How to read the 2 set diagrams Using original example with Shaq and Kobe.
Spoiler:
Venn diagram of the Lakers' performance in possessions with different combinations of Shaq and Kobe.
For example, the 2001 Lakers: • Played 5169 possessions with both Shaq and Kobe and were a +11.4 per 100 in those possessions. • Played 1700 possessions with Shaq, without Kobe and were a +3.7 per 100 in those possessions. • Played 1516 possessions with Kobe, without Shaq and were a -0.3 per 100 in those possessions.
How to read the 3 set diagrams Using original example with LeBron, Wade, Bosh.
Spoiler:
Venn diagram of Miami Heat's performance in possessions with different combinations of LeBron, Wade and Bosh.
For example, the 2012 Heat: • Played 1366 possessions with LeBron, without Wade and Bosh and were a +3.0 per 100 in those possessions. • Played 1290 possessions with LeBron and Wade, without Bosh and were a +15.5 per 100 in those possessions. • Played 2722 possessions with LeBron, Wade and Bosh and were a +14.3 per 100 in those possessions. ... etc.
Bonus: Big 3 with and without Bowen
2004 Spurs Big 3 + Bowen: +8.3 in 1589 possessions Big 3 - Bowen: +22.2 in 496 possessions
2005 Spurs Big 3 + Bowen: +16.1 in 2372 possessions Big 3 - Bowen: +24.4 in 414 possessions
2006 Spurs Big 3 + Bowen: +14.6 in 1989 possessions Big 3 - Bowen: +17.1 in 340 possessions
2007 Spurs Big 3 + Bowen: +14.1 in 2061 possessions Big 3 - Bowen: +17.1 in 662 possessions
2008 Spurs Big 3 + Bowen: +5.3 in 1704 possessions Big 3 - Bowen: +19.5 in 785 possessions
2004~08 Spurs Big 3 + Bowen: +12.2 in 9714 possessions Big 3 - Bowen: +19.8 in 2696 possessions
DieYoung wrote:Tony Parker is a cancer confirmed. Mid 2000 Spurs were a big two of Duncan and Ginobili, not a big three.
He isn't a cancer. He was at least an above average player but I am tempted to make a thread about something I've thought about for a long time. Did San Antonio make a mistake committing big money to Parker?
Abolish the draft. Abolish the rookie scale. Make teams try to win.
lorak wrote:Another piece of evidence how badly underrated Manu still is.
Teh more glaring takeaway should be anyone who buys into this stat should never again remotely entertain any ideas of Tim Duncan, system player.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
Always had a feeling that Manu's on-court impact was huge just from watching Spurs games. All the more clear with these on/off stats. I recall Manu having top-10 ORPM as late into his career as 2014. Are there any stats on this?
I don't know how to take the Tony Parker numbers. He's erratic and his performances go up and down, but he's certainly had more than 2 effective seasons. I find some of them tough to believe, especially the 2011, 2007 numbers? I loved both those seasons from Parker. Was all star worthy at the time. He certainly slowed down at some point due to his play style, but contributed well and received a contract due to his familiarity with what the Spurs were about. He wasn't a guy you could easily replace - not necessarily in terms of raw skill, talent, or production but because of the comfort, familiarity and fit.
Manu doesn't surprise me. He's a 30 minute Superstar. His lack of durability is the only thing that prevents him from being one.
I have never been a big fan of on/off numbers. They are so dependent on who else is on the court with you. I think a big harm for Parker in these numbers is that back up PG has always been a strength for the Spurs. This boosts the numbers when Parker is off the court. I think the drop off from Duncan and Manu has often been much larger than when Parker rests. I am a firm believer that Parker was much better than Manu. He was always the number 2 option between Duncan and in my mind who the opponent tried to stop after Duncan. I also think Manu benefited in some ways from often going against the 2nd team of the opposition for more of his minutes. This is interesting quick way to look at them but for real conclusion, you need a lot more study into who else was on the court and who was on the court for opponent.
I don't really know how to feel about those Bowen numbers - even though he was only giving the occasional 3 on O, I don't think his man defense was underrated (his help defense wasn't amazing though). I'd love to see the Bowen #s against teams with a major perimeter threat because there's where his value was. He doesn't provide the same value against bad teams or teams without a perimeter star, but I'd say it's more important to provide value against good teams with a perimeter threat.
Also think the Bowen numbers from 2008 (year before retirement) are bringing him down overall - would love to see #s from 02/03.
RSCD3_ wrote:So bowen dragged down the big 3 from an on/off perspective every single year...
Was hos offense that bad and his defense more replaceable when slotted next to the big 3
It isn't impossible. He was probably the worst shooter I've ever seen on a multiple title winner. He could only shoot the 3 from one corner on the court. I need to see a lot more data on this.
Abolish the draft. Abolish the rookie scale. Make teams try to win.
I think Bowen's value is linked to his usefulness. He's a great defender than can make Manu and other people rest. He fills up minutes that otherwise would have stayed unfilled
For Parker the same reasoning applies. Manu can't play too many minutes,so the only worthy playmaking "alternative" is Parker (or george hill for some years)
Also, a secret of the spurs success is changing momentum, the bursts of offense followed by a regime of locked-up defense,rotations and rotations. Parker and Bowen allowed Popovich to be flexible
"La natura gode della natura; la natura trionfa sulla natura; la natura domina la natura" - Ostanes
