[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

D-E-F-E-N-S-E
Author Thread
knicks1248
Posts: 42059
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 2/3/2004
Member: #582
9/30/2014  4:13 PM    LAST EDITED: 9/30/2014  4:14 PM
Fisher admitted he was sending a message by only dwelling on D for Tuesday’s opening practice.
“Today we built our defensive foundation,’’ Fisher said. “There’ll be a lot of talk about our offense in terms of running the triangle, but defense is the anchor, the foundation to all great teams. Today we spent 2 1/2 hours on defense. We didn’t do one triangle-specific thing.’’

When was the last time you heard a knick coach spend more then 30 minutes on defensive sets..

Music to my ears

ES
AUTOADVERT
mikesknicks
Posts: 20755
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 6/17/2004
Member: #684
USA
9/30/2014  4:30 PM
Nice to hear, but this is a different league and they want more scoring. I just want to stop hearing former sucky defensive player saying the Knicks plays no defense.
In the Knick of time. Knickal for Your thoughts.
nixluva
Posts: 56258
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/5/2004
Member: #758
USA
9/30/2014  5:04 PM
I was looking at the practice video and one thing I noticed right away was how he was having them work on defending as a unit and when the ball was swung they all tracked the ball and tightened up the D in that area to try and be aware and ready. They were forming a fence on the strong side of the floor. Nothing crazy just a different approach to Team Defense. It's imperative that they improve from last year. I think this team will be strong offensively and if they can improve defensively that will go a long way to a very successful season.

Funny how such basics as "see your man, see the ball" can be ignored on bad teams. We just need a simple scheme, sound technique and better effort. Doesn't mean they'll turn into the Bulls, but there's no reason they can't significantly improve on D.

nixluva
Posts: 56258
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/5/2004
Member: #758
USA
9/30/2014  5:28 PM    LAST EDITED: 9/30/2014  5:30 PM
I like to read this comment about the defensive focus this year:

"In terms of what we are going to do defensively, we are going to push everything to the sideline and keeping people out of our middle, last year it was more forcing people to the middle," J.R. Smith said. "That right there is a mindset that eliminates people not helping and who is supposed to be where and what. The attention to detail and the drills that we are doing, everybody understands where they are supposed to be on the defensive end.

"We got people who can score. We got a scoring champion (Anthony), we got a point guard (Jose Calderon)…that is the least of our worries on offense. The defensive end, we gotta people in the right spots where we can succeed as a team."

Amar'e Stoudemire — took the last half hour of practice off as a precautionary measure to protect his knees — thought Fisher's early focus on defense was "just brilliant," adding the new coach's "message is very clear in what he's trying to accomplish."

This is so simple and yet so HUGE in terms of trying to fix some of the issues we had last year with players looking lost and missing assignments. This is a guy putting in a system that his players can understand and execute. Fish isn't looking to make things harder than they have to be. Apparently there is a D in Derek and this team will be taught to defend as a team.

EnySpree
Posts: 44917
Alba Posts: 138
Joined: 4/18/2003
Member: #397

9/30/2014  5:39 PM
Melo also talked heavily about defense in the same manner Fisher did. That must be mentioned because everyone is quick to bad mouth Melo and he's doing everything right and saying the right things.
Subscribe to my Podcast https://youtube.com/c/DiehardknicksPodcast https://twitter.com/DiehardknicksPC?t=z5pqPMhdiAZNwzcCGMkiFw&s=09
F500ONE
Posts: 23899
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 6/28/2014
Member: #5844

9/30/2014  6:35 PM    LAST EDITED: 10/1/2014  11:54 AM
I like this, Fisher better hold players accountable
gunsnewing
Posts: 55076
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 2/24/2002
Member: #215
USA
9/30/2014  7:04 PM
I love when guys like amare and Bargnani talk about playing defense
knicks1248
Posts: 42059
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 2/3/2004
Member: #582
9/30/2014  7:18 PM
I'm not a huge fan of the "Defense wins championship" theory, to me it's completely overrated, Give me a middle of the pack defense, and top 3 offense..I always thought that in the Ewing Era we never had enough offense, and defense can only get you so far because at that the end of the day, the main object is to score.

I think a team that moves the ball and plays efficiently, gets to the FT line and hits 80% of them, will conquer any defense in the league. How many times do you hear "GREAT offense but better defense", translation, he took a bad shot, It's more like "GREAT defense but better offense"

Thats why phil always has a TOP scorer on his roster, because no matter how good your D is, you can't stop a Kobe, or Jordan, or MELO no matter who guards them, or what scheme you put together to try and stop them.

ES
nixluva
Posts: 56258
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/5/2004
Member: #758
USA
9/30/2014  8:06 PM
knicks1248 wrote:I'm not a huge fan of the "Defense wins championship" theory, to me it's completely overrated, Give me a middle of the pack defense, and top 3 offense..I always thought that in the Ewing Era we never had enough offense, and defense can only get you so far because at that the end of the day, the main object is to score.

I think a team that moves the ball and plays efficiently, gets to the FT line and hits 80% of them, will conquer any defense in the league. How many times do you hear "GREAT offense but better defense", translation, he took a bad shot, It's more like "GREAT defense but better offense"

Thats why phil always has a TOP scorer on his roster, because no matter how good your D is, you can't stop a Kobe, or Jordan, or MELO no matter who guards them, or what scheme you put together to try and stop them.


I think you just want to be in the top half of the league defensively and top 5 offensively. This team is headed in that kind of direction. I think if Fish can get them defending so that it's not just an open lane every time down then their offense will win them most games. This team is actually loaded offensively. A lot of the media and some fans don't recognize how much talent we actually have. Even in the disaster of last year this team was ranked 11th in offensive efficiency. I didn't even like the offense last year and forget about the defense!!!

This team should be coached and prepared much better than last year and to be able to execute on both ends at a higher level. When I read articles or posts saying this team is gonna only win 34-37 games it just underscores how much they aren't factoring in what a difference Coaching and leadership actually can make. The same group of players can perform at a high level or low level based on the preparation they've been given. No one can say that this team operated on a high level last year and maxed out their potential. They most surely left wins on the table last year and could've won more games. IMO with this regime in charge we're more likely to see this team play closer to it's real potential. The changes that have been made to the roster will help, but mostly the mental disposition and focus of the team should be better this year.

knickscity
Posts: 24533
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 6/2/2012
Member: #4241
USA
9/30/2014  8:14 PM    LAST EDITED: 9/30/2014  8:16 PM
knicks1248 wrote:I'm not a huge fan of the "Defense wins championship" theory, to me it's completely overrated, Give me a middle of the pack defense, and top 3 offense..I always thought that in the Ewing Era we never had enough offense, and defense can only get you so far because at that the end of the day, the main object is to score.

I think a team that moves the ball and plays efficiently, gets to the FT line and hits 80% of them, will conquer any defense in the league. How many times do you hear "GREAT offense but better defense", translation, he took a bad shot, It's more like "GREAT defense but better offense"

Thats why phil always has a TOP scorer on his roster, because no matter how good your D is, you can't stop a Kobe, or Jordan, or MELO no matter who guards them, or what scheme you put together to try and stop them.

Not sure where this delusion has come from, plenty of top scorers have been stopped. Melo has been stopped his entire career so far. Kobe and Jordan have been stopped every year they didnt have Phil...hell Kobe has lost an NBA finals twice WITH Phil, once to a team with far less talent, but far better DEFENSE. bottom line you wont win anything if you can defend at a high level.

You need offense as well, but eltie defense is normally mandatory. Dont let facts stand in the way of opinion though, nothing wrong with rooting for the exception....

Over the past 25 years, there were a total of six times that a team with a non top-10 defense made the NBA Finals. To get even more specific, there have only been two teams—the ’98 Jazz and ’01 Lakers—that made the Finals despite having a defense in the bottom half of the League. Although the Jazz lost to the Bulls in their series, somehow the ’01 Lakers ramped up their defense in the Finals to take their series 4-1.

http://www.slamonline.com/nba/does-defense-win-championships/

here's another for emphasis....

Entering the 2014 Finals, the 2000-01 Lakers were the last team to win a championship after ranking outside the top 10 in defensive efficiency in the regular season.

Out of the top 10 is not where you want to be. Over the last 37 years (since the NBA started tracking turnovers in 1977-78), only three teams have won a championship after ranking outside the top 10 in defensive efficiency in the regular season. Twice as many champs have ranked outside the top 10 in offensive efficiency.

http://hangtime.blogs.nba.com/2014/06/16/spurs-and-heat-help-prove-that-defense-wins-championships/

knicks1248
Posts: 42059
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 2/3/2004
Member: #582
9/30/2014  8:48 PM    LAST EDITED: 9/30/2014  8:51 PM
knickscity wrote:
knicks1248 wrote:I'm not a huge fan of the "Defense wins championship" theory, to me it's completely overrated, Give me a middle of the pack defense, and top 3 offense..I always thought that in the Ewing Era we never had enough offense, and defense can only get you so far because at that the end of the day, the main object is to score.

I think a team that moves the ball and plays efficiently, gets to the FT line and hits 80% of them, will conquer any defense in the league. How many times do you hear "GREAT offense but better defense", translation, he took a bad shot, It's more like "GREAT defense but better offense"

Thats why phil always has a TOP scorer on his roster, because no matter how good your D is, you can't stop a Kobe, or Jordan, or MELO no matter who guards them, or what scheme you put together to try and stop them.

Not sure where this delusion has come from, plenty of top scorers have been stopped. Melo has been stopped his entire career so far. Kobe and Jordan have been stopped every year they didnt have Phil...hell Kobe has lost an NBA finals twice WITH Phil, once to a team with far less talent, but far better DEFENSE. bottom line you wont win anything if you can defend at a high level.

You need offense as well, but eltie defense is normally mandatory. Dont let facts stand in the way of opinion though, nothing wrong with rooting for the exception....

Over the past 25 years, there were a total of six times that a team with a non top-10 defense made the NBA Finals. To get even more specific, there have only been two teams—the ’98 Jazz and ’01 Lakers—that made the Finals despite having a defense in the bottom half of the League. Although the Jazz lost to the Bulls in their series, somehow the ’01 Lakers ramped up their defense in the Finals to take their series 4-1.

http://www.slamonline.com/nba/does-defense-win-championships/

here's another for emphasis....

Entering the 2014 Finals, the 2000-01 Lakers were the last team to win a championship after ranking outside the top 10 in defensive efficiency in the regular season.

Out of the top 10 is not where you want to be. Over the last 37 years (since the NBA started tracking turnovers in 1977-78), only three teams have won a championship after ranking outside the top 10 in defensive efficiency in the regular season. Twice as many champs have ranked outside the top 10 in offensive efficiency.

http://hangtime.blogs.nba.com/2014/06/16/spurs-and-heat-help-prove-that-defense-wins-championships/

Based on statistical analyses, the four most important keys for team success in basketball and their relative weights, in parentheses, are:

Shoot a high field goal percentage (10).
Do not commit turnovers (5-6).
Get offensive rebounds (4-5).
Get to the foul line frequently (2-3).


Teams that consistently win basketball games do at least three of these things well. If a team doesn't shoot well, it better do the other three things very well. I should note that Oliver says these factors should be considered on the basis of the number of a team's possessions compared to its opponent, not in absolute terms. In other words, he looks at efficiency, for example, the number of made shots per possession, or the number of turnovers per possession, not total points or turnovers, which can vary greatly depending on the pace of the game.

Obviously, these keys could also be stated from the defensive perspective, i.e., prevent easy baskets, cause turnovers, do not give up offensive rebounds, do not foul, etc. However, I have put them in the offensive perspective because of another of Oliver's conclusions: In the NBA, at least since the 1970's, offense wins playoffs and championships more often than defense . The difference in success between strong offensive teams and strong defensive teams is not large, but the data contradicts the old adage that defense wins championships. I suspect this may be even more accurate at lower levels of basketball where offensive skills are more rare than defensive skills. [On the other hand, in a one-game playoff, it is possible for a team or a critical player to have a bad shooting night, whereas defense may not be as variable].

But, if defense does not necessarily win championships, where did the idea originate? With Bill Russell's Celtics who were the best defensive team ever and won 11 of 13 championships during his tenure. They had Hall-of-Famers coming off the bench. Of course, basing the idea on those Celtics is like looking at Michael Jordan's Bulls who won 6 titles in 8 years and saying shooting guards win championships. The fabulously exceptional team or player is still the exception.

Oliver offers some comments on why he thinks these factors appear so important. The benefit of a high shooting percentage is obvious, especially since most missed shots result in defensive rebounds (and potential fast breaks). Oliver cites one study that found that the NBA team with the higher field goal percentage won 79 percent of the games.

Turnovers are important because a team cannot even shoot, never mind score, if it turns over the ball during a possession. The NBA team with fewer turnovers wins about 58 percent of the time. If field goal percentages are about equal, the team with fewer turnovers wins 69 percent of the time. In an email to me, Oliver commented that turnovers are even more important below the NBA level.

Offensive rebounding can make up for a poor shooting percentage, particularly as shots off of offensive rebounds generally are more likely to result in scores than initial field goal attempts. Oliver refers to a study of WNBA offensive rebounds done by an official with the Charlotte Sting. The study found that offensive rebounders increase their field goal percentage from 41 to 48 percent and their points per play from about .80 to .94. That improved the team's points per play from .80 to .90, which Oliver says is a huge difference. In the NBA, if shooting percentages are about equal, the team with more offensive rebounds wins 63 percent of the games. (This also emphasizes how important it is for the defense to box out).

Oliver discounts to some extent the value of defensive rebounding. He notes that 70 percent of missed shots result in defensive rebounds so they do not take much special effort or ability. Also, defensive rebounds are to a large extent the result of good defense making the offense shoot a low field goal percentage. In that sense, factoring in defensive rebounds is like double-counting the same affect.

Interestingly, it is more important for teams to get to the foul line frequently than it is for them to hit a high percentage of their foul shots. Perhaps, this is because lots of foul shots means the other team's starters are in foul trouble. Again, if shooting percentages are equal, the NBA team that commits fewer fouls wins 67 percent of the games.

Oliver also has some other observations based on his NBA data. Good offensive players are more important than good offensive systems. Oliver offers numerous examples of good scorers who succeeded regardless of the system in which they played and "good" offensive systems that floundered without a good scorer(s). Think of the Bulls' triangle offense with and without Michael Jordan. Think of Shaquille O'Neal in Orlando and Los Angeles. On the other hand, Oliver does note that a few NBA coaches have had offensive success with more than one team: George Karl, Phil Jackson and Don Nelson. This may be because they are good at recognizing and using scorers well, not necessarily because of any particular system. In other words, adapt the system to the players rather than vice-versa. However, I should note that Oliver believes offensive systems are more important at the college ranks and below but he cannot prove it.

Offensive efficiency is more important than pushing the pace of the game. Oliver quotes Dean Smith who said: "The biggest reason I'm against simply running the ball down and shooting the first shot available is that the defense doesn't have time to foul you." And, as noted, getting fouled and shooting lots of foul shots is a key to success. Slowing the game (reducing the total number of possessions) down does not seem to increase defensive efficiency (the percentage of stops), though, as will be described below, it does make the outcome of individual games more variable.

Good offensive teams have both inside and outside scoring, however, no single position is key to offensive success. A team does not have to have a great point guard or a great center to score efficiently. However, it does have to pass well. Most offensively successful teams have a high percentage of assists on their scores. Assists lead to higher quality shots and a higher shooting percentage. The NBA team with the higher number of assists wins about 72 percent of games.


Height is more important to offensive success than defensive success, though it is not critical. Statistically, the top offensive teams in the NBA have been somewhat taller than average, whereas the top defensive teams have been shorter than average. [Of course, the reason could be that shorter teams had to play tougher defense because they had a hard time scoring]. While there is a correlation between having a top shot blocker and having a very efficient defense, there is no correlation between a high team total of blocked shots and defensive efficiency. Oliver surmises that height may be more important at the high school and college level where there are greater variations in size among the players.

Contrary to what some coaches and commentators think, it is not easier for offenses to rebound three point shots. Oliver looked at numerous NBA games between 1999 and 2002 that included several thousand missed shots. The offense rebounded 33 percent of two point misses and 31 percent of three point misses. Generally speaking, the rebounds on three point shots do not go farther from the basket than two point shots. Also, many two point field goals are shot close to the basket and the shooter often has the best chance to get the rebound.

There is no such thing as a "hot hand." Oliver cites two studies of NBA players and one of college players that showed no indication that any particular players were more likely to make a shot if they had made the previous shot. The NBA studies were of the Philadelphia 76ers' field goal attempts during the 1981 season and the Celtics free throw attempts during the 1981 and 1982 seasons. If anything, the players were slightly more likely to make a shot if they had missed the previous one. Of the twenty-six college players only one was significantly streaky.

Underdogs should adopt a "risky" strategy even if no particular strategy is clearly better. A risky strategy is one that changes the dynamics of how the game would normally go. Examples of risky strategies are pressing, attempting many three point shots, slowing down the pace of the game, playing a zone, fronting the post, sending guards to the boards to rebound, releasing the guards on defense for a potential fast break, and playing oversized or undersized lineups. If one such strategy is clearly better, such as pressing a tall team with poor ball-handlers, then the underdog should use that strategy. However, even when no particular risky strategy is better, the underdog should still use one.

Oliver notes that the slow down strategy works by reducing the number of possessions each team has. This reduces the better team's advantages and makes the outcome more variable. Similarly, the other risky strategies make results more variable in different ways. For that reason, the otherwise superior team should avoid risky strategies. Oliver describes how Rick Pitino's talented Kentucky teams may have lost some games by pressing.

If your team scores an avg of a 110 ppg shooting 50% (usually a top 3 offense in the NBA) and it's opponents avg 105 ppg shooting 49% (usually a middle to poor defensive team) who wins the game.

ES
knicks1248
Posts: 42059
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 2/3/2004
Member: #582
9/30/2014  8:58 PM    LAST EDITED: 9/30/2014  8:59 PM
You think a player can see the ball and his man on every single defensive possession, especially against a team moving the ball like hot coals.

The offense controls the pace of the game, it's the only time you have full control. Your never going to have 8 "all defensive players" on your team.

ES
nixluva
Posts: 56258
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/5/2004
Member: #758
USA
9/30/2014  9:02 PM
I think we need to look at it more from a team make up standpoint. Not all Champions are defensive 1st teams. Often they are better offensive teams than defensive teams. As knicks1248 was trying to point out you can win a title even if your team is more offensive than defensive. We're always talking about good teams tho. There are examples of teams that had dominant defense and only OK offense and Dominant Offense and OK D.


2013-14 Spurs 7th Off - 3rd Def
2012-13 Heat 2nd Off - 9th Def
2011-12 Heat 8th Off - 4th Def
2010-11 Mavs 8th Off - 8th Def
2009-10 Lakers 11th Off - 4th Def
2008-09 Lakers 3rd Off - 6th Def
2007-08 Celtics 11th Off - 1st Def
2006-07 Spurs 5th Off - 2nd Def
2005-06 Heat 7th Off - 9th Def
2004-05 Spurs 8th Off - 1st Def
2003-04 Pistons 11th Off - 2nd Def
2002-03 Spurs 7th Off - 3rd Def
2001-02 Lakers 2nd Off - 7th Def
2000-01 Lakers 2nd Off - 21st Def
knickscity
Posts: 24533
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 6/2/2012
Member: #4241
USA
10/1/2014  4:57 AM
knicks1248 wrote:
knickscity wrote:
knicks1248 wrote:I'm not a huge fan of the "Defense wins championship" theory, to me it's completely overrated, Give me a middle of the pack defense, and top 3 offense..I always thought that in the Ewing Era we never had enough offense, and defense can only get you so far because at that the end of the day, the main object is to score.

I think a team that moves the ball and plays efficiently, gets to the FT line and hits 80% of them, will conquer any defense in the league. How many times do you hear "GREAT offense but better defense", translation, he took a bad shot, It's more like "GREAT defense but better offense"

Thats why phil always has a TOP scorer on his roster, because no matter how good your D is, you can't stop a Kobe, or Jordan, or MELO no matter who guards them, or what scheme you put together to try and stop them.

Not sure where this delusion has come from, plenty of top scorers have been stopped. Melo has been stopped his entire career so far. Kobe and Jordan have been stopped every year they didnt have Phil...hell Kobe has lost an NBA finals twice WITH Phil, once to a team with far less talent, but far better DEFENSE. bottom line you wont win anything if you can defend at a high level.

You need offense as well, but eltie defense is normally mandatory. Dont let facts stand in the way of opinion though, nothing wrong with rooting for the exception....

Over the past 25 years, there were a total of six times that a team with a non top-10 defense made the NBA Finals. To get even more specific, there have only been two teams—the ’98 Jazz and ’01 Lakers—that made the Finals despite having a defense in the bottom half of the League. Although the Jazz lost to the Bulls in their series, somehow the ’01 Lakers ramped up their defense in the Finals to take their series 4-1.

http://www.slamonline.com/nba/does-defense-win-championships/

here's another for emphasis....

Entering the 2014 Finals, the 2000-01 Lakers were the last team to win a championship after ranking outside the top 10 in defensive efficiency in the regular season.

Out of the top 10 is not where you want to be. Over the last 37 years (since the NBA started tracking turnovers in 1977-78), only three teams have won a championship after ranking outside the top 10 in defensive efficiency in the regular season. Twice as many champs have ranked outside the top 10 in offensive efficiency.

http://hangtime.blogs.nba.com/2014/06/16/spurs-and-heat-help-prove-that-defense-wins-championships/

Based on statistical analyses, the four most important keys for team success in basketball and their relative weights, in parentheses, are:

Shoot a high field goal percentage (10).
Do not commit turnovers (5-6).
Get offensive rebounds (4-5).
Get to the foul line frequently (2-3).


Teams that consistently win basketball games do at least three of these things well. If a team doesn't shoot well, it better do the other three things very well. I should note that Oliver says these factors should be considered on the basis of the number of a team's possessions compared to its opponent, not in absolute terms. In other words, he looks at efficiency, for example, the number of made shots per possession, or the number of turnovers per possession, not total points or turnovers, which can vary greatly depending on the pace of the game.

Obviously, these keys could also be stated from the defensive perspective, i.e., prevent easy baskets, cause turnovers, do not give up offensive rebounds, do not foul, etc. However, I have put them in the offensive perspective because of another of Oliver's conclusions: In the NBA, at least since the 1970's, offense wins playoffs and championships more often than defense . The difference in success between strong offensive teams and strong defensive teams is not large, but the data contradicts the old adage that defense wins championships. I suspect this may be even more accurate at lower levels of basketball where offensive skills are more rare than defensive skills. [On the other hand, in a one-game playoff, it is possible for a team or a critical player to have a bad shooting night, whereas defense may not be as variable].

But, if defense does not necessarily win championships, where did the idea originate? With Bill Russell's Celtics who were the best defensive team ever and won 11 of 13 championships during his tenure. They had Hall-of-Famers coming off the bench. Of course, basing the idea on those Celtics is like looking at Michael Jordan's Bulls who won 6 titles in 8 years and saying shooting guards win championships. The fabulously exceptional team or player is still the exception.

Oliver offers some comments on why he thinks these factors appear so important. The benefit of a high shooting percentage is obvious, especially since most missed shots result in defensive rebounds (and potential fast breaks). Oliver cites one study that found that the NBA team with the higher field goal percentage won 79 percent of the games.

Turnovers are important because a team cannot even shoot, never mind score, if it turns over the ball during a possession. The NBA team with fewer turnovers wins about 58 percent of the time. If field goal percentages are about equal, the team with fewer turnovers wins 69 percent of the time. In an email to me, Oliver commented that turnovers are even more important below the NBA level.

Offensive rebounding can make up for a poor shooting percentage, particularly as shots off of offensive rebounds generally are more likely to result in scores than initial field goal attempts. Oliver refers to a study of WNBA offensive rebounds done by an official with the Charlotte Sting. The study found that offensive rebounders increase their field goal percentage from 41 to 48 percent and their points per play from about .80 to .94. That improved the team's points per play from .80 to .90, which Oliver says is a huge difference. In the NBA, if shooting percentages are about equal, the team with more offensive rebounds wins 63 percent of the games. (This also emphasizes how important it is for the defense to box out).

Oliver discounts to some extent the value of defensive rebounding. He notes that 70 percent of missed shots result in defensive rebounds so they do not take much special effort or ability. Also, defensive rebounds are to a large extent the result of good defense making the offense shoot a low field goal percentage. In that sense, factoring in defensive rebounds is like double-counting the same affect.

Interestingly, it is more important for teams to get to the foul line frequently than it is for them to hit a high percentage of their foul shots. Perhaps, this is because lots of foul shots means the other team's starters are in foul trouble. Again, if shooting percentages are equal, the NBA team that commits fewer fouls wins 67 percent of the games.

Oliver also has some other observations based on his NBA data. Good offensive players are more important than good offensive systems. Oliver offers numerous examples of good scorers who succeeded regardless of the system in which they played and "good" offensive systems that floundered without a good scorer(s). Think of the Bulls' triangle offense with and without Michael Jordan. Think of Shaquille O'Neal in Orlando and Los Angeles. On the other hand, Oliver does note that a few NBA coaches have had offensive success with more than one team: George Karl, Phil Jackson and Don Nelson. This may be because they are good at recognizing and using scorers well, not necessarily because of any particular system. In other words, adapt the system to the players rather than vice-versa. However, I should note that Oliver believes offensive systems are more important at the college ranks and below but he cannot prove it.

Offensive efficiency is more important than pushing the pace of the game. Oliver quotes Dean Smith who said: "The biggest reason I'm against simply running the ball down and shooting the first shot available is that the defense doesn't have time to foul you." And, as noted, getting fouled and shooting lots of foul shots is a key to success. Slowing the game (reducing the total number of possessions) down does not seem to increase defensive efficiency (the percentage of stops), though, as will be described below, it does make the outcome of individual games more variable.

Good offensive teams have both inside and outside scoring, however, no single position is key to offensive success. A team does not have to have a great point guard or a great center to score efficiently. However, it does have to pass well. Most offensively successful teams have a high percentage of assists on their scores. Assists lead to higher quality shots and a higher shooting percentage. The NBA team with the higher number of assists wins about 72 percent of games.


Height is more important to offensive success than defensive success, though it is not critical. Statistically, the top offensive teams in the NBA have been somewhat taller than average, whereas the top defensive teams have been shorter than average. [Of course, the reason could be that shorter teams had to play tougher defense because they had a hard time scoring]. While there is a correlation between having a top shot blocker and having a very efficient defense, there is no correlation between a high team total of blocked shots and defensive efficiency. Oliver surmises that height may be more important at the high school and college level where there are greater variations in size among the players.

Contrary to what some coaches and commentators think, it is not easier for offenses to rebound three point shots. Oliver looked at numerous NBA games between 1999 and 2002 that included several thousand missed shots. The offense rebounded 33 percent of two point misses and 31 percent of three point misses. Generally speaking, the rebounds on three point shots do not go farther from the basket than two point shots. Also, many two point field goals are shot close to the basket and the shooter often has the best chance to get the rebound.

There is no such thing as a "hot hand." Oliver cites two studies of NBA players and one of college players that showed no indication that any particular players were more likely to make a shot if they had made the previous shot. The NBA studies were of the Philadelphia 76ers' field goal attempts during the 1981 season and the Celtics free throw attempts during the 1981 and 1982 seasons. If anything, the players were slightly more likely to make a shot if they had missed the previous one. Of the twenty-six college players only one was significantly streaky.

Underdogs should adopt a "risky" strategy even if no particular strategy is clearly better. A risky strategy is one that changes the dynamics of how the game would normally go. Examples of risky strategies are pressing, attempting many three point shots, slowing down the pace of the game, playing a zone, fronting the post, sending guards to the boards to rebound, releasing the guards on defense for a potential fast break, and playing oversized or undersized lineups. If one such strategy is clearly better, such as pressing a tall team with poor ball-handlers, then the underdog should use that strategy. However, even when no particular risky strategy is better, the underdog should still use one.

Oliver notes that the slow down strategy works by reducing the number of possessions each team has. This reduces the better team's advantages and makes the outcome more variable. Similarly, the other risky strategies make results more variable in different ways. For that reason, the otherwise superior team should avoid risky strategies. Oliver describes how Rick Pitino's talented Kentucky teams may have lost some games by pressing.

If your team scores an avg of a 110 ppg shooting 50% (usually a top 3 offense in the NBA) and it's opponents avg 105 ppg shooting 49% (usually a middle to poor defensive team) who wins the game.

110 points per game and shooting 50%? Come on guy how many teams have accomplished that feat and won a title in the last 30 years?

Even worse if they are giving 105 on 49% shooting they arent playing defense at all....that team wont make it out of the first round.

Dantoni would be proud

knickscity
Posts: 24533
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 6/2/2012
Member: #4241
USA
10/1/2014  5:10 AM
nixluva wrote:I think we need to look at it more from a team make up standpoint. Not all Champions are defensive 1st teams. Often they are better offensive teams than defensive teams. As knicks1248 was trying to point out you can win a title even if your team is more offensive than defensive. We're always talking about good teams tho. There are examples of teams that had dominant defense and only OK offense and Dominant Offense and OK D.


2013-14 Spurs 7th Off - 3rd Def
2012-13 Heat 2nd Off - 9th Def
2011-12 Heat 8th Off - 4th Def
2010-11 Mavs 8th Off - 8th Def
2009-10 Lakers 11th Off - 4th Def
2008-09 Lakers 3rd Off - 6th Def
2007-08 Celtics 11th Off - 1st Def
2006-07 Spurs 5th Off - 2nd Def
2005-06 Heat 7th Off - 9th Def
2004-05 Spurs 8th Off - 1st Def
2003-04 Pistons 11th Off - 2nd Def
2002-03 Spurs 7th Off - 3rd Def
2001-02 Lakers 2nd Off - 7th Def
2000-01 Lakers 2nd Off - 21st Def

It's not often, the majority dont have better offenses.

Your sample proves my point.....the majority of those teams defense is better than their offense. Only one team in that sample won a title with a defense outside of top 10, and the majority are top 5 defenses. cant say that for their offense.

4 out of 14 having a top 5 offense should be all you need to know.....their defense is carrying them to wins. The team that can get stops wins the game.

The chance of winning a title with decent defense is slim...those are facts and the history of the NBA over the last 30 years cements that fact.

Elite defense-good offense has trumped great offense-decent defense.

Not even sure why this is a debate...it's common basketball sense, and coming from you especially is ironic since Fisher is making it plainly known he wants this team to defend and in HIS WORDS an elite level.

jrodmc
Posts: 32927
Alba Posts: 50
Joined: 11/24/2004
Member: #805
USA
10/1/2014  8:36 AM
gunsnewing wrote:I love when guys like amare and Bargnani talk about playing defense

Bargs at least has some rare stopping incidents in the middle that he can point to. I just don't get Stat talking "brilliant" about defense.

You are right though, they're both mostly painful

StarksEwing1
Posts: 32671
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 12/28/2012
Member: #4451

10/1/2014  8:38 AM    LAST EDITED: 10/1/2014  8:38 AM
jrodmc wrote:
gunsnewing wrote:I love when guys like amare and Bargnani talk about playing defense

Bargs at least has some rare stopping incidents in the middle that he can point to. I just don't get Stat talking "brilliant" about defense.

You are right though, they're both mostly painful

Stat at least has been a all-star many times over despite his terrible defense. Bargs has never lived up to his top pick status and the trade was terrible, Im someone who values 1st round picks unless its for the right player
dk7th
Posts: 30006
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 5/14/2012
Member: #4228
USA
10/1/2014  9:07 AM
knicks1248 wrote:I'm not a huge fan of the "Defense wins championship" theory, to me it's completely overrated, Give me a middle of the pack defense, and top 3 offense..I always thought that in the Ewing Era we never had enough offense, and defense can only get you so far because at that the end of the day, the main object is to score.

I think a team that moves the ball and plays efficiently, gets to the FT line and hits 80% of them, will conquer any defense in the league. How many times do you hear "GREAT offense but better defense", translation, he took a bad shot, It's more like "GREAT defense but better offense"

Thats why phil always has a TOP scorer on his roster, because no matter how good your D is, you can't stop a Kobe, or Jordan, or MELO no matter who guards them, or what scheme you put together to try and stop them.

actually you have a pretty good point on defense. shaq said recently that the defense has to be able to get stops at critical points in playoff games. it isn't necessary to have a top-rated defense, but "middle of the pack?" lets not carried away. a contender is going to have a top 10 defense and i am fairly certain the numbers will back that up. not absolutely certain, mind you. it would be an interesting research subject.

knicks win 38-43 games in 16-17. rose MUST shoot no more than 14 shots per game, defer to kp6 + melo, and have a usage rate of less than 25%
dk7th
Posts: 30006
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 5/14/2012
Member: #4228
USA
10/1/2014  9:10 AM
knickscity wrote:
knicks1248 wrote:I'm not a huge fan of the "Defense wins championship" theory, to me it's completely overrated, Give me a middle of the pack defense, and top 3 offense..I always thought that in the Ewing Era we never had enough offense, and defense can only get you so far because at that the end of the day, the main object is to score.

I think a team that moves the ball and plays efficiently, gets to the FT line and hits 80% of them, will conquer any defense in the league. How many times do you hear "GREAT offense but better defense", translation, he took a bad shot, It's more like "GREAT defense but better offense"

Thats why phil always has a TOP scorer on his roster, because no matter how good your D is, you can't stop a Kobe, or Jordan, or MELO no matter who guards them, or what scheme you put together to try and stop them.

Not sure where this delusion has come from, plenty of top scorers have been stopped. Melo has been stopped his entire career so far. Kobe and Jordan have been stopped every year they didnt have Phil...hell Kobe has lost an NBA finals twice WITH Phil, once to a team with far less talent, but far better DEFENSE. bottom line you wont win anything if you can defend at a high level.

You need offense as well, but eltie defense is normally mandatory. Dont let facts stand in the way of opinion though, nothing wrong with rooting for the exception....

Over the past 25 years, there were a total of six times that a team with a non top-10 defense made the NBA Finals. To get even more specific, there have only been two teams—the ’98 Jazz and ’01 Lakers—that made the Finals despite having a defense in the bottom half of the League. Although the Jazz lost to the Bulls in their series, somehow the ’01 Lakers ramped up their defense in the Finals to take their series 4-1.

http://www.slamonline.com/nba/does-defense-win-championships/

here's another for emphasis....

Entering the 2014 Finals, the 2000-01 Lakers were the last team to win a championship after ranking outside the top 10 in defensive efficiency in the regular season.

Out of the top 10 is not where you want to be. Over the last 37 years (since the NBA started tracking turnovers in 1977-78), only three teams have won a championship after ranking outside the top 10 in defensive efficiency in the regular season. Twice as many champs have ranked outside the top 10 in offensive efficiency.

http://hangtime.blogs.nba.com/2014/06/16/spurs-and-heat-help-prove-that-defense-wins-championships/

yeah case closed on that "middle of the pack" stuff... you have to be top ten.

knicks win 38-43 games in 16-17. rose MUST shoot no more than 14 shots per game, defer to kp6 + melo, and have a usage rate of less than 25%
knicks1248
Posts: 42059
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 2/3/2004
Member: #582
10/1/2014  10:02 AM
dk7th wrote:
knickscity wrote:
knicks1248 wrote:I'm not a huge fan of the "Defense wins championship" theory, to me it's completely overrated, Give me a middle of the pack defense, and top 3 offense..I always thought that in the Ewing Era we never had enough offense, and defense can only get you so far because at that the end of the day, the main object is to score.

I think a team that moves the ball and plays efficiently, gets to the FT line and hits 80% of them, will conquer any defense in the league. How many times do you hear "GREAT offense but better defense", translation, he took a bad shot, It's more like "GREAT defense but better offense"

Thats why phil always has a TOP scorer on his roster, because no matter how good your D is, you can't stop a Kobe, or Jordan, or MELO no matter who guards them, or what scheme you put together to try and stop them.

Not sure where this delusion has come from, plenty of top scorers have been stopped. Melo has been stopped his entire career so far. Kobe and Jordan have been stopped every year they didnt have Phil...hell Kobe has lost an NBA finals twice WITH Phil, once to a team with far less talent, but far better DEFENSE. bottom line you wont win anything if you can defend at a high level.

You need offense as well, but eltie defense is normally mandatory. Dont let facts stand in the way of opinion though, nothing wrong with rooting for the exception....

Over the past 25 years, there were a total of six times that a team with a non top-10 defense made the NBA Finals. To get even more specific, there have only been two teams—the ’98 Jazz and ’01 Lakers—that made the Finals despite having a defense in the bottom half of the League. Although the Jazz lost to the Bulls in their series, somehow the ’01 Lakers ramped up their defense in the Finals to take their series 4-1.

http://www.slamonline.com/nba/does-defense-win-championships/

here's another for emphasis....

Entering the 2014 Finals, the 2000-01 Lakers were the last team to win a championship after ranking outside the top 10 in defensive efficiency in the regular season.

Out of the top 10 is not where you want to be. Over the last 37 years (since the NBA started tracking turnovers in 1977-78), only three teams have won a championship after ranking outside the top 10 in defensive efficiency in the regular season. Twice as many champs have ranked outside the top 10 in offensive efficiency.

http://hangtime.blogs.nba.com/2014/06/16/spurs-and-heat-help-prove-that-defense-wins-championships/

yeah case closed on that "middle of the pack" stuff... you have to be top ten.

If you would have read some of the highlighted points in the article I posted, you would agree with me for sure, and here's why.

When we won 54 games, we also was tops in the league in THE LEAST AMOUNT OF TURNOVERS, TOPS in FT %, also moved the ball very well, and shot and made a high percentage of 3's, we played a half court, SLOW PACE game, thus controlling the ball for most of the game. We were a middle of the pack (12 to 15th)defensive team all season.

Bargiani doesn't have to Mutumbo (a awful offensive player) and STAT doesn't have to be rodman for us to be a solid defensive team.

YOU CAN NOT DEFEND A TEAM THAT PASSES THE BALL WELL CONSISTENTLY, YOU JUST CAN'T, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE. the result is the defense gambling going for steals, and majority of the time they'll get beat, (think Iman shumpert)the offensive player gets a open lane, or a late defender fouling him, AND YOU CANT DEFEND Free Throws.

ES
D-E-F-E-N-S-E

©2001-2012 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy