Defensive rating (DRtg) How you calculate it and use it

[Micku]

How you calculate it:

The lower the defensive stat is, the better your defense is.

The Defensive rating stat is simply:



For players and teams it is points allowed per 100 possessions.


- http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/glossary.html#def_rtg

This means you divide points allowed and 100 by the number of possessions.

There are a lot of ways to calculate the number of possessions, but it is usually calculated by this formula for the defensive equation:



.96 * (FGA − ORb + TO + (.44 * FTA))


- http://sonicscentral.com/statsite.html (this site shows the many ways you could calculate for different situations)

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APBRmetrics#Common_statistics

Also when you do your own calculation, don't be mad if your calculation is slightly off.



The .96 multiplier adjusts for team rebounds. Because these are not considered offensive rebounds, the formula slightly overestimates the number of possessions per team without the multiplier.


- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APBRmetrics#Common_statistics

To sum it up, you have to do this formula:

Points allowed * 100/.96 * (FGA − ORb + TO + (.44 * FTA))


How to use it:

The defensive rating is suppose to measure the quality of defense. But it is invalid to compare it other seasons because defensive rating is proportional to the possessions and pacing. When the number of possessions goes up, the defensive rating also goes up. This is also true for the offensive rating:



Milwaukee led the league in field goal percentage and assists and did well in offensive rebounds. The Bucks' 99.3 rating, though it led the league would now be among the worst in the NBA. New Jersey had an offensive rating of 99.9, which was second to last in '87-88. Because the pace of the game is so much slower now, the Nets adjusted points per game rating was 101.7, much lower than the Bucks' 109.2.

- http://www.rawbw.com/~deano/helpscrn/rtgs.html

This is list of the average number of possessions each year:

http://arturogalletti.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/possesions-per-game-table.png

- http://arturogalletti.wordpress.com/2010/07/19/measuring-the-quality-of-basketball-in-the-nba-part2-adjusting-for-pace/

As the number of possessions goes down, you would see defensive rating goes up. Notice how 2004 has the lowest possession rating out of 32 years span (exclude 1999). It also has the lowest pacing. It's no coincidence that year also had the lowest defensive rating.

This also could mean that 2003-04 wasn't the best defensive year. It just means that the league was incredibly slow. If you would have put those teams in another era, they would probably been force to run more. This is true with other great teams, vice versa.

The defensive rating is inflated with the number of possessions you have. It is only valid when comparing with a similar pacing/possession rating season. It may be only right to use defensive rating for one season at a time instead of comparing.

[Christofire]

defense still dictates PACE....it's not a coincidence that the PACE picked up once hand-checking was curtailed yet again. Hand-checking + zone defense made defense as tough as it has ever been. Spurs and piston made a religion out of holding teams to 80 pts and lower.

I get what you're saying, but the defensive rules are what dictates the PACE of play.

[Christofire]

it's like this If you're playing a team that runs a press the entire time and uses no zone techniques and no hand checking. Naturally you run and gun them out of the Jim.

On the other hand if you're team that hand checks and uses zone techniques in conjuction with that you're gonna slow the other teams game down. because of more defensive resistance. great defensive teams slow teams down and force them to use more of the clock. Not very many teams could've came to the Palace of auburn hills talking about "we're going to run and gun"

[cteach111]

isn't DRtg just the opposing teams ORtg?

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Hint:

The number of possessions used is different for every team and every year of the formula.

Example 1. My team gives up 100 pts to the fast paced Warriors (100 possessions)

100/100 multiplied by 100 = 100.0 DEF RATING

Example 2 My team gives up 100 pts to the slower paced Pistons (75 possessions)

100/75 multiplied by 100= 133.3 DEF RATING

[Micku]

defense still dictates PACE....it's not a coincidence that the PACE picked up once hand-checking was curtailed yet again. Hand-checking + zone defense made defense as tough as it has ever been. Spurs and piston made a religion out of holding teams to 80 pts and lower.

I get what you're saying, but the defensive rules are what dictates the PACE of play.

It does. But not in a way that you think.

One theory is that defense actually increase the pacing:

[quote]
Contrary to what we might initially assume, as defense gets better the league

[Calabis]

How you calculate it:

The lower the defensive stat is, the better your defense is.

The Defensive rating stat is simply:



- http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/glossary.html#def_rtg

This means you divide points allowed and 100 by the number of possessions.

There are a lot of ways to calculate the number of possessions, but it is usually calculated by this formula for the defensive equation:



- http://sonicscentral.com/statsite.html (this site shows the many ways you could calculate for different situations)

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APBRmetrics#Common_statistics

Also when you do your own calculation, don't be mad if your calculation is slightly off.



- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APBRmetrics#Common_statistics

To sum it up, you have to do this formula:

Points allowed * 100/.96 * (FGA − ORb + TO + (.44 * FTA))


How to use it:

The defensive rating is suppose to measure the quality of defense. But it is invalid to compare it other seasons because defensive rating is proportional to the possessions and pacing. When the number of possessions goes up, the defensive rating also goes up. This is also true for the offensive rating:


- http://www.rawbw.com/~deano/helpscrn/rtgs.html

This is list of the average number of possessions each year:

http://arturogalletti.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/possesions-per-game-table.png

- http://arturogalletti.wordpress.com/2010/07/19/measuring-the-quality-of-basketball-in-the-nba-part2-adjusting-for-pace/

As the number of possessions goes down, you would see defensive rating goes up. Notice how 2004 has the lowest possession rating out of 32 years span (exclude 1999). It also has the lowest pacing. It's no coincidence that year also had the lowest defensive rating.

This also could mean that 2003-04 wasn't the best defensive year. It just means that the league was incredibly slow. If you would have put those teams in another era, they would probably been force to run more. This is true with other great teams, vice versa.

The defensive rating is inflated with the number of possessions you have. It is only valid when comparing with a similar pacing/possession rating season. It may be only right to use defensive rating for one season at a time instead of comparing.

LMAO!!!!!!!! Try explaining that to YAOLEFTFOOT:bowdown:

[Calabis]

It does. But not in a way that you think.

One theory is that defense actually increase the pacing:



- http://www.shoot-hoops.com/defensive-pace-factor-the-nbas-shot-clock-defense-era/

But pacing is not that. Usually it just means more possessions and the game is faster. What defense is suppose to do is stop you from scoring. Any team could adjust the pace of the game. The slowest team in the game isn't exactly the best team defensive.

And:



- http://forums.statfox.com/statfoxnews/news~articleid~5959.htm

So, it could be the exact opposite sometimes.


Pacing just means that you have more possessions, which could mean that you play a lot faster. Teams can slow the game down, and participate in a longer half court offense. But it doesn't mean that the defense is better because the game is faster or slower.

This just shows that the pacing is different. People in the 80s used to run down the court, set a screen and shoot the ball, mid-range. People in the 00s walk down, set multiple screens, and shoot the 3. Different styles.

Goshdamn someone with some damn sense :applause: ......can you by chance do a rating of the 87-88, 88-89 Pistons D with the adjusted pace factor, they had a 102.9 with a 98 Pace Factor(I believe in 87-88), I'm sure if it was lower they would have a lower rating

[Micku]

Hint:

The number of possessions used is different for every team and every year of the formula.

Example 1. My team gives up 100 pts to the fast paced Warriors (100 possessions)

100/100 multiplied by 100 = 100.0 DEF RATING

Example 2 My team gives up 100 pts to the slower paced Pistons (75 possessions)

100/75 multiplied by 100= 133.3 DEF RATING

Indeed. You just showed why possessions do matter in evaluating defensive rating.

If the possessions are high, you have more offensive possessions. Which means you would have more chances to score and defensive stops.

If you have lower possessions, then you would have less chances to stop a person. Your second example showed a demonstration of bad defense while the 1st showed an example of better defense.

The 1st example had the opposing team with more possessions of the ball, and they did a better job limiting the opposing team to 100. While the 2nd example had the less amount of possessions, but scored the same amount of points.

This shows that defensive rating is proportional to possessions.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Indeed. You just showed why possessions do matter in evaluating defensive rating.

If the possessions are high, you have more offensive possessions. Which means you would have more chances to score and defensive stops.

If you have lower possessions, then you would have less chances to stop a person. Your second example showed a demonstration of bad defense while the 1st showed an example of better defense.

The 1st example had the opposing team with more possessions of the ball, and they did a better job limiting the opposing team to 100. While the 2nd example had the same amount of possessions, but scored the same amount of points.

This shows that defensive rating is proportional to possessions.

Of course it is. Its points allowed per 100 possessions. It normalizes points allowed so that you can compare it in a slow paced league and a fast paced one. That doesn't make it unfair.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Indeed. You just showed why possessions do matter in evaluating defensive rating.

If the possessions are high, you have more offensive possessions. Which means you would have more chances to score and defensive stops.

If you have lower possessions, then you would have less chances to stop a person. Your second example showed a demonstration of bad defense while the 1st showed an example of better defense.

The 1st example had the opposing team with more possessions of the ball, and they did a better job limiting the opposing team to 100. While the 2nd example had the same amount of possessions, but scored the same amount of points.

This shows that defensive rating is proportional to possessions.

Look again

:no:

[Micku]

Of course it is. Its points allowed per 100 possessions. It normalizes points allowed so that you can compare it in a slow paced league and a fast paced one. That doesn't make it unfair.

It does make it unfair. Because it is proportional the number of possessions. If the possessions are higher, then the defensive rating goes higher.

Since possessions also adds the amount of FGA, it is unfair to compare a league who averages less possessions than a team that averages more possessions. It doesn't work that way.

And with the 2nd one

"While the 2nd example had the less amount of possessions, but scored the same amount of points."

Sorry for the typo.

---

And I see what you did. Usually there are more possessions, the team scores more. This also adds into pacing.

When you put in a team who average 75 possessions and allowed 100 points, it showed bad defense than a team who allowed 100 points with 100 possessions. That 75 possessions team would have a very high FG% rating probably, or just kept scoring like mad.

It doesn't work that way though. Usually more FGA means more chances for FG make. And since the FG of the 80s were in the 50% or above, it also shows that it's inflated.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

It does make it unfair. Because it is proportional the number of possessions. If the possessions are higher, then the defensive rating goes higher.

Since possessions also adds the amount of FGA, it is unfair to compare a league who averages less possessions than a team that averages more possessions. It doesn't work that way.

And with the 2nd one

"While the 2nd example had the [B]less amount of possessions, but scored the same amount of points."

Sorry for the typo.

Def rating is impacted by how many pts you give up per possession. Thats it. If you only give 1 pt per possession in a 300 possession per game league your D Rating is 100. If you give up only 1 pt per possession in a 10 possession per game league its still 100.

[LilBTheBasedGod]

gay

[Micku]

Def rating is impacted by how many pts you give up per possession. Thats it. If you only give 1 pt per possession in a 300 possession per game league your D Rating is 100. If you give up only 1 pt per possession in a 10 possession per game league its still 100.

Exactly. And if a team has more possessions, it usually leads to more scoring across the board. At least more chances of scoring.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Exactly. And if a team has more possessions, it usually leads to more scoring across the board.

But has no impact on the def rating

Game 1

50 pts scored over 50 possessions

Game 2

100 pts scored over 100 possessions

= 100 DEF RATING

[Calabis]

It does make it unfair. Because it is proportional the number of possessions. If the possessions are higher, then the defensive rating goes higher.

Since possessions also adds the amount of FGA, it is unfair to compare a league who averages less possessions than a team that averages more possessions. It doesn't work that way.

And with the 2nd one

"While the 2nd example had the less amount of possessions, but scored the same amount of points."

Sorry for the typo.

---

And I see what you did. Usually there are more possessions, the team scores more. This also adds into pacing.

When you put in a team who average 75 possessions and allowed 100 points, it showed bad defense than a team who allowed 100 points with 100 possessions. That 75 possessions team would have a very high FG% rating probably, or just kept scoring like mad.

It doesn't work that way though. Usually more FGA means more chances for FG make. And since the FG of the 80s were in the 50% or above, it also shows that it's inflated.

:bowdown:

Hope u have time, he doesn't understand how pace factor affects defense, he doesn't understand that having 13 to 14 more possessions, tends to equal more points, which when plugged into the formula, results in higher D rating....

hence Phila posting and adjusted D rating(to pace) in one of his YLF threads that resulted in a 91 DRating

[Yao Ming's Foot]

:bowdown:

Hope u have time, he doesn't understand how pace factor affects defense, he doesn't understand that having 13 to 14 more possessions, tends to equal more points, which when plugged into the formula, results in higher D rating....

hence Phila posting and adjusted D rating(to pace) in one of his YLF threads that resulted in a 91 DRating

Jesus Christ you kids are dumb these days. Do you understand division?

Points Scored in the Game
--------------------------
# of Possessions

If you increase the denominator in a fraction does the value you get go up or down.

[Micku]

But has no impact on the def rating

Game 1

50 pts scored over 50 possessions

Game 2

100 pts scored over 100 possessions

= 100 DEF RATING

Yes it does.

More possessions means more chances of scoring and more chances of defending. Especially if you take into account of pacing and how good the offense is.

What you are doing is showing a point per possession, which is fine. But you are demonstrating a game which everybody shoots decent % in FG. This is fine, and you're right that it wouldn't have an affect if anything stays the same.

However with more possessions, the offense get a chance to attack more, and will probably make it. If not, then their FG% may stink. FGA means more chances of points. FG% is the likely of that point, which is why comparing the eras would matter and probably will be invalid.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Yes it does.

More possessions means more chances of scoring and more chances of defending. Especially if you take into account of pacing and how good the offense is.

What you are doing is showing a point per possession, which is fine. But you are demonstrating a game which everybody shoots decent % in FG. This is fine, and you're right that it wouldn't have an affect if anything stays the same.

However with more possessions, the offense get a chance to attack more, and will probably make it. If not, then their FG% may stink. FGA means more chances of points. FG% is the likely of that point, which is why comparing the eras would matter and probably will be invalid.

The FG% or better stated points per possession can go up or down with extra possessions. There is nothing inherent within the formula that would make it go up.

Game 1 (Game is stopped in the 3rd quarter because the power goes off in the stadium)

Team A defense gives up 75 points in 75 possessions at the end of 3 quarter.

DEF RATING = 100

The Game is restarted for 1/2 of the 4th quarter and the offense is in a slump
before the power goes out again


Team A defense gives up 78 points in 85 possessions

DEF RATING= 91.7

Power is back on and Kobe closes out the game on fire (15/15)

Team A defense gives up 108 points in 100 possessions

DEF RATING= 108

It wasn't more possessions that changed the rating. It was initially great defense in the 4th quarter as the Lakers went cold and weak defense at the end of of the game when Kobe lit them up.

[necya]

the way you are talking about basketball is a shame.
hopefully, just trolling on a forum can bring some fun.

[Christofire]

Exactly. And if a team has more possessions, it usually leads to more scoring across the board. At least more chances of scoring.


the 2000s still have the better d ratings though...I'm missing the point of what you're getting at.

Please clarify what you're trying to say because i think it's quite clear that PACE doesnt change D ratings because it's affected by point per possession

[Yao Ming's Foot]

the way you are talking about basketball is a shame.
hopefully, just trolling on a forum can bring some fun.

Teaching math to Jordan fanboys is a tough job, but somebody has to do it.

[chazzy]

However with more possessions, the offense get a chance to attack more, and will probably make it. If not, then their FG% may stink. FGA means more chances of points. FG% is the likely of that point, which is why comparing the eras would matter and probably will be invalid.
You could also argue that with increased volume comes lowered efficiency.

[necya]

Teaching math to Jordan fanboys is a tough job, but somebody has to do it.

who are those jordan fanboys?? and why it's you? because we always sacrifice the ones who don't think first?

see, how you look stupid with your kobe agenda. your only goal is to continue to believe that kobe played better defense. lie to yourself if you want, but don't write all those shitty post.

[Micku]

The FG% or better stated points per possession can go up or down with extra possessions. There is nothing inherent within the formula that would make it go up.

Game 1 (Game is stopped in the 3rd quarter because the power goes off in the stadium)

Team A defense gives up 75 points in 75 possessions at the end of 3 quarter.

DEF RATING = 100

The Game is restarted for 1/2 of the 4th quarter and the offense is in a slump
before the power goes out again


Team A defense gives up 78 points in 85 possessions

DEF RATING= 91.7

Power is back on and Kobe closes out the game on fire (15/15)

Team A defense gives up 108 points in 100 possessions

DEF RATING= 108

It wasn't more possessions that changed the rating. It was initially great defense in the 4th quarter as the Lakers went cold and weak defense at the end of of the game when Kobe lit them up.

You're right in your calculations, but the number of possessions also gives indication to the pacing of the game. This will control the tempo of the game and makes it harder to stop. If the possessions were higher, lets say the average 80s possessions as you see on the chart like:

200 possessions.

In comparison of the early 00s:

180s possessions


It gives the chances every NBA team the chances to attack more, which usually lead to more total points. NBA history has shown this throughout history, as you can almost each decade the total points slightly went up or down in comparison to the number of possessions. Because of the number of FGA goes up, usually it means you are also scoring more. Plus with the more FTAs, it also gives more chances of points.

I think that your calculations is correct only if you assume that the offensive is either strictly decent or bad. But it depends on the situation and circumstances:


Let’s compare two hypothetical teams: Team A and Team B. Team A prefers to set up their offense and work the ball around, patiently searching for a good shot. Team B runs up the floor and takes the first open shot available. According to the above data, Team B should score more efficiently than Team A.

At first glance, this does not seem logical. Patience is a virtue, after all, and haste normally makes waste. But when you think carefully, Team A—the slow, cautious offense—is actually playing a much riskier game than Team B. For Team A, working the ball around may sometimes result in an open shot; but it might also result in a turnover. With every pass they make and with every second that they spend on offense, Team A’s chance of committing a turnover increases.


The level of slow pacing offense, fewer possessions may also make it easier to defend in comparison to the high level offense, with faster pacing. This will also affects the defensive rating since usually more FGA=chances of more points. This will make the defensive rating go down.

- http://www.82games.com/levbot.htm

In era with very high possessions and high pacing like the 80s, with them only taking mid-range to close shots, usually will lead to more points because it is more difficult to guard it seems. This shows the era difference between each between now and back then. It's also a case that each year with different number of possessions will vary not only the offensive rating, but the defensive rating. It's also a case why it could be invalid when you compare it different seasons, but the of the level of the pacing.



You could also argue that with increased volume comes lowered efficiency.


You probably could, but it's never been like that with the teams of the NBA. Usually whoever has the most possessions, controls the pacing of the game. And usually their offense is very high, which leads to higher scoring.

[Micku]

Plus look at this quote:



“I don’t think this kind of analysis makes sense. What you’re calling higher average team productivity probably just reflects factors like a faster leaguewide pace, higher scoring per possession, and maybe trends in some specific statistics. A faster pace allows players to accumulate more statistics, so it’ll lead to higher pre-adjustment WP. With many statistics the two teams’ change in WP cancels out (e.g., a steal for one team is a turnover for the other, a defensive rebound requires a missed shot), but not with scoring, so more offense will increase pre-adjustment WP. The 1990s saw a drop in both pace and points per possession, so that explains the drop in “basketball quality.””


- http://arturogalletti.wordpress.com/2010/07/19/measuring-the-quality-of-basketball-in-the-nba-part2-adjusting-for-pace/

This is what I'm saying. Usually when teams have more possession, they have the most points because the game is more face pace and it may lead to easier points. This is evidence if you look at the ppg and point total in every single decade.

As the possessions went down, so did the point totals. You can also calculate it yourself with the teams now and compare it to the 80s, 70s, and whatever. You'll notice that the average teams has more possessions, which leads to more points because they have more opportunities to score.

This is way comparing defensive rating to the any other season does not compute well because it is inflated. It is best to use defensive rating when the pacing is similar.

[chazzy]

You probably could, but it's never been like that with the teams of the NBA. Usually whoever has the most possessions, controls the pacing of the game. And usually their offense is very high, which leads to higher scoring.
Of course the scoring would be higher, as more possessions are being used.. it's like a player who normally takes 15 shots ups his attempts to 20+; you would expect the scoring to go up but the efficiency to take a hit. Minnesota has the fastest pace in the league right now but they're near the bottom of the league in offensive efficiency. Higher pace can lead to quicker fastbreak opportunities and easier baskets if that's what you mean.

[tpols]

Yes it does.

More possessions means more chances of scoring and more chances of defending. Especially if you take into account of pacing and how good the offense is.

What you are doing is showing a point per possession, which is fine. But you are demonstrating a game which everybody shoots decent % in FG. This is fine, and you're right that it wouldn't have an affect if anything stays the same.

However with more possessions, the offense get a chance to attack more, and will probably make it. If not, then their FG% may stink. FGA means more chances of points. FG% is the likely of that point, which is why comparing the eras would matter and probably will be invalid.
Wait.. you're saying that the more possesions a team uses and the faster they play, the better chance they have at scoring? How does that make sense? A team can be fastpaced and suck and they can be slow paced and suck. It doesn't matter. How efficient a team is has nothing to do with how many shots they take, but how good they are relative to how good the team they're playing is defensively.

Defensive rating is a completely normalized formula that computes everything relatively.. meaning it can be compared across slow and fast paced teams.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

You're right in your calculations, but the number of possessions also gives indication to the pacing of the game. This will control the tempo of the game and makes it harder to stop. If the possessions were higher, lets say the average 80s possessions as you see on the chart like:

200 possessions.

In comparison of the early 00s:

180s possessions


It gives the chances every NBA team the chances to attack more, which usually lead to more total points. NBA history has shown this throughout history, as you can almost each decade the total points slightly went up or down in comparison to the number of possessions. Because of the number of FGA goes up, usually it means you are also scoring more. Plus with the more FTAs, it also gives more chances of points.

I think that your calculations is correct only if you assume that the offensive is either strictly decent or bad. But it depends on the situation and circumstances:



The level of slow pacing offense, fewer possessions may also make it easier to defend in comparison to the high level offense, with faster pacing. This will also affects the defensive rating since usually more FGA=chances of more points. This will make the defensive rating go down.

- http://www.82games.com/levbot.htm

In era with very high possessions and high pacing like the 80s, with them only taking mid-range to close shots, usually will lead to more points because it is more difficult to guard it seems. This shows the era difference between each between now and back then. It's also a case that each year with different number of possessions will vary not only the offensive rating, but the defensive rating. It's also a case why it could be invalid when you compare it different seasons, but the of the level of the pacing.



You probably could, but it's never been like that with the teams of the NBA. Usually whoever has the most possessions, controls the pacing of the game. And usually their offense is very high, which leads to higher scoring.

Thats a lot of words to say more possessions = more scoring. Nobody denies that. That was never in question. You have just successfully established that Jordan's raw scoring totals are inflated because he played in an era of fast pace. Now what? :confusedshrug:

[Micku]

Wait.. you're saying that the more possesions a team uses and the faster they play, the better chance they have at scoring? How does that make sense?

The 80s and below. And a lot of fast pace teams. It's also proven by this:

http://arturogalletti.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/possesions-per-game-graph.png?w=510&h=296

Usually the more possessions, the more shots, the more chance of scoring. Kind'a like how if Kobe only takes 10 shots one game and take 20 shots the other game. The 20 shots give him more chance of scoring (not counting FTAs).

Compare the number of possessions to the point total, and you'll see as the total possessions goes down, the point total also goes down. This is true every decade. It's one of the reasons why 09-10 has more points than 03-04. More possessions and faster pacing.

Also check their FGA. The 80s have more FGA than today, and they have more ppg.


A team can be fastpaced and suck and they can be slow paced and suck. It doesn't matter. How efficient a team is has nothing to do with how many shots they take, but how good they are relative to how good the team they're playing is defensively.

A fast pace team can suck. And you always find ones that do. That's not the point. If the whole league is playing at a face pace, not slowing down the pacing, then it's a different style of game. This will lead to more points.


Defensive rating is a completely normalized formula that computes everything relatively.. meaning it can be compared across slow and fast paced teams.

Not if all the stats go up, which is the point I'm trying to make. Since fast pacing and more possessions increases the chances are that it will lead to more points, it will also make it harder to play d since team a will get points off of more layups or FTAs, which in turn will lead to a lesser defensive rating. You can say it could be defense or good offense. It could be a mixture of both since the style is different.

[Bogus_Sting]

Wins and losses boys and girls. Wins and losses. You can trying and calculate all sorts of shit from all sorts of stats. Aggregate the crap out of everything.

Open your eyes and watch the game. I know maybe you aint old enough to have seen alot of the things you comment on. But thats why you appreciate PRIMARY SOURCES like my opinion that has seen things that you haven't.

I wish I saw Bob Pettit play, I can't make a fully informed opinion on him because I never seen him play. What are the defensive ratings off the teams he played against? It doesn't matter does it?

I don't know if I should tell you this... but go download some torrents of the 90's games and the 80's too if you can. Then maybe you kids can start to form an opnion thats worth something.

[Micku]

Thats a lot of words to say more possessions = more scoring. Nobody denies that. That was never in question. You have just successfully established that Jordan's raw scoring totals are inflated because he played in an era of fast pace. Now what? :confusedshrug:

It's the rebounds that are more inflated. This is shown by Wilt, Russell, and everybody else because there were more possessions, which could lead to more rebounds. Assists and FTA could be inflated too.

This just means the scrubs shot more, and faster. If Magic took 18 shots per game, he could still shoot that many in a lower pace era. Same thing as Jordan. Just the scrubs won't shoot the ball as much.

[tpols]

The 80s and below. And a lot of fast pace teams. It's also proven by this:

http://arturogalletti.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/possesions-per-game-graph.png?w=510&h=296

Usually the more possessions, the more shots, the more chance of scoring. Kind'a like how if Kobe only takes 10 shots one game and take 20 shots the other game. The 20 shots give him more chance of scoring (not counting FTAs).
.
Nah.. I think the league back then had a stronger offensive mentality and didn't focus as much on defense. Thats why so many layups and what not were given up and teams were able to run on each other all night. FG% was much higher back then too and it's because teams weren't as tenacious defensively and they didn't gameplan as hard to stop each other like they do nowadays. Schemes for defense are so much better than what they used to be.

Think about it.. if what you're saying is true and defenses in the 80s played good defense(like today) but offenses still performed much better, that would mean offenses and players in the 80s were much better than they are now. So if you put magic and bird and dantley and all of the other great offensive players of the 80s on teams in this era, they would put up the same great numbers and efficiencies despite all the superstars today currently putting up lower ones..

Seriously.. go watch an 80s basketball game and tell me they are getting after it on the defensive end of the court as hard as they did in the 90s and the 2000s. It's not even a comparison. Players and teams became way, way better defensively AFTER the 80s.

[Micku]

Nah.. I think the league back then had a stronger offensive mentality and didn't focus as much on defense. Thats why so many layups and what not were given up and teams were able to run on each other all night. FG% was much higher back then too and it's because teams weren't as tenacious defensively and they didn't gameplan as hard to stop each other like they do nowadays. Schemes for defense are so much better than what they used to be.

It was the style of pacing. You run down the court even though you weren't guarded by anybody.


Think about it.. if what you're saying is true and defenses in the 80s played good defense(like today) but offenses still performed much better, that would mean offenses and players in the 80s were much better than they are now. So if you put magic and bird and dantley and all of the other great offensive players of the 80s on teams in this era, they would put up the same great numbers and efficiencies despite all the superstars today currently putting up lower ones..

They were. Do you consider the Suns the best offensive team in the 04-05? Why? Because they ran, got good shots, and scored more points than anybody. A lot of teams in the 80s did that in the 80s, but better because they took better shots and were more stacked.

Besides, look at the big names of the 80s. The 80s probably had the most talent out any decade in NBA history. But the style of game was different. They just shot better. Today games your average player is more athletic and better shooters, but not necessary the best.


Seriously.. go watch an 80s basketball game and tell me they are getting after it on the defensive end of the court as hard as they did in the 90s and the 2000s. It's not even a comparison. Players and teams became way, way better defensively AFTER the 80s.

I have. The 80s didn't defend the 3pt shot, they mostly sag off to protect the 2s. The 90s were actually better at that, but the game was also slower. They didn't ran down the court as much. The 00s is slower than the 90s, and the shot selection wasn't great, but they had better rotation.

[tpols]

It was the style of pacing. You run down the court even though you weren't guarded by anybody.

Wait.. wasn't the whole point of this argument that the 80s were bad defensively? Yao Ming's Foot was trying to show that using defensive rating and you are saying it isn't true by trying to dismiss the use of that stat to compare 80s defenses to the defenses of today.. but then you go onto say that you could freely run down the court in the 80s, they didn't pressure players at the 3pt line, and they overall weren't as aggressive defensively.

Doesn't that mean 80s defenses were worse defensively thus verifying what the stat was saying all along? I mean you're pretty much admitting what was being argued the whole time.

[Micku]

Wait.. wasn't the whole point of this argument that the 80s were bad defensively? Yao Ming's Foot was trying to show that using defensive rating and you are saying it isn't true by trying to dismiss the use of that stat to compare 80s defenses to the defenses of today.. but then you go onto say that you could freely run down the court in the 80s, they didn't pressure players at the 3pt line, and they overall weren't as aggressive defensively.

Doesn't that mean 80s defenses were worse defensively thus verifying what the stat was saying all along? I mean you're pretty much admitting what was being argued the whole time.

That's not what I'm saying.

1. 80s players run down the court even though they were not guarded by anybody to get the quick point.

The difference:

The 00s walk down the court when they are not guarded by anybody to set up a better quality shot.

This means the 80s players always run. Always. Even when they pressure on them. This leads to more FGA and more points. And in the 80s, you were allowed to pressure the perimeter player more than the 00s. If they don't get a good shot by running, they set up a half court play very fast. They are very quick about it.

2. The 80s players did sag. They didn't start defending better 3 until mid or late 80s because they didn't take as many 3s, and they took better shots. They would try to contest the shots from the close-mid. Late 80s, they contest the 3 better because they took more 3s. But this doesn't mean that the defense was necessary bad since they would try to contest the shot when they shoot it high percentage one.

[tpols]

That's not what I'm saying.

1. 80s players run down the court even though they were not guarded by anybody to get the quick point.

The difference:

The 00s walk down the court when they are not guarded by anybody to set up a better quality shot.

This means the 80s players always run. Always. Even when they pressure on them. This leads to more FGA and more points. And in the 80s, you were allowed to pressure the perimeter player more than the 00s. If they don't get a good shot by running, they set up a half court play very fast. They are very quick about it.

2. The 80s players did sag. They didn't start defending better 3 until mid or late 80s because they didn't take as many 3s, and they took better shots. They would try to contest the shots from the close-mid. Late 80s, they contest the 3 better because they took more 3s.
I get what you're saying now with the running down the court comment but let me say it is a lot easier to run down the court and get into an offensive set when players are sagging.. when there's no on the ball pressure and players aren't jumping passing lanes on the perimeter it's just easier for an offense to operate. That 'sagging' off the perimeter player may have been because they didn't like to shoot 3s as often, but it also indirectly made their defenses worse.

The tight defenses and better schemes of the 2000s and to an extent the 90s are just better than that of the 80s. Thats really all that was being said.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

They were. Do you consider the Suns the best offensive team in the 04-05? Why?

Because they had the highest offensive rating in the league while shooting the most three pointers in the league. :confusedshrug:

[Micku]

I get what you're saying now with the running down the court comment but let me say it is a lot easier to run down the court and get into an offensive set when players are sagging.. when there's no on the ball pressure and players aren't jumping passing lanes on the perimeter it's just easier for an offense to operate. That 'sagging' off the perimeter player may have been because they didn't like to shoot 3s as often, but it also indirectly made their defenses worse.

The tight defenses and better schemes of the 2000s and to an extent the 90s are just better than that of the 80s. Thats really all that was being said.

Then would you call Kobe's defense on Rondo bad in the finals? Or any defense on Rondo bad?

They would contest the shot at the 2, they tried to disable their strength, which was the mid-range close range. The mid 80s onwards defend the 3 pt shot better, because more people got used it, but they still ran down the court. Look at the defense here and look how fast they pass the ball, and run down the court:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXvDVnLFfvA#t=01m38s

Notice how fast it is. Notice how much they run even though the pressure was on them. They don't do that anymore. Look how quickly they shot the ball. You can argue that b-ball is more organized now since they take their time with their plays, but this also leads to organized defense.

[Micku]

Because they had the highest offensive rating in the league while shooting the most three pointers in the league. :confusedshrug:

And the 80s teams and below had more. They were everything that Suns were, but faster without the 3. People even commented that the Suns were going back to the 80s style offense, and it was exciting for the league.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

And the 80s teams and below had more. They were everything that Suns were, but faster without the 3. People even commented that the Suns were going back to the 80s style offense, and it was exciting for the league.

Every team had Steve Nash, Joe Johnson, Amare Stoudamire, Shawn Marion, Quentin Richardson and Leandro Barbosa as a top 6?

:facepalm

The Warriors were faster over the years and somehow they were never the top offense in the league. Why is that?

[Da_Realist]

I just looked up Defensive Ratings from 1988 to today. What a ****ing joke this is. The 89 Pistons came in ranked 225th.
The 92 Bulls? 211th
The 97 Bulls? 205th

The highest ranked Jordan/Pippen Bulls team was the old ass 97-98 team where Pippen missed half the season -- at 38th. :no:

The 03 Sacramento Kings? 27th!!! :lol

The 04 New Jersey NETS -- 10th! :bowdown: :applause:

The 94 Knicks are 14th, but the team that BEAT them are ranked 65th!

Get this. The 03 Nuggets, who won all of 17 games is ranked 63rd. That's right. 17-65 and they are ranked SIXTY-THIRD best defense since 1988! Higher than any of the 90's champions except for the old, injured 98 Bulls that barely held it together. What a f*cking joke. :roll:

And this dude keeps shoving this stat up everyone's ass like it means something. :oldlol:

[Micku]

Every team had Steve Nash, Joe Johnson, Amare Stoudamire, Shawn Marion, Quentin Richardson and Leandro Barbosa as a top 6?

:facepalm


Check Showtime, Celts, Blazzers, 76ers, Pistons, Jazz, and the Nuggets. They all played very fast as well, so they would get chances to score more. It was a different era. Not saying that the talent is the exactly the same, but they the style of play allows for more overall scoring. Just check the 80s stats.


The Warriors were faster over the years and somehow they were never the top offense in the league. Why is that?

The warriors actually do have the highest points for the past few years. At least top 2. But it's not like you can't suck as a fast pace team. There are a few teams that suck. Sometimes cannot convert, other teams can. But the fact remains that the higher the possessions, usually means more scoring. This includes the pace of the game. This has been proven over the years and with top teams with possessions .

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Wins and losses boys and girls. Wins and losses. You can trying and calculate all sorts of shit from all sorts of stats. Aggregate the crap out of everything.

Open your eyes and watch the game. I know maybe you aint old enough to have seen alot of the things you comment on. But thats why you appreciate PRIMARY SOURCES like my opinion that has seen things that you haven't.

I wish I saw Bob Pettit play, I can't make a fully informed opinion on him because I never seen him play. What are the defensive ratings off the teams he played against? It doesn't matter does it?

I don't know if I should tell you this... but go download some torrents of the 90's games and the 80's too if you can. Then maybe you kids can start to form an opnion thats worth something.

A couple questions for you:

How many games did you watch from the 80s-10s?

Do you have a photographic memory?

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Check Showtime, Celts, Blazzers, 76ers, Pistons, Jazz, and the Nuggets. They all played very fast as well, so they would get chances to score more. It was a different era. Not saying that the talent is the exactly the same, but they the style of play allows for more overall scoring. Just check the 80s stats.



The warriors actually do have the highest points for the past few years. At least top 2. But it's not like you can't suck as a fast pace team. There are a few teams that suck. Sometimes cannot convert, other teams can. But the fact remains that the higher the possessions, usually means more scoring. This includes the pace of the game. This has been proven over the years and with top teams.

We have already established that more possessions = more scoring. You don't have to keep repeating it. More possessions doesn't equal a higher Offensive Rating automatically. It can raise an offensive rating, lower it or keep it the same.

More efficient scoring on the other hand, raises the offensive rating always. 100% of the time.

[Micku]

We have already established that more possessions = more scoring. You don't have to keep repeating it. More possessions doesn't equal a higher Offensive Rating automatically. It can raise an offensive rating, lower it or keep it the same.

More efficient scoring on the other hand, raises the offensive rating always. 100% of the time.

You're right. This is why today's eFG% is virtually the same as the 80s and the offensive rating is similar.

But the defensive rating is different because of more points scored. The pacing affects it. This allows stats to build, which is inflated.

[Poochymama]

I just looked up Defensive Ratings from 1988 to today. What a ****ing joke this is. The 89 Pistons came in ranked 225th.
The 92 Bulls? 211th
The 97 Bulls? 205th

The highest ranked Jordan/Pippen Bulls team was the old ass 97-98 team where Pippen missed half the season -- at 38th. :no:

The 03 Sacramento Kings? 27th!!! :lol

The 04 New Jersey NETS -- 10th! :bowdown: :applause:

The 94 Knicks are 14th, but the team that BEAT them are ranked 65th!

Get this. The 03 Nuggets, who won all of 17 games is ranked 63rd. That's right. 17-65 and they are ranked SIXTY-THIRD best defense since 1988! Higher than any of the 90's champions except for the old, injured 98 Bulls that barely held it together. What a f*cking joke. :roll:

And this dude keeps shoving this stat up everyone's ass like it means something. :oldlol:

That's exactly why no one other than him and his Kobe friends take it seriously. Defensive rating is and always has been a joke, the fact that people are actually trying to base an argument around it is quite silly actually.

Watch the games!!!

Yes a lot of the 80's teams played bad defense, but sorry there's no way in hell in late 80's Pistons were worse than ALL of the teams of the 00's.

If you want to make a case for defenses being better now, use a logical argument, don't cite defensive ratings, you lose all credibility with the people you're trying to convince and no one takes you seriously.

[97 bulls]

I just looked up Defensive Ratings from 1988 to today. What a ****ing joke this is. The 89 Pistons came in ranked 225th.
The 92 Bulls? 211th
The 97 Bulls? 205th

The highest ranked Jordan/Pippen Bulls team was the old ass 97-98 team where Pippen missed half the season -- at 38th. :no:

The 03 Sacramento Kings? 27th!!! :lol

The 04 New Jersey NETS -- 10th! :bowdown: :applause:

The 94 Knicks are 14th, but the team that BEAT them are ranked 65th!

Get this. The 03 Nuggets, who won all of 17 games is ranked 63rd. That's right. 17-65 and they are ranked SIXTY-THIRD best defense since 1988! Higher than any of the 90's champions except for the old, injured 98 Bulls that barely held it together. What a f*cking joke. :roll:

And this dude keeps shoving this stat up everyone's ass like it means something. :oldlol:
You and micku just owened him. Now let's put this team defensive ratings nonsense to bed

[Yao Ming's Foot]

That's exactly why no one other than him and his Kobe friends take it seriously. Defensive rating is and always has been a joke, the fact that people are actually trying to base an argument around it is quite silly actually.

Watch the games!!!

Yes a lot of the 80's teams played bad defense, but sorry there's no way in hell in late 80's Pistons were worse than ALL of the teams of the 00's.

If you want to make a case for defenses being better now, use a logical argument, don't cite defensive ratings, you lose all credibility with the people you're trying to convince and no one takes you seriously.

Use a logical argument but don't use widely respected statistics. You guys got me there.

:oldlol:

[Calabis]

Use a logical argument but don't use widely respected statistics. You guys got me there.

:oldlol:

Why use stats, when we use MJ's vs your messiah's, stats all of a sudden become flawed,........ now please go find some other hypothetical garbage argument that u and the rest of the Kobinites can try to shove down peoples throats

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Why use stats, when we use MJ's vs your messiah's, stats all of a sudden become flawed,........ now please go find some other hypothetical garbage argument that u and the rest of the Kobinites can try to shove down peoples throats

To recognize that Michael Jordan's played in the basketball equivalent of the inflated stats steroid era only has meaning when people try to compare his stats to other great players. :confusedshrug:

[Da_Realist]

To recognize that Michael Jordan's played in the basketball equivalent of the inflated stats steroid era only has meaning when people try to compare his stats to other great players. :confusedshrug:

^^ as proven by Drtg :facepalm

[Yao Ming's Foot]

^^ as proven by Drtg :facepalm

Is there another team defensive rating statistical formula out there that you feel is superior? and what makes it superior?

[LBJFTW]

Alas, you're hypothetical nonsense used in a desperate attempt to please the kobe stans has proven to be flawed.

[Micku]

Alas, you're hypothetical nonsense used in a desperate attempt to please the kobe stans has proven to be flawed.

Not really. I personally thought if pacing increase the stats thus the DRtg will go up due to more possession, which makes it harder to stop people to score. I don't really care about proving Kobe stans wrong for using it to attack Jordan as much anymore since I thought it was a legit issue.

I came to find out that I was a bit half right. While possession do give other teams to score, it doesn't necessary mean that more possessions will lead to the DRtg to go up. It just mean that the are chances for the DRtg to go up because it's harder to defend.

As I shown in the articles that I found, more possessions does usually lead to more stats across the board, in which other stats will get inflated. Like rebounds, points for scrubs since they take more shots, and possibly the defense.

The 80s issue you can argue for a lot things. You can argue that the defense was bad, the offense was too good, or a mixture of both. I think DRtg is a good stat to analysis which team has the best defensive efficiency in that specific season, but it isn't comparable in era differences. I wasn't the only one who think so, obviously.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Not really. I personally thought if pacing increase the stats thus the DRtg will go up due to more possession, which makes it harder to stop people to score. I don't really care about proving Kobe stans wrong for using it to attack Jordan as much anymore since I thought it was a legit issue.

I came to find out that I was a bit half right. While possession do give other teams to score, it doesn't necessary mean that more possessions will lead to the DRtg to go up. It just mean that the are chances for the DRtg to go up because it's harder to defend.

As I shown in the articles that I found, more possessions does usually lead to more stats across the board, in which other stats will get inflated. Like rebounds, points for scrubs since they take more shots, and possibly the defense.

The 80s issue you can argue for a lot things. You can argue that the defense was bad, the offense was too good, or a mixture of both. I think DRtg is a good stat to analysis which team has the best defensive efficiency in that specific season, but it isn't comparable in era differences. I wasn't the only one who think so, obviously.

Ignorance has strength is numbers.


It just mean that the are chances for the DRtg to go up because it's harder to defend.
:no:

Do you think it would be easier or harder to score efficiently if the league changed the 24 sec clock to 14 secs?

[Da_Realist]

Is there another team defensive rating statistical formula out there that you feel is superior? and what makes it superior?


You can't measure defense. You know it when you see it. Sorry, kiddo. That's the way it goes. This is basketball, not algebra. :basketball There is no way to statistically measure the difference between good defense and bad offense or any combination in between.

But here's a start. Any defensive rating statistical formula that has a 17 win scrub team ranked higher than dominant champions known for their defense is inherently FLAWED. You saw that sh*t and posted it anyway. All in an effort to make Kobe's playoff performances look better in comparison to Jordan.

[Micku]

Ignorance has strength is numbers.


:no:

Do you think it would be easier or harder to score efficiently if the league changed the 24 sec clock to 14 secs?

As I pointed, I wasn't the only person who thought so. There are a few people who think that some advance stats could be a bit inflated due to a wide faster pacing league.

And I wouldn't think so, but then again I would have to look up what is the average time do the 80s teams shoot the ball. Haha.

Plus that wasn't the case in the NBA. They tend to lead more possessions with a restarted 24 second clock. They average more points with very efficient offense, which in turn decrease DRtg. I would guess if the league increase their pacing right now, then they would be similar to the 80s.

[Micku]

The 80s basically did the usual. Contest the shot! Do smart double teams! Rotate when needed! Help defense!

The 00s allow better rotation because of the rules and everything, but the 80s allow you to be more a little more physical with the everybody. So, it's a give and take thing. 02-04 allow a little of both, but pacing is super slow and little possessions. While it could be the best defensive era, it also could be the worse offensive era.

The difference is that the 80s scored a lot more. They shot a lot more with very good efficiency. You can argue great offense, bad defense, or both, like we're doing now. I think it's a little both.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

As I pointed, I wasn't the only person who thought so. There are a few people who think that some advance stats could be a bit inflated due to a wide faster pacing league.

And I wouldn't think so, but then again I would have to look up what is the average time do the 80s teams shoot the ball. Haha.

Plus that wasn't the case in the NBA. They tend to lead more possessions with a restarted 24 second clock. They average more points with very efficient offense, which in turn decrease DRtg. I would guess if the league increase their pacing right now, then they would be similar to the 80s.

Defensive rating isn't new nor controversial. Show me where anybody has had a problem with it BEFORE I pointed out that Jordan's playoff opponents are not in the same ballpark with Kobe's. The fact that some Jordan stans have cosigned your lack of comprehension of the formula and how it is derived is nothing to be proud of.

Do you think league wide a 14 second shot clock would lead to more points per possesion? Yes or No?

How about a 7 second shot clock?

How about a 1 second shot clock? How could anyone defend such a fast pace team? Can you imagine how high their offensive rating would be?
:facepalm

[Yao Ming's Foot]

You aren't understanding the statistic. You don't compare defensive rating across eras. If you really want to compare defenses across eras, use defensive rating relative to league average. That way, whatever team you want to use (92 bulls, 96 bulls etc) will look much better and rightfully so. Comparing the 03 Nuggets to the 89 Pistons is stupid because the Nuggets were playing in a totally different era where games were slow paced, low scoring and defensive-oriented. Transfer the 89 Pistons to 03 and they'll have much better numbers across the board.

For instance, the 03 Nuggets were 2.3 points above league average. The 89 Pistons were 3.1 points above league average so they were the better defensive team.

Why would you do that? Do you ever see anybody list Jordan's offensive statistics relative the league average?

[Da_Realist]

You aren't understanding the statistic. You don't compare defensive rating across eras. If you really want to compare defenses across eras, use defensive rating relative to league average. That way, whatever team you want to use (92 bulls, 96 bulls etc) will look much better and rightfully so. Comparing the 03 Nuggets to the 89 Pistons is stupid because the Nuggets were playing in a totally different era where games were slow paced, low scoring and defensive-oriented. Transfer the 89 Pistons to 03 and they'll have much better numbers across the board.

For instance, the 03 Nuggets were 2.3 points above league average. The 89 Pistons were 3.1 points above league average so they were the better defensive team.

That would be better but that's not how he tried to use it. And he knew that sh*t didn't make sense. It still doesn't really measure defense but what you said is better than what he tried to do. I read a quote somewhere about the Pistons -- "They led the league in 5 point blowouts". That's because they were so smart and so disciplined that if you were down 5 in the last of the 4th quarter, it felt like a blowout. How does Drtg measure that sense? The Pistons defense was more than just 3 points better than league average.

The numbers don't accurately show how great these team's defenses are because, in Detroit's case especially, their defense was better than their offense. So unless every single team has the same exact offensive capabilities (to normalize that part of the equation) you can't accurately measure how dominant a team's defense is by using "points above average"

Even within the same league... How do you compare the 89 Pistons and the 89 Lakers? One played in the run-n-gun Western Conference. The other played in the rugby-like Eastern Conference. We're gonna use a league-wide standard to measure their defenses when 90% of their games are played against different opponents?

[Da_Realist]

Why would you do that? Do you ever see anybody list Jordan's offensive statistics relative the league average?

Must be nice to be an idiot. You can be an argumentative moron, post dumb sh*t to support an agenda, get called on it multiple times and because no one knows who you really are, you can just keep it moving. Must be nice. Anonymity has it's perks, I see.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Must be nice to be an idiot. You can be an argumentative moron, post dumb sh*t to support an agenda, get called on it multiple times and because no one knows who you really are, you can just keep it moving. Must be nice. Anonymity has it's perks, I see.

Why is it when people can't create content or logical thought to support their point of view they always turn to personal attacks towards posters instead?

[Micku]

Defensive rating isn't new nor controversial. Show me where anybody has had a problem with it BEFORE I pointed out that Jordan's playoff opponents are not in the same ballpark with Kobe's. The fact that some Jordan stans have cosigned your lack of comprehension of the formula and how it is derived is nothing to be proud of.


I thought I did? Let me do it again:



“I don’t think this kind of analysis makes sense. What you’re calling higher average team productivity probably just reflects factors like a faster leaguewide pace, higher scoring per possession, and maybe trends in some specific statistics. A faster pace allows players to accumulate more statistics, so it’ll lead to higher pre-adjustment WP. With many statistics the two teams’ change in WP cancels out (e.g., a steal for one team is a turnover for the other, a defensive rebound requires a missed shot), but not with scoring, so more offense will increase pre-adjustment WP. The 1990s saw a drop in both pace and points per possession, so that explains the drop in “basketball quality.””


- http://arturogalletti.wordpress.com/2010/07/19/measuring-the-quality-of-basketball-in-the-nba-part2-adjusting-for-pace/




Milwaukee led the league in field goal percentage and assists and did well in offensive rebounds. The Bucks' 99.3 rating, though it led the league would now be among the worst in the NBA. New Jersey had an offensive rating of 99.9, which was second to last in '87-88. Because the pace of the game is so much slower now, the Nets adjusted points per game rating was 101.7, much lower than the Bucks' 109.2.

- http://www.rawbw.com/~deano/helpscrn/rtgs.html



The first thing we can do in adjust oRtg and dRtg for the seasons. That doesn't make a huge difference in this case, but it does when you're comparing, say, 1996 and 2004.
http://sonicscentral.com/apbrmetrics/viewtopic.php?p=11812&sid=839f57786944d29374cb8e95d7e7e55a

Imagine comparing 2004 and 1986, a near 20 year difference.


Well, yes. Teams that like to run, but get stuck in a half court game are described as not playing at their own tempo. But this often (if not always) happens because their defense isn't forcing the turnovers or getting the defensive rebounds it needs to push the ball up the court. It also means the opposition is scoring a lot. Running teams don't force the ball up the court after a made basket very often any more. Some did prior to this decade, like the Lakers in the pros and that Loyola Marymount team of the late '80's. But did that really help them stay at their tempo and win the game?

...

Notice how the pace has gotten dramatically slower, but the efficiency of the offense has mostly improved, though it's been pretty level since the mid 1980's. It's always hard to say exactly why such major changes have occurred in the game. I'm not sure people were conscious of the pace slowing until the past couple years. In 1988 or so, Martin Manley, author of Basketball Heaven, wrote to me suggesting that the pace was going to increase in the future, this despite the trend already evident at the time that the pace was slowing. I'm sure it has slowed even further this season, though I haven't done the calculations. Statistically, the number of turnovers and the number of shots have both decreased, while the number of free throws and offensive rebounds have roughly remained steady. Basically, teams have begun to take better care of the ball and shoot better, which is not entirely surprising.


http://www.rawbw.com/~deano/articles/tempo.html

Basically what this means that the game has changed. The offense was really good at the start of the 80s, where everything was going fast pace. This will lead increase of stats across the board.



Do you think league wide a 14 second shot clock would lead to more points per possesion? Yes or No?

How about a 7 second shot clock?

How about a 1 second shot clock? How could anyone defend such a fast pace team? Can you imagine how high their offensive rating would be?
:facepalm

This is silly because the possessions were higher in the 80s, with the 24 second clock, and had a high offensive rating with higher ppg because of the fast pace. They also shot quicker on the 24 second clock in comparison the 00s. That's common knowledge of pacing, which will increase the scoring.

[Micku]

Point is that the league changes. The pacing and possession change a lot over the course of the years, and the style of play is different.

This will lead to change of style defense, offense, shot selection, and whatever. The point is that I feel that it is shouldn't be compared from era to era. Comparable stats to 60s is different from the 80s because they played a different style. The 70s is different from the 90s because they played a different style. You wouldn't compare what the 60s did to the 80s. Same thing with the 80s to the 00s. It's different.

My point is that it's probably better to stick with that specific season. Like 1988 stats is only 1988. 2000 stats is only suited for 2000. If you plug players/teams to a different era, the they would have to adjust and their game would be a little different.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Saying that offense was really good in the 80s (according to these numbers) is the same thing as saying defense was really terrible in 80s. You realize that right?

[Micku]

Saying that offense was really good in the 80s (according to these numbers) is the same thing as saying defense was really terrible in 80s. You realize that right?

You can argue the opposite for the 00s or the late 90s, that the offense sucks. Teams didn't run anymore, and commentators were complaining about that. The Suns changed that again, and now the pace is going up. Same thing with the 80s, when they complain that they couldn't be physical with the guys as they were in the 70s.

In the mid 90s, they were complaining about the same thing, which cause Doc Rivers to retire since he felt that they couldn't play defense anymore.

The offense in the 80s were good when it comes to shot selection, making the shot, running up the floor to get the quick bucket, and everything else. The 80s team did defend though. The era was different, and my point is that the meaning of stats could be look at differently for each decade, including Drtg.

---

But yeah, just because the offense was good, doesn't mean the defense was bad.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

You can argue the opposite for the 00s or the late 90s, that the offense sucks. Teams didn't run anymore, and commentators were complaining about that. The Suns changed that again, and now the pace is going up. Same thing with the 80s, when they complain that they couldn't be physical with the guys as they were in the 70s.

In the mid 90s, they were complaining about the same thing, which cause Doc Rivers to retire since he felt that they couldn't play defense anymore.

The offense in the 80s were good when it comes to shot selection, making the shot, running up the floor to get the quick bucket, and everything else. The 80s team did defend though. The era was different, and my point is that the meaning of stats could be look at differently for each decade, including Drtg.

---

But yeah, just because the offense was good, doesn't mean the defense was bad.


Yeah it does over the course of an entire 82 game season. Team's don't magically forget how to play effective offensive basketball over the course of a decade and then relearn it suddenly as the we get closer to present day. If every single team in the league is running up the floor and getting a quick bucket then every single team is playing terrible transition defense.

[Micku]

Yeah it does over the course of an entire 82 game season. Team's don't magically forget how to play effective offensive basketball over the course of a decade and then relearn it suddenly as the we get closer to present day. If every single team in the league is running up the floor and getting a quick bucket then every single team is playing terrible transition defense.

Of course it would mean that. Teams don't take many good shots nowadays in comparison to the 80s. Teams also did not increase tempo in the early 00s (which is sort'a changing now). People were complaining about that in the 00s. The league wanted to increase scoring and the tempo, which is why the Suns team was important and exciting when they came about in 04-05. The difference is that the 80s teams play like them, but played defense as well.

---

But you can argue the opposite as well I guess. Evidence for both sides.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Of course it would mean that. Teams don't take many good shots nowadays in comparison to the 80s. Teams also did not increase tempo in the early 00s (which is sort'a changing now). People were complaining about that in the 00s. The league wanted to increase scoring and the tempo, which is why the Suns team was important and exciting when they came about in 04-05. The difference is that the 80s teams play like them, but played defense as well.

---

But you can argue the opposite as well I guess. Evidence for both sides.

There isn't evidence of both sides. There is evidence of a Nash Suns team being efficient and fast and you holding on to it while ignoring literally hundreds of mediocre high paced teams and efficient slow paced teams.

They don't take as many "good shots" nowdays because every team doesn't have a red carpet in the lane anymore. You still don't appear to grasp to direct inverse relationship between offense and defense.

[97 bulls]

Yao mings foot is a lost cause. Many people have dispelled this theory and yet and still foot continues to try to defend it.

Jus acknowledge the inherent flaw and move on.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Yao mings foot is a lost cause. Many people have dispelled this theory and yet and still foot continues to try to defend it.

Jus acknowledge the inherent flaw and move on.

What's the flaw?

[97 bulls]

What's the flaw?
Its not a flaw in the system so much as the flaw is you trying to say kobe faced better defenses and use that defense rating system SOLELY as your reason. And numerous time people have showed why it doesn't work that way and yet you continue to support it as gospel.

[Micku]

There isn't evidence of both sides. There is evidence of a Nash Suns team being efficient and fast and you holding on to it while ignoring literally hundreds of mediocre high paced teams and efficient slow paced teams.

They don't take as many "good shots" nowdays because every team doesn't have a red carpet in the lane anymore. You still don't appear to grasp to direct inverse relationship between offense and defense.

Just because you are going fast pace, doesn't mean the defense is necessary bad. Everyone acknowledge that the Lakers of the 80s were a good defensive team. It's all about hustle. And, the 80s team used to run all the freaking time, even when they had full court pressure on them. If you watch an 80s game, then you would see that they used to run. While the 00s slow the pace down all the time. It was a different style. It doesn't mean that the 80s defense was bad, as shown by all the examples I put out on this thread.

That's silly. Higher FG% could mean better shots. Plus, there were hardly any 80s teams shooting 3s. They all shot their shots in the close-mid range. Those were better shot selection. And they were pretty good in the half court offense. And they did contest.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Its not a flaw in the system so much as the flaw is you trying to say kobe faced better defenses and use that defense rating system SOLELY as your reason. And numerous time people have showed why it doesn't work that way and yet you continue to support it as gospel.

Does defensive rating work for other players? Or is it just Kobe who it doesn't apply to? Jordan?

Two players have an identical all star level statistical profile. Player A played in a league where the average defensive rating was 100.0. Player B played in a league where the average defensive rating was 200.0. Which player had the better season?

[Micku]

Does defensive rating work for other players? Or is it just Kobe who it doesn't apply to? Jordan?

Defensive rating works. Not saying it's a stupid stat, and it gives you indication of which team/player probably has the best defensive efficient. But like many other stats, it's not the end of all discussion. But my point is that you shouldn't compare eras. Other than that, you can go right ahead.

I posted quotes in why that other eras have different stats, which could inflate certain statistics. I wasn't the only person who thought of this. And there are people who take into consideration of the era difference when it comes to the advance stats, and comparing stats between eras you would have to take consideration of the era.


Two players have an identical all star level statistical profile. Player A played in a league where the average defensive rating was 100.0. Player B played in a league where the average defensive rating was 200.0. Which player had the better season?

Probably player A, if you assume everything is the same rules and other stuff in the league.

But this isn't the case of what happened in each decade of the NBA. Not only did the rules changed, but the shot selection changed. The way teams play changed as well.

[97 bulls]

Does defensive rating work for other players? Or is it just Kobe who it doesn't apply to? Jordan?

Two players have an identical all star level statistical profile. Player A played in a league where the average defensive rating was 100.0. Player B played in a league where the average defensive rating was 200.0. Which player had the better season?
Ok, how bout this. What if a division 3 college team has a higher rating than a D1? Does that make the D3 team better defensively? No cuz the competition isn't the same. And im not calling kobe competition D3 level. Im trying to show you that its not an apples to apples comparison.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Ok, how bout this. What if a division 3 college team has a higher rating than a D1? Does that make the D3 team better defensively? No cuz the competition isn't the same. And im not calling kobe competition D3 level. Im trying to show you that its not an apples to apples comparison.

Are you suggesting that the level of offensive talent in the NBA was SIGNIFICANTLY better in 80-90s compared to 00-10+?

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Defensive rating works. Not saying it's a stupid stat, and it gives you indication of which team/player probably has the best defensive efficient. But like many other stats, it's not the end of all discussion. But my point is that you shouldn't compare eras. Other than that, you can go right ahead.

I posted quotes in why that other eras have different stats, which could inflate certain statistics. I wasn't the only person who thought of this. And there are people who take into consideration of the era difference when it comes to the advance stats, and comparing stats between eras you would have to take consideration of the era.



Probably player A, if you assume everything is the same rules and other stuff in the league.

But this isn't the case of what happened in each decade of the NBA. Not only did the rules changed, but the shot selection changed. The way teams play changed as well.

What makes you believe that the change in shot selection was not a direct measured response to improved defenses?

[97 bulls]

Are you suggesting that the level of offensive talent in the NBA was SIGNIFICANTLY better in 80-90s compared to 00-10+?
No off course not. Im just saying its a different era. Maybe it was a bad example. You just can't compare results from different time periods. That's all im saying.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

No off course not. Im just saying its a different era. Maybe it was a bad example. You just can't compare results from different time periods. That's all im saying.

Shame. At least that would have been a logical premise. It doesn't hold water but at least its better than current theory being promoted that the entire NBA suddenly had amnesia when it comes to shot selection and their coaches looked the other way.

[97 bulls]

Shame. At least that would have been a logical premise. It doesn't hold water but at least its better than current theory being promoted that the entire NBA suddenly had amnesia when it comes to shot selection and their coaches looked the other way.
Wait a minute, who says the nba as whole has a problem with shot selection? People say kobes shot selection is bad. Not the nba as a whole.

[Micku]

What makes you believe that the change in shot selection was not a direct measured response to improved defenses?

It was mentality more than defense. Look:

NBA teams have fallen in love with 3-pointers, but is it smart basketball?



The 3-pointer was introduced during the 1979-80 season on a trial basis and approved as an official rule at the start of the 1980-81 season. It was still considered an experiment by coaches, who watched their players clang their way to an anemic 24.5 percent from the new distance, though 3-pointers were rarely attempted. The shot accounted for just 2.3 percent of the league's overall field-goal attempts, and teams averaged just two 3-point attempts per game.

...

"I mean, you'd get snatched out of the game for standing out there shooting 3s," said Hollins, a career 14.9-percent shooter from 3-point range (13-of-87). "We were always taught to get a layup first and a midrange shot second. I can remember guys I'd play with, they'd take a long-range shot and our coach would get on them. 'Coach, I was open.' He'd say, 'Well, there's a reason you're always open.'"

...

It took a long time for the mentality to change. Five years later, teams were still attempting just 3.3 3-pointers per game -- an almost negligible statistic. But by the end of the decade, the popularity of the 3-pointer ballooned. Players had become more adept from beyond the arc, and coaches could see value in a shot that was once considered a novelty. During the 1990-91 season, teams averaged 7.1 attempts at a 32-percent clip. The number of attempts more than doubled by 1995-96, to 16 per game, and players were shooting 36.7 percent.

...

But something unexpected was playing out. As the number of 3-point attempts continued to increase, league-wide scoring was decreasing -- from 110.2 points per game in 1980-81, to 99.5 ppg in 1995-96, to 94.8 ppg in 2000-01. Scoring has rebounded slightly in recent years (teams this season were averaging 100.1 ppg through Wednesday's games), but there are some in league circles who hold the 3-point line partly responsible.

....

In 2004, aware of some of the issues at hand, the NBA considered instituting a rule in the Development League that would have banned 3-point shots until the final five minutes of games. It took a mere matter of days for the concept to be ridiculed, though perhaps it deserved more attention.

...

Asked what would happen if the NBA were to abolish the 3-pointer, Hollins said: "Scoring would go up."


- http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2010/feb/13/trey-chic/

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Your proof of superior shot selection is the testimony from a 14.9% 3 pt shooter during an era of 24.5% 3 pt shooting?

Do the simple math. 35.9% = AVG 2011 3pt shooting = 107.7 pts per 100 possessions

24.5% 3 pt shooting = AVG 1980 3pt shooting = 73.5 per 100 possessions

[Micku]

Your proof of superior shot selection is the testimony from a 14.9% 3 pt shooter during an era of 24.5% 3 pt shooting?

Do the simple math. 35.9% = AVG 2011 3pt shooting = 107.7 pts per 100 possessions

24.5% 3 pt shooting = AVG 1980 3pt shooting = 73.5 per 100 possessions

There was more than just him. Read the article.

---

Not only did I show you the different people certain stats could be inflated, and that some wouldn't compare Drtg in different eras. And I showed you the amount of 3s, and the mentality of the players and coaches change, some players on the 3 pt shot, and how the 3pt increase, the league scoring world wide decrease. Also, you have the lower pacing and lower possessions.

Current coaches and players as well as former commented in that article. It is a very good article.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

There was more than just him. Read the article.

---

Not only did I show you the different people certain stats could be inflated, and that some wouldn't compare Drtg in different eras. And I showed you the amount of 3s, and the mentality of the players and coaches change, some players on the 3 pt shot, and how the 3pt increase, the league scoring world wide decrease. Also, you have the lower pacing and lower possessions.

Current coaches and players as well as former commented in that article. It is a very good article.

Its a fine article. it just has little to do with defensive rating.

[Micku]

Its a fine article. it just has little to do with defensive rating.

It was a response over what you said:


What makes you believe that the change in shot selection was not a direct measured response to improved defenses?

And the article basically said that shot selection was basically the mentality of the players and coaches getting accustom to it, not so much as a "direct response to improved defense". And you have another coach who believe if you take out the 3 pt line, you would increase in scoring.

[Da_Realist]

:facepalm

[f0und]

can someone post a link to the actual list that ranks these teams based on defensive rating? the link that shows the 03 nuggets as one of the best defensive team ever.

[nayte]

I just looked up Defensive Ratings from 1988 to today. What a ****ing joke this is. The 89 Pistons came in ranked 225th.
The 92 Bulls? 211th
The 97 Bulls? 205th

The highest ranked Jordan/Pippen Bulls team was the old ass 97-98 team where Pippen missed half the season -- at 38th. :no:

The 03 Sacramento Kings? 27th!!! :lol

The 04 New Jersey NETS -- 10th! :bowdown: :applause:

The 94 Knicks are 14th, but the team that BEAT them are ranked 65th!

Get this. The 03 Nuggets, who won all of 17 games is ranked 63rd. That's right. 17-65 and they are ranked SIXTY-THIRD best defense since 1988! Higher than any of the 90's champions except for the old, injured 98 Bulls that barely held it together. What a f*cking joke. :roll:

And this dude keeps shoving this stat up everyone's ass like it means something. :oldlol:

Just thought I would bump this bit.
Im not to clued up to with DRtg.Should I disregard it when comparing eras.That seems to be the impression im getting from this post and other posters opinions?

[daily]

Just thought I would bump this bit.
Im not to clued up to with DRtg.Should I disregard it when comparing eras.That seems to be the impression im getting from this post and other posters opinions?


Yes it's season to season specific for the most part.

It was created to look team to team within a one year span. It's a stat coaches scouts requested it was never meant to be used to compare one team of one year to another from some other period

[nayte]

Yes it's season to season specific for the most part.

It was created to look team to team within a one year span. It's a stat coaches scouts requested it was never meant to be used to compare one team of one year to another from some other period

Sweet, thanks for that.

[LeBird]

You still don't appear to grasp to direct inverse relationship between offense and defense.

That may be true in a restricted sample. But when you compare eras and are looking for relative values that statement doesn't hold true anymore, necessarily.

It could be that Team A plays Team B and Team B just hammers Team A. Statistically, you can make your inference in the above. It could be that Team A are an awesome defensive side, relatively speaking, and Team B were just an even more awesome offensive side - making them look worse than they were.

Then if you tried to compare Team Z from another era to Team A and say that Team Z > Team A because their defence was poor, you can't use the above assumption any longer. For, relatively speaking, it may be poor in that sample, but it could still be better than Team Z's.

Which I think is the point Micku is making. Even though there was a faster pace, and more points were scored, it doesn't necessarily mean that the 80s defence sucked...but that the players were just better offensively. This is where actually watching basketball pays dividends.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Just thought I would bump this bit.
Im not to clued up to with DRtg.Should I disregard it when comparing eras.That seems to be the impression im getting from this post and other posters opinions?

Yes you should also disregard field goal % because Tyson Chandler >>> Michael Jordan.

:facepalm

Defensive rating isn't some obscure formula that nobody knows how to calculate. It simply is how many points were scored on this team on average per possession defended for the season.

[juju151111]

Yes you should also disregard field goal % because Tyson Chandler >>> Michael Jordan.

:facepalm

Defensive rating isn't some obscure formula that nobody knows how to calculate. It simply is how many points were scored on this team on average per possession defended for the season.
So what your saying is use context just like the OP was trying to make you see this whole time :facepalm. Unless you believe the 03 Nuggets>>>>>>>>> 97 bulls on defense :lol :oldlol: :oldlol: retard and can u explain to me how the 98 bulls are ranked way higher then the 97 bulls when Rodman/Pip was missing games and MJ was broken down?

[Yao Ming's Foot]

So what your saying is use context just like the OP was trying to make you see this whole time :facepalm. Unless you believe the 03 Nuggets>>>>>>>>> 97 bulls on defense :lol :oldlol: :oldlol: retard and can u explain to me how the 98 bulls are ranked way higher then the 97 bulls when Rodman/Pip was missing games and MJ was broken down?

Sure can. They gave up less points on a per possession basis. Hope that helps.

:oldlol:

Just because a fact doesn't match your preconceived myths doesn't make it untrue. What do you think the reason is? The vast mythical era changes between the 97 and 98 season?

[juju151111]

Sure can. They gave up less points on a per possession basis. Hope that helps.

:oldlol:

Just because a fact doesn't match your preconceived myths doesn't make it untrue.
Ok Nice to know Pippen and Rodman are overrated defensivly:applause: Yes it was a myth that Pippen miss a lot of games in 98:facepalm So you would take the 98 bulls with No Pippen to 97 bulls with Pippen.So wat ur saying is Pippen was overrated:applause: 03 Nuggets>>>>>>>>>>>> Bulls chip teams :applause:

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Yes you should also disregard field goal % because Tyson Chandler >>> Michael Jordan.

No one is saying Tyson Chandler is a better scorer than Jordan, though. That's the difference.

Find your brain, foot. :oldlol:

[juju151111]

No one is saying Tyson Chandler is a better scorer than Jordan, though. That's the difference.

Find your brain, foot. :oldlol:
Exactly :applause:

[Yao Ming's Foot]

No one is saying Tyson Chandler is a better scorer than Jordan, though. That's the difference.

Find your brain, foot. :oldlol:

They would if they had the same number of shot attempts. Teams defend a similar amount of possessions. You realize that right?

:facepalm

Never thought I would see the day that how well a team is able to limit scoring on a possession basis would be remotely controversial.

[97 bulls]

They would if they had the same number of shot attempts. Teams defend a similar amount of possessions. You realize that right?

:facepalm

Never thought I would see the day that how well a team is able to limit scoring on a possession basis would be remotely controversial.
You created this controversy by trying to imply things like Tyson Chandler is a better scorer than Michael Jordan.



One of Mickus first statements is it can only be compared on a yearly basis. All stats have their flaws.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

They would if they had the same number of shot attempts. Teams defend a similar amount of possessions. You realize that right?

But they don't have the same number of shot attempts, foot.


Never thought I would see the day that how well a team is able to limit scoring on a possession basis would be remotely controversial.

So the Bulls were better defensively in '98...in spite of Scottie Pippen missing half the season. :oldlol:

Reality: Anybody that watched that team will tell you Chicago was just worse offensively w/o Pippen and Kukoc (who also missed half the season).

[Yao Ming's Foot]

You created this controversy by trying to imply things like Tyson Chandler is a better scorer than Michael Jordan.



One of Mickus first statements is it can only be compared on a yearly basis. All stats have their flaws.

There isn't a controversy. People like to compare Kobe's finals stats especially to Jordan's finals stats. I brought up the best and widely accepted defensive measures of the teams they faced in the Finals and compared them to each other. Jordan mythologists couldn't handle that so now they are desperately trying to confuse each other enough that they won't have to accept reality. Its actually kind of sad. They remind me of "intelligent designers" grasping at straws to disprove the theory of evolution.

[necya]

There isn't a controversy. People like to compare Kobe's finals stats especially to Jordan's finals stats. I brought up the best and widely accepted defensive measures of the teams they faced in the Finals and compared them to each other. Jordan mythologists couldn't handle that so now they are desperately trying to confuse each other enough that they won't have to accept reality. Its actually kind of sad. They remind me of "intelligent designers" grasping at straws to disprove the theory of evolution.

do you read what you write ? it's like your are on drugs youknow...
if Kobe doesn't have an excuse i kill myself ?

[magictricked]

There isn't a controversy. People like to compare Kobe's finals stats especially to Jordan's finals stats. I brought up the best and widely accepted defensive measures of the teams they faced in the Finals and compared them to each other. Jordan mythologists couldn't handle that so now they are desperately trying to confuse each other enough that they won't have to accept reality. Its actually kind of sad. They remind me of "intelligent designers" grasping at straws to disprove the theory of evolution.Did you adjust for league averages.

I'd like to see your math if you don't mind

[juju151111]

There isn't a controversy. People like to compare Kobe's finals stats especially to Jordan's finals stats. I brought up the best and widely accepted defensive measures of the teams they faced in the Finals and compared them to each other. Jordan mythologists couldn't handle that so now they are desperately trying to confuse each other enough that they won't have to accept reality. Its actually kind of sad. They remind me of "intelligent designers" grasping at straws to disprove the theory of evolution.
Confused? We are saying simple things here. The 03 Nuggets>>>> The 97 bulls and are a top defensive team ever. So that should be ignored? The 98 bulls defense got better with no Scottie. Just explain these things and nobody will question u

[97 bulls]

Confused? We are saying simple things here. The 03 Nuggets>>>> The 97 bulls and are a top defensive team ever. So that should be ignored? The 98 bulls defense got better with no Scottie. Just explain these things and nobody will question u
This is their ranking per season.

96 first

97 fourth

98 ninth (no Pippen)

[KG215]

If he honestly thinks the 17 win 2003 Denver Nuggets were a better defensive team than the Jordan/Pippen Bulls, that tells me all I need to know.

If this was so cut-and-dry and easy to see Foot, you'd think more people might be agreeing with you. Everyone and their mother is trying to tell you that you can't use this particular stat to compare teams from different eras (some with factual based analysis), yet you refuse to bend even a little bit in your stance on DRtg.

If this is some Moneyball type shit, and you're the next Billy Beane, then I will come on here and sing your praises. Until then, I'm just going to keep assuming that you think you've found a flawless stat that allows you to say Kobe faced better defensive teams than Jordan.

[DatAsh]

Quoting myself from another thread.

DRtg is actually a pretty decent tool for comparing team defense within the same year. It's not very accurate and comparing defenses from one team in one year to another team in a different year, especially if those years are more than a couple years apart, but for single season comparisons, it's by far the best team defensive measurement stat available.

It would be foolish to try and compare Ortg or Drtg across more than a couple of years and expect to get meaningful results. The reason it works within a single season is that all the teams are standing on common ground, they're playing against the same teams,at least to an extent, on a nightly basis which trends to level the playing field.

Comparing ORtg or DRtg across eras is almost impossible, and you can't really expect accurate results when doing so. Offensive and defensive structures change over the years, and there's really no way to determine whether or not a lower Drtg is due to an improving defense, or a declining offense.

The fact that the early 2000 Wizards have a better Drtg than the early 90s Bulls despite not even being in the same defensive class as those Bulls teams aught to hint at the fact that comparing the statistic across eras is inherently flawed.

It's both a reasonable and valid point to say that the 2002 Wizards did a better job of limiting points allowed on a per possession basis against the offenses that they faced than the 1992 Bulls did against the offenses that they faced.

What's not valid is trying extrapolate that to then say that the 2002 Wizards were better at limiting points allowed on a per possession basis in a general sense. Those two teams played against completely different offenses, and their defensive ratings are calculated as such.

It gets even less valid when trying to break it down further and use the statistic to say that a particular player faced tougher defenses than a different player from another era. Not only do you have to contend with the fact that those Drtg and Ortg are calculated against completely different teams, but those Drtg and Ortg can vary drastically from within, in the sense that scoring from the perimeter might be tougher in one area, yet interior scoring might be easier in that same era. Drtg measures defense as a whole. Team A might have terrible interior defense, but superb perimeter defense. Team B might have terrible perimeter defense, but superb interior defense. Their Drtgs could theoretically be the same, but Team A would be much more difficult for a player like Kobe/Jordan/Lebron to score against.

Unfortunately for statisticians, the sad truth of the matter is that there really doesn't exist any good statistic for comparing team defense across eras(Drtg is there best there is, and it's pretty terrible), and trying to further compare the strength of defenses that an individual player faced across eras is even more unreliable.

The best way for measuring what you seem to be trying to measure is still they eye test unfortunately, and I don't see that changing any time soon.

[KG215]

There isn't a controversy. People like to compare Kobe's finals stats especially to Jordan's finals stats. I brought up the best and widely accepted defensive measures of the teams they faced in the Finals and compared them to each other. Jordan mythologists couldn't handle that so now they are desperately trying to confuse each other enough that they won't have to accept reality. Its actually kind of sad. They remind me of "intelligent designers" grasping at straws to disprove the theory of evolution.

It's not just "Jordan Mythologists" who thinks it's stupid to say team X from 2001 was a better defensive team than team Y from 1988 because they had a better defensive rating. Almost everyone is disagreeing with this logic.

[97 bulls]

Great post Ash. To be honest, all stats are flawed when comparing eras. Some players may score a lot of points, but how much of that is a product of the opposition allowing said player to score and limit the rest of the teams chances. Like the Celtics did vs the Bulls in 86.


Or pehaps the teams gameplan is to "sever the head". Zone in on the teams best offensive threat and dare the rest of the team to pick up the slack. Like the Heat did vs Derrick Rose in the 2011 ECFs.

The only way to really get a gauge on who or what is better is by settling it on the court. And the eye test

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Did you adjust for league averages.

I'd like to see your math if you don't mind

I don't have any problem with adjusting for league average, but wouldn't you also have to adjust for league average on the offensive side of the ball as well?

The consensus from the guys with the Bulls icons is that you just can't compare the defensive stats across eras for some inane reason. If that is true then you also can't compare offensive stats across eras. You can't just keep the inflated offensive stats and ignore the weak defensive stats because it doesn't match the mythology you are familiar with. :confusedshrug:

[Yao Ming's Foot]

It's not just "Jordan Mythologists" who thinks it's stupid to say team X from 2001 was a better defensive team than team Y from 1988 because they had a better defensive rating. Almost everyone is disagreeing with this logic.

I'm not interested in ranking defensive teams against each others. I'm ranking offensive performances derived against those teams.

[juju151111]

I don't have any problem with adjusting for league average, but wouldn't you also have to adjust for league average on the offensive side of the ball as well?

The consensus from the guys with the Bulls icons is that you just can't compare the defensive stats across eras for some inane reason. If that is true then you also can't compare offensive stats across eras. You can't just keep the inflated offensive stats and ignore the weak defensive stats because it doesn't match the mythology you are familiar with. :confusedshrug:
We don't you idiot and Mj fans are not the only one disagreeing with you. I have seen Kobe fans say they like the stats. Even jauber doesn't think Wilt would average 50 today and he the biggest fan ever. He knows about context.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

And I don't understand the fascination with the 2003 Nuggets. They were the worst offensive team in the league by far. A pretty good defense isn't going to be enough to win many games if your offense makes every defense look like a better version of the 04 Pistons. (92.2 Offensive Rating)

[juju151111]

And I don't understand the fascination with the 2003 Nuggets. They were the worst offensive team in the league by far. A pretty good defense isn't going to be enough to win many games if your offense makes every defense look like a better version of the 04 Pistons. (92.2 Offensive Rating)
Pretty gud? 03 Nuggets is a top 30 defense of all time :coleman:

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Pretty gud? 03 Nuggets is a top 30 defense of all time :coleman:

And what was their offensive ranking of all time?

:facepalm

[juju151111]

And what was their offensive ranking of all time?

:facepalm
Smh ur clueless. U call them a decent defensive team, but they are Top 30 lol ur a dumbass. So let me ask you something. So in a crucial game u would take the 03 Nuggets over 97 bulls

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

And what was their offensive ranking of all time?

:facepalm

Oh so now the offensive side of the ball matters? When this was pointed out earlier (see the differences between the '97 and 98 Bulls), it was ignored.

When in Rome, right foot? :lol

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Oh, so now the offensive side of the ball counts? When in Rome, right foot? :lol

Jesus Christ. You guys are some real geniuses.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QYsLkBvHR4U/T93Ap7BJaBI/AAAAAAAAAAk/NltcdbpZMlA/s400/Dumb%2Band%2BDumber%2B2%2BMovie.jpg

:facepalm

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Why did the 98' Bulls have a lower DRtg than the '97 version? No Scottie or Kukoc (with Rodman missing and/or not starting a handful of games) in '98, yet according to you (and your flawless stat) they were better defensively. How? :confusedshrug:

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

We'll wait, foot. :cheers:

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Why did the 98' Bulls have a lower DRtg than the '97 version? No Scottie or Kukoc (with Rodman missing and/or not starting a handful of games) in '98, yet according to you (and your flawless stat) they were better defensively. How? :confusedshrug:

The answer isn't going to change by asking the same question more than once. Team A has a lower defensive rating than Team B because they were more successful at limiting scoring on a per possession basis over the course of the regular season. The answer will always be the same. :confusedshrug:

[KG215]

You still haven't answered my question Foot. Do you think the 2003 Denver Nuggets were a better defensive team than the 90s Bulls and/or Bad Boy Pistons?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

The answer isn't going to change by asking the same question more than once. Team A has a lower defensive rating than Team B because they were more successful at limiting scoring on a per possession basis over the course of the regular season. The answer will always be the same. :confusedshrug:

The question is, why were they more successful at limiting their oppositions scoring on a per possession basis?

:confusedshrug:

[lilgodfather1]

You still haven't answered my question Foot. Do you think the 2003 Denver Nuggets were a better defensive team than the 90s Bulls and/or Bad Boy Pistons?
Apparently they were. DRTG says so.

[DatAsh]

The answer isn't going to change by asking the same question more than once. Team A has a lower defensive rating than Team B because they were more successful at limiting scoring on a per possession basis over the course of the regular season. The answer will always be the same. :confusedshrug:

That's not really answering the question though.


Question:
Why did team A have a lower defensive rating than team B?

Your Answer:
Because team A had a lower defensive rating than team B.


in other words

Question:
Why was team A more successful than team B at limiting scoring on a per possession basis over the course of the regular season?

Your Answer:
Because team A was more successful at limiting scoring on a per possession basis over the course of the regular season.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

You still haven't answered my question Foot. Do you think the 2003 Denver Nuggets were a better defensive team than the 90s Bulls and/or Bad Boy Pistons?

I never watched the 2003 Denver Nuggets. I know that citing their win loss record doesn't mean anything when you consider they have one of the worst statistical offenses I have ever seen. Their ability to limit their opponents scoring on a per possession basis was apparently on par with the Bulls and Pistons or you wouldn't have mentioned them. That's not an opinion though. Those are simply facts.

[scandisk_]

he's on the ropes guys, throw the finishing blow :lol

[Yao Ming's Foot]

That's not really answering the question though.


Question:
He asked why did team A have lower defensive rating than team B.

Your Answer:
Because team A had a lower defensive rating than team B.

Why is one offense more efficient than than another? Because they are better at scoring points on a per possession basis.

Why is one defense more efficient than than another? Because they are better at limiting points on a per possession basis.


:confusedshrug:

[KG215]

I never watched the 2003 Denver Nuggets. I know that citing their win loss record doesn't mean anything when you consider they have one of the worst statistical offenses I have ever seen. Their ability to limit their opponents scoring on a per possession basis was apparently on par with the Bulls and Pistons or you wouldn't have mentioned them. That's not an opinion though. Those are simply facts.

Which means you think they were better defensively than the two teams I mentioned, correct?

You still haven't figured out how flawed it is to use defensive rating to compare teams from different eras? Or almost any other stat for that matter?

When did you start watching the NBA? Did you ever get to see some of the better teams from the 80s and 90s?

[DatAsh]

Why is one offense more efficient than than another? Because they are better at scoring points on a per possession basis.

Why is one defense more efficient than than another? Because they are better at limiting points on a per possession basis.


:confusedshrug:

Why is the sky blue? Because they sky is blue.

Why does the earth revolve around the sun? Because the Earth revolves around the son.

Come on, your smart enough to know that you're sidestepping the question.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

What do you guys want me to do? Rewrite history so that the Bulls did not give up so many points? Pretend it didn't happen?

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Why is the sky blue? Because they sky is blue.

Why does the earth revolve around the sun? Because the Earth revolves around the son.

Come on, your smart enough to know that you're sidestepping the question.

The sky is blue because of the way light interacts with sky molecules and how that is interpreted by your brain.

The Earth revolves around the sun due to gravity.

Any other questions?

[DatAsh]

What do you guys want me to do? Rewrite history so that the Bulls did not give up so many points? Pretend it didn't happen?

No ones asking you to do that. We're simply showing why it's dubious to try and compare ORtg and DRtg across eras.

[DatAsh]

The sky is blue because of the way light interacts with sky molecules and how that is interpreted by your brain.

The Earth revolves around the sun due to gravity.

Any other questions?

You just proved my point.

Now explain why thy 98 Bulls were more effective than the 97 Bulls at limiting scoring on a per possession basis in a meaningful way. Don't just rephrase the question as a statement.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

No ones asking you to do that. We're simply showing why it's dubious to try and compare ORtg and DRtg across eras.

How would you rate team defenses if not by their ability to limit scoring on a per possession basis?

[DatAsh]

How would you rate team defenses if not by their ability to limit scoring on a per possession basis?

By watching them play and comparing them to the other teams in the league at the time.

[KG215]

How would you rate team defenses if not by their ability to limit scoring on a per possession basis?

Obviously a stat is flawed when it tells you that, if you only use it and nothing else, an overwhelming majority of the best defensive teams of the last 20-30 years came in the early and mid-2000s.

Of course that fits your agenda so there's no point for you to be objective when using or discussing DRtg.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

You just proved my point.

Now explain why thy 98 Bulls were more effective than the 97 Bulls at limiting scoring on a per possession basis in a meaningful way. Don't just rephrase the question as a statement.

Looks like it was mostly due to holding their opponents to a lower eFG%. :confusedshrug:

[KG215]

Didn't mean to call DRtg flawed. Meant to say using it compare teams from different eras if flawed.

[DatAsh]

Looks like it was mostly due to holding their opponents to a lower eFG%. :confusedshrug:

and why was that?

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Obviously a stat is flawed when it tells you that, if you only use it and nothing else, an overwhelming majority of the best defensive teams of the last 20-30 years came in the early and mid-2000s.

Of course that fits your agenda so there's no point for you to be objective when using or discussing DRtg.

If you didn't know how the teams were ranked after doing so would you disagree with measuring team defenses based on their ability to limit scoring on a per possession basis?

I must be an extremist because it seems like a completely reasonable way to measure the strength of a defense to me. I guess I could take DatAsh's suggestion and just watch every single game of every team of all time and just hope my memory doesn't fail me.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

and why was that?

Their opponents missed more shots.

[KG215]

If you didn't know how the teams were ranked after doing so would you disagree with measuring team defenses based on their ability to limit scoring on a per possession basis?

I must be an extremist because it seems like a completely reasonable way to measure the strength of a defense to me. I guess I could take DatAsh's suggestion and just watch every single game of every team of all time and just hope my memory doesn't fail me.

Or, you know, you could see and understand what everyone else is telling you. Using DRtg to come to the conclusion that team X from 2003 was a better defensive team than team B from 1996 is flawed. You can keep saying that, since you didn't get to watch all of those teams play, you have to use DRtg, but there's more to it than that. You'd be very hard pressed to find anyone that watched the 90s Bulls teams play say they weren't as good of a defensive team as the 2003 Nuggets or the 2004 Raptors.

No one takes you seriously to begin with, because you've proven to be a Kobe fanboy and use that stat, and that stat alone, to say Kobe faced better defenses than Jordan. I have no idea if you think Kobe is/was a better player than Jordan, but you make it very hard to take your stance on DRtg seriously when it's used to fuel your Kobe arguments.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Or, you know, you could see and understand what everyone else is telling you. Using DRtg to come to the conclusion that team X from 2003 was a better defensive team than team B from 1996 is flawed. You can keep saying that, since you didn't get to watch all of those teams play, you have to use DRtg, but there's more to it than that. You'd be very hard pressed to find anyone that watched the 90s Bulls teams play say they weren't as good of a defensive team as the 2003 Nuggets or the 2004 Raptors.

No one takes you seriously to begin with, because you've proven to be a Kobe fanboy and use that stat, and that stat alone, to say Kobe faced better defenses than Jordan. I have no idea if you think Kobe is/was a better player than Jordan, but you make it very hard to take your stance on DRtg seriously when it's used to fuel your Kobe arguments.

:facepalm

There isn't a team defensive statistic in the universe that places the average Michael Jordan finals opponent on par defensively with the average Kobe Bryant finals opponent.

If you don't like defensive rating then show me a different more valid way to measure defense. Even if we only consider defensive ratings within their own season Kobe's opponents were more elite. :confusedshrug:

[RRR3]

http://blemb.com/blembmal/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/kobe-bryant-3.jpg



http://images.clipartof.com/small/1048157-Cartoon-Guy-In-Love.jpg


:facepalm

[KG215]

:facepalm

There isn't a team defensive statistic in the universe that places the average Michael Jordan finals opponent on par defensively with the average Kobe Bryant finals opponent.

If you don't like defensive rating then show me a different more valid way to measure defense. Even if we only consider defensive ratings within their own season Kobe's opponents were more elite. :confusedshrug:

Like has been said to you, specifically, umpteen times you do have to trust the eye test in this case. If you think the Bad Boy Pistons would still have a DRtg of 105, or the late 80s/early 90s Bulls with two of the best perimeter defenders ever would have a DRtg of 104-107 in the early and mid-2000s, fine. I'm just telling you that looking at DRtg alone to prop up the defenses your boy Kobe played against while discrediting the defenses Jordan faced is ignorant.

There's a reason not a single other poster is agreeing with you.

[fpliii]

to be honest, I think it might be better to find the z-score of defensive rating (# of standard deviations from league average that season)

maybe I'll put together a spreadsheet and upload it

[magictricked]

I don't have any problem with adjusting for league average, but wouldn't you also have to adjust for league average on the offensive side of the ball as well?

The consensus from the guys with the Bulls icons is that you just can't compare the defensive stats across eras for some inane reason. If that is true then you also can't compare offensive stats across eras. You can't just keep the inflated offensive stats and ignore the weak defensive stats because it doesn't match the mythology you are familiar with. :confusedshrug:

You cannot use defensive rating OR offensive rating to go from year to year without serious adjusting for league averages, Neil Paine has a post on his Basketball reference website about how it's done, it's not easy but without doing it anybody who tries to compare years is just blowing smoke. You may as well just make up numbers out of thin air because that's about as accurate as it is

[Yao Ming's Foot]

If I've understood the definition of terms correctly, this methodology treats an opponent with a defensive rating of 106 in a year where the league rating is 108 as an equally tough defensive opponent as a team with a defensive rating of 100 in a year that the league average was 102. This is clearly not the case. I've only really looked at players in the mold of high-usage perimeter scorers, but those guys absolutely FEAST on defenses with ratings greater than 106 and even the greatest have struggles against the teams with ratings less than 100.

For this reason, when I was originally having a look at this topic I decided not to assess the opposing team defense against the league average, but rather use the raw defensive ratings. Why? I think you need to directly assess the statistical productivity of a player in the statistical environment in which it was produced, and that environment has fluctuated significantly between 1991 and 2010.

If we look at a player's Offensive rating as a return on investment, then a 10% return on investment is much more valuable during the lean times of the Global Financial Crisis than during periods of economic prosperity. And for NBA scoring efficiency, 1999-2004 was the Global Financial Crisis.

During Jordan's first 3-peat the yearwise league average ORtg/Drtg was around 108 in the regular season and 110 in the playoffs. Scoring was cash money, and MJ logged around a 32% of both his career playoff games and minutes during this span. Things remained fairly fruitful in the next 5 seasons, with a yearly average rating of 106.8 in the regular season and 107.1 during the playoffs. MJ played approximately another 38% of his career playoff games and minutes during this stretch.

From the start of the Tim Duncan championship season in 1999 to the End of the Shaq/Kobe Lakers era in 2004 the yearwise league rating was 103.4 in the regular season and 103.0 in the playoffs. You might as well have hid your money under the mattress, because times were tough. These 6 years were the 6 lowest for ORating/DRating in the last 20 regular seasons and included the lowest 5 for the last 20 playoff seasons. Duncan played around 43% of his career playoff games during this stretch and 45.47% of his total playoff minutes, Shaq around 46.7% (51.5% of minutes) and Kobe 52% (and 56% of his total playoff minutes).

Since then things have picked up again with average ratings of 106.2 regular season and 107.0 playoffs from 2005-2007 and 107.8 regular season and 108 playoffs from 2008-yesterday. Obviously the modern era of stars like Dwade, LeBron and Chris Paul have played all or nearly all of their playoff games during these years when the points are flowing freely again.

I really want to write a detailed analysis in full when I find the time, but consider this brief breakdown of the best and worst opponent defenses for just Jordan, Wade, LeBron and Kobe. (These include series prior to 91 and were compiled before the 2010 playoffs, so slightly out of date).

These 4 guys have played a series against an opponent with a defensive rating better than 102 on 27 occasions in their careers:
3 times for Jordan - 3 series wins against 93 NY, 97 MIA, 98 IND, includes No Finals, 1 series against ratings better than 100
3 times for Wade - 3 series losses against 04 IND, 05 DET, 07 CHI, includes No Finals, 2 series against ratings better than 100
3 times for LeBron - 3 series losses against 07 SA, 08 BOS, 09 ORL, includes 1 Finals, 2 series against ratings better than 100
18 times for Kobe - 14 series wins, 4 series losses, includes 5 Finals, 13 series against ratings better than 100 including 4 Finals

These 4 guys have played a series against an opponent with a defensive rating worse than 106 on 29 occasions in their careers:
16 times for Jordan - Includes 1 Finals (2 other Finals in the 105s, 2 more in the 104s), 6 series against rating worse than 108
2 times for Wade - Includes 0 Finals (06 DAL at 105), No series against rating worse than 108
6 times for LeBron - Includes 0 Finals, 3 series against ratings worse than 108
5 times for Kobe - Includes 0 Finals, No series against ratings worse than 108


You can't look at raw defensive ratings w/o regard to the league average, because it completely ignores rule changes, changes in playing styles, etc. that have occurred over time. For instance, our best estimate of the league average defensive rating in 1958 was 89.1. By your logic, that means every team in the NBA that year was significantly better defensively than the best defenses of the past 25 years! But we know that's not necessarily true -- it's just the way the game was played back then, the strategy was to run down the court as quickly as possible and jack up the first shot you could get (pace factor in 1958: 118.9!!). If we compare to the league average, we still see that the 1958 Celtics (DRtg: 84.9) were a good defensive team, but they were more like a team with a 103 DRtg in today's game, not a team with an 85 DRtg.

Now, it's true that a DRtg of 100 in a league where avg = 102 is slightly more valuable than a DRtg of 106 where avg = 108, simply because when the scoring environment is lower, 2 points of efficiency differential is more valuable. So we could plug the numbers into the pythagorean formula and come up with a slightly more accurate read on the relative value of defense. But you still have to compare to the league average somehow.


Neil,

I think there are many situations when comparing to the league average is necessary. The example you presented of determining how fundamentally "good" a defense is between years and eras is one of them. There it is particularly important to understand the effect of rule changes, the 3-point line, pace, style of play etc. That is, how well was a team able to work within the confines of the prevailing environment to produce statistically tough defense.

My logic does not assume that a lower team defensive rating means a "better" defensive team. My logic assumes that a lower team defensive rating means that the team has demonstrated over the course of the regular season that it more difficult for the opposing players to score a high number of points per possession against them than a team with a worse defensive rating. This is regardless of the year,era or league average rating of the two teams. We should statistically evaluate how a player actually does perform offensively directly against the statistical standard of defense.

I don't think the 1958 Celtics (DRtg 84.9) defenses are fundamentally better defensively than the 2008 Celtics (DRtg 98.9). Even if the two teams had a DRtg an equal number of points below league average DRtg for their season I'm still not judging Bob Pettit for shooting 42.3% on field goals (and whatever his corresponding ORtg would have been) in the 1958 Finals series against Boston as harshly as I would judge Kobe for shooting 40.5% or LeBron for shooting 35.5% in their respective playoff series against the 2008 Celtics.

I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but I don't think that 'points better than league average' is an appropriate comparative measure of how tough it is to produce numbers against teams with low defensive ratings. People say defense was much tougher during the 1990's hand-check era, and physically it probably was. But is that toughness reflected in the Defensive ratings of the top teams of the era?

Don't worry Anon, I'm not trying to stir up anything against Jordan. To me he is the best player that has ever played the game, at least that's what the Jordan memorabilia plastered all over my walls seem to reflect.

Looks like not every Jordan fan lives their life with their head in the sand.

:confusedshrug:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=6142

[magictricked]

Looks like not every Jordan fan lives their life with their head in the sand.

:confusedshrug:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=6142

You're just reading things you want to read.

the first post you quoted, the big long one is a non stat guy trying to argue (and failing) you don't have to adjust the stat to go across eras.

the second post you quoted is stat guru Neil Paine the owner of Basketball
Reference telling him he's full of sh*t...lol Which is what several people including me have been saying in this thread

That's why since this three year old conversation on basketball reference you dug up there is a formula for adjusting the ratings from year to year

You can't look at raw defensive ratings w/o regard to the league average, because it completely ignores rule changes, changes in playing styles, etc. that have occurred over time.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

You cannot use defensive rating OR offensive rating to go from year to year without serious adjusting for league averages, Neil Paine has a post on his Basketball reference website about how it's done, it's not easy but without doing it anybody who tries to compare years is just blowing smoke. You may as well just make up numbers out of thin air because that's about as accurate as it is

Once again I'm not ranking defensive teams I'm ranking the strength of offensive performances against them.

It only makes sense to include the league average if you also factor in the league average on the offensive numbers as well.

What's more impressive hitting 3 HRs off of league average pitching during the steroid era of baseball or hitting 3 HRs off of league average pitching during the dead ball era of baseball?

[Yao Ming's Foot]

You're just reading things you want to read.

the first post the big long one is a non stat guy trying to argue you don't have to adjust the stat to go across eras.

the second post is stat guru Neil Paine the owner of Basketball
Reference telling him he's full of sh*t...lol Which is what several people including me have been saying in this thread

That's why since this three year old conversation on basketball reference you dug up there is a formula for adjusting the ratings from year to year

Did you notice he never responded after that? Neil Paine thinks the point is to measure what defense is better. It's not. The point is how to compare the offensive performances against those defenses.

Imagine two identically great offensive performances. Both of them were against league average defenses. However the league during one of them was offensive friendly leaguewide. Scores and efficiency numbers were off of the charts. The league during the second game was notorious for being defensive friendly. Scoring and efficiency numbers were way down . Are you telling me that since they were both against league average defenses that they would be equivalent performances despite that?

[DatAsh]

to be honest, I think it might be better to find the z-score of defensive rating (# of standard deviations from league average that season)

maybe I'll put together a spreadsheet and upload it


I'd very much be interested in seeing how those results turn out.


YaoMingsFoot,

You really need to give the cross era defensive ratings comparison a rest. That being said, the agenda you're trying to push, that Kobe's faced tougher defenses than Jordan in the finals probably has some truth to it. Kobe's had some pretty tough defensive opponents in the finals(Celtics twice, Pistons).

Your agenda would be better laid arguing from a non statistical stand point. I even think you might get some respectable posters to agree with you and back you up, but no respectable poster is going to agree that Jordan's Wizards were a better defensive team than Jordan's Bulls.

[KG215]

to be honest, I think it might be better to find the z-score of defensive rating (# of standard deviations from league average that season)

maybe I'll put together a spreadsheet and upload it

Math major from Stanford, right? Please do.

I'm not saying Yao Ming's Foot is wrong for using DRtg. I just think the way he uses it is misleading.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

I'd very much be interested in seeing how those results turn out.


YaoMingsFoot,

You really need to give the cross era defensive ratings comparison a rest. That being said, the agenda you're trying to push, that Kobe's faced tougher defenses than Jordan in the finals probably has some truth to it. Kobe's had some pretty tough defensive opponents in the finals(Celtics twice, Pistons).

Your agenda would be better laid arguing from a non statistical stand point. I even think you might get some respectable posters to agree with you and back you up, but no respectable poster is going to agree that Jordan's Wizards were a better defensive team than Jordan's Bulls.

:roll:

Of course it has some truth to it. It couldn't be more obvious. I'd probably like to throw out all stats too if I had absolutely none on my side that put the Jordan's finals opponents even in the conversation.

I'm still waiting for somebody to tell me that putting up numbers against a league average defense during an era of basketball where everyone is scoring in bunches is equally as impressive as putting up numbers against a league average defense where everybody is struggling to score efficiently. That's what you guys believe right?

[KG215]

:roll:

Of course it has some truth to it. It couldn't be more obvious. I'd probably like to throw out all stats too if I had absolutely none on my side that put the Jordan's finals opponents even in the conversation.

I'm still waiting for somebody to tell me that putting up numbers against a league average defense during an era of basketball where everyone is scoring in bunches is equally as impressive as putting up numbers against a league average defense where everybody is struggling to score efficiently. That's what you guys believe right?

I'm curious, between Kobe and Jordan, who do you think is the better scorer?

Look at Jordan's insane scoring seasons in the '80s and '90s.

1986-1987: Jordan 37.1 ppg on .484 FG%, .562 TS%, .484 eFG%; league average DRtg was 108.3

1987-1988: Jordan 35.0 ppg on .535 FG%, .603 TS%, .507 eFG%; league average DRtg was 108.0

1988-1989: Jordan 32.5 ppg on .538 FG%, .614 TS%, .546 eFG%; league average DRtg was 107.8

1989-1990: Jordan 33.6 ppg on .526 FG%, .606 TS%, .550 eFG%; league average DRtg 108.1

I could go all the way through '93 when he still averaged 31, 30, an 32 PPG on similar percentages against similar DRatings, but you get the point.



Compare that to Kobe's two big breakout scoring seasons in '05-'06 and '06-'07.

2005-2006: 35.4 ppg on .450 FG%, .559 TS%, .491 eFG%; league average DRtg was 106.2

2006-2007: 31.6 ppg on on .463 FG%, .580 TS%, .502 eFG%; league average DRtg was 106.5


I know the league average DRtg was higher in Jordan's era but I'm guessing that 1-2 point difference doesn't mean a whole lot. I'm just wanting to see where, exactly, you're coming from. I agree, some of the defense Kobe faced in the Finals were better than some of the teams Jordan faced in the Finals. I'm just curious whether or not you think Kobe is the better scorer between the two.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

I'm curious, between Kobe and Jordan, who do you think is the better scorer?

Look at Jordan's insane scoring seasons in the '80s and '90s.

1986-1987: Jordan 37.1 ppg on .484 FG%, .562 TS%, .484 eFG%; league average DRtg was 108.3

1987-1988: Jordan 35.0 ppg on .535 FG%, .603 TS%, .507 eFG%; league average DRtg was 108.0

1988-1989: Jordan 32.5 ppg on .538 FG%, .614 TS%, .546 eFG%; league average DRtg was 107.8

1989-1990: Jordan 33.6 ppg on .526 FG%, .606 TS%, .550 eFG%; league average DRtg 108.1

I could go all the way through '93 when he still averaged 31, 30, an 32 PPG on similar percentages against similar DRatings, but you get the point.



Compare that to Kobe's two big breakout scoring seasons in '05-'06 and '06-'07.

2005-2006: 35.4 ppg on .450 FG%, .559 TS%, .491 eFG%; league average DRtg was 106.2

2006-2007: 31.6 ppg on on .463 FG%, .580 TS%, .502 eFG%; league average DRtg was 106.5


I know the league average DRtg was higher in Jordan's era but I'm guessing that 1-2 point difference doesn't mean a whole lot. I'm just wanting to see where, exactly, you're coming from. I agree, some of the defense Kobe faced in the Finals were better than some of the teams Jordan faced in the Finals. I'm just curious whether or not you think Kobe is the better scorer between the two.

They look pretty comparable to me. I think Jordan would have the edge in regular season scoring though. I don't think thats a myth by any means.

The mythology is that Jordan was unstoppable. That he would just crush the 04 Pistons. The 08 Celtics would have been toast. When in fact the two times he faced a couple of sub 100 defensive rated teams (Heat and Knicks) he was a sub 40% shooter. The one time he faced what I consider a comparable Kobe defense in the Finals (the Sonics) he put up his worst numbers. The mythology is that any time Kobe struggled, Jordan would not have. That since it was the Finals all the buckets were falling and not because it was the Suns or the Jazz or the Lakers or whatever defensive team would barely rate as average in terms of limiting efficient scoring in in Kobe's world.

[DatAsh]

:roll:

Of course it has some truth to it. It couldn't be more obvious. I'd probably like to throw out all stats too if I had absolutely none on my side that put the Jordan's finals opponents even in the conversation.


Can't say that I really disagree with you here, but I think you may have me confused for someone else.

I'm not arguing for Jordan, you ard I are in agreement with the fact that Kobe's finals opponents have been tougher defensively; I'm arguing against trying to compare defensive ratings across eras, and telling you why it's not as valid as you might think.

If you want to show that Kobe's generally faced tougher finals defenses, list the opponents that each of the two player's has played against and go in depth as to why you feel Kobe's opponents were superior. I think most unbiased fans on this sight here will agree with you.

Don't try to use a statistic that shows the Jordan Wizards were better than the Jordan Bulls, and that virtually all of the best defensive teams ever come from the 50s and 60s. That won't gain you any credibility, and it will ultimately lead the topic off on a tangential debate concerning the credibility of the stat itself, as it has done virtually every other time.

[fpliii]

I'd very much be interested in seeing how those results turn out.


YaoMingsFoot,

You really need to give the cross era defensive ratings comparison a rest. That being said, the agenda you're trying to push, that Kobe's faced tougher defenses than Jordan in the finals probably has some truth to it. Kobe's had some pretty tough defensive opponents in the finals(Celtics twice, Pistons).

Your agenda would be better laid arguing from a non statistical stand point. I even think you might get some respectable posters to agree with you and back you up, but no respectable poster is going to agree that Jordan's Wizards were a better defensive team than Jordan's Bulls.


Math major from Stanford, right? Please do.

I'm not saying Yao Ming's Foot is wrong for using DRtg. I just think the way he uses it is misleading.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aoy3YD7IdypTdGJZdVI5X0dySzNJWm51NkZ2UU1sS lE

there's probably a quicker way to do this, but I'm updating year-by-year

if there's a season in particular you want me to skip ahead to, let me know

notes: seasons prior to those listed on BBR use elgee's method (his site is http://backpicks.com), which gives a very close estimate:

http://www.backpicks.com/2012/04/18/complex-pace-estimation-everything-you-wanted-to-know-and-much-more/

the average error is quite low, and it's the best estimator we currently have

[magictricked]

Did you notice he never responded after that? Neil Paine thinks the point is to measure what defense is better. It's not. The point is how to compare the offensive performances against those defenses.


Probably because he's not going to spend all night arguing with idots :oldlol:

the rest, just stop talking. You calling out Paine for not knowing how to use a stat is hilarious. you're the one who's using it wrong. Instead of arguing you should open your mind and try and learn something. Instead all you've done is deny the elephant in the room is an elephant. It's ok to be ignorant on a subject as long as you use it to learn. You refuse to learn from people trying to teach you something and that makes you stupid.

And like Neil Paine, i'm done talking to the idiot.

[KG215]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aoy3YD7IdypTdGJZdVI5X0dySzNJWm51NkZ2UU1sS lE

there's probably a quicker way to do this, but I'm updating year-by-year

if there's a season in particular you want me to skip ahead to, let me know

notes: seasons prior to those listed on BBR use elgee's method (his site is http://backpicks.com), which gives a very close estimate:

http://www.backpicks.com/2012/04/18/complex-pace-estimation-everything-you-wanted-to-know-and-much-more/

the average error is quite low, and it's the best estimator we currently have

Looks good to me, but I'm not going to pretend to understand it haha. You'll have to explain to me what the z-score is and how you calculate it. I'm guessing you just add it to the original ORtg or DRtg?

[fpliii]

Looks good to me, but I'm not going to pretend to understand it haha. You'll have to explain to me what the z-rating is and how you calculate it. I'm guessing you just add it to the original ORtg or DRtg?

z-rating is the number of standard deviations (SDs) from the mean you are

so the formula is

(sample value - sample mean) / (sample SD)

where mean and SD are calculated as normal

[magictricked]

fpliii not 100% sure what you're trying, will follow along but don't do what i did once... start when they put the 3 point shot in.. don't go further back or you'll drive yourself batty figuring out why everything's skewed funny

[fpliii]

fpliii not 100% sure what you're trying, will follow along but don't do what i did once... start when they put the 3 point shot in.. don't go further back or you'll drive yourself batty figuring out why everything's skewed funny

lol I'm doing it from the beginning of the shot clock era

since we're comparing performances from the norm in a given year, the data won't matter as much (since SD and mean are both robust enough that sampling data won't be as impactful)

[magictricked]

lol I'm doing it from the beginning of the shot clock era

since we're comparing performances from the norm in a given year, the data won't matter as much (since SD and mean are both robust enough that sampling data won't be as impactful) haha wow that's like a career move.


Ok I see the post above what you're doing... that's cool

[KG215]

z-rating is the number of standard deviations (SDs) from the mean you are

so the formula is

(sample value - sample mean) / (sample SD)

where mean and SD are calculated as normal

Yeah, that's still a little over my head. Is the ORtg or DRtg of a given year the sample value for the for formula?

[fpliii]

Yeah, that's still a little over my head. Is the ORtg or DRtg of a given year the sample value for the for formula?

sorry

sample value is that team's ortg, drtg, or pace

sample mean is the league average ortg, drtg, or pace for that season

sample SD is the league SD of ortg, drtg, or pace for that season

so like sample value for BOS 1966-67's ORtg would be 98.8

[magictricked]

sorry

sample value is that team's ortg, drtg, or pace

sample mean is the league average ortg, drtg, or pace for that season

sample SD is the league SD of ortg, drtg, or pace for that season

so like sample value for BOS 1966-67's ORtg would be 98.8

So how do you adjust when you want to compare a team from the 80's vs a team from the 2000's?

I always wondered if a baseline number could be created. say by averaging out the defensive rating for all years then working from there you could assign a plus or minus number to a team's defensive rating.

quick and dirty would be something like, say the average is 99.7 and one team is at 96.3 because it's a defensive number that team would be +3.4 rating vs. a team that might have a 100.2 rating that team would be a -.5 team

[fpliii]

So how do you adjust when you want to compare a team from the 80's vs a team from the 2000's?

I always wondered if a baseline number could be created. say by averaging out the defensive rating for all years then working from there you could assign a plus or minus number to a team's defensive rating.

quick and dirty would be something like, say the average is 99.7 and one team is at 96.3 because it's a defensive number that team would be +3.4 rating vs. a team that might have a 100.2 rating that team would be a -.5 team

well this is done within each year, so you'd compare z-scores (also it wouldn't be -.5, since it's not an an absolute scale; it'd depend on how big the standard deviation is for each of those seasons)

so in short, it will tell you how good the 80 defense was relative to that season versus how good 00 was relative to that season

since the game has changed, I think that's the closest we can get to comparing teams across eras

BTW note to everybody in case it's not clear: higher z-score for ORtg is better, lower z-score for DRtg is better

the z-score for pace is kinda meaningless (it tells you how many plays that team ran compared to league average), but it's there for completion purposes

in short, just compare the two DRtg z-scores for the teams (say 80 LAL and 00 LAL), and the lower is better

[Yao Ming's Foot]

well this is done within each year, so you'd compare z-scores (also it wouldn't be -.5, since it's not an an absolute scale; it'd depend on how big the standard deviation is for each of those seasons)

so in short, it will tell you how good the 80 defense was relative to that season versus how good 00 was relative to that season

since the game has changed, I think that's the closest we can get to comparing teams across eras

BTW note to everybody in case it's not clear: higher z-score for ORtg is better, lower z-score for DRtg is better

the z-score for pace is kinda meaningless (it tells you how many plays that team ran compared to league average), but it's there for completion purposes

in short, just compare the two DRtg z-scores for the teams (say 80 LAL and IND LAL), and the lower is better

Are we just going to pretend that putting numbers against a league average defense during an era of video game offensive numbers league wide is equivalent to putting up numbers against a league average defense during an era where scoring is tough league wide?

:confusedshrug:

[fpliii]

Are we just going to pretend that putting numbers against a league average defense during an era of video game offensive numbers league wide is equivalent to putting up numbers against a league average defense during an era where scoring is tough league wide?

:confusedshrug:

I'm not comparing individual numbers, this is for comparing the effectiveness of team defenses (and team offenses) with regard to league averages

btw what specific era are you talking about? I can explain more clearly/differently if I'm speaking in specifics instead of generalities

[KG215]

Pretty sure he's talking about 80s and early 90s compared to early 2000s or so. mainly, the eras Kobe and Jordan played.

[fpliii]

Pretty sure he's talking about 80s and early 90s compared to early 2000s or so. mainly, the eras Kobe and Jordan played.

ah

well, I didn't get to them yet

but the z-scores won't tell us much about Kobe or Jordan in that case, he'd want to just compare league average DRtg if he's speaking in general

if he's talking playoff numbers though, then the z-scores are useful to him

in order to make use of these numbers though, you need to adjust scoring for pace, which actually helps Kobe significantly (Jordan played on a slow team, but in a faster era)

he'd want to calculate points per 100 possessions for both guys, and then compare to league average DRtg (in general comparing pace-neutral stats is dangerous, but both guys had similar roles while playing similar minutes)

EDIT: the formula he'd want is

PP100 = (100 / team pace) * ((team MP) / 5) / player MP) * (player total points / team games)

Yao Ming's Foot - if you're interested in any particular results for PP100, let me know

[Yao Ming's Foot]

I'm not comparing individual numbers, this is for comparing the effectiveness of team defenses (and team offenses) with regard to league averages

btw what specific era are you talking about? I can explain more clearly/differently if I'm speaking in specifics instead of generalities

This thread was originally bumped again after I mentioned the differences in defenses faced between prime Jordan (1st threepeat) and prime Shaq (threepeat with the Lakers).

I understand that you are interested in ranking the strength of the defenses relative to eachother and can see why it makes to compare them to league averages in that case but if we are comparing the raw offensive numbers derived against those defenses by Jordan and Shaq can you justify a reason why league averages would be used if the offensive raw numbers are not adjusted by league averages?

[fpliii]

This thread was originally bumped again after I mentioned the differences in defenses faced between prime Jordan (1st threepeat) and prime Shaq (threepeat with the Lakers).

I understand that you are interested in ranking the strength of the defenses relative to eachother and can see why it makes to compare them to league averages in that case but if we are comparing the raw offensive numbers derived against those defenses by Jordan and Shaq can you justify a reason why league averages would be used if the offensive raw numbers are not adjusted by league averages?

see my response in the post just above you

EDIT: if you want a general quantitative comparison, then using the stat above

adjusted scoring per 100 possessions = pp100 * (100 / league average DRtg) * (100 / league average ORtg) = pp100 * (100 / league average ORtg)^2 (since they're the same across the league)

for a playoff series, you have to calculate pp100 using numbers from the playoffs only, and you can't simplify (since he's playing against one specific defense)

this won't be perfect, but this is the application I think you want

[Yao Ming's Foot]

see my response in the post just above you

EDIT: if you want a general quantitative comparison, then using the stat above

adjusted scoring per 100 possessions = pp100 * (100 / league average DRtg) * (100 / league average ORtg)

I see that you would suggest accounting for pace and league average defensive rating.

My question is why? By adjusting for league averaging defensive rating you are making the false declaration that offensive performances against all league average defenses are identical. Its simply not true. Scoring well against a league average D in 2001 for example is much more impressive than scoring well against a league average in 1991.

[fpliii]

I see that you would suggest accounting for pace and league average defensive rating.

My question is why? By adjusting for league averaging defensive rating you are making the false declaration that offensive performances against all league average defenses are identical. Its simply not true. Scoring well against a league average D in 2001 for example is much more impressive than scoring well against a league average in 1991.

well here are the league average pace and ORtg (as I edited my post above, it's the same as DRtg):

Season Pace ORtg
2000-01 91.3 103.0
1999-00 93.1 104.1
1998-99 88.9 102.2
1997-98 90.3 105.0
1996-97 90.1 106.7
1995-96 91.8 107.6
1994-95 92.9 108.3
1993-94 95.1 106.3
1992-93 96.8 108.0
1991-92 96.6 108.2
1990-91 97.8 107.9

I think that league average DRtg accounts for the difference well enough, because you're multiplying:

adjusted 1991: pp100 * (100 / 1991 ORtg)^2 = pp100 * (100/107.9)^2 = pp100 * .859

adjusted 2001: pp100 * (100 / 2001 ORtg)^2 = pp100 * (100/103.0)^2 = pp100 * .947

so with this adjustment, scoring the same points per possession would count for 8.8% more in 2001 than in 1991

[fpliii]

so you mentioned Jordan in 91 vs Shaq in 01

Jordan in 1991:

PP100 = (100 / team pace) * ((team MP) / 5) / player MP) * (player total points / team games)
= (100 / 95.6) * ((19755) / 5) / 3034) * (2580 / 82) = 42.86

adjusted PP100 = PP100 * (100 / 1991 ORtg)^2 = 42.86 * .859 = 36.82

Shaq in 2001:

PP100 = (100 / team pace) * ((team MP) / 5) / player MP) * (player total points / team games)
= (100 / 91.7) * ((19905) / 5) / 2924) * (2125 / 82) = 38.48

adjusted PP100 = PP100 * (100 / 2001 ORtg)^2 = 38.48 * .947 = 36.44

some people might object to using the square of 100/average ORtg, so if just use 100/average ORtg:

Jordan: adjusted PP100 = PP100 * (100 / 1991 ORtg) = 42.86 * .927 = 39.73

Shaq: adjusted PP100 = PP100 * (100 / 2001 ORtg) = 38.48 * .971 = 37.36

EDIT: sorry for any math mistakes (I think I fixed all errors), it's getting late

[fpliii]

sorry for triple posting, but I finished the spreadsheet:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aoy3YD7IdypTdGJZdVI5X0dySzNJWm51NkZ2UU1sS lE

[DatAsh]

Good work. Is there a way to sort my a particular column?

[fpliii]

Good work. Is there a way to sort my a particular column?

ummm, I'm not sure that there is on Google Docs

what you can do is export a version from the drop down menu at the top, and then sort it in excel

if that isn't showing up, PM me an e-mail address and I can send you a copy

[DatAsh]

ummm, I'm not sure that there is on Google Docs

what you can do is export a version from the drop down menu at the top, and then sort it in excel

if that isn't showing up, PM me an e-mail address and I can send you a copy

Seems to work.

Not sure if it's just pure coincidence, but my personal picks for the top two defenses of all time are among the lowest z-scores

1. 93 Knicks(-2.9)
2. 08 Celtics(-2.7)

It also affirms my long standing belief that the Bill Russell Celtics were the greatest defensive team of all time. Pure sustained defensive domination.

[fpliii]

Seems to work.

Not sure if it's just pure coincidence, but my personal picks for the top two defenses of all time are among the lowest z-scores

1. 93 Knicks(-2.9)
2. 08 Celtics(-2.7)

It also affirms my long standing belief that the Bill Russell Celtics were the greatest defensive team of all time. Pure sustained defensive domination.

hopefully it's more than pure coincidence

agree on all counts

[B-hoop]

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

PS: Where the hell is YaoMing'sFoot now that you have shown that Drtg by itself can't be used to compare defenses across eras?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

FWIW, League Drtg last year was 107.3. Teams gave up 107.3 pts/100 possessions. That is EXACTLY the same as in 1996. In 1997 team defensive rating was 106.7 and in '98 it was 105.

So...what does this all mean? Jordan still crushes Kobe. You lose again, Foot. :lol

[RRR3]

FWIW, League Drtg last year was 107.3. Teams gave up 107.3 pts/100 possessions. That is EXACTLY the same as in 1996. In 1997 team defensive rating was 106.7 and in '98 it was 105.

So...what does this all mean? Jordan still crushes Kobe. You lose again, Foot. :lol

Foot's reply


B-b-b-b-but LAWD GAWDBE IS CUTER! JES' LOOK AT DAT PHYSIQUE! :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

http://cache.deadspin.com/assets/images/11/2012/01/125ff26cdff2832e634b17db2133308b.jpg
:wtf: :facepalm

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Foot's reply


:wtf: :facepalm

:oldlol: :cheers:

On a serious note, could you IMAGINE Jordan in his prime playing today? Similar pace and defensive rating except no handchecking? :biggums:

[Legends66NBA7]

:oldlol: :cheers:

On a serious note, could you IMAGINE Jordan in his prime playing today? Similar pace and defensive rating except no handchecking? :biggums:

He'd probably average multiple 35+ppg game seasons, more than the 2 he had back in the 80's. Would easily distance himself from the 2nd best scorer.

[RRR3]

:oldlol: :cheers:

On a serious note, could you IMAGINE Jordan in his prime playing today? Similar pace and defensive rating except no handchecking? :biggums:
inb4 foot claims Jordan would get "locked down" by C.J. Miles/Gordon Hayward/Josh Howard and Nick Young/Jordan Crawford.


Why did I bring about those players you ask? Well, "Godbe" shot 3-20 and 9-31, respectively, against those "legendary" defenders in today's super tough era of lockdown defenders:lol

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

He'd probably average multiple 35+ppg game seasons, more than the 2 he had back in the 80's. Would easily distance himself from the 2nd best scorer.

Sounds about right, Legends. Dude would raise the roof off in todays game.

[ThunderStruk022]

Who cares about defensive rating? The Gawd Kobe is even more legendary since he won back-to-back with only one other all-star teammate. Who cares if that one all-star teammate is what pushed them over the edge from being a 1st round exit to a legit championship contender. He was just an all-star, that's all. That's the only way that should be seen.

Never mind that, in every series, Gasol was one of the 2-4 best players on the floor. He was just one other all-star. It's almost unfair how much of a talent advantage the teams Kobe faced in the playoffs had. Defensive rating be dammed. Kobe still carried a pretty mediocre supporting cast (compared to the other championship contenders in 2009 and 2010) to back to back championships.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

:oldlol: :cheers:

On a serious note, could you IMAGINE Jordan in his prime playing today? Similar pace and defensive rating except no handchecking? :biggums:

We don't have to imagine him facing sub 100 defensive rated teams in the playoffs. It happened twice.

MJ vs 97 Heat

http://i.imgur.com/SUxvy.png

MJ vs 93 Knicks

http://i.imgur.com/tPFxI.png

:confusedshrug:

[juju151111]

We don't have to imagine him facing sub 100 defensive rated teams in the playoffs. It happened twice.

MJ vs 97 Heat

http://i.imgur.com/SUxvy.png

MJ vs 93 Knicks

http://i.imgur.com/tPFxI.png

:confusedshrug:
Sprained wrist vs the knicks in 93. I agree through 33-35 Mj had some bad FG% series. The year before MJ shot 48% on the Knicks in the playoffs who were ranked 2nd in the league in defense.

Through the 92 season Jordan averaged 30.1ppg on 51.9%fg vs the rest of the NBA
Jordan averaged 29.8ppg vs the Knicks in 92 and shot 46.9% vs the 92 Knicks

Through the 92 season Chris Mullin averaged 25.6ppg on 52.4%fg vs the rest of the NBA
Chris Mullin averaged 25.0ppg vs the 92 Knicks and shot 39.6% vs the 92 Knicks

Through the 92 season Clyde Drexler averaged 25.0ppg on 47.0%fg vs the rest of the NBA
Clyde averaged 21.5ppg vs the 92 Knicks and shot 37.5% vs the 92 Knicks

Through the 92 season Tim Hardaway averaged 23.4ppg on 46.1%fg vs the rest of the NBA
Tim Hardaway averaged 26.5ppg vs the 92 Knicks and shot 48.8% vs the 92 Knicks
(the defense focused on Chris Mullin)

Through the 92 season Mitch Richmond averaged 22.5ppg on 46.8%fg vs the rest of the NBA
Mitch Richmond averaged 26.0ppg vs the 92 Knicks and shot 53.1% vs the 92 Knicks
(Mitch only faced the Knicks twice in 92, and was 5-13 in the first game for 15 points but 12-19 in the second game for 37 points)

Through the 92 season Glen Rice averaged 22.3ppg on 46.9%fg vs the rest of the NBA
Glen Rice averaged 21.4ppg vs the 92 Knicks and shot 43.3% vs the 92 Knicks

Through the 92 season Ricky Pierce averaged 21.7ppg on 47.5%fg vs the rest of the NBA
Ricky Pierce averaged 18.5ppg and shot 39.3% vs the 92 Knicks

Through the 92 season Pippen averaged 21.0ppg on 50.6%fg vs the rest of the NBA
Pippen averaged 17.5ppg vs the Knicks in 92 and shot 41.3% fg% against the 1992 Knicks.

Through the 92 season Reggie Lewis averaged 20.8ppg and shot 50.3% vs the rest of the NBA
Reggie Lewis averaged 22.0ppg vs the Knicks in 92 and shot 48.8% against the 92 Knicks

Through the 92 season Reggie Miller averaged 20.7ppg and shot 50.1% vs the rest of the NBA
Reggie Miller averaged 21.8ppg vs the 92 Knicks and shot 46.1% vs the 92 Knicks

Through the 92 season Drazen Petrovic averaged 20.6ppg and shot 50.8% vs the rest of the NBA
Drazen Petrovic averaged 17.4ppg vs the Knicks in 92 and shot 50.0% vs the 92 Knicks

Through the 92 season Kendall Gill averaged 20.5ppg and shot 46.7% vs the rest of the NBA
Kendall Gill averaged 17.0ppg vs the Knicks in 92 and shot 44.4% vs the 92 Knicks

Through the 92 season Jeff Malone averaged 20.2ppg and shot 51.1% vs the rest of the NBA
Jeff Malone averaged 13.0ppg vs the Knicks in 92 and shot 31.0% vs the 92 Knicks

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

...And here's the real comparison

Kobe, at age 30, in the 2009 playoffs (opponents DRtg - 105):
30.2ppg, .457%fg, 5.3reb, 5.5ast

Jordan, at age 30, in the 1993 playoffs (opponents DRtg - 105):
35.1ppg, .472%fg, 6.7reb, 6.0ast


Kobe, at age 32, in the 2011 playoffs (opponents DRtg - 106):
22.8ppg, .446%fg, 3.4reb, 3.4ast

Jordan, at age 33, in the '96 playoffs (opponents DRtg - 105):
30.7ppg, .459%fg, 4.9reb, 4.1ast


Kobe, at age 33, in the 2012 playoffs (opponents DRtg - 104):
30.0ppg, .439%fg, 4.8reb, 4.3ast

Jordan, at age 34, in the '97 playoffs (opponents DRtg - 102):
31.1ppg, .456%fg, 7.9reb, 4.8ast

Sorry Yao, your boy has ZERO excuses.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

...And here's the real comparison

Kobe, at age 30, in the 2009 playoffs (opponents DRtg - 105):
30.2ppg, .457%fg, 5.3reb, 5.5ast

Jordan, at age 30, in the 1993 playoffs (opponents DRtg - 105):
35.1ppg, .472%fg, 6.7reb, 6.0ast


Kobe, at age 32, in the 2011 playoffs (opponents DRtg - 106):
22.8ppg, .446%fg, 3.4reb, 3.4ast

Jordan, at age 33, in the '96 playoffs (opponents DRtg - 105):
30.7ppg, .459%fg, 4.9reb, 4.1ast


Kobe, at age 33, in the 2012 playoffs (opponents DRtg - 104):
30.0ppg, .439%fg, 4.8reb, 4.3ast

Jordan, at age 34, in the '97 playoffs (opponents DRtg - 102):
31.1ppg, .456%fg, 7.9reb, 4.8ast

Sorry Yao, your boy has ZERO excuses.

Nobody puts Kobe's last two postseasons on par with Jordan's 4th and 5th title.

Kobe in 09 has the higher TS% and with a normalized pace his numbers are right there with Jordan.

:confusedshrug:

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Nobody puts Kobe's last two postseasons on par with Jordan's 4th and 5th title.

Kobe in 09 has the higher TS% and with a normalized pace his numbers are right there with Jordan.

Many people do - especially in an age comparison. This one is predicated off defensive rating, you know, points per 100 possessions?

And Jordan had a higher FG and eFG% averaging 5ppg MORE than Kobe. :oldlol:

[fpliii]

Seems to work.

Not sure if it's just pure coincidence, but my personal picks for the top two defenses of all time are among the lowest z-scores

1. 93 Knicks(-2.9)
2. 08 Celtics(-2.7)

It also affirms my long standing belief that the Bill Russell Celtics were the greatest defensive team of all time. Pure sustained defensive domination.

btw, in case it takes forever to load, check to see if you have an option to "paste values" (which will convert the formulas to plain text) in your spreadsheet program (I do in Apple Numbers which is far more limited than Excel, so if you have that you should be covered)

as is, the cells are linked to one another so it's a very CPU-intensive task to remap the coordinates (column x row) of those used in the formulas for average and SD

[fpliii]

Not sure if anyone cares, but I just finished a new file. Here's the link:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aoy3YD7IdypTdGhadDlycjdYYXhNb2s3WUJyVm04L UE

There are three new columns:

G: ORtg_Z'
J: DRtg_Z'
M: Pace_Z'

which are the same as the other z-scores, with one caveat. Since we're dealing with small sample sizes (particularly in earlier seasons), individual outliers can skew mean/SD, which in turn will undervalue their z-scores (which is just the # of SDs from the mean). This is one possible tool to treat that problem. As n-->∞ ORtg_Z'-->ORtg_Z (same for the other two), since the noise for a small-ish sample will no longer be present. I think the best bet is to look at both numbers to evaluate in context, but if you only want to deal with one set of values, G,J,M are superior to F,I,L.

The version linked above only contains the data in text format. If you want the version with the calculations in every cell, use this file:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aoy3YD7IdypTdHNJU3dBcEFFeXdocXA2aFJUbnIwV kE

which still has all the necessary formulas. Beware though if you import the file into Excel, as sorting with this can take a very long amount of time (and could crash the program); this second version provides no advantage for analysis, I'm just supplying it for transparency of my methodology.