Kobe Bryant on Michael Jordan, LeBron, winning championships, etc

[QUOTE=Yao Ming's Foot]Who did they face and what were their defensive ratings? You clamor for context but present very little. :confusedshrug:

Kobe put up numbers with Shaq. He put up numbers with Kwame. He put them up with Gasol. He continues to put them up with Dwight. 4 very different offensive forces. The only constant is Kobe putting up numbers. The notion that Kobe's 3 peat numbers are the result of Shaq is unsupported by the evidence. In fact I would hypothesize that the majority of Kobe's greatest offensive performances came when he was the undisputed sole player worthy of "attention" on the floor.[/QUOTE]
:milton

[QUOTE=Yao Ming's Foot]Who did they face and what were their defensive ratings? You clamor for context but present very little. :confusedshrug:
[/QUOTE]

I'm not going to bother looking up everyone's DRTG cause I've done this before with you. And I remember that the difference of the average DRTG of the teams Jordan faced in his 6 title runs vs teams Kobe faced in his 5 title runs was like 2-3, meaning like a 2-3% difference, meaning if Kobe's opponents had a 100 DRTG and Jordan's were a 103 DRTG, then Kobe's opponents allowed 1 point per possession, while Jordan's allowed 1.03 points per possession. Sure, overall stats should be very slightly down as a result of that, but that's for teams as a whole, not individuals, which means individual statistic differences as a whole would be virtually non-existant, and not explain why one player had considerably better stats then someone who's apparently his equal or better. Bringing up that small of a difference in DRTG is just as dumb as taking two players with close to equal stats and making a big deal out of 1 of them shooting 45.5 FG% and the other shooting 46.0 FG%.

Bringing up the DRTG doesn't really offer that much valuable context, as the difference is almost always nearly irrelevant. On the other hand saying dumb shit like Kobe in the three-peat had less help then Lebron in his title run by pointing out he was playing with one all-star while Lebron was playing with two all-stars, basically implying that all all-stars are at the same level by not pointing out that the one Kobe was playing with actually won MVP 1 year, was top 3 in MVP voting and all-nba first team all 3 years while Lebron's two all-stare teammates didn't come close to any of that, is completely ignorant of context.

[QUOTE=Yao Ming's Foot]
Kobe put up numbers with Shaq. He put up numbers with Kwame. He put them up with Gasol. He continues to put them up with Dwight. 4 very different offensive forces. The only constant is Kobe putting up numbers. The notion that Kobe's 3 peat numbers are the result of Shaq is unsupported by the evidence. In fact I would hypothesize that the majority of Kobe's greatest offensive performances came when he was the undisputed sole player worthy of "attention" on the floor.[/QUOTE]

Right. I don't actually think Kobe's numbers were a product of Shaq. I was just doing the same stupid thing you do by exaggerating some nearly irrelevant factor to imply that something other then just how good the player is significantly explains a statistic or difference in statistics.

By the way, so if you really think Kobe's numbers had nothing to do with Shaq, then I'm assuming that you agree that Kobe's overall numbers for his career and for each season don't really change much if he never played with Shaq correct?

[QUOTE]I'm not going to bother looking up everyone's DRTG cause I've done this before with you. And I remember that the difference of the average DRTG of the teams Jordan faced in his 6 title runs vs teams Kobe faced in his 5 title runs was like 2-3, meaning like a 2-3% difference, meaning if Kobe's opponents had a 100 DRTG and Jordan's were a 103 DRTG, then Kobe's opponents allowed 1 point per possession, while Jordan's allowed 1.03 points per possession. Sure, overall stats should be very slightly down as a result of that, but that's for teams as a whole, not individuals, which means individual statistic differences as a whole would be virtually non-existant, and not explain why one player had considerably better stats then someone who's apparently his equal or better. Bringing up that small of a difference in DRTG is just as dumb as taking two players with close to equal stats and making a big deal out of 1 of them shooting 45.5 FG% and the other shooting 46.0 FG%.[/QUOTE]

Those differences in defensive rating are no less significant than these differences that you appear to believe make the runs incomparable :confusedshrug:

1.7 PPG/ -0.9 RPG/ 2.3 APG 4 TS%
5.1 PPG/-1.1 RPG/ -0.3 APG 1 TS%
5.7 PPG/ -0.6 RPG/ -0.1 APG -1 TS%
0.9 PPG/ 2.4 RPG/ -0.5 APG -2 TS%


[QUOTE]Bringing up the DRTG doesn't really offer that much valuable context, as the difference is almost always nearly irrelevant. On the other hand saying dumb shit like Kobe in the three-peat had less help then Lebron in his title run by pointing out he was playing with one all-star while Lebron was playing with two all-stars, basically implying that all all-stars are at the same level by not pointing out that the one Kobe was playing with actually won MVP 1 year, was top 3 in MVP voting and all-nba first team all 3 years while Lebron's two all-stare teammates didn't come close to any of that, is completely ignorant of context. [/QUOTE]

Of course defense matters when considering offensive numbers. That's a silly statement. If it didn't matter why was Lebron so bad against the Spurs in the Finals. Why was Jordan so inefficient against the Heat and Knicks in the playoffs?

I never claimed Kobe's 3 peat had less help than Lebron's 1 peat. I said on average including all 5 of his titles he had less help. I don't expect people on this board to have a reasonable valuation of what Shaq was "worth". I don't think its insulting to figure Shaq is worth about the 2nd best SG in the league and a perennial all star big man. But as Larry Bird fans will tell you Shaq is worth 5+ HOFers in some people minds.

[QUOTE]Right. I don't actually think Kobe's numbers were a product of Shaq. I was just doing the same stupid thing you do by exaggerating some nearly irrelevant factor to imply that something other then just how good the player is significantly explains a statistic or difference in statistics.

By the way, so if you really think Kobe's numbers had nothing to do with Shaq, then I'm assuming that you agree that Kobe's overall numbers for his career and for each season don't really change much if he never played with Shaq correct?[/QUOTE]

If Kobe is on those same Lakers and Shaq if off the team it would make sense that even more of the scoring load would be on Kobe.

[QUOTE=Yao Ming's Foot]Those differences in defensive rating are no less significant than these differences that you appear to believe make the runs incomparable :confusedshrug:

1.7 PPG/ -0.9 RPG/ 2.3 APG 4 TS%
5.1 PPG/-1.1 RPG/ -0.3 APG 1 TS%
5.7 PPG/ -0.6 RPG/ -0.1 APG -1 TS%
0.9 PPG/ 2.4 RPG/ -0.5 APG -2 TS%
[/QUOTE]

I don't really see how a 2-3% difference in DRTG explains and is comparable to up to a 20% difference in PPG, 33% difference in RPG, 38% difference in APG. :confusedshrug:


[QUOTE=Yao Ming's Foot]
Of course defense matters when considering offensive numbers. That's a silly statement. If it didn't matter why was Lebron so bad against the Spurs in the Finals. Why was Jordan so inefficient against the Heat and Knicks in the playoffs? [/QUOTE]

I never said defense didn't matter. I said that the difference in DRTG that they've faced is not significant enough that it even deserves mentioning, especially when using it as an excuse to explain Kobe's lower overall statistics.

[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]Well, it also shows that whether or not Shaq was on his team, Kobe was gonna put up 20+ shots a season. So Shaq wasn't taking shots away from him. If anything, having him on his team really helped, because the defense would often collapse on Shaq (giving more and better looks to the other Lakers).

I don't really buy that all of the "Kobe's stats would have been better if Shaq wasn't on the team" stuff. He would have scored more, but probably less efficiently. That's about it. :confusedshrug:[/QUOTE]

[B] This :applause:

And Kobe Tards Complain Why There are Kobe Haters Around? :rolleyes: The Dude Sounds Like He Regrets His Numbers While Playing With Shaq. The Dude Would Have Shot below 43% FG If It Wasn

[QUOTE=guy]I don't really see how a 2-3% difference in DRTG explains and is comparable to up to a 20% difference in PPG, 33% difference in RPG, 38% difference in APG. :confusedshrug:




I never said defense didn't matter. I said that the difference in DRTG that they've faced is not significant enough that it even deserves mentioning, especially when using it as an excuse to explain Kobe's lower overall statistics.[/QUOTE]

The net changes of your cherry picked seasons are

3.3 more ppg , 0.05 less rpg, 0.35 more apg, and 0.5 higher TS%

You would be hard pressed to find more similar playoff runs among any other players in history.

If you can't compare those runs with Kobe's then you cant compare any playoff runs period.

:confusedshrug:

[QUOTE=Yao Ming's Foot]The net changes of your cherry picked seasons are

3.3 more ppg , 0.05 less rpg, 0.35 more apg, and 0.5 higher TS%

You would be hard pressed to find more similar playoff runs among any other players in history.

If you can't compare those runs with Kobe's then you cant compare any playoff runs period.

:confusedshrug:[/QUOTE]

You can compare them and every time come to the conclusion that Kobe's wasnt as good. It's similar, just not on the same level I.E. not as good. There probably aren't any playoff runs from other perimeter players that are on that level. It's not really an odd thing to say when they're probably the greatest playoff runs from a perimeter player in general.

:confusedshrug:

[QUOTE=guy]You can compare them and every time come to the conclusion that Kobe's wasnt as good. It's similar, just not on the same level I.E. not as good. There probably aren't any playoff runs from other perimeter players that are on that level. It's not really an odd thing to say when they're probably the greatest playoff runs from a perimeter player in general.

:confusedshrug:[/QUOTE]

They are roughly 3 pts a game not as good against much better defenses and yet it is casually dismissed because GASP his teammates that season were at best on par with other legendary players.

[QUOTE=Yao Ming's Foot]They are roughly 3 pts a game not as good against much better defenses and yet it is casually dismissed because GASP his teammates that season were at best on par with other legendary players.[/QUOTE]

I dont really get where you're getting 3 pts a game from. What I see is one scenario with 2 more points, 2 more assists and considerably better efficiency, another with about 5 more points, and another with about 6 more points, and another that was just clearly better all around. As has been pointed out, there's nothing behind your claim that suggests he played much better defenses, especially to explain that gap.

:confusedshrug:

[QUOTE=guy]I dont really get where you're getting 3 pts a game from. What I see is one scenario with 2 more points, 2 more assists and considerably better efficiency, another with about 5 more points, and another with about 6 more points, and another that was just clearly better all around. As has been pointed out, there's nothing behind your claim that suggests he played much better defenses, especially to explain that gap.

:confusedshrug:[/QUOTE]

Kobe's "sidekick" performance

29.4 PPG/ 7.3 REB/ 6.1 APG /56 TS%

Jordan's incomparable performances averaged together

32.75 PPG/ 7.25 RPG/ 6.45 APG/ 57.5 TS%

What do you mean there is nothing to the claim he played better defenses? :oldlol: Of course Kobe did. He faced more sub 100 rated defenses that playoff run than Jordan did in his entire career in the playoffs.

Jordan's line against sub 100 rated Ds in the playoffs btw

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/SUxvy.png[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/tPFxI.png[/IMG]

Nope no impact. Nothing to see here folks. Keep it moving.

:roll:

I think the real question is, how much stock can we put in the DRT of teams who's defensive game plan was focused on Shaq.

Sorry, theres that context thing again, we all know YMF hates it unless it is cherry picked to suit his DRT agenda.

[QUOTE=Leviathon1121]I think the real question is, how much stock can we put in the DRT of teams who's defensive game plan was focused on Shaq.

Sorry, theres that context thing again, we all know YMF hates it unless it is cherry picked to suit his DRT agenda.[/QUOTE]

I love context. I am amused by unsupported myths. Guess which one your post falls under.

[QUOTE=Yao Ming's Foot]Kobe's "sidekick" performance

29.4 PPG/ 7.3 REB/ 6.1 APG /56 TS%

Jordan's incomparable performances averaged together

32.75 PPG/ 7.25 RPG/ 6.45 APG/ 57.5 TS%

What do you mean there is nothing to the claim he played better defenses? :oldlol: Of course Kobe did. He faced more sub 100 rated defenses that playoff run than Jordan did in his entire career in the playoffs.

Jordan's line against sub 100 rated Ds in the playoffs btw

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/SUxvy.png[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/tPFxI.png[/IMG]

Nope no impact. Nothing to see here folks. Keep it moving.

:roll:[/QUOTE]


:applause:

a very well knowledged Laker fan. :cheers:

[QUOTE=Yao Ming's Foot]Kobe's "sidekick" performance

29.4 PPG/ 7.3 REB/ 6.1 APG /56 TS%

Jordan's incomparable performances averaged together

32.75 PPG/ 7.25 RPG/ 6.45 APG/ 57.5 TS%

What do you mean there is nothing to the claim he played better defenses? :oldlol: Of course Kobe did. He faced more sub 100 rated defenses that playoff run than Jordan did in his entire career in the playoffs.

Jordan's line against sub 100 rated Ds in the playoffs btw

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/SUxvy.png[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/tPFxI.png[/IMG]

Nope no impact. Nothing to see here folks. Keep it moving.

:roll:[/QUOTE]

You're stacking up three runs against one. How is that remotely comparable? The fact that he still falls short despite the smaller size illustrates my point. That's no different then comparing a whole series to one game, a whole playoff run to one series, a whole season to one month :roll:

As I've said countless times now, even if DRTG is the end all be all that determines the quality of defense, we are literally talking about in a 2-3% difference overall throughout their career, which is not "much" better. But we are supposed to hold alot of weight in it when the statistical difference between the two is significantly bigger then 2-3% overall in multiple categories. Mathematically it doesn't make much sense :confusedshrug:

[QUOTE=guy]You're stacking up three runs against one. How is that remotely comparable? The fact that he still falls short despite the smaller size illustrates my point. That's no different then comparing a whole series to one game, a whole playoff run to one series, a whole season to one month :roll:

As I've said countless times now, even if DRTG is the end all be all that determines the quality of defense, we are literally talking about in a 2-3% difference overall throughout their career, which is not "much" better. But we are supposed to hold alot of weight in it when the statistical difference between the two is significantly bigger then 2-3% overall in multiple categories. Mathematically it doesn't make much sense :confusedshrug:[/QUOTE]

:biggums:

Those are the 4 playoff runs you specifically chose that represent superior performance than Kobe's 01 run. If Kobe's run is extremely similar to their average it makes no sense to consider it on a different level. It fits right in with the other 4 that you chose.

You are just inventing numbers at this point with no rhyme or reason. Who said anything about their careers? I'm talking about these specific playoff runs. A 5% difference (another bizarre calculation based on nothing) is roughly the different between the best D in the league in a given year and an average one. If you want to believe that its just as easy/impressive to put up great numbers against the best D in the league and an average one it wouldn't be the only absurd belief your delusion clings to but it would be one of the dumbest.

Since you seem to be struggling with listing the actual differences and your estimations are vastly wrong I went ahead and calculated their actual differences...

Kobe's
99.575

Jordan's
106.25
106.875
105.65

Lebron's
101.375


In today's era

Kobe's opponents are the top ranked Pacers 99.1
Lebron's opponents are 3rd ranked Spurs 101.2
Jordan's opponents are the 17th ranked Knicks 106.2:facepalm

[QUOTE=Yao Ming's Foot]

Those are the 4 playoff runs you specifically chose that represent superior performance than Kobe's 01 run. If Kobe's run is extremely similar to their average it makes no sense to consider it on a different level. It fits right in with the other 4 that you chose.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't necessarily say a 3 point +PPG average is extremely similar. And I also wouldn't say its extremely similar based on FG% (Obviously you think FG% is irrelevant when we have TS%, which I think is nonsensical because more missed shots in general by one team lead to easier shots for the opposing team because the defense can't set themselves.)

Either way, I wasn't comparing the aggregate of those 4 runs to Kobe's 1 run. I was comparing each of them individually to Kobe's because thats an apples to apples comparison. It doesn't make sense to average them out because some of them were better for different reasons. Like I said, you can take a large size sample and compare it MANY smaller size samples and the averages equal. There's probably plenty of Kobe Bryant playoff series that were statistically better then entire Jordan playoff runs. T-Mac's 2003 season is statistically better then some, if not all, 3 season-runs of Kobe, Lebron, and Wade. What exactly does that mean? Absolutely nothing.

[QUOTE=Yao Ming's Foot]
You are just inventing numbers at this point with no rhyme or reason. Who said anything about their careers? I'm talking about these specific playoff runs. A 5% difference (another bizarre calculation based on nothing) is roughly the different between the best D in the league in a given year and an average one. If you want to believe that its just as easy/impressive to put up great numbers against the best D in the league and an average one it wouldn't be the only absurd belief your delusion clings to but it would be one of the dumbest.[/QUOTE]

I never brought up a 5% difference calculation? :confusedshrug: I brought up a 2-3% difference for what they faced in their careers in the playoffs. The difference was like 105 vs. 102 in the playoffs, and 107 vs. 105 in the regular season. The other calculations were based on the difference in a stat i.e. 35.1 ppg is nearly 20% more then 29.4 ppg, 8.4 apg is nearly 38% more then 6.1 apg, etc. :confusedshrug:

I never said its just as easy to play against harder defenses. I said its not a significant difference to suggest that wide of a statistical gap for individuals. Furthermore, using DRTG as the be all end all is stupid in general. So much of what may limit an individual is what the defense is focused on. Both great and bad defenses many times specifically pick their poison, whether its focusing on one of two stars, or focusing between the role players or the stars, etc. Bottom line is there's too many factors to strictly go off DRTG and pretend its the Bible that explains better vs worse performances.

[QUOTE=Yao Ming's Foot]
Since you seem to be struggling with listing the actual differences and your estimations are vastly wrong I went ahead and calculated their actual differences...

Kobe's
99.575

Jordan's
106.25
106.875
105.65

Lebron's
101.375


In today's era

Kobe's opponents are the top ranked Pacers 99.1
Lebron's opponents are 3rd ranked Spurs 101.2
Jordan's opponents are the 17th ranked Knicks 106.2:facepalm[/QUOTE]

Cool. Not 2-3% for these situations, 6-7%, explaining a 20% individual ppg gap and other more significant gaps.

And an only an idiot seriously thinks the difference in defense is that much.

By the way, you do realize that with DRTG/ORTG, there's no more evidence to suggest that defenses got better then to suggest offenses just got worse right? And it may not be a coincidence that during the times that DRTG/ORTG was at its lowest (late 70s, late 90s-early 00s), it was filled with criticisms like selfishness, too much isolation, too much flash and no substance, lack of ball movement, lack of fundamentals, too many high schoolers and players leaving college too early, etc. But hey, why consider that? :confusedshrug:

[QUOTE]I wouldn't necessarily say a 3 point +PPG average is extremely similar. And I also wouldn't say its extremely similar based on FG% (Obviously you think FG% is irrelevant when we have TS%, which I think is nonsensical because more missed shots in general by one team lead to easier shots for the opposing team because the defense can't set themselves.) [/QUOTE]

FG% is irrelevant if we have TS% data. I see no reason why we wouldn't include 3 pters and FT in the players efficiency totals. Your blurb about defense doesn't even make sense.

[QUOTE]Either way, I wasn't comparing the aggregate of those 4 runs to Kobe's 1 run. I was comparing each of them individually to Kobe's because thats an apples to apples comparison. It doesn't make sense to average them out because some of them were better for different reasons. Like I said, you can take a large size sample and compare it MANY smaller size samples and the averages equal. There's probably plenty of Kobe Bryant playoff series that were statistically better then entire Jordan playoff runs. T-Mac's 2003 season is statistically better then some, if not all, 3 season-runs of Kobe, Lebron, and Wade. What exactly does that mean? Absolutely nothing.[/QUOTE]

Some of them are worse for different reasons too. That's why I took the average of all of them. You can't tell me 1st season is vastly superior due to to something like assists in one season yet ignore it when the gap favors Kobe in a different year. Who said anything about playoff series? This is about the performance in a championship winning run. Tmac never made it past the first round.

[QUOTE]I never brought up a 5% difference calculation? :confusedshrug: I brought up a 2-3% difference for what they faced in their careers in the playoffs. The difference was like 105 vs. 102 in the playoffs, and 107 vs. 105 in the regular season. The other calculations were based on the difference in a stat i.e. 35.1 ppg is nearly 20% more then 29.4 ppg, 8.4 apg is nearly 38% more then 6.1 apg, etc. :confusedshrug: [/QUOTE]

5% was my guess at the real difference. Turns out I was pretty much dead on.


[QUOTE]I never said its just as easy to play against harder defenses. I said its not a significant difference to suggest that wide of a statistical gap for individuals. Furthermore, using DRTG as the be all end all is stupid in general. So much of what may limit an individual is what the defense is focused on. Both great and bad defenses many times specifically pick their poison, whether its focusing on one of two stars, or focusing between the role players or the stars, etc. Bottom line is there's too many factors to strictly go off DRTG and pretend its the Bible that explains better vs worse performances.
[/QUOTE]

Of course it's a significant difference. Its the the difference between the best defense in the league and a below average one. There isn't a defensive ranking system in the world that will put Jordan's opponents on par with Kobe's in 2001.


[QUOTE]Cool. Not 2-3% for these situations, 6-7%, explaining a 20% individual ppg gap and other more significant gaps.

And an only an idiot seriously thinks the difference in defense is that much.

By the way, you do realize that with DRTG/ORTG, there's no more evidence to suggest that defenses got better then to suggest offenses just got worse right? And it may not be a coincidence that during the times that DRTG/ORTG was at its lowest (late 70s, late 90s-early 00s), it was filled with criticisms like selfishness, too much isolation, too much flash and no substance, lack of ball movement, lack of fundamentals, too many high schoolers and players leaving college too early, etc. But hey, why consider that? :confusedshrug:[/QUOTE]

Ya I think a below average D might give up an extra layup to a star player than the best D in the league. :confusedshrug: Yes the same tired unsupported theory that all these high schoolers messed up offensive efficiency. Except A) they were collectively getting very few minutes and B) those who were getting minutes were better offensive players than defensive ones. Its amusing how many half baked theories you are willing to throw out without any evidence to support them.

[QUOTE=Yao Ming's Foot]FG% is irrelevant if we have TS% data. I see no reason why we wouldn't include 3 pters and FT in the players efficiency totals. Your blurb about defense doesn't even make sense.
[/QUOTE]

Well let me spell it out for you then. If player A goes 12/20 on all 2s and player B goes 8/20 on all 3s, the team that's better off is player A's team. Why's that? Because its 8 misses vs. 12 misses. Both players may have scored 24 points on the same amount of shots, but more misses means more likely faster tempo/transition opportunities for the opposition since its easier to push the ball off a miss and its harder for player B's team to set their defense, especially misses off 3s which are more prone to longer rebounds. And I'm not even getting into how if both players took the same approach all game, where player As approach is attacking while player Bs approach is camping behind the 3 point line, how that effects each team as a whole which is clearly better for player A's team. Given the choice of each scenario, there's no coach in their right mind that would be indifferent or rather have player B.

I understand that the function of a stat and TS% specifically isn't to take into account those other factors, but its also why you can't just completely rely on it, and rely on any stat in general since none of them take into account other factors, and just ignore FG%.

I never said you shouldn't or couldn't use TS%, or you shouldn't take into account 3 pointers or FTs. Obviously TS% has its advantages. But ignoring FG% because you think efficiency is as simple as same amount of points on same amount of shots is just stupid.


[QUOTE=Yao Ming's Foot]
Some of them are worse for different reasons too. That's why I took the average of all of them. You can't tell me 1st season is vastly superior due to to something like assists in one season yet ignore it when the gap favors Kobe in a different year. Who said anything about playoff series? This is about the performance in a championship winning run. Tmac never made it past the first round. [/QUOTE]

Overall statistically, none of them are worse. Kobe's biggest advantage in a single stat is 1.2 more RPG over 1992 Jordan. In those 4 runs, Jordan/Lebron have more significant advantages then that in PPG, APG, RPG, TS%, FG% in certain years. And I didn't even bother getting into SPG, BPG, TPG, FT%, 3P%.

Maybe we're just arguing cemantics here. I don't think I've said that these runs were by far better. Kobe's run was all-time great and deserves a ton recognition. I've said they were clearly better, which means I don't really see any good reason to argue Kobe's was as good or better.

I brought up playoff series and T-Mac because its the same situation, where you're comparing a much larger sample size to a smaller sample size, which is misleading and stupid. Just cause they're not exactly about championship winning runs, doesn't mean the same logic isn't applied.

[QUOTE=Yao Ming's Foot]
5% was my guess at the real difference. Turns out I was pretty much dead on. [/QUOTE]

Huh? No it was 2-3% like I said :confusedshrug:


[QUOTE=Yao Ming's Foot]
Of course it's a significant difference. Its the the difference between the best defense in the league and a below average one. There isn't a defensive ranking system in the world that will put Jordan's opponents on par with Kobe's in 2001. [/QUOTE]

Ummm, did you ever think that maybe there just isn't a defensive ranking system in the world that you could heavily rely on especially when comparing across eras? Especially a ranking system that basically uses the same methodology to rank offenses? How does that even make sense?

Did you ever think that there's something weird about a system that ranks the 2003 Wizards as a greater defense then the 1991 Bulls? Or the 1993 Warriors as a greater offense then the 2001 Lakers? :confusedshrug:

[QUOTE=Yao Ming's Foot]
Ya I think a below average D might give up an extra layup to a star player than the best D in the league. :confusedshrug: Yes the same tired unsupported theory that all these high schoolers messed up offensive efficiency. Except A) they were collectively getting very few minutes and B) those who were getting minutes were better offensive players than defensive ones. Its amusing how many half baked theories you are willing to throw out without any evidence to support them.[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: What tired theory? Out of all that, the only thing you can respond to was the high schoolers? :oldlol: That was just part of what I said. And what evidence do you have besides a stat that simultaneously says offenses got worse? How stupid are you to cling on to a stat like that? Again, what evidence do you have besides a stat that SIMULTANEOUSLY says OFFENSES GOT WORSE?

Maybe you should stop reading numbers so much and actually do some research of what well educated experts, coaches, players, etc that studied the game for years were saying during these times? Oh nevermind, thats not evidence. :oldlol:

:confusedshrug:

[QUOTE=guy][QUOTE]Well let me spell it out for you then. If player A goes 12/20 on all 2s and player B goes 8/20 on all 3s, the team that's better off is player A's team. Why's that? Because its 8 misses vs. 12 misses. Both players may have scored 24 points on the same amount of shots, but more misses means more likely faster tempo/transition opportunities for the opposition since its easier to push the ball off a miss and its harder for player B's team to set their defense, especially misses off 3s which are more prone to longer rebounds. And I'm not even getting into how if both players took the same approach all game, where player As approach is attacking while player Bs approach is camping behind the 3 point line, how that effects each team as a whole which is clearly better for player A's team. Given the choice of each scenario, there's no coach in their right mind that would be indifferent or rather have player B. [/QUOTE]

It also means more offensive rebounding opportunities. Considering that the Bulls and Lakers were some of the better offensive rebounding teams in the league I see no reason why they wouldn't happily take the 4 extra shots at the rebound. As usual its a best a push without any evidence to prove otherwise.

[QUOTE]I understand that the function of a stat and TS% specifically isn't to take into account those other factors, but its also why you can't just completely rely on it, and rely on any stat in general since none of them take into account other factors, and just ignore FG%.

I never said you shouldn't or couldn't use TS%, or you shouldn't take into account 3 pointers or FTs. Obviously TS% has its advantages. But ignoring FG% because you think efficiency is as simple as same amount of points on same amount of shots is just stupid. [/QUOTE]

I'm not ignoring FG% by posting TS%. It just a more complete measurement of efficiency. There isn't a logical reason to favor FG% over it. You just prefer because Jordan doesn't take as many three pointers as Kobe.


[QUOTE]Overall statistically, none of them are worse. Kobe's biggest advantage in a single stat is 1.2 more RPG over 1992 Jordan. In those 4 runs, Jordan/Lebron have more significant advantages then that in PPG, APG, RPG, TS%, FG% in certain years. And I didn't even bother getting into SPG, BPG, TPG, FT%, 3P%.
[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure why you went back to raw numbers when talking about Kobe's advantages. Its not 1.2 more rebounds. It's an 18% increase remember. You also failed to mention a 9% increase in assists in another season.

[QUOTE]Maybe we're just arguing cemantics here. I don't think I've said that these runs were by far better. Kobe's run was all-time great and deserves a ton recognition. I've said they were clearly better, which means I don't really see any good reason to argue Kobe's was as good or better. [/QUOTE]

That's not how the conversation went. Someone claimed that all that matters is performance when I pointed out that Lebron had more help than Kobe. Then I reminded them that Kobe's performance during the 3 peat was on par with other legends. You claimed it wasn't by cherry picking 4 playoff runs who biggest difference was one extra bucket a game, then whined about TS% as a measure of efficiency and Defensive rating as a measure of defensive efficiency.

[QUOTE]I brought up playoff series and T-Mac because its the same situation, where you're comparing a much larger sample size to a smaller sample size, which is misleading and stupid. Just cause they're not exactly about championship winning runs, doesn't mean the same logic isn't applied. [/QUOTE]

You are the one who selected the entire sample size. Those were the legends you hand selected who would prove Kobe's "sidekick" numbers don't measure up. Now you are telling me its unfair to include all of them. Why list them in the first place? :oldlol:


[QUOTE]Huh? No it was 2-3% like I said :confusedshrug:
[/QUOTE]

Whatever you are claiming was 2-3% A) I have no idea if its true B) isn't relevant to this specific discussion about specific playoff runs.

[QUOTE]Ummm, did you ever think that maybe there just isn't a defensive ranking system in the world that you could heavily rely on especially when comparing across eras? Especially a ranking system that basically uses the same methodology to rank offenses? How does that even make sense?

Did you ever think that there's something weird about a system that ranks the 2003 Wizards as a greater defense then the 1991 Bulls? Or the 1993 Warriors as a greater offense then the 2001 Lakers? :confusedshrug: [/QUOTE]

There is nothing weird about it. It's simply a points allowed per possession measurement times 100. Its derived by looking at simple defensive success of a team. How many points did they allow? How many possessions did it take for the team to score those points? What is controversial about that?


[QUOTE]:oldlol: What tired theory? Out of all that, the only thing you can respond to was the high schoolers? :oldlol: That was just part of what I said. And what evidence do you have besides a stat that simultaneously says offenses got worse? How stupid are you to cling on to a stat like that? Again, what evidence do you have besides a stat that SIMULTANEOUSLY says OFFENSES GOT WORSE?

Maybe you should stop reading numbers so much and actually do some research of what well educated experts, coaches, players, etc that studied the game for years were saying during these times? Oh nevermind, thats not evidence. :oldlol:

:confusedshrug:[/QUOTE]

Your emotions and emoticons distract from whatever you are trying to convey. It appears you are arguing about the gradual improvement of defensive efficiency over the last 20 years. That's not the topic. What defensive measurements are you comfortable with? Points allowed per game? Field goal percentage allowed per game? Points allowed per possession? Defensive ranking of the opponents within that specific year only? Do you just want to keep the inflated offensive numbers and use those for comparisons across era but throw out the defensive ones because suddenly across era comparisons are not fair?

[QUOTE=Yao Ming's Foot]

It also means more offensive rebounding opportunities. Considering that the Bulls and Lakers were some of the better offensive rebounding teams in the league I see no reason why they wouldn't happily take the 4 extra shots at the rebound. As usual its a best a push without any evidence to prove otherwise. [/QUOTE]

In what world does that make any sense? Why would a team rather have 4 more offensive rebounding opportunities that may or may not result in a basket, when the alternative is a guaranteed 4 more makes and not 4 more misses? Tell me the coach that would say he wouldn't care either way cause his team MIGHT get the offensive rebound? And you're vastly overstating offensive rebounds. The ratio of offensive rebounds to total rebounds is like 1 to 3 or 1 to 4, even for the best rebounding teams.


[QUOTE=Yao Ming's Foot]
I'm not ignoring FG% by posting TS%. It just a more complete measurement of efficiency. There isn't a logical reason to favor FG% over it. You just prefer because Jordan doesn't take as many three pointers as Kobe.
[/QUOTE]

Its not about favoring one or the other, because they both have flaws. I'm not completely ignoring one or the other, like you are.

[QUOTE=Yao Ming's Foot]
I'm not sure why you went back to raw numbers when talking about Kobe's advantages. Its not 1.2 more rebounds. It's an 18% increase remember. You also failed to mention a 9% increase in assists in another season.
[/QUOTE]

Fair enough. Personally, I don't think rebounds is as much of a valuable category as points and assists because it doesn't lead directly to points. But you're right to point out that inconsistency.

I didn't fail to mention his 9% increase in assists, because I was only mentioning his biggest difference.

[QUOTE=Yao Ming's Foot]
That's not how the conversation went. Someone claimed that all that matters is performance when I pointed out that Lebron had more help than Kobe. Then I reminded them that Kobe's performance during the 3 peat was on par with other legends. You claimed it wasn't by cherry picking 4 playoff runs who biggest difference was one extra bucket a game, then whined about TS% as a measure of efficiency and Defensive rating as a measure of defensive efficiency.
[/QUOTE]

Well, I only said they were clearly better, not better by far. What someone else said doesn't matter in our argument. :confusedshrug:

Saying Kobe's performance wasn't up there with Lebron or some other greats, which is what I said, isn't the same thing as saying it wasn't on par with other legends. "Other legends" is a very broad category. Saying Kobe's performance isn't up there with Lebron's isn't the same thing as saying it wasn't up there with some Dominique Wilkins' run either or that it more on par with some Jeff Hornacek run. As I said, sounds like we're just arguing semantics here.

You asked me what runs I don't feel they compare to, so I brought them up? :confusedshrug:

[QUOTE=Yao Ming's Foot]
You are the one who selected the entire sample size. Those were the legends you hand selected who would prove Kobe's "sidekick" numbers don't measure up. Now you are telling me its unfair to include all of them. Why list them in the first place? :oldlol: [/QUOTE]

I didn't say its unfair to include them. I said you should compare them individually, not in aggregate, because they are not all better then Kobe's for the same reason. If someone asked me to compare Kobe's 05-07 seasons, and I brought up T-Mac single 2003 season, that makes no sense.

Either way, not sure this really needs to be argued anymore since even in aggregate, the 4 runs I mentioned were better. :confusedshrug:

[QUOTE=Yao Ming's Foot]
There is nothing weird about it. It's simply a points allowed per possession measurement times 100. Its derived by looking at simple defensive success of a team. How many points did they allow? How many possessions did it take for the team to score those points? What is controversial about that?
[/QUOTE]

Its a simple statistic who's results can be interpreted many different ways, meaning that it may have been harder, equal, or even easier for a player or team from one season to reach a certain level of performance against another team from another season regardless of each team's ORTG and DRTG, with no evidence confirming that the probability of it being harder, equal, or easier is not equal.


[QUOTE=Yao Ming's Foot]
Your emotions and emoticons distract from whatever you are trying to convey. It appears you are arguing about the gradual improvement of defensive efficiency over the last 20 years. That's not the topic. What defensive measurements are you comfortable with? Points allowed per game? Field goal percentage allowed per game? Points allowed per possession? Defensive ranking of the opponents within that specific year only? Do you just want to keep the inflated offensive numbers and use those for comparisons across era but throw out the defensive ones because suddenly across era comparisons are not fair?[/QUOTE]

Its a topic now because you constantly refer to it because you think it holds alot of weight in this discussion. Points allowed and FG% allowed suffer from the same problems. Defensive rankings don't mean much cause its possible that the 5th ranked offensive team or 5th ranked defensive team from one season is better offensively or defensively then the 1st ranked offensive team or 1st ranked defensive team in another season (suffers the same problem that comparing win-loss records across eras). I'm not really comfortable with any defensive measurement across eras. If there was a stat where an improvement/decline in the defensive efficiency stat didn't automatically correspond with the decline/improvement in the corresponding offensive efficiency stat, then that would be very useful to compare across eras, but thats obviously not possible.

According to your logic, DRTG would indicate that 1992 Jordan would have a harder time compiling the same stats he had vs. the 1992 Blazers then he would vs. the 2001 Kings, because the Kings have a lower DRTG. However, your logic completely depends on the Kings having a lower DRTG because there defense was actually better and the average offense remained unchanged from 1992, or that both there defense was better and the average offense they faced was even better but their defense was better to a greater degree. However, its completely possible that the 1992 Blazers had an equal defense to the 2001 Kings, but had to play against better offensive teams on average, which would inflate their DRTG in comparison, or that they actually had both a better defense and offense, but the average offense was better to a greater degree. There's no evidence that says that either of the 4 scenarios are more likely then any of the other 3. With that being the case, that has no effect on how good Jordan and the Bulls are, which means without having any indication of which one of those 4 scenarios are present here, Jordan could've put up worse, equal, or better stats vs. the 2002 Kings then he did vs. 1992 Blazers without any of these 4 scenarios being more likely then the other.

For you to not understand this or thinks its irrelevant means you're either stupid or have no problem completely ignoring simple logic. :confusedshrug:

[QUOTE=guy]In what world does that make any sense? Why would a team rather have 4 more offensive rebounding opportunities that may or may not result in a basket, when the alternative is a guaranteed 4 more makes and not 4 more misses? Tell me the coach that would say he wouldn't care either way cause his team MIGHT get the offensive rebound? And you're vastly overstating offensive rebounds. The ratio of offensive rebounds to total rebounds is like 1 to 3 or 1 to 4, even for the best rebounding teams.




Its not about favoring one or the other, because they both have flaws. I'm not completely ignoring one or the other, like you are.



Fair enough. Personally, I don't think rebounds is as much of a valuable category as points and assists because it doesn't lead directly to points. But you're right to point out that inconsistency.

I didn't fail to mention his 9% increase in assists, because I was only mentioning his biggest difference.



Well, I only said they were clearly better, not better by far. What someone else said doesn't matter in our argument. :confusedshrug:

Saying Kobe's performance wasn't up there with Lebron or some other greats, which is what I said, isn't the same thing as saying it wasn't on par with other legends. "Other legends" is a very broad category. Saying Kobe's performance isn't up there with Lebron's isn't the same thing as saying it wasn't up there with some Dominique Wilkins' run either or that it more on par with some Jeff Hornacek run. As I said, sounds like we're just arguing semantics here.

You asked me what runs I don't feel they compare to, so I brought them up? :confusedshrug:



I didn't say its unfair to include them. I said you should compare them individually, not in aggregate, because they are not all better then Kobe's for the same reason. If someone asked me to compare Kobe's 05-07 seasons, and I brought up T-Mac single 2003 season, that makes no sense.

Either way, not sure this really needs to be argued anymore since even in aggregate, the 4 runs I mentioned were better. :confusedshrug:



Its a simple statistic who's results can be interpreted many different ways, meaning that it may have been harder, equal, or even easier for a player or team from one season to reach a certain level of performance against another team from another season regardless of each team's ORTG and DRTG, with no evidence confirming that the probability of it being harder, equal, or easier is not equal.




[b]Its a topic now because you constantly refer to it because you think it holds alot of weight in this discussion. Points allowed and FG% allowed suffer from the same problems. Defensive rankings don't mean much cause its possible that the 5th ranked offensive team or 5th ranked defensive team from one season is better offensively or defensively then the 1st ranked offensive team or 1st ranked defensive team in another season (suffers the same problem that comparing win-loss records across eras). I'm not really comfortable with any defensive measurement across eras. If there was a stat where an improvement/decline in the defensive efficiency stat didn't automatically correspond with the decline/improvement in the corresponding offensive efficiency stat, then that would be very useful to compare across eras, but thats obviously not possible.

According to your logic, DRTG would indicate that 1992 Jordan would have a harder time compiling the same stats he had vs. the 1992 Blazers then he would vs. the 2001 Kings, because the Kings have a lower DRTG. However, your logic completely depends on the Kings having a lower DRTG because there defense was actually better and the average offense remained unchanged from 1992, or that both there defense was better and the average offense they faced was even better but their defense was better to a greater degree. However, its completely possible that the 1992 Blazers had an equal defense to the 2001 Kings, but had to play against better offensive teams on average, which would inflate their DRTG in comparison, or that they actually had both a better defense and offense, but the average offense was better to a greater degree. There's no evidence that
says that either of the 4 scenarios are more likely then any of the other 3. With that being the case, that has no effect on how good Jordan and the Bulls are, which means without having any indication of which one of those 4 scenarios are present here, Jordan could've put up worse, equal, or better stats vs. the 2002 Kings then he did vs. 1992 Blazers without any of these 4 scenarios being more likely then the other.

For you to not understand this or thinks its irrelevant means you're either stupid or have no problem completely ignoring simple logic.[/b] :confusedshrug:[/QUOTE]
:applause:

[QUOTE=guy]Well let me spell it out for you then. If player A goes 12/20 on all 2s and player B goes 8/20 on all 3s, the team that's better off is player A's team. [/QUOTE]



Ever heard of floor spacing? There is a reason why teams covet 3 point shooters even if they can't do much else.

[QUOTE=tontoz]Ever heard of floor spacing? There is a reason why teams covet 3 point shooters even if they can't do much else.[/QUOTE]

What's your point? I never said nobody should ever take 3s. I don't really understand how this relates to what I said?

[QUOTE=guy]What's your point? I never said nobody should ever take 3s. I don't really understand how this relates to what I said?[/QUOTE]


You somehow came to the conclusion that 12/20 on 2s > 8/20 on 3s. You reasoning was based solely on increased defensive rebounds for the opposition, as if that is the only consideration.

It isn't. Second chance opportunities and floor spacing also come into play, which you completely ignored.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Well, that is kind of my point.

The difference is simple though. Kobe simply could not have won without Shaq. End of story. Not one other player in the league could have come in and allowed Kobe to win those 3 rings. Even with Duncan, depending on what Shaq had around him, he might not win.

With Lebron, it's a little different, but not entirely.

My point was simple. Kobe fans use the 5 rings as the main source of evidence for his greatness. While Lebron fans use his level of play as the main source of evidence for his greatness. There is a bit of a difference there.

Only until this era of "ring counting"...generally by Kobe fans using this to prop Kobe up....did fans and players (MJ for example) think ring count defined a player this much. Level of play and what you do with your help is what matters. Obviously Kobe didn't have the same chance as Lebron to put up the same numbers early on...partly because of his team and in more so because he just wasn't good enough. At the same time, Lebron obviously had a completely different early career...joining a 17 win team...playing without a championship roster or coach.

Kobe has literally played with like 12 legit championship rosters. Lebron has played with 3 now. That has to be factored in.

And what is wrong with Kobe's numbers? They are some of the best ever. So I don't even get what the hell he is talking about.[/QUOTE]
This. When MJ retired with 3 rings, there was no question whatsoever that he was better than Magic. You didn't have idiots running around saying "5 rings" or "magic is 2 rings better than MJ".

[QUOTE=tontoz]You somehow came to the conclusion that 12/20 on 2s > 8/20 on 3s. You reasoning was based solely on increased defensive rebounds for the opposition, as if that is the only consideration.

It isn't. Second chance opportunities and floor spacing also come into play, which you completely ignored.[/QUOTE]

Huh? I did address second chance opportunities in my next post. In those 4 extra plays where a miss takes place, the 8/20 player's team's offense MIGHT get the offensive rebound, and then MIGHT convert the second chance opportunity into points. But its not even an issue for the 12/20 player's team because the desired end result is already achieved.

I still fail to see how floor spacing for one team has an affect on the transition opportunities for the other team.

[QUOTE=NumberSix]This. When MJ retired with 3 rings, there was no question whatsoever that he was better than Magic. You didn't have idiots running around saying "5 rings" or "magic is 2 rings better than MJ".[/QUOTE]

Exactly.

Not sure why or how this whole ring thing really started...my guess is that it was Kobe fans and MJ fans going back and forth in the early 2000s or something.

Now, it has ruined much of how we judge and analyze players.

I was saying it for years about Dirk. Winning the title doesn't make him any greater than he was...he finally got a legit team around him in the right circumstance to win. You have to judge how players play the game first and foremost.

[QUOTE=guy]Huh? I did address second chance opportunities in my next post. In those 4 extra plays where a miss takes place, the 8/20 player's team's offense MIGHT get the offensive rebound, and then MIGHT convert the second chance opportunity into points. But its not even an issue for the 12/20 player's team because the desired end result is already achieved.

[/QUOTE]


Desired result? They scored 24 points on 20 possessions. The team with the 8-20 3 point shooter will always get AT LEAST 24 points and possibly more.

In basketball the desired result is to score as many points as possible.

[QUOTE] I still fail to see how floor spacing for one team has an affect on the transition opportunities for the other team.[/QUOTE]

The operative word in that sentence is FAIL.

It isn't just about the points the player scores it is about the points the team scores. Better floor spacing makes it easier for his teamates to score.

And you are vastly overstating the importance of fast breaks. The average team gets 42 defensive rebounds per game but scores only 13.6 fast break points per game.

[url]http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/fastbreak-points-per-game[/url]

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Exactly.

Not sure why or how this whole ring thing really started...[B]my guess is that it was Kobe fans and MJ fans going back and forth in the early 2000s or something.[/B]

Now, it has ruined much of how we judge and analyze players.

I was saying it for years about Dirk. Winning the title doesn't make him any greater than he was...he finally got a legit team around him in the right circumstance to win. You have to judge how players play the game first and foremost.[/QUOTE]
Nah, I remember what the narrative was at that time.

When Kobe first entered the league, it was when the media was labelling every other young player with the "could this be the next Jordan" question. By the time of the lakers winning chips and the Shaq/Kobe beef, the general sentiment about the "next Jordan" thing was, "we'll, that ship has sailed", as it had with Grant Hill, Penny and all the other potential "next MJ's".

Don't forget. For years, Kobe was labelled as a guy who will never lead a team to a championship, can't win without Shaq, etc.. In no way was he thought of as some Jordan type of player. He was almost looked at like a Pippen without his Jordan. People forget that Kobe DID take a lot of criticism for many years.

Once the lakers started getting back to the finals though, the revisionist history started flowing, as it always does. If you would have stopped paying attention to basketball for a few years and came back, you'd be like "wait, what? Who are they saying is on Jordan's level? Huh? Kobe? What? When did this happen?".

I mean, just look at LeBron. Just a year ago the narrative was he's a serial choker, he can't lead a team to a championship, etc. all of a sudden after 1 ring the narrative from the same media people is he's on Jordan's level.

[QUOTE]In what world does that make any sense? Why would a team rather have 4 more offensive rebounding opportunities that may or may not result in a basket, when the alternative is a guaranteed 4 more makes and not 4 more misses? Tell me the coach that would say he wouldn't care either way cause his team MIGHT get the offensive rebound? And you're vastly overstating offensive rebounds. The ratio of offensive rebounds to total rebounds is like 1 to 3 or 1 to 4, even for the best rebounding teams. [/QUOTE]

Looks like somebody is already trying to explain it to you but the goal is to score the most points not have the highest FG percentage. The fact that my 3pt shooting team has 4 more chances to continue the possession matters.


[QUOTE]

Its not about favoring one or the other, because they both have flaws. I'm not completely ignoring one or the other, like you are.
[/QUOTE]

TS% doesn't have a flaw. It also doesn't ignore FG%. It includes FG% but makes note that 3 pters are worth 3 pts and efficiency from the line matters too.

[QUOTE]
Well, I only said they were clearly better, not better by far. What someone else said doesn't matter in our argument. :confusedshrug: [/QUOTE]

I don't who said what. You all sound the same to me. If it wasn't you that's when you jumped into the conversation.


[QUOTE]I didn't say its unfair to include them. I said you should compare them individually, not in aggregate, because they are not all better then Kobe's for the same reason. If someone asked me to compare Kobe's 05-07 seasons, and I brought up T-Mac single 2003 season, that makes no sense.

Either way, not sure this really needs to be argued anymore since even in aggregate, the 4 runs I mentioned were better. :confusedshrug: [/QUOTE]

If they all 4 runs are better on their own then you shouldn't have a problem with combining all of them and taking the average.


[QUOTE]
Its a simple statistic who's results can be interpreted many different ways, meaning that it may have been harder, equal, or even easier for a player or team from one season to reach a certain level of performance against another team from another season regardless of each team's ORTG and DRTG, with no evidence confirming that the probability of it being harder, equal, or easier is not equal. [/QUOTE]

It doesn't require an interpretation anymore than field goal percentage does. This team over the course of an 82 games season allowed X amount of points and defended Y possessions. X/Y times 100 = DEF Rating. That's it.





[QUOTE]Its a topic now because you constantly refer to it because you think it holds alot of weight in this discussion. Points allowed and FG% allowed suffer from the same problems. Defensive rankings don't mean much cause its possible that the 5th ranked offensive team or 5th ranked defensive team from one season is better offensively or defensively then the 1st ranked offensive team or 1st ranked defensive team in another season (suffers the same problem that comparing win-loss records across eras). I'm not really comfortable with any defensive measurement across eras. [/QUOTE]

So it's the last choice, We are going to keep all the inflated offensive stats regardless of eras and ignore the defensive ones because they make you feel uncomfortable. :oldlol:

[QUOTE]According to your logic, DRTG would indicate that 1992 Jordan would have a harder time compiling the same stats he had vs. the 1992 Blazers then he would vs. the 2001 Kings, because the Kings have a lower DRTG. However, your logic completely depends on the Kings having a lower DRTG because there defense was actually better and the average offense remained unchanged from 1992, or that both there defense was better and the average offense they faced was even better but their defense was better to a greater degree. However, its completely possible that the 1992 Blazers had an equal defense to the 2001 Kings, but had to play against better offensive teams on average, which would inflate their DRTG in comparison, or that they actually had both a better defense and offense, but the average offense was better to a greater degree. There's no evidence that says that either of the 4 scenarios are more likely then any of the other 3. With that being the case, that has no effect on how good Jordan and the Bulls are, which means without having any indication of which one of those 4 scenarios are present here, Jordan could've put up worse, equal, or better stats vs. the 2002 Kings then he did vs. 1992 Blazers without any of these 4 scenarios being more likely then the other. [/QUOTE]

You don't get a good defensive rating without other good defensive numbers.

.471 eFG
14.3% TOV%
69.9 DRB%
.251 FT/FGA
104.1 points allowed per game

vs

.467 eFG
13.6% TOV%
71.7 DRB %
.185 FT/FGA
97.0 points allowed per game

I'd bet Jordan was good for about 3 more points on Team A. :confusedshrug:

You still think I bring up defensive rating to compare defenses against each other. I don't. I bring up defenses to establish the context in which the offensive numbers are derived. League wide offensive numbers were up during Jordan's prime. During the first 3 peat offensive numbers were down league wide. A few years later and they were up again. The levels of talent and coaching don't change that drastically in a few years. It has to be the rules and the interpretation of those rules. The Kings would have a higher DEF rating if they were time traveled to 92. But thats not we are looking at here. We are looking at Jordan being time traveled to early 00s or Kobe taking a trip to the high pace, high efficiency 90s. It would change their offensive numbers.

BTW you don't even need defensive efficiency to explain a 3 pt difference. Just look at the differences in points allowed per game, multiply it by Kobe's typical share of the scoring load and voila there is 2-3 points and now you are left telling me that his line doesn't compare to 4 other ones when he is <1 to their average in every relevant category.

[QUOTE=tontoz]Desired result? They scored 24 points on 20 possessions. The team with the 8-20 3 point shooter will always get AT LEAST 24 points and possibly more.

In basketball the desired result is to score as many points as possible.
[/QUOTE]

Why? Because of extra offensive rebounds? Well for those 20 plays, the 12/20 player's teams can also get offensive rebounds in the 8 plays they missed.

Lets boil it down to the 12 plays, where the one that goes 12/20 on 2s hits all of them and the other that goes 8/20 from 3 hits 3s on 8 possession but misses 4. You're right, its possible that the team with the 4 misses can get an offensive rebound. But defensive rebounds are usually at least twice as more likely, and on top of that, even if an offensive rebound is obtained, it doesn't guarantee a point.

For fractional simplicity sakes, lets say instead of 4 more misses its 12 more misses, and on average a 3rd of them are offensive rebounds while the rest are defensive rebounds, and lets say in each situation they convert points on 50% of them. One team would get 4 offensive rebounds, and then 4 points as a result, while the other team would get 8 defensive rebounds and 8 points as a result. Thats a 4 point net negative. On the other hand, take the other situation where instead of 12 missed threes (converted from 4), its 12 made twos, and the opposing team converts on 50% of the following possessions (which is very generous because its unlikely they would convert at the same rate with no transition opportunities). That would be 24 points vs. 12 points, a 12 point net positive. Put them together and its a 16 point difference.

Lets say a team shoots 100 2s and no other shots on 60% in one game, and then shoots 100 3s and no other shots on 40% in the next game. They score 120 points in each game, but what game do you think they gave up more points in?

[QUOTE=tontoz]
The operative word in that sentence is FAIL.

It isn't just about the points the player scores it is about the points the team scores. Better floor spacing makes it easier for his teamates to score.
[/QUOTE]

And the same can be said about players that regularly attack and draw defenders away from their teammates, also drawing more fouls in the process. That's a more efficient approach overall, and historically thats usually been more of a superstars' role then creating floor spacing, which is usually reserved for sharpshooter role players.

[QUOTE=tontoz]
And you are vastly overstating the importance of fast breaks. The average team gets 42 defensive rebounds per game but scores only 13.6 fast break points per game.

[url]http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/fastbreak-points-per-game[/url][/QUOTE]

I'm not just talking about fast breaks but higher uptempo possessions in general. And 13.6 points is pretty significant. All that tells me is if a team is missing more shots, which they would on 3s, then more defensive rebounds for the other team will result and more fast break points in general.

[QUOTE=guy]For fractional simplicity sakes, lets say instead of 4 more misses its 12 more misses, and on average a 3rd of them are offensive rebounds while the rest are defensive rebounds, and lets say in each situation they convert points on 50% of them. One team would get 4 offensive rebounds, and then 4 points as a result, [B]while the other team would get 8 defensive rebounds and 8 points as a result. [/B] Thats a 4 point net negative. [/QUOTE]


:facepalm

The defense is going to get a possession even if the offense makes the shot. However the team shooting is gaining an additional possession by getting a rebound.

Secondly just because the defense gets a defensive rebound and scores doesn't mean it is was a fast break. If teams got a fast break point for every defensive rebound they would average over 40 fast break points per game instead of 13.6.

[QUOTE]And the same can be said about players that regularly attack and draw defenders away from their teammates, also drawing more fouls in the process. That's a more efficient approach overall[/QUOTE]

And it is also easier to defend because the defense has less area to cover.

[QUOTE]I'm not just talking about fast breaks [SIZE="4"](actually that is exactly what you were talking about) [/SIZE]but higher uptempo possessions in general. And 13.6 points is pretty significant. All that tells me is if a team is missing more shots, which they would on 3s, then more defensive rebounds for the other team will result and more fast break points in general.[/QUOTE]


The problem is that a defensive rebound is only worth .33 fast break points on average. It takes 6 defensive rebounds to get one fast break field goal.

And long rebounds are more likely to be gotten by the offense since the defense has inside position.

So basically.. Kobe's saying "how good you are actually matters?". Lmao well no shit it does Bean