 Diagnosing Shooting Woes To be honest, the shot chart above does not look like it belongs to a winning team. It looks like it belongs to a cellar dweller. That, my friends, is the Sixers' team shot chart through 51 games. After the jump we'll take a look at why there is so much blue and gray on the court, who's to blame, and what shots the Sixers should be looking to create after the break to sprinkle in some more red. All images and data were culled from nba.com/hotspots/, be sure to check out that link. To me, the most-alarming part of the Sixers shot chart is the low percentage they convert at from inside the lane. 56.8% seems a tragically low percentage. Let's see how it compares to the other 7 playoff teams in the East.
The conclusion, the Sixers get shots in the paint the most, but convert at the third-worst rate among playoff teams, although the percentages aren't disparate enough to be meaningful. Moving on, the topic of this post was meant to be strengths, weaknesses and patterns of the Sixers shot selection, as a whole. First, let's get the weaknesses out of the way. This isn't a post meant to rag on Lou Williams any more than I have in the past couple of weeks, but we're going to start with him. First, take a look at his shot chart.  The first thing that should jump out at you is his horrible percentage on point-blank shots, 46.7% is unforgivable. Beyond that, though, there's an extremely alarming trend here. Take a look at all the blue areas in the middle of the floor and on the left side above the foul line. Lou is shooting a combined 24.1% from those five zones and he's taking nearly 30% of all of his attempts from that area. At this point, someone should be looking at these numbers and adjusting his game, he's absolutely killing the team with those shots. Might I suggest moving Lou to the right side of the floor for his isos and pick and roll opportunities so he can get shots he's hitting at a higher percentage? For a point of reference, this is what the entire team's chart looks like if you remove Lou. Note the huge increase in percentages from the five areas we just talked about. Also note the percentage on layups.  That's enough negative for now, let's talk about some positives we can glean from this data. We'll begin with Marreese Speights.  His unreal percentage in the lane shouldn't surprise anyone. He's a dunking machine and his touch around the hoop is stellar. The thing I like most about this chart, however, is his percentage in two areas: the elbow and along the baseline. Speights' low-post game is extremely advanced, but that's only one facet of a modern power forward's game. To be a truly elite offensive weapon, a four needs to be able to give playmakers options. Options on the pick and roll, options when they drive to the hoop, and options when they're looking to bust a zone. In the long run, Speights' touch from 15-18 feet is what I believe will make the difference between being a decent rotational player and a potential all star. So far this season, he's shooting 26/56 on mid-range jumpers, 46.4%. Two more charts that I'd like your feedback on. The first is Andre Iguodala's.  My quick impression of this chart is that Iguodala has regained his form as an elite finisher. 70.6% on layups and dunks is right up there with the best in the league. My second impression is that I don't know what to make of his jumper numbers. If he could cut out the angle threes, he'd be shooting very well from deep, but if you go just inside the arc, to the elbbows, he's a pretty good shooter from angles and terrible from straight on. The heartening thing is that he's a pretty good shooter from his favorite spot on the floor, the right elbow extended. And finally, I have no analysis of this last chart, please give me your thoughts on it in the comments. Mr. Royal Ivey...  Over the next couple of games I'm going to try to track how many shots Lou Williams and Iguodala get in their "sweet spots" and how many times they shoot from their ice cold zones, and why. This article from the NY Times (mentioned in the comments of an early post by Scott Brosius Would Make A Good Neighbor) opened my eyes to this type of analysis and I think it could really help us understand the affect good defenders and more importantly, good defensive strategy can have on a player's offensive performance. Again, if you have some time to kill at work, check out NBA Hot Spots, there's a ton of info there. 
Latest Posts• The Truth About Sam • Dei Is Out, Donyell In • 10 Games at a Time • Sixers Preseason Stats • Depressed Fan Field Trip • Sixers Hosed By N.J. • Does This Sound Familiar? • Putting A Bow on the Preseason • Rough Day For Christmas • Anyone In New York? • Sixers Pick Up Three Options • And Then There Were 13SearchBlogs in The NetworkSixers BlogsPassion and Pride Sixers 4 Guidos Liberty Ballers Recliner GM PhillyArena Heard In The Cheap SeatsSilver Dollar Slots | ||||||||||||||
I wasn't too crazy about the Battier article. Anyway, parts of this chart are pretty disturbing (we're that bad a mid-range jump-shooting team?), but I guess I'd have to look at some other teams' charts to know if these numbers are as bad as they look. Iguodala's chart is pretty weird though - 11-43 from above the foul line, 4-22 below it, 13-45 from inside the right corner. I can't quite imagine what makes those shots so tough for him.
I was actually surprised he had that many attempts from the baseline, inside the three-point line. I can't think of a single play where he took a shot from there. My best guess is that those are shots taken against the clock? I don't know.
No explanation whatsoever for the foul line area.
What didn't you like about the Battier article?
I didn't like that basically all it said was "there's this thing called plus-minus and it doesn't work so well, but Morey has this special adjusted proprietary version that I can't tell you about. In addition, teams calculate shooting percentages for players from different parts of the court. Basketball's a game of probabilities. This may sound obvious but it's actually a totally new discovery."
Not sure how you read it and thought that was all it said - i felt it said a lot more and the discussion about the proprietary analysis of plus/minus was just a bit of it. And much like with the moneyball discussion, he isn't going to be told all the things they do because then it defeats any advantage the Rockets get from Battier.
So what did it say? I just thought some of the analysis was plain idiotic, like
"The Grizzlies went from 23-59 in Battier’s rookie year to 50-32 in his third year, when they made the N.B.A. playoffs, as they did in each of his final three seasons with the team. Before the 2006-7 season, Battier was traded to the Houston Rockets, who had just finished 34-48. In his first season with the Rockets, they finished 52-30, and then, last year, went 55-27 — including one stretch of 22 wins in a row...
Here we have a basketball mystery: a player is widely regarded inside the N.B.A. as, at best, a replaceable cog in a machine driven by superstars. And yet every team he has ever played on has acquired some magical ability to win."
First of all, "every team he has ever played on" = two teams. Second, what happened in Memphis? They drafted Battier and actually got slightly worse defensively that year and the year after. In the third season, Hubie Brown has a full year to coach the team and the offense improves dramatically. Was the difference Battier? Or rather, Battier in his third season versus Battier in his second and first? Of course not. What happened was they brought in Posey, Mike Miller and Bonzi Wells and drastically curtailed Jason Williams's shots. In Battier's rookie year, Williams was the second leading scorer and he was shooting 38%. By the year they won 50, Williams is attempting just nine shots a game. Moreover, another thing that made them better is the reduction of Battier's role. He went from being the team's third leading scorer on 12 shots per game and a 42% field goal percentage to the team's seventh leading scorer on half as many shots the year they won 50. So really, Battier had absolutely nothing to do with the team magically getting better - they got better in his third year because they acquired scorers, got a great coach, and reduced Williams and Battier's attempts. Now, what about Houston? Yes, Houston had a bad year before Battier got there. But the year before, they won 51 - just one less game than they did once Battier came along. Gee, why could that be? Of course, as Lewis would have known if he actually watched basketball, in 04-05, Yao and McGrady were remarkably healthy, missing only six games. In 05-06, they miss a combined 62 games and had no supporting cast to speak of - just has-beens like Derek Anderson, David Wesley, Jon Barry, and Juwan Howard, and never-weres like Stromile and Luther Head. Naturally, the team suffered. The next year, yes, they add Battier - a nice role player. But, they also get a much healthier T-Mac, and not only did he miss just 11 games, he rebounded from 05-06's career-worst .406 field goal percentage and played like an approximation of the superstar he once was. Alston also played better, Hayes had a great year off the bench, etc. Now sure, might that team have won just, say, 45 with a rookie Rudy Gay instead of Battier, yeah, it's quite possible. But adding Battier didn't cause the team to "acquire some magical ability to win."
I would've settle for "too much hyperbole." :)
I didn't really think he was pushing the "Battier makes teams winners," so much as he was describing how Battier's affect on the game isn't quantifiable with traditional statistics. That was the stuff I found interesting.
But isn't it quantifiable with traditional scouting? This isn't some Moneyball story - the whole league, regardless of what Lewis would have you believe, knows that Battier's a very good defender and role player.
I'm not sure every GM in the league would agree with you, in fact I'm pretty sure there are more old school guys around than anyone wants to admit.
Baseball is light years ahead of basketball in terms of statistical analysis beyond points, rebounds and assists.
No, you misunderstood. We can see, with simple scouting, that Battier's a good player. Just as advanced metrics will tell you that Thad was great last season, but we all knew that just watching the games. I'm not saying advanced stats are useless but Battier doesn't strike me as a case where they're so useful. Yeah, he's been traded but for whom, Rudy Gay, a megatalent. It's not like Memphis undervalued him.
Do you think the casual fan, or maybe, the average NY Times reader, knows Battier's a good player? Or do you think the casual fan looks at his mainstream stats and thinks he sucks?
Um, I'd say that the casual generic NBA fan thinks that Battier was a bust. That said, the casual generic NBA fan doesn't watch a lot of Rockets games. I think the average Rockets fan is probably quite aware that the guy's a good player.
I thought the +/- stuff was a bit of nonsense. The end result was that Battier helps teams because one guy can see he is a good defender and he has a good +/-.
I did like the journey there though, like the parts where Battier says he looks at the stats as a scouting report.
I understand why they don't get into what stats they use, but still find it annoying. The parts that I liked the best were the bits about how Battier uses data to help the team, rather than his own stats. Boxing out the center was a great example, but the stuff about knowing where the guy he's defending shoots poorly from, I mean, that's brilliant stuff. Using preparation and brainpower to overcome athletic limitations, I admire that stuff. I also admire teams who utilize this type of analysis to create an advantage on the court, rather than just to negotiate contracts.
I've read in many places that Lou and Speights supposedly have great chemistry with the pick and pop, are the best of buds and so forth. Their respective charts seem to support that argument.
Both of those guys 'should' be money from inside the three point range and Speights is already there baby. I'm pretty confident about Lou getting those percentages up for the second half. Also, when looking at that miserable 46.7%, take into account Lou's inability to run the break and take advantage of two-on-one and three-on-one scenarios. He always seems to force it in those situations.
Looking at those numbers, one would think Ivey and Brand would get along just fine...
That's a good point about the break. If you notice, when Miller and Iguodala are leading the break, they go right down the middle of the lane, force the defender to come up and stop them, then dish to the guys filling the wings. If the defender doesn't come up to stop the ball, they go to the hoop. Lou seems to push at an angle to the hoop, outrun the rest of his guys on the break, and leave his feet way too early. He should watch Miller.
On those point blank shots you referenced for Lou, could the percentage be down b/c he gets fouled hard on most of them which results in a miss but he goes to the line?
If you miss the shot and get fouled it doesn't count as a miss, but if you make it and get fouled it counts as a make. Win-win situation :)
Interesting. I didn't know if it counted as a shot attempt if a foul was called. So if you attempt a shot with a subsequent whistle and it misses then, no shot atempted. But vice-versa if you make it. Kind of weird.
Yeah, it's a quirky thing, but it's fair. If you get fouled, it's really not your fault you missed the shot, right?
No - taditionally scouting DIDNT catch what battier meant to a team when he was on the floor or he probably wouldn't have been traded so damn much - traditional scouting made rodney carney a top 10 pick for reasons passing understanding - if traditional scouting was so solid there wouldn't be so many busts in the first round.
Do you actually believe everything you write yourself? Battier was traded exactly one time, don't know how that equals '..so damn much.' Rodney Carney was not a top 10 pick either. If these advanced stats were the next best thing then it doesn't look like they have paid off for Morey and the Rockets as they haven't won anything of late. And Morey took Luther Head in the 1st round a couple of years back over several better players so these advanced metrics don't look like they equal first round success either.