The Defense Lens
A little more than a month ago, I wrote about the best defensive team and the best offensive team you could put together. My essential conclusion is that defense is cheaper than offense, so if you can find wins through defense, it's usually more cost efficient than paying for the same wins on offense.
The problem, though, and I say this based on nothing more than a suspicion, is that I think the difference between the average NBA defenders and the best ones aren't as great as the difference between the average NBA offensive players and the best ones. It might be just because we don't have many good stats to illustrate it, but there's something to be said for the notion that while we can usually tell which offensive players are better than others, just like that, defense is a tricky animal to tame and we can argue all day about who's a "good" defender versus "average" versus "not so good". All that means is that there may not be enough defensive wins to go around.
Take Carmelo Anthony. Assume it's a given that his offense is extraordinary, and his defense is poor. Basketball is 50% offense and 50% defense, but if his defense over the course of a season is among the worst in the game, and his offense is among the best, it's certainly possible he's a well above average player. Well, that's not a particularly satisfying player, to me.
In a recent blog post, Kansas City Star columnist Joe Posnanski (the best sports columnist today, flush in the middle of what I hope is a long prime of his career) posits that football fans watch the game through either a defensive lens or offensive lens. I maintain the same is true of basketball. I like offense just fine. I get off on sweet back cuts and slip screens, tomahawk jams, and passes through lanes I didn't know existed before the ball zipped through. However, I really get my kicks from seeing how offense is thwarted.
It might be because my favorite player growing up in the mid-90s was Dennis Rodman. I was an undersized power forward on my junior high teams that won exactly one game over two seasons. I couldn't shoot and couldn't create off the dribble. But the Worm showed me I could still rebound like mad and play good defense.
Now, when I watch games, high school, college, or pro, invariably I look up and down the respective rosters and imagine a defensive plan. Then, when the game starts, I look for the actual plans the teams are executing.
Right now, I guess I'm right there with other defense junkies in saying I love the Celtics' scheme. From my seat behind the basket, I watched them play a floating zone that allowed a single big man to control the paint, because he had help on either side of the lane from a teammate, and any time an opponent came near, the big man would skip to his side, then slide off, then skip to his side, and so on, in order to avoid a defensive three seconds call. The flexibility of the scheme allows them to utterly crush teams that can't hit threes, since they tend to dare opponents to hoist away, and they'll take away the lane.
The Celtics lead the league in fewest points in the paint allowed, and a big part of this is because they determine before the game that they will cut off that part of the floor. Instead of having the mentality that they're going to stay in front of five moving pieces, or they're going to stick like glue to five moving pieces, they dictate to the opposition that they will not be able to score if they try to use any part of the half court that's roughly 12 feet and in from the basket, and that they'll do their best to stop you from scoring elsewhere, but they simply won't concede that 12 foot arc.
As the Bobcats build for the future, they would do well to recognize that they have a valuable defensive force in Emeka Okafor, and an above average defender in Gerald Wallace, that they can use as cornerstones. Assuming DJ Augustin stays as the point guard for the foreseeable future, Bell will either be moved or let go when his deal expires in 2010, and Diaw will be moved, that's two spots that could stand for a defensive upgrade.
I would love to see the Bobcats get Ron Artest to replace Diaw. And I might have an apoplectic joy attack if they also got a two-ish/three-ish defensive stopper in addition to Artest to replace Bell, maybe someone like Trevor Ariza. Does he count as a defense-first guy? So they could play Augustin, Ariza, Wallace, Artest, and Okafor, putting up a ridiculously difficult defense to crack for any lineup. Keep in mind, too, the likes of Darren Collison will also be available in the draft, and that would be the much cheaper way of shaping the team into a unit with an identity.
0 recs |
6 comments
|
Comments
Ron Artest and random rambling
Good stats
Good player
Head case.
A head case isn’t a bad thing (see the bulls with Rodman) but you need players that can keep the headcase under control and reduce the damage while demanding the talent. I don’t know that I’d take Artest because I don’t see players on your team that could take on that roll.
Good defense probably is hard to spot. Do you notice it on a guy who doesn’t do anything else? Is the team defense making individuals look better or worse than they are?
If I were to build a team I’d want a few offensive weapons, but with players willing to play defense because no one player can stop the best offensive player, but an entire team working together flawlessly can shut down the stars.
MJ dominated because the bulls had two players that were offensive juggernauts but they also played heavy defense. Personally I think Pippen was FAR better than jordan, but Jordan gets all the credit. (defensively) The west was more show time lakers, fastbreak blazers, I don’t remember the suns but I think they were less about defense and more about scoring as well.
The bulls had two of the best offensive weapons in the league and two of the best defensive players in the league with a team build around playing defense and filling rolls that were defined.
If you were to build two teams with offense only and defense only, I think you’d end up with ugly games I also think defense would win simply because I believe a defensive player wants to get it done while an offensive player is going to have a tendency to fall in love with the shiny points. Lastly, offenses will always have off days. Defenses are sustainable.
Greg Oden, where posters happen.
The best defense starts
with a shot blocker. You need someone who can patrol the paint and make it difficult to get off quality shots – someone like Mutombo in his prime. The Celtics’ defense works because they concede the tough shots, but deny the easy ones with the assumption that the shot is easier to make the closer you get to the basket. Shot blockers can also help erase mistakes made by teammates. If someone slips by the perimeter, you’ll still have your shot blocker there, but as he rotates over, you need someone else to rotate to the shot blocker’s dude. From that perspective, you can’t just throw together five “great” defenders and expect to have a great defensive team just as you can’t throw together five “great” shooters. In fact, I might even argue that a player’s ability to execute a great defensive scheme is more valuable than individual defensive skills whatever those may be.
Since patroling the paint does concede outside shots and there are dudes that can nail those regularly, you need a lockdown guy – like Pippen or Artest – to prevent the shooter from getting any shot off regardless of where it is on the court.
If you have a great shot blocker and a great lockdown guy, then your other three just need to “average” defenders – staying in front of their men, not taking too many chances. You can be an above average defender if you have a lot of hustle and can prevent your opponent from getting off an easy shot.
I did mention Artest as a great lockdown guy, but his problem is that he seems to lose focus throughout the game. Rodman had Jordan keeping him in line, but Charlotte’s Jordan is in the front office, which won’t help.
I like the point about executing the scheme versus locking down on one guy, and I completely agree. My ideal defense depends on a little “magic”: every single player can handle his man in isolation, and every single player is on the same page with the team defense concept. I think of the magic of running an NBA defense in two main parts:
1 — Coaches coach by consent. If players don’t want to be coached by a particular person, it’s over. A coach must be credible enough to players that they’ll do what he or she says to do.
2 — Balance isolation talent with ability to play with the group. If Joey JoJo Shabadoo can lock down Kobe in isolation and keep him from getting easy shots off the dribble, that’s awesome, but if he’s completely unable to help others in the scheme, that’s a huge negative.
To your point about two awesome and three average defenders, I think this is how most NBA teams try to construct their teams because it’s a concession to defense while building the offense. There may be a point of diminishing returns, but I’m not entirely sold on it existing if all FIVE guys out there are truly dominant defenders. Dwight Howard in the middle, then four long guys who can lock down off the dribble, all while playing as a cohesive group? The players are out there, but no one’s willing to go all out on the concept. What would you call it? Anti-D’Antoni? Jeff Van Gundyism?
It also occurs to me a lot of people would think it’d be ugly ball, but if your team’s winning, then your team’s winning.
by David A. Arnott on Jan 15, 2009 1:55 PM EST up reply actions
Ugly wins
can be a double-edged sword. The NBA is an entertainment business and needs to put on the floor a product that people will pay to watch. Some might think that winning is enough to draw fans, but I’m not too sure. Would you be willing to sink $500 into great seats to watch a 75-70 slug fest? Or would you rather watch your team lose 130-125?
As for five dominant defenders? It’s not really necessary as you pointed out. There are only enough really great offensive players to average one or two per team so you only need one or maybe two lock down defenders. I don’t think you need a lock down defender to handle the Mark Madsens of the league.
Coaches do coach at the whim of their players. It’s much easier to fire a coach than a player due to guaranteed contracts. If a player doesn’t want to listen, then he can tune out. I would think that being a coach in the NBA is a thankless job.
Oh, I forgot to mention before, but great post. It’s nice to talk about something other than Darius Miles.
Joined to say
that I very much enjoyed the mix of personal anecdote and basketball analysis that you provided in this post. Keep up this kind of work and you’ll have this place buzzing in a matter of a couple of months.
Augustin, Ariza, Wallace, Artest, and Okafor
Augustin sort of sticks out. Otherwise that might be the best defensive lineup in the NBA.
Ariza and Wallace would out hustle everyone to death.
by Nick Van Excellent on Jan 18, 2009 8:26 AM EST reply actions

by 












