i love big bens game but i think he is overrated as a defender. I rarely see him shut a guy down one on one. he is much more of a team player. I think AK or G wallace should have won it
I dont understand why Shawn AMrion up for discussin for DPOY? 9 Defensive rebounds a game. 2 Steals per Game. And almost 2 blocks per game. I know stats arent everything, like what you all said about Bowen, but cmon! I think he deserved at least some discussion! And all of you that are mad he didnt get DPOY. Dont worry, he's on the frickin olympic team. Which simply BAFFLES me. (along with Shane Battier) lmao
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Franchise4Ever:</div><div class="quote_post">I agree with everything and that B. Wallace shouldn't have got it again. I think Bowen, Artest, AK47, and G. Wallace are all better picks than Big Ben. Especially G. Wallace who was averaging practically the same BPG and SPG for a player who is vastly shorter in size than Big Ben. Bowen although dirty does get the job done. Though personally I would have picked G. Wallace, and AK47 over Big Ben and Bowen. Also I think you should edit the title and make it say "Like Kobe AND Iguodala, Bowen got robbed"</div> Gerald Wallace isn't much shorter than Big Ben. Gerald Wallace is 6'7, and Big Ben although listed as 6'8 is actually 6'7.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Heat4Life:</div><div class="quote_post">Duncan doesn't play for Detroit.</div> Let's go through ranking in points allowed per possession (per possession defense), since 1999: <div class='codetop'>CODE</div><div class='codemain'><br/><font color=""Navy"">SpursPistons</font><br/>19991/299/29<br/>20001/2919/29<br/>20011/299/29<br/>20021/298/29<br/>20033/294/29<br/>20041/292/29<br/>20051/293/29<br/>20061/295/29<br/></div> The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the Spurs as the greater defensive team in this span.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting durvasa:</div><div class="quote_post">Let's go through ranking in points allowed per possession (per possession defense), since 1999: <div class='codetop'>CODE</div><div class='codemain'><br/><font color=""Navy"">SpursPistons</font><br/>19991/299/29<br/>20001/2919/29<br/>20011/299/29<br/>20021/298/29<br/>20033/294/29<br/>20041/292/29<br/>20051/293/29<br/>20061/295/29<br/></div> The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the Spurs as the greater defensive team in this span.</div> I hate statistical arguments because you can always use stats to prove your point no matter what your point is. Has Rasheed Wallace been on the Pistons since 1999? No. How about Tayshaun Prince, Chauncey Billups and Ben Wallace? Nope. Was Larry Brown with the Pistons in 1999? You can't compare a Pistons team to the Spurs team over this span, that's just ridiculous. The Spurs have been anchored defensively by Tim Duncan and Bruce Bowen (not to mention David Robinson before retirement) for a long time. They've also had the same coach. To compare these two teams is silly, since one has been together longer.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Jurassic:</div><div class="quote_post">I hate statistical arguments because you can always use stats to prove your point no matter what your point is.</div> No you can't. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Has Rasheed Wallace been on the Pistons since 1999? No. How about Tayshaun Prince, Chauncey Billups and Ben Wallace? Nope. Was Larry Brown with the Pistons in 1999? You can't compare a Pistons team to the Spurs team over this span, that's just ridiculous. </div> Whatever. I said "modern era." If you want to focus on the last 2 or 3 years, that's fine too. The Spurs have been the best defensive team over that period as well. Only twice since Duncan has been in the league have the Spurs not been ranked first in defensive efficiency (points allowed per possession). They were 2nd his rookie season, and 3rd in 2003. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">The Spurs have been anchored defensively by Tim Duncan and Bruce Bowen (not to mention David Robinson before retirement) for a long time. They've also had the same coach. To compare these two teams is silly, since one has been together longer.</div> I don't think you're understanding my point. I said the Spurs have been the best defensive team of late. Specifically (in response to WadeDynasty), they've been better defensively than the Pistons. That the Spurs have had the benefit of great defensive players and a stable coaching situation obviously doesn't change that.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting durvasa:</div><div class="quote_post">No you can't.</div> Yes you can, and you just did it. I bet there are plenty of defensive stats out there that would support the Pistons being the better defensive team, but you intentionally chose one that supports the Spurs to prove your point. Its not like points allowed/defensive possesions is universally regarded as the best stat to use to determine what team is the best at defense, but you chose it to prove your point. Now do you understand how stats can ALWAYS be used to argue either side? I could easily go to one of your sites and find a stat that supports the Pistons. If I did that would you throw your whole argument out the window? Probably not. For example, what if the Pistons have allowed less ppg over the last 5 years than the Spurs? Would you agree that that would make them better, or would you run out and find another stat to prove that the Spurs are better?
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Jurassic:</div><div class="quote_post">Yes you can, and you just did it. I bet there are plenty of defensive stats out there that would support the Pistons being the better defensive team, but you intentionally chose one that supports the Spurs to prove your point. </div> I consider points allowed per possession as the best measure of a team's defensive performance over the course of a season. I didn't just randomly pick the stat that supports my point. If you have some other criteria for evaluating defensive performance of a team, I'd like to hear it. Then we can debate the merits of both approaches. Note that many of the defensive statistics used by commentators on TV (points allowed per game, defensive FG% on 2-pointers and 3-pointers, turnovers forced, defensive rebounding, fouls committed, etc.) are all captured by points allowed per possession. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Its not like points allowed/defensive possesions is universally regarded as the best stat to use to determine what team is the best at defense, but you chose it to prove your point. </div> It is pretty much universally regarded as the best stat to use by the <font color=""Blue"">APBRmetrics community</font>, many of whom are key contributors to NBA teams. An introduction to some of the concepts (if you're unfamiliar with them) can be found <font color=""Blue"">here</font>. I subscribe to these methods for analyzing basketball performance, both at the team and individual level. I'm not just arbitrarily picking stats to support preconceived ideas. It's not like I'm an avid Spurs fan. I have no reason to claim they've been the best defensive team, other than the hard evidence available. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Now do you understand how stats can ALWAYS be used to argue either side?</div> Of course not. To take a trivial counter-example, there is no statistic that can convince me that the Raptors are a better defensive team than the Spurs. And there's no statistic that shows Shaq is a better free throw shooter than Yao. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I could easily go to one of your sites and find a stat that supports the Pistons. If I did that would you throw your whole argument out the window? Probably not. For example, what if the Pistons have allowed less ppg over the last 5 years than the Spurs? Would you agree that that would make them better, or would you run out and find another stat to prove that the Spurs are better?</div> Points allowed per game is well known to be a flawed stat for measuring defense. It doesn't account for pace.
He didn't got robbed. Kobe and Iggy really did, like someone said it already in here. Bowen plays dirty and yes, shuts players down. But I think that Gerald should've been got the award. His stats were amazing and his kinda little too. I hope that next year it'll go to Ak or Gerald. Or if Ron will play enough games, he will get it.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting durvasa:</div><div class="quote_post">I consider points allowed per possession as the best measure of a team's defensive performance over the course of a season. I didn't just randomly pick the stat that supports my point.</div> When I watch the Suns or Mavs, I see a lot of possessions because they play at a fast pace. When teams try to run with them, they generally fail and shoot a poor % because it isn't there style of game. This means that the Suns/Mavs probably have a low number of points allowed/possession right? Lets say that the Suns/Mavs (regarded by everyone as poor defensive teams) give up less points/possession that the Heat or Rockets (both solid at defense). Would that mean that the Mavs/Suns are better at defense than the Heat or Rockets? Hell no, but their offensive style makes it so that your stat of points allowed/possession turns in their favor because they play fast paced offense. See? Silly stats can be used and twisted to prove anything. In fact I would like to see the points allowed/possession for the Mavs and Suns over the past couple years. Even though the Mavs are probably one of the worst defensive teams in the league they probaly will not match up that way when it comes to your stat. Do you get my point now?
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Jurassic:</div><div class="quote_post">When I watch the Suns or Mavs, I see a lot of possessions because they play at a fast pace. When teams try to run with them, they generally fail and shoot a poor % because it isn't there style of game. This means that the Suns/Mavs probably have a low number of points allowed/possession right? Lets say that the Suns/Mavs (regarded by everyone as poor defensive teams) give up less points/possession that the Heat or Rockets (both solid at defense). Would that mean that the Mavs/Suns are better at defense than the Heat or Rockets? Hell no, but their offensive style makes it so that your stat of points allowed/possession turns in their favor because they play fast paced offense.</div> There are several problems/misconceptions here: The Mavs DID NOT play at a fast pace over the course of the season. They score a lot of points because they were an incredibly efficient offensive team, per possession. They actually were one of the slowest paced teams in the league. You can closely estimate the number of possessions a team gets (or, almost equivalently, the opponent gets) by looking at fga, fta, turnovers, and offensive rebounds. Based on this, Dallas is actually ranked 27/30 in possessions per 48 minutes. Next, based on defensive rating (points allowed per possession), the Mavs were 10th in the league, and the Suns were 16th. And the Suns were much worse than that in the second half of the season, after Kurt Thomas got hurt. So, yes, at this point without Thomas the Suns are a poor defensive team. Dallas is not (you've been listening to Charles Barkley a bit too much, I think). It's kind of unbelievable that anyone purporting to be a basketball expert can think that a team that won over 60 games is terrible on either end of the court. I mean, Dallas would have to be the greatest offensive team ever to win over 60 games while also being a bad defensive team. The fact is, they are a below average defensive team, but only when you narrow the sample down to the top teams in the league. But relative to the entire league, they are a good, above-average defensive team, though not nearly as good as they are at offense. Simply saying "well, everyone KNOWS Dallas is a poor defensive team, therefore this is invalid" obviously doesn't fly. Everyone doesn't think that. And those who do probably are basing it off of reputation (a couple of years ago, when Nash was there, they WERE a bad defensive team). <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">See? Silly stats can be used and twisted to prove anything. In fact I would like to see the points allowed/possession for the Mavs and Suns over the past couple years. Even though the Mavs are probably one of the worst defensive teams in the league they probaly will not match up that way when it comes to your stat.</div> Why are the Mavs "probably one of the worst defensive teams in the league"? Are you just saying that because that's what idiots like Charles Barkley and Steven A. Smith say, or do you actually have a reason for it? The game of basketball is about (a) scoring on one end (your offensive possessions), and ( limiting your opponent on the other end (your defensive possessions). It follows, virtually by definition, that the best offensive teams are the best at (a) and the best defensive teams are the best at (. The natural, logical way to measure a team's ability to do (a) and ( is to measure (or at least estimate) points scored per offensive possession and points allowed per defensive possession. This is a fairly fundamental basketball concept, and it should be obvious if you just put a little thought into it. Isn't it natural to argue that free throw percentage over the course of a season is the best indicator for who the best free throw shooters are? That is, the more successes per free throw attempts a player has, the better free throw shooter he is. No one would seriously say that actually the best free throw shooters are the ones who make the most per game. Clearly, it's the number of successes per free throw attempt that matters. In a similar way, the best offensive teams are the ones with most "successes" (or points scored) per possession, and analogously the best defensive teams are the ones that allow the least successes (or points scored) per possession. I find this antogonism (or perhaps its a phobia) towards using statistics in sports talk kind of interesting. Every sports team collects and uses statistics extensively. Every coach uses them to prepare for games, at half time, and when going over games. Every GM uses them when making a trade for a player, signing a free agent, or drafting a player. I'm not saying stats can't be abused. In fact, I've already pointed out that using points allowed per game to evaluate a team's defense doesn't work well at all. But when it's clearly understood what you're trying to measure ("what does it mean for a team to be good defensively?") and what the statistic conveys ("what exactly does this statistic measure?"), then they can be useful.
^^ yeah but doing A and B isn't what the gaem is about. there are so many factors it is unbelievable. a team can play great D but their opponent shoots the lights out anyway, and on the offensive u can get many bad breaks while running you O to perfection
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting durvasa:</div><div class="quote_post">Simply saying "well, everyone KNOWS Dallas is a poor defensive team, therefore this is invalid" obviously doesn't fly. Everyone doesn't think that. And those who do probably are basing it off of reputation (a couple of years ago, when Nash was there, they WERE a bad defensive team). </div> That's my point. That's why I asked you to post (or show me where I can find) the Mavs and Suns points allowed/possession from the PAST FEW YEARS. By simply talking about the Mavs this year, you intentionally ignored my point, which was; <div class="quote_poster">Quoting Jurassic:</div><div class="quote_post">In fact I would like to see the points allowed/possession for the Mavs and Suns <font size=""5"">over the past couple years</font>.</div> You also ignored the fact that I also mentioned the Phoenix Suns (you probably went and checked their stat, and realized I was right so you chose to not respond, clever ). My point in picking those teams is that they have both been fast paced when led by Steve Nash. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Isn't it natural to argue that free throw percentage over the course of a season is the best indicator for who the best free throw shooters are?</div> No, would you say that Rip Hamilton is a better 3pt shooter than Ray Allen? I wouldn't, but Rip shot an amazing 46% from three this year. Should Pistons fans be upset that Rip didn't get an invite to the 3 point shootout? No, because it's just a silly stat, and he didn't really take all that many threes. Stats can be misleading, you need to realize this. As someone who follows stats you should know that the NBA sets limits on stats. For example. If Allen Iverson scored 50 points in the first game of the season, then got injured for the rest of the year. He would technically average 50ppg for the year. That doesn't mean that he would win the scoring title, the NBA required you to play a certain number of games. And no, I don't listen to Charles Barkley and base all of my opinions off of him. Even if I did, it would be better than running off and finding a stat to prove my point anytime I was involved in a debate. Please show me where I can find the Suns/Mavs points allowed/possession. That way I can show you that the Suns/Mavs are ranked better than some teams that are actually a lot better defensively, and you can realize that your stat is overrated.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting TheFreshPrince:</div><div class="quote_post">^^ yeah but doing A and B isn't what the gaem is about. there are so many factors it is unbelievable. a team can play great D but their opponent shoots the lights out anyway, and on the offensive u can get many bad breaks while running you O to perfection</div> For a single game, yes. But over the course of 82 games and several hundred possessions, these "bad breaks" become negligible. And, further, if a particular team is ranked first in the league over a period of several seasons (and many thousands of possessions), as the Spurs have been, then this becomes even more irrelevant. A terrible free throw shooter (Shaq) could conceivably get lucky in a game and hit 8 out of 10. But over the course of a season, if that happens, you can't pin it on luck. Make sense?
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Jurassic:</div><div class="quote_post">That's my point. That's why I asked you to post (or show me where I can find) the Mavs and Suns points allowed/possession from the PAST FEW YEARS. By simply talking about the Mavs this year, you intentionally ignored my point, which was; You also ignored the fact that I also mentioned the Phoenix Suns (you probably went and checked their stat, and realized I was right so you chose to not respond, clever ). My point in picking those teams is that they have both been fast paced when led by Steve Nash.</div> I showed the numbers rank for both the Mavs and the Suns this year, which I thought is what you wanted. If you want to check yourself, look <font color=""blue"">here</font>. Here's the defensive rating (points allowed per possession) ranking of Dallas and Phoenix the last 5 seasons: <div class='codetop'>CODE</div><div class='codemain'><br/>DallasPhoenix<br/>200610/3016/30<br/>20059/3017/30<br/>200426/2923/29<br/>20039/2913/29<br/>200224/2913/29<br/></div> BTW, I dislike the insinuation in your posts that I'm purposely trying to decieve using statistics. Why don't we assume that we're both trying to engage in honest debate, and leave that crap out of it? Also, I've asked that you to provide your criteria for evaluating a team's defense over the course of a season. Obviously, this debate is going no where if there's no fundemental agreement on the criteria. I don't consider reputation or popular opinion a valid criteria, so if that's what you base your opinion on then we can go ahead and end the discussion right here. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">No, would you say that Rip Hamilton is a better 3pt shooter than Ray Allen? I wouldn't, but Rip shot an amazing 46% from three this year. Should Pistons fans be upset that Rip didn't get an invite to the 3 point shootout? No, because it's just a silly stat, and he didn't really take all that many threes. Stats can be misleading, you need to realize this. </div> Here's the difference. Rip takes far less threes than Ray Allen, sure. Further, Rip's threes come in different situations (his are more wide open, and he doesn't shoot off the dribble as much). So, yes, if we wanted to choose between the too in a three-point shootout, than 3p% isn't necessarily the best stat. But over the course of a season, every team gets roughly the same number of possessions (usually within 10% of eachother). And every team, on average, faces the same quality of competition over the course of a season. If I was comparing one team's points allowed per possessions with a sample of only, say, 300 possession against inferior talent to another team's points allowed per possession with a sample of 800 possessions against superior talent, obviously that's a foolish comparison. This is closer to your 3-point shooting analogy, but doesn't apply to the actual comparison I'm making. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">As someone who follows stats you should know that the NBA sets limits on stats. For example. If Allen Iverson scored 50 points in the first game of the season, then got injured for the rest of the year. He would technically average 50ppg for the year. That doesn't mean that he would win the scoring title, the NBA required you to play a certain number of games.</div> Of course. What bearing does this have on the statistics I'm using? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">And no, I don't listen to Charles Barkley and base all of my opinions off of him. Even if I did, it would be better than running off and finding a stat to prove my point anytime I was involved in a debate.</div> Good. But if you could find a stat that actually proved your point in a debate, how would that not be better ? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Please show me where I can find the Suns/Mavs points allowed/possession. That way I can show you that the Suns/Mavs are ranked better than some teams that are actually a lot better defensively, and you can realize that your stat is overrated.</div> If you could do so, I would have to ask (again) what your criteria is for determining which teams a "actually a lot better defensively".
I still strongly disagree with what you are saying. I'm at work right now so I shouldn't even be on here, and I'll type a full response to your post later. Here's what I'll say for now; As far as a stat that is better than yours (over the course of a season), why not just use opposing fg%? Like you said, most teams end up having about the same number of possessions (within 10% of each other). So number of possessions wouldn't really make this stat all that biased. Still, how does points allowed/possession accurately measure the defensive ability of a TEAM?? If a team is weak inside, then they'll give up a lot of points down there. That just means that their weakneses happens to be in an area (the paint) where a lot of high percentage shots take place. The team could still have 3 great perimeter defenders, but the stat would be skewed because so many points would be given up in the paint. I also think that your stat is extremely biased considering that these two teams (Pistons and Spurs) are in different conferences. Please don't try to argue that this does not matter. Actually it is biased in favor of the Pistons. The Pistons should have a much better rating considering that until recently the east has been generally lower scoring. There are a lot of things wrong with the formula that you are using.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Jurassic:</div><div class="quote_post"> As far as a stat that is better than yours (over the course of a season), why not just use opposing fg%? Like you said, most teams end up having about the same number of possessions (within 10% of each other). So number of possessions wouldn't really make this stat all that biased.</div> Opposing fg% doesn't capture three other crucial aspects: giving up free throws, turnovers forced, and defensive rebounding. And, of course, fg% in general is a flawed stat since it doesn't distinguish between 2-pointers and 3-pointers (efg% is superior because it makes this adjustment). There are "four factors" to any offense (or conversely, defense) in a given possession: making field goals (or limiting opponent's effective field goal%), not turning the ball over (or forcing turnovers), offensively rebounding (or defensive rebounding), and getting to the free throw line and making them (or limiting opponent's free throws). FG% only looks at one them. Points per possession captures all of them. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Still, how does points allowed/possession accurately measure the defensive ability of a TEAM?? If a team is weak inside, then they'll give up a lot of points down there. That just means that their weakneses happens to be in an area (the paint) where a lot of high percentage shots take place. The team could still have 3 great perimeter defenders, but the stat would be skewed because so many points would be given up in the paint.</div> I'm not really following this. If the team is weak inside, than that will be reflected in the points they give up inside. In what way is the stat skewed? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I also think that your stat is extremely biased considering that these two teams (Pistons and Spurs) are in different conferences. Please don't try to argue that this does not matter. Actually it is biased in favor of the Pistons. The Pistons should have a much better rating considering that until recently the east has been generally lower scoring. </div> You're right, that does make a difference (though generally, VERY minor). Every team plays 52 games (or 65%) in conference, and 30 games (or 35%) out of conference. Also, a team plays on average 4 games with each team in its own division, and 3.6 games with the rest of the teams in the conference. So, what we could do is roughly estimate the difference in quality of offense faced by the Spurs and Pistons in a given season (to keep it simple, I'll ignore divisions since that will have almost no impact): <div class='codetop'>CODE</div><div class='codemain'><br/>2006 -- Average Offensive Rating of opponents faced<br/>SpursPistons<br/>W107.06107.1<br/>E105.05104.98<br/><br/>Spurs Opponents' ORtg = 0.65*107.06 + 0.35*105.05 = 106.3565<br/>Pistons Opponents' ORtg = 0.35*107.1 + 0.65*104.98 = 105.722<br/></div> So, the Piston's opponents were slightly worse offensively than the Spurs opponents by this method, as expected since they play in a weaker conference. But the impact on the final opponent rating is very minor (after all, the teams don't play exclusively in their conference). There's less than a percent difference for 2006. It would only make a difference for two team's rankings if they were virtually tied.
I'm getting too lazy to quote you, but I'll try and respond to your major points. I agree, there are plenty of things that opposing fg% doesn't capture, but couldn't we say the same thing about your stat? With the exception of Tayshun Prince everyone in the Pistons starting 5 is capable of getting a technical foul because they all talk at the refs a lot. This may very well be negligible, but I would be willing to bet that the Pistons gave up significantly more points off of technical fouls than the Spurs did. Not to mention that a lot of teams kill themselves offensively. This stat doesn't consider the number of unforced turnovers that a young team, or a team with a flashy point guard might commit. Unforced turnovers have nothing to do with the opposing team's ability to play defense. We could realistically assume that both conferences have an equal number of teams that commit silly turnovers but we don't really know for a fact. The stat doesn't incorporate coaching. Zone defense often results in a defensive three second call, usually the coach doesn't care because he told the team to play that way as part of their strategy. Things like Hack-a-Shaq fall into this category as well. Even though Shaq would generally miss his freethrows, anytime that he makes one it goes towards the points allowed/possession. My point about weak interior defense is that any individual can mess up a teams defense by being out of position, failing to rotate, or just being a generally crappy defensive player. The Pistons play team defense, and I don't really believe that the Spurs do as much. Ben Wallace in a lot of other systems would be a horrible defender (he is undersized) but the Pistons together make him great. Tony Parker on the other hand is a horrible defender even though he has some elite on his team. A team that otherwise would be good overall can be ruined simply because one person gets killed by the guy that he's guarding every night. He gives up points that contribute to the stat of points allowed/possession, and it ends up making his team worse than they might actually be. Edit: I gotta finish up some work now, but I'm enjoying this and I'll probably check this thread out tommorow.
What about rebounding, that can have a huge difference on statstics about team defence and offence. If you play great team D but give up a lot of offensive rebounds then they will give up a bunch of points per possesion. The same goes for if a team takes poor shots and shoots a bad percentage but manages to get a lot of easy put backs, they will score a lot of points. So im not sure on this but i bet if u check out the rebounding stats for teams they will have a lot to do with teams' defensive and offensive stats. Again i dont like stats because you can twist them in you favour like Jurassic said earlier, but this is more proof that more things go in to basketball than a stat
