This is just something I was looking at earlier today that I thought I'd post here. I wanted to see how defensive efficiency relates to height for NBA teams. I used the "adjusted" team defensive efficiency at basketballgeek (here). Height data is from basketball-reference. Positions I got from HoopData. I categorized players in the following way: Bigs = C or FC or PF Wings = F or SF or GF or SG Points = PG or G Average height is a weighted average of height based on minutes played for players. I'll probably have some extended thoughts on this later on, but I'll post the graphs for now.
Lmao @ how we're the only team way over there on the left when you chart our bigs. At least we got some taller guys out of this trade.
All this really shows me is that we are in desperate need of some height in our bigs. Other than that, it seems like we're pretty middle of the road, right? Or am I not reading this correctly?
Not really. Low = good defense. Kobe and Artest on the wings with Pau and Bynum in the middle is fairly formidable.
basically... this tells me.. height is overrated Just as many tall teams - Tor and Sac for example - have as terrible defense as shorter teams.
This doesn't show us anything. Looking over the Boston, LA and New Jersey positions show us that size doesn't have any direct correlation to being a good defensive team. Marcus Camby is a former defensive player of the year and very tall, but somehow everytime he leaves a team they become better on defense. Defense, most definitely, is a mentality.
I amend my statement then to say that it's surprising to see the Thunder so good at defense. Raptors seem to have a lot of height, but not a lot of defense.. I'm guessing Bargnani and Hedo will do that to you. Great stuff as always durvasa - really look forward to your threads, as they are often pretty educational. Repped.
Lack of direct correlation is something. I would have expected a much stronger relationship between defense and the height of bigs. Actually, for teams this year there looks to be a stronger relationship between offense and lack of height than there is between defense and height. One interpretation may be that there is more to gain offensively from going small in the front-court than there is to lose defensively by going big.
Very interesting data. Seems like there's a negative correlation, though it's slight. Shorter teams are more efficient. That might mean that quicker teams that can rotate better and stay in front of the offensive player might be more effective defensively. Also, the way the NBA officiates charges might have an effect. I imagine that if they didn't call flops these numbers could change. Would be interesting to see if there's a weight correlation as well.
Very interesting stuff. Im always a little bit skeptical of position-by-position defensive breakdowns, given the fact that certain positions (centers, super-active wings) have a substantial effect on the defense as a whole. For example, I think our lack of frontcourt height hurts defense against WINGS and GAURDS more than against BIGS. Hayes is a very effective one on one defender against big men, but struggles, I think, stopping penetrators and cutters at the rim. So I guess what im saying is: don't look at this chart and say that our frontcourt is just as good defensively as the rest of the team. While they may be good at limiting opposing frontcourt players, their deficient help defense depresses the defensive efficiency of other positions. I wonder what Durvasa thinks about this, but that's my stat-wonk read of things.
Since standing reach seems to be the new rage when evaluating players I wonder how those charts would look if standing reach replaced height? Do the Rockets have any rotation players other than Andersen with a standing reach of over 9 feet?
I can't find the link at the moment, but a recent blog post had a widget that showed defensive/offensive ratings for all the teams in the NBA plotted along X/Y axis. The Rockets were notably located right at the center. They are the quintessential average team so far this year. Average defensively, average offensively. I guess when you have a team of average players, that's what happens???
from what i see, without tabulating a cut point and number of teams above below based on rating and median height, it appears there is almost no correlation. height is nice to have, but commitment to defense is more important. speaking directly to the 'bigs', we have the smallest height and are mid pack. the lakers are the biggest and have the best rating, but others with similar size have the opposite relationship. i would think there is more of a correlation between coaching philosophy and defense.
I may not be understanding you correctly ... the "Defensive Efficiency" is not position-based. I'm looking at the relationship between height at various positions to overall team defensive efficiency.
My mistake. I thought the Defensive efficiency ratings were position specific as well (IE, Posessions "used" by opposing wings at a per 100 posessions rate). Given that, I think that "no correlation" does mean something. It means that height is not sufficient to create good defense.
Unless I'm reading this wrong, he's using height to see the effects it has on TEAM efficiency. So he's not really doing a position-by-position analysis. If you notice, the only things changing from chart to chart are the positions along the X-Axis of where the team lies as far as height compared to the fixed DE number on the Y-Axis.
Oops. Apparently you did notice. So, basically, am I to understand that height is not the ONLY criteria a team needs to be considered good at defense? I'm SHOCKED! Coaching and a team's overall basketball I.Q. probably have a much greater affect on a team's DE than just plain height.....I think this is proven in the fact that teams like the Spurs and Celtics are amongst the shorter teams in the league, but have the lowest DEs. Both of those teams have been known to carry a great emphasis on defensive coaching, and have taken players with a high defensive acumen over the last few years. That isn't to say that height is a useless thing to have, but it's not the end-all-be-all of a good defense.
