Volatility & Two-Point Shots

[Dahlsim]

I guess Valanciunas is making @"Dahlsim" case right now. We all know about his short comings on defense but he is forcing the Spurs to go big. Basically the reverse RC. Bigmen offense dictates the matchups. Not the ability to defend.

Yes, that game was very relevant to what I've said many times regarding the use of the Mav's big man offense, even before Boban came to Mavs.  

Think of it this way, if both teams play the same sort of prevailing modern offensive/defensive schemes, let's say for example pace and space, high 3pt shot attempts, more small ball emphasis etc. 
Who wins?  Well in theory (reality is more complicated) the team with the better talent for that play style should have the advantage and win right? 

Now what if you are the team that knows the other team has the better 3 point shooters and better talent for what you think the modern offensive game calls for but you have some advantages with elite talent scoring the traditional 2 point and old fashioned 3 point i.e. drawing fouls? 

The answer seems obvious.  Find the strategies and points in the game where you can play to your roster's advantages and don't get boxed into a generic one-size-fits-all 3 point model. 

Valanciunas was a case in point last night.  He's a superior talent big with a 2 point game that can reduce volatility in their offense compared to what the Spurs had even though Pop and Spurs adjusted and put a valiant fight against him.  Pop going small against the better BIG talent simply wasn't working.  Its not like Pop has the most elite small ball talent either so they were able to turn it around and get back into the gamefo with solid play from Jakob Poeltl especially when Val went out of the game. 

At the end though Jonas had 23 points and 23 rebounds in 37 big minutes.  He was 0 for 1 from 3 but dominated shooting 62.5% overall and added rim protection with 3 blocks. 

[Dahlsim]

I love this topic.  The logic seems like it should be so clear.  And it also seems like you should be able to find the data to sort out some tests.  

It seems like a no brainer that if you are up by 2 possessions with a minute left, you put in Boban for a 2 pointer, and you have 60% possibility of being up by 3 possessions with 50 seconds left.  It leaves a 40% chance of being up by 2 possessions with 50 seconds left. If the planned volatility by the other team works in their favor, they hit a 3 pointer within 10 seconds and your original lead has decreased - either by 1 or by 3 points. I think the Mavs stall-the-ball crunch time offense (that I do hate) follows a different logic. 

Up by 2 possessions with a minute left, dribble in place for 20 seconds before jacking up whatever shot you can get in the remaining shot clock.  We often see a contested 3 or a turnover. Worst case is you are still up by 2 possessions with 40 seconds left.  So the question is how valuable are those 10 seconds?   You might say the Mavs opt for 0 volatility for those 10 seconds.  In terms of investing, it's like telling your 75 year old uncle to not play the ponies with his ss check this weekend.

Other arguments that I can think of for going for the 3 pointer that dont have to do with clock management include staying within the flow of the offense you've built or that you might have players on the court who are perimeter players (theirs because they need the 3 pointers and yours because you'll be defending the 3 point line)

Just noticed your profile tag line.   
I have no second account for the record of course, but I do like your math & logic here. 

Last night was interesting in the Lakers game as well btw. Tight game in the clutch minutes/seconds and the greatest 3 point shooter of all time at work.  The Lakers hit just enough high percentage 2 pointers that were clearly helped by their size advantage.    

Defense can't really be separated from offense here in terms of the end result.  When comparing 2 pointers to 3 pointers its also comes into play whether you can force the opponent's best 3 point shooters to settle for 2's as well as getting your best 2 point shooters good looks spaced out by your best 3 point shooters.

The Lakers used their superior size well to get just enough edge over GSW using a double team + the freakish size/length of Anthony Davis to force Curry inside where he had to settle for more 2 point attempts than he would like, neutralizing his advantage as a 3 point marksmen and resulting in Steph and company missing just enough.

[dirkfansince1998]

@"Dahlsim" Size helped but also because the mentioned guys can also move their feet. Lakers won the game because the benched Drummond and Harrell and moved AD to center.
We had two interesting examples. Grizzlies forcing the Spurs to go big. Warriors forcing to the Lakers to go small. No conclusive result. It really depends on the matchup/talent on each roster/scheme.

[Dahlsim]

@"Dahlsim" Size helped but also because the mentioned guys can also move their feet. Lakers won the game because the benched Drummond and Harrell and moved AD to center.
We had two interesting examples. Grizzlies forcing the Spurs to go big. Warriors forcing to the Lakers to go small. No conclusive result. It really depends on the matchup/talent on each roster/scheme.

Sure DF, moving your feet is important as are a lot of factors.  A guy like Jokic for example isn't the most swift of foot but he can more than kill you in other areas so it balances out in Denver's favor from a matchup perspective most of the time.    

I never thought of anything in this area of strategy as conclusive in the sense that the Lakers are flexible, not stuck playing large or small. They are able to play to advantages in flexible ways. 

I can't see the Lakers as small either when they have AD at center, Lebron playmaking and generally were bigger than GSW at most positions.    

The Lakers have the best of both worlds since they have stacked elite talent at on multiple positions and AD can guard on the Perimeter too after all he was a guard that sprung up late into a big.  Having Gasol, Drummon and Montrez Harrell sitting on the bench while keeping 7 foot long AD at 5 flanked by big wings.  Lake show was going inside and shooting over the top of Golden state becase they're 'small' rotation was still significantly bigger than the Warriors.

[Dahlsim]

It seems obvious to me that, when you’re quite a ways behind, volatility is your friend.

Conversely when you're quite a ways ahead, volatility is your enemy. 

Just watched the volatile nature of the Mavs offense rear its ugly head again as early on they were able to surrender a big lead faster than Luka could get a seat on the bench and get a drink of water. 

This high powered Mavs offense remains volatile.  Its mostly bust or boom outside of Luka performing his magic going to the rim.   Only the guards, Doncic and Brunson really provide consistent high % scoring options.  Nothing there from the front line and BIGS unless its raining 3's.

[Dahlsim]

We also saw the Lakers in their series against the Suns, overwhelm them with Size and consistent 2pt offense.  Their size in the paiint with Drummond, AD, Gasol, Lebron etc. all part of pounding Phoenix's inside. 

 LA was never really challenged despite the fact that the Lakers have to shoot well from the 3 point line in any of the games.

[Branduil]

Mavs actually shot worse from 2 today.

Honestly the Mavs offensive volatility problem isn't as much because of shot selection as the fact that our #1 and #2 paid guys are extremely volatile while playing next to no defense.

[ItsGoTime]

Watching that game I was seeing more 2 shots than pushing the ball for layups and dunks. That was eye test, so I decided to look up the shot charts for games 1, 2 and 3. 

Game 1:

https://www.nba.com/game/dal-vs-lac-0042...ame-charts

20 shots outside the restricted area and inside the 3 line.

Game 2:

https://www.nba.com/game/dal-vs-lac-0042...ame-charts

24 shots outside the restricted area and inside the 3 line.

Game 3:

https://www.nba.com/game/lac-vs-dal-0042...ame-charts

32 shots outside the restricted area and inside the 3 line.

In games 1 and 2, I see the restricted area is filled up with X's and O's. Game 3 there are a few. Either the Clippers stopped them from going to the hoop, or the Mavs stopped trying, or some combination of both. I just remember even Luka jacking up more jump shot 2's than the previous 2 games and thought it a bit odd.

The other big thing is FT accuracy. WTF is going on with that?

[Dahlsim]

Watching that game I was seeing more 2 shots than pushing the ball for layups and dunks. That was eye test, so I decided to look up the shot charts for games 1, 2 and 3. 

Game 1:

https://www.nba.com/game/dal-vs-lac-0042...ame-charts

20 shots outside the restricted area and inside the 3 line.

Game 2:

https://www.nba.com/game/dal-vs-lac-0042...ame-charts

24 shots outside the restricted area and inside the 3 line.

Game 3:

https://www.nba.com/game/lac-vs-dal-0042...ame-charts

32 shots outside the restricted area and inside the 3 line.

In games 1 and 2, I see the restricted area is filled up with X's and O's. Game 3 there are a few. Either the Clippers stopped them from going to the hoop, or the Mavs stopped trying, or some combination of both. I just remember even Luka jacking up more jump shot 2's than the previous 2 games and thought it a bit odd.

The other big thing is FT accuracy. WTF is going on with that? 

Good find.    
Not at all mysterious that the team that can get high percentage efficient shot attempts tends to do better.  

The 3's are more efficient than the 2's when they are taken under less pressure with good looks and those good 3 point looks are generated most often because the defense has to honestly protect the paint and rim while still trying to recover to contest the 3's. 

It's symbiotic.  When neither Luka or anyone else is really providing consistent 2 point threat then naturally all of the scoring becomes volatile.

[dirkfansince1998]

In games 1 and 2, I see the restricted area is filled up with X's and O's. Game 3 there are a few. Either the Clippers stopped them from going to the hoop, or the Mavs stopped trying, or some combination of both. I just remember even Luka jacking up more jump shot 2's than the previous 2 games and thought it a bit odd.

Small ball prevents penetration. The Mavs get most of their inside scoring from guards/wings. KP isn´t a reliable inside scorer. Boban isn´t getting any minutes. They rely on dribble/drive, pick and roll, penetration to the rim. In games 3&4 Luka was the only one that could beat his defender of the dribble and even he struggled in some matchups. Just really difficult for Brunson or THJ when the Clippers worst perimeter defender is Rondo, Batum or Morris.

[Dahlsim]

Small ball prevents penetration. The Mavs get most of their inside scoring from guards/wings. KP isn´t a reliable inside scorer. Boban isn´t getting any minutes. They rely on dribble/drive, pick and roll, penetration to the rim. In games 3&4 Luka was the only one that could beat his defender of the dribble and even he struggled in some matchups. Just really difficult for Brunson or THJ when the Clippers worst perimeter defender is Rondo, Batum or Morris.

 I think you really nailed the point there DF. Guards/Wings can effectively slow down the inside scoring of other guard wings as well as chase them out to the perimeter.  In the chess match of guard/wing prominent NBA clashes Rick Carlisle's has a big hole in a mostly brilliant scheme.  The Mavs eliminate their volatility with a guard/wing penetration led attack largely supporting their 3 point shooting.  

Dallas can't play the card of attacking well with Bigs inside who score consistently by shooting over the top of the smaller wings or by pure bully ball in the paint and rebounding advantage. 

Luka is incredibly good at points going to the rim and in the paint when he's healthy and he has good support from Brunson, THJ and the cast.  Fully healthy he almost pulled off the amazing feat of outplaying Leonard & George!  
Even then, the Clippers small ball guard/wing attack led by Kawhi & George and the rest of that cast is probably 2nd to none in a game that is primarily small vs small clash.

[dirkfansince1998]

Copied this from the "Around the NBA" thread: Watched the Jazz-Clippers game last night. Jazz are taking the 3-point heavy approach to another level.

Jazz lead the league in 3PA by a big margin. Ranked last in midrange attempts. 28th in attempts at the rim. Low assist numbers. 28th in ast% on 2s and 3s. 29th overall. Only Portland is worse. Mavs are 27th in both categories.
No ball movement. One screen. Semi open 3. Let it fly. Bigs crash the offensive glass (5th in total off rebounds, 3th in ORR). Bigs aren´t getting any touches.

In the game against the Clippers they attempted 50 3s. Only shot 34% from 3. Still won the game. At one point in the first quarter they did not score for 8 1/2 minutes. Missed 20 consecutive shots.


Different approach but I cannot argue with the results. Will be interesting to see if they can keep it up. A good defense and great rebounding certainly helps them when the 3 isn´t falling.

Edit: Just did some research. 50 3s in one playoff games ranks 8th all time.

[U_L]

Jazz lead the league in 3PA by a big margin. ...
In the game against the Clippers they attempted 50 3s. Only shot 34% from 3. [i]At one point in the first quarter they did not score for 8 1/2 minutes. Missed 20 consecutive shots.[/i]

Awesome.  This gives us a baseline to address the original question about controlling volatility in crunch time.  Across the whole game, Jazz shot 50 of 91 attempts from 3pt land (55%, WOW!).  Looking at the nba.com play by play for the last 5 minutes (Jazz were up 103-95), 2 of their 8 attempts were from 3.  Inside 3 minutes, only 1 of 5 attempts was from 3.  So yeah, they lowered volatility.  Across the whole game, Clippers shot 42 of 85 attempts from 3 (49%, also wow!).  For the final 5 minutes, 6 of 8 were 3pts, and in the final 3 minutes, 3 of 5 attempts were from 3.  So yeah, they increased volatility. 

For game 2:
Across the game, Jazz shot 39 of 76 shots from beyond the arc (51%, again wow).  Jazz were up 104-103 with 5 minutes left. Four of their remaining 10 attempts were 3 pointers.  Within 3 minutes, only 2 of 7 were 3 pointers.  For the Clippers, 30 of 85 attempts in the game were 3 point shots (35%, what is this, 2014?).  Within 5 minutes, 5 of 10 were 3 pointers, and within 3 minutes, 3 of 6 shots were.

From this, it looks like Jazz successfully adjusted their offense to avoid the risk of another extended scoreless streak, and Clippers accepted risk in hopes of scoring more points.  I didn't watch the games though (cause come on, it's not the Mavs), so I don't really know if what they did different was by choice or in reaction to defensive changes.

[dirkfansince1998]

Awesome.  This gives us a baseline to address the original question about controlling volatility in crunch time.  Across the whole game, Jazz shot 50 of 91 attempts from 3pt land (55%, WOW!).  Looking at the nba.com play by play for the last 5 minutes (Jazz were up 103-95), 2 of their 8 attempts were from 3.  Inside 3 minutes, only 1 of 5 attempts was from 3.  So yeah, they lowered volatility.  Across the whole game, Clippers shot 42 of 85 attempts from 3 (49%, also wow!).  For the final 5 minutes, 6 of 8 were 3pts, and in the final 3 minutes, 3 of 5 attempts were from 3.  So yeah, they increased volatility. 

For game 2:
Across the game, Jazz shot 39 of 76 shots from beyond the arc (51%, again wow).  Jazz were up 104-103 with 5 minutes left. Four of their remaining 10 attempts were 3 pointers.  Within 3 minutes, only 2 of 7 were 3 pointers.  For the Clippers, 30 of 85 attempts in the game were 3 point shots (35%, what is this, 2014?).  Within 5 minutes, 5 of 10 were 3 pointers, and within 3 minutes, 3 of 6 shots were.

From this, it looks like Jazz successfully adjusted their offense to avoid the risk of another extended scoreless streak, and Clippers accepted risk in hopes of scoring more points.  I didn't watch the games though (cause come on, it's not the Mavs), so I don't really know if what they did different was by choice or in reaction to defensive changes.

Not sure if we can draw that conclusion. In game two 3/6 attempts within the last three minutes were from three. Probably more about the overall approach. Mitchell takes shots inside. Rest of the team is 3-point only.

[U_L]

Not sure if we can draw that conclusion in game two 3/6 attempts within the last three minutes were from three. Probably more about the overall approach. Mitchell takes shots inside. Rest of the team is 3-point only.

I counted again.  I still see Jazz with 2 of 7 shots from 3 in the final 3 minutes of game 2.  Here's what I'm looking at (again, just text play-by-play which might have a misinterpretation). 

2:35 (2pt attempt) Marcus Morris Sr. blocks Donovan Mitchell 's 10-foot driving layup 103 - 113
2:10 (3pt attempt) Bojan Bogdanovic misses 24-foot three point jumper 103 - 113
1:38 (3pt attempt) Joe Ingles misses 25-foot step back jumpshot 103 - 113
1:07 (2pt attempt) Donovan Mitchell misses 8-foot two point shot 105 - 113
1:02 (2pt attempt) Rudy Gobert misses tip shot 105 - 113
43.2 (2pt attempt) Donovan Mitchell makes 9-foot two point shot 108 - 115
5.2 (foul on 2pt attmpt) Rudy Gobert makes free throw 1 of 2 111 - 117
5.2 Rudy Gobert misses free throw 2 of 2 111 - 117

 I counted Clippers at 3/6 shots from 3, though.

[dirkfansince1998]

I counted again.  I still see Jazz with 2 of 7 shots from 3 in the final 3 minutes of game 2.  Here's what I'm looking at (again, just text play-by-play which might have a misinterpretation). 

2:35 (2pt attempt) Marcus Morris Sr. blocks Donovan Mitchell 's 10-foot driving layup 103 - 113
2:10 (3pt attempt) Bojan Bogdanovic misses 24-foot three point jumper 103 - 113
1:38 (3pt attempt) Joe Ingles misses 25-foot step back jumpshot 103 - 113
1:07 (2pt attempt) Donovan Mitchell misses 8-foot two point shot 105 - 113
1:02 (2pt attempt) Rudy Gobert misses tip shot 105 - 113
43.2 (2pt attempt) Donovan Mitchell makes 9-foot two point shot 108 - 115
5.2 (foul on 2pt attmpt) Rudy Gobert makes free throw 1 of 2 111 - 117
5.2 Rudy Gobert misses free throw 2 of 2 111 - 117

 I counted Clippers at 3/6 shots from 3, though.

Just looked at the play-by-play and rewatched the final minutes. Made a slight mistake and included Joe Ingles made 3 with 3:07 left in the game. Missed Gobert´s tip in attempt. Did not include the intentional foul to close out the game.