[QUOTE=juju151111]I agree, but the asts,blks,rebs stay the same.[/QUOTE]
False. Less shots = less rebounds, less assists, less blocks.
Printable View
[QUOTE=juju151111]I agree, but the asts,blks,rebs stay the same.[/QUOTE]
False. Less shots = less rebounds, less assists, less blocks.
[QUOTE=juju151111]I agree, but the asts,blks,rebs stay the same.The PPg has been decreasing since the 80s.The 90s had like 100PPG averge i think.I don't know why because the only thing that was changed from the 80s and 90s was the flagrant fouls 3 second rules.[/QUOTE]
Team points per game have decreased overall because the game had become increasingly defense oriented with coaches opting to slow down the game in order to limit opponent fast break scoring opportunities and get defenses back to defend the basket. If a team can slow the tempo of the game, they can decrease the number of possessions the opposing teams have to score and can do a better job of preventing them from attacking the basket before their defense is back and has been set up.
As a result, the pace of the game has decreased. There are fewer possessions in the average game today than there were in 1984-1985. Fewer possessions generally means fewer points, as well as fewer rebound, assists, blocks and freethrows. Obviously the situation isn't linear and conditions change based on specific teams, but the change is pace makes it difficult to do a blanket comparison of stats from different eras as so many people are wont to do.
[QUOTE=MaxFly]Team points per game have decreased overall because the game had become increasingly defense oriented with coaches opting to slow down the game in order to limit opponent fast break scoring opportunities and get defenses back to defend the basket. If a team can slow the tempo of the game, they can decrease the number of possessions the opposing teams have to score and can do a better job of preventing them from attacking the basket before their defense is back and has been set up.
As a result, the pace of the game has decreased. There are fewer possessions in the average game today than there were in 1984-1985. Fewer possessions generally means fewer points, as well as fewer rebound, assists, blocks and freethrows. Obviously the situation isn't linear and conditions change based on specific teams, but the change is pace makes it difficult to do a blanket comparison of stats from different eras as so many people are wont to do.[/QUOTE]
Good points i did notice the game slowing down when i watch 90s games.Mj dominated in the 90s too.he just couldn't be stopped.
One thing i notice about Mj is his defense.I think he was the only one who stls the ball when people are trying to get it to the post player.I mean when they lob it up in the air for the post player he jumps and catches it.I have only seen that like 10 times in the last 13 years.
[QUOTE=deion2123]yeah..you can....MJ took less shots to get his points than Kobe did even in the higher scoring era and shot a higher percentage...even Wade and Tony Parker can shoot over 50%..why can't Kobe ??...this era is high scoring as well considering what teams like the Nuggets did this year...[/QUOTE]
Again, we're talking about a different era. Higher tempo, more fast break points, more scoring against defenses that aren't set, play closer to the basket... Wade and Parker shoot above or close to 50% because they score in the paint. What do you think D. Wade would do in 1985 with a more fast paced oriented game?
Relative to some of the years in the 90s, this era is indeed high scoring. You mentioned the Nuggets. The Nuggets this year scored 110.7 points per game and gave up 107 points per game. Basically, the Nuggets, which were [B]second[/B] in the league in points per game this year managed to score just as much points as the league [B]average[/B] in 1984-1985. In comparison, the second highest scoring team in 1984-1985 averaged 118 points per game that season.
This year, the Warriors were the team that have up the most points per game, allowing opponents to score 108.8 points per game on average this year. So the team that gave up the most points this year of all the teams in the league still managed to give up 2 fewer points than the league average in 1984-1985.
The obvious point here is that this era is not as high scoring as that era, and it's not even comparable to the point where we can say, "well... this era is high scoring too..." :confusedshrug:
[QUOTE=MaxFly]Again, we're talking about a different era. Higher tempo, more fast break points, more scoring against defenses that aren't set, play closer to the basket... Wade and Parker shoot above or close to 50% because they score in the paint. What do you think D. Wade would do in 1985 with a more fast paced oriented game?
Relative to some of the years in the 90s, this era is indeed high scoring. You mentioned the Nuggets. The Nuggets this year scored 110.7 points per game and gave up 107 points per game. Basically, the Nuggets, which were [B]second[/B] in the league in points per game this year managed to score just as much points as the league [B]average[/B] in 1984-1985. In comparison, the second highest scoring team in 1984-1985 averaged 118 points per game that season.
This year, the Warriors were the team that have up the most points per game, allowing opponents to score 108.8 points per game on average this year. So the team that gave up the most points this year of all the teams in the league still managed to give up 2 fewer points than the league average in 1984-1985.
The obvious point here is that this era is not as high scoring as that era, and it's not even comparable to the point where we can say, "well... this era is high scoring too..." :confusedshrug:[/QUOTE]
what was the FG % for the 1984-1985 ?? I bet it was higher than it was now...
[QUOTE=juju151111]Good points i did notice the game slowing down when i watch 90s games.Mj dominated in the 90s too.he just couldn't be stopped.[/QUOTE]
Also, remember... other factors affect numbers as well. Look at the minor controversy recently over the types on assists Chris Paul has been getting. We don't know how widespead that problem may be, so the way statitians record assists may very well may be inflating assist numbers in this era... or rebounds for all we know. The point I'm hoping to make is that people should avoid comparing stats so linearly between two such disparate eras.
[QUOTE=MaxFly]Also, remember... other factors affect numbers as well. Look at the minor controversy recently over the types on assists Chris Paul has been getting. We don't know how widespead that problem may be, so the way statitians record assists may very well may be inflating assist numbers in this era... or rebounds for all we know. The point I'm hoping to make is that people should avoid comparing stats so linearly between two such disparate eras.[/QUOTE]
yep, but cp3 was the same on the road with 11 asts.I dont know about the rebounding tho
[QUOTE=deion2123]what was the FG % for the 1984-1985 ?? I bet it was higher than it was now...[/QUOTE]
Oh, it most certainly was. In 1984-1985, the FG% for the league, on average, was 49.1% and the average fg% in today's league is 45.7%.
Now before guys are quick to say, "See, guys shot better and were better scorers back then," we have to take into account the fact that teams today shoot a little more than 5 and a half times as many threes as teams shot back then, and that three point shooting will drag FG% down. Looking at points per field goal attempt is a better indication of scoring efficiency considering the large disparity in the number of three pointers shot. In 1984-1985, the league average was 1.24 points per FGA. In 2007-2008, the league average was 1.23 points per FGA. There isn't a large disparity.
[QUOTE=juju151111]yep, but cp3 was the same on the road with 11 asts.I dont know about the rebounding tho[/QUOTE]
That's why I don't think the problem, if there really is one (i'm not sure there is), would have to do with the home statitians as some people are saying, but rather the ways statitians today, in general, regard what an assist is. The way statitians are interpreting what is and isn't an asssit could be inflating today's assists stats in comparison to those of the past. That possibility is no where near proven... it's just a possibility that has presented itself recently. I'm just using it to indicate that it's not easy and probably not wise to compare stats across eras in a blanket manner since there are so many factors involved. :confusedshrug:
[QUOTE=MaxFly]I'm not sure you can base your argument simply on numbers. We're trying to compare 2008 to 1985, a 23 year span. A lot of changes have occured and there are a lot of differences between the two eras.
For example, teams in 1984-1985 game up 110.8 points per game on average. Teams today give up 99.9 points per game on average. The pace was much different with more fast break basketball and more possessions per game. You cannot accurately support an argument with stats without taking into account the various factors that serve to influence those stats.[/QUOTE]
I agree up to a point. I don't think stats should be the end-all to every comparison due to a lot of different factors you mentioned in your posts. They do, however, provide some sort of basis when making comparisons. And when they represent a pattern over a large number of years, that provides [I]some[/I] context.
For example, Larry Bird shot a lot of jumpshots in his career. His career fg% is 50%. Taken over the length of his career, I would put credence into the thought that he was a very efficient scorer. I don't need to measure the pace of the games or the heat index in each specific arena to believe that. FG% doesn't say everything, but taken over a 13 year career...I would confidently use that stat to back my argument.
You can't really make comparisons between different players that play(ed) in different eras fairly, but we do anyway. Especially on ISH. Therefore we have to use stats to, in part, justify what we believe. Otherwise, everyone on this board would just state opinions without ever being able to back them up.
"Michael was better than Kobe"
"Why?"
"Because."
It's up to us to provide the context of the stats within our arguments. That's when things get interesting here. And that's why I keep reading and posting here.
[QUOTE=Da_Realist]I agree up to a point. I don't think stats should be the end-all to every comparison due to a lot of different factors you mentioned in your posts. They do, however, provide some sort of basis when making comparisons. And when they represent a pattern over a large number of years, that provides [I]some[/I] context. [/QUOTE]
Indeed... the point I'm making is that the stats themselves need context.
Earlier, you said:
[QUOTE]You can even argue that MJ had a better rookie year than Kobe did this year, therefore if you slide rookie MJ into this year he may have won the MVP!
[B]2007/08 Kobe[/B] -- [B]28.3 pts[/B], 6.3 rbs, 5.4 asts, 1.8 stls, 0.5 blks, 45.9%
[B]1984/85 MJ[/B] -- 28.2 pts, [B]6.5 rbs, 5.9 asts, 2.4 stls, 0.8 blks, 51.5%[/B]
[/QUOTE]
You bolded a few to indicate which stats Jordan won and which Bryant won, furthering the argument that it's arguably that Jordan's rookie season was better than Bryant's present season. Unfortunately, you're comparing stats that have 23 years between, so I'm just providing the context. Someone looking at those stats would say that 28.2 points is 28.2 points, or 6.5 rebounds is 6.5 rebounds and that there's no difference between eras where as that's not the case at all.
[QUOTE]For example, Larry Bird shot a lot of jumpshots in his career. His career fg% is 50%. Taken over the length of his career, I would put credence into the thought that he was a very efficient scorer. I don't need to measure the pace of the games or the heat index in each specific arena to believe that. FG% doesn't say everything, but taken over a 13 year career...I would confidently use that stat to back my argument.[/QUOTE]
Well we're comparing two players at specific times during their careers. Here's an illustration of what I'm talking about.
In 1987-1988, Larry Bird shot 52.7% from the field. Michael Jordan shot 53.5% from the field. Now just looking at those numbers, some would conclude that Larry and Michael shot at a similar efficiency, and some would even conclude that Michael Jordan was a little more efficient. The problem is that Larry took a little more than 4 times as many threes as Jordan did that season. Larry's eFG%, taking into account three point shooting, was 55.6%. Jordan's eFG% was 53.7%. This illustrates why we should try to look at stats while taking context into consideration... even more so when we're comparing stats across eras where different styles were played.
[QUOTE]You can't really make comparisons between different players that play(ed) in different eras fairly, but we do anyway. Especially on ISH. Therefore we have to use stats to, in part, justify what we believe.
It's up to us to provide the context of the stats within our arguments. That's when things get interesting here. And that's why I keep reading and posting here.[/QUOTE]
Agreed, that's why I've brought up the point that Jordan's stats in 1984-1985 in comparison to Bryant's stats this past year don't necessarily indicate that Jordan had a better season.
[QUOTE=Shep]but i did start watching it alot earlier than you did[/QUOTE]
I started watching in 1993, I doubt you watched it much earlier than that.
[QUOTE], and have far greater knowledge than that of yours about anything nba related[/QUOTE]
:roll: Thanks for the laugh.
[QUOTE]i never said he got to the line because of the refs, i said he recieved atleast the same number of favourable calls in '85 as he did when he was a superstar and the numbers provided back that statement up.[/QUOTE]
No it doesn't. You're forgetting that taking shots uses a lot of energy. The more shots he took the less energy had so he couldn't go to the basket as much per shot. Not to mention his jumper improved a lot from his rookie season to his thread season. He took 8 more shots per game in his 3rd year than he did in his rookie season.
[QUOTE]hill does not have a clear advantage. he does have an advantage, but it is only a slight advantage[/QUOTE]
Pointless argument.
[QUOTE]once again :oldlol:..wins don't come into account because you're playing with a great player? that must mean scottie pippen was a nobody, guys like kevin mchale and robert parish were nobody's, kareem was a nobody..infact any player who is the second best player on a championship team is a nobody..this theory makes total sense :hammerhead:[/QUOTE]
You're an idiot. My point is you can't compare a second options wins to a firrst options wins. You can't hold it against Grant Hill that Kobe won more games because if Kobe and Hill trade places then that laker team probably wins 70 games.
[QUOTE] . as for the 12-4 record without kobe? 12 wins will get you the first pick in the lottery[/QUOTE]
12 wins and 70 losses will but when did they lose 70 games without Kobe? :roll: In fact for the entire 3peat I think the Lakers were 31-6 or 31-7 without Kobe.
[QUOTE]who clearly led that team nowhere[/QUOTE]
And how do you know Kobe could have even led a team to the playoffs at that point in his career?
[QUOTE]18.8 compared with 16.2 per 36 by penny vs the lakers is getting torched? did you even watch the finals? kobe guarded miller in that series, and shut him down. jones got lit up for 40 against allen iverson in a game 1 loss that set the trend for an easy round 1 victory for the less talented sixers.[/QUOTE]
Penny averaged 21.4 ppg, 3.6 rpg, 5.6 apg on 48.7% shooting.
Much higher than his season averages.
Kobe averaged 21.0 ppg, 3.8 rpg, 3.4 apg on 45.2% shooting
Well below his season averages
[QUOTE]who cares? [B]you [/B]should care considering it does nothing to your argument that he was a better defender. so far you haven't said anything that backs that statement up..i won't hold my breath[/QUOTE]
I keep backing up my arguments but you are in denial and convinced you are right whcih is really funny. :oldlol:
[QUOTE]What is your argument? How is all-defensive first team better than finishing higher in DPOY voting?[/QUOTE]
Yes
[QUOTE]:oldlol: the idea is a pathetic one. kukoc would've averaged 25ppg if he was a first option.[/QUOTE]
No he wouldn't have. He was the first option on a horrible team right after Jordan retired and he didn't even average 20 ppg. :oldlol:
[QUOTE]its slang, so there is no official spelling - get the **** over it[/QUOTE]
What the f*ck is the point of cutting one f8cking letter out of the word?
[QUOTE]never said it'd be bad..it'd be a good team..maybe even a contender..but not a 67 win championship team[/QUOTE]
And you base that on nothing.
[QUOTE]16 games :lol . this team was almost beaten in the first round by sacramento with shaq, kobe, and glen rice in the line up :roll:[/QUOTE]
And your point is? A lot of teams take a while to get going in the playoffs. The Lakers had homecourt and in reality weren't going to lose that series.
[QUOTE]where i get this ****? what do you mean? where do i get plain to see facts from?[/QUOTE]
:roll:
[QUOTE]jordan took it to the rim more because he had no jump shot. once he developed his game more and worked on his jumpshot he became a superstar, bryant already had a three point shot in '00, a year in which he became the youngest player ever to make the 1st team all-defense.[/QUOTE]
His 1st team all-defense selection wasn't even deserved.
Kobe's 3 point shot wasn't even that good in 2000 either.
Incidentally, the conversation between Da_Realist and me is what all these conversations should look like. No one's calling anyone names, getting upset, or making ridiculous claims. We're having a reasoned and respectful discussion about ball without the added drama.
[QUOTE=MaxFly]Incidentally, the conversation between Da_Realist and me is what all these conversations should look like. No one's calling anyone names, getting upset, or making ridiculous claims. We're having a reasoned and respectful discussion about ball without the added drama.[/QUOTE]
I agree completly.Do you know how hard it is to talk about Mj vs Kobe on any forum without someone just saying nonsense.Anyways i have a question mcfly.Why didn't rebounding decrease for centers in the 90s and 80s?If the game started using more set offense which resulted in less shots wouldn't players rebounding drop?Hakeem and Shaq rebounded the same in 80s,90s,00s.Well they could just be Great rebounders no matter what, but the less shots would of indicate a drop in rebounding right?The same thing can be argued with stls,asts,blks etc...In What ever era Mj was still getting the same amount of stls.This is the reason i think people put too much stack in eras.The only eras that were not advance was the 50s and 60s.You still have to put the basket in the hoop.Also U could just look at Mj shots per gm in his rookie year and Kobe shots per game in his MVP year.