Defense?

[Bricklayer]

So this afternoon I was wondering what the last couple of games did to balance our offense/defensive numbers, and went to check out where we stood. The results were interesting and contradictory, and hence I decided to share. :

Opp PPG: 96.37 (8th in NBA)
Opp FG%: .468 (22nd in NBA)
Opp 3pt%: .357 (16th in NBA)
Blocks/Gm: 2.75 (29th in NBA)
Steals/Gm: 10.5 (2nd in NBA) (also Opp TO: 19.9 (2nd in NBA))
D-Rebounding%: .762 (7th in NBA)

PRELIMINARY GUESS AT ANALYSIS
So...bit early for all this, and can still change considerably, but what do we have? Not an elite defensive team, that seems eveident, but is not surprising. Indeed the best simple (as opposed to combined) defensive stat there is is Opp FG%, and we pretty much suck at it. In fact at .468 its actually worse than it was in ANY year in the Adelman era. Our worst in those years was .459 in 2004.

So we aren't consistently stopping people. But on the other hand right now its the oft discussed steals, and a solid/strong defensive rebounding percentage that are keying us defensively. Opponents are scoring on a high percentage of their shots, and the blocks number (for yet another year) tells us what we already know. So what we are depending on to counter is limiting how many of those shots they get by gambling for steals (actually part of the reason for the bad FG% perhaps), and then trying to hold them to one shot (largely courtesy of Ron -- last year a muscular SG led us on the glass, this year its our muscular SF who is the best defensive boarder). Can we sustain? Is this a sound strategy? Are we gambling because we are aware of our limitations stopping people straight up? Or is the gambling actually WHY we are having trouble stopping people straight up (blown assignments, open lanes, + no shotblocking). Stay tuned boys and girls.

 

[Larry89]

Wow, we are sucking. Sort Of

Muscular SG you mean?

 

[Bricklayer]

Muscular SG you mean?

Oops. Thx.

 

[Bricklayer]

Cautionary tale, but impressive:

Leading reboudner:
Ron Artest: 8.8

Leading Defensive rebounder:
Ron Artest: 6.4

Leading Stealer:
Ron Artest: 3.4

Leading Shotblocker:
Ron Artest: 1.3


Ron, many props, but...please PLEASE stay healthy.

 

[SacKings384]

I'll tell you this much... A couple of guy's strategy on the team is to funnel the dribbler to a certain direction, rather than trying to stop them. Problem being is most of the time they funnel him straight to the hoop, and straight to Kenny Thomas or Shareef... Which means 2 points, and maybe plus an and 1. Layups and dunks are the highest percentage shots in the game. We just don't have the athletes to shut some of these guys down. I think the Kings will be mediocre at defense, and with this mediocre offense... Bad news...

 

[SLAB]

I'll tell you this much... A couple of guy's strategy on the team is to funnel the dribbler to a certain direction, rather than trying to stop them. Problem being is most of the time they funnel him straight to the hoop, and straight to Kenny Thomas or Shareef... Which means 2 points, and maybe plus an and 1. Layups and dunks are the highest percentage shots in the game. We just don't have the athletes to shut some of these guys down. I think the Kings will be mediocre at defense, and with this mediocre offense... Bad news...

Unless your name is either Kenny Thomas or Peja Stojakovic.

 

[BawLa]

Cautionary tale, but impressive:

Leading reboudner:
Ron Artest: 8.8

Leading Defensive rebounder:
Ron Artest: 6.4

Leading Stealer:
Ron Artest: 3.4

Leading Shotblocker:
Ron Artest: 1.3


Ron, many props, but...please PLEASE stay healthy.

Which is why he should get no criticism for the statement he made or even any implications from it. One guy doing it all is not going to get it done. When KT was playing outside of himself we let our eyes gloss over and we thought that it would be consistent. Boy was that flawed logic. I think if we're lucky we can move him into a better trading situation relative to last year. Anyway, I think when it comes to defense it is no different than offense. Get a couple of stars and the rest can be roleplayers. I don't mean to beat the dead horse here but damn we need one defensive big who can hold his own and put him next to Ron.

 

[BigWaxer]

Brick,

just a ? dont read anything into it, the D seemed to fall off when Muss started to run more of a princeton O... What do you make of that with D stats?

And to all the haters this is absolutely no slam on RA or Muss... Just wondering what others think with that style O and ability to get back on D

 

[SacTownKid]

Simply put, all you need to know is: TURNOVERS ARE KILLING US!

The steals and at least causing the other team to turn over the ball as much helps but it's the way it's happening that's the problem. They work really hard to get those steals and they literally give the other team the ball for theirs! They don't even have to earn it and that has to stop.


" In fact at .468 its actually worse than it was in ANY year in the Adelman era. Our worst in those years was .459 in 2004."

What was the % through the first 8 games last year? You are comparing 8 games to 82 and that can't be considered anything near a reliable representation.

 

[BigWaxer]

Simply put, all you need to know is: TURNOVERS ARE KILLING US!

The steals and at least causing the other team to turn over the ball as much helps but it's the way it's happening that's the problem. They work really hard to get those steals and they literally give the other team the ball for theirs! They don't even have to earn it and that has to stop.


" In fact at .468 its actually worse than it was in ANY year in the Adelman era. Our worst in those years was .459 in 2004."

What was the % through the first 8 games last year? You are comparing 8 games to 82 and that can't be considered anything near a reliable representation.

Bad arguement cause after 8 games last year we were 3-5

 

[Jechtsphere]

running, fast pace teams like GS we can't defend against, it's a half court defense.

 

[BigWaxer]

running, fast pace teams like GS we can't defend against, it's a half court defense.

Not sure I bye that...

 

[Fear the Putin]

the KINGS are averaging less blocks than emeka okafor

 

[SacTownKid]

Bad arguement cause after 8 games last year we were 3-5

Just my point. The fair comparison would be to say, is the FG% during this 8 game stretch worse than any 8 game stretch in the "Adelman era"? I would seriously doubt that it is.

If the FG% remains this way up until the end of the season then you have a basis in saying our FG% is worse than any in the Adelman era. And if it does remain that way then Eric Musselman and the Kings have failed in a way.

 

[Bricklayer]

Just my point. The fair comparison would be to say, is the FG% during this 8 game stretch worse than any 8 game stretch in the "Adelman era"? I would seriously doubt that it is.

If the FG% remains this way up until the end of the season then you have a basis in saying our FG% is worse than any in the Adelman era. And if it does remain that way then Eric Musselman and the Kings have failed in a way.

You're grasping at straws to say the least. And entirely unnecessarily -- this is a simple status check 8 games in. Not a Vegas bound prediction for the future.

NOBODY waits until the end of the next season before engaging in any analysis. That is...well I always kind of liked the word "poppycock." I'm certainly not going to waste any more time trying to defend a completely obvious point, but I did go to the trouble of counting up the Opp FG% for the first 8 games of 2004 (Rick's worst year at .459): was .461. Still better than our current .468. As I have already noted the sample size in a reasonable manner, the numbers are what they are.

As a final aside, using a small sample size results in a much greater potential deviation in the final season stats. That said, the deviation is equally possible (in theory) BOTH ways. While you may cite the sample size and say "no! We will be a 42% OppFG% team because Grant says so! -- its all sample size!" Its just as reasonable to say "no, we will be a 49% OppFG% team, its all the sample size." And either way, we are currently a 47% OppFG% team, and while for the third and final time noting that does not have to stay that way with these early numbers, the FACT of the matter is that no Rick Adelman team ever ended a season at that level. Does not mean that we will this year either. But it means if the season ended today, we just did. And it means that if you come in talking about holding other teams to 42%, you've got some significant work to do.

 

[ParniValjak]

Cautionary tale, but impressive:

Leading reboudner:
Ron Artest: 8.8

Leading Defensive rebounder:
Ron Artest: 6.4

Leading Stealer:
Ron Artest: 3.4

Leading Shotblocker:
Ron Artest: 1.3


Ron, many props, but...please PLEASE stay healthy.

And while thats encouraging to see from one aspect, from the other it tells us just how average we are in those areas.

When Ron Artest is your leading shot blocker you are not going to be an elite defensive team. When your leading rebounder is your small forward and he averages 8.8 rpg, you are not going to be an elite defensive team.

People crapped on about Adelman saying something like "give me defensive players and we will have a better defensive team". Take Ron out of the equasion and as far as defence is concerned we suck royally.

We might be exerting more effort and energy on the defensive end but the statistical results aren't exactly encouraging.

For as long as we don't have an defensive interior presence on this team, we will continue to be average defensively. As great as Artest has been on that end of the court, he just simply can't do everything himself.

 

[fnordius]

Simply put, all you need to know is: TURNOVERS ARE KILLING US!

The steals and at least causing the other team to turn over the ball as much helps but it's the way it's happening that's the problem. They work really hard to get those steals and they literally give the other team the ball for theirs! They don't even have to earn it and that has to stop.

The steals barely keep the Kings with a TO differential which is on the good side, but many other sorts of stats are simply bad. Reducing TOs would be great, but look at the other stuff, too...

Good stats: (at least in theory)
8th for points allowed (96.4)
11th in point differential (+1.4)
9th for FG attempts (80.8)
13th/14th for 3 pts attempted (17.9)
4th for FT made (23.8)
9th/10th for FT attempted (29.6)
5th for FT percentage (80.17%)
8th for FG attempts allowed (76.1)
3rd for FT attempts allowed (24.0)
6th for rebounds (43.1)
7th for rebound differential (+4.1)
13th in defensive rebounds allowed (30.0)
2nd for offensive rebounds (14.3)
4th in offensive rebounds allowed (9.0)
1st for offensive rebound differential (+5.3)
2nd for steals (10.5)
2nd for opponent's TOs (19.0)
11th for TO differential (+0.6)

Bad stats:
18th/19th for points (97.8)
23rd/24th for FG made (34.5)
28th for FG% (42.72)
21st for 3 pts made (5.0)
28th for points per shot (1.21)
22nd for opponent's FG percentage (46.8%)
28th for FG percentage differential (-4.07%)
29th for 3 pt percentage (28%)
15th for opponent's 3 pt percentage (36%)
29th for 3 pt percentage differential (-8%)
20th for points per shot allowed (1.27)
24th for points per shot differential (-0.06)
28th for adjusted FG% differential (-.05)
22nd for defensive rebounds (28.9)
23rd in defensive rebound differential (-1.1)
21st for assists (19.3)
20th for assists allowed (21.0)
21st for steals allowed (7.3)
17th for blocks allowed (4.9)
26th for block differential (-2.1)
29th for blocks (2.8)
27th/28th for TOs (18.4)
27th for assist/TO ratio (1.05)

Our opponents' offenses are lighting us up in almost every possible way -- shooting a lot better overall, shooting 3s a ton better, in everything but FG attempts and FTs, we're getting smoked. They are blocking far better than we are, and they are getting more steals off of us than they do off the average team. We are doing really well on offensive rebounds, probably because we're jacking up so many bad shots. In defensive rebounds, we're subpar, although that may be in part because our opponents have a lot better FG% than we do -- less missed shots, less defensive rebounds. One of the only bright sides on offense is that the Kings end up going to the charity stripe relatively often, and still have a very high FT% (THANK YOU KM, for almost 1/3 of our FTs, hitting 93%+) -- presumably this is from those occasions when guys decide NOT to go for jumpers, but to get fouled on the way to the basket.

So while the dumb TOs are especially painful, because they seem like they should be avoidable, TO differential is still a slight + for us. I find the very negative differentials in shooting even more disturbing, and am not happy with the appearance that our much-vaunted improvement in rebounding may be mainly due to our decline in FG%.

Four or five extra steals a game is great, but it doesn't mean good defense. And nothing to be seen above means good offense.

 

[gunks]

Ok, for last season and this season's first 8 games here's the amount of times an apponents field goal percentage was held to under 42%:

Rick: 2 (Jazz, Nuggets)
Muss: 4 ( Bulls, T-Wolves, Pistons, Raptors)

Food for thought.

 

[Bricklayer]

Ok, for last season and this season's first 8 games here's the amount of times an apponents field goal percentage was held to under 42%:

Rick: 2 (Jazz, Nuggets)
Muss: 4 ( Bulls, T-Wolves, Pistons, Raptors)

Food for thought.

Thought mostly being that we are wildly erratic this year. We have a DPOY candidate tearing it up for us that Rick did not have to start last year (although obviously as the Maloofs have said defensive personnel does not matter), and we are all over the place -- given Ron's complete dominance defensively compared to Peja, I think it might even be fair to say that the same players Rick coached last year might even be more erratic defensively for Muss so far. I think that's both maybe the potential here for good, as well as the potential for things to go the other way too. What's clear is that Ron's doing absolutely everything he can, and if we are going to significantly improve, it has to be elsewhere.

 

[mdme]

i think our defense is very dependent on our energy level. if you see the kings defense it is kinda like a swarming, play the passing lanes, hustle on the boards type of defense.

In the two games we really got lit up, (vs MIL, vs GSW) we were on the tail end of a back to back where our starters played a lot of minutes the previous night.

In the MIL game, we were there in the first half then got blown out in the 3rd and mainly 4th quarter. In the GSW game, we got blown out in the 1st quarter.

obviously, 8 games is hardly representative of what will be an 82 game season. but it will be interesting to find out how we would have ranked in those defensive categories without the MIL and GSW games.

I know that BTB are part of the schedule/NBA game but this shows how much minutes are starters are playing this early in the season.

 

[Greenspan 101]

You're grasping at straws to say the least. And entirely unnecessarily -- this is a simple status check 8 games in. Not a Vegas bound prediction for the future.

NOBODY waits until the end of the next season before engaging in any analysis. That is...well I always kind of liked the word "poppycock." I'm certainly not going to waste any more time trying to defend a completely obvious point, but I did go to the trouble of counting up the Opp FG% for the first 8 games of 2004 (Rick's worst year at .459): was .461. Still better than our current .468. As I have already noted the sample size in a reasonable manner, the numbers are what they are.

As a final aside, using a small sample size results in a much greater potential deviation in the final season stats. That said, the deviation is equally possible (in theory) BOTH ways. While you may cite the sample size and say "no! We will be a 42% OppFG% team because Grant says so! -- its all sample size!" Its just as reasonable to say "no, we will be a 49% OppFG% team, its all the sample size." And either way, we are currently a 47% OppFG% team, and while for the third and final time noting that does not have to stay that way with these early numbers, the FACT of the matter is that no Rick Adelman team ever ended a season at that level. Does not mean that we will this year either. But it means if the season ended today, we just did. And it means that if you come in talking about holding other teams to 42%, you've got some significant work to do.

Thanks for the stats lesson but technically it takes approximately 30 events (games) to hit a normal distribution, which then can be used to best judge a population (season). So if the season ended in January, I'd say you're right...

 

[hrdboild]

Yeah but it IS a small sample size Bricklayer and what that means is that you can't come to any conclusions yet about how good or bad this team is defensively. 8 games means nothing. What if we played Phoenix two games out of 8? What if we played Charlotte? Look at the stats before the last three games and they're totally different. Golden State is averaging 110 points at home, obviously the points allowed total is going to go up. Is Chucky Atkins going to shoot 95% and score 30 points per game this season? Obviously not. Is he even going to average those numbers against the Kings this season? Probably not. Yes you did mention small sample size...you then went on to make a number of assertions about how good this team is defensively that are completely unprovable. You would have been better off leaving out the meaningless statistics and their illusion of credible evidence.

So what's fair then? Well for one thing, having no center makes interior defense a problem. This is obviously a much better rebounding team than the Kings have been in recent memory, and they're doing it with most of the same personel as last year minus the top two rebounders (Bonzi, Miller). That's a good sign. Another thing -- being worst in the league for turnovers is not going to help your points allowed and opponent field goal percentage one bit. The fast break points killed against Memphis and Golden State. That's half your OFG% problem right there. That's got to change. On the other hand, they're forcing a ton of turnovers on the other side. And even when they don't get the steal, they're getting hands on the ball and causing deflections. I think the league leading points allowed and OFG% of last week was an anomaly, but so are the current stats. This team most likely will end up somewhere in the middle. But they're not an elite defensive squad yet because they're readily exploitable against the right matchup -- ie dominant big men and speedy point guards. And both of those problems are related to the complete lack of size in the paint. But we all watch the games, do we need a bunch of fancy stats to tell us that?

 

[Bricklayer]

As a further aside, was focusing on overall, but these our opponents ranks offensively thus far:

PPG
Minnesota: 91.8 (29th in NBA)
Chicago: 96.1 (21st in NBA)
Milwaulkee: 99.0 (15th in NBA)
Minnesota: 91.8 (29th in NBA)
Detroit: 95.0 (25th in NBA)
Toronto: 99.3 (13th in NBA)
Memphis: 95.1 (24th in NBA)
Golden St: 104.6 (4th in NBA)

We've held 4 teams below those numbers, let 4 teams exceed them, so no real trend there. However there is only one good offensive team in the bunch, and we saw what just happened there. Its true you can only play the teams in front of you, but when you are struggling for consistency against the dregs of the NBA offensively, does make you wonder how we will handle the good offensive teams once we start seeing them consistently.

 

[Bricklayer]

But we all watch the games, do we need a bunch of fancy stats to tell us that?

Apparently -- many watch the games but see only what they want to see. And then when the stats contradict what they want to see, they complain bitterly about the unfairness of it all.

My conclusions at this point are mild, and my "fancy stats" are culled directly from the NBA and ESPNs website (except databsebasketball.com for the old Kings stats). You can direct all complaints to those entities for their policy of keeping such meaningless pages up.

 

[nbrans]

Yeah but it IS a small sample size Bricklayer and what that means is that you can't come to any conclusions yet about how good or bad this team is defensively. 8 games means nothing. What if we played Phoenix two games out of 8? What if we played Charlotte? Look at the stats before the last three games and they're totally different. Golden State is averaging 110 points at home, obviously the points allowed total is going to go up. Is Chucky Atkins going to shoot 95% and score 30 points per game this season? Obviously not. Is he even going to average those numbers against the Kings this season? Probably not. Yes you did mention small sample size...you then went on to make a number of assertions about how good this team is defensively that are completely unprovable. You would have been better off leaving out the meaningless statistics and their illusion of credible evidence.

So what's fair then? Well for one thing, having no center makes interior defense a problem. This is obviously a much better rebounding team than the Kings have been in recent memory, and they're doing it with most of the same personel as last year minus the top two rebounders (Bonzi, Miller). That's a good sign. Another thing -- being worst in the league for turnovers is not going to help your points allowed and opponent field goal percentage one bit. The fast break points killed against Memphis and Golden State. That's half your OFG% problem right there. That's got to change. On the other hand, they're forcing a ton of turnovers on the other side. And even when they don't get the steal, they're getting hands on the ball and causing deflections. I think the league leading points allowed and OFG% of last week was an anomaly, but so are the current stats. This team most likely will end up somewhere in the middle. But they're not an elite defensive squad yet because they're readily exploitable against the right matchup -- ie dominant big men and speedy point guards. And both of those problems are related to the complete lack of size in the paint. But we all watch the games, do we need a bunch of fancy stats to tell us that?

I agree with all of this. There have been times when the defense has looked really good, there have been times when the defense looked pretty bad. It's a really small sample size -- Ron hasn't looked like Ron the past two games, and the Kings have had three teams now (Milwaukee, Memphis and Golden State) who have completely shot the lights out from outside, often with hands in their faces and not necessariliy as a result of bad defense. That's almost half of the sample size. I think it's too soon to reach any definitive conclusions.

So far I'm cautiously optimistic because this team has looked better defensively, even if that hasn't shown up in the stats. Whether that's a result of the new-coach-honeymoon effect remains to be seen, but if the Kings keep up the defensive effort they showed in the first 8 games, eventually that's going to be reflected in the stats.

 

[hrdboild]

Apparently -- many watch the games but see only what they want to see. And then when the stats contradict what they want to see, they complain bitterly about the unfairness of it all.

My conclusions at this point are mild, and my "fancy stats" are culled directly from the NBA and ESPNs website (except databsebasketball.com for the old Kings stats). You can direct all complaints to those entities for their policy of keeping such meaningless pages up.

I don't disagree with the stats, I just don't think they mean much until more games are played. At least until we've played a good number of the different teams in the league so there's some basis for comparison. If you just wanted to go against the grain and demonstrate that it's too early to be calling this an elite defensive team, that's fair. But it would have been just as fair last week when we had the best OFG% and points allowed in the league.

 

[Londonking]

LOL how does the saying go...'lies, damn lies and statistics!'

I dont think it hurts to have the stats in mind, and recognise from them that there are particular categories where we dont rank well vs the other teams, but I suspect that even without them most fans would have an educated guess at where of deficiencies are.

Of course it would be great to have a 'big' with the defensive qualities of Big Ben, but that isnt going to happen any time soon.

I think we have to be thankful that given the injury problem with Brad that SAR has been able to step up and be effective (with some help from Corliss it seems). That probably isnt going to show up in any defensive stats, but we can guess at how bad our early record might have been had Brad's departure not been covered.

Im just taking it one game at a time.

Go KINGS !

 

[Packt]

We’re doing well in some areas and that has created an illusion that we’re a good defensive team, but the overall stats says differently. I don’t think Brick’s post was implying that this trend will continue for the rest of the year. It just set things straight as far as how good of a defensive squad we are currently and with the games played.

 

[Bricklayer]

I am actually rather intrigued by the whole thing, although more than a bit worried. Basically we seem to have been "faking it", but having games where that's worked well. By making the game into a mess (for both sides) and getting on the defensive glass, we seem to be attempting to short ciruit our significant defensive issues by simply limiting the number of shots the other team gets off. Not actually sure if that is the plan or not, but its the way its working out. And on some nights its worked. So I'm intrigued. This is NOT how its normally done, and I suspect a healthy dose of smoke and mirrors here, but we'll see. Can we sustain the energy over a full year? Can Ron continue to carry us on the glass? Or is this all just frenetic faking that is going to be exposed as the season drags on and people slump back into the long grind? Can we sustain the energy to "fake it"? Are other teams going to be able to adapt and adjust now that they've seen what we're doing? Do we have yet another gear we can switch into? Will Arco help? Could Brad or Cisco (if he grows a brain) be an eventual x-factor, unlikely as that seems?

What I think would be interesting is to see all of this scrambling around with a couple of big shotblockers back behind us to serve as goalies, but it appears that's not to be, Geoff keeps releasing statements about how he's happy as a clam with our bigs, and so we'll probably just have to make do.

 

[BawLa]

I don't disagree with the stats, I just don't think they mean much until more games are played. At least until we've played a good number of the different teams in the league so there's some basis for comparison. If you just wanted to go against the grain and demonstrate that it's too early to be calling this an elite defensive team, that's fair. But it would have been just as fair last week when we had the best OFG% and points allowed in the league.

Totally agree. And furthermore we are a team in transition. To think that our transition is complete and to say that right now we are playing at our peak would be preposterous. So I look to see how this team adjusts and adapts to the league as we play more diverse teams. And also how our group comes together and learns to depend on eachother. Again I'm gonna stick with Muss on this one and wait for about 50 games to see exactly where we are.