That quote still didn't mention MDA, again it looks to me like he is blaming the players for their lack of energy on Defense, they have energy for offense but have no energy for defense, even on back to back plays...that's the fault of the players
Again your statistics are flawed. What numbers do you have to go on? That Boston, one of the best teams in the league, with maybe the best depth at PF/C in terms of head bangers in the league has the lowest points allowed per game?
If a team wins more, clearly their point differential is going to be bigger, because they have more games where they finish + than other teams, that's only logical and to be expected. If you broke down the numbers in a chart or a table backing up your hypothesis I would be willing to look, but without much proof besides the obvious (teams that win more have a higher point differential than teams that win less), nothing really backs up your assertion.
But I will do a case study to disprove your theory:
By your flawed stat the Bucks are the 3rd best defensive team in the league (third lowest PAPG). They have a point differential in the negatives and have lost games by: 9 (two times), 10 (two times), 11 (five times), 12, 13 (two times), 14, 15 (three times), 18, 21, 26. This accounts for 19 of their 34 losses. Yet they have the third lowest PPG allowed and a point differential of -1.5 (not bad for a team that is 13 games below .500). By your metrics they should be good defensively and good consistently (relatively good point differential, third best points allowed per game this year), yet over half their losses are by 9 or more...care to explain? IF the Bucks are a consistently good defensive team, then how can we explain these monster blowouts? Doesn't this disprove that if you are consistently good on defense you tend to lose by very little?
MusketeerX;158593 Exactly my point. Consistent defensive teams won't do that. When an sole offensive team loses they lose by a lot. When they win said:Again it is ppg and point differential.
[/b]Not just PPG.
If you are a consistently good defensive team, then when you lose, its by very little, but when you win, its by a lot. So you have a wider point differential.
Make sense yet?
Again your statistics are flawed. What numbers do you have to go on? That Boston, one of the best teams in the league, with maybe the best depth at PF/C in terms of head bangers in the league has the lowest points allowed per game?
If a team wins more, clearly their point differential is going to be bigger, because they have more games where they finish + than other teams, that's only logical and to be expected. If you broke down the numbers in a chart or a table backing up your hypothesis I would be willing to look, but without much proof besides the obvious (teams that win more have a higher point differential than teams that win less), nothing really backs up your assertion.
But I will do a case study to disprove your theory:
By your flawed stat the Bucks are the 3rd best defensive team in the league (third lowest PAPG). They have a point differential in the negatives and have lost games by: 9 (two times), 10 (two times), 11 (five times), 12, 13 (two times), 14, 15 (three times), 18, 21, 26. This accounts for 19 of their 34 losses. Yet they have the third lowest PPG allowed and a point differential of -1.5 (not bad for a team that is 13 games below .500). By your metrics they should be good defensively and good consistently (relatively good point differential, third best points allowed per game this year), yet over half their losses are by 9 or more...care to explain? IF the Bucks are a consistently good defensive team, then how can we explain these monster blowouts? Doesn't this disprove that if you are consistently good on defense you tend to lose by very little?