Do jump shooting teams fare worse in the playoffs?

[stooley]

Note: this test is kind of silly, in large part because jump shots include both 3s and 2s, and most teams shoot a pretty similar amount of jump shots (most teams that shoot less 3s, for example, shoot more long 2s). This was mostly to follow through on something I started. I can do the same thing but for 3s and for regular season pace as well, and I think those would be more interesting.

So, there's been a lot of talk about what kinds of styles do well in the playoffs versus what kinds don't. An argument came up in another thread about whether jump shooting teams do worse in the playoffs, since the Raptors look to be one of those right now. I had some free time at work on Friday so kind of got myself started on a bigger job than I anticipated.

If I knew how to upload photos or documents, I would put all my work up here, but since I can't, this is the best I can do:

The specific question I was trying to answer:

Do teams that take a higher percentage of jump shots fare worse in the playoffs than their regular season record would predict?

Data:

I only used results from 08-09 through to 12-13 (so 5 years). I could do more once I get the time if that's a common complaint.

I got shot information from here: http://www.hoopdata.com/teamshotlocs...r=2009&type=pg

I got regular season and playoff results from basketball-reference.

Method:

Step 1: Calculate expected series wins.

I used the method from this article to determine expected playoff series wins for each team in each year tested: http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/story...layoff-coaches

I started with each team's regular season record.

From there I regressed that percentage to the "True win percentage" as detailed here: http://www.basketballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=967

Using that percentage, I calculated the odds of each team winning one game against their playoff opponent, using the Log5 formula: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log5

I then modified that probability for home and away games (using a 60-40 split, which is standard in the NBA).

Using those values, I calculated each team's likelihood to win each series that they played using this: http://www.whowins.com/formulae/probformulae.html

Step 2: Calculate difference in actual vs expected series wins

That gave me the odds for each team in each playoff series to win that series, a number between 0-1. If a team lost, they underperformed by "0-chance to win". If a team won, they overachieved by "1-chance to win".

What that gave me was a number for each team in each year in question, indicating whether they performed better or worse than projected based on their regular season record.

Step 3: Jump shooting-teams

I started by defining a jump shot as any shot taken from further than 10 feet away from the basket. I then calculated the percentage of shots used by each team from that distance, and then subtracted the average of the league from that year in question.

Step 4: Regression

What I had at this point was:
1. Team playoff performance above or below expectations for all teams between 2008-2009 and 2012-2013
2. Team propensity to shoot jump-shots relative to the NBA average for all teams between 2008-2009 and 2012-2013.

Then, I removed non-playoff teams from my sample from each year.

Finally, I ran a regression using excel on these numbers.

Results:

R Square of 0.0000404.

This means, 0.00404% of the variation in playoff performance is determined by a team's propensity to shoot jump-shots.

It's extremely unlikely that there is any correlation between jump-shot tendencies and under or over performance in the playoffs.


Conclusion:

Jump shooting teams are no worse on average in the playoffs than they are in the regular season.

[Axel]

Conclusion:

Jump shooting teams are no worse on average in the playoffs than they are in the regular season.

Considering that there are very few playoff upsets in the NBA, you could probably remove "jump shooting" from the start of that sentence and have called it a day.

5 years isn't likely enough of a sample, but based on the level of effort, kudos for getting 5 years of data.

In your data, did you see any fluctuation in FG% or TS% from regular season or were you focusing solely on wins?

[Nilanka]

We need further analysis to separate out the good jump shots from the bad ones.

Swinging the ball around for a wide open look = good jump shot.
Setting good screens to free up an 18 footer = good jump shot.

What DeRozan and Lou mostly do = bad jump shot.

Good jump shots are welcomed. Bad jump shots are welcomed by the defense.

[Axel]

We need further analysis to separate out the good jump shots from the bad ones.

Swinging the ball around for a wide open look = good jump shot.
Setting good screens to free up an 18 footer = good jump shot.

What DeRozan and Lou mostly do = bad jump shot.

Good jump shots are welcomed. Bad jump shots are welcomed by the defense.

Perhaps %Assisted is the secondary stat that needs to be infused.

[stooley]

Considering that there are very few playoff upsets in the NBA, you could probably remove "jump shooting" from the start of that sentence and have called it a day.

5 years isn't likely enough of a sample, but based on the level of effort, kudos for getting 5 years of data.

In your data, did you see any fluctuation in FG% or TS% from regular season or were you focusing solely on wins?

yeah, haha, this is exactly the result I expected though. What this shows is that over the past 5 years, jump shooting teams haven't been more likely to be upset than other teams.

[stooley]

We need further analysis to separate out the good jump shots from the bad ones.

Swinging the ball around for a wide open look = good jump shot.
Setting good screens to free up an 18 footer = good jump shot.

What DeRozan and Lou mostly do = bad jump shot.

Good jump shots are welcomed. Bad jump shots are welcomed by the defense.

That's true. One thing this test does is control for overall team performance. It's only looking at whether there's a change come playoff time.

[Axel]

Without doing any real research, using the link provided for the shooting data, there were 3 teams that were above average for mid-range jump shots in 12-13 that made the playoffs despite less than 40% of those shots being assisted.

OKC (1), GSW (6), and Indiana (3).

OKC shot 48% on the season, but shot 45% in round 1 (win over Houston) and 39% in round 2 loss to Memphis.

GSW shot 46% on the season, but shot 49% and 43% in their 2 rounds (obviously losing the 2nd).

Indiana shot 43% on the season, but shot 41%, 42%, and 45% in the playoffs (losing in the ECF).

All in all, not a whole lot of difference. OKC's drop vs Memphis is the obvious extreme, but Memphis is a damn good defensive team, so is it on the shooter or the defender there?

[stooley]

Without doing any real research, using the link provided for the shooting data, there were 3 teams that were above average for mid-range jump shots in 12-13 that made the playoffs despite less than 40% of those shots being assisted.

OKC (1), GSW (6), and Indiana (3).

OKC shot 48% on the season, but shot 45% in round 1 (win over Houston) and 39% in round 2 loss to Memphis.

GSW shot 46% on the season, but shot 49% and 43% in their 2 rounds (obviously losing the 2nd).

Indiana shot 43% on the season, but shot 41%, 42%, and 45% in the playoffs (losing in the ECF).

All in all, not a whole lot of difference. OKC's drop vs Memphis is the obvious extreme, but Memphis is a damn good defensive team, so is it on the shooter or the defender there?

Yeah, kind of, I'd be surprised if there's any big difference in this jump shooting one. It's not the world's best test. It ignores so many different factors.

I don't see how a jump shooting strategy is inherently worse in the playoffs than in the regular season. It may be more inconsistent, but on average I just don't see the justification.

[planetmars]

I applaud the research done here, but if the variable alone is a 'jump shooting team' then I'm not sure it was worthwhile to go through all the effort. Without using research I can tell that the main reason why Nash's Suns, or Nelson's Warriors didn't do well in the playoffs is because they were lousy at defense and not because they were easier to defend.

The Raptors have not been very good at defense. If they were, I would assume their record would be a lot better and I would like their chances more in the playoffs - after all the quote is "Defense wins championships" and not "Offense wins championships".

[stooley]

I applaud the research done here, but if the variable alone is a 'jump shooting team' then I'm not sure it was worthwhile to go through all the effort. Without using research I can tell that the main reason why Nash's Suns, or Nelson's Warriors didn't do well in the playoffs is because they were lousy at defense and not because they were easier to defend.

The Raptors have not been very good at defense. If they were, I would assume their record would be a lot better and I would like their chances more in the playoffs - after all the quote is "Defense wins championships" and not "Offense wins championships".

Agreed, I only did this because it was brought up in a different thread. Also, once I have the playoff numbers I can pretty much regress with any stats I can find online. I'll do something like offensive portion of net rating or something too.

[peanutwoozle]

I don't know about jumpshooting teams,

but I do know that ego-driven teams (like ours) don't fare well in the playoffs

[distorsun]

We need further analysis to separate out the good jump shots from the bad ones.

Swinging the ball around for a wide open look = good jump shot.
Setting good screens to free up an 18 footer = good jump shot.

What DeRozan and Lou mostly do = bad jump shot.

Good jump shots are welcomed. Bad jump shots are welcomed by the defense.

EXACTLY! Jumpshot is GOOD (by anyone) as long as they're open. That's the point of moving ppl with the ball; to create that gap in the defense and get that open look.

[raptors999]

This is the opposite of the link showing ISO doing better in the playoffs. Being a jump shooting team isn't bad but having no ISO scoring is a playoff killer. When shooting goes cold a solid iso-midrange low-post game keeps teams in a series.

[distorsun]

This is the opposite of the link showing ISO doing better in the playoffs. Being a jump shooting team isn't bad but having no ISO scoring is a playoff killer. When shooting goes cold a solid iso-midrange low-post game keeps teams in a series.

Even if you go ISO, a coach should always try to provoke a switch, in order to get some kind of advantage.
For example:
DD vs Leonard (block shot); DD vs patty mills (maybe better results)

[raptors999]

Even if you go ISO, a coach should always try to provoke a switch, in order to get some kind of advantage.
For example:
DD vs Leonard (block shot); DD vs patty mills (maybe better results)

ISO shouldn't be the first option but a lot of jump shooting teams that failed by exiting first round had either no defense or no ISO option or both