Comments

If this is true, isn't the simplest explanation just that Garnett was such an interior force that the Celtics' perimeter defenders were able to man up more aggressively outside and not worry so much about dropping back to provide interior help? Without Garnett, the perimeter defenders are forced to help clog the lane a bit more, allowing greater success by opponents from outside? This is one of the possible outcomes we would have intuitively expected even prior to seeing the charts, isn't it?

Tom Haberstroh           62

Paul- That is the most logical explanation if there was one. Somehow, I overlooked it before posting. After it ran, the effect made much more sense to me. I meant to add an update but never got around it. Smart thinking, sir.

Paul           65

Cool. I have another question that you (and maybe only you) would probably be able to answer. If (and I realize it's still an if) the explanation above is true, I'm a little surprised that opponent shot selection really didn't change that much. I would have thought that teams would see the advantage and exploit it. Were they just slow to adjust to garnett's absence? Or is it that teams are comfortable playing their way and don't really alter their shot selection game-to-game as much as I thought they would? Could you look at the degree to which offenses adjust their shot selection based on the relative strengths and weaknesses of the opposing defense? That would be more involved than just looking at the overall variation in shot selection. If possible, could you even look at in-game (e.g., first half-to-second-half) adjustments?

Tom Haberstroh           66

Paul- that would be an excellent idea for a study but that's an enormous undertaking for the site at this point. Hit up the team game logs and see how a perimeter offenses perform against a stong perimeter defense (i.e. Lakers, Thunder, Knicks). See what gives.