Comments on: 2009-10 NBA Preview: Philadelphia 76ers

By: The Greek

The Greek — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:10:31 +0000

Does Iggy have to suck for the first month of every season?
I loved seeing Speights get in Howards face, our other goofball center would have went in for a kiss there.
Lou can’t guard pee wee players.
I’m hoping for a better 2nd half

By: tk76

tk76 — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:01:54 +0000

Appreciate the numbers, and several are relevant- but mostly to last years team, where Thad was playing PF much of the time. The rebounding % was starting Thad at PF, which IMO was just a poor decision on many levels. Sam and Brand should be a huge upgrade. Also Iguodala is a better rebounder than Green.

As far as pace, that is more of a reflection of them not scoring with early offense. When they could not run they struggled to get a good scoring chance. Maybe the P.O. will ultimately be an answer, but not yet.

I’ll counter the pace stat with fast break points, where the Sixers were right about best in the NBA. Take away those easy point and the team would have been much worse than .500. Last year the had the worst post bigs and worst jump shooters in the NBA. So .500 was pretty miraculous unless you credit all those fast break points (and second chance points- as you mentioned.)
I agree with your thoughts about the offense, just feel the risk/reward favors trying to trigger the break by leaking out Thad. maybe not all the time, but at least enough to kick start the break and put pressure on the opponents.

Your fundamental approach has its benefits, but I just don’t see this team winning much with that straight up type of approach- at least not until they show themselves as an elite defensive team, a competent offensive team or both. So if the D is improved and the P.O. is effective then I’ll conceded that trying to force a running game by risk taking is not worth it.

By: Dannie

Dannie — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:23:46 +0000

TK76 - I hate to always come back with numbers but in this case there is no choice.

With regard to strategy I honestly have no preference other than which one works.

Are you telling me the way the Sixers have approached this has worked or been successful?

Here are some numbers:

Last season their defensive rebounding rate was only 71.4% good for 26th in the NBA. 75% would make them a top 5 defensive rebounding team. You think accomplishing that without improved contributions from Thad is not just possible but likely? Maybe IF Sam and Elton improve and Iguodala at least maintains where he is. Maybe.

Pace factor (an estimate of team possessions per 48 minutes). The Sixers ranked 21st last season. That suggests two things to me.

The Sixers don't play as fast as people think
We don't defensive rebound well which would decrease our possession per 48 minutes, or better stated gives us less opportunities to score

Wins - 40 and 41 respectively

End Results - 1st round playoff exit(s)

Keep doing the same thing expecting different results as it goes.

A different strategy and theory - Wouldn't we be maximizing our talent by focusing more on crashing the defensive boards because:

We are only slightly below average in terms of turnover rate. If we were much worse I would be more inclined to take your approach as the risk of leaking out might outweigh reward securing more defensive boards and having to score in the half court. But since we aren't too horrible turning the ball over comparatively that isn't the case
A second point on turnovers - I'd be curious to see a breakdown of where our turnovers come half court vs. transition situations. That type of data would play a big role in strategy as well.
We were the 2nd best offensive rebounding team in the league. That is a very very big reason to take the safer play of crashing the boards and playing in the half court as it gives us both more first time shot opportunities but plays to our strength by giving us more chance on the offensive boards (where Thad (and Speights) is better actually).
19th in eFG%. Not horrible but certainly not good. Again I'd love to know the breakdown of opponents eFG% on first shots vs. second shots. Either way their overall number isn't good. For me it stands to reason second chance shots tend to be easier/higher percentage shots since the defense is caught scrambling often. It's makes sense to cut down on those.

Again all my points above focus on maximizing the team as whole rather than specific individual talents. I get where you are coming from but the results haven't exactly supported the strategy either.

By: tk76

tk76 — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:52:28 +0000

Dannie, my disagreement is over strategy and not based on me giving Thad a pass. We differ in how we would use Thad in a way to maximize what he can bring to the floor.

As a PF you should never leak out. But if you have a SG who can rebound well (and is a coast to coast threat when he does) then you can choose to try and leak out your SF. I can see your view about sending 5 players to teh D-Boards, I just disagree.

If Thad is deep in the lane fighting for a board he is unlikely to be in position to run. If 2-3 defenders are back before Thad gets out then the running games is mostly nixed. On a 94 foot court it is extremely hard to run off of defensive boards without having 2 players at least out of the lane.

If you only want to run off of blocks and steals then that is fine. But I don’t think your approach maximizes the talent on this team. And I feel Brand, Sam and Iguodala should be able to control the defensive boards (75% reb rate) without Thad crashing every time.

By: Zack

Zack — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:27:54 +0000

Dannie, I was sort of just playing around with his ideas, and you make great points on them. Can’t argue with the numbers, the guys I put down are guys that I think will hurt you the most with outside shooting, based on having watched those guys on a regular basis (w/Kapono I’m going with his reputation as a marksman alone). Without looking at the numbers, and based on your just watching a lot of our swingmen/guards, do you agree with my list there?

I agree that Winston’s theory is ignoring defense, for now - he’s trying to find reasons why certain lineups are good and bad, and one thing that usually separates the two is the number of good shooters in the lineup. I think the Sixers of the past two years have done a great job of making up for their lack of shooting with their running game and turnover-causing defense.

By: Sixers vs. Orlando: I Feel Bad for the 76ers Tonight

Sixers vs. Orlando: I Feel Bad for the 76ers Tonight — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:18:35 +0000

[...] know about you all but those two things worry me. And in keeping with my thoughts on the Sixers 2010 preview those two points focus on the defensive [...]

By: Dannie

Dannie — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:57:00 +0000

TK76 - I have a few counterpoints.

A really big part of the reason we were really bad on the defensive boards is because of that habitual "leaking out." I have a big problem with that strategy. Why is anyone leaking out anyway. Secure the ball then run. Don't leave just your bigs to rebound, having Andre Miller waiting on the perimeter for an outlet pass and everyone else cherry picking. Secure the ball and finish off defensive possessions.

Running opportunities should come from pressure defense, forcing turnovers, long rebounds, a dynamic player who can really push it (think Ty Lawson at UNC or Nash in the NBA) and having a good secondary break in place.

If Thad rebounded better we would be a dominant all around rebounding team with Iguodala's + board work at SG. Considering we aren't the best shooting team and are weak in the half court rebounding while already one of the four factors becomes even more important. More second chances offensively and less for your opponent goes a long way in making up for poor team shooting.

Regarding Thad specifically...

Those first two points were team oriented. Regarding the evaluation of Thad as an individual becoming a better rebounder has nothing to do with the team per say. It's just about him improving a weaker aspect of his game in general, something all players should be striving to do.

Saying he doesn't really have to rebound well because someone else will do it would only be stunting his progression as a player.

My major issue with all the Thad love is just that, it's 100% love and never any criticism or conversation about his weaknesses. When did he become a perfect player?

I like him. I think he is a keeper for this team long-term. But he isn't leading us to any championships. He is just a piece not the piece. Still searching for that guy.

By: jkay

jkay — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:35:16 +0000

I know its premature and unwarranted but if Brand’s ability is as mediocre as the preseason suggested, then this may be the 2nd coming of C-Webb, only we’re stuck with him for much longer and much more. Can the Sixers franchise really survive that? after the whole post Iverson-rebuilding era of quasi-suckiness.

By: jkay

jkay — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:30:50 +0000

Derek: I was one of those guys who was ‘ohhs’ and ‘ahhs’ about Young’s ability, thinking guaranteed All-Star. but to me now, he is not as well rounded a player as I hoped. He’s still young so we’ll see, but I am not putting all my future Sixers team hopes on his progression. And I’m certainly not knocking him.

By: tk76

tk76 — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:12:52 +0000

Dannie, isn’t his rebounding rate lass an issue as the SF than when he played PF (with Iguodala likely a (+) rebounder at SG?)
I’ve debated this with Brian a bit. If they can rebound well as a team, I’d rather send Iguodala to the glass at Sg and let Thad leak out. Thad has a better chance of beating his man down the floor (than Iguodala does at SG), while Iguodala is a threat to take the ball coast to coast when he grabs the board.

That’s not giving Thad a free pass, just thing if someone is going to leak out some it should be Thad.