Player "position" and performance in the playoffs

[mystic]

OK, and Magic was probably even less a part of the Lakers' defense, yet few have tried to say he wasn't their Leader, certainly after 1985 or so.

Your answer makes no sense at all. The Lakers were in average 5 points better offensively during the 80's, while being 1 point better than average defensively. The Lakers won due to their superior offense, not due to their superior defense.
How is that remotely close to the Bulls situation? The Bulls over the last 1.3 years are 6.6 points better than average on defense, while being 1.9 points better on offense. Honestly, as I said, your answer makes no sense at all.

Thibodeau is a pretty good coach, and yesterday he had Rose back in quickly with 2 fouls in the 1st Q.
He sat just 3.5 minutes of the game.

As a Bulls fan I wanted Thibodeau back in 2008, when the Bulls looked for a new coach and signed Vinny Del Negro.

[EvanZ]

Evan, it appears you've multiplied 3fg% by 1.5 ?
Do your and1 rates refer to Made FT, or FTA?

Here's the table again without the 1.5 factor. Also, the And1 rate is made And1 attempts per 100 possessions. I don't keep track of missed ones.

Code: Select all

POS	INSR	INS%	 MIDR	  MID%	3PTR	 3PT%	FTR	  FT%	  AND1R
PG	4.72	60.72%	8.27	37.37%	5.09	33.59%	4.36	80.48%	0.26
SG	4.14	60.68%	8.53	37.68%	6.10	35.32%	4.67	81.62%	0.26
SF	4.96	64.48%	7.76	35.26%	5.04	32.92%	4.73	74.66%	0.28
PF	6.87	62.75%	9.17	37.10%	2.22	33.59%	5.06	69.29%	0.32
CN	7.76	62.23%	6.01	35.98%	0.73	31.27%	5.28	63.06%	0.32

I noticed when I posted my last table, that the rates were higher than made sense, so I went back and re-did the totals here.

[Mike G]

OK, and Magic was probably even less a part of the Lakers' defense, yet few have tried to say he wasn't their Leader, certainly after 1985 or so.

Your answer makes no sense at all. The Lakers were in average 5 points better offensively during the 80's, while being 1 point better than average defensively. The Lakers won due to their superior offense, not due to their superior defense.

You probably aren't saying quite what you mean to say here. You may agree that teams win by prevailing at both ends of the court. Teams with great offenses who did not contend for titles in the '80s were the Nuggets, the Suns, some Mavs teams ... Had they been better defensive teams, they would have won more.

Someone was certainly playing D for the Lakers, even as they were loaded for offense; Magic may have been the original "matador" defender. And he beat you with his offense.

The Bulls today don't win games entirely by their defense. No team has nor ever will; someone has to score points, create shots, etc. The sole offensive master on a defensive team is probably their most valuable asset. Rip Hamilton gets 36 minutes, just because he may create some offense.

[Mike G]

... the And1 rate is made And1 attempts per 100 possessions. I don't keep track of missed ones. .

If you knew the number of attempts, you would know players' true TS% -- at least, for players who don't shoot T's.

[mystic]

You probably aren't saying quite what you mean to say here.

I said exactly what I wanted to say. And I mean it. The Lakers were clearly better offensively than they were defensively in comparison to the league average.

You may agree that teams win by prevailing at both ends of the court. Teams with great offenses who did not contend for titles in the '80s were the Nuggets, the Suns, the Hawks, the Mavs ... Had they been better defensive teams, they would have won more.

Did I say anything about the Lakers being bad defensively? Honestly, read what I wrote and take it as it stands and try not to interpret that in away to fit your own argument. You just invented a strawman in the discussion by pointing out bad defensive teams with good/great offense. That doesn't describe the Lakers' situation nor does it describe the situation of the Bulls right now.

Someone was certainly playing D for the Lakers; Magic may have been the original "matador" defender. And he beat you with his offense.

Correct, the Lakers beat other teams with their offense. And Magic was the catalyst for their great offense. Calling Magic the leader of the Lakers makes sense here. But as I pointed out that is not related to the Bulls today. The Bulls offense is a bit better than average, but their defense is clearly better than average. The analogy would be here that the Bulls play offense, but they beat the other teams with their defense.

The Bulls today don't win games entirely by their defense. No team has nor ever will; someone has to score points, create shots, etc. The sole offensive master on a defensive team is probably their most valuable asset. Rip Hamilton gets 36 minutes, just because he may create some offense.

No, the Bulls with Rose out are outscoring their opponents even more than with him. Their biggest strength is defense and depth. Seriously, I'm a Bulls fan and I know how great Rose is, but he is not the biggest factor for the Bulls success. For sure, replacing Rose with a weaker player will also dimishing their championship chances, because a team needs some offfense in order to win games. But it should be obvious that Rose is not the most valuable asset for their team's strength.


Regarding the Lakers we should also keep in mind that they always started a smaller player next to Magic. First it was Norm Nixon (even their starting point guard until 1983), then Byron Scott. The other player was always defending the opponents PG, Magic didn't do that. Magic wasn't a typical point guard, listing him as a point guard (while suggesting point guard means small) is misleading.

[Mike G]

Alright, the points of agreement are many, and among them :
- The '80s Lakers were a good defensive team and a great offensive team.
- The current Bulls are a good offensive team and a great defensive team.

A team with great offense and insufficient defense needs a Mutombo more than it needs a Bargnani. They still may be better on offense than on defense, relative to league avg. But it's generally easier and/or better to improve on a weakness than add to an existing strength.

When I read "... won due to their superior offense, not due to their superior defense", this is quite different from "... better offensively than they were defensively ".

The word "not" implies that their defense had nothing to do with their winning.
Every team, successful or not, is better at either offense or defense, but no coach thinks their success depends on just one or the other.

[mystic]

Alright, the points of agreement are many, and among them :
- The '80s Lakers were a good defensive team and a great offensive team.
- The current Bulls are a good offensive team and a great defensive team.

I wouldn't call the Lakers defense good, I would call them closer to average than to good, the same for the Bulls and their offense (I explain later). Other than that I agree.

Every team, successful or not, is better at either offense or defense, but no coach thinks their success depends on just one or the other.

When a team is average in both, they win an average amount of games. I look at that from the standpoint being above average. A team, which is clearly better offensively than defensively, wins their games mainly because of their offense, not because of their defense. I don't look that from the bottom, like you seem to do it. The league average is for me the determining factor in order to say they win with offense or they win with defense.

For the last 38 years the championship teams were in average around 3.27 points better offensively and 3.36 points better defensively. So, in average a good offense and a good defense should result into a contender. The Bulls are 1.9 points better than average on offense, they are clearly worse than an average championship team was during that timespan offensively. That is hardly good. The Lakers were 1 point better defensively, that is again worse than an average championship. Hardly good. On offense the Lakers were 5 points better than league average, that is clearly better than the average championship team was, that is great offense. The Bulls are 6.6 points better defensively, clearly great defense.
When the Bulls are winning a championship, they are doing it, because they are clearly better defensively than offensively. They are clearly better than average for a championship team defensively. But they are clearly worse offensively than average for a championship team.
Did that clarify my point of view?

[Mike G]

- The current Bulls are a good offensive team and a great defensive team.

I would call them closer to average than to good, the same for the Bulls and their offense ..
...The Bulls are 1.9 points better than average on offense, they are clearly worse than an average championship team was during that timespan offensively. That is hardly good. ..
Did that clarify my point of view?

Out of curiosity, I looked up this page -- http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... _2012.html
The Bulls are currently 2nd in DRtg (97.4), 5.0 better than league avg.
And they're 3rd in ORtg (107.8), 5.4 above league avg.

Does this mean they're winning with their offense and not with their defense?
Or have you figured their strength of schedule, both offensively and defensively, into their ratings?

[mystic]

Does this mean they're winning with their offense and not with their defense?

Why would you say that? They are basically equal right now in both.

Or have you figured their strength of schedule, both offensively and defensively, into their ratings?

No, I just used a bigger sample.

But we might actually do what you suggested. The average opponent of the Bulls this season had 101.2 ORtg and 103.4 DRtg. The Bulls with 107.8 are 4.4 points better than expected offensively, while they are with 97.4 are 3.8 points better defensively than expected. So, the difference gets bigger here. But I still not see how you can argue that they win with their offense. I suspect that over the rest of the season it will change towards better defense than offense again.

The Bulls, btw, have a 104.5 ORtg without Rose, while being at 93.5 DRtg.

[Mike G]

The Bulls are 1.9 points better than average on offense, they are clearly worse than an average championship team was during that timespan offensively. That is hardly good....The Bulls are 6.6 points better defensively, clearly great defense.

Consistency?

[mystic]

Consistency?

What do you mean with that? Two teams which are equally in terms of SRS, the more consistent is more likely to win it all? That consistency matters in terms of replicating performances from game to game? I would most certainly agree with that.

Btw: Rose missed 5 games. The Bulls played an easy schedule during those games with the opponents having in average 98.5 ORtg and 104.1 DRtg. The Bulls during those 5 games were 108.5 to 94.4, 4.4 points better than expected offensively while 4.1 points better defensively. How did Rose have an effect on this?

[EvanZ]

... the And1 rate is made And1 attempts per 100 possessions. I don't keep track of missed ones. .

If you knew the number of attempts, you would know players' true TS% -- at least, for players who don't shoot T's.

Maybe this is a philosophical choice I have made, but I don't count missing an And1 against a player. The reason is that for purposes of counting possessions, we have already counted the FGA. I don't think we should add 0.44 additional possessions for the And1 attempt, which is what you would be doing if you counted it in TS%.