Defense and Championships

Post #1 » by **ParticleMan** » Mon Jun 2, 2008 5:54 pm

Defensive rankings (opponents PPG) of NBA champions last 10 years:

2007: Spurs - #1
2006: Heat- #14
2005: Spurs- #1
2004: Pistons- #1
2003: Spurs- #2
2002: Lakers- #9
2001: Lakers- #23
2000: Lakers- #6
1999: Spurs- #1
1998: Bulls- #3
1997: Bulls- #6

Trend?
You pretty much have to have a top-10 defense to win a championship. The only exception is if you have 2 top-5 players on the same team, like Shaq+Wade or Shaq+Kobe.

OK, now let's look at this year:

Celtics- #2
Lakers- #19

The Lake Show has a pretty good offense, but there have been a lot of great offensive teams that haven't gotten it done in the end. It's not a coincidence.

Tricky Ricky · Post #2 » by **Tricky Ricky** » Mon Jun 2, 2008 6:21 pm

they do have a player named Kobe Bryant, lets hope defense really does win championships!

Post #3 » by **sully00** » Mon Jun 2, 2008 6:27 pm

Generally you need both and the thing with the Lakers is that this just isn't the same team that played 82 games. That said even this incarnation of the Lakers is not a top 10 defensive unit. Even more importantly they give ground in the post and try to just be long to disrupt shots.

KG and PJ need to a hold a little team meeting with the front court guys and get them to understand how important they are going to be in this series. Not just on the defensive end that is a given but on the offensive end as well. The Lakers can take away KG to an extent, much the way they did to Duncan, what then has to happen is that whoever else is in there next to him has to take those shots and go strong. It isn't Doc's style but even take a charge a two to make the point. Let face it Gasol and Odom as talented as they are not exactly physical they will find it real easy to be a step late on a rotation with Perk, Powe, or Davis diving to the basket.

My guess is defensively they will try and show the big 3 to the perimeter and help off of Rondo and leave the paint wide open and Perk and Co. are going to have to go to work in this series.

Gomes3PC · Post #4 » by **Gomes3PC** » Mon Jun 2, 2008 6:27 pm

Yes, they have Kobe, but they don't have the Big Cactus/Aristotle. Not coincidentally the two years a team didn't have a top 10 D won it all were when Shaq donned a uni for that squad.

Apparently Vegas hasn't seen this stat.

Post #5 » by **sully00** » Mon Jun 2, 2008 6:32 pm

Tricky Ricky wrote:they do have a player named Kobe Bryant, lets hope defense really does win championships!

If I am Doc I kind of play on that. The Lakers suck when Kobe tries to take over. In that way this plays into Boston's hands defensively as our two best defenders are at the 4 and 5 so they can naturally limit Odom and Gasol.. Obviously you don't want Kobe getting to the rim and breaking down your defense but I would love to force him into a some isolation and jump shots and mess up their offensive flow.

Post #6 » by **ParticleMan** » Mon Jun 2, 2008 6:38 pm

yeah, the thing about those Shaq teams is that Shaq didn't really start trying on D until the playoffs. When Shaq actually commits to playing D he is pretty damn good (or at least was, before he started taking Artis Gilmore supplements).

The Lakers defense was actually better earlier in the year with Bynum. They've been fortunate to play teams that had glaring deficiencies either in heart (Denver), defense (Utah), or offense (Spurs with Ginobli gimpy). They have looked great, but it's a bit of a mirage.

I'm not saying the Lakers are bad, they're damn good, but i'm just not sure how good they are. They aren't as good as they've looked, that I'm pretty sure of.

eatyourchildren · Post #7 » by **eatyourchildren** » Mon Jun 2, 2008 6:57 pm

In defensive efficiency rankings they are 5th, after pace adjustments and all that fun stuff.

Defense does win championships. Defense also should theoretically prevent you from having to play two 7-game series. shrug.

Gomes3PC · Post #8 » by **Gomes3PC** » Mon Jun 2, 2008 7:33 pm

I don't think anyone remembers HOW a team gets to be the champion. Whether it takes you 20 games or 12 to reach the Finals, you are here. And thanks to the absurd setup, the Celtics will have 4 days off to rest, which will only help them. Not to mention multiple times in this series where you'll have not one night off between but two.

Fatigue will be no factor in this series to say the least.

GuyClinch · Post #9 » by **GuyClinch** » Mon Jun 2, 2008 10:36 pm

I was going to say Lakers had the 5th best defense. Nonetheless we beat up on them fairly routinely. I don't think they matchup great against the C's..

Pete

Pogue Mahone · Post #10 » by **Pogue Mahone** » Mon Jun 2, 2008 11:44 pm

Particle-

Even more indicative is when you use points per possession to measure offense/defense. Since 1980, there have only been two instances when a team won a championship when either their defense or offense was outside the top-10.

Since 1980, only one team has won a championship ranked outside the top-10 in offensive efficiency (2004 Detroit Pistons.) The same is true for defensive efficiency (2001 LA Lakers.)

Both are equally important, imo.

eatyourchildren · Post #11 » by **eatyourchildren** » Tue Jun 3, 2008 1:14 am

Well, this would all be really insightful stuff if the Lakers were playing the way they were through most of the regular season and the Celtics were as well.

But that's not been the case. Even the most ardent Celtics homer can concede (I would hope) that the Celtics played only one of three series to their full capability this entire postseason. Whether you choose to see that glass half full or empty, well--that's your prerogative.

GuyClinch · Post #12 » by **GuyClinch** » Tue Jun 3, 2008 1:56 am

This is the crux of the "anti-celtic" argument. The playoffs are a different season and those playoff games are predictive of their future. Whereas the regular season has no predictive power..

I think the C's are about to smash that theory into bits. Have the C's really been "exposed" as not that good. Or like Dallas were they just slumping at the wrong time..

I think the media is so keen on the 'exposed' theory because all season long they tried to push it. It was wait till the WEST COAST trip - and how will they do against the great WEST.

Now they have some new theory to "prove" their prognostications.. Only time will tell if they are right. Personally I kind of doubt it. The C's really started to get their groove back against the Pistons. I think people forget just how dominant they were when they had it going earlier this year.

Pete

Green Menace · Post #13 » by **Green Menace** » Tue Jun 3, 2008 2:28 am

I just wonder what boston haters will say if we win 17. I

drza · Post #14 » by **drza** » Tue Jun 3, 2008 3:14 am

GuyClinch wrote:This is the crux of the "anti-celtic" argument. The playoffs are a different season and those playoff games are predictive of their future. Whereas the regular season has no predictive power..

I think the C's are about to smash that theory into bits. Have the C's really been "exposed" as not that good. Or like Dallas were they just slumping at the wrong time..

I think the media is so keen on the 'exposed' theory because all season long they tried to push it. It was wait till the WEST COAST trip - and how will they do against the great WEST.

Now they have some new theory to "prove" their prognostications.. Only time will tell if they are right. Personally I kind of doubt it. The C's really started to get their groove back against the Pistons. I think people forget just how dominant they were when they had it going earlier this year.

Pete

I actually think the Cs started getting their groove back against the Cavs. It was taken as a badge of dishonor that it took them 7 games to dispatch the Cavs because of Cleveland's regular season this year, but IMO Cleveland was absolutely built for the playoffs. They have the biggest, most physical frontline in the NBA. They have an excellent defensive scheme with personnel that buys into it to the fullest. And they have one of the best individual offensive talents in the NBA. That combo isn't versatile enough for big regular season success, but it's a killer in the playoffs. It's why they beat the Pistons last season, and I dare-say they'd have beaten them again this year if they'd played.

Personally, I think the experience, toughness, and self-trust that the Celtics gained by being pushed to the wall in those first two series combines with the swagger they gained in the Pistons series to make the Cs a much stronger team now than they were when the playoffs began.

Pogue Mahone · Post #15 » by **Pogue Mahone** » Tue Jun 3, 2008 3:16 am

If you were to go solely off of playoff performance this season (foolish because of sample size, imo), it would be Lakers in 7.

Now, with that being said, using the entire season as the color commentary, Boston wins in 6 or 7 (there is a chance for Boston to steal a game in LA but it is unlikely, going purely by the numbers and expected winning percentage, it more likely for Boston to win in 7.)

Not so fast say Laker fans. It only counts when Gasol is part of the line-up, some say. Well, what then? Boston in 7 with only a slightly less chance than before of winning it in 6.

For me, I think it will go 6. I think Boston will prevail because I think they will steal a game in LA and I don't see LA winning one in Boston. Fifteen of the twenty-seven games Gasol played in after his acquisition were against teams with a .500 or below record. I have a hard time not discounting the Laker's performance in those games. Even so, with the benefit of assuming all those games as being a strong indicator, mathematically speaking, the numbers still support Boston in 7.

Beowulfas · Post #16 » by **Beowulfas** » Tue Jun 3, 2008 12:30 pm

solely off of playoff performance Lakers in 4
using the entire season Lakers in 6
only counts when Gasol Lakers in 5

so mathematically speaking, looking at the law of averages,everything indicates Lakers in 5.

Post #17 » by **sully00** » Tue Jun 3, 2008 6:04 pm

This "solely of playoff performance" is crap. How come the opponent's performance is not factored in.

The Hawks manned up once they went home and played like a totally different team the Nuggs just continued to roll over.

The Cav's were defending conference champs, the shame isn't that it took us 7 games the shame is that the Jazz and Spurs did not extend the Lakers.

The Pistons all of a sudden aren't the best team of the 3 we faced? Well we took 2 from them on the road and Ray is looking like Ray again and heading against a Western Conference opponent. Good luck if you think that this team isn't playing as well now as it did in the regular season.

Gomes3PC · Post #18 » by **Gomes3PC** » Tue Jun 3, 2008 7:54 pm

IMO at the end of the conference finals, both these teams were playing nearly as good basketball as they have all year; LA perhaps at its best and Boston close to it. I really, really hope that the 4-6 days off for these teams don't cool them off. Well, if LA cools off that wouldn't be so bad

.

Pogue Mahone · Post #19 » by **Pogue Mahone** » Tue Jun 3, 2008 9:51 pm

Beowulfas wrote:solely off of playoff performance Lakers in 4
using the entire season Lakers in 6
only counts when Gasol Lakers in 5

so mathematically speaking, looking at the law of averages,everything indicates Lakers in 5.

Care to include your math? Using the commonly accepted formula developed by Dean Oliver to factor in home court advantage, it says you are wrong.

I used the formula and put forth the results.