trex_8063 wrote:I realize the glaring flaw in the statistical argument of Kanter vs Porzingis; that flaw doesn't really apply to most of the other mentions within that same sentence, though.
wrt Nance having a lot of non-boxscore defensive impact: did he? I didn't see the mentioned defensive grade [OUTSIDE of blocked shot] of AA-AAA. I couldn't remember if he was, for example, an exceptional pnr defender, and I thought he had a tendency to occasionally be a little soft as a low post defender, shy away from rough contact, etc......and that the bulk of his defensive value came from his help D/shot-blocking (a fair bit of of which is accounted for in the boxscore). Maybe I'm wrong there.
We don't consistently see massive defensive improvements associated with his presence. Yes, the Cavs hit a -4.9 rDRTG in the first full season with Nance ('89)......but the following year (when Ron Harper---an excellent defensive wing----goes down), they fall to a -0.9 rDRTG. Nance also missed 20 games that year, which accounts for part of the falloff.......but not all that much: they were a -1.3 rDRTG with him, +0.4 rDRTG without him. It's suggestive that the loss of Harper was felt more acutely on the defensive end.
And fwiw, in that -4.9 rDRTG year in '89, they were actually a -4.6 rDRTG in the 73 games with him, -7.2 rDRTG in the nine games he missed. Likely a lot of noise due to smaller sample size there, but again it's not screaming massive defensive impact.
Their offense showed larger changes (to the good) associated with Nance in both '89 and '90, though.
In '87 his absence is certainly associated with a huge falloff defensively. It's just not something that appears super-consistent throughout his career. The offensive improvements are actually more consistent [and often larger] in the WOWY studies I've done, which maybe indicates we should be praising his offensive game (the efficient middle-volume scoring, low turnovers, solid passing, stretching the floor a little in his later years, etc) more than his defense.
And the potential explanations (in the post you---Owly---linked) regarding his lack of accolades, as well as all the descriptions of his intangible/leadership qualities were enlightening for me.
Anyway, I'm coming away from this thread a little more impressed with Larry Nance. Am actually thinking of changing my alternate vote to him.
In terms of D, I'll give my take. Not in any order but just some factors.
1) Noise: In trying to parse out individual credit for and impact on team performance there will be noise. Noise in the ratings (were opponents lucky or unlucky, for instance in shooting threes). Noise in non-individual based factors (different combinations). Just a lot of things that make parsing individual credit out difficult. Noise in terms of teams choices trading off offense and defensive with strategic choices.
2) Continuity: '89 Cavs play 12 players overall, 6 over 1850 minutes, a seventh at just over a thousand, and the next one down is close to 500. '90 Cavs play 17 players, only 4 in the 1850 plus, then a lot more that are clearly in the rotation - some of the time, but not always or clearly first choice. We can see this (and the impact of injuries, with otherwise 1st choicer Nance coming off the bench for a period) in the much more erratic spread of starts. Then too the wings have gone from a clear-cut Harper and Sanders, relieved by Ehlo, to Ehlo and ?? (Kerr? Winston Bennett? Chucky Brown? Randolph Keys?).
3) Maybe not so much missing Harper (per se): A big downgrade here sure and absence of continuity. But I suspect you're projecting Chicago (or even Lakers) era Harper but with athleticism. Clippers era reports are way down on him in this respect iirc. Even after the '89 season
. Losing Harper hurt a bit but as much because he was consistently available, healthy starter rather than a rag-tag replacement level experiment. Valentine's absence may have hurt too (from '91 offseason - he's not included in '89 ... he gets the same grade Harper got in '89 - and way better than Harper's C in '91 - with probably a probably more positive review, given in full below - the original includes "..." s)Harper has all the tools - long arms, excellent anticipation, good lateral quickness - that make for a quality defender. But he needs to improve his defensive consistency, to be focused night-in, night-out ... [Grade: A]
But the main thing, to me, is turnover, the churn both between seasons and within the season. I'd tend to see this as an impediment to a good defense.Defense has been Valentine's NBA calling card ... Pressures the ball well, can play his man 94 feet, willing to be physical ... averaged a solid 1.5 steals a game
Where Nance has "Hot Rod" replacing a chunk of his minutes (e.g '89 has Williams at 25.9 mpg for the season overall, probably a little lower for the with Nance period, perhaps a good chunk higher for his absence?) this probably complicates the picture in terms of his general value (as you noted a lot of noise there too).
Percieved "softness" ... I've covered in recent threads with Penbeast regarding the Cleveland era. I think defense versus physical post play is more a relative weakness than an absolute one, but read back if you want the detail, one year's report('92) is more critical of this though still grading defense as AAA.
