NBA's best screen setters
These big guys do all the dirty work at a cut-rate price
Updated: March 5, 2014, 3:49 PM ET
By Amin Elhassan | ESPN Insider
A large swath of basketball goes unrecognized, uncharted and (essentially) undervalued by the metrics currently available. One aspect of basketball that fits this description is setting screens.
Ask any coach of the value of having players (particularly bigs) who are good screen setters, and they will sing praises. These guys do all the dirty work, setting screens to create space and force favorable matchups, which take a toll on defenders. Screens are the lifeblood of most NBA offenses, so it should come as no surprise that bigs who set good screens are coveted commodities. That said, because of the lack of ability to quantify screen quality, we've probably undervalued (in terms of salary paid) good screeners. Until now.
Using proprietary data from Vantage Sports, which tracks a variety of heretofore unmeasurable actions (like screening), we are now able to identify and attribute credit to individuals. The data were collected over a span of roughly two and a half seasons, giving us a large enough sample size to draw conclusions. For the purposes of this piece, let's focus on three specific aspects of screening (see explanation at the bottom of the story):
1. Screen frequency
2. Screen quality
3. Screen outcome
So who are some of the players who give us similar production at a lower cost? Here are 10 of the best screen setters in the league on a budget, arranged by average annual value (AAV) of their contracts.
Note: Tiago Splitter, Joakim Noah, Kendrick Perkins are among the very best at these screen-setting aspects. However, they are also handsomely compensated ($10 million, $11.1 million, and $8.7 million, respectively), so they were excluded from this list.
RFA = Restricted Free Agent; UFA = Unrestricted Free Agent
Omer Asik | Houston Rockets
AAV: $8.4 million | Set Screens Per 100 Chances: 61.7
Solid Screen %: 72.9 | Set Screen Outcome Efficiency %: 34.7
Perhaps the hottest name on the trading block to go untraded, Asik is a player whose role on offense has long been to crash the offensive glass and set solid screens. We've been able to assess with reasonable accuracy his value to the former, but Vantage puts a number on the latter: Asik is one of the the most frequent screen setters in the game, ranking fifth in frequency among players with at least 1,000 samples. He makes contact or reroutes the defender almost 73 percent of the time, making him an effective screener. Asik's 2014-15 balloon payment hurts, but in the right circumstance it might be a justifiable expense when taking into account his full impact on an offense.
Taj Gibson | Chicago Bulls
AAV: $8.3 million | Set Screens Per 100 Chances: 47.9
Solid Screen %: 71.5 | Set Screen Outcome Efficiency%: 40.7
Asik's former Chicago teammates Joakim Noah and Gibson are probably the main reasons the Bulls declined to match his offer sheet in 2012; Gibson provides similar production on the offensive end with the added benefit of better finishing and a midrange jump shot. While not as frequent a screen setter, Gibson does an excellent job of creating space for his teammates, with almost 41 percent of his screens resulting in an open shot, shooting foul or pass to an open shot, placing him ninth among qualified players.
Marcin Gortat | Washington Wizards | 2014 UFA
AAV: $6.8 million | Set Screens Per 100 Chances: 59.7
Solid Screen %: 74.7 | Set Screen Outcome Efficiency%: 35.7
As a member of the Phoenix Suns' front office, I helped acquire Gortat, and although we didn't have the Vantage data to support our "eye test," we felt strongly that he would make a good pick-and-roll complement with Steve Nash. He did not disappoint, and it's nice to see the numbers bear that out; Gortat is in the top 10 in screen frequency and top 20 in solid screen percentage, with nearly three-quarters of his screens making contact or rerouting the defender. Gortat is an impending free agent, and his screen-setting proficiency should factor into his desirability on the market.
Spencer Hawes | Cleveland Cavaliers | 2014 UFA
AAV: $6.6 million | Set Screens Per 100 Chances: 56.6
Solid Screen %: 69.9 | Set Screen Outcome Efficiency%: 27.2
Hawes' ability to pick and pop is well-publicized, but we mostly hear about the pop and not the pick. But he sets almost 57 screens per 100 chances, good for 11th in the league. His relatively lower screen outcome efficiency illustrates the symbiosis of screen setting: Playing with teammates who know how to create space off the pick is almost as important as the pick itself.
Amir Johnson | Toronto Raptors
AAV: $6 million | Set Screens Per 100 Chances: 63.4
Solid Screen %: 68.3 | Set Screen Outcome Efficiency: 34.3
Former Raptors GM Bryan Colangelo has been much maligned for some of the contracts he's handed out to underachieving players, but his 2010 signing of Johnson was nothing short of a home run. Throughout his career, Johnson has made a living off doing the "little things" that don't show up in a box score, and screening is definitely one of them.
Robin Lopez | Portland Trail Blazers
AAV: $5.1 million | Set Screens Per 100 Chances: 52.4
Solid Screen %: 78.8% | Set Screen Outcome Efficiency: 37.0%
Lopez, another player I had the privilege of working with in Phoenix, embodies the spirit of a blue-collar player who excels on white-collar teams. Teammates frequently praise him for the daylight he creates with screens, and that bears out in his solid screen percentage, which places him third on the leaderboard. His arrival in Portland has been a success not only because he is a defensive anchor but also because of his prowess as a screen setter.
Ekpe Udoh | Milwaukee Bucks | 2014 RFA
AAV: $3.6 million | Set Screens Per 100 Chances: 57.4
Solid Screen %: 80.0 | Set Screen Outcome Efficiency%: 37.1
Still on his rookie scale contract, Udoh shares many similarities with Lopez: a good defensive center who isn't necessarily a tremendous defensive rebounder statistically, and an excellent screen setter on offense. Udoh ranks second in the league in solid screen percentage and is a hair better at screen outcome efficiency than Lopez -- two things that should factor into his free agency this summer. With the turmoil and inconsistent minutes in Milwaukee, there might be an opportunity for a discount on a player who would be more productive in a system that recognizes his talents.
Bismack Biyombo | Charlotte Bobcats
AAV: $3.2 million | Set Screens Per 100 Chances: 55.1
Solid Screen %: 72.2 | Set Screen Outcome Efficiency%: 38.0
While they don't quite justify his lofty draft status, the Vantage data give us a couple of more reasons to value Biyombo's on-court contributions, specifically as a screener. His frequency and screen quality are both very good, but the outcome efficiency is what catches the eye; he ranks in the top 25 despite playing his entire career in a struggling offense. Like Udoh, Biyombo is on his rookie scale contract.This might make him more valuable to a team with more seasoned offensive players.
Kosta Koufos | Memphis Grizzlies
AAV: $3 million | Set Screens Per 100 Chances: 45.3
Solid Screen %: 77.0 | Set Screen Outcome Efficiency%: 40.1
The Darrell Arthur-for-Koufos trade is the gift that keeps on giving for the Grizzlies. Not only has he been a capable defensive fill-in for Marc Gasol, but Koufos has managed to provide great value for the offense with his screening. At $3 million a year with just $500,000 guaranteed next season, Koufos is one of the best values in the league.
Jason Collins | Brooklyn Nets
AAV: $52k (10-Day) | Set Screens Per 100 Chances: 41.0
Solid Screen %: 82.0 | Set Screen Outcome Efficiency%: 39.9
His sample size is lower than the qualifying cutoff, but I include Collins on this list to illustrate his value to the Nets beyond any purported boost due to his newfound fame. For those who question how his paltry points and rebound averages warrant him a spot in the league or wonder about the value of his bruising screens, we can finally quantify it. Simply put, Collins is one of the best screen setters in the league in the context of impeding the progress of defenders and creating open looks for teammates, even if he's not a great offensive player in other areas.
Explanation of Vantage screen statistics
Screen frequency: Vantage tracks the number of set screens per chance for each player in the league, where chance is defined as uninterrupted possession of the ball. Therefore, an offensive rebound will trigger a new offensive chance. Normalizing based on chances is more accurate than normalizing based on other units (possessions, minutes, etc.) because it accounts for the players' opportunities and isolates rebounding (for good or bad). Set Screens Per 100 Chances gives us an idea of how many screens a player is involved in during his time on the court. For example, Tiago Splitter of the Spurs leads the NBA with 68 set screens per 100 chances.
Screen quality: Vantage's Solid Screen % measures the percentage of set screens where player makes contact or reroutes the defender, excluding slip screens. Since the purpose of the screen is to deter the defender, this gives us an idea of the ratio of "good screens" a screen setter is setting (say that three times fast). Joakim Noah of the Bulls is one of the very best at this, with 77 percent of his screens being solid.
Screen outcome: The object of a screen, at its base level, is to create an open shot (whether by the man coming off the screen or an open teammate via pass) or a shooting foul. Of course, not every open shot is converted to a basket, but that shouldn't make the screen any less favorable. The Set Screen Outcome Efficiency gives us the percentage of set screens that result in a (a) teammate score, (b) teammate open shot (missed), (c) teammate shooting foul, (d) teammate passes to assist or missed open shot. Kendrick Perkins is among the league leaders in this metric, with a hair under 45 percent of his set screens leading to scoring opportunities.
― moullet, Friday, 7 March 2014 05:52 (twelve years ago)