If they "were" in some idealized sense a better offensive team than they showed on the floor - meaning that, given good health, they would have scored more points per possession, is a worthwhile consideration, but abstract - it's hard to be too interested in what might have been; if you sign a player you get his tendency to roll his ankle over along with his terrific first step, for instance. In the real world, on the floor, over the course of a season, they were 26th. That's a poor offensive team.
On defense their big strength was stopping shots; they were particularly good at the rim and at the arc. Their worst area was fouling, and they were below average at defensive rebounding. Turnovers average, but top ten at shooting defense. Shooting defense is probably primary; it takes the most effort and focus.
You mention effort - a team, as I pointed out in the previous thread you referenced, that defended the three-point line so well is not a team that is lacking in effort; you've got to run to close those shots out and contest. Along with the good rim defense they fouled a lot; could've been better - should definitely get better if they want to move to the next level - but you can appreciate the demand from the coaching staff not to allow layups.