« The best sentence I read today (so far) | Main | Department of Oh-Oh, a continuing series »
Has NBA defense become less important?
Matt Yglesias has read Aristotle:
I concede that the new [NBA] rules have made it harder to play defense. I fail to see, though, how that makes defense less important. Two factors determine who wins a basketball game: how many points your team scores and how many points the other team scores. Since you have the ball roughly half the time and the other team has the ball roughly half the time, it stands to reason that offense and defense should have exactly the same importance. You could even argue that, in an era when it's easier to score than to defend, a guy who can stop the other team from scoring is more valuable than someone who can put the ball in the basket.
Amen, and try putting that last point into a Solow model-like framework. That all said, I don't understand why there are so few good centers these days. Why is there no Bob Lanier? Is the pay too low? Surely people are not shorter than thirty years ago.
While we are on the topic, I'll offer up my yearly predictions and opt for San Antonio. Their new 30-year-old big lug seems able to play center, they have the game's best power forward, lots of title experience, and an excellent backcourt. Plus they can play defense.
Addendum: A reader sends in this excellent commentary.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on November 14, 2006 at 04:01 PM in Sports | Permalink
Comments
It doesn't even matter if you have the ball 50% of the time. In the whole NBA offense and defense must be equally important if you assume all of basketball is either offense or defense. Everything the offense does well is good for the offense. If the defense prevents the offense from doing something it must be equally good for the offense as it is for the defense, no?
Posted by: josh at Nov 14, 2006 4:14:39 PM
This reminds me of when I was briefly interested in arena football. The scores were typically like 52-48, and the important plays always turned out to be interceptions/fumbles late in the game. When it's easy to score, players who cause turnovers are hugely valuable, and players who turn the ball over are huge liabilities, even if they're good scorers.
Posted by: Foobarista at Nov 14, 2006 4:16:41 PM
The reason why there aren't as many centers anymore is because the game has become faster and more athletic. The stock of not that coordinated, not very athletic 7 foot tall people is undoubtably about the same as it was 40 years ago. But the usefulness of such a player on the court has been reduced almost to 0.
Posted by: BillWallace at Nov 14, 2006 5:46:24 PM
Josh's comment reminds me a little of that Casey Stengel quip: "Good pitching will always stop good hitting, and vice-versa."
Posted by: Matthew McCormick at Nov 14, 2006 6:05:27 PM
Hmm.. I'm not convinced. While they may both actually still matter, capping defensive ability has the effect of reducing the variability (It should at least get rid of the outliers). If how much a team scores has nothing to do with who they play against, then offense really is that much more important.
Posted by: agent00yak at Nov 14, 2006 6:19:30 PM
I agree with agent00yak. Obviously its the relative variability of the two abilities that determines which is more important.
Posted by: Kevin Nowell at Nov 14, 2006 7:08:17 PM
NBA players haven't gotten on any taller over the last 20 years -- the mean has been a little over 6'-7" since the mid-80s.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Nov 14, 2006 7:38:41 PM
even if there no longer are many great centers in the NBA -- query whether that's true, when timmy, KG, and dirk likely should be counted as centers -- you only win in the nba, post-jordan, with a great center, whether it's shaq, ben, or timmy/admiral. so NBA teams still should be looking for great centers, even though they seem not to put much priority on it.
Posted by: dj superflat at Nov 14, 2006 7:51:18 PM
Having the ball approximately 50% of the time doesn't wash. Although we're talking about two teams, we're really talking about 4 parts to an equation. Thus, a team whose strength is on defense will be handicapped against a good run and gun team. Which I suppose is the point, run and gun sells more tickets. But to the point, if one takes a superior offense and a good but not great defense, add to that rules that impede this defense, and it is unlikely that ball possession will work out to 50/50.
This assumes that these two teams are biased; one towards offense, the other towards defense. Which, again, is the overall point to any rule changes favoring the offense, to force teams to adopt faster, more exciting game plans. Which explains the lack of great centers today.
Posted by: Ray G at Nov 14, 2006 8:29:06 PM
No matter what the rules are, it almost always is the case that defense matters much more than offense, since a good defense gives an advantage to their own team's offense but it doesn't work as well the other way around, and because it's usually easier for average offenses to score on average defenses than for great offenses to score on great defenses.
Posted by: Hei Lun Chan at Nov 14, 2006 9:41:48 PM
The reason there are no good centers anymore is that the same skills that make a good center also make good NFL tight ends.
Posted by: Xmas at Nov 15, 2006 8:19:28 AM
For anyone really interested in the topic of varitaion in sports, I recommend Stephen Jay Gould's Full House, which applies evolutionary theory to sports.
Posted by: Ted Craig at Nov 15, 2006 8:58:35 AM
Hei Lun Chan - On the defense helping the offense, I assume you're talking about rebounding and fast breaking? I think that's a good observation. I wonder if a "non-fast break offensive efficiency" rating would be helpful (if possible to calculate).
On the idea of variation: the argument that if a standard dev. on offense is worth more than a standard dev. on defense makes sense; does it matter what investment is required to achieve that standard dev? What if the same investment (in talent, coaching, etc.) can acquire 1 SD in Offense but 1.2 SD of Defense?
Posted by: T_Porter at Nov 15, 2006 9:24:51 AM
Any discussion of the NBA should distinguish between the regular season and the playoffs. Winning 55% of regular season games is not a big penalty from winning 60% of regular season games (both will make the playoffs). Home court is nice, but the Spurs lost to Dallas in the playoffs last year despite winning the division. See Wes Unseld and the Bullets of the late '70s.
Far more important is the ability to execute in the fourth quarter when the refs change how the game is monitored. There is more than one way to achieve this. (1) You can have a star player that the NBA refs will refuse to allow the other team to play defense against. Most recently, the Mavs were not permitted to play defense against D.Wade in the fourth quarter after game 2 but the Mavs can't complain because Dirk got similar benefits in other series. (2) You can have a player that is permitted to aggressively defend (grab and hold) when other players are not. Most recently, Bruce Bowen fills this role. The point is, the NBA's star system is great for marketing but makes it very difficult to know what will work in the 4th quarter because the 4th quarter in the playoffs will be policed completely differently from the 4th quarter in the regular season.
Posted by: evm at Nov 15, 2006 9:55:47 AM
I can not stand to watch the NBA for one reason and that is they do not play defense. If they were to play even just a little bit of defense there would be no way the score would break above a hundred points in every game. Yeah i know that the skill level in the NBA is as high or even higher then it has been in the past but in the past teams also focused on pplaying defense and not just seeing who could shoot the most three-pointers and the best dunks. If i was a coach i would focus mainly on defense because almost anyone can be a good shooter but if someone could be a good shooter and a great defensman then they would by far be the best player in the NBA.
Posted by: John B. at Nov 15, 2006 11:30:56 AM
John B.:
I'm assuming you are referring to how the NBA has always been, and not its current state.
Watch some Classic Sports from the 80's -- it's a bunch of guys in short-shorts standing around while their opponents take open jumpers.
Rarely did anyone get covered outside the paint until Pat Riley coached the Knicks and turned the NBA's style on its head. Scores were usually in double-figures, on both teams, until the league adjusted the rules.
As far as the centers go, there are many amazing big men -- Garnett, Nowitzki, Gasol -- whose offensive skills would be wasted by having them in the pivot.
Also, it's partly just statistical "noise" -- after all, ten years ago, we had four active centers (Olajuwon, Shaq, Ewing, David Robinson) who were in the top 50 NBA players of all time (or at least the official list).
Posted by: Joe Grossberg at Nov 15, 2006 1:30:47 PM
Show me a 7' tall NFL tight end, Xmas. I thought that Gates (Chargers), Gonzalez (Chiefs) et al. were 6'8-ish. That's NBA power forward-sized, not NBA first-string centre-sized.
Posted by: Alex Mackenzie at Nov 15, 2006 1:47:14 PM
Date Range: 1999-2004
Intercept: .473
OFF_POINTS/PACE coeff : .0385
DEF_POINTS/PACE coeff : -.0382
Posted by: Mark Nau at Nov 15, 2006 2:06:01 PM
This got covered in the comments when Matt made the same argument on his blog a few months ago. The main conclusion (at least on my side of the argument): the relative importance of offense and defense is an empirical question, not a logical one. In a free-throw shooting contest, for instance, offense would be much more important than defense. Even though your team would be on defense half the time, your defensive performance (e.g. at distracting shooters) wouldn't have much impact on scoring. In the NBA, though, it happens to be the case that offense and defense are about equally important.
The impact of a rule change that increases scoring is also an empirical question. It could make offense more important relative to defense, or it could make offense less important relative to defense, or it could have no impact on the relative importance of offense and defense. You have to look at the data, or at least consider relevant empirical factors, as Matt does when he claims that the rule change hasn't made the defensive role that Wallace plays any less important, and that it may even have made it more important. You can't just assert that basketball is still half defense and deny that any rule change could possibly alter that.
Posted by: Dan at Nov 15, 2006 5:09:59 PM
For starters Antonio Gates is all of 6’4” and TE’s in general are more 6’6” –ish. The reason for the demise of the center is the style of play. By shortening the shot clock and encouraging the a running attack your are limiting a centers offensive role, establishing themselves in the low post while a play develops to utilize the position they have gained. They are unable to keep up with the increasing pace of the game and become winded more quickly. Thus the center position has evolved into a hybrid position that often is much more defensive minded, Ben Wallace being the epitome.
Regardless of the rules changes the importance of defense will never lessen. A team that can play stifling defense can force turnovers and frustrate an opposing offense to the point it begins to give points away. Defense has changed to take advantage of the changes in offense, it now has more influence on winning the track meet back down the court to gain position before the offense has a chance to break to the basket. But the main reason for its greater importance is that putting a round ball in slightly larger round hole is not the easiest thing to do. Doing it with some pest constantly hampering you is nearly impossible. Basically its easier to defend the basket than to attack it, regardless of how they bend the rules, because even if you do get open you still must execute precisely.
Posted by: ryan at Nov 15, 2006 5:25:58 PM
For starters Antonio Gates is all of 6’4” and TE’s in general are more 6’6” –ish. The reason for the demise of the center is the style of play. By shortening the shot clock and encouraging the a running attack your are limiting a centers offensive role, establishing themselves in the low post while a play develops to utilize the position they have gained. They are unable to keep up with the increasing pace of the game and become winded more quickly. Thus the center position has evolved into a hybrid position that often is much more defensive minded, Ben Wallace being the epitome.
Regardless of the rules changes the importance of defense will never lessen. A team that can play stifling defense can force turnovers and frustrate an opposing offense to the point it begins to give points away. Defense has changed to take advantage of the changes in offense, it now has more influence on winning the track meet back down the court to gain position before the offense has a chance to break to the basket. But the main reason for its greater importance is that putting a round ball in slightly larger round hole is not the easiest thing to do. Doing it with some pest constantly hampering you is nearly impossible. Basically its easier to defend the basket than to attack it, regardless of how they bend the rules, because even if you do get open you still must execute precisely.
Posted by: ryan at Nov 15, 2006 5:26:49 PM
For starters Antonio Gates is all of 6’4” and TE’s in general are more 6’6” –ish. The reason for the demise of the center is the style of play. By shortening the shot clock and encouraging the a running attack your are limiting a centers offensive role, establishing themselves in the low post while a play develops to utilize the position they have gained. They are unable to keep up with the increasing pace of the game and become winded more quickly. Thus the center position has evolved into a hybrid position that often is much more defensive minded, Ben Wallace being the epitome.
Regardless of the rules changes the importance of defense will never lessen. A team that can play stifling defense can force turnovers and frustrate an opposing offense to the point it begins to give points away. Defense has changed to take advantage of the changes in offense, it now has more influence on winning the track meet back down the court to gain position before the offense has a chance to break to the basket. But the main reason for its greater importance is that putting a round ball in slightly larger round hole is not the easiest thing to do. Doing it with some pest constantly hampering you is nearly impossible. Basically its easier to defend the basket than to attack it, regardless of how they bend the rules, because even if you do get open you still must execute precisely.
Posted by: ryan at Nov 15, 2006 5:27:05 PM
The importance of defense in the NBA has not diminished during recent years, but the consistancy of it has. The Detroit Piston championships were accomplished through superior team defense, so why do so many teams wait until the postseason to turn up the defensive heat? MONEY. Players know that sports are statistically dominated. Why do so many people think Manning is a better QB than Brady? Because of Manning's record breaking stats. They forget all about the fact that he has only 3 postseason wins. The marginal benefit of the players is often not in line with that of the team. Players know how to get paid, put up big numbers. This is why free agents leaving the Suns are paid so well. Although a few teams like the Suns and Mavs value offense more than defense, most realize that they are equally important. Now if they could just convince their players of that!
Posted by: lance F. at Nov 15, 2006 5:41:09 PM
Lance, what about Brady's four interceptions (in a loss!) against the Colts a couple weeks ago? Does he not know how to get paid?
Posted by: Jason Briggeman at Nov 15, 2006 6:15:03 PM
The days of the big bad defenses are about over because everyone playing ball now and coming into the league are more a little smaller and more athletic then back in the 70's and 80's. Most are offensive minded any way because it is a lot easier to score then to stop someone from scoring. When you got 7 foot guys running and dribbling the ball up and down the floor .. its hard to stop them from scoring. Take Dirk Nowitzki .. he can score from anywhere on the floor but doesn't play the best defense. Big guys today ain't used like there were back 20 yrs. ago, especially on D.
Posted by: Mike Randolph at Nov 15, 2006 9:28:30 PM
