When you watch these media clowns it's easy to ascertain that they are paid to say what they say, and unfortunately people nowadays believe them because they come on TV and radio every day saying it over and over versus the guys that actually played against them.
I think it's fun to see those experts' facial expressions when things don't go their ways. You see the Celtics' diehard aka Simon's "the Kobe hater" reaction when one of his own Celtic greats chose Kobe over Bron. The more Bird said something about Kobe, Simon's reaction was limited to "really?".
You can see how the media is trying hard to steer the opinions of the players once they keep praising Kobe. It must have been painful for them to listen. Lol.
Reminds me of LG _________________ Mamba Made Moments Meticulously Magnificent
If I can try to put the advanced statistics issue into a nutshell, at least for me, here it is:
1) Box score derived metrics miss out on non-box impact. There are numerous clear examples: screen assists, hockey assists, great boxing out, gravity, etc. This stuff CANNOT be ignored as some of it isn’t even a small part of the game (gravity, for example).
2) The solution is then to use +/- statistics that should, theoretically, capture positive and negative non-box impact. However, this gives rise to the issue of attribution errors that are also heavily influenced by noise. You need a massive amount of data to tease out who is doing what. Most players only play alongside 10-14 guys throughout the course of a year. This means the amount combinations you see on the floor are actually relatively small. There are 450 players on rosters throughout the year (more, actually), but you don’t see even a fraction of possible combinations because players don’t change teams that much and each team only has a handful of rotation level players who get the minutes. On top of that, the +/- numbers are heavily affected by opponent and teammate 3pt shooting streaks that don’t always reflect skill. So people try to expand the dataset by including multiple years but this is problematic because some players, especially young ones, improve throughout the season let alone after full off seasons. Additionally, it’s pretty clear that certain systems and coaching can greatly impact a player’s contributions. If you ask Clint Capela to be a stretch four, the metrics will not like him. While coaching errors this egregious rarely happen, smaller scale ones do all the time. Even more frequently, guys are simply placed into offenses and roles where their skills aren’t maximized.
3) People then try to combine box and +/- metrics to eliminate some of the noise and error from both types of statistics. This is smart but it still ultimately leads to a stat that has a great deal of inherent error.
The metrics have come a long way, but this isn’t baseball. Watching the game is still very important. Skill sets matter a lot in basketball and sometimes the sum of the parts can be greater than the whole.
I truly think the average serious fan overrates these numbers because they are more objective than traditional scouting. I actually think that’s true, but being more objective doesn’t automatically mean more accurate. If that wasn’t the case, GMing could be done strictly by mathematicians or even AI.
You can’t take out watching the games. If you didn’t watch the guy play, I think it is better to reserve your opinion then to form one off of the back of the metrics. Hell, I know I’m just pissing into the wind with that sentiment but at least most of Kobe’s legendary performances will be easy to access so those who do want to see for themselves will be able to.
I want to watch Wilt but I really can’t. I want to see vintage Oscar but I really can’t. That sucks. I’m not comfortable judging their games based on metrics, though.
If I can try to put the advanced statistics issue into a nutshell, at least for me, here it is:
1) Box score derived metrics miss out on non-box impact. There are numerous clear examples: screen assists, hockey assists, great boxing out, gravity, etc. This stuff CANNOT be ignored as some of it isn’t even a small part of the game (gravity, for example).
2) The solution is then to use +/- statistics that should, theoretically, capture positive and negative non-box impact. However, this gives rise to the issue of attribution errors that are also heavily influenced by noise. You need a massive amount of data to tease out who is doing what. Most players only play alongside 10-14 guys throughout the course of a year. This means the amount combinations you see on the floor are actually relatively small. There are 450 players on rosters throughout the year (more, actually), but you don’t see even a fraction of possible combinations because players don’t change teams that much and each team only has a handful of rotation level players who get the minutes. On top of that, the +/- numbers are heavily affected by opponent and teammate 3pt shooting streaks that don’t always reflect skill. So people try to expand the dataset by including multiple years but this is problematic because some players, especially young ones, improve throughout the season let alone after full off seasons. Additionally, it’s pretty clear that certain systems and coaching can greatly impact a player’s contributions. If you ask Clint Capela to be a stretch four, the metrics will not like him. While coaching errors this egregious rarely happen, smaller scale ones do all the time. Even more frequently, guys are simply placed into offenses and roles where their skills aren’t maximized.
3) People then try to combine box and +/- metrics to eliminate some of the noise and error from both types of statistics. This is smart but it still ultimately leads to a stat that has a great deal of inherent error.
The metrics have come a long way, but this isn’t baseball. Watching the game is still very important. Skill sets matter a lot in basketball and sometimes the sum of the parts can be greater than the whole.
I truly think the average serious fan overrates these numbers because they are more objective than traditional scouting. I actually think that’s true, but being more objective doesn’t automatically mean more accurate. If that wasn’t the case, GMing could be done strictly by mathematicians or even AI.
You can’t take out watching the games. If you didn’t watch the guy play, I think it is better to reserve your opinion then to form one off of the back of the metrics. Hell, I know I’m just pissing into the wind with that sentiment but at least most of Kobe’s legendary performances will be easy to access so those who do want to see for themselves will be able to.
I want to watch Wilt but I really can’t. I want to see vintage Oscar but I really can’t. That sucks. I’m not comfortable judging their games based on metrics, though.
Stats can mostly measure what can be captured: points, fg, rebound, foul, etc. Assist is kinda blurred because it is a product of made basket. No basket means no assist. When a player handling the ball is surrounded by good shooters or tall and capable bigs, his assist per game will likely be pretty high. Just look at assist leaders and those surrounded them, including Bron righ now.
But how can you measure players like Harden and Curry the past three years when they were really hot? Just like Kobe in his prime, these guys were and are still ridiculously double-teamed beyond the ark just to force them to pass the ball to others? The fear they instill on opponents is real but cannot be quantified by any stats. Likewise when Kobe was taking the last shots, I think we know how the opponents would feel. _________________ Kobe's Top 5 Dunks, 81 points, MJ last gm @Staples
If I can try to put the advanced statistics issue into a nutshell, at least for me, here it is:
I have a thread in General with the Thinking Basketball videos by Ben Taylor. I recommend his NBA Stats 101 series, which has five videos to date. The last video discusses RAPM and the other variants of enhanced +/- stats. You can find the full video series here:
The baseball comparison is both true and a little misleading. It's true in that baseball stats are more complete and descriptive because the game proceeds, for the most part, in discrete units. It's misleading in that you need to watch baseball players with your eyes, too. I have never heard any of the basketball statisticians -- even Hollinger in the old days -- say that statistics capture everything or that you don't need to watch the games. This is usually a hyperbolic complaint from old schoolers who feel threatened by analytics or from fans who don't like what the metrics have to say.
Metrics have changed the game in many ways, but the primary way is cutting through the mysticism that you get from players and old school broadcasters. They would tell you that winning is all about intangibles like heart, desire, leadership, being clutch, yada yada yada. In fact, intangibles are worthless unless they generate a tangible result. The ultimate statistic in basketball is the score of the game. There is a formula for it: (FGM x 2) + 3PM + FTM. Whichever team generates a higher number is the winner. Anything that does not affect that statistic is irrelevant (except for entertainment value, but people are more entertained when their team wins).
This is not to say that metrics are dispositive when it comes to ranking players. Different players have different circumstances, different career arcs, different coaches, and so forth. MJ and Kobe never won a title without Phil Jackson and Tex Winter. Lebron left Cleveland because he was fed up with the front office. There are a lot of different non-statistical factors, including rings and accolades, that we consider when we rank players.
But statistics are a factor, and a major factor. As the NBA public moves to metrics, we're getting away from awkward old school stats like FG% and assist-to-turnover ratio. Baseball went though the same thing. You don't hear people talk about batting average and RBIs as much as they once did. Instead, people talk about OPS, VAR, and their variations. There's really no going back on this. Fans want information, not mysticism about heart and desire.
If I can try to put the advanced statistics issue into a nutshell, at least for me, here it is:
I have a thread in General with the Thinking Basketball videos by Ben Taylor. I recommend his NBA Stats 101 series, which has five videos to date. The last video discusses RAPM and the other variants of enhanced +/- stats. You can find the full video series here:
The baseball comparison is both true and a little misleading. It's true in that baseball stats are more complete and descriptive because the game proceeds, for the most part, in discrete units. It's misleading in that you need to watch baseball players with your eyes, too. I have never heard any of the basketball statisticians -- even Hollinger in the old days -- say that statistics capture everything or that you don't need to watch the games. This is usually a hyperbolic complaint from old schoolers who feel threatened by analytics or from fans who don't like what the metrics have to say.
Metrics have changed the game in many ways, but the primary way is cutting through the mysticism that you get from players and old school broadcasters. They would tell you that winning is all about intangibles like heart, desire, leadership, being clutch, yada yada yada. In fact, intangibles are worthless unless they generate a tangible result. The ultimate statistic in basketball is the score of the game. There is a formula for it: (FGM x 2) + 3PM + FTM. Whichever team generates a higher number is the winner. Anything that does not affect that statistic is irrelevant (except for entertainment value, but people are more entertained when their team wins).
This is not to say that metrics are dispositive when it comes to ranking players. Different players have different circumstances, different career arcs, different coaches, and so forth. MJ and Kobe never won a title without Phil Jackson and Tex Winter. Lebron left Cleveland because he was fed up with the front office. There are a lot of different non-statistical factors, including rings and accolades, that we consider when we rank players.
But statistics are a factor, and a major factor. As the NBA public moves to metrics, we're getting away from awkward old school stats like FG% and assist-to-turnover ratio. Baseball went though the same thing. You don't hear people talk about batting average and RBIs as much as they once did. Instead, people talk about OPS, VAR, and their variations. There's really no going back on this. Fans want information, not mysticism about heart and desire.
Thanks, Coach _________________ Mamba Made Moments Meticulously Magnificent
I evaluate players by whether they give 110%, they bring their A game, they do all the little things, they’re natural born leaders, they refuse to be denied, and they thank God after winning.
And whether they make their teammates better. Honorable mention goes to whether they’re clutch.
You guys are 2 peas in a pod. I wonder why you even enjoy sports when all you do take all the emotion and spirit out of the game and mock those who don’t fall in line with your perspectives. Bizarre
I find it bizarre when fans admire a player who tops out at giving 107% or 108%
No standards anymore. 110% or nothing!
Point proven.
You don’t argue in good faith, imo.
There are aspects of greatness on the court that cannot and will not ever be measured by your precious analytics. This is a fact.
Yet, instead of speaking to this very point you chose to ridicule my appreciation of those rare players that do, in fact, “Leave it all on the court”.
Be proud of yourself all you like, but I think your act is fraudulent and clownish.
I think you're only giving 105% on this post. Up your game. Show some heart.
Sad to count you as a fellow Lakers fan (Allegedly)
We’re done
Easy enough to be done with me. All you need is the discipline not to comment on or respond to my posts.
So feel free to do that if you wish. You'll feel better, and I won't notice your absence. A win-win.
If I can try to put the advanced statistics issue into a nutshell, at least for me, here it is:
I have a thread in General with the Thinking Basketball videos by Ben Taylor. I recommend his NBA Stats 101 series, which has five videos to date. The last video discusses RAPM and the other variants of enhanced +/- stats. You can find the full video series here:
The baseball comparison is both true and a little misleading. It's true in that baseball stats are more complete and descriptive because the game proceeds, for the most part, in discrete units. It's misleading in that you need to watch baseball players with your eyes, too. I have never heard any of the basketball statisticians -- even Hollinger in the old days -- say that statistics capture everything or that you don't need to watch the games. This is usually a hyperbolic complaint from old schoolers who feel threatened by analytics or from fans who don't like what the metrics have to say.
Metrics have changed the game in many ways, but the primary way is cutting through the mysticism that you get from players and old school broadcasters. They would tell you that winning is all about intangibles like heart, desire, leadership, being clutch, yada yada yada. In fact, intangibles are worthless unless they generate a tangible result. The ultimate statistic in basketball is the score of the game. There is a formula for it: (FGM x 2) + 3PM + FTM. Whichever team generates a higher number is the winner. Anything that does not affect that statistic is irrelevant (except for entertainment value, but people are more entertained when their team wins).
This is not to say that metrics are dispositive when it comes to ranking players. Different players have different circumstances, different career arcs, different coaches, and so forth. MJ and Kobe never won a title without Phil Jackson and Tex Winter. Lebron left Cleveland because he was fed up with the front office. There are a lot of different non-statistical factors, including rings and accolades, that we consider when we rank players.
But statistics are a factor, and a major factor. As the NBA public moves to metrics, we're getting away from awkward old school stats like FG% and assist-to-turnover ratio. Baseball went though the same thing. You don't hear people talk about batting average and RBIs as much as they once did. Instead, people talk about OPS, VAR, and their variations. There's really no going back on this. Fans want information, not mysticism about heart and desire.
Yep, great points.
I like to think of it in terms of a pendulum. For a long time, far too much emphasis was placed on what you called mystic intangibles. Right now, as a reaction to the previous poor thinking, I personally think people have gone too far in the other direction in their weighting of the metrics in determining player contributions. I expect the pendulum to swing back to a more reasonable medium in the coming years.
I just don’t think the advanced stats are useful enough by themselves, in most cases, to make convincing arguments for players who are of a similar caliber. As play tracking data advances, that may change. After looking at the models, I’m just not ready to defer to things like PIPM/RAPM although I find them significantly more interesting than things like Win Shares, BPM, and PER. specific play types.
I do think player tracking data will eventually lead to significantly more robust stats/metrics in the next ten years.
Last edited by L4L on Tue Jan 21, 2020 10:15 pm; edited 1 time in total
I think people need to go beyond basketball to understand "non-factors" and intangibles like fear, killer instinct and unpredictables.
In soccer world, Lionel Messi is still someone you cannot measure with stats even though he has not won any world cup for his country. But he is definitely a player you can say "good luck" trying to describe him statistically.
I evaluate players by whether they give 110%, they bring their A game, they do all the little things, they’re natural born leaders, they refuse to be denied, and they thank God after winning.
And whether they make their teammates better. Honorable mention goes to whether they’re clutch.
You guys are 2 peas in a pod. I wonder why you even enjoy sports when all you do take all the emotion and spirit out of the game and mock those who don’t fall in line with your perspectives. Bizarre
I find it bizarre when fans admire a player who tops out at giving 107% or 108%
No standards anymore. 110% or nothing!
Point proven.
You don’t argue in good faith, imo.
There are aspects of greatness on the court that cannot and will not ever be measured by your precious analytics. This is a fact.
Yet, instead of speaking to this very point you chose to ridicule my appreciation of those rare players that do, in fact, “Leave it all on the court”.
Be proud of yourself all you like, but I think your act is fraudulent and clownish.
I think you're only giving 105% on this post. Up your game. Show some heart.
Sad to count you as a fellow Lakers fan (Allegedly)
We’re done
Easy enough to be done with me. All you need is the discipline not to comment on or respond to my posts.
So feel free to do that if you wish. You'll feel better, and I won't notice your absence. A win-win.
Save your advice. You’re someone I do not respect _________________ Mamba Made Moments Meticulously Magnificent
I like to think of it in terms of a pendulum. For a long time, far too much emphasis was placed on what you called mystic intangibles. Right now, as a reaction to the previous poor thinking, I personally think people have gone too far in the other direction in their weighting of the metrics in determining player contributions. I expect the pendulum to swing back to a more reasonable medium in the coming years.
I just don’t think the advanced stats are useful enough by themselves, in most cases, to make convincing arguments for players who are of a similar caliber. As play tracking data advances, that may change. After looking at the models, I’m just not ready to defer to things like PIPM/RAPM although I find them significantly more interesting than things like Win Shares, BPM, and PER. specific play types.
I do think player tracking data will eventually lead to significantly more robust stats/metrics in the next ten years.
I’m not sure that player tracking data will make a difference when it comes to the sort of metrics we’re discussing. I think player tracking data will be more relevant to analytics. I may be proven wrong, though.
Otherwise, I generally agree with you. I wouldn’t argue (for example) that Lebron is a greater player than Kobe because Lebron rates better on RAPM. That would be just one factor in the analysis. Context is important, Also, one major factor in ranking the greats in any sport is titles. That is not included in the formulas.
I think the pendulum is already swinging back a bit. I think the NBA public as a whole has absorbed the core lessons of basketball sabermetrics. I sense that fans as a whole are more interested in tactics.
I think people need to go beyond basketball to understand "non-factors" and intangibles like fear, killer instinct and unpredictables.
I think everyone realizes there are intangibles and things that can't be described in stats.
The trouble with the intangibles is they are, well, intangible. You might believe with all your heart that your guy has a bigger killer instinct than the other guy. But a fan of the other guy is just as sure his guy has the bigger killer instinct.
So these types of discussion are not grounded in anything, and usually end up just being a heap of cliches that people toss out as an excuse to rhapsodize on a player they like.
My feeling is the intangibles are either reflected in actual accomplishments or they're not. If they are, then you cover the intangibles by focusing on the accomplishments. If they intangibles don't lead to accomplishments, how important are they?
Last edited by activeverb on Tue Jan 21, 2020 11:03 pm; edited 1 time in total
In soccer world, Lionel Messi is still someone you cannot measure with stats even though he has not won any world cup for his country. But he is definitely a player you can say "good luck" trying to describe him statistically.
One can just kid himself saying teams do not prepsre Differently when facing Messi.
I don’t know about that example. Messi is a goal scorer. When you say that he has scored over 700 goals, including over 100 in the Champions League, that does a pretty good job of delivering the message.
Stats are still important even though they don't tell the whole truth.
Meaning, when we compare one player to another just based on stats, there will be missing pieces. For one, we probably compare an apple to an orange without realizing it. But overall, we can agree to a certain degree one player is greater than the other even though each player's stats may favor the other considered less greater.
Again, I would love to invite statisticians to describe this player below:
Despite their efforts to stop the player, you can see how frustrated the opposing teams were. This player freaks the opponents out as soon as he touches the ball. _________________ Kobe's Top 5 Dunks, 81 points, MJ last gm @Staples
In soccer world, Lionel Messi is still someone you cannot measure with stats even though he has not won any world cup for his country. But he is definitely a player you can say "good luck" trying to describe him statistically.
One can just kid himself saying teams do not prepsre Differently when facing Messi.
I don’t know about that example. Messi is a goal scorer. When you say that he has scored over 700 goals, including over 100 in the Champions League, that does a pretty good job of delivering the message.
He is not just a scorer. He can do many things outside scoring.
He has dished so many incredible assists and "non-assists" (because the one he assisted failed to produce easy goals).
He is a good defender too.
He certainly is a headache for the opponents.
He is the most fouled player which says a lot about him.
Stats can only say so much about him. But never enough.
Better listen to his former coach, Pep:"Dont try to describe him (Messi). Just WATCH him." _________________ Kobe's Top 5 Dunks, 81 points, MJ last gm @Staples
Stats are still important even though they don't tell the whole truth.
Meaning, when we compare one player to another just based on stats, there will be missing pieces. For one, we probably compare an apple to an orange without realizing it. But overall, we can agree to a certain degree one player is greater than the other even though each player's stats may favor the other considered less greater. .
Generally, I find that the greater flaw is the other way: People who want to compare players just on the intangibles because the stats and other tangible accomplishments don't support their guy. A position based on intangibles always has more wiggle room.
Frankly, most of the discussion on this board is people promoting a player they like rather than really trying to compare players. So they prefer to cherrypick the stuff that makes their guy look good; it's easier to cherrypick intangibles.
Stats are still important even though they don't tell the whole truth.
Meaning, when we compare one player to another just based on stats, there will be missing pieces. For one, we probably compare an apple to an orange without realizing it. But overall, we can agree to a certain degree one player is greater than the other even though each player's stats may favor the other considered less greater. .
Generally, I find that the greater flaw is the other way: People who want to compare players just on the intangibles because the stats and other tangible accomplishments don't support their guy. A position based on intangibles always has more wiggle room.
Frankly, most of the discussion on this board is people promoting a player they like rather than really trying to compare players. So they prefer to cherrypick the stuff that makes their guy look good; it's easier to cherrypick intangibles.
State your case based on stats then.
Explain to us where in the world statisticians say something about Harden or Curry being ridiculously doubled beyond the arc.
Tell me where I can find "Curry double-triple-teamed" in the stats.
And another column "Why double-triple-teamed"
Please. Now, moonriver is being ridiculous. _________________ Kobe's Top 5 Dunks, 81 points, MJ last gm @Staples
Stats are still important even though they don't tell the whole truth.
Meaning, when we compare one player to another just based on stats, there will be missing pieces. For one, we probably compare an apple to an orange without realizing it. But overall, we can agree to a certain degree one player is greater than the other even though each player's stats may favor the other considered less greater. .
Generally, I find that the greater flaw is the other way: People who want to compare players just on the intangibles because the stats and other tangible accomplishments don't support their guy. A position based on intangibles always has more wiggle room.
Frankly, most of the discussion on this board is people promoting a player they like rather than really trying to compare players. So they prefer to cherrypick the stuff that makes their guy look good; it's easier to cherrypick intangibles.
State your case based on stats then.
Explain to us where in the world statisticians say something about Harden or Curry being ridiculously doubled beyond the arc.
Tell me where I can find "Curry double-triple-teamed" in the stats.
And another column "Why double-triple-teamed"
Please. Now, moonriver is being ridiculous.
I never said you could describe everything about basketball in the stats. I said that people who try to limit arguments to just the intangibles tend to a bigger flaw than people who try to limit arguments to just stats and other tangible accomplishments.
The best analysis tends to include both objective and subjective criteria.
Stats are still important even though they don't tell the whole truth.
Meaning, when we compare one player to another just based on stats, there will be missing pieces. For one, we probably compare an apple to an orange without realizing it. But overall, we can agree to a certain degree one player is greater than the other even though each player's stats may favor the other considered less greater. .
Generally, I find that the greater flaw is the other way: People who want to compare players just on the intangibles because the stats and other tangible accomplishments don't support their guy. A position based on intangibles always has more wiggle room.
Frankly, most of the discussion on this board is people promoting a player they like rather than really trying to compare players. So they prefer to cherrypick the stuff that makes their guy look good; it's easier to cherrypick intangibles.
State your case based on stats then.
Explain to us where in the world statisticians say something about Harden or Curry being ridiculously doubled beyond the arc.
Tell me where I can find "Curry double-triple-teamed" in the stats.
And another column "Why double-triple-teamed"
Please. Now, moonriver is being ridiculous.
I never said you could describe everything about basketball in the stats. I said that people who try to limit arguments to just the intangibles tend to a bigger flaw than people who try to limit arguments to just stats and other tangible accomplishments.
The best analysis tends to include both objective and subjective criteria.
Ok let me restate my point.
You can explain the intangibles.
Why Box and 1, double-triple-teamed applied, etc., etc. defenses applied.
They are a testament to how great (and feared) the player(s) on which those defenses are being applied to. But there is no way you can find the quantified stats on such things. BUT THEY ARE REAL. NOT IMAGINED. _________________ Kobe's Top 5 Dunks, 81 points, MJ last gm @Staples
Agree. This week we are comparing total points scored. We will see King James score more points in less time, much more efficiently.
Bron's off the court stuff, especially his school, also wins me over. He is such a great example and leader, on & off the court.
activeverb wrote:
Generally, I find that the greater flaw is the other way: People who want to compare players just on the intangibles because the stats and other tangible accomplishments don't support their guy. A position based on intangibles always has more wiggle room.
Frankly, most of the discussion on this board is people promoting a player they like rather than really trying to compare players. So they prefer to cherrypick the stuff that makes their guy look good; it's easier to cherrypick intangibles.
If someone is being consistently double teamed and triple teamed, you would expect their team offense to be outstanding when they’re on the court. This should be reflected in metrics like ORtg and it should be readily picked up by +/- numbers. If these double teams, or quintuple teams, are happening but not resulting in an elite team offense, or at least huge on/off splits, then they don’t matter so it is irrelevant.
That is the statistical counter argument that would be made.
If someone is being consistently double teamed and triple teamed, you would expect their team offense to be outstanding when they’re on the court. This should be reflected in metrics like ORtg and it should be readily picked up by +/- numbers. If these double teams, or quintuple teams, are happening but not resulting in an elite team offense, or at least huge on/off splits, then they don’t matter so it is irrelevant.
That is the statistical counter argument that would be made.
Well, that's kinda illogical.
The reason a team doubles or triples or even gears its defense on A PLAYER must have been because the team wants to either prevent the player from scoring easily or to get the ball out his hands and dares his teammates to beat the team.
The Jordan rule, anyone? Zone. Box and 1. Or any other defenses to slow down a great player.
Certainly, the values of specifically designed defenses are not the same as those of normal defenses. The same can be said of the value of a player who can beat those specifically designed defenses against him.
If a defense is gearing up to stop one player, you’d expect that to create opportunities for teammates thus creating a productive offense. If the teammates are too bad to take advantage of this, you’d still expect the team to be significantly worse on offense when the star sits down thus creating a big on/off split. If neither one of these things is happening then the specific strategy isn’t important to the metrics because it isn’t tangibly impacting the score.
State your case based on stats then.
Explain to us where in the world statisticians say something about Harden or Curry being ridiculously doubled beyond the arc.
Tell me where I can find "Curry double-triple-teamed" in the stats.
And another column "Why double-triple-teamed"
Please. Now, moonriver is being ridiculous.
I'll tell you the problem with this argument, which we've heard a lot. For all of his strengths, Kobe also had weaknesses. He was stubborn and tended to get tunnel vision. There were times when all of us wanted to throw something at the TV because of this.
Teams double and triple teamed him because they knew that he would often shoot anyway. He would drive right into the teeth of the defense and take the bad shot just because they dared him to do it. Sometimes he would make it, but the defenses would accept that as a reasonable tradeoff. Oh, there were times when Kobe would pass the ball and be a playmaker. No doubt about it. But when Kobe put the blinders on, opponents were more than happy to double or triple team him.
There is a certain greatness to this, especially from an entertainment perspective. You can almost hear Mark Jackson exclaiming that Kobe was a bad shot taker and bad shot maker. That's true. But it was a double-edged sword.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
