Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: NFL Players Ready To Welcome Gay Teammate

Synergy Recap: Warriors vs. Bulls

Warning: This post contains advanced stats. Proceed with caution.

Just renewed my Synergy subscription so I'll be able to provide "real-time" game recaps this season for you guys. The idea is that we'll be able to see patterns emerging over the course of the season. Has our post offense improved? Are we still one of the best spot-up teams? Those are the some of the "advanced" questions that Synergy can be used to answer.

Star-divide

If you haven't already, make sure to read my Advanced Stats Primer to get up to speed on PPP, Synergy, and other terminology you may not be familiar with.

Offense

Our offensive efficiency was good overall at 0.98 PPP. The PNR play was almost equally effective whether the ball handler or big took the shot. As usual, the team excelled in transition. Spot-up shooting was a weak spot, though.

PLAY

%TIME

#

PPP

Overall

100.0%

101

0.98

Isolation

12.9%

13

0.77

P&R Ball Handler

7.9%

8

1.38

Post-Up

10.9%

11

0.82

P&R Roll Man

5.0%

5

1.40

Spot-Up

15.8%

16

0.88

Off Screen

5.0%

5

1.20

Cut

14.9%

15

0.93

Offensive Rebound

3.0%

3

0.00

Transition

15.8%

16

1.38

All Other Plays

8.9%

9

0.67

Defense

We held Chicago to 0.81 PPP overall, which is very good. We effectively stopped them on almost every play type, save for POST plays (no surprise there, really).

Overall

100.0%

110

0.81

Isolation

7.3%

8

0.50

P&R Ball Handler

9.1%

10

0.40

Post-Up

9.1%

10

1.20

P&R Roll Man

3.6%

4

1.50

Spot-Up

23.6%

26

0.92

Off Screen

5.5%

6

0.50

Cut

10.0%

11

0.73

Offensive Rebound

10.0%

11

0.82

Transition

14.5%

16

0.94

All Other Plays

7.3%

8

0.50

Reference

Here are the league average efficiencies from last season. You can use these to compare the values in the tables above. Blue line represents GSW's average.

Off_ppp_play_type_bw_medium

Def_ppp_play_type_bw_medium

Here are the league average rates (% of time each play was run) from last season. GSW is in blue.

Off_play_type_bw_medium

Def_play_type_bw_medium

Comment 18 comments  |  1 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

good points

In future posts, I will give opponents averages, too.

by Evanz on Dec 27, 2011 12:41 PM PST via mobile up reply actions  

Exactly...

I’d guess the number of turnovers we created on the post entry pass more than made up for the inside efficiency. I’d be curious to see if Synergy counts those possessions as post plays, because they technically didn’t ever establish ball control in the post. I think I’ll have to break down and subscribe this season. Evan, are you liking synergy?

by olympicmike on Dec 27, 2011 12:48 PM PST up reply actions  

yes

I like

It’s $90, which seems reasonable to me

by Evanz on Dec 27, 2011 2:04 PM PST via mobile up reply actions  

hahaha, YES!!

"You don't need to be an Adonis to be a good pro player...
…but Lee looks like he’s lived in zero gravity his whole life"
-the Bimbo Coles Experience

by Duby Dub Dubs on Dec 28, 2011 1:42 PM PST up reply actions  

"I’d be curious to see if Synergy counts those possessions as post plays, because they technically didn’t ever establish ball control in the post."

Me too.

Based on those numbers, the answer would seem to be “no” though – 10 plays could not include the steals Andris/Kwame got and end up as 1.2 pts/poss could it?

Twitter: @NateP_SBN.

by Nate Parham on Dec 27, 2011 6:44 PM PST up reply actions  

Really looking forward to seeing how this year’s defense shapes up to be any different or more effective than past years. My eye told me last night’s defense looked a lot like Don Nelson’s defense (creating possessions through turnovers) when it worked.

by Doctor Kajita on Dec 27, 2011 1:23 PM PST reply actions  

I agree. We did add more defensive personnel, though, so we should be better defensively this season no matter what. Remains to be seen how much coaching makes a difference. Some promising signs, though – it seemed to me we created the TO’s last night without gambling too much/giving up position. In game 1, I really liked our defensive rebounding. We looked to be more physical down low and did better at keeping the other team from getting easy rebounding position. Last night we regressed in that area, though.

by Missing Barry on Dec 27, 2011 1:48 PM PST up reply actions  

This is what I was thinking too, that they’re playing a disciplined version of Don Nelson’s defense. However, it remains to be seen if “discipline,” “Don Nelson,” and “defense” can all be used in the same sentence going forward.

I do like Kwame Brown’s grown man rebounding though.

by Doctor Kajita on Dec 27, 2011 3:43 PM PST up reply actions  

"...they’re playing a disciplined version of Don Nelson’s defense."

That sounds like a better way of putting it ;)

But I don’t recall the team trapping as often/aggressively under Nellie… or bigs having so much responsibility to rotate… but maybe I just have a really hazy memory of defense being played under Nellie…

Twitter: @NateP_SBN.

by Nate Parham on Dec 27, 2011 6:49 PM PST up reply actions  

Maybe not in recent years,

but that swarming defense that we had during our playoffs run was pretty aggressive and vicious. One guy would tie you up while another guy would come over and intercept your pass or just reach in and yank it from you. The defense we saw last night was pretty similar, though last night’s defense wasn’t quite as “swarming”.

by IQofaWarrior on Dec 27, 2011 7:38 PM PST up reply actions  

My eye told me last night’s defense looked a lot like Don Nelson’s defense (creating possessions through turnovers) when it worked.

I kinda got the same feeling. Couple that with the Bulls not taking us seriously until it was too late for them to re-group. They obviously had not scouted us much as they played right into our strengths and avoided our weaknesses.

Mirror on the wall
Here we are again.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Dec 27, 2011 2:02 PM PST up reply actions  

Like I mentioned in the recap...

That ‘07-’08 team was 2nd in steals and 1st in opponents turnovers. I’m not sure if there will always be as much of an emphasis on creating turnovers as there was last night, but it seems like a good fit for the personnel we have right now. It would do wonders for the offense too, because Monta is most effective on the break, and I can’t get enough of Steph tossing lobs from half court. :)

by olympicmike on Dec 27, 2011 2:40 PM PST up reply actions  

I think a little moderation is justified in all the enthusiasm for the new defense.

The Bulls are not a particularly good offensive team. They’re a great defensive team. They ORTG was only 11th in the league last year despite a defense that caused a lot of misses and turnovers (eg: easy points on the other end off breaks).

I mean, yeah, it’s great to see good post defense. But it’s just one game.

by Ronaldinho on Dec 27, 2011 3:07 PM PST reply actions  

Rec'd

Thanks for sharing Evanz, and giving us your analysis on the data/graphs as well.

by bObaBaLLa on Dec 27, 2011 3:51 PM PST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

"UNSTOPPABLE BABY!"

Golden State Warriors rookie Marc Jackson to the Mavericks' bench, after hitting a lay-up during a 29-point loss (2000)


GSoM Crew -------------------------

Atma-160_small Atma Brother ONE

Gw090_small Fantasy Junkie

Natehead_small Nate Parham

--------------------------------------------------------

Small Hash

Small dj fuzzylogic

600px-olympic_rings_square olympicmike

Small IQofaWarrior

Shutterstock_10276351_basketball_mind_small Evanz

--------------------------------------------------------

We_still_believe_small R Dizzle

Small Adam Lauridsen

Small jae

Gsom_tony_small Tony.psd

Kanji_love_small Sleepy Freud

Japan_by_miaumi_small YaoButtaMing

Drmlg_logo-gmail_small Poor Man's Commish

Nellie2_small Feltbot