Pompous words from Kblaze volume 422: If you can prove it you are probably wrong.

[QUOTE=pete's montreux]I didn't even realize what I was doing. Just like you, I'd take my guys over your guys 10 out of 10 times, but that's just how we are, I guess. For me, you only have one go-to-shooter and that's Manu. We have three. Don't underestimate Eddie. I've never in my life seen someone get as hot as Eddie, and I've also never seen someone go cold so fast, either.

Both great championships teams, though.[/QUOTE]

Boston did have great 3 point shooters, can't disagree with you. What I like better about the Spur is, they had more role players who could stroke it. You had your core (Duncan Ginobli Parker), and then you had your Bowen's, Barry's, Jackson's, Kerr's. Obviously I'm grouping players from different years but you get my drift, hopefully.

With the Celtics, one of their core guys (Allen) was meant to take a bulk of 3's, and you're left with only Eddie House. So if Ray's killing you from 3, well he's a star and he was supposed to. If Bowen or Barry are killing you from 3.. you pretty much lost.

I'm a Suns fan FYI so the Spurs are somewhat the opposite of "my guys" (To say the least, Ha!). And no, I would never underestimate Eddie House. Him and JR Smith are two of the most dangerous shooters in the league when they're hot. Out of the role-players especially.

[quote=joe]Boston did have great 3 point shooters, can't disagree with you. What I like better about the Spur is, they had more role players who could stroke it. You had your core (Duncan Ginobli Parker), and then you had your Bowen's, Barry's, Jackson's, Kerr's. Obviously I'm grouping players from different years but you get my drift, hopefully.

With the Celtics, one of their core guys (Allen) was meant to take a bulk of 3's, and you're left with only Eddie House. So if Ray's killing you from 3, well he's a star and he was supposed to. If Bowen or Barry are killing you from 3.. you pretty much lost.

I'm a Suns fan FYI so the Spurs are somewhat the opposite of "my guys" (To say the least, Ha!). And no, I would never underestimate Eddie House. Him and JR Smith are two of the most dangerous shooters in the league when they're hot. Out of the role-players especially.[/quote]

Can't really compare them if you're going classic and naming the Kerr's. I've got one season to go off of, basically. :lol

[QUOTE]Kid is probably still sore about Ben>Hinrich[/QUOTE]

Pretty much. I had an argument with dude before and he got all butt hurt. So whenever dude replies to my posts its some nutty evaluation rant of me as a poster, and human being offline. Dude competing with D.Wade ex wife on not letting sh!t go and moving on.

[QUOTE=hayden695]Actually I think GOBB posts quite a bit of good to great knowledgable posts. Just that made me laugh.[/QUOTE]

I find it annoying when posters hold grudges from previous discussions where they disagreed. I also find it annoying I look and see threads not worthy of a reply get replies (see Rekindles threads). Or threads from a regular like konex [I]"Does Kobe get enough credit for the 3peat?"[/I] in 2010. Combination of crap threads where posters dont use thier brains and someone complaining about a thread well thought out. And not so much of the content but the poster because they cant get over a past argument. Its dumb.

[QUOTE=GOBB]Pretty much. I had an argument with dude before and he got all butt hurt. So whenever dude replies to my posts its some nutty evaluation rant of me as a poster, and human being offline. Dude competing with D.Wade ex wife on not letting sh!t go and moving on.



I find it annoying when posters hold grudges from previous discussions where they disagreed. I also find it annoying I look and see threads not worthy of a reply get replies (see Rekindles threads). Or threads from a regular like konex [I]"Does Kobe get enough credit for the 3peat?"[/I] in 2010. Combination of crap threads where posters dont use thier brains and someone complaining about a thread well thought out. And not so much of the content but the poster because they cant get over a past argument. Its dumb.[/QUOTE]
I agree completely. I really don't understand the obsession with making threads on topics that we all saw a couple years ago. Especially about Kobe. I can understand for teams or whatever from decades ago.

[QUOTE=pete's montreux]Can't really compare them if you're going classic and naming the Kerr's. I've got one season to go off of, basically. :lol[/QUOTE]

Yeah you're right, that wasn't a fair comparison. I'll just go off of one season.


2007 Spurs (their best 3 shooting team)..

3 guys over 100 3's hit (128, 128, 104), 4 others with at least 30 (89, 50, 36, 33).


2008 Celtics..

4 guys over 100 3's hit (180, 143, 117, 106), 0 others with at least 30.


Does this make the Spurs better necessarily? No, but I thought their wealth of shooters was a huge advantage. Especially when only one of the seven players I alluded to is considered a star (Manu). Why does that matter? Because when the Spurs shot the ball well from three, it was in [I]addition[/I] to Duncan, Parker, and Manu scoring buckets/making plays. When the Celtics hit 3's, many times that [I]was [/I]their stars scoring buckets and making plays.

Does that distinction make sense?

Both teams shot 38% from three, but I like the Spurs many decent shooters over the Celtics top-heavyness.

And I feel it's necessary to say.. I have no "agenda." Nothing but respect for those 2008 Celtics!



[B][url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/2007.html[/url]

[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/2008.html[/url][/B]

[QUOTE=Leviathon1121]The mid range game doesn't win you basketball games? I am not sure how it is possible to be this far off with an opinion.

Kobe Bryant : Excellent mid range game
Michael Jordan : Excellent mid range game
Hakeem : Excellent mid range game
Tim Duncan : Excellent mid range game (Gotten a lot worse with age)

What do these have in common? 16 of the last 20 NBA championships featured players who's mid range game is one of the best in the league. I wonder why that is? Could it be because is wreaks havoc on defenses? Probably not since you claimed it is basically a useless skill.

These guys commanded double teams before they were near the paint, killing defenses and setting up wide open shots for their team. Not what wins you basketball games? You have got to be kidding me.

Like KBlaze pointed out, any formula that puts Steve Kerr ahead of Kareem simply because he shoots a lot of threes is very flawed somewhere.[/QUOTE]

Once again you try and turn this into an individual player analysis, that's a no no. When we talk about championships we talk about teams, not players on an individual basis.

And you point out any formula that puts Steve Kerr ahead of KAJ is flawed, which is wrong. What's flawed is your way of interpreting and understanding the stat in correlation with other important stats.

[QUOTE]
I was wondering about that recently. How much the teams that make a lot of threes win when it matters. And while ive only checked the last 11 years so far....its not looking good. Im gonna wait till ive checked all 30 to confirm what I assume is the case. I'll tll you this though...


The 04 Pistons made only 333 threes. Of the 7 teams to make 365 and under...4 of them were in the conference finals. Of the 6 teams to make 500+...5 of them were either lottery teams or out in the first round.

I'll get back to you when ive looked into that a little more fully...but unless the Suns or Magic win it all im not sure there has ever been a team that was top 5 in made threes and won the title(least lately...back when 100 threes was a lot for a team perhaps). Not sure where the Lakers and Celtics were this year though. Since im not done I wont say for sure. Just been glancing through the years....[/QUOTE]

I see what you're trying to do, but your'e going about it the wrong way.

I want to start out by saying that's it's not all 3pointer and FT's that matter. What you want to look at is the 4 factors of basketball. eFG%, Off rebounding rate, turnover rate and free throws. These 4 factors go both defensively and offensively. If you want to win basketball games you better do well in these factors, and if you're lacking in one you better make it up in the other categories.

First and foremost it's defense that wins championships. So let's see how these teams did defending the 3pt line and FT's.
Let's do the 05 season, the last season before the hand checking rules went into effect if i'm not mistaking.

I'm going to use regular season stats because it's a larger sample.

Finals matchup: Pistons vs Spurs

[U]Spurs[/U] [U]Pistons[/U]
Pace(slowest): 8 2
Defensive rating: 1 3
Offensive rating: 9 17
Opp. eFG% 1 5
Opp. 3pt att 1 4
Opp. 3ptFG% 25(2nd in playff.) 5
Opp. FT att: 6 2
Points allowed: 1 2

[U]Analysis of the stats[/U]

The Spurs:

SA did a crazy good job that season of not allowing 3pt shots, they where #1 with 881 att. against, allowing 190 fewer than #2 and 679 fewer than #30

Along with that they where 6th in FTatt allowed.

Combining these 2 you can figure you that when teams played against the Spurs that season they basically lived in the mid-range area, and it lead to SA being #1 defensively.

The pistons:

Detroit where #4 in opp. 3ptAtt and 5th in opp. 3pt%, so they did a good job of both allowing few 3pt shots, but also making the opponent shoot a bad % from 3.

They where also #2 in opp. FT att and #5 in opp. FG%

From that we can conclude that Detroit did a good job of not allowing other teams shooting 3's and when they did they still shot a bad %. Along with that their opp. didn't get a lot of FT's. So again it equals out to letting their opponents do most of their work in the mid-range area and it lead to them being #2 defensively.

But once again I want to point out that what really matters is the 4 factors of basketball which you need to do well in to succeed. And once again i want to point out that that you can lack in one and still do well as long as you're making it up in the others. For example if you're shooting a bad eFG% you can make up for it by getting a lot of offensive rebounds, or by creating more turnovers and therefore more shots for your team.


To finish my post off I want to say that of course you need to be able to shoot well mid-range. In a perfect basketball game you would do nothing but shoot layups and corner 3s but of course it doesn't work that way as you become predictable if you only try and do the two. So you'll automatically shoot mid-range 2's during games but it won't be what wins games for you. Game planning for maximizing your- and limiting the opponents rim shots and corner 3's will though.

[QUOTE=Samurai Swoosh]That's all he provides the boards, and it's been like that for sometime. I hate to speculate on his life outside of the interwebs but jesus ... lots of hate in that one's heart. LOL[/QUOTE]

He seems perfectly nice to me, he comes down on people who says stupid things in one fell swoop. that makes sense to me, you say your piece and are gone. Unlike what you are doing, PICK PICK PICK PICK after every post.

Let it go.

I agree with K-Blaze. The current crop of internet posters can not analyze the game of basketball without resorting to statistics to come to oft unfounded conclusions. What is even more troubling is that many dont have a background in statical analysis so it becomes even more troubling(many here really don't even grasp the simple concept of causation v. correlation). Basketball isnt like baseball and isnt conducive to that type of analysis or better yet isnt conducive to extreme reliance on stats.

Over reliance on stats had ISH dickriding Jose Calderon for his 50/40/90 high assist to turnover season, but they could not understand that a point guard that is too conservative is counter productive. Point guards must be dynamic and take risks from time to time.

[quote=joe]Yeah you're right, that wasn't a fair comparison. I'll just go off of one season.


2007 Spurs (their best 3 shooting team)..

3 guys over 100 3's hit (128, 128, 104), 4 others with at least 30 (89, 50, 36, 33).


2008 Celtics..

4 guys over 100 3's hit (180, 143, 117, 106), 0 others with at least 30.


Does this make the Spurs better necessarily? No, but I thought their wealth of shooters was a huge advantage. Especially when only one of the seven players I alluded to is considered a star (Manu). Why does that matter? Because when the Spurs shot the ball well from three, it was in [I]addition[/I] to Duncan, Parker, and Manu scoring buckets/making plays. When the Celtics hit 3's, many times that [I]was [/I]their stars scoring buckets and making plays.

Does that distinction make sense?

Both teams shot 38% from three, but I like the Spurs many decent shooters over the Celtics top-heavyness.

And I feel it's necessary to say.. I have no "agenda." Nothing but respect for those 2008 Celtics!



[B][URL="http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/2007.html"]http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/2007.html[/URL]

[URL="http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/2008.html"]http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/2008.html[/URL][/B][/quote]

I never looked at it that way. Good point, no really.

The problem with a lot of the arguing on this board is that its stat based, and anyone who does analysis (like me) can find points to support their argument. And its compounded by the fact people trust stats even when it goes against their eyes, and also don't trust those people who watch the team day in and day out. I remember Celtic fans arguing with me to death that Marbury was playing well as a Knick, well enough to be a starter caliber player. I saw him much much too much and knew that wasn't true, but to them it was, even though they never saw him. If you can argue anything, and just need two numbers to back it up, its hard to have any kind of discussion because anything can be right or wrong.

Did a little bit more research concerning TS% and it's effect on the success of teams. I was initially using basketball reference but they don't list TS% for teams, so I used another site.

Took the top 5 teams in the regular season in each of the last 4 regular seasons including this one. I'm sure you'll see the pattern.

[U]2007[/U]
1. Dallas
2. Phoenix
3. San Antonio
4. Detroit
5. Houston

Champions: San Antonio

[U]TS%[/U]

Dallas: 3
Phoenix: 1
San Antonio: 2
Detroit: 21
Houston: 17

[U]Opponent TS%[/U]
Dallas: 6
Phoenix: 8
San Antonio: 1
Detroit: 4
Houston: 2

[U]2008[/U]
1. Boston
2. Detroit
3. LA
4. NO/SA Tie
5. Phoenix

Champions: Boston

[U]TS%[/U]
Boston: 5
Detroit: 14
LA: 4
NO: 11
SA: 12
Phoenix: 1

[U]Opponent TS%[/U]
Boston: 1
Detroit: 3
LA: 7
NO: 11
SA: 4
Phoenix: 6

[U]2009[/U]
1. Cleveland
2. LA
3. Boston
4. Orlando
5. Portland/Denver Tie

Champions: Lakers

[U]TS%[/U]
Cleveland: 4
LA: 6
Boston: 2
Orlando: 5
Portland: 8
Denver: 3

[U]Opponents TS%[/U]
Cleveland: 2
LA: 6
Boston: 4
Orlando: 1
Portland: 14
Denver: 9

[U]2010[/U]
1. Cleveland
2. Orlando
3. LA
4. Dallas
5. Phoenix

[U]TS%[/U]
Cleveland: 3
Orlando:2
LA: 17
Dallas: 9
Phoenix: 1

[U]Opponents TS%[/U]
Cleveland: 3
Orlando: 1
LA: 2
Dallas: 11
Phoenix: 9

Isnt that pretty much saying that teams that make their shots while keeping the other team from making theirs tend to win? Might as well say playing basketball well makes you good at basketball.

For a team I can see how that would be a factor in winning because really all a team needs to do is outscore the opponent. For a single player compared to another there are way too many issues unrelated to the individuals.

Its almost like using simple games won and lost to judge players. You can judge a teams ability by it(for the most part). Not players.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Id like to take a moment to spread a layer of rich creamy douche on the toast that ISH by pointing out a number of things I feel are true and have little to no respect for your opinion if you disagree with. It has become my custom to pop up and ramble on now and then about issues nobody much cares about and after 8 years im still not tired of it. Perhaps I just love the sounds of a keyboard hard at work....

2 things before I start...

1. I type run on sentences of epic proportions so be prepared for that..

2. It is customary to at some point in my posts get bored and wander off mentally...perhaps physically. So around the time I suspect the brave few who read this to be getting sick of it....I will offer an intermission complete with 4 unrelated things I think might brighten your day.



Now...the issue at hand.


I kinda hate you all. Not individually but what you(and I) have created in the last 10 years.

Internet forums...especially sports related ones...have stopped being about sports as much as about people trying to prove this or that....arguing....repeating themselves...just in general being uninteresting stand ins for basketball fans. And do you know what did it?

Numbers and a need to be proven right.

Now I understand the interest people have in numbers. I bought a basketball almanac every year when I was a kid. No internet...so I had to read books, listen to my uncle and his people, and watch games. Record games. I remember when having a VCR was a somewhat new concept. I used to buy packs of 3 tapes to record on fridays when my mom might give me a couple dollars. A tape never lasted more than 1-2 games because our VCR was cheap and could only record at the speed that made an 8 hour tape record 2 hours.

So id record say...the Celtics/Bulls game and if it was good it went into the "Dont tape over" box and if it wasnt id watch it 1-2 times and tape over it. I watched some of those tapes so many times I can still remember where games that got taped over would be when the first game ended. that was the only way to know what was happening. Who was good and why. That and a blue background segment showcasing a few league leaders at halftime on CBS.

I didint know what anyones point per shot was. PER was 20 years away. Assist to turnover ratio was about as complicated as it got and even that I heard of like 3-4 times before the late 90s.

Ive seen a dozen times on ISH before someone well meaning and usually not an idiot say something along the lines of:

"Thats just your opinion. But *inset numbers* says ___".

Or to get out of the hypothetical...ill show the exact words of someone who will remain nameless:




The problem with this and similar lines of thinking....is that talking about basketball is arguing points that cant be proven.

I think the strive for proof is the source of most of problems with people online these days. Unless you want to be an ass and say something like "So I cant prove Jordan was better than Steve Kerr?"...its damn near impossible to prove anything.

All we can prove is who won and who lost. Which numbers a player has. and what awards he was given. Thats it. And every single one of them lie.

Difference between shooting 44 and 50 for a guy who shoots 18 times a game is one make or miss. In a game with perhaps 160 posessions there are people who let something like that decide who they think is a good player and who isnt. Or more likely who is an ok player and who is great. Since 50% is now a magical number that makes you great.

People act like they dont watch games and see what makes these numbers. Jason Kidd for one helped to slaughter his shooting percentages with halfcourt rainbows all the time in his prime. He just didnt give a damn. Same for Sam Cassell for a while. To me its a sign of a winner. I hate seeing guys dribble out the clock instead of shooting it. Never know right?

In a game with maybe 150-160 posessions one missed jumper often a bailout shot for a superstar isnt the difference between being good or bad. You have guys like Lebron, Kobe, and even lesser players like Ben Gordon, Jason Terry, and Jamal crawford taking bail out shots at the end of shot clocks/quarters that just flat out destroy their shooting percentages. It makes their numbers worse...but it does it because they have skills that let their teammates lean on them in such situations.

They are great shooters of often contested shots. have balls enough to take the shots. So their teams feed them the ball in otherwish bad situations. So they miss 1-2 shots a game that lesser skilled guys wouldnt be given....and it greatly impacts their shooting numbers. And its a direct result of a POSITIVE. Being good....gets you bad shots. As I said earlier one miss can take you from 50% to 44%. And a guy like AI? You watch one of his Philly games and hes taking almost EVERY bailout shot. A better indicator of quality shots being taken would probably be...shooting percentage with 3 or more seconds on the clock. But we have prople trying to fix that issue already...


We now have bullshit like true shooting and eFG% or PPS which reward threes and making FTs with no concern for the situation leading to those things. For the most part guys who take a lot of threes(even when they make them) do so for lack of the talents needed to get a better shot. So you can shoot. You take 3s. Have idiots talking about how many 3s you can miss and still produce as many point as you do making less 2s.

Am I the only one who sees the downside of taking a bad shot? you dont get 3 for the shot because its a good shot. You get it because its difficult. And people who take difficult shots dont tend to win when it matters because you cant count on making tough shots. You can however count on running good offense that gets good shots. Often you can take bad shots...and miss more shots...but if they are 3s you get a better rating? Lets not even go into the impact on transition D when you give up long rebounds off threes as opposed to missing a shot in the lane....


True shooting al ltime leaders does include some greats(Bird, Magic, Barkley and others) but any stat that in any way measure a positive(like making shots) will include some great. But really....

1. Cedric Maxwell .6294
6. Reggie Miller .6139
10. Brent Barry .6066
17. Ed Pinckney .6019
18. Steve Johnson .6002
19. Mario Elie .5982
Kevin Martin .5982

And this is perhaps most laughable to me:

25. Steve Kerr .5932
26. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* .5924


Im gonna let that stand on its own...

Factoring in all forms of shooting numbers to make one number to decide something is just a ****ing stupid idea to begin with. For one...your field goal percentage itself is misleading for all number of reasons. your 3 point percentage can be impacted by so many things unrelated to your talent its a joke. And FT percentages? Relevant...but key to greatness?

How how many truly elitep layers shot 85% for their careers? Forget the bigmen like Wilt, Kareem, Russell, Shaq and so on. Few people do at any position. People who matter I mean. Not Jordan. Not Oscar. Not Magic. Not Kobe. Not west. 79 people have done it and 6 of them are or can be expected to eventually be in the HOF.

Being a great Ft shooter would be good for anyone. But fact is its often indicative of a less than complete game. A guy like Steve Kerr can do nothing but shoot because what else is he gonna be doing?

Getting away from scoring numbers...[/QUOTE]

this!!

stats ALWAYS are interpreted...but there is no substitute for the "intuition" that comes from nba experience (actually watching the players/game)

knowledge [B]+[/B]
experience (as defined above) [B]+ [/B]
solid interpretation
[B]=[/B]
strong point of view

[QUOTE=ZenMaster]Once again you try and turn this into an individual player analysis, that's a no no. When we talk about championships we talk about teams, not players on an individual basis.[/QUOTE]

I think that's been blaze's whole point. people are focusing way too much on individual stats. And looking at these boards, you can't deny that
[QUOTE]
And you point out any formula that puts Steve Kerr ahead of KAJ is flawed, which is wrong. What's flawed is your way of interpreting and understanding the stat in correlation with other important stats. [/QUOTE]
To a point you're right of course, but the more you have to interpret a stat, the less it means. If a stat puts Kerr ahead of KAJ and you say "but obviously that doesn't mean Kerr is a better player" then what does the stat mean? still, point taken.

Right now, something interesting is happening: Boston is well on it's way to the finals. You can find no stat at all that could've predicted this. But if you watched the games, you could see none of the players (except KG for a bit) were falling off, playing (significantly) worse than before. They were struggling as a team. TO's, playing inconsistent, not gelling. To me, this meant that if they could pull it together they would be instant contenders. You can't make that prediction from stats, but you can see it.

Also this makes for a much more interesting conversation. What's going on? There are an infinite number of possibilities and solutions to discuss and the outcomes will be more interesting and better predictions. With stats, the solutions are always finite and in this case they didn't show the problem at all, so you couldn't come up with a solution or a prediction.

I'd rather talk about Rondo's hustle than about the number of rebounds he has. I'd rather talk about the magic's bodylanguage than their turnovers. I'd rather talk about the great passes Ray made that were not assists but led to good things than just the passes that were counted as assists