NBA: The Desire For Offensive Balance
By Shane Young
American author Cassandra Clare hit the nail on the head in 2012, when she wrote a memorable phrase. “Too much of anything could destroy you. Too much darkness could kill you, but too much light can blind.”
The context may have been in romantic fiction, but the same rule applies to sports. It’s directly relatable to basketball.
Repetition can be a valuable thing in any sport, as it helps a team develop a sense of continuity. Undeviating behavior and certain habits — whether it’s by a player or a whole team — is what gives you a specific identity. Sometimes, it puts despair into your opponents’ eyes if they have to sit back and strategize a way to stop your number one strength. The Bad Boy Pistons of the 1980’s had a special selfhood that forced you to sit back and think of a way to beat them.
Without the identity of the noxious defense against Michael Jordan and Magic Johnson, the Pistons wouldn’t have claimed two NBA titles. Isiah Thomas would be the first to admit it.
At the highest level of competition (in this case, the NBA), one team’s identity can be anything. 3-point shooting, getting to the foul line excessively, specializing in a lot of mid-range shots, being a lock-down defense with little offensive skill, attacking the paint …. the list goes on.
Often times, when you find and adopt an identity that separates you from the rest, it’s easy to get carried away with it. Sometimes, it becomes all that you eat, breathe, and sleep. You can get excessive with your mentality of sticking to that one thing, or that one basketball formula you invested time practicing.
The key is to embrace some form of moderation.
While the NBA’s analytic movement has implied that the mid-range shot is wildly inefficient for a great offense, it’s important to remember one thing: No part of fundamental basketball should be completely erased from a game. Each part of the court holds a certain value, especially if you have players on your roster that excel from that specific area.
Finding a balance between what’s widely considered “efficient” and what some are labeling as “a detriment” to an offense is the main struggle. It’s hard to get a healthy dosage of one thing that you love, while also spreading your offense wealth among the other areas of the court.
In the last few seasons, some teams have experimented with raising their 3-point usage. The most important element, however, is that their coaching staffs are smart enough to increase other portions of their offense at the same time.
In both conferences, the transition seems to revolve around an abundance of 3-pointers, AND a lot of paint penetration. Out of all the total points for each team, I calculated just how much of a team’s offense is coming from each area:
* Sorted by 3-point usage percentage
Numerous things stand out when it comes to the Western Conference. After all, out of the top 12 “analytic-based teams” that experts ranked last year, seven of them are from the Western Conference.
Without hesitation, it’s easy to see which team has the largest discrepancy with 3-pointers and mid-range opportunities: The Houston Rockets. Houston only made 243 mid-range shots last season, since part of their success has been predicated on increasing the scoring load with 3’s — which obviously count more for each bucket. The Rockets’ discrepancy in regards to 3’s and mid-rangers is (by far) the highest:
Largest differences in 3-point and mid-range volume — NBA:
- Rockets — 27.1%
- 76ers — 16.9%
- Cavaliers — 15.5%
- Hawks — 14.8%
- Warriors — 14.5%
- Pistons — 13.7%
- Raptors — 11%
That’s right — only seven teams in the league had a +10% difference when you subtract their proportion of mid-rangers from their proportion of 3-pointers.
The most startling part of the list above is that five of those seven teams are Eastern Conference organizations. You typically view the West as the more “modern” style of play, but perhaps we’re seeing more Eastern Conference general managers and coaches jump on the ship.
In addition, is it just a mere coincidence that all four of the 2015 Conference Finalists were included in the list above? Whether or not Houston belonged in the West Finals is beside the point. They got there. So did the Warriors, Cavaliers, and Hawks. And they all led the movement in limiting mid-rangers, while increasing the 3-point usage.
Philadelphia and Detroit may be the odd teams out of the seven, because their average record was just 25-57. However, it’s safe to say they both have clear directions on how they want to get better. The Sixers are playing the right way, but just don’t have the talent to produce enough points. The Pistons are in the midst of improving, and just needed an adjustment period under Stan Van Gundy.
Looking deeper into the Western Conference, there’s another fascinating piece that stands out.
The Clippers, Trail Blazers, and Spurs have something in common. Based off the red chart, they could be considered the most “balanced” offensive teams in the West.
Well, you know, before Portland completely derailed this offseason when they lost LaMarcus Aldridge, Wesley Matthews, Robin Lopez, and Nicolas Batum.
Still, those three teams are the only West units that had every proportion of their offense under 32%. The Spurs’ highest usage was their restricted area scoring (31%), while the Blazers and Clippers both had their highest usage from the 3-point arc. In the whole league, 10 teams managed to keep all areas under 32% of usage. Only three of those were from the West.
The Spurs and Grizzlies were also the only playoff teams that garnered over 10% of their points from inside the paint (non-restricted area), which is mostly considered “close-range.”
The Eastern Conference provides a bit more mysterious thoughts. Most of the conference is so tragically bad, it’s hard to get a solid read on what exactly teams should do:
* Sorted by 3-point usage percentage
Again, I ponder the question … are we recognizing the fact that the No. 1 and No. 2 teams in 3-point usage (from each conference) made it to the NBA’s final four?
In terms of achieving a good balance, the seven East teams to keep all of their proportions under 32% were the Cavaliers, Hawks, Raptors, Pacers, Knicks, Hornets, and Nets.
Those last three teams don’t exactly strike you as winning organizations, so I believe you can associate their low proportions with other factors. For example, Charlotte and Brooklyn were both in the bottom-five of the league in 3-point efficiency, so that’s why their usage was so low. With the Knicks, it’s more about their preferred style — Derek Fisher didn’t have them attempting many 3’s last season, mostly because they were too fixated on the triangle offense.
Indiana was a bit mind-boggling last season, though.
Usually, a team can take one of three approaches: Either you can stress a lot of 3-point opportunities, encourage your team to take it to the rack more than anything, or find a great balance between the two.
The Pacers didn’t really accomplish any of the three. They ranked 30th (dead-last) in the league when it came to valuing restricted area points in their offense. Their restricted area proportion of 27.3% was slightly lower than the Knicks’ and Clippers’. It’s a bit ridiculous, when they had 7’2″ Roy Hibbert and the aggressive David West inside the paint for most of the year.
On top of that, Indiana didn’t come firing with the outside shots, neither. The Pacers ranked 17th in the 3-point proportion, as just 23% of their total points came from beyond the arc. So, instead of being known as an interior offense, or a team that could maul you from the outside, they went with a heavy mid-range attack. Indiana was the 6th-highest team in regards to mid-range proportion, instead of hurting teams at the two best places of attack: Inside and outside.
Across the league, most high-caliber teams are starting to lower their paint production. But, what makes these teams sensational is that they’ll take (and make) more 3-pointers at the same time. What gets you in trouble is when you lower your paint scoring, but do nothing significant to make up for the lost points.
By adding a team’s restricted area proportion to their “close-range” proportion, you get the total percentage of paint scoring. Take note of the leaders, on the left side:
Memphis is the real oddity here. They are the only playoff team to score over 46% of their points from the paint, and that comes to no surprise. Marc Gasol and Zach Randolph combined for 1,257 shot attempts from inside the paint — more than any big-man duo in the league. Together, they scored 1,382 points from the paint last year, meaning they shot 55% on all of their field goals from that distance. You can’t really get better than that, when talking about two frontcourt players together.
The whole left side of the table above represents the highest volume of paint scoring. The average record of those 15 teams on the left was only 37-45, with an average winning percentage of .451.
The right side of the table shows teams 16-30 in regards to paint volume. The average record of those 15? A full seven games better (44-38), with an average winning percentage of .537.
It doesn’t draw any definite conclusions. Nothing in basketball strategies should ever be “the letter of the law.” Techniques are different across the league. It does raise eyebrows, considering it says that by decreasing your paint production, it should theoretically give you a better chance to win more games. But, that’s only if you’re mastering a different part of the game (the perimeter).
If you’re too shoddy from beyond the arc or getting to the free throw line, then it doesn’t help you much to limit your paint scoring (see: Lakers, Knicks, Pacers, Hornets from the right side).
Again, we find a commonality with three of the NBA’s conference finalists (Cavaliers, Hawks, Warriors). They’re all on the right side, slightly stepping away from their paint attack.
There’s also another huge movement during this analytic-themed generation of basketball. It’s the heavy value of 3-pointers and free throws.
Coupling those two areas together, most general managers and coaches are looking to move up the leaderboards. The theory is simple: If you can nail enough outside shots, and get as many free points as possible from the line, you’re going to be a tough playoff team.
Just think about it. It makes a defense very cautious about the best way to guard you. If you’re a lethal 3-point shooting team, they can’t give you too many feet of space (if any) on the perimeter. Thus, the defense is actually encouraging guys to step off the 3-point arc, and dribble closer to the rim.
Well, if you also have the identity of attacking the lane looking for a foul, you’ll tend to get more calls each and every year. It’s just a common tendency with refs, as they become used to your habits. Also, you just get better at drawing fouls after doing it time and time again.
James Harden and the Houston Rockets know exactly what we’re referring to. They do lead the league in total offense from the 3-point arc and free throw stripe:
In this illustration, examine the top 10 teams in 3-point and free throw usage. 8 of those 10 were playoff teams, and the top 10 had an average record of 49-33 (.598).
The bottom 10 teams? While that did include four playoff teams, those 10 finished with an average record of just 33-49 (.402). That’s 16 wins, on average, less than the top 10. From that standpoint alone, it’s easy to see how much success is reliant on your production from 15-feet extended.
Should I pull out a hammer, and beat the final nail in the coffin? Where are all four of the NBA’s conference finalists when it comes to 3’s and free throws combined? Well, the first three names on the list are Houston, Cleveland, and Atlanta. The champion Warriors are 7th, meaning four of the top 7 teams all made it to the final four. We may have just found the definition of “inarguable.”
Since we’re stressing the need for balance in today’s NBA, it’s important to understand which type of balance is the best.
It’s certainly open for many different opinions and interpretations, but I firmly believe the most common “balance” teams desire is the happy-medium between 3-point usage and restricted area scoring.
A good way to measure your balance in both areas is to figure out which teams kept their 3-point proportion and restricted area proportion in the same ballpark. Last season, there were only seven teams to have a 3-point usage over 27% AND restricted area usage over 27%. Most of those teams were pretty respectable:
- Rockets — 32.8% from 3’s, 33.5% from RA
- Cavaliers — 29.3% from 3’s, 31.6% from RA
- Hawks — 29.3% from 3’s, 31.1% from RA
- Warriors — 29.4% from 3’s, 31.1% from RA
- Clippers — 28.4% from 3’s, 27.5% from RA
- Blazers — 28.7% from 3’s, 28.6% from RA
- 76ers — 27.5% from 3’s, 37% from RA
Say it together: “3’s and layups. 3’s and layups.” The average record for the top six? A blistering 57-25.
Oh, wait. Are those first four names bold for any reason? Didn’t they just reach the conference finals in May? Where have I heard that story before?
It’s true — investing a lot of your offense into long-range shots and attempts within 5 feet seems to give you a better chance at succeeding in the long-run. The only non-playoff team from the list above is Philadelphia, but it’s sure relieving to see Sam Hinkie’s plan working to some degree. He’s got the right formula for the modern game. He just doesn’t have the players to run it.
The truth is … there is no right or wrong answer for how a coach orchestrates his offense. In order to be successful in the NBA, you have to be able to do two things.
First, master what you’re wanting to achieve as an offense. No team ever won a championship by being “mediocre” at their best attribute. You have to perfect it. Golden State perfected small-ball spacing last season, and it paid off in the Finals.
Second, you have to install your No. 1 offensive strength into a winning formula. You can’t expect to mirror the Lakers from 2013-14 (under Mike D’Antoni) and win enough games. For those who don’t remember, the 2013-14 Lakers nearly perfected the outside game. They nailed 38% of their triples (3rd overall), and attempted nearly 25 per game. But, they really expected the high-octane offense to take them somewhere, even with their defensive rating being 28th in the league that season.
That can’t happen.
Golden State mixed their small-ball spacing offense with a dynamite defense last year. That’s how you achieve a winning formula. Getting the best of both worlds is the only way to win multiple championships in this league.
In a universe where the NBA is progressively turning into the most popular sport, what makes it so enjoyable are the various styles of play. Teams can unload points in a lot of different ways.
Finding — and keeping — the perfect balance to fit this new regime is what determines your fate.