Players with most scoring outbursts in playoff history

[tmacattack33]

Here are the players with most scoring outbursts in playoff history (actually, since 1984 since that is as far back as basketballreference goes...if anyone knows a site for pre-1984 stats, let me know).


40+ point playoff games

Michael Jordan 38 :applause:
Kobe Bryant 13
Shaquille O'Neal 12
LeBron James 11
Hakeem Olajuwon 11
Allen Iverson 10
Dirk Nowitzki 7
Dwyane Wade 7
Charles Barkley 5
Larry Bird 5
Dominique Wilkins 5
Five players tied with 4
Six players tied with 3
Twelve players tied with 2
...and 30 players with 1



45+ point playoff games

Michael Jordan 23 :applause:
Allen Iverson 7
LeBron James 6
Kobe Bryant 5
Dirk Nowitzki 3
H. Olajuwon 3
Ray Allen 2
Charles Barkley 2
Shaquille O'Neal 2
Dominique Wilkins 2
...and 11 players with 1



50 + point playoff games

Michael Jordan 8
Allen Iverson 3
...and 8 players with 1



55 + point playoff games

Michael Jordan 5
Allen Iverson 1
Barkley 1



60 + point playoff games

Michael Jordan 1 (of course we all know about this game, his 63 point game vs Boston in 1986)

:applause:





MJ's dominance over his competition here is amazing.

Also somewhat surprising is Lebron being probably third or fourth best here amongst everyone. With two or three more 40 plus games he could easily be said to be the second best here.

[TheMarkMadsen]

I smell an agenda, along with a pinch of butthurt from the the "lebron has no 50 pt playoff game" thread.

It's ok guy, Lebrons a great player, you don't need to take criticism about Lebron personally.

[Quickening]

Dam Lebron just entered his prime too... :bowdown:

[tmacattack33]

I also wanted to point out that in 9 out of Iverson's 10 games here, he had a TS% of better than 55.0. And in 6 of them, it was better than 60.0. Which is pretty good.

55 is probably the mark you want to reach here to have an efficient game.

And that would be even if you put up 10 points. So putting up 40 points on that kind of efficiency is definitely good.

[swi7ch]

Jordan did it against tough physical defense too (Pistons Bad Boys or 90s Knicks etc.) or against rules that are no longer allowed in the NBA (hand checking, anyone?). So imagine how many more pts he'd score in today's weaker, smaller, softer, and less physical NBA.

See:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLv2F33snCE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K-qGWkiKvQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WpkXlrJxtw

[Quickening]

Jordan did it against tough physical defense too (Pistons Bad Boys or 90s Knicks etc.) or against rules that are no longer allowed in the NBA (hand checking, anyone?). So imagine how many more pts he'd score in today's weaker, smaller, softer, and less physical NBA.

See:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLv2F33snCE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K-qGWkiKvQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WpkXlrJxtw
Teams must have scored a lot lessPPG In that tough ass era of incredible defense...

[DatAsh]

Teams must have scored a lot lessPPG In that tough ass era of incredible defense...

Team ppg is a terrible measure for assessing how difficult it is for one player to score against said team. The Piston's entire defensive gameplan was to double/triple Jordan to stop him at all costs. There have been better defenses that have come and gone since then(08 Celtics, 03 Spurs, 04 Pistons, 93 Knicks) but none of them were as difficult for a single superstar scorer ala Jordan, Iverson, Lebron, Dwyane, or Kobe to score against.

[kurple]

iverson is so underrated now

[DatAsh]

iverson is so underrated now

I don't know about that. I see people trying to say he's better than Kobe Bryant prime vs prime.

[Quickening]

Team ppg is a terrible measure for assessing how difficult it is for one player to score against said team. The Piston's entire defensive gameplan was to double/triple Jordan to stop him at all costs. There have been better defenses that have come and gone since then(08 Celtics, 03 Spurs, 04 Pistons, 93 Knicks) but none of them were as difficult for a single superstar scorer ala Jordan, Iverson, Lebron, Dwyane, or Kobe to score against.
All superstars get doubled teamed... Jordan PPG Or efficiency must have dropped massively against those bad boy pistons, right? Oh and ppg is a far better indication of how hard it was to score in a certain era rather than subjective views about how good one teams defense was....

[DatAsh]

All superstars get doubled teamed... Jordan PPG Or efficiency must have dropped massively against those bad boy pistons, right? Oh and ppg is a far better indication of how hard it was to score in a certain era rather than subjective views about how good one teams defense was....

I'm not saying that Jordan was the only one that got double teamed, but Lebron or Kobe have never been double/triple teamed as often as Jordan was against those Piston's teams. For the record, I do think that some of the team's Lebron routinely faces in the Eastern conference playoffs are better defensive teams than the bad boy Pistons, but they still don't double/triple Lebron as hard and or frequently as the Pistons did Jordan.

As for your second point, PPG is one of the worst logical measures for assessing how good a team is defensively. If you want a good measure of defensive team strength check out fplii's work(look at the ZScore, lower is better).

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

[PJR]

Dwyane Wade has one 45+ game. Game 4 vs Boston Celtics, 2010 first round. 46 points, his career high.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePZAj9ffagA

[tmacattack33]

Dwyane Wade has one 45+ game. Game 4 vs Boston Celtics, 2010 first round. 46 points, his career high.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePZAj9ffagA


Yeah, i just listed those at the top of the list. So for the 40 + categories, there were a few with 4, 3, 2, and 1 that i left out. And for the 45+ category, there were many players with 1.

I guess i can add a ittle "multiple players (11) with 1" note there.

[mattvNJ]

i miss iverson :cry: :cry: , it hurt seeing him struggle jumping teams and what not. Wish he had another chance. He is disrespected so much on this forum, some of it deserved most of it not.

[FreezingTsmoove]

Really now? We just went 10 whole replies without one poster mentioning that Elgin Baylor had a 61 pt 22 rebound game in the finals. OP how could you forget that? Your forgiven

[jstern]

I smell an agenda, along with a pinch of butthurt from the the "lebron has no 50 pt playoff game" thread.

It's ok guy, Lebrons a great player, you don't need to take criticism about Lebron personally.
Speaking of agenda, that 50 points Lebron thread was the most obvious agenda thread that I've ever seen. It was a like a girl gossiping, "Omg is it true, could it be true? Omg can someone tell if it's true?" Something that they could have easily Googled.

[longtime lurker]

Is the OP that butthurt that he had to make a new thread? :oldlol:

[tmacattack33]

Is the OP that butthurt that he had to make a new thread? :oldlol:

Actually, I didn't know this about Lebron and never looked at these numbers in such detail.

I'm very happy about this.

I mean, supposedly, scoring isn't even Lebron's best ability on offense, and yet he's right there with only two others (Iverson and Kobe) behind Jordan in terms of having crazy scoring games in the playoffs.

Amazing.

I also hope others can see what Iverson did and can respect it. He's probably a little above Lebron and Kobe at this point with this.

[Hands of Iron]

40+ Point Playoff Games, Season:

7 - Michael Jordan, 1988-89
6 - Michael Jordan, 1989-90
6 - Michael Jordan, 1992-93
6 - Allen Iverson, 2000-2001
5 - Hakeem Olajuwon, 1994-95
5 - Shaquille O'Neal, 1999-00

[funnystuff]

For someone who is supposedly one of the "best scorers ever"(Bean) he gets completely torched in this thread.

[Heavincent]

For someone who is supposedly one of the "best scorers ever"(Bean) he gets completely torched in this thread.

...he is one of the best scorers ever. Just a fact.

[nathanjizzle]

:bowdown: jordan

[RRR3]

For someone who is supposedly one of the "best scorers ever"(Bean) he gets completely torched in this thread.
He's one of the best scorers ever by any measure. So is LeBron.



Anyways, odd thread, "scoring outbursts" to me signifies a player scoring far above their norm, so for example Joel Anthony scoring 15 points in a playoff game would be an "outburst" by my definition lol

[funnystuff]

...he is one of the best scorers ever. Just a fact.
This is true, no arguing it.

I just expected Kobe to have higher numbers on this subject when I was reading.

[DatAsh]

"Scoring" Outbursts.

Shaq

2000 Finals, Gm1: 43 pts, 19 reb, 4 ast, 3 blk, 67.7%
2000 Finals, Gm2: 40 pts, 24 reb, 4 ast, 3 blk, 61.1%
2000 Finals, Gm3: 33 pts, 13 reb, 1 ast, 2 blk, 62.5%
2000 Finals, Gm4: 36 pts, 21 reb, 1 ast, 2 blk, 52.0%
2000 Finals, Gm5: 35 pts, 11 reb, 3 ast, 2 blk, 62.9%
2000 Finals, Gm6: 41 pts, 12 reb, 1 ast, 4 blk, 59.3%

Olajuwon

1995 Conference Finals, Gm2: 41 pts, 16 reb, 4 ast, 2 blk, 58.1%
1995 Conference Finals, Gm3: 43 pts, 11 reb, 4 ast, 5 blk, 56.3%
1995 Conference Finals, Gm5: 42 pts, 9 reb, 8 ast, 5 blk, 60.0%
1995 Conference Finals, Gm6: 39 pts, 17 reb, 3 ast, 6 blk, 64.0%

incredible

[tmacattack33]

For someone who is supposedly one of the "best scorers ever"(Bean) he gets completely torched in this thread.

?

Bean as in Kobe?

He only gets beat by Iverson and Jordan here. He and Lebron are probably tied for third most impressive here.

He has had more playoff games than most people, but still, I think he looks pretty good here.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

102.6
102.6
106.8
106.0
106.0
106.0
102.9
102.9
102.9
107.5
107.5
107.5
104.7
108.1
108.4
108.4
108.4
103.5
103.5
108.1
110.9
110.9
104.2
104.2
106.0
99.7
106.7
106.7
106.7
106.7
106.1
107.8
103.5
103.5
106.9
104.9
101.6
105.4

Average defensive rating of a team Jordan scored 40+ against in the playoffs = 105.7

Well at least one of the games was against an opponent with a sub 100 defensive rating

:applause:

[eliteballer]

Kobe's played the majority of his career on teams with Shaq or Odom/Bynum/Gasol where huge scoring outburts in the playoffs weren't necessarily going to happen.

He's also played far deeper playoff competition than most of these players. He's played 50 win teams in the first round. Some of these guys played sub 40win teams in the playoffs.

[ILLsmak]

I don't know about that. I see people trying to say he's better than Kobe Bryant prime vs prime.

I'd say he's pretty equal considering Iverson can give you something Kobe can't and Kobe can give you something Iverson can't.

It's sad we measure people only on rings. Anyone who says prime Kobe and Iverson are not comparable, in terms of talent and impact on the game, is A BAD PERSON.

-Smak

[Hands of Iron]

40+ Point Playoff Games (Conference & NBA Finals only)

12 - Michael Jordan
7 - Shaquille O'Neal
5 - Hakeem Olajuwon, Kobe Bryant, Lebron James

Nobody else with more than 3.

[longtime lurker]

Kobe's played the majority of his career on teams with Shaq or Odom/Bynum/Gasol where huge scoring outburts in the playoffs weren't necessarily going to happen.

He's also played far deeper playoff competition than most of these players. He's played 50 win teams in the first round. Some of these guys played sub 40win teams in the playoffs.

Truth. Jordan and Kobe are still easily the greatest scorers (I'm guessing this list is the modern era which is complete bs but whatever) with Iverson following very closely behind.

[BruceLeeBowen]

Lebron already got 11?:applause: He might overtake shaq and probably kobe this playoffs.:bowdown:

[tmacattack33]

Truth. Jordan and Kobe are still easily the greatest scorers (I'm guessing this list is the modern era which is complete bs but whatever) with Iverson following very closely behind.


Yes, it is from 1984 and up. Because I have no way of getting the stats from before that, since bballreference's database only goes back to 1984.

[ThaRegul8r]

Really now? We just went 10 whole replies without one poster mentioning that Elgin Baylor had a 61 pt 22 rebound game in the finals. OP how could you forget that? Your forgiven

In regulation, no less. No overtime needed. And he led his team to a victory, giving them a 3-2 series lead, putting the three-time defending champion's back against the wall.

It's not surprising no one mentioned it, as many act like nothing that happened before the '80s ever took place.

[necya]

...Jerry West is not second ?
and Baylor's 61pts is already forgotten ?

[Boston C's]

102.6
102.6
106.8
106.0
106.0
106.0
102.9
102.9
102.9
107.5
107.5
107.5
104.7
108.1
108.4
108.4
108.4
103.5
103.5
108.1
110.9
110.9
104.2
104.2
106.0
99.7
106.7
106.7
106.7
106.7
106.1
107.8
103.5
103.5
106.9
104.9
101.6
105.4

Average defensive rating of a team Jordan scored 40+ against in the playoffs = 105.7

Well at least one of the games was against an opponent with a sub 100 defensive rating

:applause:

holy sh*t what did jordan do to you man...everytime i see someone mention jordan you come up with your stupid defensive rating agenda...just accept the fact that jordan is better then kobe itll be easier man trust me lol

[Hands of Iron]

"Scoring" Outbursts.

Shaq

2000 Finals, Gm1: 43 pts, 19 reb, 4 ast, 3 blk, 67.7%
2000 Finals, Gm2: 40 pts, 24 reb, 4 ast, 3 blk, 61.1%
2000 Finals, Gm3: 33 pts, 13 reb, 1 ast, 2 blk, 62.5%
2000 Finals, Gm4: 36 pts, 21 reb, 1 ast, 2 blk, 52.0%
2000 Finals, Gm5: 35 pts, 11 reb, 3 ast, 2 blk, 62.9%
2000 Finals, Gm6: 41 pts, 12 reb, 1 ast, 4 blk, 59.3%

Olajuwon

1995 Conf Finals, Gm2: 41 pts, 16 reb, 4 ast, 2 blk, 58.1%
1995 Conf Finals, Gm3: 43 pts, 11 reb, 4 ast, 5 blk, 56.3%
1995 Conf Finals, Gm5: 42 pts, 9 reb, 8 ast, 5 blk, 60.0%
1995 Conf Finals, Gm6: 39 pts, 17 reb, 3 ast, 6 blk, 64.0%


incredible

:applause:

[juju151111]

:lol
102.6
102.6
106.8
106.0
106.0
106.0
102.9
102.9
102.9
107.5
107.5
107.5
104.7
108.1
108.4
108.4
108.4
103.5
103.5
108.1
110.9
110.9
104.2
104.2
106.0
99.7
106.7
106.7
106.7
106.7
106.1
107.8
103.5
103.5
106.9
104.9
101.6
105.4

Average defensive rating of a team Jordan scored 40+ against in the playoffs = 105.7

Well at least one of the games was against an opponent with a sub 100 defensive rating

:applause:
You seem mad. LMAO ur boy Kobe is about to get passed by LJ at 27 u mad bro

[Yao Ming's Foot]

What's wrong with pointing out the level of defense scored 40 points + against in the playoffs? :confusedshrug:

[Hands of Iron]

What's wrong with pointing out the level of defense scored 40 points + against in the playoffs? :confusedshrug:

Dropping 40+ multiples times on Robinson/Rodman is pretty impressive regardless of a Team's defensive rating.

[scandisk_]

What's wrong with pointing out the level of defense scored 40 points + against in the playoffs? :confusedshrug:

salty as f*ck :lol

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Dropping 40+ multiples times on Robinson/Rodman is pretty impressive regardless of a Team's defensive rating.

I never said it wasn't. Teams with great defensive players generally have great defensive ratings to go along with that though.

[Hands of Iron]

salty as f*ck :lol

Would've been awesome if he lit up Gary Payton.

[Hands of Iron]

I never said it wasn't. Teams with great defensive players generally have great defensive ratings to go along with that though.

Sure, but I mean I'm almost certain the 2000 Pacers probably have a better defensive rating than the '94 Knicks or '95 Spurs just simply based on the YEAR of those teams. Now I love Shaq (2nd favorite player ever), but are we supposed to pretend a rotation of Dale Davis, Rik Smits and Sam Perkins is superior to that of a FC match-up against DPOY Robinson/Rodman and a trio of Ewing/Oakley/Mason or is the cold eye of reality and common sense going to gain the upperhand here? Pretty astonishing he also managed to hold both opposing HOF centers well below their averages (Ewing shot like 38% FFS on 18 ppg).

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Sure, but I mean I'm almost certain the 2000 Pacers probably have a better defensive rating than the '94 Knicks or '95 Spurs just simply based on the YEAR of those teams. Now I love Shaq (2nd favorite player ever), but are we supposed to pretend a rotation of Dale Davis, Rik Smits and Sam Perkins is superior to that of a FC match-up against DPOY Robinson/Rodman and a trio of Ewing/Oakley/Mason or is the cold eye of reality and common sense going to gain the upperhand here? Pretty astonishing he also managed to hold both opposing HOF centers well below their averages (Ewing shot like 38% FFS on 18 ppg).

2000 Pacers 103.6
1994 Knicks 98.2
2005 Spurs 98.8

Its a per possesion based stat. It's not impacted by pace. Scoring 40 points certainly means more against slow paced teams with low defensive ratings though. That's just common sense.

:confusedshrug:

[KOBE143]

102.6
102.6
106.8
106.0
106.0
106.0
102.9
102.9
102.9
107.5
107.5
107.5
104.7
108.1
108.4
108.4
108.4
103.5
103.5
108.1
110.9
110.9
104.2
104.2
106.0
99.7
106.7
106.7
106.7
106.7
106.1
107.8
103.5
103.5
106.9
104.9
101.6
105.4

Average defensive rating of a team Jordan scored 40+ against in the playoffs = 105.7

Well at least one of the games was against an opponent with a sub 100 defensive rating

:applause:
Now I know how Jordan got those scoring numbers.. Played in a weak/No defense era that inflated his stats.. Its like he scored those numbers against bobcats..

Still impressive tho.. :lol

[Jacks3]

Kobe with 13 40+ pt games and 85 30+ pt games. :bowdown:

On teams that have won 5 Championships and made 5 Finals. :bowdown:

While playing better defensive competition than anyone in history:

PS Prime Avg. Opp Drtg Weighted Lg Avg. Diff % Change
Kobe Bryant 102.6 105.8 -3.2 97.0%
Dwyane Wade 103.7 106.8 -3.1 97.1%
Shaquille O

[Young X]

The '97 Jazz held the Bulls to 88 pts on 43% in the finals
The '08 Celtics held the Lakers to 94 pts on 44% in the finals

Jordan vs '97 Jazz: 32 pts on 46%
Kobe vs. '08 Celtics: 26 pts on 41%

[Hands of Iron]

2000 Pacers 103.6
1994 Knicks 98.2
2005 Spurs 98.8

Its a per possesion based stat. It's not impacted by pace. Scoring 40 points certainly means more against slow paced teams with low defensive ratings though. That's just common sense.

:confusedshrug:

'95 Spurs: 105.4

[Yao Ming's Foot]

On second thought Defensive rating isn't the right stat for this comparison. It should simply be a points allowed per game. Offensive efficiency is not being presented.

Does anybody challenge the notion that there is a connection between the average points allowed per game and the opposing team's highest scorer? High points allowed = higher #1 scorer? Low points allowed per game= lower #1 scorer?

Is there really any doubt that Micheal Jordan's playoff opponents allowed more points per game on the season compared to any other players listed on that list?

[Hands of Iron]

I don't give a shit about Jordan. I'm just asking if you think Shaq faced better defensive opposition in Indiana's Smits/Davis/Perkins over San Antonio's Robinson/Rodman/Cummings (the players they directly dealt with) due to their lower team DRtg? Or is there an exception to be made in that instance? Turns out the '94 Knicks were absolutely stellar all-around in terms of both front court personnel and DRtg, I honestly had not even checked.

[Young X]

On second thought Defensive rating isn't the right stat for this comparison. It should simply be a points allowed per game. Offensive efficiency is not being presented.

Does anybody challenge the notion that there is a connection between the average points allowed per game and the opposing team's highest scorer? High points allowed = higher #1 scorer? Low points allowed per game= lower #1 scorer?

Is there really any doubt that Micheal Jordan's playoff opponents allowed more points per game on the season compared to any other players listed on that list?
Why did the '08 Celtics allow more ppg than the '97 Jazz in the finals? I thought MJ played against "weak defenses"?

[Yao Ming's Foot]

I don't give a shit about Jordan. I'm just asking if you think Shaq faced better defensive opposition in Indiana's Smits/Davis/Perkins over San Antonio's Robinson/Rodman/Cummings (the players they directly dealt with) due to their lower team DRtg? Or is there an exception to be made in that instance? Turns out the '94 Knicks were absolutely stellar all-around in terms of both front court personnel and DRtg, I honestly had not even checked.

I don't use defensive rating to rank defenses against each other. I use them to rate the offensive performances of players against them of that year. However, it looks like Dennis Rodman missed half of the season which would obviously impact defensive rating negatively.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Why did the '08 Celtics allow more ppg than the '97 Jazz in the finals? I thought MJ played against "weak defenses"?

Defensive rating and points allowed per game are 82 game regular season statistics. You are referencing a handful of games.

[Young X]

I don't use defensive rating to rank defenses against each other. I rank them to rate the offensive performances of players against them of that year. However, it looks like Dennis Rodman missed half of the season which would obviously impact defensive rating negatively.
Why do you use regular season defensive numbers to compare playoff defenses?

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Why do you use regular season defensive numbers to compare playoff defenses?

Larger sample sizes. :confusedshrug:

[Young X]

Defensive rating and points allowed per game are 82 game regular season statistics. You are referencing a handful of games.
You always say that the reason why MJ has better numbers than Kobe in the finals is because of "weaker defenses". If that's the case, why did MJ have better numbers in the '97 Finals than Kobe in the '08 Finals even though the '97 Jazz statistically played better defense in the finals than the '08 Celtics did in the finals?

[Hands of Iron]

I don't use defensive rating to rank defenses against each other. I use them to rate the offensive performances of players against them of that year. However, it looks like Dennis Rodman missed half of the season which would obviously impact defensive rating negatively.

:applause:

[Yao Ming's Foot]

You always say that the reason why MJ has better numbers than Kobe in the finals is because of "weaker defenses". If that's the case, why did MJ have better numbers in the '97 Finals than Kobe in the '08 Finals even though the '97 Jazz statistically played better defense in the finals than the '08 Celtics did in the finals?

The 97 Jazz remain a weaker defense than the 08 Celtics even if they allowed a lower points allowed per game in the Finals.

[Young X]

The 97 Jazz remain a weaker defense than the 08 Celtics even if they allowed a lower points allowed per game in the Finals.
If we're going to compare their playoff performances, shouldn't we compare the defenses that they faced in those particular series ?, why does it make sense to compare the defense they faced in the regular season, are we comparing their regular season performances?

[Yao Ming's Foot]

If we're going to compare their playoff performances, shouldn't we compare the defenses that they faced in those particular series ?, why does it make sense to compare the defense they faced in the regular season, are we comparing their regular season performances?

Its impractical and it doesn't make any sense. Any playoff opponent Jordan did well against is going to look bad numbers wise as a defense unless they were simply dominant against non Jordan Bulls. Regular season data gives an average of how the entire league fared against the defense. Playoff data could give us as little as 3 games. Let's say Jordan lit up a defense that was dominant the entire regular season in the first round. If we just look at playoff data, it simply looks like Jordan lit up a bad defense if we look at regular season date we recognize Jordan for having amazing games against a great defense.

[juju151111]

Defensive rating and points allowed per game are 82 game regular season statistics. You are referencing a handful of games.
Yea, but they seemed to play better in the playoffs. According to ur stats Mj should of been shooting 38% in that series going by Dtg that series

[juju151111]

Its impractical and it doesn't make any sense. Any playoff opponent Jordan did well against is going to look bad numbers wise as a defense unless they were simply dominant against non Jordan Bulls. Regular season data gives an average of how the entire league fared against the defense. Playoff data could give us as little as 3 games. Let's say Jordan lit up a defense that was dominant the entire regular season in the first round. If we just look at playoff data, it simply looks like Jordan lit up a bad defense if we look at regular season date we recognize Jordan for having amazing games against a great defense.
Just because Mj is listing them up doesn't mean they can't stop everyone else to get around their avg ppg allowed. Why was the Jazz holding them to 88 ppg and is every player in history of the nba who say the playoffs are more intense and harder because teams get to study u way more are lying?

[Young X]

Its impractical and it doesn't make any sense. Any playoff opponent Jordan did well against is going to look bad numbers wise as a defense unless they were simply dominant against non Jordan Bulls. Regular season data gives an average of how the entire league fared against the defense. Playoff data could give us as little as 3 games. Let's say Jordan lit up a defense that was dominant the entire regular season in the first round. If we just look at playoff data, it simply looks like Jordan lit up a bad defense if we look at regular season date we recognize Jordan for having amazing games against a great defense.
What about the teams that play below their standards defensively in the regular season, but step it up in the playoffs like the '10 Celtics (who had the same drtg as the '97 Jazz)?

[juju151111]

The 97 Jazz remain a weaker defense than the 08 Celtics even if they allowed a lower points allowed per game in the Finals.
Who says they didn't improve defensivly in the playoffs? Don't they get more prep time. Does this Dtrg have playoffs Dtrg?

[Yao Ming's Foot]

What about the teams that play below their standards defensively in the regular season, but step it up in the playoffs like the '10 Celtics (who had the same drtg as the '97 Jazz)?

Its pretty rare, but as you noted it happened to both Jordan and Kobe once.

[juju151111]

What about the teams that play below their standards defensively in the regular season, but step it up in the playoffs like the '10 Celtics (who had the same drtg as the '97 Jazz)?
Don't explain that to him he might faint. I find it funny when every player says the playoffs is a different animal. I guess nba players were lying. People play with less effort.

[Young X]

The '97 Jazz held the Bulls to 88 pts on 43% in the finals
The '08 Celtics held the Lakers to 94 pts on 44% in the finals

Jordan vs '97 Jazz: 32 pts on 46%
Kobe vs. '08 Celtics: 26 pts on 41%

The '98 Jazz held the Bulls to 88 pts on 43% in the finals
The '10 Celtics held the Lakers to 91 pts on 42% in the finals

Jordan vs '98 Jazz: 34 pts on 43%
Kobe vs. '10 Celtics: 29 pts on 41%

I am going to keep posting this until someone refutes it.

[juju151111]

Its pretty rare, but as you noted it happened to both Jordan and Kobe once.
One thing Kobe will never do through. Is drop 50 in the playoffs on a all time defense like the knicks with a sprain wrist at that. 93 knicks

[juju151111]

The '97 Jazz held the Bulls to 88 pts on 43% in the finals
The '08 Celtics held the Lakers to 94 pts on 44% in the finals

Jordan vs '97 Jazz: 32 pts on 46%
Kobe vs. '08 Celtics: 26 pts on 41%

The '98 Jazz held the Bulls to 88 pts on 43% in the finals
The '10 Celtics held the Lakers to 91 pts on 42% in the finals

Jordan vs '98 Jazz: 34 pts on 43%
Kobe vs. '10 Celtics: 29 pts on 41%

I am going to keep posting this until someone refutes it.
Lol at Kobe shooting lower the his team FG%:lol :oldlol: :oldlol: :roll: godbe

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Lol at Kobe shooting lower the his team FG%:lol :oldlol: :oldlol: :roll: godbe

He must have been copying his idol Jordan.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1993_ECF.html

:confusedshrug:

[Young X]

He must have been copying his idol Jordan.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1993_ECF.html

:confusedshrug:
- MJ was playing with a sprained wrist in that series
- That almost never happened with MJ, but happens more often with Kobe

[Yao Ming's Foot]

- MJ was playing with a sprained wrist in that series
- That almost never happened with MJ, but happens more often with Kobe

Yikes that's bad luck. One of only 2 times he faced a playoff Defense with a defensive rating under 100 and his numbers are human for a series. Nope it couldn't have been the defense. It was his wrist that magically healed in time for him to put up videogame numbers the next round against the Suns. :oldlol:

[juju151111]

defensive ratings playoffsmust have been copying his idol Jordan.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1993_ECF.html

:confusedshrug:[/QUOTE]
Sprain wrist wat was his excuse. Oh yea he does it all the time sorry. Has godbe ever dropped 50+ in the playoffs on a great defensive team or even a team ranked top 3 in defense that year? Godbe

[funnystuff]

?

Bean as in Kobe?

He only gets beat by Iverson and Jordan here. He and Lebron are probably tied for third most impressive here.

He has had more playoff games than most people, but still, I think he looks pretty good here.
Dudes been in the league 17 years and Lebron is real close to having him beat. Cmon.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Sprain wrist wat was his excuse. Oh yea he does it all the time sorry. Has godbe ever dropped 50+ in the playoffs on a great defensive team or even a team ranked top 3 in defense that year? Godbe

Nope just 45 and 42

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200105190SAS.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200405110LAL.html

[juju151111]

Yikes that's bad luck. One of only 2 times he faced a playoff Defense with a defensive rating under 100 and his numbers are human for a series. Nope it couldn't have been the defense. It was his wrist that magically healed in time for him to put up videogame numbers the next round against the Suns. :oldlol:
Sprain wrist heal that's wat they do retard. Your boy Kobe has way more below his team Fg% moments then Mj lmao Godbe. Mj was shooting air balls in that series vs knicks. Go actuallywatch the game. It was a big story instead of crunching numbers. Mj put 30+ on 48% the year before on the knicks. In the first 3 games Mj had like 3 made shots at the basket in 92. Yet he still took balling. Under that pressures Kobe shoots his usual 51%

[Deuce Bigalow]

[/QUOTE]
Sprain wrist wat was his excuse. Oh yea he does it all the time sorry. Has godbe ever dropped 50+ in the playoffs on a great defensive team or even a team ranked top 3 in defense that year? Godbe[/QUOTE]
He scored 48 vs a 99.6 Drtg team, all-defensive team player guarding him. They were 7th, top 3 is cherrypicking wouldn't you say?
45 vs a #1 defense, 98.0 Drtg

[juju151111]

Sprain wrist wat was his excuse. Oh yea he does it all the time sorry. Has godbe ever dropped 50+ in the playoffs on a great defensive team or even a team ranked top 3 in defense that year? Godbe[/QUOTE]
He scored 48 vs a 99.6 Drtg team, all-defensive team player guarding him. They were 7th, top 3 is cherrypicking wouldn't you say?
45 vs a #1 defense, 98.0 Drtg[/QUOTE]
Wat are the teams and year?

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Sprain wrist heal that's wat they do retard. Your boy Kobe has way more below his team Fg% moments then Mj lmao Godbe. Mj was shooting air balls in that series vs knicks. Go actuallywatch the game. It was a big story instead of crunching numbers. Mj put 30+ on 48% the year before on the knicks. In the first 3 games Mj had like 3 made shots at the basket in 92. Yet he still took balling. Under that pressures Kobe shoots his usual 51%

What's even more amazing is how Jordan's wrist healed in the middle of the series for game 4 allowing him to put up 50 points and then immediately went back to being injured.

Jordan mythology FTW :bowdown:

[Young X]

Yikes that's bad luck. One of only 2 times he faced a playoff Defense with a defensive rating under 100 and his numbers are human for a series. Nope it couldn't have been the defense. It was his wrist that magically healed in time for him to put up videogame numbers the next round against the Suns. :oldlol:
- I know it sounds ridiculous, but that's exactly what happened, after scoring 44 pts on 44% in game 3, he took off his wrist brace (which was clearly affecting his shooting) and after that he scored 55 on 57%, 41 on 55%, and 33 on 50% in the next three games.

- It was the combination of the Knicks defense and his wrist injury that contributed to his numbers in that series.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Sprain wrist wat was his excuse. Oh yea he does it all the time sorry. Has godbe ever dropped 50+ in the playoffs on a great defensive team or even a team ranked top 3 in defense that year? Godbe
He scored 48 vs a 99.6 Drtg team, all-defensive team player guarding him. They were 7th, top 3 is cherrypicking wouldn't you say?
45 vs a #1 defense, 98.0 Drtg[/QUOTE]
Wat are the teams and year?[/QUOTE]
01 Kings
01 Spurs

They were back to back games (Game 4, WCSF and Game 1, WCF)
I would say back to back 45/10+ games vs under 100 Drtg teams in the Playoffs is pretty good.

[magnax1]

Iverson played 44 fewer games then Lebron (71 vs 115) and only has 1 fewer 40 point game. Iverson was never consistent, but he could win series with his big bursts of scoring.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

- I know it sounds ridiculous, but that's exactly what happened, after scoring 44 pts on 44% in game 3, he took off his wrist brace (which was clearly affecting his shooting) and after that he scored 55 on 57%, 41 on 55%, and 33 on 50% in the next three games.

- It was the combination of the Knicks defense and his wrist injury that contributed to his numbers in that series.

No he didn't. The remaining 2 games of the series he scored 29 and 25 points on 46% and 33% shooting.

[juju151111]

What's even more amazing is how Jordan's wrist healed in the middle of the series for game 4 allowing him to put up 50 points and then immediately went back to being injured.

Jordan mythology FTW :bowdown:
It didn't heal completly retard and its not a myth dumbass.

"After practice on Monday, he checked into Bally's Grand at 5:07 that afternoon according to a hotel employee, checked out at 11:05 P.M., was seen in the casino as late as 2:30 A.M., returned to New York and was on the Garden court for a midmorning shootaround, 10 hours before Tuesday night's game.

"You weren't taking golf lessons in Atlantic City, Michael," one Knick rooter yelled as the Knicks took a 2-0 lead.

"How's the wrist after the slots, Michael?" another shouted, referring to the brace on Jordan's damaged right wrist."

[Young X]

No he didn't. The remaining 2 games of the series he scored 29 and 25 points on 46% and 33% shooting.
I'm talking about the Suns series. :facepalm

[juju151111]

No he didn't. The remaining 2 games of the series he scored 29 and 25 points on 46% and 33% shooting.
I agree with you on this one. He must of been looking at the finls stats. MJ had a triple double in game 5 from consant double teams

[juju151111]

LMAo at MJ gambling til all times of the night like he didn't have a game tommorrow. Goat stamina:lol

[juju151111]

He scored 48 vs a 99.6 Drtg team, all-defensive team player guarding him. They were 7th, top 3 is cherrypicking wouldn't you say?
45 vs a #1 defense, 98.0 Drtg
Wat are the teams and year?[/QUOTE]
01 Kings
01 Spurs

They were back to back games (Game 4, WCSF and Game 1, WCF)
I would say back to back 45/10+ games vs under 100 Drtg teams in the Playoffs is pretty good.[/QUOTE]
oh ok pretty good.

[Hands of Iron]

Oh yea he does it all the time sorry. Has godbe ever
He scored 48 vs a 99.6 Drtg team, all-defensive team player guarding him. They were 7th, top 3 is cherrypicking wouldn't you say? 45 vs a #1 defense, 98.0 Drtg

About as important.

[juju151111]

About as important.
Agreedj shits on dennis rodman/Dumars http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR1U_uGsXCM

[Yao Ming's Foot]

LMAo at MJ gambling til all times of the night like he didn't have a game tommorrow. Goat stamina:lol

Yeah man you could really tell that wrist was really kiling him if he had to keep it warm at the card tables all night.

[Hands of Iron]

Agreedj shits on dennis rodman/Dumars http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR1U_uGsXCM


For sure

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnW-Y9WEqRY&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[juju151111]

Yeah man you could really tell that wrist was really kiling him if he had to keep it warm at the card tables all night.
Are you stupid? A sprain wrist doesn't stop u from playing cards retard. Hews wearing a brace dumbass. U salty has ****. Ur boy will be passed by LJ soon and LJ is only 27:oldlol: Lmao

[juju151111]

For sure

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnW-Y9WEqRY&feature=youtube_gdata_player
:bowdown: The dream

[keepinitreal]

def rating probably doesnt mean as much as how the opponent decides to play you, who defends you, and who else is on your team... at least when you are analyzing 40+ 45+ and 50+ pt games.

that being said, the people on those lists are still on it for a reason: they're good

[Hands of Iron]

:bowdown: The dream

Dumb move by the Spurs to let him have that much isolation? Or do you say the hell with that and tell your MVP and DPOY to go do what's expected? Hakeem saw more 1v1 in that series than probably any other between 1994-1995 and it was by far his greatest. Then again, Robinson was probably the best defender he faced. Ewing was absolute nails too, but got more in the form of help (clobbering) defense to contain him.

[juju151111]

Dumb move by the Spurs to let him have that much isolation? Or do you say the hell with that and tell your MVP and DPOY to go do what's expected? Hakeem saw more 1v1 in that series than probably any other between 1994-1995 and it was by far his greatest. Then again, Robinson was probably the best defender he faced. Ewing was absolute nails too, but got more in the form of help (clobbering) defense to contain him.
Agreed they wasn't expecting Drob to get manhandled because of his rep. The thing is Prime Hakeem is use to constant double and not doubling is a death wish

[Hands of Iron]

Vs Robinson (mostly 1v1): 35/13/5/4 56% (D-Rob: 24/11/3/2 45%)
Vs Ewing (with help): 27/9/4/4 50% (Ewing: 19/12/2/4 36%)

Seattle Supersonics were particularly effective with their persistent doubles and traps on Hakeem. In 1993 semis Game 7, he had to dominate through other avenues (23 pts) which he was able to do defensively, on the glass (17 boards) and effectively passing out of the doubles and triples (9 dimes).

Really great effort:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEGvKVNoJ8E&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Probably robbed.

[KG215]

Oh look, another thread where YMF disparage's Jordan with his rock solid DRtg evidence.

[Hands of Iron]

Oh look, another thread where YMF disparage's Jordan with his rock solid DRtg evidence.

Watch that link I posted just above and tell me we weren't robbed of a Rockets/Bulls Finals in 1993. Yes, I'm assuming they beat that ass (Phoenix) again (although it would've been the first time). :lol That game (example) is the Definition of what we're talking about in regards to the impact a great defensive center has on the game.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Oh look, another thread where YMF disparage's Jordan with his rock solid DRtg evidence.

Attacking the messenger isn't weakening the argument. Do you think its generally easier to put up 40+ points on defenses with higher points allowed per game averages? Common sense would dictate yes but I'm open to arguments that suggest otherwise. :confusedshrug:

[KG215]

Attacking the messenger isn't weakening the argument. Do you think its generally easier to put up 40+ points on defenses with higher points allowed per game averages? Common sense would dictate yes but I'm open to arguments that suggest otherwise. :confusedshrug:

Don't care. because team DRtg doesn't tell us how hard it is for a single player to score against a team. You can keep using DRtg all you want to disparage Jordan and prop-up your boy Kobe with this one argument but it's never going to be as valid as you believe it to be.

[jlip]

According to this site (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/nba/01playoffs/records.htm) Jerry West owns the record for the highest scoring playoff series of all time (46.3ppg) as well as for the most consecutive 40 + pt games in a playoffs (6).

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Don't care. because team DRtg doesn't tell us how hard it is for a single player to score against a team. You can keep using DRtg all you want to disparage Jordan and prop-up your boy Kobe with this one argument but it's never going to be as valid as you believe it to be.

I have already stated that I don't believe defensive rating is the correct way to look at the defenses in this case. The reason why is offensive efficiency is not being considered, just pure scoring numbers. Therefore points allowed per game makes more sense. Do you not like looking at defenses because "it makes Jordan look bad" or is there an actual logical reason why? Do you believe defenses are irrelevant?

[KG215]

I have already stated that I don't believe defensive rating is the correct way to look at the defenses in this case. The reason why is offensive efficiency is not being considered, just pure scoring numbers. Therefore points allowed per game makes more sense. Do you not like looking at defenses because "it makes Jordan look bad" or is there an actual logical reason why? Do you believe defenses are irrelevant?

Yep, you've figured me out. I think defense has absolutely no influence on a game.

Tell me, why do you always feel the need to bring up DRtg of the teams Jordan played? Why do you feel the need to constantly disparage what he did? You even go as far as putting what you think is a "clever" pic in your avatar with MJ and Michael Jackson to point out what you think the defenses were like in Jordan's era.

Did you not say Jordan was essentially playing in a no defense era? But tell me, how does DRtg tell you what that specific team did every time they played the Bulls to slow Jordan down? Yes, I understand a team with a DRtg of 108 is giving up more PPG to a team compared to a team with a DRtg of 98 and, that in turn, leads to more scoring opportunities over the course of a game for the team playing the 108 defense; but how does it prove it was easier for Jordan specifically to score 40, 50, or 60?

[DatAsh]

I have already stated that I don't believe defensive rating is the correct way to look at the defenses in this case. The reason why is offensive efficiency is not being considered, just pure scoring numbers. Therefore points allowed per game makes more sense. Do you not like looking at defenses because "it makes Jordan look bad" or is there an actual logical reason why? Do you believe defenses are irrelevant?

You're not looking at defense though, your looking at defensive rating and thinking that correlates with your agenda.

Even looking at defensive rating within the same year has it's flaws. It could be that the East is full of terrible offenses that skew the eastern conference team's defensive ratings downward. Defensive rating also neglects to tell you how a team gets that particular rating. It could be that their top five defensive rating is a result of below average perimeter defense and outstanding interior defense. Without watching the games, there's really no way to know as individual defensive stats are terrible. For instance, defensive rating would tell you that 89 Jazz were better than the 89 Pistons, which is true, but the 89 Piston's defensive rating came from outstanding perimeter defense that would be much harder for someone like Jordan or Kobe to score on, despite the inferior rating.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Yep, you've figured me out. I think defense has absolutely no influence on a game.

Tell me, why do you always feel the need to bring up DRtg of the teams Jordan played? Why do you feel the need to constantly disparage what he did? You even go as far as putting what you think is a "clever" pic of your app with MJ and Michael Jackson to point out what you think the defenses were like in Jordan's era.

Did you not say Jordan was essentially playing in a no defense era? But tell me, how does DRtg tell you what that specific team did every time they played the Bulls to slow Jordan down? Yes, I understand a team with a DRtg of 108 is giving up more PPG to a team compared to a team with a DRtg of 98 and, that in turn, leads to more scoring opportunities over the course of a game for the team playing the 108 defense; but how does it prove it was easier for Jordan specifically to score 40, 50, or 60?


You're not looking at defense though, your looking at defensive rating and thinking that correlates with your agenda.

Even looking at defensive rating within the same year has it's flaws. It could be that the East is full of terrible offenses that skew the eastern conference team's defensive ratings downward. Defensive rating also neglects to tell you how a team gets that particular rating. It could be that their top five defensive rating is a result of below average perimeter defense and outstanding interior defense. Without watching the games, there's really no way to know as individual defensive stats are terrible. For instance, defensive rating would tell you that 89 Jazz were better than the 89 Pistons, which is true, but the 89 Piston's defensive rating came from outstanding perimeter defense that would be much harder for someone like Jordan or Kobe to score on, despite the inferior rating.

Because if I don't nobody else will and do we really need another thread for the 30 somethings to fawn over video game numbers? Somebody needs to mix in a little reality into the situation.

Defensive rating and/or points allowed per game show how the league average performs against the teams in question. There may be variances in perimeter/post strength or regular season/post season but I have no reason to believe those variances are A) significant or B) unique to only Jordan opponents. It's just as likely that Kobe's playoff opponents sandbagged the regular season and/or were better suited to stop perimeter scoring and thus are being unfairly judged by these measures as it for Jordan's playoff opponents due to the lack of any evidence to suggest otherwise.

Looking at defensive rating (or points allowed per game) isn't perfect but I have yet to see anybody suggest a better/reasonable way to go about it and is certainly better than the status quo around here which is to ignore defense altogether as if it is irrelevant.

[Nevaeh]

Because if I don't nobody else will and do we really need another thread for the 30 somethings to fawn over video game numbers? Somebody needs to mix in a little reality into the situation.

Defensive rating and/or points allowed per game show how the league average performs against the teams in question. There may be variances in perimeter/post strength or regular season/post season but I have no reason to believe those variances are A) significant or B) unique to only Jordan opponents. It's just as likely that Kobe's playoff opponents sandbagged the regular season and/or were better suited to stop perimeter scoring and thus are being unfairly judged by these measures as it for Jordan's playoff opponents due to the lack of any evidence to suggest otherwise.

Looking at defensive rating (or points allowed per game) isn't perfect but I have yet to see anybody suggest a better/reasonable way to go about it and is certainly better than the status quo around here which is to ignore defense altogether as if it is irrelevant.

Defense Rating says the 03 Wizards are better defensively than the 91 Bulls, even with the Wizards missing the Playoffs completely.
http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif

[juju151111]

Because if I don't nobody else will and do we really need another thread for the 30 somethings to fawn over video game numbers? Somebody needs to mix in a little reality into the situation.

Defensive rating and/or points allowed per game show how the league average performs against the teams in question. There may be variances in perimeter/post strength or regular season/post season but I have no reason to believe those variances are A) significant or B) unique to only Jordan opponents. It's just as likely that Kobe's playoff opponents sandbagged the regular season and/or were better suited to stop perimeter scoring and thus are being unfairly judged by these measures as it for Jordan's playoff opponents due to the lack of any evidence to suggest otherwise.

Looking at defensive rating (or points allowed per game) isn't perfect but I have yet to see anybody suggest a better/reasonable way to go about it and is certainly better than the status quo around here which is to ignore defense altogether as if it is irrelevant.
Your posts are full of hatred. You boy Kobe will never be on Mj level. No matter wat flawed stats you use. Your stats will never show how teams prepare or defend certain players. Just like the pistons changed their whole gameplan to defend MJ after he dropped 60 and 50+ on them. Playoffs are more intense and teams get to focus in. The pacers gameplan during a regular season gm changes completely because of one guy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOS1qNTWb70 Your stats are not going to show the double and triple teams.

[DatAsh]

Because if I don't nobody else will and do we really need another thread for the 30 somethings to fawn over video game numbers? Somebody needs to mix in a little reality into the situation.


Nobody else is willing to do it because they realize how silly it is.



Defensive rating and/or points allowed per game show how the league average performs against the teams in question. There may be variances in perimeter/post strength or regular season/post season but I have no reason to believe those variances are A) significant or B) unique to only Jordan opponents. It's just as likely that Kobe's playoff opponents sandbagged the regular season and/or were better suited to stop perimeter scoring and thus are being unfairly judged by these measures as it for Jordan's playoff opponents due to the lack of any evidence to suggest otherwise.


The first bolded statement is wrong. Perhaps you meant to word it differently? The second bolded statement is not factually wrong, but it would be illogical to make such an assumption.

The rest of the paragraph is spot on, and is exactly why watching the games will always be a better measure of who faced the overall better defenses in their career. It may be that Kobe is doubled/tripled far more often than Jordan on average and his stats are a corollary to that, but defensive rating is never going to tell you that, and is therefore somewhat meaningless when debating such matters.



Looking at defensive rating (or points allowed per game) isn't perfect but I have yet to see anybody suggest a better/reasonable way to go about it and is certainly better than the status quo around here which is to ignore defense altogether as if it is irrelevant.

There have been suggestions, you've just ignored them because they don't suit your agenda.

Going by standard deviations away from the mean paints a far more accurate picture of defensive strength than just raw defensive rating. fplii went through the trouble of calculating that for ever year dating back to the 50s, but you brushed it aside because it doesn't distort the truth in the manner in which you desire.

The best suggestion is still to just watch the games. Defensive rating or Z-Score don't tell you that the 89 Piston's would be much tougher for Kobe to score against than the 89 Jazz, and there's really no way to know that without watching the games in question. Even if you're a kid and aren't old enough to have seen Jordan live, which I wouldn't be surprised about, considering the nature of you're posts, if you're goal is to show that Kobe has faced tougher finals defenses than Jordan, a notion that I agree with, all you have to do is watch the finals games themselves on youtube and point out exactly why you feel that way. It's really not that many games to watch and analyze, especially considering the fact that you've probably seen all of Kobe's finals games multiple times.

If you wan't a real basketball discussion as to why Kobe's faced superior defenses and should therefore be excused of his inferior stats(let's be honest, that's your ultimate goal), that's exactly what you're going to have to do. No one is going to take you seriously when the only evidence you bring is a stat that says that Jordan's Wizards were better than Jordan's Bulls. You're just making a fool of yourself by trying; there's a reason the only people that are agreeing with you are other Kobe fanatics, and there haven't even been that many Kobe fans backing you up. That aught to tell you something right there.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Going by standard deviations away from the mean paints a far more accurate picture of defensive strength than just raw defensive rating. fplii went through the trouble of calculating that for ever year dating back to the 50s, but you brushed it aside because it doesn't distort the truth in the manner in which you desire.

Once again you are confusing the purpose of recognizing the defenses. IT IS NOT ABOUT RANKING DEFENSES AGAINST EACHOTHER. IT IS NOT ABOUT RANKING DEFENSES AGAINST EACHOTHER. I don't know how many more times I have to spell it out. It's about rating the offensive performances made against those defenses. Only looking at the differences from league average do absolutely nothing to account for the differences in scoring and efficiency in the league from era to era. Do you think scoring an efficient 40 points against a league average defense in 1988 is equally impressive as scoring an efficient 40 points against a league average defense in 2004?

The title of the headings are number of 40+ games not number of offensive performances 2 or more standard deviations above the mean from starting SG. It makes no logical sense to use a raw baseline (points) on the offensive side of the comparison and a relative (strength compared to league average) to compare players from 2 different eras. You have to either look at (points and points allowed per game) or (points relative to league average points scored and points allowed relative to league average)



The best suggestion is still to just watch the games.


:facepalm

Why is it that Jordan mythologists love posting stats and offensive statistics but if I start pointing out some defensive ones I need to stop and "watch the games" instead?

I'm going to get right on that epic novel you expect me to right analyzing the defense of what about 80 Finals games between Kobe and Jordan but without using any statistics of course. I just have to finish this other book I'm working on first in which I have to prove that the weather is warmer in the summer to people who don't believe in thermometers.

[RRR3]

Foot, why is it so hard for you to accept that Jordan is better than Kobe? Just deal with it.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Foot, why is it so hard for you to accept that Jordan is better than Kobe? Just deal with it.

I never said otherwise. :confusedshrug:

[RRR3]

I never said otherwise. :confusedshrug:
Then stop trying to insinuate otherwise.:hammerhead:

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Then stop trying to insinuate otherwise.:hammerhead:

Seriously invest in a reading comprehension class.

[Young X]

Why is it that Jordan mythologists love posting stats and offensive statistics but if I start pointing out some defensive ones I need to stop and "watch the games" instead?
Why do you say this, but then use regular season defensive numbers to compare playoff defenses, and disregard the defensive numbers that each player played against in those particular series? :facepalm

The '97 Jazz held the Bulls to 88 pts on 43% in the finals
The '08 Celtics held the Lakers to 94 pts on 44% in the finals

Jordan vs '97 Jazz: 32 pts on 46%
Kobe vs. '08 Celtics: 26 pts on 41%

Why did Jordan play better than Kobe despite statistically facing better defense in those finals?

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Why do you say this, but then use regular season defensive numbers to compare playoff defenses, and disregard the defensive numbers that each player played against in those particular series? :facepalm

The '97 Jazz held the Bulls to 88 pts on 43% in the finals
The '08 Celtics held the Lakers to 94 pts on 44% in the finals

Jordan vs '97 Jazz: 32 pts on 46%
Kobe vs. '08 Celtics: 26 pts on 41%

Why did Jordan play better than Kobe despite statistically facing better defense in those finals?

91 Lakers 110.6
92 Blazers 110.1
93 Suns 110.2
96 Sonics 104.1
97 Jazz 106.7
98 Jazz 100.4

AVG= 107.0

00 Pacers 106.8
01 76ers 105.8
02 Nets 102.3
04 Pistons 92.0
08 Celtics 103.3
09 Magics 105.3
10 Celtics 101.7

AVG= 102.5

:confusedshrug:

[KG215]

91 Lakers 110.6
92 Blazers 110.1
93 Suns 110.2
96 Sonics 104.1
97 Jazz 106.7
98 Jazz 100.4

AVG= 107.0

00 Pacers 106.8
01 76ers 105.8
02 Nets 102.3
04 Pistons 92.0
08 Celtics 103.3
09 Magics 105.3
10 Celtics 101.7

AVG= 102.5

:confusedshrug:

Is there really a big difference in that 4.5 point difference? I don't mean this to come off in a condescending way. I'm genuinely asking.

[Young X]

:confusedshrug:
Who played better defense in the finals? The '97 Jazz or '08 Celtics?
Who played better in the finals? '97 MJ or '08 Kobe?

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Is there really a big difference in that 4.5 point difference? I don't mean this to come off in a condescending way. I'm genuinely asking.

102.5 would be the 9th best D in todays NBA
107.0 would be the 6th worst D

[juju151111]

Who played better defense in the finals? The '97 Jazz or '08 Celtics?
Who played better in the finals? '97 MJ or '08 Kobe?
I can answer that Mj. Kobe shot below his team FG% like always

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Who played better defense in the finals? The '97 Jazz or '08 Celtics?
Who played better in the finals? '97 MJ or '08 Kobe?

I really don't have the slightest idea what your point is. If you want to do math and add up every single team off rating of every single game that both Kobe or Jordan played in the Finals and think thats going to show Jordan in a good light you are welcome to do it. I can tell you right now since Jordan never lost its highly unlikely the Bulls offense as a whole was shut down in the Finals at such a point that you are going to see a low defensive rating for one of his opponents overall.

[Young X]

I really don't have the slightest idea what your point is. If you want to do math and add up every single off rating of every single game that both Kobe or Jordan played in the Finals and think thats going to show Jordan in a good light you are welcome to do it. I can tell you right now since Jordan never lost its highly unlikely the Bulls offense as a whole was shut down in the Finals at such a point that you are going to see a low defensive rating for one of his opponents overall.
My point is that MJ having better numbers than Kobe isn't just because of "weak defenses", because despite being 34, and facing a team that (in those specific series) played better defense, he still had better numbers than Kobe who was still in his prime.

[DatAsh]

Once again you are confusing the purpose of recognizing the defenses. IT IS NOT ABOUT RANKING DEFENSES AGAINST EACHOTHER. IT IS NOT ABOUT RANKING DEFENSES AGAINST EACHOTHER.

The problem is that statistically, that's all defensive rating really tells you. Defensive rating only works within the same season because those ratings are calculated against the same offenses. We've explained this to you before, but you're either not intelligent enough to understand it, or you don't want to because it doesn't conform to your agenda, my gut tells me it's the latter.



I don't know how many more times I have to spell it out. It's about rating the offensive performances made against those defenses. Only looking at the differences from league average do absolutely nothing to account for the differences in scoring and efficiency in the league from era to era.


Using the standard deviations away from the mean helps to account for the differences in era. It's not perfect, and still no substitute for watching the games, but it's better than comparing defensive ratings straight up, which is what you're trying to do.



Do you think scoring an efficient 40 points against a league average defense in 1988 is equally impressive as scoring an efficient 40 points against a league average defense in 2004?

Statistically, they'd be even with respect to the league, which is all we can really say. We can't compare absolute defensive ratings across eras because those defensive ratings are calculated against difference offenses. For the same reason, it would be unfair to compare offensive ratings across eras since those offenses are calculated against completely different defenses.



The title of the headings are number of 40+ games not number of offensive performances 2 or more standard deviations above the mean from starting SG. It makes no logical sense to use a raw baseline (points) on the offensive side of the comparison and a relative (strength compared to league average) to compare players from 2 different eras. You have to either look at (points and points allowed per game) or (points relative to league average points scored and points allowed relative to league average)


I agree with what you say here, but I didn't start this thread so that has nothing to do with me. It could be that it's truly harder for perimeter players to put up big numbers in this era than in Jordan's era; it could be the opposite; we don't know, but that's the point. That's why we evaluate players based on how good they were within their era. Still, you'd be a fool to try and pretend that Kobe's playoff numbers would be near Jordan's numbers had they played in the same era. Jordan was simply a better scorer than Kobe, especially in the playoffs, and anyone who's old enough to have seen both player's entire career would know that to be true. Jordan's better playoff numbers aren't purely the consequence of statistical era bias, it would be a disservice to both Jordan and Kobe to try and say otherwise.



Why is it that Jordan mythologists love posting stats and offensive statistics but if I start pointing out some defensive ones I need to stop and "watch the games" instead?

I rarely ever see anyone base their entire argument on stats and have that argument hold up in the eyes of the rest of this board. There are a select few here that base their entire argument on stats and they're generally ridiculed for it, you're not alone here.




I'm going to get right on that epic novel you expect me to right analyzing the defense of what about 80 Finals games between Kobe and Jordan but without using any statistics of course. I just have to finish this other book I'm working on first in which I have to prove that the weather is warmer in the summer to people who don't believe in thermometers.

You're sidetracking, and sarcasm isn't gonna lead anyone astray. Either do you're homework, or don't expect to make a valid argument over something in which you know very little about.

[fpliii]

hmmm if you guys want I can also add columns for league average z-scores for ortg/drtg and pace to the spreadsheet, and add a column summing them up

this new measure wouldn't be a z-score, since there are issues of covariance, but it's probably the best way to handle the issue, since the new numbers will be context-neutral and bias-neutral, allowing a straight year-to-year comparison that will allow us to go beyond a relative strength of defense in one year vs the next comparison, and compare the strength of defenses relative to one another

the one danger of this is if there are substantial changes to the climate and consequently infecting the data, but that should not be an issue since the relative to season z-scores and league average z-scores are robust

[KG215]

102.5 would be the 9th best D in todays NBA
107.0 would be the 6th worst D

What does that have to do with those respective seasons, though? And is allowing 4.5 more points per 100 possessions really that big of a difference when it comes to one player scoring more points on more efficient percentages compared to another player?

[DatAsh]

hmmm if you guys want I can also add columns for league average z-scores for ortg/drtg and pace to the spreadsheet, and add a column summing them up

this new measure wouldn't be a z-score, since there are issues of covariance, but it's probably the best way to handle the issue, since the new numbers will be context-neutral and bias-neutral, allowing a straight year-to-year comparison that will allow us to go beyond a relative strength of defense in one year vs the next comparison, and compare the strength of defenses relative to one another

the one danger of this is if there are substantial changes to the climate and consequently infecting the data, but that should not be an issue since the relative to season z-scores and league average z-scores are robust

Logically it doesn't seem like it would be as useful as just straight z-score or league average ortg/drtg/pace, but maybe I'm missing something. What exactly do you expect it to show? Wouldn't a higher average standard deviation just mean that the teams were more dis-similar or spread out(I know there's a statistical term but it's been 30+ years since I've taken a statistics course)?

In my mind, the covariance of these variables would be the most useful thing gained here, especially if we could see it in graphical form. You seem to consider the covariance as a negative, and you seem to know what you're doing, so what am I missing?

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Using the standard deviations away from the mean helps to account for the differences in era. It's not perfect, and still no substitute for watching the games, but it's better than comparing defensive ratings straight up, which is what you're trying to do.
[/QUOTE]

This is just false. It only tells you how much better or worse this defense is compared to the league average. It tells you nothing about if league average defense is actually effective at defense relative to all the other league average defenses.


Statistically, they'd be even with respect to the league, which is all we can really say. We can't compare absolute defensive ratings across eras because those defensive ratings are calculated against difference offenses. For the same reason, it would be unfair to compare offensive ratings across eras since those offenses are calculated against completely different defenses.


In that case it would be unfair to compare offensive statistics in general across eras. Like the ones in this thread. :confusedshrug:


I agree with what you say here, but I didn't start this thread so that has nothing to do with me. It could be that it's truly harder for perimeter players to put up big numbers in this era than in Jordan's era; it could be the opposite; we don't know, but that's the point. That's why we evaluate players based on how good they were within their era.

All you tell me is what you don't know. What could be true? What could possible go wrong? The overwhelming statistical evidence suggest that scoring and efficiency was easier in Jordan's era. You have presented no evidence that gives me any reason to believe that is somehow not true for shooting guards, or perimeter players or specifically Jordan's playoff opponents.


I rarely ever see anyone base their entire argument on stats and have that argument hold up in the eyes of the rest of this board. There are a select few here that base their entire argument on stats and they're generally ridiculed for it, you're not alone here.

Its common knowledge that defense was lacking in the 80s and 90s. :confusedshrug:



You're sidetracking, and sarcasm isn't gonna lead anyone astray. Either do you're homework, or don't expect to make a valid argument over something in which you know very little about.

I can't prove a negative. Show me a reason why Jordan's defensive opponents are not given a fair shake for their hypothetical superior ability to limit perimeter scoring and I will gladly entertain it. I highly doubt its true but nothing is stopping you.

[fpliii]

Logically it doesn't seem like it would be as useful as just straight z-score or league average ortg/drtg/pace, but maybe I'm missing something. What exactly do you expect it to show? Wouldn't a higher average standard deviation just mean that the teams were more dis-similar or spread out(I know there's a statistical term but it's been 30+ years since I've taken a statistics course)?

The initial objective would be to make our estimator closer to an MLE. As you said a higher average SD would mean they're more spread out, unless there is internal linking between the tests (there are a multitude of tests, teams with each other in the same year, teams with each other all-time, year-to-year league average comparison, teams year-to-year, and higher degree tests). The final goal here is to come up with a three-dimensional gaussian that will report each team's true skill metric in offense, defense, pace.

In my mind, the covariance of these variables would be the most useful thing gained here, especially if we could see it in graphical form. You seem to consider the covariance as a negative, and you seem to know what you're doing, so what am I missing?

The covariance could be dangerous here, which is why I'm trying to remove it ideally. If the data are intrinsically linked, or there are multiple confounding variables (highly likely), we can't really run a Monte Carlo in R, Matlab, or Stata, since the initial premise would be false (that there are no inherent changes in climate). We could do something like run a Random Forest package to try to classify teams together based on similarity measures in that case which could be fruitful, but I don't think we have enough fields in our data (without the confounding variables, which may or may not be prominent here). As far as I can tell based on the nature of the dataset, the presence of covariance is problematic because we don't know how many of the tests are active, and how many are redundant.

I think it really comes down to how many prominent factors are at hand in deciding the classification of our variables globally, and on a test-to-test basis. Since there are so many changes in the league each season, we'd need to run a massive number of tests to understand which data are connected to each other.

[DatAsh]

This is just false. It only tells you how much better or worse this defense is compared to the league average. It tells you nothing about if league average defense is actually effective at defense relative to all the other league average defenses.


What I said was true, and so is what you say here. We are in agreement on this.




In that case it would be unfair to compare offensive statistics in general across eras. Like the ones in this thread. :confusedshrug:


Agreed, but I'm not doing that.




All you tell me is what you don't know. What could be true? What could possible go wrong? The overwhelming statistical evidence suggest that scoring and efficiency was easier in Jordan's era. You have presented no evidence that gives me any reason to believe that is somehow not true for shooting guards, or perimeter players or specifically Jordan's playoff opponents.


The statistical evidence shows that teams scored more ppg back then(efficiency is about the same). It doesn't show that it was harder for teams to score more ppg back then(the offenses could have just been better), and it certainly doesn't show that individual perimeter scoring was easier back then. Those three statements amount to three drastically different conclusions.



Its common knowledge that defense was lacking in the 80s and 90s. :confusedshrug:


Maybe in the early 80s. Arguably the best defense of all time and many other highly regarded defensive teams come from the late 80s-early 90s.






I can't prove a negative. Show me a reason why Jordan's defensive opponents are not given a fair shake for their hypothetical superior ability to limit perimeter scoring and I will gladly entertain it. I highly doubt its true but nothing is stopping you.

I'm not asking you to prove a negative, I'm asking you to back up you're claims with something other than stats.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

I'm not asking you to prove a negative, I'm asking you to back up you're claims with something other than stats.

Ok I just froze time watched the thousands of NBA games regular season and postseason in question and confirmed with my eyes everything that I have posted using stats.

Now what?

:oldlol:

[DatAsh]

Ok I just froze time watched the thousands of NBA games regular season and postseason in question and confirmed with my eyes everything that I have posted using stats.

Now what?

:oldlol:

I guess that's it then. It kind of saddens me though. I thought we were actually having an intelligent debate.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

I guess that's it then. It kind of saddens me though. I thought we were actually having an intelligent debate.

You are just agreeing with me on every point I make intertwined with telling me to watch thousands of games. What is there to debate? You certainly haven't done anything to show that the reasonable assumptions I have made are wrong just that they could hypothetically could be wrong.

[DatAsh]

You are just agreeing with me on every point I make intertwined with telling me to watch thousands of games. What is there to debate? You certainly haven't done anything to show that the reasonable assumptions I have made are wrong just that they could hypothetically could be wrong.

Thousands of games? There's only 41 games in total, and I would hope you've at least seen some of them.

You haven't done anything to show that your claims are reasonable to begin with. The fact that Jordan's Wizards are rated higher than Jordan's Bulls should indicate that your assumptions are the opposite of reasonable.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Thousands of games? There's only 41 games in total, and I would hope you've at least seen some of them.

You haven't done anything to show that your claims are reasonable to begin with. The fact that Jordan's Wizards are rated higher than Jordan's Bulls should indicate that your assumptions are the opposite of reasonable.

I never compared Jordans Bulls to Jordans Wizards. :confusedshrug:

[DatAsh]

I think it really comes down to how many prominent factors are at hand in deciding the classification of our variables globally, and on a test-to-test basis. Since there are so many changes in the league each season, we'd need to run a massive number of tests to understand which data are connected to each other.

Why would we want to use an MLE if we have the entire dataset? Doesn't that kind of go against the purpose of using an MLE?

I can't imagine that you'd be able to eliminate covariance. I have no way of knowing for sure, but I'd be willing to bet that there exists various links(like you're saying) between these measures. My question is - Would it not be useful to actually see the covariance between some of these columns? (ie how pace affects offensive rating/defensive rating)

By the way don't take my questioning the wrong way. I'm not questioning you because I think there's anything wrong with what you're saying. I'm questioning you because a lot of this stuff is over my head and I'm trying to make sense of it.

[DatAsh]

I never compared Jordans Bulls to Jordans Wizards. :confusedshrug:

Indirectly you have though.

You're trying to suggest that there exists a negative correlation between absolute defensive rating(irrespective of era) and degree of difficulty in regards to elite perimeter scoring.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Indirectly you have though.

You're trying to suggest that there exists a negative correlation between absolute defensive rating(irrespective of era) and degree of difficulty in regards to elite perimeter scoring.

Defensive rating is simply points allowed per 100 possessions. The completely reasonable assumption I am making is that elite offensive performances are more unlikely and thus more valuable against teams with low points allowed per possession compared to high points allowed per possession. I have no reason to believe that this doesn't apply to perimeter scorers. It's not ranking the defenses because they dont even play under the same rules. If the rules for one team allows offenses to score more easily that is going to be accounted in the defensive rating and should be but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are a better defensive team than all the other teams with higher defensive ratings.

[fpliii]

Why would we want to use an MLE if we have the entire dataset? Doesn't that kind of go against the purpose of using an MLE?

The entire dataset here would be every play involved in determining the ORtg, DRtg, Pace metrics. All three are estimators, but we want an MLE for each based on one or more unknown parameters.

I can't imagine that you'd be able to eliminate covariance. I have no way of knowing for sure, but I'd be willing to bet that there exists various links(like you're saying) between these measures. My question is - Would it not be useful to actually see the covariance between some of these columns? (ie how pace affects offensive rating/defensive rating)

Oh, between the columns is simple, but I'm talking about between the individual tests (i.e. between each 1954-55 and 59-60 team, for one team year-to-year, etc.), since there are individual relationships based on the initial dataset (collection of all individual plays in league history) that was used to form our data. Though we'd need to do some work first (see below).

By the way don't take my questioning the wrong way. I'm not questioning you because I think there's anything wrong with what you're saying. I'm questioning you because a lot of this stuff is over my head and I'm trying to make sense of it.

don't worry about it :cheers:

My training is as a theoretical mathematician (particular differential geometry and real analysis/measure theory) and theoretical statistics (mostly bayesian), so I'm probably just being overly cautious based on the issues that could rise. There are probably methods other than a monte carlo if our data is purely quantitative or random forest to find decision trees if we have qualitative factors (i.e. interdependence of the tests between teams of the same franchise in different years), but those seem to be the best bet based on the information we have.

If we treat the DRtg/ORtg/Pace as the 'true skill' levels for a team as opposed to just a statistic based on the individual plays, the covariances will tell us something, but we'd need to see team relationships with each other (as well as a team's relationship with its predecessor or successor). As it stands, we don't have the data to form a covariance matrix though (this would be brutal anyway, since I think there are something like 1500 rows in the spreadsheet, so we'd have ~1500x1500 cells), so without performing simulations, we probably can't derive the necessary information.

If you have any idea as to how to do this (either locating the confounding/hidden variables and their values or generating estimators that will allow us to remove their influence...though the latter would make covariances useless), I'll give it a shot, but as it stands I'm not sure that we'd be able to do much (and as I said, I'm not sure that the ORtg/DRtg/Pace are representative enough on their own of 'true skill' levels).

[DatAsh]

Defensive rating is simply points allowed per 100 possessions. The completely reasonable assumption I am making is that elite offensive performances are more unlikely and thus more valuable against teams with low points allowed per possession compared to high points allowed per possession. I have no reason to believe that this doesn't apply to perimeter scorers. It's not ranking the defenses because they dont even play under the same rules. If the rules for one team allows offenses to score more easily that is going to be accounted in the defensive rating and should be but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are a better defensive team than all the other teams with higher defensive ratings.

I understand what you're saying, but your putting far to much faith in this one statistic considering the outlandish and obviously incorrect conclusions that it leads to(ie Jordan's Bulls being easier to score against than Jordan's Wizards). Furthermore, you're assumptions go beyond what even the stats themselves hope to measure(ie how good individual parts of a defense are).

I wouldn't suggest basing you're entire argument off statistics, but if you're absolutely hell bent on doing so for whatever reason, use the z-score that fpliii calculated. If one era is significantly stronger offensively or defensively, it won't account for that, but it accurately measures the strength of the team defense(not individual) the player faces in respect to the league that year. Doing so, I think you'd be happy to see that it actually supports you're assumptions(that Kobe has on average faced tougher defense in the finals), and it does so without also supporting obviously erroneous conclusions that are the cause of all this debate and the reason no one is taking your side.

For reference,

Kobe's Finals Oppenent's average Z-Score: -1.6
Jordan's Finals Oppenent's average Z-Score: -0.9

[DatAsh]

The entire dataset here would be every play involved in determining the ORtg, DRtg, Pace metrics. All three are estimators, but we want an MLE for each based on one or more unknown parameters.


I think I finally get where you're going, and it's much more involved than what I was thinking.



Oh, between the columns is simple, but I'm talking about between the individual tests (i.e. between each 1954-55 and 59-60 team, for one team year-to-year, etc.), since there are individual relationships based on the initial dataset (collection of all individual plays in league history) that was used to form our data. Though we'd need to do some work first (see below).


same as above



don't worry about it

My training is as a theoretical mathematician (particular differential geometry and real analysis/measure theory) and theoretical statistics (mostly bayesian), so I'm probably just being overly cautious based on the issues that could rise. There are probably methods other than a monte carlo if our data is purely quantitative or random forest to find decision trees if we have qualitative factors (i.e. interdependence of the tests between teams of the same franchise in different years), but those seem to be the best bet based on the information we have.


I majored in Computer Science, so I'd venture to say that I'm more well versed in mathematics than your average ISH poster, but I'm by no means a mathematician(math was a necessary evil for my degree).

[fpliii]

I think I finally get where you're going, and it's much more involved than what I was thinking.

It is, but we could automate a lot of the process if we have some idea of what we're doing. At the moment though, I'm not comfortable enough with the data and what it represents to go deep into the project. Before we can do that, we have to determine if these are the 'true skill' levels of those teams, or just the consequences thereof (I haven't been reading much of this discussion, but it looks like yourself and YMF are trying to figure this out at the moment).



same as above



I majored in Computer Science, so I'd venture to say that I'm more well versed in mathematics than your average ISH poster, but I'm by no means a mathematician(math was a necessary evil for my degree).

CS is alright, but wasn't my cup of tea. Though since I'm dealing more and more with databases for my own research, I wish I'd taken more classes in server-side programming. Impressive as hell though, good job getting through that kind of program.

Good talk, though it seems more work needs to be done at describing the data we already have and what it means, before going any deeper (so we have some idea of what the next step should be in this analysis). :cheers:

[Nevaeh]

Defensive rating is simply points allowed per 100 possessions. The completely reasonable assumption I am making is that elite offensive performances are more unlikely and thus more valuable against teams with low points allowed per possession compared to high points allowed per possession. I have no reason to believe that this doesn't apply to perimeter scorers. It's not ranking the defenses because they dont even play under the same rules. If the rules for one team allows offenses to score more easily that is going to be accounted in the defensive rating and should be but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are a better defensive team than all the other teams with higher defensive ratings.

Oh, so suddenly the 97 Jazz can't be better defensively than the 08 Celtics due to "Rules" now.
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Damn dude, you're so full of sh!t.
http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif

Gotta give you credit though; you always have an escape route when your nonsense gets used against you.

[KG215]

102.5 would be the 9th best D in todays NBA
107.0 would be the 6th worst D
What does that have to do with the years of the teams you posted? How is saying what they would be ranked DRating wise in today's NBA valid?

Also, you didn't answer my other question. Is there a big difference in a 4.5 point differential in DRtg regardless of year?




Kobe's Finals Oppenent's average Z-Score: -1.6
Jordan's Finals Oppenent's average Z-Score: -0.9

And what does this mean? I've never tried to argue Jordan faced tougher defenses than Kobe in the Finals, by the way. That much is pretty evident in large part because Kobe faced two of the best defenses of all-time in 2004 and 2008.

What I want to know, how much of a difference is there in a 107.0 and 102.5 DRtg or a -1.6 and -0.9 Z-Score? Say for a second YMF team DRtg theory is true, and it tells you all you need to know about how hard or easy it was for an individual player to get his points against a team.

Say Jordan, on averaged, faced teams giving up 4.5 more points per 100 possessions compared to an average of 102.5 for the teams Kobe faced, does that even directly correlate to Jordan's higher scoring numbers? Because I'd think those 4.5 points would be spread out between Jordan and a teammate or two.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

What does that have to do with the years of the teams you posted? How is saying what they would be ranked DRating wise in today's NBA valid?

Also, you didn't answer my other question. Is there a big difference in a 4.5 point differential in DRtg regardless of year?




And what does this mean? I've never tried to argue Jordan faced tougher defenses than Kobe in the Finals, by the way. That much is pretty evident in large part because Kobe faced two of the best defenses of all-time in 2004 and 2008.

What I want to know, how much of a difference is there in a 107.0 and 102.5 DRtg or a -1.6 and -0.9 Z-Score? Say for a second YMF team DRtg theory is true, and it tells you all you need to know about how hard or easy it was for an individual player to get his points against a team.

Say Jordan, on averaged, faced teams giving up 4.5 more points per 100 possessions compared to an average of 102.5 for the teams Kobe faced, does that even directly correlate to Jordan's higher scoring numbers? Because I'd think those 4.5 points would be spread out between Jordan and a teammate or two.

Those numbers have were in response to one posters peculiar obsession with playoffs defensive ratings. For some reason he thought that Jordan's opponents def ratings would be better if we used their information only from the playoffs. They don't correspond to anything more than that. You are going to have to ask him about it because I don't believe that mean much of anything.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

I understand what you're saying, but your putting far to much faith in this one statistic considering the outlandish and obviously incorrect conclusions that it leads to(ie Jordan's Bulls being easier to score against than Jordan's Wizards). Furthermore, you're assumptions go beyond what even the stats themselves hope to measure(ie how good individual parts of a defense are).

I wouldn't suggest basing you're entire argument off statistics, but if you're absolutely hell bent on doing so for whatever reason, use the z-score that fpliii calculated. If one era is significantly stronger offensively or defensively, it won't account for that, but it accurately measures the strength of the team defense(not individual) the player faces in respect to the league that year. Doing so, I think you'd be happy to see that it actually supports you're assumptions(that Kobe has on average faced tougher defense in the finals), and it does so without also supporting obviously erroneous conclusions that are the cause of all this debate and the reason no one is taking your side.

For reference,

Kobe's Finals Oppenent's average Z-Score: -1.6
Jordan's Finals Oppenent's average Z-Score: -0.9

I appreciate you acting like you are doing me a favor by pointing out things I already know. Yes, Kobe's finals opponents were superior defensively relative to the league. Yes, Kobe's era of basketball were superior at limiting scoring efficiency. Yes, Kobe's era of basketball was played at a slower pace. Defensive rating correctly accounts for two of those 3 truths.

You can tell yourself you are not taking my side seriously until you are blue in the face but here you are still in this thread, just like the many before it playing around with numbers until you find a way that 2 +2 does not equal 4. The only thing you guys have successfully argued is that defensive rating doesn't prove comparisons that I never claimed it proved.