If you want to see correlation between defense and wining games, just return to Blazers last game against Lakers. Watch it.
I don't want to be Rich Cho'd (chode haha) or John Nash'd or Steve Patterson'd again. These guys set the franchise back decades.
Decades? We were out of the playoffs, which is the only place Olshey really gets us, for five seasons because of Nash's moves. Then everyone credits KP with Pattersons moves. That's when we drafted Roy and LA. Then KP drafted Oden. Then KP drafted Nic. Then we made the playoffs for three seasons while watching Oden and Roy's careers destroyed by injury. Cho didn't do shit on his one draft day because he really didn't have shit to do, then he pulled off one of the most gangster moves ever, stealing Wes from Utah and then made the Gerald Wallace trade mid season. So Cho actually did a great job. Nash set us back five years, not decades, just five years end of story. Due to Nash's blunders we were bottom feeders and that set us up for Roy, LA and Oden. So why am I supposed to be afraid of trying to get out of this cycle of mediocrity by hiring a GM that could be better or worse but the franchise won't get tied down by and tied to? We can play fast and loose like we did for a couple of seasons in between KP and Olshey or we might find a keeper right away. The fact is, fear that we get someone that isn't great is no reason to stick with a guy who hasn't been able to get the job done for almost a decade, unless all you want to do is average very swift second round exits.
I agree there doesn't seem to be any correlation; but has any team that was last in assists ever won the championship?
lol...no, it wasn't any in-depth analysis. All I did was open up the NBA seasons page at BBREF and go thur and tabulate the defensive rating of NBA champions. I guess I should have did the same for offensive rating but the discussion I joined was about the value of a good defense It would be interesting to look at the last 20 years of teams making conference finals. 80 teams. That would probably then include some lower ranking teams in either rating. But you'd also be introducing other variables like paths to the conference finals and injuries. Maybe better would be to tabulate median defensive ratings of all the teams for 20 years that make the playoffs. Or even better, tabulate the rankings of the teams that won series vs teams that lost...that would be 15 winners a year; 600 over 20 years but here's another very real factor in my view: the NBA has changed drastically over the last 10 years. Would the strengths of a champion 18 years ago really apply to how the NBA is played today?
I'm definitely in favor of Olshey being fired....asap. I'm also fine with Stotts following Olshey out the door but I would not argue that either is mediocre. They both have strengths and qualities easy to gauge. In Olshey's case, I think he has some fatal flaws as a GM that overwhelm his strengths. He has stubbornly driven the Blazers into a cul-de-sac. It's a nice neighborhood, but it's not an elite neighborhood. That is a couple of exits down the block. Unfortunately, the object of the game is to buy the best house in that elite neighborhood, yet Olshey keeps doubling down on the same damn address in the cul-de-sac in the same less-than-elite neighborhood, and there's a big treadmill in the driveway the Blazers are stuck on. And that's been going on for 9 years it's well past time to put the car in reverse and get out of the cul-de-sac, and Stotts was operating the GPS that put Portland into that cul-de-sac. So yeah, new driver and new navigator. Yeeeesh, I'm tired of that analogy I'm actually to the point of blaming Seattle for some of this. Nobody seems accountable
I think that's a really good question. With the rise of the 3-point shot and near-death of the mid-range game, defenses certainly are different than they used to be. It seems like having the ability to switch and rotate quickly is way more paramount than it used to be. The extended range of guys like Dame and Curry also impacts how much court defenses have to cover. I'm not sure that it's possible to defend guys like them with single coverage. None of that was true ten years ago.
In the words of Gary Payton...you can't play defense in the modern game....you'll foul out in a few minutes...refs don't let players bang anymore or really get physical...the game isn't called like it used to be by a long stretch.
maybe defenses have to start with the new NBA in mind. Just spitballing it seems a good modern defense would need good switchable perimeter defenders (three point line) and some solid rim protection and defensive rebounding. looking at the Lakers last season, they had Lebron, Caldwell-Pope, Danny Green, Avery Bradley, Rajon Rondo and Alex Caruso to defend the perimeter. And they had AD, McGee, and Dwight Howard to patrol the paint. that's 9 players in the rotation who are solid to very good on defense. Looking at the numbers, the Lakers were 3rd in defensive rating; 7th in opponents eFG%; 7th in defensive rebound rate; 2nd in defensive rebounds/game; 3rd in opponent turnover rate; 7th in opponent 3pfFG%; 8th in opponent 2ptFG%; first in blocks; 5th in steals; 7th in opponent assists. Essentially, they were an aggregate top-5 in a whole bunch of defensive gauges I look at their perimeter rotation last year, and the half-dozen main rotation player who were all solid to good on defense; then I think of Dame, CJ, Trent, Hood, and Simons. There's just no way Portland can have a perimeter defense that can push the team into elite status. RoCo and Jones can only cover so much ground. Then add almost no rim protection and weak defensive rebounding to the mix. Portland at 21-14 has vastly over-achieved their projection. Pythagorean wins and expected wins formulas have Portland at 4-5 fewer wins then they have. Same for their negative ratings and point differentials compare Portland's defensive numbers this season to Lakers last year: Blazers are 28th in defensive rating; 22nd in opponent eFG%; 27th in defensive rebound rate; 26th in opponent turnover rate; 8th in opponent 3ptFG%; 24th in opponents 2ptFG%; 18th in steals. The aggregate shows them somewhere in the bottom-6 or 7 teams in the league. They've stayed afloat because of Dame's clutch performances, offensive efficiency and a relatively easy schedule. They will really need to improve in some of these defensive areas because their 2nd half schedule is much more difficult
I agree that there's no way the Blazers as currently constructed are ever going to get to elite defensive status. Maybe they can get to near mid-level? I think getting Nurk back will provide greater rim protection, which will help some. I also think that the offense is going to get even better when Nurk provides the great screen & roll/pop options that he and Dame love. When CJ returns, hopefully he can get back to the same kind of shooting zone he was in at the beginning of the season. Bottom line, because of the guards we have, the Blazers are always going to have to out-offense teams to win. When the Blazers are hitting their threes, they can beat anybody. When their shooting is off, they can also get beat by anybody.
I don't have time to go through it all so I'll just do the last 10 years but here are the regular season defensive ratings of the conference finals teams (Champ listed first, runner up second): 2020: Lakers 3rd/Heat 9th/Nuggets 11th/Celtics 5th 2019: Raptors 5th/Warriors 13th/Blazers 16th/Bucks 1st 2018: Warriors 11th/Cavs 29th/Celtics 1st/Rockets 6th 2017: Warriors 2nd/Cavs 21st/Spurs 1st/Celtics 13th 2016: Cavs 10th/Warriors 5th/Thunder 13th/Raptors 11th 2015: Warriors 1st/Cavs 18th/Rockets 8th/Hawks 6th 2014: Spurs 3rd/Heat 11th/Pacers 1st/ Thunder 6th 2013: Heat 9th/Spurs 3rd/Pacers 1st/Grizzlies 2nd 2012: Heat 4th/Thunder 11th/Celtics 1st/Spurs 10th 2011: Mavericks 8th/Heat 5th/Bulls 1st/Thunder 15th So the worst defensive ranking to win a title is 11th (I believe that is the worst all-time as well if we continue to go back). With the exception of the Cavs runs through the weak East the worst defensive ranking for a Finals team was 13th. Also important to note that the one year the Cavs beat the Warriors was their only good defensive year and their worst year most people thought they were kind of coasting through the regular season and changed their roster up some at the deadline. Also interesting that outside of that Cavs team the Blazers have the worst defensive rating of any conference finals team over the last 10 years. I don't know what kind of correlation you're looking for but it's pretty apparent to me that being near the bottom of the league in defense is not a recipe for making it far in the playoffs. As far as assists go, the Heat and Thunder in 2012 were both bad in assists but since that series no finals team has been worse than 19th in the league in assists per game.
I think like anything else in life, or basketball, things adapt and evolve. Just like the 3 pt shot is what all NBA offenses seem to be revolving around, I expect defense to catch up. If you are defending in this sport, seems logical the teams that defend the primary source of points the best, will win. Of course, you will open up other avenues for points - going to the rim or even back to a midrange game again. Who knows. But sitting there and letting teams launch threes over and over seems risky. Unless you are a team with the absolute best three point shooters and plan on winning that contest every night.
All good stuff! Now that leads to the main question: What is the cause for our bad defense? Why have they been as high as 8th and as low as 29th? We know the main constants are Stotts, Lillard, and CJ. I would be interested to see if we got a new coach if we would become a top 5 defense while maintaining our offensive rating. That would be best case scenario for sure! I think most of us know, this isn't a championship roster, defense included.
I don't think top-5 is reasonable, but certainly middle of the pack. I also don't believe the offense would look any worse with any coach. Anyone can throw the ball out there and run the most ISO's and 4th most PnR's in the league while shooting the most contested shots. Here is why the defense has been good in the past but isn't now. Anyone who has played against the Blazers during the Dame/CJ era has played pretty much the same defense. So every time a player plays against us they know before the game starts how we will most likely defend them and what shots or passes will be available throughout the game. Randomly in a few games against Harden we've trapped him and it's been super successful. This is because we took him off guard. Having one defensive scheme against every team and every ball handler for multiple years will never work out long term. You have to be less predictable and take shooters out of their comfort zones. Until the Blazers realize that in the playoffs you have to be prepared to switch up your defense from game to game, quarter to quarter, ball handler to ball handler, then it will rarely translate to post season success even if it's good in the regular season.
that 8th ranking in 2017-18 in defense is interesting. I've looked at it a couple of times. The year before that they were 24th; and the year before that they were 20th with Plumlee at C instead of Nurkic. The year after that 8th ranking, they were 16th. The biggest difference I saw in rosters, was that in the year they ended up 8th, they had a healthy Ed Davis all year. He was injured and unhealthy the year before when they were 24th. The year after Davis 'left', Portland dropped down to 16th and that was the only real difference on the roster the current team has no chance to be top-10 in defense, and maybe 18th - 20th is about as high as we can expect. That team that finished 8th had Aminu and Harkless; RoCo and Jones are as good defensively but Aminu's superior defensive rebounding, might give that pair and edge. Dame/CJ are constants. But a Nurkic/Kanter rotation at C can never be as good defensively as Nurkic Davis. Where the comparison really breaks in favor of the past team is in the 2nd unit. Portland welded Davis and Zach together and they were solid defensively as a tandem. They also had Turner, Napier, Connaughton, and Vonleh (until traded) coming off the bench, That's 6 decent defenders in the 2nd unit. Meanwhile, the current team has Trent, Simons, Hood, & Melo coming off the bench. Three defensive sieves and one below average defender. Coupled with Dame/CJ starting that's always going to yield bad defense
I just looked up All NBA defensive players going back 20 years and it's shocking how many 1st team defenders were bumped in the playoffs early and didn't win a ring....many of the best defenders year after year have not won anything....Rudy Gobert is an example...also on that list of defensively ranked teams in the playoffs....Memphis led the league for a long time as the best defensive team...no rings...zero..............intangibles....you can lose 82 games by 1 pt in overtime and be in the lottery but highly ranked defensively. We need to be a better defensive team but elite defenders don't always translate into championship winners. In the end, you win by outscoring the opponent in 4 qtrs period. How much you win by is irrelevant. To me the best example of defensive minded team that won a chip and made the finals multiple years was the Chauncey Billups Pistons. They were the team that says defense wins championships to me and there's a lot to learn from that team.
"This game is and has always been about scoring buckets". Every great player and coach has said that.
