PDA

View Full Version : #7 PF In The NBA? (Volume IV)



Mile High Champ
07-28-2011, 02:50 PM
Hey guys, Some of you may remember that for the last three years I have conducted a poll at the end of the season that had PSD users vote for the top 10 players at each position. Its is now that time to vote! I would like to start this up once more considering the NBA season is now over and we can get to this discussion since lots has changed since the start of last season. Please TRY AND VOTE FOR THE BEST PLAYER AND DON'T BE A HOMER. I will leave the poll open for one day and than we can carry on to the next best player at that position. I will add more players after each round. I have also included the results of those last 2 years so everyone can see how much things have changed...Enjoy.

REMEMBER this is based on who is the best player, not the player who has the potential to be the best.

1) Dirk Nowitzki
2) Amare Stoudemire
3) Pau Gasol
4) Zach Randolph
5) Chris Bosh
6) LaMarcus Aldridge
7)
8)
9)
10)





2010 Off-Season PF Rankings

1) Pau Gasol
2) Dirk Nowitzki
3) Tim Duncan
4) Chris Bosh
5) Amare Stoudemire
6) Carlos Boozer
7) Kevin Garnett
8) Josh Smith
9) David Lee
10) Zach Randolph

2009 Off-Season PF Rankings

1) Tim Duncan
2) Kevin Garnett
3) Dirk Nowitzki
4) Chris Bosh
5) Amare Stoudemire
6) Pau Gasol
7) Carlos Boozer
8) Antawn Jamison
9) Rashard Lewis
10) David West

2008 Off-Season PF rankings

1) Tim Duncan
2) Kevin Garnett
3) Amare Stoudemire
4) Chris Bosh
5) Dirk Nowitzki
6) Elton Brand
7) Carlos Boozer
8) Pau Gasol
9) Antawn Jamison
10) David West

Mile High Champ
07-28-2011, 02:52 PM
Lets start voting gents!

ChiSox219
07-28-2011, 02:54 PM
4) Blake Griffin

Crackadalic
07-28-2011, 03:02 PM
I picked K-love last poll and ill pick him again

Chacarron
07-28-2011, 03:03 PM
Ladies Love Cool J.

Cano4prez
07-28-2011, 03:18 PM
Love then Garnett

alencp3
07-28-2011, 03:20 PM
this will go to love, then everyone who voted for love will vote garnett

Cool007
07-28-2011, 03:40 PM
Blake Griffin

LTBaByyy
07-28-2011, 03:46 PM
Aldridge went over 2 all stars last season that had better seasons than him.

PSD is a joke. Kevin Love did something that has not been done in what 15 years or more

Check his stats alone.

ChiSox219
07-28-2011, 04:10 PM
Aldridge went over 2 all stars last season that had better seasons than him.

PSD is a joke. Kevin Love did something that has not been done in what 15 years or more

Check his stats alone.

Love played in the fastest pace offense in the league, Aldridge the slowest.

THE GIPPER
07-28-2011, 04:10 PM
Aldridge went over 2 all stars last season that had better seasons than him.
PSD is a joke. Kevin Love did something that has not been done in what 15 years or more

Check his stats alone.

ya blake and love are better than aldrigde

Swashcuff
07-28-2011, 04:12 PM
Love played in the fastest pace offense in the league, Aldridge the slowest.

Point being? There have been tonnes upon tonnes upon tonnes of teams in league history that have player at a higher pace than Love's Wolves but we're never seen quite a season like this in league history. So if you're trying to make a case for rebounding you possibly could but what about his efficiency?

SteBO
07-28-2011, 04:19 PM
Kevin Love should have went 6th, but he's definitely gotta go here.

Rivera
07-28-2011, 04:23 PM
love

ewmania
07-28-2011, 04:23 PM
im going for k-love this one, its the most obvious choice right now after LaMarcus

next i'll think ill go for Josh smith, im shocked this far into the polls he doesnt have atleast a few vots

NYKnickFanatic
07-28-2011, 04:26 PM
Everyone knows Love is the clear choice here. Should have skipped to #8.

NYKnickFanatic
07-28-2011, 04:27 PM
Just realized no Ibaka love? Should throw him up on the next poll. He might not be top 10, but at least put him in there lol.

J-Relo
07-28-2011, 04:27 PM
7. Love.
8. Griffin.
9. Boozer.
10. Garnett.

ChiSox219
07-28-2011, 04:29 PM
Point being? There have been tonnes upon tonnes upon tonnes of teams in league history that have player at a higher pace than Love's Wolves but we're never seen quite a season like this in league history. So if you're trying to make a case for rebounding you possibly could but what about his efficiency?

No, all I'm saying is Aldridge had far fewer opportunities. Love could not have posted his numbers if he were swapped for Aldridge.

Also, there was a study done a couple year back that linked pace with efficiency, not a rule but a correlation. For example, how much is Love's efficiency helped by his 3 point production? If you watch the Wolves, Love is often the trailer and gets an open 3. Let me be clear, I'm not trying to discount Love's ability, Aldridge and Griffin don't have a 3 ball, but Love would not get those same looks in Portland.

Swashcuff
07-28-2011, 05:02 PM
No, all I'm saying is Aldridge had far fewer opportunities. Love could not have posted his numbers if he were swapped for Aldridge.

Also, there was a study done a couple year back that linked pace with efficiency, not a rule but a correlation. For example, how much is Love's efficiency helped by his 3 point production? If you watch the Wolves, Love is often the trailer and gets an open 3. Let me be clear, I'm not trying to discount Love's ability, Aldridge and Griffin don't have a 3 ball, but Love would not get those same looks in Portland.

Well according to Neil Paine its actually so small it's really not that big of a factor.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=7225


The correlation between pace and offensive efficiency is -0.08, for an r-squared of 0.007 (meaning pace explains less than 1% of the variation in ORtg); the correlation between pace and defensive efficiency is 0.13, for an r-squared of 0.017 (meaning pace explains less than 2% of the variation in DRtg). In other words, the relationship between pace and efficiency is so small that's it's almost nonexistent.

Comment 33.

I do however understand your POV on Love's 3PT prowess.

ewmania
07-28-2011, 06:21 PM
Just realized no Ibaka love? Should throw him up on the next poll. He might not be top 10, but at least put him in there lol.


interesting point, dude is a beast on the defensive end, he can defend 5,4 and 3.

he should of replaced david west

ewmania
07-28-2011, 06:21 PM
and where's odom

was he on the SF's?

Chacarron
07-28-2011, 06:28 PM
I nominate Lamar Odom to be added to the poll.

Hawkeye15
07-28-2011, 06:52 PM
No, all I'm saying is Aldridge had far fewer opportunities. Love could not have posted his numbers if he were swapped for Aldridge.

Also, there was a study done a couple year back that linked pace with efficiency, not a rule but a correlation. For example, how much is Love's efficiency helped by his 3 point production? If you watch the Wolves, Love is often the trailer and gets an open 3. Let me be clear, I'm not trying to discount Love's ability, Aldridge and Griffin don't have a 3 ball, but Love would not get those same looks in Portland.

when you have a big man who rebounds and outlets, and that is his job, and can also trail and hit three's like a SG, yes, he would have still been that type of player in Portland. The Wolves don't run a single play for him.

I understand trying to move him to another team and evaluate. But LA and Griffin would also suffer if put on the Wolves, because they have different skillsets. LA can't rebound well enough, where Love has to grab everything. Griffin would be great in the open court, but teams would just send massive help at him on that Wolves roster with no other scorers last year outside a chucker with dreads

rhymeratic
07-28-2011, 07:22 PM
Really Kevin Love over Blake Griffin?!?!?! I dunno about that guys

Let me remind you guys of how foolish this vote is...

Griffin Destroying Gallinari: http://youtu.be/3DIe_VUhUJ4

Chacarron
07-28-2011, 07:57 PM
Really Kevin Love over Blake Griffin?!?!?! I dunno about that guys

Let me remind you guys of how foolish this vote is...

Griffin Destroying Gallinari: http://youtu.be/3DIe_VUhUJ4

I see the dunks have persuaded you.

Lil Half Dead
07-28-2011, 08:01 PM
LMA was absolutely the right #6 you guys are trippin. Love hands down here.

greg_ory_2005
07-28-2011, 08:13 PM
It's Love, nuff said.

smith&wesson
07-28-2011, 08:21 PM
j smooth.

LakersMaster24
07-28-2011, 08:52 PM
Gotta be Love. I would Aldridge over Love though...LA is a better leader and a bigger offensive thread.

VCaintdead17
07-28-2011, 09:02 PM
Yeah David West is a piece of **** not sure why he's on there.

LakersMaster24
07-28-2011, 09:07 PM
Nominate Bargnani (Even though he plays center a lot, his natural and best position is a PF, once Raps add a good center, he will move to PF).

DR_1
07-28-2011, 10:08 PM
Aldridge went over 2 all stars last season that had better seasons than him.

PSD is a joke. Kevin Love did something that has not been done in what 15 years or more

Check his stats alone.

This.

JasonJohnHorn
07-29-2011, 12:12 AM
Love still doesnt get enough love. :-(

kozelkid
07-29-2011, 12:27 AM
Love still doesnt get enough love. :-(

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8zx68HENIA

believeinNYK
07-29-2011, 02:07 AM
7- Love
8- griffin
9- Garnett
10- boozer/ j smith

beasted86
07-29-2011, 02:19 AM
Aldridge went over 2 all stars last season that had better seasons than him.

PSD is a joke. Kevin Love did something that has not been done in what 15 years or more

Check his stats alone.


Love played in the fastest pace offense in the league, Aldridge the slowest.
+1

Aside from that, Portland won as many games as the Clippers & Wolves combined, and Aldridge played a big part in that as their go to guy.

Knicks21
07-29-2011, 02:35 AM
Boozer is not going to crack the top 10 lol.

*Silver&Black*
07-29-2011, 02:56 AM
As of right now and not future, here is my rest of the top 10:

Love
Smith
Griffin
Garnett

Bruno
07-29-2011, 03:19 AM
Voted love.

Swashcuff
07-29-2011, 09:10 AM
+1

Aside from that, Portland won as many games as the Clippers & Wolves combined, and Aldridge played a big part in that as their go to guy.

+1 one what? What does pace have to do with anything?

beasted86
07-29-2011, 02:28 PM
+1 one what? What does pace have to do with anything?

A fast pace inflates stats.

If Love played on the slowest paced Blazers and averaged 17 PPG, and 13 REB, he wouldn't get nearly the hype he does... regardless of his efficiency. I'm also 100% certain if the Blazers swapped Love & Aldridge last season, they would have been a worse team. Love would never have filled the role Aldridge had. He can have a big impact on the game, but he cannot be the #1 offense option in isolation like that.

Swashcuff
07-29-2011, 02:52 PM
A fast pace inflates stats.

If Love played on the slowest paced Blazers and averaged 17 PPG, and 13 REB, he wouldn't get nearly the hype he does... regardless of his efficiency. I'm also 100% certain if the Blazers swapped Love & Aldridge last season, they would have been a worse team. Love would never have filled the role Aldridge had. He can have a big impact on the game, but he cannot be the #1 offense option in isolation like that.

Could you give evidence of this?

There is no statistical evidence to support this though it is viewed by many as a "rule of thumb" by some. Eg.

Here are the average of the leading scorers in every season where have the pace statistic available, from 1974 forward.


Pace Scoring Avg.
1974 (4) 107.8 27.68
104.5 30.4
105.5 27.38
5 Players 106.5 27.12
106.7 26.46
1979 105.8 26.56
103.1 28.8
101.8 27.46
100.9 28.7
103.1 26.46
1984 101.4 28.44
102.1 29.14
102.1 28.24
100.8 29.94
99.6 29.77
1989 (6) 100.6 28.22
98.3 28.72
97.8 28.27
96.6 26.02
96.8 27.57
1994 95.1 27.17
92.9 26.57
91.8 26.3
7 players 90.1 25.8
1998 90.3 24.89
2000 93.1 26.26
91.3 28.52
90.7 26.53
91 27.36
90.1 24.11
2005 90.9 27
90.5 29.96
91.9 27.94
92.4 26.13
91.7 26.46
2010 92.7 27.44
92.1 25.87

Average 97.3081081081081 27.4502702702703


Pace >100 103.513333333333 28.0666666666667

Pace <100 93.0772727272727 27.03

Pace >105 106.26 27.092

Pace <91 90.5142857142857 26.5214285714286

https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AglwuTuVOEwwdDdibXZYSjhyYlhhclhnbEdwZjdmd 0E&hl=en_US#gid=0

It's proven that throughout the history of the game the effect pace has on scoring (well at least the averages of the best scorers) in miniscule. To say Love would score 3 less points because he's on a slower paced team is actually ignorant. It can also be argued that with a depleted front line such as the Wolves an a better defensive system Love could actually average more than he did as a Timberwolve in that system.

To say something of that nature is pretty ignorant if you ask me. Offensive players do indeed benefit from playing a high paced game but I can assure you Kevin Love would not be a 17 and 13 player if he played on a slower paced team.

His style of play would fit in any system regardless with possible increased efficiency. Depending on his supporting cast his scoring could increase even. You have to remember Love did all his work freelancing.

If pace in today's game indeed "inflate" stats the difference that it makes is so small it's really not that big of a deal.

ChiSox219
07-29-2011, 03:02 PM
The league has had different rules and played at a different average pace so I don't understand what, if anything the above is telling us.


LMA and Blake both played more minutes and at a higher usage. They also faced more double teams. That hurts efficiency.

Swashcuff
07-29-2011, 05:15 PM
The league has had different rules and played at a different average pace so I don't understand what, if anything the above is telling us.


LMA and Blake both played more minutes and at a higher usage. They also faced more double teams. That hurts efficiency.

Its showing that the notion of higher pace automatically means more points for a team's leading scorer is ignorant. The same way it would ignorant to say lower pace means much less points. The differential is small.

If you don't understand what was posted then I can't help you. Its straight forward showing why pace factor may not be as big as one would be lead to believing.

You speak of more minutes played and double teams hurting a player's efficiency right? Now tell me this does having good teammates help your efficiency?

Also in your opinion would Blake and Lamarcus be more efficient than Love had their respective roles been flipped?

ChiSox219
07-29-2011, 05:53 PM
Its showing that the notion of higher pace automatically means more points for a team's leading scorer is ignorant. The same way it would ignorant to say lower pace means much less points. The differential is small.

If you don't understand what was posted then I can't help you. Its straight forward showing why pace factor may not be as big as one would be lead to believing.

You speak of more minutes played and double teams hurting a player's efficiency right? Now tell me this does having good teammates help your efficiency?

Also in your opinion would Blake and Lamarcus be more efficient than Love had their respective roles been flipped?

I don't think you understand what it means. Like c'mon you are listing numbers from before the 3 point line existed. Eras that had completely different rules with regards to what constitutes a foul. I just don't understand how you can derive a link between pace and scoring using just a handful of players under different circumstances.

Look at 1974, the league pace was 107.8 but the league eFG% was only .459 compared to 92.1 pace and .498 eFG%. It's a different game today, players get to the line more often (compared to '74) and they have the benefit of the three point line. Love's average would just over one point less had he been playing then and his TS% wouldn't look so pretty.

Good teammates? What did Blake have? Aldridge had more but I don't necessarily think he's a better player than Love anyway.

Griffin could play anywhere, anytime and be great. Aldridge, meh he's a half court player, don't think going to Minnesota is going to help him much just like going to Portland wouldn't help Love.

Swashcuff
07-29-2011, 07:04 PM
I don't think you understand what it means. Like c'mon you are listing numbers from before the 3 point line existed. Eras that had completely different rules with regards to what constitutes a foul. I just don't understand how you can derive a link between pace and scoring using just a handful of players under different circumstances.

Look at 1974, the league pace was 107.8 but the league eFG% was only .459 compared to 92.1 pace and .498 eFG%. It's a different game today, players get to the line more often (compared to '74) and they have the benefit of the three point line. Love's average would just over one point less had he been playing then and his TS% wouldn't look so pretty.

You do realize it was a comparison of the best scorers output vs the pace of their respective decade and not based on the league's eFG%. It's a comparison that shows how the leading scorers of each respective era scored vs the pace.

You compare across eras there are many factors that indeed has to be taken into consideration this however was a debate of pace relative to individual scoring output. It is one way in which you look at how the higher scorers averaged across eras.

If you want to take into consideration the officiating I can't do anything about that. Usually when comparing Oscar to player's of today his pace is adjusted officiating isn't taken part of the equation. You don't have to go back before the 3pt line you could just start looking at it from 79 onwards. If you want to can even compare within eras where the rules were basically the same but the pace fluctuated and even so take the eFG% and the TS%

The point you seem to be missing is that to state opening that Kevin Love would score 3 less points because he played for a team with a lower pace is somewhat ignorant. Regardless of the pace of the team Love is still going to get his. That is what happens with star players, they get theirs. What ever paced he played at he was still going to be Kevin Love. I can see an argument for his rebounding to fall because they'd be less team possessions but in Love's case in terms of offense how much of a hit would his scoring take? Would he really lose 3 points?

Tell me something. If Durant plays a game at a high pace as opposed to a game at a low pace do you think he'll still be a big part of his team's offensive scheme? Think about it this way, no matter the pace a good player is still going to get his regardless (hence the reason for the comparison of the better scorers). Durant is still going to be part of his team's offensive scheme and no matter if there are 120 or 90 possessions KD is still going to get his share. Now KD wouldn't have the same USG% relative to pace but regardless he would still get his. Do you agree on that?


Good teammates? What did Blake have? Aldridge had more but I don't necessarily think he's a better player than Love anyway.

Griffin's 2nd best player was a fringe all star type player. Though he was injured a lot he still brought more to the table than Luke Ridnour. DeAndre Jordan and Kaman (though he too was injured) are also a much better than Darko. One would be ignorant if they said the Clippers had a better all round team than the Wolves.


Griffin could play anywhere, anytime and be great. Aldridge, meh he's a half court player, don't think going to Minnesota is going to help him much just like going to Portland wouldn't help Love.

You didn't answer the question I asked however. I asked if they flipped teams would they be more efficient players than Love.

ChiSox219
07-29-2011, 07:52 PM
You do realize it was a comparison of the best scorers output vs the pace of their respective decade and not based on the league's eFG%. It's a comparison that shows how the leading scorers of each respective era scored vs the pace.

You compare across eras there are many factors that indeed has to be taken into consideration this however was a debate of pace relative to individual scoring output. It is one way in which you look at how the higher scorers averaged across eras.

If you want to take into consideration the officiating I can't do anything about that. Usually when comparing Oscar to player's of today his pace is adjusted officiating isn't taken part of the equation. You don't have to go back before the 3pt line you could just start looking at it from 79 onwards. If you want to can even compare within eras where the rules were basically the same but the pace fluctuated and even so take the eFG% and the TS%

The point you seem to be missing is that to state opening that Kevin Love would score 3 less points because he played for a team with a lower pace is somewhat ignorant. Regardless of the pace of the team Love is still going to get his. That is what happens with star players, they get theirs. What ever paced he played at he was still going to be Kevin Love. I can see an argument for his rebounding to fall because they'd be less team possessions but in Love's case in terms of offense how much of a hit would his scoring take? Would he really lose 3 points?

Tell me something. If Durant plays a game at a high pace as opposed to a game at a low pace do you think he'll still be a big part of his team's offensive scheme? Think about it this way, no matter the pace a good player is still going to get his regardless (hence the reason for the comparison of the better scorers). Durant is still going to be part of his team's offensive scheme and no matter if there are 120 or 90 possessions KD is still going to get his share. Now KD wouldn't have the same USG% relative to pace but regardless he would still get his. Do you agree on that?



Griffin's 2nd best player was a fringe all star type player. Though he was injured a lot he still brought more to the table than Luke Ridnour. DeAndre Jordan and Kaman (though he too was injured) are also a much better than Darko. One would be ignorant if they said the Clippers had a better all round team than the Wolves.



You didn't answer the question I asked however. I asked if they flipped teams would they be more efficient players than Love.

You are missing the point, the comparison is useless because it's comparing apples to oranges. You completely missed that the increase in efficiency has led to an increase in points per possession and thus individual scoring has remained relatively steady even though the game has slowed down. If efficiency had remained relatively steady, maybe you'd have a point.

Swashcuff
07-29-2011, 08:09 PM
You are missing the point, the comparison is useless because it's comparing apples to oranges. You completely missed that the increase in efficiency has led to an increase in points per possession and thus individual scoring has remained relatively steady even though the game has slowed down. If efficiency had remained relatively steady, maybe you'd have a point.

From 1990 till now efficiency has remained steady. The discrepancies are also showed there.

Sad thing is you are the one who is completely missing the point. This is not league #s these are the #s for the top 4, 5, 6 and 7 scorers in the league.

The debate isn't the league average but rather the top scorers average. Understand that. Also you continue to dodge many questions posed to you.

ChiSox219
07-30-2011, 05:55 AM
From 1990 till now efficiency has remained steady. The discrepancies are also showed there.

No it hasn't, efficiency has varied wildly in such a short span. Part of that is the changes in hand checking, the shortening of the 3 point line, the no-charge semi-circle, etc. The range is .466 to .501 in that period, with the peak .501 coming in the late 00s but also a .500 eFG during the mid 90s. Rule changes affected the scoring efficiency and rate at which the game was played.




Sad thing is you are the one who is completely missing the point. This is not league #s these are the #s for the top 4, 5, 6 and 7 scorers in the league.

At best, that is a small and inaccurate sample size. It proves nothing when you look at the grand changes to the game. Also, the only PF in the top 7 in scoring this season was Amare who, coincidentally, played for the fast pace, wide open offense New York Knicks.



The debate isn't the league average but rather the top scorers average. Understand that.

Why? None of these PFs we are discussing are top scorers. Why limit the sample size to such a small %, it's not helping anyone or proving anything.


Also you continue to dodge many questions posed to you.

Such as? What, you want me to conclusively say that in a hypothetical swap player x would be better/more efficient/more productive than player y? Pointless. Since you insist, Blake Griffin is a better player than Kevin Love or LMA, regardless of situation. I'll take him over Bosh, Randolph, and Amare too.

RevisIsland
07-30-2011, 06:29 PM
K-love, gotta love that guy.