Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 10 of 18 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 261

Thread: Wade/Tmac/Kobe

  1. #136
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    47,193
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    Klay Thompson would be begging for Drazen's autographs. Get real man...
    Klays a pretty good shooter too tho. And he ***** on him m2m defensively

  2. #137
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    34,868
    Quote Originally Posted by Chronz View Post
    Klays a pretty good shooter too tho. And he ***** on him m2m defensively
    Ben Taylor's tape study has Drazen grading out as one of the worst defenders of all-time. His defense was abysmal.

  3. #138
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    48,886
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Ben Taylor's tape study has Drazen grading out as one of the worst defenders of all-time. His defense was abysmal.
    Is that **** peer reviewed?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  4. #139
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    34,868
    Quote Originally Posted by ewing View Post
    Is that **** peer reviewed?
    More of his peers agree with him than do NYKís if thatís what youíre asking.

  5. #140
    nice men

  6. #141
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    13,851
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Ben Taylor's tape study has Drazen grading out as one of the worst defenders of all-time. His defense was abysmal.
    Drazen played in a different era and defense was on the bottom of the priority.

    Especially in Europe, these star players were ordered by their coaches to not even bother in defense because they didn't want them to drain their energy there and focus to carry the offensive load. It became a habit. The best Greek player of the time was considered quite good in defense yet when he moved to Greece he was perceived as a black hole in defense exactly because he was told not to bother with it as it was necessary for him to score 35-40 a night. In moments when he decided to play D, he was actually one of the best around. Everyone else was playing D anyway and it was hard to score, so it took an extra effort from your best offensive guys to get the bucket, which made it natural for coaches to allow some players to preserve energy for offense only.

    These players used to play 40 out of the 40 available minutes, which is what drived this mentality. And Drazen oozed with overconfidence so he barely bothered with defense at all sometimes, because he was handed the entire offensive load. These players grew up thinking that if you're great in offense you don't need to play much defense. This changed in the late 90s in the European game though some teams and coaches were ultra defensive since the late 80s. You'd have scorelines in the 40s and 50s quite frequenty, such as 59-55 final score etc.

    Ironically, the NBA which you hold into such a high regard took the exact opposite turn. Players now barely bother with defense, even more blatantly than the Europeans of the 80s. But you seem to rate them fondly, while at the same time diss others for playing in a similar way in a tougher era. Yet you also downgrade that older era. Naked in the eyes of context, once more. But also in lack of knowledge. Maybe now you'll know better. Volume 14312314141.

  7. #142
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    34,868
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    Drazen played in a different era and defense was on the bottom of the priority.

    Especially in Europe, these star players were ordered by their coaches to not even bother in defense because they didn't want them to drain their energy there and focus to carry the offensive load. It became a habit. The best Greek player of the time was considered quite good in defense yet when he moved to Greece he was perceived as a black hole in defense exactly because he was told not to bother with it as it was necessary for him to score 35-40 a night. In moments when he decided to play D, he was actually one of the best around. Everyone else was playing D anyway and it was hard to score, so it took an extra effort from your best offensive guys to get the bucket, which made it natural for coaches to allow some players to preserve energy for offense only.

    These players used to play 40 out of the 40 available minutes, which is what drived this mentality. And Drazen oozed with overconfidence so he barely bothered with defense at all sometimes, because he was handed the entire offensive load. These players grew up thinking that if you're great in offense you don't need to play much defense. This changed in the late 90s in the European game though some teams and coaches were ultra defensive since the late 80s. You'd have scorelines in the 40s and 50s quite frequenty, such as 59-55 final score etc.

    Ironically, the NBA which you hold into such a high regard took the exact opposite turn. Players now barely bother with defense, even more blatantly than the Europeans of the 80s. But you seem to rate them fondly, while at the same time diss others for playing in a similar way in a tougher era. Yet you also downgrade that older era. Naked in the eyes of context, once more. But also in lack of knowledge. Maybe now you'll know better. Volume 14312314141.
    I agree many players today don't bother with defense. Where we disagree is thinking that every player today doesn't bother with defense, or that defense literally stopped in 2007.

    It's interesting that you have 143123114141 volumes but they all say the same thing:

    Everything about older eras is better than everything today
    LeBron sucks


    I can't wait to see how you re-word those points in volume 14312314142...

  8. #143
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Bushwood Country Club
    Posts
    79,899
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    Especially in Europe, these star players were ordered by their coaches to not even bother in defense because they didn't want them to drain their energy there and focus to carry the offensive load.
    my 7th grade coach told me this, and I carried with me the rest of my career.

    If you want the ultimate, you've got to be willing to pay the ultimate price. It's not tragic to die doing what you love.

  9. #144
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,990
    Quote Originally Posted by ewing View Post
    Is that **** peer reviewed?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Unfortunately, very few if any analytics in any sport are peer reviewed by true experts on the topic (i.e., experts on mathematics). If it were, most of this stuff, especially in basketball, would never see the light of day because it would get shut down pretty quickly. What I find most amusing is that there's very little basketball talk in this forum. Most points begin and end with "here's my opinion and here are all the numbers (which they have no idea what they mean) to back that up". Very few posts ever say anything about what the guys skills were and how they affected the game. I really do wonder how a lot of these guys would view the game if they didnt have numbers that they dont understand to cite whenever they want to say Player A is better than Player B. I suspect most would simply regurgitate whatever they hear on ESPN, which I suppose is kind of what they already do.
    Last edited by Big Moves03; 07-24-2020 at 05:14 PM.

  10. #145
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    47,193
    Dude, you're the guy who doesn't understand APRB. Its evident in all your posts. Its why months later you still havent found the time to quantify a single opinion you've spewed. I know for a fact I understand these numbers better than you

  11. #146
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,990
    Quote Originally Posted by Chronz View Post
    Dude, you're the guy who doesn't understand APRB. Its evident in all your posts. Its why months later you still havent found the time to quantify a single opinion you've spewed. I know for a fact I understand these numbers better than you
    Your last sentence is highly, highly unlikely, but it also doesn't matter who understands the numbers better, my entire point is that the numbers are not particularly meaningful (and even when they're translated to actual in game consequences, large numerical differences amount to very small in-game differences). I have quantified my positions, what I haven't done is the work to take those measures, because doing that work would require much more than a few months time of work (and a large team of assistants to collect said data).

    Your post ignores the primary idea of my post though, which is that most of you rarely speak to anything actually basketball related, wherein your position is backed up by a discussion of actual basketball. Instead, there is an opinion on a basketball topic and then a reference to the numbers (we could just as easily replace this with any other sport and the content wouldn't change too much except for the name of the players and the numbers being referenced). As a basketball forum, that leaves a lot to be desired, to say the least. There is very little mention of skillsets and how that affects the game and teammates, the opposition, etc. It's all very formulaic and involves almost no mention of basketball (other than the players being discussed being basketball players).

  12. #147
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    8,247
    Quote Originally Posted by KnicksorBust View Post
    Imagine Drazen in an NBA where guards shoot +10 threes every game.
    Heíd be Klay Thompson.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  13. #148
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    34,868
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Unfortunately, very few if any analytics in any sport are peer reviewed by true experts on the topic (i.e., experts on mathematics). If it were, most of this stuff, especially in basketball, would never see the light of day because it would get shut down pretty quickly. What I find most amusing is that there's very little basketball talk in this forum. Most points begin and end with "here's my opinion and here are all the numbers (which they have no idea what they mean) to back that up". Very few posts ever say anything about what the guys skills were and how they affected the game. I really do wonder how a lot of these guys would view the game if they didnt have numbers that they dont understand to cite whenever they want to say Player A is better than Player B. I suspect most would simply regurgitate whatever they hear on ESPN, which I suppose is kind of what they already do.
    Imagine a statistician saying that data cannot help us figure out what skills players are good at or how it affects the game...

  14. #149
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,990
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Imagine a statistician saying that data cannot help us figure out what skills players are good at or how it affects the game...
    One, I'm a scientist who has expertise in statistics (as most scientists do; statisticians typically have far less training and education than a scientist). Two, as any scientist will tell you, data are meaningless if they don't represent something meaningful or if they are distorted by the methodology that is used to ascertain said data. Data are also meaningless without interpretation and the interpretation is what the crux of the issue is here. More importantly though, my post that you responded to doesn't speak to any of this. It's calling out the very real lack of basketball talk in here. You shouldn't need statistics (even if they did provide highly meaningful data for basketball) to talk about basketball.

    There is almost no talk in here about basketball nor is there typically a discussion about basketball to support most positions on this forum. Instead, it's mostly saying one player was better than another player and here are the numbers that support that. Again, we could replace this with any sport and simply swap out the players and statistics and the content wouldnt vary too much. Many of you seem to think that because a statistic for one player is better than an other (or because they are comparable) that this somehow represents something meaningful about winning basketball and who is better than who. It simply doesn't but more importantly and to my point, those numbers are not basketball. I wonder to what extent many of you guys can support your positions without referencing any numbers whatsoever.
    Last edited by Big Moves03; 07-27-2020 at 06:43 PM.

  15. #150
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    34,868
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    One, I'm a scientist who has expertise in statistics (as most scientists do; statisticians typically have far less training and education than a scientist). Two, as any scientist will tell you, data are meaningless if they don't represent something meaningful or if they are distorted by the methodology that is used to ascertain said data. Data are also meaningless without interpretation and the interpretation is what the crux of the issue is here. More importantly though, my post that you responded to doesn't speak to any of this. It's calling out the very real lack of basketball talk in here. You shouldn't need statistics (even if they did provide highly meaningful data for basketball) to talk about basketball.

    There is almost no talk in here about basketball nor is there typically a discussion about basketball to support most positions on this forum. Instead, it's mostly saying one player was better than another player and here are the numbers that support that. Again, we could replace this with any sport and simply swap out the players and statistics and the content wouldnt vary too much. Many of you seem to think that because a statistic for one player is better than an other (or because they are comparable) that this somehow represents something meaningful about winning basketball and who is better than who. It simply doesn't but more importantly and to my point, those numbers are not basketball. I wonder to what extent many of you guys can support your positions without referencing any numbers whatsoever.
    And you would rather us say one player is better than the other and hereís nothing to support that.

    And I would be fine supporting my position without using any numbers whatsoever, because then thereís nothing that could falsify anything Iím saying. Itíd all be 100% opinion. I could say Jason Williams was a better player than Kobe and you could say ďI disagree because I think Kobe is better at X skillsĒ and Iíd say ďwell I disagree because I think Jason Williams is better at X skillsĒ and then... nothing. Thatíd literally be the end of the conversation. Because the only thing youíd have to argue your point is opinions and the opinions of others. Nothing objective (and no, saying Kobe is better at X than Jason without anything objective to back it up does not make it objective).


    Also, I think you are genuinely ignorant to a lot of actual stats that can be useful to basketball. But itís really larger than that. Itís a scientists in essence blanket distrusting all possible stats without knowing the methodology of all of them. Thatís a generalization no scientists worth their salt would make. Itís not that you donít use stats, itís that youíve entrenched yourself in a position where you will never accept any statistic as having value. Itís pretty sad.

Page 10 of 18 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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