3 point shooting, spacing, and the Cyclone offense

[khaal53]

Fellas,

I started a week or so ago diving into the three point shooting that we're seeing from the team this year as compared to last year. Before the season I hypothesized a drop in performance so I wanted to take a look. I was mostly right, but due to other factors it was proven that the team is still making threes on a nearly as frequent basis as last year.

This task morphed into a look at all components of the offense compared to last year and toward the end I dove into what has been going wrong in the past three games. Take a look and I am interested in any comments or questions.

There is even a bar graph, and bar graphs are fun, right?

Shooting and Spacing |

 

[ILiftWithRoyce]

I like bar graphs

 

[stormchaser]

Good analysis.

 

[isufan]

That is awesome stuff. Thanks khaal

 

[Psiclone]

Great job. I wonder if the staff does a similar analysis?

 

[Go2Guy]

wow - great job, but I need to print this out and study it like I did my Thermodynamics lectures.

 

[swarthmoreCY]

Great job. I wonder if the staff does a similar analysis?

I am sure they do. Fred is an NBA guy so they are often mentioning and referring to advanced stats when discussing game plans.

 

[3TrueFans]

Interesting stuff. Would have liked a pie chart though.

 

[khaal53]

Thanks for all of the feedback.

Interesting stuff. Would have liked a pie chart though.

A pie chart would be my usual method for this, but I wanted to be able easily compare side by side with last year.

I suppose I could just make a pie chart for here, though.

 

[im4cyclones]

Dude, I usually have to read your stuff twice to make sure I get it, but I am always impressed when I do. Great analysis! Thanks for the info (and for making me feel stupid).
:smile:

 

[bawbie]

mmmm... pie.

 

[swarthmoreCY]

Good stuff khal.

The comparison of individual shooters is more informative. (although a 3% drop overall is significant imo). The two charts showing the top 5 shooters is telling, especially when ordered by 3P attempts rather than %. In other words, weighting the players 3P% to better reflect the influence of his accuracy (or lack thereof). Like you alluded to, it is much more important that guys ending a higher % of the possessions with 3P shots are your best shooters % wise (need to have guys that make defense consistently pay). Ordering those two charts that way and thinking about spacing, and you can just see the court getting smaller.

Another thing to consider is small-ball. A 3% drop is pretty big in small ball, as is your center and your main perimeter shooters all shooting significantly worse. Imo small-ball is conceding points on defense/rebounding because that number will be outpaced by the advantage on offense. That gets a lot harder when you are shooting worse on 3Ps and depending more 2P.

This does not even get into the subjective/qualitative "clutch" shooting, which is related to the question of whether you can trust stats stuffed on non-conference. Pomeroy's assessment is nice, but an answer to a different question, especially when a team relies on 3Ps to compensate.

 

[khaal53]

Good stuff khal.

The comparison of individual shooters is more informative. (although a 3% drop overall is significant imo). The two charts showing the top 5 shooters is telling, especially when ordered by 3P attempts rather than %. In other words, weighting the players 3P% to better reflect the influence of his accuracy (or lack thereof). Like you alluded to, it is much more important that guys ending a higher % of the possessions with 3P shots are your best shooters % wise (need to have guys that make defense consistently pay). Ordering those two charts that way and thinking about spacing, and you can just see the court getting smaller.

Another thing to consider is small-ball. A 3% drop is pretty big in small ball, as is your center and your main perimeter shooters all shooting significantly worse. Imo small-ball is conceding points on defense/rebounding because that number will be outpaced by the advantage on offense. That gets a lot harder when you are shooting worse on 3Ps and depending more 2P.

This does not even get into the subjective/qualitative "clutch" shooting, which is related to the question of whether you can trust stats stuffed on non-conference. Pomeroy's assessment is nice, but an answer to a different question, especially when a team relies on 3Ps to compensate.

Thanks.

As noted, when I started putting this together (prior to the OU game) this year's team was just 1% behind last year's from the three point line. They changed after a couple of pretty rough performances.

I think you make a good point about average attempts per game by player and the % they shoot and how that is different from last year.

I wouldn't necessarily agree about "small ball" and conceding points at the other end at a faster rate than small ball offense is scoring, thus negating the mismatch. First of, by adjusted defensive efficiency Iowa State is 21st in the country per Ken Pomeroy. That takes tempo and quality of opponents into consideration. That is as good as we have seen in some time and by far the best under Hoiberg.

Even the rebounding component which is necessary to complete the good defensive stops is there by rebounding 71.6% of misses on defense (52nd in the country). Admittedly, that has slipped in the past three games and ISU was the top defensive rebounding team in the country a couple of weeks ago. While the thought may be out there that ISU is now getting "exposed" against tougher competition I don't think that can be unequivocally proven right now. That would negate all of the solid rebounding in the first 14 games, which anomaly is more likely? All while noting that Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas are the 84th, 52nd, and 37th best offensive rebounding teams in the country, respectively.

Obviously, size can play a role in all of those areas. I don't think "small ball" or a lack of size is anywhere near mutually exclusive to being a poor defensive team or poor rebounding team.

 

[swarthmoreCY]

I wouldn't necessarily agree about "small ball" and conceding points at the other end at a faster rate than small ball offense is scoring, thus negating the mismatch. First of, by adjusted defensive efficiency Iowa State is 21st in the country per Ken Pomeroy. That takes tempo and quality of opponents into consideration. That is as good as we have seen in some time and by far the best under Hoiberg.

Even the rebounding component which is necessary to complete the good defensive stops is there by rebounding 71.6% of misses on defense (52nd in the country). Admittedly, that has slipped in the past three games and ISU was the top defensive rebounding team in the country a couple of weeks ago. While the thought may be out there that ISU is now getting "exposed" against tougher competition I don't think that can be unequivocally proven right now. That would negate all of the solid rebounding in the first 14 games, which anomaly is more likely? All while noting that Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas are the 84th, 52nd, and 37th best offensive rebounding teams in the country, respectively.

Obviously, size can play a role in all of those areas. I don't think "small ball" or a lack of size is anywhere near mutually exclusive to being a poor defensive team or poor rebounding team.

That is not what I said, or meant to allude. Of course they are not mutually exclusive. One is moving down faster than the other is moving up (from some hypothetical benchmark)- overall "good" or "bad" of each quantity was not part of my statement.

In your opinion, do you go small because you are maximizing your defense and rebounding performance? Imo you should always be maximizing the net (of defense, rebounding, and offense). I think it is clear that Hoiberg thinks what he gets on offense by going small will on average be more than what he may lose on defense/rebounding. Again, this is not a statement on overall quality of any of those three, but the give and take between them.

Oh yes, on average. That average is greatly influence by competition. I know kenpom takes into account quality of opponents, but that is open to the same questioning right now. Let's see the comparison of season after conference play. Imo small-ball averages come with a higher variability- in other words your opponent matters more. It is like us seemingly always saying X player came into the game only shooting 30% from the outside. Was that 30% on open shots because all the other teams must also double everything in the post?

I am not certain how this year's small-ball defense improving over previous year's small-ball defense/rebounding is a rebuttal. That is only one part of the equation. It does bring up a question I have. Is our line-up really small-ball enough? Imo I think we could be caught in the middle. With Hogue, to a degree Kane, and Georges not shooting 3P well, we are not small-ball enough on offense, but still vulnerable to the weakness of small-ball on defense/rebouding against many teams (i.e good teams).

 

[NickTheGreat]

Nice write up. It's interesting to see actual statistics instead of 'gut feelings'.

 

[khaal53]

I honestly don't have any definitions for the term "small ball", it isn't something I would normally use.

I have always said and I think most coaches use the theory of putting your five best players on the court for offensive purposes while still being able to adequately defend. Some coaches probably maximize defensive strength as their primary concern and worry about offensive second. While the theory is probably that defense is more consistent I think the teams with great offenses have higher peaks.

Depending on how a defense plays you could be maximizing your defense by going small if you press and force tempo with a lot of pressure, a la VCU. Obviously that is not what Iowa State does but it is an example of a theory that goes against playing small only for offensive purposes.

I also don't think that by playing a smaller lineup that a team is defaulting to being perimeter oriented on offense.

My primary point about this year's team and their "lack of size" is that defensively they are top 25 in one of the most effective ways of measuring defenses that we have with Ken Pomeroy. Clearly there are nearly infinite variables that are indirectly contributing to almost any stats that get recorded, as you noted with leaving open shooters from double teams. I'd say this about how that relates to ISU's defense... the defense is predicated on forcing the opposing team in to shots they aren't successful with typically but that doesn't mean that Javan Felix or Naadir Tharpe won't make a higher percentage of shots than normally. Hell, that doesn't mean that they wouldn't do that if there was good defense played on them.

Against a team like Kansas and pretty much any really good team, ISU doesn't have the ability to guard everyone man up at any position so you have to pick your spots and funnel offenses into the shot you'd like them to take, in theory a low percentage shot.

Is the overall point your getting at is that by playing small right now the offense isn't performing well enough so the focus needs to be shifted to maximizing the defense? I don't think that is an unfair thought but as I mentioned above, no matter ISU's personnel they'd have a hard time guarding a lot of guys without double teams. For reference, Perry Ellis also couldn't guard someone like Georges Niang without help while Embiid can. Of course, players like Embiid are few and far between and the exceptions to the rule.

Hopefully that addressed what you were getting at.

 

[psi]

Interesting stuff. Would have liked a pie chart though.

A pie chart would be my usual method for this, but I wanted to be able easily compare side by side with last year.

This is a pie chart describing my favorite bars, and this is a bar graph describing my favorite pies.

 

[VeloClone]

While comparing "small ball" last year to this year you also have to factor in the rule and points of emphasis changes this year. The rule changes make a small driving team more effective this year than last year because they will in general draw more fouls and profit at the FT line or the other team will have to let them drive more and can't be quite as effective with secondary defenders.

 

[Wally86]

To your points:

"They’re letting ISU get a few more looks from deep and focus on crowding the lane when DeAndre Kane looks to attack the paint or when Georges Niang is working the block. The result is that the Cyclones aren’t making shots from deep to loosen up the interior and a vicious cycle has begun."

The adjustment to break that cycle is to kicking the ball out more frequently when driving into the paint. Drive and dish to counteract the increased interior help defense. Three point shooters stepping into the pass when thier defender helps inside tend to look pretty fluid. That should equate to a higher three point shooting percentage. Which.... opens up the middle.

 

[Amesboy]

That is allot of information. How long were you locked up in a room Khaal. When you start breaking down everything a team does statistically it really becomes fascinating and it can lead to other variables. Team speed, momentum, and match-ups. It's complicated but you can see patterns develop. Teams learn quickly and adjust accordingly and implement strategies. I believe teams have adjusted well lately against the Cyclones and we are getting funneled out of position clogging up the outside at times. As a smaller team without a consistent inside threat teams are forcing us into situations we aren't comfortable with. Need to get back to what we were doing earlier and become the aggressor and not allow ourselves to get behind. Great stuff Khaal.