The "Culture Change" and Defense

[Shorty]

Here’s hoping our guys can wow DC fans with a new brand of defensive-focused basketball. It is likely our franchise’s best hope for long term success.

I agree, but doesn't that apply to just about any franchise without multiple superstars? It's the flip side of the observation I've read somewhere on theses forums--due to Nivek?--that player salaries correlate closely with scoring. So the most sustainable way to try to maximize value under the salary cap is to pioritize defense. Concretely, one could hope that Booker, T.'s second contract will be reasonable--and Vesely's and Singleton's too, assuming they become good defensive role players that the team wants to keep.

A dynamic point guard like Wall that can provide open looks for his teammates is important. Plus, that he's a one-man wrecking crew on the fast break helps market the team, both to the paying patrons, and, eventually, to the television audience, which is more than a trivial concern, to the extent that national games and Sports Center highlights tend
to translate into more favorable treatment from the refs.

The Pangloss in me thinks that Washington will improve on the Chicago model to contend: on top of a stifling defense, Wall will start hitting his jumpers reliably, Nene will stay healthy, and Beal and/or Seraphin will turn out to be an all star. In other words, almost everything will have to go right. But such is the lot of teams that don't have Lebron James or Kevin Durant to outperform the value of their contract by upwards of twenty million dollars per year.

[fishercob]

Here’s hoping our guys can wow DC fans with a new brand of defensive-focused basketball. It is likely our franchise’s best hope for long term success.

I agree, but doesn't that apply to just about any franchise without multiple superstars? It's the flip side of the observation I've read somewhere on theses forums--due to Nivek?--that player salaries correlate closely with scoring. So the most sustainable way to try to maximize value under the salary cap is to pioritize defense. Concretely, one could hope that Booker, T.'s second contract will be reasonable--and Vesely's and Singleton's too, assuming they become good defensive role players that the team wants to keep.

This is a very interesting point. Essentially, being an elite defensive team is potentially less expensive than an elite offensive one. Look at the salaries of the top players on the EJ Wizards (elite offense, poor D) versus those on last year's Sixers (elite D, poor O) and you get a sense for that. It's not hard an fast evidence obviously, but I do think the hypothesis is reasonable.

It dovetails well with the RIck Carlisie story that NIvek always tells -- "anyone can be a good defender in our system if they give maximum effort and are smart" or something to that effect. If you can construct a good or very good defensive team for relatively cheap, you're more likely to have the resources available to acquire that individual transformative offensive player (kind of what Philly did).

Now, we're not "relatively cheap" right now. But I think we have to build that defensive blueprint first. Build the system and the culture and then exploit the market inefficiencies by inserting the right players into it.

[montestewart]

Maybe not cheap, but the team is (when everyone's healthy) 2 or 3 deep up front in players willing to try and play hard defense, and being able to bring in rested and willing defenders will enhance the overall team defense and hopefully create some competition and pride.

Just finished reading this thread from the start. Good idea to create it, fishercob. It's getting lots of good discussion.

[rockymac52]

Yes, the good defense/average offense players almost always substantially cheaper than the good offense/average defense players. That's a great insight and it's something that the Wizards, as one of the NBA's have-nots at the moment, should potentially try and capitalize on (or they already have).

Furthermore, I think a team that is focused primarily on its defense, and much less so on its offense, allows younger, less experienced and less polished players to come in and contribute from day one (or at least much sooner). Think about it. There's plenty of guys that come into the league and can get by on defense, or even be good on defense right away, but they are completely over-matched on offense. There's far fewer than can come in and put up good offensive numbers, but are clueless on defense (those guys either are so good at offense that they become big names and stars in this league, despite their defensive weaknesses, OR they quickly get shunned and labeled as chuckers, whether true or not).

[fishercob]

Yes, the good defense/average offense players almost always substantially cheaper than the good offense/average defense players. That's a great insight and it's something that the Wizards, as one of the NBA's have-nots at the moment, should potentially try and capitalize on (or they already have).

Furthermore, I think a team that is focused primarily on its defense, and much less so on its offense, allows younger, less experienced and less polished players to come in and contribute from day one (or at least much sooner). Think about it. There's plenty of guys that come into the league and can get by on defense, or even be good on defense right away, but they are completely over-matched on offense. There's far fewer than can come in and put up good offensive numbers, but are clueless on defense (those guys either are so good at offense that they become big names and stars in this league, despite their defensive weaknesses, OR they quickly get shunned and labeled as chuckers, whether true or not).

I don't know if I buy the second piece -- about younger less experienced types more able to excel defensively. Just a quick scan of the defensive rankings from last year shows me a lot of veteran teams towards the top and a lot of youth towards the bottom. I'd guess that experience, guile, and smarts can actually best youth and athleticism -- which again corroborates the Nivek's Carlisle Theorem (NCT for board shorthand going forward?)

I think what the Wizards FO believes is that it is really hard and expensive to acquire top-tier offensive talent on the open market. So what they are trying to do is to become a top-tier defensive team, and allow time for Beal and Wall (perhaps in that order) to develop into great offensive players. It stands to reason that Beal will be a better offensive player next year than this year, and even better the following year. If he does develop into an All-Star -- and Wall gets incrementally better, as do Vesely, Seraphin, etc -- and the team is excellent defensively, they could indeed have the blueprint for a contender.

I'm pretty comfortable if this is the strategy. We saw with Gilbert, Jamison, etc. that is is essentially impossible to "retro-fit" an all-offense team into a good defensive one. But I think there may be more opportunity to improve the collective offense of a team that's a lot better defensively than they are on O. As Nivek pointed out, overall offensive efficiency is much more tied to having good individual offensive players than defense is. Out individual offensive players will improve with time.

Btw, thanks for the dap, monte!

[Nivek]

We saw with Gilbert, Jamison, etc. that is is essentially impossible to "retro-fit" an all-offense team into a good defensive one.

I'm not sure that we did see this. One of the big frustrations folks in the front office had with Eddie Jordan was Eddie's penchant for spending most of scant practice time working on offense. I had several conversations with assistant coaches around the league back when Eddie was still with the Wizards and the pervasive sentiment was that Washington would be a great place to go be defensive coordinator. The thinking was that the offense would be fine with Arenas and Jamison, but that the a good system and good defensive coaching could make them "better" defensively -- good enough to make a playoff run.

My concern with focusing on defense in personnel acquisition is that defense is coachable. Good defense is primarily about scheme and teamwork. I'd rather get players with good offensive skills who are hardworking and coachable.

[fishercob]

We saw with Gilbert, Jamison, etc. that is is essentially impossible to "retro-fit" an all-offense team into a good defensive one.

I'm not sure that we did see this. One of the big frustrations folks in the front office had with Eddie Jordan was Eddie's penchant for spending most of scant practice time working on offense. I had several conversations with assistant coaches around the league back when Eddie was still with the Wizards and the pervasive sentiment was that Washington would be a great place to go be defensive coordinator. The thinking was that the offense would be fine with Arenas and Jamison, but that the a good system and good defensive coaching could make them "better" defensively -- good enough to make a playoff run.

My concern with focusing on defense in personnel acquisition is that defense is coachable. Good defense is primarily about scheme and teamwork. I'd rather get players with good offensive skills who are hardworking and coachable.

In the abstract this may be true, but I don't think any D-coordinator could have made Arenas or Jamison into responsible defenders.

The situation you describe is what they seem to have in San Antonio -- with skilled offensive players who are smart and coachable to the point that it allows for a reasonably good defense. But, ya know, Tim Duncan.

The Wizards of recent years have neither had offensive skill nor smarts, good work habits, nor coachability. We have to start somewhere.

[Nivek]

You might be right about being able to turn Arenas and Jamison into responsible defenders. However...it really wasn't tried. The focus of practices was offense, almost to the exclusion of defense. When there's an hour-long practice, and 45 minutes are spent on offense, it communicates to players that offense is valued in a way that defense is not. Then add in the fact that scoring was far and away the most important factor in determining playing time (per minute scoring explained most of the team's playing time allocation during Eddie's tenure), and...well...the players aren't morons. They might "know" that defense is important, but the coach is communicating that offense is important in really powerful ways.

With Jamison, there were size/agility limitations. With Arenas...I dunno. He was coachable, and he played with effort. The scheme and the points of emphasis on defense were bad. The coaching staff encouraged/rewarded steals and Arenas put effort into stealing the ball. It's impossible to say what might have happened if the coaches had emphasized maintaining position, challenging shots, and funneling penetration to spots where teammates could help.

[fishercob]

It's the Wizards, so there are tons of "what might have beens." It's sort of moot with Gilbert because his knee injuries and re-injuries and gungate ruined him.

You won't get any argument from me that EJ needed a d-coordinator. Who knows what would have happened if Thibedeau had stuck around?

[Kanyewest]

Did any player have more success without Eddie Jordan either offensively or defensively? I guess Andray Blatche did for 20 or so games. Then again, that could just be a testament that Flip Saunders wasn't that good of a coach.

BTW, while many speculate that EJ forced Thibs way out, I believe that Thibs forced himself out because he had the opportunity to be the defensive coordinator of the Celtics which had just acquired KG and Allen.

[Shorty]

...
My concern with focusing on defense in personnel acquisition is that defense is coachable. Good defense is primarily about scheme and teamwork. I'd rather get players with good offensive skills who are hardworking and coachable.

It's not so much that the focus should be on defense in personnel acquisition; rather, that a focus on value for the salary dollar would find a bigger pool of defensively-oriented players, who would tend to be more hardworking, coachable, and team-oriented too.

And better shooting can be taught too, right? Or so we hope, especially for Vesely and Singleton, and, of course, Wall.

We're probably not far apart in our thinking. Just as you would want the offensively-skilled players to have the attitude/aptitude/athleticism to implement a sound defensive scheme, I would want the defensively-oriented players to be able to hit open shots reliably, including three pointers for wing players. Stat-padders and self-checks need not apply.

[Shorty]

Actually, I guess there's room for a self-check who can both rebound and defend.

[Shorty]

(Going for the Hands trifecta)

We saw with Gilbert, Jamison, etc. that is is essentially impossible to "retro-fit" an all-offense team into a good defensive one.

I'm not sure that we did see this. One of the big frustrations folks in the front office had with Eddie Jordan was Eddie's penchant for spending most of scant practice time working on offense. I had several conversations with assistant coaches around the league back when Eddie was still with the Wizards and the pervasive sentiment was that Washington would be a great place to go be defensive coordinator. The thinking was that the offense would be fine with Arenas and Jamison, but that the a good system and good defensive coaching could make them "better" defensively -- good enough to make a playoff run.
...

This is an interesting tidbit. I wonder how much other teams' offensive success correlates to skewed practice time? Is that data available on 82games.com?

[Nivek]

Shorty: I agree with your point about pursuing value in acquisition. I'm just not convinced that going after "defense" is the way to get value in a way that builds a winner. To the extent that defense is undervalued, I'm in favor of getting guys who are good defenders. Still, the game is played on both ends. Top teams are usually good at both ends of the floor. Focusing on one end doesn't make a ton of sense to me -- the team is going to need guys who can be good on both ends of the floor. Again, I'm in favor of value acquisitions, but if I'm prioritizing, I'd lean offense over defense.

As for the "can shooting be taught?" issue...absolutely. It's a skill, which means that it can be developed with focused practice. Barring some kind of medical problem, anyone can learn to be a better shooter if they work hard/smart enough. The challenge is that by the time a player reaches the NBA, his shot is habit -- he's not thinking about how to shoot anymore, he's just doing it. And he's been successful in the sense that he's likely been the best player on his team for virtually his entire life, and he's made it to the NBA. Breaking that habit takes a LOAD of disciplined work -- tens of thousands of shots with attention paid to using proper form.

Now, similar things are true when it comes to the skills required for good defense. The difference I see is that the physical activities -- slide steps, running, jumping, etc. are things that most NBA players already do well. It's one of the big reasons they're in the NBA. So, the physical part is largely taken care of. Cognitively they're accustomed to learning new playbooks, new schemes, new terminology. So a lot of defense is learning to work with new teammates and learning how to execute what the coaches are asking. They don't have to learn a new physical skill -- they're applying skills they already have.

[Nivek]

(Going for the Hands trifecta)

We saw with Gilbert, Jamison, etc. that is is essentially impossible to "retro-fit" an all-offense team into a good defensive one.

I'm not sure that we did see this. One of the big frustrations folks in the front office had with Eddie Jordan was Eddie's penchant for spending most of scant practice time working on offense. I had several conversations with assistant coaches around the league back when Eddie was still with the Wizards and the pervasive sentiment was that Washington would be a great place to go be defensive coordinator. The thinking was that the offense would be fine with Arenas and Jamison, but that the a good system and good defensive coaching could make them "better" defensively -- good enough to make a playoff run.
...

This is an interesting tidbit. I wonder how much other teams' offensive success correlates to skewed practice time? Is that data available on 82games.com?

If only...

If someone could get me data on how teams divide practice time, I could run that correlation.

[DCZards]

Yes, with coaching and the right defensive schemes most guys can play good D. But if there's one aspect of the game where effort and intensity trump coaching and strategy it's defense, imo. Playing defense is hard work and it won't get you a highlight on ESPN. The best defenders make a physical and emotional commitment to playing great D, which is a commitment that the average player simply doesn't make. Even with the physical tools and coaching, those players never become anything more than decent defenders.

[rockymac52]

I also think that by building our team around quality defenders, who tend to have smaller salaries (unless they're quality offensive players too, obviously), helps us in a few other ways.

If we take our team full of defenders and start winning some games, enough to make it into the playoffs as a 8 or 7 seed or something in that range, that obviously puts us as an "up and coming" team. Our ownership and management has expressed a lack of confidence in being able to bring in big time free agents to DC recently. I think in some ways, we might have a slightly better shot at landing a big name free agent, assuming that he's an offensively gifted one, if he knows he's going to be our main weapon on offense if he comes here, aka he'll get to shoot the ball plenty. Then again, some big name players might be just as irrational as some of the decision makers who pay top dollar for offense but not defense, and they might be more inclined to play with teams that have other star offensive players, even though it may hurt their own personal production. Guess it depends on the player.

I also think by having a deep team full of defensively talented players, we are able to retain more of them when they eventually become free agents than we we have if we had a team full of offensively talented players instead. Think about the Arenas/Jamison Wizards. Sure, they had their flashes of greatness, but for the most part, they were an above average Eastern Conference team (and that was when the East was at it's weakest). Good enough to make the playoffs, but for the most part, not good enough to make it to the second round. All offense, no defense. BUT, because we're all offense, more of our players put up more eye-popping stats. The PPG totals are up, and when it comes to contract extensions and free agency, those players now have inflated worth, whether justified or not. So if we want to keep them around, it's going to cost us. See Arenas and Jamison extensions. However, if you flip it around, where we have an all defense no offense team that makes the playoffs but loses first round, there's a good chance that many of our players post less attractive base stats, and thus, their market value is decreased. So now we can keep them on our roster for a few million less than we could have in the Gil/AJ days. Meaning we can keep more of them, or potentially have the money to bring in other guys.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Ted has used the phrase “culture change” countless times since he took control of the Wizards and began his rebuild. I think most people have taken this to mean a change in how the organization conducts business and interacts with its fans, as well as a change in the type of players who are valued. We want team-oriented guys who play for the name on the front of the jersey as opposed to the back. We want guys who play smart and always put forth maximum effort.

Ted has blogged a bit about playing style and referenced playing up-tempo entertaining basketball. He’s made some mentions of “tough defense,” whatever that means.

To that end, I think the biggest culture change the WIzards have embarked upon is the organizational, philosophical emphasis on defense -- and being really good at stopping people.
And let’s be clear -- if the Wizards become a consistently very good defensive team it will represent a huge stylistic shift. I think there’s going to be an adjustment period of the fans.

Consider some stats:

Since 1974-75 (the first year of the “Washington” Bullets) the Wizards/Bullets have averaged ranking in the 45th percentile for Defensive Rating. Just to clarify, this is a measure of rank compared to the rest of the league, not a measure of DRtg itself. I’ll leave that data entry and analysis to Nivek. In a 30 team team, 45th percentile comes out to a rank of about 16th -- so, basically average.

The Bullets were a really good defensive team for a better part of a decade and a half. Through the 87-88 season they averaged the 71st percentile or 8th in a 30 team league. Over that stretch the worst defensive season was 11th out of 22 in 79-80. They were #1 in 74-75, #2 the next season. Between 80-81 and 85-86, they ranked 5th, 5th, 2nd, 8th, 3rd, and 4th out of 23 teams.

But once all remnants of Wes, The Big E, Moses, and the Beef Brothers left town, the wheels fell off. From the 88-89 season through last year, the franchise has averaged being in the 28th percentile or about 22nd out of 30 teams -- 28th percentile over a quarter century! Since 98-99 we have averaged the 23rd percentile, or roughly 23rd out of 30 teams. The best defensive teams we have had since ‘88 have been the 91-92 team that ranked 12th out of 27 teams and finished 25-57, and the 96-97 and 97-98 teams that finished 13th and 14th out of 29 teams. 97-98 was the last time the Wizards ranked in the top half of the league in defensive rating.

So I don’t have nate’s numbers in front of me, but post Javale-Nene trade last year, the Wizards were a good defensive team. The sample size wasn’t huge, but by most measures it was fairly conclusive that the Wizards improved a lot defensively.

I believe the OkaRiza trade represents a concerted effort to become a very good -- potentially elite -- defensive team, and to build from there. Retaining Coach Wittman seems to jibe with that philosophy as well. Perhaps the front office looked at what they had and determined there was no plausible way to become elite offensively in the near future and decided to build from D. The Sixers rode a mediocre offense and an elite defense to Game 7 of the conference semi’s last year (which arguably provided the springboard to the Bynum acquisition). The Bulls won 62 games two years ago with the league’s best defense and 11th ranked offense -- a team built around an elite PG and bruising frontcourt depth. Wall may never be as good as Rose was two years ago, but maybe the Wall-Beal combo can prove as good as Rose and Luol Deng.

I remember when the Celtics won their title five years ago -- during the postgame festivities the fans, in appreciation, all started chanting “DEE-FENSE! DEE-FENSE!” Here’s hoping our guys can wow DC fans with a new brand of defensive-focused basketball. It is likely our franchise’s best hope for long term success.

fish, the defense can only be elite IMO if Okafor is healthy and plays the best basketball of his career. Ariza will also have to play his best perimeter defense, and he is somewhat overrated at that IMO. Beal will also have to be a very good defender at SG. If that happens, then they will provide starters who anchor the defensive mentality. The one guy I think who is already a near-elite defender is Nene. If Wall is just a neutral defender, and he gets off and running in transition, with the other players playing good to great defense, then I could see a total stylistic transformation taking place, fisher.

Booker, Vesely, Singleton, and Seraphin can provide quality depth that will sustain the defensive effort all game long. Mack is already a good defender, better than Wall. Price should be fine defensively if he's anything like what I remember him being at U. Conn.

The real question mark for me is how good will Okafor be? He hasn't been very good the last few seasons. Nor has Ariza. If they are to be catalysts they are going to have to return to better form of years back.

I think the Wizards would have been better served to try to acquire better offensive and better overall talent. Vesely, Seraphin, Booker, and Singleton already emulate what the team is trying to achieve defensively. At the price they were acquired, I do not think Okafor and Ariza are THAT MUCH of an upgrade. The defense was already markedly better with combinations of Nene and Vesely, Nene and Seraphin, Seraphin and Booker; etc.

The only way, IMO, things could crystallize into a big improvement is if Nene with Okafor proves to be a special pairing. I think Okafor's rebounding and shot blocking, might be good enough to make that happen. The rebounding will limit the other team's possessions.

Washington in theory could get in transition after making stops, thus becoming a better team for it if Okafor can make that happen. I also think Ariza's passing and steals could help on the perimeter as well with Washington becoming more of a team to create off of turnovers. Ariza and Wall should get a lot of dunks.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Here’s hoping our guys can wow DC fans with a new brand of defensive-focused basketball. It is likely our franchise’s best hope for long term success.

I agree, but doesn't that apply to just about any franchise without multiple superstars? It's the flip side of the observation I've read somewhere on theses forums--due to Nivek?--that player salaries correlate closely with scoring. So the most sustainable way to try to maximize value under the salary cap is to pioritize defense. Concretely, one could hope that Booker, T.'s second contract will be reasonable--and Vesely's and Singleton's too, assuming they become good defensive role players that the team wants to keep.

A dynamic point guard like Wall that can provide open looks for his teammates is important. Plus, that he's a one-man wrecking crew on the fast break helps market the team, both to the paying patrons, and, eventually, to the television audience, which is more than a trivial concern, to the extent that national games and Sports Center highlights tend to translate into more favorable treatment from the refs.

The Pangloss in me thinks that Washington will improve on the Chicago model to contend: on top of a stifling defense, Wall will start hitting his jumpers reliably, Nene will stay healthy, and Beal and/or Seraphin will turn out to be an all star. In other words, almost everything will have to go right. But such is the lot of teams that don't have Lebron James or Kevin Durant to outperform the value of their contract by upwards of twenty million dollars per year.

Booker's role and minutes are the biggest question marks I have. I wish he could play SF, because I think he's a better player than Ariza and I know he's better than Chris Singleton. As things stand, however, he's way behind on the PF depth chart. Nene/Okafor will start. Seraphin brings scoring proficiency from set plays on the low block. Vesely provides screens, back cuts, and very efficient dunks. He brings great energy and hustle to the game. He's much more unique than Trevor, while being 3 or 4 years younger. Ariza at SF is an upgrade over Chris Singleton.

What would have made a ton of sense and been proactive, IMO, is for the Wizards to arrange a good trade of Trevor Booker. They could have kept James Singleton because he has an outside shot and he can play SF. I would have been happy to see Trevor not have his minutes pinched, because I think he's a good basketball player. The deal has clouded his future--unless he puts an ineffective Okafor on the bench, or he can play SF and put Ariza on the bench some.

Where I agree with Shorty is that a lot of things are going to have to go right for the Wizards to emulate Chicago's success.

[Zonkerbl]

I think the problem is that the physical tools that allow you to be a good defender are the same tools you need to be good on offense. If your first step is fast enough to get by defenders, then you should also be fast enough to move your feet on defense. Most elite players are elite because they combine athleticism with skill, so they are athletic enough to be good defenders. Like Gilbert, his problems on defense were 100% mental. He played defense the wrong way. I think that's Kevin's objection -- if a player is capable of being a good defender, why isn't he also a good scorer? But I think that's only true for elite players. There's definitely a second tier of players who can do one or the other.

You do not have to be a good defender to be a good scorer. Antawn Jamison -- great scorer, has the ability to shoot from weird angles and still get the ball to drop. That's not a quickness or an athleticism thing, and it shows on defense.

So the opposite can be true on defense -- you can be an elite athlete who simply doesn't have the coordination in your wrists and fingertips to be a good scorer (Ben Wallace, Dennis Rodman, Dikembe Mutombo). I think it's definitely true that a player who contributes a certain amount to winning on offense will get paid more than a player who contributes the same amount to winning but can only do it on defense.

I guess Kevin's objection is, the guys who are good at defense but not offense are second tier players. You can't expect to win a championship with a roster full of second tier players. But the money you save focusing on acquiring defensive oriented players should make it easier to attract elite talent, especially if the defensive orientation is resulting in extended playoff runs.