Reply With Quote
Boiled down:::
Kobe: 5
the tired old bag Duncan: 4
Let us proceed...
For interest's sake, I looked into the win share leader of the last 19 champions (1993), and pulled out all the numbers as a way to gauge the impact of that leader on his team.
CHAMP: That year’s championship team
TEAM WS LEADER: The player who led that championship team in win shares
WS: The actual win share of said player
DIFF to RUNNER UP: The difference between the team leader’s win share and the closest teammate (runner up)
FMVP: Finals MVP
RS: Regular Season
PO: Playoffs
The following are the results:
RS PO CHAMP TEAM WS LEADER WS DIFF to RUNNER UP TEAM WS LEADER WS DIFF to RUNNER UP FMVP 1993 CHI JORDAN 17.2 8.1 JORDAN 4.4 2 JORDAN 1994 HOU HAKEEM 14.3 4.5 HAKEEM 4.3 1.8 HAKEEM 1995 HOU HAKEEM 10.7 4.6 DREXLER 3 0.2 HAKEEM 1996 CHI JORDAN 20.4 8.1 JORDAN 4.7 1.7 JORDAN 1997 CHI JORDAN 18.3 5.2 JORDAN 3.9 1.6 JORDAN 1998 CHI JORDAN 15.8 8 JORDAN 4.8 1.9 JORDAN 1999 SAS DUNCAN 8.7 0.3 DUNCAN 3.7 0.7 DUNCAN 2000 LAL SHAQ 18.6 8 SHAQ 4.7 2.6 SHAQ 2001 LAL SHAQ 14.9 3.6 KOBE 3.8 0.1 SHAQ 2002 LAL SHAQ 13.2 0.5 SHAQ 3.8 1.2 SHAQ 2003 SAS DUNCAN 16.5 8.8 DUNCAN 5.9 3.6 DUNCAN 2004 DET BILLUPS 11.3 1.1 BILLUPS 3.7 0.1 BILLUPS 2005 SAS DUNCAN 11.2 0.2 GINOBILI 4.2 0.7 DUNCAN 2006 MIA WADE 14.4 7.4 WADE 4.8 2.7 WADE 2007 SAS DUNCAN 13 2.4 DUNCAN 3.3 0.7 PARKER 2008 BOS GARNETT 12.9 0.5 GARNETT 4.1 1 PIERCE 2009 LAL GASOL 13.9 1.2 BRYANT 4.7 0.4 KOBE 2010 LAL GASOL 11 1.6 GASOL 4.3 0.7 KOBE 2011 MAV DIRK 11.1 1.7 DIRK 3.6 0.9 DIRK 2012 MIA LEBRON 14.5 6.8 LEBRON 5.8 2.7 LEBRON
The average RS WS of champion leaders are 14.1, with a diff over runner up of 4.1, the number for the playoffs are 4.3 and 1.4, respectively.
There were a few numbers that came as a surprise to me:
#1: Drexler led the 95 Rockets in WS in the playoffs, but he only had a 0.2 lead over Hakeem
#2: Kobe led the 01 Lakers in WS in the playoffs, but he only had a 0.1 lead over Shaq (and the reason was Shaq played less minutes)
#3 Duncan, not Jordan, had the largest WS lead in both the regular season and the playoffs, both accomplished in 03.
#4: Ginobili had quite a lead on Duncan in 05 playoffs.
#5: Not shown in table, but Parker was only #4 in PO WS in 07
#6: Dirk’s WS lead in both RS and PO was not as drastic as I thought it would be.
On the other hand, these numbers confirmed a lot of what we already know, namely:
#1: Jordan was GOAT (look at those WS numbers, and his lead over his teammates)
#2: Duncan was ridiculously dominant in 03
#3, Shaq’s influence on the Lakers diminishes over the three years (Injuries had a big impact as he just started to play less games)
#4: Billups really was the leader of the Pistons, not Wallace
#5 Pau was the leader for the Lakers, not Kobe
Discuss ….
Last edited by ambchang; 04-04-2013 at 08:44 AM.
Boiled down:::
Kobe: 5
the tired old bag Duncan: 4
Let us proceed...
How about you post real stats? Like points, rebounds, assists?
#1 No you needed to pull this to tell you that?! You could of stopped with they confirm what we already know ...
#2 Absolutely Duncan was a beast in 1999 and 2003 not only was he better than Kobe but Shaq too ...
#3 Shaq was already heading towards his I already won so I will get fat stage by 2002 he just got in shape for the Finals ..
#4.Posting all of that but then having to add a disclaimer" but, but Shaq played less minutes ... that is why Kobe surpassed him" by 2001 Kobe was just as important to our success as Shaq was ...anyone without bias could tell you that it was Shaq's team but he NEEDED Kobe.
#4 of course Rasheed played the Pau role To Chauncey just like McHale, Dumars Pippen and Worthy before him ....
#5
Amb "Chimpy" Hollinger is in the building ...
SO me the non stat lover came to the same conclusions with no computers and no refference material ....as Amb with his winshares ...
BAsically my eye test can do the same thing you just did in less time and we only disagree on #5 (PAu) from your second list. Nothing on there really surprised me except the drexler thing but that does not change my feelings on Hakeem since the game is not played on a computer. and much like with Duncan or Kobe just because Pau or Parker or Manu benefited and played amazing ball doesnt change the fact that Parker and PAu benefited from the attention paid to Duncan and Kobe. Just like you nimwits like to point out about Kobe (with Shaq)....
So Amb, by using stats alone you could argue MAnu was the true leader of the 2005 SPurs?! GTFO Duncan was the leader for all 4 of his rings imho ...but maybe I should convert to Ambs new gospel ... I love this amb, great work you just established (since you claim to be right about Pau) if we buy this winshare doctrine:
1. I know at LEAST as much about ball as you do, no winshares needed
2. IF Pau is the leader of the 2009-2010 Lakers MAnu led the 2005 Spurs and Parker led in 2007 SO Timmy only led two championship teams
3. 2011 MAvs were a better team than you gave them credit for (We just argued about that this week) you acted liek Dirk carried a bunch of role players but his winshares were closer than you thought ...
4. Kobe led the Lakers in the 2001 Playoffs
Just to prove Kobe did not lead the last two Laker les you discounted two of Duncan's ...what a smart simien you are ... I am saving this one for our Duncan vs. Kobe debate after they retire some fine work indeed ...
Oh yeah one more thing .... boiled down:
5>4 ...
Last edited by Killakobe81; 04-04-2013 at 11:36 AM.
That's a really interesting table, though. Thanks ambchang.
Ahhh .... the simpleton who couldn't understand that the ultimate goal of a player is to help his team win, not pad stats.
That's how we got to you holding the dirty of the 5-4 stick. You thought he'd launch from the top of that key. tee, hee,,,so did I.
Uh, uh.
On a more serious note, that is my problem with advanced stats. AMb wont admit it, but he went in to that exercise with bias and to prove his point about Pau.
But when he was surprised by data he was sure to explain it away ...and that is a problem.
No I dont thnk eye test alone is sufficient you need a balance just like rangs alone is not good enough either you need a balance. But the only way I can completely trust advanced stats is if the person creating/compling that data is not a fan beforehand. IF you are a hoop fan and you create a system based on your own beliefs and bias (PER) then that data will support those beliefs.
I trust what I See. The stats, and the advanced ones mostly support what I see. If thay don't ... No need to explain away ... because in the end it's all opinions anyway. Hollinger or anyone else that did not play or coach in the league's opinion is no more valuable than mine. He is a fan with better access. And if we do go by stats, why are your or his stats better than mine ... because Hollinger or some other nerd says so? The spirit of a great debate can never be decided by numbers alone. Any number ... even rings. I just emphasize those over advanced stats because the goal is to win. I get trying to see how much someone contributed etc. And like I said before all of those factors should be considered, we just differ on what carries the most weight. For me:
1. Rings (Stars only)
2. Eye Test
3. Traditional stats
4. Advanced stats
But again Amb, we will have our day to make these arguments thanks for the afternoon diversion ....good stuff.
How so? He just admitted Kobe was the playoff leader in 2001 which collapses a WHOLE bunch of arguments on this forum for the past 4 years ...
That's a really interesting table, though. Thanks ambchang.
Of course. Amb is driven by Bryant. '10 enraged him. That's the inherent richness of the NBA le.
Yep that's why rings matter ...
I could just as easily said the goal of a star player is to lead his team to a le not be most efficient or to lead in winshares ...
Not sure if need is the right word, but it confirms it. Not really a surprise to anyone.
Which speaks to how truly dominate he was. He can just switch this on and off.
I had a disclaimer because he was the only guy who did this in the last 19 years. Couldn’t find another case.
Should have been clearer, that Wallace was Ben, not Rasheed.
Not sure if you got the gist of how the numbers worked, but the more important number to look at is regular season win shares because the expected team leader led in that category in every single year. The playoffs could be a little different due to a number of factors:#5
SO me the non stat lover came to the same conclusions with no computers and no refference material ....as Amb with his winshares ...
BAsically my eye test can do the same thing you just did in less time and we only disagree on #5 (PAu) from your second list. Nothing on there really surprised me except the drexler thing but that does not change my feelings on Hakeem since the game is not played on a computer. and much like with Duncan or Kobe just because PAu or PArker or Manu benefited and played amazing ball doesnt change the fact that Parker and PAu benefited from the attention paid to Duncan and Kobe. Just like you nimwits like to point out about Kobe .... SO by using stats alone you could argue MAnu was the true leader of the 2005 SPurs?! GTFO Duncan was the leader for all 4 of his rings imho ...but maybe I should convert to Ambs new gospel ... I love this amb, great work you just established (since you claim to be right about Pau) if we buy this winshare crap:
1) A player caught fire, and due to the less number of games, a good stretch of games can really skew the results (see Parker in 07)
2) Matchup problems allowed teams to exploit the oppositions weaknesses (See Kobe in 01 vs. Spurs)
Except you don’t, because it’s your eye test vs. real actual numbers.
See response above, the key is to look into RS WS. Duncan led the Spurs in WS in every single one of those 4 championships, so I guess your observation is in line with my numbers, you just chose the wrong ones to argue.
The 2nd best Mav was Chandler, which really wasn’t that much of a surprise. The surprise was that Dirk > Chandler only to the same degree Pau > Kobe.
Not necessarily true, see numbers above. Just the same way Drexler didn’t lead the Rockets in 95, or Ginobili didn’t lead the Spurs in 05.
Not sure how you read two of Duncan’s, he led the Spurs in WS in all four regular seasons, and three of the four playoffs, how do you figure?
Another thing, it also, once again, confirms the fact that regular season is a greater gauge of a player’s impact to the team, precisely because of the two reasons I stated above. It is non-biased, non-skewed, and take an entire body of work over a select number of games against a very specific group of opponents (maximum of 4).
We have seen a consistent trend of behaviour, and EVERY SINGLE SEASON FOR THE PAST 19 years have followed that trend, which is to say that the expected leader of the team has led the team in RS WS, and led, or close to #1, in PO WS.
Not sure why, according to you, Kobe would be that exception.
I don't think there is any question as to the importance of Pau to the Lakers, but any non-biased viewer knows that the main guy for the Lakers was Kobe. Just like any non-biased viewer knows that in the Shaq/Kobe era, that Shaq was the main guy, even though Kobe was incredibly important.
If we acknowledge that this Forum will be like it was before I returned:::dead in the ground.
And here is the problem, how do you define stars? The only disclaimer I put in was, gasp, because Shaq was nursing in grown toe nails to rest his body from the wear and tear. He knew he could just come back and dominate, so he played 50 to 60 games a year instead of 82. If you want to, look up the WS/48, Shaq led those by quite a wide margin vs. Kobe in those 3 championship season, highly consistent with actual history, and not some made up crap.
The advanced stats have supported every single dominant player being dominant throughout the history of the league, well, except Kobe. Which really could mean that Kobe is not dominant, at all, and is a 2nd tier player masquerading as a #1 on a fantastic team. Did he do his share? Sure he did, just not as much as Kobe fanbois made him out to.
Read above, it didn't.
So answer this, was 06 Kobe better, or was 10 Kobe better?
Come on Amb, I was mostly poking fun. But if you were surprised by as many things as you were, then yes I do know as much as you do.
1. Who would of thought either Wallace was more valuable than Chauncey? Sure Wallace palyed great d but he was a feeble FT shooter and limited scorer.
2. LAker fans and even some Spur ones already knew Kobe was a 2001 beast Ashy (or someone else) made the case if Kobe had been more consistent in the 2001 Finals the MVP should of been his ...
One thing this win share stuff is not factoring (especialy playoffs) the amount of attention: Hakeem, Duncan Kobe etc drew. Come playoff time defense becomes more focused and teams do a better job of taking away initial options. It's kinda like the #1 WR role. Plenty of good players have thrived in the #2 role ALvin Harper, Victor Cruz, John Taylor ... but when it's time to be a #1 Most of those guys (even Taylor to a degree but we didnt get to see much of that) struggle to be the man. Spurs have not won since Duncan was not dominant, Pau won nary a playoff game in that role. KG needed Pierce to take that offensive load off his shoulders. I get the need to "rate" Kobe properly since he threatens Timmy in your eyes but no need to overrate Pau. Great player, with good hands and foot work a nice touch for passing and scoring. But he is no superstar and struggles as a#1 option that is not hating that is truth.
The problem with your scenario is when was Pau ever the focus of anyone's defensive strategy?
Was PAu ever constantly doubled on the LAkers the way Dirk, Shaq, Kobe or Duncan are?
PArt of the reason why Pop an others was pissed we got Pau was we got a top 10 player to play our #2 role, when Kobe was already a top 3 player. That was teh issue. When was PAu ever even a top 5 player in the NBA? 10? Yes. Top 5. Nope.
Based on win shares ... rings tell another story.
LOL, That Pau he sure is dominant ... leading Lakers to something Duncan could not do a repeat ...
And you just strengthened my long held belief that the marks of a good player should be judged by his performance in the RS, not playoffs, because, as you said, playoffs are extremely skewed.
Also, as for the Billups comment, it was part of the "confirmed what I know" piece. I stated that because there is still a group of people believing that Billups was not the true leader of that group, Wallace was.
So now that you are pulling this card, will you finally admit that Shaq drew the attention in 00 to 02, allowing Kobe to be who he was, especially the 01 playoffs?
And that is another issue with Laker fans, putting stock on repeats. I still have yet to hear a logical reason as to why repeats are so important.
I Agree to a point, just saying that I would of voted for Duncan in 2007 for Finals MVP, in 2005 I could see it going either way. I LOVED how Manu played in 2005,
by far his best season imho ...and Iw as in SA at that time to see it up close.
Of course that was a factor ...never said it was not. Like you said Shaq's role decreased through the 3peat but especially the first two years Kobe benefitted, of course!
So did Shaq ...Kobe is better than any team-mate Duncan had ...
Liek Shaq said they were the best 1-2 punch but Kobe was the#2 for at least 2 and despite him being the better playoff performer in 2001 stopping Shaq was still the first priority
Last edited by Killakobe81; 04-04-2013 at 12:08 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
