In the same mins, Jordan has more PTs/RBs/ASTs/BLKs/STLs but less TOs then Kobe

[QUOTE=bwink23]Comparing defensive ratings across eras is also an apples - oranges comparison


Are the 2003 Washington Wizards a better defensive team than the 1991 Chicago Bulls ?? This is NOT a trick question.[/QUOTE]

No they just have a better defensive rating because offensive statistics in the 90s were inflated.

[QUOTE=Yao Ming's Foot]No they just have a better defensive rating because [B]offensive statistics in the 90s were inflated.[/B][/QUOTE]

Offensive rating is "points scored per 100 possessions"....it means the 1987 New Jersey Nets scored more points per possession than the 2003 San Antonio Spurs, which make them the superior offensive team....


Offensive rating is not an inflated stat. It's simple math son, Right??

[QUOTE=bwink23]Comparing defensive ratings across eras is also an apples - oranges comparison


Are the 2003 Washington Wizards a better defensive team than the 1991 Chicago Bulls ?? This is NOT a trick question.[/QUOTE]

Chazzy already said this though. Its not a good metric to compare across eras. We've literally had 50 page threads proving this before.

However, defensive rating (for a team) is fine for an individual year. Its actually quite good in my opinion.

[QUOTE=Yao Ming's Foot]No they just have a better defensive rating because offensive statistics in the 90s were inflated.[/QUOTE]


Based on offensive and defensive ratings, the 1980's had worse defensive ratings simple because they were playing much better offensive teams.....see this isn't so hard.....:hammerhead:

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Chazzy already said this though. Its not a good metric to compare across eras. We've literally had 50 page threads proving this before.

However, defensive rating (for a team) is fine for an individual year. Its actually quite good in my opinion.[/QUOTE]


I can roll with that....it's easy to see throughout history the shifts in playing styles, rule changes that affect the game. defensive ratings are only worth noting in their respective years or even eras....In the respective year is a much better depiction than even their own eras...

1986-1993.....one era
1994-1998....another era
1999-2004....another era
2005-present....another era

[QUOTE=TheFrozenOne]different era's...and pace.

Look at Oscar's Stats and minutes compared to Jordan....or Wilt's

Jordan in the modern era would be a 42%fg putting up 25 - 30PPG in his prime/modern era.

just think that in the 80's there were over 30 players who scored over 24PPG on 50%FG......

it has only been done 5times in the past 12 years.[/QUOTE]

:laugh:

Look up the pace of the Jordan Bulls.

And Michael Jordan would probably score 35+ pgg at 50%+ shooting in this era because of rule changes.

[QUOTE=bwink23]Offensive rating is "points scored per 100 possessions"....it means the 1987 New Jersey Nets scored more points per possession than the 2003 San Antonio Spurs, which make them the superior offensive team....


Offensive rating is not an inflated stat. It's simple math son, Right??[/QUOTE]

You guys are worried about ranking teams.

Im talking about ranking the offensive performances against teams in that same year the defensive rating is derived.


Hitting 3 HRS against league average pitching in the deadball era isnt the same as hitting 3 HRS against league average pitching in the steroid era.

[QUOTE=Yao Ming's Foot]You guys are worried about ranking teams.

Im talking about ranking the offensive performances against teams in that same year the defensive rating is derived.


Hitting 3 HRS against league average pitching in the deadball era isnt the same as hitting 3 HRS against league average pitching in the steroid era.[/QUOTE]


You dont even know where your going anymore...you were comparing different defensive ratings ACROSS ERAS dumb ass.....big NO NO :no:

[QUOTE=TheFrozenOne]different era's...and pace.

Look at Oscar's Stats and minutes compared to Jordan....or Wilt's

Jordan in the modern era would be a 42%fg putting up 25 - 30PPG in his prime/modern era.

just think that in the 80's there were over 30 players who scored over 24PPG on 50%FG......

it has only been done 5times in the past 12 years.[/QUOTE]
inb4 defense in the 80s was great players were just better at eberything bck then which is why they scored so much points and at such high percentages.

[QUOTE=BEAST Griffin]:laugh:

Look up the pace of the Jordan Bulls.

And Michael Jordan would probably score 35+ pgg at 50%+ shooting in this era because of rule changes.[/QUOTE]
no he wouldn't..... What indicates that?..... Jordan play about 8 years of his career that as mostly offense with league averages of 110 points etc.

His percentages and numbers would be down in this era.

[QUOTE=I.R.Beast]inb4 defense in the 80s was great players were just better at eberything bck then which is[B] why they scored so much points and at such high percentages.[/B][/QUOTE]



The eFG% from the 80's is IDENTICAL with that of the 2000's, TRY AGAIN.

[QUOTE=LA_Showtime]I'm just curious to know your motive behind starting this thread.[/QUOTE]

I already mentioned why I created this thread. Someone mentioned the other day how Kobe and Jordan have now played about the same career minutes and noted how Kobe has more TOs. I brought this up again because there's an overwhelming amount of people that think the main reason Jordan has such a large career statistical edge over Kobe is because Kobe played many years of his career in a reduced role, his first few years as not much more then a role player and then his next 5-6 years as second fiddle to Shaq. But the greater amount of turnovers help point to that being greatly overblown because if it was just cause Jordan had a significantly greater role on his teams, then there's no reason he should have less turnovers, especially going along with more assists. It was just an interesting observation that I've never heard anyone here point out so I thought I'd make a thread about it.

[QUOTE=swi7ch]It is actually a much easier/softer era today. Just look at all the rule changes that pu$$ifies the league. [B]Did you see how the late 80s/early 90s Pistons play?[/B] Or how about the mid-90s Knicks? Tackling a player mid-air is considered a foul or a warning. Today, it equals suspension.

Jordan would do more damage to today's kids not just because of his basketball skills but his athleticism and physical prowess.[/QUOTE]

but yet teams still scored 108+ ppg a game.... Hard fouls and butchery doesn't constitute "good defense" while it's more physical , Bad defense s bad defense(not saying the defense was bad then).

The fact that you're clobbering a guy that already made it to the rim doesn't make defense better. The phyisclity of the defense back then is very overrated when you compare it to what team were able to do offensively in the 90s up to almost the mid 90s. Obviously playing jailhous ball wasn;t good enought to stop points from being put on the board at a high clip.

[QUOTE=I.R.Beast]no he wouldn't..... What indicates that?..... Jordan play about 8 years of his career that as mostly offense with league averages of 110 points etc.

His percentages and numbers would be down in this era.[/QUOTE]

Look up the pace of the Bulls during the Jordan era.

Then tell me how his stats are inflated because of high pace.

[QUOTE=bwink23]You dont even know where your going anymore...you were comparing different defensive ratings ACROSS ERAS dumb ass.....big NO NO :no:[/QUOTE]

Its no different than comparing offensive stats across eras. You cant do one without the other.

It like somebody comparing the HR total of Babe Ruth to Mark Mcgwire.

Somebody pointing out that everybody hit HRs of the pitching that Mcgwire faced and then somebody else claiming that I cant point that out because its across eras.

It so silly.

[QUOTE=Yao Ming's Foot]Its no different than comparing offensive stats across eras. You cant do one without the other.

It like somebody comparing the HR total of Babe Ruth to Mark Mcgwire.

Somebody pointing out that everybody hit HRs of the pitching that Mcgwire faced and then somebody else claiming that I cant point that out because its across eras.

It so silly.[/QUOTE]


Hardly silly at all....your logic says the 91 Bulls were a worse defensive team than the 2003 Wizards....your logic says that the 2003 Spurs were a worse offensive team than the 1987 New Jersey Nets....PLEASE KID, don't talk to me about what's SILLY FOOL.

Your problem is your being a math nerd who thinks numbers > context....you can't have one without the other if your gonna make a cross-era examination.


With NO CONTEXT AT ALL....i can easily say that the 1987 Nets, who were in the bottom 5 offensive teams that year, would be a top 10 offensive team in 2001, right there with the Sacramento Kings.....TRUE or FALSE??


The 24-58 Nets....can they go from being a bottom feeder offensive team in 1987 to top-10 offensive team in 2001??? USE YOUR HEAD....do you know basketball or do you just know numbers???

[QUOTE=bwink23]Hardly silly at all....your logic says the 91 Bulls were a worse defensive team than the 2003 Wizards....your logic says that the 2003 Spurs were a worse offensive team than the 1987 New Jersey Nets....PLEASE KID, don't talk to me about what's SILLY FOOL.

Your problem is your being a math nerd who thinks numbers > context....you can't have one without the other if your gonna make a cross-era examination.


With NO CONTEXT AT ALL....i can easily say that the 1987 Nets, who were in the bottom 5 offensive teams that year, would be a top 10 offensive team in 2001, right there with the Sacramento Kings.....TRUE or FALSE??


The 24-58 Nets....can they go from being a bottom feeder offensive team in 1987 to top-10 offensive team in 2001??? USE YOUR HEAD....do you know basketball or do you just know numbers???[/QUOTE]

Im not saying every pitcher in the dead ball era was better than every pitcher in the modern era. But hitting a HR in that era sure meant a hell of a lot more than hitting a HR against a modern era player. Do you understand the difference?

[QUOTE=Yao Ming's Foot]Im not saying every pitcher in the dead ball era was better than every pitcher in the modern era. But hitting a HR in that era sure meant a hell of a lot more than hitting a HR against a modern era player. Do you understand the difference?[/QUOTE]


This isn't baseball kid, this is BASKETBALL.....do you know what basketball is?? Do you understand how playing styles and rule changes and officiating can greatly affect the play?? Do you understand how the 3-point line has completely changed the game ?? Do you understand that basketball philosophies also changed with the rules and the 3-point line??


Do you understand how ERA-based offensive and defensive ratings are?? It is not an accurate comparison, and never will be.

1991 Bulls < 2003 Wizards defensively.....DERRRR!!!! :hammerhead:

[QUOTE=Yao Ming's Foot]Im not saying every pitcher in the dead ball era was better than every pitcher in the modern era. But hitting a HR in that era sure meant a hell of a lot more than hitting a HR against a modern era player. Do you understand the difference?[/QUOTE]


Why all the talk about defense??? Doesn't a team's offensive ability play a part as well?? The 1980's had a higher offensive rating than the early 2000's....

So which is it?? the better offense of the 80's, or the better defense of the early 2000's??

Is it FACT that based on offensive ratings......the defensive would look BETTER in the early 2000's due to the lack of quality offense??

:lol at the Jordan stans getting merked...

Kobe in the 80's = 38PPG on 50%FG...Mj couldn't even shoot past 15' in the 80's

[QUOTE=TheFrozenOne]:lol at the Jordan stans getting merked...

Kobe in the 80's = 38PPG on 50%FG...Mj couldn't even shoot past 15' in the 80's[/QUOTE]

No Alpha, I believe it was the "Calculator-Loving Numbers Cruncher" who received the "merking" this time around son.

:cheers:

Complete troll thread.