2019-20 NBA Season Discussion

[Jordan Syndrome]

BTW, those ORtg numbers look far off. The best rORtg the Bulls had during their title winning playoffs was 1991 with +6.3. Not +9.9.

It is possible. I simply took the Bulls Offensive Rating in each series, multiplied by the number of games in each series, then took the sum of each series and divided by the games played. I did the same for each opponents defensive rating, found the difference and divided by the games played.

[Odinn21]

I don't agree with this. A player like Duncan who had 57% of his offensive "VORP", again just one measure of offense, but leading a Spurs team to 104.3 Offensive Rating [+2.4 relative O-rating], 105.3 Offensive Rating on court [+3.4 relative O-rating] is less impressive than Jordan leading a 114.8 Offensive Rating [+9.9 relative O-rating]. Ultimately, this becomes a very interesting topic of discussion about how we can interpret, scale and compare different O-VORP % with Relative O-Ratings.

This is the topic of difference between carrying an offense and creating an offense and I specifically chose the word carrying. Not creating or leading.

I understand the distinction between the two words of Carry and Create, so let me re-phrase my point.

It is much more impressive to "carry" an offense to +9.9 Relative Rating at whatever number Jordan was at, say 47% O-VORP, than it is for a player at 57% to "carry" a 2.4 Relative Rating. Offensive Ratings are not linear, the increase at the highest levels of offenses, the ones of Magic, Bird, Nash, Curry, Jordan and LeBron are able to produce, exceed the value of a Tim Duncan-led offense by magnitudes. Duncan makes up for the difference in this impact on the defensive end but to say he had a better "carry job" is a weak argument considering how much greater the offenses the players I mentioned above had led.

I’d like to get your source on that +9.9 relative ORtg because it looks way off.

Another thing is there’s no way to examine or single out individuals on those ratings.

Also postseason +/- numbers are not reliable due to small sample size.

I edited my post BTW. If you looked at those numbers and took them as I was making a case for Duncan to be an offensive player that Jordan, Magic, James were. You’re wrong. That’s not on me. The intention was very clear.

[Odinn21]

BTW, those ORtg numbers look far off. The best rORtg the Bulls had during their title winning playoffs was 1991 with +6.3. Not +9.9.

It is possible. I simply took the Bulls Offensive Rating in each series, multiplied by the number of games in each series, then took the sum of each series and divided by the games played. I did the same for each opponents defensive rating, found the difference and divided by the games played.

This looks more like NRtg. Not rORtg.

Here;
https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1993.html#all_misc
The Bulls had 113.8 ORtg in 1993 playoffs when the playoffs average was 107.9, making the Bulls offense better than average by +5.9.

[Jordan Syndrome]

BTW, those ORtg numbers look far off. The best rORtg the Bulls had during their title winning playoffs was 1991 with +6.3. Not +9.9.

It is possible. I simply took the Bulls Offensive Rating in each series, multiplied by the number of games in each series, then took the sum of each series and divided by the games played. I did the same for each opponents defensive rating, found the difference and divided by the games played.

This looks more like NRtg. Not rORtg.

Here;
https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1993.html#all_misc
The Bulls had 113.8 ORtg in 1993 playoffs when the playoffs average was 107.9, making the Bulls offense better than average by +5.9.

I am using Relative O-Rating with respect to the defenses the Bulls played. I don't give two **** what the playoff average was in 1993, I care about the defenses the Bulls actually played against in the 1993 playoffs. The methodology I used account for the Bulls playing against defenses which, on average, were better than what the rest of the post-season teams played against.

[Odinn21]

It is possible. I simply took the Bulls Offensive Rating in each series, multiplied by the number of games in each series, then took the sum of each series and divided by the games played. I did the same for each opponents defensive rating, found the difference and divided by the games played.

This looks more like NRtg. Not rORtg.

Here;
https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1993.html#all_misc
The Bulls had 113.8 ORtg in 1993 playoffs when the playoffs average was 107.9, making the Bulls offense better than average by +5.9.

I am using Relative O-Rating with respect to the defenses the Bulls played. I don't give two **** what the playoff average was in 1993, I care about the defenses the Bulls actually played against in the 1993 playoffs. The methodology I used account for the Bulls playing against defenses which, on average, were better than what the rest of the post-season teams played against.

144 minutes against 110.2 DRtg Hawks
192 minutes against 106.0 DRtg Cavs
288 minutes against 99.7 DRtg Knicks
303 minutes against 106.7 DRtg Suns

With adjusting minutes (use minutes to not to miss on OTs), average DRtg of opponents was 104.9 and considering the Bulls ended up with 113.8 ORtg, that's +8.9.
Maybe one of us got a number wrong while calculating but this is closer to +9.9.

So while you scoff at postseason average and come from an angle that's stating the Bulls playing against a better defensive competition than average, but you don't consider that those teams got those DRtg numbers while playing worse teams than the Bulls?
That's why sticking with direct averages is better. There's no end of this cherry picking.
Not that I don't get your point entirely, but there's no reliable result down that road.

Also, like I already stated +/- (driven) numbers in postseason are not reliable due to sample size.

And I think you should re-read this part;

If you looked at those numbers and took them as I was making a case for Duncan to be an offensive player that Jordan, Magic, James were. You’re wrong. That’s not on me. The intention was very clear.

I did that to show how much a player carried his team on offense. It was literally this guy was XX.XX% of his team's offense. It was to show how much of a one-man army they were.
If you saw those numbers and assumed that I was saying Duncan was 5% better than Jordan offensively, again, that's not on me.

[Jordan Syndrome]

This looks more like NRtg. Not rORtg.

Here;
https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1993.html#all_misc
The Bulls had 113.8 ORtg in 1993 playoffs when the playoffs average was 107.9, making the Bulls offense better than average by +5.9.

I am using Relative O-Rating with respect to the defenses the Bulls played. I don't give two **** what the playoff average was in 1993, I care about the defenses the Bulls actually played against in the 1993 playoffs. The methodology I used account for the Bulls playing against defenses which, on average, were better than what the rest of the post-season teams played against.

144 minutes against 110.2 DRtg Hawks
192 minutes against 106.0 DRtg Cavs
288 minutes against 99.7 DRtg Knicks
303 minutes against 106.7 DRtg Suns

With adjusting minutes (use minutes to not to miss on OTs), average DRtg of opponents was 104.9 and considering the Bulls ended up with 113.8 ORtg, that's +8.9.
Maybe one of us got a number wrong while calculating but this is closer to +9.9.

So while you scoff at postseason average and come from an angle that's stating the Bulls playing against a better defensive competition than average, but you don't consider that those teams got those DRtg numbers while playing worse teams than the Bulls?

What? Of course the teams were worse defensively against the majority of the league as the rest of the league was inferior to the Bulls...

There is no perfect way to analyze this, just like BPM is a far from perfect statistic itself, but im not making threads to pop-up Tim Duncan and more importantly I'm not arguing over semantics on the internet.

If we can focus back on the original topic, I think it is interesting to take your data and attempt to use it with other data to start drawing outlines of pictures.

Tim Duncan was around 57% "O-VORP" in the 2003 post-season and that produced a middling +2.4 offense.

Michael Jordan was around 50% "O-VORP" but was anchoring a +9 offense in 1993.

Unfortunately you deleted your entire thread so the data is lost. I would be curious to see the data again and compare it to what offenses were produced compared to what "O-VORP" was produced.

That's why sticking with direct averages is better. There's no end of this cherry picking.
Not that I don't get your point entirely, but there's no reliable result down that road.

There are certainly good results and discussion to be had when comparing a players offensive share with what type of offenses he produces. Perhaps we can see a pattern where Tim Duncan offenses peak when Duncan is producing 30% "O-VORP" but a Michael Jordan or LeBron James offense is peaking when they are at 45% "O-VORP". That to me is when "O-VORP" turns from "This is cool" to "I should write an article".

Also, like I already stated +/- (driven) numbers in postseason are not reliable due to sample size.

They are over a large enough sample size.

[70sFan]

For what it's worth, Ben Taylor has 1993 Bulls at +9.8 offense (-2.0 defense). He also has 2003 Spurs at +2.6 offense (-8.0 defense). The best title Spurs playoff offenses are 2014 (+7.7) and 2005 (+5.7).

[Odinn21]

Also, like I already stated +/- (driven) numbers in postseason are not reliable due to sample size.

They are over a large enough sample size.

I won't bother with the rest since I already explained the fundamental issue about what you see. You're still arguing over Jordan or some other superstars better than Duncan on offense not being the first while what those numbers represented was clearly stated more than once.

Sample size is not big enough. 30 is the threshold to have a somewhat reliable baseline and st. deviation for a measurement. Even for linear calculations.

[Jordan Syndrome]

Also, like I already stated +/- (driven) numbers in postseason are not reliable due to sample size.

They are over a large enough sample size.

I won't bother with the rest since I already explained the fundamental issue about what you see. You're still arguing over Jordan or some other superstars better than Duncan on offense not being the first while what those numbers represented was clearly stated more than once.

Sample size is not big enough. 30 is the threshold to have a somewhat reliable baseline and st. deviation for a measurement. Even for linear calculations.

I have clearly moved the conversation away from "Jordan vs Duncan" and onto "O-VORP" and Team Offensive Ratings and how they can interact and compare.

The sample size I am speaking about is a players entire career, which for most superstars we can compare, have over 30 games in the post-season.

Would you like to progress this conversation along? If so do you still have the numbers you posted from the deleted thread?

[MartinToVaught]

Feels like the Clippers were the only team that had fanbases and general NBA fans unite and actively root against them. Especially after escalating their antics even further in the bubble and even pulling out some dirty maneuvers.

I honestly blame Doc for most of this. The Big Three Celtics and Lob City were also unlikeable for similar reasons. I doubt it's a coincidence that the same coach was in charge of three of the most unlikeable teams for neutral fans.

Hell, just look at Austin. There's never been a cockier player who's accomplished so little in the NBA to back it up. It seems to be a Rivers thing.

The right coaching hire and some roster moves should hopefully turn the Clippers into a team that the NBA community can respect, not despise.

[limbo]

Feels like the Clippers were the only team that had fanbases and general NBA fans unite and actively root against them. Especially after escalating their antics even further in the bubble and even pulling out some dirty maneuvers.

I honestly blame Doc for most of this. The Big Three Celtics and Lob City were also unlikeable for similar reasons. I doubt it's a coincidence that the same coach was in charge of three of the most unlikeable teams for neutral fans.

Hell, just look at Austin. There's never been a cockier player who's accomplished so little in the NBA to back it up. It seems to be a Rivers thing.

The right coaching hire and some roster moves should hopefully turn the Clippers into a team that the NBA community can respect, not despise.

Probably some truth in there, but some of the players on these teams also had interesting 'rap' sheets themselves, to say the least.

KG was known to be a craptalker and in-you-face guy before he came to play under Doc. Paul Pierce as well was particularly annoying beforehand. Rondo's attitude didn't get any better when he left Bodton, in fact, it got worse under some circumstances.

With Lob City there was CP3's flopping record and constant whining, and of course DeAndre and Blake's arrogance and cheap antics.

And now... well you got Pat Bev and Morris leading the charge, who were known scumbags before joining the Clippers. You have PG's twitter fingers, also preceding Doc. Lou Williams was always a cocky dude etc.

I will say this though. I don't think it's coincidence Doc somehow always ends up gravitating towards these type of players, and vice versa.

And he definitely enables them and their behaviours. I think that's about as good as proven.

[E-Balla]

Feels like the Clippers were the only team that had fanbases and general NBA fans unite and actively root against them. Especially after escalating their antics even further in the bubble and even pulling out some dirty maneuvers.

I honestly blame Doc for most of this. The Big Three Celtics and Lob City were also unlikeable for similar reasons. I doubt it's a coincidence that the same coach was in charge of three of the most unlikeable teams for neutral fans.

Hell, just look at Austin. There's never been a cockier player who's accomplished so little in the NBA to back it up. It seems to be a Rivers thing.

The right coaching hire and some roster moves should hopefully turn the Clippers into a team that the NBA community can respect, not despise.

Probably some truth in there, but some of the players on these teams also had interesting 'rap' sheets themselves, to say the least.

KG was known to be a craptalker and in-you-face guy before he came to play under Doc. Paul Pierce as well was particularly annoying beforehand. Rondo's attitude didn't get any better when he left Bodton, in fact, it got worse under some circumstances.

With Lob City there was CP3's flopping record and constant whining, and of course DeAndre and Blake's arrogance and cheap antics.

And now... well you got Pat Bev and Morris leading the charge, who were known scumbags before joining the Clippers. You have PG's twitter fingers, also preceding Doc. Lou Williams was always a cocky dude etc.

I will say this though. I don't think it's coincidence Doc somehow always ends up gravitating towards these type of players, and vice versa.

And he definitely enables them and their behaviours. I think that's about as good as proven.

Doc doesn't like PG either if I had to guess with Callie and all so there had to be some dynamic there between them. I refuse to believe there wasn't even as professional as Doc is (with everyone but Rondo lol).

[Odinn21]

They are over a large enough sample size.

I won't bother with the rest since I already explained the fundamental issue about what you see. You're still arguing over Jordan or some other superstars better than Duncan on offense not being the first while what those numbers represented was clearly stated more than once.

Sample size is not big enough. 30 is the threshold to have a somewhat reliable baseline and st. deviation for a measurement. Even for linear calculations.

I have clearly moved the conversation away from "Jordan vs Duncan" and onto "O-VORP" and Team Offensive Ratings and how they can interact and compare.

The sample size I am speaking about is a players entire career, which for most superstars we can compare, have over 30 games in the post-season.

Would you like to progress this conversation along? If so do you still have the numbers you posted from the deleted thread?

Sure, we can go on. I still have the numbers. Just what I posted though. Not the MS Excel spreadsheet. Can recreate the formula though.

BTW, you might want to take a look at how well BPM and +/- data correlates.
https://public.tableau.com/profile/dsmok1#!/vizhome/BPMvs_RAPM/BoxPlusMinusvs_14YearRAPM
Though it was done with BPM 1.0 version, not the current one.

Edit;
Here are the OVORP numbers I deleted.

Spoiler:

2019 / Kawhi Leonard 2.27 / 4.50 / 50.45%
2018 / Kevin Durant 1.77 / 4.23 / 42.00%
2017 / Stephen Curry 1.57 / 4.12 / 38.20%
2016 / LeBron James 1.96 / 5.21 / 37.64%
2015 / Stephen Curry 2.01 / 4.42 / 45.33%
2013 / LeBron James 2.51 / 5.33 / 47.15%
2012 / LeBron James 2.50 / 5.03 / 49.73%
2011 / Dirk Nowitzki 1.40 / 4.34 / 32.21%
2010 / Kobe Bryant 1.90 / 4.23 / 44.86%
2009 / Kobe Bryant 2.22 / 4.69 / 47.46%
2008 / Kevin Garnett 1.58 / 4.74 / 33.31%
2007 / Tim Duncan 1.08 / 3.38 / 32.12%
2006 / Dwyane Wade 2.06 / 4.08 / 50.50%
2005 / Tim Duncan 1.31 / 4.30 / 30.53%
2003 / Tim Duncan 2.12 / 3.69 / 57.42%
2002 / Shaquille O'Neal 1.63 / 4.17 / 39.05%
2001 / Shaquille O'Neal 1.52 / 4.14 / 36.71%
2000 / Shaquille O'Neal 2.53 / 4.93 / 51.34%
1999 / Tim Duncan 1.12 / 2.72 / 41.08%
1998 / Michael Jordan 2.19 / 4.47 / 49.04%
1997 / Michael Jordan 2.06 / 4.18 / 49.34%
1996 / Michael Jordan 2.00 / 4.27 / 46.81%
1995 / Hakeem Olajuwon 1.24 / 4.62 / 26.85%
1994 / Hakeem Olajuwon 1.55 / 3.56 / 43.62%
1993 / Michael Jordan 2.29 / 4.30 / 53.21%
1992 / Michael Jordan 2.40 / 4.95 / 48.43%
1991 / Michael Jordan 2.17 / 4.39 / 49.48%
1990 / Isiah Thomas 1.23 / 3.11 / 39.44%
1989 / Isiah Thomas 0.87 / 3.08 / 28.17%
1988 / Magic Johnson 2.03 / 5.12 / 39.72%
1987 / Magic Johnson 1.57 / 4.39 / 35.81%
1986 / Larry Bird 1.78 / 4.19 / 42.47%
1985 / Magic Johnson 1.31 / 4.27 / 30.67%
1984 / Larry Bird 2.41 / 5.34 / 45.14%
1983 / Moses Malone 1.16 / 3.63 / 31.98%
1982 / Magic Johnson 1.10 / 3.69 / 29.82%
1981 / Larry Bird 1.43 / 4.49 / 31.80%
1980 / Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 1.37 / 3.70 / 37.14%

Here are the rORtg numbers by your calculation method;

Spoiler:

2019 / 2.48
2018 / 7.48
2017 / 11.66
2016 / 12.50
2015 / 4.99
2014 / 8.59
2013 / 9.16
2012 / 9.36
2011 / 8.10
2010 / 7.50
2009 / 7.10
2008 / 4.39
2007 / 2.92
2006 / 3.47
2005 / 5.63
2004 / 0.31
2003 / 2.44
2002 / 3.86
2001 / 12.72
2000 / 9.28
1999 / 3.56
1998 / 6.62
1997 / 6.12
1996 / 8.71
1995 / 8.24
1994 / 4.85
1993 / 9.84
1992 / 6.51
1991 / 11.87
1990 / 2.32
1989 / 6.36
1988 / 8.50
1987 / 10.80
1986 / 8.48
1985 / 9.89
1984 / 6.58
1983 / 6.16
1982 / 12.79
1981 / 14.06
1980 / 15.10

There're massive issues with that approach;
- Most spikes are caused by 1 series out of 3 or 4. There were so little amount of teams consistenly posted +7 or +8 offense over their opponents.
- The early '80s has massive spikes due to more drastic / bigger changes in pace.
- It's inclusive of injury related effects, such as Magic in '89 and '91 Finals or DRob in '02 second round, etc.
- There's no way to account for three pointers being way more used. The '80s has insane numbers because with less utilization of three pointers, the teams were stuck within a closer range in regular seasons. The Knicks had -8.3 rDRtg in 1993, the Spurs had -8.8 in 2004, the Celtics had -8.6 in 2008 and there are seasons in the '80s which the top DRtg and the top ORtg had less gap than those numbers. Then playoffs time, the winners in not so competitive series get a massive boost due to that. Because they stayed close in regular season but the gap became more real in postseason.
* Just look at this DRtg distribution over time;
https://i.imgur.com/Zta4CLH.png
* And also look at this rDRtg distribution over time;
https://i.imgur.com/Z0epqEF.png
- There's no way to eliminate impact of expansion teams causing significant changes in distributions.

I didn't create a database for those numbers BTW. Just recorded the results. If you have any questions, I should run related numbers again before answering.

Most of those issues are related with Rtg philosophy though. I have no solution for it. If I were getting paid for these things, I would go more in-detail but I don't see no point for doing more than this. Heck, even this is a bit more for a casual fan.

[Blackmill]

Man... this has been one of the most disappointing finals games I've watched. Hope the Heat somehow turn it around.

[Doctor MJ]

Man... this has been one of the most disappointing finals games I've watched. Hope the Heat somehow turn it around.

LeBron is Dr. Frankenstein, and this team is his Creature.

Unless Spo & co figure something else quick the Lakers are about to paradigm shift the whole league.

[MisterHibachi]

Man... this has been one of the most disappointing finals games I've watched. Hope the Heat somehow turn it around.

LeBron is Dr. Frankenstein, and this team is his Creature.

Unless Spo & co figure something else quick the Lakers are about to paradigm shift the whole league.

Big men are coming back, baby! No team is gonna want to face this Lakers team without a roster of big bodies, because they absolutely destroy small lineups that can't rebound. Jokic, AD, KP, KAT are all going to feast for the next 10 years if the league doesn't go back to big lineups.

[Blackmill]

Man... this has been one of the most disappointing finals games I've watched. Hope the Heat somehow turn it around.

LeBron is Dr. Frankenstein, and this team is his Creature.

Unless Spo & co figure something else quick the Lakers are about to paradigm shift the whole league.

Big men are coming back, baby! No team is gonna want to face this Lakers team without a roster of big bodies, because they absolutely destroy small lineups that can't rebound. Jokic, AD, KP, KAT are all going to feast for the next 10 years if the league doesn't go back to big lineups.

I wonder if the Lakers knew how successful their strategy would be. It seems obvious in hindsight. Start with two of the best players at abusing mismatches and fill out the roster with players who are anything but mismatches. I know the last part is an exaggeration -- especially regarding Rondo and McGee -- but the Lakers have the pieces to each puzzle and just need to put them on the board.

[Doctor MJ]

I wonder if the Lakers knew how successful their strategy would be. It seems obvious in hindsight. Start with two of the best players at abusing mismatches and fill out the roster will players who are anything but mismatches. I know the last part is an exaggeration -- especially regarding Rondo and McGee -- but the Lakers have the pieces to each puzzle and just need to put them on the board.

Who do you mean by "the Lakers"?
Jeanie Buss? No.
Magic Johnson? No.
Rob Pelinka? No.

LeBron's the question, and I'd say 2 things:

1. I really do think that LeBron finally acted as a true GM and I think he's done an amazing job.

but

2. I don't think this was really a grand team strategy so much as LeBron picking guys he could envision a way to personally play with.

So I think LeBron was confident that the team would be great, but there was no way to know exactly how it would all come together. LeBron may have thought he could "figure it out" with this team, but at least at this moment, it doesn't really feel like they even need LeBron to figure things out.

[Joey Wheeler]

Man... this has been one of the most disappointing finals games I've watched. Hope the Heat somehow turn it around.

LeBron is Dr. Frankenstein, and this team is his Creature.

Unless Spo & co figure something else quick the Lakers are about to paradigm shift the whole league.

What exactly is the Lakers "paradigm"? I don't think "hoping the top 2 players in the world, who happen to have perfect synergy skill-wise, decide to team up in our franchise" is going to be a paradigm in the league going forward...

[GSP]

This should be the first time in Rgm history where the top 2 players are from the same team. Its very obvious at this point that its Bron and Ad