HoopData: The Wizards' problem is shot distribution
by Mike Prada on Dec 8, 2009 11:21 AM EST
in Statistical analysis
Email
PrintNormally, I'd make posts like these a FanShot, but I thought this was fascinating enough to discuss on its own.
One of the best up-and-coming hoops site on the Net, HoopData, did a study on the Wizards yesterday. Their basic conclusion should be pretty self-evident to most of us - it's the offense that's struggling, not the defense. But then they dig deeper and find that the central problem with the Wizards' offense is shot distrubution.
Namely, the Wizards are shooting a significantly higher percentage of their shots from 16-23 feet -- aka long two-pointers -- than they have in the past. In fact, that's really the only major difference between their shot distribution in 06/07 - Gilbert Arenas' last healthy year - and this season. If you look at the graph in the post, the Wizards are shooting a similar number of shots at the rim, from short-range and from the mid-range, but are shooting significantly fewer threes and significantly more long twos.
Now here's the concerning part: the Wizards' shot distribution looks a lot like Detroit's shot distribution in 2007/08 under Saunders. To quote the post:
In looking at the chart, it’s not hard to see the similarities in distribution between Saunders’ two clubs, with a heavy reliance on the long twos and little emphasis on threes (the Wizards rank 22nd in percentage of field goal attempts coming from behind the arc this season). This strategy worked well in Detroit, but Washington doesn’t have the same type of personnel, and it’s pretty obvious why they’re shooting a 47.13 eFG%, 25th in the league.
In other words, this could be part of Saunders' strategy. Remember, he eviscerated the Wizards after shooting 29 threes in the Toronto game, when the real problem was too many jumpers in general.
If it is part of Saunders' strategy - well, one month's data says this is the wrong personnel to do it. As HoopData explains:
Breaking down the individual player distributions, we see prime examples of players not playing to their strengths, with the most obvious culprit unsurprisingly being Gilbert Arenas. Arenas takes 6.7 attempts per game from 16-23 feet, 5th most of any player in the league, where he shoots just 41%. On the contrary, he’s taking only 5.1 attempts from three, where he shoots an eFG% of 49.5%. For comparison, in 2006 he took 7.9 attempts from three at an eFG% of 52.7% and 6.0 attempts from 16-23 feet at en eFG% of 40%. If you want to know why the Wizards’ efficiency has plummeted and Arenas’ TS% (56.5% to 49.7%) along with it, look no farther than this.
The problem is spread throughout the roster, however, as similar trends are seen with Caron Butler, Nick Young, and Randy Foye, all of whom are noticeably more efficient from three, but take a higher volume of shots from 16-23 feet. This is four of Washington’s highest usage players shooting four-year lows in TS%, all of whom are now well below the league average. It’s probably not a coincidence that this team-wide dip in efficiency occurred right when they started shifting their shot attempts from efficient threes to inefficient long twos.
The alternative explanation, though, is that the Wizards are just exhibiting terrible shot selection. I mean, this is a team that John Hollinger once said was the "best team in basketball" from 15-20 feet. The mid-range strategy also worked really well for Detroit under Saunders - they were always one of the most efficient offensive teams in the league. If the players just shoot better shots, it could work very well.
Anyway, it's an interesting issue. Have at it, folks. Do you think this is a strategic problem or an execution problem?
86 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The problem is personnel
They need a reliable post player; someone to draw the defense into the post and give their perimeter players better shot selections.
The Princeton Offense worked better for the Tri-Force because at its core it is not an offense that’s dependent on post-play (that and EJ encouraged the team to run at every opportunity).
Detroit, under Flip Saunders didn’t have a particularly strong inside game… even though they had Rasheed Wallace, he liked to roam around outside… and Antonio McDyess and Tayshawn Prince weren’t exactly beasting on the inside either.
No – Flip’s Offense is not to blame.. and it’s not the personnel. It’s the execution by the players.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
All three of these guys have been able to beat their defenders in the past
and now all of a sudden they all lose that ability? I’m not buying it.
And I’m not blaming Flip as much as Ernie in this case. Our best players are all jumpshooters; somewhere down the line Ernie should have suspected that either (b) we’d need a post guy or (b) a coach who has a system that plays to their strengths.
Admit what?
That Flip Saunder’s Offense – an Offense that is widely acknowledged to be one of the most efficient and proficient in the NBA is flawed? An Offense that worked in Minnesota, and Detroit? An Offense that is still used (in some fashion or another) by most NBA teams? I would admit it if I thought it was true… but I don’t believe that’s it’s true.
OR that the Players are not right for the system?… These same players that are shooting lower eFG percentages this year than at any other time in their careers? These same players (Butler, Arenas, Foye, Young, etc…) who, have shown during their careers that they are excellent mid-range jump shooters? Players that made a name for themselves, and All-Star teams (Butler) based on their excellent mid-range games? Again – I’d admit that the Players were not right for the system if I thought it was true – But I don’t believe that either.
What I do believe is that the players have not executed the Flip Saunder’s Offensive system properly. Properly executed, the system is designed to get players OPEN jump shots, isolation plays, and driving lanes to the basket. OPEN being the operative word there; as Flip Saunders believes (and I do too) that a contested shot is 11-12% less likely to drop than an open shot. (ie: shooting percentages for open shots are 11-12% higher than contested shots). The system requires smart, patient execution to work. The first available shot, early in the shot clock, is sometimes NOT the best shot that can be manufactured. The timing of plays is critical; as the ball is usually moving (with the PG dribbling) and the shooter is moving at the same time…along with other players setting up for screens, off-ball movement, etc… The ball and shooter have to arrive at the precise place, at the exact same time for the play to work – - – - – or else, the play has to continue with the next available option. The Wizards players are too frequently taking the first shot, usually a CONTESTED shot, still early in the shot clock – instead of running the rest of the available options. THAT is what I believe is the problem….
A perfect example is how the team is running the Hawk cut now, as opposed to how they were running it in the first few games.. The standard hawk cut, with the SG cutting to the baseline from a PF screen. That is the start of most of Flip’s Offense. Early in the year, the screen was set high; it was set early; and it was HELD until the SG was well past. Early in the year, the SG made a crisp, quick cut to the baseline; using the screen by cutting close to the PF; looking for a pass from the PG. Now, that cut is sloppy – the screen is not held long enough to rub off the defender – the SG’s cut is not quick or crisp – and the PG hardly even looks at the SG for a pass; instead the play breaks back into a pick-and-roll by the PG & FP at the top of the key.
It’s not the Offense itself that is the problem… It’s not that the GM has picked the wrong players for this Offense… I believe that the players are not executing the Offense crisply – with precision – all the way through all the options – - – - and THAT is what is wrong with the Offense…
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
hahahahaha
if you had read further you would have seen that I agree with you about it being execution. I just asked a simple question and clearly got my answer.
by BayAreaBullet on Dec 8, 2009 11:54 PM EST up reply actions
That sounds about right....
Are the players executing poorly? Yes, but they are executing so poorly that even a marked improvement in that capacity would still be a long, long way off from a smooth ticking offense.
I would see ‘executing poorly’ to mean that they’re trying to get into some kind of Flip-sets through ball movement, but due to sloppiness or what have you, the results are not there. That suggests some kind of foundation as far as intent. But as is, it’s more like they’re not even trying to move the ball around about half the time, which I think speaks to much bigger chemistry problems.
Problem is execution
and the photograph attached to your article shows why….
It’s one thing to shoot mid-range jumpers…. it’s quite another to shoot CONTESTED mid-range jumpers; and that is the Wizard’s problem.
Flip Saunder’s Offense is primarily designed to get OPEN mid-range shots. Now, a mid-range shot is not the ONLY kind of shot the Offense can generate – but it is the most common. Rip Hamilton became an All-Star because he can hit an open 17-foot jumper. Chauncy Billups is one of the best at curling around a screen and hitting that mid-range shot.
The problem is not that the Wizards are taking too many mid-range jumpers, but that they are taking them with a hand in their face.
I’ve seen a little bit of a change in the last 6 games or so -and the players (especially Gil) may be starting to understand. I’ve seen Gilbert start to curl around a screen at the top of the key, and pull up for an uncontested 17-ft jumper as his man either trailed behind, or went under the screen. He’s been hitting a good number of those shots. Nick Young has also started hitting that shot.
Unfortunately – Caron Butler and Randy Foye seem to think if they are open, they need to drive closer to the basket. I cannot count the number of times Butler has passed up an open jumper, only to attempt a shorter, but much more difficult contested shot.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on Dec 8, 2009 11:47 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
I've seen Nick Young
drive into traffic and shoot his fadeaway over three defenders the last two games. I’m not sure what games you were watching.
Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!
I didn’t say that Nick Young (or Gil either for that matter) still didn’t drive into a contested shot… only that he’s started pulling up for open shots more….
Sure – I can go back and look at every game, and find an instance or two where Nick or Gil took a contested shot… The point though is that they are taking fewer of them…. while it seems like Caron Butler takes NOTHING BUT contested shots.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
If necessary – I’ll record a couple of plays for your perusal and edification…. to make my point – - – - and upload them here… I still have all the past 6 games on my DVR and my recording software works just fine… (although it’;s a bit of work and time)….
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
Fair enough
I just think that Young (being your hobby horse) is not a great example when placed up against Foye (who you’ve admitted you dislike as a player), considering in the Pistons game he was going all the things you recommend.
A question for you since you are better at spotting these things, Caron always waits for his defender to close before taking his shot. It was so egregious in the Toronto game that both Phil and Buck pointed it out. Was he like that before?
Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!
No
and its confusing. I don’t think I imagined him taking all of those open 17 footers before.
by Manimal Smith on Dec 8, 2009 1:39 PM EST up reply actions
Did I notice Caron waiting for a defender? No
I never noticed Caron hesitating when he was OPEN before… He did use a “hitch” in his shot when covered; it sort of froze the defender – but he never did it when he was open… and under Eddie Jordan’s Offense, he seemed to rise up and take the shot when he was open. Now, he’s got that hitch (almost pump fake) even when he’s wide open.
I think he’s still trying to adjust to Flip’s Offense. I still maintain that this Offense is tailor made for Butler’s talents (mid-range jump shot, slashing to the basket, posting up against smaller or weaker opponents)…. and I think we’ll eventually see him succeed… AND, I think we’re starting to see a ray of hope over the last 2-3 games….
Also, I think Flip has adjusted some things to take advantage of Butler in the Post… I saw several plays over the last 2 games that are normally run for the PF, that ended up with Butler getting the ball in the Post. Flip may be figuring things out as well.
As for Young – earlier this year, I had no problems with him sitting on the bench. He had not shown any inclination to help the team in any other category except scoring. His defense, although I saw improvement, was still poor ; and he was not rebounding or sharing the ball (assists)… He could score, but that was it.
Since he’s been placed into the starting lineup, he’s helping out on the Defensive glass (a little over 3 defensive rebounds per game), and he’s played very good defense (with very few mental lapses)… He’s still not sharing the ball as well as I’d like (only 10 assists in the 7 games) – and I’d love to see him bring the same defensive intensity we saw against Philadelphia (Iguodala) and Miami (Wade) to EVERY game…. but all in all, I’ve been impressed with Nick’s progress…. Of course, we need to see him continue to improve – especially on defense… We’ve seen this kind of thing from Nick before -where he plays well for a stretch of games (usually a week) and then drops off… I want to see him continue to play sticky defense all year before anyone crowns him the undisputed starting SG.
As for Foye – you’re right. I’ve never thought he would fit in well with this team. He needs the ball in his hands (like in Minnesota)… But he’s not really a very good PG; so he’s been playing at SG. My dislike has really very little to do with Foye’s game, but with his size. He’s a good ball handler, and he can catch-and-shoot… but he tends to drive into traffic, where he’s not a good finisher. I’ll give him a pass on his poor shooting this year because he has been injured – and because I believe that he’ll eventually get back to his norm… So Offensively, he’s fine…. But he’s too small defensively to guard the likes of Iguodala, Joe Johnson, Ray Allen, Vince Carter, DeMar DeRozan and the rest of the 6’6" – 6’8" (and bigger) Shooting Guards in the Eastern Conference.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
Foye is the one guy who DESPERATELY needs to change his distribution
If he does, he could save his career. Right now, he’s headed toward irrelevance.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
Rook
Agree with most of what you said about Foye but don’t you think your only seeing one side of that equation? For about half the teams in the league we would want our better guard defender at the 1 or playing a small 2. The other half we want a bigger guard defender covering their 2. Assuming we want to keep Arenas on the floor as much as possible there will be times where we would rather have the no defense Arenas on the other teams 2 than their 1. It seems like you lock in on an idea and don’t consider the other side of it.
by BayAreaBullet on Dec 8, 2009 10:32 PM EST up reply actions
Well Gilbert is a complete zero(no pun intended) defensively either way
So your basically deciding which position you want to leave relatively unguarded. Your saying that there is not gonna be teams/games where you need the defense more at the 1 than the 2? If you look around the league there are a decent amount of teams who play an offensive PG with a defensive SG and we’d rather D up the PG. We already play Arenas alot at the 2 offensively and judging by the cushion he gives guys like Calderon he might be better off guarding a guy on the perimeter rather than trying to stay in front of a PG anyways. Not saying we should trot Foye-Arenas out there against Dwayne Wade but there are gonna be matchups where we need defense at the PG and he currently brings that.
by BayAreaBullet on Dec 8, 2009 11:52 PM EST up reply actions
I think BayArea has a point here
I feel like the Wiz have been burned more by smaller, quicker guards than by bigger two’s so far this year. Maybe it would be a good idea to allocate minutes to Foye/Young based on the D matchups.
Pick your poison -
Play Arenas on the SG (Vince Carter, Joe Johnson, Andre Iguodala, etc…)
OR
Play Foye on the SG (Vince Carter, etc…)
I don’t like either one…. There are more SG’s in the Eastern Conference that can drop 20-30 points a night than there are PG’s that can do the same thing…. The EC is full of really, really good Shooting Guards – most are 6’6" or bigger. Lots of them have been (or should have been) All-Stars.
Just look in our division alone:
Atlanta – Joe Johnson 6’7" – 3-time NBA All-Star (2007, 2008, 2009), currently averaging over 21 ppg
Charlotte – Stephen Jackson 6’8", currently averaging 17 ppg
Miami – Quentin Richardson 6’6" , currently about 9ppg (or D-Wade, depending on who you think is their SG)
Orlando – Vince Carter 6’6" – 8-time All-Star, currently averaging 19.7 ppg
You want Foye or Arenas guarding those guys for 30 minutes a night?
I don’t…..
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
but the current solution
has been to play Boykins and Arenas. So I don’t think Flip’s thinking is in line with yours.
Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!
Boykins is not starting….
And again – I’m talking about the Starting line up… the guys that play 30 minutes a night…
I’ve got no problem playing Boykins (or Foye for that matter) occasionally against bigger guys – down the stretch – or in certain situations…
I just believe that, with Arenas entrenched as the PG, the majority of the minutes for the SG position should go to someone with some size.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
I never said I wanted them guarding those guys
I said there are teams that have more dangerous weapons at the 1. I wasn’t saying play the same lineup all the time. I’m assuming Flip can manage to figure out the natchups if we can. Your point about one of them trying to be guarding Carter is mutually agreed on so you don’t have to argue it any more. I was just saying that you should acknowledge what guys like Ben Gordon and Calderon and Tony Parker have burned us and flopping Arenas with Foye defensively might be our best matchup against teams. So to always dismiss Foye as a defensive liability all the time at the 2 is to overlook the fact that he can be a defensive 1 and play the 2 on the other side of the court. Rather than decide on one line up with no switches maybe Flip shouls utilize more flexibility so we get the best matchup we can all the time instead of 60 percent of the time. By my count we face 11 squads that we need defense at the 1 or against a small 2(not to mention nights where injuries force an opposing starter out) more than we need help against a big 2. They’re not all East teams but we need to win at a good clip against all teams to even make the playoffs at this point.
Jazz
Thunder
Nets
Cavs
Dallas
Detroit
Golden State
Houston
Milwaukee
Minny
New Orleans
by BayAreaBullet on Dec 9, 2009 12:38 AM EST up reply actions
Sorry didn't realize you were talking only for the starting line-up
I couldn’t understand why you would willing concede matchups on certain nights. Makes sense when you were only talking about starting. I do think that just because he doesn’t start doesn’t mean he can’t be a helpful part of this team though.
by BayAreaBullet on Dec 9, 2009 12:41 AM EST up reply actions
I’d say our defensive problem over they past several years has been allowing penetration and forcing our defense to adjust, taking players out of position. It is the Tony Parkers of the league (and Felton to take a recent example) that kill us.
by MR on Dec 9, 2009 10:40 AM EST up reply actions
and Ramon sessions or anyone with a pulse
Plus when a guard blows right by the defender our big men pick up stupid fouls as they don’t have time to adjust, they just have someone catapulting into them.
by BayAreaBullet on Dec 10, 2009 1:53 AM EST up reply actions
Agree 100%
A wide-open 16-20 footer should be be made 2/3 of the time by any NBA perimeter player, including all of the guys you’ve mentioned. Caron can hit these all day — my best guess is that he’s not used to having them handed to him; his instincts tell him he has to create space, so he does even when he doesn’t need to.
I actually find this analysis encouraging, because it means the shots are there, and the players just need to train themselves to take advantage. If every play ended in Arenas/Foye/Young/Miller/Butler/Jamison taking a wide-open squared-up 18 footer, we’d never lose.
drive into traffic and shoot his fadeaway
That’s one of the problems right there: not attacking the basket enough.
You can’t take jumpers for 3 & 1/2 quarters and then decide to go into the paint. By then everyone (opposing team, opposing coaches, refs) have made up their mind: you’re soft. And soft teams don’t get calls.
Flip should have a standing rule: no jumpers until you score at least four points in the paint.
well the fadeaway
Is Nick’s pet shot, and he has been successful with it, so I don’t see it changing anytime soon. To refer to earlier posts, I think the problem is with our PG play. Both Arenas and Boykins are holding the ball for much too long while waiting for the play to happen.
I also like the point that Mike made in another post in that the Wizards are playing like robots, they take the shot because the player shooting the ball knows that is his role within the play. However, they have shown an inability to fix that particular mental block.
Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!
I Was Always Told
That the long two pointer is the least efficient shot in basketball. It is only slightly easier to make than a 3-pointer, but with only 2/3 of the benefit. Why would any NBA coach rely on that for his offense? I don’t get it. Orlando showed last year how effective taking lots of 3-pointers can be, but Flip dislikes taking them? The Wizards take 29 3-pointers against Toronto and score 30 points, but score only 50 points on the 66 2-point shots, and Flip thinks that the 3 ball is the problem? Why?
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on Dec 8, 2009 12:55 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
This is correct. This season, the average FG% (or eFG% for threes) for the five shot locations Hoopdata tracks:
At rim: 61.0%
Under 10 feet (excluding directly at rim): 43.7%
10-15 feet: 40.5%
16-23 feet: 39.1%
Threes: 52.7%
http://hoopdata.com/teamshotlocs.aspx
Flip Saunders’ previous offense in Detroit was successful due to extremely smart and efficient perimeter players. Rip Hamilton is among the best mid-range shooters in the league, if not the best. Further, while Detroit’s offense was above average in their last season, their shooting efficiency was below average. The reason they were above average was very high rates on offensive rebounds and very low rates on turnovers. Washington doesn’t have the kind of mistake-averse guards to replicate that, while they also don’t have guards with discipline to only settle for the better looking mid-to-long range twos. On the contrary, they have tons of excellent three-point shooters, and are capable of pushing the pace, while opposing defenses really are always left in a “pick your poison” predicament, meaning it’s very easy for the Wizards to find the open threes with good ball movement, while open threes are among the highest efficiency shots in basketball, especially when your roster has Arenas, Butler, Foye, Young, Miller, and Jamison, while there is pretty much always at least 3 of those guys on the floor for you guys.
Here’s the thing about long twos, and why it’s a bad idea to use them as a staple of your offense (or at least an intended staple): not a single team in the league shoots for higher efficiency on long twos than they do on threes. Even the worst three-point shooting team in the league shoots better on threes than they do on twos. Going further, there are only three teams in the league that shoot higher percentages on long twos than the worst team shoots threes. And those teams don’t even shoot 43% on long twos.
When I wrote that article, I didn’t just whimsically come to the conclusion that the Wizards need to take more threes because that’s what they did in 2007. They need to take more threes because threes are incredibly higher in expected efficiency than long twos are, and the Wizards have the personnel to make it work. I have little doubt that if Stan Van Gundy, Mike D’Antoni, or Alvin Gentry coached a team with this type of roster, they’d be a top 5 team in the league in terms of Offensive Efficiency, just by virtue of having an offense that purposefully creates higher efficiency shots (at the rim and behind the arc). The fact that Washington is among the worst offenses in the league is ridiculous, and the stats suggest it has very little to do with anything other than shot distribution, as the Wizards are above the league average in Free Throw Rate, Offensive Rebounding Rate, and Turnover Rate (http://hoopdata.com/teamff.aspx). Offense only breaks down to those three things and shooting efficiency, while the Wizards are awful in shooting efficiency, due primarily to where they take their shots.
by Joe Treutlein on Dec 8, 2009 1:17 PM EST up reply actions
If that is completely accurate,
then its the worst news for this team. Coaches don’t grow new systems and it means that we are locked into a roster that doesn’t match our coach’s system (i.e. long-mid range jumpers) or a system that simply sucks (i.e. emphasizing inefficient long two point jumpers).
by Manimal Smith on Dec 8, 2009 1:44 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t think systems are as rigid as you think they are. In my watching of the Wizards, a lot of times I’ll even see on transition opportunities, one of the guards (Butler, Arenas, Foye, Young) will settle for a pull-up 18-20 footer with like 20 seconds remaining on the shot clock. It’s just bad basketball, because you’re settling for a low percentage shot with tons of time remaining on the shot clock. It’s not hard to philosophically change the offense to look for more threes and less long twos. How many times in a game do you see a perimeter player pass up a pretty good open look from three early in the shot clock? How many times do you see a perimeter player settle for a pull-up long two early in the shot clock? Probably a handful of times for each every game. That’s a start right there.
Apparently Flip Saunders called out the team for taking too many threes against Toronto, where they made 10-for-29, which is 1.03 points per possession, better than their team average, and that’s before you account for the 19 offensive rebounding opportunities. It seems pretty clear Saunders doesn’t place much value in threes, which is a strategic error in my opinion, especially when you look at this roster in particular.
by Joe Treutlein on Dec 8, 2009 2:07 PM EST up reply actions
Exactly
Apparently Flip Saunders called out the team for taking too many threes against Toronto, where they made 10-for-29, which is 1.03 points per possession, better than their team average, and that’s before you account for the 19 offensive rebounding opportunities. It seems pretty clear Saunders doesn’t place much value in threes, which is a strategic error in my opinion, especially when you look at this roster in particular.
This really bothers me. If I recall, it wasn’t missed 3’s that dug the Wizards into a huge hole in the 1st quarter against the Raptors (rather missed 2’s), but it was made 3’s that got them back into the game. For him to discourage our team from taking so many 3’s probably will mean more sucking for the foreseeable future.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
i really believe
flip was just calling out AJ in the toronto game, not the whole team.
i don’t think flip’s an idiot and doesn’t understand the value of threes or thinks everyone in the league is rip hamilton. at least i really really hope not.
by DarrellWalkerFan on Dec 8, 2009 2:20 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah
I have always felt AJ takes too many 3’s and at too low an efficiency, but couldn’t say anything earlier this season when it looked like his shooting had improved greatly from behind the arc. But the Toronto game was reminiscent of many poor games in the past, including his insistence on taking (and bricking) long-range jump-shots in the 4th quarter of Game 1 of the 2008 playoffs.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
I definitely agree that if he meant it literally, it's problematic
I hope he was just using it as shorthand for the general “we shot too many Js” argument. Otherwise, it was definitely discouraging.
I don’t know if this is a team-wide problem though. I do think certain players on the team should be mid-range shooters. Butler, in particular, shoots very inefficiently from 3, but tends to be very good from mid-range (not in 08/09, but definitely in prior years). Jamison too tends to shoot too many bad threes when he should be driving.
The guy who needs to change his shot distribution is Arenas. He’s got to go back to the three-or-drive strategy that made him so good. Billups was the same way too. Also, Randy Foye needs to shoot more threes. Those two need to change their distribution the most.
Some of the others, though? I think better shot selection on mid-range shots will go a long way.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
http://www.hoopdata.com/player.aspx?name=Caron%20Butler
Butler has shot a higher efficiency from three than on long twos for the past three seasons (this one included). He shot better from the mid-range in 2007, but in 2007 he was only attempting 1.1 threes per game. He’s clearly evolved as a player since then. And seeing how his TS% in 2008 and 2009 was better than in 2007, it was an evolution for the good.
by Joe Treutlein on Dec 8, 2009 3:05 PM EST up reply actions
But that's an unfair comparison
Let’s face it – the three-point shot is by and large a more efficient shot than a two-point shot. The real problem here isn’t that Butler shoots too many mid-range shots, it’s that he’s not efficient enough from three to justify stealing other people’s three-point shots. The better question is whether Butler should attempt the same number of mid-range twos and delegate his threes to more efficient three-point shooters.
It’s also clear that Butler’s 07/08 percentages from three is the outlier in his career. Take that away, and even 45% eFG% on threes isn’t very good.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
“Let’s face it – the three-point shot is by and large a more efficient shot than a two-point shot. The real problem here isn’t that Butler shoots too many mid-range shots, it’s that he’s not efficient enough from three to justify stealing other people’s three-point shots.”
Why does he have to steal threes from other players? Why not steal twos from himself and instead shoot threes? There are teams in the league who have a much higher ratio of 3FGA:long twos than the Wizards do, and some of them do it with much less capable outside shooters (take the statistic-savvy Rockets for one).
And it’s not really unfair to compare long twos to threes. It’s a largely more efficient shot, which is why it should be taken more frequently. The long two is obviously still necessary, but there are other teams in the league who have proven what an increased emphasis on threes and a decreased emphasis on long twos can do (Houston, Orlando, Phoenix, namely), and no one is denying the Wizards have the personnel for it.
by Joe Treutlein on Dec 8, 2009 3:34 PM EST up reply actions
It's not that simple
And it’s not really unfair to compare long twos to threes. It’s a largely more efficient shot, which is why it should be taken more frequently. The long two is obviously still necessary, but there are other teams in the league who have proven what an increased emphasis on threes and a decreased emphasis on long twos can do (Houston, Orlando, Phoenix, namely), and no one is denying the Wizards have the personnel for it.
If it was, teams would only drive and shoot threes. But they don’t, because eventually teams run you off the three-point line and pack the lane so you can’t drive. You’re going to have to take long twos, and I’d rather have Caron shooting them than others on the team because he’s a less efficient three-point shooter than others on the club (07/08 notwithstanding – again an outlier). He’s also not shooting too many uncontested threes – most of his threes are with a guy in his face – and in this offense, if he could just adapt, he could actually get open mid-range shots.
The guys who really need to stop shooting mid-range shots are the lead guards (Gilbert, Foye, Boykins), because in this offense, those shots are rarely assisted, and players tend to shoot much better on assisted shots than off the dribble (I’m not checking the research carefully, but I imagine this is true based on what limited stuff I have seen). That will drive down their mid-range efficiency tremendously. If they’re shooting most of their shots off the dribble anyway (that’s how it usually is in a Flip offense), then those shots should be threes because contested threes are more efficient than contested twos.
Basically, we agree that shot distribution is a problem. But I’m also not convinced that Flip’s general approach is a problem. He certainly was armed with some presteem mid-range shooters in Detroit, but his approach also worked with Minnesota when they had Sprewell, etc. I just think the wrong players are shooting the shots. Take away Gilbert’s mid-range shots and turn them into Arenas threes. Take away Butler’s threes and turn them into Jamison post-ups, Mike Miller threes and Randy Foye threes. Take away some of Jamison’s threes (only some) and turn them into Jamison post-ups. Stuff like that.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
In order to diffuse some tension, since I really did love your work
Can we both agree that Arenas’ shot distribution needs to look more like this guy’s.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
Yes. I think we agree on most of the players in general.
by Joe Treutlein on Dec 8, 2009 3:59 PM EST up reply actions
you guys are just arguing over butler
(seems to be a commone theme around here)
i’d like to see haywood shooting more threes.
by DarrellWalkerFan on Dec 8, 2009 3:59 PM EST up reply actions
The key to offense is higher percentage shots... (or more efficient ones)
I don’t think the problem is as simple as, we should shoot more threes and less long twos. Even before the analysis, I will agree that we shoot too many long two’s – even uncontested long twos aren’t that productive: they’re still less than 50% shots and while open threes from Miller, Arenas, Jamison, and Foye will over around 35-40% with 3 points per make, not two.
But the key is just take higher percentage shots. This includes, as Prada said, more Jamison post-ups. Jamison’s ability to shoot the three really spreads the defense, so he should shoot a couple, but I’d like to see more post-ups. I’d love to see more Blatche post-ups too – he’s been working on them, and I think he’s looking pretty good so far.
We don’t take high-percentage shots. That’s the problem. That’s consistent with the usual complaint about this team – that we’re a jump shooting team. The fact that Gilbert isn’t getting calls is also quite harmful. It forces him to shoot more jumpers, making him less effective altogether.
There are so many problems… I worry we’ll never fix them.
My swag was phenomenal.
One important factor
Is why long two’s are such low percentage plays. The majority of poor (or well-defended) possessions in the NBA end with a player forcing a contested jumper. An open long two, on the other hand, is an easy shot to make. Mixing in more of these open twos instead of challenged twos will improve offensive efficiency. Some of that can be accomplished simply by taking advantage of the opportunities that are there (this means you, Butler). Taking these shots will force the defense to stick closer to those guys running off screens and popping out, which should get the defense scrambling a little more and open up the middle a little for the drives some of you are screaming for. If you pass up (or hesitate/jab step) on open jumpers, you make it really easy for the other team to defend you — they don’t have to close out hard and can hedge all over the place.
In addition, Flip’s offense is conservative in the sense that it should result in very low turnover rates. I see no reason we can’t expect to replicate his success in Detroit here, unless it’s that the players are just too stubborn or undisciplined to implement it correctly. The skills are there.
It is the systems and execution
In my opinion anyways. I agree with Rook that the open mid range shot is not necessarily a bad one, but that we have taken too many contested ones while passing up open looks. Esp. Butler.
That being said, it looks like Saunders wants the players to take the mid range shot. I would rather deploy that strategy occasionally instead of having it as the norm since we all know that the most efficient shots are at the rim or from 3.
From what I see, the problem, especially for Gil, is that the pick and roll is not being set high enough, when he comes off the screen he is at midrange. I would like to see it set higher up so he has an option of shooting for 3, or have more room to maneuver to get to the rim. If the defense knows you are taking long 2s instead of 3s, it wont stretch, so theres less room to get to the rim, so all you get open is long 2s.
by SidVicious25 on Dec 8, 2009 12:56 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
Good thoughts all around
That’s how they used to set picks for Gil, and he’d step into threes easily. I agree they should consider going back to that.
It’d also allow him to get a fuller head of steam going to the rim.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
Theory consistent with....
….Arenas’ statement that he wanted to score 20 points and have 10 assists. He was insisting that the other players shoot when they get the ball from him — open or not.
Arenas’ push in this regard is also consistent with the large drop in Butler’s assists.
The Wiz need a new approach and new mindset. They ought to put a ball-handler (who can play some D) next to Arenas so the turnovers go down and the open looks go up.
Also, the gap between AJ and AB is closing rapidly when factoring defense into the equation.
The organization ought to re-establish its objectives to be realistic — such as the fifth seed this year and a 3rd/4th seed next year.
Maybe Flip would feel less compelled to have the Big 3 play so many minutes. Also, maybe McGee would get some more burn.
Do you think this is a strategic problem or an execution problem?
i mean that’s the million dollar question, right?
execution is definitely a problem, but i just have a hard time believing flip is making the best use of what he’s got.
the defense has been a revelation. great job there. the offense? gag.
i hope we hired a coach and not a particular system. we need some more flexibility from both the coach and the players.
by DarrellWalkerFan on Dec 8, 2009 1:46 PM EST reply actions
i just have a hard time believing flip is making the best use of what he’s got
I truly believe this is the case more than anything. A Hallmark of a good coach is taking what he has and maximizing there production. Pretty much every offensive/defensive innovation came from a coach who stuck with a certain set of players figured out a system that would give them the best chance at winning.
I am not saying that Flip needs to come up with a new offense but he is stuck with this set of players for the most part and a little innovation is in order for him to have success here in Washington.
I don't know if HoopsData breaks it down this way
but if you look at the NBA Hot Spots site, this problem is really only happening at the corners. That’s probably even worse, since the corner 3 is considered the most efficient and/or makable "kind’ of 3.
Ridiculous Upside, where developing talent and winning are not mutually exclusive.
Wow, that's a remarkable lack of corner threes
Wow. That’s staggering in a very bad way.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
I So Wish
That someone on the Wizards would read this blog. We are all amateur analysts discussing this in our free time, and yet I think we have a better understanding of this team’s problems than those who are paid to do so. The Wizards just keep making the same mistakes over and over again, and we can all see them for what they are, but it doesn’t look like they can. At least not yet.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
Its one thing drawing it up on the chalkboard
Its another getting 15 millionaire egos to actually execute it. I do agree that this community seems to be very astute when it comes to breaking down our beloved wizards.
Maybe they should study their ITouches more
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
this is exactly what i was going to say
ccrun is like my alter ego
by DarrellWalkerFan on Dec 8, 2009 4:24 PM EST up reply actions
Haven't read all the comments...
…and I’m rushing out the door, but an NBA offense that’s designed to get mid-range jumpers is inherently flawed. Mid-range shots ought to be a last resort. The design should be to get shots in the paint or from the 3pt line — preferably from the corners or from straightaway (where percentages are best).
ANY offense that is designed to get an open shot – is a good offense.
NBA players – including most of the Wizards roster – can consistently hit mid-range jump shots (13-19 feet)… And by consistently, I mean…. with nobody contesting them, guys like Gilbert Arenas, Nick Young, Randy Foye, Butler, Jamison, Blatche, Mike Miller, and Earl Boykins should be able to hit 65-70% of those shots. It’s essentially a Free Throw guys….!!!
I continue to insist that Flip’s Offense is not flawed… it’s the execution by the players that is flawed.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
“I continue to insist that Flip’s Offense is not flawed… it’s the execution by the players that is flawed.”
Does it matter? The result is the same – lousy!
What’s easier to change – the offensive scheme or the players’ execution? If execution is easier to change, why has it taken all preseason and 19 games into the season?
Flip is tinkering (too much) with rotations, and not addressing the underlying issues.
It matters alot
because if the system is flawed, then no amount of player improvement will ultimately matter.
On the other hand, if the system isn’t flawed, then all we need are proven NBA-Allstar talents to start taking open shots and hitting them. I think we wouldn’t be deluding ourselves to be hopeful if the latter is the case.
by Manimal Smith on Dec 8, 2009 6:07 PM EST up reply actions
I don't think the system is flawed
If run right the Hawk can generate lots of different types of scoring opportunities. We just settle for the long 2 too much. It might ultimately prove to be not the best fit with our guys but there is nothing really wrong with the offense itself. Right now I think it’s mostly execution and learning to find their sweet spots. If there was a strategy change I’d like to see us push the ball up the court more and get a couple easier buckets. Right now we plod up the court and grind out shots. Of course to push it a little more we would have to stop playing a PG who is coming off 2 missed seasons and 3 knee surgeries 40 minutes every other game. An easy dunk or wide open corner 3 off a break could help get guys going and put a little extra in guy’s like NY’s steps.
by BayAreaBullet on Dec 8, 2009 10:55 PM EST up reply actions
A good offense should generate open shots — but not too many, because you still want the other team to foul.
But the point is that if you’re creating open shots, you’d prefer a 3 to a long 2 or even a mid-range 2. The efg from 3 is going to be better.
Thought exercise: Say we’re having a game in which the defense can choose which kind of open shot the offense gets. Leaving aside silly stuff like “half court,” what shot would you want the opposition to take? You’d probably say something like a foot-on-the-3pt-line 2pt attempt. The make percentage will be about the same as it is from 3pt range, but the payoff is 50% less.
Which shot would I rather give an opponent — an 18-foot 2pt jumper or a 3? Again, I’d give up that 18-footer all day long.
SOME long 2s are necessary, but not as many as the Wiz are attempting.
by TheSecretWeapon on Dec 9, 2009 1:52 PM EST up reply actions
I agree
I was just saying I think the long 2’s are a reflection of poor execution as opposed to a problem with the offensive system.
by BayAreaBullet on Dec 10, 2009 1:50 AM EST up reply actions
tsk
Great write up. But I didn’t need any site to tell me this. I’ve been saying it since the preseason. Heck, I’ve been saying it for a couple of years now really. I’ve become accustomed to them “settling” for the long jump shots later in the game, or better yet, later in the season. I always attributed it to our lack of depth. Or rather, our lack of depth PERCEIVED by Eddie Jordan. I think the big guns would tire out from over use.
But that was the past. That was before we had the considerable depth we have this season. Now, I have no idea why they’re settling so much. Bad habits carried over from last year? Overconfidence in their shooting ability? Or just plain laziness? Whatever it is, they need to kick it.
Are we conflating two different things?
I may be wrong on this, but it seems like a lot of people in this thread are finding fault with Saunders’s emphasis on midrange shots, when that’s not really the problem; instead, the Hoopdata article shows that the Wizards are taking too many “long twos” – shots a little further out than the midrange, but still inside the three-point line. My reading of this chart:
is that the Wizards are taking fewer midrange shots than the 07-08 Pistons. Now, it also appears that that Pistons team also took a lot of “long attempts,” but that would seem to speak to an execution issue here. I just want to make sure that we’re not blaming Saunders’s offense for an over-reliance on “midrange” shots, when the midrange isn’t the issue.
Ridiculous Upside, where developing talent and winning are not mutually exclusive.
by Jon L on Dec 8, 2009 6:10 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Problem is too much range in "long twos" category
The “long twos” category ranges from 16-23 feet, but I’d argue that for most NBA players anything under 19 feet is a mid-range shot.
I think its a mix up of terminology
When people say midrange in this discussion we really mean long two (at least thats what i did, oops!), but yes mid range shots are generally thought of as a couple of steps in from that
I thought when Darius checked out...
that the long two would become a thing of the past. How wrong I was!
I am all in favor of uncontested 15 footers, and Gil actually seemed to be seeking them out and finding them in the Milwaukee game.
But I infinitely prefer penetration and pick and rolls that lead to slams, lay-ups, floaters, FTs, and-ones…. oh, and the option of the kick out open three from the corner.
Meanwhile, the current system and execution are probably equally culpable for the team’s current state. At the beginning of the season many people on this site assumed that the Wizzies would average 102-104 a game. OOPS!
Actually that reminds me
Can anyone tell if we were doing anything differently in that Dallas game (system wise or execution wise) or were we just hitting the bad shots that we are missing now?
by Manimal Smith on Dec 8, 2009 8:10 PM EST up reply actions
This is one of the best discussions ever on this site.
Props to all of you making excellent points. I wish I could have chimed in earlier but haven’t had access since yesterday. One of the reasons there are so many ways to discuss it is because its a complicated problem.
- Uncontested long twos vs threes
- Contested mid range vs threes
- Gil not getting the picks (SidVicious)
- Players not executing the plays properly, then blaming the offense (Rook)
- Threes vs. Corner threes (Ridiculous Upside)
- Good midrange players taking threes vs. the offense not getting them open mid range shots
It’s too complicated to sum up the Wiz issues in one sentence but I think the whole of the comments above begin to break it down into manageable parts. In fact, I think you’d have to be a real bball genius to figure it out on your own – especially if you are living life on the road like Flip and the team are. That’s why a collaborative and argumentative forum like this is a great way to break down a complicated problem.
So many good points from everyone – I’m totally impressed. Great initial article by HoopData. Rook, I know its a pain but if you ever get a chance to upload those examples of lazy picks, lax cuts, ballhandlers not looking – I’m sure we would all be interested.
Agree that it's not a single Big Glaring Problem, it's a lot of Little Things
So why are our Little Things specialists unable to get off the bench? Why are we not getting any playing time for Dominic and, especially, Oberto?
Long 2s...
My friends and I have been complaining about the long 2s forever it seems, especially in the Eddie Jordan era. Most of the shots with one foot on or in the 3 point line. Different coach, same team. The wiz are also getting back into the old/bad habits of not passing the ball. Dribble down and huck a shot. That or pass the ball toa guy standing still….in the key area. Stands still. Does a few hand jukes. Then throws up a shot.
by Kevin Ewoldt on Dec 9, 2009 2:01 PM EST via mobile reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
