Lakers Thread

[dwayne2005]

The relationship of 3 point attempts to success in 2017-18 (up to the all-star break).

This uses the 'or above' method of calculation where it adds up all above a value. So the bottomost value with include data from all games. This means teams that shoot below the average for 3 point attempts if it were largely positive for above average would register largely negative where the value here may show a plus rating or a neutral rating due to it tallying up all the above average games as well (where it finishes balancing out, it will start to break away from 50%).

Format:
[3PA 51:59] (54.80): 4-1 (80.00%) 8.60 3PM:36.50% 3PA:57.20%

Means it is 3 point attempts 51 to 59 by a team in a game for an average mark of 54.80 3 point attempts for the range. 4-1 is wins and losses (80%) with a +8.60 points differential. 3PM is the 3 point shooting percentage and 3PA is the 3 point attempt rate (percentage of total shots).

The pattern looks pretty clear to me the winning percentage and average points differential rises regardless of shooting percent. At the 45-59 range where it may be last stable, they are shooting worse than the bottom most range which is the league wide average (36.14% to 34.38%)! (Had to adjust the last stable range estimates due to a glitch I have to correct in my program.)

EDIT: It duplicated the labelling for all ranges due to the mode having team and opponent stats, and I missed the second one when renumbering. I know what's the issue, I will fix it up. The stats should be correct, the labelling isn't quite correct.

Code: Select all

[3PA 51:59] (54.80):     4-1 (80.00%)  8.60 3PM:36.50% 3PA:57.20%
[3PA 51:59] (53.38):     6-2 (75.00%)  9.13 3PM:36.77% 3PA:57.39%
[3PA 50:59] (52.25):     8-4 (66.67%)  7.42 3PM:36.84% 3PA:56.44%
[3PA 49:59] (52.00):     9-4 (69.23%)  7.54 3PM:36.24% 3PA:56.62%
[3PA 48:59] (51.25):     9-7 (56.25%)  3.56 3PM:34.88% 3PA:55.78%
[3PA 47:59] (49.83):    15-9 (62.50%)  6.08 3PM:34.53% 3PA:54.99%
[3PA 46:59] (49.41):   17-10 (62.96%)  5.67 3PM:34.41% 3PA:54.56%
[3PA 45:59] (48.50):   23-11 (67.65%)  5.76 3PM:34.38% 3PA:54.26%
[3PA 44:59] (47.83):   26-14 (65.00%)  5.80 3PM:34.55% 3PA:53.17%
[3PA 43:59] (46.94):   30-19 (61.22%)  5.39 3PM:34.35% 3PA:52.52%
[3PA 42:59] (45.78):   37-27 (57.81%)  4.66 3PM:34.85% 3PA:51.09%
[3PA 41:59] (45.03):   44-32 (57.89%)  5.14 3PM:35.71% 3PA:50.51%
[3PA 40:59] (44.11):   53-40 (56.99%)  4.61 3PM:36.25% 3PA:49.72%
[3PA 39:59] (43.17):   68-46 (59.65%)  4.78 3PM:36.60% 3PA:48.88%
[3PA 38:59] (42.09):   82-62 (56.94%)  3.38 3PM:36.15% 3PA:47.79%
[3PA 37:59] (40.78):  100-94 (51.55%)  1.78 3PM:35.80% 3PA:46.57%
[3PA 36:59] (39.72): 126-123 (50.60%)  1.57 3PM:36.36% 3PA:45.20%
[3PA 35:59] (38.67): 158-162 (49.38%)  1.23 3PM:36.42% 3PA:44.10%
[3PA 34:59] (37.86): 198-190 (51.03%)  1.50 3PM:36.63% 3PA:43.21%
[3PA 33:59] (36.97): 234-240 (49.37%)  0.91 3PM:36.89% 3PA:42.16%
[3PA 32:59] (36.15): 281-287 (49.47%)  1.00 3PM:36.69% 3PA:41.32%
[3PA 31:59] (35.39): 320-347 (47.98%)  0.71 3PM:36.47% 3PA:40.56%
[3PA 30:59] (34.65): 379-393 (49.09%)  0.96 3PM:36.55% 3PA:39.88%
[3PA 29:59] (34.02): 425-445 (48.85%)  0.78 3PM:36.52% 3PA:39.25%
[3PA 28:59] (33.44): 470-493 (48.81%)  0.59 3PM:36.41% 3PA:38.65%
[3PA 27:59] (32.83): 515-549 (48.40%)  0.45 3PM:36.29% 3PA:37.97%
[3PA 26:59] (32.18): 580-596 (49.32%)  0.57 3PM:36.30% 3PA:37.28%
[3PA 25:59] (31.62): 628-646 (49.29%)  0.46 3PM:36.27% 3PA:36.71%
[3PA 24:59] (31.06): 680-696 (49.42%)  0.32 3PM:36.23% 3PA:36.13%
[3PA 23:59] (30.65): 708-742 (48.83%)  0.12 3PM:36.23% 3PA:35.68%
[3PA 22:59] (30.23): 746-777 (48.98%)  0.02 3PM:36.18% 3PA:35.23%
[3PA 21:59] (29.92): 776-801 (49.21%)  0.07 3PM:36.23% 3PA:34.91%
[3PA 20:59] (29.70): 793-819 (49.19%) -0.01 3PM:36.17% 3PA:34.67%
[3PA 19:59] (29.47): 815-832 (49.48%)  0.02 3PM:36.17% 3PA:34.41%
[3PA 18:59] (29.32): 832-838 (49.82%)  0.04 3PM:36.15% 3PA:34.23%
[3PA 17:59] (29.16): 844-848 (49.88%) -0.00 3PM:36.15% 3PA:34.07%
[3PA 16:59] (29.06): 853-851 (50.06%)  0.03 3PM:36.17% 3PA:33.96%
[3PA 15:59] (28.96): 859-857 (50.06%)  0.02 3PM:36.15% 3PA:33.85%
[3PA 14:59] (28.92): 862-859 (50.09%)  0.01 3PM:36.16% 3PA:33.80%
[3PA 13:59] (28.90): 863-860 (50.09%)  0.03 3PM:36.16% 3PA:33.78%
[3PA 12:59] (28.85): 865-863 (50.06%)  0.01 3PM:36.15% 3PA:33.73%
[3PA 11:59] (28.83): 865-865 (50.00%)  0.00 3PM:36.14% 3PA:33.70%

[Dee4Three]

What are the 2 point attempts in these games? What's the rebounding differential? How many were open vs contested? Who were the teams playing? What was the 2 point shooting percentage in these games? What were the points off turnovers in these games? What was the point differential? What was it by quarter? What was the turnovers in these games between the two teams? What were the overall shot attempts between the two teams? How many more free throws did the winning team make?

So many things can lead to more shot attempts from three. Again though, the percentage is roughly the same as it was 20-30 years ago. Now you say that teams are winning more when shooting more, wouldn't that possibly be the same if each team took 10 less per game, and rounded out the rest with twos?

The percentage not being higher is all I need to know, basically.... a .36% shot chance isn't as good as a .510%, or .700%.

LeBron James is a career .360% from 10-16 ft. But much higher 3-10 ft in, and 3ft in, as a coach where do I want LeBron taking the majority of his shots? Certainly not within that 10-16 ft.

[[Q]]

The only redeeming quality about SOME of Lopez's 3 point attempts is that the Lakers as a team aren't great at 3s. Josh Hart is still by far the best shooter from distance for them which I had checked at the beginning of the season with kcp seeming to catch up a bit with his hot streak the past couple of weeks.

[NovU]

dwayne2005, some solid points. But I have to note your effort on this discussion with Dee4Three is entirely wasted one. Might as well bang your head against wall. It's an established fact that today's EFFICIENT basketball has a lot to do with the style of basketball played today(barrage of 3s, transition, spacing, etc).

That said, today's style of bball likely not worked as well back in the days because rules were that defenders were within arm's length to the offense, otherwise you'd be hit with illegal defense calls. If you recall, the term 'spacing' is a modern era basketball term and was not used or valued back then.

Changes to the style of basketball is not done overnight. Removal of Illegal D, handchecking, and addition of 5 second backing down rule(anti Shaq rule) that eradicated post up plays, teams adjusted and imo it was the Steve Nash and D'Antoni awakening the league.




Whatever Lopez is doing at 3pt range line, it's perhaps a perfect example of that. Post-up player attempting to add 3 point game to resume because teams don't like your post up game but wants you to shoot 3s. It's logical. Lopez is only 29 years old still in prime with proven success as a post up player but teams don't value your strength anymore and wants you to take shots you never did in the past. Times are changing.

[Dee4Three]

dwayne2005, some solid points. But I have to note your effort on this discussion with Dee4Three is entirely wasted one. Might as well bang your head against wall.

No need of this. Completely uncalled for.

Make your points without bringing in insults, be better than that.

Thank you.

[Andrew]

Indeed, and I have had to step in several times in recent weeks to ask that the personal attacks and off-topic snarky potshots cease. If they do not, it'll be a ban for a month.

Cut it out.

EDIT: As an addendum, I realise that not everyone is going to see eye to eye and get along 100% of the time. I realise there's some ill-feeling here, and differing points of view to say the least. However, I do not want us to become a toxic community where threads are constantly derailed with personal attacks and squabbles, and people are discouraged from taking part in the conversation either through gatekeeping, or the cultivation of an otherwise hostile/unwelcoming atmosphere.

Furthermore, I have (and continue to) put a lot of work into the NLSC over the years, and tried my best to run the site and our Forum in a way that allows people to express themselves and have a bit of banter (because sometimes debate will get a little heated), but not be nasty to one another. I believe that I've earned sufficient respect and goodwill that when things get too heated and I say "OK, that's enough, dial it back", it will be heeded. Again, not everyone's going to agree or get along with each other all of the time, or particularly like certain other people or what they have to say. That's just the way it is. However, I do ask that everyone at least remain respectful of the site, our rules, myself, and the other moderators/members of staff. To that end, be civil to us and to one another, and if you can't be civil, at least give each other a wide berth.

To put it another way, you don't have to like everyone at the party, but at least respect the host and their house rules. I don't enjoy kicking people out of the party, but I don't want to host people who are looking to start fights, either. Let's put this behind us, move on, and let this thread (and all others) remain about what they're about.

[dwayne2005]

Lakers generally, this season (up to the all star break) are winning 45.45% when shooting 32.9 three point attempts per game, 64.71% when shooting 26.7 attempts per game and 11.11% when shooting 22.4 attempts per game, with the 28% shooting from that range probably being the main culprit.

Brook Lopez shooting more 3's however has been a dramatic boost: when he shoots an average of 6.6 attempts per game, they win 71.43% compared to 42.31% and 11.11% again for the other two splits. He is actually hitting close to 50% when he shoots 6.6 attempts per game, so he usually shoots only when he is streaky.


The data I posted yesterday is misleading.

That method fails due to the fact that it appears the data inverts after the mid point. What the data seems to show is that win percentage increases for dramatically more 3 point attempts and dramatically less. It seems more in favour of higher 3 point shots, but not considerably. And you can see that in that data with win percentage decreasing to about the mid point from 50% across all games to around 48.5% before rising again.

It seems to suggest there is an advantage to not playing an average game.

But there are a couple of curious other things the data also indicates. One is that while win percentage rises for considerably less 3 point attempts, the average points differential is in negative territory suggesting they should be losing not the other way around in contrast to the more attempts taken. The other is that what I observed with lower 3 point made percentage isn't replicated when I stretch out the analysis across 2 additional seasons. Instead, 3 point made percentage rises with the more shots attempted. I don't know why half of this season seems to be at odds with that.

I am always looking for potential bugs in my program, so oddities like this make me curious. I can't imagine it is the program due to the standard way the data is processed.

What I found was that if you split it up into 3 representing above average, median average and below average games, and broaden the average to a +7 attempts from the median it looks like this. I also removed the overtime games from the equation:


Win percentage:

452-422 (51.72)
2299-2348 (49.47)
390-371 (51.25)


Difference:

+2.01
-0.18 (a little bit below the line, as they are a little bit below 50% in win-loss)
-1.19 (so how does winning percent rise to 51.25%? shouldn't the law of averages even it out a bit over about 400 games?*)

*I assume it's 400 games, for some reason can't wrap my head around what is going on exactly with the numbers since the amount of game is being doubled. I should know this. It may work out that way, because it may be counting all wins and losses (double the amount of games; by which I mean a W-L and a L-W I think), not all games. There is also a double count when amassing team and opponent stats. EDIT: It is possible I've erred. The program was adapted for team generation and I had to create specific rules in order for total team stats to generate correct splits, including double up info. That may not be relevant to custom splits.


Three point shooting percent:

36.59
35.64
34.79

Opponent 3 point shooting also rises almost identically. Something else I can't account for? Maybe it is psychological, and seeing the other team shoot so well causes the opposition to raise their game?


Three point attempt percent:

43.12
30.61
18.77


Three point attempts:

37.62
25.86
15.47


Field goal attempts:

87.24
84.48
82.41


Assists:

24.51
22.35
21.12


Team rebounds:

43.86
43.23
42.61


Despite the fact that team rebounds increases, the rebound deficit to the opponents rebound increases the more 3 point attempts that are attempted:

-0.4
0
+0.5


Team offensive rebounds increases:

10.19-9.79 = +0.40
10.03-10.05 = -0.02
10.02-10.37 = -0.35

So it seems 3 point shooting is more likely to result in an offensive rebound than 2 point shooting.


But defensive rebounds decreases:

33.67-34.54 = -0.87
33.20-33.17 = +0.03
32.59-31.74 = +0.85

Probably because of the lack of an inside presence which is why they are shooting more 3's to begin with.


The difference between shot attempts compared with the opponents increases:

87.24-85.81 = +1.43
84.48-84.51 = -0.03
82.41-83.91 = -1.50


Blocks derease slightly with the amount of 3 point shots attempted:

4.79
4.79
4.97

But the difference in blocks increases:

4.79-4.59 = +0.14
4.79-4.78 = +0.01
4.97-5.25 = -0.28

So they dominating the other team in blocks due to the hardness of blocking 3's.


The difference between turnovers:

13.47-13.64 = -0.17
13.61-13.60 = +0.01
13.62-13.52 = -0.10

Steals are just turnovers, so...


Significantly fewer free throw attempts:

21.28
22.75
24.03


And free throws made:

16.42
17.38
18.54


Despite this, scoring efficiency rises so they are playing more efficient points per shot basketball:

1.127 points per shot (accounting for free throws)
1.098 points per shot (accounting for free throws)
1.084 points per shot (accounting for free throws)


Teams that shoot a lot more 3's also foul more, for some reason:

20.07
19.92
19.54


Compared with the opponents, the difference is double:

20.07-19.23
19.92-19.96
19.54-20.29


Don't want to task my software to get up the 2 point percentage as it takes a long time for some reason to process 3 seasons, but a rough calculation:

51%
(pass)
49%

So 2 point efficiency rises with the fewer shots they get, possibly helped by offensive rebounds.

[Jackal]

What a heartbreaker. Easily the most entertaining 4th quarter played by the Lakers all year. Given I make it a point to catch every Laker game, that's saying a lot about that 4th quarter group. Caruso and Zubac were putting on a show. God damn. Giannis is such a beast, unbelievable player. Bucks got a good one.

Hope Ingram's all right, that hit to the neck was indeed a nasty one. Man, I really love this team. They never quit and it's just so refreshing after the last few "oh well" seasons.

[[Q]]

I thought about stopping watching when they were down 21 lol bit I had nothing better to do so I left it on

I really liked the squad at the end with kuz randle ingram hart and caruso (ball when healthy). I hope to see that squad on the floor for many years to come

[Jackal]

I really liked the squad at the end with kuz randle ingram hart and caruso (ball when healthy). I hope to see that squad on the floor for many years to come

Right? Hart is so good, dude rebounds, shoots threes and is a really good defender. Totally made KCP expendable. The Lakers scouting department really has done an amazing job with Buss & West spearheading them.

Coincidentally that's my preferred line up in 2K17, Randle-Kuzma-Ingram-Hart & Ball. Run all day! If only the Lakers could trade away Deng as easily as in the game.

Take a moment to say Randle is a beast. He was so frustrating last year and sometimes off the bench beginning of this season. Very happy to see he's really balling out and hope he gets paid by the Lakers and sustains his efforts to stay a 20-10 guy.

[dwayne2005]

I'm more confident than ever with the numbers posted. I reworked my program after I saw some logical oversights and countering those logical oversights produced different figures (although in line with the numbers posted). After fixing those oversights, I came across more oversights. After fixing those two errors, I came up with the exact same figures. It is all logical and seems to be corroborated on a game by game basis. The reason why it is doubling up is because it is team-games. (2 sides to every game; eg. if you want to sort 3 point attempts, you need to double it up because there are two teams playing.)

My program was adapted for these stats. As a result, I inserted a lot of switches. Those switches create a chain of confusing double-negatives that I grew tired trying to understand and eventually just selected at random until it produced the correct results. It is the least tested feature. I broke it early on and only fixed it recently.

I can't see any reason why it wouldn't be producing correct results. Maybe the positive winning gain for fewer 3 pointers while getting an increasingly negative points differential just reflects the fact that the two point game benefits close games and is unable to bridge the gap in blow outs (more likely exchanging shots of equal value). Possibly, the thing you can take away from it it is better to have range shooters without an inside game than a low post game without range shooters in terms of points differential, but maybe not so much win percent (marginally better, but not as singificant). When you think about it, teams with inside games are also less likely to have bigger win margins. So smaller win margins and bigger losing margins, but overall increasing victories. It might also be indicative that the opposition is reluctant to shoot 3's when in the lead unless necessary, and that this potential may even be reversible if that was the case?

[[Q]]

I really liked the squad at the end with kuz randle ingram hart and caruso (ball when healthy). I hope to see that squad on the floor for many years to come

Right? Hart is so good, dude rebounds, shoots threes and is a really good defender. Totally made KCP expendable. The Lakers scouting department really has done an amazing job with Buss & West spearheading them.

Coincidentally that's my preferred line up in 2K17, Randle-Kuzma-Ingram-Hart & Ball. Run all day! If only the Lakers could trade away Deng as easily as in the game.

Take a moment to say Randle is a beast. He was so frustrating last year and sometimes off the bench beginning of this season. Very happy to see he's really balling out and hope he gets paid by the Lakers and sustains his efforts to stay a 20-10 guy.

I can't say enough good things about Hart. They sorely missed him when his hand was broken. He is just so efficient, does everything the right way, and hustles so hard. All things this team is badly needing. He's also the teams best 3 point shooter and one of the best if not the best perimeter defender. And he doesn't Jack up 3s like kcp or Lopez and he actually likes taking it to the rim. To say he's underrated would be the understatement of the year.

Randle has definitely proven himself a "Max" player as a 20&10 guy now and his dominance down low. If Brook leaves, they'll desperately need a post player and it would be shortsighted to let randle go for a chance at another max player.

[Andrew]

Considering the potential of the young players, that brings us back to Paul George and this offseason. Would it be the worst thing in the world if they missed out on signing him, or elected not to pursue him? Is he truly a player worth building around, more so than any of the young guys potentially could be?

[Dee4Three]

Considering the potential of the young players, that brings us back to Paul George and this offseason. Would it be the worst thing in the world if they missed out on signing him, or elected not to pursue him? Is he truly a player worth building around, more so than any of the young guys potentially could be?

Are you sold on Ingram?

[Andrew]

Randle seems to be further along. There are obviously still some question marks all around, and I usually advocate for proven talent over players who still have a lot of What Ifs, but at this point I'm not sure if George truly is a franchise player. If the Lakers decided not to pursue him, or miss out on him, I don't know that it'd be a terrible outcome, given the players they have to develop and the promise they've shown.

[dwayne2005]

Not Lakers, I'll just finish on my 3 point analysis and be done with being off-topic.

My program now can split up by percent. Could do this manually but it was inconvenient so I didn't bother.

This creates even splits for all splits rather than the difference from the mean measure which highlighted extremes for the above and below splits. I also have more control over the dispersion of the splits (by adding to the difference from the means, it would grab any number of games that had those values).

I have set it to split by 3 point attempt percent instead of 3 point attempts per game, so overtimes which increase the number of shots no longer distort results (and thus no longer requires filtering out) nor does pace of game.

I have captured larger splits which has changed the results. No longer is the most dominant 2 point shooting games in positive territory in win percent, but is an even 50.00% with a negative points differential of -1.04 points per game. This change might also have something to do with accounting for pace by using attempt percent instead.

It is also clear that the success is largely to do with 3 point percent increases, not necessarily number of attempts. If I analyze makes or percent instead, the top bracket rises to about 75% in win-loss so even though a small increase in 3 point percentage it may easily account for the small win-loss here of 52%. If I filter games with ranges of 30-40%, the pool of games seems to become too limited for reliable data.

Format:
42.51%: W694-L636 52.18% (+1.50) 3PM:37.26% ORB:21.47% EFF:1.143
(average 3PA% for range): WINS-LOSSES and WIN% (points differential; average winning/losing margin) 3PM: (3 point percentage) ORB: (offensive rebound percentage from total offensive rebounds and opponents defensive rebounds) EFF: (scoring efficiency, a variation fo true shooting percentage that reads as points per shot accounting for free throws)

42.51%: W694-L636 52.18% (+1.50) 3PM:37.26% ORB:21.47% EFF:1.143
34.94%: W660-L670 49.62% (+0.34) 3PM:35.67% ORB:22.75% EFF:1.108
30.75%: W666-L664 50.08% (+0.12) 3PM:35.33% ORB:23.22% EFF:1.096
26.66%: W640-L690 48.12% (-0.92) 3PM:35.17% ORB:23.83% EFF:1.081
20.40%: W665-L665 50.00% (-1.04) 3PM:34.06% ORB:24.85% EFF:1.067

The numbers show that the dominance only occurs in roughly the top 20% of 3PA% games (not sure if the trend dramatically increases before or after but it looks like after).

Counter to my previous claims, which I immediately identified as wrong but haven't corrected until now, 3 pointers do not result in an increase in offensive rebounds since they are countered by an increase in defensive rebounds by the opponents. It just reflects that there were more rebounds up for grabs in 3 point dominant games. The two point game increases the offensive rebound percentages, so it's the other way around. Which is surprising to me since there is an increasing likelihood it will bounce away further from the basket, but it may simply be countered by the fact that inside players are mismatched. It is still very interesting that the opponents rebounding percentages mirror the teams rebounding percentages despite on the average for the range taking an almost average amount of 3 point attempts.

[Jackal]

Nice job by Randle taking it upon himself to "run" the offense with Ball/Thomas & Ingram being out. Says a lot when two twenty year olds make the game that much more watchable as a fan. Good stuff going in to the future. Bummer Randle just missed out on the triple double.

Tyler Ennis has got to be my most disliked Laker ever. That list includes Dwight Howard.

Watching the Warriors vs Thunder makes me a bit worried about George. So many fumbles and just doesn't seem in to it. I wish he'd be more consistent at this stage of his career.

[[Q]]

Tyler Ennis has got to be my most disliked Laker ever. That list includes Dwight Howard.

Lol he's up there with vujacic

[Jackal]

How dare you disrespect "The Machine" like that?

phpBB [video]

[[Q]]

More like "Slapping Machine". Dude played no defense lol
This girl in college was in love with him and she eventually unfriended me on facebook because I wouldn't stop saying how bad he was

[Jackal]

Credit where credit is due, Ennis played a good game against SA. In fact, that line up of Zu-Frye-Kuz-Hart-Ennis really won that game. Great effort by them and glad to sweep the season series against the short-handed Spurs.

This team is a joy to watch man, can't say it often enough of how much fun I have watching them. Great job by the front office and coaching staff to get these guys trying hard game in and game out.

[[Q]]

A broken clock is still right twice a day I guess lol

[Jeffx]

It comes down to good decision making, really. Stephen Curry pulling up for a three-pointer on a 2-on-1 break? He makes that work a lot of the time. Brook Lopez stopping and popping in the same situation? Obviously he can knock them down, but not necessarily the look you want.

If I was the coach, I'd read Brook's ass the riot act. Get down low and do work - f*** that 3-point bs. Call me old-fashioned and out of touch, but I hate seeing bigs pull up from long range.

[shadowgrin]

So Tyler Ennis is so shit that Lakers had to call up a 32-year old from the D-League?

[Dee4Three]

So Tyler Ennis is so shit that Lakers had to call up a 32-year old from the D-League?

Or a great publicity stunt by the Lakers that worked out beautifully. Not only did they have the story of calling Andre up, but he also killed it in his first ever NBA game. Would have happened whether Ennis was on the roster or not.

Good for Andre, his story is motivating to a lot of people.