Analysing the Effectiveness of the Dallas Defense Against Utah
Here is the first installment of an more comprehensive analysis series I plan I posting from time to time. You can ask just about anyone, and they'll tell you the story of the game was Dallas defense. But how exactly did it happen? Let me break it down.
The Mavericks employed both the 2-3 zone and basic man-to-man very effectively in this game. However, in both zones, they were able to extend out to contest three point shooters will still clogging the lane to prevent drivers. But why then were the Mavericks able to do this and other teams can't? The key for the Mavericks was that they chose not to double down to the Utah post players. With several talented big men in Jefferson, Millsap, Kirilenko and Okur (when healthy), no doubt Utah often forces teams to double, or else be burned again and again on the block. The Mavericks left them one on one the entire night, and never really paid for it. Jefferson and Millsap both were able to score, but many of their points came from finding space for jumpers.
A lot of credit should go to Brendan Haywood for this. His defense was fantastic, and for the first time this year, he actually brought more from the center position than Chandler did. In the future, we can hope that both players bring this type of production in the same game.
So which defense actually proved to be more effective? I rewatched the game and attempted to record the defense used and the outcome. I know right now that I'm not 100% accurate, that there's probably a couple times I mistook a zone for man to man, and that I may have even skipped past a possession or two unintentionally, but its close enough to be able to find some interesting statistics.
| Defense | FGM | FGA | Total % | TO's Forced |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Man to Man | 11 | 44 | 25% | 5 |
| Zone | 7 | 13 | 54% | 8 |
| Transition* | 8 | 10 | 80% | 0 |
That's pretty shut down man to man, isn't it? Of course, a statistical breakdown like this is not to be taken for absolute truth. This simple chart doesn't account for Paul Millsap just happening to hit a tough fadeaway jumper that he misses later against man to man, or Jefferson missing a short up and under that he later gets for an and-1, but overall, its still interesting. 11/44 is still 11/44, and that's quite impressive.
Now, the zone defense doesn't look the greatest when shown like this, but realize what those 8 forced turnovers mean. I saw 22 possessions of zone played, which means that the Mavericks were forcing turnovers in their zone defense 36% of the time. That's a crazy number, and significantly less than the 9% the man to man defense was causing. It also does not show that 21% of man to man possessions ended in a shooting foul, opposed to 9% of zone defense possessions.
What I also saw, though, was the effectiveness of a quick switch. The best example comes in the 4th quarter: the Mavericks come out playing great man to man defense, and force four straight missed shots defensively. Rather than keep playing man, which was working, they shift to zone and get back to back steals. However, the next possession results in the Jazz executing and getting an easy lob pass, so Carlisle had the Mavericks shift back to the man defense.
Two other interesting observations: In the 3rd quarter, note that the entire quarter was played in man to man defense. That means no zone, but it also means no shots were allowed in transition. The other thing was an interesting defensive strategy used by Dallas: a high 23 zone, extending the two guards out into the backcourt to provide pressure on the ball handler. It was only used twice at the end of the second quarter, but it did result in a steal on the first possession.
What should a Mavericks fan take from this? Right now, nothing. This is just to marvel at how well the Dallas defense actually played against Utah last night, once again playing "streak buster" and downing another high caliber opponent. However, going forward, I'm going to be watching carefully at both defenses, and whether the zone is truly our turnover forcing defense and the man to man our stopping defense, or if it was only for this game. Either way, its still going to be exciting.
*I define transition as anytime a shot goes up before all five defensive players have a chance to set up.
9 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Great stuff, recc'd
Perhaps account for Free Throws, too?
€: Espn says Jazz had 74 FGA (difference of 7) and 14 TO total. They had just 1 unforced turnover?
"Mais put… Il est fou ce gars!"
I had stats for the free throws, just didn't put them in
And yes, I know my stats were off a little. Didn’t think it was 7 whole FGA off, but I know I just excluded a few where I couldn’t figure out whether it was zone or man after watching it like five times. The other ones probably was me either forgetting to record it or accidentally skipping past it. As for the turnovers, I was quite liberal in marking them as a “forced” turnover.
do you think the mavs can keep it up?
Ric Bucher espn:
Taylor (Tx)
Ric, what are your thoughts on the Mavs? They look real good, they’re going to get better when Roddy B returns. With the new tea, identity of defense, Chandler bringing the team together, do you think the Mavs can do something special this season? In other words, do you think they can make the conference or NBA Finals?
Ric Bucher (1:26 PM)
Don’t see it. Chandler makes them better, but they remain a team that if you can game-plan for, as you can in the playoffs, it’s easy to take advantage of their flaws. The chief one is that they have to play 2 PGs now to have the full impact of one. Kidd is still the brain/orchestrator, but they need JJ or Beaubois to give them a penetrator who can finish in the paint. It just won’t work against the best teams in a series.
by mehrdad_khafanizm on Dec 4, 2010 1:03 PM CST reply actions
Hey, if being easy to gameplan for gives you an 8 game win streak...
I’ll take it.
by Tim Cato on Dec 4, 2010 1:08 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
this is a respectable family place
let’s not bring Ric Bucher in here.
Honestly. Have some taste.
ok
i dont know who bucher is,i live somewhere which i cant see mavs games,and i usually have to wake up 5 am and watch live boxscore and play to play,cuase i love this team,after that i search and read blogs and … about mavs,so i dont have a good taste becuase i dont know who is good,can you recomend any good site?or writer?
by mehrdad_khafanizm on Dec 4, 2010 1:20 PM CST up reply actions
my apologies
that was some American sarcasm, and probably seemed harsh without the aid of voice inflection.
I am not, personally, a fan of Bucher. I just usually don’t agree with him, and I guess I lump him in with a lot of the ESPN or other big national columnists who are bland, “coastally-biased” and who just kind of regurgitate the same narrative without having much in the way of a reason for believing it. Also, sometimes he seems to not only blatantly ignore the empirical but take pride in being contrary to it.
I prefer columnists who are detail-oriented, have a desire to not only form opinions but investigate why they’ve formed them, who are smart enough not to overreact to media hype and also humble enough to accept new information even if it counters their initial assumptions.
Honestly, I think we live in the age where the bloggers do a much better job covering sports than most of the paid columnists and beat writers. There are many, many bad blogs, of course, but many good ones. Some favorites of mine:
Ball Don’t Lie
Free Darko
Neil Paine’s Basketball-Reference blog
Basketball Prospectus
Wages of Wins
The Two Man Game if you’re looking for Mavs-centric writing
Basketbawful if you find irreverence humorous
Hope this helps.
by Alan Smithee on Dec 4, 2010 3:24 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
tanx
really tanx for your help ,it was just a misundersataning by me,have a nice time
by mehrdad_khafanizm on Dec 5, 2010 3:39 AM CST up reply actions

by 
















