........_<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">did you finally read my statement about wade and dirk and realize that you were wrong. </div> ..no I didnt. Cut and post that in bold letters Fresh Prince: <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">the dirk thing was in a different thread, and i said that dirk MAY BECOME better than bird, not dirk is better than bird.</div> "<u>Where does Kobe rank in history?</u>" post #201 Fresh Prince: <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">and yes i feel dirk is better than bird</div>
dude, that is way out of context, two three times earlier is said will become, not better. dont be a b****, you know what i mean. and durvasa, philly was qite successful during those years, even though they were very unefficient. iverson also gets alot of steals, which help his team defensively and whatnot. And my only point is that it is iversons job to score on those teams. NO ONE else on that team is much of a scorer, so who else should be taking the shots, dikembe? Hill? snow? i mean he was the guy to take VERY difficult shots that larry brown didnt mind him taking. so really i see eficiency as a measure of the coach more than the player. iverson is a very good shooter, but larry brown let him shoot all the crazy shots he wanted, so he was unefficient. if iverson like the third option on a team, i am sure he would be very efficient due to the fact that he would mostly be just shooting off of picks and making layup on the break, so players roles also affect these statistics.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting TheFreshPrince:</div><div class="quote_post"> if iverson like the third option on a team, i am sure he would be very efficient due to the fact that he would mostly be just shooting off of picks and making layup on the break, so players roles also affect these statistics.</div> If Iverson was the third option, he'd be more efficient, but he may not be as valuable. How good you are (how valuable you are to winning) is determined by how much you do as well as how efficiently you do it. It's silly not to consider both aspects (if you care about winning, that is). Again, Iverson is a very good offensive player. I don't think he's as good as Wade offensively. Or LeBron, or Kobe. The following data illustrates my point. TmPoss is total number of offensive possessions while a player was on the court. PPoss is number of possessions the player was responsible for. Poss% is percentage of possessions a player was responsible for (think of it as size of the player's role in his team's offense). ORtg is credited points (via scoring, assisting, or offensive rebounding) per 100 player possessions (PPoss), and is a measure of offensive efficiency for the player: <div class='codetop'>CODE</div><div class='codemain'><br/>2006<br/><font color=""Navy"">TmPossPPoss%PossO</font>Rtg<br/>Wade5488 1810 33.0% 115.4<br/>Iverson 5988 2103 35.1%111.1<br/>Kobe6215 2265 36.4% 113.7<br/>LeBron6247 2082 33.3% 115.4<br/><br/>2005<br/><font color=""Navy"">TmPossPPoss%PossORtg</font><br/>Wade54891776 32.4%109.3<br/>Iverson 6281 2193 34.9%105.4<br/>Kobe5065 1609 31.8% 111.3<br/>LeBron6273 1869 29.8%113.5<br/></div> Keep in mind these past two seasons are amongst Iverson's very best, offensively. It's true that efficiency tends to decrease as a player's role in the offense increases. So, how might we project Wade's efficiency would turn out if his role increased from 33.0% to 35.1%? If it's still higher than Iverson's, clearly that would suggest he's simply a better offensive player. Conversely, we could consider whether Iverson's efficiency would reach 115.4 if his role reduced to 33.0%. Absent from all this is the impact of the quality of teammats a player has. Clearly, Wade has better teammates than Iverson. Is it therefore easier for him to be efficient, given the same role? Perhaps. That's the difficulty in accurately comparing players -- adjusting for team context.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting durvasa:</div><div class="quote_post"> Absent from all this is the impact of the quality of teammats a player has. Clearly, Wade has better teammates than Iverson. Is it therefore easier for him to be efficient, given the same role? Perhaps. That's the difficulty in accurately comparing players -- adjusting for team context.</div> that is exactly what my point is. iverson has no help, similar to kobe. both are very unefficient, yet are great scorers per game wise. while guys like lebron and wade have lots of help from teammates, are very good scorers as well, so it is a very difficult subject. that is why i dont like this statistic. too many things affect it imo.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">iverson has no help, similar to kobe. both are very unefficient, yet are great scorers per game wise.</div> ....Kobe has never been any more effecient-- regardless of who he was playing with Fresh Prince: <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">the dirk thing was in a different thread, and i said that dirk MAY BECOME better than bird, not dirk is better than bird.</div> "<u>Where does Kobe rank in history?</u>" post #201 Fresh Prince: <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">and yes i feel dirk is better than bird</div> Come back and explain how this was taking "way out of context". I've mentioned this thread to you a bunch of times-- hey even posted the link to it You we're typing under the Fresh Prince screen name back then right?-- that was you that said that correct? How could that be taken out of context? lemme go ahead and repost the whole section from your post.
<u>"Where does Kobe rank in history?"</u> The Fresh Prince: #201 I really dont feel that kobe is better than jordan in any way. not a one. but he is very close in everything. Jordan was a beast. kobe is just great. but you cant honestly tell me watching kobe score 81 didnt give you chills. he simply dominated. and when he won that game against phoenix (that circus layup and fadeaway jumper) didnt make you think that nobody else could have done that. <u>and yes i feel dirk is better than bird</u>. we can debate this somewhere else, but i do not like bird at all. Ewing was an amazing college player and great nba player, and where did i say ilgauskus and big ben are better than him or even comparable? i wasnt talking top to bottom, especially in terms of the center position. i was referring to more of the guards. and magic obviously one of the best. lbj is similar and big o smoked em all. not this era but a different one. Kidd may be a top 3 pg all time, may be. I never said j o was any good at all either. i really dont like him
excuse me, i meant will be. and i did say WILL BECOME more than once. bird is very overrated imo. he wa a good rebounder, desent defender, very good passer, and a streaky shooter. i dont see that as criteria for people to consider him in thet same breath as mj and magic. he was slower than dirt, and played with a hall of fame team. he was very good, he deserved everything he earned except for the media balooning him into a god. if dirk continues to become more agressive and better rebounder, i would consider him a better a better player than bird. If dirk continues to do these things and fade away like he did in the finals this year. right now i would say that bird is obviously better, but i could see dirk becoming better.
