One thing that was interesting, but a bit puzzling for me (although I haven't put THAT much thought into it) was the way the analysis of what the 'ghost players' should be doing on defense seemed to belie what it recommends players do on offence.
Specifically, they were criticizing the Raps for not rotating hard to close out on a long 2-pointer from West in that Indiana possession, but what's the point in scrambling off of the 3 point line and off of Hibbert in the post (what it claims, on offence, to be the most valued shots) in order to contest a shot that, ideally, you want the other team to be taking.
In other words, why does it call for over-helping on D when it on O it emphasizes the pivotal importance of 3 pointers (which is exactly what you give up when you over-rotate).
Need some more time to digest this, and I really love the analytical approach, but I'm scratching my head a bit right now.
Specifically, they were criticizing the Raps for not rotating hard to close out on a long 2-pointer from West in that Indiana possession, but what's the point in scrambling off of the 3 point line and off of Hibbert in the post (what it claims, on offence, to be the most valued shots) in order to contest a shot that, ideally, you want the other team to be taking.
In other words, why does it call for over-helping on D when it on O it emphasizes the pivotal importance of 3 pointers (which is exactly what you give up when you over-rotate).
Need some more time to digest this, and I really love the analytical approach, but I'm scratching my head a bit right now.
Comment