3/4/10
by: Scott
Permalink
 |
We all know the Raptors' defence is bad, but what aspects of their defence are worse than others? To try to get to the bottom of this, let's use the "Shooting Details" stats on 82games.com, which breaks down offensive and defensive Effective Field Goal Percentages (eFG%) by jump shots, close shots, dunks and tip-ins. Before we go all chart-crazy, a couple of points...
- eFG% is a stat that adjusts for the fact that a three-point field goal is worth one more point than a two-point field goal. For example, suppose Player A goes 4 for 10 with 2 threes, while Player B goes 5 for 10 with 0 threes. Each player would have 10 points from field goals, and thus would have the same effective field goal percentage (50%). This stat is calculated with this formula: (FG + 0.5 * 3P) / FGA.
- 82games.com hasn't been updated since Feb. 15, so these numbers don't account for the Raptors' recent defensive regression. It actually says on the site that they haven't updated since Feb. 15, 2009, but Coby Karl was signed to a 10-day contract by the Warriors on Jan. 31 and there are stats for him on the Warriors' team section — so it must have been updated on Feb. 15, 2010.
This first chart ranks the teams by overall opponent eFG%.
The Raptors rank 22nd in overall opponent eFG%, which is in the bottom third of the league but not really as low as I would have expected. It's certainly not surprising to see the T-Wolves, Grizzlies, Knicks, Nets and Warriors down there but I am surprised that the Raptors aren't down in that bottom-five.
This second chart ranks the teams by opponent jumpshot eFG%.
The Thunder have the fourth-best Defensive Rating in the league and the Lakers are first, so it's not surprising to see that they both have elite perimeter defence. The Thunder have guys like Sefolosha, Westbrook and the vastly-improved Durant getting it done, while the Lakers can thank Kobe, Artest and Shannon Brown for their effectiveness. The Wizards' high-ranking is somewhat interesting — when you see that stat compared to their opponent eFG% from in close (worst in the NBA), I'm guessing that's because Flip Saunders likes his players to challenge the perimeter more than other teams.
The Raptors' jumpshot defence ranking matches their overall ranking. It's no mystery why they're below-average in this department — poor rotation, lack of athleticism with Calderon and Turkoglu, lack of experience with DeRozan, inconsistent defensive effort (I'm looking at you, Hedo) and subpar coaching.
Now, let's look at how these teams defend from in-close.
No surprises in the top five (Hello, Mr. Howard!) and Houston's residence in the bottom five probably has a lot to do with the fact that their starting center is six-foot-six. But check out Toronto! Remember, this was before their recent slide, but that ranking is still quite surprising. It looks like Bargnani, Bosh and Johnson haven't done such a bad job of bothering shots from in-close. Then again, their defence on dunk attempts (which accounts for five percent of opposing FGAs) is third-worst in the league. Considering that Johnson is the only Raptor that actively tries to stop dunks, that's about what I'd expect.
Going back to the first chart, how is it that the Raptors are 22nd in the league in overall opponent eFG% while they're dead last in Defensive Rating (points allowed per 100 possessions) overall? I think the answer might lie in this final chart.
This was a real "wow" moment for me. Not only do the Raptors give up more than the league average in free throw attempts, but they're far and away the unluckiest team in the league in opponent free throw percentage. Because when it comes right down to it, you can't defend a free throw.
So there's something I bet none of us took into account when trying to figure out this team's defensive problems. While they've been pretty bad, they've also been very, very unlucky so far. And unless you're one of those people who thinks this franchise is jinxed — I'm not one of those people — this means that when you remove the "luck factor", the Raptors D isn't quite as bad as we may have thought. Here's to small victories, right? 
|
