and when we lose the other team scores 112.2.  Thus, my hastily drawn conclusion is that it doesn't matter what our offense does if the defense doesn't put in some work.  Our winning score is 109 compared to their 112.2...we still lose.

 

You can see it.  In wins, our rebounds go up (+4) and their turnovers increase (+2).  Two very good things.  I also like that our steals and blocks decrease.  To me, this is a sign that we are playing more fundamental ball and not gambling on glory plays that, more often than not, lead to easy buckets for the other team.

 

Home vs. Road splits don't seem to matter to us at all.  We are essentially the exact same team home or away.  Unfortunately, opposing teams play better on their home courts (mostly through better shooting efficiency).  Somehow, this translates to a 16-12 home record and a 10-13 away record.  That home record really sucks.  The guys have got to do a better job and if my math is correct we only have 13 home games left.  We need to win all of those games.  We need to at least split the 18 remaining road games.

 

That would put us at 48-34...enough for a lower playoff seed.

 

Wow.  Looking at last year's team....they held opponents to 29.5% on 3's when playing at home and forced 16 TO's per game leading to an average of 98.0 ppg for opponents on our floor.  (we went 30-11 at home last season).

 

I know this thread is about our offense, but no matter what we look at it always comes back to the defense.  If we can get back to defending we can get back to winning...even with all this inefficiency.

 

Ha, Willk, your post just came through as I was typing that...good timing. 

 

I still contend that our offense would benefit from more passing and player movement along with some better sets to operate from.  I don't think that an end game "play-call" of give James the ball and let him put some "foul pressure" on them (per JB Bickerstaff after the close loss to WAS) is a good play call.

 

I'd rather see, give James the ball and while the entire defense is focused on him run a little side play that frees up a cutter to collect an easy dish from James and an easy 2 or wide open 3.  It is a time honored tradition in the NBA that refs let the players decide the final play unless they simply MUST call a foul.  They should know this; yet, time after time they fish for fouls in this situation and act surprised when no whistle comes.

 

Of course, one problem is James has to take the last shot because if we pass to Dwight, Smith, or Capela the defense will intentionally foul and then we are left bricking free throws.  Sometimes, I miss Chandler Parsons.  I don't know if he is worth $15M/year and I'm not sure if we would be better of with him then without him, but he was a nice luxury to have on the offensive end.

[thejohnnygold]

JG this is good stuff, keep it coming. Is there a shot chart for this infographic? I'm interested to see certain coaches' out of time out plays.

 

Sorry, I got distracted and didn't reply to your actual question.  I don't know if there is a shot chart, but I would love to find one.  That Polish guy didn't have one and it seems he is collecting this data himself.

 

I'll see what I can dig up.

[thejohnnygold]

Here: Vorped.com  I like this site as it has lots of nifty little tools and things.  Play around with all the different parameters.  You can set it to 4th Q only, game tied and see how we fare.  Can't get it more specific....yet.  They also have individual players to look at.

[slick shoes]

Here: Vorped.com  I like this site as it has lots of nifty little tools and things.  Play around with all the different parameters.  You can set it to 4th Q only, game tied and see how we fare.  Can't get it more specific....yet.  They also have individual players to look at.

 

Very cool! I was starting to be pleased with out 4th quarter numbers but then I realized i was looking at home values only....

[Jatman20]

Really.....you are going to use this years numbers. We started the season trying to play Lawson and Harden together (bust)....McHale gets fired; insert JBB who spent weeks trying to figure out his squad. He removed Lawson and replaced him with Beverley......inserted Capela in place of TJ in hopes of improving interior defense. Now for the last 10 days, the Rockets have started playing some small ball with Brewer (SF) and Ariza (PF) together. Iso fails if there is "clutter" in the lane.....and the Rockets have had a lot of "Clutter". I showed the stats how the Rockets had scored 112 points per game in the 9 games prior to last night (vs the Heat); well the Rockets went out and scored 115 points, while being out-rebounded 50 to 31 last night.

Rockets would like to play, "Pace and Space", the numbers this year do not truly reflect that. The numbers for the offense the last 10 games are great and are a threat to those clamoring for predominantly motion offense. People are going ga-ga because of the success the Spurs and now Warriors are having. People forget that the Heat won championships not too long ago with a bunch of iso. The Spurs and Warriors are one of the top offensively efficient teams....mixed in with them are the perdominatly iso driven teams: Thunder, Cavs, and Rockets (and the Rockets just picked up the Pace and the Space). Fact of the matter is that there are only about 4 guys in the league who can cover Harden one-on-one.....once Harden penetrates, the defense has to commit help; which opens up a 3 point shooter along the perimeter. Just like the Warriors and just like the Spurs, it's important to have "Multiple" good to decent 3 point shooters.......TO MAKE THEM PAY FOR LEAVING THEIR MAN TO HELP STOP HARDEN !! Harden gets hurt....its season over.....well if Curry gets hurt......its season over as well (for the Warriors). I also posted the Curry hitting 64% of his 3's vs LeBron making 96% of his dunks "rule". That's how the Rockets getting out rebounded 50 to 31 last night and still winning by scoring 115 points. Both team had about 84 FG attempts. If the Rockets get a few more defensive rebounds; the score may have been greater as the Rockets may have been near 90 FG attempts to the Heat's 80 FG attempts. Miami was trading more 2 point buckets for our 3's....we shot like 46% from 3 due to the spacing. 5 games in 7 nights prevented important practice time. The Rockets worked on their defense in practice prior to the Heat game....it showed. Smaller lineup requires help on the defensive end vs post up players. Spoelstra and Bosh said after the game that the Rockets double and triple teamed himself/Bosh. That's like the defense the Warriors play when they go small.....swarm on the post up guy. My point boiled down is give our recent scheme some time......things may get better, or turn bad again when teams scout us on what we are doing recently. To me Harden is like players of the past like Allen Iverson or Marbury or Stevie Francis in his prime. Nobody could guard those guys one-on-one. Problem was those guys never had much help once they penetrated. Iverson had Snow and who (was Korver there at that time?). Marbury never had much to space the court. Francis had K-Mart.....but like the others, if you have a guy who can hit 3 pointers but can't play defense....you're just spinning your wheels.
It's all for not. Same with the Warriors or Spurs offense without those good 3 point shooters.....they would be reduced to just also rans (who gave you a lot of motion). The deference between the victor Warriors against the Cavs in the championship series was the "Small-Ball". The Cavs had a 2 games to 1 lead going into game 4. The Cavs dominated the inside during game 4; but the Warriors ran them off the court and traded 3's for the Cavs 2 point buckets. From that point on it was over. The Warriors saw that they could run their small lineup a great amount of time and still win. The Cavs turned to James Jones and Mike Miller to save the day.....not happening. Matrix was on the bench; but LeBron didn't trust him. If LeBron had Ariza on his team......it's very possible the iso heavy team (Cavs) would have beaten the motion offensive team (the Warriors).

Edited by Jatman20, 03 February 2016 - 11:21 PM.

[Jatman20]

Don't read my post #9. We run any offense you want with the same players and no healthy D-Mo. I would like to see how we play? If we look like trash don't say we need better components to make it work.......people aren't giving me the players I need to make the iso-offense work efficiently.
Having TJ and Josh and Brewer as consistent spot up 3 point shooters is like turning RGlll into a pocket quarterback. Tell Popovich we are going to take away Diaw, Danny Green, Ginobli and replace them with TJ, Brewer and Josh......he would say Hell No!!! Pop: I say I don't like 3 pointers; but I need those shooters to create space!!

Edited by Jatman20, 04 February 2016 - 03:00 AM.

[thejohnnygold]

Wow.  First, the Heat used lots of motion sets and you can see them all over Youtube.

 

Second, yes I am going to use this year's numbers.  I don't see anything else that would be relevant.

 

Third, you are still neglecting the very thing you vehemently pound your own fists about: personnel.  Like you, I would want "better" players that fit such a system.  I have repeatedly made that clear.  If you want to continue omitting that aspect of what we lowly-motion-offense-lovers are talking about you can, but it makes this conversation go in circles instead of moving forward.

 

I get it.  You want four 3 point assassins around Harden.  I would venture to say any team with 4 guys shooting over 40% on high volume threes was going to be doing well.  Oddly enough, most of these guys can shoot 70% plus in practice.  So, what is it that diminishes their abilities so greatly in games? 

 

You can't convince me that creating more open looks by using an offense more advanced than one seen at the park will not be better for our team.  Yes, we are scoring a lot....and we're doing it the hard way.  Imagine what would happen if we tried to make it easier...  Maybe Harden & Co. could start resting in the 4th Q's too....

 

Nobody is talking about shooting fewer threes.  We're just talking about creating better looks for everyone.  I don't understand why that is so disagreeable.

 

I suppose you can tell me that this shot chart for GS is 100% due to the fact that they have excellent 3 pt. shooters.  I would argue that the fact their whole chart is covered in green means they are getting better shots off.

 

 

Note that they take a lot of shots at the rim.  A lot.  They have taken 1,506 threes and 1,356 shots at the rim (which does not include all the fouls they have accrued there--which is far more than they have gotten at the 3 pt. line).  I would argue they shoot more at the rim then from deep and that this is as much a part of their success as the 3 pt. bombing.

 

Let's look at Houston's shot chart:

 

 

Wow.  What is there to say to that?  "We need better shooters"?  I guess so.  I would say a better system wouldn't hurt either.  We've got elite cutters and roll men....sure would make sense to utilize them more....

 

I will point out that GS is #1 in assists per game (29.4)  We have had 4 games with 29+ assists...we went 3-1 in those games and lost to LAC in OT in the other.

 

I mean, are you going to try and tell me Draymond Green is the 2nd coming of Oscar Robertson?  How is that guy toying with averaging a triple-double?     (Nah, he is pretty good, but I still contend it's the system combined with the right talent and Draymond has said as much himself).

 

It is easy to neglect that GS carries the #1 2pt fg% in the league.  That matters.  They also lead the league in DRB, but that's not about offense...until you consider how often they get out on the break.  Those rebounds mean more fast break chances which they convert very well (and not just pulling up from deep).

 

Unlike the Rockets (who seem to not understand their own strategy), GS holds their opponents to a league best 31.2% from deep while shooting 43% themselves.

 

The bottom line is open looks are better looks and go in more often.  Motion, passing, and movement create more open looks.  Seems stubborn to try and do it the hard way, but to each their own. 

[Willk]

 

The bottom line is open looks are better looks and go in more often.  Motion, passing, and movement create more open looks.  Seems stubborn to try and do it the hard way, but to each their own. 

 

 

 

The best way to get open looks is to get stops and get out and run. Getting down court before defenses set up leads to easier baskets. Talking about offense while playing garbage defense is pretty pointless since it has been shown, that when the Rockets play defense, they win. If the Rockets were playing respectable D and the offense was struggling then a reevaluation of the offensive philosophy would be necessary. 

[thejohnnygold]

 

 

The bottom line is open looks are better looks and go in more often.  Motion, passing, and movement create more open looks.  Seems stubborn to try and do it the hard way, but to each their own. 

 

 

 

The best way to get open looks is to get stops and get out and run. Getting down court before defenses set up leads to easier baskets. Talking about offense while playing garbage defense is pretty pointless since it has been shown, that when the Rockets play defense, they win. If the Rockets were playing respectable D and the offense was struggling then a reevaluation of the offensive philosophy would be necessary. 

 

 

I wouldn't call it "pointless".  Sure, we all agree the defense is a mess.  Playing good defense does not negate the advantage of running a better offense.

 

It would be great fun to get a fast break every single time down the floor.  That's not going to happen.  Teams aren't going to just let us run on them for an entire game.  We will have to play half court basketball (especially in the playoffs).  I like that the argument for getting out and running is to try to score before the defense is "set"; yet, the notion of running an offense that forces a "set" defense to move and react so that it quickly gets jumbled creating a similar effect is preposterous.

 

I'm amazed at the reasoning around here.  We can still get out and run (why wouldn't we?!?!?), we can still play some defense (maybe....someday...), we can still emphasize threes, getting to the rim, and free throws.  Doing it better seems like a bright idea to me, but what do I know?

 

I have noticed, little by little, the Rockets are starting to do a little more involving movement and passing.  It's a start!

[majik19]

our offense doesn't even matter - the defense is so pathetic that this isn't even a playoff team without improvements there. The offense is "good enough" to be a top 4 team in the west. The defense is more like a last place team. 

 

The apathy just makes it all worse. And now, the apathy has infected me, because I really don't care about this lost season anymore. I enjoyed this team more when Aaron Brooks was destroying the Lakers. 

[thejohnnygold]

Since we keep coming back to the defense I'll post something I found over at Reddit.com.  It's no surprise that we are one of the worst teams on this chart.  The question is why and how does it get fixed?

 

[slick shoes]

Since we keep coming back to the defense I'll post something I found over at Reddit.com.  It's no surprise that we are one of the worst teams on this chart.  The question is why and how does it get fixed?

 

(removed the graph for visual purposes)

 

Its interesting to me to see Detroit ranked so highly when they are built essentially the same way we are. 

[thejohnnygold]

Its interesting to me to see Detroit ranked so highly when they are built essentially the same way we are. 

 

They have a true defensive anchor in Drummond.  Perimeter players can stay at home.  Dwight is shorter, slower, and less athletic than Drummond.

 

We've also got far more defensive liabilities on our side.  This inevitably leads to more open looks....well, everywhere.