X's and O's Discussion (With Video)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 19, 20, 21  Next
 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Topic HOF This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
fiendishoc
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 8488
Location: The (real) short corner

PostPosted: Sun Nov 16, 2014 11:46 pm    Post subject:

GoldenThroat wrote:
fiend...you're a better man than I. I just can't summon the energy to put the time into explaining the failings of this grease fire of a coach that you do. You're a saint.


Haha, notice my posts are getting a lot shorter, as these painful performances stack up. I think at some point I can just start posting the full game highlights, with no comment necessary for people to see that everything is all wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
AuraStar
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 23 Jun 2001
Posts: 657

PostPosted: Mon Nov 17, 2014 9:08 am    Post subject:

I found an interesting interview from 2008 with Jim Cleamons, Frank Hamblen, and Stu Lantz.

It's about the Lakers defense at that time; they make comparisons to the Lakers of 2000-2002, 2008 Celtics team, the 90's Bulls teams, and the Pistons of 2004.

What I got out of the article is that the 2008 Lakers had a particular scheme which required the players to play defense based sound principles like protecting the paint and provide help to weaker defenders and/or defenders who are overmatched. It was designed to advantage of the Lakers' length and depth while also utilizing help principles to try to prevent the big men from getting into foul trouble.

The Lakers coaches felt the players needed to understand the schematic, so they provided a formal structure regarding help principles. Otherwise, several of their players would frequently be out of position defensively, leading to breakdowns. They played team help defense because they did not have nearly the number of lock down defenders needed to play a lock down defense like the Bulls.

How it could apply to the current Lakers team is they could learn a lesson or two from the past. They don't really have any lock down defenders save for Kobe Bryant, so they have to stay principled in their schematic and play fundamentally sound team defense.
_____________________________________________________________

A Closer Look at the Lakers' Defense Through the Eyes of Jim Cleamons, Frank Hamblen and Stu Lantz
David Friedman
Tuesday, December 09, 2008


Much has been said and written about the Lakers' "new defensive scheme." It seems like the chic thing to do is talk about the supposed intricacies of the Lakers' defense while ignoring simpler explanations for their improvement at that end of the court: Pau Gasol and Trevor Ariza participated in their first training camp as Lakers and rebounder/shot blocker Andrew Bynum returned from injury to play alongside Gasol for the first time. Adding an agile, long armed wing defender and an agile, long armed post player is bound to improve a team's defense. Of course, it also does not hurt to have perennial All-Defensive Team member Kobe Bryant--who Boston Coach Doc Rivers called the best help defender since Scottie Pippen--on the roster, fresh off of being Team USA's defensive stopper in the Olympics.

It is worth remembering that years ago Phil Jackson adapted Tex Winter's Triangle Offense as his primary offensive scheme but Jackson has a defensive background dating back to his playing days with the Knicks when he was coached by the great Red Holzman; during Jackson's first season in his initial stint with the Lakers, they improved from 17th in defensive field goal percentage to leading the league in that category en route to winning 67 regular season games and the first of three straight championships. In other words, Jackson did not suddenly discover defense this offseason.

I recently had the opportunity to talk with Lakers assistant coaches Jim Cleamons and Frank Hamblen about the Lakers' defense, getting their perspectives on what has changed (and why) and how this team's defense compares to some of the great defensive teams with which they have been associated during their time in the NBA. Cleamons was a rookie on the Lakers' 1972 championship team that won a record 33 straight regular season games. He was an assistant coach under Phil Jackson during four of the Chicago Bulls' championship seasons (1991-93, 1996) and three more L.A. Lakers' championship seasons (2000-02). Hamblen was an assistant coach under Phil Jackson during two of the Bulls' championship seasons (1997-98) and three Lakers' championship seasons (2000-02).

I also spoke with Stu Lantz, an eight year NBA veteran who averaged 20.6 ppg for the Rockets in 1970-71, played for the Lakers during his final NBA season in 1975-76 and has been a Lakers broadcaster since the 1987-88 season.

Note: I interviewed Cleamons, Hamblen and Lantz separately but my first question to each of them was the same, so I will list that question first and group together their answers:

Question: “How much of the defensive improvement for the Lakers this year is based on schematic changes and how much is based on having Bynum healthy, having Ariza for a full season and having Gasol in training camp?”

Lantz: “I think that they both go hand in hand because even with the change in the scheme of things without the players to run the schemes you just don’t have it (the improvement). Having that last line of defense with Andrew helps tremendously. Trevor, he just wreaks havoc regardless of the scheme. I think that it’s a combination but obviously they wouldn’t be doing what they’re doing without the scheme being put into place so that has to be at the forefront and then having the players to do that comes second.”

Frank Hamblen: “From day one, we’ve emphasized the fact that we are going to play defense and that we are going to be better defensively. We’ve talked about that with the players and I think that (emphasis) is probably one of the biggest reasons. What we’re trying to do is load up one side, basically keep two guys between the ball and the basket. That helps us a lot. Having more length, with Andrew healthy—we have some long guys on our team with Andrew, Pau Gasol, Lamar, Trevor Ariza. We have some long, athletic guys, so that really helps us also.”

Jim Cleamons (chuckles): “How much, I don’t know, but let’s just say that we’re happy to have a full training camp with them and we are spending a little bit more time at the defensive end talking about what it is we want to do. So I think it’s a combination but I can’t give you a percentage. Let’s just say that things are working out well.”

----------

Friedman: “From a schematic standpoint, how is this Lakers’ team different defensively from last year’s team and how is it different from the three Laker teams that won championships early in the 2000s?”

Lantz: “I think that the defensive schemes are different from the three-peat teams only because of the personnel. We didn’t swarm nearly as much in 2000, 2001, 2002 as we are doing now. If you watch us now, we will funnel the ball down one side and once he picks up his dribble then it is almost like an amoeba—they (the defenders) are all over the place. Also, when you look at differences between the championship teams and this one, that offensive unit that the three in a row champions had was pretty good too with the one-two punch of Kobe and Shaq. Now, they’ve got more than a one-two punch—they’ve actually got a four headed monster offensively. You never know which guy is going to come out and really be a pain to the opposition’s defense. Obviously, Kobe can do it every night and then you’ve got Pau, Lamar and Trevor and Derek and Andrew. They’ve got a lot of different weapons.”

Friedman: “How would you compare the defense that the Lakers are playing with the way that the Celtics played defense last year? Do you think that the Lakers have reached that level or is there still room for improvement?”

Lantz: “I think that the Lakers still have a step to go to get to that level. I really do like the Celtics’ defense because the Celtic defense is consistent for 48 minutes; regardless of the score, it is consistent for 48 minutes. Thus far this year, in the first 15 games the Lakers have had periods where they aren’t that consistent defensively and they allow teams to shoot 60% for a half or something like that. Then they decide that they better get after it again and they try to tighten the defensive screws but I think that they have a step to go to get to the Celtics’ level because of the consistency with which they play.”

Friedman: “What do you think causes the inconsistency that you described?”

Lantz: “I think it is more focus than anything. I think a lot of times it is because they have played so many games at home—you get that sense of relaxation at home, ‘We’re home, we’re going to win no matter what,’ so you don’t come out as focused. I think that getting out on the road is going to be good for them because they are going to have to be focused from the time the ball is thrown up at the opening tip until the final horn. I think that it has been more focus than anything else.”

Friedman: “Obviously, the Lakers only play Boston twice in the regular season. Do the guys on the team talk about that, about making some kind of statement in that game?”

Lantz: “No, not until that game comes around. You can’t look that far ahead. We’re still 23 days away from their first meeting, so they don’t talk about the 25th of December quite yet but as that day starts to get closer, yeah, they’ll start focusing on that day.”

Friedman: “There is no way to pretend that that is just another game.”

Lantz: “Absolutely.”

Friedman: “No one can even try to say that.”

Lantz: “Exactly. Those who say that it is just one of 82 are not telling you the truth.”

Friedman: “Whatever the Lakers’ record will be at that point—and it looks like it is going to be a fantastic record—everyone is going to look at that game and make decisions about whether the defense improved, whether the toughness improved, all the questions that came up in the Finals.”

Lantz: “Right. Exactly. All the questions are going to surface again, just like they did somewhat in the game that they lost to the Pistons, because the Pistons are a physical bunch who pretty much played our bigs man up, straight up, which means the perimeter (defenders) can lock in a little bit better, which makes it tougher. It’s going to be a very interesting game when it occurs on the 25th, to see where the Lakers stand in that regard and also to judge where their defense stands, because that is going to be a game where you are going to have two teams hopefully playing 48 minutes of just aggressive, encouraging type defense throughout. That is one that I am looking forward to even though it is 23 days away.”

Friedman: “The Pistons game was strange because that is one of the best games that Detroit has played this year. They have not exactly torn up the league since they got Iverson. That was one of their best games.”

Lantz: “That was the best game, there is no question in my mind. I have not seen all of their games but if they’ve played better than that I want to see that game. They played really well, not only defensively but they shot the ball extremely well. They had shots that they made. The final numbers can be very misleading because if a guy misses 10 out of 15 shots a lot of times people say that the defense did it but he might have just missed shots. In that game, guys were challenging shots but the Pistons were making shots. They shot the ball really well.”

Friedman: “In that game, Iverson and Rasheed Wallace seemed to be working well together. Iverson was collapsing the defense and then Sheed was hitting all of those outside shots. That looked like a good recipe for them but we haven’t seen much of that since then for them.”

Lantz: “Again, you have to remember that they’re playing the Lakers. When teams play the Lakers, even though the Lakers are not the defending champs it seems like other teams elevate their games tremendously. The Celtics realize that as well. They have to play 82 games in which they are defending the championship and teams play their ‘A’ game that night.”

----------

Friedman: “Is what you are doing schematically based on some of the things that the Celtics did so well throughout last season and in the NBA Finals?”

Hamblen: “No, it’s not based so much on what the Celtics did. We just put a defense together of what we want to do and what we thought would help us shut things down. We try to keep the ball on one side and try to keep the ball down on that one side.”

Friedman: “How would you compare the level of defense that the Lakers are playing with the defense played by the Bulls’ championship teams when you were an assistant coach in Chicago? How is the scheme similar or different and how would you compare the overall defensive effectiveness of those teams?”

Hamblen: “With the Bulls, we had several players who had been on the All-Defensive Team. The level of defense was certainly good and that is one of the reasons why the Bulls won so many championships. Then you throw in a Luc Longley or Bill Cartwright to plug up the middle. Michael Jordan was a great defender, Ron Harper was a great defender. Scottie Pippen, of course, was a great defender. Dennis Rodman was a great defender. These guys made the All-Defensive Teams. I can’t really compare the Lakers to those Bulls’ teams defensively just because the Bulls were really good defensively; we’re trying to get to that level.”

Friedman: “Would it be fair to say that this Lakers team is blessed with a little more size than the Bulls in terms of having Gasol and Bynum, so your defense is based on funneling players to the shotblockers, while the Bulls were based more using their speed and being disruptive in the passing lanes?”

Hamblen: “The players on the Bulls took pride in their ability to lock guys down. We’re going to be more of a team defense where we’re going to be in help situations—‘I’ve got mine and half of yours’ type thing; that’s what we’re preaching now.”

Friedman: “So the Bulls were more of a one-on-one team defensively?”

Hamblen: “On the Bulls, each player could lock his guy down. Obviously, you always want to help if somebody gets beat, but they could contain their guys for the most part so we didn’t have to help as much. Here, we know that we are going to have to help, especially because we want to keep our big guys out of foul trouble so we have to do a good job of containing.”

Friedman: “During the Finals, Doc Rivers mentioned that he thought that Kobe Bryant might be the best help defender in the league since Scottie Pippen. How would you compare Kobe and Scottie as help defenders?”

Hamblen: “I think Kobe is a good weak side defender. He’ll take chances looking for steals and roaming. We know that he can lock guys down one on one defensively but he can also anticipate plays from the weak side. We just don’t want him gambling too much, which will hurt our defense; just pick your spots when you’re going to go.”

----------

Friedman: “How much different is the scheme this year from last year? Last year you had a good defensive team but you were inconsistent. How much has what you are doing really changed in terms of how you are deploying the players defensively?”

Cleamons: “The only thing we’re doing is what a lot of teams have decided to do: basically, playing a man to man defense that is actually a zone; we’re sending an extra defender over in situations that we feel threatened. There’s no big secret about it; that’s what we’re trying to do: give more help when we can and we’ve been fortunate thus far.”

Friedman: “Were you not able to do that last year because of some of the personnel changes and injuries? What brought about the idea of making that change and providing more help?”

Cleamons (laughs): “The loss to Boston. It’s just a matter of the fact that you want to be competitive. You don’t have to do it but it is another weapon or scheme in your arsenal. We realize that when you go around the league that teams watch film just like we do so we can’t do it all the time but there are times that we can do it and get away with it. Players have to understand the scheme, you have to drill on it and have confidence in it and when you need it pull it out. If you don’t need it then you can get by without it for a couple games but you know that you have it as a weapon.”

Friedman: “You stormed through the Western Conference playoffs last year. Did it really come as a shock to the system not just that you lost to Boston but the way that those games went down, the big lead that you lost (in game four) and what happened in game six?”

Cleamons: “Let’s just say that we played well but not well enough. Boston was on a mission and we understand that. Give them all the credit in the world. They were the better team. It’s a new day and we would like to do the best that we can to get back there and I’m quite sure that they want to get back there. So we’ll see if next May/June we get that opportunity.”

Friedman: “I’d like you to make some comparisons based on your experiences in your playing career and your earlier coaching career. How would you compare the way that this team is playing to the 1972 Lakers and to the 1996 Bulls? I know that it is premature to talk about such things but in what areas does this team match up well with those teams and in what areas does this team still need to grow to be like one of those teams?”

Cleamons: “We’ve got a lot of growing to do. This team is talented, no doubt about it, but both those teams were on a mission. That’s not to say that we’re not on a mission but this team does not have that maturity at this point in time. Hopefully, we will get to that stage, but sitting here in December we’re not that mature. We haven’t seen too many tough teams yet and the one tough team we saw (Detroit) handed our hat back to us. That’s a learning process. Hopefully this team will grow and mature. We’ve got some tough games ahead of us before we finish out the year and we’ll see where we are.”

Friedman: “During the NBA Finals, Doc Rivers said that Kobe Bryant is the best help defender since Scottie Pippen. I know that you coached Pippen. How would you compare Kobe and Pippen as help defenders?”

Cleamons: “Well, Scottie Pippen in my estimation was probably the best. That (Chicago) team had a certain chemistry in that they knew how to help. That’s why we have gone to the scheme we are using this year: guys don’t know how to help—when to come over, when to get out. If these guys understood that schematic then we wouldn’t have to change up. We would have just gotten better at what we did. Those guys (Pippen and Bryant) have certain instincts about what to do. That’s what you are looking for, guys who know how and when to come and give help and where they are going on their rotations.”

Friedman: “If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that when you have a Jordan, a Pippen and a Harper, those guys were so great defensively that you didn’t really have to give them a scheme explaining when and how to help: they just read the situations on the floor as they happened. With this Lakers team, you are finding things on film and showing the players that when they see this arrangement of players provide help and when you don’t then don’t come over to help; you are instructing them to play in a certain way instead of having them rely on natural defensive instincts.”

Cleamons: “With both groups you have to quote unquote teach them but some guys just have better instincts. These guys we are having to program a little bit but they’ll get it. When you are talking about defense on the floor, defense on the floor is about desire: you want to get there, you want to shut guys down, you want to shut teams down. That’s a killer instinct that you can’t teach.”

Friedman: “If you have a player who is not a defensive minded player you can give him all the schemes you want but can you really give him that desire if he doesn’t have it?”

Cleamons: “That’s very difficult. You earn your paycheck with that one.”

-----------

Readers are free to draw their own conclusions from these interviews but I think that these are the salient points:

1) The Jordan-Pippen Chicago Bulls were a great defensive team because they had multiple players who could "lock down" their man one on one.

2) In contrast, the current Lakers do not have nearly as many "lock down" defenders as the Bulls did, nor do most of their players have the tremendous defensive instincts that the Bulls did regarding when and how to play help defense.

3) The Lakers coaching staff realized that without providing some kind of formal structure regarding help principles several of their players would frequently be out of position defensively, leading to breakdowns. As Cleamons said, "That’s why we have gone to the scheme we are using this year: guys don’t know how to help—when to come over, when to get out. If these guys understood that schematic then we wouldn’t have to change up."

4) The "new" Lakers' defensive scheme is hardly "new" or revolutionary, as Cleamons candidly admitted; it mainly consists of formalizing sound defensive principles such as protecting the paint and providing help to weaker defenders and/or defenders who are overmatched. The "new" scheme simultaneously takes advantage of the Lakers' length and depth while also utilizing help principles to try to prevent the big men from getting into foul trouble.

5) Cleamons astutely pointed out that the Lakers lack the "maturity" that great teams possess. That became very evident last week when the Lakers blew a big lead at Indiana and almost blew a big lead at Washington.

Labels: Andrew Bynum, Frank Hamblen, Jim Cleamons, Kobe Bryant, L.A. Lakers, Michael Jordan, Pau Gasol, Phil Jackson, Scottie Pippen, Stu Lantz, Trevor Ariza


http://20secondtimeout.blogspot.com/2008/12/closer-look-at-lakers-defense-through.html
_________________
“Love is the force that ignites the spirit and binds teams together.” - Phil Jackson
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
22
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 17063

PostPosted: Mon Nov 17, 2014 11:20 am    Post subject:

This is a such a high quality thread, but I literally hate coming in here.

So depressing to read about how our staff doesn't understand modern NBA X's and O's.

It also makes me worry about Madsen. IF he is our future coach and he is growing/learning in this environment...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
fiendishoc
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 8488
Location: The (real) short corner

PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2014 9:49 am    Post subject:

12 games in, I guess it's enough to start to look at some advanced stats.

The Lakers as we all know are last in defensive efficiency. Their 113.4 points given up per 100 possessions blows away even the #29 Wolves by 3 points. The league leaders are the Rockets at 98.1 points.

A closer look at some of the shooting stats reveal why that may be the case. While we hear a lot that Byron Scott's view on 3 point shooting is outdated on the offensive side, the numbers also reveal why his defensive philosophy is outdated as well. The Lakers are dead last in the league at forcing long 2 pointers. Only 12.7% of their opponent shots are between 16ft and inside of the three pt line.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2015.html#shooting_opp::10

Why? Because they simply don't realize that an opponent taking a long two is preferable than taking a three or driving to the basket. You will see them leave a three point shooter wide open to close out hard on someone inside the arc without even a thought of jumping back to cover their man.


Laker opponents are only shooting 35.7% on long twos for an offensive efficiency of 71.4 ppp, so they really should try to allow them to take more of them. In contrast, Laker opponents are shooting 40.9% on 3pters for an offensive efficiency of 122.7 ppp!

The other reasons for the horrible defense are transition and fouling. The Lakers are second worse in the league (behind Philly) in the number of transition points given up, at 17 fast break points per game. They also have the most opponent FTs per field goal attempt in the league at 27.6%. These are the things that better effort may help, but unless they embrace some basic principles of efficiency, they will never be a decent defensive team.

As for personnel, out of the players who have played a meaningful number of minutes and games, Carlos Boozer and Wes Johnson have the worst defensive ratings at 120.6 points given up and 119.7 points given up per 100 possessions respectively. In contrast, Ed Davis has a rating of 108.7, and Robert Sacre 98.0. Nick Young's rating is 93.0, but that's only from two games.

http://stats.nba.com/team/#!/1610612747/players/advanced/

So seeing as how the Lakers are sticking for the most part to their ineffective defensive scheme and continuing to play Boozer and Wes major minutes over Ed Davis, the question is, are they the only team in the league without an analytics team? (Not that you even need a team to look up these stats on the web).

I'll cover offense later, where the picture looks a bit better.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
44TheLogo
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 21 Feb 2009
Posts: 6364

PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2014 10:02 am    Post subject:

fiendishoc wrote:
12 games in, I guess it's enough to start to look at some advanced stats.

The Lakers as we all know are last in defensive efficiency. Their 113.4 points given up per 100 possessions blows away even the #29 Wolves by 3 points. The league leaders are the Rockets at 98.1 points.

A closer look at some of the shooting stats reveal why that may be the case. While we hear a lot that Byron Scott's view on 3 point shooting is outdated on the offensive side, the numbers also reveal why his defensive philosophy is outdated as well. The Lakers are dead last in the league at forcing long 2 pointers. Only 12.7% of their opponent shots are between 16ft and inside of the three pt line.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2015.html#shooting_opp::10

Why? Because they simply don't realize that an opponent taking a long two is preferable than taking a three or driving to the basket. You will see them leave a three point shooter wide open to close out hard on someone inside the arc without even a thought of jumping back to cover their man.


Laker opponents are only shooting 35.7% on long twos for an offensive efficiency of 71.4 ppp, so they really should try to allow them to take more of them. In contrast, Laker opponents are shooting 40.9% on 3pters for an offensive efficiency of 122.7 ppp!

The other reasons for the horrible defense are transition and fouling. The Lakers are second worse in the league (behind Philly) in the number of transition points given up, at 17 fast break points per game. They also have the most opponent FTs per field goal attempt in the league at 27.6%. These are the things that better effort may help, but unless they embrace some basic principles of efficiency, they will never be a decent defensive team.

As for personnel, out of the players who have played a meaningful number of minutes and games, Carlos Boozer and Wes Johnson have the worst defensive ratings at 120.6 points given up and 119.7 points given up per 100 possessions respectively. In contrast, Ed Davis has a rating of 108.7, and Robert Sacre 98.0. Nick Young's rating is 93.0, but that's only from two games.

http://stats.nba.com/team/#!/1610612747/players/advanced/

So seeing as how the Lakers are sticking for the most part to their ineffective defensive scheme and continuing to play Boozer and Wes major minutes over Ed Davis, the question is, are they the only team in the league without an analytics team? (Not that you even need a team to look up these stats on the web).

I'll cover offense later, where the picture looks a bit better.


The question is not whether we have an analytics team or not, because I am certain that we do...the question is whether anyone cares what they have to say.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474

PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2014 1:54 pm    Post subject:

fiendishoc wrote:
12 games in, I guess it's enough to start to look at some advanced stats.

The Lakers as we all know are last in defensive efficiency. Their 113.4 points given up per 100 possessions blows away even the #29 Wolves by 3 points. The league leaders are the Rockets at 98.1 points.

A closer look at some of the shooting stats reveal why that may be the case. While we hear a lot that Byron Scott's view on 3 point shooting is outdated on the offensive side, the numbers also reveal why his defensive philosophy is outdated as well. The Lakers are dead last in the league at forcing long 2 pointers. Only 12.7% of their opponent shots are between 16ft and inside of the three pt line.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2015.html#shooting_opp::10

Why? Because they simply don't realize that an opponent taking a long two is preferable than taking a three or driving to the basket. You will see them leave a three point shooter wide open to close out hard on someone inside the arc without even a thought of jumping back to cover their man.


Laker opponents are only shooting 35.7% on long twos for an offensive efficiency of 71.4 ppp, so they really should try to allow them to take more of them. In contrast, Laker opponents are shooting 40.9% on 3pters for an offensive efficiency of 122.7 ppp!

The other reasons for the horrible defense are transition and fouling. The Lakers are second worse in the league (behind Philly) in the number of transition points given up, at 17 fast break points per game. They also have the most opponent FTs per field goal attempt in the league at 27.6%. These are the things that better effort may help, but unless they embrace some basic principles of efficiency, they will never be a decent defensive team.

As for personnel, out of the players who have played a meaningful number of minutes and games, Carlos Boozer and Wes Johnson have the worst defensive ratings at 120.6 points given up and 119.7 points given up per 100 possessions respectively. In contrast, Ed Davis has a rating of 108.7, and Robert Sacre 98.0. Nick Young's rating is 93.0, but that's only from two games.

http://stats.nba.com/team/#!/1610612747/players/advanced/

So seeing as how the Lakers are sticking for the most part to their ineffective defensive scheme and continuing to play Boozer and Wes major minutes over Ed Davis, the question is, are they the only team in the league without an analytics team? (Not that you even need a team to look up these stats on the web).

I'll cover offense later, where the picture looks a bit better.


Ugh.

To further this point, here are our NBA ranks by opponent shot distance (1st being the most shots, 30th being the least)

0'-3'.......4th
3'-10'....21st
10'-16'..19th
16'-<3..30th
3>.........4th


Most NBA teams are looking for three shot types on offense. Free throws, shots around the basket, and 3 pointers. We allow the 3rd most FTA, the 4th most shots around the basket, and the 4th most 3PTA.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
fiendishoc
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 8488
Location: The (real) short corner

PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2014 8:42 pm    Post subject:

Now for offense. The Lakers are right in the middle of the pack offensively, with an offensive rating of 104.4 points per 100 possessions which is not as bad as you would expect, watching their stagnant system.

As expected, they shoot a lot of long two point jumpers (known as the worst shot in basketball) as they have the second highest percentage of shots taken outside of 16ft inside the 3pt line behind the Knicks, at 24.8% of their shots.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2015.html#shooting::10

So why aren't they ranked even worse on offense? For one, they actually hit those 2 pt jumpers at a decent rate, with their FG% for those shots at 6th in the league at 43.9%. This is in large part due to Kobe Bryant shooting an amazing 50.6% on those shots, higher than any point of his career. His usage of Lakers possessions is 37.8%, which is a historically high rate. However, while this shows that Kobe should be allowed to take these long jumpers (not the least because he's also good at drawing fouls from this distance), the overall efficiency for the team on these shots is still a lowly 87.8 per 100 possessions. The Lakers' overall effective field goal percentage is fifth worst in the league at 46.9%, and their TS% is seventh worst at 52%.

For those wondering, Jordan Hill and Boozer shoot 32% and 31% from this distance respectively, and Wes Johnson at 36%. Wayne Ellington is the only other guy on the team who you can be OK with taking a reasonable number of these shots - he actually has shot 80% from this distance this season (but out of a limited sample at 8 out of 10 shots). Two years ago, he shot 48%.

Three other factors have helped the offense. The Lakers have grabbed the most offensive rebounds in the league, and their offensive rebound percentage is fourth in the league at 43.9%, boosted by the efforts of Hill and Davis. Also, possibly helped by the simplistic offense and quick shots, the turnover ratio is the 5th best in the league. Finally, helped by Kobe's ability to draw fouls, their free throw rate ranks 5th in the league at 33.9%.

As long as Kobe can keep up his blistering pace on long twos, this team can be average on offense, but I wouldn't depend on it, and I also wouldn't depend on him being able to sustain this kind of offensive load (He's also shooting badly from 3 and close to the basket). While Nick Young being back will help, I think the Lakers potential on offense is much better than what we see currently given that most of the players on the roster specialize on that end of the floor, but the lack of a good system will hamper them (the Lakers are second to last in % of 3 point baskets assisted). Also, I think that a more efficient offense can help cut down on transition opportunities for the other team and help the defense.

As for personnel, Boozer and Hill have the worst offensive ratings at 101.2 each, while Kobe is at the lower middle of the pack at 103.1, Wes is slightly above him at 103.4. For players avging over 10 min a game, Clarkson is number one at 110.4 and Ed Davis is at 109.9. So the likely fastest way to improve the offense will be to get Davis more minutes and Clarkson SOME minutes.

Still, as we can see from the numbers, defense is a much bigger problem. If they can fix that, and get some more sensible rotations, then you would start to them building some momentum.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
KobesRevenge
Sixth Man
Sixth Man


Joined: 14 Jul 2014
Posts: 92

PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2014 2:40 pm    Post subject:

I think there's one advantage to having our anti-analytics offense. By taking lots of mid to long 2s, we've basically got an unstoppable offense. Most good defenses are built to stop 3s and paint penetration, and allow long 2s. But we're perfectly happy taking these, and if we're having a good shooting day, there's no way to stop us. And since we can't stop anyone either, we can only hope we have a good enough shooting day that we can outscore our opponent.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474

PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2014 3:53 pm    Post subject:

KobesRevenge wrote:
I think there's one advantage to having our anti-analytics offense. By taking lots of mid to long 2s, we've basically got an unstoppable offense. Most good defenses are built to stop 3s and paint penetration, and allow long 2s. But we're perfectly happy taking these, and if we're having a good shooting day, there's no way to stop us. And since we can't stop anyone either, we can only hope we have a good enough shooting day that we can outscore our opponent.


Not sure if serious...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90299
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2014 5:19 pm    Post subject:

KobesRevenge wrote:
I think there's one advantage to having our anti-analytics offense. By taking lots of mid to long 2s, we've basically got an unstoppable offense. Most good defenses are built to stop 3s and paint penetration, and allow long 2s. But we're perfectly happy taking these, and if we're having a good shooting day, there's no way to stop us. And since we can't stop anyone either, we can only hope we have a good enough shooting day that we can outscore our opponent.


That's a lot like saying we want to be good at the thing that even if we are the absolute best, it makes us mediocre to weak overall. Teams give you the long two because in the grand scheme, you can live with those, and will be a better team overall if you are stronger and key, three, and free (throws).
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
44TheLogo
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 21 Feb 2009
Posts: 6364

PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2014 5:30 pm    Post subject:

24 wrote:
KobesRevenge wrote:
I think there's one advantage to having our anti-analytics offense. By taking lots of mid to long 2s, we've basically got an unstoppable offense. Most good defenses are built to stop 3s and paint penetration, and allow long 2s. But we're perfectly happy taking these, and if we're having a good shooting day, there's no way to stop us. And since we can't stop anyone either, we can only hope we have a good enough shooting day that we can outscore our opponent.


That's a lot like saying we want to be good at the thing that even if we are the absolute best, it makes us mediocre to weak overall. Teams give you the long two because in the grand scheme, you can live with those, and will be a better team overall if you are stronger and key, three, and free (throws).


There's some validity to it though. Portland was able to beat Houston in the playoffs off a steady diet of midrange jumpers from possibly the best midrange jumpshooter in the league, LMA. When your team plays defense according to the same principle all season and then faces a team that can exploit those principles it's difficult to change tactics.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
fiendishoc
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 8488
Location: The (real) short corner

PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2014 6:03 pm    Post subject:

44TheLogo wrote:
24 wrote:
KobesRevenge wrote:
I think there's one advantage to having our anti-analytics offense. By taking lots of mid to long 2s, we've basically got an unstoppable offense. Most good defenses are built to stop 3s and paint penetration, and allow long 2s. But we're perfectly happy taking these, and if we're having a good shooting day, there's no way to stop us. And since we can't stop anyone either, we can only hope we have a good enough shooting day that we can outscore our opponent.


That's a lot like saying we want to be good at the thing that even if we are the absolute best, it makes us mediocre to weak overall. Teams give you the long two because in the grand scheme, you can live with those, and will be a better team overall if you are stronger and key, three, and free (throws).


There's some validity to it though. Portland was able to beat Houston in the playoffs off a steady diet of midrange jumpers from possibly the best midrange jumpshooter in the league, LMA. When your team plays defense according to the same principle all season and then faces a team that can exploit those principles it's difficult to change tactics.


It's not like they were leaving LMA open- they just couldn't guard him. In the playoffs its true that you need to be able to hit these shots because sometimes those are the only ones available- but it doesn't mean you design an offense which has them as a first option.

Anyway one of my main points was that we are only able to be average because Kobe is shooting out of his mind on bad shots, and that is not likely to last. This roster has more offensive talent than people give them credit for, but just hampered by a bad system.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
fiendishoc
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 8488
Location: The (real) short corner

PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2014 3:13 am    Post subject:

The Lakers overhelp and needlessly pack the paint to the point where it's comical. I went back to rewatch the game to find instances that I could point out, but then realized that they do it on just about every single possession. So I just went to the Dirk/Monta highlight clip instead:

1)


Where exactly is Lin trying to prevent Monta from going here? And why is Kobe camping in the paint with Chandler wide open? It's not a choice between a jumpshot and a drive. It's pick and choose between an open layup and an open 3.

2)


Here you see Lin run into the paint because he's been told to "build a wall" and make the other team "see 1.5 defenders" every time they drive, so he leaves Nelson wide open for 3.

3)


So here you see the Lakers trapping the ball handler, because their normal ice PnR defense has blown up in their faces also because of bad rotations and needless helping. Of course they don't do it well- and then Price is not going to stop the big man- and even so, he left the weakside corner 3 wide open.

Again -


4) Here's Boozer making you wonder how they ever pulled off ice defense in Chicago with him starting


5) Here are the Lakers letting the ballhandler go middle, which is a no-no in Ice.


Which leads to Swaggy helping in the paint and Parsons with the open 3.

Not shown here is Kobe's one man zone in the paint, continually leaving Parsons, a 45% career corner 3 shooter with 20 feet of space.

So what's the solution? For one, get it into your players heads that 3 is more than 2, and to stay at home when the opponent is already driving into one of your teammates. And second, because your players cannot properly execute (or physically unable to execute) ice/down/blue, hard shows, and traps, have the screener's man "zone up" for pick and roll defense, particularly from the top.

24 sums it up best:
24 wrote:

Most screen roll happens to the baseline side of the circle, and icing or blueing it involves dropping the big down into the strong wing, the other big into weakside or in the lane protection (the 29 position, named because of only being allowed in there for 2.9 seconds), and the ballhandler's defender staying on the high side of the ballhandler, forcing him to the baseline. This requires a very good, long, quick, and smart wing player to drop into the nail position (named for the nail that used to be in the center of the circle for measuring purposes). This is where guys like kawhi for the spurs, Stevenson for Indy, and others excel, reading the play (with help from the big calling the d), and reacting as necessary to cutters, spot up shooters, and preventing the screen from backdooring the ball defender and opening up the lane. this would be ideally Wes's job, but he doesn't have a clue, and no one helps him. And Boozer is useless as the 29 man. Kobe doesn,t have the legs or discipline to play the nail.

They should be running zone (of the screener's man, not a full zone) on sideline pick and roll, staying home on the three, and living with the mid to long two. Just as Byron doesn't seem to realize his offense shouldn't be looking for long twos, his defensive scheme is blowing the first positioning and then reacting off the 3 point shooters and giving up the 3 instead of the two, and often the lane as well. Defend the middle and the corners first, and make guys beat you with the long two.


Quote:
Scott has everything backward. He's defending post ups and long twos while the other team doesn't want them. He's forcing them into the shots they want. Worse, he's icing the pick and roll with a defensive big who can't make simple reads, and the central part of icing the pick and roll is your big has to quarterback the thing.

Should be playing it zone up. All hill has to do is play behind his man, and if his man sets the pick, he hangs back at the top/side of the lane and heads off the ballhandler, or picks up the roll man if the ball handler levels off. Ball defender fights over the screen and chases ballhandler off the three. You force a pull up mid to long two. If you have to pick up the ballhandler with the big, the other big slides into the lane to challenge the roll man. Strong side defenders stay on their man, weak side play one zone off their man (able to rotate either in to collapse or out to their man at the three line, slightly below the level of the ball (to avoid the back cut).

Alternately, if hill gets caught out hig wit his man, play show and recover. Level off the ballhandler while the ball defender goes around the screen, and recover to the lane. Simple stuff for a guy who doesn't understand complicated reads.


In practice, this is what it looks like:
http://i.giphy.com/yoJC2yIR2tHfhICFMc.gif

Notice how it enables the perimeter defenders to stay at home on the shooters. This kind of conservative scheme is particularly needed for teams with slow footed big men. Indiana does it with Hibbert, Charlotte with Jefferson, Portland with Lopez. Dirk was doing it against the Lakers. And it works because all you give up is the long two.

Of course Byron would never accept zoning up if his philosophy is to contest everything, including long twos, and then go into scramble mode. And indeed, as mentioned earlier, Lakers give up the least long twos in the league. But with the Lakers' lack of mobility, it's their only chance to salvage their defense this year.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
KobesRevenge
Sixth Man
Sixth Man


Joined: 14 Jul 2014
Posts: 92

PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2014 4:34 am    Post subject:

24 wrote:
KobesRevenge wrote:
I think there's one advantage to having our anti-analytics offense. By taking lots of mid to long 2s, we've basically got an unstoppable offense. Most good defenses are built to stop 3s and paint penetration, and allow long 2s. But we're perfectly happy taking these, and if we're having a good shooting day, there's no way to stop us. And since we can't stop anyone either, we can only hope we have a good enough shooting day that we can outscore our opponent.


That's a lot like saying we want to be good at the thing that even if we are the absolute best, it makes us mediocre to weak overall. Teams give you the long two because in the grand scheme, you can live with those, and will be a better team overall if you are stronger and key, three, and free (throws).


Oh don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying our anti-analytics offense is a good idea, I'm just looking for the silver lining since it seems to be here to stay. Hopefully, what we're seeing is just a transition to a scheme with more 3s and penetration.

Another point: Although not efficient by any means, we do seem to score fairly evenly. I've watched games with the Warriors/Rockets/Spurs where occasionally the offense will stall out when 3s & the paint are taken away. Suddenly they have no open shots and then someone ends up jacking up a contested panic 2 at the end of the shot clock. Our offense never really seems to stall, because we have plenty of schemes to get open mid to long 2s - something I don't think other teams really work on.

But anyway, offense is the least of our problems right now. Most nights we score over 100 points, even against decent defenses, so with some sort of half decent defense we could be at least a .500 team. We badly need a defensive anchor. I'm willing to bet a decent C like Asik/Chandler/Hibbert would lower our opponents scoring by at least 10 points a game, which would be enough to make us a winning team.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487

PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2014 9:21 am    Post subject:

GoldenThroat wrote:
fiendishoc wrote:
12 games in, I guess it's enough to start to look at some advanced stats.

The Lakers as we all know are last in defensive efficiency. Their 113.4 points given up per 100 possessions blows away even the #29 Wolves by 3 points. The league leaders are the Rockets at 98.1 points.

A closer look at some of the shooting stats reveal why that may be the case. While we hear a lot that Byron Scott's view on 3 point shooting is outdated on the offensive side, the numbers also reveal why his defensive philosophy is outdated as well. The Lakers are dead last in the league at forcing long 2 pointers. Only 12.7% of their opponent shots are between 16ft and inside of the three pt line.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2015.html#shooting_opp::10

Why? Because they simply don't realize that an opponent taking a long two is preferable than taking a three or driving to the basket. You will see them leave a three point shooter wide open to close out hard on someone inside the arc without even a thought of jumping back to cover their man.


Laker opponents are only shooting 35.7% on long twos for an offensive efficiency of 71.4 ppp, so they really should try to allow them to take more of them. In contrast, Laker opponents are shooting 40.9% on 3pters for an offensive efficiency of 122.7 ppp!

The other reasons for the horrible defense are transition and fouling. The Lakers are second worse in the league (behind Philly) in the number of transition points given up, at 17 fast break points per game. They also have the most opponent FTs per field goal attempt in the league at 27.6%. These are the things that better effort may help, but unless they embrace some basic principles of efficiency, they will never be a decent defensive team.

As for personnel, out of the players who have played a meaningful number of minutes and games, Carlos Boozer and Wes Johnson have the worst defensive ratings at 120.6 points given up and 119.7 points given up per 100 possessions respectively. In contrast, Ed Davis has a rating of 108.7, and Robert Sacre 98.0. Nick Young's rating is 93.0, but that's only from two games.

http://stats.nba.com/team/#!/1610612747/players/advanced/

So seeing as how the Lakers are sticking for the most part to their ineffective defensive scheme and continuing to play Boozer and Wes major minutes over Ed Davis, the question is, are they the only team in the league without an analytics team? (Not that you even need a team to look up these stats on the web).

I'll cover offense later, where the picture looks a bit better.


Ugh.

To further this point, here are our NBA ranks by opponent shot distance (1st being the most shots, 30th being the least)

0'-3'.......4th
3'-10'....21st
10'-16'..19th
16'-<3..30th
3>.........4th


Most NBA teams are looking for three shot types on offense. Free throws, shots around the basket, and 3 pointers. We allow the 3rd most FTA, the 4th most shots around the basket, and the 4th most 3PTA.


So we are emphasize defense on shots that modern NBA teams don't take but not defending the shots that modern NBA teams take. Good lordie.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487

PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2014 9:24 am    Post subject:

Love the great posts here guys. Keep it up OP.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90299
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2014 9:59 am    Post subject:

KobesRevenge wrote:
24 wrote:
KobesRevenge wrote:
I think there's one advantage to having our anti-analytics offense. By taking lots of mid to long 2s, we've basically got an unstoppable offense. Most good defenses are built to stop 3s and paint penetration, and allow long 2s. But we're perfectly happy taking these, and if we're having a good shooting day, there's no way to stop us. And since we can't stop anyone either, we can only hope we have a good enough shooting day that we can outscore our opponent.


That's a lot like saying we want to be good at the thing that even if we are the absolute best, it makes us mediocre to weak overall. Teams give you the long two because in the grand scheme, you can live with those, and will be a better team overall if you are stronger and key, three, and free (throws).


Oh don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying our anti-analytics offense is a good idea, I'm just looking for the silver lining since it seems to be here to stay. Hopefully, what we're seeing is just a transition to a scheme with more 3s and penetration.

Another point: Although not efficient by any means, we do seem to score fairly evenly. I've watched games with the Warriors/Rockets/Spurs where occasionally the offense will stall out when 3s & the paint are taken away. Suddenly they have no open shots and then someone ends up jacking up a contested panic 2 at the end of the shot clock. Our offense never really seems to stall, because we have plenty of schemes to get open mid to long 2s - something I don't think other teams really work on.

But anyway, offense is the least of our problems right now. Most nights we score over 100 points, even against decent defenses, so with some sort of half decent defense we could be at least a .500 team. We badly need a defensive anchor. I'm willing to bet a decent C like Asik/Chandler/Hibbert would lower our opponents scoring by at least 10 points a game, which would be enough to make us a winning team.


There is no silver lining. We get a lot of our points because we are allowing high pace, high efficiency ball by our opponent and thus getting a lot of possessions. But even at mediocre, you are right that our prime problem is defense. But thats where the link to the offense comes. Scott is trying (successfully) to chase opponents off the post and mid to long two, and opening up the rim and the three. He's llaying defense as if every other coach is running his silly offense. They aren,t.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
44TheLogo
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 21 Feb 2009
Posts: 6364

PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2014 10:57 am    Post subject:

I wish we would just look at tape of how Portland plays defense and adopt everything they do. We still don't really have the personnel (unless Byron starts playing Ed Davis as he should be) to be an above average defensive team but there is no reason we should be historically bad. We are getting roasted by drive and kick - just make the PGs score! Turn Jameer Nelson and JJ Barea into scorers and see what happens instead of rotating our entire defense to prevent an undersized pg from getting into the lane among our bigs and leaving three point shooters wide open for the kickout.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474

PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2014 12:20 pm    Post subject:

44TheLogo wrote:
I wish we would just look at tape of how Portland plays defense and adopt everything they do. We still don't really have the personnel (unless Byron starts playing Ed Davis as he should be) to be an above average defensive team but there is no reason we should be historically bad. We are getting roasted by drive and kick - just make the PGs score! Turn Jameer Nelson and JJ Barea into scorers and see what happens instead of rotating our entire defense to prevent an undersized pg from getting into the lane among our bigs and leaving three point shooters wide open for the kickout.


Amen.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
KobesRevenge
Sixth Man
Sixth Man


Joined: 14 Jul 2014
Posts: 92

PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2014 3:51 pm    Post subject:

44TheLogo wrote:
I wish we would just look at tape of how Portland plays defense and adopt everything they do. We still don't really have the personnel (unless Byron starts playing Ed Davis as he should be) to be an above average defensive team but there is no reason we should be historically bad. We are getting roasted by drive and kick - just make the PGs score! Turn Jameer Nelson and JJ Barea into scorers and see what happens instead of rotating our entire defense to prevent an undersized pg from getting into the lane among our bigs and leaving three point shooters wide open for the kickout.


So it looks like a simple conservative defensive scheme would be just the ticket to turn this team around. The difficulty I'm having in suggesting any changes though, is that it's hard to determine what exactly Byron is doing - on both the offense and the defense. It looks like some sort of intentional anti-analytics scheme on both sides of the ball, but is that really what is happening? It looks crazy bad, but is it really a just a poorly executed crazy good scheme?

It's been mentioned before that triangle/princeton sets, when poorly run, cause you to default into taking long 2s. I believe when Hill/Boozer get the ball in long 2 range they are only supposed to take the shot when there's no better option. But our bigs mostly just take a shot whenever they are given the ball, and only pass out if there's defensive pressure, and if Hill/Boozer are in long 2 range there will be no defensive pressure, because Hill/Boozer taking a long 2 is exactly what the defense wants.

On defense, I'm having an even harder time figure out what's going on. It's so chaotic that even when they're defending man to man, it often looks sort of like a zone. Again it looks anti-analytics, but is that intentional? Or is it a result of poor execution? When Kobe is in a one man zone and ignores 3pt shooters WTF is that? Did Byron tell him to do that, is it fatigue/laziness, or is this an example of the "lack of trust" that Lin was talking about?

All we can hope is that Byron actually knows what the ef he's doing and that better offensive and defensive schemes will be revealed as time goes on. If it turns out this anti-analytics offense/defense is intentional, I'm going to have to cut back on watching Lakers games, because I watch basketball to relax, not stress myself out - lol.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
fiendishoc
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 8488
Location: The (real) short corner

PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2014 6:10 pm    Post subject:

KobesRevenge wrote:
44TheLogo wrote:
I wish we would just look at tape of how Portland plays defense and adopt everything they do. We still don't really have the personnel (unless Byron starts playing Ed Davis as he should be) to be an above average defensive team but there is no reason we should be historically bad. We are getting roasted by drive and kick - just make the PGs score! Turn Jameer Nelson and JJ Barea into scorers and see what happens instead of rotating our entire defense to prevent an undersized pg from getting into the lane among our bigs and leaving three point shooters wide open for the kickout.


So it looks like a simple conservative defensive scheme would be just the ticket to turn this team around. The difficulty I'm having in suggesting any changes though, is that it's hard to determine what exactly Byron is doing - on both the offense and the defense. It looks like some sort of intentional anti-analytics scheme on both sides of the ball, but is that really what is happening? It looks crazy bad, but is it really a just a poorly executed crazy good scheme?

It's been mentioned before that triangle/princeton sets, when poorly run, cause you to default into taking long 2s. I believe when Hill/Boozer get the ball in long 2 range they are only supposed to take the shot when there's no better option. But our bigs mostly just take a shot whenever they are given the ball, and only pass out if there's defensive pressure, and if Hill/Boozer are in long 2 range there will be no defensive pressure, because Hill/Boozer taking a long 2 is exactly what the defense wants.

On defense, I'm having an even harder time figure out what's going on. It's so chaotic that even when they're defending man to man, it often looks sort of like a zone. Again it looks anti-analytics, but is that intentional? Or is it a result of poor execution? When Kobe is in a one man zone and ignores 3pt shooters what the heck is that? Did Byron tell him to do that, is it fatigue/laziness, or is this an example of the "lack of trust" that Lin was talking about?

All we can hope is that Byron actually knows what the ef he's doing and that better offensive and defensive schemes will be revealed as time goes on. If it turns out this anti-analytics offense/defense is intentional, I'm going to have to cut back on watching Lakers games, because I watch basketball to relax, not stress myself out - lol.


The easy way to say it is that for most of this season they've tried to guard the pick and roll the same way that the Bulls do, which we can all agree is a modern defense that does work when executed properly- but the problem is that first, they're not good at executing it, and second, instead of corralling the guards and letting the screener shoot long twos, the perimeter defenders are committing to helping on everything, leading to breakdowns and open 3s.

So the last few games, you see them trying different things like mixing up their pick and roll coverage with hard shows, and going with a zone defense for stretches, because they think it will slow down penetration from the ball handler- but it does nothing to fix the fundamental issues of overhelping and leaving holes in bad places, so the defense still gets blown up.

Here's a quote from Byron before the season:

Quote:
MT: How do you specifically play screen/roll differently with a team that doesn’t have a true rim protector?
Scott: You’re going to have to play a lot of help the helper to keep the ball from getting into the paint. That’s a lot of rotations, a lot of help, a lot of stunt and recover, where the guy with the ball sees one-and-a-half or two defenders every single time. You want to clog up the paint as much as possible and make the opponent take contested jump shots.


The modern NBA the halfcourt offense is so spaced that you have to give up something. If you try to close hard out every two point jumper, you will open up the 3 and the lane. Byron has also said in interviews that they have a rule not to leave the corner 3 shooter. But how do they do that when they're told to go help in the paint, and the bigs don't drop back far enough to contain penetration by themselves? So you see them leaving the corner 3 guy all the time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
fiendishoc
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 8488
Location: The (real) short corner

PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2014 9:08 pm    Post subject:

The LA D-Fenders run the Spurs version of floppy (Loop) that I was talking about, for Jordan Clarkson:


The second screener didn't roll hard but the dump off to him was there, as was an open 3 if Clarkson attacked middle and Harris shifted to the wing.

I don't know the relationship between the D-league coaching staff and the Lakers coaching staff (I see them packing the paint on D and leaving the corner open the same way), but hopefully this stuff filters up into the Lakers playbook. Next up I'd like to see Motion Strong instead of that stagnant iso post up they run.

Edit: Fixed link for non-live version
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
22
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 17063

PostPosted: Sun Nov 23, 2014 4:24 pm    Post subject:

fiendishoc wrote:
The LA D-Fenders run the Spurs version of floppy (Loop) that I was talking about, for Jordan Clarkson:


The second screener didn't roll hard but the dump off to him was there, as was an open 3 if Clarkson attacked middle and Harris shifted to the wing.

I don't know the relationship between the D-league coaching staff and the Lakers coaching staff (I see them packing the paint on D and leaving the corner open the same way), but hopefully this stuff filters up into the Lakers playbook. Next up I'd like to see Motion Strong instead of that stagnant iso post up they run.

Edit: Fixed link for non-live version

I was hoping you watched the dfenders fiend!! I actually tweeted them and AC green during the last game because they were answering questions. I asked if the dfenders run the same O/D schemes as LAL. They didn't pick my question though
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
fiendishoc
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 8488
Location: The (real) short corner

PostPosted: Sun Nov 23, 2014 4:57 pm    Post subject:

22 wrote:
fiendishoc wrote:
The LA D-Fenders run the Spurs version of floppy (Loop) that I was talking about, for Jordan Clarkson:


The second screener didn't roll hard but the dump off to him was there, as was an open 3 if Clarkson attacked middle and Harris shifted to the wing.

I don't know the relationship between the D-league coaching staff and the Lakers coaching staff (I see them packing the paint on D and leaving the corner open the same way), but hopefully this stuff filters up into the Lakers playbook. Next up I'd like to see Motion Strong instead of that stagnant iso post up they run.

Edit: Fixed link for non-live version

I was hoping you watched the dfenders fiend!! I actually tweeted them and AC green during the last game because they were answering questions. I asked if the dfenders run the same O/D schemes as LAL. They didn't pick my question though


I went back and watched the full game and I think at one point AC mentioned that they run the same stuff. The lob Clarkson got from Moon was a Princeton Chin set. But I don't know if they use the D-league as a test bed to try new stuff, because I don't recall them ever running the Loop for Clarkson in a Lakers game. They should though. That kid has crazy speed, and can get a lot of separation running the entire baseline.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
cheesysapien
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 15 Oct 2014
Posts: 357

PostPosted: Sun Nov 23, 2014 6:51 pm    Post subject:

I re-watched part of LAL LAC game and we defended better compared to Mavericks game. Kobe had more energy defending. Aside from that, from tactical stand point, why were we better defensively in that game?
_________________
"We have a lot of guys that have been kinda discarded ... Myself with the injury and the age. Jeremy ... a bunch of players who other teams really felt they had no use for. So we have that kind of attitude built into ourselves" -- Kobe Bryant
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Topic HOF All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 19, 20, 21  Next
Page 5 of 21
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB