Wolves are 6th in the NBA in Adjusted Defensive Rating

[The Rage Monster [enjin:8010341]]

As much as I want us to be a great or even average defensively, the fact is we are terrible. If this metric places us 6th defensively there is something very wrong with it. Unless we are an extreme outlier I'm not sure it can be trusted to accurately rank any of the teams.

Here's what I see on defense: Perimeter D should mildly challenge players but be sure not to do it too aggressively because if your man beats you there will be no rotation or help D. Pick and roll D involves both the guard and big defending the ball handler but without actually containing him. Then my personal favorite, our interior D. Stay between your man and the basket but don't make an extra effort to challenge players because it is important to avoid fouls at all cost. But wait it gets even better, if you're Love and someone does drives make sure you don't attempt to stop them, instead box out for the missed layup or put yourself in prime position to catch the ball as it falls through the net so you can attempt an inbounds outlet pass.

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

Some people can't comprehend what real defensive toughness is. It's not being able to hold Chicago or Charlotte down. It's about being able to get stops against quality opponents when you have to. And we are so far from that plateau it isn't even funny. Put out whatever stats you can find to support your hollow argument, they don't matter. No one that knows anything in this league would tell you the Wolves are tough defensively.

Defensive Rating is the most widely accepted advanced metric for assessing team defense. You act like a put up some ridiculous stat, like "Wolves defense is GREAT because opponents can't make 3's on Wednesday nights when Rubio gels his hair"

I'm also not saying the defense doesn't have problems, just pointing out other factors of defense that shouldn't be overlooked. There's no reason to get all worked up, just defend your point without being disparaging.

KMS, my problem isn't with you. I just don't like how stats are used on this board to justify arguments. Case in point, you do realize we have the worst opponents field goal percentage in the league? Like Abe said, you can always find a stat to support your agenda. It's simple, basic debating skills. I just try to be real. And most realists would tell you regardless of metrics, the Wolves are a poor defensive team.

Cool - Simple, basic, debating skills require that a person supports their argument with facts. Statistics are facts derived from actual outcomes, and in case you didn't notice, sports offers a treasure trove of measurable outcomes. I think it's only natural that people would use stats to support their argument, especially in sports.

As for Defensive Rating, as KMS pointed out, that's not some obscure stat pulled out of someone's ass at MIT. It's probably the most comprehensive defensive stat in basketball. Jim Petersen refers to it a lot. And it's a fact we've pretty much been in or around the top 10 all year.

Now I happen to agree that we absolutely need to get better at getting stops, over and beyond the type of stops you get when you steal the basketball or don't allow an offensive rebound (and the last time I checked, creating a turnover is a "stop" and can actually lead to good offense too. We're very good at this). I especially think this is true in playoff basketball, where the pace slows down and our style of defense probably wouldn't be as effective.

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

As much as I want us to be a great or even average defensively, the fact is we are terrible. If this metric places us 6th defensively there is something very wrong with it. Unless we are an extreme outlier I'm not sure it can be trusted to accurately rank any of the teams.

Here's what I see on defense: Perimeter D should mildly challenge players but be sure not to do it too aggressively because if your man beats you there will be no rotation or help D. Pick and roll D involves both the guard and big defending the ball handler but without actually containing him. Then my personal favorite, our interior D. Stay between your man and the basket but don't make an extra effort to challenge players because it is important to avoid fouls at all cost. But wait it gets even better, if you're Love and someone does drives make sure you don't attempt to stop them, instead box out for the missed layup or put yourself in prime position to catch the ball as it falls through the net so you can attempt an inbounds outlet pass.

So when Ricky gets a steal and passes it upcourt to Brewer for a dunk, is that good defense? Or for some reason does that not count as defense? Or when Kevin Love secures a defensive rebound and doesn't allow a second chance putback by his guy, does that also not count as defense? And when we avoid silly fouls that puts us into the penalty, what would that be called? Does the fact we almost always have the free throw advantage over our opponent not mean or count for anything?

You are absolutely right that we are shitty at contesting shots at the rim and could probably afford to use more strategically placed fouls (i.e. hammer a guy every once in a while!). But consistently creating turnovers, securing defensive rebounds, and avoiding stupid fouls are part of playing good defense - and we do all three things exceptionally well. We need to get better at the other stuff you mentioned.

[The Rage Monster [enjin:8010341]]

As much as I want us to be a great or even average defensively, the fact is we are terrible. If this metric places us 6th defensively there is something very wrong with it. Unless we are an extreme outlier I'm not sure it can be trusted to accurately rank any of the teams.

Here's what I see on defense: Perimeter D should mildly challenge players but be sure not to do it too aggressively because if your man beats you there will be no rotation or help D. Pick and roll D involves both the guard and big defending the ball handler but without actually containing him. Then my personal favorite, our interior D. Stay between your man and the basket but don't make an extra effort to challenge players because it is important to avoid fouls at all cost. But wait it gets even better, if you're Love and someone does drives make sure you don't attempt to stop them, instead box out for the missed layup or put yourself in prime position to catch the ball as it falls through the net so you can attempt an inbounds outlet pass.

So when Ricky gets a steal and passes it upcourt to Brewer for a dunk, is that good defense? Or for some reason does that not count as defense? Or when Kevin Love secures a defensive rebound and doesn't allow a second chance putback by his guy, does that also not count as defense? And when we avoid silly fouls that puts us into the penalty, what would that be called? Does the fact we almost always have the free throw advantage over our opponent not mean or count for anything?

You are absolutely right that we are shitty at contesting shots at the rim and could probably afford to use more strategically placed fouls (i.e. hammer a guy every once in a while!). But consistently creating turnovers, securing defensive rebounds, and avoiding stupid fouls are part of playing good defense - and we do all three things exceptionally well. We need to get better at the other stuff you mentioned.

I'm saying throughout the course of an entire game we are bad at defense. A steal is great but it means we're a good defensive team 9.5% of the time.

The league average for opponent offensive rebounds per game is about 11, we give up 10.3. Love's rebounding is great but it doesn't make us significantly better than an average team.

I think our lack of fouling goes beyond avoiding silly fouls, it means guys aren't even challenging, there's a reason opponents shoot such a high percentage around the rim. Also for the record Pek averages 2.4 fouls per game which ties him for 36th for centers, Love averages 1.9 and that has him tied for 54th for power forwards. If you look at it from a per minute basis (not a great method I'll admit) Pek would be 76th of 81 centers and Love would be 87th out 89 power forwards who have committed at least 1 foul this year. My point is fouls occur when challenging shots, that's just the nature of the game. If they were even average I could buy your argument they are simply avoiding silly fouls but the fact they are so low in the foul category along with giving up a high percentage at the rim should be a clear sign they avoid challenging shots.

[kms789 [enjin:6694798]]

I'm saying throughout the course of an entire game we are bad at defense. A steal is great but it means we're a good defensive team 9.5% of the time.

The league average for opponent offensive rebounds per game is about 11, we give up 10.3. Love's rebounding is great but it doesn't make us significantly better than an average team.

I think our lack of fouling goes beyond avoiding silly fouls, it means guys aren't even challenging, there's a reason opponents shoot such a high percentage around the rim. Also for the record Pek averages 2.4 fouls per game which ties him for 36th for centers, Love averages 1.9 and that has him tied for 54th for power forwards. If you look at it from a per minute basis (not a great method I'll admit) Pek would be 76th of 81 centers and Love would be 87th out 89 power forwards who have committed at least 1 foul this year. My point is fouls occur when challenging shots, that's just the nature of the game. If they were even average I could buy your argument they are simply avoiding silly fouls but the fact they are so low in the foul category along with giving up a high percentage at the rim should be a clear sign they avoid challenging shots.

You're really over-thinking this. Basically you're going through every factor of defense and subjectively deciding what is important and what isn't. Turnover %--not important. Free throw disparity--not important because they are giving up easy shots. Defensive rebounding %--not important.

Rather than going through each factor and assigning your own worth to it, why not look at the one stat that takes subjectivity out of the equation, which is Defensive Rating. The top-5 for Defensive Rating are Indiana, Chicago, Golden State, OKC, and San Antonio. Then the Wolves are tied for 6th.

Obviously, the consensus has been that the Wolves' defensive strategy has fallen apart in the 4th. If a site had a Defensive Rating breakdown by quarter, I would bet the Wolves would look terrible in the 4th, while teams like Indiana and Miami would kick it up a notch in the 4th.

I think Q was on the right track when asking if this strategy will hold up against good teams and in the 4th quarter. But to say that these factors don't matter just be cause, subjectively, you don't think they should, doesn't make sense. How many points per possession does the defense allow? That is the summation of all those factors, so why go through each one and decide which ones you think are important and which aren't?

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

KMS, You are absolutely right. And if people say, our defense is terrible because we're nearly last in FG% allowed and can't stop anyone, than don't they also have to say that our offense is terrible because we're nearly last in offensive FG% (we're 25th in team FG%) and struggle to make shots? So using just the "eye test" of made shots (both for and against), one should come to the conclusion that we're a terrible offensive and defensive team. But if that's the case, then how the hell are we one game over .500 in the brutal Western Conference!? We must be doing something right!

[longstrangetrip [enjin:6600564]]

Our opponents have shot 37.6% and 35.4% in the two games that Pek has been out. I suspect that this has much more to do with how poorly Chicago and New Orleans shoot than Pek being out, but it will still be interesting to monitor over the next couple weeks.

Of course, our offense clearly look worse with Pek out.

[Coolbreeze44]

Hard to belive this argument is still being waged. Rick Adelman himself said we were not a good defensive team. Anybody that watches the games can come to that conclusion also. We're a good offensive team primarily because of our ridiculous free throw differential rating. That also helps explain why we are rated highly in some defensive metrics. But it doesn't mean we can lock down people on defense, not even close.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Hard to belive this argument is still being waged. Rick Adelman himself said we were not a good defensive team. Anybody that watches the games can come to that conclusion also. We're a good offensive team primarily because of our ridiculous free throw differential rating. That also helps explain why we are rated highly in some defensive metrics. But it doesn't mean we can lock down people on defense, not even close.

I think it comes down to what has made this Wolves team so fascinating yet challenging to figure out. The stats are all over the map... some good, some bad.

[kms789 [enjin:6694798]]

Hard to belive this argument is still being waged. Rick Adelman himself said we were not a good defensive team. Anybody that watches the games can come to that conclusion also. We're a good offensive team primarily because of our ridiculous free throw differential rating. That also helps explain why we are rated highly in some defensive metrics. But it doesn't mean we can lock down people on defense, not even close.

It's still being waged because the arguments against it have been poor. Look at it a different way. The Wolves are 2nd in the league in Pace, behind Philly and ahead of the Lakers. By logic then, they should be about 2nd in points allowed if they have an average defense, which holds true with both Philly and the Lakers, who allow the 1st and 2nd most points to opposing offenses.

How, then, do the Wolves play the 2nd fastest pace and allow the 13th most points while not doing anything right on defense?