Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 167
  1. #76
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    31,779
    Quote Originally Posted by KnicksorBust View Post
    That's wild. The league has changed and it's never going back. That's for sure.
    I know that for years I've looked at scoring efficiency and advanced stats that heavily weight scoring efficiency as a primary factor when comparing players across eras. But the more efficient that the average player gets, it's getting harder and harder to use it fairly across different eras. I almost wish BR had a table on each player's page that compared some of those advanced stats to how much better they were than the league average that season.

    That context would be invaluable in comparing players today with guys from 30+ years ago. Guys who played in the 70s and 80s who would seem insanely inefficient by today's standards might have been hyper-efficient for their eras, and guys that seem efficient today might actually be at or below league average.


  2. #77
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    36,269
    Quote Originally Posted by mightybosstone View Post
    I know that for years I've looked at scoring efficiency and advanced stats that heavily weight scoring efficiency as a primary factor when comparing players across eras. But the more efficient that the average player gets, it's getting harder and harder to use it fairly across different eras. I almost wish BR had a table on each player's page that compared some of those advanced stats to how much better they were than the league average that season.

    That context would be invaluable in comparing players today with guys from 30+ years ago. Guys who played in the 70s and 80s who would seem insanely inefficient by today's standards might have been hyper-efficient for their eras, and guys that seem efficient today might actually be at or below league average.
    Another thing Iíve really been getting into in regards to statistics and impact is team impact as opposed to individual impact. For example a guy like Nash, you look at his individual stats and think ďgood but not greatĒ but when you start looking at the numbers of how he affected his teams offense and efficiency and you realize his impact far surpasses what his individual PER/BPM/etc. indicates.

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    28,043
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Yep. For example the league average TS% for the MJ years in question were:

    87: 53.8
    88: 53.8
    89: 53.7
    90: 53.6
    91: 53.4

    For the Bron years in question it was:

    09: 54.5
    10: 54.3
    11: 54.2
    12: 52.7
    13: 53.5

    In 2019 it was 56.0.

    Which makes the fact MJ actually had a higher TS% during his playoff peak (.594 to .587) even more impressive. It becomes even more impressive when you realize there was virtually no dropoff from his RS TS% to his postseason TS% those seasons: (.596 RS to .594 Playoffs), whereas LeBron's efficiency dropped during his peak (.606 to .587).

    Also, Ben Taylor actually looked at a player's postseason performance compared to their competition (i.e. adjusting for playing superior defenses in a postseason series) and surprise, MJ comes out even further ahead.
    Quote Originally Posted by mightybosstone View Post
    I know that for years I've looked at scoring efficiency and advanced stats that heavily weight scoring efficiency as a primary factor when comparing players across eras. But the more efficient that the average player gets, it's getting harder and harder to use it fairly across different eras. I almost wish BR had a table on each player's page that compared some of those advanced stats to how much better they were than the league average that season.

    That context would be invaluable in comparing players today with guys from 30+ years ago. Guys who played in the 70s and 80s who would seem insanely inefficient by today's standards might have been hyper-efficient for their eras, and guys that seem efficient today might actually be at or below league average.
    Bill Russell's TS% of 49.3% was good for 12th best in the NBA in 1959. Get that scrub outta here! Wouldn't last a day in 2020!


    Kristaps Porzingis
    Stronger than most 15 year old girls.

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    31,779
    Quote Originally Posted by KnicksorBust View Post
    Bill Russell's TS% of 49.3% was good for 12th best in the NBA in 1959. Get that scrub outta here! Wouldn't last a day in 2020!
    That's what makes Russell so hard to judge, too! Because if he played in the modern NBA, he's not taking a bunch of mid-range jump shots. Offensively, he might just end up being a Ben Wallace or a Tyson Chandler. Or maybe he's somewhere in between, but he's definitely not a 19/24 guy like he was at his peak. In 2020, he's probably like a 15/13 guy like Rudy Gobert.

    So do you give him less credit because he wouldn't be remotely the same player offensively in today's game, or do you give him more credit for what he did in his respective era, which was actually pretty efficient for his time?


  5. #80
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    28,043
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Yep. For example the league average TS% for the MJ years in question were:

    87: 53.8
    88: 53.8
    89: 53.7
    90: 53.6
    91: 53.4

    For the Bron years in question it was:

    09: 54.5
    10: 54.3
    11: 54.2
    12: 52.7
    13: 53.5

    In 2019 it was 56.0.

    Which makes the fact MJ actually had a higher TS% during his playoff peak (.594 to .587) even more impressive. It becomes even more impressive when you realize there was virtually no dropoff from his RS TS% to his postseason TS% those seasons: (.596 RS to .594 Playoffs), whereas LeBron's efficiency dropped during his peak (.606 to .587).

    Also, Ben Taylor actually looked at a player's postseason performance compared to their competition (i.e. adjusting for playing superior defenses in a postseason series) and surprise, MJ comes out even further ahead.
    Quote Originally Posted by mightybosstone View Post
    That's what makes Russell so hard to judge, too! Because if he played in the modern NBA, he's not taking a bunch of mid-range jump shots. Offensively, he might just end up being a Ben Wallace or a Tyson Chandler. Or maybe he's somewhere in between, but he's definitely not a 19/24 guy like he was at his peak. In 2020, he's probably like a 15/13 guy like Rudy Gobert.

    So do you give him less credit because he wouldn't be remotely the same player offensively in today's game, or do you give him more credit for what he did in his respective era, which was actually pretty efficient for his time?
    I give him less credit because there is no modern comp for him. If we call him Joakim Noah or Rudy Gobert that seems insulting but offensively every MVP caliber player can create and shoot now. All the big men have range. He was lucky to play in his era where that wasn't necessary. I believe that he and Wilt probably did average 6-8 blocks per game and that defensively Russell had an impact that was the most important part of the Celtics dynasty. However, there's no way they are getting half of those blocks now in the spacing/3ball era now. I believe he'd be a DPOY candidate and could guard 1-5 on pnr. That still makes him special but the question is how much of an impact would he have now compared to the 60s? It's not the same game.

    That's why I struggle with the idea that he should even be a first round pick in an all-time redraft.


    Kristaps Porzingis
    Stronger than most 15 year old girls.

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    16,261
    Quote Originally Posted by More-Than-Most View Post
    he would have without pippen... like the other 10 series before pippen got there
    This doesnít even make any sense. Lebron had Wade and Bosh.. He still played like crap.. He was afraid of the moment..

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    16,261
    Quote Originally Posted by blams View Post
    Doesn't matter imo, and that was widely exaggerated. He was proven to be extremely gassed , playing way too many minutes, only averaged like 3 less attempts, just settled for j's and would slow down in the end of games. Choking was an aspect of it, sure. But he was just gassed at that point.

    On top of that , Bron shot 30 percent against the Mavs in the regular season with only 21 ppg

    Losing before the finals is worse than losing in the finals.

    Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk
    Of course youíre going to make excuses for your hero.. Lol! Going undefeated in the Finals is better than losing 6 times.. I donít give a **** how you want to spin it..

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    28,093
    Quote Originally Posted by LF85 View Post
    Of course youíre going to make excuses for your hero.. Lol! Going undefeated in the Finals is better than losing 6 times.. I donít give a **** how you want to spin it..
    If you're going to talk about "going undefeated in the finals" then you need to count every first round second round and third round loss too.

    Of course, losses before the finals have to be weighed heavier.

    Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

    Click here to register!

    Hope to see some new posters around here soon.

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    115,219
    Quote Originally Posted by LF85 View Post
    This doesnít even make any sense. Lebron had Wade and Bosh.. He still played like crap.. He was afraid of the moment..
    so was jordan afraid of the moment when he lost all those playoff series before he had a super team ?

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    47,662
    Quote Originally Posted by mightybosstone View Post
    I know that for years I've looked at scoring efficiency and advanced stats that heavily weight scoring efficiency as a primary factor when comparing players across eras. But the more efficient that the average player gets, it's getting harder and harder to use it fairly across different eras. I almost wish BR had a table on each player's page that compared some of those advanced stats to how much better they were than the league average that season.

    That context would be invaluable in comparing players today with guys from 30+ years ago. Guys who played in the 70s and 80s who would seem insanely inefficient by today's standards might have been hyper-efficient for their eras, and guys that seem efficient today might actually be at or below league average.
    Last I checked they've had that for years

  11. #86
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    16,489
    Quote Originally Posted by mightybosstone View Post
    That's what makes Russell so hard to judge, too! Because if he played in the modern NBA, he's not taking a bunch of mid-range jump shots. Offensively, he might just end up being a Ben Wallace or a Tyson Chandler. Or maybe he's somewhere in between, but he's definitely not a 19/24 guy like he was at his peak. In 2020, he's probably like a 15/13 guy like Rudy Gobert.

    So do you give him less credit because he wouldn't be remotely the same player offensively in today's game, or do you give him more credit for what he did in his respective era, which was actually pretty efficient for his time?
    Either way I donít put him ahead of the Admiral

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    47,662
    Quote Originally Posted by KnicksorBust View Post
    Bill Russell's TS% of 49.3% was good for 12th best in the NBA in 1959. Get that scrub outta here! Wouldn't last a day in 2020!
    Iirc, his team was worse with him offensively early on, think some of their guys have different stats

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    31,779
    Quote Originally Posted by Chronz View Post
    Last I checked they've had that for years
    I have no clue what you're talking about. What table are you referring to?

    Edit: Holy crap. I'm just now seeing the "Adjusted shooting" table for the first time. I've always just glossed over it. I can't believe I've never paid any attention to this before.
    Quote Originally Posted by IKnowHoops View Post
    Either way I donít put him ahead of the Admiral
    If we're just talking peaks, like KOB's top 25 ranking, then I think you'd have a good argument. But it's much harder to make that case in an all-time conversation with Russell's postseason resume vs. Robinson's postseason resume. To me, Robinson is a top 15-20 player, but as more players from this era start to hit their mid 30s, he probably falls out of the top 20 into the top 25. No shame in that, though.
    Last edited by mightybosstone; 10-22-2020 at 10:31 AM.


  14. #89
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    47,662
    Quote Originally Posted by mightybosstone View Post
    I have no clue what you're talking about. What table are you referring to?

    Edit: Holy crap. I'm just now seeing the "Adjusted shooting" table for the first time. I've always just glossed over it. I can't believe I've never paid any attention to this before.

    If we're just talking peaks, like KOB's top 25 ranking, then I think you'd have a good argument. But it's much harder to make that case in an all-time conversation with Russell's postseason resume vs. Robinson's postseason resume. To me, Robinson is a top 15-20 player, but as more players from this era start to hit their mid 30s, he probably falls out of the top 20 into the top 25. No shame in that, though.
    So you have Russell only because of his rings? I thought you were on the rings aren't that important tip. Like if you asked for the best peak seasons between the 2, how many does Russell have in the top-8ish?

  15. #90
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    31,779
    Quote Originally Posted by Chronz View Post
    So you have Russell only because of his rings? I thought you were on the rings aren't that important tip. Like if you asked for the best peak seasons between the 2, how many does Russell have in the top-8ish?
    I'm not arguing that Robinson's peak wasn't better than Russell's. It absolutely is. I'm arguing that Russell's career resume in an all-time debate is stronger. Also, I've never said rings weren't important. They should be a major factor in comparing career resumes; they just shouldn't be the only factor or even the most important factor.


Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... 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
  •