<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Jurassic:</div><div class="quote_post">I'm getting too lazy to quote you, but I'll try and respond to your major points. I agree, there are plenty of things that opposing fg% doesn't capture, but couldn't we say the same thing about your stat? With the exception of Tayshun Prince everyone in the Pistons starting 5 is capable of getting a technical foul because they all talk at the refs a lot. This may very well be negligible, but I would be willing to bet that the Pistons gave up significantly more points off of technical fouls than the Spurs did.</div> You're certainly right. The issue here is whether we should penalize a team's defensive performance if they get a lot of technicals. I think it makes sense to do so. To take an extreme hypothetical exapmle, let's say Ron Artest gave up 2 technicals a game to the opposing team, every game. Basically, he's giving the opposing team maybe 1.5 extra points a game because he's a hot head. That's a big deal. And I'd argue that lessens his overall value as a defensive player. For a team, the best defensive teams are the ones that are best at getting a stop in a given possession. That's how I look at it, and I think that's how most people would as well. Well, that entails not giving your opponent free points at the free throw line, and that entails, in part, not getting silly technical fouls. All that said, I don't think it is a big deal if you'd prefer to subtract out technical fouls from consideration: <div class='codetop'>CODE</div><div class='codemain'><br/>Technicals:<br/>SpursPistonsNet<br/>20062349+26<br/>20051563+48<br/>20041945+26<br/>20034638-8<br/></div> Even assuming every technical is converted into a point, you're talking about fractions of a point, net difference, per game. Recalculating the defensive ratings by substracting these technicals from points allowed: <div class='codetop'>CODE</div><div class='codemain'><br/>new ratingsold ratings<br/>SpursPistonsSpursPistonsNET<br/>200699.2102.499.5103.1-0.4<br/>200598.499.998.6100.8-0.7<br/>200493.894.794.095.3-0.4<br/>200398.999.499.599.9+0.1<br/></div> Even after adjusting, the Spurs have had the better defensive rating the past 4 seasons. It made the biggest difference in 2005, where the Pistons closed the gap by 0.7 points per 100 possessions. And, again, this is assuming that all the technicals are made. Clearly, this doesn't have a big impact on the overall rating. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Not to mention that a lot of teams kill themselves offensively. This stat doesn't consider the number of unforced turnovers that a young team, or a team with a flashy point guard might commit. Unforced turnovers have nothing to do with the opposing team's ability to play defense. We could realistically assume that both conferences have an equal number of teams that commit silly turnovers but we don't really know for a fact.</div> All these aspects (turnovers, shooting, rebounding, free throws) are merely components of the final important number: points scored. It's redundant to consider each othese aspects in addition to points scored per possession. I hope it's clear why. I showed in the previous post the difference in offensive rating (points scored per possession) between the western and eastern conference. Overall, it's there, but the final impact on the rating is ultimately very, very small. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">The stat doesn't incorporate coaching. Zone defense often results in a defensive three second call, usually the coach doesn't care because he told the team to play that way as part of their strategy. Things like Hack-a-Shaq fall into this category as well. Even though Shaq would generally miss his freethrows, anytime that he makes one it goes towards the points allowed/possession. </div> I don't understand this argument. If a team is giving up a bunch of defensive three second calls, that's obviously not great defense. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">My point about weak interior defense is that any individual can mess up a teams defense by being out of position, failing to rotate, or just being a generally crappy defensive player. The Pistons play team defense, and I don't really believe that the Spurs do as much. Ben Wallace in a lot of other systems would be a horrible defender (he is undersized) but the Pistons together make him great. Tony Parker on the other hand is a horrible defender even though he has some elite on his team. </div> Again, I don't understand this. If a team is able to overcome or mask the defensive deficiencies of a particular player, how should that be factored in to the defensive rating? To me, it doesn't matter whether they're getting stops because of great "team defense" or great "individual defense". All that matters, when rating a defense, is that they're getting the stops. How they do it is merely details. Different teams have different defensive approaches. But the ultimate goal -- minimizing points allowed possession by possession -- is the same, and that's the criterion by which I judge the defense. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">A team that otherwise would be good overall can be ruined simply because one person gets killed by the guy that he's guarding every night. He gives up points that contribute to the stat of points allowed/possession, and it ends up making his team worse than they might actually be.</div> The teams is composed of all the individual players (including the liability) working in tandem. You seem to be suggesting that we should factor out the bad defensive player on a team. Why? He's part of the team. If the team had a better defensive player they could stick in there instead, then they'd be a better defensive ballclub. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Edit: I gotta finish up some work now, but I'm enjoying this and I'll probably check this thread out tommorow.</div> Cool. Talk to you later.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting TheFreshPrince:</div><div class="quote_post">What about rebounding, that can have a huge difference on statstics about team defence and offence. If you play great team D but give up a lot of offensive rebounds then they will give up a bunch of points per possesion. The same goes for if a team takes poor shots and shoots a bad percentage but manages to get a lot of easy put backs, they will score a lot of points. So im not sure on this but i bet if u check out the rebounding stats for teams they will have a lot to do with teams' defensive and offensive stats. Again i dont like stats because you can twist them in you favour like Jurassic said earlier, but this is more proof that more things go in to basketball than a stat</div> Defensive rebounding is key to a team's defense. And it will show up in the points allowed per possession by a team. All else being equal, if team A is a worse defensive rebounding team than team B, they will necessarily give up more points per possession. Note that a possession doesn't end after a shot is taken. For instance, if a team misses a shot and gets the offensive rebound, that is technically the same possession. The possession ends when the ball goes to the other team. That way, both teams at the end of the game will roughly have the same number of possessions.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting durvasa:</div><div class="quote_post">Defensive rebounding is key to a team's defense. And it will show up in the points allowed per possession by a team. All else being equal, if team A is a worse defensive rebounding team than team B, they will necessarily give up more points per possession. Note that a possession doesn't end after a shot is taken. For instance, if a team misses a shot and gets the offensive rebound, that is technically the same possession. The possession ends when the ball goes to the other team. That way, both teams at the end of the game will roughly have the same number of possessions.</div> That is what i am saying. Lets say team A plays great D but is a bad rebounding team. this will make appear to be bad at D according to stats, but someone watching the game or games would say, "They are a great defensive, but give up too many easy second chance buckets." Do you see my point here.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting TheFreshPrince:</div><div class="quote_post">That is what i am saying. Lets say team A plays great D but is a bad rebounding team. this will make appear to be bad at D according to stats, but someone watching the game or games would say, "They are a great defensive, but give up too many easy second chance buckets." Do you see my point here.</div> So, who would be correct? According to the stat I'm using, the bad defensive rebounding would hurt their defensive rating. Isn't that the correct way to look at it? I thought your point was to somehow invalidate the use of points allowed per possession as a measure of defense. But your example (defensive rebounding) doesn't do it.
^^ no im just saying that there is more to defense and offense than points per possesion and points allowed per possesion. Like how poor or good rebounding can affect these statistics on either end
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting TheFreshPrince:</div><div class="quote_post">^^ no im just saying that there is more to defense and offense than points per possesion and points allowed per possesion. Like how poor or good rebounding can affect these statistics on either end</div> No offense, but this makes absolutely no sense. I don't know how to explain why without just repeating myself. Defensive rebounding is part of a team's defense. The worse a team is at defensive rebounding, the more opportunities they'll give the opposing team to score points. This is obviously captured by points allowed per possession. Do you dispute this? And if so, precisely what don't you agree with?
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting durvasa:</div><div class="quote_post">No offense, but this makes absolutely no sense. I don't know how to explain why without just repeating myself. Defensive rebounding is part of a team's defense. The worse a team is at defensive rebounding, the more opportunities they'll give the opposing team to score points. This is obviously captured by points allowed per possession. Do you dispute this? And if so, precisely what don't you agree with?</div> I am saying that a team could be good at playing defense but not good at rebounding. Like if a team forces bad shots and knocks the ball away a lot, but is poor at rebounding and gives up a lot of offensive rebounds then their points per possesion allowed will look bad. Do you see what im trying to say. Same with Offence a team could force a lot of bad shots, and shoot poorly but get a lot of offensive rebounds for easy put backs so their points per possesion goes up. Also if a team turns the ball over a lot giving up fast break points, their points allowed per possesion will suffer not in result of their defense
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting TheFreshPrince:</div><div class="quote_post">I am saying that a team could be good at playing defense but not good at rebounding. Like if a team forces bad shots and knocks the ball away a lot, but is poor at rebounding and gives up a lot of offensive rebounds then their points per possesion allowed will look bad. Do you see what im trying to say. </div> I see what you're saying, but it's wrong. Defense isn't simply forcing misses or turnovers. It's also defensive rebounding. Defensive rebounding is a crucial part of a team's defense. It's not separate from it (do you honestly think Ben Wallace would be getting any recognition as DPOY if he never grabbed a defensive board from the center position?). <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Same with Offence a team could force a lot of bad shots, and shoot poorly but get a lot of offensive rebounds for easy put backs so their points per possesion goes up.</div> Right, and that would make them a better offensive team. Moses Malone was a dominant offensive player back in the day largely because of all the offensive boards he collected. It makes no sense to discount the value of offensive rebounding to a team's offense. You seem to saying that rebounding is something that falls outside of a team's offense and defense. Not true. Offensive rebounding is a part of a team's offense, just as defensive rebounding is a part of a team's defense. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Also if a team turns the ball over a lot giving up fast break points, their points allowed per possesion will suffer not in result of their defense</div> This is an interesting an point that isn't addressed by the stat I used (nor would it be addressed by any of the other inferior defensive stats often referenced like defensive fg% or ppg allowed, etc.). In theory, team A might be a better transition defensive team and half-court defensive team than team B. But, because team A is also turnover prone, they face more possessions where they have to defend in transition. Thus, they give up more points per possession. But the reason they are giving up more points per possession doesn't have to do with what they do defensively, but rather offensively (turning the ball over). Very good point; honestly it's one I haven't thought of. The best answer I can give is that, by my interpretation of what defense means (limiting the opponent from scoring), a good defense is in part determined by what a team does on the offensive end. For example, you want player(s) stationed the top of the circle on offense, so you have players that can get back in transition. Even though that's something that is happening during the offensive set, there's a defensive reason for it. So, I guess you could say that not turning it over also serves both an offensive and defensive purpose (keep the offensive possession alive and also limits the opponent's transition offense).
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting TheFreshPrince:</div><div class="quote_post">Thank you and i agree with you on the offensive rebounding part now, but if you look earlier i feel ben wallace is very overrated and doesn't deserve so much defensive credit. i feel that defensive rebounding is seperate because if you are playing great d on your guy the chances are you aren't getting the board. </div> Ok. But suppose there was another player who played great d AND he was able to grab the board just because he was that good. Hakeem Olajuwon, in his prime, was very adept at this. Not only would he contest the shot and force a miss. He'd ALSO turn around a gobble the defensive board. Wouldn't you say that's an even better defensive play? And if so, wouldn't it follow that defensive rebouding is a part of defense? Another example is Bill Russell. Part of the reason he was such an amazing shot blocker was because he kept the ball in play. Now, why is that important to the defense? The reason is that when he keeps the ball in play, it greatly increases the chances of his team getting the loose ball (which, technically, is tallied as a defensive rebound). If considered defensive rebounding as something separate, than we'd have to say that blocking a shot out of bounds is just as good a defensive play as keeping it in play. But clearly that's not the case. Does that make sense?
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting TheFreshPrince:</div><div class="quote_post">Thank you and i agree with you on the offensive rebounding part now, but if you look earlier i feel ben wallace is very overrated and doesn't deserve so much defensive credit. i feel that defensive rebounding is seperate because if you are playing great d on your guy the chances are you aren't getting the board. </div> Ok. But suppose there was another player who played great d AND he was able to grab the board just because he was that good. Hakeem Olajuwon, in his prime, was very adept at this. Not only would he contest the shot and force a miss. He'd ALSO turn around a gobble the defensive board. Wouldn't you say that's an even better defensive play? And if so, wouldn't it follow that defensive rebouding is a part of defense? Another example is Bill Russell. Part of the reason he was such an amazing shot blocker was because he kept the ball in play. Now, why is that important to the defense? The reason is that when he keeps the ball in play, it greatly increases the chances of his team getting the loose ball (which, technically, is tallied as a defensive rebound). If considered defensive rebounding as something separate, than we'd have to say that blocking a shot out of bounds is just as good a defensive play as keeping it in play. But clearly that's not the case. Does that make sense?
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting TheFreshPrince:</div><div class="quote_post">Thank you and i agree with you on the offensive rebounding part now, but if you look earlier i feel ben wallace is very overrated and doesn't deserve so much defensive credit. i feel that defensive rebounding is seperate because if you are playing great d on your guy the chances are you aren't getting the board. </div> Ok. But suppose there was another player who played great d AND he was able to grab the board just because he was that good. Hakeem Olajuwon, in his prime, was very adept at this. Not only would he contest the shot and force a miss. He'd ALSO turn around a gobble the defensive board. Wouldn't you say that's an even better defensive play? And if so, wouldn't it follow that defensive rebouding is a part of defense? Another example is Bill Russell. Part of the reason he was such an amazing shot blocker was because he kept the ball in play. Now, why is that important to the defense? The reason is that when he keeps the ball in play, it greatly increases the chances of his team getting the loose ball (which, technically, is tallied as a defensive rebound). If considered defensive rebounding as something separate, than we'd have to say that blocking a shot out of bounds is just as good a defensive play as keeping it in play. But clearly that's not the case. Hope that makes sense.
Thank you and i agree with you on the offensive rebounding part now, but if you look earlier i feel ben wallace is very overrated and doesn't deserve so much defensive credit. i feel that defensive rebounding is seperate because if you are playing great d on your guy the chances are you aren't getting the board. And, if are a playing good helpside D ( which big ben is known for) you are most likely under the bsket making you pretty much unable to get to a long rebound or even box out A man. Good point with moses malone
these post are in the wrong order on my computer right now but anyway, i've never thought about the olajuwan and russell point you made which is a good one. Great points with about the rebounding thing, although i still dont like stats as a way to argue but u used some good examples with out stats.
i still think kirilenko should have won it this year as he played enough games Utah has been one of the top defensive teams this year, and he's part of the reason why steals/blocks etc...kirilenko got it more than bowen does bowen...is more like a physical (if not dirty) player that just follows you and annoy you does he really steal/block much though? no all he does most of the time is follow the guy he checks and be physical with him...frustrate people with his mouth and elbows why does that deserve a defensive player of the year award?
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting hohoyoyoyo:</div><div class="quote_post"> Utah has been one of the top defensive teams this year, and he's part of the reason why </div> I'd argue that Utah was not a top defensive team, again looking at points allowed per possession (sorry Jurassic ). They were actually a poor defensive team, ranked 21st out of 30 teams. Looking more in depth at the four factors of team defense: (1) they were 14th in limiting opponent's shooting percentage (2) they were 9th in forcing turnovers (3) they were 12th in defensive rebounding (4) and (the killer) they were 30th in keeping opponents off the free throw line The reason Utah gave up so many points per possession is that they fouled at an insane rate. If you only look at points allowed per game, Utah looks pretty good (9th). But as pointed out earlier in the thread, this is a poor defensive metric because it doesn't account for pace. Utah 26th in the league in pace (possessions per 48 minutes). That's why the opponent scoring was relatively low. All that said, the Jazz were about 4 points better per 100 possessions on defense with Kirilenko on the court versus off the court. And in past years, that differential has been even higher. So, yes, I do think he's a very good defensive player. I don't think he's more deserving than Ben Wallace, though
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting durvasa:</div><div class="quote_post">I'd argue that Utah was not a top defensive team, again looking at points allowed per possession (sorry Jurassic ).</div> Haha, I'm actually starting to buy into your theory. It shows that a team with a great individyal defensive talent (Utah) isn't necessarily a great defensive team overall.
