Retro Player of the Year 2006-07 UPDATE — Tim Duncan

[IlikeSHAIguys]

Then we have the 2011 season to which OhayoKD naturally clings to where the Cavs had a -8.88 SRS and played like an 18-win team. But to see how intellectually dishonest using that data point at face value is, one must realize that key starters didn't play very many games and minutes. Jamison played 56 games, Mo Williams 36 games, and Varejao 31 games. Delonte, Shaq and Big Z left the team. The top 4 in minutes for the season were JJ Hickson, Ramon Sessions, Anthony Parker and Daniel Gibson. No wonder that team sucked ass! But of course it barely resembled the 2010 Cavs.

But they didn't use the full season? I don't know feel like you're being the dishonest one.

[One_and_Done]

Then we have the 2011 season to which OhayoKD naturally clings to where the Cavs had a -8.88 SRS and played like an 18-win team. But to see how intellectually dishonest using that data point at face value is, one must realize that key starters didn't play very many games and minutes. Jamison played 56 games, Mo Williams 36 games, and Varejao 31 games. Delonte, Shaq and Big Z left the team. The top 4 in minutes for the season were JJ Hickson, Ramon Sessions, Anthony Parker and Daniel Gibson. No wonder that team sucked ass! But of course it barely resembled the 2010 Cavs.

But they didn't use the full season? I don't know feel like you're being the dishonest one.

It doesn't take much effort for Joker to check these things, so I'm pretty underwhelmed by their post.

What happened in 2011 is well documented. Thr Cavs owner was furious that Lebron left, and declared his team would win before Lebron could. He kept a vet roster, convinced the team would be good. He was wrong. After 40 games, with the Cavs at 8-32, the front office convinced him to give up, and started to rest guys and trade others. Mo Williams suddenly getting a bunch of DNPs after game 40 is the point at which you can identify the Cavs scrapping their attempts to win. Mo was only brought back later in the season for a game or two to prove he was still healthy, and he was traded immediately afterwards.

The Cavs vets didn't play less games because they couldn't. They played less because the Cavs pulled the rip cord halfway into the season and started resting and/or trading guys. The Cavs collapse to a sub-20 win team after Lebron left, combined with their 1-13 record in games Bron missed the previous 3 years, tells you all you need to know about how impactful Lebron was (and how weak a supporting cast he had).

[ceoofkobefans]

don't feel like doing a preview so here's the voting post

POY

1. Kobe Bryant

The Lakers are going on their third year of providing Kobe with a horrific supporting cast, but they replace devean george with Maurice Evans and Chris Mihm with Andrew Bynum, who was on the team as an 18 y/o rookie last year, but he is now a legitimate rotation player this year, and they replace Brian Grant with Vladimir Radmanovic. In 07 not only do the Lakers have a terrible team, but they also deal with a fair share of injuries, inspite of this they still win 42 Games and have the 7th best offense in the league with a +2.1 rORTG behind another year of monster scoring from bean averaging a league best 30.7 IA PTS/75 on +3.9 rTS per TB (next best on the lakers is lamar odom at 16 on +1.1 in 56 Games, and next best in the league was Yao Ming who had a very impressive 30.4 on +6 rTS in 48 games with the rockets next to Tmac, who himself averaged 28.2 IA PTS/75 on -2.6 rTS% in 71 games, but the Rockets only managed a 106.9 ORTG, or +.4 rORTG in the 41 Games Yao and Tmac played together), again could keep going on and on about how good Kobe Bryant was this year and how crazy of a carry job he performed, but I'll refrain for now and move on

2. Tim Duncan

after a little bit of a down year in 06 Duncan has his last great full season where the spurs are a t3 team in the league, with their big 3 of duncan, parker, and ginobili, ending with him being one of the main forces in shutting down LeBron as the spurs swept the Cavs. he has a great statistical footprint this year, and is very neck and neck with Bean. If you wanted to put TD 1st for the PO run he had and the championship it resulted in I wouldn't be mad at it. It's a coinflip decision honestly, but Duncan's O isn't quite as good in 07 as it was in 01-05 and Kobe has reached his peak on that end which is largely superior to Duncan's despite what individual ORTG might lead one to believe.

3. Steve Nash

now this is a toss up between Nash Dirk, and Bron. I'm going Nash here because they are very similar in the RS and Nash has a significantly better PO run than Dirk (who had issues consistently being a PO riser up to this point), and I don't think Bron was quite at the level of Dirk and Nash Offensively, and while LeBron is the best defender of the group he;s not the all league, fringe dpoy guy he is at his peak yet.

4. Dirk Nowitzki

Yes Dirk has an amazing RS in 2007, and if this was an MVP vote he'd probably land at 1 for the season he Had but I don't think it's a 16 Steph situation where he's just so clearly the best RS player you can overlook the abysmal PO Series he had against the We Believe Warriors.

5. LeBron James

Slowly but surely LeBron is creeping up to that GOAT level player he's unfortunately known as, but in 2007 he isn't quite there yet, despite being one of the best players in the league still. This season is capped off by a 2001 76ers style PO run where the Cavs make the finals behind their defense (-8.2 PO rDRTG), while having an offensive Superstar at the helm to keep the offense from being terrible, where they get outmatched in the finals. Unlike AI, LeBron gets absolutely stonewalled by the Spurs and has a really bad series making the sweep very easy for the spurs, I could see him over Dirk and Nash, but i give them the edge

HMs: Dwyane Wade, Kevin Garnett, Carmelo Anthony

OPOY

1. Steve Nash
2. Kobe Bryant
3. Dirk Nowitzki
HMs: LeBron James, Gilbert Arenas

DPOY

1. Tim Duncan
2. Shane Battier
3. Ben Wallace
HMs: Kevin Garnett, Andrei Kirilenko

[One_and_Done]

don't feel like doing a preview so here's the voting post

POY

1. Kobe Bryant

The Lakers are going on their third year of providing Kobe with a horrific supporting cast, but they replace devean george with Maurice Evans and Chris Mihm with Andrew Bynum, who was on the team as an 18 y/o rookie last year, but he is now a legitimate rotation player this year, and they replace Brian Grant with Vladimir Radmanovic. In 07 not only do the Lakers have a terrible team, but they also deal with a fair share of injuries, inspite of this they still win 42 Games and have the 7th best offense in the league with a +2.1 rORTG behind another year of monster scoring from bean averaging a league best 30.7 IA PTS/75 on +3.9 rTS per TB (next best on the lakers is lamar odom at 16 on +1.1 in 56 Games, and next best in the league was Yao Ming who had a very impressive 30.4 on +6 rTS in 48 games with the rockets next to Tmac, who himself averaged 28.2 IA PTS/75 on -2.6 rTS% in 71 games, but the Rockets only managed a 106.9 ORTG, or +.4 rORTG in the 41 Games Yao and Tmac played together), again could keep going on and on about how good Kobe Bryant was this year and how crazy of a carry job he performed, but I'll refrain for now and move on

2. Tim Duncan

after a little bit of a down year in 06 Duncan has his last great full season where the spurs are a t3 team in the league, with their big 3 of duncan, parker, and ginobili, ending with him being one of the main forces in shutting down LeBron as the spurs swept the Cavs. he has a great statistical footprint this year, and is very neck and neck with Bean. If you wanted to put TD 1st for the PO run he had and the championship it resulted in I wouldn't be mad at it. It's a coinflip decision honestly, but Duncan's O isn't quite as good in 07 as it was in 01-05 and Kobe has reached his peak on that end which is largely superior to Duncan's despite what individual ORTG might lead one to believe.

3. Steve Nash

now this is a toss up between Nash Dirk, and Bron. I'm going Nash here because they are very similar in the RS and Nash has a significantly better PO run than Dirk (who had issues consistently being a PO riser up to this point), and I don't think Bron was quite at the level of Dirk and Nash Offensively, and while LeBron is the best defender of the group he;s not the all league, fringe dpoy guy he is at his peak yet.

4. Dirk Nowitzki

Yes Dirk has an amazing RS in 2007, and if this was an MVP vote he'd probably land at 1 for the season he Had but I don't think it's a 16 Steph situation where he's just so clearly the best RS player you can overlook the abysmal PO Series he had against the We Believe Warriors.

5. LeBron James

Slowly but surely LeBron is creeping up to that GOAT level player he's unfortunately known as, but in 2007 he isn't quite there yet, despite being one of the best players in the league still. This season is capped off by a 2001 76ers style PO run where the Cavs make the finals behind their defense (-8.2 PO rDRTG), while having an offensive Superstar at the helm to keep the offense from being terrible, where they get outmatched in the finals. Unlike AI, LeBron gets absolutely stonewalled by the Spurs and has a really bad series making the sweep very easy for the spurs, I could see him over Dirk and Nash, but i give them the edge

HMs: Dwyane Wade, Kevin Garnett, Carmelo Anthony

OPOY

1. Steve Nash
2. Kobe Bryant
3. Dirk Nowitzki
HMs: LeBron James, Gilbert Arenas

DPOY

1. Tim Duncan
2. Shane Battier
3. Ben Wallace
HMs: Kevin Garnett, Andrei Kirilenko

Do you feel it's ironic to cite Ortg to support Kobe, when Kobe's own Ortg of 115 was miles behind the likes of Nash (124) and Dirk (123)?

[ceoofkobefans]

don't feel like doing a preview so here's the voting post

POY

1. Kobe Bryant

The Lakers are going on their third year of providing Kobe with a horrific supporting cast, but they replace devean george with Maurice Evans and Chris Mihm with Andrew Bynum, who was on the team as an 18 y/o rookie last year, but he is now a legitimate rotation player this year, and they replace Brian Grant with Vladimir Radmanovic. In 07 not only do the Lakers have a terrible team, but they also deal with a fair share of injuries, inspite of this they still win 42 Games and have the 7th best offense in the league with a +2.1 rORTG behind another year of monster scoring from bean averaging a league best 30.7 IA PTS/75 on +3.9 rTS per TB (next best on the lakers is lamar odom at 16 on +1.1 in 56 Games, and next best in the league was Yao Ming who had a very impressive 30.4 on +6 rTS in 48 games with the rockets next to Tmac, who himself averaged 28.2 IA PTS/75 on -2.6 rTS% in 71 games, but the Rockets only managed a 106.9 ORTG, or +.4 rORTG in the 41 Games Yao and Tmac played together), again could keep going on and on about how good Kobe Bryant was this year and how crazy of a carry job he performed, but I'll refrain for now and move on

2. Tim Duncan

after a little bit of a down year in 06 Duncan has his last great full season where the spurs are a t3 team in the league, with their big 3 of duncan, parker, and ginobili, ending with him being one of the main forces in shutting down LeBron as the spurs swept the Cavs. he has a great statistical footprint this year, and is very neck and neck with Bean. If you wanted to put TD 1st for the PO run he had and the championship it resulted in I wouldn't be mad at it. It's a coinflip decision honestly, but Duncan's O isn't quite as good in 07 as it was in 01-05 and Kobe has reached his peak on that end which is largely superior to Duncan's despite what individual ORTG might lead one to believe.

3. Steve Nash

now this is a toss up between Nash Dirk, and Bron. I'm going Nash here because they are very similar in the RS and Nash has a significantly better PO run than Dirk (who had issues consistently being a PO riser up to this point), and I don't think Bron was quite at the level of Dirk and Nash Offensively, and while LeBron is the best defender of the group he;s not the all league, fringe dpoy guy he is at his peak yet.

4. Dirk Nowitzki

Yes Dirk has an amazing RS in 2007, and if this was an MVP vote he'd probably land at 1 for the season he Had but I don't think it's a 16 Steph situation where he's just so clearly the best RS player you can overlook the abysmal PO Series he had against the We Believe Warriors.

5. LeBron James

Slowly but surely LeBron is creeping up to that GOAT level player he's unfortunately known as, but in 2007 he isn't quite there yet, despite being one of the best players in the league still. This season is capped off by a 2001 76ers style PO run where the Cavs make the finals behind their defense (-8.2 PO rDRTG), while having an offensive Superstar at the helm to keep the offense from being terrible, where they get outmatched in the finals. Unlike AI, LeBron gets absolutely stonewalled by the Spurs and has a really bad series making the sweep very easy for the spurs, I could see him over Dirk and Nash, but i give them the edge

HMs: Dwyane Wade, Kevin Garnett, Carmelo Anthony

OPOY

1. Steve Nash
2. Kobe Bryant
3. Dirk Nowitzki
HMs: LeBron James, Gilbert Arenas

DPOY

1. Tim Duncan
2. Shane Battier
3. Ben Wallace
HMs: Kevin Garnett, Andrei Kirilenko

Do you feel it's ironic to cite Ortg to support Kobe, when Kobe's own Ortg of 115 was miles behind the likes of Nash (124) and Dirk (123)?

Well no because what I'm referring to is his team's points per 100 possessions relative to the league, you are referring to dated individual box metric, they are completely different things

[One_and_Done]

don't feel like doing a preview so here's the voting post

POY

1. Kobe Bryant

The Lakers are going on their third year of providing Kobe with a horrific supporting cast, but they replace devean george with Maurice Evans and Chris Mihm with Andrew Bynum, who was on the team as an 18 y/o rookie last year, but he is now a legitimate rotation player this year, and they replace Brian Grant with Vladimir Radmanovic. In 07 not only do the Lakers have a terrible team, but they also deal with a fair share of injuries, inspite of this they still win 42 Games and have the 7th best offense in the league with a +2.1 rORTG behind another year of monster scoring from bean averaging a league best 30.7 IA PTS/75 on +3.9 rTS per TB (next best on the lakers is lamar odom at 16 on +1.1 in 56 Games, and next best in the league was Yao Ming who had a very impressive 30.4 on +6 rTS in 48 games with the rockets next to Tmac, who himself averaged 28.2 IA PTS/75 on -2.6 rTS% in 71 games, but the Rockets only managed a 106.9 ORTG, or +.4 rORTG in the 41 Games Yao and Tmac played together), again could keep going on and on about how good Kobe Bryant was this year and how crazy of a carry job he performed, but I'll refrain for now and move on

2. Tim Duncan

after a little bit of a down year in 06 Duncan has his last great full season where the spurs are a t3 team in the league, with their big 3 of duncan, parker, and ginobili, ending with him being one of the main forces in shutting down LeBron as the spurs swept the Cavs. he has a great statistical footprint this year, and is very neck and neck with Bean. If you wanted to put TD 1st for the PO run he had and the championship it resulted in I wouldn't be mad at it. It's a coinflip decision honestly, but Duncan's O isn't quite as good in 07 as it was in 01-05 and Kobe has reached his peak on that end which is largely superior to Duncan's despite what individual ORTG might lead one to believe.

3. Steve Nash

now this is a toss up between Nash Dirk, and Bron. I'm going Nash here because they are very similar in the RS and Nash has a significantly better PO run than Dirk (who had issues consistently being a PO riser up to this point), and I don't think Bron was quite at the level of Dirk and Nash Offensively, and while LeBron is the best defender of the group he;s not the all league, fringe dpoy guy he is at his peak yet.

4. Dirk Nowitzki

Yes Dirk has an amazing RS in 2007, and if this was an MVP vote he'd probably land at 1 for the season he Had but I don't think it's a 16 Steph situation where he's just so clearly the best RS player you can overlook the abysmal PO Series he had against the We Believe Warriors.

5. LeBron James

Slowly but surely LeBron is creeping up to that GOAT level player he's unfortunately known as, but in 2007 he isn't quite there yet, despite being one of the best players in the league still. This season is capped off by a 2001 76ers style PO run where the Cavs make the finals behind their defense (-8.2 PO rDRTG), while having an offensive Superstar at the helm to keep the offense from being terrible, where they get outmatched in the finals. Unlike AI, LeBron gets absolutely stonewalled by the Spurs and has a really bad series making the sweep very easy for the spurs, I could see him over Dirk and Nash, but i give them the edge

HMs: Dwyane Wade, Kevin Garnett, Carmelo Anthony

OPOY

1. Steve Nash
2. Kobe Bryant
3. Dirk Nowitzki
HMs: LeBron James, Gilbert Arenas

DPOY

1. Tim Duncan
2. Shane Battier
3. Ben Wallace
HMs: Kevin Garnett, Andrei Kirilenko

Do you feel it's ironic to cite Ortg to support Kobe, when Kobe's own Ortg of 115 was miles behind the likes of Nash (124) and Dirk (123)?

Well no because what I'm referring to is his team's points per 100 possessions relative to the league, you are referring to dated individual box metric, they are completely different things

So the team's Ortg is relevant, but Kobe's own Ortg is irrelevant. Either Ortg is relevant or it's not. If it is, then any objective analysis should mark him harshly for having such an inferior Ortg to guys like Dirk and Nash.

[ceoofkobefans]

Do you feel it's ironic to cite Ortg to support Kobe, when Kobe's own Ortg of 115 was miles behind the likes of Nash (124) and Dirk (123)?

Well no because what I'm referring to is his team's points per 100 possessions relative to the league, you are referring to dated individual box metric, they are completely different things

So the team's Ortg is relevant, but Kobe's own Ortg is irrelevant. Either Ortg is relevant or it's not. If it is, then any objective analysis should mark him harshly for having such an inferior Ortg to guys like Dirk and Nash.

Yes they are different stats measuring different things and 1 of them matters, while the other doesn't what do you not understand. if you wanna look at "individual ORTG" just look at the teams ORTG with that specific player on, or their on/off it's still flawed but better than looking at than a box metric that overrates efficiency as much as ORTG does

[One_and_Done]

Well no because what I'm referring to is his team's points per 100 possessions relative to the league, you are referring to dated individual box metric, they are completely different things

So the team's Ortg is relevant, but Kobe's own Ortg is irrelevant. Either Ortg is relevant or it's not. If it is, then any objective analysis should mark him harshly for having such an inferior Ortg to guys like Dirk and Nash.

Yes they are different stats measuring different things and 1 of them matters, while the other doesn't what do you not understand. if you wanna look at "individual ORTG" just look at the teams ORTG with that specific player on, or their on/off it's still flawed but better than looking at than a box metric that overrates efficiency as much as ORTG does

And individual Ortg doesn't matter because?

I feel like all the criticisms you could make against individual Ortg would be just as applicable for team Ortg, if not moreso.

What exactly is the evidence you would need to see that would make you think 'wow, maybe I was wrong. This changes my.previous assumptions!' Like, if we looked at the Ortg in the games Kobe missed, and saw it was still solid, would that indicate that maybe Kobe isn't doing as much as you seem to think.

[ceoofkobefans]

So the team's Ortg is relevant, but Kobe's own Ortg is irrelevant. Either Ortg is relevant or it's not. If it is, then any objective analysis should mark him harshly for having such an inferior Ortg to guys like Dirk and Nash.

Yes they are different stats measuring different things and 1 of them matters, while the other doesn't what do you not understand. if you wanna look at "individual ORTG" just look at the teams ORTG with that specific player on, or their on/off it's still flawed but better than looking at than a box metric that overrates efficiency as much as ORTG does

And individual Ortg doesn't matter because?

do you know what it is how it works and therefore why it would matter

[One_and_Done]

Yes they are different stats measuring different things and 1 of them matters, while the other doesn't what do you not understand. if you wanna look at "individual ORTG" just look at the teams ORTG with that specific player on, or their on/off it's still flawed but better than looking at than a box metric that overrates efficiency as much as ORTG does

And individual Ortg doesn't matter because?

do you know what it is how it works and therefore why it would matter

I just edited my post above, so I'll reiterate the question above. What exactly would you need to see to re-evaluate your views?

For instance, the Lakers Ortg was 108.6 for the whole RS. Kobe missed 5 games. Odom played 4 of those. If we remove the game without Odom, the Lakers Ortg in those 4 games was 113.4, 112.1, 117, and 106.2. They went 2-2 in those games. It doesn't seem like they missed Kobe much, on offense or otherwise.

So Kobe's individual Ortg is irrelevant, his teams Ortg without him is I guess irrelevant too. Apparently all we should look at is Ortg in the one specific context where, if you look sideways, it could favour Kobe. But even that doesn't really favour him either, because look at the team Ortg that Nash or Dirk are generating.

But you might say "Nash had better team mates". Ok. In 2010 Nash's starters with discards like J.Rich, C.Frye, and 37 year old Grant Hill, and the Ortg was 115. Kobe has never played on a team with even close to a 115 Ortg... EVER.

[OhayoKD]

And individual Ortg doesn't matter because?

do you know what it is how it works and therefore why it would matter

I just edited my post above, so I'll reiterate the question above. What exactly would you need to see to re-evaluate your views?

For instance, the Lakers Ortg was 108.6 for the whole RS. Kobe missed 5 games. Odom played 4 of those. If we remove the game without Odom, the Lakers Ortg in those 4 games was 113.4, 112.1, 117, and 106.2. They went 2-2 in those games. It doesn't seem like they missed Kobe much, on offense or otherwise.

So Kobe's individual Ortg is irrelevant, his teams Ortg without him is I guess irrelevant too. Apparently all we should look at is Ortg in the one specific context where, if you look sideways, it could favour Kobe. But even that doesn't really favour him either, because look at the team Ortg that Nash or Dirk are generating.

BBREF's Individual Ortg is just an advanced stat like PER or ws/48. It has nothing to do with actual Ortg. If you don't care about PER or ws/48 or EPM then it's wierd to care about a stat that functions basically the same

[One_and_Done]

do you know what it is how it works and therefore why it would matter

I just edited my post above, so I'll reiterate the question above. What exactly would you need to see to re-evaluate your views?

For instance, the Lakers Ortg was 108.6 for the whole RS. Kobe missed 5 games. Odom played 4 of those. If we remove the game without Odom, the Lakers Ortg in those 4 games was 113.4, 112.1, 117, and 106.2. They went 2-2 in those games. It doesn't seem like they missed Kobe much, on offense or otherwise.

So Kobe's individual Ortg is irrelevant, his teams Ortg without him is I guess irrelevant too. Apparently all we should look at is Ortg in the one specific context where, if you look sideways, it could favour Kobe. But even that doesn't really favour him either, because look at the team Ortg that Nash or Dirk are generating.

BBREF's Individual Ortg is just an advanced stat like PER or ws/48. It has nothing to do with actual Ortg. If you don't care about PER or ws/48 or EPM then it's wierd to care about a stat that functions basically the same

PER is as different to Ortg as a balloon is from a spaceship. PER just mashes some (mostly) volume stats together and tells us next to nothing meaningful.

[OhayoKD]

I just edited my post above, so I'll reiterate the question above. What exactly would you need to see to re-evaluate your views?

For instance, the Lakers Ortg was 108.6 for the whole RS. Kobe missed 5 games. Odom played 4 of those. If we remove the game without Odom, the Lakers Ortg in those 4 games was 113.4, 112.1, 117, and 106.2. They went 2-2 in those games. It doesn't seem like they missed Kobe much, on offense or otherwise.

So Kobe's individual Ortg is irrelevant, his teams Ortg without him is I guess irrelevant too. Apparently all we should look at is Ortg in the one specific context where, if you look sideways, it could favour Kobe. But even that doesn't really favour him either, because look at the team Ortg that Nash or Dirk are generating.

BBREF's Individual Ortg is just an advanced stat like PER or ws/48. It has nothing to do with actual Ortg. If you don't care about PER or ws/48 or EPM then it's wierd to care about a stat that functions basically the same

PER is as different to Ortg as a balloon is from a spaceship. PER just mashes some (mostly) volume stats together and tells us next to nothing meaningful.

The Ortg you're using does the exact same thing

[70sFan]

I just edited my post above, so I'll reiterate the question above. What exactly would you need to see to re-evaluate your views?

For instance, the Lakers Ortg was 108.6 for the whole RS. Kobe missed 5 games. Odom played 4 of those. If we remove the game without Odom, the Lakers Ortg in those 4 games was 113.4, 112.1, 117, and 106.2. They went 2-2 in those games. It doesn't seem like they missed Kobe much, on offense or otherwise.

So Kobe's individual Ortg is irrelevant, his teams Ortg without him is I guess irrelevant too. Apparently all we should look at is Ortg in the one specific context where, if you look sideways, it could favour Kobe. But even that doesn't really favour him either, because look at the team Ortg that Nash or Dirk are generating.

BBREF's Individual Ortg is just an advanced stat like PER or ws/48. It has nothing to do with actual Ortg. If you don't care about PER or ws/48 or EPM then it's wierd to care about a stat that functions basically the same

PER is as different to Ortg as a balloon is from a spaceship. PER just mashes some (mostly) volume stats together and tells us next to nothing meaningful.

Bball-ref ORTG does exactly the same...

[One_and_Done]

BBREF's Individual Ortg is just an advanced stat like PER or ws/48. It has nothing to do with actual Ortg. If you don't care about PER or ws/48 or EPM then it's wierd to care about a stat that functions basically the same

PER is as different to Ortg as a balloon is from a spaceship. PER just mashes some (mostly) volume stats together and tells us next to nothing meaningful.

The Ortg you're using does the exact same thing

https://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ratings.html

Ortg is considerably more nuanced that PER. But look, I have never leaned heavily on Ortg or Drtg. I think they're interesting data points, but I would never say X is better than Y because their Ortg is a little higher. I like them better than PER certainly.

What I am baffled by, and what seems obviously inconsistent, is for Ceo-of-Kobefans to tell us that Ortg only matters in a very specific context that he (incorrectly) thinks is favourable to Kobe, but that it is irrelevant elsewhere.

[70sFan]

PER is as different to Ortg as a balloon is from a spaceship. PER just mashes some (mostly) volume stats together and tells us next to nothing meaningful.

The Ortg you're using does the exact same thing

https://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ratings.html

Ortg is considerably more nuanced that PER. But look, I have never leaned heavily on Ortg or Drtg. I think they're interesting data points, but I would never say X is better than Y because their Ortg is a little higher. I like them better than PER certainly.

What I am baffled by, and what seems obviously inconsistent, is for Ceo-of-Kobefans to tell us that Ortg only matters in a very specific context that he (incorrectly) thinks is favourable to Kobe, but that it is irrelevant elsewhere.

What I am baffled by is that you still don't understand the difference between these two (completely different) stats.

[AEnigma]

Far from the first time this had been pointed out.

I'd also query how much D.Rob was at fault given his performance. His Ortg and Drtg for the series were 128 and 105 respectively. Compare that to hos team mates.

Those are box composites…

… 119 Ortg…
… playoff Drtg of 103…
… RS Drtg of 94…
… Jordan's playoff Drtg was 105, so barely below Ewing.

Yet again, those are box composites. Maybe Djoker has Jordan’s actual oRtg and dRtg numbers for that series, but what you see in the per 100 tab on BBR is just a formula on par with GameScore.

Aways fun to see you pick and choose when you care about artificial box metrics and when you do not.

[homecourtloss]

Then we have the 2011 season to which OhayoKD naturally clings to where the Cavs had a -8.88 SRS and played like an 18-win team. But to see how intellectually dishonest using that data point at face value is, one must realize that key starters didn't play very many games and minutes. Jamison played 56 games, Mo Williams 36 games, and Varejao 31 games. Delonte, Shaq and Big Z left the team. The top 4 in minutes for the season were JJ Hickson, Ramon Sessions, Anthony Parker and Daniel Gibson. No wonder that team sucked ass! But of course it barely resembled the 2010 Cavs.

But they didn't use the full season? I don't know feel like you're being the dishonest one.

The only ones who are clinging to things are the hagiographers who have to try to hand-wave away a 55 win season when a certain player left the team while when another player left the team it was obvious how bad that player’s roster was.

Cavs with these players:

Varejao
8-23

Mo
8-28

With both
6-21

Andy V: -9.0 ON, +.5 ON/OFF, 8-23 in games played, 19 win pace, didn't do anything

Mo Williams: -13.9 ON, -4.4 ON/OFF, 9-28, 20 win pace (Cavs were better with Mo off court)

Mo Williams + Andy V.: 27 games played, -9.5, 6-21, 18 win pace;

Delonte[
west in 2010 had his worst 3 point shooting year with the cavs, ilgauskas retired a year later, and this was Shaqs second last year. It’s hard to see any of them as difference makers by this point, and the cavs record was identical in the time each of them missed

(with west they won at a 70 win pace without him, without ilgauskas they won at a 64 win pace, without shaq they were at a 59 win pace, a caveat for shaq specifically that 6 of the games lebron missed were games shaq missed too, take those out and they win at a 68 win pace without shaq)

Samples are 22, 18, and 29 (23 if we take out bron games) respectively

I think we have a fairly decent sample of the team without lebron with a similar spine, and in the 30 or so games Parker/varejao/hickson/Jamison/Williams played together, we have a 23 game sample, where they went 4-19

Varejao is the only person where they have a higher than 20 win pace (21), and even then it should be noted they won on average by 5.6 points (and all of them were less than 10 point wins) whereas their losses were on average by 13.7 points (so they lost by 8.7ppg) which does fit a sub 20 win pace

I don’t really see how they can be seen as anything more than a 20 win team based off of that, the players they lost outside of lebron weren’t really contributors, and while healthy we have more than a 20 game sample of them playing like a 20 win team (and in itself that sample should be compared to the cavs team when they were healthy, and when lebron played they won at a 65 win pace).

[Hook_Em]

I think we were a nose bleed and Amare/Diaw suspension away from a different #1 but you have to go Duncan #1 this year because you still have to base it on reality.

[Djoker]

Then we have the 2011 season to which OhayoKD naturally clings to where the Cavs had a -8.88 SRS and played like an 18-win team. But to see how intellectually dishonest using that data point at face value is, one must realize that key starters didn't play very many games and minutes. Jamison played 56 games, Mo Williams 36 games, and Varejao 31 games. Delonte, Shaq and Big Z left the team. The top 4 in minutes for the season were JJ Hickson, Ramon Sessions, Anthony Parker and Daniel Gibson. No wonder that team sucked ass! But of course it barely resembled the 2010 Cavs.

But they didn't use the full season? I don't know feel like you're being the dishonest one.

The only ones who are clinging to things are the hagiographers who have to try to hand-wave away a 55 win season when a certain player left the team while when another player left the team it was obvious how bad that player’s roster was.

Cavs with these players:

Varejao
8-23

Mo
8-28

With both
6-21

Andy V: -9.0 ON, +.5 ON/OFF, 8-23 in games played, 19 win pace, didn't do anything

Mo Williams: -13.9 ON, -4.4 ON/OFF, 9-28, 20 win pace (Cavs were better with Mo off court)

Mo Williams + Andy V.: 27 games played, -9.5, 6-21, 18 win pace;

Delonte[
west in 2010 had his worst 3 point shooting year with the cavs, ilgauskas retired a year later, and this was Shaqs second last year. It’s hard to see any of them as difference makers by this point, and the cavs record was identical in the time each of them missed

(with west they won at a 70 win pace without him, without ilgauskas they won at a 64 win pace, without shaq they were at a 59 win pace, a caveat for shaq specifically that 6 of the games lebron missed were games shaq missed too, take those out and they win at a 68 win pace without shaq)

Samples are 22, 18, and 29 (23 if we take out bron games) respectively

I think we have a fairly decent sample of the team without lebron with a similar spine, and in the 30 or so games Parker/varejao/hickson/Jamison/Williams played together, we have a 23 game sample, where they went 4-19

Varejao is the only person where they have a higher than 20 win pace (21), and even then it should be noted they won on average by 5.6 points (and all of them were less than 10 point wins) whereas their losses were on average by 13.7 points (so they lost by 8.7ppg) which does fit a sub 20 win pace

I don’t really see how they can be seen as anything more than a 20 win team based off of that, the players they lost outside of lebron weren’t really contributors, and while healthy we have more than a 20 game sample of them playing like a 20 win team (and in itself that sample should be compared to the cavs team when they were healthy, and when lebron played they won at a 65 win pace).

Nobody is trying to hand-wave anything away. Nor is pushing back on silly narratives that Lebron's Cavs were a sub-20 win team without him hagiography.

Mo Will played injured. He started the season missing games right off the bat. So again the whole healthy narrative is inaccurate.

And the presence of West, Shaq and Big Z may not have been important in 2010 with Lebron present (though that's unclear given the small samples) but without Lebron, it's a different team that functions differently. Losing those guys may well have had a big effect on the team. Either way, the roster in 2010 and 2011 is substantially different which muddies the water.

Ben Taylor did the analysis and in 21 games with a similar group of players, they played at an anemic 18-win pace (-8.9 SRS) before injuries ravaged their lineup. But that's 21 games. A quarter of a season. Error bars are big on that small of a sample. For a 20-game WOWY sample, Ben estimates that the 95% confidence interval is about +/- 4 SRS. So basically the Cavs are between 11-win pace (-12.9 SRS) and 27-win pace (-4.9 SRS) team. With a different roster and Mo Will playing injured...

I posted another similarly sized sample of 18 games in which the Cavs played at a 42-win pace without Lebron. Combine the samples and call the Cavs a 30-win team without Lebron. That's actually reasonable and although I believe the Cavs were better than 30-win pace, I can take that opinion seriously. Because when you simply look at the roster, Mo Will/Varejao and Jamison are above average starters in the NBA so the notion that the team with those three playing should be the worst team in the league just seems implausible. Of course data should always make us question our priors but on the other hand if the data looks completely ridiculous, we should question what could be affecting the results rather than taking it at face value.

For example...

1998 Bulls played at 59-win pace (+6.4 SRS) in 38 games with no Pippen. In 1999, they played at a 18-win pace (-8.58 SRS). Assuming Rodman is worth about 3-5 wins, that could lead me to credit Jordan with 36-38 wins. Is that reasonable? Of course not! The right response would be "Gee that doesn't look right. Could there be more to why the Bulls were so bad in 1999?".

Just because you like a certain player doesn't mean all logic should go out of the window!