The honorable Tim Donahue asked on Twitter last week who exactly Lance Stephenson compares to.
After looking at the numbers, I have to come to one conclusion: He is Lance Stephenson.
He may attack like Jeremy Lin or Tyreke Evans at times, but his advanced statistics are more like Tony Allen's according to basketball reference.com.
But all those are flawed comparisons for many reasons. Lin is a distributor, Evans plays better defense, and Tony Allen is the Grindfather and doesn't shoot from deep like Lance is capable of. Lin and Evans are used much more in the offense as far as the Usage percentage goes and he is more in line with Allen in that regard, but I don't think Lance and Tony have all that much in common other than shot their inside shot selection and performance from there. Lance's use or range makes him more like Lin or Evans. One of the comparisons BR gave was Smush Parker (different shot selection) or Don Cheney, but considering he played pre-three point line, it seems just as hard to compare him as it does with Allen.
If any one has any other suggestions I'd be interested to know, because so far I can find a guy I'd feel that comfortable saying is his doppelganger.
Lance is his own animal in a lot of ways. He's got the irrational confidence of J.R. Smith, a defensive game comparable to Tyreke Evans, shot selection like Jeremy Lin, and finishes (better) like Tony Allen.
To see the stream-of-consciousness that got me here, look at Part 1 and Part 2.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Lance Stephenson vs Tony Allen (The search for Lance, Part 2)
Well, if you read my last post, I wasted a lot of time trying to figure out who we can really compare Lance Stephenson to.
While some of the players listed as comparison to Lance may have certain similarities, either their game was entirely different (J.R. Smith), maybe had greater roles on the offense and defense (Jeremy Lin or Tyreke Evans) or played to long ago to be relevant for comparison (Don Chaney).
I began to think about the Pacers style. How it is fueled by big player. Grit and Grind... wait, isn't that the Memphis Grizzlies slogan?
So, is Lance anything like Tony Allen?
Here are the numbers from 2012-2013
Ok, not perfect, but somewhat similar. While some of Lin and Evans numbers were similar too, the roles on the court seem to be vastly different. With Stephenson and Allen, there are Usage percentage similarities, but there are some difference in minutes player (no comparison is perfect), so let's look at the Per 36 minute stats.
These are closer in line, but we did have to cheat a bit to do that. Let's look at where their shots come from.
While some of the players listed as comparison to Lance may have certain similarities, either their game was entirely different (J.R. Smith), maybe had greater roles on the offense and defense (Jeremy Lin or Tyreke Evans) or played to long ago to be relevant for comparison (Don Chaney).
I began to think about the Pacers style. How it is fueled by big player. Grit and Grind... wait, isn't that the Memphis Grizzlies slogan?
So, is Lance anything like Tony Allen?
Here are the numbers from 2012-2013
Ok, not perfect, but somewhat similar. While some of Lin and Evans numbers were similar too, the roles on the court seem to be vastly different. With Stephenson and Allen, there are Usage percentage similarities, but there are some difference in minutes player (no comparison is perfect), so let's look at the Per 36 minute stats.
These are closer in line, but we did have to cheat a bit to do that. Let's look at where their shots come from.
Lance Stephenson
Tony Allen
And this is what they do from there. (Red = below league average, yellow = average, and green = above league average)
Lance Stephenson
Tony Allen
I'll admit this is comparison is far from perfect, but I feel like where Lance is more like Tony Allen with a 3 than a Lin or Evans. He's a going to try to score, he isn't looking to pass. Lance may do it more (Allen's 7.6 to Lance's 16.2), but compared to Lin and Evans, they aren't distributors.
Admitting Tony is a better defender, or at least appears to be at times.and doesn't even shoot threes, but the way they attack is paint is very similar.
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Who is Lance Stephenson? (I don't know)
(This is more of a stream-of-consciousness post of how I got to my possible conclusion, do if you want to skip there rambling and cut to the chase, click here)
On Twitter Saturday morning the esteemed @TimDonahue8p9s asked who does Pacer Lance Stephenson compare to? My immediate and uninformed (Well, only informed by Lance's irrational confidence) made me think of J.R. Smith. However as Tim pointed out, that's a terrible comparison.
(Quick Note: I'm using the third season or career of every player to try to get a comparison for who and what Lance is and might become. I'll try to note which is used in each one.)
You win Round 1, Tim.
So other than being knuckleheads and irrationally confident, J.R. and Lance are nowhere near the same player. Then who is Lance Stephen (potentially) going to be?
This isn't meant to be definitive, end-all, who-is-Lance, but maybe it gets us closer to it. I don't have SynergySports scouting and stats (yet), but this should help draw us closer.
Here are some of the other suggested comparisons.
Let's take a look at this closer at this last season.
Both guys are shooting guards that are more likely to shoot than to pass, as they have lower assist percentages than Lin and Evans. Both are starts playing around 30 mins of time, Allen a little less than Stephenson.
On Twitter Saturday morning the esteemed @TimDonahue8p9s asked who does Pacer Lance Stephenson compare to? My immediate and uninformed (Well, only informed by Lance's irrational confidence) made me think of J.R. Smith. However as Tim pointed out, that's a terrible comparison.
Tim and his stupid data was right. J.R. doesn't like to play in the restricted area. Let's look at the charts, shall we?@CowboyOnPatrol Lance got 43% of his looks in the RA, while JR only 21%. Lance's eFG% outside of RA was only 39.6%, JR's 48.9%
(Quick Note: I'm using the third season or career of every player to try to get a comparison for who and what Lance is and might become. I'll try to note which is used in each one.)
J.R. Smith
Lance Stephenson
While the two have similar eFG% numbers (50.92 vs 50.97), Lances come from inside much more the J.R., and Smith likes to use his range.
You win Round 1, Tim.
So other than being knuckleheads and irrationally confident, J.R. and Lance are nowhere near the same player. Then who is Lance Stephen (potentially) going to be?
This isn't meant to be definitive, end-all, who-is-Lance, but maybe it gets us closer to it. I don't have SynergySports scouting and stats (yet), but this should help draw us closer.
With a quick jump to basketball-reference.com, we can see some the advanced numbers for Mr. Stephenson.
So instead of me taking some more wild guesses at this point we'll see who BR thinks Lance might be.
Smush Parker, Don Chaney, and Ernie Calverley pop up as possible suspects (through 3 years), even Jeremy Lin shows up as a career comparison.
Let's start by looking at the shot selection because that's where many of the suggestion begin to show cracks. Don Chaney, Ernie Calverley don't have shot charts available on NBAStats, but their TS% and eFG% are available.
For their careers, Chaney his eFG and TS% is .482 and .427, while Calverley's are .388 and .291, so we can cross Ernie off the list. Chaney and Lance's rebounding are somewhat similar (7.7 to 7.4). There is a divide between their ORB% and DRB%. Lance's numbers are 2.4 and 12.2 vs Don's 7.4 and 8.0. However I will partially dismiss this because Lance isn't suppose to be a factor in the Pacers offensive rebounding at times. The Pacers use the bigs and the weak side wing to crash while the other drops back for transition defense, so Paul George and Stephenson's numbers are going to get hurt because some plays the aren't even trying to take part.
Both are also decent assist guys.with Chaney at 14.4 AST% compared to Lance's 16.7. Another thing is their STL% and USG% are exactly the same.
Enough Chaney for now, but his numbers are similar so let's keep that in mind.
Enough Chaney for now, but his numbers are similar so let's keep that in mind.
Let's look a some of the other suggestions short charts with Lance in mind. Remember that Lance shoots almost half his shots in the restricted area, and about 17% from the right side from 24+ feet.
Jeremy Lin
Latrell Sprewell
Smush Parker
Tyreke Evans
At a glance, it looks like we can toss Spre because he both of the 8-16 feet areas to the right and left, where as Lance goes almost exclusively through the middle. Smush is gone because he wasn't jamming it through the middle all the time and shot a decent bit from range.
That leaves us with Lin and Evans so let's look at the numbers again, this time through three seasons.
Here is what I can see
- Stephenson is a better finisher, he shoots above the league average in the RA, where Lin and Evans are more close to the league average.
- One thing I notice is Lance has two-thirds as many shots from each man's third seasons. Tyreke and Jeremy shoot almost 900 times each, Lance shot 598 times.
- Lin works in a the league's most fast pace team with Houston's 98.6 Pace, while the Evans worked in Sacramento's seventh ranked and 96.3 paced team. The Pacers were one of the league's slowest at 92.8.
- Lance is the least used of the three. Lance is used on 15.2 of the Pacers possessions while Lin is used 20.8% and Evans 23.8. Even though Lance was part of the league's best 5-Man unit (+288), he was often the last option as far as usage tells us.
- Lance's assist percentage when he gets the ball is in the teens while Evan's and Lin's are in the mid and high 20's. Possessions end in Lance Stephenson.
- Even is you try to calibrate all the numbers with the Per 36 min stats, Jeremy and Evans still are doing more.
I'm going to be honest, all this isn't making it much clearer. He may take his shots from the same areas as Lin and Evans to a certain extent, but his role within the team is obviously different. As shooters they may be similar, but that isn't telling us much. I don't have some of the Synergy Stats that maybe could tell us more, but that isn't happening (yet). Chaney seemed to have similar numbers, but I don't have a shooting chart or anything to really tell me where those shots were coming from, and honestly, that's just a different era of basketball entirely, he shot one three in his NBA career. So let's go back to the modern era, with Lin, Evans and company.
Back to the charts!
Lance Stephenson
Jeremy Lin
Tyreke Evans
As you can see, Lance is a better shooter up the middle. He's above league average in shoot when he's at the top of the arc, key, or in the paint.
Yup, I'm still lost on who Lance Stephenson is, but maybe he is closer to Jeremy Lin and Tyreke Evans, or somewhere in between.
Yup, I'm still lost on who Lance Stephenson is, but maybe he is closer to Jeremy Lin and Tyreke Evans, or somewhere in between.
That's the most important thing to remember. Lance is Lance. He's isn't going to be J.R. Smith, even if he's got that sort of Swagger. He isn't the distributor than Lin or Evans is, but he's a better shooter when he drives straight ahead. He's going to be hard to quantify because the Pacers play a different brand of basketball than many NBA teams. The Pacers play big, like the Grizzlies. Wait, is he Tony Allen? These are career numbers for both.
Wait, did I waste all that time on Red Herrings? (Yes, and your time too)Let's take a look at this closer at this last season.
Both guys are shooting guards that are more likely to shoot than to pass, as they have lower assist percentages than Lin and Evans. Both are starts playing around 30 mins of time, Allen a little less than Stephenson.
We may be on to something here. I'm going to explore this more in my next post.
Or ya know, skip to Part 3, where I just clean this all up.
Or ya know, skip to Part 3, where I just clean this all up.
Friday, May 24, 2013
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Game 5: Indiana Pacers at Atlanta Hawks
Indiana missed a chance to get a win. The defense missed their assignments on the Hawks final offensive play, allowing an easy basket. Wouldn't we see this a few days later with the Timberwolves?
1st Quarter
Sam Young can't cover Josh Smith, just a size mismatch. The Hawks were going to milk this, Pacers starting to double team and bring help, but this can't last long. West comes into the game playing aggressively after looking the opposite. But for all the good on offense, they are allowing Smith to either A: Smith scores on Young, (4-4 against him so far) or he finds a cutter when the double team comes.
2nd Quarter
The bench is getting out scored 21-6 at one point in the second. I know we aren't as deep as some think we are, but is it that hard to hope for one or two bench players to be productive? With the 1st unit back in the Pacers are starting to cut back into the lead, but it feels like the offense has to be perfect to keep in the game. The Pacers cut the gap late in the second quarter with transition baskets and an offense that passes the ball to create offense. On two of Hill's three first half 3-pointers, they came off a pass with no dribble. Simply, passes create points. One good thing defensively was Indiana started putting a double, or bigger men on Smith. Also, on the Hawks final play, the Pacers clogged the lane to make sure that Jeff Teague couldn't pass down low for an easy basket. This also allowed Hibbert to step out and put a hand in Teague's face to contest and make it a miss. Smart play to end the half and cut it to a one point deficit.
3rd Quarter
Lance Stephenson seems to be a decent from the arc, knocked down a long distant shot, creating turnovers, although the -3 +/- in the game isn't the most encouraging, but how much of that is on him?
Aside: Is it be, or does Devon Harris kinda look like Ludacris? Just a note, Hibbert needs to be more aggressive. Let's some plays get away from him by just not moving to the ball or basket sometime. Seems like he's leaving some points on the floor. Anyway back to the action. Watching this now, it looks like Indiana does better when they get out after missed shots. The tempo seems to favor them. Hill made three of his four 3-pointers in the game off passes. By my count, he missed the ones where he tried to create his own space. Small sample size, but it is easier to score off the pass (He also hit a long-two off as pass as well.) Watching this replay, it hard to see how the Pacers lost it when they play like this in the third quarter.
4th Quarter
Seems like every team trying tries to force the Pacers away from the top of the arc, but so far the Pacers are doing a good job at finding the open man.
But then everything fall apart, bad shots by Indiana followed by Atlanta taking smart threes spell trouble. Despite that, this was still a game the Pacers could of, should of found some baskets late. Anything good I said about Stephenson is gone as he picked bad times to launch bad shots. These mental errors down the stretch are brutal, while Kyle Kourver and the rest of the Hawks are picking their spot and creating space of screens and double screens. Teague would get a three with a minute left after the Pacers collapsed in the paint. Stephenson redeems himself a bit with a three after running underneath and out to the left side thanks to a set of trio of screens.
The Lou Williams escape through the congestions, not sure if West or Paul George was suppose to cover him, of there was suppose to be a switch, but no real excuses for a team that was suppose to be the second best in the East.
One thing to remember about this team is that with the exception of David West, no one on this team (Other than the injured Danny Granger, who is 29) is older than 27. This is a young team with seven new players. It will take time for this team to come together. Any maybe this team is still too young to expect consistency out of.
1st Quarter
Sam Young can't cover Josh Smith, just a size mismatch. The Hawks were going to milk this, Pacers starting to double team and bring help, but this can't last long. West comes into the game playing aggressively after looking the opposite. But for all the good on offense, they are allowing Smith to either A: Smith scores on Young, (4-4 against him so far) or he finds a cutter when the double team comes.
2nd Quarter
The bench is getting out scored 21-6 at one point in the second. I know we aren't as deep as some think we are, but is it that hard to hope for one or two bench players to be productive? With the 1st unit back in the Pacers are starting to cut back into the lead, but it feels like the offense has to be perfect to keep in the game. The Pacers cut the gap late in the second quarter with transition baskets and an offense that passes the ball to create offense. On two of Hill's three first half 3-pointers, they came off a pass with no dribble. Simply, passes create points. One good thing defensively was Indiana started putting a double, or bigger men on Smith. Also, on the Hawks final play, the Pacers clogged the lane to make sure that Jeff Teague couldn't pass down low for an easy basket. This also allowed Hibbert to step out and put a hand in Teague's face to contest and make it a miss. Smart play to end the half and cut it to a one point deficit.
3rd Quarter
Lance Stephenson seems to be a decent from the arc, knocked down a long distant shot, creating turnovers, although the -3 +/- in the game isn't the most encouraging, but how much of that is on him?
Aside: Is it be, or does Devon Harris kinda look like Ludacris? Just a note, Hibbert needs to be more aggressive. Let's some plays get away from him by just not moving to the ball or basket sometime. Seems like he's leaving some points on the floor. Anyway back to the action. Watching this now, it looks like Indiana does better when they get out after missed shots. The tempo seems to favor them. Hill made three of his four 3-pointers in the game off passes. By my count, he missed the ones where he tried to create his own space. Small sample size, but it is easier to score off the pass (He also hit a long-two off as pass as well.) Watching this replay, it hard to see how the Pacers lost it when they play like this in the third quarter.
4th Quarter
Seems like every team trying tries to force the Pacers away from the top of the arc, but so far the Pacers are doing a good job at finding the open man.
But then everything fall apart, bad shots by Indiana followed by Atlanta taking smart threes spell trouble. Despite that, this was still a game the Pacers could of, should of found some baskets late. Anything good I said about Stephenson is gone as he picked bad times to launch bad shots. These mental errors down the stretch are brutal, while Kyle Kourver and the rest of the Hawks are picking their spot and creating space of screens and double screens. Teague would get a three with a minute left after the Pacers collapsed in the paint. Stephenson redeems himself a bit with a three after running underneath and out to the left side thanks to a set of trio of screens.
The Lou Williams escape through the congestions, not sure if West or Paul George was suppose to cover him, of there was suppose to be a switch, but no real excuses for a team that was suppose to be the second best in the East.
One thing to remember about this team is that with the exception of David West, no one on this team (Other than the injured Danny Granger, who is 29) is older than 27. This is a young team with seven new players. It will take time for this team to come together. Any maybe this team is still too young to expect consistency out of.
Monday, November 5, 2012
Game 4: Pacers at San Antonio Spurs
This is all you really need to see.
Not a single player had a positive +/-.
The Pacers entire team struggled, and there was little to know good to take out of the game. Play looked sloppy and disconnected. It was 1-on-5 most the time in offense, and it doesn't take an expert to know that passing the ball creates open looks, but that wasn't happening.
1st Quarter
In Indiana first three games, they had been collapsing into the paint often, making it hard on opposing offenses to drive the lane, but also making them susceptible to kicking the ball out to an open shooter. Early on it didn't matter as the Spurs were shooting 3-13. But eventually the tempo of the game increased San Antonio began to get in rhythm and jumped out to a lead as Indiana was playing hero ball on offense and not getting open shots. First possession when they stopped doing that lead to a Gerald Green 3-point basket.
The Pacers were not doing a good job of creating offense and should be thankful the Spurs couldn't find their own offensive rhythm, only down 26-18 to end the first quarter. Simply, San Antonio played better team basketball, keeping the Pacers offense shooting at 26%, to the Spurs 46%. But rebounding was even at 14.
2nd Quarter
We're losing by 20 POINTS!?!?!? Yup, Indiana looks like they are going to get blown out of the gym. However, The Pacer offense began to get their shots to fall, surprising without really coming together as an offense. However, the defense finally stepped up slow and eventually stop the San Antonio offense (Missed the last six field goals before half). Somehow the Pacers are coming back to close the gap to 47-38 at the intermission. The Pacers 13-2 run certainly helps, but as we wait for halftime to end, you have to wonder if they'll be able to cut the gap and keep the game from getting out of hand. Indiana needs to continue forcing the ball into the lane and getting to the foul line. David West was the only one hitting shots from range, hitting his two shots from the top of the key, everyone else had to create their offense from short range. Going 9/10 at the line and out rebounding the Spurs 14-8 helps as well.
3rd Quarter
The Spurs look happy driving to the top of the key and then making their play, usually by passing out. The Pacers continue to just to shoot and try to create their own offense. Of course when they do pass it always seems to be a bad one. Any momentum the Pacers had is gone in two minutes. I wish there was something to point to, but the players just looked unmotivated. Time and time again the Pacers try to play 1-on-5 basketball. Do we really need Danny Granger this badly? On the plus side, I at least like the aggressiveness of Tyler Hansbrough. He's not the most talented Pacer, but you know he's going to play physical ball and forced teams to foul him if they don't put up a fight. He gets in the game and makes Bonner push and shove (and foul) to try to get position on defense. Also, I miss Stephen Jackson, strangely.
4th Quarter
This...is... ugh. What am I suppose to say? It was the same thing all game long. Not playing team offense, the Spurs did a good job or trapping and deciding which players they were going to let shoot. I'm not even going to finish watching this replay. The Pacers look like a lottery team tonight.
Not a single player had a positive +/-.
The Pacers entire team struggled, and there was little to know good to take out of the game. Play looked sloppy and disconnected. It was 1-on-5 most the time in offense, and it doesn't take an expert to know that passing the ball creates open looks, but that wasn't happening.
1st Quarter
In Indiana first three games, they had been collapsing into the paint often, making it hard on opposing offenses to drive the lane, but also making them susceptible to kicking the ball out to an open shooter. Early on it didn't matter as the Spurs were shooting 3-13. But eventually the tempo of the game increased San Antonio began to get in rhythm and jumped out to a lead as Indiana was playing hero ball on offense and not getting open shots. First possession when they stopped doing that lead to a Gerald Green 3-point basket.
The Pacers were not doing a good job of creating offense and should be thankful the Spurs couldn't find their own offensive rhythm, only down 26-18 to end the first quarter. Simply, San Antonio played better team basketball, keeping the Pacers offense shooting at 26%, to the Spurs 46%. But rebounding was even at 14.
2nd Quarter
We're losing by 20 POINTS!?!?!? Yup, Indiana looks like they are going to get blown out of the gym. However, The Pacer offense began to get their shots to fall, surprising without really coming together as an offense. However, the defense finally stepped up slow and eventually stop the San Antonio offense (Missed the last six field goals before half). Somehow the Pacers are coming back to close the gap to 47-38 at the intermission. The Pacers 13-2 run certainly helps, but as we wait for halftime to end, you have to wonder if they'll be able to cut the gap and keep the game from getting out of hand. Indiana needs to continue forcing the ball into the lane and getting to the foul line. David West was the only one hitting shots from range, hitting his two shots from the top of the key, everyone else had to create their offense from short range. Going 9/10 at the line and out rebounding the Spurs 14-8 helps as well.
3rd Quarter
The Spurs look happy driving to the top of the key and then making their play, usually by passing out. The Pacers continue to just to shoot and try to create their own offense. Of course when they do pass it always seems to be a bad one. Any momentum the Pacers had is gone in two minutes. I wish there was something to point to, but the players just looked unmotivated. Time and time again the Pacers try to play 1-on-5 basketball. Do we really need Danny Granger this badly? On the plus side, I at least like the aggressiveness of Tyler Hansbrough. He's not the most talented Pacer, but you know he's going to play physical ball and forced teams to foul him if they don't put up a fight. He gets in the game and makes Bonner push and shove (and foul) to try to get position on defense. Also, I miss Stephen Jackson, strangely.
4th Quarter
This...is... ugh. What am I suppose to say? It was the same thing all game long. Not playing team offense, the Spurs did a good job or trapping and deciding which players they were going to let shoot. I'm not even going to finish watching this replay. The Pacers look like a lottery team tonight.
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Game 3: Sacramento Kings at Indiana Pacers
(Quick bit of housekeeping: I got behind so some of the previous game breakdowns will be quick summaries instead of longer ones.)
The Pacers defense seems to want to collapse to the paint, making them susceptible to kick outs for threes. The Kings seemed to be the first team (then two days later, the Spurs with more success) that began to almost rely on Indiana's tenaciousness to create open shots. One would think that with someone like Hibbert protecting the paint, there wouldn't be the need to collapse in like that. While Sacramento struggled and shot only .363 percent from the floor. This certainly helps give the Pacers their 67-47 rebounding advantage in the game, one wonders how well this strategy will work against teams with better shooters. (Say, the Spurs?)
On offense the Pacers went to the post as usual. Often relying on West to either make a jumper or pass out of a double team. (7-21 shooting, only 1 assist. However, thanks to his defense, his +/- was +21)
It was good to see the Pacers score with Paul George late in the game to tie. The Pacers went with a low four to create isolation for George, and he had no problem creating space for himself and knocking down a three pointer.
The big thing I took away from this game was that the Pacers should have lost. The Kings had so many opportunities to take the lead late in the game, but they couldn't get their good shots to fall. A day later we would see the Spurs exploit all these short comings.
On offense the Pacers went to the post as usual. Often relying on West to either make a jumper or pass out of a double team. (7-21 shooting, only 1 assist. However, thanks to his defense, his +/- was +21)
It was good to see the Pacers score with Paul George late in the game to tie. The Pacers went with a low four to create isolation for George, and he had no problem creating space for himself and knocking down a three pointer.
The big thing I took away from this game was that the Pacers should have lost. The Kings had so many opportunities to take the lead late in the game, but they couldn't get their good shots to fall. A day later we would see the Spurs exploit all these short comings.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)