Becoming More Efficient

[azirish]

One of the most frustrating aspects of the Suns is their imability to hang onto big leads. Commentators say the Suns can overcome a big lead and give up a big lead faster than any other team in the NBA. This inability to hang onto big leads is one of the reasons why they can't seem to play their backups. No lead is safe.

The problem is that the Suns style lets teams back into the game. It is a common sight, the Suns get up by twenty and an opponet comes down and hits three to get it back to 17. The next three possession the Suns brick quick three pointers and in less than two minutes the lead is down to under 10 so Nash is brought back into the game.

If things go well, the Suns will hit a few threes and the lead gets back up, but nothing is ever safe. IMHO, the Suns need to change their style once a team starts to make a run rather than continuing with their seven seconds or less approach. To me, stopping runs by opponents is the number one thing the Suns can do to ensure victory and also reducing starter minutes.

When the Suns are behind big, then it makes sense to shoot fast to get the game going. But when they are ahead, slowing the pace and making high percentage shots is the best way to dampen the mood of the other team.

When teams are behind, they tend to gamble more in an attempt to get steals. This is generally the best time to attack the basket to get layups and attract fouls. Standing around watching the Suns shoot foul shots is a real wet blanket on the enthusiasm generated by a run. After a while, trading baskets or staying even on the scoreboard gets frustrating and their energy falls. But even if the other team creeps up, slowing the game down means the starters can rest longer.

None of this matters if the Suns cannot score in a slower paced offense. But with a healthy Amare and the addition of Hill, this should be a much more efficient half court offense. They should make use of it and not just shoot themelves out of big leads.

 

[Bufalay]

they lose leads because their defense sucks. They get the big lead shooting 90% while allowing the other team to shoot 60%. However, the other team keeps this shooting up while the suns will of course cool down. The games where they actually play good D are the games that they keep leads.

 

[Treesquid PhD]

One of the most frustrating aspects of the Suns is their imability to hang onto big leads. Commentators say the Suns can overcome a big lead and give up a big lead faster than any other team in the NBA. This inability to hang onto big leads is one of the reasons why they can't seem to play their backups. No lead is safe.

The problem is that the Suns style lets teams back into the game. It is a common sight, the Suns get up by twenty and an opponet comes down and hits three to get it back to 17. The next three possession the Suns brick quick three pointers and in less than two minutes the lead is down to under 10 so Nash is brought back into the game.

If things go well, the Suns will hit a few threes and the lead gets back up, but nothing is ever safe. IMHO, the Suns need to change their style once a team starts to make a run rather than continuing with their seven seconds or less approach. To me, stopping runs by opponents is the number one thing the Suns can do to ensure victory and also reducing starter minutes.

When the Suns are behind big, then it makes sense to shoot fast to get the game going. But when they are ahead, slowing the pace and making high percentage shots is the best way to dampen the mood of the other team.

When teams are behind, they tend to gamble more in an attempt to get steals. This is generally the best time to attack the basket to get layups and attract fouls. Standing around watching the Suns shoot foul shots is a real wet blanket on the enthusiasm generated by a run. After a while, trading baskets or staying even on the scoreboard gets frustrating and their energy falls. But even if the other team creeps up, slowing the game down means the starters can rest longer.

None of this matters if the Suns cannot score in a slower paced offense. But with a healthy Amare and the addition of Hill, this should be a much more efficient half court offense. They should make use of it and not just shoot themelves out of big leads.

I have seen the Suns change their style and lose leads more often than they do with 7 seconds. When the Suns stagger it's usually because Barbosa is at the point in the early 4th and he has almost no skill in distribution, to compensate he tries to brute force his way to the hoop or launches it back to the three point line where Bell or Marion launch a dud. This is where I think Hill is going to make a huge difference.

however, the thing that pisses me off the most is that they do completely go away from Amare at times down the stretch and hoist up three pointer after three pointer. Often you'll see the Brazillian Black Hole launching up shot after shot and Raja Bell Launching shot after shot in the 4th quarter. I know these two love to shoot three after three but there should be times when they are reinged in.

If a style change is going inside to Amare and letting him get to the line, where it really matters, then I am all for it.

 

[azirish]

I have seen the Suns change their style and lose leads more often than they do with 7 seconds. When the Suns stagger it's usually because Barbosa is at the point in the early 4th and he has almost no skill in distribution, to compensate he tries to brute force his way to the hoop or launches it back to the three point line where Bell or Marion launch a dud. This is where I think Hill is going to make a huge difference.

however, the thing that pisses me off the most is that they do completely go away from Amare at times down the stretch and hoist up three pointer after three pointer. Often you'll see the Brazillian Black Hole launching up shot after shot and Raja Bell Launching shot after shot in the 4th quarter. I know these two love to shoot three after three but there should be times when they are reinged in.

If a style change is going inside to Amare and letting him get to the line, where it really matters, then I am all for it.

You are making my point. Why is Amare forgotten whenever the other teams scores?

BTW, the Suns defensive problems are related to the three point shooting. Teams that are behind are willing to try to run with the Suns because they have to. Bricking threes opens up the opportunities for long rebounds that can trigger breaks. It's easier to get back on defense when the ball goes through the hoop rather into the backcourt.

My recommendation would be "keep giving it to Amare until they prove they can stop him".

 

[Errntknght]

George,

But when they are ahead, slowing the pace and making high percentage shots is the best way to dampen the mood of the other team.

It may well be true this the best way, but that doesn't mean you can simply decide to do it. Of course you can decide not to shoot 3 pt shots but you can't decide to 'make high percentage' shots.

Actually, statistics predicts that if you shoot a high percentage of more difficult but higher valued shots you will have greater variability in your scoring during games than if you shoot a low percentage of such shots - in other words you will see more runs by your team and by opponents, the more three pointers you shoot. I don't have enough statistics on game flow to claim that is precisely the effect we see with the Suns but it is certainly along the same lines.

Probability theory says that if you are the better team then the less variability you introduce the better off you are, while if the opps are the better team, the more variability you should introduce to improve your chances of winning. Thats assuming your chances of making a three point shot is about two thirds of your chances of making a two. Real life isn't so simple, of course, as there are hard and easy 2 point shots and even hard and easy 3 point shots. (What we complain about with Boris is that he passes up relatively easy 2 point shots in exchange for 3 pt shots of some variety by another player.)

All is not lost as probability theory does give a guide line - you should try to trade 2's for 3's when the probability of the 2 is less than 1.5 (or 3/2) times the odds of making a three. If your team shoots threes at a .42 clip then 2 point shots at odds less than .63 are the ones you should forego in favor of shooting a three.

Despite what probability has to say about it, I think teams run into a problem with changing their game dramatically from one game to the next and even moreso when trying to change it on the fly during a game. The game needs to be played without a whole lot thinking - the speed dictates that the players respond reflexibly to the current situation. Trying to get them to change their responses will just introduce the kind of hesitant behavior you want to avoid.

Personally, I believe the Suns should tone down their three point shooting and try to develop a more flexible offense - because under the pressure and better D of the playoffs three point shooting tends to fall off more so you've practiced the wrong thing. It may cause the loss of a couple of regular season games but thats a small price to pay.

Once your team has gotten to the point that making the playoffs is virtually assured, you need to start thinking of the regular season as practice for what you want to do itn the playoffs.

 

[elindholm]

Once your team has gotten to the point that making the playoffs is virtually assured, you need to start thinking of the regular season as practice for what you want to do itn the playoffs.

I stopped reading after that.

 

[Errntknght]

Wasn't that the last line?

Oh, okay... I think I get it...

 

[Stargazer]

What we're really talking about, if I can borrow an analogy from football, is whether basketball has the equivalent of running it up the middle to run the clock when you have a lead -- a low-risk, low-reward style of play that you can revert to that will tend to freeze the score and put the game on ice once you've built a comfortable lead.

I'm not sure there really is such a thing in basketball. Or rather, there actually is such a thing, but it isn't a style of offense -- it's defense. The way to protect a lead in the NBA is to clamp down on defense. Not only do you force the other team to take more time on their possessions, thus killing the clock, but every extra stop you force effectively kills 30 to 40 seconds (the time you take on the next offensive possession and then, even if you don't score, the time the other team takes on their next possession to finally score the points you stopped them from getting with the original stop).

If I were a coach, I would make it my mantra: when our lead goes to double digits, that's the trigger to clamp down on defense and put the game away.

 

[azirish]

There is no good time NOT to have high defensive intensity. But obviously, the key to the other team having a run is turnovers and poor defense.

One of the reasons that great defensive teams are slow break oriented is that they make sure they get back on defense, they tend to move the ball a lot and force the other team to expend energy on their defense, and they don't take chances and give up few fast breaks.

But the main thing is to break up the "on a run" psychology. Shooting threes as fast as you can lets the other team score very quickly even if statistically it works out.

Another problem is that when the other team is making a run, it seems like it effects shooters who tend to force shots up. I would bet that the percentage of three point shots hit when the other team has scored two or more baskets in a row is lower than when your own team has hit two or more in a row. Somebody has to have stats on this.

Being on the wrong side of a run creates a lot of anxiety and my guess is that players tighten up. It is better to turn up the defensive intensity to deal with the anxiety than to shoot when anxious. It is also better to move the ball around than to revert to strictly "one on one".

In any case, the solution should be "get the ball to Amare" rather shooting three pointers.

 

[Errntknght]

I would bet that the percentage of three point shots hit when the other team has scored two or more baskets in a row is lower than when your own team has hit two or more in a row. Somebody has to have stats on this.

It would be fun to have some files of data to analyze along these lines but I have no idea whether any such files exist.

A little bit of analysis has been done on whether there is anything to the 'hot hand' phenomenon. The test used is simple - compute the percentage of shots made when a players previous shot was a make versus his pct when the previous shot was a miss. Thats not exactly what we call a 'hot hand' but I do think this test would detect the 'hot hand' effect if it existed. The results have been that there is no difference in players shooting pct in those two cases. I've read two articles claiming to have done such an analysis, both having the same result. They were 20 or so years apart so I think it was actually two separate analyses.

If one defines a 'hot hand' as two or more consecutive shots made in a row and some player had a significantly better average then than otherwise, it would almost certainly show up to some extent in the simpler test above.

 

[Hugh D'Man]

Man thats alot of jibbering over the simple fact we need a PG for the second unit.

 

[azirish]

Man thats alot of jibbering over the simple fact we need a PG for the second unit.

It's not limited to the second unit. I think it relates to team psychology. The Suns runs tend to be built around hitting threes but the other teams runs tend to built around the Suns bricking threes.

Generally teams on a run step up their defense, so it becomes harder to get open three point shots. But IMHO, better ball movement is the best way to attack a high intensity defense and that means everybody has to pass - not just Nash.