Damian Lillard's Progress On Defense

[B-Roy]

I am not saying they are a "GOOD DEFENSIVE TEAM". Why are you guys thinking I keep saying that. I said they are mediocre. I am arguing they aren't bad and I believe I'm right. And for the "forced jump shots", it's not "forced jump shots" it's the % of those shots going in. Doesn't matter if the Jazz are forcing 100% of the shots from 15 ft. If the teams are hitting 60% of them, then it's bad defense.

Um no, you said this:

I singled out jump shots because we allow the majority of our opponent's shots being "jump shots". Other teams are taking 65% of their shots from this area.

Your reasoning behind singling out jump shots was because "we allow the majority of our opponent's shots being jump shots". But you're still ignoring just about every other (and better) statistical measure that shows we're sub-par defensively. Ok, if you want to keep your Moda colored glasses on, be my guest, but just know you're looking at a distorted reality.

 

[magnifier661]

Um no, you said this:

And? What's wrong with that? So how does this prove I said "we are a great defensive team" like you proclaimed?

Your reasoning behind singling out jump shots was because "we allow the majority of our opponent's shots being jump shots". But you're still ignoring just about every other (and better) statistical measure that shows we're sub-par defensively. Ok, if you want to keep your Moda colored glasses on, be my guest, but just know you're looking at a distorted reality.

I singled out the jump shots, because that is what we are focusing on, and the three point shot as well. And now you say we are sub-par? We aren't terrible now?

 

[B-Roy]

And? What's wrong with that? So how does this prove I said "we are a great defensive team" like you proclaimed?



I singled out the jump shots, because that is what we are focusing on, and the three point shot as well. And now you say we are sub-par? We aren't terrible now?

What are you talking about? This is what you first asserted about the defense:

That is holding them to a very inefficient offense. So as the teams are able to score in the paint, they aren't doing it efficiently.

Forgive the fact that "good" could be implied based on this.

Also, I never called them terrible, read my first post. From the beginning I said they were a sub-par defensive team. Call it sub-par, call it bad, poor whatever. Point is they're not good, they're not even mediocre (Average? I guess that's what you're saying now). There's a reason why they're in the bottom half on the league.

 

[magnifier661]

What are you talking about? This is what you first asserted about the defense:



Forgive the fact that "good" could be implied based on this.

Also, I never called them terrible, read my first post. From the beginning I said they were a sub-par defensive team. Call it sub-par, call it bad, poor whatever. Point is they're not good, they're not even mediocre (Average? I guess that's what you're saying now). There's a reason why they're in the bottom half on the league.

So you are saying Stotts isn't trying to hold the team to jump shots? So what's Stott's defensive philosophy then?

I said they are efficiently holding the team to take jumpers. They aren't shooting jumpers mostly?

 

[B-Roy]

So you are saying Stotts isn't trying to hold the team to jump shots? So what's Stott's defensive philosophy then?

I said they are efficiently holding the team to take jumpers. They aren't shooting jumpers mostly?

Okay, you need to stop putting words in my mouth. I never mentioned anything about Stott's defensive philosophy. Also, you need to read your own posts and stop changing your positions.

That is holding them to a very inefficient offense. So as the teams are able to score in the paint, they aren't doing it efficiently.

Two things are being said here:

1.) Blazers are holding opponents to an inefficient offense. False, they're above average guarding jumpshots but bad overall as shown by opponent offensive efficiency and TS%.

2.) Teams are scoring inefficiently in the paint. Also false, we're one of the worst teams in the league at defending points in the paint.

Are you going to change your stance again?

 

[magnifier661]

Okay, you need to stop putting words in my mouth. I never mentioned anything about Stott's defensive philosophy. Also, you need to read your own posts and stop changing your positions.



Two things are being said here:

1.) Blazers are holding opponents to an inefficient offense. False, they're above average guarding jumpshots but bad overall as shown by opponent offensive efficiency and TS%.

2.) Teams are scoring inefficiently in the paint. Also false, we're one of the worst teams in the league at defending points in the paint.

Are you going to change your stance again?

In my link, which you aren't looking at obviously…. I am using one point of eFG%. Example… Indiana is the best defensive team in the league, and they are holding their opponents to an eFG% of 45.3% (+2 better than us, we are at 47%). So if I look at Indiana as being the ceiling of best, then look at Clippers as being the worst (eFG% of 49.2%), then are we not in the middle of the two?

 

[B-Roy]

In my link, which you aren't looking at obviously…. I am using one point of eFG%. Example… Indiana is the best defensive team in the league, and they are holding their opponents to an eFG% of 45.3% (+2 better than us, we are at 47%). So if I look at Indiana as being the ceiling of best, then look at Clippers as being the worst (eFG% of 49.2%), then are we not in the middle of the two?

Again, why are you singling out eFG%?

http://hoopdata.com/teamdefstats.aspx

At the very least use TS%, Indy is #1 at 49.5% and we're 23rd at 54.7%.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Two days without a Blazer win, and the bitching and sniping begins...

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Again, why are you singling out eFG%?

http://hoopdata.com/teamdefstats.aspx

At the very least use TS%, Indy is #1 at 49.5% and we're 23rd at 54.7%.

Is that because TS% proves your point?

 

[magnifier661]

Again, why are you singling out eFG%?

http://hoopdata.com/teamdefstats.aspx

At the very least use TS%, Indy is #1 at 49.5% and we're 23rd at 54.7%.

Because I can and I will keep using it. Am I right or wrong? How gives a flying fuck what I'm using. You are saying I'm wrong, and I am not when using the model I'm using.

 

[magnifier661]

Is that because TS% proves your point?

Exactly… B-Roy singles me out because I use one model, then backs his up using another. Quite annoying.

 

[B-Roy]

Exactly… B-Roy singles me out because I use one model, then backs his up using another. Quite annoying.

I used more than one, TS%, defensive efficiency, points in the paint....

Just about every other stat says we're below average, except yours. But you'll single it out.

 

[magnifier661]

I used more than one, TS%, defensive efficiency, points in the paint....

Just about every other stat says we're below average, except yours. But you'll single it out.

What about 3 point FG%, 3 point attempts, foul shots?

We can go back and forth, I used one example that you are trying to discredit. I put more weight on eFG% because that's the system Stott's is implementing.

 

[B-Roy]

What about 3 point FG%, 3 point attempts, foul shots?

We can go back and forth, I used one example that you are trying to discredit. I put more weight on eFG% because that's the system Stott's is implementing.

Because a stat like TS% gives a better overall look at opponents shooting.

Defensive efficiency also gives a better look at overall defense. You can cite eFG% as a credit to the Blazers doing a good job defending jumpers, great. But if they're doing it to the detriment of everything else, is that still a good thing? Maybe, perhaps this is the best they can do with the personnel. In the end, when you're judging a teams defense, doesn't it make more sense to look at the overall picture, rather than just one aspect of their play?

 

[magnifier661]

Because a stat like TS% gives a better overall look at opponents shooting.

Defensive efficiency also gives a better look at overall defense. You can cite eFG% as a credit to the Blazers doing a good job defending jumpers, great. But if they're doing it to the detriment of everything else, is that still a good thing? Maybe, perhaps this is the best they can do with the personnel. In the end, when you're judging a teams defense, doesn't it make more sense to look at the overall picture, rather than just one aspect of their play?

According to you. But it's all good man. If you feel better with discounting my take because you know better, than what ever makes you feel good man. Don't want to hold you back brother.

And you still overlooked 3pt defense, foul shots, turn overs, etc.

 

[B-Roy]

According to you. But it's all good man. If you feel better with discounting my take because you know better, than what ever makes you feel good man. Don't want to hold you back brother.

And you still overlooked 3pt defense, foul shots, turn overs, etc.

Again, you dodge the question. Just answer why we should look at eFG% and ignore everything else and I'll leave you alone.

 

[magnifier661]

Again, you dodge the question. Just answer why we should look at eFG% and ignore everything else and I'll leave you alone.

I didn't! I just used 3 point %, free throws and attempts and you keep saying this one thing over and over again. You only used TS% to my argument, then brought the others later.

 

[B-Roy]

I didn't! I just used 3 point %, free throws and attempts and you keep saying this one thing over and over again. You only used TS% to my argument, then brought the others later.

Where? The first post I responded to only referenced eFG%. And I mentioned TS%, defensive efficiency, and points in the paint in my response.

Post #24 and 25 in this thread.

 

[magnifier661]

Where? The first post I responded to only referenced eFG%. And I mentioned TS%, defensive efficiency, and points in the paint in my response.

Post #24 and 25 in this thread.

So you used those 3 and I will use my 3. Fair enough?

 

[B-Roy]

So you used those 3 and I will use my 3. Fair enough?

Fair enough but for future reference, could you read the post and responses carefully so you don't change positions or call out others for changing their positions?

 

[magnifier661]

Fair enough but for future reference, could you read the post and responses carefully so you don't change positions or call out others for changing their positions?

Fine… So how was your lunch?

 

[Natebishop3]

I thought he played excellent defense on Jennings tonight.

3 steals, and I don't think Jennings hits that three in OT if Drummond doesn't clear our Lillard.

 

[Sinobas]

Here's my problem Mags. IMHO,
Lillard is a good defender (NBA average or better).
Wes is a very good defender.
Ditto for Batum.
Ditto for Lopez.
LMA's defense has improved.

However, I can't rectify my opinions with the fact that we have been a poor defensive team, and yes we ARE a poor defensive team. (I'm hopeful that changes but I too am somewhat of a homer).

The Blazers are in the 12-15 range....so basically average. I think Wes defense is over-rated. He's good at defending the post for a SG, but he's like Roy in that he doesn't really do a good job at stopping penetration. Most of our breakdowns seem to come from guard penetration.

 

[magnifier661]

The Blazers are in the 12-15 range....so basically average. I think Wes defense is over-rated. He's good at defending the post for a SG, but he's like Roy in that he doesn't really do a good job at stopping penetration. Most of our breakdowns seem to come from guard penetration.

The thing is we are stellar in the second half of games on defense. That's when it matters.