I knew our d was bad but my suspicions were confirmed today. Last time we had this piss poor of a defense we won 21 games. Is there really any fixing it? Or is it time to realize what fools gold last season was, tear down, and trade for picks and develop our young guys like was the plan at the start of last year?
This isn't a completely accurate scale. The game has changed since the 70's and all teams scoring averages are up. Doesn't mean defenses across the league got worse per say. Not saying we aren't the worst, but I don't think its fair to compare the 97ppg averages from back in the 70's.
The defense has been absolutely abysmal, but there are a few things that give me hope that it's going to get better. First and foremost, with an offensive rating of 110.9, a team doesn't have to be near the best defensively to still be good. This year's version of the Blazers is scoring more than 2 ppg better than last year's team. Second, the defense is almost 5 ppg WORSE than last year's squad despite having almost the same group of players. They're definitely capable of playing better than they have been. Part of it is scheduling. The Blazers have played a lot of the top teams early in the year. Part of it is missing Al Farouq Aminu, one of the best defenders, for so much of the season. Part of it is definitely effort. Last year's team didn't kick in the afterburners on defense until the second half of the season, so I'm hopeful that this year's version can too. Finally, Olshey has some assets with which to make a deal after Jan. 15th and may be able to pick up a defensive big man to help out. There's also the hope that Ezeli could play by the second half of the season, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.
I would add one more to e_blazer's list of glimmers of hope: There looks to be absolutely no correlation between Defensive Rating and Win-Loss % in the chart.
We can compare this team to all other teams this year. They are dead last. They are not good on D. EDIT: Also, that's a defensive rating which accounts for points allowed per possession which corrects and normalizes for pace. Sure the game has changed over time, but that doesn't explain away the fact that there are plenty of teams today with good defensive ratings.
Whether it is the absolute worst may be a matter of conjecture but that it is this bad should not be a surprise. Coach: - Offensive minded all of his career Best Player and Team Leader: Very poor defensively and hasn't showed much improvement in his 4+ year career. 2nd Best Player and BFF of Team Leader: (See above except insert 3+ year career) Aminu is a plus defender but has been so bad on offense that even when he is out there, his terrible offense counters his good defense. Harkless is an active defender for the most part but will also get lost at times. Plumlee in a great passing center on offense but lacks the wingspan most defenders have at center. In the last 5 games he has 8 blocks but 5 were in one game. Crabbe played better defense before he got paid. Turner is one of Portland' better wing defenders. Davis is pretty good around the rim if he isn't being out-bulked. Vonleh is the best big-man perimeter defender which is handy because Portland switches so much. Doesn't play enough to make a difference. So this is a team wide issue not likely to get better any time soon when the coach and the top 2 players either don't have it as a priority or are unable to implement that defense.
Really cool post! You can call it a "duh" moment on my part, but I found it really interesting to see the higher offensive ratings (100+) coupled with the lower defensive numbers. 76 to 78, and 98 to 01 were the big ones that stood out to me. Man, those were the good years too.... Probably more, but I didn't go any further.
Subtract defensive rating from offensive rating. Trouble is, a team spends a different average time per offensive possession than it does per defensive possession, so simply subtracting doesn't give a pure answer.
