da f.ck do u keep beaking about winshares so much for when u just said u dont know how they are calculated but assume it is bogus. i know you said dws but u were talking about overall shares before and why would offensive shares be any less bogus

it's hilarious, let him go on

here is the level lebron needs to play at tommorrow... game 7 vs knicks 1992 - as good as mj's ever played... (i have to post this now, because pacers get blownied by 20+ tommorrow)

i suppose he doesn't need to play at this level if pacers are getting blownied. which they are. nonetheless... he's in killer mode here, ready to go to blows w/ x, protecting b*tch scottie



mj in 1992... his peak year imo.. not statistically, but he had most of his post footwork and the jump-shot was wet. i bet he completely destroys all of today's players with his mid-range accuracy.

and ofc he still had some hippities.
.

because i saw no statistical way defense could be measured accurately, the way offense can be, so i haven't bothered to look, although i will now.

maybe they do it by on-off floor stats, but that is whack.

yeah, defensive win share sharts with defensive rating, which is an estimate of points allowed per 100 possessions for an individual player.

just reading that you know it is impossible to estimate this.

then they throw in a massive caveat at the end in the footnotes that i wish i had read first:

Out of necessity (owing to a lack of defensive data in the basic boxscore), individual Defensive Ratings are heavily influenced by the team's defensive efficiency. They assume that all teammates are equally good (per minute) at forcing non-steal turnovers and non-block misses (lol), as well as assuming that all teammates face the same number of total possessions per minute.

lol gasol

so can you see how offensive win share is not as bogus as defensive win share?

offensive win share measures how much offensive production a player gives over and above what the average production is of guys playing the same number of pace-adjusted possessions.

this is far more tangible. so kerr was able to produce at a far higher level than the typical guy playing his minutes/possessions.

contrastingly, ray allen and chalmers are not performing at as high a level above the typical guy playing their same minutes/possessions.

and it's the diametrically opposing styles of the two leaders (mj and lebron) that is causing this difference.

I lol'd when I saw Roger Murdock as a poll option.

I lol'd again when I saw he had 0 votes

Probably mostly because they're just running cold on shots right now, but if there's a reason that the Bulls role players overperformed, I'd say the coaching they got from Phil Jackson is likely to be a lot bigger factor than the coaching they got from MJ. The fact that you're blaming LeBron for Ray Allen missing open shots is just utterly insane to me.

kerr was great those years bc of the short 3pt line. this should be extrememly obvious looking at his ts% year by year. he also might be the goat open shooter anyway, shot 57% his senior yr in college and 47/50% from 3 his first years in the league on two different teams without mj. anyway lebrons biggest critics have never questioned his ability to create open looks for role players/shooters, this argument is terrible

like the video tho. feel like ewing kinda got screwed the way his career played out. did he play with ANY good wing/scorer during his prime? starks had highlights but wasnt very good. got spree/houston/larry johnson but not until he was like 35

if wade gets 17 pts on 7-11fg with 11reb and 11ast like scottie did in game 7 pretty sure the heat cruise even if lebron only gets his usual poverty line of 27/7/6

that's because many critics and pundits don't know what we know in itt. they are just now getting put on to it.

lebron plays the pg style and generally takes his time making decisions, so substantially all of ray ray's looks come off of penetration where the defense can see the penetration coming and is closing out better.... as opposed to kerr's looks, which come with more time on the clock, and the look better because it is initiated off more unpredictable post play.

it's not a quantitative argument (although plenty of numbers could be applied to it), but it shouldn't be hard to understand either.

so kerr gets better looks than ray ray does. kerr got phenomenal looks.

and it has 100% to do with the difference in style of play of lebron and mj... one guy likes to take his time with the ball and spends time dribbling the ball a lot more, and the other guy operates more off the catch and acts very quickly, which intuitively, gives teammates more time to handle the rock and be threats.

as a result, lebron leads one playmaker teams, mj led multiple playmaker teams.

multiple playmaker teams > one playmaker teams. i'll say it until my fingers go numb.
.

see that's my point.

how is wade supposed to help lebron like scottie helped mj if lebron is dominating the ball, operating primarily from perimeter, playing pg style, being a 6'8" cp3?

if he doesn't do any of these things (like mj) wade has a chance to help him more, and teammates' ws becomes more commensurate with their talent because bron doesn't have the ball all the time.

and wade gets slammed because he wants to be the 2nd playmaker so they are a tougher team?

it's a great argument.

capone0 wishes he knew how to quit trainwreckog

Damn shats fired

So let me get this straight, when the Bulls went 57-25 in 1993, MJ was making everyone better. When the Bulls went 55-27 without him the following year...

Which is it?

LeBron has a ton of help. The Heat are a great team. Could they have gone two wins under their pace of last year? LOL.

This Heat team is stacked, but there's still a very low margin of error for their offensive mistakes. When the Heat win, its usually because of great team defense; when they lose, it's usually because people miss too many shots and the Heat don't rebound well enough for this to not kill possessions.

Beast isn't really the right word. He scored well and no one else could really really rebound in Toronto.

Ron Harper after injuries was still capable of being the best player on a bad team when he joined the Bulls. It was pretty much never accepted that Harper was a bum on those Bulls. There was no question that the 5th-best player on the 2nd 3-peat bunch couldve been the best or 2nd-best player on a ton of teams at that time.



DWS gauges play making and is therefore highly flawed. But no more flawed than whacking off on game-winning final-second shots.

Thanks for posting that video, trainwreckog.

Keep fighting the good fight. Lebron ain't even close.

The bulls were 15-4 in the 1993 playoffs and won the championship.
In 1994 the bull were 6-4 and knocked out in the 2nd round.

.

If we're gonna play "watch the games" and ignore the quantifiable production of Jordan's teammates, go back and re-watch that '94 Bulls-Knicks series.

A.) Knicks and Pacers were insanely awesome that year.
B.) Bulls were super close to taking that Knicks series.
C.) Those Bulls would've had similar results than the Knicks for the rest of the playoffs.

Sure, with Jordan, the Bulls win the east that year and likely the Finals, but the gap between the Bulls and the Rockets/Knicks/Pacers that year wasn't very large; the best player in the league tends to do that for top tier teams. Take LeBron off of this Heat team and the gap between them some of the West teams is much larger.

This happened with the series 2-2



Then, this happened in game 6, despite Pippen shooting a horrid 5-for-16 shooting night with four turnovers (he arguably collapsed after the Game 5 call).

Bulls were totally legit. Don't even.

Bulls were always better when Pippen sat out the final seconds

don't even what? there is a massive difference between 2nd round exit and a 3-peat, wouldn't you think?

because that was the difference between the bulls with and without mj.

the 1994 season shows the type of heart that the bulls had as 3-time defending champs - they learned from the best - but it only showed the extent to which they were inferior without mj.

Everyone knows that Ewing's Knicks lacked The Clutch Gene though.