Really cool how you can't site any hard evidence to support anything you are saying. I guess I missed all of those touches that Ben Wallace and Dennis Rodman were getting on the offensive end because they sure played great defense. You are correct that in the overall course of the game there's really not that much difference in the highest and lowest iso amounts. That's exactly why it's silly for people to get worked up because we iso at 10% of the possessions and the non-iso teams iso 5% of the time.
If the casual fan has access to this type of detail, can you imagine the kind of stuff that Morey's stat geeks produce?
This is exactly why I asked you if you had proof (statistical proof) of your theory about human nature, offense and defensive teamwork and ISO plays. So far all you've told us is that by watching the game it's clear that ISO heavy teams play poor defense because it's not a team game. I'm sorry, that's just conjecture. Numerous other posters have actual evidence that what you're saying just isn't true. I don't disagree that team basketball is a good thing, but you're claiming facts without backing it up.
I don't like to post quotes without links. Apparently the article was removed from csnphilly. Take this quote from an NBA player: Edit: It's not about iso team play poor defense; it's about ball sharing/less iso and play better defense. That was the point of my original post and you took one sentence and kept driving at that.
Wait, wasn't your post about how teams that are ISO heavy on offense play poor defense? That was the point of that post, yes? And Elton Brand is talking about his team, what do you expect him to say? "Yea, I'd like more chances to be in ISO..." That's like quoting McHale about "Playing harder", or "Ball getting sticky". Anyone one person can say anything, it doesn't make it gospel. But I digress, back to your posts: "The more different players get their touches, the better the team defense." That sounds to me like you're saying that, if the ball is shared on offense more players get engaged and are more willing to play team defense. Fair enough idea, but damn near impossible to prove without statistics. "The more a team isos, the worse the team defense. The more the ball moves, the less players stand around. Players will feel a part of the team, they feel the movement, they feel good. If one or two guys is shooting all the shots, defensively other players will not try as hard." Again, here you're saying more ISO on offense equals worse team defense. It wasn't one sentence I picked out. It's your entire premise. The problem is you're speculating as to what's going on in a players mind. Their emotions, their psychological needs. It's possible that some players may fit what you theorize, but applying it en masse to everyone? I just don't buy it. What about Beverley? He brings 100% effort on defense all the time. Do you think he tries less because he's mad when Harden gets an ISO late in the fourth? Again, I'm all for a team game. You need all the pieces working together, you need the chemistry. But you also needs those star players. Those guys that can take over a game and get points when you need them. Those guys you can ISO when you need a clutch bucket. You know when the Rockets had a really good "team" concept? When they were the best team in the lottery year in a row.
I covered a lot of synergy stats during the playoffs but they got buried in Lin threads and ended up with only a few views + replies. Please take a look: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 From part 1: I think one key thing missing from OP analysis is that ISO is historically not a good opportunity cost, even for Harden. It's a statistically good ppp play in the regular season and it was very good in the playoffs. However, ISO takes all options out of the picture, many of which are better than his ISO ppp. Even for Harden himself, screens, hand offs, spot-ups, etc. have statistically better ppp. Furthermore, Harden as the ballhandler led to tons of failed PnR when ISO was not decided on and there existed a better ballhandler option (Bev - see part 2). ISO and PnR kind of go hand-in-hand, since Harden handles the ball and reads'n'react. Again, Harden handling the ball is not a great opportunity cost.
My statement: The reference was the same team; iso'ing vs ball movement on offense. Poor defense, as YOU stated, is a general term. Worse has a reference point. Did you not understand the difference? I don't believe there are stats available that are directly linked to the psychological side of the game; sharing ball defense vs iso ball defense for the same team. I challenge you to come up with those numbers. If you can't come up with them, maybe you should not ask anyone else about them. Never said it applied to everyone. Just in case you missed it, see your own quote #68. (Edit for correction: #64)
Wow. The information that's out there now is pretty amazing, particularly when someone who knows stuff, like you, aelliott, uses that information to break down what the Rockets and their opponents are doing. As you point out, the percieved reality among many around here doesn't jive with what actually happened on the court. Great thread!
Everybody has to play their parts defensively. Too many times our back court players were either getting blown off the dribble or getting out place in which led to open J's. Plus we don't have a defensive minded Coach.
Sir, You are talking about the current state of the board. I know for a fact, the percentage of idiots was ZERO the year you joined.
My guess would be about 2 times a game. It doesn't sound a lot percentage-wise. But if a player makes a couple of boneheaded plays every game, he's considered a dumb player. If a guy turns the ball over 5 times a game, he is considered TO-prone.
I'll ignore your condescending tone and try to address your reply. If you're claiming you never said that poor (Rockets) defense is directly related to a team running ISO heavy (Rockets) on offense, fine. It sure as hell read that way to me. I was giving you the chance to defend that theory because it was largely based on what you thought players would feel and think if they were engaged on offense instead of standing around. As for the statistics to back this theory up? That's on you bro. I'm not the one trying to sell this idea, you are. The onus is on you to prove it if you want to be taken seriously.
I understand what you are saying but it doesn't neccessarily work that way. If you only take certain kind of shots at the most opportune time then your ppp is going to show up as higher. Now if you're a player that is depended on to score then you have to create opportunities and you're going to usually go to your strengths. Those times when they are having to create are likely going to lower your ppp because they are more difficult attempts. Look at the Harden numbers that you sited. Yes he has a great ppp on screens, handoffs and cuts but also look at the number of attempts : 23, 48 and 14. I'll bet that if you go back and look at most of those shots that they were wide open no brainer shots. Now when you get to the situations where there's no wide open shots what is Harden likely to do? What is his best chance to score when tightly covered? He'll likely ISO. That's his goto play and he produces at an elite ppp rate (0.96). He did it 426 times, teams knew it was coming, they schemed to stop it and he still is producing at a 0.96 ppp level. If you believe that Harden's ppp would remain above 1.0 on screens, hand offs and cuts had he taken 400 of those then we'll have to agree to disagree. If Harden was producing a ppp like that while taking a high number of shots then teams will adjust the way they play him and they'd try and take those things away. It's the same with Howard or Lin. Howard's ppp was 0.785 on 785 postups. His ppp was 1.08 on 13 spotups and 1.61 on 147 cuts and 2.0 off of 2screens. Why is Howard's postup ppp so low? Mostly because teams know that he's going to post up and they scheme to stop it by sending double teams. In the playoffs Portland decided to try and take away Harden and the cost for that was playing Howard 1-on-1 most the time. Without the double teams Howard's post game produced a much higher ppp (0.9). Same with Lin. He had a below average year as in the Pick & Roll only producing a ppp of 0.78 on 237 plays. He had a ppp of 1.04 on 272 spotups and a ppp of 0.89 on 129 ISOs. So should Lin not run pick & roll? If the ball is in Lin's hands at the end of the game what do you think he'll run? What would you want him to run? Me, I want him to run pick & roll. I'd have to think that teams devote much more defensive effort to preparing and stopping Lin's pick and roll than they do against his ISO or Spot up game.
First, I apologize to Op for derailing this thread. My last post on this matter. Now it's condescending tone? It sure ain't fun when the rabbit has the gun. I admire your ability to be able to ignore the majority part (of my original post) on the psychological affect on how sharing the ball helps team play better defense but kept boldfaced, quoted, and focused (and still is) on that one sentence. Thanks for your gracious offer. Proof? Didn't you read what Elton Brand said about how sharing the ball on the offensive end helped them played better defense? Could it be that you were so focused on nitpicking at my posts that you were left with blind-spots? If you can't value what an NBA star (or ex-star) had said, I don't think any answer will satisfy you. Good day!
So since the least effort seems to more often than not come from Harden, the solution is more Harden on offense?
Rabbits with guns? I'm in Texas and that's still confusing You're right. This is going nowhere, so I'll stop after this as well. I completely acknowledged your "human nature" theory. Hell, it was that and that alone that triggered my reply, because I was curious to see if you had some way to justify it. I wasn't calling you wrong (and I was careful to say so) and I simply asked if you had some kind of metric to prove it. And I did address your Elton Brand quote. I guess you missed it? I'm not going to go back and show where I replied to all your points because clearly we're wasting our time here. Let's just say it was an interesting theory in team psyche. As far as the "ISO offense = poor defense" goes I'll let it drop because it seems like you're telling me it wasn't the major premise of your OP. If you didn't want people to discuss though you might have considered leaving it out. No biggie.
For those of you still confused, here's a few examples of what synergy considers iso plays. And here's spot-up plays Actually, I think I'm more confused now
