I'm using defensive rating in the same manner that you are. Individual and team defensive rating is the same metric, created by the same dude. One is just at an individual level. So if you are now saying the metric can't be used to rank or compare, then yes, you have a straw argument since that's exactly what you are using the metric for. And Hollinger uses PER to rank players all the time.
You are still putting enormous weight on that metric, which is just an estimate. If 103.1 means the 04 team was much better defensively, then the same logic should apply to other teams that finished in that range. It's the same logic!! It's clear you are just going to keep avoiding the question so I'll drop it. But it's evident you are relying on this metric only when it benefits your argument.
Thanks for finally answering. I doubt anyone agrees with you, especially concerning the defense of the 2nd 3-peat Bulls, but at least you responded. You do realize that the league eliminated hand checking after the 2004?
There isn't any defensive statistic that shows the 05-06 Pistons on par with the 04 Pistons defensively.
Of course there's not, because anything you look at shows the 04 Pistons destroying the 06, or the 94 Rockets, or the 94 Knicks, or the 96 Bulls, or the 97 Bulls. It seems facts and reality are something icehouse seems to want to debate.
And I like how he brings up the handchecking rule.......which 100% backs up my argument. If you could handcheck an opponent before 04, that means defense should have been better before, not after. But the 04 Pistons still had an overwhelming better defense than the teams that were allowed to do so. It's almost comical.
Icehouse is still butt hurt from the mega Lebron chokes once again... now he can't defend Lebron over Kobe.. so he as to pick Wade over Kobe now
I can entertain a debate on whether he thinks Wade has been better in the Finals, but to say Wade hasn't faced the easiest Finals opponents by far is laughable at best. On top of that, anyone who wants to look at the 04 Pistons entire season's work on defense and not tell me that was an absolute scary team is blind. They freaking gave up fewer than SEVENTY points in a game MORE times than they gave up over 95. No team can touch that, especially the Bulls during the 96 or 97 season.
Well, if you are going to entertain a debate it may help to get your facts straight. I readily admit Wade faced easier defenses then some of the defenses that Kobe faced in the Finals. I said I think he would do just fine against better defenses, since I kind of have support to show that he did. And Kobe has never had a Finals like Wade, no matter the defense, and the metric that you are using to support your position places the 04 Pistons over the other teams that I mentioned. You are entitled to your opinion but I feel confident in saying you are probably one of the few who think the 04 Pistons were a better defensive team than the 90's Bulls, Rockets and Knicks. That's laughable.
I posted facts, several of them. You're posting your opinion and simply stating that if other people think the same way that means it's a fact. I'm sorry that you think that's the way it works, but facts > your opinion.
If you look at stats per 36 mins, which is the fairest stat to look at fg % K < D 3p % K > D ppg K > D ft % K > D rpg K > D asp K < D spg K < D tpg K > D bpg K < D MVP K > D finals mvp K > D playoffs win share K > D (by almost 100%) titles K > D 5 to 1
You didn't post a fact. You posted a metric, which is a calculated estimate and not a raw number. They key word is "estimate". This is what you are stating as a fact and basing your conclusions on. Using the same metric for individuals, we would conclude that Duncan was a better defender than Hakeem (just applying the same logic, from the same metric). Using the same metric to compare the 04 Pistons to other teams, we would conclude that they were better defensively than all of the teams that I mentioned. And yes, I think you stand alone in here on that conclusion. In other words, the metric you are using has some pretty jacked conclusions. By the way, I fully agree that the 06 team wasn't as good defensievly as the 04 team. I just think the metric you are using to guage who was better isn't that reliable. Neither is noting that the Pistons held X number of teams under 70 points, because the Bulls, Rockets and Knicks weren't playing the same teams that they were. For example, if the 98 Bulls could hold the 98 Jazz (arguably the best offensive team that yr, with Malone and Stockton)...who scored 101 a night....to below 89 points in every Finals game and a record (?) 54 points, then I'm sure they would be just fine against most of the garbage teams the 04 Pistons faced in the East in 2004. And as far as staying on topic, the 05 Pistons were still a great defensive team. The 2010 Celtics were great enough to cause Kobe to have another subpar series and a miserable Game 7. Wade was great against them. I think Wade would fare just fine against elite defenses. The FACTS show that he has.
Let me make you feel a little more dumb one more time. Average team score in 97 was 96.9, the Bulls kept their opponents at 92.3 ppg. That's 4.6 under league average. Average team score in 96 was 98.5, the Bulls kept their opponents at 92.9 ppg. That's 5.6 under league average. Average team score in 04 was 93.2, the Pistons kept their opponents at 84.3 ppg. That's 8.9 under league average. Please please please try and take those stone cold numbers and make them say something else.
Problem is that Wade has only played the Mavs in the finals, which is a poor defensive team. Saying that you think he would "fare just fine against elite defenses" is nothing more than a guess---perhaps a considerably educated guess, but a guess nonetheless. Likewise, Lebron looked unstoppable this year. The line for the Heat to win it all right before the finals started was -200. But the -200 line, although an incredibly educated guess, was also a guess nonetheless.
You're not making me feel dumb because your reasoning is off. The Bulls and Pistons played in two completely different leagues/years. In other words, if I have more suck ass teams as opponents, especially in my conference, then it will probably be easier for me to keep their scoring down. That's why it's dumb to use an estimated metric to compare how teams were in 2 completely different seasons. If you want to conclude that the Pistons were better defensively than the 90's Bulls that's your perogative, but that's a pretty asinine conclusion IMO. And if you feel defensive rating is that relevant to use for rankings then your logic shouldn't change when it comes to using the same ranking to judge individual players. Now that's dumb, to only use it when it suits your argument. I honestly don't see how anyone that watched both teams play would make that conclusion, and I will tipjar bet you any reasonable amount of $$ that if we place a poll here on which team was better defensively (Pistons or Bulls) the 04 Pistons will not win. If you feel like I'm that dumb then put your $$ where your keypad is.
