Defensive rating (DRtg) How you calculate it and use it

[Yao Ming's Foot]

As I pointed, I wasn't the only person who thought so. There are a few people who think that some advance stats could be a bit inflated due to a wide faster pacing league.

And I wouldn't think so, but then again I would have to look up what is the average time do the 80s teams shoot the ball. Haha.

Plus that wasn't the case in the NBA. They tend to lead more possessions with a restarted 24 second clock. They average more points with very efficient offense, which in turn decrease DRtg. I would guess if the league increase their pacing right now, then they would be similar to the 80s.

Defensive rating isn't new nor controversial. Show me where anybody has had a problem with it BEFORE I pointed out that Jordan's playoff opponents are not in the same ballpark with Kobe's. The fact that some Jordan stans have cosigned your lack of comprehension of the formula and how it is derived is nothing to be proud of.

Do you think league wide a 14 second shot clock would lead to more points per possesion? Yes or No?

How about a 7 second shot clock?

How about a 1 second shot clock? How could anyone defend such a fast pace team? Can you imagine how high their offensive rating would be?

[Yao Ming's Foot]

You aren't understanding the statistic. You don't compare defensive rating across eras. If you really want to compare defenses across eras, use defensive rating relative to league average. That way, whatever team you want to use (92 bulls, 96 bulls etc) will look much better and rightfully so. Comparing the 03 Nuggets to the 89 Pistons is stupid because the Nuggets were playing in a totally different era where games were slow paced, low scoring and defensive-oriented. Transfer the 89 Pistons to 03 and they'll have much better numbers across the board.

For instance, the 03 Nuggets were 2.3 points above league average. The 89 Pistons were 3.1 points above league average so they were the better defensive team.

Why would you do that? Do you ever see anybody list Jordan's offensive statistics relative the league average?

[Da_Realist]

You aren't understanding the statistic. You don't compare defensive rating across eras. If you really want to compare defenses across eras, use defensive rating relative to league average. That way, whatever team you want to use (92 bulls, 96 bulls etc) will look much better and rightfully so. Comparing the 03 Nuggets to the 89 Pistons is stupid because the Nuggets were playing in a totally different era where games were slow paced, low scoring and defensive-oriented. Transfer the 89 Pistons to 03 and they'll have much better numbers across the board.

For instance, the 03 Nuggets were 2.3 points above league average. The 89 Pistons were 3.1 points above league average so they were the better defensive team.

That would be better but that's not how he tried to use it. And he knew that sh*t didn't make sense. It still doesn't really measure defense but what you said is better than what he tried to do. I read a quote somewhere about the Pistons -- "They led the league in 5 point blowouts". That's because they were so smart and so disciplined that if you were down 5 in the last of the 4th quarter, it felt like a blowout. How does Drtg measure that sense? The Pistons defense was more than just 3 points better than league average.

The numbers don't accurately show how great these team's defenses are because, in Detroit's case especially, their defense was better than their offense. So unless every single team has the same exact offensive capabilities (to normalize that part of the equation) you can't accurately measure how dominant a team's defense is by using "points above average"

Even within the same league... How do you compare the 89 Pistons and the 89 Lakers? One played in the run-n-gun Western Conference. The other played in the rugby-like Eastern Conference. We're gonna use a league-wide standard to measure their defenses when 90% of their games are played against different opponents?

[Da_Realist]

Why would you do that? Do you ever see anybody list Jordan's offensive statistics relative the league average?

Must be nice to be an idiot. You can be an argumentative moron, post dumb sh*t to support an agenda, get called on it multiple times and because no one knows who you really are, you can just keep it moving. Must be nice. Anonymity has it's perks, I see.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Must be nice to be an idiot. You can be an argumentative moron, post dumb sh*t to support an agenda, get called on it multiple times and because no one knows who you really are, you can just keep it moving. Must be nice. Anonymity has it's perks, I see.

Why is it when people can't create content or logical thought to support their point of view they always turn to personal attacks towards posters instead?

[Micku]

Defensive rating isn't new nor controversial. Show me where anybody has had a problem with it BEFORE I pointed out that Jordan's playoff opponents are not in the same ballpark with Kobe's. The fact that some Jordan stans have cosigned your lack of comprehension of the formula and how it is derived is nothing to be proud of.

I thought I did? Let me do it again:

“I don’t think this kind of analysis makes sense. What you’re calling higher average team productivity probably just reflects factors like a faster leaguewide pace, higher scoring per possession, and maybe trends in some specific statistics. A faster pace allows players to accumulate more statistics, so it’ll lead to higher pre-adjustment WP. With many statistics the two teams’ change in WP cancels out (e.g., a steal for one team is a turnover for the other, a defensive rebound requires a missed shot), but not with scoring, so more offense will increase pre-adjustment WP. The 1990s saw a drop in both pace and points per possession, so that explains the drop in “basketball quality.””

- http://arturogalletti.wordpress.com/...ting-for-pace/

Milwaukee led the league in field goal percentage and assists and did well in offensive rebounds. The Bucks' 99.3 rating, though it led the league would now be among the worst in the NBA. New Jersey had an offensive rating of 99.9, which was second to last in '87-88. Because the pace of the game is so much slower now, the Nets adjusted points per game rating was 101.7, much lower than the Bucks' 109.2.

- http://www.rawbw.com/~deano/helpscrn/rtgs.html

The first thing we can do in adjust oRtg and dRtg for the seasons. That doesn't make a huge difference in this case, but it does when you're comparing, say, 1996 and 2004.

http://sonicscentral.com/apbrmetrics...cb8e95d7e7e55a

Imagine comparing 2004 and 1986, a near 20 year difference.

Well, yes. Teams that like to run, but get stuck in a half court game are described as not playing at their own tempo. But this often (if not always) happens because their defense isn't forcing the turnovers or getting the defensive rebounds it needs to push the ball up the court. It also means the opposition is scoring a lot. Running teams don't force the ball up the court after a made basket very often any more. Some did prior to this decade, like the Lakers in the pros and that Loyola Marymount team of the late '80's. But did that really help them stay at their tempo and win the game?

...

Notice how the pace has gotten dramatically slower, but the efficiency of the offense has mostly improved, though it's been pretty level since the mid 1980's. It's always hard to say exactly why such major changes have occurred in the game. I'm not sure people were conscious of the pace slowing until the past couple years. In 1988 or so, Martin Manley, author of Basketball Heaven, wrote to me suggesting that the pace was going to increase in the future, this despite the trend already evident at the time that the pace was slowing. I'm sure it has slowed even further this season, though I haven't done the calculations. Statistically, the number of turnovers and the number of shots have both decreased, while the number of free throws and offensive rebounds have roughly remained steady. Basically, teams have begun to take better care of the ball and shoot better, which is not entirely surprising.

http://www.rawbw.com/~deano/articles/tempo.html

Basically what this means that the game has changed. The offense was really good at the start of the 80s, where everything was going fast pace. This will lead increase of stats across the board.

Do you think league wide a 14 second shot clock would lead to more points per possesion? Yes or No?

How about a 7 second shot clock?

How about a 1 second shot clock? How could anyone defend such a fast pace team? Can you imagine how high their offensive rating would be?

This is silly because the possessions were higher in the 80s, with the 24 second clock, and had a high offensive rating with higher ppg because of the fast pace. They also shot quicker on the 24 second clock in comparison the 00s. That's common knowledge of pacing, which will increase the scoring.

[Micku]

Point is that the league changes. The pacing and possession change a lot over the course of the years, and the style of play is different.

This will lead to change of style defense, offense, shot selection, and whatever. The point is that I feel that it is shouldn't be compared from era to era. Comparable stats to 60s is different from the 80s because they played a different style. The 70s is different from the 90s because they played a different style. You wouldn't compare what the 60s did to the 80s. Same thing with the 80s to the 00s. It's different.

My point is that it's probably better to stick with that specific season. Like 1988 stats is only 1988. 2000 stats is only suited for 2000. If you plug players/teams to a different era, the they would have to adjust and their game would be a little different.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Saying that offense was really good in the 80s (according to these numbers) is the same thing as saying defense was really terrible in 80s. You realize that right?

[Micku]

Saying that offense was really good in the 80s (according to these numbers) is the same thing as saying defense was really terrible in 80s. You realize that right?

You can argue the opposite for the 00s or the late 90s, that the offense sucks. Teams didn't run anymore, and commentators were complaining about that. The Suns changed that again, and now the pace is going up. Same thing with the 80s, when they complain that they couldn't be physical with the guys as they were in the 70s.

In the mid 90s, they were complaining about the same thing, which cause Doc Rivers to retire since he felt that they couldn't play defense anymore.

The offense in the 80s were good when it comes to shot selection, making the shot, running up the floor to get the quick bucket, and everything else. The 80s team did defend though. The era was different, and my point is that the meaning of stats could be look at differently for each decade, including Drtg.

---

But yeah, just because the offense was good, doesn't mean the defense was bad.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

You can argue the opposite for the 00s or the late 90s, that the offense sucks. Teams didn't run anymore, and commentators were complaining about that. The Suns changed that again, and now the pace is going up. Same thing with the 80s, when they complain that they couldn't be physical with the guys as they were in the 70s.

In the mid 90s, they were complaining about the same thing, which cause Doc Rivers to retire since he felt that they couldn't play defense anymore.

The offense in the 80s were good when it comes to shot selection, making the shot, running up the floor to get the quick bucket, and everything else. The 80s team did defend though. The era was different, and my point is that the meaning of stats could be look at differently for each decade, including Drtg.

---

But yeah, just because the offense was good, doesn't mean the defense was bad.

Yeah it does over the course of an entire 82 game season. Team's don't magically forget how to play effective offensive basketball over the course of a decade and then relearn it suddenly as the we get closer to present day. If every single team in the league is running up the floor and getting a quick bucket then every single team is playing terrible transition defense.

[Micku]

Yeah it does over the course of an entire 82 game season. Team's don't magically forget how to play effective offensive basketball over the course of a decade and then relearn it suddenly as the we get closer to present day. If every single team in the league is running up the floor and getting a quick bucket then every single team is playing terrible transition defense.

Of course it would mean that. Teams don't take many good shots nowadays in comparison to the 80s. Teams also did not increase tempo in the early 00s (which is sort'a changing now). People were complaining about that in the 00s. The league wanted to increase scoring and the tempo, which is why the Suns team was important and exciting when they came about in 04-05. The difference is that the 80s teams play like them, but played defense as well.

---

But you can argue the opposite as well I guess. Evidence for both sides.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Of course it would mean that. Teams don't take many good shots nowadays in comparison to the 80s. Teams also did not increase tempo in the early 00s (which is sort'a changing now). People were complaining about that in the 00s. The league wanted to increase scoring and the tempo, which is why the Suns team was important and exciting when they came about in 04-05. The difference is that the 80s teams play like them, but played defense as well.

---

But you can argue the opposite as well I guess. Evidence for both sides.

There isn't evidence of both sides. There is evidence of a Nash Suns team being efficient and fast and you holding on to it while ignoring literally hundreds of mediocre high paced teams and efficient slow paced teams.

They don't take as many "good shots" nowdays because every team doesn't have a red carpet in the lane anymore. You still don't appear to grasp to direct inverse relationship between offense and defense.

[97 bulls]

Yao mings foot is a lost cause. Many people have dispelled this theory and yet and still foot continues to try to defend it.

Jus acknowledge the inherent flaw and move on.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Yao mings foot is a lost cause. Many people have dispelled this theory and yet and still foot continues to try to defend it.

Jus acknowledge the inherent flaw and move on.

What's the flaw?

[97 bulls]

What's the flaw?

Its not a flaw in the system so much as the flaw is you trying to say kobe faced better defenses and use that defense rating system SOLELY as your reason. And numerous time people have showed why it doesn't work that way and yet you continue to support it as gospel.