Proof positive that the Sixers problem is offense and not defense.
by RickoT on Jan 22, 2010 10:00 AM PST
Email
Print
In order to prove my point, I went back through every loss that the Sixers have had since the regular season started. In order to prove that the problem is with scoring, all did was look at the by quarter score for each game. If I found that in each loss that the Sixers underperformed that would prove my point.
What I mean by underperformance is relative, since each game is different and has a different pace. On average an NBA team scores 100 points, some score higher and others score less but the mean is 100. Therefore, 25 points for quarter is considered to be an average score. Underperformance means a significantly lower score than 25.
When I looked at the data, I found that in every game the Sixers lost they had at least one underperforming quarter. In the case of the Sixers every loss included one quarter where they managed no better than 22 points. 3 points off doesn't seem like a lot but that turns out to be a 12 point loss over a full game. If you score 25, 25, 25, 22 your total is 97, if your opponent scores 25, 25, 25, 25 then your team scored 3 less. In that instance you should blame offense for the loss, not the ability to hold the other team down to your inferior production!
Conversely I also looked for any outlier scores above 25 for the other team, which would provide evidence of a defensive let down. While some teams did score more than 25, so did the Sixers, and the scores ended up over 100 for both teams. There was very little evidence to suggest that the Sixers defense is so bad that this is the reason for their losses.
Another thing that the data suggested was that the Sixers were a competitive team. Many times they were ahead at the half and is some instances by large margins. This was not completely consistent- although most of the losses were a result of a second half meltdown in some instances the team got off to a bad start. My conclusion is that the coaches player decisions have to be responsible, since in most instances the Sixers were able to score competitively at some point in the game.
Below is the data, gathered from NBA.com, I provided the score and noted which was the Sixers worst scoring quarter and when it occurred.
10-28 Orlando 120 106 2nd Quarter 41 to 20. In 4th Quarter Phila. 37 Orlando 20
11-03 Boston 105 74 All quarters were below 21 pts. All of Boston's were above except
the 1st.
11-08 Detroit 88 81 All quarters 22 points or less, Detroit won 3 of 4 quarters.
11-09 Phoenix 119 115 In spite of it being a high scoring game the Sixers managed 20
points in the 3rd, surenduring all but 2 of their 12 point lead.
11-13 Utah 112 90 Won the 1st Quarter. 18 and 19 and 21 scored in final 3q's.
11-14 Chicago 94 88 2nd & 3rd, 18, 18. lost 3rd by 5, and 4th by 2 nd half failure.
11-20 Memphis 102 97 Ahead 50-49 at half. 21-29 in the 3rd, Phila. regained a bucket in
4th. 2nd half failure.
11-21 Cleveland 97 91 Ahead 81 to 75 at end of third, score 10 points to 22 in the 4th.
4th Q. failure.
11-24 Washingtn 108 107 Close game, outscored 40-29 in the 3rd. Came back 9 in the 4th.
Very bad pshycholigcal loss since a win was expected, set up by failure in 3rd.
11-25 Boston 113 110 Sixers were in this one all the way, outscored by 9 in the 4th to
lose by 3.
11-27 Atlanta 100 86 2 poor quarters, 2nd and 4th. 18, 20. Outscored in 3rd and 4th by 4
and 5.
11-29 San Ant. 97 89 19 in the 4th but ouscored SA by 1. Wrst quarter was 2nd, 29-22.
SA.
11-30 Dallas 104 102 20-29 in 2nd quarter. Phila. won 2nd half 59-47. 43 points in the
first half to 57 for Dallas was just enough. Atypical.
12-02 OKC 117 106 Sixers worst offensive quarter was 2nd, 22-25 worst defensive was
34-27 in the third. Ahead 55-54 at half.
12-05 Charlott106 105 Behind by 1 end of the half. 19-28 in the 4th.
12-07 Denver 93 83 Only decent quarter was the first, 26. Worst output was the 4th 18
pts, against Dever's best 30. 4th quarter failure.
12-09 Detroit 90 86 16 point first quarter. They lost the 3rd. 25-21, the difference in
the game.
12-11 Houston 91 96 13 pts. to 28 for Houston in the third.
Losing streak ends.
12-16 Cleveland108 101 21-25 in the 4th quarter. Sixers won the 2nd by 1. Trailed by 6 at
the half.
12-19 LAC 112 107 18-30 Clippers in the first. Never looked back.
12-22 Wash 105 98 19-33 in the 4th.
12-26 Utah 97 76 12-25 in the 4th. Sixers scored 39 pts. in the first half. And got
worse!
12-31 LAC 104 88 14-29 in the 3rd. Ahead by 2 at the half.
01-05 Wash 104 97 17-26 in the 4th. Ahead by 14 at the half.
01-08 Toronto 108 106 21-25 in the 4th. In spite of being in it the whole game, they got
outscored in the end. Ahead 60-40 at the half.
01-13 NY 93 92 24-25 in the 4th. Same failure, just a smaller advantage because
the Knicks are a bad team.
01-18 Minn. 108 103 18-33 in the 3rd. 57-40 Sixers at the half.
01-20 Portland 98 90 Portland won every quarter, xcept the 3rd. 22-27 in the 4th.
Another user-created commentary provided by a Liberty Ballers reader.
27 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
No, this is not proof positive, this is a bunch of numbers and your opinion with no analysis of the information.
Plus – the knicks right now are a better team than the sixers
If you want to try and find ‘proof positive’ – start here
http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2010/d_de.htm
Of course the fact that the sixers have the 17th most efficient offense but 24th most efficient defense is kind of contrary to your ‘proof positive’ – proof positive means there is no negative information available and yet there it is – the offense is middle of the road efficiency where as the defense in the bottom 3rd
by jemagee on Jan 22, 2010 10:07 AM PST reply actions
Efficiency numbers are garbage, aren’t the whole story. All it takes is looking at the scores to see that the Sixers score below average once a game in a quarter. Every time they lose!
It doesn’t matter how efficient they are at it, what matters is how many points they put up! This may mean that the problem is turnovers, but whatever the cause, they aren’t scoring!
I can’t help it if you can’t think. These scores are the raw evidence and in every loss there is an outlier score below the mean. On a statistical basis it’s a no-brainer. A direct correlation between a low score for the Sixers and a win for the other team with very few wins coming from a team blowing the Sixers out and scoring well above the mean.
It doesn’t matter how efficient they are at it, what matters is how many points they put up!
The two are related, if you can’t see how they’re related (or don’t care to bother to look past the weird way you analyze numbers) that’s fine…but stop presenting faulty research that you claim some how unequivocally proves your point.
The majority of available numbers accepted by most (as opposed to whatever you were doing here – but it sounds like selective analysis to me) indicate that the sixers problems are defensive.
You don’t want that to be true, because, as far as most of us can tell, it would mean more minutes for Mareese Speights. You are either his mother, father or agent with the amount of pimping you apply to him – 25 ppg really? How many players in the NBA average over 25 points per game? This year – there are 7 players average 25PPG or more and they are names like Wade, James, Ellis, etc…25 PPG is rare air in the NBA and I’ve probably been pro speights on the sixers since before you knew he existed at UF – but even I don’t think 25 PPG is achievable for him…It’s a more ludicrous assertion than saying “Holiday can be as good as Chris Paul” (you didn’t say that, I know, because if I don’t qualify it you’ll say you didn’t say it, missing the broader point)
The sixers problems are defensive, even Ed Stefanski says so
There are only two people I know of who don’t think that way
You
and the head coach
by jemagee on Jan 22, 2010 10:58 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Why is Offensive Efficiency the end all and be all of comparative statistics? You are missing the point. Whatever the cause, the data shows that in every loss the Sixers have scored less than 23 points in one quarter. That is a statistical fact with a 100% correlation. It didn’t happen just once or twice, but in every loss!
That is direct evidence that the problem is with offense!
Why that happens is up for debate. I contend it’s the coach and his bad line-ups and his overuse of some players and under- use of others. I guess your contention is that they don’t defend, but where in the scoring do you see any evidence of this. Clearly the other team has to score more to win, but it’s not that hard to do when your team is always coming up short. With so many losses coming late in the game, when the Sixers enjoyed a good lead, it indicates that teams are able to stop the Sixers from scoring, and the Sixers failed to adjust.
Also you’re misrepresenting the truth, the paper has reported on Jordan emphasizind defense in practice, so you are the one agreeing with him.
After looking through the losses, there was one other conclusion I came too, which is that Ed Stefanski has been way too tolerant of Eddie. The losing streak that started in December and continued through to January should have been enough. But when the Sixers would win a game, and actually look like a team, they would quickly revert back to their old ways and start losing again. To me this is proof that the potential is there for them to be a better team, as are the players individual statistics from past seasons. They are underperforming, and the failure is still on the offensive end during half-court possessions. If you could break down offensive efficiency for those specific situations, I bet it would prove my point.
I didn’t say it was the end all and be all of comparative statistics – what I said was it’s better than the information you provided.
What you provided is not statistics, or analysis, or comparative, it’s raw data and you used it to force your hypothesis through – not vice versa – you committed the primary cardinal sin of statistics and you weren’t even using statistics to do it.
Did you know that the sixers worst performing quarter in terms of point differential is the third quarter?
You’d say that was the offense
I’d say it’s one coach tends to adjust and the other one doesn’t
There are numerous ways to analyze offense and defense (points per game isn’t one of them though) – and pretty much all of them will show you that the sixers defens is a bigger weakness than the offense.
More importantly, go back to Washington and see that the Wizards bigger problems was their defense, not the offense.
You start to see a pattern form…
You already made your conclusion and you want to force your ‘analysis’ to fit it – that’s fine – do that
But don’t expect to be taken seriously by thoughtful people (albeit many sixer fans online aren’t thoughtful people) and don’t try and over state your ‘discoveries’ and ‘proof positive’ – you ignored a plethora of available information because it disproves your point.
It’s like telling me since the sixers ‘had more rebounds’ than the other team they had a good night on the boards even if they had a defensive rebounding rate of 60%
You think we all just dismiss your ideas here, and we don’t, you just don’t present any compelling evidence, you use your opinion, make it fact, and then when people ask you to prove things you get indignant and upset and start saying things liek ’it’s obvious to everyone’….why should anyone take you seriously when you don’t respect any opinion that is counter to your own and you don’t present persuasive arguments.
Your opinion is ignored on dereks blog (except by one guy, and trust me, that’s not a great lending to your cause) and no one agrees with you there either…maybe on philaphans they’ll agree with you – you’ll find a much less thoughtful fan base
by jemagee on Jan 22, 2010 11:46 AM PST up reply actions
Nothing is better than looking at points and point differential to see which team is best, in my opinion.
But raw scoring is data, and it is still a fact that in every loss the team scores less than 25. A 100% correlation staring you in the face. I didn’t create the scores, and I didn’t exclude any of the games they lost.
This is direct observation and a conclusion based on a common occurrence. At this point it isn’t an opinion any longer. Does the raw scoring support my hypothesis or doesn’t it?
Your data isn’t better, it just supports your bias. Statistics like offensive efficiency are based on scoring. However they’re doing it, it isn’t enough. Obviously if they scored more they could close the gap, just as if they improved their defense. But they don’t score 100 or close to it in every game, even games where their opponents pace indicates the opportunity.
More importantly, you have yet to say anything about what you would do differently to improve the team. I rarely see anything thoughtful from you at all. Ignorant, venomous, insulting. Really a wonderful human being.
Nothing is better than looking at points and point differential to see which team is best, in my opinion.
Well, in the opinion of many many others (many who do statistical analysis for a living and have the resumes to back up their analysis) they whole heartedly disagree with you…
BTW ‘raw scoring’ – thus raw data – raw data doesn’t prove anything – unless it’s analyzed properly – and there is no indication of any kind of analysis here.
Jesus rick, you’re being bitch slapped by rickypryor who I agree with less than I agree with you – that alone should be an indication of how off the mark you are.
The hardest and most intelligent thing any person can do is admit when they’re wrong.
It’s a tough lesson to learn…I hope you learn it some day.
Took me a long while – I think I was like 33 or something.
by jemagee on Jan 22, 2010 12:41 PM PST up reply actions
Considering the statistical correlation between the team with the greatest point differential and the eventual NBA champion, I couldn’t care less who agrees with me and who doesn’t. This is based on simple observation over many years.
Just what would you construe as proper analysis to determine whether the problem is with defense or offense?
You have yet to refute any point using logic or anything else. You just say “you’re wrong” and back it with nothing.
Here’s even more info to support my contention, for this season the Sixers are averaging 97.82 good for 22nd in the NBA. Defensively they are giving up 101.02 pts. per game, and are ranked 17th. So based on their actual scoring their offense is ranked lower than their defense. Defensively they are slightly below average.
You are correct about one thing, raw data doesn’t prove anything-unless it’s analyzed properly, but the same is true of any data. If there’s a flaw in my analysis what is it?
I don’t value opinions, I value the truth and use logic as a tool to determine the truth. I’m happy to admit that I’m wrong when I am. You have yet to use a cogent argument.
A cogent argument is used to disprove a cogent argument – there’s a reason I don’t ever have to use cogent arguments from you.
If you keep using ‘points per game’ as your argument – it’s not cogent – it’s the equivalent of using batting average
by jemagee on Jan 22, 2010 3:59 PM PST up reply actions
It’s not just point per game, they have to be “normalized” by comparison to the mean with allowance for variance in pace for a given game. But statistically, what exactly is wrong with comparing points per game scored and allowed? And specifically in this context.
Statistics are just derivatives of points scored and allowed. Thinking that they supply more information, isn’t necessarily so. It’s pretty clear that statistics don’t provide enough information in any case. I think some of the necessary data isn’t even captured, or recognized as significant.
Anyone can watch a game and see what’s going on. I watch the Sixers and when they’re on offense, I think wow, they really suck! For who they are and what they should be capable of, they just don’t execute. That is a sign of a bad coach, that he can’t install an offense that works with this group.
The real bottom line for this team is offense, if they can’t score in a half-court game, they can’t win in the playoffs anyway. No matter what they do on defense, that will still be the case.
There were 13 games wednesday. Know how many teams scored 25+ points in all of the 4 quarters?
0. 0 out of 26.
In fact, nobody’s accomplished that feet at all this week. 0-58.
Someone smarter than me found that information.
by jemagee on Jan 22, 2010 3:11 PM PST reply actions
And behind all the misdirection and bullshit, this is the crux of the anti-Rick argument. You will not find a single team that scores 25+ points every single quarter. It’s just not going to happen. And if you can’t see past the most basic statistic of points per game then there really is no hope in having any sort of argument with you, be it cogent or incoherent.
by Michael Levin on Jan 22, 2010 6:52 PM PST up reply actions
Like I said earlier – the count is up to about 282 games I think.
by jemagee on Jan 22, 2010 6:56 PM PST up reply actions
There are 15 teams that average over 100 points per game. In any individual game they might not score 25, but over the whole game it obviously averages that or more. That is not the case with the Sixers.
The argument always has been, “they don’t score enough points”. There’s no misdirection at all.
Statistically using their ppg stats, they are worse offensively than defensively. They don’t average 100 points scoring and they give up more than that. Obviously you need both to win, but for this team, offense is where they are weakest and where I think they can realize the greatest improvment in their chance for winning.
All you keep saying is no, it’s the defense, but you can’t back it with anything. And neither one of you has a plan for making this current team better. If you think the Coach is a moron, fine, but what would you do differently? And for that matter, why does it bother you so much that Offense is their real problem?
I’ve used so many stats to back up my point that it’s actually sad. You, on the other hand, look at points, piss yourself, then ramble about whatever faulty logic you feel you’ve come up with.
by Michael Levin on Jan 23, 2010 6:19 AM PST up reply actions
It’s not our job to prove yor hypothesis wrong, it’s yours to prove it right – and you haven’t
by jemagee on Jan 25, 2010 1:43 PM PST up reply actions
Of course the argument changes, standard troll behavior.
A. Ignore all evidence presented that contradicts yours
B. Change the direction of the argument to something entirely different
C. When A & B fail – resort to name calling and ‘hateration’
Rinse Lather Repeat
by jemagee on Jan 22, 2010 9:13 PM PST up reply actions
Hey I heard the Warriors are a good team because they average over 100 points per game…
I also heard the Blazers are a bad team because they have one of the slowest paces…
And yet, I even heard that defensive efficiency should be completely ignored when factoring in a team’s performance.
Any other wonderful write ups?
games are won by point differentials not by scoring alot of point.
i understand your arguement but your going about it wrong and yes it is frustrating when they can score. but if you look at the quarters that they cant score they are getting scored on. in the nba the truth is every game each team has a run. the team that wins is ussually the team that can slow that run. every team that has won a championship has had an above average defense and teams that usually score a lot of points tend to give up more than they score. if i score 100 per game and sacrifice my defense (and with this team its one or the other) and give up 101 points per game we still lose
by killacaravagio on Jan 24, 2010 11:14 PM PST reply actions
First off, let me agree with you. “Games are won by point differentials, not by scoring a lot of points.” That is correct in my view. In fact, I use the point differential to see which teams are the best. The team with the greatest spread between their offense and defense, with offense being higher of course, is the best team. Injuries and the like can interfere with this, as can late season additions.
Every team in the NBA has runs. The issue is what are the characteristics of a run and can a team change the way it plays to improve the number of runs in their favor, and reduce the ones by the other team.
In my opinion, the data suggested that at times the team simply stopped scoring, but they had the same players who were successful earlier in the game. That begged the question, what changed?
What changed was the other teams style of play. Opposing coaches realized by half-time, if not sooner, that they couldn’t win a track meet with the Sixers. They invariably slowed the game down and threw a zone at the Sixers. The Sixers would stop scoring and start throwing up outside shots. I categorized this as offensive failure, and if you watched these games and saw the same thing happen, I think you would come to the same conclusion. From the boxscore all you see is a series of misses. When you see the game, most are outside shots.
The only thing that has changed is the new line-up, which provides better rebounding and interior defense. It also gave us a strong scoring option in the middle with either Brand or Speights, players who can get in the middle of a zone and get and entry pass and score! The ability to score in the half court was the ingredient that was missing.
2 games is too small a data set to draw conclusions from. But the ability to score in a half-court against a set defense is the most significant change produced by the new line-up. I say this, because prior to this they were unable to score with any consistency. In the past two games, scoring has gone up and so has rebounding. Shooting percentage has not improved, nor has efficiency. But scoring is up and opposing teams points are down. I think the better offense, reducing missed shots and minimizing fast-break opportunities for the other team is what is going on here.
I said they didn’t score enough, which implies that their defense wasn’t working either. I concluded offense was the problem because it could be more easily addressed,and believed a better offense would really put pressure on the opposing team. The new line-ups are bigger in the middle, which helps on both ends. Thad doesn’t play the starting 4 any longer. The team is scoring more and not being stopped for any length of time by the opposing teams. This in turn is helping the Sixers defense.
I never meant to imply that defense should be sacrificed. In my view a better defense feeds a better offense and vice-versa.
Fewer breakdowns on offense mean fewer easy baskets for the other team. As long as the Sixers can score confidently regardless of the defense or circumstances, their defense should be sufficient to win games. But better defense never hurts! What can hurt is the coaches choice, how many players to you have run back to defend on a miss, and how many do you have stay to get that 2nd chance shot. With the new line-ups they can afford to keep a big back to battle for the rebound. Nothing breaks a team down worse than an ability to get the ball before the opposing team scores. If you miss 10 times but keep control of the ball and ahead of the shot clock and then score, you’ve made good use of your possession. You’ve also sapped the energy out of the opposing team.
you say like 20 things which make tons of sense, but in the end it sounds like you are suggesting
that if in quarter A you score 20 points, and in quarter B you score 25 points, then your offense was de facto better in quarter B. you may be right in many cases, but for the wrong reasons. for instance, if you used 16 possessions in quarter A and 23 possessions to get your points in B, then your offense, while less voluminous in A, was superior there. points are important, but so are possessions used, which is why pace adjusted offensive and defensive efficiency stats, which elegantly combine the two, are so great.
"Oooohhh, cat in the wall, eh? Now you're talkin' my language."
You have a point, but I don’t make assumptions like that. As you say, pace and efficiency have to be considered with offense, or you aren’t getting the whole picture.
I’m trying to keep things simple not just to prove my point, but because it’s easier to get a handle on what is happening.
When not enough points are being scored, you have to look at why. With a team that has a number of decent scorers on it, the Sixers should do better. That is just my opinion. But the Sixers have shown the ability to score at a very efficient rate, like they did in the first half of the game with the Pacers. 59 points at 60% shooting is very good. Since they can do that, why did they end up shooting 27% in the 2nd half?
The explanation came from watching the game. The Pacers changed their defense and they way they attacked the basket. The Sixers didn’t use anything close to the same line-ups that worked so well, and the coach never made any adjustments to alter the game in their favor.
You could use all the metrics you talk about to show you what happened, but not the why. The why comes from seeing the game. The why is the coach is a moron. Proof: Since the game the coach has emphasized defense in practice. This after scoring only 39 points on less than 30% shooting. And he thinks the problem is defense. He is a complete tool. No matter how good their defense was, there was no way they could win scoring 39 points!
Sorry Ricko
I’ve got to agree with John on this one…you’re not really presenting “statistics”, just a bunch of raw data. Besides, to quote homer simpson :"Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that."
by SexualTyrannosaurus on Feb 3, 2010 2:24 PM PST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Hamed Haddadi goes to the zoo
- David Stern changed the competition committee to push new rules, report says
- Nazr Mohammed films Oklahoma City Thunder fans welcoming the team back at 5:30 in the morning (VIDEO)
- The Orlando Magic finally part ways with both Stan Van Gundy and GM Otis Smith
- Mike D’Antoni breaks silence on New York Knicks exit: ‘An obstacle had to be removed’
