95 Responses to “Who Ruled the Top Defenses in 2010? (Part I)”

1. Neil Paine Says:
   July 27th, 2010 at 12:57 pm

   You know, that reminds me, I really miss Fire Joe Morgan.

2. AYC Says:
   July 27th, 2010 at 1:01 pm

   Look, I despise Kobe; I think he's a terrible human being, and an overrated player. I think LA still would have won it all with Lebron or Wade in his place; they are better players IMO; but Gasol is not better than KB. I think it's a mistake to assume he should shoot more because his efficiency is higher. All we really know is that Gasol is very efficient taking the amount of shots that he takes; we can't assume he would be as effective taking as many shots as Kobe does. The fact is, Gasol benefits tremendously from all the defensive attention Kobe demands. It would be one thing if Gasol had been a big-time scorer before coming to LA, but his scoring with the grizzlies wasn't significantly higher than with LA.

3. Anon Says:
   July 27th, 2010 at 1:03 pm

   "Lebron James arguably had one of the greatest statistical seasons ever last year. But his personality, his imprint and his demands on the team served as a major handicap to the development of team ball. The majority of basketball plays on the Cavaliers relied on him as initiator, integral cog, or sole proprietor. Meanwhile, LeBron existed as an uncoachable entity on the team. Because of his status as ego apparent, Mike Brown (or the rest of the staff) could not be overly critical of him or his style of play. In other words, 'team' regressed to 'me'. So despite Lebron's other worldly stats, he may have weakened the team, leading to their failure during the recent playoffs."

   BS in long, paragraph form.

   To people such as Kareem, LeBron must win a championship as the so-called "sole proprietor" of his team before he can be considered "great". That's too bad, because he would be disappointed with every other player that has won a title.

4. Anon Says:
   July 27th, 2010 at 1:20 pm

   "I think it's a mistake to assume he should shoot more because his efficiency is higher. All we really know is that Gasol is very efficient taking the amount of shots that he takes; we can't assume he would be as effective taking as many shots as Kobe does."

   That not what the Oliver stats are saying anyway -- at least, "with complete certainty, Gasol would X efficient if he took his usage up to Y level". It's an estimate based on probability theory (and it's a valid model based on what you see in the game).

   The other stat, OSPM, doesn't even use that model. It gives you another point of view where it regresses one's production simply on his team's differential with him on or off the court, so it avoids some of the assumptions you see with Oliver's skill curves.

   And yet, Pau still matches up to Kobe there. So what's the problem then?

   "The fact is, Gasol benefits tremendously from all the defensive attention Kobe demands. It would be one thing if Gasol had been a big-time scorer before coming to LA, but his scoring with the grizzlies wasn't significantly higher than with LA."

   For one, he wasn't even in his prime as a player yet.

   For another, I'm pretty sure Kobe wouldn't be putting up the production without Gasol in the post either.

5. Jason J Says:
   July 27th, 2010 at 1:38 pm

   The question of Pau's & Kobe's interdependence is a tough one. There are some obvious benefits both ways.

   Kobe can be more aggressive defensively with the shotblocker(s) behind him, and Pau is a terrific high post passer, so the triangle guard around rub cut play gets him some very easy buckets (in Chicago Jordan would actually be the passer in that scenario with Pippen, Harper, or Kukoc curling off him). And of course misses don't hurt your team as badly when your 7 foot power forward is working the offensive boards.

   On the other hand Kobe gets Gasol a lot of easy attempts and superior position in their pick and roll game. When he draws a double on the strong side of the court and the ball is reversed, Pau has a chance to establish great position on the blocks. Kobe also wants to take the bail out shot when the clock winds down. Not that Gasol would necessarily have a hand in many of those situations (that is a guard / perimeter forward responsibility), but overall Pau does not have to force many shots specifically because when the defense is tough, Kobe is more willing and more able to get attempts at the basket.

   All that being said, for the most part a great player's production seems to be fairly independent of teammates. Jordan was more efficient and more productive before having great teammates. Magic peaked as Kareem diminished. It's mostly age, health, and team requirements as far as I can tell.

6. Anon Says:
   July 27th, 2010 at 1:47 pm

   "On the other hand Kobe gets Gasol a lot of easy attempts and superior position in their pick and roll game. When he draws a double on the strong side of the court and the ball is reversed, Pau has a chance to establish great position on the blocks. Kobe also wants to take the bail out shot when the clock winds down. Not that Gasol would necessarily have a hand in many of those situations (that is a guard / perimeter forward responsibility), but overall Pau does not have to force many shots specifically because when the defense is tough, Kobe is more willing and more able to get attempts at the basket."

   Without argument, Kobe remains the Lakers premier shot-creator. It isn't the only part of the game though. It's easy for us fans to watch a player do more in his offense compared to another player and say he's a better player offensively by virtue of "appearing" to do more for his team. Depending on other factors, he could be helping or hurting his team, and that's what these numbers seek to capture here.

7. AYC Says:
   July 27th, 2010 at 1:47 pm

   Anon, as usual, you aren't being honest about the implications of these metrics. If they rate Gasol as the better offensive player because he is more efficient, the implication is pretty clear that PG should take more shots, and KB should take less. And Kobe has a history of producing at a high level without Gasol (or Shaq). Anyway, the act of defending KB is making me feel a little ill; say whatever you want, I give up....

8. Karma Says:
   July 27th, 2010 at 1:55 pm

   "For another, I'm pretty sure Kobe wouldn't be putting up the production without Gasol in the post either."

   What?? Kobe had great statistics in the 3 years he was alone in LA. His averages only curtailed a bit after Gasol got there. Ditto for Gasol in Memphis.

9. Karma Says:
   July 27th, 2010 at 1:56 pm

   And Gasol was 26-27 when he left Memphis. I call bull on "he wasn't in his prime."

10. huevonkiller Says:
    July 27th, 2010 at 1:59 pm

    Excellent research, that's why I love this site.

11. Adarsh Says:
    July 27th, 2010 at 2:55 pm

    From a C's fan's perspective,

    Kobe was just as good as Lebron against our stiffling D. The SPM proves that as well, so IMO saying that Kobe is far below Wade and LeBron is silly. As far as regular season goes, neither the Lakers, nor the C's care about it very much. They're both tested, veteran teams, and they pick it up when it's post season time. Neither the Lakers nor the Celtics are young, so it's perfectly fine for them to do that. Detroit did that, the Spurs did that, this is typically what veteran filled championship contenders do.

12. Kareem Says:
    July 27th, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    Anon,

    I did not say that LeBron had to be the sole-proprietor of his team to be considered great. I merely pointed out that aspects of his personality and his relationship with management and coaching in Cleveland may have made him a lesser player in relation to team success than his statistics would indicate. On the contrary, I think that LeBron is a brilliant player with the tools to lead and be one of the greatest to ever play. But I also measure his statistical success against his teams success and notice a contradiction. While the statistics may quantify his ability to put the ball in the net or pass to a score or rebound the ball, they say nothing about the impact of his skills on his team, their style of play, and their potential success in the playoffs (which I believe is a concrete measure of greatness). Interpretations from statistical analysis are not facts, they are subjective evaluations.

13. Anon Says:
    July 27th, 2010 at 4:57 pm

    "Anon, as usual, you aren't being honest about the implications of these metrics. If they rate Gasol as the better offensive player because he is more efficient, the implication is pretty clear that PG should take more shots, and KB should take less."

    Which is not exactly a revelation even if you don't use the numbers and just watch the games. What's the Lakers' record in the Kobe-Gasol era when Kobe doesn't shoot 27+ shots per game again? Even accounting for Kobe shooting more bc of his team struggling offensively, it gets right to the very matter I've been talking about -- players and teams play better and are more efficient when one player doesn't have to go 1 vs. 5 (for whatever reason).

    It's not a problem for THIS particular season bc they still won the title, but if Kobe becomes more inefficient at the offense % he's using in future seasons (due to age and injury), the team is naturally going to funnel away some of his shots to other players such as Gasol.

    "What?? Kobe had great statistics in the 3 years he was alone in LA."

    I'm talking about 2010 only.

    "And Gasol was 26-27 when he left Memphis. I call bull on "he wasn't in his prime.""

    I was talking about all those years before he came to LA. Wasn't in his prime then, was he?

    "Interpretations from statistical analysis are not facts, they are subjective evaluations."

    So what would you call your evaluations then?

14. Sodyba Says:
    July 27th, 2010 at 5:26 pm

    For me, last season Boston haD best defense in league!

15. Matt Says:
    July 27th, 2010 at 8:39 pm

    Why did the Heat only win 1 game? All year! With Wade putting up bigger numbers? He didn't have help? His team almost won 50 games, same as the C's, and it was a first round matchup, not the Finals.

16. Gil Meriken Says:
    July 28th, 2010 at 12:22 am

    50.

    "Statistical representations are not factual in the absolute sense. Statistical analysis is a way of perceiving the world, utilizing certain types of information (not all information, mind you) and (subjectively) interpreting their relationships/patterns onto reality."

    Correct! Except I don't necessarily agree with the rest of the analysis, I fall more into the camp that these thing CAN be quantified, but you need better building blocks.

    If I were to create a statistical model of the value of individual soccer players, I don't think I would base it upon mere goals, assists, and steals.

    Statistics may be facts in of themselves, but people like Huevonkiller are assigning their meanings (rightly or wrongly) to them, which makes basketball statistical analysis an opinion.

    There's a difference between saying that an object traveling 60 mph is faster than one traveling at 50 mph, and saying that a 50% shooter is a better shooter than a 45% shooter. "Better" is qualitative, and requires context and judgment, no matter how you slice it.

17. huevonkiller Says:
    July 28th, 2010 at 3:37 am

    "saying that Kobe is far below Wade and LeBron is silly. As far as regular season goes, neither the Lakers, nor the C's care about it very much. They're both tested, veteran teams, and they pick it up when it's post season time. Neither the Lakers nor the Celtics are young, so it's perfectly fine for them to do that. Detroit did that, the Spurs did that, this is typically what veteran filled championship contenders do."

    The trend holds up for the most part, all you have to do is look at his production in the Finals throughout his career. You have to make a ridiculously small sample size to even make it comparable. LeBron and wade are just better, that's what happens when you're a less efficient volume scorer.

18. huevonkiller Says:
    July 28th, 2010 at 4:29 am

    Just wanted to add I respect the Kobe from a few years ago.

    Obviously Kobe was better in 2006, but that's not the Kobe the media talks about now. Relative to his contributions in the past couple of seasons, this is a very objective perspective by Neil.

19. AYC Says:
    July 28th, 2010 at 9:37 am

    I just wanted to second Gil's post, #66. Stats are the best objective measure we have of a player or team's ability. But how we interpret stats is inherently subjective. That's why catch-all metrics like SPM, WS and PER shouldn't be used to the exclusion of "real" stats that havn't been sliced, diced and manipulated according to formulas based on debatable assumptions.

20. Neil Paine Says:
    July 28th, 2010 at 10:00 am

    Well, when you have "real" stats like PPG, APG, RPG, FG%, etc., aren't you just looking at them and mentally "slicing and dicing" them according to your own subjective feelings about the game? I'm not saying SPM, WS, and PER are necessarily better, but I am saying that they at least list the assumptions being made in equation form:

    http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/per.html

    http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html

    http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?page_id=4122

21. Blackmamba24 Says:
    July 28th, 2010 at 12:34 pm

    Are people here seriously trying to use just numbers to quantify Kobe Bean Bryant???? U can't describe Kobe with numbers he must be watched to appreciate what he does. NO PLAYER makes me shake my head more in amazement at the BBall IQ Skill and Just WOW factor and thats without all the dunks and acrobatic layups of young Kobe. How do stats tell the effect Kobe has just by being on the court??? Does anyone here play basketball and i mean really play not i hit the court once a month status?? I play and get doubled on the regualr in the post and i'm 6'0 175 lbs. I'm a pg/sg and i know what it like to deal with what he goes thru only he gets way worse. See the Lakers actually have a team offense unlike the Cavs which was a lebron centric offense. Has anyone watched a Laker game?? If pau Gasol was that good he should be way more dominant. I LOVE me some Gasol but there are times WHEN KOBE FORCE FEEDS HIM THE BALL TO SCORE. He doesn't have the mentality to do what he's capable of doing which is dominate his opposing big. People act like these players exist in a vacuum. U have to remember they have different personality sets. Thats why no matter how good Vince Carter is he is considered soft and weak cuz he fades when u need him. Kobe has to take over games cuz his teammates don't want to shoot and keep givin him the ball. I wonder why they keep givin him the ball???? Oh cuz he's the greatest. why does every NBA PLAYER AND GM AND COACH say Kobe is the best??? You say style points don't matter well i beg to differ. If a guy just hit open shots curlin off screens i still feel like i can stop him if i just figure out the curls and screens. that player is not that great to me. Don't get me wrong Rip Ray and such are nice and would still probaly torch me with no screens lol. but when your guarding a guy to the best of ur ability straight up and he hits stupid shots in your face time after time it hurts you it really does it sucks everything out of you. It's even worse when you and a teammate or two are doubling the guy. Stats can't quantify that unless you wanna make a kobe hits so many outrageous shots charts to team win ratio lol. Kobe gets doubled EVERYWHERE on the court. who doubles lebron outside of the paint???? thats just dumb he can't shoot well enought to be doubled out there. ditto dwanye wade tho i will say his jumper is comin along very well.Pretty soon he might be able to ride kobe's coattails lol(I love wade don't get it twisted)No offense to anyone but i feel like yall a bunch of white guys with no athleticism who are amazed at Lebrons cuz u can't teach what he has. Kobe's game can be learned and done by anyone with the dedication focus and heart to do it which is obviously not many.(not that Kobe in his prime wasn't freakishly athletic himself.)

22. Neil Paine Says:
    July 28th, 2010 at 12:40 pm

    Proving Poe's Law alive and well, I see...

23. AYC Says:
    July 28th, 2010 at 1:05 pm

    Neil, believe it or not, I entirely agree with your post,#70, as far as it goes. My hope is that we can improve the metrics we have (or develop more accurate ones); I don't reject advanced stats at all, I just think they could be better/more accurate. But we can't improve on them if we already accept them as infallible, despite evidence to the contrary.

    Also, I'd like to point out that "subjective" isn't a synonym for "completely uninformed". While I can't speak for others, my own subjective opinions are informed by a fairly substantial knowledge of those "real" stats and NBA history... and when I don't know something for sure, I can look it up on this terrific site!

24. Gil Meriken Says:
    July 28th, 2010 at 2:16 pm

    70.

    "Well, when you have "real" stats like PPG, APG, RPG, FG%, etc., aren't you just looking at them and mentally "slicing and dicing" them according to your own subjective feelings about the game?"

    Not sure if this directed at me, but I believe that all of these stats are manufactured as a team, that the ultimate goal of the team is to score more points that the other team (as a combination of your own team's scoring and limiting the other team's scoring). So, of course, I place a great deal on team point differential adjusted for pace.

    Individually, I'm not sure how much they mean, because again, because when you score two points, it's a function of the team, sometimes more attributable to the team, sometimes less, sometimes attributable to one other player, sometimes two, maybe three, maybe three including one on the other team because of bad defense ... you see the problem with assigning two points to one player, right? And the same goes with any of the other box score statistics. It doesn't all wash out or correct itself, this is a real dilemma when allocating individual impacts.

    So, I love the team stats, because they capture the real essence of winning basketball. A team moves as one to create those stats. I love the seeing the team stats compiled on this site.

    Claims of isolating individual contributions are much more difficult to believe.

    And Neil, don't be such a Individual Stats Nazi (Godwin's Law) :)

25. Kareem Says:
    July 28th, 2010 at 3:21 pm

    Gil,

    I think that you misunderstand my point. I am not trying to discard the importance of statistics as a representation of on the court performance. These variables are valuable, even with the clumsy instrumentation for measurement at our disposal. As you rightly point out, each individual data point is not created equal; each may encompass a variety of (two) team factors that no amount of measurement can adeptly accommodate. But more importantly, how can you quantify relationships: between coach and player, and player and player(s), and player and system. There are no control groups for comparison, no randomization, and no do-overs.

    The example of Lebron and coach Brown is a valuable lesson in how relationships can really affect the outcome of a team, despite other quantifiable factors, such as individual (statistical) talents accumulated on a roster. Maybe LeBron's personality was too strong for a coach like Brown, maybe his sense of entitlement (that inspired slavishness from the Cavalier management) weakened the team concept and suppressed the possibility of a system or a plan or anything that did not center around LeBron. This may not even be (singularly) LeBron's fault. It seemed as though the Cavaliers' management was complicit, in many ways, in encouraging such an arrangement. These issues may not coalesce during the regular season, they may not be important when cogs are loose and wins come easily. But during the post-season, when the competition stiffens, and heart and perseverance are as important as a flawless jumper, it may take strong personalities to corral other strong personalities, to impose the type of mind frame necessary for overcoming adversity.

    I think that Dwayne Wade and Pat Riley will be instrumental for LeBron in this sense. I'm not someone in the know, so who knows how strong my analysis is. But I've read a couple articles, watched a lot of basketball, taken a couple statistics classes in college, graduated. Maybe that makes me an expert.

26. Neil Paine Says:
    July 28th, 2010 at 3:53 pm

    Seriously, where is Junior when you need him?

27. Gil Meriken Says:
    July 28th, 2010 at 5:02 pm

    75. and then some for 76.

    Um, I'm not quite on the same path, Kareem. I just think team stats hold much more meaning than all the individual "stats" that I've seen. I'm not talking about heart, or intangibles, relationships, or any of that.

    The unit of winning (a win) is created as a team. To break it down any further makes things very messy.

28. Kareem Says:
    July 28th, 2010 at 5:25 pm

    I don't know whether that is directed at me, if you are condescending or compassionate. I make a living analyzing quantitative and qualitative data in the health field. The metrics are great in an actuarial sense, but at the end of the day they can only explain so much, and usually so much is so little. This is manifold within the dynamic, rich (informational) environment that is a basketball play, game, season, post-season, epoch. I understand that as a stats-guy you are beholden to the pinto you ride, but your analysis falls flat. I'll make a final point, which may be (ir)relevant to this discussion. Andrew Bynum: he appeared as wilting as a summer lily until this last post season. What inspired him to sacrifice, to play through pain? I believe example and emulation. When you play with Kobe Bryant, Lamar Odom, Artest as they play through difficult injuries, with pain, you may witness true dedication and heart. That is a type of leadership that has a substantial impact on the players and rebuffs their commitment to team. Playing with an IV hooked to you during halftime. That is leadership. That is an example of a great player, stats be damned. Why? Because they can't ever measure that.

    From Jerry Maguire

    Dicky Fox: If this
    [points to heart]
    Dicky Fox: is empty, this
    [points to head]
    Dicky Fox: doesn't matter.

29. Kareem Says:
    July 28th, 2010 at 5:29 pm

    Gil,

    I will agree with that. Team statistics are a lot more important and meaningful. But they still don't explain why or how, which are very relevant questions to ask when you bring it up to the team level. An individual is very easy to explain: "because he is great/crap". At the team level, you have to actually do the type of investigation I'm talking about.

30. Neil Paine Says:
    July 28th, 2010 at 5:35 pm

    My point is this: if you're one of those dudes who seriously writes things like "You can't quantify Derek Fisher's tears in game two of the finals," then I can't help you. This blog is about looking at the available evidence and objectively trying to learn more about basketball using statistics. Maybe there's also room for touchy-feely analysis, maybe not, but either way, this ain't the place for it. We're a stats site, this is a stats blog, and that's basically the way it is.

31. Kareem Says:
    July 28th, 2010 at 9:18 pm

    I'm sorry you feel that way. I think that there is a medium where statistics and what you call "touchy feely" can be integrated, but you are not there, nor is this site, obviously. But you should also be willing to receive criticism when you speak authoritatively about "good" and "bad" players, and "better" and "worse" players, when you are using very subjective evaluative criteria. Statistics are a subjectively chosen criteria for evaluating players. This is a fundamental problem with the methodology and the analysis. This is a problem, more so when you dress it up as "objective" analysis.

    Do you think that Fisher's theatrics had no effect on his teammates? Maybe there is a reason that they listen to his corny speeches and take them to heart, seriously. Perhaps those tears are "chemistry" manifest. How can you "evaluate" this effect? Interview players about what were the emotionally important moments during the finals series that strengthened the teams' resolve. The fact that you quickly right of such an event as "touchy-feely", to me, shows how little you understand about sports in the operational sense. Emotional leaders are very important to success, especially when the pressure is one (like during the finals). When a player (like LeBron) mopes around, with a sense of detachment during an important string of games, don't dare call him great or the best or anything other than a poor leader.

32. Anon Says:
    July 29th, 2010 at 12:56 am

    "But you should also be willing to receive criticism when you speak authoritatively about "good" and "bad" players, and "better" and "worse" players, when you are using very subjective evaluative criteria."

    And like I had asked before, if all of this is subjective, then what do you call YOUR analysis then?

    You want to tell others they shouldn't be "authoritative" when it comes to these things, yet here you are trying to do the same thing with your posts, by using - wait for it - subjective analysis. Doesn't exactly make your argument any more valid does it?

    "When a player (like LeBron) mopes around, with a sense of detachment during an important string of games, don't dare call him great or the best or anything other than a poor leader."

    So the Cavs didn't win because LeBron didn't bring his marionette strings with him and hook them up to Mo Williams shooting hand during the playoffs. And the arrangement of the planets and stars during May threw off LeBron's mind-controlling ability to force Jamison to play all-world defense on Kevin Garnett.

    Gotcha.

33. huevonkiller Says:
    July 29th, 2010 at 6:33 am

    Nicely worded. :)

34. Anon Says:
    July 29th, 2010 at 1:13 pm

    ^^^Yes FORGET Kobe Bryant for once since morons wanna go with the intangibles route...wouldn't this EASILY make Brian Scalabrine the game's best player? Name another player that has truly done the most with the least. I dare you.

    Kobe Bryant's scowl has nothing on this - THIS was what made the Celtics play better defense in the first place in 2008, NOT Kevin Garnett: http://northstationsports.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/scal.jpg

    Kobe Bryant????? LOL S-Cal = the best player in the game

35. Gil Meriken Says:
    July 29th, 2010 at 1:36 pm

    82.

    You are correct, when you start comparing individual players, it becomes pretty subjective whether you use statistical analysis or not, mainly because of the nature of basketball statistics and how they are compiled.

    I don't believe anyone is "authoritative" when it comes to comparing individual player impact in basketball.

36. Gil Meriken Says:
    July 29th, 2010 at 1:54 pm

    85.

    Talking to myself: Using statistical analysis on basketball with the current stats out there is objective, but only in the sense that it is methodical and consistent given the model.

    But if the model and its interpretation are flawed, being objective and consistent does not mean it is right.

37. Anon Says:
    July 29th, 2010 at 2:09 pm

    That's exactly what I'm saying Gil.

    I just love it how people want to slap the "subjective" label on any analysis using stats such as this site, then turn around and scream at people for not putting Kobe (or any player of your choosing) on top of a best player list, all while using their own, um, subjective criteria to justify the argument.

    No one has to agree with any particular opinion here, but would using some consistency hurt?

38. Gil Meriken Says:
    July 29th, 2010 at 2:51 pm

    87.

    Consistency won't help if we can't agree on the beginning premises.

    If I begin a mathematical proof with 2=1, even if my math from them on is flawless and consistent and logical, I can get to some crazy places.

    In this case, the beginning premise is that something like "if player A scores 21 points, 8 rebounds and 5 assists and player B scores 18 points, 4 rebounds and 10 assists, I can make a correct comparison of Player A's impact versus player B's impact with no further information". You can refine it to be PER or Win Share, I haven't found a model that incorporates the elements of individual impact. I would start believing it if the modeller told me his model was incorporated some kind of geo-positioning and differentiated contested rebounds from uncontested rebounds, assists for dunks from assists for threes, and assist for mid-range. It doesn't have to be unbelievably complicated, just based on more sophisticated inputs that it uses as its bottom units, since that is how the individual impacts the game. A "point" is just a result that a team generates, not an individual, which is why I stress that I'm all for the team stats.

39. Neil Paine Says:
    July 29th, 2010 at 3:07 pm

    Gil, I'll repeat what I was saying in another thread: we can explain more than 3/4 of offensive impact (plus/minus) from the box score alone. Almost everything that matters offensively is being tracked right now. The problem is, was, and always has been with defense, because almost nothing is tracked. Even with a team adjustment, we can explain less than half of defensive impact. So if you're complaining about the premises, you need to focus the majority of your criticism on the fact that we can't really differentiate performances on defense with a great deal of certainty, not offense (and remember, this post deals with offense only).

40. Gil Meriken Says:
    July 29th, 2010 at 5:01 pm

    89.

    "Gil, I'll repeat what I was saying in another thread: we can explain more than 3/4 of offensive impact (plus/minus) from the box score alone."

    Neil, I think I am not understanding how it is you believe you can separate each individuals' impact, even with (especially with) the noise in plus/minus, and the reality that combinations of players may be better than others, so that the whole of any combination may be more or less than the sum of its parts.

41. Neil Paine Says:
    July 29th, 2010 at 5:23 pm

    Any one player is going to have a large amount of noise in their APM, but over the course of a bigger sample -- say thousands of players -- the errors are going to be reduced and we can achieve a general, unbiased sense of what the impact of each box score metric is on team performance. It's never going to be perfect, and there are always going to be cases where the prediction breaks down, but that's the part of efficiency we admittedly can't explain. Either way, explaining 3/4 statistically and missing on the other 1/4 is better than trying to explain the 1/4 via subjective means and missing on the other 3/4 as a result.

42. Ralph Chantry Says:
    August 2nd, 2010 at 8:59 pm

    Look at Roy's numbers and the fall off against lower defenses. He is saved and lower players carry the load then. Roy is called upon to carry the team against the better defense.

43. Abed Fede Says:
    August 5th, 2010 at 3:35 pm

    Kobe is often critique by his volume shooting or average field goal percentage as some of these haters would imply over and over again. But what is overlooked is Kobe's ability to get the job done when his play is most scrutinized or questioned by these same haters. Kobe always finds a way to shut haters up for their bickering of him not equating to Jordan or whatever the case maybe. What people who hate on Kobe needs to realize is that he has bailed out these Lakers on various accounts when they either didn't give him the ball in key moments by thinking they could get it done themselves. Or when they don't run the offense through him because they feel that he scoring all the points. This is where all this Kobe isn't playing within the team system comes from. And when he has a bad game which is common people are so quick to say he is done or past his prime. When he put that noise to sleep when his knee was drained. This is a man who hit seven game winning shots last year. Who is also very proven in the clutch when the game is on the line? Kobe has proven himself over and over again. To me those who hate on him are just speaking banter! Like Kobe said to Magic and Kenny Smith when asked about these haters, "they are stupid to doubt my abilities, I just what they say as motivation." What happened when Jerry West said LeBron is better than Kobe? Kobe put that noise to sleep real fast by hoisting his fourth ring. What happened when Kobe was quote on quote not as good as Kevin Durant? He quieted that noise in games 5 and 6 when shut down Russell Westbrook! Swept Utah! Beat Phoenix in six! And Won the Finals after beating Boston in seven! No matter how much you hate on Kobe he is proving people wrong time and time again. So my suggestion is for the haters to hating this is the only way Kobe will not have an edge. Why do I say that? Because when Kobe is dissed by the haters he uses it as fuel to the fire just to see people run and hide when proves them wrong. I personally knew he was going to pass Shaq on titles. Obviously these guys have tension from one another. But what a lot of people fail to realize or don't know about Kobe is that he has the ultimate respect for Jordan. He doesn't want to pass up Jordan like he wanted to do so with Shaq. He wants to be better than Jordan when it’s all said in done because of his competitive drive which rivals M.J. You've heard it from Tim Grover (both MJ and Kobe's trainer) that it is a tie between them and their work ethic. Keep in mind Tim Grover has trained D. Wade and LeBron ad hasn't said those same things about them in relation to MJ. Once Kobe gets his sixth ring he will be the greatest Laker of all time. Because he will have 6 rings 3 finals mvps to Magic and Kareem's 5 rings and 3 finals mvps respectively. Then he will be in the conversation with MJ. Once he wins seven rings he will eclipse Michael Jordan at that point. That will have put Kobe in 7 wins out nine tries versus Magic's 5 out of nine tries. Kobe would have beaten three worthy opponents (Orlando Magic, Boston Celtics, Miami Heat), to Michael's two (LA Lakers, Utah Jazz). Kobe would been in the finals nine times in seventeen years with seven wins versus Michael's six finals appearance in fourteen years with six wins. Michael will have the massive edge on not losing ever in the Finals. But Kobe will have an edge to that boasts he's been there more than Michael and won it more. Some may argue well it took him nine times to get seven but MJ got six out of six. That fine but Shaq wasn't in top shape for the one he lost against Detroit. And if he would have stayed (315lbs) the years they won as oppose to a whopping (360lbs) when they missed it one year and were eliminated by San Antonio in the second round another then we wouldn't even be having this discussion because Kobe would be at seven right now as we speak. Kobe has dominated two eras (2000-2010), (2010- ). Jordan has dominated one (1990-2000). SO let’s be real people I'm one of the biggest MJ fans out there and I could tell you that Kobe is right there!

44. Anon Says:
    August 13th, 2010 at 12:24 pm

    "What people who hate on Kobe needs to realize is that he has bailed out these Lakers on various accounts when they either didn't give him the ball in key moments by thinking they could get it done themselves. Or when they don't run the offense through him because they feel that he scoring all the points."

    See efficiency/offensive % possession rate model...not that is hasn't been explained a billion times around here already.

    "This is a man who hit seven game winning shots last year. Who is also very proven in the clutch when the game is on the line? Kobe has proven himself over and over again."

    Game winning shots are among the most overrated events in sports. They're great, help your team win and get you on Sportscenter, but people who get caught up in them will obviously overlook players that perform well enough at the end of games where a game winning shot isn't even needed to win.

    If basketball games were played over the span of 10 seconds, Kobe would easily be one of the best players in the game. But they play a full 48 minutes.

    "What happened when Jerry West said LeBron is better than Kobe? Kobe put that noise to sleep real fast by hoisting his fourth ring."

    Only in the minds of (most)Lakers fans of course. Objectively LeBron is STILL the best player in the game, and Kobe isn't even the best player at his position.

    "What happened when Kobe was quote on quote not as good as Kevin Durant? He quieted that noise in games 5 and 6 when shut down Russell Westbrook! Swept Utah! Beat Phoenix in six! And Won the Finals after beating Boston in seven! No matter how much you hate on Kobe he is proving people wrong time and time again."

    Geez, because he sure did all those things by himself didn't he? It helps to play alongside a player in the middle who outperforms you in the Finals in WS/48 mins and is your virtual equal in SPM. Gasol was the best player for the Lakers in the playoffs.

    Also, I love how people claimed he "shut down Russell Westbrook" when he simply did something that Fisher didn't do -- play off of him, rely on team defense to defend drives and force him to make the outside jumper. Kobe is a better defender than Fisher, but he didn't exactly do anything revolutionary here.

    "Once Kobe gets his sixth ring he will be the greatest Laker of all time."

    Ugh, more flawed "rank players by team accomplishments" logic. Skipping this one...

    "That fine but Shaq wasn't in top shape for the one he lost against Detroit. And if he would have stayed (315lbs) the years they won as oppose to a whopping (360lbs) when they missed it one year and were eliminated by San Antonio in the second round another then we wouldn't even be having this discussion because Kobe would be at seven right now as we speak."

    So wait, how did Shaq come into the conversation now? I thought Kobe won all those titles for LA by himself and was "DA MAN"...? You know, the guy that uses his awesome SUBJECTIVE skilllllllllz to MAKE teams win????

    So by that ridiculous argument, how is it not his fault when his team's DOESN'T win?

    "SO let’s be real people I'm one of the biggest MJ fans out there and I could tell you that Kobe is right there!"

    Oh, but I'm an objective basketball fan. And Kobe is NOT right there. Or even in his zip code.

    That was fun.

45. Hyman Doonan Says:
    November 10th, 2011 at 7:47 pm

    Greetings. This post was brilliantly helpful, and kind of gave me a kick in the pants. Thanks.