Page 1 of 1

Defensive Usage

Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2011 6:39 pm
by ElGee
Finally put together a post on defensive usage: http://elgee35.wordpress.com/2011/01/22 ... ive-usage/

The data support two import (intuitive) basketball concepts:
(1) Bigs bear a larger defensive burden than smalls
(2) Individual defenders can't have the same usage as individual offensive players

Re: Defensive Usage

Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2011 9:35 pm
by kabstah
Interesting as always. As far as why individual offense has more of an impact than individual defense, I offer another intuitive reason: when an individual succeeds on offense, the entire team succeeds on offense. The same isn't true for defense.

Re: Defensive Usage

Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2011 10:34 pm
by Jimmy76
hmm we have two of the top 3 defensive usage players and the worst defense in the league

How are you tracking the contests? Just watching the games?

Re: Defensive Usage

Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2011 11:43 pm
by ElGee
kabstah wrote:Interesting as always. As far as why individual offense has more of an impact than individual defense, I offer another intuitive reason: when an individual succeeds on offense, the entire team succeeds on offense. The same isn't true for defense.


Thanks. That's true to a degree, and an extension of my claim. Team's can go back to the well over and over on offense to a player who makes everyone better by drawing attention. That can happen on defense, to a lesser extent, with great help defenders...only he can't help everyone as much on defense because the offense can still select where to go with the ball. (Think about the fact that the 3-point line is about 75-feet long!)


Jimmy76 wrote:hmm we have two of the top 3 defensive usage players and the worst defense in the league

How are you tracking the contests? Just watching the games?


Well, that's from last year's postseason. The take home for me is that defenders can't necessarily choose to have a huge defensive load put on them, but they can choose to have a huge offensive load.

And yes, tracking from watching the games. I'll delve more into the pros and cons of the methodology in the future.

Re: Defensive Usage

Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 4:57 pm
by Vinsanity420
if Bigs are really that much more important than perimeter players, how do you explain the Bulls defensive dominance? Especially with Joakim Noah out? Are Rose/Deng/Brewer/Bogans just that good?

Re: Defensive Usage

Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 8:53 pm
by ElGee
Vinsanity420 wrote:if Bigs are really that much more important than perimeter players, how do you explain the Bulls defensive dominance? Especially with Joakim Noah out? Are Rose/Deng/Brewer/Bogans just that good?


Well, let's not ignore scheme/coaching for the success of the entire team. That plays a factor and there's plenty of historical evidence for that. But it doesn't change that within the structure of the team, bigs are generally more important and take on a larger role. Chicago has really good defensive big men - Kurt Thomas, even at his advanced age is solid, Gibson is good, Asik has played well from what I've seen, and Boozer has too. Deng's not exactly garbage at the other forward position on defense.

Looking at their 5-man units doesn't exactly paint Noah in a negative light. Small samples still, but of the top-10 lineups, Noah's have DRtgs of:

103 (195 min)
99 (120 min)
100 (61 min)
82 (59 min)

The other six lineups all have comparable numbers, but look at the bigs on the floor:
Thomas-Boozer
Gibson-Asik

And one lineup with Deng at the 4 and Asik at the 5. The similar lineup with Noah is 11 points better defensively. I think there's plenty of noise in all those numbers, but I don't see anything in Chicago to run counter to the thesis.

There are much better counterexamples IMO, but they always seem to involve the best of the best at the perimeter positions: Jordan/Pippen Bulls, Wade/James Heat, for example. (And those teams had defensive-minded coaching and guys like Anthony and Grant/Rodman causing havoc as well.)

Re: Defensive Usage

Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 3:10 pm
by drza
As I said in the Duncan thread, this was an interesting read and something I'd like to take to the lab when I have more time. One thing that I'm not sure is (can be?) covered in your numbers is how much indirect effect a player has on their teammates. This could be true for offense or defense, obviously, but since we're talking about defense here I'd be interested in seeing something quantitative about how much perimeter players benefit from playing with dominant bigs or vice-versa.

For example, Bowen and Ginobili could play extremely aggressively on defense because they knew Duncan was behind them, which decreases the shooting percentage and increases the turnover likelihood of their perimeter offensive assignments. On the flip-side, Duncan benefits by playing with perimeter defenders that, even when they get beat, can funnel their men directly to his best help-position so that he can help effectively without leaving his own man completely undefended. In my experience most attempts to quantify an individual's defensive impact either ignores or can't fully capture those types of relationships, but just because they aren't captured doesn't mean they aren't there and tangibly making a difference. So, for the sake of argument, just because Duncan may have only directly "used" 20% of the defensive possessions doesn't mean that he wasn't having a major impact on 55% (random number) of the defensive possessions in general.

I don't know that there's a way to directly measure these types of indirect effects on defense, but I'm hesitant to fall in with the idea that individual offense is just inherently more powerful than individual defense without better ways to quantify all of these effects. It is definitely easier (though still imperfect) to quantify what goes on offensively than defensively, but that doesn't necessarily lead to individual offense being more important.

Re: Defensive Usage

Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 9:01 pm
by ElGee
drza wrote:As I said in the Duncan thread, this was an interesting read and something I'd like to take to the lab when I have more time. One thing that I'm not sure is (can be?) covered in your numbers is how much indirect effect a player has on their teammates. This could be true for offense or defense, obviously, but since we're talking about defense here I'd be interested in seeing something quantitative about how much perimeter players benefit from playing with dominant bigs or vice-versa.

For example, Bowen and Ginobili could play extremely aggressively on defense because they knew Duncan was behind them, which decreases the shooting percentage and increases the turnover likelihood of their perimeter offensive assignments. On the flip-side, Duncan benefits by playing with perimeter defenders that, even when they get beat, can funnel their men directly to his best help-position so that he can help effectively without leaving his own man completely undefended. In my experience most attempts to quantify an individual's defensive impact either ignores or can't fully capture those types of relationships, but just because they aren't captured doesn't mean they aren't there and tangibly making a difference. So, for the sake of argument, just because Duncan may have only directly "used" 20% of the defensive possessions doesn't mean that he wasn't having a major impact on 55% (random number) of the defensive possessions in general.

I don't know that there's a way to directly measure these types of indirect effects on defense, but I'm hesitant to fall in with the idea that individual offense is just inherently more powerful than individual defense without better ways to quantify all of these effects. It is definitely easier (though still imperfect) to quantify what goes on offensively than defensively, but that doesn't necessarily lead to individual offense being more important.


Well, you're right, but that's some Holy-Grail stuff. There is a way to get there -- but I don't know how to get all the way there on defense.

One thing to do is track things like "correct" rotation and "deterrence." I find these things extremely difficult to quantify -- even moreso than anything I do, which has its own ambiguities at times -- but that would be a way to start quantifying some of what you're talking about. For example:

Duncan needs to rotate off the ball because of a breakdown on the weakside. If he does so in a manner that is better than 99% of centers, he can simultaneously be aware of his man he is leaving and *deter* a pass to the man he is helping on. Other players may not do that and end up with a shot taken against them, adding to the defensive usage. Duncan gets nothing there. (Note: In your example, Duncan should have a very high usage because he team is choosing to funnel toward him.)

So, the question is, how do we account for stuff like that on defense? I find deterrence to be nearly impossible to quantify because of the continuum of physical space in relation to the choice of the offensive player. In English, how close/obstructing does a defender have to be to deter an offensive player from making a pass or taking a shot? It's nearly impossible to gauge without fMRI readouts of the offensive player.

My next generation of defensive usage (which I will post in the near future) will incorporate more help/team concepts that can be quantified. That will (justly) raise DUSG percentages. But it's still nearly impossible to encroach on the maximum usage offensive players. My offensive usage stat has players over 50%. Defensively, even bumping up the number WITH stuff like deterrence, it's still not going to get there. There are simply too many possessions involving screens, fast breaks and fouls. Offenses can force that stuff by going to one or two guys, but a single defender registers 0 usage every time one of those events occur away from him, even with all team concepts and interactions in play. (Basketball, by nature, is a game designed to cater to the offense. It's just the way the rules are set up, and why we see 200 points a night and not 40.)

Btw, you love the +/- family and the standard deviations are always smaller for defense than offense there, suggesting individual offense has a wider-ranged impact. (I see the same thing in my own offense/defense ratings, fwiw).

Re: Defensive Usage

Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 10:21 pm
by drza
ElGee wrote:Well, you're right, but that's some Holy-Grail stuff. There is a way to get there -- but I don't know how to get all the way there on defense.

One thing to do is track things like "correct" rotation and "deterrence." I find these things extremely difficult to quantify -- even moreso than anything I do, which has its own ambiguities at times -- but that would be a way to start quantifying some of what you're talking about. For example:

Duncan needs to rotate off the ball because of a breakdown on the weakside. If he does so in a manner that is better than 99% of centers, he can simultaneously be aware of his man he is leaving and *deter* a pass to the man he is helping on. Other players may not do that and end up with a shot taken against them, adding to the defensive usage. Duncan gets nothing there. (Note: In your example, Duncan should have a very high usage because he team is choosing to funnel toward him.)

So, the question is, how do we account for stuff like that on defense? I find deterrence to be nearly impossible to quantify because of the continuum of physical space in relation to the choice of the offensive player. In English, how close/obstructing does a defender have to be to deter an offensive player from making a pass or taking a shot? It's nearly impossible to gauge without fMRI readouts of the offensive player.

My next generation of defensive usage (which I will post in the near future) will incorporate more help/team concepts that can be quantified. That will (justly) raise DUSG percentages. But it's still nearly impossible to encroach on the maximum usage offensive players. My offensive usage stat has players over 50%. Defensively, even bumping up the number WITH stuff like deterrence, it's still not going to get there. There are simply too many possessions involving screens, fast breaks and fouls. Offenses can force that stuff by going to one or two guys, but a single defender registers 0 usage every time one of those events occur away from him, even with all team concepts and interactions in play. (Basketball, by nature, is a game designed to cater to the offense. It's just the way the rules are set up, and why we see 200 points a night and not 40.)

Btw, you love the +/- family and the standard deviations are always smaller for defense than offense there, suggesting individual offense has a wider-ranged impact. (I see the same thing in my own offense/defense ratings, fwiw).


I definitely look forward to your next iteration and find it very informative, but I'm still not quite ready to come over to the dark side just yet. I'll grant you that the offense gets a certain amount of decision-making advantage over defense, but I'm not sure you're giving full credence to all of the elements of team defense. Perhaps you are, as I said I haven't come down off my fence either way, but I'm not convinced yet.

For example, there are very, very few half-court possessions for which a dominant team defender (especially a big) should truly get a '0' for defensive usage. I don't care if Wade and LeBron just pick each other's man and take jumpers all game against the Magic, Howard still looms large on every defensive possession. In fact, perhaps the reason that (hypothetical) Wade and LeBron would be running those continuous picks-and-pops outside of the lane is expressly BECAUSE Howard is there as a deterrent and that might make an open jumper a higher percentage shot for them than a Howard-contested drive to the rim. Now, that's something that even holy grail couldn't necessarily pin down in a repeatable stat (offense-changed-from-what-they-might-want-to-do?), it would never go in a defensive usage stat, but over the long haul it affects opposing offenses.

In other words, while an offense has the autonomy to initiate the play, a defense can be built in such a way that it forces offensive players to do what they wouldn't ordinarily want to do. And the greater the individual defensive talent, the more things they can take away from the offense. And whether it could show up in a usage-type stat or not, I'm not ready to say that such a defensive impact isn't (in conjunction with the things that are measurable) not just as valuable to a team as an individual's offensive contribution.

You mentioned the +/- stats, and that's a reasonable place to leave this. Because you're right, in my perusal of the different APM calculations I've looked at there is a bit more bang for the buck at the top on offense. But it's not a huge difference. For instance, in the B-R win shares calculation offensive win shares are counted about twice as much as defensive win shares with the thought that individual offense is that much more important. But that's not what I see in the APM calculations.

In the 2005 - 10 calculation I've mentioned a few times lately, an arbitrary cut-off of +2 seems to capture the better offensive and defensive threats of the past 5 years reasonably well. On offense there are 37 folks above that threshold, on defense there are 54 (though probably only around 30 or so that I'd classify as playing starters minutes). Now, the offensive players in this range rank pretty continuously from +2 to about 4, then you start seeing gaps between varying outliers (Dirk at 4.3, jump to LeBron/Billups/Kobe around 5, then jump to Wade at 5.9 then huge jump to Nash by himself at 8.05). On defense it also ranks continuously from 2 until about 4, then there's only 1 outlier at +6.3. On the flip side there are more offensive players below -2 (58 vs 21), but the extreme values again are similar (-3.9 on offense, -3.3 on defense).

My point? As you mention, the standard deviation on offense (1.29) is slightly larger than defense (1.14), and there is a slight difference in the best-of-best and worst-of-worst in each category, slightly in favor of the offense. So looking just at the APMs, I could imagine you could convince me that in general individual offense might be slightly more important than individual defense. But I'm talking slightly, and only as a trend since the defensive outlier was having a similar impact on his end of the court as the offensive outliers. Nothing like the 2-to-1 that win shares would suggest, or even the roughly 60% difference you report among the top-5 usage leaders in last year's playoffs. If there is a slant towards individual offense, I think that degree is way too large.

Re: Defensive Usage

Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2011 10:02 pm
by Vinsanity420
I find it interesting that a SG is actually in the Top 5 of D Usage list. Also, since Rose's defensive impact is being talked about so much... can you break down the Bulls individual D usage rates?

Re: Defensive Usage

Posted: Thu Feb 3, 2011 11:56 pm
by ElGee
Vinsanity420 wrote:I find it interesting that a SG is actually in the Top 5 of D Usage list. Also, since Rose's defensive impact is being talked about so much... can you break down the Bulls individual D usage rates?


Hey Vinsanity - I have 5 Bulls game tracked this year so far. Here's the DUsg breakdown with my new iteration of the stat, with possessions played in parens:

Gibson 36.7% (233)
Asik 29.0% (112)
Thomas 22.0% (234)
Deng 19.3% (359)
Korver 15.6% (176)
Watson 13.6% (113)
Boozer 12.6% (190)
Brewer 10.4% (214)
Rose 10.1% (358)
Bogans 8.9% (167)

For the record, I have Rose playing quite good defense.

Re: Defensive Usage

Posted: Fri Feb 4, 2011 11:00 pm
by penbeast0
And Korver playing better defense than Deng for what it's worth.

Re: Defensive Usage

Posted: Mon Feb 7, 2011 2:05 am
by ElGee
I've refined Defensive Usage here: http://elgee35.wordpress.com/2011/02/06 ... -usage-ii/

We now see the following positional breakdowns:
PG 12.6%
SG 11.5%
SF 13.8%
PF 19.2%
C 22.4%

I'll update these numbers at the end of the season if there is a significant shift.

Re: Defensive Usage

Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2011 11:50 pm
by ronnymac2
Very, very cool.

What stats could you use in conjunction with defensive usage? I know offensive usage can be used with individual offensive rating (and then with APM numbers) to at least get a picture of who are the top offensive anchors. Would that work the same way with individual defensive rating and defensive usage? If so, I'd assume APM numbers would help negate the effect that Drza described (which I agree with) where Wade and James simply don't drive into the paint as much because Howard is protecting the basket area.

Re: Defensive Usage

Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 2:41 pm
by ProBskbllTalk
ElGee wrote:Finally put together a post on defensive usage: http://elgee35.wordpress.com/2011/01/22 ... ive-usage/

The data support two import (intuitive) basketball concepts:
(1) Bigs bear a larger defensive burden than smalls
(2) Individual defenders can't have the same usage as individual offensive players


Good post.