I always also thought that it has to be either Hill or Boozer on court, but not both on court at same time, at least on defense.
I am also still not sold on Wes Johnson, mainly because he doesn't seem to get back on defense in transition, and he, along with Jordan Hill, often seem to get in the way of other Lakers in half court defense when they have to scramble to recover once set defense has been broken down. Better now than early in season, but back then we seemed to always have that jumble of players in middle of court on defense with Lakers players almost running into each other, with one Laker getting in the way of where another Laker defender was trying to get. Johnson also seems clumsy at times with his hands (catching the ball, or trying to grab a loose ball or rebound), despite him supposing to have elite athleticism.
Joined: 23 Jun 2005 Posts: 8488 Location: The (real) short corner
Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2014 4:58 pm Post subject:
Wes has some issues on defense. Obviously he has the tools to be a good man defender, and you see him playing his man well straight up, particularly in isolation, and he also makes some big defensive plays. But he just makes so many mistakes. Often you will see him standing there daydreaming while his man sneaks to the basket off the ball for a layup.
Wes will go under screens on guys that he shouldn't, like knockdown shooters. Also, like Ronnie, he simply gets caught on a lot of screens. There was an old scouting report from DraftExpress where they mentioned he has trouble dealing with the pick and roll because of his physical build:
Quote:
His pick-and-roll defense had been a bit of a mixed bag thus far, however, as on one hand his length certainly helps close down passing lanes and makes him uniquely qualified to defend switches, but on the other hand he is prone to being beat severely when his man gets an opening to drive to the rim, as Johnson's higher center of gravity makes it very difficult to stay in front of his man laterally when he also had the advantage of using a screen to get the first step.
Like Ronnie, while he is by no means a worse defensive option than other players on the roster, he's not good enough there where you can sacrifice offense to keep him on the court. (Though at least unlike Ronnie, he can shoot). Swaggy's minutes need to go up, and Wes' need to go down.
As shown in his breakdown of Lakers defensive play here, the way he want the help defense is pretty much always comes from one pass away. I'm wondering whether that's what coach Byron ask them to do, as that's really hard and I think that obviously is very demanding for our guards to guard 3s, as they need to help and then recover back to guard 3, it is pretty much impossible to help and recover in the same play.
Like in the first example, Lin was helping and late to recover for the 3, thus the bad example. And then the second play, since the help was coming from the other side and Lin recover for the 3 on time, thus the good play. But I don't think that's the execution though, but rather the rotation of help defense is not really the right way. I think it is impossible for the same player to help and recover for a 3 effectively.
However, I'm not sure how to avoid those help one pass away situation, as sounds like they were anticipated to help that way by the coaches.
These are just P&R defense, I don't understand why the big could not defend the ball handler a little bit before our guards recover, why the help have to come from the side?
Thanks for your observations above, and any thoughts on my perception of Jordan Hill's lack of footspeed and what looks to me as his inability to hard show successfully for Lin and Price and then get back to his own man or protect the rim?
I remember Byron Scott saying this summer that they would only defend side pick and roll one of three ways (hard show, trap, or ICE), but as pre-season started (e. g. Warriors game), he commented on how the bigs were playing soft, then later made comments questioning whether the bigs were unwilling to hard show like he wants, or if they were just incapable of doing it.
Then I remember your comments about the Portland defense, and also the comments of having bigs fall back more and just concede a long jumper instead of trying to come way out of paint to help point guard in pnr defense.
To me, it seems like a very fundamental flaw that was obvious from very early on in pre-season, along with the fact that Boozer and Hill can't be on the court at same time on defense (seems like first instinct of both players if opposing team guard is driving into paint is for both to immediately try and box out their own man and get in position for a rebound, but no one steps up to try and stop the ball), and is just being Band-Aid'd over with the changing defensive schemes and Ronnie Price's ball pressure at the initial point of attack.
Ed Davis seems like part of the solution, but at least to me, so is Lin (Lin and Ed Davis looked like a very good defensive tandem the Kings pre-season game containing Darren Collison, for example; IIRC, Lin also defended Eric Bledsoe off ball very well both Suns games, but both he and Wes Johnson were exploited at end of game because of Jordan Hill as their pnr help defender; I think Mike Conley might have done same thing to Lin and Hill at end of second Grizzlies game, and not sure if that was reason Wizards started to break down Lakers defense later in that game too?), and maybe Ed Davis can properly hard show for Lin and still get back to his own man after giving Lin that half second to recover back into play and guard his own man again?
And again, at least to my uneducated x and o eye, Ronnie Price also doesn't look so overmatched playing against opposing unit (seems to actually look very good at times then?) vs. what is happening now with starters (e. g. Kings totally ignoring him as offensive threat and just trying to double team Kobe instead).
Joined: 23 Jun 2005 Posts: 8488 Location: The (real) short corner
Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2014 12:57 am Post subject:
@TTN4 (and Joe)
Coach Miller was on Byron's staff in New Orleans with Pressey. No doubt their defensive philosophy is the same.
Here are quotes from Trudell's interview with Pressey:
Quote:
And of course defensively, I believe in aggressive defensive schemes, and (Scott’s) mindset is the same way. It’s defend first. We’ll get our defensive positions and everybody in their spots where they’re supposed to be, and that’s going to give us more opportunities to score.
MT: You mentioned aggressive defense. Does that mean blitzing more screen/rolls? Is it just more activity across the paint, more helping the helper? How do you like to put that into practice?
Pressey: The biggest thing is what we call “playing on a string.” If I’m guarding a guy and he beats me, the next guy’s got to be there. Whether from the top, whether from the baseline, and then the next guy’s got to cover him. So five guys got to play on string. If one guy moves, the next guy’s gotta move. And we’ll cover. And we’ll make (the opponent) have to adjust to us as opposed to us adjusting to them. So just being aggressive. I’ve always believed in the old theory: “Be the instigator, not the retaliator,” meaning that you hit first, you be aggressive, you get up front, you make them do something different and then they’ll react to you.
Now you are absolutely right that no one can possibly defend both under the basket and the corner shooter simultaneously, and it would take ESP for someone to rotate from the top to cover the corner, and the other 3 guys to move to cover them, so this plan is flawed against modern NBA offenses. At least without a bunch of athletic freak defensive savants.
And with this roster, it was a recipe for disaster, because here are some times where you shouldn't help- and that's when you would be giving up a more efficient shot in doing so, namely an open 3, or if the shot you would be helping on wasn't that efficient in the first place. Better to let your teammate recover by themselves.
So then they went 16 games with this philosophy and posted a historically bad defensive efficiency. Then they had Jim Eyen finally change the scheme to have the bigs start to zone up, which means that basically you do concede some shots- namely the jumper from the ball hander or the pop from the roll man. It helped the defense tremendously because the wings didn't have to help so much from the sides, and it's harder to go all the way to cup for a layup because the big is already there.
But it's still inconsistent, as you still see guys too far up on the roll man, and guys helping off corners. And I'm guessing because the new scheme was something they had to do by necessity rather than what they really wanted. I'm worried that next year, with a new roster, they will again set the team up to fail for the first part of the season, clinging to their defensive ideals.
Joined: 23 Jun 2005 Posts: 8488 Location: The (real) short corner
Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2014 1:09 am Post subject:
Quote:
I remember Byron Scott saying this summer that they would only defend side pick and roll one of three ways (hard show, trap, or ICE), but as pre-season started (e. g. Warriors game), he commented on how the bigs were playing soft, then later made comments questioning whether the bigs were unwilling to hard show like he wants, or if they were just incapable of doing it.
Yeah, I brought that up interview when 24 suggested that they should zone up- I thought that because Byron said they wouldn't change the way the defended PnR, that they probably wouldn't zone up. To their credit, they did eventually change it. Although maybe they just changed the way they defend top pick and rolls and not side pick and rolls. Like you said, the foot speed and maybe instincts just weren't there for the starting bigs to be that aggressive defending the screen roll, which is something they should have realized from the get go.
Joined: 23 Jun 2005 Posts: 8488 Location: The (real) short corner
Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:04 am Post subject:
I'm sure people would be interested in what the bench is running as well, so I'll cover the plays from the start of the 2nd quarter of the Pacers game.
(The direct link doesn't seem to work, so just copy paste the above and then click FGA-> Video)
Play #1: Low post cross for Boozer
Result: Lin sets a cross screen for Swaggy to entry pass to Boozer in the post. He has trouble getting it to him, so his position is way outside when he finally has the ball. Sacre sets a Princetonesque flare screen for Swaggy for an open 3 that he misses.
Verdict: OK. They got an open 3, which is good, but the whole thing seems kind of simple to defend. Sacre may be the Lakers' best off ball screener though.
Play #2: Lin's and Sacre's men get switched in transition, and Lin waves off an iso post up for Sacre and isos himself from the wing against the big man.
Result: Lin gets to the basket and misses the layup.
Verdict: OK. I guess they had to try to exploit the mismatch one way or another, but the fact that Lin didn't trust Sacre in the post against a PG was funny. Though he probably should have passed back to Sacre for the long 2 which he can hit, because Sacre's man decided to help on the drive.
Play #3: I guess this is considered a side pick and roll. Boozer screens for Lin on the wing going middle.
Result: Lin loses his man on the screen but Sacre is there in his way so he can't drive. Boozer is open on the roll but Lin doesn't pass and instead pulls up for the long 2 which he misses.
Verdict: OK. I don't like that Sacre is clogging the lane, but still, Boozer was open. Was just a bad decision from Lin to shoot.
Play #4: Ellington Sacre pick and roll in early offense
Result: They get nothing out of it, and Ellington passes back to Boozer, who misses the contested elbow 2.
Verdict: BAD. Ellington as ball handler and Sacre as roll man is probably not something you want to do on purpose.
Play #5: Transition layup
Play #6: Nick gets a weak screen from Boozer and then jacks up a 3 in the defenders face.
Result: Miss
Verdict: BAD.
Play #7: Floppy for Ellington
Result: Ellington misses the 2 point jumper
Verdict: OK. While I rated the floppy for Wes as BAD, Ellington actually hits an OK percentage coming off these mid range floppy screens, and he's not nearly as bad a ball handler as Wes if he doesn't get the shot.
Play #8: Zipper 35 Pick and Roll
Result: Nick makes a zipper cut to the top, recieves the ball and runs a pick and roll with Sacre. The roll is kind of weak, and Nick runs ahead of it into traffic and misses a tough layup over Scola who had sagged back.
Verdict: BAD. Sacre is not much of a roll man and Nick needs to learn to do something other than shoot off a screen set for him.
Play #9: Elbow (High post split) between Lin and Swaggy
Result: Lin throws Sacre the ball and sets the corner screen for Swaggy, who curls around him and then sets the screen for him to pop out and receive the ball back to attack middle off of Sacre's screen. Unfortunately, Davis is trying to get post position right in the middle of his driving lane, and Lin pulls up and bricks the long 2.
Verdict: BAD. It would have been a GOOD play if Davis wasn't positioned in the driving path.
Lin and Swaggy subsequently get benched, and Kobe comes in and runs the good Princeton play I broke down earlier with Davis.
2nd quarter bench play summary: Mediocre offensive sets + cold shooting + bad decision making = ZERO offense
I'm sure people would be interested in what the bench is running as well, so I'll cover the plays from the start of the 2nd quarter of the Pacers game.
(The direct link doesn't seem to work, so just copy paste the above and then click FGA-> Video)
Play #1: Low post cross for Boozer
Result: Lin sets a cross screen for Swaggy to entry pass to Boozer in the post. He has trouble getting it to him, so his position is way outside when he finally has the ball. Sacre sets a Princetonesque flare screen for Swaggy for an open 3 that he misses.
Verdict: OK. They got an open 3, which is good, but the whole thing seems kind of simple to defend. Sacre may be the Lakers' best off ball screener though.
Play #2: Lin's and Sacre's men get switched in transition, and Lin waves off an iso post up for Sacre and isos himself from the wing against the big man.
Result: Lin gets to the basket and misses the layup.
Verdict: OK. I guess they had to try to exploit the mismatch one way or another, but the fact that Lin didn't trust Sacre in the post against a PG was funny. Though he probably should have passed back to Sacre for the long 2 which he can hit, because Sacre's man decided to help on the drive.
Play #3: I guess this is considered a side pick and roll. Boozer screens for Lin on the wing going middle.
Result: Lin loses his man on the screen but Sacre is there in his way so he can't drive. Boozer is open on the roll but Lin doesn't pass and instead pulls up for the long 2 which he misses.
Verdict: OK. I don't like that Sacre is clogging the lane, but still, Boozer was open. Was just a bad decision from Lin to shoot.
Play #4: Ellington Sacre pick and roll in early offense
Result: They get nothing out of it, and Ellington passes back to Boozer, who misses the contested elbow 2.
Verdict: BAD. Ellington as ball handler and Sacre as roll man is probably not something you want to do on purpose.
Play #5: Transition layup
Play #6: Nick gets a weak screen from Boozer and then jacks up a 3 in the defenders face.
Result: Miss
Verdict: BAD.
Play #7: Floppy for Ellington
Result: Ellington misses the 2 point jumper
Verdict: OK. While I rated the floppy for Wes as BAD, Ellington actually hits an OK percentage coming off these mid range floppy screens, and he's not nearly as bad a ball handler as Wes if he doesn't get the shot.
Play #8: Zipper 35 Pick and Roll
Result: Nick makes a zipper cut to the top, recieves the ball and runs a pick and roll with Sacre. The roll is kind of weak, and Nick runs ahead of it into traffic and misses a tough layup over Scola who had sagged back.
Verdict: BAD. Sacre is not much of a roll man and Nick needs to learn to do something other than shoot off a screen set for him.
Play #9: Elbow (High post split) between Lin and Swaggy
Result: Lin throws Sacre the ball and sets the corner screen for Swaggy, who curls around him and then sets the screen for him to pop out and receive the ball back to attack middle off of Sacre's screen. Unfortunately, Davis is trying to get post position right in the middle of his driving lane, and Lin pulls up and bricks the long 2.
Verdict: BAD. It would have been a GOOD play if Davis wasn't positioned in the driving path.
Lin and Swaggy subsequently get benched, and Kobe comes in and runs the good Princeton play I broke down earlier with Davis.
2nd quarter bench play summary: Mediocre offensive sets + cold shooting + bad decision making = ZERO offense
Great Breakdown
Part of your analysis documents why JLin is coming off the bench and why Kobe is playing PG at the end of recent games
I also very much appreciate fiendishoc's breakdown above, even if it is critical of Lin.
But after the Spurs victory, Kobe said the team made mistakes and spacing was off, but the team competed, and the Lakers won.
To me, there are quite a few games (almost always a frustrating Lakers loss where I felt Lakers could have, or should have, won the game), where Byron Scott seems stubborn and tells Lin to distribute and get out of the way, even if say earlier in season Lin would, as instructed, just keep feeding Hill and Boozer around the foul line, but they kept missing shots. And missing shots and missing shots and missing shots.
Same with Swaggy P and Wayne Ellington some recent games. Lin would feed them off some sort of curl and they would just keep missing shots. But looked like Scott was stubborn and because they are capable of being great shooters, he seemed to feel that if he keeps force feeding them, the shots will eventually fall. And maybe they ultimately do, but Lakers are usually down big when that finally starts to occur.
To me, Lin is never given the type of freedom to shoot (and initially miss) like even Wes Johnson to see if he can get hot with his own jump shot and help team win on any given night. When he has gotten that rare opportunity (e. g. Atlanta Hawks game, Spurs game), good things seem to occur, both for Lin and for the Lakers as a team.
It really does look like actually winning games is not very high on Byron Scott's agenda now.
He seems to be very stubborn, set in his ways, and insists on doing things his way, even at the expense of actually trying to win the game on any given night.
And like fiendishoc points out above, it seems like the construction of this team this summer that is at core of alot of their struggles (especially on defense?) since the start of training camp and pre-season games.
LOL, bad coach, but great stealth tank commander!
Last edited by JLinfanJoe on Wed Dec 17, 2014 2:15 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 23 Jun 2005 Posts: 8488 Location: The (real) short corner
Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2014 9:44 am Post subject:
Every player has strengths and weaknesses, and it's the coach's job to maximize the strengths and hide the weaknesses by tailoring his schemes to his personnel.
So far I don't see Byron doing that. I see square pegs fit into round holes, where he says, this is the offense I want to run, this is the type of defense I like to see and then tries to force them into it.
Perhaps part of that line of thinking is saying, this is my superstar, this is my 6th man scorer, this is my shooter- and these are my PG role players whose main job is to get them the ball in the places that they like. So not a lot of effort is spent thinking of a better way to use all of their individual strengths.
That's not to say that the players are blameless, as seen from the poor play above from Nick and Lin. It was a crappy game from everyone all around. But they could have used a little help.
Every player has strengths and weaknesses, and it's the coach's job to maximize the strengths and hide the weaknesses by tailoring his schemes to his personnel.
So far I don't see Byron doing that. I see square pegs fit into round holes, where he says, this is the offense I want to run, this is the type of defense I like to see and then tries to force them into it.
Perhaps part of that line of thinking is saying, this is my superstar, this is my 6th man scorer, this is my shooter- and these are my PG role players whose main job is to get them the ball in the places that they like. So not a lot of effort is spent thinking of a better way to use all of their individual strengths.
That's not to say that the players are blameless, as seen from the poor play above from Nick and Lin. It was a crappy game from everyone all around. But they could have used a little help.
Thanks for all the nice analysis. Knowing that lin did made some mistakes and hope that he can correct that sooner.
Every player has strengths and weaknesses, and it's the coach's job to maximize the strengths and hide the weaknesses by tailoring his schemes to his personnel.
So far I don't see Byron doing that. I see square pegs fit into round holes, where he says, this is the offense I want to run, this is the type of defense I like to see and then tries to force them into it.
Perhaps part of that line of thinking is saying, this is my superstar, this is my 6th man scorer, this is my shooter- and these are my PG role players whose main job is to get them the ball in the places that they like. So not a lot of effort is spent thinking of a better way to use all of their individual strengths.
That's not to say that the players are blameless, as seen from the poor play above from Nick and Lin. It was a crappy game from everyone all around. But they could have used a little help.
Thanks for all the nice analysis. Knowing that lin did made some mistakes and hope that he can correct that sooner.
Could somebody share/confirm the differences in the success of CP3 and JLin while using the same system.
If a PG is not able to close, how long would you stay with him, despite being a great team guy
"Every Hornets fan knows that the offense was 99.99999999% based on the screens of Tyson Chandler. A healthy Chandler is as good a screen-setter as there is in the league. He takes great angles, never lets defenders know he's coming, rarely gets called for moving, routinely wipes out defenders simply by standing still, and rolls very smoothly to the hoop. Oh, and dunks a lot. When Chandler first came over from Chicago, Scott was smart enough to quickly pick up on this attribute of his and maximize its potential in the offense. The coach can't be blamed for the player getting injured and throwing a wrench in a working system.
The coach can be blamed for not trying to change up the system in the slightest. I mentioned a couple weeks ago that the most depressing aspect of the Hornets' non-Chandler offense was its startling resemblance to the Chandler offense. In other words, the plays remained exactly the same. Instead of Chandler setting the screens, it'd be Hilton "setting" the screen (also known, as getting called for moving). Instead of Chandler rolling, it'd be Marks "rolling." While every person in the arena could tell that Hilton/Marks did not have near the screening ability of Chandler, Byron consistently went to the same plays.
Of course, the plays failed over and over again. Chris Paul's turnover rates regressed back to 2006-2007 levels again, and his decision making is entirely absolved of all blame. The primary increase in his turnovers came in three ways: (a) the screener would roll too quickly, allowing the big man defender to step straight into a hard trap on Paul, (b) the screener would roll too slowly, forcing Paul to attack the paint on his own, leading to a league-high offensive fouls rate for a point guard, or (c) the screener would roll in rhythm, only to display a stunning incompetence at catching basketballs."
"The Mater Dei coaches studied tape of Palo Alto but chose not to share the video with their players for fear the Monarchs would become overconfident.
"They looked like a neighborhood team," McKnight says. "We're playing Poly. We're playing Dominguez. And I go, 'Palo Alto?' They'd never been on the radar."
Quinn estimates he watched 40 hours of tape and was convinced Mater Dei was superior. Other coaches had warned him about Palo Alto's chemistry and spirit, about a core group bonded by playing together for years, about the way Lin, in particular, just always found a way.
Funny thing about team chemistry and spirit, though. They aren't easily captured on video.
Then, hours before the game in Arco Arena, the Mater Dei players were sitting together and noticed their opponents clustered nearby.
"I heard one of the kids, I don't remember which one, say, 'Oh, they can't beat us,'" Quinn says. "That was the thought process going into that game: 'Oh, these guys can't beat us.'"
At one point in the third quarter, Palo Alto threatened to go up by double figures. The game was a low-scoring grind, a test of will and patience, McKnight squirming on the bench, anticipating a Monarchs run that just wouldn't come.
But Mater Dei battled back and, with two minutes to go in the fourth quarter, had closed to 44-42.
Palo Alto had the ball with the shot clock about to expire, a possession that could produce a tying or go-ahead basket for the Monarchs barely a second away.
Lin found himself with the ball and no choice. He hoisted a bomb from beyond the top of the key and made the shot ... off the backboard. Afterward, Lin called it "lucky" and "an answer to a prayer."
Back on the Mater Dei bench, McKnight says he turned to Quinn and announced, "Well, that about wraps it up."
To me, CP3 is just a totally different class of player vs. Lin.
CP3 is like the Drew Brees of the NBA (his reads on the court are just so much more complete and comprehensive than Lin's, and his field of view (court vision) is much more expansive). Complete and utter command and control of the offense and everything that unfolds on court for his team. Lin is just instinctive read and react and to me actually makes instinctive reads (crude and unrefined ones at this point in his career) that are actually quicker than CP3. Chris Paul will say, before the play even starts, this is what is going to happen, then go out and make it happen. Lin says I am just going to put my head down, attack the basket, and see what happens.
Lin's brand of court vision / long ball passing attack is much more like Eli Manning (Eli Manning at his best, winning two Super Bowls, when he was incremental difference maker after Giants had that championship defense / pass rush, a bruising running game, and receivers who were actually in sync with him and could catch his brilliant downfield passes: http://www.si.com/more-sports/2012/02/06/superbowl46
Lin on this mismatched Byron Scott coached Lakers team is like Eli Manning this year (defense not that good, running game doesn't command full attention of defense, only one receiver (O'dell Beckham) who is in sync with his passes).
Instead of CP3, what Lin's needs is to learn to see how all the x and o are moving on the court like perhaps a Kendal Marshall (book smart in terms of how all the x and o are moving on the court together and with purpose, so instead of just instinctively seeing fleeting blurs of an opening in defense in a wall of noise, he starts to see greater structure and purpose). By that, I mean watching Marshall a bit last year, his reads are very slow and totally deliberate, but once he takes that snapshot in the halfcourt, he know what he is seeing and he knows what he is going to do before he attacks. Then he starts his fancy, dribble in one spot Irish Jig to get defense to focus on him, then the player who he already knows he is going to pass to back cuts for pass from Marshall.
But Marshall's brand of court vision and passing doesn't seem to make his team better, even if he racks up great assist numbers.
Lin may not put up individual stats, but he always seems to make his team better than the sum of it's parts (if he actually gets a real opportunity to do his thing).
Lin on the Dallas Mavericks, right now, I think, would look very, very different from what he has looked like at times with Lakers so far this season. Lin pnr with Tyson Chandler and Brandan Wright. Long passing game in transition to Chandler Parsons. Pick and pop with Dirk. Monta Ellis as Harden-lite attacking from opposite side of court than Lin. Rick Carlisle's new take on the Suns Steve Nash Mike D'Antoni offense: http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-art-of-the-wildly-efficient-dallas-mavericks/.
As fiendishoc said above, square pegs, round holes, and a stubborn coach.
Last edited by JLinfanJoe on Wed Dec 17, 2014 2:36 pm; edited 7 times in total
"Every Hornets fan knows that the offense was 99.99999999% based on the screens of Tyson Chandler. A healthy Chandler is as good a screen-setter as there is in the league. He takes great angles, never lets defenders know he's coming, rarely gets called for moving, routinely wipes out defenders simply by standing still, and rolls very smoothly to the hoop. Oh, and dunks a lot. When Chandler first came over from Chicago, Scott was smart enough to quickly pick up on this attribute of his and maximize its potential in the offense. The coach can't be blamed for the player getting injured and throwing a wrench in a working system.
The coach can be blamed for not trying to change up the system in the slightest. I mentioned a couple weeks ago that the most depressing aspect of the Hornets' non-Chandler offense was its startling resemblance to the Chandler offense. In other words, the plays remained exactly the same. Instead of Chandler setting the screens, it'd be Hilton "setting" the screen (also known, as getting called for moving). Instead of Chandler rolling, it'd be Marks "rolling." While every person in the arena could tell that Hilton/Marks did not have near the screening ability of Chandler, Byron consistently went to the same plays.
Of course, the plays failed over and over again. Chris Paul's turnover rates regressed back to 2006-2007 levels again, and his decision making is entirely absolved of all blame. The primary increase in his turnovers came in three ways: (a) the screener would roll too quickly, allowing the big man defender to step straight into a hard trap on Paul, (b) the screener would roll too slowly, forcing Paul to attack the paint on his own, leading to a league-high offensive fouls rate for a point guard, or (c) the screener would roll in rhythm, only to display a stunning incompetence at catching basketballs."
"The Mater Dei coaches studied tape of Palo Alto but chose not to share the video with their players for fear the Monarchs would become overconfident.
"They looked like a neighborhood team," McKnight says. "We're playing Poly. We're playing Dominguez. And I go, 'Palo Alto?' They'd never been on the radar."
Quinn estimates he watched 40 hours of tape and was convinced Mater Dei was superior. Other coaches had warned him about Palo Alto's chemistry and spirit, about a core group bonded by playing together for years, about the way Lin, in particular, just always found a way.
Funny thing about team chemistry and spirit, though. They aren't easily captured on video.
Then, hours before the game in Arco Arena, the Mater Dei players were sitting together and noticed their opponents clustered nearby.
"I heard one of the kids, I don't remember which one, say, 'Oh, they can't beat us,'" Quinn says. "That was the thought process going into that game: 'Oh, these guys can't beat us.'"
At one point in the third quarter, Palo Alto threatened to go up by double figures. The game was a low-scoring grind, a test of will and patience, McKnight squirming on the bench, anticipating a Monarchs run that just wouldn't come.
But Mater Dei battled back and, with two minutes to go in the fourth quarter, had closed to 44-42.
Palo Alto had the ball with the shot clock about to expire, a possession that could produce a tying or go-ahead basket for the Monarchs barely a second away.
Lin found himself with the ball and no choice. He hoisted a bomb from beyond the top of the key and made the shot ... off the backboard. Afterward, Lin called it "lucky" and "an answer to a prayer."
Back on the Mater Dei bench, McKnight says he turned to Quinn and announced, "Well, that about wraps it up."
To me, CP3 is just a totally different class of player vs. Lin.
CP3 is like the Drew Brees of the NBA (his takes on the court are just so much more complete and comprehensive than Lin's, and his field of view (court vision) is much more expansive). Complete and utter command and control of the offense and everything that unfolds on court for his team. Lin is just instinctive read and react and to me actually makes instinctive reads (crude and unrefined ones at this point in his career) that are actually quicker than CP3. Chris Paul will say, before the play even starts, this is what is going to happen, then go out and make it happen. Lin says I am just going to put my head down, attack the basket, and see what happens.
Lin's brand of court vision / long ball passing attack is much more like Eli Manning (Eli Manning at his best, winning two Super Bowls, when he was incremental difference maker after Giants had that championship defense / pass rush, a bruising running game, and receivers who were actually in sync with him and could catch his brilliant downfield passes: http://www.si.com/more-sports/2012/02/06/superbowl46
Lin on this mismatched Byron Scott coached Lakers team is like Eli Manning this year (defense not that good, running game doesn't command full attention of defense, only one receiver (O'dell Beckham who is in sync with his passes).
Instead of CP3, what Lin's needs is to learn to see how all the x and o are moving on the court like perhaps a Kendal Marshall (book smart in terms of how all the x and o are moving on the court together and with purpose, so instead of just instinctively seeing fleeting blurs of an opening in defense in a wall of noise, he starts to see greater structure and purpose). By that, I mean watching Marshall a bit last year, his reads are very slow and totally deliberate, but once he takes that snapshot in the halfcourt, he know what he is seeing and he knows what he is going to do before he attacks. Then he starts his fancy, dribble in one spot Irish Jig to get defense to focus on him, then the player who he already knows he is going to pass to back cuts for pass from Marshall.
But Marshall's brand of court vision and passing doesn't seem to make his team better, even if he racks up great assist numbers.
Lin may not put up individual stats, but he always seems to make his team better than the sum of it's parts (if he actually gets a real opportunity to do his thing).
Lin on the Dallas Mavericks, right now, I think, would look very, very different from what he has looked like at times with Lakers so far this season. Lin pnr with Tyson Chandler and Brandan Wright. Long passing game in transition to Chandler Parsons. Pick and pop with Dirk. Monta Ellis as Harden-lite attacking from opposite side of court than Lin. Rick Carlisle's new take on the Suns Steve Nash Mike D'Antoni offense: http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-art-of-the-wildly-efficient-dallas-mavericks/.
As fiendishoc said above, square pegs, round holes, and a stubborn coach.
Very nice. Never saw that cp3 article before. Thanks.
As shown in his breakdown of Lakers defensive play here, the way he want the help defense is pretty much always comes from one pass away. I'm wondering whether that's what coach Byron ask them to do, as that's really hard and I think that obviously is very demanding for our guards to guard 3s, as they need to help and then recover back to guard 3, it is pretty much impossible to help and recover in the same play.
Like in the first example, Lin was helping and late to recover for the 3, thus the bad example. And then the second play, since the help was coming from the other side and Lin recover for the 3 on time, thus the good play. But I don't think that's the execution though, but rather the rotation of help defense is not really the right way. I think it is impossible for the same player to help and recover for a 3 effectively.
However, I'm not sure how to avoid those help one pass away situation, as sounds like they were anticipated to help that way by the coaches.
These are just P&R defense, I don't understand why the big could not defend the ball handler a little bit before our guards recover, why the help have to come from the side?
I don't get it. It seems like the guards (as if Kobe will do that) have a lot of running around. If the bigs can protect the rim a bit better it allows the guards to contest 3s more often.
Every player has strengths and weaknesses, and it's the coach's job to maximize the strengths and hide the weaknesses by tailoring his schemes to his personnel.
So far I don't see Byron doing that. I see square pegs fit into round holes, where he says, this is the offense I want to run, this is the type of defense I like to see and then tries to force them into it.
Perhaps part of that line of thinking is saying, this is my superstar, this is my 6th man scorer, this is my shooter- and these are my PG role players whose main job is to get them the ball in the places that they like. So not a lot of effort is spent thinking of a better way to use all of their individual strengths.
That's not to say that the players are blameless, as seen from the poor play above from Nick and Lin. It was a crappy game from everyone all around. But they could have used a little help.
Thanks for all the nice analysis. Knowing that lin did made some mistakes and hope that he can correct that sooner.
this is analysis after the fact. If Lin drains those layups and shots no one would say crap about his decision making. In the past he drained the shot, now not so much. He's playing tentative and has to play with a chip on his shoulders. Scott is trying to drive that point home and so is Kobe. He has to facilitate but when the shot is there for him, he needs to pull the trigger unconsciously. They're trying to help him despite some apparent mixed messages. It'so up to Lin, no more introspection, just get it done.
Joined: 23 Jun 2005 Posts: 8488 Location: The (real) short corner
Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:52 pm Post subject:
Phillycheese wrote:
PPP wrote:
fiendishoc wrote:
Every player has strengths and weaknesses, and it's the coach's job to maximize the strengths and hide the weaknesses by tailoring his schemes to his personnel.
So far I don't see Byron doing that. I see square pegs fit into round holes, where he says, this is the offense I want to run, this is the type of defense I like to see and then tries to force them into it.
Perhaps part of that line of thinking is saying, this is my superstar, this is my 6th man scorer, this is my shooter- and these are my PG role players whose main job is to get them the ball in the places that they like. So not a lot of effort is spent thinking of a better way to use all of their individual strengths.
That's not to say that the players are blameless, as seen from the poor play above from Nick and Lin. It was a crappy game from everyone all around. But they could have used a little help.
Thanks for all the nice analysis. Knowing that lin did made some mistakes and hope that he can correct that sooner.
this is analysis after the fact. If Lin drains those layups and shots no one would say crap about his decision making. In the past he drained the shot, now not so much. He's playing tentative and has to play with a chip on his shoulders. Scott is trying to drive that point home and so is Kobe. He has to facilitate but when the shot is there for him, he needs to pull the trigger unconsciously. They're trying to help him despite some apparent mixed messages. It'so up to Lin, no more introspection, just get it done.
Before anyone starts reading too much into or arguing with each other over what this breakdown shows about a player, I would like to point out that this is a stretch of only 8 halfcourt plays total, meant to highlight efficiency of the offensive sets. There was 1 obvious bad decision from Lin, 1 obvious bad decision from Swaggy, and some quick triggers in general from this unit- but also a lot of it was caused by bad spacing or wrong personnel running the plays.
I saw an interesting article about the Raptors offense being one of the best but also one of the least assist teams, going against the common wisdom of ball movement to score. It is because of the strengths of their players and the team playing to those strengths. But what was more telling was the comment that they knew what each other prefers and don't get in each other's way. It is because all five starters were returning to the raptors. Take your analysis above, you mentioned several times Lakers players getting in each other's way, and I think this about summarises the problems.
I saw an interesting article about the Raptors offense being one of the best but also one of the least assist teams, going against the common wisdom of ball movement to score. It is because of the strengths of their players and the team playing to those strengths. But what was more telling was the comment that they knew what each other prefers and don't get in each other's way. It is because all five starters were returning to the raptors. Take your analysis above, you mentioned several times Lakers players getting in each other's way, and I think this about summarises the problems.
You get at a great point. When analyzing basketball, there's a few different perspectives to take.
One - the theoretical optimum. Absent any data on individual players, what would the OPTIMAL team offense look like? We could take league averages on field goal percentages in different scenarios and say that the optimal offense is an offense that prioritizes in order corner threes, then layups, then normal threes. This would maximize offensive efficiency over the limited number of possessions we have.
Two - the team optimum. The theoretical optimum result is completely devoid of team construction context. If you don't have players who would succeed in the theoretical optimum offense, what do you do? You design an offense that maximizes the TEAM'S strengths. So if you're a great low post and midrange team with poor three point shooting, you design an offense that will put your players in positions to be effective. That said, it's incredibly rare for an entire team to be more efficient taking midrange and lowpost shots than threes - the FG% difference has to be really significant to make a 2 point attempt more efficient than a 3 point attempt.
So while there are teams that are not designed according to the "theoretical optimum" as per advanced statistics, they may be maximizing their team output, taking them to a "team optimum". This is what a coach's job is, to get the team as constructed to the team optimum. The GM and FO job is to get the team optimum as close to the theoretical optimum as possible.
So in the example of the Raptors - the theoretical optimum is a lot of ball movement leading to assists, but that isn't the strength of their personnel and so the offense is not designed around that. People will see that data and compare it to what the theoretical optimum is and say oh that's bad offense, but it ignores the context that they are actually achieving team optimum.
Right now, our team optimum is a far cry from the theoretical optimum - our best shooters shoot league average from three. But still, our team optimum is greater than the current product, on offense AND defense, because the systems that have been put in place is completely incorrect to maximize our personnel's strengths and minimize the weaknesses.
I saw an interesting article about the Raptors offense being one of the best but also one of the least assist teams, going against the common wisdom of ball movement to score. It is because of the strengths of their players and the team playing to those strengths. But what was more telling was the comment that they knew what each other prefers and don't get in each other's way. It is because all five starters were returning to the raptors. Take your analysis above, you mentioned several times Lakers players getting in each other's way, and I think this about summarises the problems.
You get at a great point. When analyzing basketball, there's a few different perspectives to take.
One - the theoretical optimum. Absent any data on individual players, what would the OPTIMAL team offense look like? We could take league averages on field goal percentages in different scenarios and say that the optimal offense is an offense that prioritizes in order corner threes, then layups, then normal threes. This would maximize offensive efficiency over the limited number of possessions we have.
Two - the team optimum. The theoretical optimum result is completely devoid of team construction context. If you don't have players who would succeed in the theoretical optimum offense, what do you do? You design an offense that maximizes the TEAM'S strengths. So if you're a great low post and midrange team with poor three point shooting, you design an offense that will put your players in positions to be effective. That said, it's incredibly rare for an entire team to be more efficient taking midrange and lowpost shots than threes - the FG% difference has to be really significant to make a 2 point attempt more efficient than a 3 point attempt.
So while there are teams that are not designed according to the "theoretical optimum" as per advanced statistics, they may be maximizing their team output, taking them to a "team optimum". This is what a coach's job is, to get the team as constructed to the team optimum. The GM and FO job is to get the team optimum as close to the theoretical optimum as possible.
So in the example of the Raptors - the theoretical optimum is a lot of ball movement leading to assists, but that isn't the strength of their personnel and so the offense is not designed around that. People will see that data and compare it to what the theoretical optimum is and say oh that's bad offense, but it ignores the context that they are actually achieving team optimum.
Right now, our team optimum is a far cry from the theoretical optimum - our best shooters shoot league average from three. But still, our team optimum is greater than the current product, on offense AND defense, because the systems that have been put in place is completely incorrect to maximize our personnel's strengths and minimize the weaknesses.
This is one of the reasons I love basketball: to win the pieces have to add up to more than the individual contributions and figuring out how to do that. In a vacuum the space and pace strategy works better than others because it optimizes the offensive contributions for non-stars. One of the best teams in the NBA has gone against that, the Grizzlies, mainly because their two best two-way players (Randolphs and Gasol) are big men. For the Lakers, the space and pace should be better because there's a lot of non-stars on the roster.
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90307 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2014 9:10 am Post subject:
Funny how the bench unit now not only has the better o rating, but the vastly superior defensive rating as well. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Joined: 23 Jun 2005 Posts: 8488 Location: The (real) short corner
Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2014 9:17 am Post subject:
24 wrote:
Funny how the bench unit now not only has the better o rating, but the vastly superior defensive rating as well.
I re-watched the game reel for the FGA's for the Pacers in the 1st quarter. What I could make out was that Kobe and Wes seem to take turns letting down the Lakers defense. Also that despite coaching David West in his prime, Byron seems content to let him pop open Js from 19 feet. And a lot of fast breaks coming off Laker bricks no doubt a result of bad offense.
Regarding the "read and react discussion", the annoying thing is that it seems that Byron borrows those sets from the Princeton and Triangle but then tells them to only run one option. Like in the first option out of the triangle, the Lakers post players from what I can tell ALWAYS passes to the cutter coming middle. That's totally goes against the point of these offenses in the first place.
I do consider what the Spurs do read and react. You can watch the highlight clips of a certain set that they run, on Youtube, and see how many different variations of movement and passes they end up doing depending on what the defense does.
Quote:
"The Lakers have allowed 81 3PA this year where they have no defender within 10 feet of the shooter. Next highest total is 63."
So to you better basketball minds, is this a weakness in defensive scheme or an execution issue?
It was because of their scheme and defensive philosophy. They put the bigs in a position that magnified their weaknesses (though this has been mostly fixed since the Toronto game) and they tell the players to help no matter what, even if they are giving up a more efficient shot in doing so.
You can't really tell what is an execution issue, because no one ever gets held accountable for a dumb rotation. Only if a non-Kobe player is being particularly lazy do you see someone getting subbed out as punishment.
Great Thread
One should note that there is a reason why these players (talented as they are) were available to the Lakers.
It will be interesting who will step up this season
Boozer has stepped up
JLin is still learning to be decisive, being mental tougher, confident and doing what it takes to close - consistently
Johnson is still average and inconsistent
Davis has to stay out of foul trouble and consistent
Hill has ton consistently remember that he needs to be a force in the paint
Price has to make an impact when he is on the court
Sacre has to study tapes of Tim Duncan
At least we are not the New Jersey Nets saddled with high price veterans doing nothing
I pointed this out before, but not sure how much of it is by chance. What it does tell me is that he should be getting more minutes at the expense of Wes, because he's not exactly giving up anything on the defensive end.
(I do take issue with the article calling Byron "a great defensive mind" however)
I pointed this out before, but not sure how much of it is by chance. What it does tell me is that he should be getting more minutes at the expense of Wes, because he's not exactly giving up anything on the defensive end.
(I do take issue with the article calling Byron "a great defensive mind" however)
I might not have the direct answer, but I think it is related, though it is not x and o related. If you look at the USG% of the players on the team,
Kobe w 35% USG%, following is Young 25%, Boozer 22.5%, and then Lin 19.1%. With this USG%, there is no way Kobe and Young play together. Young would have to sacrifice his usage rate, which is really the case.
If you look at the split of Young playing with Kobe on the floor, his USG% is only 19%, and when Young is playing without Kobe, his USG% is 31%, that's a mini-Kobe there without Kobe on the floor. Thus you could not play Young longer time, as Kobe need to play that much min, if you play Young longer, either you limit Kobe's time, or Young would be less effective as he don't have much chance to shoot. Then, might as well play Wes if they have the same defense effect, and Wes would not get less interested if he don't shoot much. Wes's USG% is only 13%.
Same numbers gives the hint why Lin could not start, even Price sucks.
Just see the difference of Kobe's USG% with Lin on/off court. If you think 35% average USG% of Kobe is high, see that Kobe got insane USG% of 43% with Lin off court, and Kobe had only 31% USG% w Lin on court. That's pretty much the same usage of Nick Young without Kobe. Apparently that did not satisfy Kobe, thus Lin has to be on bench, and he could not play longer time than Price, as that will eat into Kobe's time, and when he share court with Kobe, Lin took ball out of Kobe's hand. Apparently, Scott do not want ball out of Kobe's hand, and that's the major complain of Scott to Lin, that "he need to involve his teammate, know the personal, who is on the court with him". That is, Lin need to pass to Kobe more when he share court with Kobe.
Price, on the other hand, fits what Kobe like perfectly, his USG% is only 12.8%, second lowest in the team other than Ed Davis. He don't take the ball even when he is playing in the second team.
Now look at the team, 3 starters (Wes, Price and Ed) are the bottom 3 USG% player, all under 13%, that's extremely low, which enable Kobe had ball in his hand all the time.
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
