My problem with Defensive Rating (DRtg)

[D-Wade316]

Bad Boy Pistons: (arrival of Chuck Daly)
108.1
107.2
107.9
105.8
105.3
104.7
103.4
104.6
105.3

New York Knicks: (arrival of Pat Riley)
103.8
98.2
99.7
104.2

Milwaukee Bucks: (Skiles era)
107.9
103.1
102.5

So is Milwaukee's best defensive year better than any of the Bad Boys?

[Clippersfan86]

Not saying I necessarily agree but here are some possibilities and reasons.

1. While being the most physical and intimidating defense ever I think the Bad Boys defense is a bit overrated. Not saying it wasn't great but they weren't as good as a handful of other defensive teams. I mean they weren't as good as the 08 Celtics or 04 Pistons defensively and you can add a few other teams into the discussion like 99 Spurs and 05 Spurs.

2. The Pat Riley Knicks team was underrated defensively. They were known for being a very scrappy and physical defense. You realize Pat Riley's specialty was the Bad Boy style physical, in your face defense right? He was a defensive coach. Ewing may not have been Hakeem defensively but he had a massive impact in the paint defensively, which shouldn't be forgotten. John Starks was also an underrated perimeter defender.

3. Milwaukee Bucks are a really good defensive team. You may think it's humorous that a bunch of "scrubs" can hold teams in check but they do. They are like the 5th overall defense in the NBA now. Also you have to remember that players now are forced to actually play defense with their feet. You can't get away with hand checking and roughing people up anymore. Maybe it appeared the Pistons were amazing because they roughed people up and intimidated but defensive rating goes PURELY by getting stops and apparently Pistons are overrated.

[D-Wade316]

Not saying I necessarily agree but here are some possibilities and reasons.

1. While being the most physical and intimidating defense ever I think the Bad Boys defense is a bit overrated. Not saying it wasn't great but they weren't as good as a handful of other defensive teams. I mean they weren't as good as the 08 Celtics or 04 Pistons defensively and you can add a few other teams into the discussion like 99 Spurs and 05 Spurs.

To prove that the 08 Celtics and 04 Pistons were indeed better than the Bad Boys, we may need someone here who has knowledge on the defensive schemes of Daly (The Jordan Rules ), like rotations, help defense, rebounding.

2. The Pat Riley Knicks team was underrated defensively. They were known for being a very scrappy and physical defense. You realize Pat Riley's specialty was the Bad Boy style physical, in your face defense right? He was a defensive coach. Ewing may not have been Hakeem defensively but he had a massive impact in the paint defensively, which shouldn't be forgotten. John Starks was also an underrated perimeter defender.

Yeah they were. The 94 Finals was brutal, and is a perfect example of Pat's defensive schemes.

3. Milwaukee Bucks are a really good defensive team. You may think it's humorous that a bunch of "scrubs" can hold teams in check but they do. They are like the 5th overall defense in the NBA now. Also you have to remember that players now are forced to actually play defense with their feet. You can't get away with hand checking and roughing people up anymore. Maybe it appeared the Pistons were amazing because they roughed people up and intimidated but defensive rating goes PURELY by getting stops and apparently Pistons are overrated.

They're no "scrubs" for me at all. Bogut is hardly a scrub.

Don't you think that the era they played in, run and gun, played a role in their high DRtg? What I'm saying is that it is harder to stop the offense in transition than in half court.

[B]

Bad Boy Pistons: (arrival of Chuck Daly)
108.1
107.2
107.9
105.8
105.3
104.7
103.4
104.6
105.3

New York Knicks: (arrival of Pat Riley)
103.8
98.2
99.7
104.2

Milwaukee Bucks: (Skiles era)
107.9
103.1
102.5

So is Milwaukee's best defensive year better than any of the Bad Boys?

It's a simple formula not meant to be used season to season. If you do you use it to compare across eras or seasons you need to balance it out against the offensive ratings of the same periods

[D-Wade316]

[QUOTE=B

[Clippersfan86]

To prove that the 08 Celtics and 04 Pistons were indeed better than the Bad Boys, we may need someone here who has knowledge on the defensive schemes of Daly (The Jordan Rules ), like rotations, help defense, rebounding.

Yeah they were. The 94 Finals was brutal, and is a perfect example of Pat's defensive schemes.

They're no "scrubs" for me at all. Bogut is hardly a scrub.

Don't you think that the era they played in, run and gun, played a role in their high DRtg? What I'm saying is that it is harder to stop the offense in transition than in half court.

Yea but a lot of Milwaukee's best defenders like Luc Richard are relatively unknown players. I agree Bogut is a great defensive big. I think a lot of it has to do with pace, zone defense not being allowed and hand checking too.

[catch24]

Do you think the run and gun offense that was dominant in the 80s affected their DRtg?

What do you think?

[insidehoops]

What is DRtg?

[Mr. I'm So Rad]

What is DRtg?

Defensive Rating

[chazzy]

What is DRtg?

Defensive rating. It's the number of points allowed per 100 possessions, it's the stat used to rank the best defensive teams in a given season. It's just difficult to compare across eras because of the differences in style of play.

[insidehoops]

Ah, yeah

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Why is it people have no problem comparing offensive performances from different seasons (with as small of a sample size of a few playoff games) but think there is something wrong with comparing defensive efficiency ratings made up of 82 games worth of data?

Example comparing Jordan's finals stats to Kobe final's stats is fine but comparing the defensive stats of the opponents Jordan faced in the Finals to the defensive stats of the opponents Kobe faced in the Finals is somehow wrong or misleading because its across different eras?

[RRR3]

Why is it people have no problem comparing offensive performances from different seasons (with as small of a sample size of a few playoff games) but think there is something wrong with comparing defensive efficiency ratings made up of 82 games worth of data?

Example comparing Jordan's finals stats to Kobe final's stats is fine but comparing the defensive stats of the opponents Jordan faced in the Finals to the defensive stats of the opponents Kobe faced in the Finals is somehow wrong or misleading because its across different eras?

Don't start that shit up again.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Don't start that shit up again.

Care to answer the question?

[RRR3]

Care to answer the question?

No, I don't want to beat a dead horse and ruin this thread.