Is a statistically good defense good enough?

[JonFromVA]

I was just curious what people's thoughts on this subject were.

What I'm talking about is a defense based around solid team principles and players playing solid fundamental defense.

1. Your perimeter defender may not have the greatest lateral movement, but someone will be there to help him.
2. You may not block many shots, but you'll always have a hand up in the shooter's eyes.
3. You may not generate many steals, but you will have hands and arms up in the passing lanes and not give the opponent a 5v4 because you gambled for a steal.
4. You may not have anyone who can sky for rebounds, but you will box out properly
5. Your transition offense may suffer, but you will emphasize securing defensive rebounds

I think of this as a statistical defense. It can't really force stops, it can't impose itself on the offense, but in the long run will generate a top defensive rating. In the regular season, there's no doubt a defense like this will be very valuable; but is this sufficient when the playoffs roll around?

[chilluminati]

Almost sounds like the Nuggets. Not 100% accurate, but given the comparison they won a ring like that.

[ropjhk]

The concepts listed in the OP all relate to defensive discipline and focus on a team level.

Coaches matter when it comes to defense. A coach that emphasizes and grooms a good defensive culture can improve the defensive performance of a team. Putting in place a system that is sustainable will improve defensive performance.

Sometimes the emphasis on defense happens only when necessary. Some teams rely on players who can't be made to raise their defensive focus unless the game is on the line.

In the playoffs all good teams will raise their defensive focus.

To answer whether this form of defense is good enough (I assume to win a championship) I'd say it depends on the team. If the team is very strong on offense then it might be enough. I'd say that any championship calibre team should be able to get everyone on the floor to raise their defensive focus and play good defense when needed.

[Harry Garris]

Well if a team has a good defensive rating over the course of a regular season that’s not fake or statistical “noise”, it means they’re playing good defense.

Teams do dip in defensive performance when the playoffs start, that happens all the time. The Timberwolves were a little worse on defense during the postseason than they were during the regular season this year. But it’s pretty rare to see some kind of catastrophic drop off - barring major injury. If a team is elite on defense for 82 games they’re not somehow going to suck in the playoffs.

The playoffs are a little different than the regular season. But they’re not that different. Pace goes down a tiny bit, 4th quarter shot creation becomes a little more important. But it’s still the same sport.

[og15]

If the defense can adjust to different offensive players and offenses in the playoffs, yes, but based on this description you seem to be talking about a not so versatile defense without any specifically good individual defenders.

You have to be able to get stops, and you saying this defense can't get stops would make the playoffs difficult for them past the first round.

Almost sounds like the Nuggets. Not 100% accurate, but given the comparison they won a ring like that.

KCP and Gordon gave the Nuggets a good POA defender and a versatile defender which seems to make them not fit this description of a disciplined defense without much defensive talent.

The Nuggets could get stops, if they couldn't they wouldn't have won.

[ballzboyee]

If the numbers say the defense is statistically good, then it is good. That being said, to have a good defense in the NBA means you guys who can play physical point-of-attack defense in man or zone, flash doubles teams and recover, not be late in drop coverage, fight through screens, have quickness and length to close out and disrupt shooters and attack/prevent entries in the passing lanes, and also be physical with the size in the paint to win contests. A lot of loose balls and rebound contests are just won based on physical dominance. Fundamentals are important, but those things will only get you so far. If a team is physically outmatched, there is no chance.

I personally think most teams today are athletic enough to play good defense, but they just are out-schemed, play poor assignment basketball (coaching and coachability), or in some cases it is lack of effort. Teams today are all running heavy high ball screen action with a lot of switching and assignment identification, and players get lost a lot. You have teams that are running double screens with a screener who has the option to pick and pop or become a cutter. For a defender, no matter how many times he sees it, the offensive guy has such an advantage and it is hard to stop. There is a lot of thinking happening on the court in terms of the defenders recognizing assignment basketball, and a lot of players react but they are too late. The best defensive teams are not only reacting, they are actually anticipating the pass or the shot. Coaches put wrinkles in their stuff and players get confused.

There are also not a few NBA players that do not give jack about the defensive side of the ball. Some guys are just going through the motions. Then again there are a number of players in the league that cannot be defensed. Durant is one. Jokic is another. Lebron, Luka, Embiid, Giannis, etc. Ant, Kyrie, and Morant are three guys on the wing I don't believe there is a ball stopper who can make them shoot a jumper if they want to get to the rim. Offense is way overpowered in today's game anyway.

[NZB2323]

This sounds like Shane Battier.

[dhsilv2]

If the defense can adjust to different offensive players and offenses in the playoffs, yes, but based on this description you seem to be talking about a not so versatile defense without any specifically good individual defenders.

You have to be able to get stops, and you saying this defense can't get stops would make the playoffs difficult for them past the first round.

Kinda nailed what I was thinking. If you have sound well organized defenders, then you're golden in general. But in the playoffs, you need to be adaptable. That possibly can be done with limited guys if you have a bench with guys who offer different strengths and weaknesses. Ala - they're similar value but offer it in different ways.

Also with the playoffs...sometimes you just get teams who are hard matchups or easy ones. That's a big factor in who wins most years.

[cupcakesnake]

Do you have examples of "good statistical defenses" that end up not being good? Defensive paper tigers that get exposed in the playoffs?

The only recent team that comes to mind is the 2018 Raptors. They were a top 5 defense (-2.7 Drtg, so solid but not great). They had an insanely good defensive bench (Delon Wright, young Siakam and Fred, Jakob Poetl). Their starting lineup had 3 very good defenders: Lowry, rookie OG, and the slightly overrated post-injury Serge Ibaka. Unfortunately they also started Demar Derozan and Jonas Valancinas, one of the worst pick & roll defensive duos in the league. Opponents could generate a defensive breakdown whenever they wanted. The playoffs come around and that 105 Defensive rating gets TORCHED. Washington put up a 111 Ortg (+2 rOrtg better than their regular season mark), and then Cleveland went bonkers for a 127 Ortg (that's a +13.5 rOrtg). Teams weren't scrapping their game plan in the regular season to hunt Demar, but Cleveland and Washington made it their bread and butter.

Most stuff is matchup based though. In the playoffs you only face a maximum of 4 opponents. Your defense could be specifically ill-suited to guard one of them. Fans will say your defense was exposed, but it's more likely you ran into a team that was well suited to attack your weak points.