Thread Tools

Display Modes

RollWithEm · 04-12-2008, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Najee

Considering that I was a newspaper journalist who covered the NBA, son, I would say my knowledge on the sport is much greater than yours.

I know you would say that. In fact, I think everyone who's read any post you've made so far can see that you would say your knowledge on the sport is greater then mine. That's just one more thing you're wrong about.

Quote:

I certainly see the use for statistics, but unlike you, I am not so obtuse in my fixations with numbers-crunching (not to mention you evidently didn't see a good portion of the players named over a meaningful part of their careers, given your age) that I cannot make sense of them.

If you had actually read my post, you would know that this sentence is completely irrelevant.

Quote:

You certainly don't use any other subjective or objective form of evaluation other than some obsure mathematical computation derived from some statistician (or pseudostatistician)-turned-frustrated sports "authority."

Once again, please try reading what I write before making comments on it.

Quote:

But I don't know anyone who has followed, covered or was a fan of the NBA over the past 20-plus years who would take some scrub like Freeman Williams over Michael Cooper.

Wow, what a shock. Here's another example of you completely ignoring my last post. It wouldn't really bother me if I thought you were just choosing to ignore my words and attacking a straw man you set up instead, but I really fear that the problem might go deeper. You might need to sign up for some reading comprehension classes at the local community college, gramps.

Now if you'd like to continue this conversation by responding to points I've actually made instead putting words in my mouth, I'd like to continue it as well. If not, just ignore these threads from now on. I promise it won't hurt anyone's feelings.

Najee · 04-14-2008, 02:20 PM

Of all the tourney games so far, this is the first one to receive the "ESPN Classic" stamp. It will start with Stephen Jackson saying in the newspaper that Larry Bird was "overrated" and that he guarded better players, like Ron Artest, Shawn Marion and Kevin Garnett.

"They're taller, more athletic than Bird," Jackson said. Then he goes into Isiah Thomas mode: "The real reason Bird gets all the attention is because he's white."

The bulletin board material stirs up the old Boston Garden faithful, where this elimination round is played. The on-court temperature will register as high as 102 degrees and people already are throwing heated pennies at the Class of '97 team.

This will be a great game, as the stars will shine. Tim Duncan will dominate Mychal Thompson, Wayne Cooper and Dave Corzine inside, going for 26 points, 20 rebounds and 5 blocked shots. Tracy McGrady will go Dominique Wilkins-like nuts, scoring 42 points, grabbing 8 rebounds and dishing out 7 assists. At one point, T-Mac will score 17 straight points as the '97 group takes a 73-62 lead in the middle of the third quarter.

However, Chauncey Billups will have a productive but not quite efficient game. He will score 18 points, but he will be hounded into 6-for-17 shooting as he is guarded by Maurice Cheeks (five time all-NBA Defense team), Micheal Ray Richardson (two time all-NBA Defense team) and Michael Cooper (eight time all-NBA Defense team). Billups will have 8 assists but also 6 turnovers.

And Bird will get his. He'll start off hot, burning Keith Van Horn for 12 first-quarter points. Later, the much anticipated matchup of Bird and Jackson is set up as Jackson asked to be switched on Bird. Bird will miss his first two shots vs. Jackson, and Jackson will later dunk on Bird in transition -- causing the Garden faithful to boo mercilessly. But later, Jackson will struggle and will finish with 16 points on 6-of-17 from the field (though he will go 3-of-7 from 3-point range, grab 6 rebounds and have 3 assists).

Trailing 92-84 at the end of the third quarter, the Class of '78 will rally behind the fourth-quarter play of Bird, Reggie Theus and Phil Ford. A John Long jumper will tie the score at 109 with 4:01 left and regulation will end with the score tied at 115.

In overtime, T-Mac will go cold, hitting 1-of-6 shots. Duncan continues with his inside dominance, but with Van Horn fouled out the Class of '78 crowds in on him in the final three minutes of the second overtime. Duncan misses 3 of 4 free-throws in the clutch, while Bird scores his team's final eight points. The last shot will be a classic -- a turnaround jumper from the corner over Jackson's outstretched arm. Bird can seen mouthing these words at Jackson:

"Game over, m***** f*****. Time to go home."

Bird's final stat line: 38 points, 12 rebounds, 6 assists.

FINAL SCORE: Class of '78 134, Class of '97 130 (2 OT).

P.S. I would like to know what over teams are in this region for the Class of '78 to be ranked sixth (as good as the 1999 and 1997 drafts were, I don't see them being better than the '78 class by much, if at all).

RollWithEm · 04-15-2008, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Najee

Bird's final stat line: 38 points, 12 rebounds, 6 assists.

FINAL SCORE: Class of '78 134, Class of '97 130 (2 OT).

P.S. I would like to know what over teams are in this region for the Class of '78 to be ranked sixth (as good as the 1999 and 1997 drafts were, I don't see them being better than the '78 class by much, if at all).

First of all, that was a great game recap. Second of all, I don't think they'd put Van Horn on Bird for very long. You've gotta stick with SJAx, TMac, and maybe even Duncan on Bird for stretches. But even with those match-ups, I don't think that statline you posted for Bird is out of the question.

Last and more importantly, the other seeds will come soon. Keep in mind I did not do the seeds subjectively. If I would have, these teams would be ranked much differently. I don't think the seeds will matter much once the cream rises to the top, though.

Najee · 04-15-2008, 12:47 PM

Well, as you read in my "recap," the Class of '97 didn't keep Keith Van Horn on Larry Bird for long. Stephen Jackson guarded Bird the rest of the way.

My question about the Class of '78 was more of a curiosity than a criticism. From where I stand, the '78 team is equal to the '97 team and the '99 team (a No. 1 seed) in talent. In Larry Bird, it has one of seven players who legitimately can walk into a room and say, "I'm arguably the greatest player in NBA history," plus a cadre of quality players (Mo Cheeks, Michael Cooper, Reggie Theus, Mike Mitchell, Micheal Ray Richardson, Mychal Thompson, Purvis Short) around Bird who create an effective blend of offense and defense.

I'll see how your seeding plays out, but it looks like the Class of '78 was seeded too low. I can see them giving all the No. 3 seeds a run for its money. In addition to the '97 team, I definitely can see the '01 team falling to this unit and its superior backcourt and Bird can knock off the '95 team.

NOTE: And nothing personal, but I would definitely have Michael Cooper on this team over people like Gerald Henderson, Jerome Whitehead or Freeman Williams. A perennial all-NBA defender and one of the best sixth men in NBA history is invaluable in this tournament, no matter what stats you used say.

RollWithEm · 04-15-2008, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Najee

NOTE: And nothing personal, but I would definitely have Michael Cooper on this team over people like Gerald Henderson, Jerome Whitehead or Freeman Williams. A perennial all-NBA defender and one of the best sixth men in NBA history is invaluable in this tournament, no matter what stats you used say.

Again you're probably right subjectively, but putting him on the team over one of those other guys would actually lower their seed. They'd still be a 6, but they might have a tougher draw.

Najee · 04-15-2008, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RollWithEm

Again you're probably right subjectively, but putting him on the team over one of those other guys would actually lower their seed. They'd still be a 6, but they might have a tougher draw.

Call me crazy, but I don't see how adding Michael Cooper makes the Class of '78 team a worse team than having bit players like Jerome Whitehead and Gerald Henderson or a fraud player like Freeman Williams. Whitehead's and Henderson's career averages in points are lower than and the same, respectively, as Cooper's (and their other averages and common percentages are the same). Their offensive PERs are roughly the same and they surely are not better defenders than Cooper (I believe you use some version of a defensive PER). Williams' numbers were artificially inflated because of his second and third seasons with the San Diego Clippers.

If I had to have one of those guys on my team instead of Cooper, I would have chosen the Class of '78 team to lose to the Class of '97 -- that's how much valuable Cooper is on defense and with his versatility. Having seen all four guys play, I really can't see what Williams, Whitehead and Henderson can offer that is more valuable than what Cooper can offer. IRL, the Class of '78 would be worse with Whitehead, Williams and/or Henderson instead of Cooper -- this is one of those cases where stats don't translate into reality.

Only in a bizarro world would someone actually pick Henderson, Whitehead or Williams over one of the best sixth men and perimeter defenders in NBA history. Once again, players should be chosen for the totality of their careers, not over some "for five peak games" logic where oddball choices can be made.

And I can't see how this team could have a tougher draw as a No. 6 seed than the Class of '97 team. The Class of 2001 team actually would be an easier draw, and this team (with Cooper) can beat the Class of '95 squad.

P.S. I believe you asked me why I would have John Long on my team. As a scoring big guard with a good midrange shot, he adds more firepower than the aforementioned three (he scored as many points in his career as Whitehead and Henderson combined). Long would be more valuable coming off the bench.

RollWithEm · 04-17-2008, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Najee

Call me crazy, but I don't see how adding Michael Cooper makes the Class of '78 team a worse team than having bit players like Jerome Whitehead and Gerald Henderson or a fraud player like Freeman Williams.

They wouldn’t be worse, subjectively. They’d simply have a lower cumulative PER since Cooper best career PER season was 14.3. That means he never once had an efficiency rating above the league average for an entire season. His defensive ability couldn’t really offset this in the objective rankings.

Quote:

Having seen all four guys play, I really can't see what Williams, Whitehead and Henderson can offer that is more valuable than what Cooper can offer. IRL, the Class of '78 would be worse with Whitehead, Williams and/or Henderson instead of Cooper -- this is one of those cases where stats don't translate into reality.

The conundrum lies in the ranking system. How do you rank teams on subjective measures without just ranking the teams you think are the best? If I like the class of 1995 better than the class of 1986, I’m going to rank them higher. Then, the whole bracket system would be reduced to top seeded teams winning every game. I think ranking teams based on objective, numerical analysis makes for a more interesting tournament overall.

Quote:

And I can't see how this team could have a tougher draw as a No. 6 seed than the Class of '97 team. The Class of 2001 team actually would be an easier draw, and this team (with Cooper) can beat the Class of '95 squad.

You’re right. 1997 is a tough draw for 1978. Unfortunately after making the Sabonis change we discussed, moving Cooper into the lineup of this team would actually move them down to a 7-seed. They’d be matched-up with the vaunted 2003 team. That most certainly would be a tough match-up.

BadBaronRudigor · 04-17-2008, 03:33 PM

Just rank the teams by highest average PER then change the personnel as you wish so you don't have to rerank. DIfferent posters might choose different personnel anyway like my leaving Zach Randolph off his team for example. That's not a problem; just one of the quirks of the system.

Najee · 04-17-2008, 06:08 PM

Yeah, I'm not in favor of using a single-season measure or computation. I rather use the career computations and averages, because what you will have are situations where someone like Gerald Henderson (whose numbers are reflective of a career reserve) have a year where he's traded to a poor team, starts and produces a number or computation that is an aberration of his career.

Thread Tools Display Modes

Thread Tools

Display Modes