for example:
K, champ. You go ahead and believe that. I've shown differently.
Jeff Malone's usage dropped significantly, his overall offensive efficiency stayed the same. he was worse. what did you show ? I don't remember anything aside from "he was a good scorer and terrible at everything else". way to disrespect 22/3/3 player as a 3rd option
Yeah, they did. They lost to the eventual champs. It doesn't matter when it happened, they lost to the NBA champions. And it came down to the final seconds of the decisive game. Nothing to be ashamed of there.
being dismantled by Gary Payton after 2 playoff years playing to a standstill against Kenny Smith is, without a doubt, something to be ashamed of. especially when you're supposed to be best PG ever.
Again, most of this is drivel. The only thing you just did was show that David Robinson played 5mpg less than he was used to in 1998. His PER was the 4th highest of his career. His Rebound Rate, Assist Rate, ORR, DRR, Block Rate, Steal Rate, shooting numbers and usage were all at or near his career high standards. Quit trying to distort the truth.
And if we're using individual ORTG....btw, there is a strong argument that John Stockton is the greatest player of all time. He was leading the league in that stat during MJ's peak.
lol at using PER as if anyone gave a damn about it. what I showed is that David Robinson wasn't capable of playing his peak minutes and wasn't as efficient on offense or defense either.
individial ORtg just shows how efficient you are. Stockton was very efficient because he had limited role where he didn't face much defensive attention and just like Gasol now, was playing pretty much 1 on 1 basketball all the time. I'm not discrediting Stockton that he took advantage of the fact that he was 2nd best player on his team but you gotta look at this with context. Gasol wasn't so efficient in Memphis either.
Lol, I nailed you to the wall and you won't even acknowledge it. Good form there. You can't argue with the evidence I provided. Check mate on that one, bud.
wtf you're talking about ? the reason I re-read last couple of pages was mainly bc of that. nailed it ?
you simply showed that Jazz had high FG%, what does that have to do with offensive efficiency and how it correlated with assists ? oh, right. it didn't.That gives them a historical significance that the Jazz can't claim, but it doesn't make their offense better, necessarily.
then I guess Celtics 08 didn't have better defense than 04 Rockets.
Celtics had 98.9 DRtg. Rockets were at 99.0. the difference was that Celtics did that when league averaged 107.5 pts/per 100 poss. Rockets' league ... 102.9. your argument is just flat out DUMB. Jazz had comparable offense in a league that averaged more pts per possession. Suns relatively to lg avg were just better (unless we're talking about peak Jazz, but Suns peak is better too).
Lol, that one was just to show you what its like when other people try to discredit the talents of a great player by crowing about his system. As you can see, its not pleasant to hear.
well, it has essentially no value bc these players didn't play any better without Nash. on the other hand, there's tons of evidence to prove that Jazz had system that did inflate assist numbers (Green example, ast in comparison to ORtg, high ast ranks every year even w/o Stock etc). ifyou had something that would prove Suns system to be inflating numbers, then your argument would be valid. the thing is... you don't.
1) The Jazz were held back during this specific time period because of lack of offensive players.
2) Stockton's brilliance directly correlated to Jazz success offensively
3) The Jazz rose to prominence in a league that was at its apex in terms of overall quality of teams from top to bottom, as well as elite quality teams.
1. 25+ PPG scorer and 22 PPG the other scorer. poor Stockton... lack of offensive players.
2. nope. T-Sherkin wrote about this in detail.
3. nope. league was watered down with all stars pre/past prime, expansion made its impact etc. (see TrueLA's posts).
okay, I'm out. you can answer, but I'm done here. it's just pointless - I've made my point.
