You don't quite get it. The defensive rating stat on there is a team defensive rating -- it means that the team is "this" efficient on defense when that player is on the floor. The other stat (net) shows how much the defense suffers when the player leaves the court. The significance of Chuck's stats is that he is the only player that is top 10 in both -- meaning that the team is extremely good on defense when he's on the court (97.0), and that his leaving the court has a dramatic effect on the defense as well. Luther Head's on-court defensive rating is merely a function of the Rockets being a great defensive team (#3 in the league), and if you look closer, you'll see that his on/off court net rating isn't that impressive (it's still negative, but not in the top 50). Rafer Alston for his part is also an underrated defender, and what you see on there is why the coach and GM constantly praise him as being our best PG defender. Those stats are not an end-all-be-all measurement of how good a player is on defense, but there are solid inferences that can be made. The Celtics have been so impressive on defense because of the addition of an elite defender (KG) and a defensive guru in Tom Thibodeau. But while the overall success of the Boston team has been a team effort (suggesting that Thibodeau deserves even more credit than KG), a player like Chuck Hayes deserves recognition for being able to improve the rating of the league's #3 defensive team by more than 6 points.
I'm not saying Chuck isn't a good defender, he is. And he is valuable to this team. But, will he make drastic changes in defensive prowess if being inserted into another average defensive team like KG does? Like a truly top 5 defensive player in the league does? I wonder why hasn't the GMs exactly lined up to Morrey's office to trade for Chuck and Rafer.
Dont waste time on those kids, they like fantasy basketball. Just tell him Tim Thomas is No 15 and No 6 on those lists. I just find out Tim Thomas is a top rated defender.
Umm, no. It's exactly those people who don't see that Chuck is a great defender that like fantasy basketball. Too many people here are only interested in two things - block shots and steals when evaluating someones defense. If that's all you need, might as well not watch a single game.
Actually this is the Adam Everett argument only in basketball. Great on D, lousy on O,.....and the value people place on that. I have the same view in this case, give me an average defender who is above average on offense (Scola) over a supreme defender who stinks on offense (Chuck). Same exact argument...just different sports. DD
Like some posters mentioned, I don't think playing Hayes in the 4th Q at the Sixers game would've changed the outcome. The turnovers were caused by the entry pass to Yao. And whether or not you want to blame that on the passers or the defensive skills of the opponent is totally up to you. But that's what happened and you have to live with those facts. It's hard to stop those athletic Sixers on a 3 to 1 fast break and I don't know if Chuck would've made a difference. At worst, they would've gotten fouled and get 2 free throws out of it. But one important issue I didn't see anyone make yet on this topic was that I thought Adelman should've DEFINITELY taken Yao out of the game game in the 4th quarter when the Sixers started making their run. He had 5 fouls and thus was an defensive liability. The offense had become stagnant because we were trying to force the ball to Yao rather than playing the "team game". In hind sight, he didn't contribute much positives in the 4Q. But whether directly or indirectly, he was the reason for the Sixers comeback. I wanted Bonzi to be in the game instead. Should've put Bonzi in. I don't know how much scoring he would've done, but at least our offense would've flowed a lot better which wouldn't have led to all those TOs.
agreed. take yao out in that situation? this is totally debatable. but put in bonzi? are you kidding me? bonzi has not played well as of late - on both sides of the floor. he acted like a blackhole in offense. he'd post up, miss layups, take stupid long jumpers etc., but rarely make a good pass. and in defense, his rotation is horrible and led to many gi'mme's to the opposing team. my guess is even adelman has grown impatient of him and thus his decreased minutes.
All that says is that Tim Thomas is a very good team defender (and possibly that his backup is horrible at defense). It also says that Thomas is a better defender than you think -- can you prove to me that Thomas is a bad defender? (See my point above about how people like you like to dismiss stats because they challenge their otherwise baseless opinions.)
Actually, no. Fielding is less important in baseball than batting. Why? Pitching. "Defense" in baseball has more to do with pitching than fielding. There is only a very limited amount of difference an excellent 2nd baseman or outfielder can make in terms of runs scored. If you look at the fielding number of an average fielder and that of a gold glover, there isn't that much of a differnce. Certainly not as much of a different as, say, the difference between offensive numbers of A-Rod and Adam Everett. So, in baseball, it's way better to have a great batter who is an average defender than to have an average batter who is a great fielder. I believe the book "Moneyball" said something about this. In basketball, on the other hand, if a player sucks at D, it matters a lot more than your shortstop or outfielder sucking at D. Not only will his own man exploit his D, the lack of proper rotation also lead to wide-open jumpers and even layups. It's a HUGE difference.
Tim Thomas, when he tries, is actually not a bad defender. Remember when the Suns had him and wanted to retain him? He was probably their best post defender other than Marion during the playoffs. He can get lazy and stupid sometimes, but the guy has a good body and does a pretty good job when his mind is in it.
Ok where did I say that Scola sucks at D? I said an average defender that is an above average offensive player is better than a great defender who sucks at offense. DD
I think Chuck should be sandwiched between a good defender and elite defender. What separates him from the best of the best is, like everyone said, his size. He can't block shots on a consistent basis. Yes, he takes charges, gets rebounds, and strips balls. But unless you can alter another player's shot with your blocking skills, you ain't no ELITE. But he's really good and probably the best one on our team given that that's pretty much all he does. On the other hand, I think Scola should be considered a good defender. Same thing with him as with Chuck is that they don't block shots. His only problem is that he tend to be out of position on defense at times or doesn't make the recovery on PnRs. I assume this is an adjustment problem and nothing to do with his actually ability. This guys plays with PASSION!
When i think chuck hayes I think how he absolutly destroyed Chris Bosh in the Toronto game then i think how many times Chris Bosh has destroyed other teams. Honestly there is no debate
But he was left holding the door open for David West..... Any player that can out muscle Chuck is a problem...the smaller non physical forwards he can handle but outworking them. But when he runs into a guy that is physically better and stronger then him, he struggles. DD
Stromile Swift averages over a block per game in less than 17 minutes. Obviously he's a more "elite" defender than Chuck Hayes. Lateral quickness, forcing deflections, getting steals, contesting shots, strength to not give up post position, defensive rotation, denying perimeter penetration, boxing out for rebounds, help defense and covering up for teammates' mistakes ... all these things are relatively minor and irrelevant. Blocked shots -- that's the real deal.
simply put, scola is a more complete player than hayes and thus should get more minutes, though this does not make hayes out of the rotation.
