From 2009-2023 Russell Westbrook and Kyle Lowry Switch teams, how different do their teams do?

Moderators: Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal

lessthanjake
Analyst
Posts: 3,082
And1: 2,826
Joined: Apr 13, 2013

Re: From 2009-2023 Russell Westbrook and Kyle Lowry Switch teams, how different do their teams do? 

Post#41 » by lessthanjake » Thu Aug 10, 2023 12:35 am

AEnigma wrote:
lessthanjake wrote:
AEnigma wrote:Here is a quick math question: is it more impressive to be 9.5 points higher than 99, or to be 9.5 points higher than oh say 115.

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), 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.
OhayoKD wrote:Lebron contributes more to all the phases of play than Messi does. And he is of course a defensive anchor unlike messi.
AEnigma
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,130
And1: 5,974
Joined: Jul 24, 2022

Re: From 2009-2023 Russell Westbrook and Kyle Lowry Switch teams, how different do their teams do? 

Post#42 » by AEnigma » Thu Aug 10, 2023 1:21 am

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.
lessthanjake
Analyst
Posts: 3,082
And1: 2,826
Joined: Apr 13, 2013

Re: From 2009-2023 Russell Westbrook and Kyle Lowry Switch teams, how different do their teams do? 

Post#43 » by lessthanjake » Thu Aug 10, 2023 1:55 am

AEnigma wrote:
lessthanjake wrote:
AEnigma wrote: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.


No, I did not at all say what “is less impressive.” In reference to your “quick math” question about what was more impressive, I said it is “not so clear which one is more impressive in reality” because there’s two aspects that go opposite directions (one is a bigger change in percentage terms but the other encounters fewer diminishing returns). I made no affirmative claim that either one was less impressive. I explicitly said it’s “not so clear.” I answered your question and basically gave a “Eh, who knows” answer, and now you’re arguing to me as if I took a hard stance I didn’t take.

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.


You’re arguing a straw man. I didn’t “dismiss” anything. I merely said I think it is an exaggeration to label the 2016 Thunder as an “all time playoff offense.” Which you don’t seem to even disagree with, since you say here that Westbrook did not “generate[] better results than most of the best engines ever” and that “the mark is still a relatively uncommon one.” That is 100% consistent with everything I’ve said, so I’m not sure why you’re arguing with me.
OhayoKD wrote:Lebron contributes more to all the phases of play than Messi does. And he is of course a defensive anchor unlike messi.

Return to Player Comparisons