A better measure of defense is the opponent's fg %. That can't be affected by slow-down offenses and slow-down strategies. Basing defense on total scoring is flawed for that reason. Dave.
This is true by default. Coaches in NBA are not going to admit it, because there will be nobody to play defence. Every player prefers scores than defence except his offence sucks.
Okay, I did some research. I've been comparing opp. fg% vs. team's fg%. The team with the best differential is Sacramento. They rank 3rd in fg% (.464) and 1st in opp fg% (.42). The differential is .044 The worst is Toronto. They rank 25th in fg% (.427) and 29th in opp fg% (.461). The differential is -.034. So what does this mean? Basically, for example, in Sacramento's case, they shoot 4.4% better than their opps. That tells me, pretty much, when you're playing Sacramento, you need to get a couple of extra shots in there, and try to slow down their offense. So it's not necessarily just fg% that's important. Number of shots definitely is an issue. FYI, here's the top 12 (the only ones with a positive differential): Team, FG% Rank, Opp FG% Rank, Differential Sacramento (3rd, 1st) +.044 San Antonio (4th, 2nd) +.035 Utah (1st, 6th) +.034 Minnesota (2nd, 9th) +.029 Dallas (7th, 11th) +.015 New Jersey (16th, 3rd) +.014 Indiana (15th, 4th) +.013 Portland (5th, 21st) +.010 Lakers (9th, 17th) +.008 Houston (18th, 5th) +.007 Chicago (11th, 15th) +.006 Phoenix (13th, 12th) +.005 Interesting to note that 6 of them are ranked higher on defense than on offense: Sacramento, San Antonio, New Jersey, Indiana, Houston, Phoenix. How do other playoff teams fare? Bucks (6th, 27th) -.001 Philly (10th, 22nd) -.004 Orlando (22nd, 25th) -.019 New Orleans (23rd, 13th) -.003 Detriot (24th, 14th) -.008 Boston (27th, 7th) -.020
In truth, the stat the matters most to me is opponents successful trips / total trips. I doubt this iskept, but FG% does not incorporate turnovers forced, which can be jsut as important.
Good point. Opponent's FG% by itself also doesn't take into account the number of free throws attempts granted to your opponent. You can play really agressive D and hold your opponent's FG% under 40%, but if you send them to the line 30-40 times, they will manage to score anyway.
Yeah, # of scoring attemps combined with fg% is really the way to go. What's better (theoretically): hold a team to 50% of their shots, and allow 75 shot attempts a game, or allow a team to shoot 100% of their shots, but just let them get off 37 shots a game?
I can't think of a single championship team in recent memory that wasn't one of the best defensive teams in the league. A great defense and 1-2 great offensive players in what it takes. But ask the early 90s Suns & Warriors, the late 90s Jazz, and last year's Mavs teams if you can win by simply having a great or even phenomenal offense alone.
During the season.......defense usually wins games. But in the playoffs.....you need offense. In the season...you can play as a team and win with a system. But in the playoffs, YOU NEED A STAR!!! at least one..... All the "exciting teams" are high offense scoring teams like the Mavericks and Kings and Warriors. The Mavericks and Kings both have improved their defense.... I'd love to have the Rockets score a lot of points....... But that won't happen. And I'd love to see the Rockets playing intense defense.... But that won't happen.
As someone mentioned...you need the whole package. Defense does win championships but you also need a super star who knows how to score at will. Because of our friendly whisle blowing refs, who try to keep the game close, games are often decided in the last 5 minutes of the basketball game. So the formula is: 1. You need an offense who can put points on for the first 3 quarters. 2. In the fourth quarter, it's the team who can execute their offense the best. Often the team with the better superstar ends up winning cause they can score at will. Why do you think the Lakers always seem to win. They only play 5 minutes of basketball usually. However the exception to the rule seem to be the Timberwolves who make the Lakers play all 48 minutes. Lakers tire out and are having a hard time executing in the fourth period...which i find kind of amusing and I love the action of full court press. Could the rockets learn a think or two from the wolves? I hope so!!!
The 95 rockets were not a good defensive team. They did however have the best player in basketball. The Lakers last yr was not a good defensive team, but when they need stops, they can get them also.
I pretty much agree with you most times MManal and me and Gater always have odds about Rahim, but team defense is always better than individual defense. Looking at the top defensive teams, how many actually have good defenders? Sac has Christie, but no one else is considered a good defender. As piss poor defensively as Dallas was last yr, this yr they made a dramitc decrease in opponets fg% and points and they didn't add anyone people would consider a stopper. We will always have this debate about SAR and its not like I'm just a fan, but a student of the game. These holes in his game people tend to point to, I don't really see it. Is he considered a top defender at his position? No, but neither is anyone else on our team. This teams defensiveconcept need to go from funnelling everything to the middle to sending everything to the baseline to use it as a extra defender. Just like in yrs past, the 4's in the west outscored our 4's and thats one of the main reason why we lost a lot of those games. If we could get Odom, I would like that too, but what does that say about our recent draft pick?
obviously you're not winning a title on offense alone, just like you're not winning on defense alone. both side are required to win the title. what i think i meant (and think i said, maybe not) is that you need an offense that can't be stopped, or more importantly a singular offensive talent (i.e. dream, jordan, shaq) that can't be stopped except through double teams that leave teammates wide open. that is more essential than a great D. as lee pointed out, we were not good on D in 95, check out some of those playoff scores, but we had hakeem to dominate on O for us. and the lakers really never play much D until the 4th quarter anyway, yet they win b/c they can just keep chugging along on offense no matter what. like x_trepidation_x said, you're offense needs to put points on the board for 3 quarters and execute in the 4th. that's what the lakers do. you can't stop them and thus can never let up on your own offense, and then when you really need stops on them in the 4th, you simply can't get them. then when the lakers actually play their 5 to 6 minutes of defense at the end, they separate themselves. their offense puts pressure on your offense to keep performing, and really only sactown has shown the ability to keep up. so there are examples of teams w/o good D winning titles, there aren't any in the last 15 years of teams w/o an unstoppable player or two, and thus unstoppable O's when it really counts, winning the title. thus my assertion that it is offense that really counts in getting the trophy.
what stats? We were top 3 in opponent FG% until we traded Kenny. We dropped to #21 in the league to end the season.
no edit...excuse my previous post...seems espn.com is in major flaw of Opp FG% versus NBA.com, or I just can't find it at espn. this is what I looked at http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/stati...001&seasontype=2&avg=pg&order=false&split=999 nba.com has us a #5.
hmm, quite strange, but the #5 is the one i always hear mentioned about us (it was #6 for a long stretch of the season) so i believe the nba.com number is correct. no way we plummeted to 21. and what's this no edit stuff heyp, i've seen you type that elsewhere. i've got edit, we've all got edit. we're earning free credit we're so edit (apologies to haters of that dr. scholl's commercial). look i'll prove it. see there's the little edit message. now your unfounded rants against the kt trade do not have to be publicized. although i liked kt so such rants are usually welcome
ah ha...that link is 2000-2001 stats. Seems if you go to ESPN and click "Team-by-team comparison" that it is only putting up old stats with no ability to change years. weird. do I get a cookie if I'm the first to show that to espn's webmaster?
hmm, well then perhaps i will rub it in by editing my last post mocking your lack of knowledge of the return of the edit feature, thus ensuring i have not a shred of low IQ showing in this thread
hmmm. well if you clicks on statistics, then click on team-by-team comparison, you get 2000-2001 stats. if you click on statistics, then click the "regular season" link next to 2002-2003, then click team-by-team, you get 2002-2003 stats and we are #5. it still says 2000-2001 up top, but it gives 2002-2003.
I guess it's how you want to interpret statistics. For instance, of those so-called defensive teams that did not make the playoffs..How many were from the East?... How may from the West? Of those that are "offensive" teams, what type of offense do they run? How many field goals do they get? How many turnovers? The answer is not that easy. No matter what statistics you want to look at, defense wins games. The best defensive team will win the title this year. Not the best offensive! Titles are what counts. The championship team is the only team that will be remembered!
