09 final 4 - lakers, magic, cavs, nuggets
08 final 4 - celtics, lakers, pistons, spurs
07 final 4 - spurs, cavs, pistons, jazz
06 final 4 - heat, mavs, pistons, suns

what do all but 1 team have in common? they ranked in the top 8 in defensive fg% for that particular season. the lone exception were the suns who have been middle of the pack in terms of defense but ranked top 2 in terms of offensive fg% during that time...which was good enough to get them into the final 4.

this post is for everyone that only cares about advancing deep into the playoffs. not breaking any new ground here but defense gets you into true title contention...unless you have the best offense in the game by a wide margin.

[Edited by - djsunyc on 09-24-2009 1:02 PM]

Oh wait, so defenses wins championships? I've never heard this term before. Thanks.

Posted by GKFv2:

Oh wait, so defenses wins championships? I've never heard this term before. Thanks.

that explains alot...

no disrespect senor dj, but...

to reference my man, tomverve, one of our good ol' experts on statistics...

this is a mistake of looking at correlation as causality.

you simply cannot pick one stat that you believe proves one's point one already believes in to argue that it is the actual cause of a result.

for a great read on how this mistake is often made, 'Freakonomics' does a great and fun job of this

the authors (economists/professors) make a living off of showing how perceived notions of what causes things can often be wrong or easily called into question.

in essence...

your argument does not really PROVES the claimed outcome under scrutiny.

a better way would be to compare multiple variables in some sort of t-test and look at where they fall on the curve.

regardless use of pure stats can be flawed when there are so many variables that are hard to account for (although i guess it could be performed...i.e. team chemistry, calls by particular refs, home court advantage for particular teams, the importance of superstars, etc. etc.)

the lone exception were the suns who have been middle of the pack in terms of defense but ranked top 2 in terms of offensive fg% during that time...which was good enough to get them into the final 4.

just off hand, it seems like a fairly significant piece of evidence to consider, given that we do have the exact same coach, and will be using the same system. i think a HUGE key -- that is not easily measured -- to d'antoni's approach, as is phil jackson/winters, or old school daly/riley/van gundy/popovic approach was a particular system being suited to the roster.

isiah failed in part because he worked on assembling all-star talent, but not necessarily made of players that complimented each other, or would get along.

the suns were successful because they had players both in talent, and chemistry that worked. grant hill even said that adding shaq ruined the chemistry and identity of the team.

jordan's bulls had scottie pippen, but i always heard people say he was overrated, yet the rest of the team were role players who never tried to do anything more. jordan was so good that could be relied upon. the kobe/shaq lakers struggled until they got enough shooters to compliment them, because possibly as the recent knickerblogger article comparing great players demonstrates:
http://www.knickerblogger.net/?p=2367

that jordan was so amazing and that kobe is just not as good as him by almost 2 standard deviations (which is pretty darn significant in stats), so perhaps it took his team adding more great or very good players to win. kobe's lakers were not top teams sans shaq/rice or gasol.

the pistons, knicks and heat of the 90s created a team of hard nose defensive players and had that identity, as did the pistons of brown and popovic's spurs. of course, they also had great chemistry and a great player, except for the pistons, but they had an amazing starting 5 where each guy was a threat, and a sick individual defender.

let's see what happens if the knicks get lebron or some other superstar + someone else, in 2 years. i think the jury is still out on this question, because most other teams don't have coaches with systems that are that unique.

i have a hunch it is a combination of roster makeup (i.e. a top gm), talent + team chemistry and belief in a coaches system that often shows success.

we'll just have to wait and see.

[Edited by - PresIke on 09-24-2009 1:40 PM]

it's not one stat...and personally, i think stats in basketball is trivial for the most part.

but defensive fg% is a reflection of how an entire team's defense functions...not just steals or block shots...but the cumulative efforts for a team's defense. this includes schemes, angles, positioning, personnel, coaching, etc.

it shows that to get into final 4 territory, not only must you make it difficult for the other team to score, but you must do it better than 80% of the league.

d'antoni and his suns were the lone exception to the gist of this post...just like the pistons were the lone exception of winning a title without at top50 all time player. which means it's VERY difficult to replicate.

i've always argued that there is alot of success short of winning the title. so this thread isn't directed to a person that shares the same philosophy. but to get into that mix, the team must perform on the defensive end at a top flight level.

in relation to the knicks...d'antoni's grade is incomplete. sometimes it's the right place at the right time...and that could've been the case with the suns. time will tell...

[Edited by - djsunyc on 09-24-2009 2:17 PM]

[Edited by - djsunyc on 09-24-2009 2:25 PM]

I'm still trying to figure out who it is "that only cares about advancing deep into the playoffs."? From all I've read everyone wants to see this team win a Title. Obviously you've got to 1st get into the playoffs in order to have a chance to make the final 4, but it would seem to me that both MDA and Walsh are keenly aware that this team needs to play better defense. Case in point is the addition of TD, Hill and Darko. All 3 are players who can not only score but play D. We already have Chandler who is a decent defender and getting better. Duhon used to be known for his D, i'll give him a pass for last year and hope to see him get back to that this year.

Nate may not be a good defender yet, but MDA made it clear that he wanted to see Nate's steals go up. He felt that there was no reason he couldn't get steals on a consistent basis if he was dogging guys down court and playing the passing lanes. He's got the quickness for it. Guess what, his steals did increase this last yr. Now if he could get even more serious about D, he could be very helpful.

Gallo may not be a great defender, but he puts in a serious effort on D. In fact he was decent for a rookie with a back injury. When teams tried to go at him it mostly backfired, cuz the kid has balls. The thing is that we shouldn't be looking for this team to be great stat wise on D. That's not the approach MDA wants. His teams have been middle of the pack on D, but great on O and that's where we're going for sure.