Houston has the best D in the west...

PPG is a very skewed stat.

The true measure of #1 defense is FG%.

We are 16th in the league.

PPG is skewed because it all depends on how many shots the other team attempts, which is dictated by tempo of the game.

Before tonight, the tempo of the Rockets games have been very slow.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/stati...nba&seasontype=2&avg=pg&order=false&split=999

 

What....the true measure is FG%?

I would think that FG% doesn't matter squat if you score more POINTS then the other guys.

An example...say you force a lot of turnovers...and score off of them ...this is due to defense, but has NO effect on opponents FG%.

Points are the ONLY thing that matters.

DaDakota

 

no. Wins are the only thing that matters.

 

The two main stats that traditionally give a signal of how good a team really is are Point Differential and FG % against. Teams that are in the top 2 or 3 in the league in these categories usually wind up making it to the Conference Finals and/or NBA Finals. Once in a while, a team like the '95 Rockets will defy this but thats usually rare. Last season, Sacramento, San Antonio and the Lakers were the top 3 in the West in these categories, and Philly was the top team in the East. To start examining these after 10 games is a bit early, we should start considering these at earliest once 25% of the season is over.

 

Wouldn't the number of shots taken by the other team depend on defensive rebounding?

What matters in basketball is how many points you give up. It doesn't matter if you're dead last in the league in steals, blocks, FG %, etc. If you can hold other teams scoring down the way we have you'll win games. The Spurs were 13 points below their season average. The Lakers couldn't reach their season average counting overtime. The Mavs were well below their season average. So were the Wolves. Of all the top teams we've played, we've held every one of them below their averages in points per game. It doesn't matter what other stats say, if you're not letting them score many points you're playing good defense.

 

Yeah, and we know those Denver Nuggets of the 80's that ran the Loyola Marymount run-till-you-die offense won so many championships.

... hey NugzFan, Nuggets4!

 

By points, I mean that the only thing that matters is having more points then your opponent.

DaDakota

 

Field Goal percentage defense can be pretty skewed in it's own right. What does it matter if a team is shooting 80% against you if you're only allowing 91 ppg?

 

The Nuggets were bad ass back in the 80's, setting three NBA records in 81-82. They <b>AVERAGED</b> 126.5 points per game, gave up an NBA record 126.0 points per game, and scored 100 points in every game that year...Hell, the Bulls or Cavs need about four overtimes to get to 100...Then, in 83-84, they set a new team record for points in a game twice, scoring 163 against San Antonio and losing to Detroit 186-184 in the highest scoring game in franchise history...The great thing about that game was that only three 3 pt field goals were attempted...combined...

Defense may win championships, but offense gives your fans a case of whiplash...

 

But point differential is a composite of offense and defense, DaDakota.

We're arguing about the most revealing defensive statistic.

I'd generally argue for fg%, but it's not great. After all, it ignore the team's ability to prevent shots from ever being taken via forced turnovers.

IMO, if you only look at fg% you're going to sell this team short. Because they don't have a real presence in the middle, teams are going to be able to attack the basket more easily and hit high % shots. They're also going to take fewer 3's, which also lowers fg % even though scoring efficiency might actually be higher.

The Rockets can, however, force turnovers with their quickness.

So if you really want the best measure, I'd use something like points per possession. But does htis stat even exist?

 

Points matter more?

So I guess those Cle teams that were coached by Fratello, are among the best defensive teams ever.



Points are very misleading if, you allow the other team to shoot 100 times, and they hit 40 of them, they will probably score 100 points if you factor in FT's too. You would think the other team shot well by scoring 100 points.

In actuality, they shot a poor 40%.

 

you guys are all misunderstanding dadakota... when he said points matter the most, he meant to say points (score)at the end.