A doesn't play B for 10000 games. A plays 30 different teams. Just like B, and C, and .... Get it? And this conversation can't continue unless you try to read the entire post, instead of picking out phrases like that. I'm not going to repeat myself over and over anymore.
What does the fact that Detroit was below their season average have to do with anything? If anything, you're just proving his point further. Should it be any shock that a team that makes the finals is able to play good enough defense to hold their competitor to below their season average? Detroit won the series by holding LA to even FARTHER below their season average. It was a defensive battle. And that is directly related to why Kobe sucked so much. Then why post in it? Haha, this was never supposed to be an argument about offense versus defense, anyways. It was supposed to be about whether or not (and why) people really believed Rafer could keep up his play. And if he did relapse, how badly would it hurt the team in the playoffs.
Why to be encouraged. Its not just hot shooting from downtown. If anything, save the last few games, his 3pt has been down since T-Mac has been back. But his driving finishes have continued, and its something that you have to see as continuing.
I do read your entire post, and I do understand your points. But clearly, as i pointed out, something is wrong. It really doesn't matter, A plays B for 30 games, or A plays B, C, D, E ... There is an issue for one game, how can you overcome it for 30 games? It is just ridiculous. .
Clearly, you did NOT understand all my points: [rquoter]You're getting stuck on this issue that your offense is determine by your opponent's defense. The right way to look at it is that your offense is determined by how many points you score against some baseline opponent. That is, if every team faced the same opponent, then you can rank them by offense and defense based on points scored/allowed per possession. This should be obvious. Now, because over an entire season every team plays roughly a similar schedule, you again can rank the teams offense and defense, since on average they are playing the same opponents. [/rquoter] Maybe you should sleep on it.
I so admire your stats guys. You guys can create something from nothing, wow. Let me tell you again, all those numbers are just stats, they are not facts. And they are fully depended on how to interpret them. Please don't tell me they are facts. .
Rafer shoots 39% from the field. Dang, that means he misses 61% of the shots he takes. Or were there other interpretations?? Seems to me the only two ways to look at it. Stick to the topic fellas.
I told him/her there is a big issue for one game, then he replied that he could overcome it by 30 games' stats. I do think he can make something from nothing, wow. .
30 games shows more of a trend than one game. Heck, based on one game Rafer is averaging 23 ppg and shooting 45% from the floor with 7 APG. 30 games shows Rafer closer to 11ppg with +- 40% shooting and 6 APG.
All it means is, the game wasn't just a defensive heavy dominated game by the Pistons and someone had to score some points to win. It's not proving his point at all, and while some of DET defense made Kobe somewhat ineffective, they couldn't do anything with Shaq, but Kobe decided NOT to give him the ball. Had Kobe passed the ball Shaq could've dominated as he was having his way with the defense. I'm not speaking of this thread, as it was supposed to be a thread about Rafer, but this guy has lead a hijacking about defense, and isn't talking anything about Rafer. That's my point Super, and it's why i said it's worthless what he's talking about. He directly hijacked the thread going on about something that's not changing anyone's mind.
I frankly don't know what you're talking about. You're the one asserting that "offense is a dominant factor" and "offense >> defense". And yet, you don't even have a clear idea of what offense is, or how it's separate from defense. The idea of using points scored/allowed per possession to evaluate offense and defense originated way back in 50s with Dean Smith. It's pretty basic, fundamental stuff. But you want to dismiss it as "just stats, not facts". Whatever. This conversation is clearly headed no where.
That is NOT what I said. A plays against the entire league. Just like every other team. That means that the opponents faced by every team, on average, has roughly the same offensive and defensive capabilities. That means you can rate any team's offense based on how many points they score on average (since they are all facing similar competition). And you can rate a team's defense based on how many points they allow for the same reason. I don't know how I can be any more clear. To make it a little more concrete: suppose A plays B and C plays B. In 90 possessions, A scores 100 points against B, and gives up 90 points. And in a similar number of possessions, C scores 110 points against B, and it gives up 100 points. Based on that info, assuming B played at a similar level against both teams, we can say that C had a better offensive game than A, while A had a better defensive game than C (do you understand why?). Now extend that same principle to a 30-team league and 82-game schedule.
is it too late to trade him? Rafer is not a point guard, he is a point "loser", he gives nothing on the fast break, and takes way too many shots, and i never seen him once bust out his overrated AND-1 moves.... trade his ass!!!
It's cute how your entire existence is devoted to the hatred of Rafer Alston. Unfortunately for you though, nobody cares.
Alston is about the worst starting PG in the league. Typically, if someone is outmatched they know how to 'play within the game' not Raef... let's drive the lane and throw up that ugly a$$ teardrop that falls like 10% of the time. I've said it continuously, Alston may have a good night, even possibly a good week and who the heck knows maybe he can even put together a longer stretch... but in the end he'll turn back into the toad he is. As long as he's our best option at PG I don't see us ever making a real run at a title. I wish I was wrong. I wish Raefer was the guy who was gonna help take us to the 'promised land' - but it ain't gonna happen. And moreso, if Addleminded RA doesnt have any more sense than to run Alston 30+ minutes a night, we can call it a season now, guys, and save ourselves the aggravation to come. Sorry to come off as sooooooo negative, but this freakin Alston thing has been driving me crazy for a year and the apparent lack of acknowledgement and inaction by the powers that be in the organization have only fueled that attitude.
maybe by playoff time....brooks can cut deeper into rafer's minutes....its the only hope we can have because we wont be making any trades any time soon and brooks is our only pg with potential to grow
I do know what offense or defense is, until now, I still don't how to separate them from games' stats. As I said in my thread earlier, to me the thing is, you can't look offense/defense in details, you can only look offense/defense in the big picture. It is not that easy, which I keep saying and as you know, I spent a whole thread trying to prove offense is the dominant factor, and I did try to prove it by the big picture only, so far, seems it isn't very successful for most of you, but I'm positive. I even feel more confident when time is passing by. By the way, haven't DD told you that "you only see trees in the forests"? Haven't someone told you that "watching games is better than watching numbers"? Seems you still didn't understand it, let me say it over again. Team A plays against B. In a single possession, A scores 2pts, solely based on this 2pts, there is no way to tell the difference from the following combination: case1 A's good offense and B's good defense; case2 A's good offense and B's normal defense; case3 A good offense and B bad defense; case4 A normal offense and B normal defense; case5 A normal offense and B bad defense; case6 A bad offense and B bad defense; .... Similarly, in a single game (100 possessions), A wins B by 95-89, solely based on this 95-89, there is no way to tell the difference from the combination of good/bad on offense/defense. Clearly, it means there is no relative defense/offense information in a single game's numbers such as 95-89. Which also means that nothing is there in the stats such as 95-89 (100 possessions). Now, how can you overcome it by a large sample of games (stats from many teams), and use some fancy stat technic to find out which team is good/bad on offense/defense? You really can create something from nothing, it must be a miracle, isn't it? I believe it doesn't matter how great stats is, you can only create something else from something, right? As for the teams' ranking/rating (which you keep saying), most of them are stats, not facts. Teams' W-L ranking is a real ranking, it is a fact. But teams' offensive efficiency ranking/rating is a stat ranking/rating, it is not a fact. Please don't confuse/mislead stats with facts. I do like stats. But, many stats are not facts, which is a fatal weakness for some of you stats guys. Please excuse my ignorance if I'm wrong, I believe the foundation of stats must be some assumptions. When you apply stats in NBA, the assumptions, which have been made by you stats guys, are still questionable. Durvasa, believe it or not, I did fully understand all your points and understand what were you trying to say. But the problem is, to create "something" from nothing, you (you stats guys) must make plenty of assumptions. Would you please let me know what assumptions are made there? Are you sure those assumptions are perfect? Later, to make "something" looked soundly, you must try to turn the assumptions into truths. After all these creative hard works, finally, you create beautiful "facts" from nothing. How great it is? Who are you trying to fool? This is the reason why I "admire" some of you stats guys (not all of you). .
blackbird, there's nothing miraculous about it. This is simple logic. I see that I need to break this down into steps for you, because you're not following the logic. If Team A scores 100 points against Team B, you're right that tells you nothing about Team A's offense or Team B's defense. But suppose Team A scores 100 points against Team B, while in another game Team C scores 110 points against Team B (in a similar number of possessions). If Team B plays the same "level of defense" against both teams, then we can say that Team C played better offense than Team A. Do you agree or disagree? Answer that question, and I will proceed.
