Wolves are 6th in the NBA in Adjusted Defensive Rating

[longstrangetrip [enjin:6600564]]

Hmmmm......I read yesterday that our team is the fifth best in the NBA. Sounds like our D might be holding us back :D [sup].[/sup]

[TAFKASP]

There's lies, there's damned lies, and then there's statistics.

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

If the Wolves are good on defense, then I'm the next Peja Stojakovi?. (trust me, I'm no Peja)

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

KMS is absolutely right in how he describes our defense. It's very unconventional because it relies on having a positive turnover differential, positive free throw differential, and good defensive rebounding. Unless you don't think getting a steal or securing a defensive rebound is part of playing defense, than yeah, we're not very good. But the overall numbers don't lie in terms of our defense: We're 8th in the league in terms of points allowed per 100 possessions (which normalizes for pace of play. In raw numbers, we're 20th in the NBA in points allowed, but we also play at the second fastest pace in the league, so again, that's pretty good).

A fair question is whether a defensive style that relies on not fouling, turning your opponent over more than you yourself turn it over, and winning the battle on the glass, while at the same time being quite poor in terms of actually preventing shots from going in, is a sustainable formula for success. My opinion is that this style won't hold up as well in a heated playoff series, where the pace slows down and the refs may be more likely to allow a generous amount of contact before blowing the whistle, thus giving the advantage to the team that plays more physically.

So while our overall defensive numbers are actually quite good, I do think adjustments need to be made.

[Coolbreeze44]

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.

[kms789 [enjin:6694798]]

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.

[thedoper]

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 how assessing 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.

Aren't there different matrices which are used for defensive rating. i.e. some people swear by points per 100 possessions and others prefer a differential of offensive efficiency. Because depending on the matrix we have a variety of rankings. My reason for bringing this up is that these stats don't tell the whole story of how we defend. A good offense and not fouling is only so much of a remedy for bad defense. Eventually we have to get stops when we need them.

I think the key reverse argument is that we give up the worst opponents FG% in the league. Meaning we have a bad habit of not being able to get stops. When we need a stop that becomes an issue, hence 1-11 in the close games.

This site has us 8th in defensive efficiency:
http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/defensive-efficiency

Hoopstats does a differential of opponent v us in offensive efficiency in which we are 12th.

http://www.hoopsstats.com/basketball/fantasy/nba/teamstats/14/1/diffeff/1-1

[kms789 [enjin:6694798]]

KMS is absolutely right in how he describes our defense. It's very unconventional because it relies on having a positive turnover differential, positive free throw differential, and good defensive rebounding. Unless you don't think getting a steal or securing a defensive rebound is part of playing defense, than yeah, we're not very good. But the overall numbers don't lie in terms of our defense: We're 8th in the league in terms of points allowed per 100 possessions (which normalizes for pace of play. In raw numbers, we're 20th in the NBA in points allowed, but we also play at the second fastest pace in the league, so again, that's pretty good).

A fair question is whether a defensive style that relies on not fouling, turning your opponent over more than you yourself turn it over, and winning the battle on the glass, while at the same time being quite poor in terms of actually preventing shots from going in, is a sustainable formula for success. My opinion is that this style won't hold up as well in a heated playoff series, where the pace slows down and the refs may be more likely to allow a generous amount of contact before blowing the whistle, thus giving the advantage to the team that plays more physically.

So while our overall defensive numbers are actually quite good, I do think adjustments need to be made.

That's a good question, Q. In my opinion the offense has been at least as problematic at the end of games, maybe more. If I was going to pick on two players, it would be Brewer and Rubio. Both players thrive on disruption and chaos at different points in the game, but neither are great in slow, half-court sets--offensively or defensively.

[Coolbreeze44]

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.

[kms789 [enjin:6694798]]

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 how assessing 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.

Aren't there different matrices which are used for defensive rating. i.e. some people swear by points per 100 possessions and others prefer a differential of offensive efficiency. Because depending on the matrix we have a variety of rankings. My reason for bringing this up is that these stats don't tell the whole story of how we defend. A good offense and not fouling is only so much of a remedy for bad defense. Eventually we have to get stops when we need them.

I think the key reverse argument is that we give up the worst opponents FG% in the league. Meaning we have a bad habit of not being able to get stops. When we need a stop that becomes an issue, hence 1-11 in the close games.

This site has us 8th in defensive efficiency:
http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/defensive-efficiency

Hoopstats does a differential of opponent v us in offensive efficiency in which we are 12th.

http://www.hoopsstats.com/basketball/fantasy/nba/teamstats/14/1/diffeff/1-1

There may be similar statistics, but the Team Defensive Rating statistic goes back to Dean Oliver, who calculated it as points/100 possessions. I'm sure you're right that there are many other variations, though.