Game #8: Toronto Raptors 109 - New York Knicks 111

[Just Is]

I actually didn't realize I never posted on this one since I was at this game and my phone died midway through. Something that I found interesting that I wouldn't have noticed just watching the game was just who's Jerseys were being worn by the fans there. I actually did like that I only counted one Non-Raptors jersey at the game (it was a Carmelo one being worn by some guy who came to watch from New York).

In terms of the Raptors players themselves, the most frequently scene (variety included) was Lowry. After Lowry (and this one significantly surprised me), was an alarming amount of retro Camby ones. Followed by DeRozan, Carter (and these last two surprised me a little) JV and Ross.

On a game related note: I don't know how it came across on TV but the noise at the Out-of-Bounds Melo no call was near deafening boos.

[DanH]

Opponents 3P% in the 9 games thus far
39.1% IND
26.9% BOS
26.3% MIL
30.4% DAL
34.8% OKC
36.0% ORL - avg 34.7%
40.0% MIA - avg 33.3%
47.8% NYK - avg 31.5%
41.4% PHI - avg 32.2%

Last 4 games have been very bad. Look at those team's season average. This isn't a random statistical anomaly, this is the defence.

Typically bad three point defence means more 3 point attempts - shooting percentage varies wildly and isn't necessarily correlated directly to the quality of chances you are giving up.

Orlando had 25 3PA's, average 24.3.
Miami had 20 3PA's, average 20.6.
New York had 23 3PA's, average 20.2.
Philly had 29 3PA's, average 24.8.

Those last two were bad, the first two not so much.

Ideally we'd look at uncontested 3PA's, but I'm tired, and it's not super easily available like the raw 3PA data, so someone else is free to try to dig up that info if they like.

[Axel]

Typically bad three point defence means more 3 point attempts - shooting percentage varies wildly and isn't necessarily correlated directly to the quality of chances you are giving up.

Don't really agree that bad defence doesn't impact shooting percentage. More time and space to get off a shot (regardless of being a 3 pointer) will impact the % of going in.

[raptors999]

Don't really agree that bad defence doesn't impact shooting percentage. More time and space to get off a shot (regardless of being a 3 pointer) will impact the % of going in.

Disrupting shooters rhythm is really important. Once they get comfortable they start draining everything, contested or not. Key is never let them keep shooting from spots consecutively.

[DanH]

Don't really agree that bad defence doesn't impact shooting percentage. More time and space to get off a shot (regardless of being a 3 pointer) will impact the % of going in.

Long term for sure. In individual games? Not necessarily. There's too much variance in who is taking the shots, whether they are hitting tough ones or missing easy ones, if a player is hot or cold... In a four game sample set percentages are mostly luck.

Better to look at open attempts, like I said, but I'm lazy so raw attempts it was (looking at both attempts and percentage as raw values probably gives you a fair glance at overall defence, so like I said the first two games were probably OK while the last two were quite a bit worse).

[Axel]

Long term for sure. In individual games? Not necessarily. There's too much variance in who is taking the shots, whether they are hitting tough ones or missing easy ones, if a player is hot or cold... In a four game sample set percentages are mostly luck.

Better to look at open attempts, like I said, but I'm lazy so raw attempts it was (looking at both attempts and percentage as raw values probably gives you a fair glance at overall defence, so like I said the first two games were probably OK while the last two were quite a bit worse).

I'm talking on a shot per shot basis; open looks will go in more. Don't see how that is a long term vs individual game basis. You're trying too hard to force this into stats when it is really much simpler.

[DanH]

I'm talking on a shot per shot basis; open looks will go in more. Don't see how that is a long term vs individual game basis. You're trying too hard to force this into stats when it is really much simpler.

So Melo had a nice open look near the end of the half after nearly turning it over, then? On a single game basis luck is way too large a factor to use percentages as a baseline. On 20 shots, every made or missed three shifts your percentage by 5%. So two tough threes going in against the odds makes a game look 10% worse than if they had missed - that's raw 10%, not proportional, so it could be the difference between 30% shooting and 40% shooting - a good night or a bad one.

You are losing the signal for the noise.

[Axel]

So Melo had a nice open look near the end of the half after nearly turning it over, then? On a single game basis luck is way too large a factor to use percentages as a baseline. On 20 shots, every made or missed three shifts your percentage by 5%. So two tough threes going in against the odds makes a game look 10% worse than if they had missed - that's raw 10%, not proportional, so it could be the difference between 30% shooting and 40% shooting - a good night or a bad one.

You are losing the signal for the noise.

So by this logic, the defence is irrelevant, once the shot is taken it largely comes down to luck.

I know where you are coming from, that in the grand scheme the best defence on a 3 is to prevent it, but you cannot convince me that the defence on a shot attempt is largely irrelevant. The fact that we have been giving up high %s to teams is not merely a by-product of luck. I know 4 games is a small sample size, but as a coach you need to address issues before you get a nice sample size, and if we keep giving up time and space for good looks from deep, the numbers will continue to be bad for us.

[DanH]

So by this logic, the defence is irrelevant, once the shot is taken it largely comes down to luck.

I know where you are coming from, that in the grand scheme the best defence on a 3 is to prevent it, but you cannot convince me that the defence on a shot attempt is largely irrelevant. The fact that we have been giving up high %s to teams is not merely a by-product of luck. I know 4 games is a small sample size, but as a coach you need to address issues before you get a nice sample size, and if we keep giving up time and space for good looks from deep, the numbers will continue to be bad for us.

I didn't say it was the least bit irrelevant. Defence definitely impacts shooting percentage over time. But in small samples, the luck/hot/cold factor is overwhelming.

Time and space for open looks from three is a big problem. I'm just saying 4 games (frankly not even that, the Magic shot right near their average didn't they?) of increased shooting percentages is not much in way of evidence that said problem exists. Looking at number of threes and specifically open threes given up would paint a more accurate picture.

[Axel]

You did say that open looks were not "directly correlated" to shooting percentage.

[DanH]

You did say that open looks were not "directly correlated" to shooting percentage.

I was speaking purely in the context of a single game or small sample of games, I thought that was clear. If not, my bad.