Which Defense is better: 2010 Finals V.S. 1996 Finals

[ginobli2311]

Alright so the bulls struggled in shooting the ball. Does that automatically point to the defense being great? Sometimes yes and sometimes no.

All I know is that both teams had very potent offenses and their competition was notorious for shutting down some big name teams in the past.

You can't use the chain of logic where you say, "the bulls were better offensively than the lakers and they were held to an amount farther away from their usual offensive averages, thereby meaning they faced a superior defense," because they may have struggled in that series because of matchup issues or just general shooting woes (loss of confidence).

like i just said. i agree with that....its actually the most valid point. the bulls could have just played poorly.....i really don't know. what i know is that pippen rarely got any good shots and the bulls in general really struggled. but they could have just played poorly.

but the same can be said for the lakers. how many open shots did artest miss? how many forced jumpers to kobe take that bailed out the celtics?

you are trying to say that the celtics were somehow much better....but in what terms?

the numbers don't support it. we all saw kobe take a high amount of ridiculous shots. we all saw artest miss wide open shots. so it goes both ways.

[TheAnchorman]

i agree with some of that. but if the sonics weren't capable of playing good post defense then why did they sweep hakeem and the rockets and why did they limit hakeem so much?

clearly the sonics defense is stronger on the perimeter.....no argument about that.

you can't just say gasol wasn't a factor for half of the series and then just ignore the fact that the dude 19 points a game on 48% from the field and grabbed 12 boards. if the celtics were so great in the front court...how did gasol dominate the boards so much in the series? he was easily the best rebounder in the series.

my point in bringing up the sonics defensive rating was to show that they were a very good defensive team all year. it wasn't some accident dude.

the fact remains that the bulls were a far superior offensive team than the lakers. and in the both finals. the sonics held the bulls overall to worse numbers and efficiency than the celtics held the lakers.

so if we are just judging the finals. we have the bulls.....the best offensive team....struggling more. so again....this had nothing to do with the sonics?
Simple. The reason why Hakeem was so successful in 94 and 95 was because when he got double-teamed his teammates were able to hit shots I never believed that Olajuwon "single-handedly" won those championships. In 96 Olajuwon started declining, and in the playoffs Cassell/Horry/Kenny Smith (3 of their shooters) underperformed, Cassell shooting a horrific 32%.

And I am not talking about Celtics rebounding. I am talking about Celtics inside D. Unless you want to compare Finals rebounding between the Celtics and Sonics. And you probably shouldn't do that, knowing who the Bulls had as PF that time.

I never said they weren't a good defensive team, I just said the Celtics D is better. Yes, Sonics perimeter D is stronger, but Celtics overall defense is stronger. Their perimeter D was also exceptional. Overall I still take the Celtics D because of their great post D. If you want to play the playoffs game, then I would guarantee you that the Sonics would not have gone to 7 with the Jazz in the 1996 WCF if they played better pick and roll defense against the greatest pick and roll tandem of all time. The Celtics, with KG as a great PR defender would have done much better.

And yes, the Sonics had a lot to do with it. It also had a lot to do with Pippen just being horrific. It had a lot to do with Jordan missing shots. etc. etc.

[ginobli2311]

Simple. The reason why Hakeem was so successful in 94 and 95 was because when he got double-teamed his teammates were able to hit shots I never believed that Olajuwon "single-handedly" won those championships. In 96 Olajuwon started declining, and in the playoffs Cassell/Horry/Kenny Smith (3 of their shooters) underperformed, Cassell shooting a horrific 32%.

And I am not talking about Celtics rebounding. I am talking about Celtics inside D. Unless you want to compare Finals rebounding between the Celtics and Sonics. And you probably shouldn't do that, knowing who the Bulls had as PF that time.

I never said they weren't a good defensive team, I just said the Celtics D is better. Yes, Sonics perimeter D is stronger, but Celtics overall defense is stronger. Their perimeter D was also exceptional. Overall I still take the Celtics D because of their great post D. If you want to play the playoffs game, then I would guarantee you that the Sonics would not have gone to 7 with the Jazz in the 1996 WCF if they played better pick and roll defense against the greatest pick and roll tandem of all time. The Celtics, with KG as a great PR defender would have done much better.

And yes, the Sonics had a lot to do with it. It also had a lot to do with Pippen just being horrific. It had a lot to do with Jordan missing shots. etc. etc.

i agree with almost all of that.

hard to say hakeem was on the decline.....i think he put up 27 and 11 in 96....i'm off my phone so i can't check. but pretty sure he was still dominant.

never said the sonics were a better rebounding team....just point out that gasol and bynum didn't exactly get killed or something in a front line vs. front line comparison. gasol was the best big in the series and bynum was much more effective than perk when he played.

i also think you can always point to why a certain team lost and say it had nothing to do with defense. i understand what you are saying....but generally players play well against bad defenses and struggle against good defenses. you can pretty much always say "they just missed shots...or something to that effect"....

i think its a bit of cop-out personally.

side note:

i'm watching payton guard jordan very well in the post right now in game 6. if payton could guard jordan in the post well....he could guard kobe well. end of story on that front.

[tpols]

like i just said. i agree with that....its actually the most valid point. the bulls could have just played poorly.....i really don't know. what i know is that pippen rarely got any good shots and the bulls in general really struggled. but they could have just played poorly.

but the same can be said for the lakers. how many open shots did artest miss? how many forced jumpers to kobe take that bailed out the celtics?

you are trying to say that the celtics were somehow much better....but in what terms?

the numbers don't support it. we all saw kobe take a high amount of ridiculous shots. we all saw artest miss wide open shots. so it goes both ways.
Yes we did so we'll never know, by looking at stats, which defense was better as there are too many variables to consider.

The only way to truly see who was defending better is to watch the games, and like every poster has said before me, people watching the celtics saw a team with superior help defense versus what you say which is basically just saying the words "gary payton" over and over and then throwing a defensive rating at us when anyone that watched the 96' series would tell you there was MUCH less help defense and it was mostly just one on one play (and we all know team defense is better than that).

[ginobli2311]

Yes we did so we'll never know, by looking at stats, which defense was better as there are too many variables to consider.

The only way to truly see who was defending better is to watch the games, and like every poster has said before me, people watching the celtics saw a team with superior help defense versus what you say which is basically just saying the words "gary payton" over and over and then throwing a defensive rating at us when anyone that watched the 96' series would tell you there was MUCH less help defense and it was mostly just one on one play (and we all know team defense is better than that).

agree to disagree about most of that. you are being grossly unfair to the sonics and the nba in general in 96 if you discount what they did so much.

the sonics played help side defense just like every team did. they trapped jordan all the time and they rotated to shooters very well. kemp actually did a very good job of protecting the rim throughout the series.

you say the nba is so different....yet the offensive ratings and defensive ratings of the top ten teams in the league in both years seem to be very similar.

the sonics did not have the 2nd best defensive rating in the league by accident. and the nba was not in some down state by any means in 96.

[mamba24]

I think the team defenses were very similar. but gary payton was literally ten times the defender that ray allen or tony allen is. people either forget or are too young to know the kind of defender payton was. he's one of the 10 to 15 best perimeter defenders of all time. he was in the heart of his prime in 96 and was a tough matchup for jordan.

i have the series on dvd. trust me....jordan played well to shoot 42%. also....the rest of the bulls were awful for most of that series....jordan had to take a lot of forced shots that he normally wouldn't have taken.

basically the exact opposite of kobe. kobe had a matchup he should have been able to exploit...but he couldn't. kobe also should have deferred to his teammates because they were playing better than him. jordan had a brutal matchup and his teammates were really struggling so it forced him to do more.

i can't remember....but i think jordan was more efficient from the field than kobe was as well.

Lol he can't remember....hahaha..you have the DVD right go watch it again.

I'd love to tell you how it ends and maybe you can see that both players came out the same way gunning for glory.

Lol your gonna love watching it again as you'd look like a real tool in the comments you just made...hahaha

[hwliuLAP]

i have the series on dvd. trust me....jordan played well to shoot 42%. also....the rest of the bulls were awful for most of that series....jordan had to take a lot of forced shots that he normally wouldn't have taken.

basically the exact opposite of kobe.


uhhhhhhh wtf?

[chopchop20]

uhhhhhhh wtf?

I'm with you.... Now admitting that Jordan took forced shots (as clearly seen on the video)

[BobCatsFanInTx]

I am just going to put this out there. Kobe is in no way better than MJ and never will be. Teams in the Millennium are not near as disciplined defensively as they were in Jordan's time in the 90's. The Bulls champions would destroy any champion from the Millennium!!! Stats don't hold up because teams and players were flat out better in Jordan's era.

By the way I hated MJ and the Bulls. I grew up a Denver Nuggets fan and when expansion happened in 88 I picked the Charlotte Hornets as my second team. So my opinion is not colored by any bias.

I still think Jordan is a dick head but his Bulls championship teams would destroy ANY of the champions of the last ten years. The Bulls didn't need to have a stellar defense cause they were loaded with offensive fire power.

Speed and athleticism with great shooting depth will destroy a team with size any day.

I am sure young people born in the 90's who came into their own at the end of Chicago's run will feel an allegiance to their teams of the Millennium but the reality is that after the early 21st century team basketball took a bit of a dive. Most modern players don't focus as much on the fundamentals anymore.

Guys are always making careless mistakes and they play lazy a lot of times. In the 80's and 90's when I watched the NBA guys did play intelligent focused basketball and scoring was much harder.

Don't get me wrong there are a few teams today who play great defense and maybe some of them could compete against the best of yesteryear but for sure the Bulls last three title teams were better than any title team of the last ten years. Kobe vs vintage Jordan would have been fun to see and both men are and were awesome but Jordan is and always will be the best.

[BobCatsFanInTx]

uhhhhhhh wtf?Might we be colored by a bit of a Laker's bias? I bet you think every great Laker in history was better than MJ.

Since your avatar has the title trophy and Lakers name it is pretty hard to accept your opinion as an unbiased one.

I on the other hand hated the Bulls when Jordan was there and I hate the Kobe led Lakers. Actually I have always hated the Lakers. Thing is you can look at all the footage you want but players and teams in the 90's were flat out better than they are now. With the new influx of talent in the last five or six years the league is getting back to it's past. What remains to be seen is if players will work hard and take defense serious. In the 90's just about every team played and executed better defense than they do today. Stats don't mean squat because if a team loaded with offensive talent took on a solid defense they still are going to score their fair share of points.

The Bulls may have given up some points but their offensive units destroyed other teams. Your Lakers championship teams of the past ten years would and could not beat the last three championship Bulls team.

It is okay to speculate and you can throw all the stats you want out there but the modern teams are not as good as those of the 90's and even 80's. I can't speak for the teams before that time cause I am not old enough.

Micheal Jordan and the Bulls will always be better than Kobe and the Lakers!!!!

[Tez62]

I didn't go through the 15 pages, but since I read quite a few times on the 1st page that the early Knicks and Pistons were better than Seattle, here are some videos of the Knicks and Pistons and you can clearly see that their defense was nowhere near the level of the Celtics - particularly the Pistons. Their rotations are much worse than Boston. It's not even close really


Pistons vs. MJ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLv2F33snCE

Knicks vs. MJ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K-qGWkiKvQ

Kobe vs. Boston

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR74mWiXg1s


QFT

[chopchop20]

QFT

Awesome Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR74mWiXg1s

[ginobli2311]

Awesome Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR74mWiXg1s

i honestly don't know what you are trying to prove with this video. first of all....its the 08 celtics....which was a much better defensive team than either the 96 sonics or 10 celtics.

now....the video loses all creditability when the guy says this " jordan played against poor defenders in a watered down era"......LOL. are you serious?

my god. i would pay my life savings to watch a prime gary payton absolutely shut down kobe bryant. it would be hilarious. trying to compare james posey / ray allen / tony allen / paul pierce to what payton was on defense is laughable.

but again....that video does 2 things:

1. it illustrates that the 2008 celtics were a great defensive team.....especially compare to the 10 celtics and 96 sonics

2. kobe had no business taking the kind of shots his did throughout that series. he should have been taking 18 shots a game....not 22 plus.

once again...you make my points for me.

side note: why are these teams all-time great defenses when they play kobe?...for example the pistons and celtics. but not all time great when wade shreds them? like wade did to the pistons in 05/06 and the celtics in 10.

[Da_Realist]

All this chatter just to rationalize Kobe's inefficiency. The only Finals MVP to go through the entire series without once shooting 50% or better. And he's done it twice in a row.

Hadn't shot 50% in his last SIXTEEN Finals games, dating back to 2008. He shot 50% or better in only five of his thirty-seven Finals games. FIVE. What's the one constant in all these games? KOBE.

Is every team he plays the BEST DEFENSIVE TEAM EVERRRR? Give me a break. I'd love to read some of your explanations for that 43% he put up against Orlando last year. Lebron with much less help, a far inferior coach and coaching scheme shot 49% against that team.

Dwyane Wade shot 56% against the 2010 Celtics. The Celtics defense didn't change in 2 weeks. Their opponent did.

Pick a game and look at how many forced shots he throws up. Those shots make any defense look good.

It's not the Celtics defense. It's not the Pistons defense. It's not that vaunted Magic defense. It's KOBE.

[amfirst]

All this chatter just to rationalize Kobe's inefficiency. The only Finals MVP to go through the entire series without once shooting 50% or better. And he's done it twice in a row.

Hadn't shot 50% in his last SIXTEEN Finals games, dating back to 2008. He shot 50% or better in only five of his thirty-seven Finals games. FIVE. What's the one constant in all these games? KOBE.

Is every team he plays the BEST DEFENSIVE TEAM EVERRRR? Give me a break. I'd love to read some of your explanations for that 43% he put up against Orlando last year. Lebron with much less help, a far inferior coach and coaching scheme shot 49% against that team.

Dwyane Wade shot 56% against the 2010 Celtics. The Celtics defense didn't change in 2 weeks. Their opponent did.


Pick a game and look at how many forced shots he throws up. Those shots make any defense look good.

It's not the Celtics defense. It's not the Pistons defense. It's not that vaunted Magic defense. It's KOBE.

If Wade shot 56% percent and they lost, it obviously mean he cared more about stats. Because if he really did want to win, he would have shot more with 56% there is a no way they should have lost. Obviously, he didn't know how to win.

[NBASTATMAN]

All of a sudden Ray Allen is a great defender... :roll:


Wade killed that same defense.. Shut this crap down......... Even Lebron played much better.. Kobe is a great player but he has great talent around him... He is one of the greats and there is no denying that.. But he has never scored more than 42 in any finals game ever.... That 42 pt effort wasn't even on 50 percent shooting....

Kobe is one of the best but he will never get lower than 5-7 on the all time list... That is just the truth... You can make thread after thread but that WILL NEVER CHANGE..... :rockon:


Gotta go.. Summer is here and cannot waste anymore time on this board.... :banana:

[NBASTATMAN]

All this chatter just to rationalize Kobe's inefficiency. The only Finals MVP to go through the entire series without once shooting 50% or better. And he's done it twice in a row.

Hadn't shot 50% in his last SIXTEEN Finals games, dating back to 2008. He shot 50% or better in only five of his thirty-seven Finals games. FIVE. What's the one constant in all these games? KOBE.

Is every team he plays the BEST DEFENSIVE TEAM EVERRRR? Give me a break. I'd love to read some of your explanations for that 43% he put up against Orlando last year. Lebron with much less help, a far inferior coach and coaching scheme shot 49% against that team.

Dwyane Wade shot 56% against the 2010 Celtics. The Celtics defense didn't change in 2 weeks. Their opponent did.

Pick a game and look at how many forced shots he throws up. Those shots make any defense look good.

It's not the Celtics defense. It's not the Pistons defense. It's not that vaunted Magic defense. It's KOBE.




:applause: :applause: :applause:

[ginobli2311]

All this chatter just to rationalize Kobe's inefficiency. The only Finals MVP to go through the entire series without once shooting 50% or better. And he's done it twice in a row.

Hadn't shot 50% in his last SIXTEEN Finals games, dating back to 2008. He shot 50% or better in only five of his thirty-seven Finals games. FIVE. What's the one constant in all these games? KOBE.

Is every team he plays the BEST DEFENSIVE TEAM EVERRRR? Give me a break. I'd love to read some of your explanations for that 43% he put up against Orlando last year. Lebron with much less help, a far inferior coach and coaching scheme shot 49% against that team.

Dwyane Wade shot 56% against the 2010 Celtics. The Celtics defense didn't change in 2 weeks. Their opponent did.

Pick a game and look at how many forced shots he throws up. Those shots make any defense look good.

It's not the Celtics defense. It's not the Pistons defense. It's not that vaunted Magic defense. It's KOBE.

finally some support for me. great post.

[Soothsayer]

[QUOTE=alexandreben]Which Defense is better: 2010 Finals V.S. 1996 Finals

Garry Payton - Ray Allen

KG/Perkins - Kemp/Schrempf

Paul Pierce/Tony Allen - Hawkins/Askew




Here's some stats comparisson between Jordan and Kobe:

Jordan - 1996 Finals Average V.S. Kobe - 2010 Finals Average:
Jordan/Kobe
Min - 42 Min - 41.3
PPG - 27.3 PPG - 28.6
FG% - .415 FG% - .405
3P% - .316 3P% - .319
FT% - .836 FT% - .883
TRB - 5.3 TRB - 8
Ast - 4.2 Ast - 5.5
Stl - 1.7 Stl - 2.14
Blk - .2 Blk - .71
Tov - 3 Tov - 3.86



Jordan - Final Game 1996 Finals V.S. Kobe - Final Game 2010 Finals
Jordan/Kobe
Min - 43 Min - 45
PPG - 22 PPG - 23
FG% - 5-19 (.263) FG% - 6-24 (.25)
3P% - 1-3 (.333) 3P% - 0-6 (.000)
FT% - 11-12 (.917) FT% - 11-15 (.733)
TRB - 9 TRB - 15
Ast - 7 Ast - 2
Stl - 2 Stl - 1
Blk - 0 Blk - 0
Tov - 5 Tov - 4


Here's an old vid

[Soothsayer]

Boston's defense is underrated and is considerably better than those Sonics on that side of the floor.


No.

2010 Celts held opponents to .473 EFG in the playoffs.
96 Sonics held opps to .471 EFG in the playoffs.

[ginobli2311]

No.

2010 Celts held opponents to .473 EFG in the playoffs.
96 Sonics held opps to .471 EFG in the playoffs.

exactly. not to mention that the sonics had the better defensive rating all year and limited a great offensive team in the 96 bulls. the 10 lakers struggled offensively all year and should not even be in the same sentence as the 96 bulls in terms of offensive efficiency. the sonics/payton also held jordan to by far his worst finals performance ever at around 7% worse from the field.

the 10 celtics held kobe to his averages in the finals. you can't credit a defense for holding a player to what he normally does. there is an inherent flaw in that line of thinking.

[JM720]

2010 Finals

[Psileas]

the 10 celtics held kobe to his averages in the finals. you can't credit a defense for holding a player to what he normally does. there is an inherent flaw in that line of thinking.

I thought you were talking about playoffs. His playoff averages were not what he averaged vs the Celtics. Not even close.

But if you now change the subject and jump from playoffs to regular seasons, OK, let's also discredit all those playoff defenses in the 90's against who Jordan increased his regular season production, for example, the defense of the '92 Knicks.

[ginobli2311]

I thought you were talking about playoffs. His playoff averages were not what he averaged vs the Celtics. Not even close.

But if you now change the subject and jump from playoffs to regular seasons, OK, let's also discredit all those playoff defenses in the 90's against who Jordan increased his regular season production, for example, the defense of the '92 Knicks.

no. i am referencing kobe's nba finals averages. for some reason.....kobe always plays poorly in the finals. its not just a one year thing. he always plays much worse in the nba finals than he does in the playoffs. coming into this year.....kobe was averaging around 41% in the finals for his previous 6 trips (more than a big enough sample size to use) and kobe put up that exact same percentage.

therefore....if a player plays the way he normally does and puts up his normal numbers....there is an inherent flaw in giving the defense credit for his play.

conversely. jordan averaged over 48% from the field for his career in the finals but shot 41% against the sonics. either jordan was just way off all series....or the sonics did the best job defending him that any team ever did in the finals.

that is why its more impressive to do what the sonics did. they held jordan far below his averages and they held a great offensive team in the bulls to far below their averages. kobe played the exact same way he always does in the finals.....and the 10 lakers were not a great offensive team by any standard or measure.

so again....sonics were more impressive defensively than the celtics because of the above.

kobe in the nba finals:
2000 - 37%
2001 - 42%
2002 - 51%
2004 - 38%
2008 - 40%
2009 - 43%
2010 - 41%

do you see the trend?

[ginobli2311]

time to close thread i think.

OWNED.

[chopchop20]

no. i am referencing kobe's nba finals averages. for some reason.....kobe always plays poorly in the finals. its not just a one year thing. he always plays much worse in the nba finals than he does in the playoffs. coming into this year.....kobe was averaging around 41% in the finals for his previous 6 trips (more than a big enough sample size to use) and kobe put up that exact same percentage.

therefore....if a player plays the way he normally does and puts up his normal numbers....there is an inherent flaw in giving the defense credit for his play.

conversely. jordan averaged over 48% from the field for his career in the finals but shot 41% against the sonics. either jordan was just way off all series....or the sonics did the best job defending him that any team ever did in the finals.

that is why its more impressive to do what the sonics did. they held jordan far below his averages and they held a great offensive team in the bulls to far below their averages. kobe played the exact same way he always does in the finals.....and the 10 lakers were not a great offensive team by any standard or measure.

so again....sonics were more impressive defensively than the celtics because of the above.

kobe in the nba finals:
2000 - 37%
2001 - 42%
2002 - 51%
2004 - 38%
2008 - 40%
2009 - 43%
2010 - 41%

do you see the trend?

Wow... ur about as dense as a rock. Still using retarded logic. Past Finals have nothing to do with 2010 Playoffs...

Shaq was the MDE in 2000... But do you think what he did in 2000 would be a reliable predictor of his playoffs performance in 2010?

[chopchop20]

Jordan was guarded by DPOY Payton throughout much of the 96 finals.

Kobe has never been guarded by a DPOY in the finals.

The 96 finals were MJ's worst finals performance.

The 2010 finals, as much as Kobe struggled, were not close to his worse.

For that, we look at the 2000 finals: 15.6 ppg on 37% shooting, or the 2004 finals: 24 ppg, 38% shooting, and only 14 rebounds in 5 games.

Jordan wasn't good in 1998 against the Jazz either

[ginobli2311]

Wow... ur about as dense as a rock. Still using retarded logic. Past Finals have nothing to do with 2010 Playoffs...

Shaq was the MDE in 2000... But do you think what he did in 2000 would be a reliable predictor of his playoffs performance in 2010?

LOL

Ok do you want to talk about the thunder series? of course not

you want to talk about the jazz a little....but mainly about the suns (an awful defensive team)....right?

lets ignore kobe's history of playing like crap in the finals. lets ingore that the lakers were not a good offensive team all year. lets only focus on how they performed in a ten game stretch against a terrible defense in the suns and a great mathcup in the jazz.

and i'm dense? LOL

owned

[chopchop20]

i honestly don't know what you are trying to prove with this video. first of all....its the 08 celtics....which was a much better defensive team than either the 96 sonics or 10 celtics.

now....the video loses all creditability when the guy says this " jordan played against poor defenders in a watered down era"......LOL. are you serious?

my god. i would pay my life savings to watch a prime gary payton absolutely shut down kobe bryant. it would be hilarious. trying to compare james posey / ray allen / tony allen / paul pierce to what payton was on defense is laughable.

but again....that video does 2 things:

1. it illustrates that the 2008 celtics were a great defensive team.....especially compare to the 10 celtics and 96 sonics

2. kobe had no business taking the kind of shots his did throughout that series. he should have been taking 18 shots a game....not 22 plus.

once again...you make my points for me.

side note: why are these teams all-time great defenses when they play kobe?...for example the pistons and celtics. but not all time great when wade shreds them? like wade did to the pistons in 05/06 and the celtics in 10.

Video illustrates that despite popular belief, there's still hand checking, grappling, and tough defense in the league. Celtics were just as hard-nosed as the Pistons.

[chopchop20]

All this chatter just to rationalize Kobe's inefficiency. The only Finals MVP to go through the entire series without once shooting 50% or better. And he's done it twice in a row.

Hadn't shot 50% in his last SIXTEEN Finals games, dating back to 2008. He shot 50% or better in only five of his thirty-seven Finals games. FIVE. What's the one constant in all these games? KOBE.

Is every team he plays the BEST DEFENSIVE TEAM EVERRRR? Give me a break. I'd love to read some of your explanations for that 43% he put up against Orlando last year. Lebron with much less help, a far inferior coach and coaching scheme shot 49% against that team.

Dwyane Wade shot 56% against the 2010 Celtics. The Celtics defense didn't change in 2 weeks. Their opponent did.

Pick a game and look at how many forced shots he throws up. Those shots make any defense look good.

It's not the Celtics defense. It's not the Pistons defense. It's not that vaunted Magic defense. It's KOBE.

Kobe - 5 Rings
Wade - 1 Ring

[ginobli2311]

Jordan wasn't good in 1998 against the Jazz either

true. but he was better in 98 (two years later at the age of 35) than he was in 96.

[ginobli2311]

Video illustrates that despite popular belief, there's still hand checking, grappling, and tough defense in the league. Celtics were just as hard-nosed as the Pistons.

agreed. never said otherwise. just like i never said that the celtics were not a very good defensive team. they just weren't quite as good as the sonics.

[chopchop20]

LOL

Ok do you want to talk about the thunder series? of course not

you want to talk about the jazz a little....but mainly about the suns (an awful defensive team)....right?

lets ignore kobe's history of playing like crap in the finals. lets ingore that the lakers were not a good offensive team all year. lets only focus on how they performed in a ten game stretch against a terrible defense in the suns and a great mathcup in the jazz.

and i'm dense? LOL

owned

Let's be realistic is more like it. Everything that I said is totally logical for normal people.

You're one trying to forget the 2010 Playoffs up until the Finals.

[ginobli2311]

Kobe - 5 Rings
Wade - 1 Ring

comments like this are beyond absurd and you know it. everytime you get owned you throw stuff like this out and you embarrass yourself.

[ginobli2311]

Let's be realistic is more like it. Everything that I said is totally logical for normal people.

You're one trying to forget the 2010 Playoffs up until the Finals.

so we should ignore how the lakers/kobe played all year and against the thunder in favor of how the lakers/kobe played against a terrible defense in the suns and a great mathcup in the jazz?

that does not make sense. no....it is not logical at all. kobe has a history of his performance dropping off quite a bit in the finals. you can't just ignore that and say "see....kobe/lakers were great against the jazz/suns....the celtics must be amazing on defense"

that is such flawed logic dude.

[chopchop20]

comments like this are beyond absurd and you know it. everytime you get owned you throw stuff like this out and you embarrass yourself.

Not at all... just putting things into perspective for stat gushers. At the end of the day it's all about winning. That's why Jordan is the goat -- not because of how many stat battles he won.

I mean the most glaring difference between Kobe and Wade is the amount of basketball they've played. Kobe can't do some of the things he used to. I have no problem conceding that Wade's superior athleticism at this point gives him an edge against the Celtics in certain areas. But it'll be interesting to see Wade after 14 years in the NBA.

[chopchop20]

so we should ignore how the lakers/kobe played all year and against the thunder in favor of how the lakers/kobe played against a terrible defense in the suns and a great mathcup in the jazz?

that does not make sense. no....it is not logical at all. kobe has a history of his performance dropping off quite a bit in the finals. you can't just ignore that and say "see....kobe/lakers were great against the jazz/suns....the celtics must be amazing on defense"

that is such flawed logic dude.

Never said that. I've been talking along about the 2010 Playoffs as a whole - the proper context.

The Celtics are a very good defense, independent of Kobe or any other player.

[ginobli2311]

Not at all... just putting things into perspective for stat gushers. At the end of the day it's all about winning. That's why Jordan is the goat -- not because of how many stat battles he won.

I mean the most glaring difference between Kobe and Wade is the amount of basketball they've played. Kobe can't do some of the things he used to. I have no problem conceding that Wade's superior athleticism at this point gives him an edge against the Celtics in certain areas. But it'll be interesting to see Wade after 14 years in the NBA.

agree with the wade/kobe stuff

disagree about the whole jordan winning is why he's the GOAT. Havlicek has more titles than Jordan. and Hondo was a great player that put up great numbers in the playoffs.

winning is important. but greatness isn't defined by how many rings you have. what if kevin durant winds up with 7 rings but he never becomes a better player than he is right now. are you honestly saying that he should go down higher than jordan or kobe or magic or bird?

do you see how flawed your logic is? the most important factor for ranking players should always be how they played the game.

but this debate is not even about that. its about the 96 sonics vs 10 celtics. and for some reason you keep acting like its harder to stop kobe than jordan and its harder to stop the 10 lakers than the 96 bulls. both assertions are absurd and all the evidence is on my side.

combine the above with kobe's history of having a sharp drop off in his play in the finals and it becomes an even more one sided debate.

[ginobli2311]

Never said that. I've been talking along about the 2010 Playoffs as a whole - the proper context.

The Celtics are a very good defense, independent of Kobe or any other player.

again you ignore context. the thunder held the lakers down pretty well. of course as a whole the lakers are going to have inflated numbers before they played boston. they to to play 10 games against pretty bad defenses with great matchups for them. 10 games out of 16......and the thunder were only 9th in the league on defense.

my point is that historically kobe always has a sharp decline in the finals....so you can't credit the celtics for that. now....the lakers struggled all year on offense and of course they are going to struggle more often against ANY good defense after playing the 16 previous games against the defenses of the thunder/jazz/suns. how do you not see this?

[Psileas]

no. i am referencing kobe's nba finals averages. for some reason.....kobe always plays poorly in the finals. its not just a one year thing. he always plays much worse in the nba finals than he does in the playoffs. coming into this year.....kobe was averaging around 41% in the finals for his previous 6 trips (more than a big enough sample size to use) and kobe put up that exact same percentage.

therefore....if a player plays the way he normally does and puts up his normal numbers....there is an inherent flaw in giving the defense credit for his play.

conversely. jordan averaged over 48% from the field for his career in the finals but shot 41% against the sonics. either jordan was just way off all series....or the sonics did the best job defending him that any team ever did in the finals.

that is why its more impressive to do what the sonics did. they held jordan far below his averages and they held a great offensive team in the bulls to far below their averages. kobe played the exact same way he always does in the finals.....and the 10 lakers were not a great offensive team by any standard or measure.

so again....sonics were more impressive defensively than the celtics because of the above.

kobe in the nba finals:
2000 - 37%
2001 - 42%
2002 - 51%
2004 - 38%
2008 - 40%
2009 - 43%
2010 - 41%

do you see the trend?

The thing is that there is a much wider sample of games by both the Celtics and the Sonics than just the Finals and all data is taken from the whole sample. Kobe, otoh, will play in only 4-7 Finals' games, regardless of occasion. So, what Kobe manages to do against a certain defense, which we already know how good/bad it is, depends more on himself than the defense of the opponents. If Kobe is in a good condition against a top defense, he'll produce what he did now or, even better, against the Magic in 2009. If he is in a bad condition, he would get what he got against the Pistons in 2004. 4-7 games, even the finals, are not going to change the defensive features of a team.

And if you believe that Kobe is per average that bad in the Finals, and that he "only" played as usual, this means that the Celtics did manage to make him play bad. Of course, it should be noted that the main reason Kobe has had these Finals is the defensive ability of his opponents, instead of an implied notion that Kobe suddenly chokes in the Finals:

2000: A little above average, but Kobe also had that injury.
2001: Top-5 in defensive rating.
2002: #1 in defensive rating and Kobe didn't play badly at all.
2004: Top-2 in defensive rating.
2008: #1 in defensive rating.
2009: #1 in defensive rating and Kobe didn't play bad at all.
2010: Top-5 in defensive rating and Kobe was the Finals' MVP.

[ginobli2311]

The thing is that there is a much wider sample of games by both the Celtics and the Sonics than just the Finals and all data is taken from the whole sample. Kobe, otoh, will play in only 4-7 Finals' games, regardless of occasion. So, what Kobe manages to do against a certain defense, which we already know how good/bad it is, depends more on himself than the defense of the opponents. If Kobe is in a good condition against a top defense, he'll produce what he did now or, even better, against the Magic in 2009. If he is in a bad condition, he would get what he got against the Pistons in 2004. 4-7 games, even the finals, are not going to change the defensive features of a team.

And if you believe that Kobe is per average that bad in the Finals, and that he "only" played as usual, this means that the Celtics did manage to make him play bad. Of course, it should be noted that the main reason Kobe has had these Finals is the defensive ability of his opponents, instead of an implied notion that Kobe suddenly chokes in the Finals:

2000: A little above average, but Kobe also had that injury.
2001: Top-5 in defensive rating.
2002: #1 in defensive rating and Kobe didn't play badly at all.
2004: Top-2 in defensive rating.
2008: #1 in defensive rating.
2009: #1 in defensive rating and Kobe didn't play bad at all.
2010: Top-5 in defensive rating and Kobe was the Finals' MVP.


nobody ever said kobe chokes in the finals. but he does not play up to his normal standards. we watched lebron destroy the magic in 09.....we watched wade destroy the celtics in 10. we watched the sonics in 96 shut down drexler and limit hakeem to well below his play all year. do you see the difference?

but you again make my point for me. kobe always struggles against the top 5 defenses in the league. so you can't point to kobe's play as to why the celtics are such a great defense. it does not fit logically.

so that is why i put everything into context. considering that kobe struggles consistently against the top defenses in the league. jordan did not. jordan's bulls in 96 played much better defenses and much better ranked defenses en route to the finals than the 10 lakers did. and jordan still saw a sharp decline in his playoff numbers that year.

now.....the 10 lakers were the 11th best offensive team in the league and they struggled all year to score and especially struggled against the better defenses.

the 96 bulls had a much better offense....ranked 1st in the league with a better offensive rating of over 7 points per game.

comparing the 96 bull to the 10 lakers offensively is a joke. just like comparing jordan's performances in the finals and against top defenses to kobe's performances in the finals and against top defenses is a joke.

so how are the celtics better? how were they better in the finals? all of the evidence points to the sonics.

[chopchop20]

now.....the 10 lakers were the 11th best offensive team in the league and they struggled all year to score and especially struggled against the better defenses.

Laughable

the 96 bulls had a much better offense....ranked 1st in the league with a better offensive rating of over 7 points per game.


Lakers have a much more balanced attack

comparing the 96 bull to the 10 lakers offensively is a joke.

An offense with Dennis Rodman? :confusedshrug:

[ginobli2311]

now.....the 10 lakers were the 11th best offensive team in the league and they struggled all year to score and especially struggled against the better defenses.

Laughable

the 96 bulls had a much better offense....ranked 1st in the league with a better offensive rating of over 7 points per game.


Lakers have a much more balanced attack

comparing the 96 bull to the 10 lakers offensively is a joke.

An offense with Dennis Rodman? :confusedshrug:


laughable? really?

so the lakers were better....yet they scored over 7 less points per 100 possessions. funny how all the evidence backs me up. this is why debating with you is pointless. there is absolutely no evidence to support your claim. more balanced? perhaps.....but that does not mean better at all.

offensive rating does not lie. it it was close i would understand your points. but its not even remotely close. bulls had a much better rating and were the best offense in the league. the lakers have a much worse rating and were not even in the top ten.

you can't debate that. its a fact.

[indiefan24]

ginobli2311


serious question. do you get tired of saying the same thing all day/night long? It seems like you're managing 4-5 kobe related threads right now. I'm not knocking you on your "logic" or "context" but damn that's a lot of typing. Like do you one day hope to convince all the Kobe fans otherwise?

[CAstill]

The lakers were the best team offensively in the league. Stats might not back it, but thats because they were lazy through out portions of the season that caused them to take a dip in their average. I would argue that at all cylinders
the lakers could give problems to the 96 bulls but you're right. The stats back it up and the bulls stayed consistantly efficient while LA would have lapses at times thus showing in the huge differences of offensive rankings. The bulls were a better offensive team than LA2010 straight up. I also feel that the bulls were a better a overall team than the lakers.

[ginobli2311]

ginobli2311


serious question. do you get tired of saying the same thing all day/night long? It seems like you're managing 4-5 kobe related threads right now. I'm not knocking you on your "logic" or "context" but damn that's a lot of typing. Like do you one day hope to convince all the Kobe fans otherwise?

this thread really had nothing to do with kobe. kobe came up because he was being used as evidence that the celtics played great defense....which i quickly refuted. check my posts.....they all try to get the debate back to the sonics vs. bulls.

choco has been owned and now he is just grasping at straws trying to somehow claim that the 10 lakers (a team that was offensively inept at times throughout the year and didn't even crack the top ten offesnively) was somehow better than the 96 bulls. its pathetic.

yes....it does get old typing the same crap over and over. but its the only way to drive certain points home.

[indiefan24]

but its the only way to drive certain points home.

lol ok i guess. to each his own.

[ginobli2311]

The lakers were the best team offensively in the league. Stats might not back it, but thats because they were lazy through out portions of the season that caused them to take a dip in their average. I would argue that at all cylinders
the lakers could give problems to the 96 bulls but you're right. The stats back it up and the bulls stayed consistantly efficient while LA would have lapses at times thus showing in the huge differences of offensive rankings. The bulls were a better offensive team than LA2010 straight up. I also feel that the bulls were a better a overall team than the lakers.

totally agree.

the lakers at times were fantastic offensively with great ball movement and great versatility. but those flashes were limited throughout the year....especially against quality defenses. you are what you are ultimately.....and the lakers were a team that did not score the ball efficiently throughout the year and against good defenses.

[HBKMGa]

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=179657

[Jacks3]

:roll: ^

[ginobli2311]

:roll: ^

please close thread.

you have all been thoroughly owned.

[chopchop20]

totally agree.

the lakers at times were fantastic offensively with great ball movement and great versatility. but those flashes were limited throughout the year....especially against quality defenses. you are what you are ultimately.....and the lakers were a team that did not score the ball efficiently throughout the year and against good defenses.

Apparently, the Bulls didn't either in 1996

[tpols]

Apparently, the Bulls didn't either in 1996
The funniest thing I see ginobli do is say that the bulls were held far below their averages and attributing that to the sonic's defense for this threads topic... and then when you compare jordan's and kobe's similar performances, he talks about how jordan was "better" and he "had to play well to shoot 43%" and saying that although jordan shot a lower %, it wasn't his fault because all of his teammates were ice cold (kerr, pippen, etc.). That means that the bulls lack of offensive performance is just due to his teammates being ice cold; but hey this is out of your mouth...Do you see how they contradict each other?

[Soundwave]

The Sonics defense was good ... so good that they got down 0-3 in the series.

Lets be honest, no one for any moment thought the Sonics were actually going to win the series.

The Bulls gave them a token couple of wins to save face before the inevitable.

[Gifted Mind]

I don't think there should be any debate left. The 96 Sonics were clearly the better defensive team. Whether you look at their defense in the regular season, or playoffs, they played better. Boston had to go against players like Wade, LeBron, Dwight, and Kobe, but Seattle in their postseason run had to go against players like Hakeem, Stockton, Malone, and Jordan. With the primary difference being Seattle played better defense against their superstars than did the Boston Celtics. Furthermore, having the NBA DPOY really helps. But besides for that, Karl had some nice trapping schemes running in the mid-90s that helped Seattle become the premier defense. This defense not only made it tough for perimeter players, but even players like inside players like Hakeem had trouble. The Rockets constantly were beaten by Seattle every year.

Besides for that, I think ginobili2311 did a good job putting everything else into perspective. Let's not forget, the 1996 Chicago Bulls are a 72-10 team, and arguably the GOAT. Both on defense, and on offense. Seattle slowed the 96 Bulls down compared to their season averages much greater than the Celtics slowed down the Lakers. Thus, as a team Seattle defended Chicago better than Boston defended the Lakers, despite the Chicago Bulls being arguably superior on offense. This should really clinch it.



Also, on a side-note, I don't know how that You-Tube video shows anything. It shows Jordan and all the nice plays he made. That's a little 1-sided.

[Psileas]

nobody ever said kobe chokes in the finals. but he does not play up to his normal standards. we watched lebron destroy the magic in 09.....we watched wade destroy the celtics in 10. we watched the sonics in 96 shut down drexler and limit hakeem to well below his play all year. do you see the difference?

but you again make my point for me. kobe always struggles against the top 5 defenses in the league. so you can't point to kobe's play as to why the celtics are such a great defense. it does not fit logically.

so that is why i put everything into context. considering that kobe struggles consistently against the top defenses in the league. jordan did not. jordan's bulls in 96 played much better defenses and much better ranked defenses en route to the finals than the 10 lakers did. and jordan still saw a sharp decline in his playoff numbers that year.

now.....the 10 lakers were the 11th best offensive team in the league and they struggled all year to score and especially struggled against the better defenses.

the 96 bulls had a much better offense....ranked 1st in the league with a better offensive rating of over 7 points per game.

comparing the 96 bull to the 10 lakers offensively is a joke. just like comparing jordan's performances in the finals and against top defenses to kobe's performances in the finals and against top defenses is a joke.

so how are the celtics better? how were they better in the finals? all of the evidence points to the sonics.

I'm not really making any statement about the Celtics being better, but they were not much behind, either, at least in the playoffs, when they managed to hold their opponents to almost the same shooting percentages, to less PPG, even when taking the league's average playoff PPG into account and to slightly more TO's.
Yes, the Celtics didn't do a great job to Wade, but they did manage to limit the twice MVP LeBron and then Kobe, who was coming from one of his best series ever. Yes, the Sonics did a great job to Hakeem and Jordan, but not so great a job on Malone, who averaged 27/12/5/2 (similar or slightly better than his playoff averages), while Drexler, for his '96 standards didn't do all that bad, either, averaging 19/9/4/2 (46% FG) in 35 mpg.

Kobe always struggles against the top 5 defenses in the league? I didn't make this point, either. I practically said "usually" and you can extrapolate this to 4 of these 6 Finals' series that he participated against top defenses or, more specifically, to about 55-60% of these Finals' games.