(8) Pacers vs. (1) Bulls

[n_huffhines]

First, those stats are only from 2003-2008. Kobe has been in the league since 1996.

Up through 2008, Kobe had made 21 game winners in his career, to Michael Jordan's 22.

You conveniently leave out the fact that, at that time, Lebron and Kobe were also 4 for 8 on game winners in the playoffs.

Hmm...pesky details.

I don't have stats for those other years. I think a 7 year stretch with 56 observations is sufficient support for my point. If Kobe is so clutch why has he performed poorer than Lebron who is not considered clutch?

Jordan, 22 for 48 >>>>>> Kobe

I didn't even look at the playoff stats and it doesn't disprove my point.

 

[n_huffhines]

What a pathetic effort at boiling down ballplayers. I've said jack about game Winning shots, which are rare and an awful barometer.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Agreed. But Milo likes that. What is your barometer?

 

[therealUT]

I don't have stats for those other years. I think a 7 year stretch with 56 observations is sufficient support for my point. If Kobe is so clutch why has he performed poorer than Lebron who is not considered clutch?

I didn't even look at the playoff stats and it doesn't disprove my point.

It's a five year stretch. That covers only 1/3 of his career.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Agreed. But Milo likes that. What is your barometer?

Who does everyone else as want as their offensive horse initiating the offense and who puts defenses under the most pressure. It isn't LeBron and it isn't close. His limitations leave options for defenses and weak shooting mean best defensive teams can stomp his ass by sagging.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[n_huffhines]

It's a five year stretch. That covers only 1/3 of his career.

'03-'04 to '08-'09, so 6 years. Kobe's prime.

 

[n_huffhines]

Who does everyone else as want as their offensive horse initiating the offense and who puts defenses under the most pressure. It isn't LeBron and it isn't close. His limitations leave options for defenses and weak shooting mean best defensive teams can stomp his ass by sagging.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Yet he has by far better on-average performance and performance in the clutch.

Is this your barometer? Because I don't see anything tangible in that statement.

 

[therealUT]

'03-'04 to '08-'09, so 6 years. Kobe's prime.

Look at your site again. It does not go through all of 08-09. If you want to talk clutch, and you leave off the end of a season plus the playoffs, then you are really not concerned with "clutch".

 

[n_huffhines]

Look at your site again. It does not go through all of 08-09. If you want to talk clutch, and you leave off the end of a season plus the playoffs, then you are really not concerned with "clutch".

I don't really get your point. Sorry it's only 5.5 seasons. If it were 15 seasons and 10 observations it wouldn't mean anything. It's 5.5 seasons, but 56 observations which makes it statistically significant (40 observations is generally considered statistically significant). In this metric, Kobe is below league average. That means something.

 

[milohimself]

Agreed. But Milo likes that. What is your barometer?

Show me where I said game-winning shots is a good barometer.

 

[therealUT]

I don't really get your point. Sorry it's only 5.5 seasons. If it were 15 seasons and 10 observations it wouldn't mean anything. It's 5.5 seasons, but 56 observations which makes it statistically significant (40 observations is generally considered statistically significant).

The point is that you do not know anything about basketball and/or talent. Everything else is just me aiming at targets of opportunity and poking holes in your entire argument.

 

[n_huffhines]

Show me where I said game-winning shots is a good barometer.

OK, you didn't. You were pushing the idea that he is the best 4th quarter clutch performer, or closer, or whatever. Maybe you just value 4th quarter performance up until the last 24 seconds.

 

[n_huffhines]

The point is that you do not know anything about basketball and/or talent. Everything else is just me aiming at targets of opportunity and poking holes in your entire argument.

You are arguing a tangent that isn't really relevant. I guess you really got me.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Yet he has by far better on-average performance and performance in the clutch.

Is this your barometer? Because I don't see anything tangible in that statement.

No he doesn't have better anything. He takes advantage of football rules to put up stats, bit winning time isn't his best because his FT shooting and jumper suck.

If I want to beat the other guy, I start Kobe at the 2 or 3 over LeBron. You start your all stat, never won anything team and I'll stomp your ears in the ground.

Interesting that there are very few pointy headed academic dillholes making GM decisions. Most are awful writers from afar.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[n_huffhines]

Can't believe there's no data for quarter-by-quarter splits on espn.com, nba.com, or basketball reference.

 

[n_huffhines]

No he doesn't have better anything. He takes advantage of football rules to put up stats, bit winning time isn't his best because his FT shooting and jumper suck.

If I want to beat the other guy, I start Kobe at the 2 or 3 over LeBron. You start your all stat, never won anything team and I'll stomp your ears in the ground.

Interesting that there are very few pointy headed academic dillholes making GM decisions. Most are awful writers from afar.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Wilt
Rodman
Bird
Jordan
Magic

Weird how all the GM's resisted advanced stats in baseball and then quickly copied Oakland after they actually put it to work. There is a lot more certainty about advanced stats in basketball among the pointy-headed dillholes. :hi:

 

[milohimself]

Billy Beane? Please. His sabremetrics have won him jack squat. Even then, baseball is a far more statistically-driven sport than basketball.

In hoops, stats are typically pointless looks at the obvious at best, and completely misleading at worst.

 

[n_huffhines]

Billy Beane? Please. His sabremetrics have won him jack squat. Even then, baseball is a far more statistically-driven sport than basketball.

In hoops, stats are typically pointless looks at the obvious at best, and completely misleading at worst.

You took the bait. Beane was very successful, until everyone copied him and then his advantage disappeared. For 100 years player salary and OBP were not correlated. For the last 8 or so years they've been highly correlated.

Where do you get this from? That seems to be the perception but the people actually doing the analysis disagree. Statisticians are pretty confident about application of advanced stats in baseball. They are a lot more confident about basketball stats. The wins produced model has an R^2 of .98 (if that means anything to you) and results have supported that the model is correct.

 

[iuvol2012]

Wilt
Rodman
Bird
Jordan
Magic

Weird how all the GM's resisted advanced stats in baseball and then quickly copied Oakland after they actually put it to work. There is a lot more certainty about advanced stats in basketball among the pointy-headed dillholes. :hi:

Dennis Rodman? Would love to see how you back this one up.

 

[n_huffhines]

Dennis Rodman? Would love to see how you back this one up.

In his prime he was averaging 18+ rebounds per game. 9 rpg will get you into the top 10-20 in the league. Having Rodman is like having 2 very good rebounders. It's like playing 6 against 5. It's not even fair.

I don't need a scorer at the 4 when I've got Bird, Jordan, Magic, and Wilt. Why not take the best rebounder of the last 35 years?

 

[KoachKrab127]

In his prime he was averaging 18+ rebounds per game. 9 rpg will get you into the top 10-20 in the league. Having Rodman is like having 2 very good rebounders. It's like playing 6 against 5. It's not even fair.

I don't need a scorer at the 4 when I've got Bird, Jordan, Magic, and Wilt. Why not take the best rebounder of the last 35 years?

I'd take Bill Russell at the 4 over Rodman. I know he played center, but at 6'9'' he could easily play the 4. He was an even better rebounder than Rodman, a better defender, had a greater will to win, and (most importantly) a better overall leader.

 

[n_huffhines]

I'd take Bill Russell at the 4 over Rodman. I know he played center, but at 6'9'' he could easily play the 4. He was an even better rebounder than Rodman, a better defender, had a greater will to win, and (most importantly) a better overall leader.

That's fine. I'll take Rodman cause I doubt Russell can get 20 rpg if he's not playing in the 1960's*. Russell also shot a very poor FG% by today's standards (44%).

*Partly because I think the league is more competitive now, and partly because when Russell was playing there was a lot more opportunity for rebounds. In 2010-11 teams averaged 3606 missed shots. In 1968-69 teams missed an average of 4540 shots. All things being equal I am willing to bet Rodman is the better rebounder.

In 1995 Rodman's rebound % was .297; that's 24.7 rpg (assuming 36 mpg) if teams are missing 4540 shots on average like they did in 1969!!!

 

[JTrainDavis]

You took the bait. Beane was very successful, until everyone copied him and then his advantage disappeared. For 100 years player salary and OBP were not correlated. For the last 8 or so years they've been highly correlated.

Where do you get this from? That seems to be the perception but the people actually doing the analysis disagree. Statisticians are pretty confident about application of advanced stats in baseball. They are a lot more confident about basketball stats. The wins produced model has an R^2 of .98 (if that means anything to you) and results have supported that the model is correct.

How much of Beane's "genius" can be attributed to having Zito, Mulder, and Hudson?

 

[n_huffhines]

How much of Beane's "genius" can be attributed to having Zito, Mulder, and Hudson?

They won a lot of games without those guys. Beane had 8 straight 87 win seasons with a small payroll and those guys were dominant (and together) for only 3 of those seasons*.

*In 2000 they won 91 games (Mulder - 5.44 ERA, Hudson 4.14 ERA). In 2004 they won 91 games (Mulder - 4.43 ERA, Zito - 4.48 ERA)