APBRmetrics

Hi All,

Latest post is up where I look into the most effective way to defend the 3 point shot in the modern 3 point happy NBA.

check it out at www.zigzaganalytics.com

watto84 wrote:Hi All,

Latest post is up where I look into the most effective way to defend the 3 point shot in the modern 3 point happy NBA.

check it out at http://www.zigzaganalytics.com

That was a well done article!

It's interesting to think about what types off offenses struggle against all switching defenses and which perhaps excel against that approach. Perhaps the Thunder, with their more iso-heavy attack, have the antidote to the switching?

Thanks for the feedback

It was a really interesting defensive scheme to dig into. Traditionally coaches have thought of switching as a "lazy mans" defense and preached fighting over screens as it is seen as a "man's way" to play defense as it was based on a lot more effort and desire.

Switching has always received a bad rap as it is much easier to do. The perception and narrative of it being "lazy" is now switching to "efficient".

There is a place for both though and other strategies, as I said in my post, 1 size doesn't fit all.

The OKC series is interesting as you have someone like Westbrook who you actually don't want to prevent from shooting 3's as his % is quite bad for such a volume shooter. A previous post I wrote about OKC talked about stopping the role players from shooting 3's...........Waiters has really hurt the Spurs. I'd need to go back through the data and video in the series to see the defense on Waiters, but you are right the more isolation and less on-ball and screens in general will mean the Spurs won't be switching.

Off the top of my head, I recall the Spurs trapping a lot more in Game 1 in on balls situations which worked well, it wasn't a super aggressive trap but id forced KD and Westbrook into heavily pressured situations.