[2016] The Finals

[SacTownKid]

That's just circumstance. We agree that the Cavaliers won because of defense; it just so happens that the only way that they could defend the Warriors' small ball is with small players. If they'd had the personnel to defend Golden State's small ball with larger players, like Oklahoma City does, like Minnesota appears to be trying to build towards, they would have. And, even then, they still took fewer threes as the stakes got higher in the playoffs, and won playing a lot of what essentially amounted to bully-ball on offense; they just happen to have the one of the very few guys in the modern NBA that you could play at small-ball center, and still play bully-ball with... which was my point.

Yeah, the Cavaliers ran a lot of screen/roll, too, but they were running screen/roll to get layups and dunks, and the other guys were running screen/roll to get twenty-five-foot jumpers, and the percentages finally caught up with them.

Yeah, and they got some good looks from 3 out of it too. The Cavs used screen and roll for the same reason the Warriors do, they did it to create a mismatch for James. When the Warriors had Ezeli out there, they ran screen and roll so they'd be stuck with a big on a "small" and yes, James abused him. He got a 3 point foul on him via a pump fake, and the next play they reset a screen to get the same match up.

This isn't an anomaly by any stretch, and yes, some teams have stayed big with success in switching. If you go back to Miami a few years back with James, they essentially ran the same pick and roll scheme when he played a lot at PF. However, they ran into the Spurs and Mavs who switched with success and that's how they beat the Heat. The Warriors undoing was what their undoing usually is: living by the 3, and turning the ball over at the worst possible times. If the Warriors and Cavs are the teams to beat, being able to switch to at least some degree, or play tight on pick and roll is your best shot.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

I'm sorry, but allowing 100+ points per game is not considered a "solid defense"...
And allowing 100+ points per game is not going to get you a lot of championships (just ask the Warriors, who allowed 100+ points per game this season)

Points per game is not only a poor indicator but a laughably bad indicator of the strength of a defense. Just ask those very Golden State Warriors, who allowed 104.1 ppg this year, but were the sixth-best defense in the league. Or the Warriors last year, who allowed 99.9 ppg (hey, that's essentially 100) and were the absolute #1 best defense in the league.

Points per game is NOT a pace-independent statistic, and that's why it's of absolutely zero use in quantifying a team's defense. Teams that play fast allow more points because there are more possessions in a game. Of actual use is DRTG, which takes pace into account. If you look at DRTG, here are the rankings for the Kings from '98-'99 to '05-'06:

'98-'99: 18
'99-'00: 10
'00-'01: 7
'01-'02: 6
'02-'03: 2
'03-'04: 21 <---- Webber hurt
'04-'05: 23
'05-'06: 11 <---- Trade for Artest

Now, I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that having the seventh-best, sixth-best, and second-best defense in the league over a three-year stretch counts as "solid". Was San Antonio better? Yes. (#2, #2, and #3 over that period) But that doesn't mean that we weren't solid. Top 1/4 of the league three years running. That's not "world-beater", but that's "solid".

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

"Some" is not the same thing as Golden State, which is what you said in your OP:

The reason the Cavs came back is because they've had most of their success when doing the same thing.

The Cavaliers and the Warriors were each running screen/roll for their best player, but that's where the similarities end, full stop. Cleveland's screen plays for LeBron James resulted in only three of his thirteen shot attempts in the second half from outside the three-point line, compared to eight of eleven attempts from three-point range for Stephen Curry; the Cavs and the Warriors were not trying to do the same thing.

How you score is not really important, anyway: that's more a matter of personal taste. What really matters is what you're able to defend.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

 

[passionforpurple916]

Points per game is not only a poor indicator but a laughably bad indicator of the strength of a defense. Just ask those very Golden State Warriors, who allowed 104.1 ppg this year, but were the sixth-best defense in the league. Or the Warriors last year, who allowed 99.9 ppg (hey, that's essentially 100) and were the absolute #1 best defense in the league.

Points per game is NOT a pace-independent statistic, and that's why it's of absolutely zero use in quantifying a team's defense. Teams that play fast allow more points because there are more possessions in a game. Of actual use is DRTG, which takes pace into account. If you look at DRTG, here are the rankings for the Kings from '98-'99 to '05-'06:

'98-'99: 18
'99-'00: 10
'00-'01: 7
'01-'02: 6
'02-'03: 2
'03-'04: 21 <---- Webber hurt
'04-'05: 23
'05-'06: 11 <---- Trade for Artest

Now, I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that having the seventh-best, sixth-best, and second-best defense in the league over a three-year stretch counts as "solid". Was San Antonio better? Yes. (#2, #2, and #3 over that period) But that doesn't mean that we weren't solid. Top 1/4 of the league three years running. That's not "world-beater", but that's "solid".

We can agree to disagree, but I still am holding firm to my stance that allowing 100+ points per game is not going to get you a lot of rings. Do we want rings? Then we have to be able to hold our teams to 90 - 95 points per game on a consistent basis (just ask San Antonio). We can score all we want, that's all fine and dandy, but, at the end of the day, it's our ability to stop the opposition from scoring points that will win us games, and eventually a championship. OK, we may have had the 7th, 6th, and 2nd best defenses from 2000 to 2003 but, other than in 2003, we were not in the top 5. I want a top 5 (top 3 if possible; heck, even a number 1) defense on a consistent basis. Because that is what will bring us those rings. Sure, offense is fun, I get that. We were a fun team to watch back then. So were the Mavs with Dirk and Steve. So were the Suns with Steve, Amare, and Shawn. But what haunted all three of us in the end (Kings, Suns, Mavs), was our inability to be able to play lock down defense when it counted. Sure, we all could put up 1o5, 110 points on the scoreboard on a nightly basis. But what good does that do to us if we are allowing just about the same number of points??????

I think Dave Joerger is going to be able to come in and get us to play the type of "solid" defense I am wanting to see at this point. And, for those of you who disagree with me, you will be pleasantly surprised at the results if he accomplishes that goal.

 

[SacTownKid]

Yeah, the Cavs used screen and roll for the same reason the Warriors do though, they did it to create a mismatch for James. When the Warriors had Ezeli out there, they ran screen and roll so they'd be stuck with a big on a "small" and yes, James abused him. He got a 3 point foul on him via a pump fake, and the next play they reset a screen to get the same match up.

This isn't an anomaly by any stretch, and yes, some teams have stayed big with success in switching. If you go back to Miami a few years back with James, they essentially ran the same pick and roll scheme when he played a lot at PF. However, they ran into the Spurs and Mavs who switched with success and that's how they beat the Heat. The Warriors undoing was what their undoing usually is: living by the 3, and turning the ball over at the worst possible times. If the Warriors and Cavs are the teams to beat, being able to switch to at least some degree, or play tight on pick and roll is your best shot.

"Some" is not the same thing as Golden State, which is what you said in your OP:

The Cavaliers and the Warriors were each running screen/roll for their best player, but that's where the similarities end, full stop. Cleveland's screen plays for LeBron James resulted in only three of his thirteen shot attempts in the second half from outside the three-point line, compared to eight of eleven attempts from three-point range for Stephen Curry; the Cavs and the Warriors were not trying to do the same thing.

How you score is not really important, anyway: that's more a matter of personal taste. What really matters is what you're able to defend.

Are you directing the "some" part to me? The quote you posted was speaking directly about going small, which they did, hence they did the same thing and matched the Warriors in the process. And they did it for the defensive reasons I stated multiple times so far.

They are both pick and roll and my original point was about how you DEFEND pick and roll. They both defend it the same way when they play smaller.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

We can agree to disagree, but I still am holding firm to my stance that allowing 100+ points per game is not going to get you a lot of rings.

Feel free to "agree to disagree" with me, but treating raw PPG as a measure of team defense without taking into account pace is like saying that a player had a great game because he scored 50 points without taking into account the fact that he shot 12% from the field.

Number of attempts matters a lot. Number of possessions matters a lot. Otherwise we could just shorten the game to 40 minutes and EVERYBODY would have a championship level defense.

 

[passionforpurple916]

Feel free to "agree to disagree" with me, but treating raw PPG as a measure of team defense without taking into account pace is like saying that a player had a great game because he scored 50 points without taking into account the fact that he shot 12% from the field.

Number of attempts matters a lot. Number of possessions matters a lot. Otherwise we could just shorten the game to 40 minutes and EVERYBODY would have a championship level defense.

My response to that part of your statement can be found towards the end of the first paragraph of the post to which you just replied. Faster pace does equal more points per game scored. But it also equal more points per game allowed. We need to slow down the pace in order to become a consistent championship contender. I don't mind us scoring 11o points per game. But if, by doing that, we are consistently giving up between 105 - 110 points per game, then it's going to eventually catch up to us, and, when we end up struggling to even score 100 points on any given night, our defense, which is used to giving up 105 - 110 points per game, is going to struggle. If we slow down the pace, take it easy on offense, we can then use that energy saved by playing a slower pace on offense, to play great defense, and shut down the other team when the game's close towards the end of the 4th quarter.

Everyone's going to disagree with me on this, I understand, but I don't like fast paced offense that leads to exciting basketball. Because that means giving up a lot on the defensive end, and I don't like seeing us giving up a lot on the defensive end.

Offense wins games. Defense wins championships. Based on that statement alone, I'd take a great defense and a mediocre offense over a good defense and a great offense any day.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Everybody is not going to disagree with you about pace, but @Capt. Factorial is correct: PPG is not an accurate indicator of defensive prowess. You can't just look at PPG and be like, "Well this team gave up 104 points per game, they're bad at defense." That's too simplistic. More reliable indicators of defensive ability are scoring margin, opponent's field goal percentage and, yes, points per 100 possessions.

If we hold our opponents to 95 PPG, but they're shooting, like, 51 percent from the field, we're not playing good defense. But no, everybody here is not, in fact, going to disagree with you about pace. Hell, we don't even all agree that fast-paced offense is exciting basketball.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

Defense wins championships.

That is one of the most misleading statements in sports. Because, as an absolute, it's factually untrue. It can be true at times. But sometimes the opposite it true as well. Offense wins championships. Numerous examples can be cited in support of it.

When was the last time a team won a 0-0 game? You can't win unless you score at least once. Nearly every team sport imaginable is centered around scoring.

What actually wins championships is scoring more points than your opponent on a consistent basis. That can be accomplished in a myriad of ways. Doesn't matter if it's 190-180 or 90-80 or 9-8.

The only reason the 100 point plateau has held consistently true in the NBA for so long is because the length of the game has remained the same and the way it is typically played didn't change too drastically. At different points in time when the rules have been tinkered with, we've seen average scoring increase or decrease accordingly. In the heart of the 90's, not many teams averaged over 100 points. So of course allowing that many didn't often result in wins.

However, with today's rules and styles being played, it's quite common to win games surrendering over 100. In fact, 11 of the 16 playoff participants this season allowed more than 100 per game.

The Warriors just won 73 games all while surrendering 104.1 per game. They advanced further than the Spurs who yielded and NBA low 92.9 per game.

When it comes to identifying the very best teams and those that usually have the best chance at winning titles, you'll find it's not PPG for or against that is key but rather point differential and points per possession on both ends of the court.

A team can overcome what is considered a high amount of points per possessions so long as they average more than that on the other end. It's that simple.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

That is one of the most misleading statements in sports. Because, as an absolute, it's factually untrue. It can be true at times. But sometimes the opposite it true as well. Offense wins championships. Numerous examples can be cited in support of it.

Well, no, it's actually always true. It's just also a meaningless tautology. Just like saying "What actually wins championships is scoring more points than your opponent" is also a meaningless tautology, because rewording that as "What actually wins championships is holding your opponent to fewer points" is equally accurate, and equally reductive. The discussion begins with the question of whether your think that offense and defense are equally important, and, if they're not equally important, which one is more important?

 

[PurpleHaze]

To quote Pat Riley from years ago: "The NBA is a make shots league." Then went further and said every pro team can make shots, it's who makes more that usually wins (shot attempts, FG%, FT%, etc.). So guess that means team with best combination of offense efficiency and defense efficiency wins more often than team doing less. Dubs found out that ultimate truth by failing to score single point in last nearly 5 minutes of game 7.

 

[John Galt]

I have always thought "defense wins championships" because defense is less likely to crumble under pressure than offense. To catch a ball or shoot a ball perfectly well when your insides are flinching under a great moment of pressure - that's hard. But to turn that adrenaline into heightened defensive intensity is easy and natural.

When the butt cheeks pucker and it's hard to make a free throw or a jump shot ... you'd better be able to make up for it by puckering the other guys worse.

No surprise to me in a huge game that nobody makes a shot down the last 4 minutes or so. The better defensive team will strangle the other one down the stretch.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

The discussion begins with the question of whether your think that offense and defense are equally important, and, if they're not equally important, which one is more important?

But that's the point. There is no correct answer.Teams have won with average defense and elite offense, average offense and elite defense, good offense and good defense, etc. There is no exact recipe for success.

Well, no, it's actually always true. It's just also a meaningless tautology. Just like saying "What actually wins championships is scoring more points than your opponent" is also a meaningless tautology, because rewording that as "What actually wins championships is holding your opponent to fewer points" is equally accurate, and equally reductive.

I disagree from the standpoint that, if you don't score at least once -- you can't win. You can play the best defense imaginable and hold your opponent scoreless the entire game (let's not factor in the possibility of defensive scores into this discussion). If your offense can't make a single play, you won't ever win. You don't have to hold a team scoreless, but you do have to score. So, in a chicken or the egg scenario, offense most certainly has to come first in the sporting world.

All rhetoric aside, the main point to all this is that there are numerous ways to win and defense first isn't the only proven way to accomplish it. Furthermore, the notion that yielding 100+ points per game can't or won't lead to many titles -- especially the way the game has and continues to change -- is far from accurate.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

Dubs found out that ultimate truth by failing to score single point in last nearly 5 minutes of game 7.

Ironically, an argument that Golden State lost due to offensive inefficiency -- not their defense can easily be made. To Slim's point, we could turnaround and say that Cleveland won because their defense shut the Warriors down the last 5 minutes and, therefore, defense won. But, IMO, I saw it more as Golden State's offense failing when it mattered most more than Cleveland really shutting them down. Sure, LeBron's block was phenomenal and both teams played very good defense in spots. But both teams also missed wide open shots and committed unforced turnovers that the defense had little to nothing to do with. Could have been fatigue, injuries, nerves or all of the above. Regardless, the Warriors offense let them down when it really mattered. And despite playing pretty good defense on the other end of the court, they still lost.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I disagree from the standpoint that, if you don't score at least once -- you can't win.

Yeah, but if you don't allow the other team to score, you can't lose... see how that works?

 

[KingsFanSince85]

Yeah, but if you don't allow the other team to score, you can't lose... see how that works?

I knew I was setup for that one immediately after I hit 'post'. Touche.

I suppose the better way to say it is that you don't have to make a single defensive play to win. Someone eventually wins a shootout where neither team can stop the other. However, you do have to make at least one play offensively. No one ever wins a 0-0 game.

 

[Npliam]

This is the best thing I have seen in a while.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Anyone know whether Austin Carr's feet have reestablished contact with the ground yet?

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Lol at this announcer during the championship parade suggesting that Kevin Love "maybe, just maybe" is now the most famous member of his family.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]