2011 Synergy D-stat rankings - Derozan D-stats pg. 11

[Weems]

Disgusting thread. It's also disgusting that Andrea's 14th worst on synergy and he doesn't provide any help whatsoever, which isn't tracked. His not rebounding and boxing out is also significant. He's the absolute worst defensive big (player?) by a gigantic margin this season.

Andrea wasn't bad on synergy last season. He also didn't look anywhere near as terrible on the court, though. Defending Bargnani this season is not very cool.

[flatjacket1]

Shot blocking can be misleading. Good defenders who get DPOY do typically have high block numbers but its because they are smart and know when to gamble. How many times has Ed jumped at a post move only to give up a) a trip to the line, b) an and 1 or c) an up and under move which gave him a easy basket.

Its just like steals, players who camp and just lunge out end up costing their teams more than they help. Blocks can be the same, when you try to block a shot you always risk fouling, but on top of that you could give up a lane/easy shot.

Ed Davis is a rookie which explains why his defense is bad (but has demonstrated some good shot blocking ability).

Amir is also young and on a bad defensive team with a losing mentality.

Andrea of course is also a bad defender, but hopefully this stops the Amir bandwagon from claiming hes our best defender. (or even the Ed bandwagon) Truth is we have a team full of bad defenders. That MIGHT be the reason we have 20 wins with a decent offense.

Hey Helix what about Jose? How are his numbers in comparison to other guards/our team. I still think he is one of our better defenders.

[Comeatme_Bro]

Isn't Amir usually guarding the opposing team's Center??? Amir doesn't have the body or strength to effectively hold off other C's. He's a power forward.

[tommer]

One funny thing I've kind of noticed is that the younger guys tend to do better in the spot up category. I'm just guessing here but I figure the younger PFs/Cs are more loaded with energy/young legs so they cover more ground faster and seem a little wilder than some of the other, older or slower guys so maybe they throw off shooters a bit more. Just a guess though.

My guess is that once again it has a lot to do with help defence. For big men, spot-ups occur quite frequently as a result of help-and-recover situations, which you'd expect to have a higher FG%. For example, someone like Amir Johnson would give up lots of spot up attempts. So my guess, is that the young guys just aren't as active on help D as someone like Amir (then again, who is).

On the other hand, I'd fully expect Amir to have a much superior defensive score under PDSS, which rewards active help defenders handsomely.

[AkelaLoneWolf]

DH,
how does DeAndre Jordan rank comparatively? I've always thought he would be a good fit at C next to Bargs.

He and Demarcus Cousins were two of the better ranked ranked young guys in the league according to Synergy. I'd have to double-check but both were ranked in the low hundreds I think which is phenomenal when you're talking about PF/Cs who are as young as they are.

EDIT:

DeAndre Jordan: 110
Iso: 130
Post-Up: 75
Pick and Roll Man: 52
Spot-Up: 95


DeMarcus Cousins: 82
Iso: 225
Post-Up: 37
Pick and Roll Man: 18
Spot Up: 105

Both look like they're going to be excellent defensive presences, especially as they continue to grow and learn more about the NBA.

One funny thing I've kind of noticed is that the younger guys tend to do better in the spot up category. I'm just guessing here but I figure the younger PFs/Cs are more loaded with energy/young legs so they cover more ground faster and seem a little wilder than some of the other, older or slower guys so maybe they throw off shooters a bit more. Just a guess though.

Thanks for the info. Yea, I see DAJ as being a bigger version of Amir Johnson. They have similar skillsets and also similar weaknesses with fouling issues. Working with Alex English will help resolve a lot of those issues.

I also agree with Dagger's assessment of Barnes. Certainly not a franchise player, but fits very well with the roster and helps the team out defensively and offensively.

[Harry Palmer]

Put it this way, Rhett.

Yes, these don't include help defence beyond making sure that the player doesn't get burned on a pick and roll switch but the fact that there are this many big names on the list should give pause to what we think we know about defence period. If these guys aren't very good in these areas... what makes so many so sure they're making up for that with tremendously better help defence than Bargs? Why are these players given the benefit of the doubt?

DH-

This reasoning is really weird.

Break it down:

People maintain that Part X of a center's defense is much more important than Part Y, and that the better ones excel at part X. People further go on to say that Bargs is terrible at part X, and is as such a terrible defensive 5 even if he's meh at part Y.

Your rebuttal is to isolate Part Y, attempt to show that he's not terrible compared with some other bigs at Y...and from that extrapolate that he somehow must be under appreciated at X, and that others are getting the benefit of the doubt!?!?

A=/=B, so B=C =/= A=C.

[flatjacket1]

Isn't Amir usually guarding the opposing team's Center??? Amir doesn't have the body or strength to effectively hold off other C's. He's a power forward.

Agreed. Some big PF's give him trouble too.

Still he isn't that good of a defender, even against his own position. He allows 16.9 PER at the 4 and 18.7 PER at the 5.

[Dr Positivity]

This stats don't tell me much, but I always thought it was fairly silly to think that Bargnani's dragging us to a bottom 5 defense on his own. At the very least you have to point a finger at Calderon, Barbosa, Bayless, Demar (still has bad defensive stats), Weems (hasn't given a crap for a while), Kleiza as guys stinking up the joint on that end - and Jay Triano's offensive orientated, anti Tom Thibodeau philosophy.

[breignchile]

Double Helix....

I really appreciate your effort on these boards. Over the past few months I have noticed your pragmatic approach to Bargnani and player discussions in general. While Bargnani may not be the best fit at centre for the Raptors, he is clearly our best option there (which is unfortunate, but that is not Bargnani's fault). On several occasions you have provided statistical analysis showing that defensive rebounding isn't the best statistic to accurately represent a players value. Clearly Bargnani is not an above average or even average rebounder in the NBA for his position. I feel that the best way to compensate for this is to have other players on the floor who are better than average at rebounding. Most people here would just prefer to trade him for somebody who will come in and save the day. That isn't going to happen. I feel that the best approach the Raptors can take is to find a veteran player who can play 14-22mpg at centre. Players like Kwame Brown or Nzar Mohommed will likely be available this summer and could help limit Bagnani's time at centre. If the Raptors had either of those players or a similar type player, they would have the flexibility to either move Bargnani over to PF or bring him off the bench which might be the best place for him.

Anyway, another solid post Double Helix, keep up the good work.

[Dr Positivity]

Cousins ranking well in this stat makes me seriously doubt it. He SUCKS at defense

[Kabookalu]

This stats don't tell me much, but I always thought it was fairly silly to think that Bargnani's dragging us to a bottom 5 defense on his own. At the very least you have to point a finger at Calderon, Barbosa, Bayless, Demar (still has bad defensive stats), Weems (hasn't given a crap for a while), Kleiza as guys stinking up the joint on that end - and Jay Triano's offensive orientated, anti Tom Thibodeau philosophy.

The thing is Bargnani isn't responsible for the terrible defense, but he certainly does nothing to help it and only makes it worse with his energyless effort. Energy is contagious and when Ed and Amir are on the court together, the whole vibe of the team in those moments is heightened, even if we still get burned because we're just that terrible.

[Double Helix]

Put it this way, Rhett.

Yes, these don't include help defence beyond making sure that the player doesn't get burned on a pick and roll switch but the fact that there are this many big names on the list should give pause to what we think we know about defence period. If these guys aren't very good in these areas... what makes so many so sure they're making up for that with tremendously better help defence than Bargs? Why are these players given the benefit of the doubt?

DH-

This reasoning is really weird.

Break it down:

People maintain that Part X of a center's defense is much more important than Part Y, and that the better ones excel at part X. People further go on to say that Bargs is terrible at part X, and is as such a terrible defensive 5 even if he's meh at part Y.

Your rebuttal is to isolate Part Y, attempt to show that he's not terrible compared with some other bigs at Y...and from that extrapolate that he somehow must be under appreciated at X, and that others are getting the benefit of the doubt!?!?

A=/=B, so B=C =/= A=C.

I'll grant you that. Reading that again I can see where it sounds confusing. My "argument' isn't really me arguing though. I'm just using one of the tools that NBA scouts use and showing that there are some surprisingly poor defenders with some pretty big names in the NBA. I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that if some are surprised to see some of the names on this list fair so poorly it's probably because most of us know very little about the defensive abilities of players on other teams. And if we don't really know how good or bad other defenders are, why do so many people pretend that they do and throw around assertions that Bargnani is certainly one of the worst.

So, to bring this back to your formula.

If x = surprises perhaps y = surprises too.

Furthermore, I think many are overstating the value of y (help defence) in comparison to X. Like many I think Y (help defence) is more important for bigs than X but probably not by the same margin that some of you think.

If a big is poor at defending in the post, poor at defending his man in an isolation or a switch, poor at contesting open shots, and poor at defending the pick and roll.... isn't this relevant to his overall defensive abilities? There's a lot of empty talk about how help defence is all that matters on this forum and a lot of cheap arguments about how the work Synergy points to defensively doesn't hold value. The best help defenders on this list would probably move up some slots but I don't think anybody on the list suddenly becomes a top tier defender. Some of you have created a mythos around help defence as though it's the only thing that matters when you're a big. That concept seems ridiculous to me.

[Double Helix]

Cousins ranking well in this stat makes me seriously doubt it. He SUCKS at defense

The biggest problem for fans with statistical analysis that's this organized, analyzed and labored over is that it does tend to illuminate some surprising things that challenge pre-conceived notions. Not every statistic is going to back up reputation. It's not like Synergy is just some guy in his basement with an axe to grind slightly skewing the stats a little here and there for personal gain. This is independent third party analysis.

[Harry Palmer]

If x = surprises perhaps y = surprises too.

Furthermore, I think many are overstating the value of y (help defence) in comparison to X.

But see herein lies the flaw in your reasoning, imo.

Try this out: If Players have good defensive reps and are statistically meh at X (man defense)....instead of adding in your qualifier that Y (help defense) is overrated and therefore a correlation between good rep and bad X = reps are iffy, instead ask yourself whether or not that might not be MORE support for the assertion that Y is really the valued/valuable part of a big's defense on which their reputations rest.

IOW, if you take out your second point above...if you remove the premise that Y is overrated/overstated...and you find a distinct lack of correlation between defensive reputations and grandeur at X...your logical conclusion might be that Y is in fact the more substantive criteria for getting defensive credit.

[Double Helix]

If x = surprises perhaps y = surprises too.

Furthermore, I think many are overstating the value of y (help defence) in comparison to X.

But see herein lies the flaw in your reasoning, imo.

Try this out: If Players have good defensive reps and are statistically meh at X (man defense)....instead of adding in your qualifier that Y (help defense) is overrated and therefore a correlation between good rep and bad X = reps are iffy, instead ask yourself whether or not that might not be MORE support for the assertion that Y is really the valued/valuable part of a big's defense on which their reputations rest.

IOW, if you take out your second point above...if you remove the premise that Y is overrated/overstated...and you find a distinct lack of correlation between defensive reputations and grandeur at X...your logical conclusion might be that Y is in fact the more substantive criteria for getting defensive credit.

We've already seen this year that reputations change quickly and often in the NBA. Lopez was a "solid" rebounder last year. Now he's not. What's his reputation? Chris Bosh was a top 5 player last year and one of the league's best rebounders. Now he's not. What's his reputation now? Al Jefferson was seen as the kind of player that couldn't lead a team to the playoffs. Now, he is. What's his reputation?

To bring this into the defensive realm, Nicolas Batum was thought to be one of the better defensive SFs in the NBA for no other reason than the fact that their coach stated on national TV that he put him out there for defensive reasons. This declaration combined with the only popular defensive stats commonly available in basketball (steals/blocks) of which he was above average at both. Immediately, people started talking about him as though he was the next Bruce Bowen... everhwere except on the Portland forum. They saw the guy every night and they weren't buying the hype. They saw what I call Jamario Moon defence in that he was capable of the spectacular defensive play almost nightly but kind of stupid defensively in a lot of other ways. It wasn't until recently that he was revealed to actually be a poor defender.

When we brought in Antoine Wright there was a lot of talk about how Rick Carlisle played him strictly for defensive reasons. This was true but that didn't mean he was an elite defender. It just meant that he was the best defender at that position Carlisle had... Big difference. Now, the guy's not even playing in the NBA. No elite defender gets kicked out that easily.

I could go on but reputations are easy to build in the NBA. A coach is asked why he put a guy in. He responds that he likes hid defence. The commentators start talking about ad nauseum. The average fan buys into it and starts spreading it. Reporters start reporting it. We live in an era now where somebody can post a video of their baby laughing/shrieking and be on National Television with 2 days. Word... right or wrong... travels quick. Ask people who bought from Bernie Madoff about what reputation's worth. Ask people who bought stocks from Enron. Ask Joe Dumars about Darko's reputation.

[Death Knight]

I assume the number beside the players are their rankings? With the 3 stats, the lower the better? But it doesn't seem to add up in some cases. How is Dalembert tied with Blake Griffin when his total 3 stats are higher? I need explaining. I would read the whole thread, but there is no guarantee that I'd get the answer. (I'm only done page 1 as I post this).

[5DOM]

I assume the number beside the players are their rankings? With the 3 stats, the lower the better? But it doesn't seem to add up in some cases. How is Dalembert tied with Blake Griffin when his total 3 stats are higher? I need explaining. I would read the whole thread, but there is no guarantee that I'd get the answer. (I'm only done page 1 as I post this).

Griffin's ranked higher in ISO situations. I am assuming either Griffin's advantage there makes up the losses in other two or ISO situations are weighted more heavily.

[Harry Palmer]

We've already seen this year that reputations change quickly and often in the NBA. Lopez was a "solid" rebounder last year. Now he's not. What's his reputation?

Lopez never really had a 'reputation' for rebounding. His rebounding itself was okay, so it was said to be ok, and now it's not so it's said to be not. It was more accomplishment oriented than reputation oriented. You don't get a 'reputation' as a rebounder unless you're at either of the extremes for a sustained period. As a rookie/soph rebounding at a mediocre level, I think it was a non-event until this year it became more notable by it's absence. It's like saying yesterday had a reputation for snowing, today it's not snowing...what's the reputation? Canada in general has a reputation for snowing, but it wouldn't because of yesterday. If you get me.

Chris Bosh was a top 5 player last year and one of the league's best rebounders. Now he's not. What's his reputation now?

I don't agree with either of these. I certainly never considered Bosh a top 5 player, and I don't recall that being said as any kind of established reputation.

And one of the league's best rebounders? When was that his rep? He was again, kind of okay but logged heavy minutes. Anyone who looked beyond bulk numbers certainly never considered him to be great imo.

Al Jefferson was seen as the kind of player that couldn't lead a team to the playoffs. Now, he is. What's his reputation?

Once again, I'm not sure where you are getting this. Almost 60% of the teams in NBA make the playoffs. I don' recall Al Jefferson ever discussed as a guy who could or could not lead a team out of the bottom 40%. I do agree he was probably viewed as not a guy you could build a contender around, and I doubt that's changed.

To bring this into the defensive realm, Nicolas Batum was thought to be one of the better defensive SFs in the NBA for no other reason than the fact that their coach stated on national TV that he put him out there for defensive reasons. This declaration combined with the only popular defensive stats commonly available in basketball (steals/blocks) of which he was above average at both. Immediately, people started talking about him as though he was the next Bruce Bowen... everhwere except on the Portland forum. They saw the guy every night and they weren't buying the hype. They saw what I call Jamario Moon defence in that he was capable of the spectacular defensive play almost nightly but kind of stupid defensively in a lot of other ways. It wasn't until recently that he was revealed to actually be a poor defender.

I can't comment because I never saw the Batum's D wildfire. I'm not saying it didn't happen; I just never noticed it. If you could cite me examples, I could comment more.

When we brought in Antoine Wright there was a lot of talk about how Rick Carlisle played him strictly for defensive reasons. This was true but that didn't mean he was an elite defender. It just meant that he was the best defender at that position Carlisle had... Big difference. Now, the guy's not even playing in the NBA. No elite defender gets kicked out that easily.

Right. And as a result, when did Antonie Wright have a reputation as an elite defender!?!?!? You seriously think that happened?

Wait...do you mean in here? Where Joey Graham was scratching the surface of AllStardom? I hope you don't mean in here. Our board evaluations of players we get almost always teeter over into hyperbolic overrating, especially early on. And that doesn't extend beyond here...in fact posters on general boards sort of automatically account for Raps board hyperbole.

I could go on but reputations are easy to build in the NBA.

To some degree I'd agree, but I don't think any of your assertions bear it out. I think the factors that more commonly lead to a divorce between reputation and reality are when age erodes the latter before the former, when market size comes into play, and especially when the two combine. (Derek Jeter Gold Glove effect, as an example.)

And to a lesser degree, when bulk scoring extends to a reputation as an offensive player even when the player in question is chucking like mad, a la Kobe for some of his career, Iverson, etc.

But again, I think we're getting very far away from your initial point here.

A coach is asked why he put a guy in. He responds that he likes hid defence. The commentators start talking about ad nauseum. The average fan buys into it and starts spreading it. Reporters start reporting it. We live in an era now where somebody can post a video of their baby laughing/shrieking and be on National Television with 2 days. Word... right or wrong... travels quick. Ask people who bought from Bernie Madoff about what reputation's worth. Ask people who bought stocks from Enron. Ask Joe Dumars about Darko's reputation.

But as you say, did that rep of Darko's sustain itself for long when the play miserably failed to deliver? I agree word travels quick, but in a world full of quick traveling words, it often doesn't stick long unless there is something more to it, be it actual play, or market drive.

[Double Helix]

This was described earlier but the numbers themselves are rankings based on points scored against in all of those situations. One key situational that isn't included and it's one of the things Bargnani does okay at is pick and roll man defense. So, the rankings are based on all of these different situations and then an average points scored against in those situations is calculated. This is why there are so many ties. Points scored against only extends two decimal places and the lower the number the better the ranking.

[Scott Carefoot]

I generally don't trust individual defensive stats, regardless of whether or not they confirm my personal beliefs. Some coaches and players seem to improve the team defense of every team they play for, and other coaches and players have the opposite effect. That, aside from observation, is how I make up my mind about who is and isn't a good defender.

On the Raptors, I think there are a few players who could be good defenders on the right team with the right coach/system. Other players are hopeless in that regard. Calderon definitely qualifies as the latter. I typically know better than to bother debating with people about Bargnani's defense at this point because pretty much anyone who enters into that kind of debate is colored by their personal feelings about him.