As Mike pointed out earlier today via Twitter, there’s some preliminary good news on the Cavs front.
According to NBA.com writer and stat-head John Schuhmann, the Cavs are currently #2 in the league in defensive efficiency heading into the final two preseason games. To date, they have been averaging 87.9 points allowed per 100 opponent possessions. They rate behind only the Orlando Magic, who are surrendering a mere 82.5 points per 100 opponent possessions.
Admittedly, we should be cautious in using these numbers to project too much about the regular season. The games thus far obviously don’t matter, and consequently most teams have been extremely careful about playing time for their veteran and star players. As a result, team stats can hide a lot of truth. For instance, the Spurs deactivated Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker, and Richard Jefferson for their game against the Cavs last week. Hard to put much stock in the result when nearly the entire starting five for the opponent is in street clothes.
This also has a significant effect on the numbers themselves. As I mentioned above, Orlando is leading the league in defensive efficiency at 82.5. To put that figure in context, Orlando also led the league in that category in the 2009-10 regular season. Their defensive rating? 100.2.
In other words, Orlando’s pre-season team is giving up 19.7 fewer points per 100 possessions than last year’s regular season team. To give a sense of the magnitude of that discrepancy, the difference between the most defensively efficient team (ORL) and least defensively efficient team (TOR) in 2009-10 was exactly 10 points per 100 possessions. If the current preseason numbers held up then, the 2009-10 Cavs would likely become one of the greatest defensive teams in basketball history, if not possibly the greatest of all time.
No offense (ha!) to the roster / coaching staff—which may in fact be very good defensively even when the season starts for real—but expecting the team to be historically stout is just not realistic.
However, if the relative strength of the defense carries into the regular season, i.e. if the Cavs remain in the top 5 in defensive efficiency, there is reason to believe that success may follow. Of the 16 playoff teams in 2009-10, only Phoenix (#19) ranked outside the top 16 in defensive efficiency. (Indiana was #15, if you were curious.) The Suns’ salvation was their prolific offense, which rated #1 in the league by a wide margin (+3.2 points per 100 possessions better than #2 Orlando—only a slightly smaller margin than that between Orlando and the #11 Lakers.)
Again, assuming this strength will carry over from the preseason is not a smart gamble. But if it does, it’s a very good thing.
It’s also worth noting that based on last year’s results, defensive efficiency was more indicative of team success than offensive efficiency. Of the 16 playoff teams in 2009-10, four ranked outside the top 16 in offensive efficiency: Miami (#19), Milwaukee (#23), Charlotte (#24), and Chicago (#28). That means 18.75% (3/16) of last season’s playoff teams broke into the postseason despite ranking in the bottom 8 in offensive efficiency. How did they do it? With ferocious defense. In 2009-10, three of those teams ranked in the top 5 in defensive efficiency: Charlotte #2, Milwaukee #3, and Miami #4, while Chicago grabbed itself the last ranking in the top 10.
How are the Cavs faring so far in offensive efficiency? As of now, they have kept themselves out of the bottom five. The teams earning that dubious distinction are Charlotte, New Orleans, Indiana, Philadelphia, and ironically, Phoenix.
Whether or not any of this means anything starting October 27th, no one can say for sure. But it at least suggests that Byron Scott’s system has a chance at achieving, if not huge success, than at least modest success. In comparison to an Indians team that failed to win 70 games and a Browns team currently absorbing five times more losses than wins, modest success sounds like a sweet melody.
-T
(view comments)
-
countcenci liked this
-
josemesaisdead posted this
