APBRmetrics

Harold Almonte · Joined: 04 Aug 2006 Posts: 616

The athleticism is also stronger and generalized today. What would be a rare phenomenom play yesterday, today is almost ordinary, that's why is so difficult to defend today. That was the Jordan's real revolution, with his "wide receiver-olympic athlete" training that put him ten years ahead. If we transport Shaq and Duncan to the 60s and 70s, they would have just destroyed, Lebron (with a year of college) would have been Magic, and so on.

supersub15 · Joined: 21 Sep 2006 Posts: 273

Here's what Bill Simmons had to say about the issue:

Ben F. · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 391

In fact he fleshes out his point far more later on in the chat...

Neil Paine · Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 774 Location: Atlanta, GA

For a brief time he was getting at my earlier point, so it's a shame that Simmons is also 99% wrong... He's right that you can't interpret the NBA through PPG/APG/RPG, that's for sure. And you can't interpret it through TENDEX, Points Created, PER, Wins Produced, or whatever other arbitrary "holy grail" method you might find out there. But other than that, he's totally wrong about stats -- wins are a product of efficiency on offense and defense, and (as everyone here knows) there are stats that measure precisely that. There are also stats to measure each player's contribution to said efficiencies. And anyone who is not building their teams around maximizing efficiency (whether consciously or unconsciously) will absolutely fail.

But I'm concerned that Simmons' (incorrect) view on stats is the prevalent one among fans/writers. Sorry to drag everything off topic, but it's frustrating to read something like this, because Simmons is a great fan of the game and I agree with a lot of what he says, but I suspect that his disdain for stats exists mainly because he's been force-fed the wrong ones for so long.

Mike G · Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:42 pm Post subject:

What DW21 said.

Actually, I like Simmons more often than I don't. But here, he's declaring himself the 'standard' --

Mike G · Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:24 pm Post subject:

I looked at that Link to Simmons' chat, most of which is about popular culture, TV and the like. He also offers this tidbit:

KD · Joined: 30 Jan 2005 Posts: 163

Did anyone think the 1996 WC Finals were Utah's to lose? At worst, did anyone think it a 50/50 proposition? Utah seemed like a talk radio/Mike Lupica pick that year -- they boasted two old guys that everyone had heard of, so by that line of pap, they had to win. Forget that Seattle (those punk chokers!) lost just 18 games and beat the Bulls at home during the regular season.

Christ, Simmons has lost it. His revisionist history doesn't hold the same weight it used to (as one of the few NBA scribes with a memory worth half a rip and the Tivo space to hold a ton of games), and he's gone off the deep end.

KD · Joined: 30 Jan 2005 Posts: 163

94by50 · Joined: 01 Jan 2006 Posts: 499 Location: Phoenix

I might give Simmons a pass in this case... a chat session probably doesn't lend itself well to thought-out, well-developed or well-reasoned answers.

gabefarkas · Joined: 31 Dec 2004 Posts: 1312 Location: Durham, NC

I would agree with 94by50. His chat sessions are known for their inflammatory nature and captivating claims. Overall, I've seen him have a healthy reverence for b-r and Hollinger, while taking more than a few stabs at draft yenta Chad Ford.

My take is that Simmons has an appreciation for the use of stats, but perhaps doesn't necessarily understand them all.

Harold Almonte · Joined: 04 Aug 2006 Posts: 616

Simmons can have a bad will to stats, but he's not unright when he tells that Bulls'96 would have had a lot of troubles, even to loose, with every new century champ that had Shaq, Wallace or Duncan in the middle of the paint, especially a Shaq-Kobe, and a Duncan-Bowen team. Even Lakers'87 with Cooper and the unguardable Worthy (even for me, said Rodman) would have had a lot of chances.

Mike G · Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 8:18 am Post subject:

Harold,
The '96 Bulls swept the Heat, of Mourning, KThomas, THardaway.
Then the Knicks (Ewing, Oakley, Mason, Starks, Harper) were removed in 5.
The 60-win Magic (Shaq, Penny, Grant, Nick, Scott) were SWEPT by an avg 18 ppg.

I can't think of any team that faced and defeated 3 better centers, nor more decisively, than this team en route to the Finals.
How are Shaq/Kobe/old Horace (18 ppg) better than Shaq/Penny/prime Horace? That team should have bothered the Bulls, but they didn't.
Those Bulls had less trouble vs center-led teams. Some teams had to bench their center to run with the Bulls.
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong

gabefarkas · Joined: 31 Dec 2004 Posts: 1312 Location: Durham, NC

A minor clarification for Mike: Kurt wasn't really the Kurt we know and love yet in '96, he was still a 22 mpg bench player (20 per in 3 playoff games). If you're going to mention anyone else from that team, I would nominate Rex Chapman.

Personally, I think those Bulls teams were much more challenged by scoring point guards who could drive and draw the defense.

(note the multiple links)

Harold Almonte · Joined: 04 Aug 2006 Posts: 616

Ewing and Mourning were half a player (just a half scorer the one, just a defender the other), they don't count. You need to start stoping Jordan from the perimeter to finish in the paint, something like SA is doing with Lebron. A Shaq-Kobe team would give a lot more competition than a Shaq-Penny team.

Do you remember the Jordan's historical play (hesitation-spin) against Ewing by the left lane?

Mike G · Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 9:15 am Post subject:

Gabe, you're right of course about the Heat; a very shallow team after their 2 stars. Kurt Thomas was a rookie bright spot, their #2 rebounder and #3 scorer during the season.

In his brief '96 postseason -- still going 20 mpg, but reduced to an inconsequential output -- he seemed to lose confidence/wherewithal for about the next 3 or 4 years; finally resuming his trajectory with the Knicks.

The Bulls could deliver some humiliation. Shaq left the conference, Penny lost his mojo ...
_________________
`
36% of all statistics are wrong