Are the Blazers really too reliant on perimeter shooting? The stats say no.

by Blazer Guy on Nov 16, 2009 2:20 PM PST

One persistent criticism of the current incarnation of the Portland Trailblazers is that they are too reliant on jump-shooting. You hear this a lot from commentators, especially Charles Barkley, who repeats it every time the Blazers are discussed. And I have to admit, I often get a similar impression when I watch the Blazers play. But is this critique borne out by the numbers? From what I can tell, the answer is no (or at least not significantly so).

The folks at 82games.com keep a lot of interesting team data, including information about shot selection and distribution of scoring. Here's what we know about the Blazers. This season, 69% of their field goal attempts have been perimeter jump shots, resulting in 48.3% of the Blazers' total points. Last year, 66% of Blazer field goal attempts were perimeter jump shots, resulting in 49.2% of Blazer points. So how do these numbers compare to the numbers of elite teams? Let's compare. Last year, the four best teams in the league were the Lakers, Cavs, Celtics, and Magic. Here are their numbers:

Lakers: 63% jump shots, resulting in 46.4% of their points

Magic: 66% jump shots, resulting in 49.2% of their points

Cavs: 70% jump shots, resulting in 51.6% of their points

Celtics: 64% jump shots, resulting in 46.4% of their points

As you can see, there's not a huge disparity. Cleveland, the team with the best record last year, took a higher percentage of jump shots and was more reliant on them than the Blazers. Orlando was also more reliant on jump shots. And the Celtics and Lakers were only slightly less reliant than the Blazers.

Here are a few more teams worth comparing:

2007-2008 Celtics (NBA Champs): 66% jump shots, resulting in 47.8% of their points

2006-2007 Spurs (NBA Champs): 67% jump shots, resulting 49.1% of their points

I chose these two teams because they are considered by many to be teams that the Blazers should emulate, slow paced teams that won through solid defense and good offensive efficiency. As you can see, though, the Blazers numbers (both this season and last) are very similar to both the 2007-2008 Celtics and the 2006-2007 Spurs.

None of this means, of course, that the Blazers are currently an elite team. It does suggest, however, that the Blazers are not overly-reliant on perimeter jump shooting. As a percentage of their total shots, the Blazers are well within the normal range for elite teams in the number of perimeter shots they take. And as a percentage of total scoring, the Blazers reliance on perimeter scoring is also well within the normal range for elite teams.

It may be the case that the Blazers are settling for too many jump shots and that they could do better if they tried to force the ball inside more often. But there's nothing aberrant or unusual about their shot selection. It does not appear that they are any more of a "jump shooting team" than the 2006-07 Spurs or the 2007-08 Celtics.

Tweet Comment 16 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Miller gets to the cup with regularity, and Oden’s doing it more this season as well with his O board put-backs especially.

by goblazer1 on Nov 16, 2009 2:24 PM PST via mobile reply actions

Maybe wrong stat to look at to see our deficiency

Where do the other 30% come from? How do our points in the paint / fastbreak points compare to these teams? How far is our avg jumpshot compared to these teams?

Please, for the love of all that is holy, please stop using the following: "Book it.", "FTW", "Epic" & "Fail".

...no seriously--stop.

by nima on Nov 16, 2009 2:29 PM PST via mobile reply actions

hard to tell

Shots are only broken down into the categories of outside shots, “close” shots, and dunks/tips. But I’d add two things: 1) the Blazers make their jump shots at a percentage that is comparable to any elite team, so I don’t think they are taking poor quality jump shots, and 2) if the lack of transition points is the problem, then that’s a problem that has nothing to do with taking too many perimeter shots, which is the critique coming from Barkley and others.

www.blazerguy.com

by Blazer Guy on Nov 16, 2009 2:34 PM PST up reply actions

How many of those jump shots are three pointers?

How many are just long two pointers? Are we taking open jump shots created by the offense or forcing them?

by KitIsh on Nov 16, 2009 2:51 PM PST up reply actions

The best measure of that is shooting percentage

And the Blazers had a pretty good shooting percentage last year. They’re true shooting percentage (which factors in 3s) was also good. I’ll try to dig out the stats when I have a chance.

www.blazerguy.com

by Blazer Guy on Nov 16, 2009 2:56 PM PST up reply actions

The Blazers frustrate me with their excessive jump shooting

I think you lose some detail when you consider all jump shooting as a single category. A team that shoots a lot of 3s is going to have a lot more success than a team that shoots a lot of mid-range or longer 2s.

"Its not that I can't read and write, its just that I don't like to read and write."
-Charlie

by ninjasocks on Nov 16, 2009 2:48 PM PST reply actions

I'll try to dig out the stats, but

from memory, the Blazers effective or true shooting percentage (which gives more weight to 3s) has been pretty good. I’m not sure the data supports the suggestion that the Blazers take too many long 2s.

www.blazerguy.com

by Blazer Guy on Nov 16, 2009 2:55 PM PST up reply actions

Anecdotally

I’ve seen LA and Dre get the ball at the arc, take a single step across the line and launch a long 2. I’ve also seen LA take a lot of midrange (contested) fadeaway jumpers early in the shot clock. I’d be happy if I never saw them take those shots again.

I’m a big fan of the 3, but I don’t think any team can thrive without a lot of points in the paint. It leads to high probability shots (layups and free throws) and puts opposing teams into foul trouble. A team that puts up mostly jumpers is going to be taking low probability shots and isn’t drawing many shooting fouls.

"Its not that I can't read and write, its just that I don't like to read and write."
-Charlie

by ninjasocks on Nov 16, 2009 11:08 PM PST up reply actions

You are right

The Spurs and Celtics won championships with great defense not great offense. But look at their personal, besides Duncan and KG, neither teams have low post players. The Blazers have LMA and Oden, a low post offense should be a staple of this Blazers team.

Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?

by usmcr3049 on Nov 16, 2009 2:59 PM PST reply actions

we should emulate the celtics??

Bring the bling to Rip City, Natch'

Trade John Canzano!

by richardb on Nov 16, 2009 3:26 PM PST reply actions

Points in the Paint

We are currently averaging 33.7 while giving up 36.9.
Last year we finished the year averaging 38.6 while giving up 38.4.

Although we started out slow like this last year we did improve in this area. We NEED to improve in this area this year. Getting outscored in the paint right now is pretty much inexcusable. Until that average climbs to 40 our offense should not feel comfortable.

"I think twittering and all that facebook crap just makes you a loser." ~ Charles Barkley

by postup on Nov 16, 2009 3:40 PM PST reply actions

yup its all about easy buckets.

Please, for the love of all that is holy, please stop using the following: "Book it.", "FTW", "Epic" & "Fail".

...no seriously--stop.

by nima on Nov 16, 2009 6:33 PM PST up reply actions

Good post

I think the stats are limited, though. What I would like to see is the stats taking offensive rebound putbacks out of the picture. I know that an offensive scheme can do some things to help your rebounders get at the offensive board, but most often it is just a factor of having good offensive rebounders.

If you take offensive putbacks out of the picture, what are the percentages like then? That would tell you whether your offense is generating a higher percentage of jumpers than another team’s offense.

You could also filter out fastbreak baskets, and then you would be measuring how many jumpers your half court offense is generating.

I think Charles is probably mis-stating his concern. It isn’t jump shots that is really the problem, it is hard shots. We don’t generate enough easy baskets. We have a lot of Brandon going to the hoop and making a difficult contested shot, and those count as points in the paint. But we aren’t generating layins and easy post-up shots out of our offense (a little more recently), and we don’t get a lot of easy fastbreak points. So we rely on our offense getting us a jump shot or contested inside shot, and managing to make them. Not enough easy baskets.

"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5

by jscot on Nov 17, 2009 2:01 AM PST reply actions

good points

I don’t think I’ve ever seen offensive-rebound putbacks separated out from other interior scoring, but it would be interesting to see that.

www.blazerguy.com

by Blazer Guy on Nov 17, 2009 6:36 AM PST up reply actions

They are limited in other ways

Although offensive rebounding is a good one, which I’ve harped on before as somewhat artificially inflating our offensive efficiency numbers.

1st, all jumpers are not built the same. A quick check of the NBA hotspots stats would seem to indicate that what 82games scores as “close” are probably exclusively layups (because the % should be much higher if it included shots just outside). This means that what a lot of us consider “close” shots, i.e. runners, hooks from just outside the lane, floaters, are getting scored as “jump shots” here. Obviously there’s a huge difference between LaMarcus catch and shooting from 20 feet and Duncan shooting a hook from 8 feet, and yet they’re both probably getting scored as jumpers here. Even the difference between a 12 foot faceup jumper compared to a longer two is pretty stark.

Obviously factoring in 3-pointers there is important as well, since there is a huge difference between taking threes and taking long twos. Without breaking it down into more discrete components, I don’t think this means a whole lot.

by Royster on Nov 17, 2009 8:30 AM PST up reply actions

I agree

I’m not that much of a stat geek, so I wasn’t focused on it enough to know all that stuff you just posted. But it sure does make the stat limited in value if your description is right, which I’m sure it is.

"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5

by jscot on Nov 17, 2009 9:54 AM PST up reply actions