What % of TMACs career do you contribute to his time in Orlando?

[Xatticus]

Once again... it's your logic I'm critiquing; not my own. My position is that this acrobatic apologism is irrelevant when attempting to discern the defensive impact of a player.

You're not making this conversation easier.

Let me make it easier for you and I both because you're making this NEEDLESSLY complicated.

1. It's clear you're critiquing my argument... That's obvious... Everything else you've said in the first sentence doesn't make any sense.

2. What YOU'RE not understanding is the fact that you keep on acting like I've somehow changed my argument over and over again (technically misrepresenting me). You can cite me anywhere and its clear as day I haven't switched or altered from my base arguments while I can (and have) continually have seen you post conflicting post about your ongoing points. That's what the countless quotes are for.

I'm clearly a guy who will apologize and own up to my post. Once again, it would be nice to cite me on where I've been "Acrobatic" in argument. I've consistently said high usage players are usually great AND advanced stats don't tell the whole story. I'd like to be shown where I've differentiated from those sentiments.

One-fifth of all first team defensive players are point guards because there is a slot on the first team specifically reserved for them; not because they account for one-fifth of the top defenders in the league in any given year. I couldn't care less what position someone plays when determing their defensive impact. That's your argument; not mine.

3. What I pointed out and for some reason you don't understand or refuse to accept is that you created a double standard. You clearly said you can't compare a PG's Defensive production to Swing Man's because they have different responsibilities. Yet, I point out the fact that you're comparing a Swingman's Defensive Production to a Big Man's though they also have different responsibilities (in which YOU YOURSELF POINTED OUT IN THE POINTS I CITED). Unless you have a comprehension issue that's been my issue with that specific portion of your argument.

4. Well since YOU FIRST referenced DBPM with two different player who play two different positions with no context. That's how the argument went this far.

Plus, if Gary Payton won DPOTY in 96 with a 1.4 DBPM, is Pau Gasol a better defender than him because he had a higher DBPM for the majority of his career? I mean that's the logic you're rolling with now using DBPM with no context...

Again, you can't have it both ways here. Either DPBM is comparable to each player regardless of position (Meaning Vucevic is a better defender than Chris Paul); OR the DPBM in each position from PG, Swing Man, Big Man, can only compare players with other players who are within the same positions (Like Comparing Mark Gasol to DeAndre Jordan and/or comparing Kawhi Leonard to LeBron James).

Kobe Bryant wasn't a poor defender compared to bigs. He was a poor defender. Period. He had one very good defensive year (1999-2000). The rest of his career fluctuated from slightly above average to very poor defensively with a net that fell well below average (-530.17 DPS; -0.6 DBPM).

I'll admit Kobe didn't deserve Defensive All-NBA teams in the latter portions of his career. But he was a GREAT defender when he was younger. That's how he was able to live off the reputation of being a great defender because of what he did during the Shaq era.

Cumulative Total Points Added (TPA) during the Gasol/Bryant championship seasons:
Gasol: 545.28
Bryant: 459.33

This is despite Kobe's massive advantages in usage in each season, which is a significant factor in accumulation statistics like Offensive Points Added (OPA) or OBPM. Again, Bryant was a very good offensive player. He simply wasn't anywhere near as efficient as O'Neal or Gasol in those five championship seasons.

Cumulative TPA during the O'Neal/Bryant championship seasons:
O'Neal: 1,329.44
Bryant: 753.30

The season following the last Lakers championship with O'Neal on the roster was the season in which Bryant accumulated his highest career TPA (419.45). Clyde Drexler never won an MVP award. His name never comes up in the discussion of the greatest player in NBA history. He had five seasons higher than Kobe's highest. Only Bryant's best season would've fallen within Pippen's top six (3rd) and within Karl Malone's top nine (4th).

Number of seasons with higher TPA values than Kobe Bryant's highest of his career (centers have been intentionally omitted):
Pippen: 2
Westbrook: 3
Curry: 3
Paul: 3
Harden: 3
Malone: 3
Drexler: 5
Magic: 6
Barkley: 7
Bird: 7
Jordan: 9
LeBron: 12

Kevin Love (2014), Andrei Kirilenko (2004), and Giannis Antetokounmpo (2017) each have a season higher than Bryant's highest as well. This list is not comprehensive. Feel free to look all of this up:
https://nbamath.com/nba-individual-seasons/

Consistently looking for more numbers to prove your point. Yet, I'm the one who is using "acrobatic apologism"?

You are cherry-picking because your entire argument is built on looking at championship teams. You are simply neglecting to mention all of the high usage players on poor or middling teams. They are there. It's a statistical necessity that someone has to have high usage when other players on the team have low usage. It benefits teams (good and bad) to distribute a larger share of usage to their most efficient players. It's the efficiency that's important; not the usage.

Okay I won't "Cherry pick" as you say.

But my question is you don't run your offense through you best players, even if they're on a bad team?

The article on Bradley wasn't to disprove your argument that Bradley is an "elite" defender (though it's a position I would definitely argue). The article attempted to reconcile the differences in perception and advanced metrics as they regard Bradley. I can only presume that you didn't read the article, because it wasn't actually damning his abilities.

Should've read thoroughly the article, but why even bring it up if it apparently doesn't support your argument in multiple ways? That mean's you agree with my point of the stats not being representative of a player's output.

Plus, why bring this up now? You could've brought this up several post ago...

It wasn't your insinuation. You called what I said an insinuation and I corrected you in that it was an explicit statement; as opposed to an insinuation. This is something I'd ordinarily ignore for the sake of the actual debate, but it's worth pointing out that this is an actual example of semantics. Purposively altering my statements is not semantics... that would be revisionism.

Again, you said I've misrepresented or insinuated a lot of what you've said with multiple quotes. either you or I pulled up your initial quotes in previous conversation and pretty much my "insinuations" or "misrepresentations" didn't happen. That's what I'm pointing out because you consistently accused me of both this whole time.

Once again... it's your logic I'm calling into question. I've been very straightforward on the matter of defense. I don't care what position someone plays when determining their defensive impact. Bigs obviously have a greater impact on team defense than do point guards, but it's an irrelevant consideration. Statistics and advanced metrics do not care what position you play. They only care about what you do on the court. If your primary functions on the court are shot-blocking and rebounding, you'd expect that to manifest statistically. This notion that credit for defensive contributions should be evenly distributed among positions is absurd on its face. This is the "acrobatics" I'm referring to. It's like saying that Gordon Hayward is the best white basketball player in the NBA. It's an unnecessary consideration.

My question for you is (and has been)... why do you continue to lump Bryant in with point guards to make your point when you've repeatedly made it clear that you don't believe we can compare players of different positions at the defensive end? If you wish to demonstrate that Bryant was a good defensive player, then compare him to other wings. Your are violating your own logical prerogative by questioning the validity of DBPM as it relates to point guards in an effort to defend Bryant.

Yes. Gary Payton was undeserving of his DPOY award, though he might've been deserving of his first team all-defense selection. By any advanced metric, Payton was the fourth most valuable defender on his own team in that season. Yes. Pau Gasol has provided more defensive value than Gary Payton did. Derek Jeter didn't deserve any of the gold glove awards he received either. The media votes for these awards. The media is often wrong.

Yes. Most teams do try to run their offense through their best players. In practice, this isn't always the case. Vucevic had the highest usage on Orlando last year even though he wasn't among the team's most efficient offensive players. This was a long road to travel to get back to where we started... The Lakers would've been a better team if a larger share of the team's offense went to Pau Gasol.

The article on Bradley doesn't agree with your point about stats not being representative. It is attempting to reconcile the differences in perceptions and advanced metrics. The article is actually a tacit confirmation of the representative nature of the metrics in question. Statistics are absolutely representative of something, but they can also carry imprecision. This is why we examine all data that is available to us. The article's conclusion is that Bradley is a significant liability in certain situations, while also being exceptionally valuable in others. I posted the link to the article for the purposes of edification. I don't "look for numbers to prove my point." I examine the information available in an effort to uncover the truth. The goal here isn't to win internet pissing contests, but rather to reach the truth.

The only times I've made specific mention of misrepresentations:
Blaming the decay of the Magic roster on McGrady.
The Lakers won DESPITE Kobe Bryant.
Kobe Bryant was a counterproductive player.
I dislike Kobe Bryant.

I don't take any of this personally, but it's impossible to debate with someone that is misquoting your statements and then arguing against claims you never made. I ignore condescension. I do not respond in kind. It does nothing to advance a debate.

[JF5]

Once again... it's your logic I'm calling into question. I've been very straightforward on the matter of defense.

Unless this is some sort of one way conversation where nothing I say is relevant this is supposed to be a conversation. So consistently saying you're calling out my logic in this situation is pointless since we're trying to debate each other on each others POV.

I don't care what position someone plays when determining their defensive impact. Bigs obviously have a greater impact on team defense than do point guards, but it's an irrelevant consideration. Statistics and advanced metrics do not care what position you play.

If your primary functions on the court are shot-blocking and rebounding, you'd expect that to manifest statistically.

Okay since you've said this... Is it okay to compare a Wing Player to a Big's DBPM given that they have a great impact than a guard or wing player?

This notion that credit for defensive contributions should be evenly distributed among positions is absurd on its face. This is the "acrobatics" I'm referring to.

That's false, I never insinuated or said that defensive contributions should be evenly distributed... As a matter of fact I alluded to this earlier that big men statically have a greater impact than any other position on the court. That's why I used it to counter you using DBPM in comparing Gasol and Kobe because it favors Big men more than a Wing or PG. I've said this several times but you kept on saying it was comparable, but I guess you didn't thoroughly read my prior post.

My question for you is (and has been)... why do you continue to lump Bryant in with point guards to make your point when you've repeatedly made it clear that you don't believe we can compare players of different positions at the defensive end? If you wish to demonstrate that Bryant was a good defensive player, then compare him to other wings. Your are violating your own logical prerogative by questioning the validity of DBPM as it relates to point guards in an effort to defend Bryant.

Are you joking right now? I said this several post ago... MULTIPLE TIMES, unless you're having a hard time reading or you're not reading my post thoroughly I've alluded to it.

This is what I've been trying to say for several post which you've glossed over until now. That's why you can't really compare a Bigs defensive contributions compared to Wings. They'll always have the upper hand. You can only compare a Bigs Contributions to other big since they've got similar responsibilities.

You, again proved my point with that one sentence then contradicted yourself with the bolded statements. You said you can't compare impacts with point guards with wings, while in turn comparing the impact of Kobe (a wing player) and Gasol (a Big Man).

3. What I pointed out and for some reason you don't understand or refuse to accept is that you created a double standard. You clearly said you can't compare a PG's Defensive production to Swing Man's because they have different responsibilities. Yet, I point out the fact that you're comparing a Swingman's Defensive Production to a Big Man's though they also have different responsibilities (in which YOU YOURSELF POINTED OUT IN THE POINTS I CITED). Unless you have a comprehension issue that's been my issue with that specific portion of your argument.

Either DPBM is comparable to each player regardless of position (Meaning Vucevic is a better defender than Chris Paul); OR the DPBM in each position from PG, Swing Man, Big Man, can only compare players with other players who are within the same positions (Like Comparing Mark Gasol to DeAndre Jordan and/or comparing Kawhi Leonard to LeBron James).

You complain I have not read certain things. But you're not just pointing out a point I've pointed out WAAAAYYYY TOO MANY TIMES. Either you're not understanding what I'm saying you're just not reading enough of my post.

Yes. Gary Payton was undeserving of his DPOY award, though he might've been deserving of his first team all-defense selection. By any advanced metric, Payton was the fourth most valuable defender on his own team in that season. Yes. Pau Gasol has provided more defensive value than Gary Payton did. Derek Jeter didn't deserve any of the gold glove awards he received either. The media votes for these awards. The media is often wrong.

This is the 3rd time you've alluded to someone not deserving an award in this argument. Seems like awards and accolades won by players don't have any context in argument UNLESS YOU AGREE WITH IT. You clearly don't respect the consensus opinion.

Yes. Most teams do try to run their offense through their best players. In practice, this isn't always the case. Vucevic had the highest usage on Orlando last year even though he wasn't among the team's most efficient offensive players. This was a long road to travel to get back to where we started... The Lakers would've been a better team if a larger share of the team's offense went to Pau Gasol.

That's my point... Your team's best players will always have the highest usage even on the worst teams... The best players in the league in general have the highest usage because the offense is consistently ran through them with success (This is why Superstars/Stars matter). Kobe was one of the highest used player on probably the top 2-3 best offense in the league for 3 seasons, and he won two titles as "The Man" of his squad.

This equivalent usage is a myth because running your offense through Kenneth Faried's or the Josh Smiths don't work. You run it through a guy who will most likely give you the best chance to score. Its not a difficult theory/thought.

The article on Bradley doesn't agree with your point about stats not being representative. It is attempting to reconcile the differences in perceptions and advanced metrics. The article is actually a tacit confirmation of the representative nature of the metrics in question. Statistics are absolutely representative of something, but they can also carry imprecision. This is why we examine all data that is available to us. The article's conclusion is that Bradley is a significant liability in certain situations, while also being exceptionally valuable in others. I posted the link to the article for the purposes of edification. I don't "look for numbers to prove my point." I examine the information available in an effort to uncover the truth. The goal here isn't to win internet pissing contests, but rather to reach the truth.

Didn't means stats meant nothing (I said that incorrectly). But rather half the time they mean nothing and the rest is the eye test which is what what he said. I've said this multiple times as well but again its apparent you're not reading my point thoroughly and just posting just to have a retort.

The only times I've made specific mention of misrepresentations:
Blaming the decay of the Magic roster on McGrady.
The Lakers won DESPITE Kobe Bryant.
Kobe Bryant was a counterproductive player.
I dislike Kobe Bryant.

I looked back and again I wasn't really off into any of these "misrepresentations". The context is missing, or I don't explain fully what I mean.

1. I never said that you said McGrady was to blame for the Roster decay. That makes no sense...
I've said McGrady shouldn't be to blame for the team advancing because the roster was progressively getting worse, and management couldn't upgrade the roster. Plus, I was referencing the circumstances that McGrady was being thrust into, and I ended up apologizing for it though now that apology makes no sense now given you misread what I wrote.

2. Yeah you said the Lakers won despite of Kobe's chucking and being a ballhog. You said Gasol and Odom should've got the ball more. The context was missed and I probably didn't explain it correctly.

3. Context here again, You said his usage was counterproductive which is alluded to with the "Chucking" and "Bogarted the Ball" statement that you said. point 2 and 3 are essentially one argument/point...

4. Context, again... And I said you didn't like his play style (Which is true).

To be honest looking back at this whole Conversation, seems like you're either not reading my points or you just don't understand what I'm saying. Context is completely being lost and you've constantly said I've purposely misrepresented you.

I don't take any of this personally, but it's impossible to debate with someone that is misquoting your statements and then arguing against claims you never made. I ignore condescension. I do not respond in kind. It does nothing to advance a debate.

You've claimed that I've made wild claims of "Trumpism" and said that I was an "Acrobatic Apologist"... I've yet to insult you... Yet you're able to identify my condescension but I have to repeat myself 4-5 times on the same point.

This conversation has become difficult because we're not coming to any sort of understanding. I agree with some of your points and you agree with mine, but continue to argue the points that you essentially agree with so you won't lose ground. Again, I have no problem saying I'm wrong or made a mistake. Seems like you have difficulty in doing that yourself.

[Xatticus]

Once again... it's your logic I'm calling into question. I've been very straightforward on the matter of defense.

Unless this is some sort of one way conversation where nothing I say is relevant this is supposed to be a conversation. So consistently saying you're calling out my logic in this situation is pointless since we're trying to debate each other on each others POV.

I don't care what position someone plays when determining their defensive impact. Bigs obviously have a greater impact on team defense than do point guards, but it's an irrelevant consideration. Statistics and advanced metrics do not care what position you play.

If your primary functions on the court are shot-blocking and rebounding, you'd expect that to manifest statistically.

Okay since you've said this... Is it okay to compare a Wing Player to a Big's DBPM given that they have a great impact than a guard or wing player?

This notion that credit for defensive contributions should be evenly distributed among positions is absurd on its face. This is the "acrobatics" I'm referring to.

That's false, I never insinuated or said that defensive contributions should be evenly distributed... As a matter of fact I alluded to this earlier that big men statically have a greater impact than any other position on the court. That's why I used it to counter you using DBPM in comparing Gasol and Kobe because it favors Big men more than a Wing or PG. I've said this several times but you kept on saying it was comparable, but I guess you didn't thoroughly read my prior post.

My question for you is (and has been)... why do you continue to lump Bryant in with point guards to make your point when you've repeatedly made it clear that you don't believe we can compare players of different positions at the defensive end? If you wish to demonstrate that Bryant was a good defensive player, then compare him to other wings. Your are violating your own logical prerogative by questioning the validity of DBPM as it relates to point guards in an effort to defend Bryant.

Are you joking right now? I said this several post ago... MULTIPLE TIMES, unless you're having a hard time reading or you're not reading my post thoroughly I've alluded to it.

This is what I've been trying to say for several post which you've glossed over until now. That's why you can't really compare a Bigs defensive contributions compared to Wings. They'll always have the upper hand. You can only compare a Bigs Contributions to other big since they've got similar responsibilities.

You, again proved my point with that one sentence then contradicted yourself with the bolded statements. You said you can't compare impacts with point guards with wings, while in turn comparing the impact of Kobe (a wing player) and Gasol (a Big Man).

3. What I pointed out and for some reason you don't understand or refuse to accept is that you created a double standard. You clearly said you can't compare a PG's Defensive production to Swing Man's because they have different responsibilities. Yet, I point out the fact that you're comparing a Swingman's Defensive Production to a Big Man's though they also have different responsibilities (in which YOU YOURSELF POINTED OUT IN THE POINTS I CITED). Unless you have a comprehension issue that's been my issue with that specific portion of your argument.

Either DPBM is comparable to each player regardless of position (Meaning Vucevic is a better defender than Chris Paul); OR the DPBM in each position from PG, Swing Man, Big Man, can only compare players with other players who are within the same positions (Like Comparing Mark Gasol to DeAndre Jordan and/or comparing Kawhi Leonard to LeBron James).

You complain I have not read certain things. But you're not just pointing out a point I've pointed out WAAAAYYYY TOO MANY TIMES. Either you're not understanding what I'm saying you're just not reading enough of my post.

Yes. Gary Payton was undeserving of his DPOY award, though he might've been deserving of his first team all-defense selection. By any advanced metric, Payton was the fourth most valuable defender on his own team in that season. Yes. Pau Gasol has provided more defensive value than Gary Payton did. Derek Jeter didn't deserve any of the gold glove awards he received either. The media votes for these awards. The media is often wrong.

This is the 3rd time you've alluded to someone not deserving an award in this argument. Seems like awards and accolades won by players don't have any context in argument UNLESS YOU AGREE WITH IT. You clearly don't respect the consensus opinion.

Yes. Most teams do try to run their offense through their best players. In practice, this isn't always the case. Vucevic had the highest usage on Orlando last year even though he wasn't among the team's most efficient offensive players. This was a long road to travel to get back to where we started... The Lakers would've been a better team if a larger share of the team's offense went to Pau Gasol.

That's my point... Your team's best players will always have the highest usage even on the worst teams... The best players in the league in general have the highest usage because the offense is consistently ran through them with success (This is why Superstars/Stars matter). Kobe was one of the highest used player on probably the top 2-3 best offense in the league for 3 seasons, and he won two titles as "The Man" of his squad.

This equivalent usage is a myth because running your offense through Kenneth Faried's or the Josh Smiths don't work. You run it through a guy who will most likely give you the best chance to score. Its not a difficult theory/thought.

The article on Bradley doesn't agree with your point about stats not being representative. It is attempting to reconcile the differences in perceptions and advanced metrics. The article is actually a tacit confirmation of the representative nature of the metrics in question. Statistics are absolutely representative of something, but they can also carry imprecision. This is why we examine all data that is available to us. The article's conclusion is that Bradley is a significant liability in certain situations, while also being exceptionally valuable in others. I posted the link to the article for the purposes of edification. I don't "look for numbers to prove my point." I examine the information available in an effort to uncover the truth. The goal here isn't to win internet pissing contests, but rather to reach the truth.

Didn't means stats meant nothing (I said that incorrectly). But rather half the time they mean nothing and the rest is the eye test which is what what he said. I've said this multiple times as well but again its apparent you're not reading my point thoroughly and just posting just to have a retort.

The only times I've made specific mention of misrepresentations:
Blaming the decay of the Magic roster on McGrady.
The Lakers won DESPITE Kobe Bryant.
Kobe Bryant was a counterproductive player.
I dislike Kobe Bryant.

I looked back and again I wasn't really off into any of these "misrepresentations". The context is missing, or I don't explain fully what I mean.

1. I never said that you said McGrady was to blame for the Roster decay. That makes no sense...
I've said McGrady shouldn't be to blame for the team advancing because the roster was progressively getting worse, and management couldn't upgrade the roster. Plus, I was referencing the circumstances that McGrady was being thrust into, and I ended up apologizing for it though now that apology makes no sense now given you misread what I wrote.

2. Yeah you said the Lakers won despite of Kobe's chucking and being a ballhog. You said Gasol and Odom should've got the ball more. The context was missed and I probably didn't explain it correctly.

3. Context here again, You said his usage was counterproductive which is alluded to with the "Chucking" and "Bogarted the Ball" statement that you said. point 2 and 3 are essentially one argument/point...

4. Context, again... And I said you didn't like his play style (Which is true).

To be honest looking back at this whole Conversation, seems like you're either not reading my points or you just don't understand what I'm saying. Context is completely being lost and you've constantly said I've purposely misrepresented you.

I don't take any of this personally, but it's impossible to debate with someone that is misquoting your statements and then arguing against claims you never made. I ignore condescension. I do not respond in kind. It does nothing to advance a debate.

You've claimed that I've made wild claims of "Trumpism" and said that I was an "Acrobatic Apologist"... I've yet to insult you... Yet you're able to identify my condescension but I have to repeat myself 4-5 times on the same point.

This conversation has become difficult because we're not coming to any sort of understanding. I agree with some of your points and you agree with mine, but continue to argue the points that you essentially agree with so you won't lose ground. Again, I have no problem saying I'm wrong or made a mistake. Seems like you have difficulty in doing that yourself.

Alright. This was the source of my confusion:

I've showed you how great perimeter players who in general have a lower DPBM compared to bigs because of essential stats like rebounding and blocks, now you want to question how great they are/were because it doesn't fit your argument, though these guys have gotten the accolades and praise throughout the league.

I thought you were lumping players into two categories. I think you can appreciate why this would seem a curious position.

Now that I'm clear on where you stand, your position is absolutely incorrect. It's what that particular metric is designed to do. You can question its validity (which I support, to some extent), but you can't claim that DBPM values aren't comparable across positions. And for what it's worth, bigs can certainly be poor defenders even if they have decent rebound rates (Enes Kanter). Greg Monroe's DBPM's are modest despite his exceptional defensive rebound percentages. The best way to acquire a good DBPM value is to put up quality rates in hustle stats relative to your teammates on a team with good defensive efficiency.

You complain I have not read certain things.

When? The article on Avery Bradley? I certainly didn't complain. You misrepresented its content under the assumption that I'd linked it to discredit Bradley.

Its pretty hypocritical of you to say I'm dismissing portions of your argument when you've done it multiple times with mine.

When did I say this?

But I feel its pretty ridiculous to denounce really because Great Players have high usage because they give you the best chance to win with the ball in their hands.

Denounce? That's a strong word.

Yes. I absolutely do not care about who receives which awards, but I'm not the final arbiter on such matters. That's what the advanced metrics are for. I did happen to watch those Finals though, for what it's worth. The impetus for this long debate wasn't a flippant comment, but rather a conclusion I reached a long time ago after careful examination.

Advanced metrics are absent of biases, whereas the voters are not. The media (who all have affiliations) are the voters for these awards. Keep that in mind the next time you watch Around the Horn. The NBA only recently changed voting to exclude members of the media that were active employees of teams:

https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/team-employed-media-will-no-longer-vote-for-nba-awards/

Consensus means nothing to the independent mind:

Watch on YouTube

This logic also applies to your argument that high usage indicates a team's best player. This is an associative error. Rape correlates to ice cream sales because both increase during the summer; not because there is any causal relationship. High usage is often a reflection of high efficiency, but high usage certainly doesn't cause efficiency.

In an optimal offense, every player on the team would have the same offensive efficiency, though the best offensive players would have the highest usage. Calculus reveals this to be true. Shooting metrics are actually more a reflection of shot selection than of shooting ability. A high efficiency player indicates an inefficiency in a team's offense. When a player has higher efficiency than the other players on their team, that player is underutilized, and vice versa. This is demonstrable proof that the Lakers offense would've been more efficient if O'Neal and Gasol had higher usage rates.

This is all rather far afield from what I initially stated, however, which was simply that Shaquille O'Neal and Pau Gasol were the best players on those respective championship teams.

As for McGrady... I stated that “Doc Rivers jettisoned anyone that challenged McGrady’s lackadaisical effort.” To which you disagreed and proceeded to defend McGrady’s relationship with Armstrong. I took that to mean that you thought I was blaming McGrady for those players' departures. This seems the logical interpretation to me, but perhaps I misunderstood your intent.

I found this (notice that it's not myself I'm quoting):

Actually if you go back and watch Lakers 2010 nba finals by looking at overall contribution, especially in game 7, it feels like Lakers won despite Kobe not because of Kobe.

…which is probably the source of your confusion on this matter. I never said the Lakers won DESPITE Kobe Bryant, though you have attributed this statement to several times.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/counterproductive?s=t
adjective
1. thwarting the achievement of an intended goal; tending to defeat one's purpose:
Living on credit while trying to save money is counterproductive.

I said Kobe Bryant was overrated. I also said he was a very good player and the second best player on five championship teams. I neither stated nor implied that the Lakers were a worse team because he was on it; which is what counterproductive means.

Your opinion BTW, lol... You clearly don't like Kobe's game so of course you're going to think he and everything he's done is overrated. If you don't like someone you're going to discredit them for eveything. That's why your bias (which you've admitted) its hard to take your argument seriously.

There is some context in this one, so I can buy your argument that you were saying I dislike Kobe's "game", but there is no such context in the following two quotes:

When comments like this are made about the greatness of players that fans don't particularly like, then it makes the objectivity of their arguments tainted with bias.

Its difficult to continue this conversation. But its obvious there would be a difficulty in that aspect when it the person admits to having a dislike for the player in question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroups_and_outgroups

There is a nasty habit in social behavior to categorize individuals with whom we disagree. We deem them fundamentally different across whatever criterion we are using to make this distinction. Male or female. Black or white. Republican or democrat. Gators or Noles. Ford or Chevy. Then we start border patrolling.

When we speak to the psychological motivations of others, we simply reveal our own motivations. We can’t read the minds of others, but we can certainly reveal what's in our own mind.