NBA's Second Worst Defense?

[PtldPlatypus]

I figured he meant it was bad when he said "awful" but maybe he just meant in ranking.

I just think it weird that our high OffRtg kind of means nothing because of the equation, but our middle of the pack DefRtf is a dead-on representation of our defense.

Idk, I feel like if the DefRtf means McMillan was a bad defensive coach, then the OffRtg must mean that he was a great offensive coach right?

Even though it's generally accepted that McMillan was/is a bad offensive coach.

The way I view Nate (the coach, not the poster) is thusly:

• He got credit for being a good defensive coach, but the good defensive numbers were more a function of pace than defensive strategy;
• He had excellent tools on offense, but limited their effectiveness by catering to an isolation-heavy style preferred by Roy;
• Nate had an incredibly strong aversion to turnovers, which contributed significantly both to the slow pace and the offensive efficiency;
• An individually great player can singularly affect offensive efficiency more than defensive efficiency, and Nate's Roy-led Blazer teams benefited from that.

 

[Minstrel]

I figured he meant it was bad when he said "awful" but maybe he just meant in ranking.

I just think it weird that our high OffRtg kind of means nothing because of the equation, but our middle of the pack DefRtf is a dead-on representation of our defense.

Idk, I feel like if the DefRtf means McMillan was a bad defensive coach, then the OffRtg must mean that he was a great offensive coach right?

Even though it's generally accepted that McMillan was/is a bad offensive coach.

I think you're reading in some arguments I'm not making.

I didn't say that Portland's high Offensive Rating meant nothing. I pointed out that just as slow pace made Portland's defense look better (by points scored), slow pace made Portland's offense look worse (by points scored). Portland was legitimately a great offensive team back then, but points scored made them look middle of the pack.

I also never said McMillan was a bad defensive coach. I said that Portland's defense was never good under McMillan. That's a very different thing and I even pointed out that a similar issue was at play back then--that the team's best players weren't good defenders. Even if you're a good defensive coach, it's difficult to impossible to build a strong defense when your best players, the ones you count on to play the most minutes, aren't good at defense.

Also, yes, when I said "awful pace," I was referring to ranking. I can see why you read a value judgment into that.

 

[Nate]

I think you're reading in some arguments I'm not making.

I didn't say that Portland's high Offensive Rating meant nothing. I pointed out that just as slow pace made Portland's defense look better (by points scored), slow pace made Portland's offense look worse (by points scored). Portland was legitimately a great offensive team back then, but points scored made them look middle of the pack.

I also never said McMillan was a bad defensive coach. I said that Portland's defense was never good under McMillan. That's a very different thing and I even pointed out that a similar issue was at play back then--that the team's best players weren't good defenders. Even if you're a good defensive coach, it's difficult to impossible to build a strong defense when your best players, the ones you count on to play the most minutes, aren't good at defense.

Also, yes, when I said "awful pace," I was referring to ranking. I can see why you read a value judgment into that.

Yeah, I was combining your posts, and other people's posts, in my head.