PhillyArena Forums
PhillyArena Community => Philadelphia 76ers => Topic started by: rickortreat on January 22, 2010, 12:55:05 PM
-
In order to prove my point, I went back through every loss that the Sixers have had since the regular season started. In order to prove that the problem is with scoring, all did was look at the by quarter score for each game. If I found that in each loss that the Sixers underperformed that would prove my point.
What I mean by underperformance is relative, since each game is different and has a different pace. On average an NBA team scores 100 points, some score higher and others score less but the mean is 100. Therefore, 25 points for quarter is considered to be an average score. Underperformance means a significantly lower score than 25. When I looked at the data, I found that in every game the Sixers lost they had at least one underperforming quarter. In the case of the Sixers every loss included one quarter where they managed no better than 22 points. 3 points off doesn't seem like a lot but that turns out to be a 12 point loss over a full game. If you score 25, 25, 25, 22 your total is 97, if your opponent scores 25, 25, 25, 25 then your team scored 3 less. In that instance you should blame offense for the loss, not the ability to hold the other team down to your inferior production!
Conversely I also looked for any outlier scores above 25 for the other team, which would provide evidence of a defensive let down. While some teams did score more than 25, so did the Sixers, and the scores ended up over 100 for both teams. There was very little evidence to suggest that the Sixers defense is so bad that this is the reason for their losses.
Another thing that the data suggested was that the Sixers were a competitive team. Many times they were ahead at the half and is some instances by large margins. This was not completely consistent- although most of the losses were a result of a second half meltdown in some instances the team got off to a bad start. My conclusion is that the coaches player decisions have to be responsible, since in most instances the Sixers were able to score competitively at some point in the game.
Below is the data, gathered from NBA.com, I provided the score and noted which was the Sixers worst scoring quarter and when it occurred.
10-28 Orlando 120 106 2nd Quarter 41 to 20. In 4th Quarter Phila. 37 Orlando 20
11-03 Boston 105 74 All quarters were below 21 pts. All of Boston's were above except
the 1st.
11-08 Detroit 88 81 All quarters 22 points or less, Detroit won 3 of 4 quarters.
11-09 Phoenix 119 115 In spite of it being a high scoring game the Sixers managed 20
points in the 3rd, surenduring all but 2 of their 12 point lead.
11-13 Utah 112 90 Won the 1st Quarter. 18 and 19 and 21 scored in final 3q's.
11-14 Chicago 94 88 2nd & 3rd, 18, 18. lost 3rd by 5, and 4th by 2 nd half failure.
11-20 Memphis 102 97 Ahead 50-49 at half. 21-29 in the 3rd, Phila. regained a bucket in
4th. 2nd half failure.
11-21 Cleveland 97 91 Ahead 81 to 75 at end of third, score 10 points to 22 in the 4th.
4th Q. failure.
11-24 Washingtn 108 107 Close game, outscored 40-29 in the 3rd. Came back 9 in the 4th.
Very bad pshycholigcal loss since a win was expected, set up by failure in 3rd.
11-25 Boston 113 110 Sixers were in this one all the way, outscored by 9 in the 4th to
lose by 3.
11-27 Atlanta 100 86 2 poor quarters, 2nd and 4th. 18, 20. Outscored in 3rd and 4th by 4
and 5.
11-29 San Ant. 97 89 19 in the 4th but ouscored SA by 1. Wrst quarter was 2nd, 29-22.
SA.
11-30 Dallas 104 102 20-29 in 2nd quarter. Phila. won 2nd half 59-47. 43 points in the
first half to 57 for Dallas was just enough. Atypical.
12-02 OKC 117 106 Sixers worst offensive quarter was 2nd, 22-25 worst defensive was
34-27 in the third. Ahead 55-54 at half.
12-05 Charlott106 105 Behind by 1 end of the half. 19-28 in the 4th.
12-07 Denver 93 83 Only decent quarter was the first, 26. Worst output was the 4th 18
pts, against Dever's best 30. 4th quarter failure.
12-09 Detroit 90 86 16 point first quarter. They lost the 3rd. 25-21, the difference in
the game.
12-11 Houston 91 96 13 pts. to 28 for Houston in the third.
Losing streak ends.
12-16 Cleveland108 101 21-25 in the 4th quarter. Sixers won the 2nd by 1. Trailed by 6 at
the half.
12-19 LAC 112 107 18-30 Clippers in the first. Never looked back.
12-22 Wash 105 98 19-33 in the 4th.
12-26 Utah 97 76 12-25 in the 4th. Sixers scored 39 pts. in the first half. And got
worse!
12-31 LAC 104 88 14-29 in the 3rd. Ahead by 2 at the half.
01-05 Wash 104 97 17-26 in the 4th. Ahead by 14 at the half.
01-08 Toronto 108 106 21-25 in the 4th. In spite of being in it the whole game, they got
outscored in the end. Ahead 60-40 at the half.
01-13 NY 93 92 24-25 in the 4th. Same failure, just a smaller advantage because
the Knicks are a bad team.
01-18 Minn. 108 103 18-33 in the 3rd. 57-40 Sixers at the half.
01-20 Portland 98 90 Portland won every quarter, xcept the 3rd. 22-27 in the 4th.
-
Thank you.
For proving exactly the opposite. A small taste, in your own (edited) words is provided below.
Now remember - it was YOU who just said a team should only score 25 in a quarter:
10-28 Orlando: we gave up 41 in one quarter.
11-08 Detroit: Detroit won 3 of 4 quarters.
11-20 Memphis scored 29 in the 3rd
11-24 Washington scored 40 in the 3rd
11-25 Boston outscored us by 9 in the 4th
11-29 San Ant. scored 29 in the second.
11-30 Dallas 57 in the first half
12-02 OKC scored 34 in the third
12-05 Charlott scored 28 in the 4th.
12-07 Denver 30 in the fourth
12-11 Houston 28 for Houston in the third.
12-19 LAC 30 for the Clippers in the first.
12-22 Wash 33 in the 4th.
12-31 LAC 29 in the 3rd.
01-08 Toronto scored 68 in the second half
01-18 Minn. 33 in the 3rd.
01-20 Portland 98 90 Portland won every quarter
Further - I've found that the average is 99, not 100. The Sixers score 98 (one below the average), yet give up 101 (TWO above the average).
Back to you.
-
Look again. While it is true that in some of the losses, the Sixers allowed too many points, in every loss the Sixers scored less than 23 in one quarter. That's right, 22 or less in each and every loss this season, 100 percent of the time. Refute that fact and you can win the argument! Parsing out the ones that fit your view doesn't alter the Sixers inability to score at least 25 in one quarter in every loss.
I got 100 as a baseline by looking at what each team in the NBA scores. #16, halfway shoots slightly above 100.
Offense and Defense are both necessary, but some teams are naturally better at one than the other. My view is that both could be improved with different line-ups, and a different philosophy. But I think it is more likely for the Sixers to be able to improve their offense, and that would make a big difference. The reason I say this, is that they have had quarters, often against the same teams who later shut them down, where they scored more than enough. Once you have a lead, all you need to do is trade baskets, but the Sixers don't seem to be able to do that!
Based on who their players are and their talents, this team is built for scoring in the half-court. Right now, they are terrible at it and it has been their problem for years. They have two post up players, that Eddie Jordan doesn't use in the starting line-up. He wants a running team, but they still don't run, even though they don't start Brand or Speights! There is a real disconnect here, Eddie is spending all his time working on defense thinking that that is the problem, ignoring the continual failure to generate enough points.
He thinks the problem is defense, but he's an idiot.
-
Look again. While it is true that in some of the losses, the Sixers allowed too many points, in every loss the Sixers scored less than 23 in one quarter. That's right, 22 or less in each and every loss this season, 100 percent of the time. Refute that fact and you can win the argument!
I won't refute it because the argument is...well, not a good one.
This is the NBA. Games are not played as you outline - by quarters. They are played as a whole. And the NBA, as everyone knows, is made-up of runs. Even teams which are blown out demonstrate runs at some point in every game. Some smaller than others is all.
And so it simply comes down to this: Go back and indicate for me the average points scored and the average points allowed in our losses. Total game points in losses. Then we can meet back here to pick up this discussion.
While you're gone...I invite you to also investigate the defenses of the Celtics, Pistons and Spurs. Recently successful teams, which placed an ENORMOUS emphasis on defense.
Defense. Wins.
Everyone knows that.
Based on who their players are and their talents, this team is built for scoring in the half-court.
No they're not. They are built for transition. Well...at least they WERE when they had another monster rebounder. But, still. They are a fastbreak team.
-
There were 13 games wednesday. Know how many teams scored 25+ points in all of the 4 quarters?
0. 0 out of 26.
By Rick's logic, none of the 26 teams are good offensive teams.
-
In fact, nobody's accomplished that feet at all this week. 0-58.
-
In fact, nobody's accomplished that feet at all this week. 0-58.
small sample size.
:)
-
In fact, nobody's accomplished that feet at all this week. 0-58.
small sample size.
:)
actually it would be 0-232. ;D
-
So what? These teams are still averaging over 100 points a game- half the teams in the NBA. I broke it down by quarter to show when in the game that they lost. There is also a strong correlation with an offensive failure in the 2nd half. 25 points is still a good rule of thumb even if no team actually does it in a game. Consistency over 48 minutes is still the ideal and while the target is arbitrary, I think this team has the potential to score on average 100 points a game. I really think it is somewhat higher than that, but not at their current rate of development.
"And so it simply comes down to this: Go back and indicate for me the average points scored and the average points allowed in our losses. Total game points in losses. Then we can meet back here to pick up this discussion."
Ricky, What would you expect that to prove? It's obvious from the scores that there is a huge variance in Sixers defense and offense from game to game, what would this statistic show that helps either argument?
-
Ricky, What would you expect that to prove? It's obvious from the scores that there is a huge variance in Sixers defense and offense from game to game, what would this statistic show that helps either argument?
Like Joan Rivers, you really are going down swingin', aren't ya.
I mean, it was YOU who started with this criteria; and it's a blatantly faulty one. Very hard to argue using this irrelevant data.
If you check our losses and disparity in points scored, I believe you will find that it was our defensive lapses...not offensive ones...which were the culprit. Now - I need t get off this topic. It's giving me a headache.
-
Ricky, What would you expect that to prove? It's obvious from the scores that there is a huge variance in Sixers defense and offense from game to game, what would this statistic show that helps either argument?
Like Joan Rivers, you really are going down swingin', aren't ya.
I mean, it was YOU who started with this criteria; and it's a blatantly faulty one. Very hard to argue using this irrelevant data.
If you check our losses and disparity in points scored, I believe you will find that it was our defensive lapses...not offensive ones...which were the culprit. Now - I need t get off this topic. It's giving me a headache.
You're absolutely right, I'm guilty of trying the equivalent of teaching a pig to dance! I defined the average score for all teams in the NBA- both defensive and offensive from the raw data to establish a baseline or what is normal for an NBA team. I also ranked the Sixers according to offense and defense against their peers and learned that there ranking for offense is lower than their defense. Now, it is clear from this that the Sixers are relatively deficient in both, but find that their offense is lagging their defense relative to the mean, where would you think the problem was? If that simple logic escapes you, then you are beyond help.
I even broke it down by quarter to show you when the Sixers failed to score. It showed a high number of occurrences where the Sixers failure occurred at the end. This is simply to prove that the Sixers have the potential to score, but for some reason stop doing it. From observation during the game I saw that what happens is the same thing almost everytime, but you have to see the game because they don't tell you in the play by play when the other team changes their defense. The opposing team uses a zone and the Sixers offense settles for quick outside shots or one on one play because they don't have a plan of attack. They invariably miss and set off some good scoring opportunities for the other team, and in general undermine the defense.
That is how I concluded Eddie Jordan was an idiot. He kept losing the same way game after game. He really has no offense installed here. Apart from the pick and roll, almost every play is one on one, there are passes here and there, but no pace or pattern. So why anyone would think that the defense was the problem is beyond me, when it is so obvious that the offense sucks. Every game the Sixers get outscored, and make it impossible for them to set up to defend and then you conclude the problem is defense.
Go ahead defend your logic!
-
You're absolutely right, I'm guilty of trying the equivalent of teaching a pig to dance! I defined the average score for all teams in the NBA- both defensive and offensive from the raw data to establish a baseline or what is normal for an NBA team. I also ranked the Sixers according to offense and defense against their peers and learned that there ranking for offense is lower than their defense. Now, it is clear from this that the Sixers are relatively deficient in both, but find that their offense is lagging their defense relative to the mean, where would you think the problem was? If that simple logic escapes you, then you are beyond help.
This was as far as I read; I refuse to read the rest of your post. Frankly, you crossed the line; you're being rude.
I only say this to plant a seed in your head that you just might be wrong. I happen to have been a successful boys' basketball coach at a very competitive high school in New York city. In three years time we compiled a record of 73-11.
I've coached two eventual NBA players and countless D1 kids. The most recent was Jessie Sapp, last year's starting PG for Georgetown. Fine school, big basketball program. Perhaps you've heard of it.
In my opinion - you DON'T know more than me. But, hey, ya never know. Stranger things have happened.
I would suggest this - stop all the formulating and defining and ranking and go buy a good basketball book. I can recommend a few; starting with one written by my close friend Morgan Wootten (formerly) of DeMatha High in MD. OR, just listen (rather than yack on and on and on) to others who know more than you about the game. Doesn't have to be me; and, yes, you will find such people out there, believe it or not.
Anyway - I have no plans to hold any further dialog with you. And I'll soon be deciding whether or not to ignore you. You'd be my first ever.
-
You're absolutely right, I'm guilty of trying the equivalent of teaching a pig to dance! I defined the average score for all teams in the NBA- both defensive and offensive from the raw data to establish a baseline or what is normal for an NBA team. I also ranked the Sixers according to offense and defense against their peers and learned that there ranking for offense is lower than their defense. Now, it is clear from this that the Sixers are relatively deficient in both, but find that their offense is lagging their defense relative to the mean, where would you think the problem was? If that simple logic escapes you, then you are beyond help.
This was as far as I read; I refuse to read the rest of your post. Frankly, you crossed the line; you're being rude.
I only say this to plant a seed in your head that you just might be wrong. I happen to have been a successful boys' basketball coach at a very competitive high school in New York city. In three years time we compiled a record of 73-11.
I've coached two eventual NBA players and countless D1 kids. The most recent was Jessie Sapp, last year's starting PG for Georgetown. Fine school, big basketball program. Perhaps you've heard of it.
In my opinion - you DON'T know more than me. But, hey, ya never know. Stranger things have happened.
I would suggest this - stop all the formulating and defining and ranking and go buy a good basketball book. I can recommend a few; starting with one written by my close friend Morgan Wootten (formerly) of DeMatha High in MD. OR, just listen (rather than yack on and on and on) to others who know more than you about the game. Doesn't have to be me; and, yes, you will find such people out there, believe it or not.
Anyway - I have no plans to hold any further dialog with you. And I'll soon be deciding whether or not to ignore you. You'd be my first ever.
What's rude is not responding to even one aspect of my argument with anything more than lip-service, while steadfastly maintaining your position. Then you cry about me being rude, and then proudly announce what you have accomplished in the past, which has nothing to do with the discussion. What you're actually doing is quitting an argument that you can't win, because you just want to worship at the mantra of defense, which is only one side of the game, and not the part where the Sixers have their greatest problems.
Never mind logic, facts, or direct observation. Just obfuscate ignore or disparage the other man's information without providing reason, merely because you can't answer any other way and his facts are inconvenient. Maybe not rude, merely intellectually dishonest. But I'm glad you're done, I've done what I could to prove my point, and maybe someone who could come up with something to refute my position would have forced me to do better. Why should I care? I did what I could to help you to see what the Sixers problems were. And I'm confident in my perspective.
-
From basketball-reference.com
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHI/2010.html (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHI/2010.html)
Pace Factor: 91.3 (24th of 30)
Pace Factor (available since the 1973-74 season in the NBA); the formula is 48 * ((Tm Poss + Opp Poss) / (2 * (Tm MP / 5))). Pace factor is an estimate of the number of possessions per 48 minutes by a team.
Offensive Rating: 106.3 (18th of 30)
Offensive Rating (available since the 1977-78 season in the NBA); for players it is points produced per 100 possessions, while for teams it is points scored per 100 possessions. This rating was developed by Dean Oliver, author of Basketball on Paper.
Defensive Rating: 109.3 (22nd of 30)
Defensive Rating (available since the 1977-78 season in the NBA); for players and teams it is points allowed per 100 possessions. This rating was developed by Dean Oliver, author of Basketball on Paper.
From this the Sixers are not very good offensively or defensively, but are worse defensively.
-
From basketball-reference.com
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHI/2010.html (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHI/2010.html)
Pace Factor: 91.3 (24th of 30)
Pace Factor (available since the 1973-74 season in the NBA); the formula is 48 * ((Tm Poss + Opp Poss) / (2 * (Tm MP / 5))). Pace factor is an estimate of the number of possessions per 48 minutes by a team.
Offensive Rating: 106.3 (18th of 30)
Offensive Rating (available since the 1977-78 season in the NBA); for players it is points produced per 100 possessions, while for teams it is points scored per 100 possessions. This rating was developed by Dean Oliver, author of Basketball on Paper.
Defensive Rating: 109.3 (22nd of 30)
Defensive Rating (available since the 1977-78 season in the NBA); for players and teams it is points allowed per 100 possessions. This rating was developed by Dean Oliver, author of Basketball on Paper.
From this the Sixers are not very good offensively or defensively, but are worse defensively.
Why do you value these ratings more that you do the actual scoring? The outcome is determined by the score, and it doesn't matter how efficient they are at it as long as they score the points! Besides, Ziggy you know enough about basketball to know that a bad offense feeds the other teams offense and therefore harms your defense. If the Sixers improved offensively, there would be fewer easy baskets for the other team and curiously enough, their defensive stats will improve!
You have to watch the Sixers play to see where the breakdowns are! When you see them taking and missing bad shot after bad shot, while the other team keeps getting layups off your misses, you recognize the problem ain't defense, the defense isn't being given a chance. You can't know this looking at the numbers.
That's why using stats in isolation is useless. Sure they're ranked lower in defense, the way they play offense they'd have to be!
-
But that cuts both ways, Rick. A bad offense worsens a defense, a good offense helps a defense; a good defense helps an offense, a bad defense hurts an offense. That's because transition and floor balance a critical to both aspects.
I believe that picking a criteria and saying, "If we do this - AND ONLY THIS - everything else will be fine." The closest criteria I've ever really seen that works that was is rebounding (especially offensive rebounding), but sure enough, all the time, you see teams that win the rebounding battle, but lose the game.
The question is whether the Sixers defense or its offense is the problem. I think that ziggy's numbers pointed out that BOTH are problematic (given that they're in the bottom half on both), and that comparitively, the defense is worse. While it would be an interesting exercise to examine if team philosophy plays into the poor performance of either, it would also be somewhat subjective, and therefore, arguable, and ultimately, inconclusive.
Your argument that "it doesn't matter how efficient they are at it as long as they score the points" is missing the point, because it also doesn't matter how efficient they are defensively as long as they don't allow the points. It's the old offense vs. defense argument: if you score no points, you can't possibly win; if you allow no points, you can't possibly lose; do both, and you're still playing.
I think Lurker's argument (I believe it was Lurker) that pointed out that few if any games have ANY team scoring 25 in all four quarters is the most telling.
However, this does make a great lead-in to ziggy's "Frank Layden suggestion" thread - which, if you'll remember, you said you don't like. Isn't that somewhat in conflict with this idea at its very core?
-
Actually if one wanted to approach an analysis on this subject I would think they would start by calculating Philly's scoring on a quarter by quarter basis. Then determine what 1 standard deviation (SD) from that number is for each quarter. Then look at wins and losses and see if there is any correlation between being more than 1 SD away for a quarter (or more) and wins/losses. Also you would want to determine if being under in 1 quarter is offset by being over in another.
The reason behind this is that everyone should understand that scoring over a game is not a linear event. Teams tend to play their bench more in the second quarter than the first. And the fourth quarter is subject to wild swings depending on the closeness of a game (garbage time or not). But due to the high number of variables involved I doubt there is much validity in this analysis.
-
Why do you value these ratings more that you do the actual scoring? The outcome is determined by the score, and it doesn't matter how efficient they are at it as long as they score the points! Besides, Ziggy you know enough about basketball to know that a bad offense feeds the other teams offense and therefore harms your defense. If the Sixers improved offensively, there would be fewer easy baskets for the other team and curiously enough, their defensive stats will improve!
You have to watch the Sixers play to see where the breakdowns are! When you see them taking and missing bad shot after bad shot, while the other team keeps getting layups off your misses, you recognize the problem ain't defense, the defense isn't being given a chance. You can't know this looking at the numbers.
That's why using stats in isolation is useless. Sure they're ranked lower in defense, the way they play offense they'd have to be!
#1 Rick, please show me where I said that these stats are more important than scoring? All I did was post a set of numbers, and drew a simple conclusion from those numbers. If you don't like that they refute your point you are free to say they have no value, but of course that doesn't mean that they don't have value.
#2 Rick, if using stats in isolation is useless why did you offer stats in isolation? Excuse me, but that is the pot calling the kettle black. You created a model that the Sixers (or virtually any other team) could not possibly be successful meeting on a consistent basis, and then used that as a justification for a point of view. Yet you offered no context with which to evaluate the relative value of your measure.
A quick study of 100 games shows that a team scored at least 25 point in every regulation qtr exactly 8 times, or only 4% of teams were able to accomplish this particular feat. To expect the Sixers to do this regularly is ridiculous. If Sixers were league average they would have done it slightly less than two times, and according to you they haven't done it yet. Those 2 games are "proof positive" that the Sixers problem is their offense?
#3 Rick, re "a bad offense feeds the other teams offense and therefore harms your defense" please read Joe's post.
-
But that cuts both ways, Rick. A bad offense worsens a defense, a good offense helps a defense; a good defense helps an offense, a bad defense hurts an offense. That's because transition and floor balance a critical to both aspects.
I believe that picking a criteria and saying, "If we do this - AND ONLY THIS - everything else will be fine." The closest criteria I've ever really seen that works that was is rebounding (especially offensive rebounding), but sure enough, all the time, you see teams that win the rebounding battle, but lose the game.
The question is whether the Sixers defense or its offense is the problem. I think that ziggy's numbers pointed out that BOTH are problematic (given that they're in the bottom half on both), and that comparitively, the defense is worse. While it would be an interesting exercise to examine if team philosophy plays into the poor performance of either, it would also be somewhat subjective, and therefore, arguable, and ultimately, inconclusive.
Your argument that "it doesn't matter how efficient they are at it as long as they score the points" is missing the point, because it also doesn't matter how efficient they are defensively as long as they don't allow the points. It's the old offense vs. defense argument: if you score no points, you can't possibly win; if you allow no points, you can't possibly lose; do both, and you're still playing.
I think Lurker's argument (I believe it was Lurker) that pointed out that few if any games have ANY team scoring 25 in all four quarters is the most telling.
However, this does make a great lead-in to ziggy's "Frank Layden suggestion" thread - which, if you'll remember, you said you don't like. Isn't that somewhat in conflict with this idea at its very core?
Good gracious....what am I saying? Talk about a horribly written post. Let's try that second paragraph again.
I believe that picking a criteria and saying, "If we do this - AND ONLY THIS - everything else will be fine" is a mistake. The closest criteria I've ever really seen that works that way with any success is rebounding (especially offensive rebounding), but sure enough, all the time, you see teams that win the rebounding battle, but lose the game.
-
This thread is a head banger. ???
-
Yeah. I pretty much started ignoring it after I proved the fallacy in his "proof" and he ignored it.
Basically, it went like this:
Rick: The Sixers problem is offense. I'm going to prove this by showing in all the Sixers losses, they failed to score 25 points in at least one quarter.
Me: Rick, no team in the NBA this week has scored 25 points in every quarter in any one game.
Rick: "25 points is still a good rule of thumb even if no team actually does it in a game"
-
Yeah. I pretty much started ignoring it after I proved the fallacy in his "proof" and he ignored it.
Basically, it went like this:
Rick: The Sixers problem is offense. I'm going to prove this by showing in all the Sixers losses, they failed to score 25 points in at least one quarter.
Me: Rick, no team in the NBA this week has scored 25 points in every quarter in any one game.
Rick: "25 points is still a good rule of thumb even if no team actually does it in a game"
And, it is still a good rule of thumb. There are 15 teams in the NBA that average 100 points a game or higher. Their average score per quarter is logically equal to or greater than 25. Furthermore, ranked in terms of point differential, 7 of the top 8 teams all score 100 per game, and the only exception, Boston averages over 99. In other words the "GOOD" teams.
There are 4 teams that average over 100 and have losing records. So scoring more isn't always enough.
In the Sixers case if their current defensive effort is at least maintained, improving the offense will improve both defensive and offensive efficiency. The Sixers currently give up 99.5 ppg to their opponents. Obviously, if they're going to have a winning record, they need to average scoring higher than that, which gets us to 100! I suspect that if the Sixers can increase their scoring by another 2.77 ppg, they will also see a slight decrease in points allowed to 98.8 or so. This in turn would make the Sixers into a wining team.
In effect, we're talking about 2 possessions per game being used more successfully. Since most teams score in about half their possessions, it's really 4 more plays where they execute on offense and get a score, a foul, both, or at least a rebound and another shot and score.
There isn't a lot of difference between wining and losing for a lot of teams, but they don't seem able to change they're style enough. Everyone here who watches the Sixers cries about how Eddie manages the game. I think the biggest problem is that he doesn't emphasize inside scoring enough. There are rarely enough bigs on the floor, but when there are the Sixers are usually competitive.
In the Sixers case, it's easy enough to see how they could improve. Getting rid of Jordan would be the first step, but any new coach would play Speights and Carney more, focus on getting a reliable half-court offense working and then worry about how to improve their defense when it has time to get set.
-
And, it is still a good rule of thumb. There are 15 teams in the NBA that average 100 points a game or higher. Their average score per quarter is logically equal to or greater than 25. Furthermore, ranked in terms of point differential, 7 of the top 8 teams all score 100 per game, and the only exception, Boston averages over 99. In other words the "GOOD" teams.
There are 4 teams that average over 100 and have losing records. So scoring more isn't always enough.
In the Sixers case if their current defensive effort is at least maintained, improving the offense will improve both defensive and offensive efficiency. The Sixers currently give up 99.5 ppg to their opponents. Obviously, if they're going to have a winning record, they need to average scoring higher than that, which gets us to 100! I suspect that if the Sixers can increase their scoring by another 2.77 ppg, they will also see a slight decrease in points allowed to 98.8 or so. This in turn would make the Sixers into a wining team.
In effect, we're talking about 2 possessions per game being used more successfully. Since most teams score in about half their possessions, it's really 4 more plays where they execute on offense and get a score, a foul, both, or at least a rebound and another shot and score.
There isn't a lot of difference between wining and losing for a lot of teams, but they don't seem able to change they're style enough. Everyone here who watches the Sixers cries about how Eddie manages the game. I think the biggest problem is that he doesn't emphasize inside scoring enough. There are rarely enough bigs on the floor, but when there are the Sixers are usually competitive.
In the Sixers case, it's easy enough to see how they could improve. Getting rid of Jordan would be the first step, but any new coach would play Speights and Carney more, focus on getting a reliable half-court offense working and then worry about how to improve their defense when it has time to get set.
#1 Rick, a rule of thumb is not proof positive.
#2 Scoring 100 or more points, and scoring 25 points in every qtr are not as simply analogous as you make it. You can score 120 points and only score 15 in 1 qtr.
Why do you value these ratings more that you do the actual scoring? The outcome is determined by the score, and it doesn't matter how efficient they are at it as long as they score the points!
#3 How do you make your last post, in conjunction with this statement. You tell me it doesn't matter how efficient they are, and then in a later post you say that only 2 possessions define your success. That is efficiency Rick. If you said they need to get 4 more possessions, that is pace. If you say they need to just execute on 2 more of their existing possessions that is efficiency.
-
D.
Fence.
-
And, it is still a good rule of thumb. There are 15 teams in the NBA that average 100 points a game or higher. Their average score per quarter is logically equal to or greater than 25. Furthermore, ranked in terms of point differential, 7 of the top 8 teams all score 100 per game, and the only exception, Boston averages over 99. In other words the "GOOD" teams.
There are 4 teams that average over 100 and have losing records. So scoring more isn't always enough.
In the Sixers case if their current defensive effort is at least maintained, improving the offense will improve both defensive and offensive efficiency. The Sixers currently give up 99.5 ppg to their opponents. Obviously, if they're going to have a winning record, they need to average scoring higher than that, which gets us to 100! I suspect that if the Sixers can increase their scoring by another 2.77 ppg, they will also see a slight decrease in points allowed to 98.8 or so. This in turn would make the Sixers into a wining team.
In effect, we're talking about 2 possessions per game being used more successfully. Since most teams score in about half their possessions, it's really 4 more plays where they execute on offense and get a score, a foul, both, or at least a rebound and another shot and score.
There isn't a lot of difference between wining and losing for a lot of teams, but they don't seem able to change they're style enough. Everyone here who watches the Sixers cries about how Eddie manages the game. I think the biggest problem is that he doesn't emphasize inside scoring enough. There are rarely enough bigs on the floor, but when there are the Sixers are usually competitive.
In the Sixers case, it's easy enough to see how they could improve. Getting rid of Jordan would be the first step, but any new coach would play Speights and Carney more, focus on getting a reliable half-court offense working and then worry about how to improve their defense when it has time to get set.
#1 Rick, a rule of thumb is not proof positive.
#2 Scoring 100 or more points, and scoring 25 points in every qtr are not as simply analogous as you make it. You can score 120 points and only score 15 in 1 qtr.
Why do you value these ratings more that you do the actual scoring? The outcome is determined by the score, and it doesn't matter how efficient they are at it as long as they score the points!
#3 How do you make your last post, in conjunction with this statement. You tell me it doesn't matter how efficient they are, and then in a later post you say that only 2 possessions define your success. That is efficiency Rick. If you said they need to get 4 more possessions, that is pace. If you say they need to just execute on 2 more of their existing possessions that is efficiency.
A rule of thumb is not proof, it's a subjective ruler I'm using for evaluation- an informed valuation based on the team's peers, and specifically their betters. And you are right, you can score 100 without averaging 25 per quarter. But no matter how you slice it, better teams usually score 100 in a game and the Sixers do not. Which is why I came to the conclusion that they don't score enough.
As far a 3 goes, efficiency and pace are just measures, and they will invariably be effected if the team manages to score those extra 2.7 points.
If all those other teams weren't scoring over 100, I'd be asking for something unreasonable, but that isn't the case. The whole point of this was to point out how the Sixers could get better, and not scoring 100 was a good place to start considering this team and the league.
It isn't that they can't play defense, but their poor offense is at the root of the problem. It means they are less efficient on offense- because they don't run plays and rely on their one on one skills. This means less effective possessions, more long rebounds and easy run outs for the other team. All this is easily observable watching the team play. The stats will show that they are a bad offensive team.
It's easily correctable! Just have the team run more plays, use each other to get open and get set for a miss just in case. That's how the Sixers should and could play and would play if they had a good coach. As far as pace goes, it may be that in order to be more efficient they'll need to slow down. But I think good teams are proficient at getting off a good shot, relatively quickly. How often do you see the Lakers struggling to get a basket?
I think the easiest way to make the Sixers competitive is to work on the offense. The best teams in the league all average near 100. It seems to me a no-brainer to think that a better offense will help this team win more games, and by limiting turn-overs and misses, they will automatically improve their defense.
For this team it starts on their end, when they have the ball. When they are scoring easily, they can play with anyone. If they can figure out how to crack a zone consistently, they're the 50 win team I thought they could be.For the first time in years, we have the players. We have Elton Brand and Mareese Speights and they can both post up inside. It's driving me nuts that Eddie Jordan is the coach, he's supposed to be some sort of offensive genius and he can't get 100 points out of the line-up the way he coaches.
Even last night against the Bulls the team didn't score 100 until overtime. The Bulls have no interior defense and the Sixers needed overtime to get to 100! That's because the coach decided to play small ball the entire 2nd half! They won in OT when they had both Brand and Dalembert in the game. As soon as they had two bigs in the middle, the Bulls turned into a jump-shooting team. Surprise! It's simple things like this that make Jordan an idiot. The Sixers could have won this game easily in the 2nd half without the ot. He turns a good team into a bad one.
-
Very simple, direct question rick.
Team A takes a shot every 10 seconds they have the ball. They score 103 points on 41% shooting
Team B takes a shot every 20 seconds they have the ball. they score 98 points on 48% shooting.
Which team has the better chance to win the game ?
-
Very simple, direct question rick.
Team A takes a shot every 10 seconds they have the ball. They score 103 points on 41% shooting
Team B takes a shot every 20 seconds they have the ball. they score 98 points on 48% shooting.
Which team has the better chance to win the game ?
The team that plays better defense. :)
-
That's not part of the equation. Assume all other parts of the game are equal.
-
That's not part of the equation. Assume all other parts of the game are equal.
Just cracking a hilarious joke.
All things being equal, the team having the ball more often...and playing at a faster pace (resulting from good 'd' and rebounding) is more likely to win.
And, on a side note, with good coaching, leading to better shot selection, they could dominate - what-with having the ball so often. After all...41% shooting - on so many fast break chances - is stinky.
-
It still isn't a reasonable question. We're discussing the Sixers and their problems not hypothetical team that don't exist.
So let's get to it, we have two choices the: Sixers problems are offense and not defense or the opposite, defense and not offense. Both have an impact on the other- a good offense contributes to defense and a bad offense hurts defense.
It has been established that of the best 8 teams all average over 100 per game, except for one. And it is clear that the Sixers do not score 100 per game.
For some reason, that isn't enough for you. You want to talk about pace and efficiency and other things, but you keep ignoring the basic truth that my the metrics show they don't score enough points. It's not that complex a problem. The team that scores the most points wins the game, so if you're team scores more then they are more likely to win games. You can argue that if they allowed fewer points they could accomplish the same thing. But this is the argument: defense vs. offense, with regard to this specific team.
Since the best teams all score 100 or close to it, and the Sixers don't, how can you come to any other conclusion than that it's the offense that's the problem?
-
Very simple, direct question rick.
Team A takes a shot every 10 seconds they have the ball. They score 103 points on 41% shooting
Team B takes a shot every 20 seconds they have the ball. they score 98 points on 48% shooting.
Which team has the better chance to win the game ?
Derek based upon the response immediately above, this is an exercise in futility. He doesn't want to see it any other way, and any amount logic from you or anyone else will make no difference. He will never get it, because he now has to much invested in not getting it.
-
Very simple, direct question rick.
Team A takes a shot every 10 seconds they have the ball. They score 103 points on 41% shooting
Team B takes a shot every 20 seconds they have the ball. they score 98 points on 48% shooting.
Which team has the better chance to win the game ?
Derek based upon the response immediately above, this is an exercise in futility. He doesn't want to see it any other way, and any amount logic from you or anyone else will make no difference. He will never get it, because he now has to much invested in not getting it.
You mean by answering a hypothetical question that has nothing to do with the Sixers? What is there to get? That it is possible to be a winning team without scoring 100- I'll agree that it is theoretically possible, but none of the top 8 teams in the league are with the exception of Boston, who averages 99.29. Why try to buck that trend? It makes more sense to try to score like other successful teams than it does to try to win averaging 97.41 ppg.
Just stick to the point. Show me that their offense isn't a problem. Show me through stats that they are a good offensive team and I'll agree. No one can offer any evidence because there isn't any. I said it was the offense, and it shows up in their scores and in how they play and what occurs in the game as a result of their play. No one has refuted any of that or spoken directly to the point. Put up or shut up.
-
Even last night against the Bulls the team didn't score 100 until overtime. The Bulls have no interior defense and the Sixers needed overtime to get to 100! That's because the coach decided to play small ball the entire 2nd half! They won in OT when they had both Brand and Dalembert in the game. As soon as they had two bigs in the middle, the Bulls turned into a jump-shooting team. Surprise! It's simple things like this that make Jordan an idiot. The Sixers could have won this game easily in the 2nd half without the ot. He turns a good team into a bad one.
rickortreat,
The above is from you. The moment you put two bigs in the middle, the Bulls turned into a jump-shooting team, and the 76ers won. And you're arguing that it's the OFFENSE that is the problem. Yet you use an example that shows it was the change of DEFENSE that won you the game. Doesn't that offer up the idea that the improvement of defense would be of greater value?
-
Very simple, direct question rick.
Team A takes a shot every 10 seconds they have the ball. They score 103 points on 41% shooting
Team B takes a shot every 20 seconds they have the ball. they score 98 points on 48% shooting.
Which team has the better chance to win the game ?
Derek based upon the response immediately above, this is an exercise in futility. He doesn't want to see it any other way, and any amount logic from you or anyone else will make no difference. He will never get it, because he now has to much invested in not getting it.
You mean by answering a hypothetical question that has nothing to do with the Sixers? What is there to get? That it is possible to be a winning team without scoring 100- I'll agree that it is theoretically possible, but none of the top 8 teams in the league are with the exception of Boston, who averages 99.29. Why try to buck that trend? It makes more sense to try to score like other successful teams than it does to try to win averaging 97.41 ppg.
Just stick to the point. Show me that their offense isn't a problem. Show me through stats that they are a good offensive team and I'll agree. No one can offer any evidence because there isn't any. I said it was the offense, and it shows up in their scores and in how they play and what occurs in the game as a result of their play. No one has refuted any of that or spoken directly to the point. Put up or shut up.
So, along with the quote of yours quoted in my previous message, you're trying to tell me that SAMUEL DALEMBERT is the kind of OFFENSIVE punch the team needs?
Even you are arguing fixing the DEFENSE changed the tone of the game when you cite examples, unless you're arguing that jump-shooting teams, like Chicago turned into in your previous quote, are more effective teams, and that change improved Philadelphia even more offensively.
-
Dalembert doesn't provide much offfensive punch at all. What he does do is enable the Sixers to have a man in to rebound when Elton takes a shot. Offensive rebounding is part of offense to me. Extending a possession is a big part of a successful offense.
And when I say offense is the problem, that doesn't mean that I intend to abandon defense. The Sixers are a decent defensive team when they have the chance to get set. But a bad offense prevents that from happening, which is how the Sixers managed to surrender 18 straight points to Houston. Not one decent shot during that entire stretch. Not one time-out. Not one substition to help Marresse Speights defend the paint. He didn't get a single post up the entire time he was in there.
I think the Sixers are already a good defensive team. They may help too much, but they understand how to guard the pick and roll. They are faster than most teams and have no trouble getting back. They force a lot of turnovers and block a good number of shots.
They are a bad rebounding team and invariably give up too many 2nd shots and get too few. The coach insists on running Thad Young as a power forward. That is really their biggest problem and the difference between the Sixers being an above .500 team or where they are.
Put in Brand and Dalembert and other teams can't get inside. Put one of them in there, and the defense falls apart- not enough of an inside presence to deter drivers or alter shots, or even slow up a slasher, so someone can poke the ball away. Now that Eddie is starting them together, they're finally winning. Now, the problem is with the 2nd group, Speights, Young, Carney, Williams and Holiday. That used to be the strongest group, when Brand was paired with Speights. All they need is to put another big, Jason Smith in at the 4 instead of Carney and they have adequate floor balance to defend the paint, and have a solid inside presence on offense.
Every good team has a big man they can throw the ball into in the post. Many of them even have a back-up big man who can come in to score. If the Sixers are going to be a good team, they should emulate that formula. I think this is why the Sixers go flat on offense. If they had a post presence at all times, it would free their offense. Other teams have to collapse in on Brand or Speights when they have the ball in the post. That opens the floor for their guards and small forwards to get open shots or driving lanes. They can't be at their best without decent rebounding off of missed shots. To get those rebounds you need bigs to get them. This is what I thought the Sixers season was going to be, we finally had enough men of size to compete.
For years the Sixers have been a .500 team that hustled and played good defense and scored in the open court. They realized that that's all a defensive running team will get you. So they went out and got Elton Brand to be a post presence. And they drafted two big man Speghts and Smith. The only problem is they don't get played enough.
Joe, I have great respect for your knowledge of the game. So you tell me, if you had a 6'8" 220 lb. player would you play him as a 4, ahead of a 6' 11' player and a 7-footer? And further would you keep doing it all season if it got you a .340 record?
I know that offense is the problem, because they score less then their successful peers. I also know that improving their offensive play will facilitate better defense. For the Sixers, who have the ability to play defense, further emphasizing half-court defense doesn't help if you don't get the chance to play it! No team successfully defends in the open floor off of turn-overs and long missed shots! A sound offense makes the Sixers better on both ends of the floor. If the offense continually sputters, no defensive effort will keep them in the game. Even a team with a bad defense stays even if they can score. You could say that a good offense is a defensive necessity.
Just watch a game and you'll see what I mean. Every time they fail, their offense fails them. When they play well, they're better than the Rockets good enough to make the playoffs. And, IMO, they could have played a lot better than they did against the Rockets.