DE-Fense

Before the season started, I thought the weakness of the Boston Celtics was going to be defense. Ray Allen seemed like a clear liability, Paul Pierce is unimpressive, and look beyond the "big three" I didn't see much of anything to help out on this end. Kevin Garnett, obviously, is brilliant defensively, but it's a team game. Boy oh boy was I wrong about that. Boston's defense is not only the best in the league, they're by far the best in the league, a fact that may be somewhat obscured by the fact that they play a middling pace whereas San Antonio and Detroit go at a crawl.

The chart plots points allowed per hundred possessions relative to the league median. The very worst teams in the league -- New York and Minnesota -- both allow 5.7 more points per hundred than the median. Boston, by contrast, allows 5.5 fewer points per hundred than does the next best team. In short, not only is Boston the best, but the gap between the best and the second best is enormous. They're leaving everyone else dead in the water.

Comments

"Paul Pierce is unimpressive"

Paul Pierce has always been a superb defender when he wants to, and it was quite predictable that he'd be highly motivated to defend this year.

One of the real synergies of this Celtics squad is that taking the scoring burden off of Pierce allows him to expend energy on other aspects of the game.

Posted by Petey | December 10, 2007 11:05 AM

i like opposition shooting percentage (points per 100 possessions being slightly affected by opposition free throw shooting), and the celts are well out front there, too (.412).

Posted by howard | December 10, 2007 11:12 AM

"a fact that may be somewhat obscured by the fact that they play a middling pace whereas San Antonio and Detroit go at a crawl."

The inability of professional hoops commentators to separate pace from efficiency never ceases to boggle my mind.

Jon Barry was doing color for the intense and weird Nuggets/Lakers game last week, and he spent most of the game talking about defense in such a way that made it obvious that pace and efficiency were the same thing in his mind.

And on the same topic, fuck Disney's coverage of the NBA. Their coverage is done by a mix of haters and generalized sports guys who aren't fans or students of the association. Even otherwise adequate commenters dumb themselves down when working for Disney.

Posted by Petey | December 10, 2007 11:13 AM

And if Nene returns - aka is playing at as least as high a level as he was at the end of last season - the already nice Denver defense gets even better.

Denver isn't an elite team right now. George Karl had a nice quote recently that they were "a good bad team", which seems appropriate.

But Nene improves their defense in important ways, as well as providing their only true low-post option on offense. Assuming you get Nene back while keeping Kenyon Martin from going insane, Denver does become an elite team.

K-Mart has been a pleasant surprise so far in his amount of recovery, but he's still undersized and made a bit slow to play really top notch defense.

Posted by Petey | December 10, 2007 11:21 AM

Yeah, it's pretty impressive. The thing is that they have most of the elements of a good defensive team - someone who can hawk the opposing point, someone who can protect the rim when the opposition drives into the lane, and someone who can bang with the big bodies. They really only lack someone who can shut down a really good wing player - and it's looking like either Pierce can do that himself or they actually don't need that.

Also, agree that Matthew is just wrong about the pace thing, since this is all normalized to 100 possessions. (You'd think that he'd see the issue, since he wrote the explanation of efficiency in the immediately succeeding sentence.)

Posted by Al | December 10, 2007 11:22 AM

I could've guessed the teams at the top and bottom of the list, but there are some surprises in the middle.

I wouldn't have guessed that Philly and Atlanta would be that good.

And I guess Dallas' position explains a fair amount of their troubles.

I found Miami's middling position interesting. I would've guessed they weren't defending adequately this season. But if that's halfway under control, it means their problem is really on offense, which a healthier Wade can almost single-handedly correct. Or in short, I find that a piece of evidence to be bullish on the Heat.

Posted by Petey | December 10, 2007 11:26 AM

"They really only lack someone who can shut down a really good wing player - and it's looking like either Pierce can do that himself or they actually don't need that."

If you want someone to cover a player like Kobe or Michael Redd or LBJ, Piecre can do that at a reasonably elite level.

-----

Your team is going through some interesting days, Al.

Posted by Petey | December 10, 2007 11:29 AM

Clearly, the system put in place by assistant Tom Tibadeau has played major dividends, as Rivers has never been a good defensive coach. I watch just about every Celts game, and it's pretty obvious that beyond the talent infusion and the system, the C's are dominating based on the effort they put out every night. As Simmons has noted, this is probably the result of all three stars - as well as the coach - having something to prove. Unlike, say, the Spurs, who are pacing themselves over the long haul (while still dominating), the C's are led by three guys who haven't won. And it shows. They bring it every night.

The danger here is clearly fatigue. There are nights when KG, for all his boundless energy, is physically dead. And Ray Allen's shot looks consistently flat (he's playing a rediculous 39 mpg and shooting only 41% from the field, despite getting wide open looks). Pierce probably has the most consistent spring in his step, presumably because of his solid build and a game that's built more on strengh than explosiveness. (Pierce is also the youngest of the Big Three.)

Those concerns aside, I have extremely high hopes for this team. Posey and House have played extremely well off the bench, and Rondo keeps showing flashes of becoming a very solid NBA starter. Big Baby Davis has also been a nice surprise off the bench, but I'd like to see them find another veteran big, like PJ Brown, to eat up minutes and give KG rest. Kendrick Perkins is a hard worker and physical defender at center, but I'd be a lot happier if he were averaging 7 or 8 rpg instead of under 5.

Posted by owenz | December 10, 2007 11:31 AM

When he said that their defensive prowess may be obscured, I think he is talking about to people who aren't looking at this chart -- ie people judging based on points per game, or what they see watching the Celtics play on TV.

Posted by Henry Abbott | December 10, 2007 11:34 AM

"When he said that their defensive prowess may be obscured, I think he is talking about to people who aren't looking at this chart -- ie people judging based on points per game, or what they see watching the Celtics play on TV."

Yup.

-----

And I should have explicitly exempted Henry Abbot and the entire crew of ESPN's web operation when I previously denounced Disney's NBA coverage.

Disney has only screwed up the NBA on television. They're doing quite fine on the web.

Posted by Petey | December 10, 2007 11:36 AM

If you want someone to cover a player like Kobe or Michael Redd or LBJ, Piecre can do that at a reasonably elite level.

Posey can defend wing players off the bench. He contained Dwayne Wade nicely in the closing minutes of a tough game a few weeks ago. He also matches up well with bigger forwards like Carmelo and Nowitski. Tony Allen is another excellent wing defender, but he's a long way from from fully recovering from ACL surgery.

To the extent this team has a defensive weakness, it's a lack of depth at center and power forward. KG is excellent on D and Perkins is adequate, but things get dicey once you hit the bench. Big Baby is a wide-body, but he's only 6'6" and he has very little lift. Pollard bangs and plays well against old school centers, but isn't very useful against speedy or athletic big men. As I said in my previous post, even an oldster like PJ Brown would be pretty helpful at this point.

Posted by owenz | December 10, 2007 11:37 AM

After reading Henry Abbott's comment, I realize that he's probably right about what Matthew was trying to say. My mistake.

Posted by Al | December 10, 2007 11:45 AM

Your team is going through some interesting days, Al.

Yeah - when the Nets can't even beat the Wizards, a team they always beat, there's trouble. And Carter is playing OK now, Jefferson's been playing great and Kidd is playing OK. So it ain't the big 3. (Strangely, the Nets only have one decent Big at the moment - rookie Sean Williams, and for some reason coach benched him last night.)

I think we're looking at a Kidd trade by the February deadline.

Posted by Al | December 10, 2007 11:50 AM

Can't add any more than to second OwenZ

Posted by Matt | December 10, 2007 11:52 AM

"Strangely, the Nets only have one decent Big at the moment - rookie Sean Williams, and for some reason coach benched him last night."

I didn't see the game, but I noticed that in the box score.

It's a trend! Skiles threw a DNP at Tyrus Thomas the other night too.

I dig Williams' game. If I were running the Nets and Wizards, I'd be playing Sean Williams and Andray Blatche lots and lots of minutes.

-----

"Yeah - when the Nets can't even beat the Wizards, a team they always beat, there's trouble."

You missed the part where the 'zards are actually a competent team with Gilbert in street clothes. Caron-mania, baby.

Posted by Petey | December 10, 2007 11:57 AM

At first, I misread Matt's comment in the same way you did, Al.

I've only seen two or three Celts games this season. Has Allen been more impressive on defense this year? I thought this would be an OK defensive team, and I still don't get how they're doing it. Simmons' point about all of them having something to prove may well be part of it, but that's not particularly quantifiable.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | December 10, 2007 11:58 AM

I didn't see the Nets-Wiz game yet - was out almost all day yesterday - so am puzzled by what's going on. Maybe it's just that he's a rookie...

What Skiles did with Ty Thomas was even stranger. Thomas isn't a rookie and had been starting. He goes from that to DNP-CD? Odd.

Posted by Al | December 10, 2007 12:03 PM

"What Skiles did with Ty Thomas was even stranger."

Skiles is an idiot. Control freaks should go coach college ball.

Posted by Petey | December 10, 2007 12:10 PM

I note that one other thing I notice from the chart is how bad Cleveland is. Last year, they were a pretty good defensive team. So far this year, they're just bad. Anderson Verajao's absence can't be the cause of all of that...

Posted by Al | December 10, 2007 12:10 PM

"Anderson Verajao's absence can't be the cause of all of that..."

Sideshow Bob's absence hurts. Larry Hughes' absence hurts. While Marshall and Pavlovic aren't great defenders, having them out of the rotation reduces rotation flexibility.

Posted by Petey | December 10, 2007 12:13 PM

Using this as a catch-all Celts thread, let me add that watching James Posey every night has been a revelation. He is smart, defends well, and has been fantastic beyond the arc. And he has already established himself as one of the leaders on the team.

Doc's overuse of Allen is worrying, however, as his outside shot has been poor for a couple of weeks now. He has continued to be great driving to the basket. He doesn't appear to be that strong, or a great dribbler, but he always seems to beat his man and get to the rim.

Posted by Andruw | December 10, 2007 12:15 PM

You have to take into account, to some extent at least, that Boston's schedule has been a bit of a joke.

Posted by MP | December 10, 2007 12:19 PM

The chart directly reveals defensive performance relative to "league average" not "median."

Drink some coffee, man! This stuff's crucial.

Posted by ferd | December 10, 2007 12:20 PM

I think the chart is generally accurate but I don't think it has controlled for strength of schedual. I don't believe Boston has made that western road trip yet. THe whole thing is probably skewed a little towards the east, where you get to play some really bad, bad teams.

Posted by cw | December 10, 2007 12:22 PM

Ray Allen seemed like a clear liability, Paul Pierce is unimpressive, and look beyond the "big three" I didn't see much of anything to help out on this end. Kevin Garnett, obviously, is brilliant defensively, but it's a team game. Boy oh boy was I wrong about that. Boston's defense is not only the best in the league

The thing about the chemistry with the 'big three' is that each allows the others to expand their game: Pierce has always been a great defender (watch him go up against Artest or King James sometime...) but has had the burden of scoring all the points. Ray Allen has actually upped his defense considerably, so far this year, as well as playing bait on the perimeter. KG just makes everyone better.

The concern about fatigue is, I think, a non-issue. Not only these guys in phenomenal shape, but, at least as regards Pierce and KG, they don't have to consistently drive to the basket and draw fouls. I think Pierce and KG are going to get better as the season gets on and it becomes clear to them that it's less of a grind than years past. Posey has also added a welcome enthusiasm that seems infectious: I haven't seen Tony Allen so happy (despite greatly increased benchtime) in a long long while.

Posted by Petr | December 10, 2007 12:22 PM

"Using this as a catch-all Celts thread, let me add that watching James Posey every night has been a revelation."

He's already been 28 MPG player on a title winning team, y'know. Shouldn't be a revelation.

Definitely a nice player.

Posted by Petey | December 10, 2007 12:25 PM

The other point Simmons made was quoting some coach that said that you get your players to play better defense by playing them with someone who has excellent defensive intensity. KG sets the tone there, and so everyone is just trying harder. Beyond a certain talent level, it really is all about effort. That's also why defensive 'energy guys' are such a valuable, albeit small, piece of team success.

Posted by nolaboyd | December 10, 2007 12:25 PM

That's also why Jamario Moon is hugely responsible for the Raptors being in the middle of that graph, rather than alongside the T-Wolves and the Knicks.

Posted by nolaboyd | December 10, 2007 12:28 PM

Big Baby is a wide-body, but he's only 6'6" and he has very little lift.

Um... Glen "Big Baby" Davis is 6'9". And I think he's got some lift and can get more... The Celtics have some great experience removing 'baby' fat from players... take a look at rookie photos of Kendrick Perkins and Al Jefferson then compare with now. If they can do the same with Davis, then his lift will increase...

Posted by petr | December 10, 2007 12:31 PM

Tangentially, in the category of things I wouldn't expect, it turns out that Posey has a miserable +/- while Big Baby has a wonderful +/-.

Plus/Minus can often be deceiving, but it's still interesting and counter-intuitive.

Denver's plus/minus stats, on the hand, have absolutely nothing counter-intuitive in them whatsoever.

Posted by Petey | December 10, 2007 12:36 PM

You have to take into account, to some extent at least, that Boston's schedule has been a bit of a joke.

And it's the Celtics who've been laughing...

Seriously, though, they've beaten some good teams and have beaten some bad teams pretty soundly... which is what you'd expect of a really good team in a really bad division...

Posted by petr | December 10, 2007 12:41 PM

Looks to be right, except also unadjusted.

I think when the schedule plays itself out, the Celtics will fall back to the pack, but they're clearly rivaling the late 90's edition Spurs on defense. What's impressive is that they're also rivaling the '95-96 Bulls on offense, although that will not last (no Jordan on these Celtics).

Posted by Joel | December 10, 2007 12:43 PM

That's also why defensive 'energy guys' are such a valuable, albeit small, piece of team success.

Look at what has happened to the Cavaliers defense without Varejao...although I think there are other factors operating there as well.

Posted by mq | December 10, 2007 12:44 PM

"Tangentially, in the category of things I wouldn't expect, it turns out that Posey has a miserable +/- while Big Baby has a wonderful +/-."

The 5-man unit breakdown shows that the unit comprised of 4 starters with Posey instead of Perk is the second most used, and the worst in terms of plus/minus.

Interestingly, it is frequently the unit that closes out the games. Perhaps the negative rating is due to the team slowing down the pace while holding a significant late lead, which often means Pierce or Allen taking a tough shot with the clock expiring. Just a guess.

And Baby has already moved up to 8th-man in the rotation status.

Posted by Andruw | December 10, 2007 12:49 PM

One key has been that Allen and Pierce can now play hard at both ends like normal players. They get plenty of rest, and don't have the overwhelming level of offensive responsibility they had in the past. This is especially the case for Pierce, whose game has always been taking the ball hard to the basket and going to the foul line. Pierce was always capable of playing excellent defense, and did so from time to time in the past when needed, but the exhausting physical hammering he took at the offensive end limited his ability to burn up energy at the other end.

Allen had an excellent defensive game this weekend against Chicago, and has generally looked much better defensively than I remember him in the past. I think it's also just a question of playing harder and bearing down at the defensive end.

Posey has been a huge asset on defense, and Rondo is also a very talented defender. Both have very quick hands and disrupt passing lanes, and Posey adds size to that mix. Rondo was probably overlooked coming into this year, because he split time at PG last year with Telfair, who was a very poor defender.

But it all radiates out from Garnett. It's not just Garnett's own domination of the middle, but his leadership and example, which demands defensive excellence from his teammates. He has shown the same leadership on offense, and helped instill a very unselfish, quick-paced ball moving mentality. Now that he's on the C's and I can watch him all the time, I understand what a great, great player he is.

Posted by Dan Kervick | December 10, 2007 12:50 PM

More stats that bolster the view that Celts are a very good defensive team:

When the Celtics win, they're winning by an average of 16 points.

The Green have only had two losses, one by 2 pts and one by 5 points.

Celtics are averaging just over 101 points a game.

Opponents are averaging just under 88 ppg.

That's the biggest differential in the league right now.

Posted by petr | December 10, 2007 1:02 PM

Um... Glen "Big Baby" Davis is 6'9".

HA! That's funny. Anyone who sees him on the court (where his height can be compared to other players) can see he's 6'7" at most. Just because the media guide says he's 6'9" doesn't make it true.

I agree that his lift will increase as they get him in better shape. But how much is his body going to change this season?

Posted by owenz | December 10, 2007 1:18 PM

One key has been that Allen and Pierce can now play hard at both ends like normal players. They get plenty of rest, and don't have the overwhelming level of offensive responsibility they had in the past.

I agree that Pierce has looked revived and that Allen has looked much better on D. That said, I don't think Allen is getting nearly enough rest. He's playing 39 minutes a game and his shot looks flat (he's shooting under 41%). That tells me he's tired.

I hate to complain about Rivers with everything going so well, but Allen spained his surgically-repaired ankle and missed practice a few weeks ago...and Rivers played him more minutes than anyone else the very next game. It just seemed tone deaf. I worry about Allen's health over the long haul.

Posted by owenzj | December 10, 2007 1:25 PM

Boston's defense shouldn't be that big of a suprise. Pierce has always been an underrated defender, IMO, but he's NEVER had a quality big man to play with him, and that makes him so much better. Pierce without Garnett is a Hassell or Salmans level defender, whereas Pierce with Garnett has the potential to elevate him to Bowen or Artest level.

BUT as a team, I am holding out till after the All Star Break to see whether they are really that good defensively. So far they've played a light schedule against mostly weak teams - so their defense looks inflated. Add to that the Spurs not really playing anywhere near their full potential (which should worry anyone - the Spurs at 50% are 17-3? Yikes) I think those stats will look different in a few months.

Defense starts and ends with the coaching, and Doc Rivers is just coasting right now. Let's see if he can get his team to play quality defense for 82 games PLUS the playoffs before we get too carried away.

Posted by Eve | December 10, 2007 1:38 PM

"Defense starts and ends with the coaching, and Doc Rivers is just coasting right now. Let's see if he can get his team to play quality defense for 82 games PLUS the playoffs before we get too carried away."

You're insane. This is a clearly committed and able two way squad. Assuming they're not injury cursed, they'll defend at a high level into the playoffs.

That doesn't necessarily mean they're going to win the title, but I don't think it's reasonable to worry they're going to turn into the Wizards in May.

Posted by Petey | December 10, 2007 2:07 PM

Um... Glen "Big Baby" Davis is 6'9".

HA! That's funny. Anyone who sees him on the court (where his height can be compared to other players) can see he's 6'7" at most. Just because the media guide says he's 6'9" doesn't make it true.

I guess we'll just hafta bow to your superior insight... Tho' I don't want to be the one to tell Paul Pierce, who's listed as 6'7" and who has to look up to Davis, that he's really only 6'5"... Maybe Pierce only looks at him when he's got lift...

Posted by petr | December 10, 2007 2:09 PM

I've said it before and I'll say it again: a Nuggets/Celtics Finals is the best of all possible worlds.

Posted by Petey | December 10, 2007 2:10 PM

As to Ray Allen's shooting percentage: I felt the same way, that he was playing too many minutes, and that his legs were tired, and he was shooting poorly. Then I looked at his True Shooting Percentage and it's pretty close to last year's. He's just so damn good at the line that his shooting from the floor doesn't represent his offense well enough.

Overall though his production on the offensive end is down slightly, and not just from shared possessions. He may just be expending more energy on the defensive end.

Posted by Joel W | December 10, 2007 2:20 PM

i've said it before and I'll say it again: a Nuggets/Celtics Finals is the best of all possible worlds.

On paper, I'd give it to the Nuggets... 'Cause I think they have the better, and more experienced, all-round coach. But AI seems impervious to coaching, good or bad... so, in the real world, I'm looking at the Celtics blowing by the Nuggets.

Posted by petr | December 10, 2007 2:50 PM

"But AI seems impervious to coaching,"

As someone who's followed Iverson's career, that's a reasonably ignorant statement. There are some valid criticisms one could make about Iverson, but coachability has never been one of them.

Even when he was constantly fighting with Larry Brown early in his career, he was still faithfully executing the coach's will on the court. There's a reason he's never lacked for floor time under any coach.

----

Iverson's had some weird games the past week.

He had the amazing first three quarters against LA, and got outstrategized in the fourth. Then he went into Dallas and played a brilliant game for all four quarters. Then he had a sluggish game against Sacto that he almost handed away at the very end.

Iverson's been dominant enough lately that teams are starting to zone up the Nuggets. But they're not making teams pay for zoning them yet the way they need to.

He'll have an easier time once Chucky Atkins gets back. Every additional minute he can avoid playing the point is helpful.

Posted by Petey | December 10, 2007 3:09 PM

A word on Cleveland's poor performance and Boston's good performance defensively: Boston has played an easy schedule so far and cleveland has played a tough schedule. To see this, go to Jeff Sagarin's rankings. Of course, this probably only makes up for a small portion of the difference, but keep in mind that the defensive efficiency chart has not been corrected for strength of schedule.

Posted by john | December 10, 2007 3:14 PM

When the Nuggets are getting the nod based on coaching, the opponent needs to change coaches.

A couple of comparisons have been made with the team I follow daily - the Spurs. One thing to note is that the Spurs schedule has been relatively easy thus far, also. Aside from two games each with the Mavs and Rockets (both split home and home), and impressive wins against Utah without Duncan and New Orleans on the road, there hasn't been much to squak about here. We've beaten everybody here, and we've beaten everyone on the road we were supposed to beat (except Sacramento, which was the fifth game in seven nights.)

But the Spurs are yet to play the Suns, the Nuggets, the Warriors, or anybody good from the East.

The one thing I noticed from 82games that Petey referred to above is that Garnett is playing 74% of his team's minutes and Tim Duncan is playing 60% of his team's minutes. (Adjust for Tim missing two games, and the total is probably about a 10% difference.) Over the course of the regular season, that is the equivalent of playing 8-12 more games per season.

This is a key stretch for seeing where the Spurs really are, with something like 7 games in a row against WC play-off teams last year. And it has started off very nicely with wins against the Mavs and Jazz without Duncan. But there is no reason for "Yikes!" when thinking about the Spurs. They are who we thought they were. They hit midseason form very quickly because everyone is back from last season. But their schedule thus far has been far from brutal.

Posted by Curtis | December 10, 2007 3:17 PM

"But there is no reason for "Yikes!" when thinking about the Spurs."

Of course your team is in the hunt, Curtis. Your team is in the hunt every year. That's why we all hate them. (Along with the fact that they employ war criminals like Bruce Bowen and Robert Horry, of course.)

Posted by Petey | December 10, 2007 3:56 PM

The chart directly reveals defensive performance relative to "league average" not "median."

Right, the author meant 'mean' not 'median'. The defensive performances of each team, as measured by points per possession, are deviations from the mean.

Posted by Alex | December 10, 2007 4:08 PM

And apropos of nothing, I'll nominate Jim O'Brien for Coach of the Year. He did a great job in Boston, a great job in Philly, and he's doing a great job in Indy.

Gunshots aside, he's finally made Jamaal Tinsley into the player everyone has always thought he could be.

They don't have the personnel to be a serious team this year, but O'Brien will get them nicely into the playoffs.

Posted by Petey | December 10, 2007 4:21 PM

And apropos of nothing, I'll nominate Jim O'Brien for Coach of the Year. He did a great job in Boston, a great job in Philly, and he's doing a great job in Indy.

I second that. When he was in Boston, he couldn't deal with Danny Ainge. A sentiment with which I wholeheartedly agree: my first thought when O'Brien left was "can't we keep him and get rid of Ainge...?"

Posted by petr | December 10, 2007 4:36 PM

I don't want to be the one to tell Paul Pierce, who's listed as 6'7" and who has to look up to Davis, that he's really only 6'5"

I think it's pretty widely understood that all NBA players are listed at roughly two inches above their actual heights. I have no idea why.

Posted by Antid Oto | December 10, 2007 4:40 PM

"When he was in Boston, he couldn't deal with Danny Ainge. A sentiment with which I wholeheartedly agree: my first thought when O'Brien left was "can't we keep him and get rid of Ainge...?"

Whoa, there.

In light of how things look at the present moment, I'd be semi-willing to believe that Ainge has been following a brilliant strategic gameplan this whole time.

Ainge stockpiled talent and made it all pay off. If the goal here is to hang banners, he's made all the right moves.

If O'Brien is Coach of the Year, then Ainge is definitely Executive of the Year. (Second place to Otis Smith, with the outyears of Rashard Lewis' contract being ugly enough to not make the decision a close one.)

Posted by Petey | December 10, 2007 4:55 PM

"I think it's pretty widely understood that all NBA players are listed at roughly two inches above their actual heights."

Some are. Some aren't.

It's the rampant inconsistency in official listings that make it all interesting.

Posted by Petey | December 10, 2007 4:56 PM

I think it's pretty widely understood that all NBA players are listed at roughly two inches above their actual heights.

The Three Inch Conspiracy rears its head.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | December 10, 2007 5:11 PM

I thought Tim Duncan was supposed to be actually 7'0", but wanted to be listed as 6'11" because seven footers are centers and, goshdarnit, Timmy's a power forward.

Posted by Al | December 10, 2007 5:12 PM

Lots of players, everyone seems to agree, are listed as being an inch or two taller than they actually are. Most players are listed with their height in shoes (which gives an average boost of 1.25", I think). A few players, like Duncan and Garnett, are thought to be taller than they're listed (and Garnett in particular I've seen as the object of jokes about standing 6'13"). I have no idea what to make of any of this. I'm 6'1", so in sneakers I'm almost 6'3". Am I as tall as Baron Davis? AI is supposed to be 6'1", but no one thinks he is, so is he 6'1" in sneakers, or is he even shorter? I need to go stand next to some NBA players to get a baseline.

What I think is so funny is that they measure everybody at the combine and people like Chad Ford move draft prospects around in their rankings because it turns out that Al Horford was a legit 6'10" (which means that barefoot he's 6'8.5" or something) and not 6'8" like everybody thought - and yet it seems to be routinely understood that this information isn't actually accurate or worth much at all.

Posted by Quarterican | December 10, 2007 5:45 PM

Concerning players' listed heights: It sometimes seems that players heights are tweaked to correspond to their position, or skills. Charles Barkley was listed at 6'6", and there is no way he was more than about 6'4.5", which obviously makes his inside play all the more impressive. Both Duncan and Garnett seem reluctant to be listed as seven feet hbecause, as noted earlier, they're not "centers". Garnett, in particular, is even taller than Duncan. Dennis Rodman was listed at 6'8", but was barely taller than the 6'6" Jordan. Maybe some players don't want to be thought of as freaks, in either direction. Iverson is listed at six feet even, but he's not even that tall. And as a Celtics fan who sat close enough to the court "back in the day" to see players standing next to each other, the 6'11" Bill Walton had a couple of inches on the seven foot Robert Parish.

Perhaps the old phrase "you can't coach height" might not be so true after all.

Posted by jonfifeer | December 10, 2007 6:18 PM

Heh---before I remembered this was Matt's pad I thought this was a chart of 2007 baseball team defensive efficiency rankings and was going to comment that (a) it's Colorado, not Denver, and (b) #2 Boston and #1 Colorado need to be switched, although the numbers look about right (Rockies were something like 70 fielding runs above average, a sick number, and the Red Sox were something like 45 FRAA, a very good number). Then I remembered I was reading Matt Yglesias.

What're the odds that the two best defensive teams in two separate sports are both (a) so far ahead of the rest of the league and (b) from the same two cities? Or, rather, what're the odds that this is pure coincidence? Who knows if visitors playing at one mile elevation artificially makes both the acclimatized Nuggets and Rockies look better defensively than they really are, etc.

Posted by Jack Roy | December 10, 2007 6:44 PM

I wonder whether there aren't a whole range of confounding factors that influence this chart, such as:

1) Offensive efficiency of teams faced,
2) Percentage of possessions played during a "foregone-conclusion" fourth quarter with scrubs on the floor;
3) Er, there must be others...

Anyways, it seems to me that a better metric would construct a model that for a given possession, determines the outcome (#points scored, including zero) based on features of the possession (is the game a lost cause, what is the offensive team, etc.). Then you basically ask "to what degree does team X's average performance on their defensive possessions, outstrip the averaged, expected, summed performance of all other teams that could have taken X's place on that list of possessions?"

(The "averaged, expected, summed" is intentional though awkward: it refers to the average of an average of sums)

Well, anyway.

Posted by mk | December 10, 2007 6:59 PM

why would the celtics/nuggets be an especially entertaining finals?
i'm biased, but i'd like to see garnett/duncan in a showdown, to determine once and for all the best power forward of the last decade or so.

Posted by jamie | December 10, 2007 8:25 PM

That Denver defense stat looks suspicious to me and I don't think they rebound well enough to get to the finals. And finally, George Karl is the worst "good: coach in the L. Going by past experience, I would not trust him to not screw it up, even presupposing htat the nuggets are anywhere good enough to be a contender. I like AI though, and Camby.

Posted by cw | December 10, 2007 9:00 PM

"why would the celtics/nuggets be an especially entertaining finals?"

Because Iverson and Garnett are the two iconic players of their generation to never win a title, and one of them would have to win.

Because so many players on both teams have come close. Iverson, Camby, and Martin lost in the Finals. Garnett, Allen, and Pierce lost in the conference finals.

Because they're two fresh squads on the national scene, despite all the familiar names.

Because I want to see Camelo and Nene shine on the big stage, because I want to see Linas Kleiza become a household name, and I because I really want to see Bubbachuck win one.

Posted by Petey | December 11, 2007 6:45 AM

teams that haven't won a couple playoff series the previous year do not win it all in their first playoff romp (at least, not in the past couple decades). instead, teams almost always need seasoning, a year or two to gel, and significant playoff success.

so there's little reason to think a team like the celtics can do it, let alone the nuggets. the celtics obviously have a far better shot, only have to get through a fairly weak division, but i just don't see the nuggets getting out of the west absent injuries to duncan, nash, howard, etc. (aren't you the same dude who claimed last year the nuggets would beat the spurs? how'd that work out for you?)

Posted by dj superflat | December 11, 2007 5:55 PM