Statistics and Dreamscapes: On The Cavs’ Transition Game
2010-02-01One of the most consistent criticisms of the Cavaliers during Mike Brown’s tenure as head coach is that they don’t make enough of an effort to run the ball. On the surface, this rhetoric makes a lot of sense. LeBron James in the transition is one of the most unstoppable forces the NBA has ever seen. He was recently voted the fastest player in the league from baseline to baseline, he weighs 260 pounds, and in the open floor he has enough space to avoid any defender trying to draw a charge. The only possible way to stop LeBron in the open floor is to foul him, and even that doesn’t work sometimes. None of this is new information.
Despite the fact they have this weapon, the Cavs rarely attempt to push the ball. They currently play at the 27th-fastest pace in the league; only Miami, Detroit, and Portland play slower than the Cavaliers.
However, when we look at factors other than pace, it becomes apparent that there there are legitimate reasons behind the Cavs’ methodical offense.
When the Cavs Do Run, They Run Well.
Although statistics for “pace” are easy to find, statistics detailing how many fast-break points a team actually scores are far more elusive. The other week, I finally found a website that makes fast-break point statistics available to the public. Looking at it, it’s apparent that while there’s certainly a correlation between pace and fast-break points, not all teams that try to run are created equal.
Here’s a very simple statistic that gives a rough idea of how efficient teams are when they make an effort to score quick baskets. All I did was take a team’s pace ranking and subtract their ranking in fast-break points. For example, if a team scores the 5th-most fast break points per game playing at the 10th-fastest pace, they would have a rating of +5. Here’s every team in the league this season, ranked in terms of “running efficiency”:
1. Atlanta: +22
2. Philadelphia: +21
3. Charlotte: +13
4. New Orleans: +10
5. Cleveland: +8
6. Dallas: +8
7. Boston: +6
8. Memphis: +6
9. Okla City: +6
10. Houston: +5
11. LA Clippers: +4
12. San Antonio: +3
13. Detroit: +3
14. Golden State: +0
15. Portland: +0
16. Miami: -1
17. Denver: -1
18. Phoenix: -2
19. Minnesota: -3
20. Sacramento: -3
21. Toronto: -3
22. Utah: -3
23. New Jersey: -4
24. Chicago: -6
25. Washington: -8
26. Orlando: -8
27. Milwaukee: -17
28. Indiana: -18
29. LA Lakers: -18
30. New York: -20
Notes On This Section:
-Atlanta and Philadelphia are on a whole different level from everybody else in this category, which makes sense when you consider how athletic both teams are in the open floor.
-People who say how good D’Antoni’s run-and-gun system would be for LeBron might want to consult this data.
-Golden State and Portland are both outliers because of the way I’ve chosen to sort this data. Golden State plays far faster than everybody else, and scores far more fast-break points as well. Portland is the slowest team in the league, and also scores the least amount of fast-break points.
-Finally, when we look at this data, we can see that when Cleveland does choose to push the ball, they’re quite successful at it. Some people will see this and decide that they are picking their spots very well. Others will see it as more evidence that they’re not making enough of an effort to get out in transition, seeing as to how they’re so effective when they do run. However, there are reasons why Cleveland doesn’t run the ball more often.
Defense and The Transition Game
Here’s where things get a little more complicated. Often times, a fast-break starts on the defensive end of the floor. Turnovers are much more likely to lead to a fast-break opportunity than a defensive rebound, for obvious reasons. The issue in this regard for the Cavaliers is that Mike Brown’s defensive system doesn’t force turnovers. He believes in saying in front of the offensive player and showing high on the ball-handler rather than having his players watch the passing lanes and try to gamble for steals. It’s hard to argue with the results, as the Cavs have hung their hat on defense ever since Brown came aboard. Currently, only San Antonio, Toronto, and Phoenix force a lower proportion of opponent turnovers than the Cavaliers do. (It’s not surprising to see the Spurs on that list, as Brown came to Cleveland from the Spurs and brought their defensive system with him.)
When defensive rebounding is brought into the equation, it becomes even clearer that running the ball is more a philosophy than a strategy. It makes sense that defensive rebounding would have an inverse correlation with fast-break efficiency. Every player that’s trying to leak out on the fast-break is a player who isn’t going towards their own basket and trying to snare a rebound. The uptempo Phoenix Suns force fewer turnovers than any other team, but rank 29th in defensive rebound rate. Scott Skiles’ Bucks force tons of turnovers, but also make crashing the defensive boards a point of emphasis. The Warriors rank first in opponent turnovers and dead last in defensive rebounding. (For those of you keeping score at home, the Warriors are also first in pace and fast-break points. Say what you will about Don Nelson, but he is committed to his vision.)
To see which teams tried to give themselves the most opportunities to get out on the break, I made a second quick-and-dirty formula. First, I took the inverse of each team’s ranks in opposing turnovers forced, and gave that number a value from 1-30. (For example, the Warriors, who force more turnovers than anybody else, have a “turnover score” of 30.) Next, I took each team’s ranking in defensive rebounding rate, and gave that a value from 1-30. (Again, the Warriors are the worst defensive rebounding n basketball, so they get another 30.) From there, I added those numbers together, giving us a rough idea of which teams try to give themselves the most transition opportunities on a per-possession basis. Here’s the list:
1. Golden State: 60
2. New Jersey: 50
3. Okla City: 46
4. Boston: 45
5. New York: 45
6. Philadelphia: 43
7. Denver: 41
8. New Orleans: 39
9. Memphis: 39
10. Detroit: 37
11. Atlanta: 36
12. Sacramento: 35
13. Charlotte: 34
14. Dallas: 33
15. Houston: 32
16. Phoenix: 30
17. Milwaukee: 30
18. Indiana: 29
19. LA Clippers: 28
20. Miami: 28
21. Washington: 27
22. Toronto: 26
23. Minnesota: 25
24. Utah: 24
25. LA Lakers: 21
26. Chicago: 20
27. Portland: 17
28. San Antonio: 7
29. Orlando: 7
30. Cleveland: 6
Unsurprisingly, the Cavs rank dead last. Golden State gets a perfect score of 60, and the Lakers’ low score helps explain why they struggle to score fast-break points in spite of their fast pace.
The last thing I did was to make a scatterplot charting my first number, fast break efficiency, against my second number, fast break opportunities. Here’s what the graph looks like:
(Apologies for the drabness of the graph and the lack of a regression line. I can’t figure out how to get a regression line in Google Docs, and can’t figure out how to import an excel graph into Flickr. I hate technology.)
As you can see, the overall correlation is fairly strong, especially when some of the outliers are tossed out. As I mentioned earlier, Golden State makes so much more of an effort to run than everybody else that my graph literally doesn’t know what to do with them. For their fast break to be properly quantified, the numbers would need to be crunched on a raw scale rather than in terms of team rankings. The graph also suggests that the Knicks’ fast-break has been especially awful; it may be time for Mike D’Antoni to fit his system to the talent he has instead of waiting for the next Steve Nash to emerge. The only other teams with an “opportunity” value above 40 and a below-average “efficiency” value are the Nuggets, who are barely below average, and the Nets, who are the Nets.
Another note is that the teams in the 30-40 range on the X-axis seem to have much more success on the fast-break than the teams on the extreme end of the scale. Moderation may be a wise policy when it comes to run-and-gun.
On the other side of the y-axis, the Cavs’ transition game looks much better than it would initially appear. Only the Clippers, Spurs, and Cavaliers have an above-average efficiency rating with a below-average opportunity rating, and the Cavs are more efficient on the break than either of those two teams. This is despite the fact that the Cavs don’t just have a below-average opportunity ranking, but the lowest one in the league.
Overall, I would say that the Cavs’ system could be more fun to watch, especially with the prodigious ability of LeBron James in the open court. However, when they do get the opportunity to run the ball, they do so quite well. Furthermore, creating more of those opportunities could take away from the strengths that have made the Cavs a serious title contender.
Disclaimer:
Given the basic level of the math involved here, it should be obvious that this is meant more as a snapshot than a definitive thesis. I’m looking to start a discussion on what makes an effective uptempo team, not finish it. Hopefully you guys find this stuff interesting and can contribute some thoughts of your own on the subject.
This is an irrevelant conversation. Fans like teams that win. They don’t care what kind of offense the team uses.
Cleveland’s great attendance is because they win.
Bradley, I fully understand that. What I was really referring to was the up tempo game being executed (a la the Suns back in the day). The Showtime Lakers were good at this as well. Don’t get me wrong, I love the half court stuff. Part of the reason I enjoy watching the Lakers (yeah, I said it) is because the triangle, when properly executed, is a beautiful offense to watch. Even something as simple as the Pick and Roll is fascinating just because of how many variations there are to it (actually, a friend and I were talking about… Read more »
Tsunami, I like the Commodore, but I’m still partial the Burning River.
i’d say run and gun(r&g) success is entirely predicated on the personnel. it is not a style that fits all personnel, as krolik has helped us see with d’antoni in new york. lebron may the best r&g finisher on the planet, but a successful r&g team really needs a quick decisive point guard a la nash to get things initiated. mo has been between pretty good and good at being that guy in fast break situations, but he is definitely not a point guard who you build a successful r&g team on.
BradleyH, I totally agree with you but I think that what you are referring to is a lack of talent as well. See teams in the NBA tend to transition alot of times to a permanent run and gun to try and cover up a lack of talent because run and gun is supposed to generate offense merely by running it. Indiana plays sloppy because frankly they stink. They are a team that has quit on their coach. doesn’t hustle and plays the run and gun so they can just jack up transition jumpers and don’t have to play physical.… Read more »
Colin, if you watch games that kind of get up-tempo all of the sudden for a minute, 2 minute stretch, watch how sloppy everything starts to look. The crowd will kind of do it’s “oohhh” thing like the game just hit another level, but really, you see a lot of bad shots, near turnovers, everything is out of control. I would say watching Portland in the half court is more crisply executed than Indiana trying to spring all over the court.
Its not that fans prefer the run n gun to the grind it out (though there is no denying the casual fan wants to see points), its more of fans wanting to see a crisply executed game.
Those Detroit/Cleveland games were fun just from a rivalry standpoint, but the actual gameplay was almost unbearable. Both teams had rather unsophisticated offenses, which meant they were more than content to just play bump and grind defense.
Its one thing to see, and appreciate, a defensive battle. Its quite another thing to see little to no ball movement followed by an ill-advised shot.
Krolik, I try to take a break from writing up my dissertation, full of correlations and regressions, and find you wrote an article full of both of them! Just kidding though, great article. I agree that the numbers are rough, and using the rankings is killing a lot of the variance you would otherwise get from using the true data. Nonetheless, the point is well made. The Cavs hang their hat on solid, fronting defense, and with that they give up some opportunities to run. But because of that stifling defense, they give up fewer points, and when you have… Read more »
Lol I love the way that the Cavs play and both the rankings and the record show that its the way to win expecially since we are a team that is built for the playoffs. The only thing I will say on it though is this. Sometimes the Cavs do frustrae me when they will run and it will work effectively and lead to a big lead but the moment that we get that lead we’ll stop running and switch to our normal gameplan. It seems like a good way to go but it seems alot of times to let… Read more »
The run and gun style is what I think the casual basketball fan expects when he watches a game. The readers on this blog are, I assume, more sophisticated basketball viewers than your average fan, so we can appreciate those grind-it-out defensive battles. But sometimes it’s fun to watch teams (or individual players) score like crazy. But to get back to John’s post in creating an effective uptempo team, I’d be curious to see if there’s data on transition defense. Specifically for possessions after a missed fast break basket. Even if you’re getting a lot of shots at the basket,… Read more »
Yes, ben, yes.
For me it’s a Commodore Perry Pale Ale
Tsunami, you don’t have to get X’s and O’s at all to enjoy run and gun. It’s Budweiser basketball. Like you, I prefer something with more sophistication and body.
The Cavs dont take many transition jump shots either. I like this. Lots of teams like the Suns, Knicks, Warriors, Clippers run down, have a 3 on 2 break or something, and just jack up an outside jumper. Now and then Mo Williams will launch a transition 3, and LeBron does it every once in a while, but it is very rare. If they don’t have a layup or dunk, they slow it down and work the offense. Also, I’ve never understood why the Phoenix “style” is more fun to watch. Never. I’d much rather watch a physical, smash-mouth game,… Read more »
John, wouldn’t it also make zero sense for the Cavs to be more of a running team based on our personal? The players who would have to start for a Cavs-Running Team would be James, Moon, Hickson West and Williams. I can’t see Varejao killing it on the open floor, and I definitely can’t see Z or the Shaqtus being competent. Besides, if we started those five we would consisently give up insane amounts of interior points. HICKSON WOULD BE THE STARTING CENTER! Enough said.
I’ve seen him bite his nails this season. Although, I did see him use the nail clippers too.
John, Being able to run is indispensable to a teams success. The amount of running is surely up for debate. I argue that a team only needs to be able to have that ability. Certain teams call for a faster pace, or a negative point disparity with only few minutes left will necessitate a run and gun. Defense wins Championships. Well balanced teams (like the Spurs) are a prime example. And I further my point by saying Lebron has hit greatness. And I will give you my honest to goodness reason why I know this to be fact (bear with… Read more »
John, Re: Importing Excel graphs into Flickr. Did you try right-clicking on the graph and saving as a picture? Once you get the save dialogue you should be able to select a file-type compatible with Flickr (at least that’s how it works on my mac). Also, it may be my computer/browser but your scatterplot isn’t showing up. Finally, I’m wondering if the website you found had actual fast break points per 100 possessions (or similar)? It seems you might get some different results using a cardinal ranking system, since there could be a huge difference in fast break points between… Read more »
John-
Did you look at how these rankings correlate to Wins and Losses or more accurately Hollinger’s Team Rankings?
Fast-paced, up and down teams can be more exciting to watch and fans (and coaches and GMs) can fall in love with this style often at the detriment of their team’s success (cough, D’Antoni, cough) but as a Cavs fan, I’ll happily take a slower pace (and the 5th best Offensive Efficiency) with 38 wins than a breakneck game that my team only wins 33% of the time.