Since the Rockets were eliminated from the playoffs we've see quite a few threads stating all the things we did wrong, what we should have done and what we need to do to improve. As I was looking at Synergy Sports stats it became obvious to me that what we think the team is doing, how it actually plays and what is actually successful and what is not, is quite different that many perceive it to be. The first question is how do the Rockets actually play? From reading CF you would believe that we're primarily an ISO team but the actual stats tell a different story. Synergy breaks down the possessions by type and tracks the points-per-possession (PPP) of each. Points per possession is a more accurate representation of effectiveness than simple FG% because it factors in the actual points scored. For example if I took 10 two point shots and hit half of them I would have scored 10 points with a FG% of 50.0%. Alternately, if I had taken 10 shots and hit 4 of them but all 4 were 3 point shots (either behind the arc or and-1) then I would have scored 12 points but my FG% would only be 40%. If I were only looking at FG% then it would appear that the 50% percentage was better when in fact it lead to fewer points. On the other hand, points per possession would be 1.0 in the first case and 1.2 in the second which more accurately reflects value of the two scenarios. To provide a baseline on what is a typical PPP for the better teams in the league: Houston (0.97), Miami (1.01), SA (0.99), OKC (0.97), LAC (0.99), POR (0.96). So as you can see the better teams are putting up a PPP right at 1.0. A PPP of 1.0 would be equivelent to shooting 50% on two point shots. Here's a breakdown of our possessions and their effectiveness from the regular season. <TABLE><TR><TD>Type of Shot</TD><TD>% of Poss.</TD><TD>PPP</TD></TR><TR><TD>Spot Up</TD><TD>20.59%</TD><TD>1.00</TD></TR><TR><TD>Transition</TD><TD>18.17%</TD><TD>1.17</TD></TR><TR><TD>Pick n Roll</TD><TD>15.58%</TD><TD>0.92</TD></TR><TR><TD>Post up</TD><TD>10.47%</TD><TD>0.77</TD></TR><TR><TD>ISO</TD><TD>10.34%</TD><TD>0.81</TD></TR><TR><TD>Other</TD><TD>6.86%</TD><TD>0.64</TD></TR><TR><TD>Cut</TD><TD>6.73</TD><TD>1.28</TD></TR><TR><TD>Put Back</TD><TD>5.88%</TD><TD>1.10</TD></TR><TR><TD>Hand Off</TD><TD>2.97%</TD><TD>1.04</TD></TR><TR><TD>Off Screen</TD><TD>2.40%</TD><TD>0.99</TD></TR> </TABLE> So what does that tell us? 1) Almost 40% of our shots come off of Spot up or Transition. 2) The Rockets only ISO 10.34% of their possessions. That means that we have fewer ISO possessions than we do Spot Ups, Transition, Pick n Roll or Post Ups. The Rockets averaged 98.8 possessions per game in the regular season so that means that we were averaging right around 10 ISO possessions per game. 3) Spot up has a very good PPP of 1.0. This is primarily due to the fact that the Rockets shoot so many 3 point shots.This is in the Synergy "Excellent" range. 4) Transition has a great PPP of 1.17 which is to be expected since those typically turn out to be high percentage shots. This is in the Synergy "Excellent" range. 5)Pick n' Roll has an decent PPP of 0.92. This is in the Synergy "Excellent" range. 6) ISO has a lower PPP of 0.81 which Synergy classifies in the "average" range. 7).Our postups have an even lower PPP of 0.77 but that still falls in the Synergy "average" range. 8) We are very good/efficient at the 3 things that we do the most, Spot up, Transition and Pick and Roll. Now here's a breakdown of our possessions in the playoffs: <TABLE><TR><TD>Type of Shot</TD><TD>Percentage</TD><TD>PPP</TD></TR> <TR><TD>Pick n Roll</TD><TD>18.4%</TD><TD>0.74</TD></TR> <TR><TD>Post Up</TD><TD>15.86%</TD><TD>0.90</TD></TR> <TR><TD>Transition</TD><TD>14.31%</TD><TD>1.12</TD></TR> <TR><TD>Spot Up</TD><TD>13.88%</TD><TD>0.97</TD></TR> <TR><TD>ISO</TD><TD>10.62%</TD><TD>1.15</TD></TR> <TR><TD>Other</TD><TD>7.37</TD><TD>0.56</TD></TR> <TR><TD>Put Back</TD><TD>7.51</TD><TD>0.96</TD></TR> <TR><TD>Cut</TD><TD>5.81%</TD><TD>1.10</TD></TR> <TR><TD>Hand Off</TD><TD>3.82%</TD><TD>1.0</TD></TR> <TR><TD>Off Screen</TD><TD>1.98%</TD><TD>1.64</TD></TR></TABLE> What does that tell us about our playoff approach? 1) Transition dropped from 18.77% of the possessions to 14.31%. The ppp stayed in pretty much the same range. 2) Spot Ups were down quite a bit from 20.59% to 13.88% but the ppp was similar. 3) The number of Pick and Rolls jumped from 15.58% of the possessions to 18.4% and the ppp dropped from 0.92 to 0.74. 4) There was a jump of almost 50% in the number of postups as they rose from 10.47% of the possessions to 15.86%. The good thing is that the ppp of the post ups jumped from 0.77 to 0.90. 5) ISO's stayed at about the same percentage of possessions but the ppp jumped from 0.81 to 1.15. ISO was still the fifth most frequent possession type behind, Pick n' Roll, Post Up, Transition and Spotup. What were the positives? 1) We greatly increased the number of postups and were also much more efficient in executing them. 2) ISOs were by far the most efficient type of possession (of the types that occured more than 10% of the time). What were the negatives? 1)Our pick n roll efficiency dropped yet we ran more pick n roll than usual. Looking at the possession types that occurred more than 10% of the time, we were least efficient (by a good amount) in the possession type that we executed the most. 2)We didn't get out in transition nearly as much as we did during the regular season. 3) The number of spotup attemps, our most efficient shot in the regular season, was way down from 20.59% to 13.88%. Final Thoughts We ended up taking fewer of the shots that were were executing efficiently and many more of the types of shots that we were not executing efficiently. That's the reverse of what we did in the regular season. In both the regular season and playoffs we simply don't ISO as much as is generally perceived (only about 10% of the time). In the playoffs we ISO'd at an elite level (1.15 ppp). If it were possible to keep up the same ppp then we would have been unbeatable if we had just ISO'd on every possession. In my opinion, the biggest problem for us was that we didn't take "our kind of shots" and our pick n roll execution wasn't very good. ** Note: The "Other" possession type is for things like halfcourt heaves at the end of a quarter and turnovers that occur before the team has a chance to get into their offense.
What really happened didn't happen on the offensive end of the floor, but on the defensive end. The Rockets scored very efficiently vs. Portland regardless of play type frequencies and whatever else Synergy says they did. The Rockets just allowed Portland to score equally as efficiently against themselves. What really happened to Portland the next round was that the Spurs played great defense against Portland while scoring nearly as efficiently as the Rockets did against Portland. Thus, a 4-1 series win with most games not close.
D12babymamams....please tell us all WTF the "Core" is and why it comes after the Rockets. Thank you. ET1 Brown USS D.S. COLE DDG 67
(facepalm) yes, let's just keep getting the ball in Harden's hands with the other players still as statues. That'll work. I can't believe the OP suggests the Rockets should use MORE iso's. When something doesn't work, let's just throw more of it at the wall and hope it sticks! Forget the fact that SA crushed the Blazers by moving the ball. Unbelievable.
Uh, no. The point is we ISO only 10% niot 75-90% like the board thinks. No one is suggesting more ISO.
If you penetrate on an ISO and draw an extra defender in then pass out to an open shooter, is that counted as an ISO or Spot Up? Seems like it should be an ISO. When does a coach ever call a Spot Up as a play? I can't really think of Spot Up as a play. Am I wrong?
It does seem like we go to the ISO's late in games. But, after watching a lot of other teams in the playoffs, I think almost all teams use a lot more ISO's in the final minutes. I've wondered why this is, and I think it comes down to teams turning up the defensive pressure in the games final minutes, making ball movement more difficult and more risky. And I think teams on offense have a desire to win or lose with their best player taking the last shots. ISO plays is not something only the Rockets do, it's a league wide issue.
I agree it may be a league wide issue. I'm just curious as to what the stats are for our crunchtime offense. It would be interesting to see just how ISO heavy it may be if at all.... Sometimes our perceptions can be very biased so it would be nice to have a break down of this.
playoff basketball is different than regular season. it becomes more half court. transition opportunities won't be there as much, and guys will be covered when spotting up. we need a half court offense in the playoffs rather than a transition offense. we got it in the post ups, which raised in % and PPP. we also need off ball movement rather than spot ups in the playoffs, in order to better execute in the half court offense. we still ignored cuts, hand-offs, and off screen shots, which during the regular season and the playoffs had great PPP but super low usage %. why? IMO even though iso's worked well they will not be the key to playoff success because anyone heavily relied upon for iso's will lose steam in the 4th (as we used to see with tmac, and stevie) or suffer on the defensive end... or both. what will be the key to playoff success is off-ball movement. cuts, hand-offs, and off-screen shots. mix in a go-to post game and you have a very healthy half court offense. we used these all together at about 11% in the playoffs. if we would've raised that to 13.88%, which was the % for spot ups, we would've been on the better end of those "coin flip" games. replace spot ups with off ball movement. its great to have great spot up shooters, but run them off screens and hand-offs and they become more dangerous. -signed jj redick, ray allen, reggie miller, etc, etc. our style of play doesn't translate to the playoffs. we have to balance our offense next season to include more half court. it's great to get easy buckets in transition. we are a great transition team, but it will be taken away to an extent in the playoffs.
I'm using the free version of Synergy Sports data so I'm unable to apply custom filters to team stats. Here would be my question: In crunch time if there's an ISO then it's likely to be Harden, right? Well, Harden has been great in those situations all season. Last 5 minutes <= 5pts : 50% FG% 50% 3FG% Last 3 minutes <= 5pts : 54.5% FG% 45.5% 3FG% Last 1 minutes <= 5pts : 52.9% FG% 50% 3FG% Last 30 seconds <= 3pts : 66.7% FG% 60% 3FG% Last 10 seconds <= 3pts: 57.1% FG% 50% 3FG% So looking at those percentages you're telling me that you believe that we should call something different that will have a better chance of success? If so what would that be?
I've been saying this for a long time. The regular season success through our running style is fool's gold. If you take away our transition offense, we are just an average offensive team, carried by Harden's talent. But CH is right. The reason we lost to Portland was not our offense. It's the defense. It's a shame that we have two of the top 5 defensive centers and still can't be a good defensive team.
What I said was "If it were possible to keep up the same ppp then we would have been unbeatable if we had just ISO'd on every possession.". Notice I said "IF it were possible to keep the same ppp"? We had a 1.15 points per possession on ISOs in the playoffs. That's an elite efficiency level. Now you obviously wouldn't be able to maintain that level of efficiency if you ran it every time but if you could maintain a ppp of 1.15 you'd be a fool to do anything differently. Do you argue differently? If you got to choose what we ran on a single possession and you knew that we were scoring 1.15 pts per possession on ISO, 0.90 ppp on post ups, 0.97 ppp on spot ups and 0.74 ppp on pick and roll, then what would you suggest we run? Would you choose to run what's been less effective or what's worked best for you? If you have a matchup where something is working then why wouldn't you run it more until the opponents can stop it?
It would be interesting to see the data by a game by game basis to see how much we changed our game plan after the first two losses. Also it would be nice to see the same data for the conference final teams as comparison. We need to keep in mind that our playoff data was a small sample size of 6 games against a team that was 28th in opponent FG% while 11th in opponent 3P% so poor interior D.
