Menopauss wrote:Paul took what Nash was on offense, improved it, and added elite defense. Nash isn't even in the same sentence.
Nash led many of the most efficient offenses of all-time. Paul is an elite playmaker, but doesn't touch Nash who is - along with Magic - on a tier above everyone else in that regard. In addition to that, Nash had the ability to become a volume scorer if that's what his team needed (despite always being a pass-first guy), which allowed him to go to the conference finals numerous times in the tough West despite his support being maybe slightly above average. Not sure what the problem is with Paul, but it's puzzling that with decent teams around him he can't get out of the 2nd round. Can't say I follow the Clippers all that closely, though.
Obviously, Paul is a much better defender, but PG is the least relevant position in regards to team defense. Having your PG be a good defender is clearly preferable to having him be a defensive sieve, but it isn't nearly as big a deal as a no-defense bigman.
Also, Nash was a very poor one-on-one defender, but a decent team defender in regards to IQ, positioning and rotations. He was also very good at drawing charges. All things considered, Nash was only a slight negative on defense, not one of the worst defenders ever that the public opinion makes him out to be.
Menopauss wrote:Nash peak Ortg seasons are Pauls average.
Nash peak Ws/48 are bellow Pauls average. I could go on.
So? These are all box score stats. They have some value, but don't tell you about team impact.
Menopauss wrote:I can live with people putting Stockton above. But Nash ? Lol.
The only case Stockton could have over either Paul or Nash would be insane longevity. Then again, Nash's is pretty good as well while Paul is obviously still working on his.
Menopauss wrote:Ortg, Ws/48, PER, OBPM , VORP ? Ever heard of those?
Sure. Never heard of them being gospel, though. Or more important than one's value brought to his team.
Menopauss wrote:You bring up those stats without mentioning he was pretty much the only offensive option on that team. Still doesn't mean it was a good one.
I mentioned it multiple times. Iverson was a one-man army offense out of necessity, not because of being a big, bad ballhog.
Menopauss wrote:Duncan and Shaq ere both more deserving.
They were better players. It's not the only factor in awarding the MVP, though - as I've mentioned. In terms of value brought to HIS team, AI was right up there with them.
Menopauss wrote:Their defense was far more important than shot happy Iverson. He was a bellow-efficient offensive player on a roster that required him to be a volume shooter. He was surrounded by good defenders as it was the thing that the management probably though it would be best.
Making some progress, okay. The surrounding of him by defensive role players elevated the team defense and worsened the team's offense, Iverson's efficiency along with it as he had no space to operate due to his teammates not commanding any attention from the defense.
Menopauss wrote:Clearly when he really became more efficient is in Denver where he had another reliable scoring threat in Carmelo.
Yeah, that's what I'm saying. When a team only has one offensive option with no spacing around him, he won't be efficient. That's common sense.
Menopauss wrote:Thus making him ineffective.
Effective enough to have big impact on the team's offense.
Menopauss wrote:Wade had 2 seasons in his prime where the Heat finished 20th and 17th in 3PA and was clearly better than Iverson.
During Pauls amazing 08/09 campaign Hornets finished 14th in 3PA. He also played on a team that finished 25th. In his prime. Where he was better than Iverson. In his prime.
20th is the 07-08 season when the Heat went 15-67, Wade played 51 games and Miami had the worst offense in the league. So... nope.
17th is the 09-10 season when despite Wade being great, the Heat were a below average offensive team. Spacing matters.
25th for Paul would be 10-11. At least he had a 40+% 3-point shooter in Belinelli and the team was still below average on offense despite Paul's great play.
14th in 08-09 is way higher than all but one season for Iverson... and the team was barely above average on offense.
This is a good time for a reminder that with nobody able to shoot from outside, Iverson led Philly to an above average offense multiple times. The few times Wade and Paul had a subpar shooting support, they struggled to do so despite very good individual numbers - helped by no handchecking, mind you.
Menopauss wrote:He also had Iguodala. Kyle Korver still attempted many threes. Webber Was still better than most Paul pre-LAC teammates and Wades in the Shaq Inj/Post Shaq and Pre LBJ era. Where they were more efficient and better than Iverson.
This is all in the 05 and 06 seasons, when Iverson was already decently efficient. See the correlation?
As for Webber being good... oh, man. Since you like TS% so much, why don't you check his for the Philly years? All he did was throw up mid-range bricks. He also played no defense anymore and there was the infamous "coach, I don't do that low-post thing anymore!".
Paul in NO had David West (elite mid-range and p&r big man) and a rotating crew of 3-point shooters: Stojakovic, Peterson, Butler, Posey and Thornton, among others. He had ample space to do his thing, which is run picks with West and have shooters prevent the defense from overhelping.
Wade had a post-injuries J.O. and a few shooters as well in Cook, Chalmers, Wright and Richardson. That's a below average offensive support, but still enough to give Wade space to drive after picks, which has always been his game.
Menopauss wrote:I really don't understand why you are just using Philly team stats instead comparing the players ?
Because I'm interested in a player's impact on his team, not TS%. Boxscore stats don't tell the entire story.
Menopauss wrote:That's exactly why Iverson wasn't efficient in his first prime with the 76ers, and was during his second one with the Nuggets. You just proved my point.
Not sure what your point was, then. I proved that Iverson's inefficiency was a product of his very bad offensive support and handchecking still being legal. When that changed, he all of a sudden became a decently efficient scorer. Did he suddenly learn how to play basketball or did his circ*mstances change?
Menopauss wrote:This is just a blatantly unimportant argument. Of course if your best offensive player gets injured, you're going to drop off in offense.
You seemed to be questioning that Iverson had anything to do with good results of that Sixers team, which makes that argument important as it proves the offense absolutely nosedived without him while being above average with him, despite his inefficiency.
Menopauss wrote:This arguments should be called stupid. DeAndre Jordan has a very limited skillset but is incredibly efficient in the right system. Mutoumbo was efficient in the 2001 Playoffs.
Again, TS% isn't everything. Literally the only valuable thing Jordan does on offense is get offensive rebounds. Other than that, with his complete lack of skills on that end, all he accomplishes is pushing Griffin out to the high post mid-range area. Jordan has to be under the basket as he's so useless anywhere else that the defense could freely use his defender to help somewhere else. No sh*t you'll be efficient when all shots you take are dunks. Jordan's efficiency is a product of Paul and Griffin creating shots (well, dunks) for him. Mutombo's efficiency was the product of the defense being focused entirely on Iverson.
For all his defensive brilliance, Mutombo wasn't a good offensive player, period. His impact also is helped by offensive rebounds, but he was still a negative on offense, as evidenced by his consistently negative offensive on/off and ORAPM.
Menopauss wrote:Iverson was given the wrong role thinking he was an All-time great scorer and that he could remain efficient while carrying so much load offensively. Just proves my point how overrated he was on offense.
His role was fine. He did it efficiently in later years when given just a little offensive competence from his support. What that accomplished is not allowing the defense to be focused entirely on him.
Let me emphasize again that in the modern era of basketball, 3-point shooters and spacing are essential to offensive efficiency. A volume scorer surrounded by no shooting and with handchecking still legal was bound to be inefficient. That's a load no player can carry efficiently, other than maybe prime Shaq and prime Wilt who just dominated physically over everyone else.
If you're interested in the effect no shooting has on a modern NBA offense, look no further than the 14-15 Sixers. They were on pace to set some all-time offensive futility records before signing Robert Covington, and still came close with him. Now think about how adding an inefficient prime Iverson to that team would make them slightly above average on the offensive end. That's elite impact.
Menopauss wrote:Had a good laugh at the whole TS% generation thing. You sound like that TS% isn't important. Clearly it isn't to you since it doesn't favour Iverson.
It's important. It's not a be-all, end-all though and that's how you're using it.
Menopauss wrote:You're also pretty "special" for saying I only use TS% as an argument when I obviously haven't mentioned it at all in my previous posts. You brought it up.
You may not have mentioned it outright, but you were claiming Iverson ruined his team's offense. I then made the assumption you did so because of his TS% and guess what, it's correct!
I like how you blatantly ignored stats saying how the '01 Sixers actually won the most with Iverson taking 21-30 shots in the RS and won more the more he shot in the playoffs, contrary to what his TS% would have you believe.
Menopauss wrote:Players with similar USG% with having little offensive help, that were better than Iverson:
Wade, Jordan, Kobe, T-Mac, LeBron, Bernard King, Gervin etc.
Notice something? There were all given a similar role to Iverson as the lone superstar offensive option
King, Gervin and young Jordan played in the 80s or even late 70s (3-point shot not relevant yet, spacing not relevant yet, zone defense illegal therefore basically no help defense - when Detroit was helping out on Jordan's drives by bringing over multiple defenders people were calling it "Jordan Rules", lol). Irrelevant.
LeBron, Wade and Kobe had their prime in the post-handchecking era with more spacing and offensive help than AI (especially Bryant and James). Then again, I never said AI was better than those three.
Prime Jordan was... well, prime Jordan. Iverson obviously can't touch that. '03 T-Mac was the closest thing to Jordan, but his prime was cut short by injuries.
Menopauss wrote:You yourself said Iverson had absolutely no help on offense, yet when he was out they remained around or above .500.
Just shows you the defensive value those teams had.
Yeah, and with adding one inefficient offensive player they went to .700. How can an inefficient chucker elevate his team like that? This goes against TS%.
Menopauss wrote:Even Carter was better in his prime.
Nope.
Menopauss wrote:Want to know players that have a higher career Ws/48 than Iverson?
Not really. WS is hardly even an individual stat. No offense, but you seem to have recently discovered basketball-reference and think that you've reached the pinnacle of analyzing basketball by looking at "advanced" box score stats.
Menopauss wrote:Iverson is the most overrated player of the last 20 years. Get over it. It's like saying Isiah Thomas is in fact a top 3 pg as the media presents him to be.
The one sensible thing in this quote is that Isiah Thomas isn't a top3 PG, but I'm not sure I've seen him described as such.
------
Saving the best for last: Dantley.
Menopauss wrote:Are you crazy. Is he not a top 3 scorer in the 3pt era? Can't you read and acknowledge stats? Other than your whole post being consisted of really no important factor to the discussion, you question if Dantley was great offensively?
This reply tells me that all you know about Adrian Dantley is his PPG and TS%.
Adrian Dantley was a low-post scoring small forward. Very strong for his size, he had a knack for using his body to create contact and with contact, create space to get off a shot and/or draw a foul. He was quite exceptional at that, but this can be concluded from his TS% already.
The Utah teams in his prime were absolutely miserable. They struggled mightily to break 30 wins (let alone make the playoffs), which is already strange with a seemingly all-time great like Dantley on board. What's more strange is that the team didn't miss a beat (and actually got a tiny bit better) when Dantley got injured for most of the season in '83 and got better after getting rid of him in '86.
Then he went to Detroit, where the team had some success with him. Then they traded AD for Mark Aguirre and went from contenders to back-to-back champions. All that while Dallas (Dantley's new team) went from WCF to lottery to first-round sweep.
Point is, his impact was neutral to slightly negative in his Utah years and a big negative in his later years. He was a defensive sieve and his offense was a miniscule positive at best.
You're probably thinking "this makes no sense. 30+ PPG on 60+TS% - how can that not be helping a team?". The answer to that is simple, but it would require you to get out of basketball-reference and actually watch a basketball game.
It's all in his playstyle. He was a notorious ball-stopper and black hole on offense. He would get the ball posted up about 15 feet from the basket, back down, back down, back down, pump fake, pump fake, pump fake... if he got a shot off, he often drew a foul as well. Efficient offense. When he didn't, though? He would still burn the entire shot clock, then pass out to one of his teammates for an awful, contested shot at the end of the shot clock. Keeps his USG down, keeps his TS% high, tanks the team's offensive efficiency and record. Dantley completely killed any ball movement and turned his teammates into spectators on every possession. He functioned solely as a #1 option and you had two choices when he's on your team:
a) you give him the ball and play 1v5 - and he will take the entire shot clock to set up his moves to score (or pass out at the last second)
b) you don't give him the ball and play 4v5 - Dantley didn't move without the ball very well
For all the crap a guy like Melo gets for hogging the ball and not passing, let me tell you he's a LOT more willing to move the ball than Dantley was.
And it wasn't a case of doing what the team asked, either. His playstyle was upsetting members of the team and caused multiple clashes. First with coach Frank Layden in Utah, then with Isiah in Detroit. The Pistons wanted Dantley to move out to the mid-range area to space the floor better and avoid clogging the paint for their other interior scorers. He was unhappy about it and wouldn't. When Utah asked him to move the ball more, he wouldn't. Reportedly, he even kind of clashed with Abdul-Jabbar and Wilkes in LA, before the Utah years. Both of them not really known for being selfish or whatever.
The truth is, good teams that had Dantley didn't want him. Buffalo drafted Dantley, he averaged 20 PPG as a rookie... they traded him to LA. Lakers had Dantley right before drafting Magic and... they traded him. Utah was miserable with him for half a decade while he put up historically great scoring stats. When they got a good coach (Layden) and started improving... they traded him. Detroit wouldn't get him to fit, he clashed with Isiah... they traded him. He could definitely play the game, but only HIS way. Nobody wanted him for very long.
So, unfortunately for the TS% worshippers, Adrian Dantley is the ultimate "empty stats" player. He put up huge numbers on huge efficiency that weren't having an effect on his teams. He played no defense and his offense was ball-stopping on the level of Rondo and then some.
To answer your question: the problem isn't my stat reading capability. The problem is that not all of basketball can be expressed in a box score.
