Proof positive that the Sixers problem is offense and not defense.

[ziggy]

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.

[rickortreat]

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.

[Joe Vancil]

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?

[Joe Vancil]

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.

[rickortreat]

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.