Mike Jordan (#1) DOMINATED elite defenses in the playoffs!

[Im Still Ballin]

All of the defenses Jordan faced and destroyed in the playoffs:
1985 Milwaukee Bucks ranked 2cnd in the NBA in defense
1986 Boston Celtics ranked 1st in the NBA in defense
1987 Boston Celtics ranked 9th in the NBA in defense
1988 Cleveland Cavaliers ranked 5th in the NBA in defense
1988 Detroit Pistons ranked 2cnd in the NBA in defense
1989 Cleveland Cavaliers ranked 2cnd in the NBA in defense
1989 New York Knicks ranked 10th in the NBA in defense
1989 Detroit Pistons ranked 3rd in the NBA in defense
1990 Milwaukee Bucks ranked 14th in the NBA in defense
1990 Philadelphia 76ers ranked 19th in the NBA in defense
1990 Detroit Pistons ranked 2cnd in the NBA in defense
1991 New York Knicks ranked 12th in the NBA in defense
1991 Philadelphia 76ers ranked 14th in the NBA in defense
1991 Detroit Pistons ranked 4th in the NBA in defense
1992 Miami Heat ranked 24th in the NBA in defense
1992 New York Knicks ranked 2cnd in the NBA in defense
1992 Cleveland Cavaliers ranked 11th in the NBA in defense
1993 Atlanta Hawks ranked 22cnd in the NBA in defense
1993 Cleveland Cavaliers ranked 6th in the NBA in defense
1993 New York Knicks ranked 1st in the NBA in defense
1995 Charlotte Hornets ranked 9th in the NBA in defense
1995 Orlando Magic ranked 13th in the NBA in defense
1996 Miami Heat ranked 6th in the NBA in defense
1996 New York Knicks ranked 3rd in the NBA in defense
1996 Orlando Magic ranked 12th in the NBA in defense
1997 Washington Bullets ranked 13th in the NBA in defense
1997 Atlanta Hawks ranked 3rd in the NBA in defense
1997 Miami Heat ranked 1st in the NBA in defense
1998 New Jersey Nets ranked 21st in the NBA in defense
1998 Charlotte Hornets ranked 15th in the NBA in defense
1998 Indiana Pacers ranked 5th in the NBA in defense

Jordan faced 17 top 5 defenses in the post-season.
Jordan faced 24 top 10 defenses in the post-season.
Jordan faced on average the 8.35 ranked Defense in the NBA, in the post-season.

GOAT baby! Can't stop Mikey J!

[GreatHILL]

there will Never be another player like MJ! Mike was a special talent!!!

[3ball]

.
MJ's Stats in Each Playoff Series vs. Top 5 Ranked Defense:


MIL 1985 1st Rd (59-23, #2 ranked defense.. 29.3 pts.. 5.8 rebs.. 8.6 assists.. 56.5% TS.. 43.6% FG)

BOS 1986 1st Rd (67-15, #1 ranked defense.. 43.7.. 6.3.. 5.7.. 58.4% TS.. 50.5% FG)

CLE 1988 1st Rd (42-40, #5 ranked defense... 45.2.. 5.4.. 4.8.. 63.2% TS.. 55.9% FG)

DET 1988 2nd Rd (54-28, #2-ranked defense... 27.8.. 8.8.. 4.6.. 54.9% TS.. 49.1% FG)

CLE 1989 1st Rd (57-25, #2 ranked defense... 40.0.. 6.0.. 8.1.. 59.8% TS.. 51.8% FG)

DET 1989 ECF (62-30, #3 ranked defense... 30.0.. 5.5.. 6.5.. 59.8% TS.. 46.0% FG)

DET 1990 ECF (62-20, #2 ranked defense... 32.1.. 7.1.. 6.3.. 56.6% TS.. 46.7% FG)

DET 1991 ECF (52-30, #4 ranked defense.. 29.8.. 5.3.. 7.0.. 64.6% TS.. 53.5% FG)

LAL 1991 Finals (58-24, #5 ranked defense... 31.2.. 6.6.. 11.4.. 61.2% TS.. 55.2% FG)

POR 1992 Finals (57-25, #3 ranked defense.. 35.8.. 4.8.. 6.5.. 61.7% TS.. 52.6% FG)

NYK 1992 ECF (51-31, #2 ranked defense.. 31.3.. 5.7.. 4.3.. 53.3% TS.. 47.7% FG)

NYK 1993 ECF (60-22, #1 ranked defense.. 32.2.. 6.2.. 7.0.. 52.2% TS.. 40.4% FG)


BASEBALL (AA Outfielder): .202 BA.. 436 AB.. 88 H.. 3 HR.. 46 R.. 51 RBI


NYK 1996 ECF (47-35.. 4th ranked defense.. 36.0.. 4.8.. 4.4.. 53.4% TS.. 44.2% FG)

SEA 1996 Finals (64-18.. #2 ranked defense.. 27.3.. 5.3.. 4.2.. 53.8%.. 41.5% FG)

ATL 1997 2nd Rd (56-26.. #3 ranked defense.. 26.6.. 10.2.. 5.2.. 50.6% TS.. 45.4% FG)

MIA 1997 ECF (61-21.. #1 ranked defense.. 30.2.. 8.6.. 2.6.. 47.5% TS.. 38.7% FG)

IND 1998 ECF (58-24.. #5 ranked defense.. 31.7.. 5.7.. 4.1.. 55.6% TS.. 46.7% FG)

[Dr Hawk]

What happened against Miami in 1997? Both team's FG% is really bad

Bulls shot .398 FG% and Miami shot .384 FG%

[3ball]

What happened against Miami in 1997? Both team's FG% is really bad

Bulls shot .398 FG% and Miami shot .384 FG%


Sometimes that's just how the series is playing, where both teams know each other very well - MJ's efficiency was in line with both team's averages, while still providing his typical off-ball, league-leading volume that fit in with teammates.

MJ's stats have never underperformed the series averages or the way the series was playing.

Also, from 1996-1998, pace was 91.8, 90.3, and 90.1, respectively, compared to today's 93.9 pace, and the game was much more physical with no-spacing.

[Im Still Ballin]

Sometimes that's just how the series is playing, where both teams know each other very well - MJ's efficiency was in line with both team's averages, while still providing his typical off-ball, league-leading volume that fit in with teammates.. MJ's stats have never underperformed the series averages or the way the series was playing.

Also, from 1996-1998, pace was 91.8, 90.3, and 90.1, respectively, compared to today's 93.9 pace, and the game was much more physical with no-spacing.
Agreed. The game back then was a paint congested, physically impeding, handchecking affair. Dribble penetration was hard to come by with the ability of defenses to hand-check and not to mention the legendary shotblocking bigs of the old eras... Don't believe me? Listen to Stu Jackson;

NBA.com: Since the hand-checking rule was interpreted differently beginning in the 2004-05 season, the game has opened up. Players are penetrating and the floor is spread. As a result, scoring has risen every season. Was this anticipated back in 2004?

Stu Jackson: No. The scoring increase was not our goal. Our objective was to allow for more offensive freedom by not allowing defenders to hand-, forearm- or body-check ball handlers. By doing so, we encouraged more dribble penetration. As players penetrated more, it produced higher quality shots for the ball handler as well as shots for teammates on passes back out to perimeter. When NBA players get higher quality shots -- having more time to shoot -- they tend to make more of them.

NBA.com: Shooting percentages have risen since 2004-05 regardless of location -- at-the-rim shots, short- and deep-mid range and 3-pointers. Does this surprise you, especially the higher percentages from 3-point range?

Stu Jackson: It doesn't. With the rule and interpretation changes, it has become more difficult for defenders to defend penetration, cover the entire floor on defensive rotations and recover to shooters. This has provided more time for shooters to ready themselves for quality shots. With more dribble penetration, ball handlers are getting more opportunities at the rim. Additionally, teams now realize the 3-point shot is a great competitive equalizer, so they are taking more; they have improved their skill level on threes and are making them at a higher rate.

[3ball]

Agreed. The game back then was a paint congested, physically impeding, handchecking affair. Dribble penetration was hard to come by with the ability of defenses to hand-check and not to mention the legendary shotblocking bigs of the old eras... Don't believe me? Listen to Stu Jackson;

NBA.com: Since the hand-checking rule was interpreted differently beginning in the 2004-05 season, the game has opened up. Players are penetrating and the floor is spread. As a result, scoring has risen every season. Was this anticipated back in 2004?

Stu Jackson: No. The scoring increase was not our goal. Our objective was to allow for more offensive freedom by not allowing defenders to hand-, forearm- or body-check ball handlers. By doing so, we encouraged more dribble penetration. As players penetrated more, it produced higher quality shots for the ball handler as well as shots for teammates on passes back out to perimeter. When NBA players get higher quality shots -- having more time to shoot -- they tend to make more of them.

NBA.com: Shooting percentages have risen since 2004-05 regardless of location -- at-the-rim shots, short- and deep-mid range and 3-pointers. Does this surprise you, especially the higher percentages from 3-point range?

Stu Jackson: It doesn't. With the rule and interpretation changes, it has become more difficult for defenders to defend penetration, cover the entire floor on defensive rotations and recover to shooters. This has provided more time for shooters to ready themselves for quality shots. With more dribble penetration, ball handlers are getting more opportunities at the rim. Additionally, teams now realize the 3-point shot is a great competitive equalizer, so they are taking more; they have improved their skill level on threes and are making them at a higher rate.


More official statements from the NBA:

NBA: An open game can benefit a post player as well. Remember, if the players are spaced wider and using more of the court, then defenses have to play those players closely because they're good shooters. The style actually serves to open up the middle of the floor. If a team has an effective post player, he would have more room to operate in the post.

NBA: The international game utilizes a pure zone defense (as opposed to the defensive three-second rule), which allows frontcourt players to stand in the middle of the lane and discourage cutting, passing and dribble penetration.

[FKAri]

too dark skinned to succeed in today's league. You need those light skinned advantages to compete nowadays.

[3ball]

More official statements from the NBA:

NBA: The international game utilizes a pure zone defense (as opposed to the defensive three-second rule), which allows frontcourt players to stand in the middle of the lane and discourage cutting, passing and dribble penetration.



The spacing and defensive 3 seconds affords time and room for Lebron to operate in a wide open paint - whereas MJ has none of these things and faces a paint-camping Ewing:


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/911d3cac30b219754c53b4b156428f49.gif

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/4-01-2015/WJfp23.gif

[DonDadda59]

too dark skinned to succeed in today's league. You need those light skinned advantages to compete nowadays.

:no:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khwsqIknsXU

[OnFire]

What happened against Miami in 1997? Both team's FG% is really bad

Bulls shot .398 FG% and Miami shot .384 FG%

People forget how good the Heat were. Some people think the Heat started in 2011. But alas, there were other HOFers.

I would actually give the Bulls more respect for that. That was a Riley coached nasty Heat team with 2 HOFers near or in their prime. Only allowed like 85ppg or something that year.

Tim Hardaway
Alonzo Mourning
Jamal Mashburn
Ike Austin
PJ Brown
Thunder Dan
Voshon Leonard

That was a really good team the bulls beat. Better than the Jazz were at that point.

[dubeta]

3ball getting trolled and he don't even kno it :oldlol:

[SouBeachTalents]

Sometimes that's just how the series is playing, where both teams know each other very well - MJ's efficiency was in line with both team's averages, while still providing his typical off-ball, league-leading volume that fit in with teammates.

MJ's stats have never underperformed the series averages or the way the series was playing.

Also, from 1996-1998, pace was 91.8, 90.3, and 90.1, respectively, compared to today's 93.9 pace, and the game was much more physical with no-spacing.

Against the Knicks in '93 they did, he shot 40% in a series his team shot 46%, and where the Knicks shot 49%

[dubeta]

Against the Knicks in '93 they did, he shot 40% in a series his team shot 46%, and where the Knicks shot 49%

Good point, it was blatant sabotage on MJ's behalf

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Elite defense hold their opposition to less than a point per possession (<100 DEF Rating)

Jordan faced two such defenses in the playoffs

The 1993 Knicks

http://i.imgur.com/gNnJXq7.png


The 1997 Heat

http://i.imgur.com/1CIgL8T.png

:confusedshrug:

[DonDadda59]

Elite defense hold their opposition to less than a point per possession (<100 DEF Rating)



60s-70s = GOAT defensive era. By a mile. :bowdown:

[dh144498]

Agreed. The game back then was a paint congested, physically impeding, handchecking affair. Dribble penetration was hard to come by with the ability of defenses to hand-check and not to mention the legendary shotblocking bigs of the old eras... Don't believe me? Listen to Stu Jackson;

NBA.com: Since the hand-checking rule was interpreted differently beginning in the 2004-05 season, the game has opened up. Players are penetrating and the floor is spread. As a result, scoring has risen every season. Was this anticipated back in 2004?

Stu Jackson: No. The scoring increase was not our goal. Our objective was to allow for more offensive freedom by not allowing defenders to hand-, forearm- or body-check ball handlers. By doing so, we encouraged more dribble penetration. As players penetrated more, it produced higher quality shots for the ball handler as well as shots for teammates on passes back out to perimeter. When NBA players get higher quality shots -- having more time to shoot -- they tend to make more of them.

NBA.com: Shooting percentages have risen since 2004-05 regardless of location -- at-the-rim shots, short- and deep-mid range and 3-pointers. Does this surprise you, especially the higher percentages from 3-point range?

Stu Jackson: It doesn't. With the rule and interpretation changes, it has become more difficult for defenders to defend penetration, cover the entire floor on defensive rotations and recover to shooters. This has provided more time for shooters to ready themselves for quality shots. With more dribble penetration, ball handlers are getting more opportunities at the rim. Additionally, teams now realize the 3-point shot is a great competitive equalizer, so they are taking more; they have improved their skill level on threes and are making them at a higher rate.



but wasn't that the illegal defense and weak era?

[3ball]

The 1993 Knicks

The 1997 Heat


Exactly - Two examples of how MJ faced the toughest defenses of all time - no spacing, paint-camping, physicality, and hand-checking.. Yet he always got 30+ PPG regardless - and MJ's 30 was worth more anyone else's 30 because it comes with GOAT clutch.. Scoring + clutch > ANY stat category.

Another reason MJ's 30 was worth more than anyone else's 30 is because it was achieved in an off-ball fashion, therefore teammates were allowed to maximize their individual capacity, which maximizes the TEAM'S capacity, thus preventing underachievement.

[Wade's Rings]

Back in the day Wade did this

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Exactly - Two examples of how MJ faced the toughest defenses of all time - no spacing, paint-camping, physicality, and hand-checking.. Yet he always got 30+ PPG regardless - and MJ's 30 was worth more anyone else's 30 because it comes with GOAT clutch.. Scoring + clutch > ANY stat category.

Another reason MJ's 30 was worth more than anyone else's 30 is because it was achieved in an off-ball fashion, therefore teammates were allowed to maximize their individual capacity, which maximizes the TEAM'S capacity, thus preventing underachievement.


04 Spurs 94.1
99 Spurs 95.0
04 Pistons 95.4
01 Spurs 98.0
01 76ers 98.9
08 Celtics 98.9
00 Suns 99.0
04 Rockets 99.0
02 Nets 99.5
01 Kings 99.6
04 Twolves 99.7
02 Spurs 99.7
03 Spurs 99.7
93 Knicks 99.7
97 Heat 100.6

Kobe vs 01 Spurs (98.0 DEF RATING)

http://i.imgur.com/y7aZzfk.png

But yeah Jordan's 30 ppg with terrible efficiency against a lesser efficient defense were incomparable.

:roll:

[3ball]

04 Spurs 94.1
99 Spurs 95.0
04 Pistons 95.4
01 Spurs 98.0
01 76ers 98.9
08 Celtics 98.9
00 Suns 99.0
04 Rockets 99.0
02 Nets 99.5
01 Kings 99.6
04 Twolves 99.7
02 Spurs 99.7
03 Spurs 99.7
93 Knicks 99.7
97 Heat 100.6


Increases in 3-point attempts are always accompanied by a lower offensive rebounding rate and therefore a lower calculation of ORtg and DRtg's.

This is common knowledge, so don't be fooled into misunderstanding the game by misunderstanding how some of these stats are calculated.

Also, the 60's and 70's had the LOWEST ORtg and DRtg of all time.. But that isn't a reflection of the quality of the defense - it's a reflection of the brand of basketball being played before they increased the size of the paint..

The brand of basketball (smaller paint) affected DRtg back then, just like the brand of basketball (3-point shooting) affects DRtg today.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Increases in 3-point attempts are always accompanied by a lower offensive rebounding rate and therefore a lower calculation of ORtg and DRtg's.

This is common knowledge, so don't be fooled into misunderstanding the game by misunderstanding how some of these stats are calculated.

Also, the 60's and 70's had the LOWEST ORtg and DRtg of all time.. But that isn't a reflection of the quality of the defense - it's a reflection of the brand of basketball being played before they increased the size of the paint..

The brand of basketball (smaller paint) affected DRtg back then, just like the brand of basketball (3-point shooting) affects DRtg today.
.

:biggums:

Who cares if you are less likely to get an offensive board when you put up a three point shot?

What about the fact the league average 3pt shot goes in 35% of a time. Good for a 1.05 points per possession.

Its not about the quality of the defense. Its about the context of offensive performances against them. Somebody putting up identical Jordan numbers during the 60s/70s is much more impressive than Jordan putting up those numbers during the inflated offensive era in which he played. Its called context. :confusedshrug:

[DonDadda59]

04 Spurs 94.1
99 Spurs 95.0
04 Pistons 95.4
01 Spurs 98.0
01 76ers 98.9
08 Celtics 98.9
00 Suns 99.0
04 Rockets 99.0
02 Nets 99.5
01 Kings 99.6
04 Twolves 99.7
02 Spurs 99.7
03 Spurs 99.7
93 Knicks 99.7
97 Heat 100.6

Kobe vs 01 Spurs (98.0 DEF RATING)

http://i.imgur.com/y7aZzfk.png

But yeah Jordan's 30 ppg with terrible efficiency against a lesser efficient defense were incomparable.

:roll:

You still haven't figured it out, after all these years :oldlol:

'77-'78 Best DRTG
1) Phoenix Suns 97
2) Portland Trailblazers 97.2
3) Seattle Sonics 97.7
4) GS Warriors 99.3
5) Cleveland Cavaliers 99.4


Pistol Pete>>>Bean

[Yao Ming's Foot]

You still haven't figured it out, after all these years :oldlol:

'77-'78 Best DRTG
1) Phoenix Suns 97
2) Portland Trailblazers 97.2
3) Seattle Sonics 97.7
4) GS Warriors 99.3
5) Cleveland Cavaliers 99.4


Pistol Pete>>>Bean

Pistol Pete didn't make the playoffs in 78 let alone face any of those teams. :confusedshrug:

[3ball]

Who cares if you are less likely to get an offensive board when you put up a three point shot?

Somebody putting up identical Jordan numbers during the 60s/70s is much more impressive than Jordan putting up those numbers during the offensive era in which he played.


Regarding the 60's and 70's - you said it's more impressive to put up numbers back in Wilt and Oscar's era.. That means you think Wilt and Oscar's stats would be higher today, and today's player stats would be lower back then.. :applause:

Also, MJ's second 3-peat occurred when pace and DRtg was LOWER than today's game (1996-1998).. He also 3-peated when it was faster (1991-1993).. MJ's game was best regardless of the era or brand of basketball being played.

Btw, why use stats like DRtg to make your argument if you can't understand what they mean?.. The lower offensive rebounding rate associated with 3-pointers lowers today's DRtg calculation.. Are you seriously saying you don't understand that?

[DonDadda59]

Pistol Pete didn't make the playoffs in 78 let alone face any of those teams. :confusedshrug:

So DRTG only counts in the playoffs? OK.

'73-'74 Best DRTG

1) Chicago Bulls 93.6
2) Milwaukee Bucks 93.6
3) Detroit Pistons 93.8
4) Capital Bullets 94.2
5) New York Knicks 94.7


John Havlicek>>>>>>>Bean

Argue against that statement. Can't wait to see how you spin it.

http://www.postavy.cz/foto/lenny-leonard-foto.jpg

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Regarding the 60's and 70's - you said it's more impressive to put up numbers back in Wilt and Oscar's era.. That means you think Wilt and Oscar's stats would be higher today, and today's player stats would be lower back then.. :applause:

False. I said given two identical offensive performances it would be more impressive against the context of efficient defense rather than inefficient defense.


Also, MJ's second 3-peat occurred when pace and DRtg was LOWER than today's game (1996-1998).. He also 3-peated when it was faster (1991-1993).. MJ's game was best regardless of the era or brand of basketball being played.

Ranked by their ability to limit offensive scoring on a per possession basis.

04 Spurs 94.1
99 Spurs 95.0
04 Pistons 95.4
01 Spurs 98.0
01 76ers 98.9
08 Celtics 98.9
00 Suns 99.0
04 Rockets 99.0
02 Nets 99.5
01 Kings 99.6
04 Twolves 99.7
02 Spurs 99.7
03 Spurs 99.7
93 Knicks 99.7
97 Heat 100.6
00 Blazers 100.8
02 Kings 101.1
98 Pacers 101.6
08 Spurs 101.8
01 Blazers 101.8
01 Magic 101.9
00 Kings 102.1
96 Sonics 102.1
97 Hawks 102.3

Among the top 22... 20 were Kobe playoff opponents.



Btw, why use stats like DRtg to make your argument if you can't understand what they mean?.. The lower offensive rebounding rate associated with 3-pointers lowers today's DRtg calculation.. Are you seriously saying you don't understand that?


I don't understand how you are ignore the 3 point shot itself within the discussion. Clearly the fact that you are making 3 pts for every 2.86 shot attempts needs to factored in your flawed analysis.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

So DRTG only counts in the playoffs? OK.

'73-'74 Best DRTG

1) Chicago Bulls 93.6
2) Milwaukee Bucks 93.6
3) Detroit Pistons 93.8
4) Capital Bullets 94.2
5) New York Knicks 94.7


John Havlicek>>>>>>>Bean

Argue against that statement. Can't wait to see how you spin it.

http://www.postavy.cz/foto/lenny-leonard-foto.jpg

Marovich didn't make the playoffs in 74 either. Are you this dumb on purpose?

[DonDadda59]

Marovich didn't make the playoffs in 74 either. Are you this dumb on purpose?

Who? :wtf:

Why not try giving that post another look.

Then spin it.

You can do it. I believe.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Who? :wtf:

Why not try giving that post another look.

Then spin it.

You can do it. I believe.

What point are you trying to prove?

As expected the HOF guard was inefficient against an elite defense (93.6 DEF RATING)

http://i.imgur.com/XEKkxqk.png
61 for 147 = 41.5%

[Im Still Ballin]

Mikey Jordan is UNTOUCHABLE.

NOBODY TOUCHES JORDAN.

[Beastmode88]

Mikey Jordan is UNTOUCHABLE.

NOBODY TOUCHES JORDAN.

especially lebran james, the best defense he beat was the pacers. :roll: :roll:

[dubeta]

especially lebran james, the best defense he beat was the pacers. :roll: :roll:


2/8

[Beastmode88]

2/8

U predicting lebron's final record? If so best post you've ever made, I concur. :applause:

[DonDadda59]

As expected the HOF guard was inefficient against an elite defense (93.6 DEF RATING)


He was past prime and playing against defenses that put the '04 Pistons, '08s Celtics, etc to shame. Still won Finals MVP doe. :bowdown:

John Havlicek (8 championships) vs sub 100 defenses in the playoffs, career.

'63 Royals 98.3
'63 Lakers 94.7
'64 Royals 94.5
'64 Warriors 88.6
'65 Sixers 94.2
'65 Lakers 95.8
'66 Royals 96.5
'66 Sixers 91.5
'66 Lakers 95.7
'67 Sixers 93.9
'68 Pistons 98.4
'68 Sixers 91.2
'68 Lakers 98
'69 Sixers 93.9
'69 Knicks 93.3
'69 Lakers 94.9
'72 Knicks 96.3
'73 Hawks 98
'73 Knicks 92.5
'74 Braves 99.4
'74 Knicks 96.4
'74 Bucks 93.6
'75 Rockets 99.4
'75 Bullets 91.3
'76 Cavaliers 97
'76 Braves 98.2
'76 Suns 97.9
'77 Sixers 97.6

During the 60s, he only faced ONE defense that had a rating higher than 100 ('67 Knicks, 100.5 rating, worst in the league).

Safe to say Havlicek>>>>>>>>Bean, yes? :confusedshrug:

[3ball]

Among the top 22... 20 were Kobe playoff opponents.

I don't understand how you are ignore the 3 point shot itself within the discussion. Clearly the fact that you are making 3 pts for every 2.86 shot attempts needs to factored in your flawed analysis.


It's not my analysis - it's a formula - more 3-pointers generate lower offensive rebounds, which makes the calculation of DRtg lower.. Ever since the 3-point line was moved closer in 1994, teams have been shooting more 3-pointers, which resulted in lower offensive rebounding rate and DRtg from that point forward.

This is a fact - go look at the numbers.. The higher rate of 3-pointers and their lower offensive rebounding rate is why Kobe's 2000's playoff opponents have lower DRtg than MJ's pre-1994 opponents.. But that doesn't mean Kobe would have higher scoring back then, just like Wilt and Oscar's stats from the super-low DRtg 60's wouldn't be higher in the high DRtg 80's.

[3ball]

http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/740c4aeb63705ef81d066269d25f3e54.gif


Just think how much more he'd dominate WITH spacing.. :bowdown:

Even though MJ would dominate much more in today's game with shooters perpetually spreading the court and opening up the middle of the floor for him, he'd actually be a worse basketball player today - he'd use inferior moves than what he needed in the no-spacing environments of previous eras and his repertoire would be much weaker.

In today's game, he'd use the spacing to get a much higher proportion of clean looks - his efficiency would be very high, while still undertaking his typical league-leading volume.. But again, he'd be using less sophisticated moves and actually be a WORSE basketball player.. So while high-level moves like this (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11064438&postcount=38) and passes that thread needles like this (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=355658&page=44) were necessary to mitigate defenders in no-spacing environments, they'd be unnecessary in today's game.

For one thing, MJ wouldn't posterize paint-camping 7-footers at the rim like he used to, since paint-camping has been banned.. Instead, those 7-footers are now shading on the perimeter - so instead of finishing on them at the rim like previous eras, MJ would blow by them on the perimeter in today's game (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=374490), which is expected of a perimeter ballhandler and not nearly as impressive.

[3ball]

He was past prime and playing against defenses that put the '04 Pistons, '08s Celtics, etc to shame. Still won Finals MVP doe. :bowdown:

John Havlicek (8 championships) vs sub 100 defenses in the playoffs, career.

'63 Royals 98.3
'63 Lakers 94.7
'64 Royals 94.5
'64 Warriors 88.6
'65 Sixers 94.2
'65 Lakers 95.8
'66 Royals 96.5
'66 Sixers 91.5
'66 Lakers 95.7
'67 Sixers 93.9
'68 Pistons 98.4
'68 Sixers 91.2
'68 Lakers 98
'69 Sixers 93.9
'69 Knicks 93.3
'69 Lakers 94.9
'72 Knicks 96.3
'73 Hawks 98
'73 Knicks 92.5
'74 Braves 99.4
'74 Knicks 96.4
'74 Bucks 93.6
'75 Rockets 99.4
'75 Bullets 91.3
'76 Cavaliers 97
'76 Braves 98.2
'76 Suns 97.9
'77 Sixers 97.6

During the 60s, he only faced ONE defense that had a rating higher than 100 ('67 Knicks, 100.5 rating, worst in the league).

Safe to say Havlicek>>>>>>>>Bean, yes? :confusedshrug:



Mr Yao Ming Foot... what say you to this? (or my post, two above this one, post #36)
.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

It's not my analysis - it's a formula - the formula decreases DRtg any time the offensive rebounding rate decreases.. More 3-pointers generate less offensive rebounds, which makes the calculation of DRtg lower.. Ever since the 3-point line was moved closer in 1994, teams have been shooting more 3-pointers, which resulted in lower offensive rebounding rate and DRtg.

This is a fact - go look at the numbers.. The higher rate of 3-pointers and their lower offensive rebounding rate is why Kobe's 2000's playoff opponents have lower DRtg than MJ's pre-1994 opponents.. But that doesn't mean Kobe would have higher scoring back then, just like Wilt and Oscar's stats from the lower DRtg 60's wouldn't be higher in the high DRtg 80's.
.

:facepalm

There is no evidence that an increase in 3 pt shot attempt attempts results results in a lower offensive or defensive rating.

The team offensive rating is points scored per 100 possessions. Sure if your team collect offensive rebounds at a higher rate when you shoot two point shots you will more cracks at the basket within the same possession compared to when you shoot 3 pointers. Thats one part of it.

The other part of it is 3 point shots are worth 3 points.

Using league averages for this year

3 *.350 = 1.05 points per attempt

2* .449= 0.89 points per attempt

Once again where does this get factored into your absurd theories?

[Yao Ming's Foot]

He was past prime and playing against defenses that put the '04 Pistons, '08s Celtics, etc to shame. Still won Finals MVP doe. :bowdown:

John Havlicek (8 championships) vs sub 100 defenses in the playoffs, career.

'63 Royals 98.3
'63 Lakers 94.7
'64 Royals 94.5
'64 Warriors 88.6
'65 Sixers 94.2
'65 Lakers 95.8
'66 Royals 96.5
'66 Sixers 91.5
'66 Lakers 95.7
'67 Sixers 93.9
'68 Pistons 98.4
'68 Sixers 91.2
'68 Lakers 98
'69 Sixers 93.9
'69 Knicks 93.3
'69 Lakers 94.9
'72 Knicks 96.3
'73 Hawks 98
'73 Knicks 92.5
'74 Braves 99.4
'74 Knicks 96.4
'74 Bucks 93.6
'75 Rockets 99.4
'75 Bullets 91.3
'76 Cavaliers 97
'76 Braves 98.2
'76 Suns 97.9
'77 Sixers 97.6

During the 60s, he only faced ONE defense that had a rating higher than 100 ('67 Knicks, 100.5 rating, worst in the league).

Safe to say Havlicek>>>>>>>>Bean, yes? :confusedshrug:

If Havlicek put up Kobe's numbers facing those defenses yes.

Though I'm not sure why you are hyperfocused on Kobe. The playoff defenses he faced had more much in common efficiency wise than Michael Jordan upon which this thread was started. :confusedshrug:

[DonDadda59]

If Havlicek put up Kobe's numbers facing those defenses yes.

Havlicek faced 8 defenses with a lower DRTG than the best rated defense Kobe faced though. Hondo faced a couple of teams with 91 range ratings. Won 8 championships under those circumstances.


Though I'm not sure why you are hyperfocused on Kobe. The playoff defenses he faced had more much in common efficiency wise than Michael Jordan upon which this thread was started. :confusedshrug:

Just trying to see how consistent you are in your bullshit. :oldlol:

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Havlicek faced 8 defenses with a lower DRTG than the best rated defense Kobe faced though. Hondo faced a couple of teams with 91 range ratings. Won 8 championships under those circumstances.

Just trying to see how consistent you are in your bullshit. :oldlol:

Once again I'm not really seeing any point being made.

I posted a series in which Kobe put up better numbers against a more efficient defense than Jordan against the Knicks and Heat.

Did Hondo also put up better numbers against a more efficient defense than Jordan against the Knicks and Heat?

[sportjames23]

Yao Ming's Foot getting bukkake by DonDadda and 3ball.

[warriorfan]

Yao Ming's Foot...:facepalm

[3ball]

some misinformation itt.

[3ball]

Using league averages for this year

3 *.350 = 1.05 points per attempt

2* .449= 0.89 points per attempt


^^^^ Nonsense.. 2-pointer basketball has higher DRtg's than basketball with 3-pointers, except for the 70's and prior when the paint was smaller and defensive 3 seconds either didn't exist (prior to 1967) or was much less stringent than later iterations of the rule in 1982 and 2005.. It's better to understand this than be ignorant.

DRtg is not my theory.. It's a formula where higher offensive rebounding and free throw rates increase DRtg - this is mathematical fact.

These higher offensive rebounding and free throw rates (that boost DRtg) existed in previous eras when only 2-pointers were taken - 2-pointers have a higher offensive rebounding and FT rate than 3-pointers.. If you don't believe 2-pointers have a higher offensive rebounding and FT rate than 3-pointers, than you're simply unaware of basic basketball facts, and probably don't know how basketball works in general.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

^^^^ Nonsense.. 2-pointer basketball has higher DRtg's than basketball with 3-pointers, except for the 70's and prior when the paint was smaller and defensive 3 seconds either didn't exist (prior to 1967) or was much less stringent than later iterations of the rule in 1982 and 2005.. It's better to understand this than be ignorant.

DRtg is not my theory.. It's a formula where higher offensive rebounding and free throw rates increase DRtg - this is mathematical fact.

These higher offensive rebounding and free throw rates (that boost DRtg) existed in previous eras when only 2-pointers were taken - 2-pointers have a higher offensive rebounding and FT rate than 3-pointers.. If you don't believe 2-pointers have a higher offensive rebounding and FT rate than 3-pointers, than you're simply unaware of basic basketball facts, and probably don't know how basketball works in general.

I know made 3 point shots are worth 3 points.
I know made 2 point shots are worth 2 points.
I know bad defensive teams are bad at rebounding and foul a lot.
I know therefore that their opponents have good offensive rebounding rates and high FT rates.
I know you have never taken a statistics class beyond grade school and have a desperate passion to avoid the truth of recognizing that Michael Jordan's opponents especially in the playoffs were significantly less successful at limiting scoring on a per possession basis compared to the competition Kobe Bryant faced.

:confusedshrug:

[3ball]

I know bad defensive teams are bad at rebounding and foul a lot.
I know therefore that their opponents have good offensive rebounding rates and high FT rates.


3-pointers have lower offensive rebounding & FT rates than 2-pointers (fact).

lower offensive rebounding & FT rate results in a lower DRtg calculation (fact).

kobe's opponents shot more 3-pointers (fact), which lowered their offensive rebounding rate and FT rate, and therefore DRtg as well (fact).

accept the facts..
.

[knicksman]

jordan - 6/6. efficient 100%.

Bran - 2/5. LOL

[Yao Ming's Foot]

3-pointers have lower offensive rebounding & FT rates than 2-pointers (fact).

lower offensive rebounding & FT rate results in a lower DRtg calculation (fact).

kobe's opponents shot more 3-pointers (fact), which lowered their offensive rebounding rate and FT rate, and therefore DRtg as well (fact).

accept the facts..
.

:roll:

Jesus Christ you are so dense.

Attempting more 3 pt shots can lower or raise a offensive rating mainly depending on how efficient a team is at making three point shots.

If my team shoots twice as many three point shots as before and drains every single one of them is my offensive rating going to be lower because I'm not getting fouled or collecting offensive rebounds at the same rate?

:facepalm

[3ball]

Jesus Christ you are so dense.

Attempting more 3 pt shots can lower or raise a offensive rating mainly depending on how efficient a team is at making three point shots.

If my team shoots twice as many three point shots as before and drains every single one of them is my offensive rating going to be lower because I'm not getting fouled or collecting offensive rebounds at the same rate?


The bolded above never happens - if a team takes even 1 more three-pointer per game, they will never average 1 more MAKE per game.. The number of makes they average will always be approximately 0.35 (35%), which was the league-wide 3-point percentage in both 1998 and 2015.

The impact of offensive rebounding rate on ORtg will always exist because no team ever shoots 100%.. And it's impact is usually bigger than the changes in efficiency over the eras - for example, teams in 1993 shot 33.6% from 3-point range and 49.1% eFG, which is close to this season's 35.0% and 49.6%..

But the gap in offensive rebounding rate was huge: 32.0% in 1993 and only 25.1% in 2015.. The massive offensive rebounding advantage for 1993 had a far greater positive impact on ORtg than the tiny gap in efficiency.. This is the case for most seasons compared over the eras.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

The bolded above never happens - if a team takes even 1 more three-pointer per game, they will never average 1 more MAKE per game.. The number of makes they average will always be approximately 0.35 (35%), which was the league-wide 3-point percentage in both 1998 and 2015.

The impact of offensive rebounding rate on ORtg will always exist because no team ever shoots 100%.. And it's impact is usually bigger than the changes in efficiency over the eras - for example, teams in 1993 shot 33.6% from 3-point range and 49.1% eFG, which is close to this season's 35.0% and 49.6%..

But the gap in offensive rebounding rate was huge: 32.0% in 1993 and only 25.1% in 2015.. The massive offensive rebounding advantage for 1993 had a far greater positive impact on ORtg than the tiny gap in efficiency.. This is the case for most seasons compared over the eras.

What if I make 99% of my 3 pt shots? Or 98%? 97% 50%?

The point is there exist a bottom percentage at which a team still scores more points on a per possession basis despite collecting a lower FT and offensive rebounding rate and you have made zero attempt to quantify that percentage.

[Elosha]

What separates Jordan in the playoffs from any other all time scorer is his ability to adjust game by game, series by series, to any style, strategy, or defensive scheme, and still dominate. He simply had a greater will to score, particularly in the playoffs, than any other player in history. When you look at the body of his work over the course of his playoff career, it's obvious that he's head and shoulders above any great scorer - Wilt, KAJ, Kobe, Lebron, both in his consistency and in his sheer relentless determination to score. He's also head and shoulders over any other player in clutch moments and big shots in the playoffs (with all due respect to Magic who also had many clutch moments). I'm not just talking about game winners, I'm referring to huge fourth quarters, second halves, and just dominating overall in the clutch.

Jordan had a few "bad" series over the course of his career, but the Bulls won most of those series and Jordan still played at an extremely high level. Moreover, the two teams that beat him in his prime, Detroit and Orlando, were in turn subsequently beaten by him on his way to the championship. Basically, he always got the last laugh. Once he had (semi) solid teammates in 1988, he was a threat to win the championship every year. Had the Pistons' championship teams been slightly less formidable, the Bulls would have likely won the title in 1990.

As for the defensive rating numbers, if Memphis can slow down and beat GS with physical, hard-nosed defense, I have little doubt that the 80's Pistons, 90's Knicks and Sonics, and yes the Bulls themselves could do the same thing. Can you imagine how much Jordan and Pippen would have relished locking down Klay and Curry? They would have hounded them from end to end and feasted particularly on Klay's shaky ball handling. And a guy like Grant or Rodman would have seriously disrupted GS's interior and ability to get any kind of offensive flow. Basically this new type of free flowing, space free, three point frenzy style of play is entertaining and "efficient" but it does not mean it's the best way to play. The best way to play is to have a flexible, nuanced offense, that can adjust to different defenses and players that try to take away your offensive strengths. Today's stars, even the best of them, often have holes in their games which can be exploited. It was pretty much impossible to do that Jordan, which is why he dominated so consistently.

[sportjames23]

What separates Jordan in the playoffs from any other all time scorer is his ability to adjust game by game, series by series, to any style, strategy, or defensive scheme, and still dominate. He simply had a greater will to score, particularly in the playoffs, than any other player in history. When you look at the body of his work over the course of his playoff career, it's obvious that he's head and shoulders above any great scorer - Wilt, KAJ, Kobe, Lebron, both in his consistency and in his sheer relentless determination to score. He's also head and shoulders over any other player in clutch moments and big shots in the playoffs (with all due respect to Magic who also had many clutch moments). I'm not just talking about game winners, I'm referring to huge fourth quarters, second halves, and just dominating overall in the clutch.

Jordan had a few "bad" series over the course of his career, but the Bulls won most of those series and Jordan still played at an extremely high level. Moreover, the two teams that beat him in his prime, Detroit and Orlando, were in turn subsequently beaten by him on his way to the championship. Basically, he always got the last laugh. Once he had (semi) solid teammates in 1988, he was a threat to win the championship every year. Had the Pistons' championship teams been slightly less formidable, the Bulls would have likely won the title in 1990.

As for the defensive rating numbers, if Memphis can slow down and beat GS with physical, hard-nosed defense, I have little doubt that the 80's Pistons, 90's Knicks and Sonics, and yes the Bulls themselves could do the same thing. Can you imagine how much Jordan and Pippen would have relished locking down Klay and Curry? They would have hounded them from end to end and feasted particularly on Klay's shaky ball handling. And a guy like Grant or Rodman would have seriously disrupted GS's interior and ability to get any kind of offensive flow. Basically this new type of free flowing, space free, three point frenzy style of play is entertaining and "efficient" but it does not mean it's the best way to play. The best way to play is to have a flexible, nuanced offense, that can adjust to different defenses and players that try to take away your offensive strengths. Today's stars, even the best of them, often have holes in their games which can be exploited. It was pretty much impossible to do that Jordan, which is why he dominated so consistently.


Real talk. :cheers:

[jzek]

He's the GOAT, of course he DOMINATED any and all defenses he faced.

6 finals appearances
6 championships
6 fvmps

We all know he would have been 8 for 8 for 8 if he didn't retire for 2 years...

[Jacks3]

most of those defenses weren't "elite''. you can't just look at where a team ranks in DRTG. you have to consider their DRTG relative to league-average.

for example this years warriors were #1 in DRTG but were ''only" 4.2 points better than league average.

the #1 defense last season (pacers) were 7.4 points better than league-average.

so both ranked #1 but the pacers were obviously a much better defensive team.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

most of those defenses weren't "elite''. you can't just look at where a team ranks in DRTG. you have to consider their DRTG relative to league-average.

for example this years warriors were #1 in DRTG but were ''only" 4.2 points better than league average.

the #1 defense last season (pacers) were 7.4 points better than league-average.

so both ranked #1 but the pacers were obviously a much better defensive team.

Then you should also compare Jordan's offensive numbers to league averages as well.

[24-Inch_Chrome]

Jordan still the GOAT, don't know what the point of this thread is. :confusedshrug:

[OldSchoolBBall]

Then you should also compare Jordan's offensive numbers to league averages as well.

They already do. It's called PER. You know, the stat that Jordan DOMINATED in both the regular and postseasons, and which Kobe has never led the league in a single time.

[DonDadda59]

They already do. It's called PER. You know, the stat that Jordan DOMINATED in both the regular and postseasons, and which Kobe has never led the league in a single time.

Yeah I don't understand what Yao is trying to accomplish exactly. All he's done is 'prove' that John Havlicek should be rated higher than Kobe because he won more championships playing against much tougher defenses.

No matter what metric or advanced stat you can pluck out of the sky, in the end Jordan>>>>>Bean. Now and for eternity. :applause:

[24-Inch_Chrome]

Kobe is a poor man's Jordan. Is there any position where the gap between the best and second best is as large as it is at the 2?

[SugarHill]

Kobe is a poor man's Jordan. Is there any position where the gap between the best and second best is as large as it is at the 2?
Is there a position where the best and second best is a consensus like SG?

[Yao Ming's Foot]

They already do. It's called PER. You know, the stat that Jordan DOMINATED in both the regular and postseasons, and which Kobe has never led the league in a single time.

Really? That's awesome so what was the average SG PER against the Knicks and Heat and how does it compare to the average SG PER against the 01 Spurs?

[24-Inch_Chrome]

Is there a position where the best and second best is a consensus like SG?

I was asking seriously, though I don't think there's another position where 1/2 is as clearly defined. PG maybe? Magic/Oscar.

[triangleoffense]

One of the only people who got better as defenses got better.

[Rose'sACL]

One of the only people who got better as defenses got better.
MJ was great but your statement is false.

[3ball]

MJ was great but your statement is false.


It's true actually - MJ's stats DID go up against the best defenses..

MJ's playoff stats were elite and GOAT, respectively, against the Bad Boys (30/6/7/47%) and the 1986 Celtics' #1 ranked defense (44/6/6/51).

[3ball]

Yeah I don't understand what Yao is trying to accomplish exactly. All he's done is 'prove' that John Havlicek should be rated higher than Kobe because he won more championships playing against much tougher defenses.

No matter what metric or advanced stat you can pluck out of the sky, in the end Jordan>>>>>Bean. Now and for eternity. :applause:


The whole talk of DRtg's is worthless because it only applies to the 5-year period from 1999-2004, when the NBA had a brief, anomalous downswing in DRtg.. From 2005-2015 (post rule changes), DRtg has been at the exact same levels it was in the 90's.

Kobe was the only guy who played through that 5-year downswing in DRtg, so it only affects Kobe, who we already know is < MJ.. It's much more worthwhile to compare Kobe's performances from that lower DRtg era to Lebron's performances from 2005-2015, when DRtg was the same as it was in the 90's.

[3ball]

MJ didn't play better against better defenses



:biggums: .. MJ performed better than anyone ever has against top defenses:


MIL 1985 1st Rd (59-23, #2 ranked defense.. 29.3 pts.. 5.8 rebs.. 8.6 assists.. 56.5% TS.. 43.6% FG)

BOS 1986 1st Rd (67-15, #1 ranked defense.. 43.7.. 6.3.. 5.7.. 58.4% TS.. 50.5% FG)

CLE 1988 1st Rd (42-40, #5 ranked defense... 45.2.. 5.4.. 4.8.. 63.2% TS.. 55.9% FG)

DET 1988 2nd Rd (54-28, #2-ranked defense... 27.8.. 8.8.. 4.6.. 54.9% TS.. 49.1% FG)

CLE 1989 1st Rd (57-25, #2 ranked defense... 40.0.. 6.0.. 8.1.. 59.8% TS.. 51.8% FG)

DET 1989 ECF (62-30, #3 ranked defense... 30.0.. 5.5.. 6.5.. 59.8% TS.. 46.0% FG)

DET 1990 ECF (62-20, #2 ranked defense... 32.1.. 7.1.. 6.3.. 56.6% TS.. 46.7% FG)

DET 1991 ECF (52-30, #4 ranked defense.. 29.8.. 5.3.. 7.0.. 64.6% TS.. 53.5% FG)

LAL 1991 Finals (58-24, #5 ranked defense... 31.2.. 6.6.. 11.4.. 61.2% TS.. 55.2% FG)

POR 1992 Finals (57-25, #3 ranked defense.. 35.8.. 4.8.. 6.5.. 61.7% TS.. 52.6% FG)

NYK 1992 ECF (51-31, #2 ranked defense.. 31.3.. 5.7.. 4.3.. 53.3% TS.. 47.7% FG)

NYK 1993 ECF (60-22, #1 ranked defense.. 32.2.. 6.2.. 7.0.. 52.2% TS.. 40.4% FG)


^^^^^ That's the best anyone's ever played against top 5 defenses..
.

[3ball]

Really? That's awesome


The whole talk of DRtg's is worthless because it only applies to the 5-year period from 1999-2004, when the NBA had a brief, anomalous downswing in DRtg.. From 2005-2015 (post rule changes), DRtg has been at the exact same levels it was in the 90's.

Kobe was the only guy who played through that 5-year downswing in DRtg, so it only affects Kobe, who we already know is < MJ.. Since there's no argument that Kobe < MJ, it's much more worthwhile to compare Kobe's performances from that lower DRtg era to Lebron's performances from 2005-2015, when DRtg was the same as it was in the 90's.

So why don't you compile a list of the best defenses LEBRON has faced?.. Most of the teams will have worse ratings than Kobe's 1999-2004 opponents (just like MJ's list), and that will be a great argument for Kobe > Lebron.. But quit wasting your time trying to show Kobe > MJ.. it's futile.. :rolleyes:

[Yao Ming's Foot]

The whole talk of DRtg's is worthless because it only applies to the 5-year period from 1999-2004, when the NBA had a brief, anomalous downswing in DRtg.. From 2005-2015 (post rule changes), DRtg has been at the exact same levels it was in the 90's.

Kobe was the only guy who played through that 5-year downswing in DRtg, so it only affects Kobe, who we already know is < MJ.. Since there's no argument that Kobe < MJ, it's much more worthwhile to compare Kobe's performances from that lower DRtg era to Lebron's performances from 2005-2015, when DRtg was the same as it was in the 90's.

So why don't you compile a list of the best defenses LEBRON has faced?.. Most of the teams will have worse ratings than Kobe's 1999-2004 opponents (just like MJ's list), and that will be a great argument for Kobe > Lebron.. But quit wasting your time trying to show Kobe > MJ.. it's futile.. :rolleyes:

:roll:

[3ball]

:roll:


:confusedshrug:.. higher offensive rebounding rate is one of the factors that positively affects a team's offense and their offensive rating.

2-pointers have a higher offensive rebounding rate, so teams that take a higher proportion of 2-pointers will have a built-in advantage on offense of more 2nd chance opportunities, which can obviously be offset by other factors - but historically, 2nd chance points have a greater positive impact on a team's offensive rating than other factors.

But this thread's gotten off track.. :facepalm .. If you want to talk about how much worse Kobe is than MJ, I suggest this recent thread:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=375334

[Dr Hawk]

I was asking seriously, though I don't think there's another position where 1/2 is as clearly defined. PG maybe? Magic/Oscar.

Small forward

LeBron and Bird or Bird and LeBron

[3ball]

unbelievable misinformation itt

[3ball]

seriously, the sophistry..:biggums:

[3ball]

Every era can cherry-pick 1 good defensive team out of the entire league - instead, looking at the league-wide defensive capability is what matters, and not just regular season - DRtg in the PLAYOFFS is more important


Agreed - MJ's 2nd three-peat (1996-1998) had lower league-wide DRtg in both the regular season and playoffs than Kobe's non-Shaq championship years (2008-2010):


League-Wide DRtg in Regular Season:


1996: 107.6
1997: 106.7
1998: 105.0

2008: 107.5
2009: 108.3
2010: 107.6

Source: http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_stats.html


League-Wide DRtg in Playoffs (each year is link to source):

1996 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1996.html#all_misc_stats): 107.4
1997 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1997.html#all_misc_stats): 106.8
1998 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1998.html#all_misc_stats): 105.6

2008 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_2008.html#all_misc_stats): 107.4
2009 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_2009.html#all_misc_stats): 107.7
2010 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_2010.html#all_misc_stats): 108.6


^^^ And there it is in black and white - MJ's 2nd three-peat (1996-1998) had lower league-wide DRtg in both the regular season and playoffs than Kobe's non-Shaq championship years (2008-2010).. :confusedshrug:..

[Yao Ming's Foot]

:confusedshrug:.. higher offensive rebounding rate is one of the factors that positively affects a team's offense and their offensive rating.

2-pointers have a higher offensive rebounding rate, so teams that take a higher proportion of 2-pointers will have a built-in advantage on offense of more 2nd chance opportunities, which can obviously be offset by other factors - but historically, 2nd chance points have a greater positive impact on a team's offensive rating than other factors.

But this thread's gotten off track.. :facepalm .. If you want to talk about how much worse Kobe is than MJ, I suggest this recent thread:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=375334

:facepalm

Once again even if that is true it doesn't mean more 3 pt shots equals a less efficient offense because that determination relies on how capable an offense is at making two and three point shots and how deep the impact on offensive rebounding and free throws is.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Agreed - MJ's 2nd three-peat (1996-1998) had lower league-wide DRtg in both the regular season and playoffs than Kobe's non-Shaq championship years (2008-2010):


League-Wide DRtg in Regular Season:


1996: 107.6
1997: 106.7
1998: 105.0

2008: 107.5
2009: 108.3
2010: 107.6

Source: http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_stats.html


League-Wide DRtg in Playoffs (each year is link to source):

1996 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1996.html#all_misc_stats): 107.4
1997 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1997.html#all_misc_stats): 106.8
1998 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1998.html#all_misc_stats): 105.6

2008 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_2008.html#all_misc_stats): 107.4
2009 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_2009.html#all_misc_stats): 107.7
2010 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_2010.html#all_misc_stats): 108.6


^^^ And there it is in black and white - MJ's 2nd three-peat (1996-1998) had lower league-wide DRtg in both the regular season and playoffs than Kobe's non-Shaq championship years (2008-2010).. :confusedshrug:..


Where are you getting my alleged quote from?

:roll:

[3ball]

Where are you getting my alleged quote from?

:roll:


:oldlol: ... thin air.. :confusedshrug:

I just wanted to show you that teams during MJ's 2nd three-peat run (1996-1998) had lower DRtg's than teams during Kobe's non-Shaq rings years (2008-2010).

Infact, since the 2005 rule changes, league-wide DRtg has been at the same as the 90's.
.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

:oldlol: ... thin air.. :confusedshrug:

I just wanted to show you that teams during MJ's 2nd three-peat run (1996-1998) had lower DRtg's than teams during Kobe's non-Shaq rings years (2008-2010).

Infact, since the 2005 rule changes, league-wide DRtg has been at the same as the 90's.
.

Kobe didn't face league average defenses in the Finals.

Finals opponents

08 Celtics 98.9
09 Magic 101.9
96 Sonics 102.1
10 Celtics 103.8
97 Jazz 104.0
98 Jazz 105.4

:confusedshrug:

[3ball]

Kobe didn't face league average defenses in the Finals.


1998 Utah had a lower DRtg in the playoffs (100.3) than anything Kobe ever faced as the #1 option.

So as the #1 option, MJ faced the toughest defense (1998 Utah), not Kobe.. :confusedshrug:

But again, during MJ's 2nd three-peat, the ENTIRE LEAGUE had lower DRtg's than Kobe's non-Shaq years in both the regular season and playoffs - So not only did MJ face the toughest defense overall (1998 Utah), but he also faced tougher league-wide defense in the regular season and playoffs.

It's a no brainer - I'd rather have MJ face an entire league of tougher defense, which is what he did.. Again, the defenses he faced as a #1 option had lower DRtgs than what Kobe faced as a #1 option.
.

[Wade's Rings]

Hey 3ball when Wade has been healthy he's wrecked some Elite Defenses.

[Wade's Rings]

MJ wrecked elite defenses far more than Wade ever has.

But the main point is that LEAGUE-WIDE defensive rating was lower during MJ's 2nd three-peat (1996-1998) than it was during Kobe's Finals runs without Shaq (2008-2010).. So as the #1 option, MJ played against lower DRtg defenses than Kobe did as the #1 option.

Now let's look at Lebron - ever since the rule changes in 2005, DRtg has been at the exact same levels as the 90's - so both Lebron and MJ played against defenses with the same DRtgs.. And Kobe too for years he was a #1 option (post 2005).. Since MJ, Kobe and Lebron all played against defenses with the same DRtg, we can just look at stats to tell us who the best is.. It's MJ quite clearly.
.

You don't use Defensive Efficiency as a stat?

[3ball]

You don't use Defensive Efficiency as a stat?


DRtg (defensive rating) IS defensive efficiency.

And the DRtg of defenses in the 90's are the same as post-2005.

Therefore the DRtg's of MJ's opponents was the same as Lebron's opponents (2005-2015) and Kobe's too when Kobe was a #1 option (post-2005).

Since MJ, Kobe and Lebron all played against defenses with the same DRtg, we can just look at stats to tell us who the best is.. It's MJ quite clearly.

[Wade's Rings]

DRtg (defensive rating) IS defensive efficiency.

And the DRtg of defenses in the 90's are the same as post-2005.

Therefore the DRtg's of MJ's opponents was the same as Lebron's opponents (2005-2015) and Kobe's too when Kobe was a #1 option (post-2005).

Since MJ, Kobe and Lebron all played against defenses with the same DRtg, we can just look at stats to tell us who the best is.. It's MJ quite clearly.

What about the 80s Defensive Rating?

[3ball]

What about the 80s Defensive Rating?


The 80's ranged between 107-108 DRtg.

For the 90's and post-2005, it ranges between 105-108.. So not much difference.. Also, DRtg has NEVER been above 108.3, a peak that was reached in 2009, 1994, and 1987.

Before we talk about why the 80's DRtg was a few tenths of a point higher, keep in mind that DRtg and ORtg are the same number - a team's ORtg will equal the opponent's DRtg.

The reason ORtg/DRtg was a few tenths of a point higher in the 80's, is because offensive rebounding rate was MUCH higher back then - higher offensive rebounding rate increases a team's ORtg (and opponent DRtg)..

The reason offensive rebounding rate was so much higher in the 80's was because teams didn't use the 3-point line (only two 3-point attempts per game in 1985, compared to 22 per game today).. In the 80's teams shot exclusively 2-pointers - 2-pointers have a higher offensive rebounding rate than 3-pointers, hence the higher ORtg's..

In the 80's the advantage in offensive rebounding was large enough to have a greater impact on ORtg than any other factor - whereas in the 90's, teams started shooting 3-pointers (15 per game in 1995), so offensive rebounding didn't have as big an impact.