Offensive and Defensive Efficiency

[Lucky17]

I can't swear that the info is accurate, or have any idea on how the metric is constructed, but this interactive graph showing team offensive and defensive efficiency is pretty neat.

http://www.pistonpowered.com/2010/02/charting-offfensive-and-defensive-rating-for-every-nba-team/

For those too lazy to click the link, Boston measures only average in terms of offensive efficiency, but leads the league in defensive efficiency. (Surprisingly, OKC compares quite closely to us in both stats.)

[Roy Hobbs]

I believe that Offensive / Defensive Efficiency is the same as Offensive / Defensive Rating (how many points are scored / allowed per 100 possessions).

You can see where each team ranks here:  http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2010.html

Simply go down to Miscellaneous Statistics, and click the ORtg and DRtg columns.  Currently, Boston is 14th in offense, 1st in defense.

[Fafnir]

Basically we need to get our offense going if we want to contend.

That means if Nate Robinson provides some improvement that'd help us a lot in this area. If Pierce can round into form as well we've got a chance.

[sk7326]

basically we have dropped off because of shooting ... we miss more shots, 3PT and FT ... and we rebound less of our misses.  Usually our turnovers have been ok - i mean they are always bad, but we make the shots we take when we don't turn it over, so the turnovers themselves could be wallpapered over.  Also, I wish I had the info on dead ball turnovers vs in the flow turnovers - I think most of our turnovers seem of the dead ball variety - which does not screw up our defense.

Our defensive efficiency is still best in the league, but not what it was in 2008.  Just minor slippage across the board, though we still are outstanding at turning teams over.

[jdpapa3]

Just before the skid, we were hovering in the top 10 of offensive efficiency. Our defensive efficiency has moved from the first slot to the third slot. This is why I kind of cringe when Doc says it is the defense that has been struggling and seems to ignore the offensive issues.

[sk7326]

Just before the skid, we were hovering in the top 10 of offensive efficiency. Our defensive efficiency has moved from the first slot to the third slot. This is why I kind of cringe when Doc says it is the defense that has been struggling and seems to ignore the offensive issues.

the defense HAS dropped off from 2008 ... and their inability to defensively rebound I think IS partly a reflection of this.  The Thibodeau defense, which relies on loading up on the ball side, counts on diligent quick rotation.  Our help side has shown holes - the big one of course being that famous missed rotation by Sheed in the Magic game.  (KG was beaten by Rashard, but he also seemed to be looking for help that never arrived)  When the weak side is weak, that is where offensive rebounders gang up.

Our help side was much better against LA and Portland ...

[jdpapa3]

Just before the skid, we were hovering in the top 10 of offensive efficiency. Our defensive efficiency has moved from the first slot to the third slot. This is why I kind of cringe when Doc says it is the defense that has been struggling and seems to ignore the offensive issues.

the defense HAS dropped off from 2008 ... and their inability to defensively rebound I think IS partly a reflection of this.  The Thibodeau defense, which relies on loading up on the ball side, counts on diligent quick rotation.  Our help side has shown holes - the big one of course being that famous missed rotation by Sheed in the Magic game.  (KG was beaten by Rashard, but he also seemed to be looking for help that never arrived)  When the weak side is weak, that is where offensive rebounders gang up.

Our help side was much better against LA and Portland ...

I agree. The defense has dropped off a little bit since the champ year, but when your team is the best in the league at something, it's hard to be critical. But I guess Doc still has the 85 Bears in mind, so I can't really fault him that much.

And just as a measuring stick, the 08 title team was rated 10th in offensive efficiency so this has consistently been the Celtics formula.

[Bahku]

Just for those who might be curious, (and this is individual, not team), here's the formula for player efficiency:



uPER = 1/Min *(3P+[(2/3)* AST]+[(2-factor *(tmAST/tmFG))* FG]+[FT * 0.5 *(1+(1-(tmAST/tmFG))+(2/3)*(tmAST/tmFG))]-[VOP * DRBP *(FGA - FG)] - [VOP *(0.56 * DRBP))*(FTA - FT)] + [VOP *(1 - DRBP)*(TRB - ORB)] + [VOP * DRBP * ORB] + [VOP * STL] + [VOP * DRBP * BLK] - PF *((lgFT/lgPF)- 0.44 *(lgFTA/lgPF)* VOP))])



I find it a bit easier to look it up ... and a bit quicker. 

[sk7326]

Just for those who might be curious, (and this is individual, not team), here's the formula for player efficiency:



uPER = 1/Min *(3P+[(2/3)* AST]+[(2-factor *(tmAST/tmFG))* FG]+[FT * 0.5 *(1+(1-(tmAST/tmFG))+(2/3)*(tmAST/tmFG))]-[VOP * DRBP *(FGA - FG)] - [VOP *(0.56 * DRBP))*(FTA - FT)] + [VOP *(1 - DRBP)*(TRB - ORB)] + [VOP * DRBP * ORB] + [VOP * STL] + [VOP * DRBP * BLK] - PF *((lgFT/lgPF)- 0.44 *(lgFTA/lgPF)* VOP))])



I find it a bit easier to look it up ... and a bit quicker. 

the parameters are tricky ... i tend to take the player info for what its worth - the black box that is defending renders PERs on their own useless, as Hollinger himself points out

But the attempt to normalize basketball by possession is welcome - and only "dorky number crunching" the way on base percentage is dorky in baseball.  The object of baseball is not to make an out - and there is no scenario where making an out if preferable to the alternative.  The numerical stuff is just an extension of this.  The object of basketball is to get the ball from the other team without allowing a score - and the score when you have the ball.  Everything done to those ends is valuable.

The team efficiency stats are much more intuitive though and easier to explain to people who get headaches looking at math formulas.