Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Punk-101 · by **Punk-101** on Fri Nov 30, 2012 1:15 pm

Points off of turnovers has to be skewing our points per 100 possessions, no? Or do they control for that in the stats?

JoelMyersScrotalSack · by **JoelMyersScrotalSack** on Fri Nov 30, 2012 1:18 pm

they are old. 11/25 was 5 days ago which means a lot has changed in that time

The Lakers were ranked 11th or 12th in DRtg (according to bball ref) before Tuesday so the formula can't be very flawed if it's giving the same result as the people wasting their time counting the possessions.

revgen · by **revgen** on Fri Nov 30, 2012 1:18 pm

Punk-101 wrote:Points off of turnovers has to be skewing our points per 100 possessions, no? Or do they control for that in the stats?

They probably are. Turnovers often lead to easy baskets for the opposition. Our defense will improve when we stop giving up easy baskets in transition.

revgen · by **revgen** on Fri Nov 30, 2012 1:19 pm

JoelMyersScrotalSack wrote::man3: they are old. 11/25 was 5 days ago which means a lot has changed in that time

The Lakers were ranked 11th or 12th in DRtg before Tuesday so the formula can't be very flawed if it's giving the same result as the people wasting their time counting the possessions.

Not really. We've only played 1 game since 11/25.

No. They are vastly different. For example, last season DRtg says that the Magic gave up 96 points per possession when Dwight was on the floor. 82 games reports that the Magic gave up 103 points per 100 possessions while Dwight was on the floor. That's a 7 point disparity.

JoelMyersScrotalSack · by **JoelMyersScrotalSack** on Fri Nov 30, 2012 1:21 pm

Yes and other teams have played games too. Our ranking changes based on what other teams are doing

I don't know what you're trying to argue here. We went up in defensive rating after Tuesday's game and clearly the formula Basketball-reference uses is perfectly adequate to calculate points allowed per 100 possessions since thousands of stat geeks use it and the results are no different than what 82games produces

revgen · by **revgen** on Fri Nov 30, 2012 1:25 pm

JoelMyersScrotalSack wrote:Yes and other teams have played games too. Our ranking changes based on what other teams are doing

I don't know what you're trying to argue here. We went up in defensive rating after Tuesday's game and clearly the formula Basketball-reference uses is perfectly adequate to calculate points allowed per 100 possessions since thousands of stat geeks use it and the results are no different than what 82games produces

1)Our points per possession don't change when other teams play.

2)Yes they are different. I explained above.

JoelMyersScrotalSack · by **JoelMyersScrotalSack** on Fri Nov 30, 2012 1:52 pm

...it's like you are doing this on purpose

The points allowed isn't important. It's how you rank relative to other teams. You can give up 120 points and still be a great defensive team if almost every other team is giving up more than that

And again, they are different because the data you posted is OLD

thkthebest · by **thkthebest** on Fri Nov 30, 2012 1:59 pm

The Lakers offensive rating without Mike Brown is about 105.1, which is slightly above average. The defensive rating without Mike Brown is about 98.6, which is top 2.

I might have calculated it wrong though. Someone double check for me. :man11:

JoelMyersScrotalSack · by **JoelMyersScrotalSack** on Fri Nov 30, 2012 2:04 pm

Even comparing the points given up per 100, the numbers are the same. Take a look at all the Laker seasons available on 82games, its the same as on bballref

therealdeal · by **therealdeal** on Fri Nov 30, 2012 2:38 pm

lakerswiz wrote:
gill wrote:
lakerswiz wrote:I don't care where we're ranked. We're 7-8. Our defense is an issue.

Then we all just have to disagree seeing as you won't even consider it.

So you're saying our defense is good? That it isn't a very, very big reason we're 7 - 8?

I can agree to disagree on that point.

Armani · by **Armani** on Fri Nov 30, 2012 2:40 pm

revgen wrote:
JoelMyersScrotalSack wrote::man3: they are old. 11/25 was 5 days ago which means a lot has changed in that time

The Lakers were ranked 11th or 12th in DRtg before Tuesday so the formula can't be very flawed if it's giving the same result as the people wasting their time counting the possessions.

Not really. We've only played 1 game since 11/25.

Believe it or not, that one game with the Pacers changed everything. The Lakers went up significantly in b-ref's D ratings, and down in O ratings. They're only 15 games into the season, so stuff like that happens. The ratings on both sites are around equal, in terms of how teams are ranked.

Armani · by **Armani** on Fri Nov 30, 2012 2:43 pm

And the problem with the Laker offense? Turnovers. The Laker offense is the HIGHEST turnover prone team in the NBA.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... _2013.html

Lakers are 2nd in drawing fouls, 7th in offensive rebounding, and 7th in eFG%. Turnover percent? We are leading the league in that. :bang:

revgen · by **revgen** on Fri Nov 30, 2012 3:46 pm

JoelMyersScrotalSack wrote:...it's like you are doing this on purpose

The points allowed isn't important. It's how you rank relative to other teams. You can give up 120 points and still be a great defensive team if almost every other team is giving up more than that

And again, they are different because the data you posted is OLD

Do you honestly believe that teams are going to be giving up 120 points on average this season or are you just trying to be cute?

We averaged 104 pPts last season under Brown. We were ranked 13th in the league defensively. Which is basically where we are now minus that one game against Indiana. If we end up having 104 pPts at the end of the season, we're most likely going to end up in the same spot as we did last season.

It's not OLD relative to the games we've played.

revgen · by **revgen** on Fri Nov 30, 2012 3:55 pm

Armani wrote:The ratings on both sites are around equal, in terms of how teams are ranked.

Not really. Last season Dwight Howard was ranked 96 in DRtg. Making him the #1 center (tied with Noah) in Drtg ranking. 82 games gave Dwight a 103 pPts rating. Putting him behind Tyson Chandler who had a 99 DRtg and a 101 pPts rating. Also, Noah had a 102 pPts rating despite having the same 96 DRtg as Dwight did.

So if we rank those 3 centers using 2 different metrics we get this.

DRtg

1) Dwight and Noah tied 96 DRtg
3) Chandler 99 DRtg

pPts

1) Chandler 101 pPts
2) Noah 102 pPts
3) Dwight 103 pPts

They aren't the same at all.

therealdeal · by **therealdeal** on Fri Nov 30, 2012 4:21 pm

JoelMyersScrotalSack · by **JoelMyersScrotalSack** on Fri Nov 30, 2012 5:06 pm

Do you honestly believe that teams are going to be giving up 120 points on average this season or are you just trying to be cute?

...I was making a point. It doesn't matter how many points you give up, it's about how many points everyone else is giving up. The difference between a great defensive team and a garbage defensive team depends entirely on your peers.

We averaged 104 pPts last season under Brown. We were ranked 13th in the league defensively. Which is basically where we are now minus that one game against Indiana. If we end up having 104 pPts at the end of the season, we're most likely going to end up in the same spot as we did last season.

It's not OLD relative to the games we've played.

Okay and did you check all the seasons before that?

10-11: 104.3 (6th)
09-10: 103.7 (4th)
08-09: 104.7 (6th)

The Lakers started out the season in the 18-19 DRtg range and over these last 6-7 games our rating has continually gone down (a good thing). We're playing great defense, end of story.

Rooscooter · by **Rooscooter** on Fri Nov 30, 2012 5:08 pm

revgen wrote:According to 82 games, we're giving up 104 points per possession.

Which ties us at at the #12 spot in the league with 4 other teams. So basically we don't "suck" on D, but we're not great either. We're an average defensive team. We need to improve and get better in this area.

Here's the chart of the best and worst defensive teams in terms of giving up points per 100 possessions. These results were gathered on November 25th.

1 Hawks - 99 pPts
2 Pacers - 100 pPts
3-1 Bulls - 101 pPts
3-2 Clippers - 101 pPts
5-1 Grizzlies - 102 pPts
5-2 Spurs - 102 pPts
5-3 Orlando - 102 pPts
5-4 76ers - 102 pPts
9-1 Bucks - 103 pPts
9-2 Timberwolves - 103 pPts
9-3 Wizards - 103 pPts
12-1 Lakers - 104 pPts
12-2 Warriors - 104 pPts
12-3 Rockets - 104 pPts
12-4 Bobcats - 104 pPts
12-5 Thunder - 104 pPts
17-1 Nets - 105 pPts
17-2 Nuggets - 105 pPts
17-3 Knicks - 105 pPts
17-4 Jazz - 105 pPts
21 Pistons - 106 pPts
22-1 Celtics - 107 pPts
22-2 Mavs - 107 pPts
24-1 Heat - 108 pPts
24-2 Kings - 108 pPts
24-3 Raptors - 108 pPts
27-1 Cavs - 109 pPts
27-2 Suns - 109 pPts
29 Blazers - 109 pPts
30 Hornets - 111 pPts

At this point I think it's evident that I don't like the "designer stats" created for the Fantasy Basketball industry and this is one that doesn't meet the sniff test.

Our final play against Indiana is a prime example. That was absolutely atrocious defense. It was poorly executed bad strategy yet if you look at that game as a whole it HELPED those stats..... and we still lost. That is the ultimate stat unless it's Fantasy Basketball where teams don't matter other than in a stat like this.

Quantifying defense on a team and especially on an individual basis is extremely difficult.

The stats of individuals and how much they give up against their opposite in a game are among the most bogus stats around. For instance..... Morris is picked..... Howard steps up to stop the ball..... Howard's man slips to the basket and scores..... Howard's stat goes down..... while it was the team behind him that failed. If that play worked like this for example: Morris is picked, Howard doesn't step out and Morris's man scores.... Then Howard's stat goes up because his man didn't score yet he didn't play "good defense".

That stat is doubly bogus for centers because of the dearth of even decent scorers at that position. How can you compare guarding a center in today's game to guarding a SF or SG?....

Defense is a team effort and no individual can have even close to the impact on that end of the floor as one can on the offensive end. We as Laker fans of the last 20 years should know that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

JoelMyersScrotalSack · by **JoelMyersScrotalSack** on Fri Nov 30, 2012 5:25 pm

You know that saying that defense wins championships?

Since 1991 every team that won the championship finished at least top 10 in DRtg with the exception of the 47 win Rocket squad in 95 and the 01 Lakers that coasted throughout the entire regular season.

Point being if you want to win a championship you need to have a very good defense and the fact that all of those teams were top 10 in DRtg tells you the stat might mean something. There's no need to discredit stats just because what you are judging with your eyes doesn't match up with empirical data.

Rooscooter · by **Rooscooter** on Fri Nov 30, 2012 5:29 pm

JoelMyersScrotalSack wrote:There's no need to discredit stats just because what you are judging with your eyes doesn't match up with empirical data.

Oh no...... none at all....

JoelMyersScrotalSack · by **JoelMyersScrotalSack** on Fri Nov 30, 2012 5:48 pm

lakerswiz wrote:No it doesn't. They were only top 10. Give me the top 2 or 3 every single time and I'll take it.

Top 10 when there's only 3 - 4 teams, if that, with a shot at the title every year?

Yeah, not taking it for anything too concrete.

I don't even know what your point is. You seem to think the stat isn't telling of anything when it clearly is, you need to be a top 10 defensive team to seriously compete for a championship, according to the last 20+ years of data. If you're outside of that range your chances of winning aren't very good

If I'm interpreting that correctly...yikes.

You should interpret it as, "I don't know everything about basketball and what I'm watching with my biased perspective may not be indicative of what it actually happening on the court". Your rationale so far has been that because we're 7-8 we can't be a good defensive team which is a ridiculous jump in logic. I've pointed out with evidence why we are a good defensive team. What have you done to show we aren't?

thkthebest · by **thkthebest** on Fri Nov 30, 2012 5:52 pm

lakerswiz wrote:No it doesn't. They were only top 10. Give me the top 2 or 3 every single time and I'll take it.

Top 10 when there's only 3 - 4 teams, if that, with a shot at the title every year?

Yeah, not taking it for anything too concrete.

Well, you can't just look at defense. There are two sides to the game.

Last season, the Celtics and Bulls were the top 2 defensive teams according to defensive rating. Celtics were one of the worst offensive teams though. Still, they managed to push the eventual champions to 7 games with their defense. Celtics are actually near the top in defensive rating every season, and their defense carries them throughout every playoff run. Bulls obviously lost Rose. Miami Heat won the championship with the #4 ranked defense.

Anyway, just because I was curious, since 1990, 15 out of the last 23 champions were top 5 in defensive rating.

Rooscooter · by **Rooscooter** on Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:13 pm

JoelMyersScrotalSack wrote:
lakerswiz wrote:No it doesn't. They were only top 10. Give me the top 2 or 3 every single time and I'll take it.

Top 10 when there's only 3 - 4 teams, if that, with a shot at the title every year?

Yeah, not taking it for anything too concrete.

I don't even know what your point is. You seem to think the stat isn't telling of anything when it clearly is, you need to be a top 10 defensive team to seriously compete for a championship, according to the last 20+ years of data. If you're outside of that range your chances of winning aren't very good

If I'm interpreting that correctly...yikes.

You should interpret it as, "I don't know everything about basketball and what I'm watching with my biased perspective may not be indicative of what it actually happening on the court". Your rationale so far has been that because we're 7-8 we can't be a good defensive team which is a ridiculous jump in logic. I've pointed out with evidence why we are a good defensive team. What have you done to show we aren't?

You've ignored just a few "variables" in your "this stat predicts everything" approach..... Groups of players that play together and learn to compensate for each others inadequacies on the floor tend to win championships as well. Veteran teams tend to win championships and veterans also tend to know more about how to play the game.... So now lets lay that against your "top 10" theory.... probability would tell me that there is a less than 10% chance that being in the top 10 means anything in relation to winning a championship..... but being a veteran team, learning to play together would probably get you a very good chance (or about 33% if every things equal) of being on that list.....

Punk-101 · by **Punk-101** on Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:34 pm

I think the argument is that the eyeball test of "good defense" doesn't necessarily jive with DRtg ranking of "good defense", right?

Maybe middle ground or clarity can be found by giving examples of great, good, average, and poor eyeball test teams past or current and see if that matches with what the DRtg says about them.

Not siding with either argument, BTW.

Rooscooter · by **Rooscooter** on Fri Nov 30, 2012 8:15 pm

Punk-101 wrote:I think the argument is that the eyeball test of "good defense" doesn't necessarily jive with DRtg ranking of "good defense", right?

Maybe middle ground or clarity can be found by giving examples of great, good, average, and poor eyeball test teams past or current and see if that matches with what the DRtg says about them.

Not siding with either argument, BTW.

Nice try counselor...... :man10:

Statistics can be indicators of a lot of things... that's my point. To grab a stat that was designed way after the fact in a lot of cases and then "backtested" and tweaked to seem meaningful isn't a true indicator.

What if we had a stat about championship teams that showed that teams with 3 of their starting 5 having been on that team under the same coach and system for at least 3 years and compare that to Championships? I'll bet most Championship teams would return out of the data base. What if I entered teams under new coaches and systems with only 2 of the starting 5 together longer than 1 year? Not many would be returned.

O.K.... now one could take that and say that if we can keep the same coach and 3 of our 5 together we've got a great chance at winning a championship.... but why would 3 of 5 stay together under the same coach?..... oops... we don't get that from the stat do we? Contract length, success, playing out the string.... a lot of variables not in the original data set....

I do a lot of work with statistics for a living. Statistics are rear looking indicators.... to project them forward one needs to know why the data sets returned the statistics in question. At best they can be a directional indicator used exclusive of secondary data inputs.... when I use statistics to generate forward looking statements I generally get between 5 and 10 data sets and run 8 to 10 differential statistical variations through the sets and graph the results and look for trends. Trending data is at best a starting point because then you have to assume that the future conditions meet the past criteria of the data and the method of variation used initially.

Will the next team to win the championship be in the top 10 in that stat..... 33% chance that ANY team will be to start with so statistically you're 1/3 there...... to jump into the second third isn't that hard based on the stats that make up that "rating". The variance is paper thin in a lot of those data points.

The real question here is..... are Championship teams good defensively? A second question is does that stat indicate that beyond a doubt as to believe in it's validity in predicting a future event?

My eyes tell me that Championship team are good defensively but some give up a lot of points and score a lot of points.... some don't score that much and don't give up that much.... some get blown out a couple games and win 12 close ones.... some blow teams out and lose a few close ones..... that stat cannot tell me which ones are which....

I could go on.... but suffice to say I'm very skeptical that these new "Fantasy Designed" statistics are in any way "predictive".

Punk-101 · by **Punk-101** on Fri Nov 30, 2012 9:03 pm

I think the initial error was to use the stats to predict what a championship team should look like defensively. The initial question was whether or not THIS team is a good defensive team. I was trying to shift the topic back and avoid the "championship teams are like this" argument, for the reasons you just described.

In other words, I'd like to hear a discussion about:

Is X an accurate DESCRIPTOR of Y.
instead of
Is X an accurate PREDICTOR of Y.

Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Re: Mike D'Antoni Discussion: post in 7 seconds or less

Who is online