Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 501 of 549 FirstFirst ... 401451491499500501502503511 ... LastLast
Results 7,501 to 7,515 of 8229
  1. #7501
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    7,470
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Shaq's not a top 5 all-timer, it's mostly people on this forum who put him on that tier and this is coming from a laker fan who loves shaq. At any rate, even if shaq is top 5 all-time, kobe didnt play with him during his prime (there were probably only about 3-4 years where shaq and kobe were stars together during that stint (and the last two years shaq was highly unmotivated and out of shape). Second, that's one player for about 3-4 years...kobe didnt play with any other superstars really for the rest of his career. Bird did play with studs, but that was also in an era where there were far fewer teams and so good teams were a lot more stacked because of that so it's silly to draw that type of comparison because there were other similarly stacked teams during that era. Same with Magic (who after 87 only had one other legit stud in Worthy and that lasted for about 2-3 more years before Worthy declined. Pippen wasn't trash, but he wasn't really a superstar (it's mostly you guys who like to prop up LBJ make the case that he was).

    The fact is that Wade was a top 3 player when LBJ came over and Bosh was arguably a top 10 player. Love was also considered close to a top 5 player when he went to the Cavs and Kyrie was arguably a top 10-15 guy at the time as well (and is still in that tier). AD is considered a top 5 player, if not top 3. MJ played with Pippen, Magic played with Kareem (who was a star for about 7 years) and Worthy, Bird played with McHale and Parrish, Kobe played with shaq (both were stars simultaneously for about 3-4 years) and Pau. Duncan had Parker and Ginobli.

    The fact is that all of these guys basically had star player teammates who then declined and grew old with their team. They weren't constantly re-upping and getting new star teammates every few years, especially during their primes. Anyone who can't see that LBJ has had tremendous help is likely viewing this with LBJ tinted glasses. Wade, Bosh, Love, Irving, and now AD and all during his prime or very close to it. That there is key. Regardless of where one wants to rank these guys, it's clear that there was tremendous help at historic levels.

    My position on rings can be summed up to they provide a rough approximation of winning, whereas it's not really clear what state provide or assess. As far as I can tell, they're mostly for fans to have dumb online debates about.
    Ok, Top 7? 9? Maybe if they could have put their egos aside Shaq would have been more apt to stay in shape.

    Yeah, I donít see much of a difference between all of those teamsí star power, especially when you throw in coaches, benches and your beloved synergy. If Free Agency existed back in the 80ís, Iím wondering how things would shake out. If Kobe wouldnít have forced his way to the Lakers organization, Iím wondering how many rings he would have had.

    So the guy that stresses RINGZ admits that theyíre just a way to have dumb online debates.


    And I want to know who these people who are digging Valade are. NYKALLTHEWAY ghosted awhile back but he was another Lebron hater (I think he said Lebron was in the late teens for him all time) and Romeo only posted half heartedly, it seems.

  2. #7502
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    19,065
    Kyre left simple because he was being wack. As the pg he was taking more shots and even closing games. Pay attention to the time on the clock, the game and look who is getting the ball the PG. Any different than last game?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-yh0hf7sBU

    As for Irving, Cavs fans will never forget the clutch 3-pointer he hit in Game 7 of the 2016 NBA Finals against the Golden State Warriors.

    That shot, coupled with Jamesí famous block of Andre Iguodala, played a huge role in giving Cleveland its first championship in over 50 years.

    Seem like a little of the same right?

    His stats are either inflated since he always have the ball or is it because hes capable of doing more.
    Last edited by ldawg; 09-26-2020 at 07:05 AM.

  3. #7503
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    10,648
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Here is what I actually said:




    What I meant/wrote is that PER actually rewards people for shooting a ton because the threshold to get a positive rating is very low (30%). It does not reward passing nearly as much as it rewards shooting a ton (and the fact you'd even argue this shows how little you know about PER). Here are the

    PER's of top passers all-time:

    Magic: 24.1
    Stockton: 21.8
    Nash: 20.0
    Isiah: 18.1
    Kidd: 17.9

    Now here are the PER's of high volume scorers:

    Baylor: 22.7
    Nique: 21.6
    Dantley: 21.5
    Gervin 21.4
    AI: 20.9
    Melo: 19.9
    English: 19.9

    Outside Magic (who scored 20+ PPG himself), the high volume scorers have higher PER's than most of the top passers who didn't score. And I'm not even using high volume scorers who were all around players (like Jordan, T-Mac, Kobe, etc.) because their PER's are vastly higher than the passers.


    NYKalltheway? Everyone acknowledges he has bizarre and ridiculous takes on basketball post 2006. As for Chronz, I doubt he thinks as negatively of me as you're making out (but Chronz can speak for himself). I also think he'd have some choice things to say about your arguments.


    I don't have a hard time with opinions that go against the norm. There are plenty of basketball opinions I'm fine with that go against the norm, so long as the underlying reasoning is sound (even if I disagree). You have failed to demonstrate your underlying reasoning is sound and further, you are completely ignorant of the stats you dismiss (claiming PER rewards passing over shooting is one such example).
    I could be wrong, but I believe that there was a follow-up post to that one where you stated that even if you miss it helps your PER. Either way though, this list is a little strange and definitely not one I'm on board with. I also wonder why LBJ was not in the high passer list and CP3? LBJ is a very high volume passer, but at the very least, CP3 belongs on the list of high volume passers. When he's included, the high volume passer list wins out.

    Nevertheless, this isn't the way to compare whether PER favors passing over shooting, because PER favors guys who fill up the stat sheet. Most of the guys on the high volume list filled up the stat sheet and so of course they have higher PERs (but not when CP3 is included). AI averaged over over 6 assists for his career for example to go along with 2 stls and almost 4 rebounds while shooting a borderline good ft percentage. Elgin Baylor averaged 4 ast per game to go along with 13.5 rebounds. Most of the guys in the high volume shooter list also shot a respectable to good fg%. In contrast, not all of these are the case for guys in the passer list (PER also does not reward missing shots, and Kidd has the lowest fg% on either list, which matters because the lists aren't large).

    Hollinger actually notes that to get to a league average PER (this was for the 2007 season) you have to shoot at 48.5% from the field (assuming you produce at average levels in all other aspects of the game). That is, Hollinger argues against the notion that PER rewards inefficient shooting (it was actually in response to the quote that you put up; it's on the Wikipedia page where you might've found that quote that you posted). It's important to note that in 2007, the league average was almost 3% percentage points below this mark. Thus, if you're not able to shoot around 3% above the league average, shooting does not reward PER. Therefore, at least according to Hollinger (who is arguably the foremost expert on PER, especially his own PER), PER does not reward shooting. It rewards making shots at an efficient rate, but it also penalizes missed shots and you have to be able to shoot above the league average in order to benefit from it. This is coming from Hollinger. This is also why I said that unless you have a completely wide open shot or a layup, you're better off passing.

    I believe in one version of how PER is computed, you get something like 2.3 pts worth for an assist, because it takes the average scoring play, which includes 3 pointers (this might've been updated though). Again, as I noted, I could be wrong here, but from eye balling the formula, it does seem that you are better off passing for an assist than you are trying to score, at least unless you have a super high percentage shot.

    You asked me to list some names who've called you out for being a bit authoritarian and those are some names (Romeo Neas as well I think, but I don't remember to be honest). I also am not saying that Chronz thinks lowly of you (he likely thinks higher of you than of me lol), I'm just saying others have noted your appeal to authority and norms (i.e., it's not just me saying that). my main issue is that there's no need for name calling or insults. I never resort to calling you names or insulting you. We can have a perfectly civil discussion even if we disagree with one another.
    Last edited by Big Moves03; 09-26-2020 at 09:48 AM.

  4. #7504
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    10,648
    Quote Originally Posted by ldawg View Post
    Kyrie ask for a trade because hes wack. Kobe wanted to win on his own or be the lead man as well. It dont seem like they take turns since hes not a guard thats why i pointed out how you think Kobe would have played with another star who also rely on having the ball?

    I am not asking if CP3 and Kobe would have won to that of Harden and Westbrook. I am asking how you think they would have played together. Both players like the ball and its played with only 1.
    I think kobe wanted to win without Shaq because Shaq was being an a-hole and saying that he didnt need kobe and that he won all of those titles on his own. I could be wrong, but I think kobe said that once shaq proclaimed that he was the one winning, kobe had to show people that he could do it on his own. I think that if that had not happened, things would've gone a lot differently. By 06, kobe was clearly the better player and so I think that kobe would've been totally fine with continuing to play with Shaq. The real issue was that their egos and personalities clashed.

    Kyrie didnt like having to basically be a role player whenever LBJ had the ball. Bosh has also commented on how it's hard to play with LBJ because you have to sacrifice a lot of your game as a star. I don't think that's trivial. Like I said though, to his credit, LBJ and AD are clicking and it's a great credit to LBJ.

    As to kobe and CP3, I think they would've worked just fine. CP3 is a natural facilitator and kobe is a natural scorer. I think CP3 would've likely extended Kobe's career, wherein kobe remained an elite star, by 2-4 years or so.
    Last edited by Big Moves03; 09-26-2020 at 09:43 AM.

  5. #7505
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    10,648
    Quote Originally Posted by ldawg View Post
    Kyre left simple because he was being wack. As the pg he was taking more shots and even closing games. Pay attention to the time on the clock, the game and look who is getting the ball the PG. Any different than last game?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-yh0hf7sBU

    As for Irving, Cavs fans will never forget the clutch 3-pointer he hit in Game 7 of the 2016 NBA Finals against the Golden State Warriors.

    That shot, coupled with Jamesí famous block of Andre Iguodala, played a huge role in giving Cleveland its first championship in over 50 years.

    Seem like a little of the same right?

    His stats are either inflated since he always have the ball or is it because hes capable of doing more.
    My point about Kyrie was about him leaving because it's hard to play with someone when you have to defer so much. I'm not defending him or any thing, I'm just noting that that was why he left.
    Last edited by Big Moves03; 09-26-2020 at 09:42 AM.

  6. #7506
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    10,648
    Quote Originally Posted by Saddletramp View Post
    Ok, Top 7? 9? Maybe if they could have put their egos aside Shaq would have been more apt to stay in shape.

    Yeah, I donít see much of a difference between all of those teamsí star power, especially when you throw in coaches, benches and your beloved synergy. If Free Agency existed back in the 80ís, Iím wondering how things would shake out. If Kobe wouldnít have forced his way to the Lakers organization, Iím wondering how many rings he would have had.

    So the guy that stresses RINGZ admits that theyíre just a way to have dumb online debates.


    And I want to know who these people who are digging Valade are. NYKALLTHEWAY ghosted awhile back but he was another Lebron hater (I think he said Lebron was in the late teens for him all time) and Romeo only posted half heartedly, it seems.
    Yeah, I would agree that Shaq belongs somewhere in that ranking. I think their egos definitely clashed, but one of the major issues was that there was a major difference in how they approached the game. Kobe was about preparation and taking everything very seriously. Shaq was about having a good time and getting it done when it mattered and this really drove kobe nuts because it was the antithesis to how kobe approached the game. I think personality wise, kobe and Kareem would've clicked much, much better. Magic and Shaq would've also probably clicked better because Shaq has always been kind of sensitive and magic knew how to deal with guys like that.

    It's totally possible that kobe wouldn't have as many rings as he does if he doesn't go to the lakers, but on the flip side, it's totally possible that he has 4-7 great years of solo basketball and then goes to the lakers on his own (along with a buddy, maybe forming a super team) or to a team like the spurs. We don't know what would've happened though so it's just speculation. At the end of the day, I just want to see LBJ win a little bit more before I'm ready to put him in the discussion where you guys want to put him.
    Last edited by Big Moves03; 09-26-2020 at 09:09 AM.

  7. #7507
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    19,065
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    My point about Kyrie was about him leaving because it's hard to play with someone when you have to defer so much. I'm not defending him or any thing, I'm just noting that that was why he left.
    Did Shaq derer for Kobe or did Kobe wanted to win without shaq and be the lead man of his own team? As i point out above Lebron Defer to Kyre just as Shaq did but he just wanted a team of his own. He to played a big role in the cluth Like Kobe did. In short when its time to win MVP finals mvp etc they want that, they want to be the Leader. Kyrie could not trump Lebron so he had to leave to acheve that.

    From a media fans stand point this is true but from the play on the court its not.

    The same help Kyrie ran from he ran back to. No one want to get stuck being labled a Pippen.

    Look at Kyrie stats its in line with his days on the Cavs. When healthy his role grew and Lebron defer more.
    Last edited by ldawg; 09-26-2020 at 10:06 AM.

  8. #7508
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    19,065
    The knock on Lebron has always been he dont have it. Whatever it is. Hes not a dog like MJ and Kobe because those guys will eat you to win. Lebron is more of a nice guy that like to keep his teammates in the mix and pass to much in the clutch. Some think he should have gone out firing. Alot of players respected Kobe becuase of the personal battles when he went at him. they bait him into bad play but he made some shots that made you say awwwww. King of like those shots Murray made. He makes you respect him. So to say Lebron dominates the ball i dont think so.
    Last edited by ldawg; 09-26-2020 at 12:09 PM.

  9. #7509
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,932
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    I could be wrong, but I believe that there was a follow-up post to that one where you stated that even if you miss it helps your PER. Either way though, this list is a little strange and definitely not one I'm on board with. I also wonder why LBJ was not in the high passer list and CP3? LBJ is a very high volume passer, but at the very least, CP3 belongs on the list of high volume passers. When he's included, the high volume passer list wins out.

    Nevertheless, this isn't the way to compare whether PER favors passing over shooting, because PER favors guys who fill up the stat sheet. Most of the guys on the high volume list filled up the stat sheet and so of course they have higher PERs (but not when CP3 is included). AI averaged over over 6 assists for his career for example to go along with 2 stls and almost 4 rebounds while shooting a borderline good ft percentage. Elgin Baylor averaged 4 ast per game to go along with 13.5 rebounds. Most of the guys in the high volume shooter list also shot a respectable to good fg%. In contrast, not all of these are the case for guys in the passer list (PER also does not reward missing shots, and Kidd has the lowest fg% on either list, which matters because the lists aren't large).

    Hollinger actually notes that to get to a league average PER (this was for the 2007 season) you have to shoot at 48.5% from the field (assuming you produce at average levels in all other aspects of the game). That is, Hollinger argues against the notion that PER rewards inefficient shooting (it was actually in response to the quote that you put up; it's on the Wikipedia page where you might've found that quote that you posted). It's important to note that in 2007, the league average was almost 3% percentage points below this mark. Thus, if you're not able to shoot around 3% above the league average, shooting does not reward PER. Therefore, at least according to Hollinger (who is arguably the foremost expert on PER, especially his own PER), PER does not reward shooting. It rewards making shots at an efficient rate, but it also penalizes missed shots and you have to be able to shoot above the league average in order to benefit from it. This is coming from Hollinger. This is also why I said that unless you have a completely wide open shot or a layup, you're better off passing.

    I believe in one version of how PER is computed, you get something like 2.3 pts worth for an assist, because it takes the average scoring play, which includes 3 pointers (this might've been updated though). Again, as I noted, I could be wrong here, but from eye balling the formula, it does seem that you are better off passing for an assist than you are trying to score, at least unless you have a super high percentage shot.

    You asked me to list some names who've called you out for being a bit authoritarian and those are some names (Romeo Neas as well I think, but I don't remember to be honest). I also am not saying that Chronz thinks lowly of you (he likely thinks higher of you than of me lol), I'm just saying others have noted your appeal to authority and norms (i.e., it's not just me saying that). my main issue is that there's no need for name calling or insults. I never resort to calling you names or insulting you. We can have a perfectly civil discussion even if we disagree with one another.
    https://fansided.com/2017/01/31/nylo...inventing-per/
    http://athletametrics.weebly.com/nba...-what-it-means

    Here are just a couple links breaking down PER a bit and even giving scenarios on what more shooting at poor efficiency does. Valade has it essentially correct that the stat favors shooters so long as they aren't the least efficient of all time.

    Not using guys who score AND pass at high volume due to having both abilities is just common sense, that's why no Lebron. You need to compare volume scorers who didn't pass as much to players who didn't have said volume scoring but were major passers moreso. You don't want players who overlap these abilities too much or you aren't really separating anything. Try focusing just on a couple of these players and find seasons where they were similar in say rebounding/defensive stats or where their totals have some similarities as well outside scoring/passing. Magic is an ATG player who rebounded and passed at a high rate but his PER is lower because relying on passing isn't going to boost PER as much as volume scoring. Why do you think his PER is so low compared to some other ATG's if it isn't because he averaged under 20 ppg in comparison?

    The issue with Hollinger's response is making everything even isn't what is being noted, the key is shooting more will help even at lower efficiency. Sure if you have someone who is average at everything then give a very bad FG% it will drop him below the average overall and especially if you make it very low in comparison to the league. However what if you give that player a large amount of volume and put him at just 40%? This is where the PER is going to rise even though the player might be shooting at a lower %, just the volume will cover for it and raise the PER (shooting more inefficiently can still raise your PER above not shooting as much and doing it inefficiently). It is still rewarding volume overall even if inefficient when the reality is that actually hurts a team.

    I am not sure if you haven't actually looked into these stats like you claim or just don't understand it but his basic point on this seems to be correct while you seem to be off base in your thoughts on this stat and how it works. The links actually break some of this down as well.
    Last edited by mngopher35; 09-26-2020 at 11:51 AM.

  10. #7510
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,932
    Magic in 84 outrebounded and had higher scoring efficiency than AI in 01 while averaging 13 assists per game to his like 4.5.

    Magic's PER was 22.6 and AI's was 24. So this example has efficiency and rebounding favoring the player almost everyone considers better but PER favored the volume scorer in this scenario anyways. This is just one of many types of comparisons you can do but I think it gets the point across of what is favored here by PER.

  11. #7511
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    36,269
    Thanks Gopher for covering his misconceptions on PER so I donít have to.

  12. #7512
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    10,648
    Quote Originally Posted by ldawg View Post
    The knock on Lebron has always been he dont have it. Whatever it is. Hes not a dog like MJ and Kobe because those guys will eat you to win. Lebron is more of a nice guy that like to keep his teammates in the mix and pass to much in the clutch. Some think he should have gone out firing. Alot of players respected Kobe becuase of the personal battles when he went at him. they bait him into bad play but he made some shots that made you say awwwww. King of like those shots Murray made. He makes you respect him. So to say Lebron dominates the ball i dont think so.
    What do you mean? LBJ definitely dominates the ball. He's often among the league leaders in guys who have the ball and most of the guys who have the ball a comparable amount of time are full time pgs. LBJ does a lot of ball handling but he's not a full time pg so I don't think it's debatable that LBJ does dominate the ball a lot.

    You're right about a knock on LBJ being that he's too nice of a guy. I never really held that against him. A bigger knock for me is that he's not super skilled and you do start to see it come to light when teams take away the drive but he has been able to over come that.

    I don't think that's why players respected kobe. I think a lot of what gets lost in here and one of the points I've been trying to make is that performance is not a good indicator of impact (and a critical limitation of any statistic-based assessment) because in sports defenses guard against what a player is capable of doing more so than they do against what a player actually does. To tie this back to the first sentence here, players respected kobe because they knew what he was capable of and it required throwing everything the defense had at him to stop him from going for a massive night on a nightly basis. If defenses didn't bring their absolute A game, with the best defenders and the best game planning they could muster, kobe would drop 60-plus without batting an eye and would do so on highly efficient shooting. This is what defenses were guarding against on a nightly basis and they had to fight tooth and nail to keep it from happening and this is what other teams were constantly in fear of. There is that story where boston was up by 30 something with about 4 minutes to go in game 6 of the finals in 08 and doc rivers was still coaching like it was a 2 pt ball game and his assistants were telling him to pull the starters and doc was going irate because he was afraid that kobe would somehow do something miraculous. Eventually doc realized how insane that was, but that demonstrates just how other teams prepared for him. That sort of thing has a major impact on the game and that's what defenses were going up against every night for the massive majority of his 20 year career.

    To demonstrate this point on a more basic level imagine we go play on a playground. There's one guy who can't shoot and it's clear right away from his form and another guy who has a great form. Regardless of how those players are performing, defenses won't prepare for the guy who can't shoot even if he's making them, whereas they will fight very hard to keep the guy who can shoot from getting shots even if he's missing. The reason is that what you are guarding is what the offensive player is capable of doing. It was Kobe's ability that players respected (outside of his competitiveness and intensity).

    That was why players respected him because of what he was capable

  13. #7513
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    36,269
    You donít think they guard what LeBron is capable of? Heck, most of Bronís teams 3ís are open because the defense is guarding against LeBronís drives and packing the paint.

    Also, they actually have statistics that measure how much a defender respects a 3pt shooter whether he makes it or has a history of making it (gravity coupled with close out rate). So even the examples he gives of things statistics doesnít take into account, statistics actually does.

    I think his entire anti-statistics sentiment comes down to having actually no clue what statistics are out there.

  14. #7514
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    10,648
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    https://fansided.com/2017/01/31/nylo...inventing-per/
    http://athletametrics.weebly.com/nba...-what-it-means

    Here are just a couple links breaking down PER a bit and even giving scenarios on what more shooting at poor efficiency does. Valade has it essentially correct that the stat favors shooters so long as they aren't the least efficient of all time.

    Not using guys who score AND pass at high volume due to having both abilities is just common sense, that's why no Lebron. You need to compare volume scorers who didn't pass as much to players who didn't have said volume scoring but were major passers moreso. You don't want players who overlap these abilities too much or you aren't really separating anything. Try focusing just on a couple of these players and find seasons where they were similar in say rebounding/defensive stats or where their totals have some similarities as well outside scoring/passing. Magic is an ATG player who rebounded and passed at a high rate but his PER is lower because relying on passing isn't going to boost PER as much as volume scoring. Why do you think his PER is so low compared to some other ATG's if it isn't because he averaged under 20 ppg in comparison?

    The issue with Hollinger's response is making everything even isn't what is being noted, the key is shooting more will help even at lower efficiency. Sure if you have someone who is average at everything then give a very bad FG% it will drop him below the average overall and especially if you make it very low in comparison to the league. However what if you give that player a large amount of volume and put him at just 40%? This is where the PER is going to rise even though the player might be shooting at a lower %, just the volume will cover for it and raise the PER (shooting more inefficiently can still raise your PER above not shooting as much and doing it inefficiently). It is still rewarding volume overall even if inefficient when the reality is that actually hurts a team.

    I am not sure if you haven't actually looked into these stats like you claim or just don't understand it but his basic point on this seems to be correct while you seem to be off base in your thoughts on this stat and how it works. The links actually break some of this down as well.
    That doesn't explain not including CP3, which when included supports what I was saying. The problem with using those other guys is that like you said theyre not average on other aspects of the game, which means those other aspects are helping to make up for the inefficient shooting.

    What Hollinger did is the right way to examine the impact shooting has on PER. To examine the direct impact of any variable, you have to hold other variables constant, which is what Hollinger is doing my assuming the average. It's a common practice in statistics actually to do what he did. To examine this question, we actually can't look at what players are doing because those other variables will drive up PER. Instead, we have to approach it purely from a mathematics perspective, which is what Hollinger did. What it amounts to is saying when we hold everything else constant at the league average, a player has to shoot efficiently to reach the league PER average.

    The right way to do this (I won't do it), but it certainly can be done if someone wants to, it so derive a mathematical proof from the formula to answer this question. That's actually the only way to answer the question definitively. I think what Hollinger did is the next best thing though. What I did was eye ball the formula. I have admittedly not gone into considerable detail in this analysis. Obviously that's not the right way to do it, but I'm also not going to spend hours or days working on that type of problem on account of having a job lol.
    Last edited by Big Moves03; 09-26-2020 at 12:23 PM.

  15. #7515
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    10,648
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    You donít think they guard what LeBron is capable of? Heck, most of Bronís teams 3ís are open because the defense is guarding against LeBronís drives and packing the paint.

    Also, they actually have statistics that measure how much a defender respects a 3pt shooter whether he makes it or has a history of making it (gravity coupled with close out rate). So even the examples he gives of things statistics doesnít take into account, statistics actually does.

    I think his entire anti-statistics sentiment comes down to having actually no clue what statistics are out there.
    I didnt say they don't guard what LBJ is capable of. I said that the reason they respected kobe so much was because of what he was capable of. They guard what every player is capable of, not just kobe or LBJ. If either of us was to play in the NBA the same would hold true. I do think kobe was capable of more or at least that this was the perception, which is backed up by the legendary nights he put up over his career, which are mostly unmatched in the modern NBA (Klay did have that crazy night a few years ago and I think Robinson had a pretty massive finale one season, but those are the only ones that come to mind).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •