The 04 Pistons finished 2nd and 2nd in defensive ratings. The 05 Pistons finished 2nd and 3rd in defensive ratings. Those are facts.
How is it a fact that the 04 Pistons were better than the 05 Pistons? The Pistons defensive rankings are actual facts, and it's silly to argue that "The "best" defense Wade faced in the playoffs would be a below average Finals opponent for Kobe" when he faced the same team in the very next season, when they were ranked the #2/#3 defensive team in basketball. It's also silly to argue "the 04 Pistons were significantly better than the 05 Pistons at limiting offensive production over the course of the season", based on one having a measure of 95.4 (2nd in league) and the other a measure of 101.2 (3rd in league). I guess the Pistons were also better defensively than every title winning Bulls team, based on these facts? 1991 - 105.2 1992 - 104.5 1993 - 106.1 1996 - 101.8 1997 - 102.4 1998 - 99.8 I also just realized that our 94 Rockets were an averag Finals opponent defensively, since their rating was a 101.4. I guess the Knicks we beat that year weren't as good as the Pistons either, with their 98.2 rating.
Pistons in 06 were over 103, so that IS a huge drop from 04. I'm not sure how you're arguing that one. No need to say the Celtics coasted the last 5 months of the season in '10, that's a given. But in the playoffs they gave up 100+ 5 times, same number of times they scored that much. Defense always wins, and when a team you're playing steps it up, you tend to do it also.
Although the argument over these two isn't something I care to debate. I'd take West's 1965, Russell's 1961, Shaq's 2000, or hell maybe even Drexler's 1990 finals.
Maybe because that rating still had them ranked #5 in defense that year. They were #3 going by ppg. The Bulls were above 103 every year of the first 3-peat. Are you going to argue that they weren't a great defensive team based on that metric? And yet Kobe still struggled against them?? Wade did just fine against some of the same defenses that Kobe faced in the Finals.
That's like arguing the top rated defense in 1987 was 106 a game, so they must have been real good, just because you're #1, or top 5 doesn't make up for the fact you're still scored upon at a worse rate than you were giving up just a few years ago. You said Celtics cruised during the season and turned it on during the playoffs, which they did, so of course Kobe would struggle.
The Pistons like the Celtics and Lakers last year started ****ing around in the regular season to an extent so its difficult to really tell what their peak was using regular season numbers.
One could argue Kobe did just fine in '10 against the same Celtics team, he had I think 3 games over 30 points, and 5 games over 25.
So are you arguing that the 3-peat Bulls were not a great defensive team, based on this metric? You kind of avoided the question. Are you arguing that the 04 Pistons were a better defensive team than all of the Chicago title winning teams (they have a better metric)? Or the 94 Rockets and Knicks? Defense in the 90's, pre these bs rule changes, was arguably tougher than defense in the 2000's. If you had to go to war with one of those groups you would put the 04 Pistons 1st (we are just talking defense), even over the 96 Bulls with MJ, Pippen, Rodman and Harper (their rating was 101.8 that season and they are generally thought of as one of the best defenses of all-time)? Yet Wade didn't. Which leads me to conclude that he would do just fine against great defenses, since he actually did. And that metric, which is used for the regular season, also shows why it makes no sense to say a team wasn't good defensively based on it. The Celtics were clearly a different team in the postseason than the regular season. Yet you throw the metric out there as if they weren't.
The funny thing is any Rockets fan that was around for 95 should know you can't always guage a team based on how they did in the regular season. Or like you say, anyone that has been watching the Lakers and Celtics coast in recent seasons. But that's not as laughable as someone actually saying the05 and 06 Pistons weren't great defensively.
I brought up the 90's Bulls, in response to certain teams supposedely not being that good defensively or having a huge drop-off defensively based on that metric. This is when the metric was first mentioned, to supposedely highlight that Wade faced didn't face good defenses: This poster then went on to dismiss the 05 & 06 Pistons based on this metric. Using the same metric, the 96 Bulls for example would be 5th with their 101.8 rating. Doesn't that sound a bit ridiculous? Doesn't it make more sense to say the 05 or 06 Pistons were one of the top defenses in the league based on them finishing 2nd or 3rd in whatever defensive metric you want to choose? If you are saying the 06 Pistons weren't that great because they had a metric of 103.1, then aren't you saying the 97 Bulls weren't that great defensively based on their metric of 102.4 (quite close)? Both finished top 5 defensively by the way. So again I ask, do you think the 04 Pistons (that's the squad you are touting) were better defensively than all of the Bulls title teams, the 94 Rockets and the 94 Knicks? Their metric is better than all of those teams.
The 04 Pistons were pretty elite defensively. I would put them in the same ballpark. The best is tough to choose.
Why is it ridiculous? Because the Bulls were overhyped? The Jordan era was on offensive era across the league. The early 00s was a defensive era. Its more impressive to put good numbers against the best defensive team in the league during a defensive era than put up the same identical numbers against the best defensive team in an offensive era. If you can't grasp that then its a lost cause.
I've watched Pistons basketball for years. The intensity of the Pistons following their championship dropped, year after year. I'm not a stats guy, but go ask anyone who watched Detroit basketball night-in and night-out, and they'll tell you the same thing.
Would they tell me that the 05 team wasn't still great defensively? I watched that team as well, and even went to Game 4 of that Finals in Detroit. It's laughable to say those teams were pushivers defensively.
The 90's were an offensive era and the 00's were a defensive era?? I think I've heard it all now. You're right about the lose cause part, if you are standing in front of a mirror.
