2014-15 NBA General Discussion Thread

Originally posted by 4ML:

Originally posted by crabman82:
i think joe dumars was better than reggie miller. loved miller but other than the long ball what else did he do? have a high ft %

Reggie Miller had a great mid range game too. Miller was a better and more consistent scorer than Dumars. I think Miller is probably the best pure shooter in the game after Larry legend. Though Curry will take over both when he's done.

Plus...Reggie probably has the most ridiculous clutch moments than any other player I can remember.

miller was a fine scorer and very good player but as an overall player i think joe dumars was better. and when spoken in terms of the best 2 guards MJ went up against in his career i bet he'd tell you dumars was a tougher challenge given he could score and defend. not meant to disrespect reggiw i just think a lot of people forget how good joe dumars really was.

Originally posted by 4ML:

Originally posted by InsertNameHere:
http://nbahoopsonline.com/Articles/90sg10.html

Check out their list of the top ten SG of the 90s

Yea...I thought it was pretty well known that the top two SGs (after Jordan) of the 90s were Clyde and Reggie.

Reggie had bigger clutch moments and played on MUCH better teams so he received a lot more notoriety, but overall Mitch was better than him prime to prime. Mitch could do more. Dude was so athletic in GS, lost some of that in Sac, but made up for it with great shooting. Obviously, this is subjective as hell. I can see Reggie being 3 easily. And from what I remember, a little before my time, Dumars was in a class below Miller/Richmond.

Originally posted by LA9erFan:
FG% isn't important. Points per Possession, both offensively and defensively are what's important. That's it. FG% omits 3 pointers, free throws, turnovers, assists, attention drawn, etc. and doesn't account for 95% of what a player does on the court.

In his prime, Kobe got his teammates tremendous looks, along with being one of the best perimeter defenders in the game. Here's an article from nearly a decade ago, analyzing Kobe's impact on the performance of his teammates. Austin Croshere did not have a better series than Kobe Bryant in the 2000 NBA Finals. Unbelievable. smh http://www.82games.com/pelton13.htm

You're so off on Kobe in 2000 finals. He was awful. I wasn't talking about Kobe's prime.

His true shooting % which includes 3pters and fts was 41%

He offensive rating was 96 and defensive rating was 116.

When your offensive rating is 96 per 100 possession - it tells you quite a bit about the impact you had on the performances of your team-mates. That was 3rd worst on the roster. Only Brian Shaw and Deveon George were worse.

For comparison - Shaq's offensive rating was 116.

Originally posted by 4ML:
You're so off on Kobe in 2000 finals. He was awful. I wasn't talking about Kobe's prime.

His true shooting % which includes 3pters and fts was 41%

He offensive rating was 96 and defensive rating was 116.

When your offensive rating is 96 per 100 possession - it tells you quite a bit about the impact you had on the performances of your team-mates. That was 3rd worst on the roster. Only Brian Shaw and Deveon George were worse.

For comparison - Shaq's offensive rating was 116.

Just curious, what does offensive rating consist of? I know I can google it but I'm lazy and working so if you know it off the top much appreciated.

Originally posted by crabman82:
miller was a fine scorer and very good player but as an overall player i think joe dumars was better. and when spoken in terms of the best 2 guards MJ went up against in his career i bet he'd tell you dumars was a tougher challenge given he could score and defend. not meant to disrespect reggiw i just think a lot of people forget how good joe dumars really was.

Originally posted by sacniner:
Reggie had bigger clutch moments and played on MUCH better teams so he received a lot more notoriety, but overall Mitch was better than him prime to prime. Mitch could do more. Dude was so athletic in GS, lost some of that in Sac, but made up for it with great shooting. Obviously, this is subjective as hell. I can see Reggie being 3 easily. And from what I remember, a little before my time, Dumars was in a class below Miller/Richmond.

As you said - it's pretty subjective. I was under the impression that Clyde and Reggie are top two but I can see an argument for Dumars and Mitch over Reggie. My whole point was - 90s SG position was relatively weak to what we had in 2000s and this decade:

1. Kobe
2. Wade
3. Iverson
4. Ray Allen
5. McGrady (spent plenty of time at SF too)
6. Harden


...and bunch of 2 guards playing at PG because they're excellent passers: Curry, Westbrook, Kyrie Irving, etc. I'm sure I'm missing a couple here.

Originally posted by sacniner:

Originally posted by 4ML:
You're so off on Kobe in 2000 finals. He was awful. I wasn't talking about Kobe's prime.

His true shooting % which includes 3pters and fts was 41%

He offensive rating was 96 and defensive rating was 116.

When your offensive rating is 96 per 100 possession - it tells you quite a bit about the impact you had on the performances of your team-mates. That was 3rd worst on the roster. Only Brian Shaw and Deveon George were worse.

For comparison - Shaq's offensive rating was 116.

Just curious, what does offensive rating consist of? I know I can google it but I'm lazy and working so if you know it off the top much appreciated.

Basically, what it means is - points produced by the player per 100 possessions.

Individual Offensive and Defensive Ratings are efficiency metrics developed by Dean Oliver.

In his own word's:
"Individual offensive rating is the number of points produced by a player per hundred total individual possessions. How many points is a player likely to generate when he tries?"

Originally posted by 4ML:
You're so off on Kobe in 2000 finals. He was awful. I wasn't talking about Kobe's prime.

His true shooting % which includes 3pters and fts was 41%

He offensive rating was 96 and defensive rating was 116.

When your offensive rating is 96 per 100 possession - it tells you quite a bit about the impact you had on the performances of your team-mates. That was 3rd worst on the roster. Only Brian Shaw and Deveon George were worse.

For comparison - Shaq's offensive rating was 116.

Yes, and Rick Fox's offensive rating was 146. I guess he was just that much more impactful than Shaq?

Kobe had one bad game in the series, in a game that the Lakers lost by 33, which greatly distorts the overall numbers. In Games 1, 4, & 6, he was good to great, two of which were on a severely sprained ankle that caused him to miss Games 2 & 3.

And again, he won the pivotal game in that series almost single-handedly, with Shaq on the bench. It's a case of the numbers being distorted by one huge outlier. In reality, you can only lose 1 game once, whether it's by 3 or 43. Kobe wasn't great in 2000, but he certainly wasn't awful, and was tremendously clutch.

Originally posted by LA9erFan:
Yes, and Rick Fox's offensive rating was 146. I guess he was just that much more impactful than Shaq?

Kobe had one bad game in the series, in a game that the Lakers lost by 33, which greatly distorts the overall numbers. In Games 1, 4, & 6, he was good to great, two of which were on a severely sprained ankle that caused him to miss Games 2 & 3.

And again, he won the pivotal game in that series almost single-handedly, with Shaq on the bench. It's a case of the numbers being distorted by one huge outlier. In reality, you can only lose 1 game once, whether it's by 3 or 43. Kobe wasn't great in 2000, but he certainly wasn't awful, and was tremendously clutch.

Very small sample as far as Rick Fox is concerned. Rick Fox averaged like 16-17 minutes a game. Kobe played over 40 minutes a game - those efficiency ratings even out when a player plays enough minutes per game.

Originally posted by 4ML:

Originally posted by crabman82:
miller was a fine scorer and very good player but as an overall player i think joe dumars was better. and when spoken in terms of the best 2 guards MJ went up against in his career i bet he'd tell you dumars was a tougher challenge given he could score and defend. not meant to disrespect reggiw i just think a lot of people forget how good joe dumars really was.

Originally posted by sacniner:
Reggie had bigger clutch moments and played on MUCH better teams so he received a lot more notoriety, but overall Mitch was better than him prime to prime. Mitch could do more. Dude was so athletic in GS, lost some of that in Sac, but made up for it with great shooting. Obviously, this is subjective as hell. I can see Reggie being 3 easily. And from what I remember, a little before my time, Dumars was in a class below Miller/Richmond.

As you said - it's pretty subjective. I was under the impression that Clyde and Reggie are top two but I can see an argument for Dumars and Mitch over Reggie. My whole point was - 90s SG position was relatively weak to what we had in 2000s and this decade:

1. Kobe
2. Wade
3. Iverson
4. Ray Allen
5. McGrady (spent plenty of time at SF too)
6. Harden


...and bunch of 2 guards playing at PG because they're excellent passers: Curry, Westbrook, Kyrie Irving, etc. I'm sure I'm missing a couple here.

no question this era has better 2 guards

Originally posted by crabman82:

Originally posted by 4ML:

Originally posted by crabman82:
miller was a fine scorer and very good player but as an overall player i think joe dumars was better. and when spoken in terms of the best 2 guards MJ went up against in his career i bet he'd tell you dumars was a tougher challenge given he could score and defend. not meant to disrespect reggiw i just think a lot of people forget how good joe dumars really was.

Originally posted by sacniner:
Reggie had bigger clutch moments and played on MUCH better teams so he received a lot more notoriety, but overall Mitch was better than him prime to prime. Mitch could do more. Dude was so athletic in GS, lost some of that in Sac, but made up for it with great shooting. Obviously, this is subjective as hell. I can see Reggie being 3 easily. And from what I remember, a little before my time, Dumars was in a class below Miller/Richmond.

As you said - it's pretty subjective. I was under the impression that Clyde and Reggie are top two but I can see an argument for Dumars and Mitch over Reggie. My whole point was - 90s SG position was relatively weak to what we had in 2000s and this decade:

1. Kobe
2. Wade
3. Iverson
4. Ray Allen
5. McGrady (spent plenty of time at SF too)
6. Harden


...and bunch of 2 guards playing at PG because they're excellent passers: Curry, Westbrook, Kyrie Irving, etc. I'm sure I'm missing a couple here.

no question this era has better 2 guards

PG position is also ridiculous right now. CP3, Curry, Westbrook, Rose, Wall, Parker, Irving, Lillard, Rondo, Lowry, Conley (so under-rated), Monta Ellis, Ty Lawson, Dragic, Kemba Walker, Jeff Teague.

Originally posted by crabman82:

Originally posted by 4ML:

Originally posted by crabman82:
miller was a fine scorer and very good player but as an overall player i think joe dumars was better. and when spoken in terms of the best 2 guards MJ went up against in his career i bet he'd tell you dumars was a tougher challenge given he could score and defend. not meant to disrespect reggiw i just think a lot of people forget how good joe dumars really was.

Originally posted by sacniner:
Reggie had bigger clutch moments and played on MUCH better teams so he received a lot more notoriety, but overall Mitch was better than him prime to prime. Mitch could do more. Dude was so athletic in GS, lost some of that in Sac, but made up for it with great shooting. Obviously, this is subjective as hell. I can see Reggie being 3 easily. And from what I remember, a little before my time, Dumars was in a class below Miller/Richmond.

As you said - it's pretty subjective. I was under the impression that Clyde and Reggie are top two but I can see an argument for Dumars and Mitch over Reggie. My whole point was - 90s SG position was relatively weak to what we had in 2000s and this decade:

1. Kobe
2. Wade
3. Iverson
4. Ray Allen
5. McGrady (spent plenty of time at SF too)
6. Harden


...and bunch of 2 guards playing at PG because they're excellent passers: Curry, Westbrook, Kyrie Irving, etc. I'm sure I'm missing a couple here.

no question this era has better 2 guards

90s had way way better PG though

Originally posted by SunDevilNiner79:

Originally posted by valrod33:

Originally posted by SunDevilNiner79:
Since Valrod brought up James Harden as some form of insult towards me


#1 in points scored per game!!!!!!!!!!!!



#WorthTheContract

This is the NBA, who cares about defense in the 1st quarter

Rockets are 18-5 and Howard has missed half of the games.
Look at the freaking Rocket's roster without Dwight Howard. It's average at best. It's bad time to hate on Harden. Even his defense has improved.

Harden and Curry have to be 1-2 in no particular order for MVP considerations 6-7 weeks into the season, imo.

Originally posted by InsertNameHere:
90s had way way better PG though

I think I can make a good argument for PGs in this era. A lot better depth too.

In the 90's the positions were real(excluding certain players). These days it's hybrid everything. True PF's no longer exist outside of Zac Randolph.

Not saying that is a bad thing, just stating the game has changed.

League has way more talent in it now than it did in the 90's. It's just math. Population growth, international growth of the game, only 1 expansion team in nearly 20 years.

To put that in perspective, the league expanded by 6 teams between 1988-96. 6 teams in 8 years. The 90's are the most watered down era of basketball after the NBA-ABA merger, and by a wide margin.