When you talk about what is wrong with The Rocket's defense, you have to look at Rick Adelman's disgusting love affair with Luis Scola and Carl Landry. Watching Scola float around on defense not guarding anybody is sickening enough, but watching Scola and Landry play TOGETHER is down right nauseating and Rick Adelman should know better. These guys are never going to play defense if they aren't afraid of being benched. I've watched a lot of basketball in my time, but I can't recall seeing two players this bad on defense get so many minutes. Even to the point of playing entire quarters or more. Maybe on a lottery team. I don't know. I'm not sure how a coach could expect to win in the playoffs with that kind of mediocrity.
Bingo - I understand that many fans key in on offfense and miss what he does. But how can one not notice that the only time Chuck comes in is when the opposing PF is killing us and we are losing. And then when he goes out we are often in the lead. What else matters?
There are four defensive stats that capture a team's defense -- opp eFG% (you have to take into account the extra point on allowed 3-pointers), defensive rebounding %, forcing turnovers per possession, and limiting free throws. That's approximately the order of importance. Or, more simply and equivalently, you can look at points given up per possession to rate a team's defensive performance. The Rockets are 5th in allowed eFG% (the Magic, Cavs, Celtics, and Pistons are ahead of them), 5th in defensive rebounding% (Spurs, Celtics, Nets, and Pacers are ahead of them), 29th in forcing turnovers, and 2nd best in limiting free throws per FGA (only the Spurs are ahead). Altogether, looking a points given up per possession, the Rockets are virtually in a dead heat with the Spurs and Lakers for 4th place -- only the Celtics, Cavs, and Magic are ahead. Jonathan Feigen, who talks to teams and knows what they look at, said in a chat recently the following: [rquoter] [Comment From Syed] Tell me why rockets are so weak on defense this year 1:06 Jonathan Feigen: They are not. They are fourth in the NBA in points allowed per possession, the statistic teams use. They are still among the top teams in overall field goal percentage defense, considering both opponent's field goal percentage and 3-point percentage. And after a bad stretch, they moved back into the top five in defensive field goal percentage. [/rquoter] Basically echoing what I wrote above.
Ask any coach, hell e-mail a q&a and they will tell u the same that opp fg%, ppg, and def rebounding are the most vital stats in hoops. Last yr, Boston was like #1 or 2 in all three combined with point spread. Go and look at the championship bulls. They were a 100ppg team, but they also were stingy when it came to points holding teams to 91 ppg. Pace means nothing because when ur really good defensively, even when you're up, you're still defennding and contesting.Even when you're up big, the subs are defending and contesting.
It's really not complicated. Generally speaking, the object of any team's offense is to score as many points per possession as possible. The object of any team's defense is to limit points scored per possession. On that basis, the Celtics were the best defensive team last year, and the Bulls were the best defensive team in their championship years.
Last year's defense was a career over from the JVG era. The players have figured out Adelman isn't a strong defensive coach (not as strong as JVG anyway) so they are not putting the same effort in. It's human nature. Only a few guys in the league actually enjoy playing defense while everyone else does just enough to stay out of the coach's doghouse.
Tell you what. If the Rockets don't start playing defense pretty soon (hopefully before the all-star break) they won't be able to establish a defensive identity. You can't turn defense off and on. It's a habit. I don't care how many points we score.
i think there is so much focus on getting the offense down that defensive intensity has suffered. the stats may say the rockets are a good defensive team right now, but anyone who watches this team can easily see that it is not. we can't stop any of the good teams from getting good looks every time down.
Ur my man and all, but I disagree bigtime. If that was the case, why do u think teams would rather give up a 3 than a 2 ? The object isn't about effeciency or some other stat, its about limiting the opps fg%, the points, and rebounding. That never changes. I guess I'm a caveman in terms of the new stuff, but I've had 1 coach that coached on th nba level and he also won a d-3 championship and coached a couple of d-1 programs and his message was the same. You defend by contest all the shots, rotate to help your teammate and the most important thing is grabbing the defensive rebound. You can do the other things, but if you don't grab the rebound, it doesn't matter. The formula is th same and coaches still use it. If u listen to the spurs coaches and commentators, they will tell you the spurs defense is a long way from where its used to being. Mainly because they are giving it up at almost the same as the rockets 45% fg. These teams aren't good enough offensively to give up shots at 45% vs the 42 or so. The Rox are giving up almost 3 more ppg and scoring .8 ppg from jvg last year. That's huge and that why their pt differntial is smaller now. Now we can pollyanna around and fool ourselves, but anyone watching can tell this the kind of defense the rox are used to playing. When Yao goes out, its a layup drill big time. Scola nor landry can handle different kinds of 4 men. Its a ball of u know what that rolls down hill. Speaking of, what did utah shoot for the series last?
I can give you at least one counter example: Jeff Van Gundy, and he knows a thing or two about defense. His defense was geared towards chasing teams off the 3-point line and protecting the paint. The goal is to only give up a contested 2-point jump shot. That's documented. And the reason is obvious -- that is the least efficient shot in the game. What you describe -- opponent FG%, points, and rebounding -- tells you part of the story. But its only a part. And, ultimately, it's only useful for measuring defense to the extent it describes a team's ability to limit points scored per possession. And points per possession isn't a new concept. Dean Smith discussed it at length in his book "Multiple Offense, Multiple Defense." An excerpt from his introduction: [rquoter] From a defensive point of view, one of my pet peeves is to hear a team referred to as the "defensive champion" strictly on the basis of giving up the fewest points per game over a season. Generally, a low-scoring game is attributable to a ball-control offense rather than a sound, successful defense. To more adequately judge the effectiveness of our offense and defense, we devised a statisticaly evaluation system while I was an assistant to Bob Spear at the Air Force Academy in 1955. We called it possession evaluation and it was first written for Coach Frank McGuire's book Defensive Basketball. Possession evaluation is determined by the average number of points scored for each possession of the ball by a team during the game. ... ... The average points for each of our possessions give us our offense. The average points for each opponent possession helps us determine the effectiveness of our defense. ... [/rquoter] I agree. And that is precisely what leads to good defense, as evaluated by points per possession. You can allow 1/10 shooting on a possession, allowing 9 offensive rebounds. 10% doesn't mean you played good defense (like you said, you need to rebound). Or, you could allow 1/1 shooting on a possession. Now its 100% shooting and no offensive rebounds for the opponent, but the result is the same. Based on points allowed per possession, you gave up 2 points regardless. Effectively, same defensive performance. This season they are allowing 104.5 points per 100 possessions. The last time they gave up that much was in 96/97, before the Duncan era. Yes, and when Yao is out of the game, our team defense (according to points/poss) is much worse -- 82games says we're giving up 6.4 more points per 100 possessions. So your observations based on intuitively combining a number of stats are verified.
I thought some might be interested in a plot of our team defense over the years. In my opinion, the best measure is based on points allowed per possession. But I'll go one step further. It's not just how many points you allow, but how many you allow relative to the rest of the league. So, I standardize the defensive rating to reflect this (that means calculating the number of standard deviations under the league average). Here's a comparison of San Antonio's and Houston's standardized DRTG over the years (I'll start with our first championship year): To help decipher the meaning: >2: one of the great defensive teams in NBA history >1: a very, very good defensive team >.5: a pretty good defensive team >-.5 and <.5: middling defensive team <-.5: a pretty bad defensive team <-1: a very, very bad defensive team <-2: one of the worst defensive teams in NBA history So, yeah, relative to the last couple years, our defense is down. So are the Spurs. But I think we're still pretty good. It's the offense, more than the defense, that needs work.
It's absolutely horrible. I think Chuck Hayes needs more playing time. Many posters underestimate Chuck's defensive impact, because of his height. It's amazing how he how strong his position in the post is. His quick feet was great for taking charges.
Man, you've taken the analysis as serious scientific research. You've got to present an interesting PhD thesis and get Morey to hire you as assistant.
That's no joke. I think it's great to have a guy like durvasa around here. Since the majority of people at CFs are just typical fans like me without tremendous basketball knowledge, it helps resolve a lot of debates to see unbiased numbers. And durvasa doesn't just bust out basic stats that anybody can find at NBA.com. He often takes it to the next level and helps average fans understand what we're looking at. I've also seen a few people that seem to know a lot about the game from personal experience. leebigez is the best example I can think of off the top of my head. A_3P0 seems pretty sharp, too. I think some of the the most interesting discussions are between guys like leebigez and durvasa. You get two interesting and unique approaches to analyzing the game. When they agree on something, there is usually a good chance they are right.
Durvasa, in a way I think u understand me, I also understand u, but maybe its the clarity of it all. When you're a good defensive team, you don't concede any shot. Its not that u want to give up a contested 2 vs a open 3, its the point that you want guys putting up shots under dures and vs the shot clock. Its not because 3's are worth more, its because that's a low % shot. A open 24ft shot isn't better than a contested 15ft shot. The goal is to contest every shot and that what lowers fg%. Contesting is closing out under control with your hands up in the guys face. Merely running out there and standing in front of guys isn't contesting the shot. That's why teams are poor defensively like Phoenix. They conceed too many open shots, dribble drives from distance and the core of defensive principle under the old coach. The rox aren't a bad defensive team right now, but they aren't a good enough offensive team to have defensive lapses.
The way I look at it is defense is the inverse of offense. What do good offensive teams like to do? Score in the paint, hit three pointers, limit the number of long 2-point jump shots, get after the offensive board if there's a miss, get to the line. And we hear it all the time, shooting a long contested jumper with your foot on the line is the worst shot in basketball. So, knowing that, a good defense is one that tries to take those things away. Keep teams out of the paint. Chase them off the three-point line. If you're to give up a shot, let it be a contested long 2-pointer. Only allow one shot. Play good D without excessive fouling. These are the core principles of any good half-court defensive team. And, not surprisingly, that's exactly what JVG outlined as his core principles. There was a thread a while back, where a photo was taken of the practice gym wall. On it, JVG wrote "1 contested 2-point J" under how the Rockets are to play. That's how he wanted the Rockets to play defense, and if you think about it that's precisely how you minimize points allowed per possession: (1) a contested 2-point J is the worst percentage shot in basketball, (2) don't give up free throws, (3) no offensive rebounds. One thing he did not stress as a core principle was forcing turnovers -- we didn't have the personnel for it and it would compromise other facets of our defense.
I think that's very, very important. Now, a long contested shot isn't the best shot in the book, but if you let great scorers get to their sweet spots, its doesn't matter. Jordan,Kobe,Wilkens and all the great scorers weren't good 3pt shooters. They would get to the 15-17 ft range and it was like a layup to them. VanGundy always stressed get a hand up and contest. Don't worry about your man, trust your teammate to take your man and everything works on a string. I take your man, then the next guy will pick up mine and it basically turns into a scramble drill, but when that happens, it takes you out of rebounding position. That's why on close out, it has to be fast and under control. If you have guys that can put the ball on the floor, closeout are very,very difficult. That's why tonight hayes and landry gave up the 3's to thomas. If you close to him too fast, he can put the ball down and get to the basket. Once guys penetrate the interior of your defense, you have been compromised defensively. When that happens and you have no shotblockers at the goal, now your defense is in trouble.
