View Single Post
Old 03-20-2013, 01:10 PM   #151
Yao Ming's Foot
You're welcome
Yao Ming's Foot's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,556
Default Re: Kobe Bryant on Michael Jordan, LeBron, winning championships, etc

In what world does that make any sense? Why would a team rather have 4 more offensive rebounding opportunities that may or may not result in a basket, when the alternative is a guaranteed 4 more makes and not 4 more misses? Tell me the coach that would say he wouldn't care either way cause his team MIGHT get the offensive rebound? And you're vastly overstating offensive rebounds. The ratio of offensive rebounds to total rebounds is like 1 to 3 or 1 to 4, even for the best rebounding teams.

Looks like somebody is already trying to explain it to you but the goal is to score the most points not have the highest FG percentage. The fact that my 3pt shooting team has 4 more chances to continue the possession matters.


Its not about favoring one or the other, because they both have flaws. I'm not completely ignoring one or the other, like you are.

TS% doesn't have a flaw. It also doesn't ignore FG%. It includes FG% but makes note that 3 pters are worth 3 pts and efficiency from the line matters too.

Well, I only said they were clearly better, not better by far. What someone else said doesn't matter in our argument.

I don't who said what. You all sound the same to me. If it wasn't you that's when you jumped into the conversation.

I didn't say its unfair to include them. I said you should compare them individually, not in aggregate, because they are not all better then Kobe's for the same reason. If someone asked me to compare Kobe's 05-07 seasons, and I brought up T-Mac single 2003 season, that makes no sense.

Either way, not sure this really needs to be argued anymore since even in aggregate, the 4 runs I mentioned were better.

If they all 4 runs are better on their own then you shouldn't have a problem with combining all of them and taking the average.

Its a simple statistic who's results can be interpreted many different ways, meaning that it may have been harder, equal, or even easier for a player or team from one season to reach a certain level of performance against another team from another season regardless of each team's ORTG and DRTG, with no evidence confirming that the probability of it being harder, equal, or easier is not equal.

It doesn't require an interpretation anymore than field goal percentage does. This team over the course of an 82 games season allowed X amount of points and defended Y possessions. X/Y times 100 = DEF Rating. That's it.

Its a topic now because you constantly refer to it because you think it holds alot of weight in this discussion. Points allowed and FG% allowed suffer from the same problems. Defensive rankings don't mean much cause its possible that the 5th ranked offensive team or 5th ranked defensive team from one season is better offensively or defensively then the 1st ranked offensive team or 1st ranked defensive team in another season (suffers the same problem that comparing win-loss records across eras). I'm not really comfortable with any defensive measurement across eras.

So it's the last choice, We are going to keep all the inflated offensive stats regardless of eras and ignore the defensive ones because they make you feel uncomfortable.

According to your logic, DRTG would indicate that 1992 Jordan would have a harder time compiling the same stats he had vs. the 1992 Blazers then he would vs. the 2001 Kings, because the Kings have a lower DRTG. However, your logic completely depends on the Kings having a lower DRTG because there defense was actually better and the average offense remained unchanged from 1992, or that both there defense was better and the average offense they faced was even better but their defense was better to a greater degree. However, its completely possible that the 1992 Blazers had an equal defense to the 2001 Kings, but had to play against better offensive teams on average, which would inflate their DRTG in comparison, or that they actually had both a better defense and offense, but the average offense was better to a greater degree. There's no evidence that says that either of the 4 scenarios are more likely then any of the other 3. With that being the case, that has no effect on how good Jordan and the Bulls are, which means without having any indication of which one of those 4 scenarios are present here, Jordan could've put up worse, equal, or better stats vs. the 2002 Kings then he did vs. 1992 Blazers without any of these 4 scenarios being more likely then the other.

You don't get a good defensive rating without other good defensive numbers.

.471 eFG
14.3% TOV%
69.9 DRB%
.251 FT/FGA
104.1 points allowed per game


.467 eFG
13.6% TOV%
71.7 DRB %
.185 FT/FGA
97.0 points allowed per game

I'd bet Jordan was good for about 3 more points on Team A.

You still think I bring up defensive rating to compare defenses against each other. I don't. I bring up defenses to establish the context in which the offensive numbers are derived. League wide offensive numbers were up during Jordan's prime. During the first 3 peat offensive numbers were down league wide. A few years later and they were up again. The levels of talent and coaching don't change that drastically in a few years. It has to be the rules and the interpretation of those rules. The Kings would have a higher DEF rating if they were time traveled to 92. But thats not we are looking at here. We are looking at Jordan being time traveled to early 00s or Kobe taking a trip to the high pace, high efficiency 90s. It would change their offensive numbers.

BTW you don't even need defensive efficiency to explain a 3 pt difference. Just look at the differences in points allowed per game, multiply it by Kobe's typical share of the scoring load and voila there is 2-3 points and now you are left telling me that his line doesn't compare to 4 other ones when he is <1 to their average in every relevant category.

Last edited by Yao Ming's Foot : 03-20-2013 at 01:40 PM.
Yao Ming's Foot is offline   Reply With Quote