lessthanjake wrote:AEnigma wrote:lessthanjake wrote:By percentage terms the first one obviously, but not so clear which one is more impressive in reality, because there’s basically just a lot more room to improve a bunch on 99 than on 115 (i.e. less diminishing returns basically).
Okay, then there is also a lot more room to
reduce from a higher offensive rating, so the Spurs are back to being especially impressive. Where are we going with this.
I’m not sure I follow you (I don’t know what “higher offensive rating” you’re referring to, for instance),
Any higher one. You basically just said it is less impressive to go +10 on a 100 drtg team than it is to go +10 on a 115 drtg team, because of “room to improve”. By the same token, it is tougher to be a defence going -10 against a 110 ortg team than to be a defence going -10 against a 125 ortg team — because of the difference in possible improvement. Which creates a silly contradiction where the Spurs are a more impressive defence but the Thunder are a less impressive offence because “they had more room” against that more impressive defence.
and you’re the one who’s seemingly teeing up an argument that looking at rORTG relative to opponent DRTG is not a good way of looking at things, so you’re going to have to explain yourself further in order to make that point.
No, I am specifically responding to you trying to dismiss the Thunder going +9.3 or thereabouts (personally I side more with Sansterre’s rolling approach in this instance — I do not think the Spurs were as good a playoff team as their regular season rating — but it is not overly pertinent at this scale). The argument has never been that Westbrook generated better results than most of the best engines ever (although yes, it does surpass every prime Bird team by raw team relative offensive rating), so all that matters here is that the mark is still a relatively uncommon one for teams playing three series.