some great answers and As you could tell by the le ...I wasnt sure if it was good stat or crap. It seems you are squarely on the crap side, and since you enjoy metrics I will trust you on this one. You may have been wrong about my team the past few years (amazing that you think you know my team better than me)...but you have a head for stats. I will file this under crap for now ...maybe one of the ESPN number crunchers will change my mind later.
I don't think it's crap, I think there are flaws in the numbers, as with all the numbers, but taken together, they can really spell out certain things.
Again, the numbers are mostly directionally correct.
And I don't think I know the Lakers more than you do, because I don't know how much you know, but trust me, I know a lot about the Lakers. I loved Magic (as a player).
What? Win-shares are mostly based on net rating. It doesn't make sense to like the latter but not the former.
he was great, the GOAT PG and He and Bird the GOAT SF (pre-Lebron) were both amazing saved the NBa so MJ could move it forward.
So let me ask you this ... could you make a strong case for Lebron over Bird using the WARP metric? At face value it does seem to argue that but as you said ALL of these metrics have flaws ...your thoughts because I know you respect both players game and many on here are so biased one way or another ... love some deep analysis on the subject.
it depends what it is used for, win shares is very brainy and of little practical use for player to player comparison as it uses league average numbers which clearly is strongly dependent on the age in which the player is playing in. correct me if I'm wrong... if what I'm saying is correct, than how can you make a case to use win shares as a metric for players from different ages..
Honestly, if it wasn't for nostalgia, Lebron has already passed Bird. They both have the same heights (really, people forgot how ridiculously dominant Bird was at his absolute peak), but Lebron just peaked for longer. It may have to do with modern medicine, training and time management principles, but Lebron just peaked for longer. I loved Bird, and I am not really that big of a fan of Lebron, but it would be hard for me to say Bird > Lebron, if not impossible, at this point.
That said, Bird is way clutcher than Lebron ever could be, and just carry that sense of arrogance about him that is tough to argue. If I want to build a team around for a decade, I'd pick Lebron, if I want a player to lead me to a championship for 1 or 2 years, it would be prime Bird. If you put the two on the same team, both in their primes, I would have no question that Bird will be the alpha.
Metrics wide, again, it was era dependent. The 80s teams were stacked, so it was tough for one player to really dominate on his own, teams are thinner now, and there is more of a drop from option 1 to option 2 on the same team, so the advanced metrics is tough to compare that way. There is no way you can find a team that had the depth and talent of the 86 Celtics, 80s Lakers, or even the early 80s 76ers. It would be tough to find a team like the late 80s Blazers or even the mid 90s Sonics in today's league. The ones that do are called superteams.
One last note, Bird, as slow and unathletic as he was, was really underrated as a defender. He was so smart, it's almost like he just see things 3 steps ahead of everyone else. We will see another Lebron in our lifetime, we will never see another Bird in our lifetime (Duncan is probably the closest, but he really is his own beast. The other unique player we will never see is Barkley).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote