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 03-20-2013, 01:10 PM   #151
Yao Ming's Foot
You're welcome
 
Yao Ming's Foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,975
Yao Ming's Foot has decent reputation
Default Re: Kobe Bryant on Michael Jordan, LeBron, winning championships, etc

Quote:
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.


Quote:

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.

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.





Quote:
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.

Quote:
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

vs

.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
Old 03-20-2013, 01:32 PM   #152
guy
NBA All-star
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,261
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
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.

Why? Because of extra offensive rebounds? Well for those 20 plays, the 12/20 player's teams can also get offensive rebounds in the 8 plays they missed.

Lets boil it down to the 12 plays, where the one that goes 12/20 on 2s hits all of them and the other that goes 8/20 from 3 hits 3s on 8 possession but misses 4. You're right, its possible that the team with the 4 misses can get an offensive rebound. But defensive rebounds are usually at least twice as more likely, and on top of that, even if an offensive rebound is obtained, it doesn't guarantee a point.

For fractional simplicity sakes, lets say instead of 4 more misses its 12 more misses, and on average a 3rd of them are offensive rebounds while the rest are defensive rebounds, and lets say in each situation they convert points on 50% of them. One team would get 4 offensive rebounds, and then 4 points as a result, while the other team would get 8 defensive rebounds and 8 points as a result. Thats a 4 point net negative. On the other hand, take the other situation where instead of 12 missed threes (converted from 4), its 12 made twos, and the opposing team converts on 50% of the following possessions (which is very generous because its unlikely they would convert at the same rate with no transition opportunities). That would be 24 points vs. 12 points, a 12 point net positive. Put them together and its a 16 point difference.

Lets say a team shoots 100 2s and no other shots on 60% in one game, and then shoots 100 3s and no other shots on 40% in the next game. They score 120 points in each game, but what game do you think they gave up more points in?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tontoz
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 the same can be said about players that regularly attack and draw defenders away from their teammates, also drawing more fouls in the process. That's a more efficient approach overall, and historically thats usually been more of a superstars' role then creating floor spacing, which is usually reserved for sharpshooter role players.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tontoz
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

I'm not just talking about fast breaks but higher uptempo possessions in general. And 13.6 points is pretty significant. All that tells me is if a team is missing more shots, which they would on 3s, then more defensive rebounds for the other team will result and more fast break points in general.
guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2013, 01:45 PM   #153
tontoz
NBA rookie of the year
 
tontoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,887
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
For fractional simplicity sakes, lets say instead of 4 more misses its 12 more misses, and on average a 3rd of them are offensive rebounds while the rest are defensive rebounds, and lets say in each situation they convert points on 50% of them. One team would get 4 offensive rebounds, and then 4 points as a result, while the other team would get 8 defensive rebounds and 8 points as a result. Thats a 4 point net negative.




The defense is going to get a possession even if the offense makes the shot. However the team shooting is gaining an additional possession by getting a rebound.

Secondly just because the defense gets a defensive rebound and scores doesn't mean it is was a fast break. If teams got a fast break point for every defensive rebound they would average over 40 fast break points per game instead of 13.6.

Quote:
And the same can be said about players that regularly attack and draw defenders away from their teammates, also drawing more fouls in the process. That's a more efficient approach overall

And it is also easier to defend because the defense has less area to cover.

Quote:
I'm not just talking about fast breaks (actually that is exactly what you were talking about) but higher uptempo possessions in general. And 13.6 points is pretty significant. All that tells me is if a team is missing more shots, which they would on 3s, then more defensive rebounds for the other team will result and more fast break points in general.


The problem is that a defensive rebound is only worth .33 fast break points on average. It takes 6 defensive rebounds to get one fast break field goal.

And long rebounds are more likely to be gotten by the offense since the defense has inside position.

Last edited by tontoz : 03-20-2013 at 01:47 PM.
tontoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2013, 01:47 PM   #154
KingBeasley08
World's Finest
 
KingBeasley08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: State College
Posts: 6,599
KingBeasley08 is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableKingBeasley08 is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableKingBeasley08 is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableKingBeasley08 is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableKingBeasley08 is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableKingBeasley08 is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableKingBeasley08 is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableKingBeasley08 is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableKingBeasley08 is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableKingBeasley08 is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableKingBeasley08 is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginable
Default Re: Kobe Bryant on Michael Jordan, LeBron, winning championships, etc

So basically.. Kobe's saying "how good you are actually matters?". Lmao well no shit it does Bean
KingBeasley08 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 09:42 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