PDA

View Full Version : All-Time Redraft Semifinals: (1) Jerusalem vs (5) Seaside



Shammyguy3
05-18-2015, 08:28 PM
Each year PSD users on the forum partake in a fantasy snake-draft consisting of all-time players. Players are designated for certain eras based on their peak, and we've used a general 5 year prime to try and rank players overall value (so try and vote based on that 5-year peak as best you can). After the draft, opposing conferences voted for playoff ranking. So, given the two rosters below, if they were to face in real life (with every player in their 5-year prime), which team would win in the 7-game series?

1. Jerusalem (Home-Court Advantage)
PG: Steve Nash - Mike Conley
SG: Alvin Robertson - Eddie Jones
SF: Grant Hill - Michael Finley
PF: Dirk Nowitzki - Mychal Thompson
C : Hakeem Olajuwon - DeMarcus Cousins

5. Seaside
PG: Jason Kidd - Steve Kerr
SG: Joe Dumars - Steve Smith
SF: Elgin Baylor - Sean Elliott
PF: Bob McAdoo - A.C. Green
C: Bill Walton - Andrew Bynum


Jerusalem Write-Up

1.) Seaside’s number 1 scoring option would be Jerusalem’s 3rd option (behind Hakeem and Dirk). In Baylors 5 year prime (1959-1964), he shot FG% of, .424, .430, .428, .453, .425. He only had one season in which he was above .500 TS%! To put things into perspective, Jason Kidd (.507) has a higher career TS% than Baylor (.494)! Within his 5 year prime, he averaged a whopping 27.5 shots per game, in order to get 31.9 total points! We can’t give Baylor a pass simply because he played in an era where it was common for inefficient volume scoring. I can only imagine how much less efficient he would be in an all time players game. He was one of the greatest in the late 50’s and 60’s, but a terrible player to build around.

2.) 3PT disparity. Seaside lack of floor spacing will prove fatal for their frontcourt. If Seaside wants to use Jason Kidd’s latter-year 3 point shooting percentage to suggest he and Dumars give adequate floor spacing, then we have to use his latter-year stats/prime as well to be fair and consistent. You can’t cherry pick a player’s stats throughout the course of his career to use his best statistical number in said category. Using what I perceive to be Kidd’s best 5 year prime (1998-2003), Kidd shot an abysmal .329 from 3 (1.2/3.5)! To make matters worse, Jason Kidd shot .269 from 3 (1.3/4.7) during the playoffs in his 5 year prime! Is it really a viable option to have Dumars be the only floor spacer?

3.) Seaside has great top 100 players, but not a single player is top 20 or capable of taking over a game offensively. None of them are elite at both ends of the floor. Kidd was good defensively, but had no jump shot; Dumars was good defensively, but not an elite scorer; Baylor was a high volume inefficient scorer, but a terrible defender; McAdoo was a good scorer, but a terrible defender. Walton was a good defender, but not an elite offensive scorer.

4.) Seaside’s defensive abilities are great, but their offense is not even close to being enough if they hope to have championship aspirations. Who do they rely on for buckets when the team is in an offensive funk? I’m sure Baylor won’t mind jacking up shots… (see point number 1). They don’t have a single efficient elite scoring option to carry their team.

5.) Using Seaside’s conclusion in his 1st round write up: “3 of my starters made multiple All-Defensive teams, 2 won Finals MVP, 2 won MVP, 4 were Champions.” Jerusalem matches and beats that with: All 5 starters made 1st and/or 2nd team, 2 starters won defensive player of the year, 1 starter won multiple defensive player of the year awards, 4 players on the roster made 1st and/or 2nd team all defense, 2 starters won Finals MVP, one start won multiple Finals MVPs, 3 starters won MVP, 2 starters won multiple MVPs.

Head-to-Head Matchup

Steve Nash (2004-2009) vs Jason Kidd (1998-2003)

Steve Nash is a 2-time MVP. He has lead 6 of the 12 best offenses in NBA history! Jason Kidd is an NBA champion. In all fairness, Kidd has to attribute his championship ring to Jerusalem’s starting PF, Dirk Nowitzki as Kidd was a shell of his former self.

If Seaside thinks Jason Kidd will “shut down” Nash with his defensive capabilities, let us look at their head-to-head stats to see if that’s a true theory.

http://i57.tinypic.com/mmbv5i.jpg

Steve Nash was actually more efficient when Jason Kidd played against him than his regular averages! The reason Jason Kidd is a good defender, wasn’t because he was a lockdown defender for point guards, but because he was a good defender capable of guarding multiple positions (PG/SG/SF). You don’t “shut down” arguably the greatest shooter in NBA history!

Looking at Nash’s and Kidd’s advanced stats, Nash shot a whopping .630 TS% in his 5-year prime (2004-2009) compared to Kidd’s horrendous .509 TS% (at least it’s better than Baylors…). Seeing as a point guard’s primary job is to facilitate, both were amongst the best in NBA history, but Nash wins this as well. In their 5-year primes, Nash had an incredibly AST% of 46.7 which beats out Kidd’s AST% of 41.9. While many statisticians are all about WS, I’m not. However, Nash does win WS and WS/48 with 53.5 WS and .193 WS/148 to Kidd’s 46.4 WS and .162 WS/48.

At worst, these players are a wash, but in my honest and objective opinion, advanced stats, 2 MVPs and leading the league in assists 3 out of 5 times within his 5 year prime, and Kidd’s inability to slow down Nash throughout their careers makes me give Nash the edge.

Alvin Robertson (1985-1990) vs Joe Dumars (1989-1994)

http://i60.tinypic.com/2d6wspd.jpg

Dumars was the better shooter and scorer, but Robertson was the better facilitator, slasher, and rebounder. While Joe Dumars was one of the best perimeter defenders in history, he never won DPOY and he has fewer NBA defensive selections than Robertson. Lets not forget that Alvin Robertson is 1 of 4 players to ever record a quadruple double! Statistically and impact-wise, this matchup is essentially a wash, but I have no problem giving Dumars the slightest of edges due to his FMVP.

Grant Hill (1995-2000) vs Elgin Baylor (1959-1964)

If we are talking about careers, Baylor wins this quite easily. Hill had an elite 5-year prime but injuries hurt his career legacy. If, however, we’re talking about peak and prime, Grant Hill has the superior prime when you recalibrate the 50’s/60’s game to modern day game.

http://i60.tinypic.com/15xjod4.jpg

Granted Baylor scored 10 more points per game in their 5 year prime, but he needed 11 more shots to do it! Baylor had an underwhelming TS% of .498 in his prime! Hill had a respectable .545. Hill was also the superior passer and play maker; He made his teammates better. Furthermore, on the other end of the floor, Hill was astronomically superior defensively than Baylor. Baylor even admitted he saved himself for the offensive end of the floor! Hill wins this easily if we go by the parameters of the game (5-year peak).

Dirk Nowitzki (2005-2010) vs Bob McAdoo (1973-1978)

There isn’t much to say here other than this is a ginormous leap in talent. Dirk has lead his team to the NBA Finals multiple times, and even won FMVP having Jason Terry as his best player. Dirk’s 2011 postseason production is legendary, and currently ranked in the top 10 performances of all time. His one legged fade away jumper is said to be the 2nd most difficult offensive move to guard in NBA history. Dirk wins this by leaps and bounds.

Hakeem Olajuwon (1990-2005) vs Bill Walton (1975-1983 Didn’t play in the 79’-80’ and 80’- 81’ seasons)

http://i59.tinypic.com/4sfl8i.jpg

Perhaps just as big as the gap between Nowitzki and McAdoo, Olajuwon destroys Walton’s prime. Olajuwon is superior in every facet of the game, including defense. Even assuming health (something Walton couldn’t do), he doesn’t even have a fighter’s chance against Olajuwon. A top 3 center in NBA history versus a top 20 center… Olajuwon takes this matchup with absolute ease.

Lineup Rotation

PG: Steve Nash – Mike Conley
SG: Alvin Robertson – Eddie Jones
SF: Grant Hill – Eddie Jones
PF: Dirk Nowitzki – Hakeem Olajuwon
C: Hakeem Olajuwon – Mychal Thompson

Offensive

Jerusalem has the luxury and versatility to play extremely fast up-tempo offense by having Nash, Robertson, and Hill capable of running the fast break. Robertson and Hill being extraordinarily amazing rebounders for their respective positions will allow them to engage in the fast break even faster! Hakeem will attack the rim, Dirk will trail the 3 point arch, and Hill/Robertson will be the slashers/extra facilitator/open midrange jump shooter.

In the half-court setting, it will be pick and roll basketball all day. Nash and Dirk, Nash and Hakeem, and Dirk/Hakeem will be the bread and butter. McAdoo will be annihilated on the offensive end, and Walton can only guard one of Hakeem or Dirk. Hakeem and Dirk are 2 of the best passing bigmen in NBA history, which will allow for the kick out passes to the open perimeter player.

Seaside’s defense is great, but Jerusalem’s offense is exponentially better.

Defense

Alvin Robertson, Grant Hill, and Hakeem Olajuwon were their respective team’s greatest defenders. When it comes to the bench, having 3 elite 2 way players in Mike Conley, Eddie Jones, and Mychal Thompson will give Jerusalem the luxury of swapping out the starters without losing anything on either side of the floor. In fact, Jerusalem improves even more by bringing in some of their rotational bench players.

Thankfully, Kidd is not an offensive threat, so Nash will be hidden on him. During the course of the game, Alvin and Conley will be guarding Kidd, but he will be predominantly guarding Dumars, with Jones taking up the backup SG minutes to guard him. Hill will predominantly be guarding Baylor, with Jones taking the backup minutes. Dirk will be put on McAdoo, where Dirk actually improved to be a positive defensive player within the 5 year peak I assigned him. With Hakeem playing the backup minutes, he will also be put on McAdoo, but predominantly on Walton.

Jerusalem wins this matchup.


Seaside Write-Up

Admit it, you want Jerusalem to lose. All you need is a reason to vote against him, well I am that reason. We are one of the few teams that has the overall talent level to beat, let alone compete with Jerusalem.

Steve Nash - His ungoldy efficiency and passing numbers are due in large part to the 7 seconds or less offense of Phoenix, which is not a style that plays to the rest of his teams strength. If he runs a more conventional offense (as we saw in Dallas) his numbers drop from:

Phoenix: 16.3 PPG | 10.9 APG | 51 FG% | 62.4 TS%
Dallas: 16.5 PPG | 7.8 APG | 47 FG% | 59.2 TS%

Additionally, Jason Kidd is a far better defender than Nash, so while Nash's offense will be stiffled by Kidd, Kidd will pretty much have free reign to run our offense unencumbered. Additionally, Jason Kidd shot 37% from deep against Nash so he'd be even more effective offensively than normal.

Wings - I'm assuming Jerusalem is going to put Alvin Robertson on Elgin Baylor and we plan to do the same with Joe Dumars and Grant Hill. I believe we win this battle of defensive adjustements. One, Baylor is a better scorer than Hill and Dumars is a better defender than Alvin Robertson. Michael Jordan called Joe Dumars the best guy to ever guard him so Dumars has experience guarding athletic and taller wings.

Frontcourt - Although Jerusalem has the best frontcourt in the game I believe our frontcourt has just enough talent and skills to allow our backcourt and wings to make up the difference and ultimately win this series. Remember, although his backcourt features two former MVPs, so does ours. We've seen Hakeem dominate young or athletic players such as young Shaq or David Robinson, however the players that will give him the most trouble were the Bigs who were fundamentally sound. Bill Walton fits that description to a T. He would be able to at least make Hakeem work on the offensive end as well as have more discipline on the defensive end to not go for as many of Hakeem's fakes and various post moves. 38 year old Kareem Abdul-Jabbar averaged 27 PPG vs. Hakeem in the 86 playoffs, and prime Bill Walton was most certainly better than 38 year old Kareem.

People are going to look at the matchup between Dirk and McAdoo and instantly declare Dirk the victor, however I don't think they should be so quick to do so. Yes, Dirk was better, but in this matchup I don't think that would translate to a larger scoring margin. McAdoo was a more prolific scorer and did so on good efficiency in his prime (56.7 TS%). Additionally, he was a better defender and rebounder than Dirk. Although Dirk provides spacing for Hakeem to work down low, McAdoo was very comfortable playing near the 3PT line and I think ultimately he would end up outscoring Dirk through the series, both because he was a more prolific scorer and his defense on Dirk will be better than Dirk's on him (Dirk career high BPG 1.5; McAdoo's prime average 2.5 BPG).

Overall, his team is extremely talented, but I must point out my guy actually outscores or matches his counterparts at 4/5 positions on the court (Kidd=Nash, Dumars>Robertson, Baylor>Hill, McAdoo>Dirk). Baylor/Kidd also eliminates any rebounding advantage his team would have with Hill. He has 2 historically great defenders in his starting lineup but we have 3.

Bottom line: our team has more scoring capacity and more top notch defenders, and we should win this series.

Redrum187
05-18-2015, 08:56 PM
I figured you'd mention Kidd's 3 point shooting in the head-to-head but conveniently fail to mention that Nash was not hindered at all by Kidd's defense; In fact, he was more efficient than his typical averages. Thanfully, I included the IMG of their head-to-head match up numbers but for some reason there was a glitch. I'll repost here:

http://i62.tinypic.com/2j5e1pw.jpg

Michael Jordan did admit Dumars was his toughest defender, but he also personally listed Robertson AND Hill in the list of people that made him work for his points. Also, what metric are you using to suggest Dumars was a superior defender?

I'm not sure anyone on God's green earth will believe McAdoo and Walton will "outscore" or "match" Dirk and Hakeem... Dirk and Hakeem are 2 of 4 players in NBA history (with more than 4 games) to post 25 points AND 10 rebounds for their career playoff averages! lol

MFFL==FML
05-18-2015, 09:04 PM
After writing a terrific write up in round one, I honestly can't even take Seaside's round 2 write up seriously.

He's seriously going to say McAdoo and Walton will match Olajuwon and Dirk offensively?! :laugh:

The fact he says, "admit it, you want them to lose" is a clear indication of his inferiority. I'm all for stretching a little bit, but that write up is the biggest stretch of fiction I've read in a long time.

MFFL==FML
05-18-2015, 09:05 PM
Jerusalem has the superior squad and the superior write up (with actual advanced metrics to support his claims).

This is an easy decision. I can't vote on this app. Count my vote for Jerusalem.

KnicksorBust
05-18-2015, 09:25 PM
Questions for Jerusalem:

#1.) Nash was at his best with athletic beasts like Shawn Marion and Amar'e playing the big men positions and finishing on the break. Are you expecting Dirk/Hakeem to keep up or is Nash going to play slower?

#2.) What type of numbers do you believe Bob McAdoo would put up in this series being guarded by Dirk?

#3.) Do you think the benches are significant in this match-up?

Redrum187
05-18-2015, 09:27 PM
I also don't know why you're equating KAJ (even at 38) to Bill Walton. At 38, KAJ averaged more playoff points per game than his career average! You're comparing "lamb" and "tunafish".

KnicksorBust
05-18-2015, 09:28 PM
Questions for Seaside:

#1.) Do you believe you are manipulating the rules by promoting JKidd's defense and 3pt prowess when clearly those were two separate parts of his career?

#2.) What type of numbers do you see Hakeem putting up being guarded by Bill Walton?

#3.) Who do you see as your go-to player down the stretch in close games?

Redrum187
05-18-2015, 09:46 PM
Questions for Jerusalem:

#1.) Nash was at his best with athletic beasts like Shawn Marion and Amar'e playing the big men positions and finishing on the break. Are you expecting Dirk/Hakeem to keep up or is Nash going to play slower?

They will be a hybrid of an uptempo AND half-court team. Their bread and butter will always be pick and roll with Nash/Dirk, Nash/Olajuwon, Dirk/Olajuwon. However, Dirk has proven he could excel in a change of pace, fast uptempo format and Olajuwon was an athletic freak of nature. Hill is an upgraded version of Marion, Olajuwon an upgraded Amare, and then you throw in Alvin Robertson and Dirk Nowitzki... Jerusalem will play to their strengths (halfcourt) but are more than capable of playing uptempo from time-to-time.


#2.) What type of numbers do you believe Bob McAdoo would put up in this series being guarded by Dirk?

That's hard to say really. McAdoo was a great scorer in his prime. Dirk is 3 inches taller and has shown to be a positive on the defensive end in his prime, despite his unwarranted bad reputation on that side of the floor. Bill Walton will have to exert all his energy on Olajuwon defensively, so it won't be surprising that in the event McAdoo does get hot, Dirk would guard the worn out Walton and allow Olajuwon to smother McAdoo. Nevertheless, Dirk will be guarding McAdoo the majority of the time he's on the floor, but all-in-all, Dirk will win this match up regardless.


#3.) Do you think the benches are significant in this match-up?

Without question. Seaside has a decent bench but they will be contributing significantly less than Jerusalem's bench. Conley > Kerr, Jones > Smith, Finley > Elliott, Thompson => Green, Cousins > Bynum.

In terms of rotational players, Conley controls the offense extremely well with how he sets the pace. He is the league's best PG defender (actively). Eddie Jones is like Joe Dumars-lite... 15-20 ppg, great 3 point shooting, and great defending. Thompson is crucial because he allows Jerusalem to maintain low-post scoring as well as elite defense to guard McAdoo and Walton.

The spacing and defense actually improve by supplementing the 3 rotational bench players with minimal offense lost; Not sure any other team can make that claim with their bench.

KnicksorBust
05-18-2015, 09:52 PM
Questions for Jerusalem:

#1.) Nash was at his best with athletic beasts like Shawn Marion and Amar'e playing the big men positions and finishing on the break. Are you expecting Dirk/Hakeem to keep up or is Nash going to play slower?

They will be a hybrid of an uptempo AND half-court team. Their bread and butter will always be pick and roll with Nash/Dirk, Nash/Olajuwon, Dirk/Olajuwon. However, Dirk has proven he could excel in a change of pace, fast uptempo format and Olajuwon was an athletic freak of nature. Hill is an upgraded version of Marion, Olajuwon an upgraded Amare, and then you throw in Alvin Robertson and Dirk Nowitzki... Jerusalem will play to their strengths (halfcourt) but are more than capable of playing uptempo from time-to-time.


#2.) What type of numbers do you believe Bob McAdoo would put up in this series being guarded by Dirk?

That's hard to say really. McAdoo was a great scorer in his prime. Dirk is 3 inches taller and has shown to be a positive on the defensive end in his prime, despite his unwarranted bad reputation on that side of the floor. Bill Walton will have to exert all his energy on Olajuwon defensively, so it won't be surprising that in the event McAdoo does get hot, Dirk would guard the worn out Walton and allow Olajuwon to smother McAdoo. Nevertheless, Dirk will be guarding McAdoo the majority of the time he's on the floor, but all-in-all, Dirk will win this match up regardless.


#3.) Do you think the benches are significant in this match-up?

Without question. Seaside's bench has a decent bench but they will be contributing significantly less than Jerusalem's bench. Conley > Kerr, Jones > Smith, Finley > Elliott, Thompson => Green, Cousins > Bynum.

In terms of rotational players, Conley controls the offense extremely well with how he sets the pace. He is the league's best PG defender (actively). Eddie Jones is like Joe Dumars-lite... 15-20 ppg, great 3 point shooting, and great defending. Thompson is crucial because he allows Jerusalem to maintain low-post scoring as well as elite defense to guard McAdoo and Walton.

Didn't answer #2. What stat-line do you think McAdoo would average against Dirk?

Redrum187
05-18-2015, 10:00 PM
Didn't answer #2. What stat-line do you think McAdoo would average against Dirk?

It's difficult to answer... I don't know if McAdoo is his number 1 or 2 option. It all depends on how Seaside utilizes him, don't you think? Regardless, Dirk will average a superior stat-line. Neither were game changing defenders, but Dirk is the better defender as well as more diverse and potent offensive player (especially in the postseason).

Giving my best guess with unknown variables: 24 ppg, 11 reb, 3 ast on his average shooting percentages.

Redrum187
05-18-2015, 10:08 PM
After writing a terrific write up in round one, I honestly can't even take Seaside's round 2 write up seriously.

He's seriously going to say McAdoo and Walton will match Olajuwon and Dirk offensively?! :laugh:

The fact he says, "admit it, you want them to lose" is a clear indication of his inferiority. I'm all for stretching a little bit, but that write up is the biggest stretch of fiction I've read in a long time.

:cheers:

Redrum187
05-18-2015, 10:17 PM
One more question for Seaside: You said Kidd = Nash (offensive production)...


"..but I must point out my guy actually outscores or matches his counterparts at 4/5 positions on the court (Kidd=Nash..."

In their primes:
Kidd: 13.2 ppg
Nash: 16.0 ppg

How is 13.2 = 16.0:confused: Not to mention Nash's superior efficiency and the fact teams HAD to strategize defensively for Nash more than they had to do for Kidd.

ricky recon
05-18-2015, 10:44 PM
I'm going to answer once someone answers my questions and has a good write up.

That doesn't make any sense. This isn't about who can make the best case. This is about who has the best team. Jerusalem has the best team, by a longshot and anyone who wants to hear an explanation from the guys who put the teams together are being ridiculous.

Absolutely ****ing ridiculous.

Jerusalem has the better team. No "write-up" is going to change that.

valade16
05-18-2015, 10:47 PM
I'll respond more in depth tomorrow but I will say two things,

1) saying Dirk is a better defender than McAdoo is the biggest farce in this whole thread

2) Teams did not have to strategize defensively more for Nash, they had to strategize for the 7 seconds or less offense, which your team is illsuited for.

Redrum187
05-18-2015, 10:59 PM
I'll respond more in depth tomorrow but I will say two things,

1) saying Dirk is a better defender than McAdoo is the biggest farce in this whole thread

2) Teams did not have to strategize defensively more for Nash, they had to strategize for the 7 seconds or less offense, which your team is illsuited for.

I disagree... I think Kidd = Nash on offensive scoring is the biggest farce, but we can disagree. At least I have undeniable objective proof that your claim is a farce (I posted their numbers), where as Dirk being better than McAdoo defensively is subjective.

Secondly, teams would often times put their best perimeter defender on Nash due to his ability to penetrate, pass, and score at an elite and efficient level. Do you really disagree that Nash drew more defensive attention than Kidd :confused:

Redrum187
05-18-2015, 11:03 PM
I'm going to answer once someone answers my questions and has a good write up.

That doesn't make any sense. This isn't about who can make the best case. This is about who has the best team. Jerusalem has the best team, by a longshot and anyone who wants to hear an explanation from the guys who put the teams together are being ridiculous.

Absolutely ****ing ridiculous.

Jerusalem has the better team. No "write-up" is going to change that.

You're absolutely correct; I agree entirely!

valade16
05-18-2015, 11:07 PM
I disagree... I think Kidd = Nash on offensive scoring is the biggest farce, but we can disagree. At least I have undeniable objective proof that your claim is a farce (I posted their numbers), where as Dirk being better than McAdoo defensively is subjective.

Secondly, teams would often times put their best perimeter defender on Nash due to his ability to penetrate, pass, and score at an elite and efficient level. Do you really disagree that Nash drew more defensive attention than Kidd :confused:

Those #'s are their entire career's scoring averages vs each other, not their peak. What was the peak #'s I wonder? I can say Kidd scored more pts on Nash (42) than Nash ever scored on Kidd.

valade16
05-18-2015, 11:14 PM
Questions for Seaside:

#1.) Do you believe you are manipulating the rules by promoting JKidd's defense and 3pt prowess when clearly those were two separate parts of his career?

#2.) What type of numbers do you see Hakeem putting up being guarded by Bill Walton?

#3.) Who do you see as your go-to player down the stretch in close games?

1). A little by showing the career % however Kidd still shot above his normal 3pt % against Nash in his prime.

2). I see Hakeem putting up 28 and 12. He's going to get his. The thing is, I don't see McAdoo only getting 24 PPG as Redrum suggests.

3). McAdoo will be getting the ball down the stretch. In his prime he was a monster in the playoffs. He averaged 31 PPG, 37 PPG and 28 PPG in the playoffs in his prime, and that was against Cowens (twice) and Unseld.

If he can average 30 PPG against great defenders like them, no way Dirk holds him to 24 PPG.

valade16
05-18-2015, 11:19 PM
I also don't know why you're equating KAJ (even at 38) to Bill Walton. At 38, KAJ averaged more playoff points per game than his career average! You're comparing "lamb" and "tunafish".

More points... And only 6 RPG and 1.7 BPG

Prime Walton averaged 18 PPG, 15 RPG, 5.5 APG and 3.4 BPG.

Redrum187
05-18-2015, 11:20 PM
Those #'s are their entire career's scoring averages vs each other, not their peak. What was the peak #'s I wonder? I can say Kidd scored more pts on Nash (42) than Nash ever scored on Kidd.

What? You're saying in your write up, Kidd averaged a higher career ppg than Nash did as opposed to head-to-head match up ppg? Not only is that untrue, Nash has a higher career ppg average AND head-to-head scoring averages (check the image I posted). Career averages, Kidd took MORE shots per game than Nash, but Nash scored more points!

valade16
05-18-2015, 11:26 PM
What? You're saying in your write up, Kidd averaged a higher career ppg than Nash did as opposed to head-to-head match up ppg? Not only is that untrue, Nash has a higher career ppg average AND head-to-head scoring averages (check the image I posted). Career averages, Kidd took MORE shots per game than Nash, but Nash scored more points!

Clearly you didn't understand what I meant. The numbers you posted were their head to head matchups for their entire career vs each other. As in 39 yr old, clearly out of prime Kidd playing sparingly and scoring 3 points dropping his average.

I'm asking what are their head to head averages vs each other during their overlapping 5 year prime? There is a difference...

Redrum187
05-18-2015, 11:26 PM
More points... And only 6 RPG and 1.7 BPG

Prime Walton averaged 18 PPG, 15 RPG, 5.5 APG and 3.4 BPG.

Yes, KAJ averaged more points in the 87' playoffs than his career playoff averages, which was the point when you said 4 out of 5 of your guys are more offensively potent. Which you've still yet to admit, Nash > Kidd!

Furthermore, KAJ (at 38) still doesn't equate to Walton's offensive production in his prime! Offensively, KAJ was able to put up better offensive numbers than Walton! You can't compare them no matter how hard you want to stretch it.

Redrum187
05-18-2015, 11:46 PM
Clearly you didn't understand what I meant. The numbers you posted were their head to head matchups for their entire career vs each other. As in 39 yr old, clearly out of prime Kidd playing sparingly and scoring 3 points dropping his average.

I'm asking what are their head to head averages vs each other during their overlapping 5 year prime? There is a difference...

Oh, you're clearer now. That is quite a silly question considering their primes 5 year primes were in completely different years. Furthermore, that is limiting the sample size of their offensive prowess (or the lack thereof in Kidd's case). Nevertheless, no matter HOW you meant "Kidd=Nash" when it comes to offensive scoring, Nash wins.

From Nash’s 2004-2009 prime offensive numbers.
1-23-05
Kidd: 23
Nash: 30
11-25-05
Kidd: 25
Nash: 27
3-27-06
Kidd: 9
Nash: 0
11-24-06
Kidd: 7
Nash: 26
12-07-06
Kidd: 26
Nash: 38
01-20-08
Kidd: 9
Nash: 13
04-06-08
Kidd: 8
Nash: 14
12-04-08
Kidd: 8
Nash: 14
01-09-09
Kidd: 15
Nash: 9
03-10-09
Kidd: 12
Nash: 23
04-05-09
Kidd: 19
Nash: 12
Total:
Kidd: 161
Nash: 206

The_Jamal
05-19-2015, 01:13 AM
Respect Valade, but dude... McAdoo is a better offensive player than Dirk? Are you freaking kidding me?

Leaning Jerusalem

Redrum187
05-19-2015, 02:25 AM
People are going to look at the matchup between Dirk and McAdoo and instantly declare Dirk the victor, however I don't think they should be so quick to do so. Yes, Dirk was better, but in this matchup I don't think that would translate to a larger scoring margin. McAdoo was a more prolific scorer and did so on good efficiency in his prime (56.7 TS%). Additionally, he was a better defender and rebounder than Dirk. Although Dirk provides spacing for Hakeem to work down low, McAdoo was very comfortable playing near the 3PT line and I think ultimately he would end up outscoring Dirk through the series, both because he was a more prolific scorer and his defense on Dirk will be better than Dirk's on him (Dirk career high BPG 1.5; McAdoo's prime average 2.5 BPG).

1.) What 5-years did you use for McAdoo's prime that you magically got "2.5 BPG"? I can't see any mathematical combination to give him such a 5-year prime average...

2.) Lets pretend McAdoo did average 2.5 BPG in a 5-year prime average (which he didn't), does that prove McAdoo is a superior defender than Dennis Rodman who has never average a full block for an entire season, only having a career average of 0.6 BPG? Are you assuming because he got blocks he was not only better than Dirk defensively, but by leaps and bounds? Blocks aren't always a good indicator of defense!

3.) McAdoo was comfortable playing to the 3 point line? That is funny... during his 5-year prime (1973-1978) they didn't even have a 3 point line! lol It wasn't until the 1979-1980 season that it was introduced. Since you like to use career 3PT averages as opposed to 5-year prime 3PT averages, McAdoo was a career .081 3 point shooter from the time it was introduced to the time he retired. Yikes!

Furthermore, you claim McAdoo played near the [non-existent] 3PT line, but lets pretend you meant 20-23 feet... Basketball-reference.com didn't post shooting data until 2000. He may have, but most player bios say he was primarily a post-up and midrange scorer. Where did you get this data? Did you make this up or was this wishful thinking?

4.) Lets assume McAdoo was Dirk Nowitzki from the 3 point line for a minute... is that going to leave space for Walton to go for 30 against Hakeem Olajuwon or something? Olajuwon was a better defender than Walton in their prime...

5.) You actually ADMIT Dirk Nowitzki is the better player, but then proceed to say McAdoo was not only the more "prolific scorer" but the better defender as well! If McAdoo was better on both ends of the floor, why did you even say Dirk "is the better player" :confused:

6.) You mention McAdoo's scoring efficiency which was .565 TS% in his 5-year prime, which is not too shabby. Dirk's was .583 TS%... Probably shouldn't have brought that up. ;)

7.) Dirk lead the entire league in WS 3 years in a row (04-05,05-06,06-07). His 5-year prime average WS was .228! McAdoo has only had 2 seasons in his entire career where he broke .200 WS. McAdoo's 5-year prime WS was less than .200... Dirk's CAREER average is over .200!!

8.) You might be the only person on the planet that thinks McAdoo is a "more prolific scorer" than Dirk freaking Nowitzki.

tredigs
05-19-2015, 02:57 AM
Would've been interesting to see young McAdoo. To be the class of the league from a scoring and overall dominance stand point at such a young age when peak Kareem is playing... yeah, you're no joke.

IKnowHoops
05-19-2015, 04:31 AM
I'm gonna go with Jur. I think the team is better. I'd take Nash over Kidd. I'd take Prime Grant over his counter part. I'd take both Dirk and Hakeem over there counterpart. Would be a great game, both have great players, but I like Nash/Dirk/Hakeem/Dirk>>>any 4 guys the other team has by far.

valade16
05-19-2015, 09:05 AM
Respect Valade, but dude... McAdoo is a better offensive player than Dirk? Are you freaking kidding me?

Leaning Jerusalem

Never said better, said more prolific as in scores at a higher volume, which is objectively true. Jerry Stackhouse was a more prolific scorer than Steve Nash, doesn't mean he's a better scorer.

valade16
05-19-2015, 09:23 AM
1.) What 5-years did you use for McAdoo's prime that you magically got "2.5 BPG"? I can't see any mathematical combination to give him such a 5-year prime average...

2.) Lets pretend McAdoo did average 2.5 BPG in a 5-year prime average (which he didn't), does that prove McAdoo is a superior defender than Dennis Rodman who has never average a full block for an entire season, only having a career average of 0.6 BPG? Are you assuming because he got blocks he was not only better than Dirk defensively, but by leaps and bounds? Blocks aren't always a good indicator of defense!

3.) McAdoo was comfortable playing to the 3 point line? That is funny... during his 5-year prime (1973-1978) they didn't even have a 3 point line! lol It wasn't until the 1979-1980 season that it was introduced. Since you like to use career 3PT averages as opposed to 5-year prime 3PT averages, McAdoo was a career .081 3 point shooter from the time it was introduced to the time he retired. Yikes!

Furthermore, you claim McAdoo played near the [non-existent] 3PT line, but lets pretend you meant 20-23 feet... Basketball-reference.com didn't post shooting data until 2000. He may have, but most player bios say he was primarily a post-up and midrange scorer. Where did you get this data? Did you make this up or was this wishful thinking?

4.) Lets assume McAdoo was Dirk Nowitzki from the 3 point line for a minute... is that going to leave space for Walton to go for 30 against Hakeem Olajuwon or something? Olajuwon was a better defender than Walton in their prime...

5.) You actually ADMIT Dirk Nowitzki is the better player, but then proceed to say McAdoo was not only the more "prolific scorer" but the better defender as well! If McAdoo was better on both ends of the floor, why did you even say Dirk "is the better player" :confused:

6.) You mention McAdoo's scoring efficiency which was .565 TS% in his 5-year prime, which is not too shabby. Dirk's was .583 TS%... Probably shouldn't have brought that up. ;)

7.) Dirk lead the entire league in WS 3 years in a row (04-05,05-06,06-07). His 5-year prime average WS was .228! McAdoo has only had 2 seasons in his entire career where he broke .200 WS. McAdoo's 5-year prime WS was less than .200... Dirk's CAREER average is over .200!!

8.) You might be the only person on the planet that thinks McAdoo is a "more prolific scorer" than Dirk freaking Nowitzki.

1) I was using his prime in Buffalo so it wasn't his 5 year average, I'll rephrase to say it as such:

Dirk's highest BPG was 1.5 ever, his next two were 1.4 and 1.2.
McAdoo's highest BPG was 3.3. His next two were 2.1 and 2.1. He also has years of 1.6 and 1.4.

No matter how you portray it, McAdoo is better at blocking shots than Dirk

2) Well ultimately it is subjective but McAdoo's D rating was 95, 95, 96, 96, and 99 his first 5 years, and his team wasn't exactly filled with plus defenders around him. McAdoo was a good defender in his prime, he just stopped playing defense as the years progressed.

3) Obviously I meant he played on the perimeter. He would be able to play out there against Dirk. As for my sources regarding McAdoo being able to shoot the midrange and play on the perimeter A). It shows your lack of knowledge regarding McAdoo and B):

McAdoo's style was very modern for his time. Although a 'big man' at 6 ft 9 in (2.06 m), he had no problems taking shots from the perimeter, which, in his prime, made him a nearly unstoppable force on offense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_McAdoo

One of the best-shooting big men of all time, Robert Allen McAdoo Jr. won the first of his three scoring championships in only his second year in the NBA, 1973-74, the same year he led the league with a .547 field-goal percentage

By the middle of the 1975-76 season Sports Illustrated was calling McAdoo "the quickest tall man, finest shooter and most astounding outside scoring machine ever to play basketball."

http://www.nba.com/history/players/mcadoo_bio.html

Not to mention NBA Open Court had a segment the "next 10" of guys who should be added to the 50 greatest players list and Isiah Thomas said McAdoo was the "original stretch 4" to which everyone agreed.

4) I've never insinuated Walton would go off on Hakeem (or stop Hakeem from posting monster numbers)

5) More prolific certainly doesn't mean better and as to the rest, it's not my job to tell you why your player is better than mine, that's your job. But let's look at the scoring:

Dirk highest PPG seasons: 34.5 PPG | 31.1 PPG | 30.6 PPG | 26.5 PPG
McAdoo highest PPG seasons: 26.6 PPG | 26.1 PPG | 25.9 PPG | 25.1 PPG

Dirk playoff highest PPG: 28.4 PPG | 27.7 PPG | 27.0 PPG
McAdoo playoff highest PPG: 37.4 PPG | 31.7 PPG | 28.0 PPG

And as I said, that was against guys like Cowens and Unseld, quality defenders. I don't see Dirk's defense slowing him down much, if any.

6) I never claimed his TS% was higher than Dirk's, merely that it was efficient enough to score points.

7) Weren't you the one that told me that you don't like Win Shares because it's such a team oriented stat? Dirk definitely had better teams than McAdoo which could boost those numbers. McAdoo was drafted to an expansion team.

8) Definition of prolific:

present in large numbers or quantities; plentiful.

So I am not the only one who thinks McAdoo was a more prolific scorer than Dirk, he scored more. That is simpy objective fact. I'm not saying he's a better scorer, a more versatile scorer, a more efficient scorer, only that he scores more, a fact.

McAdoo led the league in scoring 3 straight years, Dirk has never led the league in scoring.

valade16
05-19-2015, 09:25 AM
Would've been interesting to see young McAdoo. To be the class of the league from a scoring and overall dominance stand point at such a young age when peak Kareem is playing... yeah, you're no joke.

Yeah, it's unfortunate for guys who had shorter peaks and were older because not many people know about them, but McAdoo could score with the best of them.

KnicksorBust
05-19-2015, 10:11 AM
I'm going to answer once someone answers my questions and has a good write up.

That doesn't make any sense. This isn't about who can make the best case. This is about who has the best team. Jerusalem has the best team, by a longshot and anyone who wants to hear an explanation from the guys who put the teams together are being ridiculous.

Absolutely ****ing ridiculous.

Jerusalem has the better team. No "write-up" is going to change that.

Disagree. That ignores defensive matchups and team strategy which have a huge impact on a series. Plus the idea that we all enter this discussion with full understanding of the context of these matchups when players are being thrown together from different decades is absurd.

valade16
05-19-2015, 11:45 AM
I also want to point out some highlights from Redrum's longwinded write-up:

Seaside has great top 100 players, but not a single player is top 20 or capable of taking over a game offensively.

Elgin Baylor has scored 71 points in a game (9th most ever). He has scored over 60 points in a game 3 additional times. Bob McAdoo led the league in scoring in 3 consecutive seasons. But yeah, we don't have anyone who can take over a game offensively lol.

Dirk Nowitzki (2005-2010) vs Bob McAdoo (1973-1978). There isn’t much to say here other than this is a ginormous leap in talent.

Ginormous leap of talent? There is a talent gap, but I don't think it's nearly as big as he is insinuating. McAdoo won an MVP like Dirk, he led the league in scoring 3 straight years (over peak KAJ too) and dominated his playoff matchups. He had a pretty lackluster supporting cast, but in terms of his individual ability, he is insanely talented.

A top 3 center in NBA history versus a top 20 center… Olajuwon takes this matchup with absolute ease.

Top 20 Center? Walton is without question a Top 10 Center in terms of ability. He won an MVP and led his team to a title. He was a defensive monster and about as versatile an offensive Center as they come. Top 20? C'mon lol

[Grant] Hill was astronomically superior defensively than Baylor.

In what universe? Hill was not a very good defender when he was the man in Detroit. If Redrum wants to give me crap for stretching Kidd's 3PT shooting abilities he can't turn around and use role player Hill's defense with star player Hill's offense. It's either one or the other.

It's pretty obvious with his sensational comments he simply doesn't know anything about my players and underrates them pretty hard. No one who can take over a game offensively lol? By his logic there are only 4 players in the history of the game (Hakeem and Dirk not among them) who can take over a game because there are only 4 players who have ever scored more than Baylor in a game...

KnicksorBust
05-19-2015, 12:41 PM
null

Arguably your strongest post in the thread just at the time you needed it. Mac and Walton's MVP seasons should not be ignored.

Redrum187
05-19-2015, 01:30 PM
1) I was using his prime in Buffalo so it wasn't his 5 year average, I'll rephrase to say it as such:

Dirk's highest BPG was 1.5 ever, his next two were 1.4 and 1.2.
McAdoo's highest BPG was 3.3. His next two were 2.1 and 2.1. He also has years of 1.6 and 1.4.

No matter how you portray it, McAdoo is better at blocking shots than Dirk

2) Well ultimately it is subjective but McAdoo's D rating was 95, 95, 96, 96, and 99 his first 5 years, and his team wasn't exactly filled with plus defenders around him. McAdoo was a good defender in his prime, he just stopped playing defense as the years progressed.

3) Obviously I meant he played on the perimeter. He would be able to play out there against Dirk. As for my sources regarding McAdoo being able to shoot the midrange and play on the perimeter A). It shows your lack of knowledge regarding McAdoo and B):

McAdoo's style was very modern for his time. Although a 'big man' at 6 ft 9 in (2.06 m), he had no problems taking shots from the perimeter, which, in his prime, made him a nearly unstoppable force on offense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_McAdoo

One of the best-shooting big men of all time, Robert Allen McAdoo Jr. won the first of his three scoring championships in only his second year in the NBA, 1973-74, the same year he led the league with a .547 field-goal percentage

By the middle of the 1975-76 season Sports Illustrated was calling McAdoo "the quickest tall man, finest shooter and most astounding outside scoring machine ever to play basketball."

http://www.nba.com/history/players/mcadoo_bio.html

Not to mention NBA Open Court had a segment the "next 10" of guys who should be added to the 50 greatest players list and Isiah Thomas said McAdoo was the "original stretch 4" to which everyone agreed.

4) I've never insinuated Walton would go off on Hakeem (or stop Hakeem from posting monster numbers)

5) More prolific certainly doesn't mean better and as to the rest, it's not my job to tell you why your player is better than mine, that's your job. But let's look at the scoring:

Dirk highest PPG seasons: 34.5 PPG | 31.1 PPG | 30.6 PPG | 26.5 PPG
McAdoo highest PPG seasons: 26.6 PPG | 26.1 PPG | 25.9 PPG | 25.1 PPG

Dirk playoff highest PPG: 28.4 PPG | 27.7 PPG | 27.0 PPG
McAdoo playoff highest PPG: 37.4 PPG | 31.7 PPG | 28.0 PPG

And as I said, that was against guys like Cowens and Unseld, quality defenders. I don't see Dirk's defense slowing him down much, if any.

6) I never claimed his TS% was higher than Dirk's, merely that it was efficient enough to score points.

7) Weren't you the one that told me that you don't like Win Shares because it's such a team oriented stat? Dirk definitely had better teams than McAdoo which could boost those numbers. McAdoo was drafted to an expansion team.

8) Definition of prolific:

present in large numbers or quantities; plentiful.

So I am not the only one who thinks McAdoo was a more prolific scorer than Dirk, he scored more. That is simpy objective fact. I'm not saying he's a better scorer, a more versatile scorer, a more efficient scorer, only that he scores more, a fact.

McAdoo led the league in scoring 3 straight years, Dirk has never led the league in scoring.

1.) So yes... you were using BPG as the only source of justification for why you think McAdoo was better defensively. Gotcha.

2.) Other than your word, do you have anything to back that claim up?

3.) Just for future reference, wikipedia is a great site, but never use it as a source if you want credibility.

You don't even have a knowledge of McAdoo's %'s of shooting data. It's not an damning to not know that as they didn't keep records of it. I even said he "could have" shot from 20-23 feet, but every description of multiple sites that I read up about McAdoo stated he was predominantly an around the rim to midrange scorer.

You still have yet to quantify, by any objective measure, how often he shot from "near the 3PT line". Posting sites that say he was a great "shooter" is rather vague in that it doesn't give the frequency or exact range he had.

4.) Fair enough.

5.) No, but it's your job to explain how McAdoo is the more "prolific" scorer. Your ultimate and independent variable is "he scored more points". Iverson scored a lot of points... but I think you have an extremely anecdotal interpretation of what a "prolific scorer" really is.

If JJ Barea takes 120 shots to get 40 points per game for 82 games next season, I think anyone calling him "the most prolific scorer" of the NBA season would be absurd. To me, to be the "more prolific scorer" you have to be great in many different variables, the most important 2 being: getting points and doing so efficiently. The mere points per game variable alone is just flawed.

6.) Right, but my point was that it probably wasn't a good idea to bring his efficiency in your argument when Dirk takes a dump on him in that department. I certainly don't mind though, it allows me to counter with Dirk's superior TS%.

7.) Yes, I was honest and posted I'm not a huge fan of team oriented stats in my write up even. You were the one that loves to use them, so I included it. I was trying to find any advanced metric to hear your case about McAdoo winning the matchup with Dirk.

8.) You worded it perfectly by not using "the more prolific scorer"! We established you think being the more "prolific scorer" all you need to do is score a ton of points, regardless of efficiency. So we can agree to disagree, as I think it's prudent to consider efficiency as well as points per game (among other variables as well) when discussing who is the more "prolific scorer".

9.) McAdoo can lead the league in scoring for more than 3 years, it still doesn't make him the better scoring option between him and Dirk. You would agree with that, correct?

valade16
05-19-2015, 01:31 PM
Arguably your strongest post in the thread just at the time you needed it. Mac and Walton's MVP seasons should not be ignored.

Heck, I was so focused on his claims about my players I completely missed him saying Hakeem was a Top 3 Center of all-time.

I wonder which Center (KAJ, Wilt, Shaq) he thinks Hakeem is superior to?

Redrum187
05-19-2015, 01:37 PM
Heck, I was so focused on his claims about my players I completely missed him saying Hakeem was a Top 3 Center of all-time.

I wonder which Center (KAJ, Wilt, Shaq) he thinks Hakeem is superior to?

Arguably top 3. At worst, 4-5? He did kind of destroy one of the names you mentioned, but that's an argument for another day. What's funny to me is you think a guy who has a case to be included in the top 3 centers in NBA history is something to pay attention to when he's at worst the 4th or 5th best, but McAdoo will beat Dirk in the matchup. lol

What claim did I say was false/inaccurate? I think you're the one with inaccurate claims of your players (Kidd = Nash offensively, using a 3-year prime instead of the game's 5-year prime parameter, using career 3PT% instead of peak shooting, etc...) If anything, I've just exposed the truth about your players and I've done everything possible to back my claims up.

valade16
05-19-2015, 01:42 PM
1.) So yes... you were using BPG as the only source of justification for why you think McAdoo was better defensively. Gotcha.

2.) Other than your word, do you have anything to back that claim up?

3.) Just for future reference, wikipedia is a great site, but never use it as a source if you want credibility.

You don't even have a knowledge of McAdoo's %'s of shooting data. It's not an damning to not know that as they didn't keep records of it. I even said he "could have" shot from 20-23 feet, but every description of multiple sites that I read up about McAdoo stated he was predominantly an around the rim to midrange scorer.

You still have yet to quantify, by any objective measure, how often he shot from "near the 3PT line". Posting sites that say he was a great "shooter" is rather vague in that it doesn't give the frequency or exact range he had.

4.) Fair enough.

5.) No, but it's your job to explain how McAdoo is the more "prolific" scorer. Your ultimate and independent variable is "he scored more points". Iverson scored a lot of points... but I think you have an extremely anecdotal interpretation of what a "prolific scorer" really is.

If JJ Barea takes 120 shots to get 40 points per game for 82 games next season, I think anyone calling him "the most prolific scorer" of the NBA season would be absurd. To me, to be the "more prolific scorer" you have to be great in 2 variables: getting points and doing so efficiently. The mere points per game variable alone is just flawed.

6.) Right, but my point was that it probably wasn't a good idea to bring his efficiency in your argument when Dirk takes a dump on him in that department. I certainly don't mind though, it allows me to counter with Dirk's superior TS%.

7.) Yes, I was honest and posted I'm not a huge fan of team oriented stats in my write up even. You were the one that loves to use them, so I included it. I was trying to find any advanced metric to hear your case about McAdoo winning the matchup with Dirk.

8.) You worded it perfectly by not using "the more prolific scorer"! We established you think being the more "prolific scorer" all you need to do is score a ton of points, regardless of efficiency. So we can agree to disagree, as I think it's prudent to consider efficiency as well as points per game (among other variables as well) when discussing who is the more "prolific scorer".

9.) McAdoo can lead the league in scoring for more than 3 years, it still doesn't make him the better scoring option between him and Dirk. You would agree with that, correct?

I'll address 3).

Of course I don't have shot chart data for McAdoo, they didn't have it available back then. But that doesn't mean we can't know whether he was a good shooter or not. Here is more from his player profile on NBA.com:

http://www.nba.com/history/players/mcadoo_bio.html

Indeed, McAdoo won a third straight scoring title that season, averaging 31.1 ppg. The performance prompted Bill Russell, then coach of the Seattle SuperSonics, to tell a Buffalo publication: "He's the greatest shooter of all time, period. Forget that bit about the 'greatest shooting big man.' "

McAdoo made his most lasting contribution to the game's strategic development as the first big man to shoot regularly from the outside. In his first four seasons nearly half of the shots he took came from outside the lane, a dazzling new strategy for a center.

You can continue to try to question whether McAdoo was a great shooter but he was, whether you admit it or not. Bill Russell, perhaps the best defender of all-time, called him the greatest shooter of all-time regardless of position.

Here's also a pretty reasoned response to a yahoo question about which was the better shooter, McAdoo or Dirk:

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070806121525AA2bvve

pulled up just inside the 3 point line normally to fire a 20 to 22 footer

That's from a guy who watched him play.

Now I'lll adress 8). and 9).

Prolific simply means he scored more. But let's not confuse him with AI, he scored more and did so fairly efficiently. Yes, Dirk was more efficient, but he didn't score as much, his highest PPG was a full 8 PPG lower than McAdoo's. And McAdoo increased his scoring difference even more in the playoffs against Wes Unsled, Elvin Hayes and Dave Cowens.

However you want to word it, I think McAdoo outscores Dirk in this series.

valade16
05-19-2015, 01:44 PM
Arguably top 3. At worst, 4-5? He did kind of destroy one of the names you mentioned, but that's an argument for another day. What's funny to me is you think a guy who has a case to be included in the top 3 centers in NBA history is something to pay attention to when he's at worst the 4th or 5th best, but McAdoo will beat Dirk in the matchup. lol

What claim did I say was false/inaccurate? I think you're the one with inaccurate claims of your players (Kidd = Nash offensively, using a 3-year prime instead of the game's 5-year prime parameter, using career 3PT% instead of peak shooting, etc...) If anything, I've just exposed the truth about your players and I've done everything possible to back my claims up.

Google "NBA players who have scored 70+ pts in a game" and come back and tell me if you still think my team lacks offensive players that can take over a game lol

Redrum187
05-19-2015, 02:01 PM
I'll address 3).

Of course I don't have shot chart data for McAdoo, they didn't have it available back then. But that doesn't mean we can't know whether he was a good shooter or not. Here is more from his player profile on NBA.com:

http://www.nba.com/history/players/mcadoo_bio.html

Indeed, McAdoo won a third straight scoring title that season, averaging 31.1 ppg. The performance prompted Bill Russell, then coach of the Seattle SuperSonics, to tell a Buffalo publication: "He's the greatest shooter of all time, period. Forget that bit about the 'greatest shooting big man.' "

McAdoo made his most lasting contribution to the game's strategic development as the first big man to shoot regularly from the outside. In his first four seasons nearly half of the shots he took came from outside the lane, a dazzling new strategy for a center.

You can continue to try to question whether McAdoo was a great shooter but he was, whether you admit it or not. Bill Russell, perhaps the best defender of all-time, called him the greatest shooter of all-time regardless of position.

Here's also a pretty reasoned response to a yahoo question about which was the better shooter, McAdoo or Dirk:

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070806121525AA2bvve

pulled up just inside the 3 point line normally to fire a 20 to 22 footer

That's from a guy who watched him play.

Now I'lll adress 8). and 9).

Prolific simply means he scored more. But let's not confuse him with AI, he scored more and did so fairly efficiently. Yes, Dirk was more efficient, but he didn't score as much, his highest PPG was a full 8 PPG lower than McAdoo's. And McAdoo increased his scoring difference even more in the playoffs against Wes Unsled, Elvin Hayes and Dave Cowens.

However you want to word it, I think McAdoo outscores Dirk in this series.

Can you copy/paste where I said McAdoo wasn't a good shooter? You know very well the question isn't "was McAdoo a good shooter", it's did he play near the [non-existent] 3PT line as you claimed. You're twisting quite a bit sir. lol

Once again, no one has argued McAdoo never hit 20-23 footers... what I have questioned was at what frequency? Was that his bread and butter or was scoring from midrange (not near the 3PT line) his bread and butter? I saw a youtube video of Dwight Howard swishing a 3 point shot... but I'm not going to say he routinely or even occasionally scores at or near the 3PT line.

Why shouldn't we compare McAdoo with Iverson? Were they not "prolific scorers" by your standards?

http://i57.tinypic.com/25qqan5.jpg

Holy ****... You must think Iverson was the more prolific scorer in their 5 year prime huh? :laugh: He did "score more" per game than McAdoo and apparently that is all one needs to do to be the more "prolific scorer". Now suddenly, you bring up Iverson's efficiency:confused: So you do think efficiency (among other variables) ought to suddenly play a factor when discussing prolific scoring?

Redrum187
05-19-2015, 02:14 PM
Google "NBA players who have scored 70+ pts in a game" and come back and tell me if you still think my team lacks offensive players that can take over a game lol

This isn't a "false claim" or "inaccurate". McAdoo was a great player, but if he is who you rely on for points in an all time redraft, I think you will have problems.

Lets ignore the regular season for a second. Lets look at your "go-to" guy to get buckets in the 2nd round of the playoffs.

http://i61.tinypic.com/kech8n.jpg

I think this should put the debate to bed for good...

McAdoo, in his 5 year prime, shot significantly lower TS% than his regular season prime! He had .565 TS% in the regular season (1973-1978) but a terrible .516 TS% in the postseasom! That is Jason Kidd territory!

Furthermore, Dirk had a higher TRB%, higher AST%, higher STL%, lower turn over %, and lead the NBA in postseason WS 2 out of the 5 years in his prime!

And you still think McAdoo wins the matchup:confused: Jerusalem prays that McAdoo "outscores" Dirk in this series... he will be need a hell of a lot of shots to do it judging off his postseason numbers.

MFFL==FML
05-19-2015, 02:26 PM
This isn't a "false claim" or "inaccurate". McAdoo was a great player, but if he is who you rely on for points in an all time redraft, I think you will have problems.

Lets ignore the regular season for a second. Lets look at your "go-to" guy to get buckets in the 2nd round of the playoffs.

http://i61.tinypic.com/kech8n.jpg

I think this should put the debate to bed for good...

McAdoo, in his 5 year prime, shot significantly lower TS% than his regular season prime! He had .565 TS% in the regular season (1973-1978) but a terrible .516 TS%! That is Jason Kidd territory!

Furthermore, Dirk had a higher TRB%, higher AST%, higher STL%, lower turn over %, and lead the NBA in postseason WS 2 out of the 5 years in his prime!

And you still think McAdoo wins the matchup:confused: Jerusalem prays that McAdoo "outscores" Dirk in this series... he will be need a hell of a lot of shots to do it judging off his postseason numbers.

I don't really care for yalls back and forth banter, but this post seals the deal. I'm convinced that seaside even knows he's gasping for straws. This is why Dirk is a legend and McAdoo is left out.

Seaside did a hell of a job making his team; I ranked him 3rd in their conference, but there is no case to be made for him beating Jerusalem.

MFFL==FML
05-19-2015, 02:30 PM
Btw, you left out the part that in Dirk's playoff prime he shot a higher ts% than his regular season ts% which is the opposite of what McAdoo did.

valade16
05-19-2015, 03:25 PM
Why shouldn't we compare McAdoo with Iverson? Were they not "prolific scorers" by your standards?

http://i57.tinypic.com/25qqan5.jpg

Holy ****... You must think Iverson was the more prolific scorer in their 5 year prime huh? :laugh: He did "score more" per game than McAdoo and apparently that is all one needs to do to be the more "prolific scorer". Now suddenly, you bring up Iverson's efficiency:confused: So you do think efficiency (among other variables) ought to suddenly play a factor when discussing prolific scoring?

AI was one of the most prolific scorers in NBA history. Regardless of how great his efficiency was, you cannot deny he scored a ton of points. That is what being a prolific scorer is.

I'm saying you can't compare AI to McAdoo because they may both be prolific scorers, but McAdoo was way more efficient. Doesn't mean they weren't both prolific, but it does mean McAdoo was more efficient.

There is a difference.

Redrum187
05-19-2015, 03:39 PM
AI was one of the most prolific scorers in NBA history. Regardless of how great his efficiency was, you cannot deny he scored a ton of points. That is what being a prolific scorer is.

I'm saying you can't compare AI to McAdoo because they may both be prolific scorers, but McAdoo was way more efficient. Doesn't mean they weren't both prolific, but it does mean McAdoo was more efficient.

There is a difference.

I understand your way of thinking. According to you, AI is the more "prolific" scorer as "prolific" ignores all variables and focuses ultimately on the amount of points per game, correct?

valade16
05-19-2015, 03:39 PM
This isn't a "false claim" or "inaccurate". McAdoo was a great player, but if he is who you rely on for points in an all time redraft, I think you will have problems.

Lets ignore the regular season for a second. Lets look at your "go-to" guy to get buckets in the 2nd round of the playoffs.

http://i61.tinypic.com/kech8n.jpg

I think this should put the debate to bed for good...

McAdoo, in his 5 year prime, shot significantly lower TS% than his regular season prime! He had .565 TS% in the regular season (1973-1978) but a terrible .516 TS% in the postseasom! That is Jason Kidd territory!

Furthermore, Dirk had a higher TRB%, higher AST%, higher STL%, lower turn over %, and lead the NBA in postseason WS 2 out of the 5 years in his prime!

And you still think McAdoo wins the matchup:confused: Jerusalem prays that McAdoo "outscores" Dirk in this series... he will be need a hell of a lot of shots to do it judging off his postseason numbers.

I love how you go "context, who cares about that" when making your arguments.

As I've said repeatedly now, McAdoo went up against Dave Cowens and Wes Unseld, two of the better defensive Centers of all-time. Of course his TS% would drop, but the question is, would it drop to that degree against Dirk "this last playoffs I was the anti-thesis of good pick and roll defense" Nowitzki?

I don't think it would. Especially when you consider that Dirk, although great scoring wise in the postseason, let up a lot of points to good PFs as well:

2001 Semis vs. Duncan: allowed 27 PPG and 17 RPG
2002 1st rd vs. Garnett: allowed 24 PPG and 19 RPG
2002 Semis vs. Webber: allowed 25 PPG and 11 RPG
2003 Semis vs. Webber: allowed 29 PPG and 6 RPG
2003 WCFs vs. Duncan: allowed 28 PPG and 17 RPG
2005 Semis vs. Amare: allowed 29 PPG and 12 RPG
2006 Semis vs. Duncan: allowed 32 PPG and 12 RPG

When he went up against good PFs who could score he got torched on Defense in the playoffs. The only exception is Pau Gasol. I guess he just is a great matchup vs. Pau.

So again, unless you think Dirk will play defense as well as Cowens or Unseld, I don't buy that he's holding McAdoo to those low TS% numbers.

valade16
05-19-2015, 03:41 PM
I understand your way of thinking. According to you, AI is the more "prolific" scorer as "prolific" ignores all variables and focuses ultimately on the amount of points per game, correct?

I can substitute the words "higher volume" instead of "prolific" if that would make you feel better?

The result is the same: McAdoo scores more than Dirk.

valade16
05-19-2015, 03:43 PM
I love how you go "context, who cares about that" when making your arguments.

As I've said repeatedly now, McAdoo went up against Dave Cowens and Wes Unseld, two of the better defensive Centers of all-time. Of course his TS% would drop, but the question is, would it drop to that degree against Dirk "this last playoffs I was the anti-thesis of good pick and roll defense" Nowitzki?

I don't think it would. Especially when you consider that Dirk, although great scoring wise in the postseason, let up a lot of points to good PFs as well:

2001 Semis vs. Duncan: allowed 27 PPG and 17 RPG
2002 1st rd vs. Garnett: allowed 24 PPG and 19 RPG
2002 Semis vs. Webber: allowed 25 PPG and 11 RPG
2003 Semis vs. Webber: allowed 29 PPG and 6 RPG
2003 WCFs vs. Duncan: allowed 28 PPG and 17 RPG
2005 Semis vs. Amare: allowed 29 PPG and 12 RPG
2006 Semis vs. Duncan: allowed 32 PPG and 12 RPG

When he went up against good PFs who could score he got torched on Defense in the playoffs. The only exception is Pau Gasol. I guess he just is a great matchup vs. Pau.

So again, unless you think Dirk will play defense as well as Cowens or Unseld, I don't buy that he's holding McAdoo to those low TS% numbers.

bump to new page.

Redrum187
05-19-2015, 03:59 PM
I can substitute the words "higher volume" instead of "prolific" if that would make you feel better?

The result is the same: McAdoo scores more than Dirk.

Yes, higher volume would be the more appropriate description. He can shoot as many times as he wants with a .516 TS%. And so if I understand you correctly, because McAdoo was a higher volume scorer (and less efficient), he wins the PF match up against Dirk? I think you're selling Dirk Nowitzki, arguably top 2-5 PF to ever play the game, short if you think McAdoo wins the matchup.

***Or were you only saying McAdoo will score more points on inferior efficiency but Dirk wins the matchup?

Redrum187
05-19-2015, 04:12 PM
I love how you go "context, who cares about that" when making your arguments.

Hrm... the only time I ignore context is when I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume whatever you're saying is true, because my point will nevertheless be made in spite of what I think is untrue. You are showing to post things incredibly out of context (career averages, 3-year prime as opposed to standard 5-year prime, total points as opposed to points + efficiency + range, etc...)

In your most recent example of taking stats out of context, yet again, you posted stats of what all time great PF's (Duncan/Garnett/etc...) posted against Dirk from 2000-2001 postseason to 2005-2006 postseason. All but the last stat line (against the greatest PF in the history of the NBA, Tim Duncan) are erroneous as they were not park of Dirk's prime years (2005-2010)! Stop using career numbers to make your ginormous stretches. Furthermore, Dirk beat the Spurs in 2006 due to his clutch shooting! Most importantly, Dirk hardly ever guarded Tim Duncan in that series! :laugh:

valade16
05-19-2015, 04:13 PM
Yes, higher volume would be the more appropriate description. He can shoot as many times as he wants with a .516 TS%. And so if I understand you correctly, because McAdoo was a higher volume scorer (and less efficient), he wins the PF match up against Dirk? I think you're selling Dirk Nowitzki, arguably top 2-5 PF to ever play the game, short if you think McAdoo wins the matchup.

***Or were you only saying McAdoo will score more points on inferior efficiency but Dirk wins the matchup?

I was saying McAdoo will score more points. I'm not saying he would win the matchup.

But once again I'd ask, do you think Dirk could hold McAdoo to a .516% TS%? Considering it took Cowens and Unseld to do that I highly doubt it.

valade16
05-19-2015, 04:17 PM
Hrm... the only time I ignore context is when I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume whatever you're saying is true, because my point will nevertheless be made in spite of what I think is untrue. You are showing to post things incredibly out of context (career averages, 3-year prime as opposed to standard 5-year prime, total points as opposed to points + efficiency + range, etc...)

In your most recent example of taking stats out of context, yet again, you posted stats of what all time great PF's (Duncan/Garnett/etc...) posted against Dirk from 2000-2001 postseason to 2005-2006 postseason. All but the last stat line (against the greatest PF in the history of the NBA, Tim Duncan) are erroneous as they were not park of Dirk's prime years (2005-2010)! Stop using career numbers to make your ginormous stretches. Furthermore, Dirk beat the Spurs in 2006 due to his clutch shooting! Most importantly, Dirk hardly ever guarded Tim Duncan in that series! :laugh:

It's a ginormous stretch to say Dirk was not very good at defense? I think it's a ginormous stretch to say the opposite actually...

Redrum187
05-19-2015, 04:25 PM
I was saying McAdoo will score more points. I'm not saying he would win the matchup.

But once again I'd ask, do you think Dirk could hold McAdoo to a .516% TS%? Considering it took Cowens and Unseld to do that I highly doubt it.

I'm glad we both agree Dirk wins the PF matchup. While I disagree and think Dirk will outscore McAdoo and do it on superior efficiency, it's not as outlandish as stating your original comment in your write-up:


"People are going to look at the matchup between Dirk and McAdoo and instantly declare Dirk the victor, however I don't think they should be so quick to do so."

Of course people are going to declare Dirk the victor, even you [indirectly] are giving Dirk the nod now and backpedaling to "I'm not saying he [McAdoo] would win the matchup, I'm saying he'll score more points than Dirk".

To answer your question, no way. While Dirk was the better defender in their respective 5-year prime, I think McAdoo will increase his TS% to around .520 to .530. As I stated in page one, Hakeem Olajuwon is the greatest modern day defensive center (yes, better than Walton) with tremendous athleticism and quickness for a center, so he and Dirk could (on occasion) switch defensive assignments. Walton will not kill Dirk offensively, but Hakeem will completely hinder McAdoo's efficiency to a much greater degree than Cowens or Unseld. As for the amount of time Olajuwon is on McAdoo, it depends on how hot McAdoo gets.

Furthermore, don't you think it's a bit troubling that your greatest offensive weapon shoots Jason Kidd TS% when a good defender is put on him? Do you at the very least understand why people think McAdoo might not be a viable go-to scorer in the postseason in an ATRD?

valade16
05-19-2015, 04:31 PM
I'm glad we both agree Dirk wins the PF matchup. While I disagree and think Dirk will outscore McAdoo and do it on superior efficiency, it's not as outlandish as stating your original comment in your write-up:

Of course people are going to declare Dirk the victor, even you [indirectly] are giving Dirk the nod now and backpedaling to "I'm not saying he [McAdoo] would win the matchup, I'm saying he'll score more points than Dirk".

To answer your question, no way. While Dirk was the better defender in their respective 5-year prime, I think McAdoo will increase his TS% to around .520 to .530. As I stated in page one, Hakeem Olajuwon is the greatest modern day defensive center (yes, better than Walton) with tremendous athleticism and quickness for a center, so he and Dirk could (on occasion) switch defensive assignments. Walton will not kill Dirk offensively, but Hakeem will completely hinder McAdoo's efficiency to a much greater degree than Cowens or Unseld. As for the amount of time Olajuwon is on McAdoo, it depends on how hot McAdoo gets.

Furthermore, don't you think it's a bit troubling that your greatest offensive weapon shoots Jason Kidd TS% when a good defender is put on him? Do you at the very least understand why people think McAdoo might not be a viable go-to scorer in the postseason in an ATRD?

1). I'm not saying Dirk would "win" the matchup either

2). Dirk was the better defender? Do you have anything to back that up?

3). Saying you think McAdoo will "increase" his TS% to .520 or .530 is an incorrect statement, his regular season TS% was .565, it was Cowens and Unseld's defense that lowered it in the first place. So are you saying Dirk would hold McAdoo to a lower TS% than his regular season numbers?

4). If you put Hakeem on McAdoo yes Walton will absolutely kill Dirk. Not only in being able to score but his ability to pass to open men/cutters. Walton is on the short list for greatest passing Center of all-time. I pray you swap Hakeem onto McAdoo honestly.

5). To answer your last question, am I concerned? Not particularly because you don't have a good guy guarding him, unless you want to switch and have Hakeem guard him, opening up cutting lanes to the basket (as Hakeem will be out on the perimeter guarding McAdoo) for Walton to find Baylor/Dumars/Kidd/etc.

Redrum187
05-19-2015, 04:35 PM
It's a ginormous stretch to say Dirk was not very good at defense? I think it's a ginormous stretch to say the opposite actually...

No, it's a stretch to use his inferior non-5 year primed stats, it's a stretch to say "oh look, arguably 2 of the greatest PF's of all time scored this much on Dirk in his non-prime years". It's a stretch to use blocks as the deciding and only factor to suggest McAdoo was the superior defender (remember Rodman never averaged a full block... I guess McAdoo is better defensively than Rodman).

You thinking Dirk was not a good defender before his prime is not a stretch whatsoever. I agree and I know he'll even agree.

You ignoring that during his 5-year prime he developed into a plus defender. He isn't the liability you're making him out to be, and you're overrating McAdoo's defense without giving any evidence (other than BPG) that indicates your claim is legitimate. Shall I post links and stats that give evidence Dirk developed into a + defender in his prime?

Also, you said earlier Grant Hill was not good on defense in his prime... Umm, what? Before he even entered the NBA, he received the NABC Defensive Player of the Year award! The same guy that said Joe Dumars was his toughest defender (Michael Jordan), also personally listed Grant Hill as one of his toughest defenders, making him work hard for his points.

Redrum187
05-19-2015, 04:54 PM
1). I'm not saying Dirk would "win" the matchup either

2). Dirk was the better defender? Do you have anything to back that up?

3). Saying you think McAdoo will "increase" his TS% to .520 or .530 is an incorrect statement, his regular season TS% was .565, it was Cowens and Unseld's defense that lowered it in the first place. So are you saying Dirk would hold McAdoo to a lower TS% than his regular season numbers?

4). If you put Hakeem on McAdoo yes Walton will absolutely kill Dirk. Not only in being able to score but his ability to pass to open men/cutters. Walton is on the short list for greatest passing Center of all-time. I pray you swap Hakeem onto McAdoo honestly.

5). To answer your last question, am I concerned? Not particularly because you don't have a good guy guarding him, unless you want to switch and have Hakeem guard him, opening up cutting lanes to the basket (as Hakeem will be out on the perimeter guarding McAdoo) for Walton to find Baylor/Dumars/Kidd/etc.

1.) You insinuating in your post that McAdoo wins, and now you're backpedaling by saying you've never said he'll win, but that he'll only score more PPG.

Please answer this directly: Who wins the PF matchup?

2.) Yes. There are numerous sites and data that debunk "Dirk being a bad defender" in his prime, but I've yet to find one that states McAdoo was a good defender in his prime as you claim. I'll post my sources, but will you post yours (please don't give me BPG again...)?

3.) No, I'm saying Dirk, in conjunction with Hakeem (backup PF and switching on McAdoo), will limit his TS% below his regular season average. Hakeem was a better defender than Unseld and Cowens, and Dirk, at worst case scenario, would give McAdoo slightly worse TS%. Not to mention, Alvin Robertson on Dumars eliminates your only 3PT threat, allowing Grant Hill (an inch shorter and just as lean) to help Dirk out if need be.

4.) Am I missing something... Is Walton Tim Duncan offensively? You expect Walton to play all-out defense on Hakeem AND destroy Dirk (in the limited minutes he's on him) in the post when he was never anything to write home about offensively:confused: If Walton could do that, he would be on Hakeem Olajuwon's level!

5.) I'm not concerned about Walton passing in the post to Baylor who jacks up 30 shots to get 20 points, or Dumars as Alvin will be a glove on him, or Kidd shooting his abysmal 3PT %. As I said before, this will be in limited minutes as Hakeem is best guarding the paint, getting the boards, and not having to focus so hard defensively on a below average post scorer (for an ATRD) in Walton.

valade16
05-19-2015, 04:55 PM
No, it's a stretch to use his inferior non-5 year primed stats, it's a stretch to say "oh look, arguably 2 of the greatest PF's of all time scored this much on Dirk in his non-prime years". It's a stretch to use blocks as the deciding and only factor to suggest McAdoo was the superior defender (remember Rodman never averaged a full block... I guess McAdoo is better defensively than Rodman).

You thinking Dirk was not a good defender before his prime is not a stretch whatsoever. I agree and I know he'll even agree.

You ignoring that after during his 5-year prime he developed into an average to above average defender. He isn't the liability you're making him out to be, and you're overrating McAdoo's defense without giving any evidence (other than BPG) that indicates your claim is true. Shall I post links and stats that give evidence Dirk developed into a + defender in his prime?

Also, you said earlier Grant Hill was not good on defense in his prime... Umm, what? Before he even entered the NBA, he received the NABC Defensive Player of the Year award! The same guy that said Joe Dumars was his toughest defender (Michael Jordan), also personally listed Grant Hill as one of his toughest defenders, making him work hard for his points.

Who said I only used BPG? I also listed his D ratings which were very good, but I guess if it is damaging to your case it doesn't exist?

And yes, I would like the supporting evidence concerning Dirk's defense as well as Jordan claiming Hill was one of his toughest defenders, especially since Grant Hill's career overlapped with Jordan's by 3 seasons. He guarded MJ for a whopping 11 games...

Redrum187
05-19-2015, 04:57 PM
Who said I only used BPG? I also listed his D ratings which were very good, but I guess if it is damaging to your case it doesn't exist?

And yes, I would like the supporting evidence concerning Dirk's defense as well as Jordan claiming Hill was one of his toughest defenders, especially since Grant Hill's career overlapped with Jordan's by 3 seasons. He guarded MJ for a whopping 11 games...

I apologized if I missed the post of you listing Dirk and McAdoo's defensive ratings, can you quote and/or repost it please?

It wasn't much of an overlap, but the Jordan vs Hill games were spectacular and highly talked about. Hill was regarded as the next MJ. In truth, MJ put up monster numbers on Hill (which shouldn't discredit Hill's defense... he was guarding the greatest player of all time), nevertheless, he praised Hill and his defense.

valade16
05-19-2015, 05:02 PM
1.) You insinuating in your post that McAdoo wins, and now you're backpedaling by saying you've never said he'll win, but that he'll only score more PPG.

Please answer this directly: Who wins the PF matchup?

2.) Yes. There are numerous sites I've read that debunk "Dirk being a bad defender" in his prime, but I've yet to find one that states McAdoo was a good defender in his prime as you claim. I'll post my sources, but will you post yours (please don't give me BPG again...)?

3.) No, I'm saying Dirk, in conjunction with Hakeem (backup PF and switching on McAdoo), will limit his TS% below his regular season average. Hakeem was a better defender than Unseld and Cowens, and Dirk, at worst case scenario, would give McAdoo slightly worse TS%. Not to mention, Alvin Robertson on Dumars eliminates your only 3PT threat, allowing Grant Hill (an inch shorter and just as lean) to help Dirk out if need be.

4.) Am I missing something... Is Walton Tim Duncan offensively? You expect Walton to play all-out defense on Hakeem AND destroy Dirk (in the limited minutes he's on him) in the post when he was never anything to write home about offensively:confused: If Walton could do that, he would be on Hakeem Olajuwon's level!

5.) I'm not concerned about Walton passing in the post to Baylor who jacks up 30 shots to get 20 points, or Dumars as Alvin will be a glove on him, or Kidd shooting his abysmal 3PT %. As I said before, this will be in limited minutes as Hakeem is best guarding the paint, getting the boards, and not having to focus so hard defensively on a below average post scorer (for an ATRD) in Walton.

1). That's not for me to answer.

2). Once again I guess you just can't see when someone cites Drtg, as I've done twice now.

3). Grant Hill is going to help? And leave Baylor open to cut to the basket? I think Hill will have his hands full with Baylor TBH.

4). Walton would destroy Dirk because not only was Dirk not a superb defender, his biggest weakness was post defense.

5). Baylor going to the basket would be high % points. Your flaw is assuming that what someone shot in one instance is what they would shoot in every instance.

valade16
05-19-2015, 05:04 PM
I apologized if I missed the post of you listing Dirk and McAdoo's defensive ratings, can you quote and/or repost it please?

It wasn't much of an overlap, but the Jordan vs Hill games were spectacular and highly talked about. Hill was regarded as the next MJ. In truth, MJ put up monster numbers on Hill (which shouldn't discredit Hill's defense... he was guarding the greatest player of all time), nevertheless, he praised Hill and his defense.

McAdoo's D rating was 95, 95, 96, 96, and 99 his first 5 years, and his team wasn't exactly filled with plus defenders around him. McAdoo was a good defender in his prime, he just stopped playing defense as the years progressed.

Redrum187
05-19-2015, 05:06 PM
http://www.nba.com/hoop/lowpost/dirk_nowitzki_is__great_defen_2011_05_10.html


Dirk Nowitzki is a great defender. Dirk Nowitzki is a great defender.

REPEAT AFTER ME: Dirk Nowitzki is a great defender.

It gets a little tiring listen to people--like the experts on "Inside The NBA" ("Only God's an expert, Ernie")--criticize opposing power forwards for seeing their offensive game go south against Dirk, saying they shouldn't be struggling because Nowitzki is a lousy defender.

It's just not true. Hasn't been true for years now.

Granted, when he was a skinny youngster, you could push young Dirk around in the post.

But he's a seasoned, smart veteran who is one of the best defensive communicators in basketball.

Not only that, the 32-year-old Dallas Maverick has become one of the best defensive power forwards in the game, however you want to measure it.

He slowed down LaMarcus Aldridge in the first round. He stifled the Laker power forwards--Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom--in Round 2.

He made his team's defense 2.8 points per 48 minutes better in 2010-11 in Regularized Adjusted Plus-Minus.

He's ranks second this season among power forwards only to Kevin Garnett in defensive Victory Value, when you combine defensive RAPM with minutes played.

And it's not just because he's playing alongside All-Defensive center Tyson Chandler this year.

In the last four seasons, Dirk maintains the same 2.8 defensive RAPM and ranks fourth among power forwards in defensive Victory Value--trailing only Odom, Kevin Garnett and Josh Smith--when you combine defensive RAPM with minutes played.

Dirk is also ninth on the defensive win shares active list for players at any position.

He's just an all-around stud.

Dirk's offense is already legendary--his coach Rick Carlisle calls him one of the all-time 10 best players ever.

But his unsung defense is pretty good too.

Look at the 2011 NBA Playoff results again. It shouldn't be surprising to see Dirk excel on D.

Aldridge saw his scoring and rebounding averages drop from 22 & 9 to 21 & 8 despite the fact he played three more minutes per game (43.0). His true shooting percentage also dropped from .549 to .498, while his plus-minus in the Mavs-Blazers series was -51.

Dirk was a +50 in the series.

Same held true in the Mavs-Lakers Series. Gasol saw his numbers drop--from 19 & 10 in 37 minutes per game to 13 & 9 in 36 mpg against the Mavs. His true shooting percentage dropped from .589 to .476 and his plus-minus was a -22. Odom dropped from 14 & 9 in 32 mpg in the season to 12 & 7 in 32 mpg in the series. His true shooting percentage dropped from .589 to .498 and his plus-minus was -24.

Meanwhile, Dirk was a +67 in the Lakers series.

And through 10 games of the 2011 NBA Playoffs, the Mavs are holding opponents to a West-best 88.2 points per game.

People just need to get over first impressions.

Dirk Nowitzki has become a great team defender.

KnicksorBust
05-19-2015, 05:20 PM
This thread is a bloodbath. I love it. Last man standing.

Redrum187
05-19-2015, 05:32 PM
McAdoo's D rating was 95, 95, 96, 96, and 99 his first 5 years, and his team wasn't exactly filled with plus defenders around him. McAdoo was a good defender in his prime, he just stopped playing defense as the years progressed.

I do appreciate the DRtg you posted. You're correct, in that McAdoo had a 5-year prime of 96 DRtg and Dirk only had a 105 DRtg. Lets check this out though:

http://i58.tinypic.com/2evrvwh.jpg

Would you argue that McAdoo is the better defender? I understand we try to use stats to quantify how good a player is in a certain area, but it goes back to our conversation in chatzy... defense is the hardest subjective stat to quantify objectively; Without question. If McAdoo was a better defender than Dennis Rodman and he had his offensive skillset, he would be better than Michael Jordan.

However, if you insist on using DRtg to give evidence to superior defense, Grant Hill (who say you was not a good defender) had a DRtg of 101 in his 5-year prime which is better than Joe Dumars 111 DRtg! That's an astounding 10 points fewer per 100 possessions! Alvin Robertson not only has the DPOY award, but had 5 fewer DRtg than Dumars. Steve Nash has the same DRtg that Joe Dumars does (111) in their respective 5-year primes! At least Nash counters that with 8+ ORtg!

***JAMES HARDEN HAS A 5-YEAR PRIME DRtg OF 106, 5 FEWER POINTS PER 100 POSSESION THAN JOE DUMARS!!!***

Redrum187
05-19-2015, 05:38 PM
1). That's not for me to answer.

2). Once again I guess you just can't see when someone cites Drtg, as I've done twice now.

3). Grant Hill is going to help? And leave Baylor open to cut to the basket? I think Hill will have his hands full with Baylor TBH.

4). Walton would destroy Dirk because not only was Dirk not a superb defender, his biggest weakness was post defense.

5). Baylor going to the basket would be high % points. Your flaw is assuming that what someone shot in one instance is what they would shoot in every instance.

1.) Actually, it is if I'm asking you. You thought you won the SG matchup and said so, why wouldn't you say who wins the PF matchup? You can debate and be objective at the same time, you don't have to be a homer.

2.) Responded to that in previous post.

3.) Baylor can jack as many shots as he wants with Hill guarding him. It will be a tremendous blessing considering his Jason Kidd-like TS%.

4.) Already posted one nba.com source about Dirk's defense. I'm waiting for basketball bios saying McAdoo was a good and/or great defender.

5.) Your flaw is assuming that someone with a TS% below .500 (in their prime) is going to be efficient offensively for you against a good defender in Grant Hill.

valade16
05-19-2015, 07:12 PM
1.) Actually, it is if I'm asking you. You thought you won the SG matchup and said so, why wouldn't you say who wins the PF matchup? You can debate and be objective at the same time, you don't have to be a homer.

2.) Responded to that in previous post.

3.) Baylor can jack as many shots as he wants with Hill guarding him. It will be a tremendous blessing considering his Jason Kidd-like TS%.

4.) Already posted one nba.com source about Dirk's defense. I'm waiting for basketball bios saying McAdoo was a good and/or great defender.

5.) Your flaw is assuming that someone with a TS% below .500 (in their prime) is going to be efficient offensively for you against a good defender in Grant Hill.

Since when did we establish Grant Hill as a good defender?

Shammyguy3
05-19-2015, 07:13 PM
This thread is a bloodbath. I love it. Last man standing.

and i'm not one of the GMs either :laugh2:

Redrum187
05-19-2015, 07:15 PM
Since when did we establish Grant Hill as a good defender?

Well by your standards, you'll have to agree Hill was a better defender than Dumars. You can't just use DRtg when it is advantageous and then ignore it when it goes against you.

Oh yeah, also using your other defensive metric standard (BPG), Hill averaged more blocks than Dumars. He has him beat on Drtg and BPG. See what I did there? :p

Have I proven my point about defensive stats yet? You certainly said they were "objective" in the chatzy. lol

xnick5757
05-19-2015, 09:18 PM
Jerusalem easily, way too much talent

Redrum187
05-19-2015, 09:34 PM
I find it cute how Seaside gives McAdoo a pass for putting up Jason Kidd-like TS% in his postseason prime because he faced the defenses of Boston and Washington. Dirk has been facing all sorts of defenses as the number one scoring option only to come out victorious. Dirk was guarded by the likes of Duncan, Garnett, Mourning, etc... but he actually increased his scoring production while simultaneously increasing his efficiency (which is ultra rare to witness for postseason stats).

Giving Seaside his excuses and only counting the postseason where his team didn't face Boston or Washington, lets look at what McAdoo put up:

1978-1979 Postseason (Prime postseason with no Cowen or Unseld)

21.0 shots to get 23.8 points (TS% .506)

Using Seaside's beloved DRtg and ORtg, opponents scored more points per 100 possessions than McAdoo ended up scoring offensively! ORtg: 97 DRtg: 107

McAdoo had a 12.4 TRB% when Dirk has only had 3 out of 14 of his postseasons less than 12.4! Counting only Dirk's playoff 5-year prime, he has a more than respectable TRB% of 15.2.

valade16
05-19-2015, 10:01 PM
Well by your standards, you'll have to agree Hill was a better defender than Dumars. You can't just use DRtg when it is advantageous and then ignore it when it goes against you.

Oh yeah, also using your other defensive metric standard (BPG), Hill averaged more blocks than Dumars. He has him beat on Drtg and BPG. See what I did there? :p

Have I proven my point about defensive stats yet? You certainly said they were "objective" in the chatzy. lol

So I guess we can throw out all those defensive stats you posted regarding Nowtizki? Or do those count because they help your argument?

Redrum187
05-19-2015, 11:03 PM
So I guess we can throw out all those defensive stats you posted regarding Nowtizki? Or do those count because they help your argument?

To my knowledge I haven't posted a ton of Dirk's advanced defensive stats. I did bring them up when I agreed that McAdoo had a better DRtg. You used BPG and DRtg to showcase superior defensive skills, but if you use them, they should also apply when it goes against you. Nash = Dumars, Hill > Dumars, Conley > Dumars, Robertson > Dumars, Harden > Dumars on the defensive end using your defensive standard (BPG and DRtg). That's only fair, wouldn't you agree?

Shammyguy3
05-20-2015, 12:33 AM
valade's argued his way to a close matchup, but in the end i'm probably voting Jerusalem. The talent difference is closer than I thought initially looking at the rosters, but in the end Jerusalem has the two best players by a decent margin and that seals the deal

Matter.
05-20-2015, 08:53 PM
Wrong thread

valade16
05-21-2015, 09:16 AM
I tried my best, but ultimately Redrum's team was just too good.

Good luck to Redrum in his future matches.

Redrum187
05-21-2015, 12:35 PM
I tried my best, but ultimately Redrum's team was just too good.

Good luck to Redrum in his future matches.

Much respect to Valade. You had a lot of heart and passion in the matchup, very admirable.

KnicksorBust
05-21-2015, 02:51 PM
Much respect to Valade. You had a lot of heart and passion in the matchup, very admirable.

Agreed. It's that determination that won him his matchup in the first round. I echo this post.

Shammyguy3
05-21-2015, 09:12 PM
alright Jerusalem advances convincingly

NYKalltheway
05-22-2015, 09:57 AM
Didn't manage to vote, this should have been much closer though. I'd be torn between the two. Prefer Seaside's starting 5 but Jerusalem is deeper.