I know the Nuggets are fast-paced, but after last night's game I wanted to see exactly how fast-paced. What I saw here on ESPN.com reads like a mistake. Median league pace is 95.15 possessions per 48 minutes. The second-fastest team, Golden State, plays 4.55 more possessions than that -- 99.7 per 48 minutes. But Denver plays 104.3 -- making the gap between the number one team and the number two team bigger than the gap between the number two team and the league median. Is that really true? If it is, then no wonder Carmelo's leading the league in scoring.
« Both/And Not Either/Or | Main | Punditry 101 »
Speedy Denver?
27 Nov 2006 09:26 am
Comments (24)
It means Karl--a guy who used to press the whole game in Seattle--has given up on the possibility that his current team will be able to play reasonable defense.
Small sample size. Give it a month or so.
That 140-point game they had last week against GS may skew the results a bit. (Or it may be completely typical for the rest of the season!)
As an aside, just clicking through to the chart, did you notice that Washington was third from the bottom of the league in defensive efficiency? Yikes!
Reminiscent of the Paul Westhead Nuggets from the early 90s. Anyone else remember that?
Yeah. Check out Denver 1991:
Pace Factor: 113.7 (1st out of 27), League Pace Factor - 97.8
However, Westhead couldn't win like that (the Nugs won only 20 games in 1991) and he slowed things up a lot the next year.
That said, Denver has been a fast-paced team a LOT in their history, going back to the Alex English - Kiki Vandweghe days. Check out these disparities:
1983 Pace Factor: 112.1 (1st out of 23), League Pace Factor - 103.1
1984 Pace Factor: 110.5 (1st out of 23), League Pace Factor - 101.4
1985 Pace Factor: 107.6 (1st out of 23), League Pace Factor - 102.1
And in 1985 they actually wnet to the Western Conference Finals, losing to the Magic/Kareen Lakers.
Yes, it is possible that the Nuggets have that many more possessions, although I agree that the gap will narrow as more games are played. I think what's going on is that with K-Mart out for the season, George Karl is realizing that he might as well embrace the Doug Moe motion-style offense. That doesn't mean that the team will be "unable to play reasonable defense" like cw said above -- that's the fallacy that lower scoring means better defense when all it really means is a slower pace. They'll play defense, especially of the get-a-steal-and-launch-a-fast-break variety. (Come to think of it, that's what the Showtime Lakers did too.) The best reason for Nuggets fans to be optimistic this year is that Carmelo Anthony is in the top five in the league for steals.
By the way, I was actually at the game last night, and they introduced several cast members from The Wire who were in attendance. I don't know if that made the telecast.
Still with the "pace" factor...I remain unconvinced that the Nuggets pace factor is at least partially a result of their own crappy D, especially in transition.
So we're back to the Enver Nuggets, are we?
it makes sense for denver to play at a fast pace in order to take fullest advantage of the home court edge: they're used to being a mile high and the other team isn't.
colorado luis, while it's true that the showtime lakers, early '80s version, relied on steals to trigger the break, the mid-late '80s could play straight up defense quite well....
Howard, if memory serves, the Showtime Lakers were a pretty solid defensive rebounding club as well, plus since Magic was responsible for about 7 of those per game, they didn't need outlet passes...
According to Basketball-Reference.com, the Showtime Lakers (beginning in 1984, Riley's second full year, through 1991, Magic's last year) were never lower than 10th in the league in defensive efficiency. They were also never lower than 5th in offensive efficiency and were first in offensive efficiency 5 times.
Interestingly, the Celtics had a few really BAD defensive years in the late 80s, but kept winning because of their offensive efficiency (never lower than 6th in the same period, other than the year Bird was hurt, when they were 7th).
just to follow up on the westhead point. when he was coaching at loyola marymount, that was considered the most fit and conditioned college team ever assembled. that was the reason for his even going to denver, because owenership thought that if he was that good at coaching conditioning then denver would have a leg up on the competition due to the altitude. westhead did not succeed however because of the fact that it is a lot easier to tell a college student from a relatively small (but at the time very successful, due to kimble and gathers) school to run a few extra sets of lines than it it to tell someone making more money than you to get fit in his spare time.
nevertheless, i am sure that the whole concept of "if we can outrun you in denver, then we can for sure beat you" has never died in the organization, and i guess all you need is a coach that can properly get the point across. maybe karl is the right guy, and maybe players now feel more motivated to win games due to the money they're given.
pooh, good point, and an interesting difference between the laker fast break and some of the classic fast breaks: they didn't so much rely on the outlet pass because of what earvin could do.
attaboy, al! good job digging up those stats. by the later '80s, of course, neither mchale nor bird could move all that well anymore, and dj was declining, too. as for offensive efficiency: when you've got an excellent fast break and kareem and worthy to bail you out, you should have excellent offensive efficiency. and let us not fail to honor mr. michael cooper when we discuss laker defense.
PS. al/pooh: didja see the ronaldinho wonder goal? i haven't seen it myself, but the guy sitting next to me yesterday as i watched man u v. chelsea described it in scintillating detail....
Just looked at these stats - no wonder Utah is off to such a good start - in the top 5 in all these except turnover ratio and defensive efficiency - including number one in offensive efficiency.
PS. al/pooh: didja see the ronaldinho wonder goal? i haven't seen it myself, but the guy sitting next to me yesterday as i watched man u v. chelsea described it in scintillating detail....
YouTube is your friend. FWIW, slightly extravagant, not that I'm complaining...
Just to follow up on the westhead point. when he was coaching at loyola marymount, that was considered the most fit and conditioned college team ever assembled. that was the reason for his even going to denver, because owenership thought that if he was that good at coaching conditioning then denver would have a leg up on the competition due to the altitude. westhead did not succeed however because of the fact that it is a lot easier to tell a college student from a relatively small (but at the time very successful, due to kimble and gathers) school to run a few extra sets of lines than it it to tell someone making more money than you to get fit in his spare time.
It also needs remembering that his players in Denver were bad. If memory serves, Fat Lever was the only player on the roster who was ever a decent NBA player before or after those squads, give or take Chris Jackson/MAR (who was a rook).
thanx, pooh: no more extravagant than his talent level!
"That doesn't mean that the team will be "unable to play reasonable defense" like cw said above -- that's the fallacy that lower scoring means better defense when all it really means is a slower pace."
Are you saying that Denverr is a good defensive team?
Yeah, saw it tonight on Fox. Nicely done, although I agree that it seemed there could have been an easier play if he had wanted it. Nothing wrong with a little showing off when you're up a few goals already though.
Am I saying Denver is a good defensive team? Yes, or at least I am saying they are not "unable to play reasonable defense." They have the number 3 player in the league in steals (Anthony) and number 5 in blocks (Camby). When you have more possessions per game there will be more scoring, but it doesn't mean defense isn't being played. By the same token, teams that give up fewer points per game aren't necessarily good at defense, they could just be taking the air out of the ball on offense, resulting in fewer possessions and therefore fewer opportunities to score.
Blocks and steals aren't always useful indicators of defensive aptitude (not suggesting that Camby isn't a great defender - I think he is, but Melo is a gambler, not really a great defender.)
pooh, sprewell was another guy with a great defensive reputation based on his ability at steals, but once he played for coach van gundy, he was revealed as a gambler, not a defender. (camby, otoh, is indeed an outstanding defender.)
Howard, I think Sprewell was a very good on the ball defender early in his career (GS, pre-Carlesimo). IIRC, Jordan always had good things to say about his defense. After he became on offensive star, his D dropped off, and he started gambling more for highlight plays.
Not an uncommon phenomenon, BTW. Rodman circa '88 was a far superior on ball defender to freak show era Rodman.
Ewing's defense declined as his offense improve, IMO.
Iverson was a very good pressure defender early in his career.
I could go on and on...
Comments closed December 11, 2006.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Reminiscent of the Paul Westhead Nuggets from the early 90s. Anyone else remember that?
Posted by JP | November 27, 2006 12:44 PM