Author Topic: 2019 Historical: How Does My Team Look Thread  (Read 52715 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: 2019 Historical: How Does My Team Look Thread
« Reply #315 on: September 06, 2019, 09:16:22 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33794
  • Tommy Points: 1559
Quote
That is why every ranking of point guards ever made has Payton above Kidd.

Literally the first result on google for best PGs of all-time:

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/page/nbarankPGs/ranking-top-10-point-guards-ever

lol.

trash list

Any list that puts Kidd above Payton is a terrible list.
Any list that puts Kidd above Walt is just not even worth looking at.

Every single list on the first page of google’s search results has Kidd ranked higher.

The hyperbolic schtick is actually hurting your team, because nobody takes your ability to evaluate players seriously. Nobody else is throwing out wild statements and completely disrespecting other teams.
I've used ESPN a lot in this.  They have Kidd at 35 and Payton at 41.  Same general range, not much difference, but with Kidd the slight edge.  That seems right to me.

Taking entire career into consideration, sure, but this game is to take a season.

Remember this?

Quote
Payton is better. That is why every ranking of point guards ever made has Payton above Kidd.

You’ve killed your credibility.  Goukii was willing to concede it was a draw, and you chose to act the fool instead.  I don’t think that’s helpful.

Full disclosure, I ranked your team in the bottom quadrant. I wish your had spent more time talking about how Kobe can be more efficient in this exercise, rather than some of the hyperbole.
^this tbh. I would've ranked your team quite a bit higher if you spent more time convincing me how your pieces would fit, and how your two ball dominant superstars would scale back their offenses while maintaining their offensive value.
FYI your team was ranked near the middle in my rankings, I still rate your team.

I shouldnt have to convince people that Koibe and Hakeem are great basketball players, 2 top 15 guys EASILY, that are capable of playing with others.

That seems a waste of time and a foolish thing to do.

Kobe had a 24 assist rate that year, Bird had a career average of 23.7.
But somehow Bird was a great teammate and a willing passer but Kobe was a selfish ballhog.

You cannot debate against pre-conceived notions.
That's where the eye test comes in. Bird played a relatively "off-ball" game compared to other offensive megastars, which assist % can't really quantify. And you should try and explain why both of them can mesh, they have very ball dominant games in the sense that they need to hold the ball for a long time to do their thing on offense.
+

And McGrady, Gilmore, erving, Garnett, Goodrich, Marion and Brand dont?


Kobe's and Hakeems time per possession was just behind that of Lebron and Jordan.

Why dont those teams have to justify those players fit?
Gilmore, KG, Goodrich and Marion are ball dominant players? I absolutely agree that McGrady, Erving and Brand need the ball to be effective, but the other 4 being ball dominant is quite laughable imo. And maybe because those teams actually have players who fit nicely with them? If they don't they're penalised in my rankings, iirc one of them was ranked in your range.

Yeah. Gilmore and kg were.

Any player that utilizes post ups in their game have a longer time per possession.

That is pretty basic
Both weren't post up heavy players though when they were paired with good teammates, especially Gilmore, who was criticised for passing up easy looks as he was such a willing (but mediocre) passer-it's why he had such a high FG%, he only took very high efficiency shots. You're grasping at straws here, both players were very scalable offensively either due to their shot selection (Gilmore) or ability to stretch the floor and play like an oversized point forward (Garnett).

sigh

Steph Curry 2015-2016 - 32.6
Tracy McGrady 2002-2003 - 35.2
Julius Erving 1975-1976 - 29
Kevin Garnett 2003-2004) - 29.6
Dave Cowens 1975-1976 - No data

Usage for starters - 126.4 (not including Cowens)


Gary Payton 1995-96 - 24.4
Kobe Bryant 2007-08 - 31.4
Bob Dandridge 1972-73 - (career 23)
Dave Debusscherre 1967-68 no stats
Hakeem Olajuwon 1993-94 - 31.7

Starters Usage 110.5 (Not Including Dave)


Usage is the easiest metric to use to show time of possessions over multiple years.

SO my lineup has less issue than yours
Throwing out another very flawed stat lol, usage rate measures shot attempts than the actual amount of time a player holds the ball. Curry, Garnett and the Doctor weren't shot clock eaters the way Kobe and Hakeem were, the only guy on my team who's actually more ball dominant than shot dominant is McGrady.


That is not what that stat means at all.

"An estimate of the percentage of team plays used by a player while he was on the floor."


You are spinning the meanings of statistics. And incorrectly at that.

Rajon Rondo has a career usage of 21.5 yet only takes 9.5 fga per game, by your logic his usage should be alot lower because usage means how many shots you take.

Usage doesn’t show time used of possessions.  It predates when we have play-by-play data that includes time.  It does account for assists, turnovers, and fouls that result in a shot but no FGA, in additions to FGAs.  But no time of possession.

It measures a percentage of total teams plays when the player is on the court.

A high usage is indicitive of time with ball in hands.

Pace plays into it. But it a reasonable enough stat to detrmine time.

And in the case if me using it it works as a statistical rebuttal of points made against my team.

Not that any of it matters at all im the long run
No it is not.  Ending a possession is no where near the same thing as dominating a possession (whether you end it or not). 

You can look at the time of possession league leaders and see there really isn't a ton of correlation between that and usage (I mean other than Harden leading in both).  Solidifying this point, Durant had the 2nd highest USG last year but was tied for 35th in time of possession. 

https://stats.nba.com/players/touches/?sort=TIME_OF_POSS&dir=1&CF=TOUCHES*GE*60:GP*GE*40&Season=2018-19

You realize this was only a trackable statistic from 2013 right?

And in my original post I stated that the next closest thing is usage to determine fit between teammates. But it does show, when comparing offensive talents, if there is enough ball to go around. And it proves that kobe and hakeem is just fine as a duo because everone else is low in the lineup.

I cannot track time of possession prior 2013 season.

And this was all in rebuttal to the claim that kobe and hakeem wouldnt work together because they are bith so ball dominate.

Why am i getting the feeling that its all just become a gang up on silky thread

That everyone is going to look into each minute detail and anything that i may have possibly misrepresented when posting out of natural language in am effort to rebutt any claim i make.

In kobes ballhigging years he had came behind lebron, paul, simmons etc for time of possession but he is a ball hig and the others arent.

Lebron took more shots than kobe that year. Tmac, iverson and wade just behind....but kobe was a ballhog.

Ranked 4th in assist% that year among sgs but he was a ballhog.
I know it was only trackable since 2013, but if the numbers don't support the correlation you are making for the current seasons, why would you think it would correlate differently to the prior seasons when time of possession wasn't tracked? 

And the real problem is you don't understand the numbers you are using to justify your points.  AST% is the percentage of teammate FG's you assisted while you were on the floor.  It is actually quite logical that a ball hog would have a decent AST% because he is only making passes when his teammates are in positions to score.  Thus he gets an assist even if he hogs the ball the ball forever.  It is a large reason why someone like Harden has such a high AST%.  He hogs the ball a lot but is able to create good looks for his teammates which he then passes to for makes. 

Shots aren't indicative of being a ball hog.  See Durant.  Durant shoots a lot.  Durant has a very high usage rate.  But Durant doesn't pound the ball.  He moves the ball quite well, either by taking a shot or getting it out of his hand.  4.2 seconds per possession is next to nothing for someone that is as good a scorer as Durant is, especially when you consider that includes coast to coast plays, designed clear outs, etc. 

No one is out to get you, but the fact that you are arguing things like Kobe isn't a ball hog or that Hakeem wasn't ball dominant is just silly talk. Everyone knows those are true.  You should be focusing on why it doesn't matter because those guys were great players that won a lot of championships with the styles they played.  You should have been focusing on Kobe's ability to play with Shaq and then later Pau, Bynum, and Odom.  Or how Hakeem started his career with Sampson and then as the defending champion integrated a player like Drexler and still won the next title.  How the players you selected after those 2, would fit with those 2 HOFers.  Why you selected them and not arguing just for the sake of arguing when you are quite simply wrong on so many of those arguments?  The simple reality is when you make silly indefensible arguments you set yourself up to be countered and countered a lot.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: 2019 Historical: How Does My Team Look Thread
« Reply #316 on: September 06, 2019, 09:17:46 PM »

Offline tazzmaniac

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8225
  • Tommy Points: 559
Why am i getting the feeling that its all just become a gang up on silky thread

Lol. You come out with all these hyperbolic statements about how your guys will crush everyone, and then when people reasonably disagree, you double down. And it's ganging up? Give me a break

Sure.

Hyperbole

Sure.

I am done with it.

As soon as bird was picked it was over.
If that was the case why would Portland be receiving just as much praise as me? The team that picked the biggest thorn in Larry's side?

Your inability to take any sort of criticism, no matter how constructive, is really not helpful to the game.
Just a non-participant but I didn't have Philly or Portland as my #1. 

Re: 2019 Historical: How Does My Team Look Thread
« Reply #317 on: September 06, 2019, 09:18:13 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33794
  • Tommy Points: 1559
Why am i getting the feeling that its all just become a gang up on silky thread

Lol. You come out with all these hyperbolic statements about how your guys will crush everyone, and then when people reasonably disagree, you double down. And it's ganging up? Give me a break

Sure.

Hyperbole

Sure.

I am done with it.

As soon as bird was picked it was over.
If that was the case why would Portland be receiving just as much praise as me? The team that picked the biggest thorn in Larry's side?

Your inability to take any sort of criticism, no matter how constructive, is really not helpful to the game.
I not only have Magic, but Worthy, Moses, and Barkley i.e. 4 players from the 2 teams that gave the 80's Celtics the most problems and the reasons the Celtics only won 3 titles with Bird.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: 2019 Historical: How Does My Team Look Thread
« Reply #318 on: September 06, 2019, 09:22:03 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33794
  • Tommy Points: 1559
Why am i getting the feeling that its all just become a gang up on silky thread

Lol. You come out with all these hyperbolic statements about how your guys will crush everyone, and then when people reasonably disagree, you double down. And it's ganging up? Give me a break

Sure.

Hyperbole

Sure.

I am done with it.

As soon as bird was picked it was over.
If that was the case why would Portland be receiving just as much praise as me? The team that picked the biggest thorn in Larry's side?

Your inability to take any sort of criticism, no matter how constructive, is really not helpful to the game.
Just a non-participant but I didn't have Philly or Portland as my #1.
which is reasonable.  There are 5 or 6 teams that are all pretty close in my mind.  Obviously I believe mine is one of those teams, as I do with Philly (though I didn't vote Philly #1 either and I obviously couldn't vote for my own team).
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: 2019 Historical: How Does My Team Look Thread
« Reply #319 on: September 06, 2019, 09:26:08 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58936
  • Tommy Points: -25607
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
Why am i getting the feeling that its all just become a gang up on silky thread

Lol. You come out with all these hyperbolic statements about how your guys will crush everyone, and then when people reasonably disagree, you double down. And it's ganging up? Give me a break

Sure.

Hyperbole

Sure.

I am done with it.

As soon as bird was picked it was over.
If that was the case why would Portland be receiving just as much praise as me? The team that picked the biggest thorn in Larry's side?

Your inability to take any sort of criticism, no matter how constructive, is really not helpful to the game.
Just a non-participant but I didn't have Philly or Portland as my #1.

I think Philly and Portland were the top two teams, but I think there are maybe six teams that people could reasonably argue.

What doesn't make a lot of sense is citing some anti-Kobe or pro-Bird conspiracy for why people value certain teams different ways.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: 2019 Historical: How Does My Team Look Thread
« Reply #320 on: September 06, 2019, 09:43:14 PM »

Offline tazzmaniac

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8225
  • Tommy Points: 559
Why am i getting the feeling that its all just become a gang up on silky thread

Lol. You come out with all these hyperbolic statements about how your guys will crush everyone, and then when people reasonably disagree, you double down. And it's ganging up? Give me a break

Sure.

Hyperbole

Sure.

I am done with it.

As soon as bird was picked it was over.
If that was the case why would Portland be receiving just as much praise as me? The team that picked the biggest thorn in Larry's side?

Your inability to take any sort of criticism, no matter how constructive, is really not helpful to the game.
Just a non-participant but I didn't have Philly or Portland as my #1.

I think Philly and Portland were the top two teams, but I think there are maybe six teams that people could reasonably argue.

What doesn't make a lot of sense is citing some anti-Kobe or pro-Bird conspiracy for why people value certain teams different ways.
They were both in my top 4.  I don't see how Philly deals with Lebron.  No one to defend him and I don't think Ewing would deter him much. 

I think there is some anti-Kobe bias.  I think he'd work well with Hakeem.  Probably better than he did with Shaq. 

Re: 2019 Historical: How Does My Team Look Thread
« Reply #321 on: September 06, 2019, 10:04:05 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58936
  • Tommy Points: -25607
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
Why am i getting the feeling that its all just become a gang up on silky thread

Lol. You come out with all these hyperbolic statements about how your guys will crush everyone, and then when people reasonably disagree, you double down. And it's ganging up? Give me a break

Sure.

Hyperbole

Sure.

I am done with it.

As soon as bird was picked it was over.
If that was the case why would Portland be receiving just as much praise as me? The team that picked the biggest thorn in Larry's side?

Your inability to take any sort of criticism, no matter how constructive, is really not helpful to the game.
Just a non-participant but I didn't have Philly or Portland as my #1.

I think Philly and Portland were the top two teams, but I think there are maybe six teams that people could reasonably argue.

What doesn't make a lot of sense is citing some anti-Kobe or pro-Bird conspiracy for why people value certain teams different ways.
They were both in my top 4.  I don't see how Philly deals with Lebron.  No one to defend him and I don't think Ewing would deter him much. 

I think there is some anti-Kobe bias.  I think he'd work well with Hakeem.  Probably better than he did with Shaq.

I had Boston in my top-four as well.  However, I think Portland has plenty of options to contain Lebron.  They've got a starting defense with four All-Defense defenders, all of whom had good size.  The fifth player in that starting lineup is Pierce, who certainly could slow him down.  Then they've got Kirilenko and Lanier off the bench, two more top level defenders.  They've got other smaller defenders to handle the perimeter like Moncrief and Lever.

And, that's without giving credit to the "modern adjustment" that nick has suggested, where all of the historic players are put through modern regimes related to nutrition, supplements, training, etc. 

As for Kobe, I don't think it's as easy as saying "Kobe and Shaq worked, so Kobe and Hakeem would, too".  Kobe and Shaq worked because they were both top-3 players in the league at the time, and they were going up against teams with inferior talent.  Here, there's no talent deficit on opponent's rosters.  Also, Shaq and Kobe didn't necessarily work out all that well, since they broke apart a potential dynasty due to personality conflicts.

I think it's fair to discuss Kobe's weaknesses and try to figure out how they'd present themselves in this league. 


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: 2019 Historical: How Does My Team Look Thread
« Reply #322 on: September 06, 2019, 10:24:18 PM »

Offline Silky

  • NFT
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2347
  • Tommy Points: 144
Quote
That is why every ranking of point guards ever made has Payton above Kidd.

Literally the first result on google for best PGs of all-time:

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/page/nbarankPGs/ranking-top-10-point-guards-ever

lol.

trash list

Any list that puts Kidd above Payton is a terrible list.
Any list that puts Kidd above Walt is just not even worth looking at.

Every single list on the first page of google’s search results has Kidd ranked higher.

The hyperbolic schtick is actually hurting your team, because nobody takes your ability to evaluate players seriously. Nobody else is throwing out wild statements and completely disrespecting other teams.
I've used ESPN a lot in this.  They have Kidd at 35 and Payton at 41.  Same general range, not much difference, but with Kidd the slight edge.  That seems right to me.

Taking entire career into consideration, sure, but this game is to take a season.

Remember this?

Quote
Payton is better. That is why every ranking of point guards ever made has Payton above Kidd.

You’ve killed your credibility.  Goukii was willing to concede it was a draw, and you chose to act the fool instead.  I don’t think that’s helpful.

Full disclosure, I ranked your team in the bottom quadrant. I wish your had spent more time talking about how Kobe can be more efficient in this exercise, rather than some of the hyperbole.
^this tbh. I would've ranked your team quite a bit higher if you spent more time convincing me how your pieces would fit, and how your two ball dominant superstars would scale back their offenses while maintaining their offensive value.
FYI your team was ranked near the middle in my rankings, I still rate your team.

I shouldnt have to convince people that Koibe and Hakeem are great basketball players, 2 top 15 guys EASILY, that are capable of playing with others.

That seems a waste of time and a foolish thing to do.

Kobe had a 24 assist rate that year, Bird had a career average of 23.7.
But somehow Bird was a great teammate and a willing passer but Kobe was a selfish ballhog.

You cannot debate against pre-conceived notions.
That's where the eye test comes in. Bird played a relatively "off-ball" game compared to other offensive megastars, which assist % can't really quantify. And you should try and explain why both of them can mesh, they have very ball dominant games in the sense that they need to hold the ball for a long time to do their thing on offense.
+

And McGrady, Gilmore, erving, Garnett, Goodrich, Marion and Brand dont?


Kobe's and Hakeems time per possession was just behind that of Lebron and Jordan.

Why dont those teams have to justify those players fit?
Gilmore, KG, Goodrich and Marion are ball dominant players? I absolutely agree that McGrady, Erving and Brand need the ball to be effective, but the other 4 being ball dominant is quite laughable imo. And maybe because those teams actually have players who fit nicely with them? If they don't they're penalised in my rankings, iirc one of them was ranked in your range.

Yeah. Gilmore and kg were.

Any player that utilizes post ups in their game have a longer time per possession.

That is pretty basic
Both weren't post up heavy players though when they were paired with good teammates, especially Gilmore, who was criticised for passing up easy looks as he was such a willing (but mediocre) passer-it's why he had such a high FG%, he only took very high efficiency shots. You're grasping at straws here, both players were very scalable offensively either due to their shot selection (Gilmore) or ability to stretch the floor and play like an oversized point forward (Garnett).

sigh

Steph Curry 2015-2016 - 32.6
Tracy McGrady 2002-2003 - 35.2
Julius Erving 1975-1976 - 29
Kevin Garnett 2003-2004) - 29.6
Dave Cowens 1975-1976 - No data

Usage for starters - 126.4 (not including Cowens)


Gary Payton 1995-96 - 24.4
Kobe Bryant 2007-08 - 31.4
Bob Dandridge 1972-73 - (career 23)
Dave Debusscherre 1967-68 no stats
Hakeem Olajuwon 1993-94 - 31.7

Starters Usage 110.5 (Not Including Dave)


Usage is the easiest metric to use to show time of possessions over multiple years.

SO my lineup has less issue than yours
Throwing out another very flawed stat lol, usage rate measures shot attempts than the actual amount of time a player holds the ball. Curry, Garnett and the Doctor weren't shot clock eaters the way Kobe and Hakeem were, the only guy on my team who's actually more ball dominant than shot dominant is McGrady.


That is not what that stat means at all.

"An estimate of the percentage of team plays used by a player while he was on the floor."


You are spinning the meanings of statistics. And incorrectly at that.

Rajon Rondo has a career usage of 21.5 yet only takes 9.5 fga per game, by your logic his usage should be alot lower because usage means how many shots you take.

Usage doesn’t show time used of possessions.  It predates when we have play-by-play data that includes time.  It does account for assists, turnovers, and fouls that result in a shot but no FGA, in additions to FGAs.  But no time of possession.

It measures a percentage of total teams plays when the player is on the court.

A high usage is indicitive of time with ball in hands.

Pace plays into it. But it a reasonable enough stat to detrmine time.

And in the case if me using it it works as a statistical rebuttal of points made against my team.

Not that any of it matters at all im the long run
No it is not.  Ending a possession is no where near the same thing as dominating a possession (whether you end it or not). 

You can look at the time of possession league leaders and see there really isn't a ton of correlation between that and usage (I mean other than Harden leading in both).  Solidifying this point, Durant had the 2nd highest USG last year but was tied for 35th in time of possession. 

https://stats.nba.com/players/touches/?sort=TIME_OF_POSS&dir=1&CF=TOUCHES*GE*60:GP*GE*40&Season=2018-19

You realize this was only a trackable statistic from 2013 right?

And in my original post I stated that the next closest thing is usage to determine fit between teammates. But it does show, when comparing offensive talents, if there is enough ball to go around. And it proves that kobe and hakeem is just fine as a duo because everone else is low in the lineup.

I cannot track time of possession prior 2013 season.

And this was all in rebuttal to the claim that kobe and hakeem wouldnt work together because they are bith so ball dominate.

Why am i getting the feeling that its all just become a gang up on silky thread

That everyone is going to look into each minute detail and anything that i may have possibly misrepresented when posting out of natural language in am effort to rebutt any claim i make.

In kobes ballhigging years he had came behind lebron, paul, simmons etc for time of possession but he is a ball hig and the others arent.

Lebron took more shots than kobe that year. Tmac, iverson and wade just behind....but kobe was a ballhog.

Ranked 4th in assist% that year among sgs but he was a ballhog.
I know it was only trackable since 2013, but if the numbers don't support the correlation you are making for the current seasons, why would you think it would correlate differently to the prior seasons when time of possession wasn't tracked? 

And the real problem is you don't understand the numbers you are using to justify your points.  AST% is the percentage of teammate FG's you assisted while you were on the floor.  It is actually quite logical that a ball hog would have a decent AST% because he is only making passes when his teammates are in positions to score.  Thus he gets an assist even if he hogs the ball the ball forever.  It is a large reason why someone like Harden has such a high AST%.  He hogs the ball a lot but is able to create good looks for his teammates which he then passes to for makes. 

Shots aren't indicative of being a ball hog.  See Durant.  Durant shoots a lot.  Durant has a very high usage rate.  But Durant doesn't pound the ball.  He moves the ball quite well, either by taking a shot or getting it out of his hand.  4.2 seconds per possession is next to nothing for someone that is as good a scorer as Durant is, especially when you consider that includes coast to coast plays, designed clear outs, etc. 

No one is out to get you, but the fact that you are arguing things like Kobe isn't a ball hog or that Hakeem wasn't ball dominant is just silly talk. Everyone knows those are true.  You should be focusing on why it doesn't matter because those guys were great players that won a lot of championships with the styles they played.  You should have been focusing on Kobe's ability to play with Shaq and then later Pau, Bynum, and Odom.  Or how Hakeem started his career with Sampson and then as the defending champion integrated a player like Drexler and still won the next title.  How the players you selected after those 2, would fit with those 2 HOFers.  Why you selected them and not arguing just for the sake of arguing when you are quite simply wrong on so many of those arguments?  The simple reality is when you make silly indefensible arguments you set yourself up to be countered and countered a lot.

I stated all thise things. Didnt matter.

I had to defend kobe since the pick od him

And for some idiotic reason had to defend hakeem. When guys who scored the same way like ewing and moses got free passes.

No its just become stupid and exhausting at this point.

Kobe is a ball hog that passes. And in his most ball hogging season recorded he has less time per possession than lebron that year. But that was ignored when i posted it.

And apparently now all stats are useless now.

Its just taken up entirely too much of my time.

I am done. Everyone wins. My team sucks.

Just leave me out of it please


Re: 2019 Historical: How Does My Team Look Thread
« Reply #323 on: September 06, 2019, 10:26:05 PM »

Offline Silky

  • NFT
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2347
  • Tommy Points: 144
Why am i getting the feeling that its all just become a gang up on silky thread

Lol. You come out with all these hyperbolic statements about how your guys will crush everyone, and then when people reasonably disagree, you double down. And it's ganging up? Give me a break

Sure.

Hyperbole

Sure.

I am done with it.

As soon as bird was picked it was over.
If that was the case why would Portland be receiving just as much praise as me? The team that picked the biggest thorn in Larry's side?

Your inability to take any sort of criticism, no matter how constructive, is really not helpful to the game.
Just a non-participant but I didn't have Philly or Portland as my #1.

I think Philly and Portland were the top two teams, but I think there are maybe six teams that people could reasonably argue.

What doesn't make a lot of sense is citing some anti-Kobe or pro-Bird conspiracy for why people value certain teams different ways.
They were both in my top 4.  I don't see how Philly deals with Lebron.  No one to defend him and I don't think Ewing would deter him much. 

I think there is some anti-Kobe bias.  I think he'd work well with Hakeem.  Probably better than he did with Shaq.

I had Boston in my top-four as well.  However, I think Portland has plenty of options to contain Lebron.  They've got a starting defense with four All-Defense defenders, all of whom had good size.  The fifth player in that starting lineup is Pierce, who certainly could slow him down.  Then they've got Kirilenko and Lanier off the bench, two more top level defenders.  They've got other smaller defenders to handle the perimeter like Moncrief and Lever.

And, that's without giving credit to the "modern adjustment" that nick has suggested, where all of the historic players are put through modern regimes related to nutrition, supplements, training, etc. 

As for Kobe, I don't think it's as easy as saying "Kobe and Shaq worked, so Kobe and Hakeem would, too".  Kobe and Shaq worked because they were both top-3 players in the league at the time, and they were going up against teams with inferior talent.  Here, there's no talent deficit on opponent's rosters.  Also, Shaq and Kobe didn't necessarily work out all that well, since they broke apart a potential dynasty due to personality conflicts.

I think it's fair to discuss Kobe's weaknesses and try to figure out how they'd present themselves in this league.

Why not talk of anyone elses.

Kobe amd hakeem are the only ones that have been being discussed every time i post something since round 1 of the darned draft.

I have had to defend kobe since the first pick.


Re: 2019 Historical: How Does My Team Look Thread
« Reply #324 on: September 06, 2019, 10:56:57 PM »

Offline Somebody

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7816
  • Tommy Points: 560
  • STAND FIRM, SAY NO TO VIBE MEN
Very little between the two teams.

At first I leaned towards LA with their superior interior and help defense as a separating factor ...

But when it comes down to taking hold of a tight game and being decisive, I just trust Magic more than anyone else. Magic came through more often in big moments & tough situations than anyone else on either team.
That's perfectly fine, I'm aware that I don't have a superstar who has a big name for being clutch. Happy with how my team turned out either way, I got quite some impact statistic darlings whose games mesh with each other.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2019, 11:02:43 PM by Somebody »
Jaylen Brown for All-NBA

Re: 2019 Historical: How Does My Team Look Thread
« Reply #325 on: September 06, 2019, 10:59:59 PM »

Offline Somebody

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7816
  • Tommy Points: 560
  • STAND FIRM, SAY NO TO VIBE MEN
Why am i getting the feeling that its all just become a gang up on silky thread

Lol. You come out with all these hyperbolic statements about how your guys will crush everyone, and then when people reasonably disagree, you double down. And it's ganging up? Give me a break

Sure.

Hyperbole

Sure.

I am done with it.

As soon as bird was picked it was over.
If that was the case why would Portland be receiving just as much praise as me? The team that picked the biggest thorn in Larry's side?

Your inability to take any sort of criticism, no matter how constructive, is really not helpful to the game.
Just a non-participant but I didn't have Philly or Portland as my #1.

I think Philly and Portland were the top two teams, but I think there are maybe six teams that people could reasonably argue.

What doesn't make a lot of sense is citing some anti-Kobe or pro-Bird conspiracy for why people value certain teams different ways.
They were both in my top 4.  I don't see how Philly deals with Lebron.  No one to defend him and I don't think Ewing would deter him much. 

I think there is some anti-Kobe bias.  I think he'd work well with Hakeem.  Probably better than he did with Shaq.
I don't think there is really a huge anti-Kobe bias. He's rated pretty fairly in this thread: a great perimeter engine whose offensive and defensive peaks never came close to overlapping, and his offensive peak just fell short of the all time greats.
Jaylen Brown for All-NBA

Re: 2019 Historical: How Does My Team Look Thread
« Reply #326 on: September 07, 2019, 07:53:32 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33794
  • Tommy Points: 1559
I stated all thise things. Didnt matter.

I had to defend kobe since the pick od him
Because pick 11 was a bit too early and you then went over the top defending him by just making crazy comments.

And for some idiotic reason had to defend hakeem. When guys who scored the same way like ewing and moses got free passes.
 

Again because you said crazy idiotic things and were going to play him at PF.  These are the first few posts in the thread after you took Hakeem mentioning Hakeem.  Notice all very positive.

Quote
I was thinking of drafting Hakeem at 5 so I was watching a youtube video of his game from 1993 playoffs. His quickness is just unbelievable.

You know about his quickness ... it is the first thing that comes to mind when you think of him ... but you forget just how truly incredibly it was.

That defensive quickness in closing down space and providing help defense. What a defender. And then used that same quickness to destroy people in the post on offense. Amazing player.

Quote
He - along with Russell - were my other picks. I considered Wilt as well. You'll have fun building around Dream.

Quote
Hakeem was only player ever to win MVP, Finals MVP, DPOY in same season.
Only 3 times in NBA has a 25+ ppg scorer ever won DPOY.  Hakeem was 2 of them.  (MJ the third)
In '94 & '95 he absolutely dominated some of the elite players of a pretty tough generation which will be starters on a few teams in this game.

I'm happy sticking with MJ, but Hakeem would be my #2 choice of players I'd want to build around.  (Shaq was #3)


Then after selecting  Kobe this is the very first comment in the thread.

Quote
Oooh, Kobe and Hakeem together! I hadn't realized that. Nice. Those two would work very well together.


These are the next 3 related to either of your selections.  One questioning his attitude, but two very positive.

Quote
I’m trying to stay open-minded about Kobe (Mr. 8-for-24), but he was such a jerk, and maybe too ball dominant.

But mostly, I just hate the guy.

Quote
Gross.. but good pick

Quote
Great choices...will be interesting to see you build around these two.


The problem wasn't your selections.  It was your attitude and your ridiculous statements about them.


No its just become stupid and exhausting at this point.

Kobe is a ball hog that passes. And in his most ball hogging season recorded he has less time per possession than lebron that year. But that was ignored when i posted it.

And apparently now all stats are useless now.

Its just taken up entirely too much of my time.

I am done. Everyone wins. My team sucks.

Just leave me out of it please
And this is why you won't be allowed to participate in these type of drafts again.  Your attitude is quite simply just awful.  You make ridiculous hyperboles that aren't based in reality.  There is defending your team and then there is nonsense.  You pretty quickly went into the nonsense realm.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: 2019 Historical: How Does My Team Look Thread
« Reply #327 on: September 07, 2019, 09:24:21 AM »

Offline tazzmaniac

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8225
  • Tommy Points: 559
Why am i getting the feeling that its all just become a gang up on silky thread

Lol. You come out with all these hyperbolic statements about how your guys will crush everyone, and then when people reasonably disagree, you double down. And it's ganging up? Give me a break

Sure.

Hyperbole

Sure.

I am done with it.

As soon as bird was picked it was over.
If that was the case why would Portland be receiving just as much praise as me? The team that picked the biggest thorn in Larry's side?

Your inability to take any sort of criticism, no matter how constructive, is really not helpful to the game.
Just a non-participant but I didn't have Philly or Portland as my #1.

I think Philly and Portland were the top two teams, but I think there are maybe six teams that people could reasonably argue.

What doesn't make a lot of sense is citing some anti-Kobe or pro-Bird conspiracy for why people value certain teams different ways.
They were both in my top 4.  I don't see how Philly deals with Lebron.  No one to defend him and I don't think Ewing would deter him much. 

I think there is some anti-Kobe bias.  I think he'd work well with Hakeem.  Probably better than he did with Shaq.

I had Boston in my top-four as well.  However, I think Portland has plenty of options to contain Lebron.  They've got a starting defense with four All-Defense defenders, all of whom had good size.  The fifth player in that starting lineup is Pierce, who certainly could slow him down.  Then they've got Kirilenko and Lanier off the bench, two more top level defenders.  They've got other smaller defenders to handle the perimeter like Moncrief and Lever.

And, that's without giving credit to the "modern adjustment" that nick has suggested, where all of the historic players are put through modern regimes related to nutrition, supplements, training, etc. 

As for Kobe, I don't think it's as easy as saying "Kobe and Shaq worked, so Kobe and Hakeem would, too".  Kobe and Shaq worked because they were both top-3 players in the league at the time, and they were going up against teams with inferior talent.  Here, there's no talent deficit on opponent's rosters.  Also, Shaq and Kobe didn't necessarily work out all that well, since they broke apart a potential dynasty due to personality conflicts.

I think it's fair to discuss Kobe's weaknesses and try to figure out how they'd present themselves in this league.
Portland????   Boston matches up better against Philly than vice versa.  As much as I love Bird, he can't defend any of Boston's starting bid men straight up.  Ewing and Malone aren't going to be able to provide much help because they've got tough matchups themselves.  I don't think Pierce can slow down Lebron much especially not young Pierce.  I'd have gone a later season and brought Pierce of the bench as 6th man. Miller would also be a tough cover for Philly too.  Even with Miller, I rate Boston's starting defense better.  I suspect you rate Ewing higher than I do.   

It is fair to criticize Kobe's weaknesses but everyone else has weaknesses too.  Everybody is having to play tougher competition in this league than they did in real-life.  I think Kobe and Hakeem would hold up rather well relatively speaking.  Compared to  Shaq, Hakeem is a better defender, more versatile offensively and not a free throw liability.  He's a better modern era fit.  As far as Kobe and Shaq breaking up, they won 3 championships together before they did.  Imagine what they'd have done if Shaq had a better work ethic. 

Re: 2019 Historical: How Does My Team Look Thread
« Reply #328 on: September 07, 2019, 09:47:54 AM »

Offline tazzmaniac

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8225
  • Tommy Points: 559
Quote
That is why every ranking of point guards ever made has Payton above Kidd.

Literally the first result on google for best PGs of all-time:

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/page/nbarankPGs/ranking-top-10-point-guards-ever

lol.

trash list

Any list that puts Kidd above Payton is a terrible list.
Any list that puts Kidd above Walt is just not even worth looking at.

Every single list on the first page of google’s search results has Kidd ranked higher.

The hyperbolic schtick is actually hurting your team, because nobody takes your ability to evaluate players seriously. Nobody else is throwing out wild statements and completely disrespecting other teams.
I've used ESPN a lot in this.  They have Kidd at 35 and Payton at 41.  Same general range, not much difference, but with Kidd the slight edge.  That seems right to me.

Taking entire career into consideration, sure, but this game is to take a season.

Remember this?

Quote
Payton is better. That is why every ranking of point guards ever made has Payton above Kidd.

You’ve killed your credibility.  Goukii was willing to concede it was a draw, and you chose to act the fool instead.  I don’t think that’s helpful.

Full disclosure, I ranked your team in the bottom quadrant. I wish your had spent more time talking about how Kobe can be more efficient in this exercise, rather than some of the hyperbole.
^this tbh. I would've ranked your team quite a bit higher if you spent more time convincing me how your pieces would fit, and how your two ball dominant superstars would scale back their offenses while maintaining their offensive value.
FYI your team was ranked near the middle in my rankings, I still rate your team.

I shouldnt have to convince people that Koibe and Hakeem are great basketball players, 2 top 15 guys EASILY, that are capable of playing with others.

That seems a waste of time and a foolish thing to do.

Kobe had a 24 assist rate that year, Bird had a career average of 23.7.
But somehow Bird was a great teammate and a willing passer but Kobe was a selfish ballhog.

You cannot debate against pre-conceived notions.
That's where the eye test comes in. Bird played a relatively "off-ball" game compared to other offensive megastars, which assist % can't really quantify. And you should try and explain why both of them can mesh, they have very ball dominant games in the sense that they need to hold the ball for a long time to do their thing on offense.
+

And McGrady, Gilmore, erving, Garnett, Goodrich, Marion and Brand dont?


Kobe's and Hakeems time per possession was just behind that of Lebron and Jordan.

Why dont those teams have to justify those players fit?
Gilmore, KG, Goodrich and Marion are ball dominant players? I absolutely agree that McGrady, Erving and Brand need the ball to be effective, but the other 4 being ball dominant is quite laughable imo. And maybe because those teams actually have players who fit nicely with them? If they don't they're penalised in my rankings, iirc one of them was ranked in your range.

Yeah. Gilmore and kg were.

Any player that utilizes post ups in their game have a longer time per possession.

That is pretty basic
Both weren't post up heavy players though when they were paired with good teammates, especially Gilmore, who was criticised for passing up easy looks as he was such a willing (but mediocre) passer-it's why he had such a high FG%, he only took very high efficiency shots. You're grasping at straws here, both players were very scalable offensively either due to their shot selection (Gilmore) or ability to stretch the floor and play like an oversized point forward (Garnett).

sigh

Steph Curry 2015-2016 - 32.6
Tracy McGrady 2002-2003 - 35.2
Julius Erving 1975-1976 - 29
Kevin Garnett 2003-2004) - 29.6
Dave Cowens 1975-1976 - No data

Usage for starters - 126.4 (not including Cowens)


Gary Payton 1995-96 - 24.4
Kobe Bryant 2007-08 - 31.4
Bob Dandridge 1972-73 - (career 23)
Dave Debusscherre 1967-68 no stats
Hakeem Olajuwon 1993-94 - 31.7

Starters Usage 110.5 (Not Including Dave)


Usage is the easiest metric to use to show time of possessions over multiple years.

SO my lineup has less issue than yours
Throwing out another very flawed stat lol, usage rate measures shot attempts than the actual amount of time a player holds the ball. Curry, Garnett and the Doctor weren't shot clock eaters the way Kobe and Hakeem were, the only guy on my team who's actually more ball dominant than shot dominant is McGrady.


That is not what that stat means at all.

"An estimate of the percentage of team plays used by a player while he was on the floor."


You are spinning the meanings of statistics. And incorrectly at that.

Rajon Rondo has a career usage of 21.5 yet only takes 9.5 fga per game, by your logic his usage should be alot lower because usage means how many shots you take.

Usage doesn’t show time used of possessions.  It predates when we have play-by-play data that includes time.  It does account for assists, turnovers, and fouls that result in a shot but no FGA, in additions to FGAs.  But no time of possession.

It measures a percentage of total teams plays when the player is on the court.

A high usage is indicitive of time with ball in hands.

Pace plays into it. But it a reasonable enough stat to detrmine time.

And in the case if me using it it works as a statistical rebuttal of points made against my team.

Not that any of it matters at all im the long run
No it is not.  Ending a possession is no where near the same thing as dominating a possession (whether you end it or not). 

You can look at the time of possession league leaders and see there really isn't a ton of correlation between that and usage (I mean other than Harden leading in both).  Solidifying this point, Durant had the 2nd highest USG last year but was tied for 35th in time of possession. 

https://stats.nba.com/players/touches/?sort=TIME_OF_POSS&dir=1&CF=TOUCHES*GE*60:GP*GE*40&Season=2018-19

You realize this was only a trackable statistic from 2013 right?

And in my original post I stated that the next closest thing is usage to determine fit between teammates. But it does show, when comparing offensive talents, if there is enough ball to go around. And it proves that kobe and hakeem is just fine as a duo because everone else is low in the lineup.

I cannot track time of possession prior 2013 season.

And this was all in rebuttal to the claim that kobe and hakeem wouldnt work together because they are bith so ball dominate.

Why am i getting the feeling that its all just become a gang up on silky thread

That everyone is going to look into each minute detail and anything that i may have possibly misrepresented when posting out of natural language in am effort to rebutt any claim i make.

In kobes ballhigging years he had came behind lebron, paul, simmons etc for time of possession but he is a ball hig and the others arent.

Lebron took more shots than kobe that year. Tmac, iverson and wade just behind....but kobe was a ballhog.

Ranked 4th in assist% that year among sgs but he was a ballhog.
I know it was only trackable since 2013, but if the numbers don't support the correlation you are making for the current seasons, why would you think it would correlate differently to the prior seasons when time of possession wasn't tracked? 

And the real problem is you don't understand the numbers you are using to justify your points.  AST% is the percentage of teammate FG's you assisted while you were on the floor.  It is actually quite logical that a ball hog would have a decent AST% because he is only making passes when his teammates are in positions to score.  Thus he gets an assist even if he hogs the ball the ball forever.  It is a large reason why someone like Harden has such a high AST%.  He hogs the ball a lot but is able to create good looks for his teammates which he then passes to for makes. 

Shots aren't indicative of being a ball hog.  See Durant.  Durant shoots a lot.  Durant has a very high usage rate.  But Durant doesn't pound the ball.  He moves the ball quite well, either by taking a shot or getting it out of his hand.  4.2 seconds per possession is next to nothing for someone that is as good a scorer as Durant is, especially when you consider that includes coast to coast plays, designed clear outs, etc. 

No one is out to get you, but the fact that you are arguing things like Kobe isn't a ball hog or that Hakeem wasn't ball dominant is just silly talk. Everyone knows those are true.  You should be focusing on why it doesn't matter because those guys were great players that won a lot of championships with the styles they played.  You should have been focusing on Kobe's ability to play with Shaq and then later Pau, Bynum, and Odom.  Or how Hakeem started his career with Sampson and then as the defending champion integrated a player like Drexler and still won the next title.  How the players you selected after those 2, would fit with those 2 HOFers.  Why you selected them and not arguing just for the sake of arguing when you are quite simply wrong on so many of those arguments?  The simple reality is when you make silly indefensible arguments you set yourself up to be countered and countered a lot.

I stated all thise things. Didnt matter.

I had to defend kobe since the pick od him

And for some idiotic reason had to defend hakeem. When guys who scored the same way like ewing and moses got free passes.

No its just become stupid and exhausting at this point.

Kobe is a ball hog that passes. And in his most ball hogging season recorded he has less time per possession than lebron that year. But that was ignored when i posted it.

And apparently now all stats are useless now.

Its just taken up entirely too much of my time.

I am done. Everyone wins. My team sucks.

Just leave me out of it please
You do bring a lot of it on yourself with the tone of your posts.  Just because people have criticisms of your team isn't an attack on you and it doesn't mean your team sucks. 
This is supposed to be a fun activity.  Don't take it so seriously. 

Personally I ranked your team 7th.   My limited familiarity with Dandridge and Debusscherre may have held you back a bit. 

Re: 2019 Historical: How Does My Team Look Thread
« Reply #329 on: September 07, 2019, 10:23:12 AM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48120
  • Tommy Points: 8794
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
ANNOUNCEMENT
 
Less than 2 hours until I reveal results of voting.

I didn't get votes from two team owners, and their votes could decide who wins, so I will hold voting open for them right up until the reveal at noon. This thread will lock at noon and the reveal done in the main draft thread.

Celts Fan 508 and RPGenerate, you can still get your votes in to help decide the winner.