Monday, July 12th, 2010...8:35 am
NBA Summer League: The best of the Spurs’ roster
The Spurs play their first game of the NBA Summer League this afternoon. (The game is available through NBA Broadband, 3:30 6:30 EST, for those who are inclined to watch.)
The Spurs’ roster is notable for who isn’t playing as much as it is for those who are. James Anderson, Ryan Richards, and Malik Hairston will not play for the Spurs. Anderson is nursing an injury; Richards is out-of-pocket for undisclosed reasons, and Hairston, according to Spurs assistant coach Mike Budenholzer, already has fans in San Antonio. In other words, Hairston is a known quantity. His time is better spent refining his game in private workouts between now and training camp.
So, who is playing?
Alonzo Gee
For most fans, the development of DeJuan Blair is the central focus of summer league. Blair will get the ball early and often. But, in my opinion, the most intriguing player this summer is Alonzo Gee.
Gee played for the Toros last season and won D-League Rookie of the Year honors. And he was impressive in a couple of 10-day contracts with the Washington Wizards. He started two games for the Wizards and put up good numbers on didn’t-see-that-coming but accurate perimeter shooting.
Gee is uber-athletic and can score. The thing he has to prove to the Spurs this summer is the ability to play strong defense and knock-down perimeter shots. If he can do those two things, the Spurs will have minutes for him next season.
Oddly enough, Gee’s game reminds me a little of Richard Jefferson, back before the mention of Jefferson’s name turned my stomach. I don’t think Gee is nearly the talent that Jefferson was, but he has that game-changing athleticism which once made Jefferson a dangerous wing. If Gee can develop a reliable perimeter game, it’s not inconceivable that he pry a significant number of minutes off of Jefferson’s per game averages next season. The test of both players (assuming the Spurs resign Jefferson) is that they play defense and not destroy the Spurs’ offensive spacing.
DeJuan Blair
DeJuan Blair’s summer league work is similar to Gee, just at a different position: spacing and defense. In order to help propel the Spurs through the postseason, Blair needs a pick-and-pop game and to convincingly escape the “defensive liability” tag. Blair’s height is forever problematic against taller players such as Pau Gasol and Chris Bosh. But if he can master the Spurs’ defensive schemes and learn to use his feet on defense, he could become one of the NBA’s better bench players.
Blair is a fine player, but his rookie campaign left me with the impression that his ceiling is somewhere between 6 and 8 within a good team’s rotation. Assuming the Spurs sign Tiago Splitter, the Spurs are still one legitimate 7 footer short of a good postseason frontcourt. Whatever Blair becomes, he can never be that.
Garrett Temple
Garrett Temple is 6’6”. He can play multiple positions, but appears most comfortable at point guard. His three point shooting is increasingly reliable, and he has the makings of an above-average defender. What’s not to like? Last season Temple split time between Houston, Sacramento and San Antonio, starting 4 games for the Spurs while Tony Parker was injured.
Temple’s seemingly immediate comfort level within the Spurs’ offense was unusual for a player of his age and pedigree. If he can continue to provide the Spurs with good minutes, he’ll earn a spot as their third point guard and give the team a reliable option as they seek to manage the minutes of their core players. Temple’s size and defensive ability are especially welcome against the league’s better point guards. Temple still has to prove he can stick, but if he does, the Spurs will have solid depth at the guard position.
Temple, Gee, and Hairston
Every year is a reminder that the most important thing to have in the playoffs is health, and this especially for a team whose core is older and injury-prone, such as the Spurs. The Spurs have three interesting players in Gee, Temple, and Hairston. If two or more of these players can break, the Spurs will have good depth at 1, 2, and 3. The inability of Roger Mason Jr. and Keith Bogans to provide the Spurs with consistently productive minutes last season was a major detriment to their 2009-10 campaign.
On paper, Gee, Hairston and Temple are not imposing bench cogs like Bogans and Mason Jr. But I’m cautiously optimistic that these three players will provide unexpectedly productive minutes for the Spurs this season. The Spurs’ system will occasionally shine a light on an unheralded gem. Gee, Hairston and Temple might possess a surprising amount of luster.
62 Comments
July 12th, 2010 at 8:41 am
If any on this list can make 3′s or play defense, put them in for the Spurs.
July 12th, 2010 at 8:54 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Andrew A. McNeill, Timothy Varner. Timothy Varner said: Brief Spurs summer league preview http://bit.ly/aqbVyY [...]
July 12th, 2010 at 9:13 am
“Blair is a fine player, but his rookie campaign left me with the impression that his ceiling is somewhere between 6 and 8 within a good team’s rotation.”
This I disagre with. I think this is his floor, or at least, this is where he is now. The guy is so productive in his limited minutes.
I do have hope that he can become more though. If he can help with spacing and and improve his D, he can become a solid starter. I loved the way he denied Amare the ball in the playoffs. He needs to master our rotations and learn how to work around his size limitations. He doesn’t need to be a great defender to be a huge asset, he just can’t be a bad one.
As for Temple, I’m less high on him after looking at his college stats. The guy was terrible on offense in college so I think what we saw from him last year may not be sustainable. Usually players don’t turn it around like that in the NBA, hopefully he does.
I do think either Gee or Malik will be able to give us something this season. We’ll see.
July 12th, 2010 at 9:34 am
The problem is our coaching. Our players are more drive oriented than three ball proficient. Why would you take your best attributes and basibally throw them away.
That would be like telling Tony to shoot a step back three off the pick and roll rather than Drive.
It doesnt matter if we can shoot the three ball or not. What matters is this: If we have players that can provide spacing and ATTACK THE RIM it gives us the same product as knocking down the three. I would much rather have Gee catch and drive (making a layup or getting fouled) than attempt a three point shot. Maybe instead of trying to switch the games of our athletic players we should concentrate on making them better at using their bodies to draw a foul, or pullup jumpers from 12-16 ft.
I dont want to see Blair get a pick and pop game. Thats retarded. His best attribute is doing work in the paint getting rebounds. By flaring him outside the lane we wont have anyone to grab an o reb, and most likely he’ll be just as shitty as McDoosh. Further Blairs height…. blah blah blah. If he can continue to get quick, explosive feet it doesnt matter about height. He can perfect body control and pump fakes and he will be fine on offense. Foot work is his downfall on defense.
Our problem is our coach wont let him play. No one should take McDoosh over Blair, ever. Blair is arguably our best rebounder and you think he should be 6-8? Blair is our most instinctive and active player (with Manu) and you think he is 6-8? Your right Bonner is better.
As a coach you have got to adjust. Gregg has never had to. It should be evident as the years go on. PLAY THE BEST PLAYERS. Not old players or guys you have man crushes on
July 12th, 2010 at 9:36 am
Has the game been rescheduled? Was supposed to be 5:30 CDT.
July 12th, 2010 at 9:38 am
Speaking of hitting 3s, check out Hariston’s D-league stats: http://www.basketball-reference.com/nbdl/players/h/hairsma01d.html
Over last two years in Austin he’s hit for 42%. Seems like he can go for 35% in the bigs, and if so, I think he becomes RJ’s primary backup.
Conversely, it looks like Temple’s hot shooting last year might have been a fluke. In 4 years at LSU, he never shot 40% . . . in FG%. Weird that he suddenly is lights out from distance.
July 12th, 2010 at 9:53 am
TradeTP,
If you don’t force people to guard the perimeter how do you space the floor? If you don’t have any jump shooters the opponent plays zone and packs the paint. This is why Parker got so much better when he spent the summer working on his jump shot. Otherwise the defender just sags off of him to prevent the drive.
The reason Blair needs a face up game is to help space the floor for TD. He needs it with our current roster. If TD played more away from the basket then Blair’s current game would be fine. The problem is that having two bigs who don’t play well away from the basket clogs the lane and makes it hard to drive. It’s pretty basic stuff.
July 12th, 2010 at 9:54 am
@TradeTP - “It doesnt matter if we can shoot the three ball or not. What matters is this: If we have players that can provide spacing …”
Do you even realize how self-contradictory this statement is?
July 12th, 2010 at 10:03 am
@RuthBader, Channing Frye only hit eleven 3s in his entire life before joining the Suns, so there is hope for Temple.
Seriously, in every interview he talks about the corner 3. With enough practice even a poor natural shooter can master the corner 3. Exhibit A is Bruce Bowen. Right now Temple is gunning to develop into a George Hill type of point guard (hand the ball to Manu at half-court and go stand in the corner) and a Bowen-esque defender. Not saying he gets there, but it’s a really smart approach.
July 12th, 2010 at 10:05 am
Per NBA.com game is at 6:30pm ET (or 3:30pm PT) which is where the confusion came I believe.
July 12th, 2010 at 10:07 am
Temple might be one of our better prospects at getting a spot up 3 point shooter more minutes. He finished his time with the Spurs shooting 10 of 23 for 43.5% (which would lead the team) after Haislip’s 60% on 3 of 5 attempts. It proceeds Hill at third with 39.9% on 188 attempts.
Yeah, Temple may have only shot 23 attempts from deep (over 13 games), but he took more per 48 minutes than Hill, Parker, Finley, Hairston, RJ or Haislip. One could easily see him getting to 100-150 attempts on a full season with the Spurs with his per minute attempts.
July 12th, 2010 at 10:41 am
@ TradeTP
We’re not telling Gee or Hairston NOT to drive and slash, we’re simply telling them that when open on the perimeter, make the opponent pay. Not only will a quality perimeter shot open space the floor for your teamates, it will cause defenders to close out too hot, allowing Gee or Hairston even better opportunities to finish at the rim.
And against bigger more athletic defenders (like a Bynum, Gasol, Haywood, etc) a quality midrange jump shot will allow Blair to score more easily, not to mention better spacing for everyone else. Blair’s biggest asset is his quickness. Why wouldn’t you want to draw a big man out farther on the perimeter? Make the defender respect your jump shot, pump fake and go around him and finish at the rim. At his height, even though he is good around the rim, a respectable jumper will make him a much more efficient offensive player.
You’re truly missing the point here. It’s not about forgetting your strengths, it’s about improving your weaknesses. And in the NBA, if you have one major weakness (be it shooting, defending, whatever), your opponent is going to force you into situations in which you have to utilize that weakness. Why wouldn’t you want to work on improving a weakness?
And for someone who has on repeated occasions posted stuff like, “…if you’ve ever played basketball the you would know….” or “…you’ve clearly never played basketball because…..”, your entire post is quite confounding…..
July 12th, 2010 at 10:41 am
43.5%? What a piker. Alonzo Gee is 77.8% from the arc in his NBA career. Extrapolate that to 150 attempts and we’re in business!
July 12th, 2010 at 10:48 am
SA Express reported that Ryan Richards has contractual obligations overseas, which is why he’s not on our roster.
July 12th, 2010 at 11:10 am
With Bogans and Mason Jr. gone, plus our need for a backup point guard, I really see no reason why Gee, Temple, and Hairston shouldn’t all be on our team. We’re not an elite team that good veterans (like Horry, Barry, Finley prior to 08-09) flock to anymore. Last year we brought in Bogans to try and replace Bowen at SF, that did not work out. Not at all, not one bit, Bogans basically robbed our team of the mil or two we paid him.
So basically my point is, why not let the young guys get some playing time. I’d rather let a young guy get a few minutes a game and suck, but learn, then have a veteran get a few minutes a game and suck, and not care.
July 12th, 2010 at 11:34 am
BlaseE,
The problem was Temple wasn’t good in college from 3 (less than 30%), so his few attempts don’t really tell us anything. It’s not like he’s proving out what he did for four years at LSU, but contradicting.
July 12th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
@ TradeTP
I see where you’re coming from about pick and pop and jumpshots in general. It seemed like in crunch time the Spurs settled for an aweful lot of jump shots instead of driving to the hoop. You drive and good things happen… a lay up or fouls and free throws. But… you do need to space the floor as others have stated here. A perfect example of that is that Jefferson really didn’t have a 3 point shot (did he have any highlights last year???). Seriously though, the spacing with Jefferson hurt the Spurs quite a bit since instead of him camping out on the 3 point line and dragging his defender out there, Jeff was a few feet inside the 3 point line and his defender was there with him. This clogged up the lane and made it difficult to drive when we did or much easier to double Tim. Even if they didn’t double Tim, there was another defender close to the rim and able to grab an easy rebound. Their defense and spacing was nowhere near what we were used to seeing form old Spurs teams. This became painfully evident during the Suns series.
July 12th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Why isn’t Ryan Richards playing in the Summer League?
July 12th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
From the main post:
“Blair is a fine player, but his rookie campaign left me with the impression that his ceiling is somewhere between 6 and 8 within a good team’s rotation. Assuming the Spurs sign Tiago Splitter, the Spurs are still one legitimate 7 footer short of a good postseason frontcourt. Whatever Blair becomes, he can never be that.”
I disagree. I project him as a starter at the PF spot once Duncan retires. If we can acquire another 6’10″ - 7 footer to add to the rotation with him & Splitter, that would be great. But despite the height limitations, Blair is in the early stages of a star in the making. He’ll be averaging 18 ppg. & 12 rpg. within the next 3 years as a 35 mpg. starter. He will be developing a knock-down mid-range jumper, may even master a nice fade-away in due time, and will learn to maximize his strengths on the offensive & defensive end (avoiding unnecessary fouls, using his big body to his advantage, learn the strip down low technique often utilized effectively by other shorter bigs: e.g., Boozer)
bduran
July 12th, 2010 at 9:13 am
Solid post on Blair.
Tyler
July 12th, 2010 at 10:41 am
Solid post.
July 12th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Temple was impressive during his brief tenure with the team last year. If he develops, we may be ready to deal Parker.
July 12th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
“the Spurs are still one legitimate 7 footer short of a good postseason frontcourt”
I’m having trouble with this one. Boston didn’t have a third 7 footer. LA’s third seven footer was DJ Mbenga.
July 12th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
BDuran- You dont need to shoot the three to space the floor. In reference to the zone, all you have to do is DRIVE. The zone is beat by driving to a seam. Two people have to stop penetration or its a layup. When the “seam attacker” begins to penetrate the offensive player in the defenders area crashes as well= layup.
In addition Blair is our best offensive rebounder why would you want him out of the lane. High post low post. Pretty basic stuff…
Doggy- Im sure it does sound self contradicting if the only way you know how to space the floor is by lining up around the three point line… But what do I know, Bonner is winning the rings, not me.
Tyler- your first paragraph is why we need them to be able to hit a pullup. If you can consistantly drive with speed, stop, and pull the trigger, its something that cannot be defended. Period. a la Parker. You dont ABANDON a strength to pick up your weakness. You try to incorporate your strength into your weakness. Look how much more Finley sucked in his career when he settled for three, manu too….
Getting Blair a midrange jumper is fine. But dont present an argument that making him “stretch” is how he should be developed. This is why when I say things like you have never played so you dont know, make perfect sense.
The most effective way to play Gasol or anyother big is to take it to him. What Blair lacks in height he makes up for in weight. DRAW the foul. Make Gasol work. It doesnt matter how much shorter Blair is if he can get defenders to pick up fouls. Thats his strength. It does us no good to set him out to stretch the floor. That does nothing. It doesnt make the defender work, and it is a higher probability to miss. Then you have Gasol coming back on offense fresh from watching someone shoot a j.
The stretch idea is played out. But you can keep beating a dead horse.
Dr. Who- Disagree. Look at what happened trying to play stretch… A bunch of watching. No one can justify trying to stretch the floor and trying to bully people with Tim anymore. Thats the difference. Mixed with the fact that we cant get stops. The past two seasons have been the worst defensively in the Pop era. But thats what we should have expected and planned for.
Im not saying that three point shooters arent valuable, or dont help in certain offensive schemes. But the idea of having watchers, who simply allow a two man to exist with Parker and Tim is not how we are going to win anymore. We need physical, aggressive players who attack the rim.
July 12th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
We definitely need another 7 footer. Boston had 3 pretty legit 7 footers in Wallace, Perkins, and Garnett. You can’t go wrong with length. And the more of it we have in the frontcourt, the better off we are.
Blair’s midrange jumper is absolutely necessary. Although for his size he is pretty crafty and deceptive with the ball, he did have a tendency to be blocked by opposing big men who had 4 to 5 inches on him. You develop that mid-range jumper, and no big wants to go out that far and defend you. Plus that opens the lane for the other big to rebound or for guards to get rebounds. Then when you get that shot going, Blair has the footspeedto get by the bigger defender, and Blair passing ability id even good for a guy of his size. And we tend to forget that this man put up two-20, 20 games, the first rookie to do that since Joe Smith in 1995. We have a beast here, and the coaching staff is justr trying to improve his game, as well as his effectiveness on the court, by encouraging him to develop his mid-range jumpshot.
July 12th, 2010 at 3:35 pm
Trade TP,
“The zone is beat by driving to a seam. ”
If you have no jumper shooters the other team can sag and pack the paint and there is no seam. The way to beat the zone is have some range. Not everyone needs a good jumper, but some do. This is fundamental.
July 12th, 2010 at 3:48 pm
@ TradeTP
You generalize too much about zones. You don’t drive on a 2-3 or 2-1-2. The whole point of those 2 zones is to pack the paint and shut down a dynamic driver and/or a low post beast. You absolutely need a automatic 3 shooter to stretch the packed in zone or make them scrap it completely. The drive is really only effective against a 1-3-1 from the top of the key, or a 3-2 from the corner.
However, good zones always have help defenders, so the driver needs a shooter on the wing to pass to if he gets stopped. If that wing player isn’t a shooter, then the drive/get stopped/pass out cycle happens all over again. How often can you get a shot at the basket that way? 50% of the time? 40%? How many drives end up being panic attacks because the shot clock is running down? What’s the shooting % in that situation?
The ability to drive against a zone is nice, but the ability to stretch the zone out past it’s effective limits, with a 3 shooter, makes it much easier to drive.
July 12th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
The truth is you do beat zones by driving; 2-3, 1-3-1, whatever. But you still need shooters. The kick out is an important part on beating any zone. You drive finish anything easy; or help defense crashes you look for the foul (which is not always called or there), you get swatted (because this is the league and dudes swat shots), or if you have a knock down shooter like a kyle korver (I wonder who I was hoping for this off season) you kick out and get 3. It’s a combo thing; good teams need both. This isn’t college; you can’t crack a zone with guys waiting to shoot the three ball only, and it can’t be done simply by putting 4 guys on the floor to attack the hoop. Championship teams have multiple threats. @TradeTP (love the name btw) We just want D-Blair to add the jumper to have another weapon. Yes, absolutely, he’s our best offensive rebounder, but you can still crash from mid range. Working on his weakness is just what he needs to do, simple as that. Like it’s been said, he’s already very good in the paint the next step is to have a competent mid range game. It’s complimentary. In the summer league what I want to see is D-Blair play with quicker feet, and develop more of a J. Its great to get fouls on opponents big men, but when he’s drawing fouls that’s the extent of the positive a drawn foul. I don’t think D-Blair is 100% sure what free throws are…
July 12th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
@TradeTP
Penetrating and getting to the rim is predicated on being able to beat your man and the help defense. It is without a doubt, much harder to get to the rim when the defender doesn’t respect your jump shot and the help defense doesn’t respect the jump shooting ability of the teamates around the offensive player. When the defense sags, it’s easier to defend on the ball, and it’s easier for the help defense to help and recover because they don’t have to cover nearly as much floor. Better shooters around our playmakers (TD, Manu, Hill, TP) will make us a much more efficient on offense. And as the playoff series against the Suns showed, we need better shooters on the perimeter.
This is basic logic: It is much harder to score with four or five defenders packed in the paint than it is when there are only 3. In order to become a better offensive team, we need to draw defenders out on the perimeter. This creates driving lanes and forces the defense to scramble. If you have 5 guys packed in, you don’t force the defense to scramble at all - help defense would be easy.
And in regards to Blair, a good jump shot will make the defense work harder, not less. As long as he doesn’t continually settle for contested jumpers, he’s going to be a better all-around offensive player. This will also make his forays to the rim that much more productive because he’ll have his defender off-balance.
And by the way, how much basketball you’ve played in your life and at what level is completely irrelevant, especially in regards to this argument. By that line of logic, the only people coaching or managing a team would be former NBA’ers and not the likes of Popovich, RC, Kevin Pritchard, etc. It’s completely close minded to think that only those that have played at a high level have a valid opinion on basketball.
Also, just a side note: Finley’s decline started before the Spurs brought him in. Only after his athleticism (what set him apart) left him, did he become a stationary jump shooter. And by the time he came to SA, his athleticism had almost entirely left him. After all, Finley joined the Spurs when he was 33.
July 12th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
wow that summer league game was awesome. the spurs were very tight in defense and showed a bunch of athleticism
July 12th, 2010 at 4:30 pm
What happens when that guy that drives gets collapsed on and Dejaun gets the ball 18 feet out and wide open?
Should he put up his hand and ask for a timeout because he didn’t realise that his man would collapse off him as he can’t shoot a bloody jumpshot.
Impersonate a Mavs Centre and panic?
Not to even bring up the fact that if you want a post player to have the ability to operate in limited or one on one coverage (imagine if we had post players like Tim Duncan or some white guy named Tiago Splitter…just imagine!!!!!!!!) then you need to offset the oppositions ability to double down to help off their man.
You only do that if ALL your players can hit jumpshots.
Blair needs depth to his game. Why? Because…ffs he needs to be a better all round player if he wants to improve, thats like saying he should never worry about dribbling the basketball because he is a power forward and that would be redundant.
The best players improve themselves. That’s Dejauns biggest correctable weakness. When he gets the ball at 20 feet no one needs to worry that he is going to hit a jump shot.
I can’t believe this is even a freaking discussion…..
It’s elementary.
I also see Blair as a starting level PF. With an obvious caveat with regard to certain situations.
I think against teams like the Lakers he really struggles due to the ridiculous length of their front line. If you are boxing out Andrew Bynum and he can still reach 2 feet above your hands you are going to struggle. Footwork will help, experience will help, but I think there are going to be some issues.
On a positive note…theres not many teams with that kind of length. For the most part he can handle.
July 12th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
Looks like pretty much everyone is reading from the same book here…..
Fantastic first line there tradetp by the way.
The problem is our coaching ???
I didn’t realise the original post was about our problems?
Drive that agenda bus tradetp drive it
July 12th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=Ak8FqA0q00K9ABqktfFGMYG8vLYF?slug=ys-haslemheat071210
I’ve never heard of a front court player of considerable talent & value, at age 30, approaching his last major contract period, to take LESS THAN ONE THIRD of his annual market value to stay with his home team, and in this case, to play with those jokers in Miami — probably accepting a shorter-term deal in the process. The Heat totally lucked out signing a guy who’s obviously a home-body, and doesn’t worship money like just about every other NBA player. Certainly, playing for the “jokers” was not the deciding factor.
July 12th, 2010 at 6:16 pm
” Certainly, playing for the “jokers” was not the deciding factor.”
Maybe not the deciding factor, but you know it was a factor and is going to continue to be. Whatever you think about their chances the perception is that the Heat are going to be really good. Combine that with a location in South Florida and you have a pretty attractive destination to a lot of players.
Would it make you feel better if I told you the Spurs FO singed Splitter to a 3 year 11 mil deal? Sure makes me feel good.
July 12th, 2010 at 6:19 pm
I think they meant to say 1/3rd less. He signed for 5/20 vs. 5/34. Probably has early opt-out so he’s guaranteed 20 if he goes downhill but can sign a bigger deal if he’s still worth it.
July 12th, 2010 at 6:36 pm
Bentley
July 12th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
“And we tend to forget that this man put up two-20, 20 games, the first rookie to do that since Joe Smith in 1995.”
That’s an interesting stat, Bentley. Do you have a link or source for that info?
Bushka
July 12th, 2010 at 4:30 pm
“I also see Blair as a starting level PF. With an obvious caveat with regard to certain situations.
I think against teams like the Lakers he really struggles due to the ridiculous length of their front line. If you are boxing out Andrew Bynum and he can still reach 2 feet above your hands you are going to struggle. Footwork will help, experience will help, but I think there are going to be some issues.”
I understand your concern here, Buska. It is valid, but by the same token it’s solution is not rocket science either. It’s always important to get a group of players together that “compliment” each other. There are not many players around the league that have virtually NO weaknesses (e.g., Tim Duncan is about as close as one can come, particularly when in his prime - a true nightmare for the opponent). With most players though, they require at least one or two other players around them for that player to maximize his strengths. For Blair, those players are a very good point (or exceptional wing passer), and a tall, defensive-minded big next to him that is also an offensive threat, but he doesn’t have to be a star in terms of scoring. Blair must get an adequate 15-17 ft jumper going (better than adequate at some point), and if he does, he will fit in perfectly rotating in with Duncan & Splitter. Splitter could be a big difference-maker in this regard. When Duncan retires, we would need to have another 6’10″+ guy in the rotation so that Blair always has a tall defender next to him, particularly, as you say, in those match-ups with teams that have significant length.
As far as TradeTp is concerned, he probably just doesn’t want the Spurs to settle for outside jumpers as much. He’d like to see us get more dominant in the paint. If that’s the case, I concur. But he can’t mean that he doesn’t think Blair will become an even better player by developing a knock-down 15-20 footer. That would be silly, and I won’t bother engaging him in that kind of discussion.
July 12th, 2010 at 6:47 pm
doggydogworld
July 12th, 2010 at 6:19 pm
“I think they meant to say 1/3rd less. He signed for 5/20 vs. 5/34. Probably has early opt-out so he’s guaranteed 20 if he goes downhill but can sign a bigger deal if he’s still worth it.”
I don’t know what you’re talking about. This is what the report I read said:
“Haslem could have received up to $34 million over five years from the Nuggets and Mavericks, but agreed to take less money to return to the Heat……..
The South Florida Sun-Sentinel, which first reported Haslem’s return, said the veteran forward received a contract worth about a third of what he could have made from the Nuggets and Mavericks.”
bduran
July 12th, 2010 at 6:16 pm
“Whatever you think about their chances the perception is that the Heat are going to be really good.”
Obviously they’ll be good, but the hype is way overblown. They haven’t even assembled a team, let alone won a game. You don’t win championships with just three outstanding players. As far as Haslem, he’s just a basic hard-working blue-collar guy that actually puts much more value on family and personal stability. The Heat were lucky to have that guy already ensconced in their stable for his entire seven year career when all the hoopala broke lose in Miami.
“Would it make you feel better if I told you the Spurs FO singed Splitter to a 3 year 11 mil deal? Sure makes me feel good.”
Yeah, that’s good news. I’m sure he’ll be worth every penny of it.
July 12th, 2010 at 7:02 pm
@ TradeTP I love it. Couldn’t agree with you more. Blair is productive, adjust the gameplan to him, not the other way around. But he needs to expand his game a bit. Keep the knowledge coming.
July 12th, 2010 at 7:08 pm
“As far as Haslem, he’s just a basic hard-working blue-collar guy that actually puts much more value on family and personal stability”
This may be true, but are you saying that the the Big 3 had no effect? Cause I think that’s crazy. Well, I know you haven’t said that exactly, but your refusal to acknowledge it seems to imply you think it.
So I looked into our argument about O vs. D and what is more important for winning championships.
I went back 30 years and compared pythag win % with point differential, Orating, and Drating and here’s what I got. On average the NBA champ was in the top 10% in pythag, 20% in Orat, and 19% in Drat.
Over the last 20 years it’s 11%, 22%, 17%.
Over the last 10 years it’s 11%, 25%, 19%.
So this would appear to support what I said. Differential is king (I used point because basketball reference didn’t make it easy to get efficiency diff rankings), D and O are both important, with D being somewhat more important.
Also, 15 of those years the team with the best pythag won so this is by far the biggest concern.
July 12th, 2010 at 8:11 pm
Temple is probably the one most likely to make the team if only one could.
He also allows Hill to play his natural position of PG. Hill isn’t that good of a point guard and he usually was most effective when he had Manu or Parker with him so he could concentrate on his scoring.
Temple is the bigger version of Hill, which isn’t a bad thing. Imagine them in the lineup at the same time. Solid defense at the guard positions.
July 12th, 2010 at 9:48 pm
bduran
July 12th, 2010 at 7:08 pm
“This may be true, but are you saying that the the Big 3 had no effect?”
Not NO effect, just not nearly as much as many might suspect.
“I went back 30 years and compared pythag win % with point differential, Orating, and Drating and here’s what I got. On average the NBA champ was in the top 10% in pythag, 20% in Orat, and 19% in Drat.”
Unless you’re going to provide a source for your data, I have no idea what you’re talking about. For example, I have no idea what “pythag win %” is. Also, the game has changed way too much over 30 years to use 30 years of data. It makes much more sense to go back no more than 10 - 15 years.
As I said, differential, at least when looking at this generation of players/teams (about 15 years), is quite likely to more highly correlated with “defensive rating” as opposed to “offensive rating”.
Okay, here’s what I found out going back 12 years, using the same sources for information. First, a re-post of the data I posted yesterday:
…………..Title Winner …D. Eff…DRtg…Op.FG%
1998-99 – ….Spurs ………………….1st ………1st
1999-00 – …..LA ……………………..1st ……..1st
2000-01 – …..LA …………………….21st …..11th
2001-02 – …..LA ……………………..7th …….1st
2002-03 – …Spurs ………2nd ……3rd ……2nd
2003-04 – …Pistons …….2nd ……2nd …..3rd
2004-05 – …Spurs ……….1st ……..1st ……3rd
2005-06 – …Heat ………..17th ……9th ……7th
2006-07 – …Spurs ……….1st ……..1st …….3rd
2007-08 – …Celtics ………1st ……..1st …….1st
2008-09 – ….LA ………….5th …….6th …….5th
2009-10 – …..LA ………….5th …….4th ……5th
Now some new data, with O. Eff., ORtg., & efficiency differential:
………….Title Winner …O. Eff. …ORtg. …E. Diff/Team 1st
1998-99 ….Spurs ………………….11th
…1st/Spurs
1999-00 …..LA ………………………5th ………1st/LA
2000-01 …..LA ……………………..2nd ….8th/Spurs
2001-02 …..LA ……………………..2nd ….2nd/Kings
2002-03 …Spurs ………11th …….7th ….4th/Mavs
2003-04 …Pistons …….19th ……18th ….5th/Spurs
2004-05 …Spurs ……….8th ……..8th ………1st/ Spurs
2005-06…Heat………….7th……….7th………6th/Pistons
2006-07 …Spurs ……….5th ………5th ….1st/Spurs
2007-08 …Celtics ……..12th …….10th …1st/Celtics
2008-09 ….LA …………..3rd ……..3rd ….5th/Cavs
2009-10 …..LA ………….11th …….11th ….7th/Magic
First of all, take into account both sets of data.
- You’ll notice that the “median offensive efficiency ranking” between 2002-03 & 2009-10 for the “title winning teams” was between 9th & 10th. The median “defensive efficiency ranking” during this period for the “title winning teams” was 2nd.
- There were 5 title winners in the last 12 years that led the league in “efficiency differential”, and on each occasion they also led the league in Def. Eff./DRtg., NEVER in Off. Eff./ORtg.
- Of the 12 teams that had the number one efficiency differential since 1998-1999, 9 of them had a Def.Eff./DRtg. of 3rd in the league or better. On the other hand, just 3 of the efficiency differential winners had an Off. Eff./ORtg. of 3rd or better (Magic - 2009-10; Mavs - 2002-03; Kings - 2001-2002).
Preliminary conclusions would seem to indicate that at least for this generation of players/teams, top-three efficiency differential is really primarily just a “marker” that correlates quite strongly with top three “Def. Eff./DRtg., which in turn appears to be the strongest direct correlate for teams that end up winning a title.
As a result, data do suggest that the cliche, “Defense Wins Championships”, does have some truth to it, otherwise, how does one explain that 5 out of the 12 title winners led the league in defense, and NONE of them led the league in offense? How does one explain that the median rank of title winners was 9th for offense, and 2nd for defense? How does one explain that no team has won a title, and led the league in efficiency differential, WITHOUT ALSO LEADING THE LEAGUE IN DEFENSE?
Let me know if you have a rational explanation. In the meantime, I’ll stick with my main point: that defense is the most critical factor for winning championships for the current generation of players/teams.
July 13th, 2010 at 4:35 am
The Spurs’ roster is notable for who isn’t playing as much as it is for those who are. James Anderson, Ryan Richards, and Malik Hairston will not play for the Spurs. Anderson is nursing an injury; Richards is out-of-pocket for undisclosed reasons, ..
what the hell does “out of pocket” mean?
July 13th, 2010 at 6:03 am
I used basketball reference. What I call Pythag is point differential plugged into the pythagorean formula for estimating basketball wins. Basketball reference has a rank for it for every team so it was easy to get.
My numbers show that over the last ten years the gap between defense and offense widened, so this could be because defense is now more important than it used to be. Or it could be because of a small sample size. Ten is not a lot. The Spurs building around a guy like TD has a large effect in the sample. That’s 3 championship teams out of 10 built around one of the greatest defensive players of all time.
In the last ten years some teams have won with better O than D. Over the last 30 years lots of teams of have won with better O than D. Saying things like “Defense Wins Championships” is dumb because plenty of teams have one more on O than D. Most teams are good at both with a rare outlier like the 2004 Pistons or 2001 Lakers. So like I said, I tend to think D is somewhat more important, but you act like it’s all that matters when clearly O is a big part of the picture. Point differential was key, with sometimes O being ranked higher and sometimes D.
“How does one explain that no team has won a title, and led the league in efficiency differential, WITHOUT ALSO LEADING THE LEAGUE IN DEFENSE?”
Why would I? Pointing out when number 1 rankings align isn’t worth a whole lot. You understand that right? You keep narrowing the number of data points until it fits your argument. You only look at more recent years because it suits you better, and then you only look at cases where the number 1 rankings line up.
Another example of you doing this,
“You’ll notice that the “median offensive efficiency ranking” between 2002-03 & 2009-10 for the “title winning teams” was between 9th & 10th. The median “defensive efficiency ranking” during this period for the “title winning teams” was 2nd.”
Now you’ve narrowed the range as much as possible (I used Ortg and Drtg so I could go farther back and get a larger sample) by using E. Diff. which only goes back to ’02-’03. These numbers include all 3 Spurs teams.
At least i’ve made you start adding qualifiers to your statements like
“for the current generation of players/teams.”
July 13th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
bduran
July 13th, 2010 at 6:03 am
“In the last ten years some teams have won with better O than D. Over the last 30 years lots of teams of have won with better O than D. Saying things like “Defense Wins Championships” is dumb because plenty of teams have one more on O than D.”
Nothing personal, but are you having a mental block about this or something. Does this not sink in with you:
“As a result, data do suggest that the cliche, “Defense Wins Championships”, does have some truth to it, otherwise……..
….how does one explain that 5 out of the 12 title winners led the league in defense, and NONE of them led the league in offense?!!!!!!”
“Why would I? Pointing out when number 1 rankings align isn’t worth a whole lot. You understand that right?”
Yeah, you’re right, it’s probably just a coincidence. Geez!! What it certainly suggests (NOT PROVES!) is that top differentials are much more likely to be influenced by top defenses than by top offenses.
“You only look at more recent years because it suits you better, and then you only look at cases where the number 1 rankings line up.”
NUMBER ONE rankings is what matters! Do you think that it’s just a coincidence, really?!
“At least i’ve made you start adding qualifiers to your statements like
“for the current generation of players/teams.””
Look, does it make sense to compare teams from the George Gervin or John Havlicek eras with the teams of today? No, of course not.
“Now you’ve narrowed the range as much as possible…”
I merely used that range because that’s as far back as I could get data on this using Hollinger’s data set. Even if I went back another 5 years using nba-reference, the discrepancy still would have been quite large. And Hollinger’s data still covers the last EIGHT seasons, which is certainly not a meaningless period of time.
“These numbers include all 3 Spurs teams.”
They also include the Lakers, Celtics, Heat, & Piston’s. And as far as it including the Spurs, that’s what we’re MOST INTERESTED IN ANYWAYS. The most important question is not whether ANYBODY can win a championship without stellar “D”, it’s more specifically, during the Pop era, DO THE SPURS have much of a chance to win a championship without a top-three rated defense?
And I say, NO!
July 13th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Jim,
“As a result, data do suggest that the cliche, “Defense Wins Championships”, does have some truth to it, otherwise……..”
Let me be clear, defense can win championships. The Pistons were a bottom half offensive team in ’04 and yet managed to win based on excellent D. I take exception to the fact that only D wins championships. The Lakers in 2001 were a bottom half defensive team in ’01 and won. As I pointed on average both offense and defense are towards the top of the league.
In the last 30 years six championship teams have had the #1 Ortg and six have had the #1 Drtg, 15 have had the #1 Pythag. 13 times the championship team has had a higher Ortg rank than Drtg rank. Twice they’ve been equal and 15 times Drtg has been greater.
Even if you look at the last 12 years like you did you get 4 Ortg, 1 tie, and 7 Drtg so it’s not totally one sided. And in the previous 8 years it was 6 Ortg, 1 tie, and 1 Drtg.
“And Hollinger’s data still covers the last EIGHT seasons, which is certainly not a meaningless period of time.”
I used basketball-reference so I could go farther back. Also, eight seasons have lots of data, but since we’ve limited ourselves to only championship teams we have a really small data set. If we expanded to playoff teams or something like that we’d get a much better look. It’d also take more work.
“And as far as it including the Spurs, that’s what we’re MOST INTERESTED IN ANYWAYS. ”
Agreed, but you didn’t say “DEFENSE WINS CHAMPIONSHIPS FOR THE SPURS”.
So let’s talk about the Spurs. I do believe in building around your best players. TD is still a great defender, but he is no longer the elite defender he once was. Does this mean I’m saying that we should focus on offense? No way. However, on our championship teams are Ortg rank was 5, 8, 7, and 11. That averages 7.75. This year we were 9. The one year we won with lower we had Robinson and TD in the post. Offense cannot be ignored or trivialized.
At this point your probably thinking, “but wait bduran, our average Drtg rank was an astounding 1.75, so Ortg doesn’t matter”. While I agree D was much more important to our championship Spurs teams with TD in his prime, our offense was quite good and a key piece.
Realistically I think we’re going to have to improve on both sides of the ball to win although I would rather have a top 5 D than O. This is because I think D is somewhat more important.
July 13th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
bduran
July 13th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
“The Lakers in 2001 were a bottom half defensive team in ’01 and won. As I pointed on average both offense and defense are towards the top of the league.”
Dude, that’s ONE year out of 12! The great majority of the rest were dominated by excellent defenses. Of course, a team CAN win with more offense as opposed to defense, but it is rare in this current generation, and the team you pointed out had two of the most DOMINANT “offensive” players of their era, making for an “unbelievable” inside/outside combination. Also, that year was probably more of an aberration than anything else. It was the only year that LA’s DRtg. rank was below 7th out of their 5 titles since 1999.
“In the last 30 years six championship teams have had the #1 Ortg and six have had the #1 Drtg, 15 have had the #1 Pythag. 13 times the championship team has had a higher Ortg rank than Drtg rank. Twice they’ve been equal and 15 times Drtg has been greater.”
As I said, it makes NO sense to go back 30 years, into different eras, and try to extrapolate what worked back then into what is likely to work now. You do realize that the great majority of teams from previous eras simply did not play very good defense. The default position around the league was to just let the best “offensive” team win. Particularly starting with “Showtime” in 1979 and throughout the 1980′s, the best offense was usually going to win (defense was of secondary importance), which explains why the teams with the best offensive stars dominated the first decade of the data you used. TWO teams won 8 of the 11 titles between 1979 & 1990; the Lakers & Celtics, which were dominated by amazing offensive talents. LA with Magic, Kareem, et al.; Boston with Bird, Parish, McHale, Archibald, et al. And then the Bulls dominated the 1990′s with MJ, one of the most dominate scorers of all-time, Pippen, et al.
It was a different league back then from 1979 into the 1990′s. The Bulls began to emphasize defense in the mid-ninties, with Rodman coming in, and then the Spurs ushered in defense in full force in 1998. The league hasn’t really looked back since.
“Even if you look at the last 12 years like you did you get 4 Ortg, 1 tie, and 7 Drtg so it’s not totally one sided. And in the previous 8 years it was 6 Ortg, 1 tie, and 1 Drtg.”
I have no idea what you’re talking about here. Out of the last 12 title winners, ZERO teams had the #1 ORtg. FIVE had the #1 DRtg.
“However, on our championship teams are Ortg rank was 5, 8, 7, and 11. That averages 7.75. This year we were 9. The one year we won with lower we had Robinson and TD in the post. Offense cannot be ignored or trivialized.”
Agreed, it can’t be “trivialized”, which I never meant to imply. However, if I have to chose one over the other, it’s clearly defense. In fact our average defensive rank during our title years was 1.5; this year it was 8, a MUCH bigger gap to close (6.5) than the offensive gap (1.25).
“Realistically I think we’re going to have to improve on both sides of the ball to win although I would rather have a top 5 D than O. This is because I think D is somewhat more important.”
Not “somewhat” more important; “considerably” more important, particularly for the Spurs. The main thing we need offensively is another clutch, knock-down three point shooter, and “offensively” we would have enough to contend. Let’s hope Splitter is REALLY good defensively, otherwise as it stands now, we’re still in deep shit on the defensive end.
July 13th, 2010 at 8:05 pm
Bentley
July 12th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
“And we tend to forget that this man put up two-20, 20 games, the first rookie to do that since Joe Smith in 1995.”
http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/spurs/Gods_smile_on_Spurs.html?c=y&page=1#storytop
The article at this link says it was our own Tim Duncan that was the LAST rookie to get ONE 20/20 game in his rookie season, 1998. Blair did get two this past year. And I agree, people need to realize how impressive that is. Blair averaged 34 minutes, 28pts. & 22 rebs. in his 20/20 games during his rookie campaign. Duncan played 44 minutes, and had 26 pts. & 21 rebs. in his 20/20 game during his rookie season.
P.S. Blair also had a 20/20 game during the rookie/sophomore all-star game (in 30 minutes) the only 20/20 game ever recorded since the inception of the event in 1994.
July 13th, 2010 at 8:36 pm
“Dude, that’s ONE year out of 12!”
Sure, but they show it’s possible to win while only being really good at offense, and the Pistons showed the opposite. Of course, these are outliers and most championship teams are good at both with an excellent differential.
“I have no idea what you’re talking about here. Out of the last 12 title winners, ZERO teams had the #1 ORtg. FIVE had the #1 DRtg.”
I’m using relative rankings. In the previous paragraph I talked about teams having a greater Ortg than Drtg and vice versa. So in the last 12 years 4 have had higher Ortg, 7 Drtg, and 1 tie. It doesn’t make sense to only look at times when a championship team had a number one ranking. Also, if we only go back 10 years it becomes 4,5 and 1.
The other thing I looked at earlier was average ranking. In the last 10 years offense was in the top 25%, Defense in the top 19%, and Pythag in the top 11%. Clearly point differential is not just a defensive indicator. Also, defense tends to be ranked higher, but not that much and the gap closes if you go back 20 years. So in general I don’t think you can say Defense is far more important.
“In fact our average defensive rank during our title years was 1.5; this year it was 8, a MUCH bigger gap to close (6.5) than the offensive gap (1.25).”
I’m all for improving our defense without hurting our offense. I think adding Splitter does this. I think adding a Raja bell type does this as well. I am against adding anyone I think will hurt our offense, even if it helps our D. Not many teams win titles outside of the top 10 in both categories.
Ultimately, the reason we have these discussions is statements like this
“top-three efficiency differential is really primarily just a “marker” that correlates quite strongly with top three “Def. Eff./DRtg.”
Even if it were true, it’s laughable that you said this given what you’ve shown.
July 13th, 2010 at 8:37 pm
By the way, Joe Smith averaged 16 more mpg. during his rookie season than did Blair. In his two 20/20 games he averaged 22 pts. & 20 rebounds, in 43 minutes of playing time. Also, Smith was the number one pick in 1995; Blair #37.
July 13th, 2010 at 10:04 pm
bduran
July 13th, 2010 at 8:36 pm
“Of course, these are outliers and most championship teams are good at both with an excellent differential.”
Most title winners are good at both defense & offense, but on average they are considerably better on “defense”. And, for the past 12 seasons, the data indicate that a strong “differential” is clearly influenced more by strong “defenses” than by strong “offenses”.
“In the previous paragraph I talked about teams having a greater Ortg than Drtg and vice versa. So in the last 12 years 4 have had higher Ortg, 7 Drtg, and 1 tie.”
I come up with 8 out of the 12 had a higher defensive rating. I don’t see any tie, certainly not using nba-reference data. That means TWICE as often a team that wins the title has a better defensive ranking as opposed to offensive ranking, and oftentimes it’s not even very close. This suggests that “defense” is more than “somewhat” more important than “offense” for title winners in the past 12 years. More like “distinctly” more important.
“The other thing I looked at earlier was average ranking. In the last 10 years offense was in the top 25%, Defense in the top 19%, and Pythag in the top 11%. Clearly point differential is not just a defensive indicator. Also, defense tends to be ranked higher, but not that much and the gap closes if you go back 20 years. So in general I don’t think you can say Defense is far more important.”
You’d have to be more specific here. I don’t know what you’re talking about.
“I am against adding anyone I think will hurt our offense, even if it helps our D. Not many teams win titles outside of the top 10 in both categories.”
Our offense is likely to get better next year regardless of who we might add to the team at this point. Blair & Hill will clearly be better offensive players this year. Manu, had a subpar 1st half of last year, and TP was injury-plagued. Also, we did not have Splitter, and even Anderson might even supply us with a part time weapon. So, even if we added a young guy like Ronnie Brewer, as a part-time wing defender, our offense would still likely be at least slightly better this year than last year. So, as an example, as things stand right now, if I had a choice between signing Kyle Korver or Ronnie Brewer, I would take Brewer.
“Ultimately, the reason we have these discussions is statements like this
“top-three efficiency differential is really primarily just a “marker” that correlates quite strongly with top three “Def. Eff./DRtg.”
Even if it were true, it’s laughable that you said this given what you’ve shown.”
First of all, you took that quote out of context, which made it appear that my claim was more definitive than it actually was.
Here’s the entire quote of that passage:
“Preliminary conclusions would seem to indicate that at least for this generation of players/teams, top-three efficiency differential is really primarily just a “marker” that correlates quite strongly with top three “Def. Eff./DRtg., which in turn appears to be the strongest direct correlate for teams that end up winning a title.”
As you can see, the conclusion attributed to me that you quoted was clearly tentative in nature. And, in fact there is good reason to postulate that top efficiency differential has been influenced more by top defensive rankings than by top offensive rankings. Otherwise, how does one explain the following data on title winners since 1998-1999:
E = efficiency; DR = defensive ranking; OR = offensive ranking.
98-99 - Spurs - OR - 11th; DR - 1st; E - 1st
99-00 - LA - OR - 5th; DR - 1st; E - 1st
00-01 - LA - OR - 2nd; DR - 21st; E - 8th
01-02 - LA - OR - 2nd; DR - 7th; E - 2nd
02-03 - Spurs - OR - 7th; DR - 3rd; E - 4th
03-04 - Pistons - OR - 18th; DR - 2nd; E - 5th
04-05 - Spurs - OR - 8th; DR - 1st; E - 1st
05-06 - Heat - OR - 7th; DR - 9th; E - 6th
06-07 - Spurs - OR - 5th; DR - 1st; E - 1st
07-08 - Celtics - OR - 10th; DR - 1st; E - 1st
08-09 - LA - OR - 3rd; DR - 6th; E - 5th
09-10 - LA - OR - 11th; DR - 4th; E - 7th
Now, if you look at the passage for which you quoted me, I was essentially saying that it appears that TOP-THREE EFFICIENCY DIFFERENTIAL rankings appear to highly correlated with top-three “defensive rankings”, but not so with top-three “offensive rankings”
Now, looking at the data above, there were 6 years out of the 12 title years where the winner had a top-three efficiency differential. FIVE out of six of these years also had a top-three “defensive ranking”, whereas just ONE out of these six years had a top-three “offensive ranking” (the 2001-2002 Lakers).
Also, I’ll repeat an earlier point:
NO team has won a title in the past 12 years with a #1 ranking “offensively”. FIVE teams have won a title in the past 12 years with the #1 ranking “defensively”. FIVE teams have won a title in the past 12 years with the #1 ranking in “differential”, but only in the same year that the team ranked #1 “defensively”.
Sure, this could all just be an amazing coincidence, but I’m not here to “prove” anything. Just providing data that shows that for the great majority of teams over the past 12 years, a top-notched defense is considerably more important to winning titles than a top-notched offense. It’s not really very close, although it does appear that a title team generally needs at least a top-third in the league ranked offense to win a title. For defense, it’s more like the top sixth.
In short, the table of data provided above suggests (NOT “PROVES”) that top-three differentials are more strongly associated with top-three “defensive rankings” than with top-three “offensive rankings” for the last 12 title winners. And so, if anything is laughable, it would be your persistent inability to understand this.
July 14th, 2010 at 5:23 am
@bduran
@Jim H
Perhaps you guys should exchange email addresses since it looks like there aren’t many other takers for your squabble.
There’s also a few problems here: defensive play affects offensive play. There is a sense in which the best offense corresponds to the worst defense (think GS or PHO). The converse doesn’t hold as strictly. You give up offensive energy but can increase fast break chances going from intermediate to great defense. I’m not going to go too far into this.
It’s also easy to build teams around offense, and offenses are more tightly grouped. So defense is often what sets teams apart.
Also, you can have great defense and crap offense, but with truly great offenses (efficient and not careless), knocking down shots makes your defense better.
Finally, defense is more consistent from game to game, and winning in the playoffs requires consistency.
It is thus unsurprising that championship teams display great defense. There is almost certainly something to “defense wins titles”, but it is more cloudy then your elementary statistics.
July 14th, 2010 at 5:33 am
“but on average they are considerably better on “defense”
Not so for the last 30 years, top 20% vs 19%, and for the last 25% vs. 19%. Which is certainly better, but not the on sided argument you seem to present.
“but on average they are considerably better on “defense”
I used basketball reference.com I supposed I could have copied one wrong, doesn’t matter much. The bottom line is 4 managed to win with better O, once again showing that while D maybe more important, it’s far from necessayr to be D oriented which is really my point. Also, 12 teams is not a good sample size. It just isn’t. If you want to narrow it down to more recent years, go ahead, but do something like include every team who went to the conference finals or something.
“You’d have to be more specific here. I don’t know what you’re talking about.”
I’ve explained before. I looked at average rank in the league in Ortg and Drtg and Ptyhag. Pythag being Pythagorean win loss from basketball reference. It’s based on point differential.
“differential is really primarily just a “marker””
Look this is just plain wrong. The data may “suggest” this to you, but I’d ignore it’s suggestion.Of course there’s a correlation between a #1 D ranking and differential. It’d be crazy if there wasn’t. However, differential is more highly correlated with winning so if anything you got the relationship backwards.
“Otherwise, how does one explain the following data on title winners since 1998-1999″
Usually, you form a hypothesis and see if the data supports it, which is what I did. Trying to explain existing data is only good for forming a hypothesis, and then going to see if data supports it. You’re hypothesis based on that data is that in recent years D has become far more imortant than O. Great, now go show it.
“NO team has won a title in the past 12 years with a #1 ranking “offensively”. FIVE teams have won a title in the past 12 years with the #1 ranking “defensively”. ”
Plenty of teams win without being ranked #1 in either. It’s not about #1 rankings, it’s about relative rankings. Did a team have a better offensive relative to the league, or defense? Who cares if Charlotte was #1 in Drtg this year.
“It’s not really very close, although it does appear that a title team generally needs at least a top-third in the league ranked offense to win a title. For defense, it’s more like the top sixth.”
No, it’s top quarter and top fifth on average.
July 14th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
bduran
July 14th, 2010 at 5:33 am
“Not so for the last 30 years….”
I’ve already told you that it doesn’t make sense to dip into previous generations of players/teams.
“Of course there’s a correlation between a #1 D ranking and differential. It’d be crazy if there wasn’t. However, differential is more highly correlated with winning so if anything you got the relationship backwards.”
No, there appears to be a significantly STRONGER correlation between top-three defense & top-three differential than there is between top-three offense & top-three differential. And that’s the point. I’m not talking about “winning” in the general sense; I’m not interested in that. In terms of “winning championships” during the current generation of players/teams (last 12 years), there appears to be a STRONGER correlation between having a high ranked “defense” than having a high ranked “differential”, otherwise how does one explain that one of the two components that creates differential, offense, was higher ranked than defense on only one out of the six times that a team won the title with a top-ranked differential (the other 5 times, the title winner had a higher ranked defense)?
“Great, now go show it.”
There’s no way to “prove” or “disprove” it on this blog ….. unless you have any ideas! I’m just providing data, and trying to come up with a reasonable explanation, and a “preliminary” conclusion. I’m not going to conduct a scientific study here, and neither are you.
“Plenty of teams win without being ranked #1 in either. It’s not about #1 rankings, it’s about relative rankings. Did a team have a better offensive relative to the league, or defense? Who cares if Charlotte was #1 in Drtg this year.”
We don’t care about Charlotte because they didn’t win a title, not because their #1 defensive ranking is trivial (and by the way, Orlando was tied for 1st in defense this past year, and were a EC finalist). And that’s one of the key reasons that I put Orlando as a favorite to get over the hump this year, unless LA continues to tighten their “D” even more (4th). All I know is that based on the last 12 years, if a team ended up ranked #1 defensively, 42% of the time they ended up winning the title. If they ranked in the top three defensively, they ended up winning the title 58% of the time. If ranked worse than 7th, 17% of the time.
“No, it’s top quarter and top fifth on average.”
First of all, I said “GENERALLY needs AT LEAST” a top-third & top-sixth, not “on average”.
Second, the “average” is not top quarter & top fifth. Where are you getting that from. You can’t use “mean” averages with a small data set with significant outliers. That would not provide an accurate representation of what the data suggests. Using the median is more appropriate.
Median average ranking for “defense” over the past 12 years = 2.5
That puts the average in the top 12th.
Median average ranking for “offense” over the past 12 years = 7.0
That puts the average at just more than the top 4th.
Top-four defense wins the title 67% of the time (that’s about the top eighth).
Median ranking of top eighth = 1st
Top-six defense wins the title 75% of the time (that’s top fifth).
Median ranking of the top fifth = 1st
Top-eight offense wins the title 67% of the time (that’s about top fourth).
Median ranking of the top fourth = 5th
Top-ten offense wins the title 75% of the time (that’s the top third).
Median ranking of the top third = 6th
Anyway you look at it, a significantly higher defensive ranking compared to offensive ranking is on average much more common in title winners over the past 12 years.
July 14th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
pb
July 14th, 2010 at 5:23 am
“It is thus unsurprising that championship teams display great defense. There is almost certainly something to “defense wins titles”, but it is more cloudy then your elementary statistics.”
Fair points, overall. Obviously, the cliche, “defense wins titles” was not meant to be a scientific conclusion. That said, the data I presented here does not present a “cloudy” picture as it relates to defense. After all, the top-rated defense was the title winner in FIVE out of the last 12 years, and there has been ZERO top-ranked offenses that have won the title in the past 12 years. That data point alone gives a hint at the superior influence of defense compared to offense in terms of winning titles. It’s only “cloudy” in the sense of lacking a scientific study, but the preliminary data presented herein does suggest the makings of a pretty strong hypothesis.
July 14th, 2010 at 6:10 pm
“No, there appears to be a significantly STRONGER correlation between top-three defense & top-three differential than there is between top-three offense & top-three differential”
This was not what I was saying. I was talking about correlation between D and wins and differential and wins.
“In terms of “winning championships” during the current generation of players/teams (last 12 years), there appears to be a STRONGER correlation between having a high ranked “defense” than having a high ranked “differential”
I don’t think this is true, but I’ll exam it. I’m going to look at various rankings of pythag, Hollinger efficiency Differential, Drtg, and Def Eff since ’02-’03.
So here’s what I have. The average champion pythag is 2.5, Drtg 2.75, Efficiency Dif, 3.5, and Def efficiency 4.5.
The median’s are 2.5, 2.5, 3.5, 2.5. Eff. Dif gets screwed because the numbers go 1,1,1,3,4. That’s the problem with median.
Everything’s pretty close. Look’s like the basketball reference data is better than Hollingers although it’s a small sample size.
Let’s go a step further and compare Pythag to Drtg for the last 12 years which is the cut off you like to use.
Average Pythag is 2.83, average Drtg is 4.83. The medians are 2 and 3 respectively. If you go back 20 years you get Pythag avrg 3 med 1.5, Drtg average 4.9 median 3.5
If you’re wondering why I’m using Pythagorean win loss it’s because it’s based on point differential. Really it’s based on points for/points against but it’s close and rankings of this should match up very well with rankings of straight point differential. I would like to use Ortg, Drtg differential, but I’m not sure how to get a ranking for this without going to basketball reference and calculating every teams differential and then ranking them for every year.
Anyway, it appears looking at Hollingers numbers, you may have a point although the small sample size means you have to throw in more teams. At least this data is easy to get and it wouldn’t be too hard look at something like every team who made the conference finals. This would gives us 32 teams instead of 8.
However, given the limited data it appears that Drtg is better than Hollingers Def E.
Looking at Ortg vs Off Eff tells a similar tale so it appears that using the basketball reference data would be better. Maybe if I get motivated one day I’ll redo this with Ortg, Drtg and more teams. Maybe you said this before, but why did you chose 12 years? If we’re looking at “modern” teams we have to decide a cut off.
I’m tired and don’t want to look over my post. Hopefully there’s not too many errors.
July 14th, 2010 at 8:48 pm
bduran
July 14th, 2010 at 6:10 pm
“Dif gets screwed because the numbers go 1,1,1,3,4. That’s the problem with median.”
Well, it would help to have a larger data set, like in the next 5-10 years. But it really doesn’t make sense to go back further than 1995, or use teams that aren’t “real” contenders (many semi-finalists & some losing finalists).
“I would like to use Ortg, Drtg differential, but I’m not sure how to get a ranking for this without going to basketball reference and calculating every teams differential and then ranking them for every year.”
Yeah, actually, that’s what I did. It’s a bit time consuming, but that’s how I calculated my “medians” for ORtg. & DRtg. In fact, I reported earlier all the differential rankings for the 12 title teams. Here’s the table again:
E = efficiency differential ; DR = defensive ranking; OR = offensive ranking (*using nba-reference).
98-99 – Spurs – OR – 11th; DR – 1st; E – 1st
99-00 – LA – OR – 5th; DR – 1st; E – 1st
00-01 – LA – OR – 2nd; DR – 21st; E – 8th
01-02 – LA – OR – 2nd; DR – 7th; E – 2nd
02-03 – Spurs – OR – 7th; DR – 3rd; E – 4th
03-04 – Pistons – OR – 18th; DR – 2nd; E – 5th
04-05 – Spurs – OR – 8th; DR – 1st; E – 1st
05-06 – Heat – OR – 7th; DR – 9th; E – 6th
06-07 – Spurs – OR – 5th; DR – 1st; E – 1st
07-08 – Celtics – OR – 10th; DR – 1st; E – 1st
08-09 – LA – OR – 3rd; DR – 6th; E – 5th
09-10 – LA – OR – 11th; DR – 4th; E – 7th
So I can provide the median “differential” for the 12 title winners now, from 1998-1999 up to present, from left to right.
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 4, 5, 5, 6, 7, 8 = 3.0
For “defense”:
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 21 = 2.5
For “offense”:
2, 2, 3, 5, 5, 7, 7, 8, 10, 11, 11, 18 = 7.0
When looking at the table above, and all three patterns here, you can see that the median defensive rankings appear on the surface to be in effect pulling the differential rankings down.
Just for example, we’ll delve in a little deeper to the most striking pattern:
“All five of the number one rankings for defense & differential occurred during the same season.”
Okay, so during those years, what was the ORtg. of those title winners?
1998-1999 - 11th
1999-2000 - 5th
2004-2005 - 8th
2006-2007 - 5th
2007-2008 - 10th
Clearly, during those five years, “defensive” ranking carried the “differential” to it’s number one rankings. The rest of the years show a bit more mixed effect on differential in terms of offense and defense, but still, overall, the effect on a differential appears to be “slightly” more for defense.
2000-2001 - greater effect - offense
2002-2003 - greater effect - D
2003-2004 - greater effect - D
2005-2006 - greater effect - O
2008-2009 - greater effect - O
2009-2010 - greater effect - D
Now, I do admit that the Spurs team’s do tend provide a relatively large effect on the data. Their teams during this generation/era appear to give “defense” a consistent edge during this 12 year period. I’m just saying, the Spurs were really THE team, under Pop, that ushered in this new era of defense in the NBA. And I just don’t really see that era ending anytime soon. Although, I do see the dreaded Heat attempting to create a sort of “modern” version of Riley’s show-time Lakers of the 1980′s. However, I think it will ultimately fail, and I know for the Spurs to be the ones to officially thwart that effort, we’re going to have to get back to Spurs-type “D”, while maintaining our top-ten ranking in offense. A tough task, but doable. We MUST however focus on assembling “defenders” at practically every position, or demand from the people we have more effort & focus. I hope Pop’s not getting too soft as he ages!
“At least this data is easy to get and it wouldn’t be too hard look at something like every team who made the conference finals. This would gives us 32 teams instead of 8.”
I know sample size is an issue with this amateur study, but we really can’t look as far back as semi-finalists. Many of them are not really that close championship level (e.g., the 2009-2010, Suns). Finalists “might” be worth looking at, particularly during years where the finals went at least SIX games.
“Maybe you said this before, but why did you chose 12 years? If we’re looking at “modern” teams we have to decide a cut off.”
The main reason is that I wasn’t able to locate “user-friendly” data sets for the information that we needed, or the data didn’t go back far enough (i.e., Hollinger’s). Additionally, the “defensive era” of the modern NBA, in my view, was ushered in during the mid-to-late 1990′s. It probably started with the second three-peat of the Bulls teams (though they had the greatest offensive player on the planet, Jordan, and also Pippen & Co., and then with the addition of Rodman they began to emphasize “D” even more - in their 2nd three-peat more than their first), and then the Spurs really solidified the notion that great defense was critical to winning it all once Duncan came aboard in 1997, Pop’s first FULL season.
July 15th, 2010 at 5:38 am
“But it really doesn’t make sense to go back further than 1995″
Why? Is there a specific reason for this year? If we add enough more teams we can probably just say last 10 years.
“or use teams that aren’t “real” contenders (many semi-finalists & some losing finalists).”
True, but I don’t like to add subjective bias to the sample. If there’s another way to pick the teams that doesn’t have us deciding for each team who was a contender and who wasn’t I’m all for it.
“or use teams that aren’t “real” contenders (many semi-finalists & some losing finalists).”
“Finalists “might” be worth looking at, particularly during years where the finals went at least SIX games.”
Could chose everyone who played the champ to six, and maybe everyone who played those teams to six.
“Additionally, the “defensive era” of the modern NBA, in my view, was ushered in during the mid-to-late 1990′s. ”
Looking at the Bulls, the were Ort rankings go 1,1,2,1,1,9. Drtg 7,4,7,1,4,3. So only the last team had better Defense than Offense. To me the Bulls were always a fantastic offensive team that played solid D, sort of the opposite of the TD Spurs. If there is a difference in the game now, I think just looking at the last 10 years will be fine, just need to figure out a way to add more teams.
July 15th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
bduran
July 15th, 2010 at 5:38 am
“True, but I don’t like to add subjective bias to the sample. If there’s another way to pick the teams that doesn’t have us deciding for each team who was a contender and who wasn’t I’m all for it.”
I understand your issue with subjective bias, but in my view, the only way to limit this problem is to stick to looking at NBA champions (at the most, include finalists). But there’s no way to avoid selecting a cut-off year, whether it’s 1950 0r 1995. And there is a problem with using teams other than the NBA champions in the sample. The NBA champion is often noticeably better than the final’s loser, and particularly the semifinalists. Thus, I think it’s important to keep the focus on the following question: what are those factors that seem to set the champion apart from the rest of the challengers? There’s a lot of really “good” teams, but the champion is often a distinct step above, and we don’t want our results to actually represent the conflation of two similar, but ultimately disparate things; that is, “very good teams that win a lot of games”, and the “NBA champions”.
“…..and maybe everyone who played those teams to six.”
That would clearly dilute our results to the point where we actually end up not measuring the very thing we set out to measure: that is, what are those factors that set apart the VERY best from the rest?
“Looking at the Bulls, the were Ort rankings go 1,1,2,1,1,9. Drtg 7,4,7,1,4,3. So only the last team had better Defense than Offense.”
Yes, but you can see the trend developing toward “improving” their emphasis on defense: an average DRtg. of 2.7 in the three years between 1995 & 1998, versus an average DRtg. of 6.0 between 1990 & 1993. With Michael Jordan on the team, it’s hard for the offense to not be in good shape throughout most of their title years. That guy was simply a scoring machine. But as they added Rodman in 1995, and as Jordan started to move beyond his offensive “peak”, they began to emphasize team defense more, and this simply became more apparent by the 1997 season.
“To me the Bulls were always a fantastic offensive team that played solid D, sort of the opposite of the TD Spurs.”
Opposites within a very circumscribed range perhaps, but certainly not polar opposites. In reality, the Bulls were the “bridge” team between the shift from more offense (1980′s Lakers) to more defense (the Spurs).
“If there is a difference in the game now, I think just looking at the last 10 years will be fine, just need to figure out a way to add more teams.”
I’d be okay with trying 15 years, and adding only finalists that took the champion to at least six games, but that’s about as far as I think makes sense, or we’ll end up measuring something that we did not intend to measure: and that is, what are those factors (defense, offense, differential) that seem to most differentiate the very top teams from the rest of the challengers during this current generation of players?
July 15th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
Jim,
“http://arturogalletti.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/win-regression-for-the-nba-2/”
I tried to post this earlier, but must have not hit submit.
I thought this was really interesting although OT. The author says that it’s offensive stats vs. defensive stats but it’s really team stats (or traditional box score really) vs. opposing team stats. It would be cool if he redid with offensive stats vs defensive stats.
I like it because it shows that the majority of variation in wins can be explained by what’s in the traditional box score (dave berri has done this before as well). It shows that the defense that the box score doesn’t capture isn’t that important in explaining wins. I suspect this is because good defense is highly correlated with blocks, steals,and def rebounds.
July 15th, 2010 at 8:36 pm
bduran
July 15th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
Well, the guy made an interesting attempt to use more sophisticated statistics & methodology to try and establish the relative importance certain aspects of the game have on winning games. That said, it’s obviously a work in progress, and of course it says nothing directly about what it takes to win championships, which I suspect often depends on a combination of intangibles in addition to strong box score performance (perhaps some of the 6% variability that he admits is unexplained by box score variables).
“It would be cool if he redid with offensive stats vs defensive stats.”
Yeah, that could be interesting.
“It shows that the defense that the box score doesn’t capture isn’t that important in explaining wins. I suspect this is because good defense is highly correlated with blocks, steals,and def rebounds.”
I agree that it’s generally not that important, but I suspect that some defensive & miscellaneous intangibles may play enough of a role to matter in a tight NBA Final’s series (e.g., “forced” turnovers by the defense [not unforced turnovers or steals], or the tenacity required to get more than your share of “50/50″ balls).
Also, the author made this assertion:
“Improving your shooting efficiency is the best thing you can do to win more in the NBA.”
But then admitted in the comment section that he may have jumped the gun here, and would need to revisit this project in the future.
From the comments section on the blog:
* Guy
* July 15th, 2010
* REPLY
* QUOTE
Interesting analysis. However, you’ve mistakenly included three defensive variables as “offense”: DRB, blocks, and steals. If you count those as defense, you will find that offense and defense are of approximately equal importance.
In fact we know this must be true, because the variance of points scored and points allowed at the team level is about the same. Teams vary in offensive and defensive quality by the same amount. So by definition, defense explains as many wins and losses as offense does.
o arturogalletti
o July 15th, 2010
o REPLY
o QUOTE
Guy,
You’re totally right. I’ll probably revisit this at some point in the Future.
July 16th, 2010 at 5:37 am
“However, you’ve mistakenly included three defensive variables as “offense”: DRB, blocks, and steals
Yeah, he posted the link on wages of wins and I made the same comment. That’s why I made sure to point out it was team stats vs opposing team stats.
WP48 is essentially the same thing except he uses efficiency differential instead in place of actual wins.
Like I said this is OT. Since these analyses are based on wins and efficiency differential, then it doesn’t do any better than that to rate a team so it doesn’t add anything to our discussion that efficiency differential doesn’t.
It does help to rate players and help tell you the relative value of a rebound vs block vs steal etc.
July 16th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
Agreed.
July 29th, 2010 at 8:21 am
[...] said before the Las Vegas Summer League that Malik Hairston wasn’t playing because Hairston had fans in San Antonio, apparently he meant some Italians who were in town to offer Malik a [...]
September 23rd, 2010 at 5:11 am
[...] Curtis Jerrells [...]
Leave a Reply