Again, I hate this line of thinking. The next two games are not a seperate test in themselves, but part of the 82 game test. The past 38 games have been a test. So far we are passing. We have already beaten Dallas. In fact we creamed them. We also lost to Golden State. What happens these next two games won't cheapen the wins we've already had up until this point. If we win, it doesn't mean we don't have to worry about any other teams because we know that we can beat the eiltes. Phoenix has yet to beat Dallas, and has only beaten one top team or so. That doesn't mean that they aren't a real threat.
The thing is, the next two games are a better test for the play offs. Specifically match up wise. For example in an 82 game sample we get some games against Phoneix which has told us that we would fail in a 7 game playoff test against Phoneix GIVEN our current style that has passed in this 38 game sequence. We got trashed by Phoneix and it wasn't because we were doing so well. We destroyed Dallas early on in the season(I think they didn't have Howard, oh and also they were doing some experiments with the way they were playing with Jet), but obviously Dallas was in a slump. The Dallas game gives us a better idea how we would fair in the play offs against Dallas the current team. They've hit their style of play. I for one have Josh Howard in my fantasy team and his being playing out of his mind. When we beat Dallas earlier it wasn't that great for him. It'll give us a better idea i think
I think it could provide a possibility and will be part of the larger test. You excuse Dallas from our earlier beating, yet they could start struggling again later, or have an off night. The point is that specific games help see a teams tendencies so you can prepare for them later, but I don't think that certain games should be seen as tests while others don't count for anything in some people's minds. The Spurs beat us once, and we beat them once. Which game was the test?
I'm not understanding your argument. Why is per possessions stats good for overal play but not as a measure of defense? Can you clarify that?
Because per possesion stats essentially normalize for pace. This makes no sense when judging a team either only offensively or defensively. As someone alluded to earlier in the thread - this could imply the Suns are only good because they play such a fast-paced style of ball (though on a per possesion basis, I'm sure they're still the best). In reality, pace matters. If a team plays really really slow, and as a result has great defesnive statistics, but still sucks because they can't score, it doesn't mean they aren't a great defensive team. Pace matters. Style of play matters. Bill Walton saying the Rockets defense is only so good because of their style of play makes no sense at all. Style of play is part of a team's gameplan....not a factor that should be discounted. Whereas on an overall basis, per possession stats are even more useful because your point differential, per possession, basically is your record. Generally, the higher that is, the better your record.
JayZ: sorry but you're not making any sense. Normalizing in this case is exactly what you are talking about: taking pace into account. That's what a per possession stat does. It takes care of the very thing you're talking about in your Suns example. Look at the 05-06 stats. If you go by the per game non-normalized pts allowed as a metric on defense Memphis is #1. This is misleading. Now when you use a NORMALIZED points-allowed-per-possession the reality comes out. #1 are the Spurs at 100.9 points-per-100-possessions vs. the Griz at 103.3. Believe you me, that ~3 ppp differential is a big margin. I posted this up above but here it is for reference again - top 10 05-06 defensive points-per-possession allowed: Code: RNK TM POSS DRtg PPG FG% 1 SAN 87.9 100.9 88.8 43.53 2 MEM 85.6 103.3 88.5 43.6 3 NJN 88.9 104 92.4 43.88 4 IND 88.4 104 92 43.53 5 DET 86.4 104.3 90.2 45.19 6 CHI 93.1 104.4 97.2 42.56 7 HOU 87.4 104.8 91.7 42.92 8 LAC 91.2 104.8 95.6 43.49 9 MIA 90.7 105.9 96 43.97 10 MIN 88.4 105.9 93.6 44.05
This only made me more confused, I'm afraid. If pace matters when evaluating a team's offense/defense, then don't you account for pace by looking at points/possession instead of points/game (or points/min)? That's what the per possession concept is doing.
This per possession stuff that I been reading?? It makes a case for PPG, but we're still the best at FG% and def. rebounding. Messing up the flow of a game is also a great part of defense. So Walton assumes that we must play like the Suns to measure up our defense!!?? Why don't they play like us to measure their defense? We hustle, keep our man in front, contenst shots, box out, rebound, rotate -- all of which are basic fundamentals of defense better than any team in the league. We can even win high scoring games like we did against Wiz, the newly coached Grizz, and Sacramento; or we can make it ugly like we did for Cleveland and Charlotte with some games where we don't allow a 20pt quarter. The Suns are not winning any game under 100pts. How many teams have we held below 40% shooting? I have respected Walton as a commentator but I really hope that he was on that yayo while wearing his tye-dyed shirt. He just said something in the Greg Anthony category.
We're number 1 in defense based on per possession stats. The reason is because of we're best at limiting FG% and defensive rebounding.
Just looked up some stats on 82games.com. On a per-possession basis, we are allowing 98 points/100 possessions. We are the only team among those Walton mentioned we supposedly better than us that is allowing under 100pts/100possessions.
No, per possesion normalizes pace. It doesn't matter if a team has 80 possesions a game or 100 possesions a game, the statistic is showing it on a per possesion basis. My point is that the # of possesions per game is actually a factor that is important. If a team decides to play at a pace which creates fewer possesions, and ONLY because of that is a great defensive team, they are still a great defensive team. Random made-up example. Let's say, like the Rockets, a team is leading the league in PPG and defensive FG%. But, instead of the Rockets, the team is only middle of the league on a per possession basis when it comes to defensive measurements. What I'm saying is that the given team should still be considered a great defensive team, even if it is only a factor of their pace/style, not because they are a capable defensive team regardless of how they play. Defense isn;t everything, though, and the team in question would likely only be a .500 team or so.
Did you guys see what the Lakers and Clippers were doing to the Suns last year (admittedly, in spurts) They were killing the suns, but the immaturity and lack of leadership on the teams (sorry to the Cassell and Kobe lovers, but both of those teams absolutely crumbled) is what caused the downfall. I think the Rockets can do what they did to the suns, only uglier, meaner, and with more consistency.
This sounds like circular logic to me. What you mean to say, I think is : "If a team decides to play at a pace which creates fewer possessions, and only because of that it is limiting the opposing team's points per game, they are still a great defensive team." If that's what you meant, then I disagree. See my response to your example below. You say they are "middle of the league " in per possession defense, and yet they should still be considered a great defensive team. I disagree with this. Here's why: both teams will end up having basically the same number of possessions through the course of the game. Consequentially, the team that wins the game generally needs to score more per their offensive possessions than they are giving up in their defensive possessions. Now, by your example, the team is only middle of the pack in limiting points per defensive possessions. As a result, in order to win, they'd have to be above average in scoring per possession just to give them a chance to win most games. If that's the case, how can you say they are a great defensive team? A great defensive team should be able to win games even if their offense isn't very good.
I concur with durvasa. Just take a look at even this year's team's. If you look at the team that limits the opposition to the lowest number of possessions, guess who that is? Portland at 86.5 possessions per game. But their points-per-possession allowed is horrible at 111.5 pts-per-100-possessions (ranked 27th in defense) so just slowing the pace down doesn't necessarily mean that others will score less. Conversely allowing a bunch of possessions doesn't mean your defense is lousy either. That's why folks would undervalue Chicago's defense this year. If you looked at possessions, they allow 92.6 possessions (rank 24th) and 94.6 ppg (rank 7th). Using the per-possession rating you find that their defense is almost as effective as the Spurs at 101.4 pts-per-100-possessions (rank 3rd).
One last thing to be clear here as well: using a per possession stat doesn't mean you're not factoring in a team's pace into their defense. Mathematically it's nothing more than: Points-allowed / possessions (pace) All we're doing here with a per possession stat is to equalize things for comparison by hypothetically comparing Team A and Team B - if given the same # of possessions how many points would they allow. But it's derived by taking a given team's points it allows by the pace they play so that the pace a team plays does matter.
Patently false. Without the stats of possessions allowed per game, points allowed per possession alone can in no way render the final verdict on the defensive effectiveness. Besides the fact I never claimed defensive FG% alone is good enough to demonstrate the defensive effectiveness (see my response to Nick in post #27), your example unfortunately is neither illustrative nor convincing. In fact, you undermine your own claim earlier that a single stat other than points allow per game is indicative of defensive effectiveness. Moreover, the same argument you used that a team needs to do a little better on the offensive end to make sure the overall point differential is positive is duly applicable to per possession stats.
I understood they are not correlated, since otherwise I would be using redundant information/stats to make a claim. I have to say the way these stats are presented is misleading. While the Spurs was about the same as the Grizzlies in terms of defensive strength (both in PPG allowed and defensive FG%), San Antonio was far superior to Memphis on offense hence the better team overall. The (false) impression that the Spurs were a better defensive team is largely skewed by the fact they did much better on the other end of the floor.
Both would be the test. For me the Spurs aren't doing that great. The Mavs on the other hand are on 31-4 record since we beat them. If you compare our own win record since that game you will see the difference. I'm not excusing the Mavs I'm just saying that win doesn't prove much. As players or even people watching sport you would enjoy it much more if "the underdog" as the Rockets should be considered in this game beat the highly regarded team. The streak that the Mavs have hit is amazing. They are playing good ball. I don't believe you can really compare them to the team we beat. Secondly I would ASSUME or at least expect that the Mavs be playing closer to this level during play offs. I mean, who honestly expects the Mavs or the Suns to play like they did in the first 5 games? Even the Suns poor form can be attributed to fitting in Amare.
i guess in bill's mind. His definition of defense is offense. The best defense is an offense, right bill?
