durvasa

I like this way of representing offense and defense of various teams. I calculated standardized offensive and defensive ratings (the more positive, the better) using the schedule-adjusted efficiency numbers at basketball-geek.



The Celtics are amazing right now -- dominant defense, with a still very potent offense. The Rockets are above average, but not stellar, on both ends. The Pistons and Hornets, interestingly enough, rate identically on both ends.

Advertisement

Melechesh

Great work. Boston are indeed dominating.

ClutchCityReturns

Hmm...so the Lakers are average offensively. That's surprising.

Who is jumbled up with the Pistons at -0.5 / -0.5?

reckonerone42

I think it's the Hornets

durvasa

The Hornets.

The Lakers are bottom ten in 3-point shooting, turnovers, and getting/making free throws (FTM/FGA). They'll improve, but right now their offense isn't what's led them to the great record.

mjhaver5

so according to this houston and lakers are giving an equal offensive output?

durvasa

So far, there about the same in terms of offensive efficiency.

Easy

Looks like JVG would love the Bobcats.

durvasa

Here's another variant, but I rotated the points 45 degrees clockwise, and then flipped it across the X-axis. The end result is a plot which rates teams overall going east to west. And teams towards the north are offense-oriented (i.e., rate better offensively than defensively), while teams towards the south are defense-oriented.

juicystream

Bobcats + Raptors = Celtics?

Hayesfan

I like the first chart better graphically... though it may be because I don't understand the second as well.

In the second representation the "bad" is on the left and the "good" is on the right for both offense and defense?

durvasa

Yes. X-axis is overall how good the team is, taking both offense and defense into account. Y-axis shows whether the team is offensive-oriented or defense-oriented. So, if along the Y-axis the team is close to 0, that means they are balanced in terms of offense/defense. You can be "balanced" and really good (e.g., the Cavs), or "balanced" and subpar (e.g., Pistons, Hornets).

I did the second plot because whenever I looked at the first one, I kept trying to project the points onto the Y=X line in my mind to gauge how good the teams are.

Zboy

Spurs would normally be much higher on defense. I think the lack of Bruce Bowen is showing. He brought a certain nastiness to that team.

Easy

I am surprised by the Lakers' defensive slant. I guess the lesson learned is, never underestimate size in the middle.

BTW, I like both charts, good for different purposes.

J-Tang

basically a good offense can get you to win but a bad offense won't. The nuggets and suns are proof that offense > defense.

steddinotayto

I would think that the odometer on their main players has something to do with it moreso than just Bruce Bowen. That and the fact that they have literally zero good/formidable defenders outside of Duncan is another cause for decline.

steddinotayto

No doubt.

Lakers have Gasol and Bynum
Celtics have Perkins, Garnett, and Rasheed

In an era where real centers are almost archaic, having a center that can get you 18/10 with decent defense can get you pretty far.

If only Patrick Ewing was born a couple of decades later. The guy would have dominated big time. (I'm singling him out because Olajuwon and Robinson got their rings)

Easy

Look at the second graph. 4 of the top 5 overall teams are better defensively than offensively.

Also, overall, the teams on the right (good teams) are closer to the x-axis (balanced offense-defense) than teams on the left (bad teams).

Fyreball

I find it interesting that, according to the second map, all of the teams one would consider "Championship contenders" are all defensively-oriented (at least for the time being). This also shows how much of an anomaly the Suns really are.