yeah, decent amount of lulz if you're bored...even a baseball analogy or two

Not necessarily. You've picked one part of the spectrum of players at which this currently might be the case. But the points all have to add up to the same number in the end, so there's going to be some other part of the spectrum where the opposite is true. For every point that LeBron created for the Cavs, some collection of guys got scored on with some distribution of responsibility, and there's some guy who's out there for the Cavs only for his defense because LeBron can cover a greater share of the offensive responsibility.

Yes, some teams make strategic decisions to sacrifice defense for offense, and this colors the stats. Similarly, some teams make strategic decisions to sacrifice offense for defense (Spurs have done ok doing this), and this also colors the stats. In the end, though, it all evens out.

There's a logical leap to be made from the assertion that there is more variance in offensive value (at least in terms of public metrics) to "offense is more important than defense to individual players."

this. assuming 100 technical free throws each.

Eh, not saying you're wrong, but I think that's a bit strong.

yah asked Thremp to give his polite input to the baseball reference since i know nothing about the baseballs other than the braves pitching is the tits

In actuality run prevention should be more valuable if they are equivalent in an absolute sense.

Take a league of 100 PA/PS. You have someone who provides either +10 or -10. The -10 is more valuable because each successive point is more valuable whereas points decrease in value in higher point environments.

Pythag shows this, not to mention some basic logic would help. I'm sure this will somehow spur a Phone Booth mini-epic.

The fact you are trying to analyze the situation with numbers when Royal Ivey plays 8 minutes of mostly garbage time per game is just hilarious to me. It just shows right away how incredibly messed up the thinking in this thread is.

Take whoever you want who is good at O but bad at D and vise versa, I really don't care... and compare their value. Are you telling me that the Mavs wouldn't trade Quinton Ross for...say...Jamal Crawford. The funny thing is, it takes me forever to think of a guy who is good at O and bad enough at D to count here, which makes it that much more obvious that Defense is something that can be done by a whole buttload of people, which inherently places a giant priority on offense.

This reminds me of poker arguments where people do some really complicated math problem to tell you that something is a call or a fold. It is a system that works if you have no instinct at all. But if your instinct tells you what a guy has and it is usually right, it significantly alters the math problem.

Guys, just report Pokeromglol for trolling.

Also:

http://www.wimp.com/surprisedkitty/

Such an awesome video

serious question-- are you a winning poker player

I read like 15 posts before. They weren't funny. They just made me angry. Victor almost solely makes me angry with his brand of posting/trolling/tilting.

It was pretty lolz though.

I usually just write him off as trolling but he seemed to take it pretty seriously today. Idk, maybe I just got leveled hard.

I think he's old. I generally assume young people are trolling and older people are just more limited in their cognition.

See I don't really see this at all. The only defense sacrificed for offense was playing Bowen over someone who is better than him at offense. But, SAS has such dominant offensive players in Parker, Duncan, and Manu, that not only could they afford to make this sacrifice, they can scheme to where Bowen is still effective on offense (shoot 40% from 3).

Another thing everyone seems to be overlooking is that almost every team is super talented offensively, so defense will decide who wins and who loses. My great offense team I posted earlier would absolutely destroy the living terrible balls out of my great defensive team because defense is less important than offense.

brag: saw bree olsen strip tonight

A google image search of "Bree Olson nude" reveals a woman of many talents

I mean I just can't even think of a word good enough to use to make fun of you for how ridiculous this logic is.

too lazy to go back and quote stuff:

kc: i dunno about synergy sports in basketball. i do know that i see their name pop up in a bunch of places wrt tracking things that aren't found in box score stats (post stats, things like that)

i actually had an idea to startup something similar to a Baseball Info Solutions for basketball, but I don't have the capital for that right now (or probably ever, unless I maybe set up shop in China, cheap labor + new love for basketball as a country ftw)

bobbo: teams are probably more ahead of the curve then you give them credit for. especially when you can get very cheap labor (sometimes even freesies from interns), I think a lot of teams probably do stuff that few know about. But, this is pretty key, just because you have teams tracking defensive stuff doesn't mean it's getting put into practice much. semantic argument maybe, but there's generally a long chain of command with these types of things, and the amount of filtering of the data/information from collector -> director basketball ops/head analyst -> gm type -> coach -> players could mean you'd see almost none of it in action

thremp: breakfast wat, unless you've betrayed america and joined the euros

serious answer: yes.


I always forget this place is full of a bunch giant computer nerd/math/magic people who think that their mountains of numbers are the one and only way to come to any conclusion and is just always correct and therefore completely inarguable.

kool

what about their philosophy regarding rebounding/transition defense

lol




no one has made any mention of anything being "inarguable." you have just made a poor string of analogies and arguments

royal ivey and nash? that's your basis? or selecting lebron-- a clear outlier in terms of offensive ability. that's not going to cut it and it has nada to do w/numbers

Its okay you don't get it because you aren't very smart or intuitive. If two job applicants are super duper ****ing awesome at everything, but one guy wears some emo pants to the interview and the other one wears some nice goddamn khaki pants that he ironed, he gets the job. So not wearing emo pants got him the job, even though being super duper ****ing awesome is clearly more important to whether you where some goddamn emo pants or some gaywad khakis.

See what happens when this thread turns away from off-topic material? Unreadable obv.

seriously the "i don't need you math nerds and your #'s b/c i have my intuition" is beyond lol. is that the sort of critical thinking that comes w/the english degree from your accredited univeristy

They have sacrificed offensive rebounding in favor of transition defense as a matter of strategy. This by its very nature reduces their offensive point output in favor of defensive point prevention.

How about Dennis Rodman vs. Dirk?

One of the greatest defenders/rebounders (I assume, I haven't looked up his arbitrary defensive acronym that depends on the other 9 players plus the 6 million variables yet) of all time vs. one of the greatest offenders (lol) of all time in Dirk, who has been widely criticized (also failed to look up his defensive acronym number as well) for his poor defense.

Now who would you rather.

Or does this one fail too because Dirk isn't bad enough at D bc he is 7 foot, stands in front of people, grabs simple rebounds sometimes, even blocks a shot or two per year, etc. (all because defense is way easier than offense to be good at.)

Dirk is better at offense than Rodman is at defense.