RealGM Top 100 List #18

[mysticbb]

I'm not comparing oRtg's, in fact. What I'm showing you is that the Lakers were the best offense in the league for an entire decade, both in the regular season and playoffs. We're talking about dynasties here, not who was better for a one or two year period.

Learn to read, the Suns are better for a 7 yr period, not just for one year. The Lakers best 7 yr stretch in terms of offense is worse than the Suns 7 yr stretch from 2005 to 2011.

Had the Suns been able to do it for longer, and more importantly, dominate offensively in the playoffs on a regular basis, they'd have an actual argument. I don't think the whole "well they didn't have the opportunity" argument works either, because it's about who did what not who could have done this or that given the opportunity.

No idea in which world you live, but the Suns dominated offensively in the playoffs too. In 2005 they were +10.4 better than average, while playing teams with an average DRtg of 102.0, that is an insane +16.2. In 2006 it was +5.3 better than average against 104.7 teams, makes it +6.8, in 2007 it was +5.7 better than average agains 103.9 teams, makes it +6.7, in 2008 it was -3.3, but they played the 101.8 Spurs, makes it +2.3, and the numbers for 2010 are already listed. No idea, but they played in each season better offensively than expected and clearly played in average a dominant offense.

And we can add the 4 years on the Mavericks to that from 2001 to 2004 and we end up that Nash was a vital part of an offense over 11 years which was 6.4 points better than average. It is +5.0 for Magic from 1980 to 1990.

Really? We can add Nash's 4 years on the Mavs to bolster the argument that the Suns were a greatest offensive dynasty in history?

I was talking about Nash being a part of an offense, NOT the Suns, please learn to read.

[mysticbb]

Do you even understand my argument, or are you just looking to argue?

No, your argument is stupid. Seriously, you want to argue that Nash didn't play 10+ seasons on those Suns, fine. But what kind of sense does that make? None, it makes NO sense at all. You are using your OWN definition of what the word dynasty means (in your case 10+ years) in order to make an argument. Where do you get the impression that we only can call 10+ seasons a "dynasty"? Heck, even the 3-peat Lakers were called a dynasty at the beginning of the century. Calling a team playing incredible well offensively for 7 years a dynasty seems perfectly fine with all other dynasties in the history of professional sports.

[semi-sentient]

Sweet.

My arguments are stupid and I can't read.

[Doctor MJ]

A couple other points that I wanted to rebut, but I don't feel like finding the posts that incited me:

1) Any struggles the '06 Suns had in the playoffs need to be looked at through the lens of injuries and rebounding. The team was fantastic without Amare...but when they lost their other competent big man Kurt Thomas, they team completely lost the ability to rebound. They went into the post-season winning at a 50% clip, and in the playoffs got out-rebounded by about 8 boards per game. For them to get to the WCF and take the Mavs to 6 games being so crippled is a fantastic accomplishment.

2) Stockton's volume/efficiency. Consider that in Stockton's regular season career he scored 30 points 11 times, and that for the data b-r has in the playoffs which is all of the 90s he never scored 30 in the playoffs.

By contrast Nash has broken that number 47 times between regular season & the playoffs.

Now remember Karl Malone's playoff performances. Big volume...but his efficiency drops.

Basic fact: Stockton, for the vast majority of his career, simply was not a guy who would volume score for you if that's what you needed like a Nash, Payton, Isiah, or even Kidd. Whether he was hot or cold, whether the rest of the offense was successful or not, he was taking about the same number of shots all the time - which basically means this was not a guy creating a shot out of nothing, but rather simply taking his shots when he felt confident that he had a shot too good to pass up.

Such a player's efficiency is without question less valuable than the efficiency of someone looking to create more.

Now, b-r's data doesn't go back to the 80s, and Stockton had some big playoff games in the 80s. It is entirely reasonable for one to conclude that we don't know that Stockton wasn't capable of more throughout his career. However, looking from that perspective means you need to deal with the fact that Stockton DID NOT actually give you much of that "more" in his career. It may be through no fault of his own, and you can factor that in how you want. However, one absolutely should not look at his volume/efficiency compared to someone like Nash's and say "oh yeah, they were doing pretty much the same thing", that's not remotely true.

[An Unbiased Fan]

The Suns were simply better offensively in comparison to their competition than the Lakers.

I don't think anyone will disagree with you on this statwise. The point is that many of us don't equate ORtg differentials as a measurement for the best offense. There are a myriad of factors at play.

For example, the 2002 Kings had a bigger DRtg differential than the 1989 Badboy Pistons. Yet, the Kings were in no way, shape or form close to being an equal defensive team.

When you make broad stroke assertions of failure though, and people come back with the best stats we have on the subject and those stats contradict what you said, this is not something you can just sweep aside in the argument by mentioning one anecdote.

You are entitled to your opinion, but at this point, I just don't see what the contemplating voter should take away from your words here.

Huh? What "broad stroke assertions of failure" are you specifically referring to? It's amazing how dismissive people have gotten of opposing opinions & data. It's not like I haven't put up tons of stats to support my arguments here.

And pointing out that the 02' Kings rate better than the 89' Pistons goes to the heart of my issue with using Team ratings as the be all. It's all about consistency.

[mysticbb]

My arguments are stupid and I can't read.

Well, look at what you wrote. You said that the Suns had one or two years, but we are talking about 7 years. You said that I wanted to add to the Suns dynasty the Mavericks years, BUT my argument was adding the Mavericks years to Nash's resumee, there was no word of the Suns in that paragraph you cited. So, you are either incompetent at reading or you are just intellectual dishonest in your argumentation.

And making your very own definition of what "dynasty" means in order to make an argument is stupid. Sorry, I'm not saying "you are stupid", because that is not the case, I said that "your argument is stupid", because the argument makes no sense whatsoever. 7 years is perfectly fine in order to call something a dynasty. As I pointed out the Shaq/Kobe Lakers were also called a "dynasty" and that was just for 5 years (from 2000 to 2004). So, please tell me what is wrong with calling the Suns a dynasty (offensively!).

[mysticbb]

And pointing out that the 02' Kings rate better than the 89' Pistons goes to the heart of my issue with using Team ratings as the be all. It's all about consistency.

If the Kings in 2002 were so bad defensively, why did they play 5.4 better defensively than expected in the playoffs too?

The Pistons played 6.2 better than expected defensively in the playoffs.

I would rather say it is your preconception giving you the wrong impression that the Kings were bad defensively. The results are telling quite the opposite. But maybe we have a case of 98 games of bad luck for the opponents, which is possible, but highly unlikely.

[ElGee]

The Suns were simply better offensively in comparison to their competition than the Lakers.

I don't think anyone will disagree with you on this statwise. The point is that many of us don't equate ORtg differentials as a measurement for the best offense. There are a myriad of factors at play.

For example, the 2002 Kings had a bigger DRtg differential than the 1989 Badboy Pistons. Yet, the Kings were in no way, shape or form close to being an equal defensive team.

What better way is there to ballpark defensive performance? Detroit's PS defense was waaaaaaaaay better than Sacramento's. If they performed the other way around, we would regard the 89 Pistons as a quality but not great D and the 02 Kings as having a championship level defensive.

If you're suggesting not all -3.0 Rdefenses are created the same from the regular season, I think it's obvious that team dynamics can be in flux at times (see the 01 Lakers). That doesn't mean you disregard the whole metric because of a few outliers or occasionally extraneous factors.

[semi-sentient]

Well, look at what you wrote. You said that the Suns had one or two years, but we are talking about 7 years.

We are also talking about how dominant teams were in both the regular season and playoffs (!). The Lakers dominated both for a longer period of time. It's really that simple.

I am not comparing which team had a higher offensive peak or looking at what the competition or injury situation was like, I'm simply stating that the Lakers dynasty lasted significantly longer than the Suns in terms of being an offensive powerhouse.

It's similar to stating that the Celtics have a greater dynasty than the Bulls because they dominated for a longer period of time, although the Bulls probably have the higher peaking team and possibly other arguments that might favor them.

7 years is perfectly fine in order to call something a dynasty.

I never stated otherwise.

So, please tell me what is wrong with calling the Suns a dynasty (offensively!).

Nothing, and I never said they weren't an offensive dynasty. I said they weren't the greatest offensive dynasty in history -- a title that I believe belongs to the Showtime Lakers.

I would have zero problem stating that they are the 2nd greatest offensive dynasty, however.

[mysticbb]

We are also talking about how dominant teams were in both the regular season and playoffs (!). The Lakers dominated both for a longer period of time. It's really that simple.

And the Lakers done that to a lesser degree. That is the point. The argument would only make sense, if we had Nash playing from 2001 to 2004 also on the Suns while the Suns played worse offensively. We don't have that. Thus, we can very well compare the 7 years of the Suns with the best 7 yr stretch of the Lakers, which makes much more sense than basing that all of the amount of seasons. And on this comparison the Suns are winning it.

I am not comparing which team had a higher offensive peak or looking at what the competition or injury situation was like, I'm simply stating that the Lakers dynasty lasted significantly longer than the Suns in terms of being an offensive powerhouse.

It's similar to stating that the Celtics have a greater dynasty than the Bulls because they dominated for a longer period of time, although the Bulls probably have the higher peaking team and possibly other arguments that might favor them.

You would have a point, if the Lakers would have been at least as good as the Suns during those years in average, but they weren't. I understand your argument, but I can see it as legit, because it makes no sense in such a comparison.

And that wouldn't even be the overall point for the thread, we are comparing players. And Nash being a part of an offense which was in average 6.4 better than league average for 11 years is impressive and beats out the "Lakers dynasty" offensively.

[An Unbiased Fan]

And pointing out that the 02' Kings rate better than the 89' Pistons goes to the heart of my issue with using Team ratings as the be all. It's all about consistency.

If the Kings in 2002 were so bad defensively, why did they play 5.4 better defensively than expected in the playoffs too?

The Pistons played 6.2 better than expected defensively in the playoffs.

I would rather say it is your preconception giving you the wrong impression that the Kings were bad defensively. The results are telling quite the opposite. But maybe we have a case of 98 games of bad luck for the opponents, which is possible, but highly unlikely.

Well, I never said the Kings were bad defensively, just that they weren't close to the 89' Pistons.

And how did they play 5.4 better in the PS? I hope you're not comparing the RS ORtg of their opponents to what they did in the PS, because those numbers fluctuate like crazy. The 02' Jazz for instance held the Kings to 99.8 ORtg in the first round.

Fundamentally, The Kings didn't have the defensive personnel, coaching, schemes, pressure, or toughness that the Badboys did. ORtg & DRtg are great estimation tools, but again, no stat should be the end all. I would really like us to get back to breaking down things beyond simply numbers, and have some more context.

[An Unbiased Fan]

The Suns were simply better offensively in comparison to their competition than the Lakers.

I don't think anyone will disagree with you on this statwise. The point is that many of us don't equate ORtg differentials as a measurement for the best offense. There are a myriad of factors at play.

For example, the 2002 Kings had a bigger DRtg differential than the 1989 Badboy Pistons. Yet, the Kings were in no way, shape or form close to being an equal defensive team.

What better way is there to ballpark defensive performance

For starters, we could breakdown teams & individuals beyond just their ratings. We can look at what a team's offensive & defensive strengths were, and how strong they were at each position. There is no simply number we can look to determine this. ORtg & DRtg certainly have value, but they're not gospel.

Detroit's PS defense was waaaaaaaaay better than Sacramento's. If they performed the other way around, we would regard the 89 Pistons as a quality but not great D and the 02 Kings as having a championship level defensive.

If you're suggesting not all -3.0 Rdefenses are created the same from the regular season, I think it's obvious that team dynamics can be in flux at times (see the 01 Lakers). That doesn't mean you disregard the whole metric because of a few outliers or occasionally extraneous factors.

Elgee, it's all about consistency for me. If we are going to value PHX's ORtg differential enough to put them over the Lakers, then we should apply the same criteria across the board.

Now if we wanted to use those numbers as tools, then that's perfectly fine. I'm not dismissing the metric, I just don't think any stat should be the end all.

[mysticbb]

And how did they play 5.4 better in the PS? I hope you're not comparing the RS ORtg of their opponents to what they did in the PS, because those numbers fluctuate like crazy. The 02' Jazz for instance held the Kings to 99.8 ORtg in the first round.

Oh well, there are fluctuations, that's why I said we can very well assume that it was all due to bad luck for the opponents, but having them being pretty consistent in terms of numbers for the regular season and postseason, it makes it hard to believe it came just all down to that. 98 games of "fluctuations" is bit too unlikely. ;)

Fundamentally, The Kings didn't have the defensive personnel, coaching, schemes, pressure, or toughness that the Badboys did. ORtg & DRtg are great estimation tools, but again, no stat should be the end all. I would really like us to get back to breaking down things beyond simply numbers, and have some more context.

Well, we want to talk about your personal view? How would you judge that? Seriously, how would you know that they didn't have the personnel, the coaching, the schemes, etc. in order to play as good defensively as they did? That makes no sense at all.

Somehow they played that good. How did they do it? Maybe Doug Christie was a pretty good defensive player? Maybe their size was a big factor too? Maybe the schemes were pretty good suited against the teams they played? Maybe they were pretty well prepared for the games? Honestly, looking at those things and looking at how the Kings played that season, I'm pretty confident to say that the context and the numbers aren't that far apart. Especially when we add the fact that they played again really good defensively in 2003. Well, 180 games just "fluctuations", that would be an incredible stretch.

[Doctor MJ]

What better way is there to ballpark defensive performance

For starters, we could breakdown teams & individuals beyond just their ratings. We can look at what a team's offensive & defensive strengths were, and how strong they were at each position. There is no simply number we can look to determine this. ORtg & DRtg certainly have value, but they're not gospel.

See that's not really "ballparking" though. That's actual detailed analysis - not that that's a bad thing, and not that I'm against such conversation (though when we go that route, it tends to lead to less agreement rather than more).

You asked me on the previous page how I could say you were operating in broad strokes when you quoted stats. My impression of the conversations was that you made your assertions and mentioned stats...but then everyone took issue with how you were using stats and you didn't really make any statistical counterargument but did keep on with your assertions.

I can see how you would see the conversation differently. I'd imagine it's frustrating to be accused of not giving specific statistical counterarguments when you mention something as specific as the Sacramento example, but to me that's not really an argument. Finding an anecdote that makes one system evaluation look questionable is something you can do for everything, arguing why you reject one system in favor of another with precise but generalizable reasoning is what I'm always looking for.

[lorak]

In 2005 Suns had 114 ortg against Spurs in the playoffs
Spurs defense that season was 98.8 ((BTW, 2005 SAS is 6th best defensive team of all time/since 1974)
That means Suns offense in that series was GREAT. +15.2 ortg is amazing result.
And of course Nash also played very good: 23.2 PPG, 10.6 APG, 57.5 TS%

ElGee had some great posts on this, but you make it very clear, very succinctly for anyone confused.

It does not make sense to say the Suns offense was stopped by the Spurs by looking only at their ORtg going down. One would expect a great defense to make any offense worse. The reasonable way to look at it is comparing how the offense did compared to what a typical offense does against that great defense.

Doing 15+ points above average is INSANELY good...and that's before remembering that Marion just had an aberrationally bad series (Spurs never came close to doing that again) and Johnson was hurt.

There's even better way of looking at that how good Suns offense was against Spurs in 2005 playoffs.
During regular SAS had 98.8 drtg (relatively to LA 6th best defense since 1974), Suns 114.5 ortg so (98.8+114.5)/2=106.7.
Everything over this number show how good offense was, everything under how good was defense. And we know that in this series against SAS Suns had 114 ortg, so +7.3 above expected result. That means Suns offense in that series was all time great, uber elite

[An Unbiased Fan]

Well, we want to talk about your personal view? How would you judge that? Seriously, how would you know that they didn't have the personnel, the coaching, the schemes, etc. in order to play as good defensively as they did? That makes no sense at all.

Somehow they played that good. How did they do it? Maybe Doug Christie was a pretty good defensive player? Maybe their size was a big factor too? Maybe the schemes were pretty good suited against the teams they played? Maybe they were pretty well prepared for the games? Honestly, looking at those things and looking at how the Kings played that season, I'm pretty confident to say that the context and the numbers aren't that far apart. Especially when we add the fact that they played again really good defensively in 2003. Well, 180 games just "fluctuations", that would be an incredible stretch.

The 2002 Kings weren't regarded as a great defensive team during their era, the 89' Pistons were. The only indication of the Kings defensive prowess comes in their DRtg.

But let's breakdown the rosters a bit...

02' Kings:
Bibby
Christie
Peja
Webber
Vlade

Now Christie was a very good defender to be sure, but who else in that lineup is bringing it on D? Maybe Rick Adelman's defensive schemes...oh, wait. Off the bench they had Hedo, Bobby Jackson, and Pollard.

I see no great paint protection, and 2 guys who could be exploited in Bibby & Peja.


89' Pistons:
Isiah
Dumars
Dantley/Aguirre
Mahorn
Laimbeer

Hmmm....the Pistons were better defensively at every position. And outside of the SF spot, they were great at all spots. Off the bench they have Rodman.

Sorry, but these teams are just not equal defensively. Not at all, and this is why ratings need to be look at with a grain of salt like every other stat. The 89' Pistons were #2 in opposing PPG, while the Kings were #19. the 89' Pistons were #2 in opposing FG%, while the 02' Kings were #21.

ORtg/DRtg differentials are nice estimations, but we need to look at other data too.

[penbeast0]

You underestimate the Euroflopper. The Kings had two very good defenders.

Oh, and Gary Payton should be in the mix with Nash, Isiah, and Stockton. As Stockton is to Nash, Payton is to Isiah . . .

Payton is slightly more efficient while being slightly less explosive.
Payton has better shooting range, Isiah draws more fouls (for a total result favoring Payton)
Payton has less assists but also a lot less turnovers and a higher assist to turnover ratio.
Overall, they are roughly equivalent offensive players (and the Sonics offense was better than the Pistons)

And, of course, individually, Payton was a helluva better defender than Isiah.

Team success favors Detroit though only by about the same as Stock's Jazz beats out Nash's Suns and Payton had a lot less talent around him, basically just Shawn Kemp and a bunch of wing shooters (Schrempf, Ellis, Hawkins, etc.)

[Doctor MJ]

The 2002 Kings weren't regarded as a great defensive team during their era, the 89' Pistons were. The only indication of the Kings defensive prowess comes in their DRtg.

Wow.

Let me paraphrase that last sentence:

The only indication of the Kings being good at stopping the other team from scoring comes from the factoid that they were successful at stopping the other team from scoring.

I just think you've got a fundamental misconception. It's like you look at this stat like it's a means to end when it's actually an end. It's a valid stat. Is there noise in the mix? Yes, but it should never cross your mind that a team the stat is simply wrong. This is a case where if contemporary observers disagree drastically with the stats, then the contemporary observers are wrong.

Now though, I'm right there with you that there's additional levels of nuance to look at here, and one of those things is playoff ratings. Those Pistons developed their reputations based on fierce playoff performance. I'd never call the Kings the equal of those Piston teams, for that reason.

Circling back to the Nash conversation: If his offenses had a tendency to disappear in the playoffs based on those ratings analogously to how the Pistons defensive ratings improve, that would be very damning indeed. That didn't happen though. So using these facts to damn Nash is delving into anecdotal territory, and then not even drilling down as deep as possible. When you drill down you can safely say "Yes, teams can deviate in their level of performance from regular to post season", this does not give you license to apply that insight willy nilly though. Just because it can happen, doesn't mean it did happen in this case, and the specific stats tell us it didn't.

[An Unbiased Fan]

I can see how you would see the conversation differently. I'd imagine it's frustrating to be accused of not giving specific statistical counterarguments when you mention something as specific as the Sacramento example, but to me that's not really an argument. Finding an anecdote that makes one system evaluation look questionable is something you can do for everything, arguing why you reject one system in favor of another with precise but generalizable reasoning is what I'm always looking for.

To be fair, it's not just one anecdote. For example, the 2008 Jazz are better than all the Showtime Lakers in ORtg differential, except the 87' team. That's a bit strange, isn't it?

Comparing ORtg/DRtg across seasons is extremely dicey to say the least. never-mind that the composition of teams differed from year to year. A great offense in a defensive league will have better differentials for example.

And at the heart of the issue, it gets even more dicey to equate an individual's presence on a team with it's ORtg/DRtg. If we were comparing TD to KG, would SA's DRtg differentials vs Minny's DRtg differentials trump all debate? That's kinda what it seems like here with Stockton/Isiah/Gp vs Nash.

I just think you've got a fundamental misconception. It's like you look at this stat like it's a means to end when it's actually an end. It's a valid stat. Is there noise in the mix? Yes, but it should never cross your mind that a team the stat is simply wrong. This is a case where if contemporary observers disagree drastically with the stats, then the contemporary observers are wrong.

Now though, I'm right there with you that there's additional levels of nuance to look at here, and one of those things is playoff ratings. Those Pistons developed their reputations based on fierce playoff performance. I'd never call the Kings the equal of those Piston teams, for that reason.

This is where we differ in opinion. I don't think points per possession is a flawless way to rate an offense or defense. The King's DRtg isn't wrong, the use of that DRtg to say they were better than the Pistons however, would be. I'm not taking issue with the stats, but how they are being used.

As i pointed out above, The 89' Pistons were #2 in opposing PPG, while the Kings were #19. the 89' Pistons were #2 in opposing FG%, while the 02' Kings were #21. The Pistons had better defenders at every position and Rodman off the bench. They were a more versatile defensive team, and light years tougher.

Circling back to the Nash conversation: If his offenses had a tendency to disappear in the playoffs based on those ratings analogously to how the Pistons defensive ratings improve, that would be very damning indeed. That didn't happen though. So using these facts to damn Nash is delving into anecdotal territory, and then not even drilling down as deep as possible. When you drill down you can safely say "Yes, teams can deviate in their level of performance from regular to post season", this does not give you license to apply that insight willy nilly though. Just because it can happen, doesn't mean it did happen in this case, and the specific stats tell us it didn't.

I never "damned" Nash because of the Sun's performance in the playoffs. The whole issue came up when I referenced how the Suns weren't as versatile as the Showtime Lakers offensively, and how the Lakers were much better in the halfcourt as opposed to other offensive teams, which is a big factor in why they had playoff success as a run & gun team. the whole conversation was specifically about why the Suns couldn't get past the Spurs, and why they struggled against the LA teams in 06'.

You underestimate the Euroflopper. The Kings had two very good defenders.

Oh, and Gary Payton should be in the mix with Nash, Isiah, and Stockton. As Stockton is to Nash, Payton is to Isiah . . .

Payton is slightly more efficient while being slightly less explosive.
Payton has better shooting range, Isiah draws more fouls (for a total result favoring Payton)
Payton has less assists but also a lot less turnovers and a higher assist to turnover ratio.
Overall, they are roughly equivalent offensive players (and the Sonics offense was better than the Pistons)

And, of course, individually, Payton was a helluva better defender than Isiah.

Team success favors Detroit though only by about the same as Stock's Jazz beats out Nash's Suns and Payton had a lot less talent around him, basically just Shawn Kemp and a bunch of wing shooters (Schrempf, Ellis, Hawkins, etc.)

GP is an interesting case, as is Kidd. The whole group of PGs coming up are extremely diverse.

Those Sonic teams were actually considered pretty loaded back then though. They had some PS chokes. I actually have Kidd over GP right now, and the more I think about it, he should be in discussions with Walt/Stock/Nash/Isiah too. His horrific shooting is his obvious flaw, but as a pure passer, he might be the best behind Magic.

[mysticbb]

Sorry, but these teams are just not equal defensively. Not at all, and this is why ratings need to be look at with a grain of salt like every other stat. The 89' Pistons were #2 in opposing PPG, while the Kings were #19. the 89' Pistons were #2 in opposing FG%, while the 02' Kings were #21.

Well, for sure they didn't defend the same way, but that is the point at which real analysis starts. The Pistons played their opponents tough, always close to the man with a lot of hard fouls. The results were a high FTA/FGA rate for their opponents. The Pistons gave their opponents a lot of high efficient scoring opportunities at the line. At the same time they brought themselves into foul trouble.
The Kings were the complete opposite of that. They played smart defense, didn't foul much, which reduced the portion of higher efficient scoring opportunities for their opponents (and resulted into less foul trouble).

You are also only looking at shot defense, as if that is the only defensive activity. The Kings forced turnovers by taking charges and were also great at the perimeter, gave their opponents less attempts for a three by closing out really well. That is the key here, you don't really need a defensive anchor in order to force teams to take lesser efficient shots. And the Kings were actually 9th in opponents FG%.
The Pistons weren't as great at forcing turnovers, they concentrated a lot on shot defense while forcing players to take shots they don't really like. That reflected in their better opponents FG% relative to the league (overall it was higher than the Kings, because of the 3pt shots, but anyway).

Overall the result is basically the same, if we take the playoffs into account. Just a different way to achieve this. And there is nothing which indicates that one way is better than the other besides your own preconception.

The comparison of ppg against is misleading, the Piston played the slowest at that time while the Kings had the highest pace. Both played basically the same pace, which is why the opponents scored LESS against the Kings than against the Pistons.