Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops

Go Back   Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops > InsideHoops Main Basketball Forums > NBA Forum

NBA Forum NBA Message Board - NBA Fan Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-19-2013, 10:14 AM   #136
Yao Ming's Foot
You're welcome
 
Yao Ming's Foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,003
Yao Ming's Foot has decent reputationYao Ming's Foot has decent reputation
Default Re: Kobe Bryant on Michael Jordan, LeBron, winning championships, etc

Since you seem to be struggling with listing the actual differences and your estimations are vastly wrong I went ahead and calculated their actual differences...

Kobe's
99.575

Jordan's
106.25
106.875
105.65

Lebron's
101.375


In today's era

Kobe's opponents are the top ranked Pacers 99.1
Lebron's opponents are 3rd ranked Spurs 101.2
Jordan's opponents are the 17th ranked Knicks 106.2
Yao Ming's Foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2013, 02:19 PM   #137
guy
NBA All-star
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,296
guy has an incredible reputation hereguy has an incredible reputation hereguy has an incredible reputation hereguy has an incredible reputation hereguy has an incredible reputation hereguy has an incredible reputation hereguy has an incredible reputation hereguy has an incredible reputation here
Default Re: Kobe Bryant on Michael Jordan, LeBron, winning championships, etc

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yao Ming's Foot

Those are the 4 playoff runs you specifically chose that represent superior performance than Kobe's 01 run. If Kobe's run is extremely similar to their average it makes no sense to consider it on a different level. It fits right in with the other 4 that you chose.

I wouldn't necessarily say a 3 point +PPG average is extremely similar. And I also wouldn't say its extremely similar based on FG% (Obviously you think FG% is irrelevant when we have TS%, which I think is nonsensical because more missed shots in general by one team lead to easier shots for the opposing team because the defense can't set themselves.)

Either way, I wasn't comparing the aggregate of those 4 runs to Kobe's 1 run. I was comparing each of them individually to Kobe's because thats an apples to apples comparison. It doesn't make sense to average them out because some of them were better for different reasons. Like I said, you can take a large size sample and compare it MANY smaller size samples and the averages equal. There's probably plenty of Kobe Bryant playoff series that were statistically better then entire Jordan playoff runs. T-Mac's 2003 season is statistically better then some, if not all, 3 season-runs of Kobe, Lebron, and Wade. What exactly does that mean? Absolutely nothing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yao Ming's Foot
You are just inventing numbers at this point with no rhyme or reason. Who said anything about their careers? I'm talking about these specific playoff runs. A 5% difference (another bizarre calculation based on nothing) is roughly the different between the best D in the league in a given year and an average one. If you want to believe that its just as easy/impressive to put up great numbers against the best D in the league and an average one it wouldn't be the only absurd belief your delusion clings to but it would be one of the dumbest.

I never brought up a 5% difference calculation? I brought up a 2-3% difference for what they faced in their careers in the playoffs. The difference was like 105 vs. 102 in the playoffs, and 107 vs. 105 in the regular season. The other calculations were based on the difference in a stat i.e. 35.1 ppg is nearly 20% more then 29.4 ppg, 8.4 apg is nearly 38% more then 6.1 apg, etc.

I never said its just as easy to play against harder defenses. I said its not a significant difference to suggest that wide of a statistical gap for individuals. Furthermore, using DRTG as the be all end all is stupid in general. So much of what may limit an individual is what the defense is focused on. Both great and bad defenses many times specifically pick their poison, whether its focusing on one of two stars, or focusing between the role players or the stars, etc. Bottom line is there's too many factors to strictly go off DRTG and pretend its the Bible that explains better vs worse performances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yao Ming's Foot
Since you seem to be struggling with listing the actual differences and your estimations are vastly wrong I went ahead and calculated their actual differences...

Kobe's
99.575

Jordan's
106.25
106.875
105.65

Lebron's
101.375


In today's era

Kobe's opponents are the top ranked Pacers 99.1
Lebron's opponents are 3rd ranked Spurs 101.2
Jordan's opponents are the 17th ranked Knicks 106.2

Cool. Not 2-3% for these situations, 6-7%, explaining a 20% individual ppg gap and other more significant gaps.

And an only an idiot seriously thinks the difference in defense is that much.

By the way, you do realize that with DRTG/ORTG, there's no more evidence to suggest that defenses got better then to suggest offenses just got worse right? And it may not be a coincidence that during the times that DRTG/ORTG was at its lowest (late 70s, late 90s-early 00s), it was filled with criticisms like selfishness, too much isolation, too much flash and no substance, lack of ball movement, lack of fundamentals, too many high schoolers and players leaving college too early, etc. But hey, why consider that?

Last edited by guy : 03-19-2013 at 02:22 PM.
guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2013, 07:31 PM   #138
Yao Ming's Foot
You're welcome
 
Yao Ming's Foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,003
Yao Ming's Foot has decent reputationYao Ming's Foot has decent reputation
Default Re: Kobe Bryant on Michael Jordan, LeBron, winning championships, etc

Quote:
I wouldn't necessarily say a 3 point +PPG average is extremely similar. And I also wouldn't say its extremely similar based on FG% (Obviously you think FG% is irrelevant when we have TS%, which I think is nonsensical because more missed shots in general by one team lead to easier shots for the opposing team because the defense can't set themselves.)

FG% is irrelevant if we have TS% data. I see no reason why we wouldn't include 3 pters and FT in the players efficiency totals. Your blurb about defense doesn't even make sense.

Quote:
Either way, I wasn't comparing the aggregate of those 4 runs to Kobe's 1 run. I was comparing each of them individually to Kobe's because thats an apples to apples comparison. It doesn't make sense to average them out because some of them were better for different reasons. Like I said, you can take a large size sample and compare it MANY smaller size samples and the averages equal. There's probably plenty of Kobe Bryant playoff series that were statistically better then entire Jordan playoff runs. T-Mac's 2003 season is statistically better then some, if not all, 3 season-runs of Kobe, Lebron, and Wade. What exactly does that mean? Absolutely nothing.


Some of them are worse for different reasons too. That's why I took the average of all of them. You can't tell me 1st season is vastly superior due to to something like assists in one season yet ignore it when the gap favors Kobe in a different year. Who said anything about playoff series? This is about the performance in a championship winning run. Tmac never made it past the first round.

Quote:
I never brought up a 5% difference calculation? I brought up a 2-3% difference for what they faced in their careers in the playoffs. The difference was like 105 vs. 102 in the playoffs, and 107 vs. 105 in the regular season. The other calculations were based on the difference in a stat i.e. 35.1 ppg is nearly 20% more then 29.4 ppg, 8.4 apg is nearly 38% more then 6.1 apg, etc.

5% was my guess at the real difference. Turns out I was pretty much dead on.


Quote:
I never said its just as easy to play against harder defenses. I said its not a significant difference to suggest that wide of a statistical gap for individuals. Furthermore, using DRTG as the be all end all is stupid in general. So much of what may limit an individual is what the defense is focused on. Both great and bad defenses many times specifically pick their poison, whether its focusing on one of two stars, or focusing between the role players or the stars, etc. Bottom line is there's too many factors to strictly go off DRTG and pretend its the Bible that explains better vs worse performances.

Of course it's a significant difference. Its the the difference between the best defense in the league and a below average one. There isn't a defensive ranking system in the world that will put Jordan's opponents on par with Kobe's in 2001.


Quote:
Cool. Not 2-3% for these situations, 6-7%, explaining a 20% individual ppg gap and other more significant gaps.

And an only an idiot seriously thinks the difference in defense is that much.

By the way, you do realize that with DRTG/ORTG, there's no more evidence to suggest that defenses got better then to suggest offenses just got worse right? And it may not be a coincidence that during the times that DRTG/ORTG was at its lowest (late 70s, late 90s-early 00s), it was filled with criticisms like selfishness, too much isolation, too much flash and no substance, lack of ball movement, lack of fundamentals, too many high schoolers and players leaving college too early, etc. But hey, why consider that?

Ya I think a below average D might give up an extra layup to a star player than the best D in the league. Yes the same tired unsupported theory that all these high schoolers messed up offensive efficiency. Except A) they were collectively getting very few minutes and B) those who were getting minutes were better offensive players than defensive ones. Its amusing how many half baked theories you are willing to throw out without any evidence to support them.
Yao Ming's Foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2013, 12:26 AM   #139
guy
NBA All-star
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,296
guy has an incredible reputation hereguy has an incredible reputation hereguy has an incredible reputation hereguy has an incredible reputation hereguy has an incredible reputation hereguy has an incredible reputation hereguy has an incredible reputation hereguy has an incredible reputation here
Default Re: Kobe Bryant on Michael Jordan, LeBron, winning championships, etc

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yao Ming's Foot
FG% is irrelevant if we have TS% data. I see no reason why we wouldn't include 3 pters and FT in the players efficiency totals. Your blurb about defense doesn't even make sense.

Well let me spell it out for you then. If player A goes 12/20 on all 2s and player B goes 8/20 on all 3s, the team that's better off is player A's team. Why's that? Because its 8 misses vs. 12 misses. Both players may have scored 24 points on the same amount of shots, but more misses means more likely faster tempo/transition opportunities for the opposition since its easier to push the ball off a miss and its harder for player B's team to set their defense, especially misses off 3s which are more prone to longer rebounds. And I'm not even getting into how if both players took the same approach all game, where player As approach is attacking while player Bs approach is camping behind the 3 point line, how that effects each team as a whole which is clearly better for player A's team. Given the choice of each scenario, there's no coach in their right mind that would be indifferent or rather have player B.

I understand that the function of a stat and TS% specifically isn't to take into account those other factors, but its also why you can't just completely rely on it, and rely on any stat in general since none of them take into account other factors, and just ignore FG%.

I never said you shouldn't or couldn't use TS%, or you shouldn't take into account 3 pointers or FTs. Obviously TS% has its advantages. But ignoring FG% because you think efficiency is as simple as same amount of points on same amount of shots is just stupid.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Yao Ming's Foot
Some of them are worse for different reasons too. That's why I took the average of all of them. You can't tell me 1st season is vastly superior due to to something like assists in one season yet ignore it when the gap favors Kobe in a different year. Who said anything about playoff series? This is about the performance in a championship winning run. Tmac never made it past the first round.

Overall statistically, none of them are worse. Kobe's biggest advantage in a single stat is 1.2 more RPG over 1992 Jordan. In those 4 runs, Jordan/Lebron have more significant advantages then that in PPG, APG, RPG, TS%, FG% in certain years. And I didn't even bother getting into SPG, BPG, TPG, FT%, 3P%.

Maybe we're just arguing cemantics here. I don't think I've said that these runs were by far better. Kobe's run was all-time great and deserves a ton recognition. I've said they were clearly better, which means I don't really see any good reason to argue Kobe's was as good or better.

I brought up playoff series and T-Mac because its the same situation, where you're comparing a much larger sample size to a smaller sample size, which is misleading and stupid. Just cause they're not exactly about championship winning runs, doesn't mean the same logic isn't applied.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yao Ming's Foot
5% was my guess at the real difference. Turns out I was pretty much dead on.

Huh? No it was 2-3% like I said


Quote:
Originally Posted by Yao Ming's Foot
Of course it's a significant difference. Its the the difference between the best defense in the league and a below average one. There isn't a defensive ranking system in the world that will put Jordan's opponents on par with Kobe's in 2001.

Ummm, did you ever think that maybe there just isn't a defensive ranking system in the world that you could heavily rely on especially when comparing across eras? Especially a ranking system that basically uses the same methodology to rank offenses? How does that even make sense?

Did you ever think that there's something weird about a system that ranks the 2003 Wizards as a greater defense then the 1991 Bulls? Or the 1993 Warriors as a greater offense then the 2001 Lakers?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yao Ming's Foot
Ya I think a below average D might give up an extra layup to a star player than the best D in the league. Yes the same tired unsupported theory that all these high schoolers messed up offensive efficiency. Except A) they were collectively getting very few minutes and B) those who were getting minutes were better offensive players than defensive ones. Its amusing how many half baked theories you are willing to throw out without any evidence to support them.

What tired theory? Out of all that, the only thing you can respond to was the high schoolers? That was just part of what I said. And what evidence do you have besides a stat that simultaneously says offenses got worse? How stupid are you to cling on to a stat like that? Again, what evidence do you have besides a stat that SIMULTANEOUSLY says OFFENSES GOT WORSE?

Maybe you should stop reading numbers so much and actually do some research of what well educated experts, coaches, players, etc that studied the game for years were saying during these times? Oh nevermind, thats not evidence.


Last edited by guy : 03-20-2013 at 12:46 AM.
guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2013, 02:02 AM   #140
Yao Ming's Foot
You're welcome
 
Yao Ming's Foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,003
Yao Ming's Foot has decent reputationYao Ming's Foot has decent reputation
Default Re: Kobe Bryant on Michael Jordan, LeBron, winning championships, etc

[quote=guy]
Quote:
Well let me spell it out for you then. If player A goes 12/20 on all 2s and player B goes 8/20 on all 3s, the team that's better off is player A's team. Why's that? Because its 8 misses vs. 12 misses. Both players may have scored 24 points on the same amount of shots, but more misses means more likely faster tempo/transition opportunities for the opposition since its easier to push the ball off a miss and its harder for player B's team to set their defense, especially misses off 3s which are more prone to longer rebounds. And I'm not even getting into how if both players took the same approach all game, where player As approach is attacking while player Bs approach is camping behind the 3 point line, how that effects each team as a whole which is clearly better for player A's team. Given the choice of each scenario, there's no coach in their right mind that would be indifferent or rather have player B.

It also means more offensive rebounding opportunities. Considering that the Bulls and Lakers were some of the better offensive rebounding teams in the league I see no reason why they wouldn't happily take the 4 extra shots at the rebound. As usual its a best a push without any evidence to prove otherwise.

Quote:
I understand that the function of a stat and TS% specifically isn't to take into account those other factors, but its also why you can't just completely rely on it, and rely on any stat in general since none of them take into account other factors, and just ignore FG%.

I never said you shouldn't or couldn't use TS%, or you shouldn't take into account 3 pointers or FTs. Obviously TS% has its advantages. But ignoring FG% because you think efficiency is as simple as same amount of points on same amount of shots is just stupid.

I'm not ignoring FG% by posting TS%. It just a more complete measurement of efficiency. There isn't a logical reason to favor FG% over it. You just prefer because Jordan doesn't take as many three pointers as Kobe.


Quote:
Overall statistically, none of them are worse. Kobe's biggest advantage in a single stat is 1.2 more RPG over 1992 Jordan. In those 4 runs, Jordan/Lebron have more significant advantages then that in PPG, APG, RPG, TS%, FG% in certain years. And I didn't even bother getting into SPG, BPG, TPG, FT%, 3P%.

I'm not sure why you went back to raw numbers when talking about Kobe's advantages. Its not 1.2 more rebounds. It's an 18% increase remember. You also failed to mention a 9% increase in assists in another season.

Quote:
Maybe we're just arguing cemantics here. I don't think I've said that these runs were by far better. Kobe's run was all-time great and deserves a ton recognition. I've said they were clearly better, which means I don't really see any good reason to argue Kobe's was as good or better.

That's not how the conversation went. Someone claimed that all that matters is performance when I pointed out that Lebron had more help than Kobe. Then I reminded them that Kobe's performance during the 3 peat was on par with other legends. You claimed it wasn't by cherry picking 4 playoff runs who biggest difference was one extra bucket a game, then whined about TS% as a measure of efficiency and Defensive rating as a measure of defensive efficiency.

Quote:
I brought up playoff series and T-Mac because its the same situation, where you're comparing a much larger sample size to a smaller sample size, which is misleading and stupid. Just cause they're not exactly about championship winning runs, doesn't mean the same logic isn't applied.

You are the one who selected the entire sample size. Those were the legends you hand selected who would prove Kobe's "sidekick" numbers don't measure up. Now you are telling me its unfair to include all of them. Why list them in the first place?


Quote:
Huh? No it was 2-3% like I said

Whatever you are claiming was 2-3% A) I have no idea if its true B) isn't relevant to this specific discussion about specific playoff runs.

Quote:
Ummm, did you ever think that maybe there just isn't a defensive ranking system in the world that you could heavily rely on especially when comparing across eras? Especially a ranking system that basically uses the same methodology to rank offenses? How does that even make sense?

Did you ever think that there's something weird about a system that ranks the 2003 Wizards as a greater defense then the 1991 Bulls? Or the 1993 Warriors as a greater offense then the 2001 Lakers?


There is nothing weird about it. It's simply a points allowed per possession measurement times 100. Its derived by looking at simple defensive success of a team. How many points did they allow? How many possessions did it take for the team to score those points? What is controversial about that?


Quote:
What tired theory? Out of all that, the only thing you can respond to was the high schoolers? That was just part of what I said. And what evidence do you have besides a stat that simultaneously says offenses got worse? How stupid are you to cling on to a stat like that? Again, what evidence do you have besides a stat that SIMULTANEOUSLY says OFFENSES GOT WORSE?

Maybe you should stop reading numbers so much and actually do some research of what well educated experts, coaches, players, etc that studied the game for years were saying during these times? Oh nevermind, thats not evidence.


Your emotions and emoticons distract from whatever you are trying to convey. It appears you are arguing about the gradual improvement of defensive efficiency over the last 20 years. That's not the topic. What defensive measurements are you comfortable with? Points allowed per game? Field goal percentage allowed per game? Points allowed per possession? Defensive ranking of the opponents within that specific year only? Do you just want to keep the inflated offensive numbers and use those for comparisons across era but throw out the defensive ones because suddenly across era comparisons are not fair?
Yao Ming's Foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2013, 11:19 AM   #141
guy
NBA All-star
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,296
guy has an incredible reputation hereguy has an incredible reputation hereguy has an incredible reputation hereguy has an incredible reputation hereguy has an incredible reputation hereguy has an incredible reputation hereguy has an incredible reputation hereguy has an incredible reputation here
Default Re: Kobe Bryant on Michael Jordan, LeBron, winning championships, etc

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yao Ming's Foot

It also means more offensive rebounding opportunities. Considering that the Bulls and Lakers were some of the better offensive rebounding teams in the league I see no reason why they wouldn't happily take the 4 extra shots at the rebound. As usual its a best a push without any evidence to prove otherwise.

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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Yao Ming's Foot
I'm not ignoring FG% by posting TS%. It just a more complete measurement of efficiency. There isn't a logical reason to favor FG% over it. You just prefer because Jordan doesn't take as many three pointers as Kobe.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yao Ming's Foot
I'm not sure why you went back to raw numbers when talking about Kobe's advantages. Its not 1.2 more rebounds. It's an 18% increase remember. You also failed to mention a 9% increase in assists in another season.

Fair enough. Personally, I don't think rebounds is as much of a valuable category as points and assists because it doesn't lead directly to points. But you're right to point out that inconsistency.

I didn't fail to mention his 9% increase in assists, because I was only mentioning his biggest difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yao Ming's Foot
That's not how the conversation went. Someone claimed that all that matters is performance when I pointed out that Lebron had more help than Kobe. Then I reminded them that Kobe's performance during the 3 peat was on par with other legends. You claimed it wasn't by cherry picking 4 playoff runs who biggest difference was one extra bucket a game, then whined about TS% as a measure of efficiency and Defensive rating as a measure of defensive efficiency.

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

Saying Kobe's performance wasn't up there with Lebron or some other greats, which is what I said, isn't the same thing as saying it wasn't on par with other legends. "Other legends" is a very broad category. Saying Kobe's performance isn't up there with Lebron's isn't the same thing as saying it wasn't up there with some Dominique Wilkins' run either or that it more on par with some Jeff Hornacek run. As I said, sounds like we're just arguing semantics here.

You asked me what runs I don't feel they compare to, so I brought them up?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yao Ming's Foot
You are the one who selected the entire sample size. Those were the legends you hand selected who would prove Kobe's "sidekick" numbers don't measure up. Now you are telling me its unfair to include all of them. Why list them in the first place?

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yao Ming's Foot
There is nothing weird about it. It's simply a points allowed per possession measurement times 100. Its derived by looking at simple defensive success of a team. How many points did they allow? How many possessions did it take for the team to score those points? What is controversial about that?

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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Yao Ming's Foot
Your emotions and emoticons distract from whatever you are trying to convey. It appears you are arguing about the gradual improvement of defensive efficiency over the last 20 years. That's not the topic. What defensive measurements are you comfortable with? Points allowed per game? Field goal percentage allowed per game? Points allowed per possession? Defensive ranking of the opponents within that specific year only? Do you just want to keep the inflated offensive numbers and use those for comparisons across era but throw out the defensive ones because suddenly across era comparisons are not fair?

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. If there was a stat where an improvement/decline in the defensive efficiency stat didn't automatically correspond with the decline/improvement in the corresponding offensive efficiency stat, then that would be very useful to compare across eras, but thats obviously not possible.

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.

For you to not understand this or thinks its irrelevant means you're either stupid or have no problem completely ignoring simple logic.
guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2013, 11:40 AM   #142
TheMan
MJ GOAT, U MAD?
 
TheMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Chitown
Posts: 6,274
TheMan is popular on this boardTheMan is popular on this boardTheMan is popular on this boardTheMan is popular on this boardTheMan is popular on this board
Default Re: Kobe Bryant on Michael Jordan, LeBron, winning championships, etc

Quote:
Originally Posted by guy
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.




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.



Fair enough. Personally, I don't think rebounds is as much of a valuable category as points and assists because it doesn't lead directly to points. But you're right to point out that inconsistency.

I didn't fail to mention his 9% increase in assists, because I was only mentioning his biggest difference.



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

Saying Kobe's performance wasn't up there with Lebron or some other greats, which is what I said, isn't the same thing as saying it wasn't on par with other legends. "Other legends" is a very broad category. Saying Kobe's performance isn't up there with Lebron's isn't the same thing as saying it wasn't up there with some Dominique Wilkins' run either or that it more on par with some Jeff Hornacek run. As I said, sounds like we're just arguing semantics here.

You asked me what runs I don't feel they compare to, so I brought them up?



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.



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.




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. If there was a stat where an improvement/decline in the defensive efficiency stat didn't automatically correspond with the decline/improvement in the corresponding offensive efficiency stat, then that would be very useful to compare across eras, but thats obviously not possible.

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.

For you to not understand this or thinks its irrelevant means you're either stupid or have no problem completely ignoring simple logic.
TheMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2013, 12:02 PM   #143
tontoz
NBA rookie of the year
 
tontoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,898
tontoz is popular on this boardtontoz is popular on this boardtontoz is popular on this boardtontoz is popular on this boardtontoz is popular on this board
Default Re: Kobe Bryant on Michael Jordan, LeBron, winning championships, etc

Quote:
Originally Posted by guy
Well let me spell it out for you then. If player A goes 12/20 on all 2s and player B goes 8/20 on all 3s, the team that's better off is player A's team.



Ever heard of floor spacing? There is a reason why teams covet 3 point shooters even if they can't do much else.

Last edited by tontoz : 03-20-2013 at 12:04 PM.
tontoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2013, 12:17 PM   #144
guy
NBA All-star
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,296
guy has an incredible reputation hereguy has an incredible reputation hereguy has an incredible reputation hereguy has an incredible reputation hereguy has an incredible reputation hereguy has an incredible reputation hereguy has an incredible reputation hereguy has an incredible reputation here
Default Re: Kobe Bryant on Michael Jordan, LeBron, winning championships, etc

Quote:
Originally Posted by tontoz
Ever heard of floor spacing? There is a reason why teams covet 3 point shooters even if they can't do much else.

What's your point? I never said nobody should ever take 3s. I don't really understand how this relates to what I said?
guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2013, 12:40 PM   #145
tontoz
NBA rookie of the year
 
tontoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,898
tontoz is popular on this boardtontoz is popular on this boardtontoz is popular on this boardtontoz is popular on this boardtontoz is popular on this board
Default Re: Kobe Bryant on Michael Jordan, LeBron, winning championships, etc

Quote:
Originally Posted by guy
What's your point? I never said nobody should ever take 3s. I don't really understand how this relates to what I said?


You somehow came to the conclusion that 12/20 on 2s > 8/20 on 3s. You reasoning was based solely on increased defensive rebounds for the opposition, as if that is the only consideration.

It isn't. Second chance opportunities and floor spacing also come into play, which you completely ignored.
tontoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2013, 12:48 PM   #146
NumberSix
Big Booty Hoes!!
 
NumberSix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: The Internets
Posts: 23,151
NumberSix is a pretty well-respected posterNumberSix is a pretty well-respected posterNumberSix is a pretty well-respected posterNumberSix is a pretty well-respected poster
Default Re: Kobe Bryant on Michael Jordan, LeBron, winning championships, etc

Quote:
Originally Posted by DMAVS41
Well, that is kind of my point.

The difference is simple though. Kobe simply could not have won without Shaq. End of story. Not one other player in the league could have come in and allowed Kobe to win those 3 rings. Even with Duncan, depending on what Shaq had around him, he might not win.

With Lebron, it's a little different, but not entirely.

My point was simple. Kobe fans use the 5 rings as the main source of evidence for his greatness. While Lebron fans use his level of play as the main source of evidence for his greatness. There is a bit of a difference there.

Only until this era of "ring counting"...generally by Kobe fans using this to prop Kobe up....did fans and players (MJ for example) think ring count defined a player this much. Level of play and what you do with your help is what matters. Obviously Kobe didn't have the same chance as Lebron to put up the same numbers early on...partly because of his team and in more so because he just wasn't good enough. At the same time, Lebron obviously had a completely different early career...joining a 17 win team...playing without a championship roster or coach.

Kobe has literally played with like 12 legit championship rosters. Lebron has played with 3 now. That has to be factored in.

And what is wrong with Kobe's numbers? They are some of the best ever. So I don't even get what the hell he is talking about.
This. When MJ retired with 3 rings, there was no question whatsoever that he was better than Magic. You didn't have idiots running around saying "5 rings" or "magic is 2 rings better than MJ".
NumberSix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2013, 01:03 PM   #147
guy
NBA All-star
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,296
guy has an incredible reputation hereguy has an incredible reputation hereguy has an incredible reputation hereguy has an incredible reputation hereguy has an incredible reputation hereguy has an incredible reputation hereguy has an incredible reputation hereguy has an incredible reputation here
Default Re: Kobe Bryant on Michael Jordan, LeBron, winning championships, etc

Quote:
Originally Posted by tontoz
You somehow came to the conclusion that 12/20 on 2s > 8/20 on 3s. You reasoning was based solely on increased defensive rebounds for the opposition, as if that is the only consideration.

It isn't. Second chance opportunities and floor spacing also come into play, which you completely ignored.

Huh? I did address second chance opportunities in my next post. In those 4 extra plays where a miss takes place, the 8/20 player's team's offense MIGHT get the offensive rebound, and then MIGHT convert the second chance opportunity into points. But its not even an issue for the 12/20 player's team because the desired end result is already achieved.

I still fail to see how floor spacing for one team has an affect on the transition opportunities for the other team.
guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2013, 01:19 PM   #148
DMAVS41
NBA Legend
 
DMAVS41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,618
DMAVS41 is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterDMAVS41 is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterDMAVS41 is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterDMAVS41 is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterDMAVS41 is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterDMAVS41 is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterDMAVS41 is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterDMAVS41 is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterDMAVS41 is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterDMAVS41 is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterDMAVS41 is considered a brilliant InsideHoops poster
Default Re: Kobe Bryant on Michael Jordan, LeBron, winning championships, etc

Quote:
Originally Posted by NumberSix
This. When MJ retired with 3 rings, there was no question whatsoever that he was better than Magic. You didn't have idiots running around saying "5 rings" or "magic is 2 rings better than MJ".

Exactly.

Not sure why or how this whole ring thing really started...my guess is that it was Kobe fans and MJ fans going back and forth in the early 2000s or something.

Now, it has ruined much of how we judge and analyze players.

I was saying it for years about Dirk. Winning the title doesn't make him any greater than he was...he finally got a legit team around him in the right circumstance to win. You have to judge how players play the game first and foremost.
DMAVS41 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2013, 01:22 PM   #149
tontoz
NBA rookie of the year
 
tontoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,898
tontoz is popular on this boardtontoz is popular on this boardtontoz is popular on this boardtontoz is popular on this boardtontoz is popular on this board
Default Re: Kobe Bryant on Michael Jordan, LeBron, winning championships, etc

Quote:
Originally Posted by guy
Huh? I did address second chance opportunities in my next post. In those 4 extra plays where a miss takes place, the 8/20 player's team's offense MIGHT get the offensive rebound, and then MIGHT convert the second chance opportunity into points. But its not even an issue for the 12/20 player's team because the desired end result is already achieved.



Desired result? They scored 24 points on 20 possessions. The team with the 8-20 3 point shooter will always get AT LEAST 24 points and possibly more.

In basketball the desired result is to score as many points as possible.

Quote:
I still fail to see how floor spacing for one team has an affect on the transition opportunities for the other team.

The operative word in that sentence is FAIL.

It isn't just about the points the player scores it is about the points the team scores. Better floor spacing makes it easier for his teamates to score.

And you are vastly overstating the importance of fast breaks. The average team gets 42 defensive rebounds per game but scores only 13.6 fast break points per game.

http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat...oints-per-game
tontoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2013, 01:42 PM   #150
NumberSix
Big Booty Hoes!!
 
NumberSix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: The Internets
Posts: 23,151
NumberSix is a pretty well-respected posterNumberSix is a pretty well-respected posterNumberSix is a pretty well-respected posterNumberSix is a pretty well-respected poster
Default Re: Kobe Bryant on Michael Jordan, LeBron, winning championships, etc

Quote:
Originally Posted by DMAVS41
Exactly.

Not sure why or how this whole ring thing really started...my guess is that it was Kobe fans and MJ fans going back and forth in the early 2000s or something.

Now, it has ruined much of how we judge and analyze players.

I was saying it for years about Dirk. Winning the title doesn't make him any greater than he was...he finally got a legit team around him in the right circumstance to win. You have to judge how players play the game first and foremost.
Nah, I remember what the narrative was at that time.

When Kobe first entered the league, it was when the media was labelling every other young player with the "could this be the next Jordan" question. By the time of the lakers winning chips and the Shaq/Kobe beef, the general sentiment about the "next Jordan" thing was, "we'll, that ship has sailed", as it had with Grant Hill, Penny and all the other potential "next MJ's".

Don't forget. For years, Kobe was labelled as a guy who will never lead a team to a championship, can't win without Shaq, etc.. In no way was he thought of as some Jordan type of player. He was almost looked at like a Pippen without his Jordan. People forget that Kobe DID take a lot of criticism for many years.

Once the lakers started getting back to the finals though, the revisionist history started flowing, as it always does. If you would have stopped paying attention to basketball for a few years and came back, you'd be like "wait, what? Who are they saying is on Jordan's level? Huh? Kobe? What? When did this happen?".

I mean, just look at LeBron. Just a year ago the narrative was he's a serial choker, he can't lead a team to a championship, etc. all of a sudden after 1 ring the narrative from the same media people is he's on Jordan's level.
NumberSix is offline   Reply With Quote
This NBA Basketball News Website Sponsored by:
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:59 AM.




NBA Basketball Forum Key Links:
InsideHoops Home
NBA Rumors
Basketball Blog
NBA Daily Recaps
NBA Videos
Fantasy Basketball
NBA Mock Draft
NBA Free Agents
All-Star Weekend
---
High School Basketball
Streetball
---
InsideHoops Twitter
Search Our Site















Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Terms of Use/Service | Privacy Policy