Was Kareem a Defensive Anchor?

[fatal9]

no games went to overtime...

G1:

L 101-106

Bucks stats: 41/98 FG, 19/34 FTs, 17 TOs, 43 total rebs (16 offensive)

Opponent stats: 41/82 FG, 24/33 FTs, 24 TOs, 51 rebs (12 offensive)

G2:

L 70-87

Bucks: 28/80 FG, 14/18 FTs, 20 TOs, 40 rebs (9 offensive)

Opponent: 38/85 FG, 11/16 FTs, 17 TOs, 55 rebs (9 offensive)

G3:

W 92-90

Bucks: 37/83, 16 TOs, 18/24 FTs, 35 rebs (9 offensive)

Opponent: 37/80, 19 TOs, 16/21 FTs, 43 rebs (12 offensive)

G4:

L 96-111

Bucks: 32/83, 32/35 FTs, 22 TOs, 49 rebs (10 offensive)

Opponent: 47/98, 17/26 FTs, 12 TOS, 51 rebs (14 offensive)


G5:

L 95-101

Bucks: 41/83, 13/17 FTs, 29 TOs, 51 rebs (9 offensive)

Opponent: 44/108, 13/21 FTs, 11 TOs, 47 rebs (11 offensive)

G6:

L 97-99

Bucks: 44/102, 9/9 FTs, 17 TOs, 49 rebs (14 offensive)

Opponent: 39/94, 21/27 FTs, 17 TOs, 58 rebs (17 offensive)

G7:

L 86-109

Bucks: 37/101, 12/17 FTs, 16 TOs, 43 rebs (16 offensive)

Opponent: 43/83, 23/25 FTs, 23 TOs, 60 rebs (12 offensive)

G8:

L 90-99

Bucks: 37/89, 16/? Fts, don't have TO or rebound numbers

Opponent: 44/88, 11/? FTs, don't have TO or rebound numbers

G9:

L 89-101

Bucks: 37/90, 15/17 FTs, 16 TOs, 44 rebs (19 offensive)

Opponent: 43/80, 15/15 FTs, 15 TOs, 40 rebs (7 offensive)

G10:

L 93-103

Bucks: 34/68, 25/31 FTs, 20 TOs, 27 rebs (4 offensive)

Opponent: 43/86, 19/20 FTs, 16 TOs, 39 rebs (10 offensive) (discrepency of two points with overall score for some reason, so either a FG less or two FTs less)

G11:

L 94-99

Bucks: 39/91, 16/18 FTs, 21 TOs, 39 rebs (7 offensive)

Opponent: 39/80, 21/23 FTs, 26 TOs, 43 rebs (15 offenisve)

G12:

L 83-91

Bucks: 39/104, 5/13 FTs, 14 TOs, 54 rebs (21 offensive)

Opponent: 34/85, 23/30 FTs, 17 TOs, 48 rebs (13 offensive)

G13:

L 91-98

Bucks: 41/86, 9/15 FTs, 19 TOs, 45 rebs (12 offensive)

Opponent: 42/94, 14/14 FTs, 19 TOs, 45 rebs (15 offenisve)

G14:

L 89-92

Bucks: 38/87, 13/14 FTs, ? TOs, 45 rebs (? offensive)

Opponent: 39/84, 14/21 FTs, ? TOs, 38 rebs (? offensive)

G15:

W 122-108

Bucks: 48/87, 26/29 FTs, 12 TOs, 33 rebs (11 offensive)

Opponent: 43/83, 22/28 FTs, 22 TOs, 28 rebs (13 offensive)

G16:

W 106-96

Bucks: 45/90, 16/19 FTs, 20 TOs, 49 rebs (12 offensive)

Opponent: 33/83, 30/34 FTs, 16 TOs, 42 rebs (9 offensive)

G17:

L 100-101

Bucks: 48/96, 4/10 FTs, 18 TOs, 46 rebs (16 offensive)

Opponent: 38/85, 25/28 FTs, 16 TOs, 36 rebs (10 offensive)

[Doctor MJ]

(And I’ve got to add this—most serious baseball stat gurus think basketball statistics are insane. My favorite moment at the SABR convention this year was when discussing the value of SRS. A guy looked at me and said, “You’re comparing SRS use in, like, football, where a team plays once a week, and teams set up for individual plays, and work out specific defensive and offensive schemes for opponents, with basketball, where team play is interactive and constant, and you play 15-20 games a month, right?” He looked at me sideways, out of the corner of his eyes. “How’s that working for you?” I felt like Edward Norton when Brad Pitt’s Tyler Durden was talking to him.)

This is interesting True, because I actually don't get it. You know I respect you a lot, so I look forward to learning if I'm missing something.

SRS is less necessary in basketball than in football, no arguments there. However, to me that's first and foremost because W-L record is so much more meaningful in the NBA than in the NFL or college football, because the schedule is more complete and balanced.

I honestly don't see what the ability to strategize matchups has anything to do with SRS, a stat which has "Simple" in the name specifically because it isn't doing anything nearly as nuanced as what those teams do in their weekly games.

The only other things I can think of that helps SRS in football are:

1) Relative importance of regular season games due to small season size meaning that a full effort may be more consistently achieved.

2) High potential for massive scoring differential simply due to the scoring system.

Other than that, I consider football to be a more complex game than basketball and even harder to judge statistically than basketball.

So what's up?

[lorak]

...

Thank you very much fatal.
I found that game #8 (vs GSW from Nov 2) - box score was in Milwaukee Journal from Nov 4 *, but several pages after Bucks-Sonics box score. Unfortunately there's still no TOV and ORB numbers, but FTA and TRB numbers are better than nothing - so now we have to assume only TOV, ORB and DRB for two games.

Code: Select all

KAJ   PACE   ORTG   DRTG   
w/o   101,0   92,8   98,4
with   102,4   99,3   97,6


So results confirm what we already know - KAJ was great offensive player, but not so good on defense. 0.8 improvement on D is nothing special among defensive anchors. For example Spurs D with DRob in 1992 was better by 5.1, Spurs with Duncan in 2004 and 2005 were better on D by 5.5 and 6.9, 1986 and 1987 Knicks with Ewing better by 5.2 and 6.6.

*
In game recap Costello said that KAJ missed 6 games in '73 and Bucks won all of them!

[bastillon]

I’m not sure where to go with Kareem as a defender from a numbers perspective. And he’s hardly alone in that boat. Nate Thurmond’s teams weren’t very good from a statistical analysis perspective. A lot of Zo and Mutombo’s teams weren’t. Mark Eaton’s teams were almost always very, very good. Elvin Hayes had elite level defensive numbers in many ways … but how much of this is due to teammate Wes Unseld? How much of that is methodology, how much of it is coaching, how much of it is team makeup? And are the outside factors causal? I don’t know. The fact is nobody knows.

Sometimes things are neat and line up correctly. Bill Russell’s defensive win shares. The defensive rating of Tim Duncan. Those are nice. But a lot of times it’s messy. The most obvious recent example is Kevin Garnett’s time with the T-Wolves. They were usually pretty mediocre on D—between 11th and 16th every year but one between 1999 and 2005. I’m of the opinion that if Kevin Garnett wasn’t the best defensive player in the league between 1999 and 2005, he sure was awful close. There are some statistics that deny this, some/most related to team play. I can tell you this. I think Kevin Garnett’s T-Wolves teams grossly misrepresent his defensive impact. I go with Kevin Garnett being an elite defender. Most analysis leans that way too. I think any analysis that says otherwise is dead wrong.

Nate Thurmond and Kevin Garnett are examples already analysed during RPOY threads. bottomline when either was out of the game, team defense totally collapsed to rock bottom. that didn't happen to Kareem's Bucks or Lakers and thus the similarity isn't there anymore. I'm fine with the idea Kareem's teammates were the immovable obstacle on the way to his defensive dominance on team level...as long as these teammates aren't playing the same defense without him and doing equally well.

empirically you can't compare Kareem to either Thurmond or Garnett as they're results have been much better.

[LakerLegend]

#3 all time in blocked shots...are we really asking this question?

[bastillon]

#3 all time in blocked shots...are we really asking this question?

what does it matter when his teams weren't good defensively ? do you want your anchor to block a lot of shots or anchor the defense ?

[lorak]

Question to all - where KAJ ranks defensively among centers? Was he better on D than for example Tyson Chandler? Or even Jason Collins? What's the difference between KAJ and Shaq on D?

[tsherkin]

This has been an interesting thread so far.

[ThaRegul8r]

This has been an interesting thread so far.

In what sense do you mean?

[tsherkin]

In what sense do you mean?

In the basic, non-sarcastic way; I'm enjoying what I'm reading, learning a few things and reconsidering an opinion I've held for a long time. That doesn't happen all that often where basketball is concerned, so I'm finding this quite engaging.