so you openly admit you need name recognition instead of facts to win an argument? Ha ha ha, what? 70%
I openly admit that stats don't tell the full story and letting teams know what teams they are picking between does, similar to it being a completely different question if you ask someone which C they would prefer by only listing numbers and not names.
Coming from the guy who says Wade is better than Kobe, and then uses nothing but stats to try and convince people of that? That's odd. Thing is, this isn't about individuals and what the name on the uniform is. It's about which team was the better defensively. An argument that you seem to be losing.
The thing is, every non-percentage stat here is a pace-based stat. Steals, blocks, turnovers forced, PPG, PPG against the opponent's average, it ALL depends on the game speed. So without accounting for pace, all you are really giving us is FG% and 3PT%. Thus, I didn't vote.
The original argument by icehouse was precisely that numbers, especially estimated metrics, don't show everything. There are many people here who actually watched both the 96 bulls and the 04 pistons. To have any meaningful vote, you should fully disclose the name of the teams. Otherwise no results will not vindicate your point
The problem is that you argue that teams in different era can be ranked by defensive stats alone and Icehouse begs to differ. So to prove your point, you open a vote by only listing the stats Where's the logic?
I would love to see one of my posts where I stated Wade is a better player than Bryant, overall? Care to point that out to us? I would even love to see where I stated that in the other thread that I created. I did think Wade had a better season than Kobe this year.
The logic is it keeps people like yourself voting simply because they see "90's Bulls" Those stats show anything you'd be looking at. It clearly shows that team A faced competition that scored at a slightly higher rate while showing that team B still allowed fewer points against league average then team A. It's the same logic you see on these boards everyday. People saying Scola is a beast, or Lee is one of the best players, so we need to keep him at all costs. Or Lowry is a top tier point guard. Name recognition is the absolute worst way to go about something like that.
Which would I prefer? I'll put it this way... if I had an elite center or even a PF who would not let his homophobic insecurities get the better of him, I'd rather play the Bulls. They were vulnerable to elite talent in the frontcourt. For all the praise heaped on Rodman, he would not be able to deal with an elite low post player unless they were concerned about touching him. The Pistons were the more complete defensive team. They had length and depth. I think they would still be vulnerable to an elite center who played within a team concept, but it would be a tougher go against their frontline.
I appreciate the comment, it seems some people are going off simply '90's Bulls, they must have been the best at everything' concept. Which is good when talking about what teams you like, but when it comes to actual basketball, you have to look past the name on the jersey and what players you liked as a kid.
I am curious how you are coming to this conclusion, or more specifically, which centers you are referring to as being insecure. Because the Bulls beat Ewing, Mourning, Shaq and the Smits/Davis/Davis frontline. The only center from that era that I felt was "insecure" was the one we beat, Robinson.
How does pace come into play in computing that metric? Are you saying a team can slow the game down and have better defensive numbers as a result (i.e. the JVG Rockets)?
Oh Karla was a wuss. But I constantly hear that the Bulls frontline couldn't handle centers, then I recall that they beat Shaq, Ewing (4 times), Daugherty (2 times), Mourning (2 times) and Smits.
Where is the points allowed per 100 possessions stat? That's the most important number in rating team defense.
*moved from other thread* Good posting. On the no-hand check rule's effect, sorry its a myth that its led to more fouls called in today's game than in the past. League average fouls per team in '93 = 1899 http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1993.html League average fouls per team in '04 = 1759 http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2004.html *I don't know the "pace adjusted" average per league but forget that now* Team "B" still has the better defense. They were just better compared to their league than Team "A" was to theirs. (Old timers can say "but the leauge as a whole was more COMPETITIVE then", but come on...)
if you'd included the regular season points differential, you would have seen a lot more for a, because well their regular season points differential was the greatest holy **** batman ever.
Yes. Anything that has a "per game" attached to it can depend much more on pace than skill. If you want to know the most effective defensive teams, you're going to have to look at shooting percentages, points per possession, rebound rates, assist rate and turnover rate of the opponent. If all you have is per game stats, then we should all be trying to emulate the Fort Wayne Pistons' epic defensive tactics.
