Thread Tools

Display Modes

**Minstrel** · 07-29-2006, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadBaronRudigor

McGrady's history showed nothing of the kind, not in Toronto, not in early Orlando, not even last couple of years in Houston. It shows that he is a great offensive player on a bad team, an inconsistent but talented defender, it MAY show that in future as he matures but not yet.

It has certainly shown that. Previous to his last few years in Orlando, he was considered an excellent defender. In Houston, he has consistently been very good. His last two or three years in Orlando has created a perception that he takes time off on defense, but he only did it then and only because his team needed him to expend all his effort on offense to keep them in games. One player can impact an offense more than he can impact a defense, so in a situation with one great player and nothing else, there's no other way to play it.

And his top end defense is certainly higher than Erving's, in my opinion. I don't think there's any way Erving could have defended Nowitzki for seven games the way McGrady did.

BadBaronRudigor · 07-29-2006, 05:58 PM

Mistral, On what evidence are you basing your opinion on Erving; esp his ABA years where you admit you never saw him? I base mine on (a) personal observation and (b) quotes from teammates, opponents, and coaches of the time who also saw him (Remember the ABA and Terry Pluto's book, Loose Balls both good sources).

To the degree there is defensive statistical analysis (def rating from basketball -reference.com, take it for what it's worth), the numbers indicate that Erving in his NBA years was a better defender than McGrady and in his ABA years, a much better defender. (Now I expect you to say that defensive ratings are flawed then to repeat your statement that McGrady is better with your sole piece of evidence one series v. Dirk Nowitski . . . sigh)

JPSeraph · 07-29-2006, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minstrel

That isn't my stance. My stance is to accept numbers over observation when there are measures available that seem to properly quantify the issue in question, removing most or all confounding factors.

There are such measures for scoring, rebounding, passing (though far from unquestionable), so I prefer them over using observation to decide who was better. Defense has no such numbers (though there are some interesting ones), and therefore, there's a lot of subjectivity involved.

But defense is clearly a significant part of the game. That's the difference between it and intangibles. We know defense is a huge part of the game and a big determining factor in who wins and loses. We don't know, at all, that intangibles are a huge part of the game and a big determining factor in who wins. Some people may theorize that it is, but with no proof. It's akin to arguing whether God exists: there's no way to prove it one way or the other.

Defense exists, though. I don't think anyone denies that.

Hey, you ignored my funky little model. Given that you see the need to include defense in evaluating a player's overall value and that, as yet, we have no reliable quantitative measure for defense, how should defense factor into our evaluations?

Or more importantly, how should you evaluate defense?

Quote:

No. Hollinger, I believe, builds measures by what he considers logical and then evaluates them by standards like repeatability: do players tend to repeat their PER performance from season to season? Doing so is evidence that it's getting at their talent level, rather than being somewhat random, because players repeat their talent level from year to year, so their PER should (by and large, with accepted statistical variance) by similar from year to year (adjusted by age).

That's far from unquestionable, as I said above. But I think his logical assumptions (like that scoring and assists are affected by team pace and rebounds are affected by how many rebounding chances there are, etc) are strong ones.

I'm actually a fan of PER, but I think side by side PER comparisons for players are still somewhat misleading; in particular for players with very different roles. I think we've done a reasonable job of evaluating a player's scoring, rebounding, and perhaps even passing without actually referencing PER.

Quote:

Same same.

One of the joys of life: sharing a fundamental point of view, and then adopting two rather different approaches.

**Minstrel** · 07-29-2006, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPSeraph

Hey, you ignored my funky little model. Given that you see the need to include defense in evaluating a player's overall value and that, as yet, we have no reliable quantitative measure for defense, how should defense factor into our evaluations?

Or more importantly, how should you evaluate defense?

Good question. I consider defense, from an a priori standpoint, to be a bit less important than offense for an individual player. I'd say that it's the most important single factor after scoring. I arrive at this conclusion thusly:

1. From a team standpoint, defense is as important as offense. Every point you prevent (that the average team wouldn't) is as valuable as every point you score (that the average team wouldn't). I'm specifying "from average" to take away the element that offenses have the objective edge on defense...on average, every possession is worth over 1 point. Half of all possessions do not end in defensive stops. But if you adjust both sides from what the average team would do, this isn't a concern and defense above the average (or marginal defense) is worth exactly as much as offense above the average (or marginal offense).

2. On an individual level, the value of defense shrinks from equal importance. The reason for this is that a single star can consistently cause an offensive possession to result in success, by making an individual play that scores a basket. While it's difficult, it's possible for one player to score without (substantative) help from his teammates (they do need to be out there and theoretically threatening

). However, a single star cannot consistently cause a defensive possession to result in success. That's because the offense controls where the ball goes and can avoid that star. If the star's teammates are duffers on defense, there's nothing he can do to prevents scores beyond the rare steal or block.

Based on those two logical premises, I conclude that individual defense is worth a lot, but not as much as all individual offense combined and probably not even quite as much as scoring alone. But probably more than any other single factor.

Scientific, no. Logically reasonable, yes, in my opinion.

After that, it's just opinion how good someone is on defense. But at least I have some idea how to weigh that opinion in comparison with their more certain production. If I think player X plays great defense, that's more valuable than player Y's great Rebound Rate, in my opinion.

Weighing in defense is a mixture of opinion and logic, then. Opinion on the quality of defense, logic on how much the defense is worth.

Quote:

One of the joys of life: sharing a fundamental point of view, and then adopting two rather different approaches.

Makes for good discussions!

JPSeraph · 07-30-2006, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minstrel

Good question. I consider defense, from an a priori standpoint, to be a bit less important than offense for an individual player. I'd say that it's the most important single factor after scoring. I arrive at this conclusion thusly:

1. From a team standpoint, defense is as important as offense. Every point you prevent (that the average team wouldn't) is as valuable as every point you score (that the average team wouldn't). I'm specifying "from average" to take away the element that offenses have the objective edge on defense...on average, every possession is worth over 1 point. Half of all possessions do not end in defensive stops. But if you adjust both sides from what the average team would do, this isn't a concern and defense above the average (or marginal defense) is worth exactly as much as offense above the average (or marginal offense).

2. On an individual level, the value of defense shrinks from equal importance. The reason for this is that a single star can consistently cause an offensive possession to result in success, by making an individual play that scores a basket. While it's difficult, it's possible for one player to score without (substantative) help from his teammates (they do need to be out there and theoretically threatening

). However, a single star cannot consistently cause a defensive possession to result in success. That's because the offense controls where the ball goes and can avoid that star. If the star's teammates are duffers on defense, there's nothing he can do to prevents scores beyond the rare steal or block.

Based on those two logical premises, I conclude that individual defense is worth a lot, but not as much as all individual offense combined and probably not even quite as much as scoring alone. But probably more than any other single factor.

Scientific, no. Logically reasonable, yes, in my opinion.

Makes for good discussions!

I'd have to agree with your assessment, both from the standpoint of pure logic and personal experience: trying to shut down your man when you are unable to score on offense is generally a losing game. The only way to score 0 points and to have a positive overall impact is to be a great team defender and, more importantly, to find a way to get everyone more involved on the defensive end.

When that happens, it's possible for a Rodmanesque offensive player to have a strong impact on his team's performance. But, there generally aren't that many players who can consistently accomplish this on an NBA level against a variety of teams well capable of making ingame adjustments; which is why we see more Bruce Bowen types (excellent man-to-man plus hits open spot-up threes) in the league.

There are probably many other ways to articulate your points, and if I had the impulse to carefully articulate my own assessment for the value of defense, it would have been somewhat different, but the results would be the same: for teams, defense is as important as offense; for players, defense is less important than offense (not to throw in an 'rpg' reference, but it's like pure melee vs support - somebody has to do the actual damage).

Quote:

Weighing in defense is a mixture of opinion and logic, then. Opinion on the quality of defense, logic on how much the defense is worth.

You said pretty much what I wanted to say.

Quote:

After that, it's just opinion how good someone is on defense. But at least I have some idea how to weigh that opinion in comparison with their more certain production. If I think player X plays great defense, that's more valuable than player Y's great Rebound Rate, in my opinion.

Interesting...more valuable than a rebound rate, but less valuable than a...?

Thread Tools Display Modes

Thread Tools

Display Modes