|
Post by Jogo on Jun 18, 2008 18:32:48 GMT -4
I think the +/- stat is the most dangeround stat because people like to throw it around in basketball discussions about players importance when it clearly has lots of flaws. The biggest problem with the +/- is it doesn't take into account the opposition.
For example (it might not be the best example but I think it helps get the point across if your IQ is over 35), if Gasol plays the 1st quarter against the Cavs of LeBron James and it ends 32-28 for Cle, Gasol gets a -4. The team actually played well but LeBron was on unstopable. Then Odom plays in his place during the 2nd quarter, a quarter which LeBron rests. The Cavs without LeBron suck and the Lakers win that quarter 25-20. Odom will get a +5 but actually the team didn't play as well. It's just that the opposition was worse during that time. This is obviously an exageration and over big periods of time it tends to average out but it's obvious that not having a way to take into account opposition or how it plays (hot or cold), makes it a stat full of flaws.
On the subject of Bynum, I actually think he is gonna be a good center in a league that lacks good centers but 3 months of playing good D and average O doesn't make him already better than Gasol. Gasol has done more in a way longer period. Of course Bynum has a higher celling so I can't talk about the future but if we are talking about the present, I'd take Gasol any day of the week. Especially because a #2 has to be able to share some of the offensive load and I don't think Bynum is ready to do that consistently while commanding double teams.
And finally, I thought it was funny how LeBron sucks because he had a horrible shooting series vs the Celtics but when Kobe has a 40% shooting series vs the Celtics, it's the credit to the Celtics defense.
|
|
|
Post by Bish on Jun 18, 2008 18:51:16 GMT -4
Haha, I love the way the thread turned. Bynum is seriously good though and anyone who doesn't think so hasn't watched him play. And he's only freaking 20. Regardless of whether you think he's the second best player on the team or not, they should be considerably better with him on the court next year.
|
|
|
Post by Kobe Dominates! on Jun 18, 2008 18:55:06 GMT -4
Lebron shot 35% against the Celtics and has shot around .411 in the playoffs the past two seasons. He hasn't just been struggling against the best defense in the league. He doesn't suck but he is clearly overhyped. Kobe is no Michael Jordan and Lebron is no Kobe Bryant.
No one claims that Roland Rating is a perfect stat. Your example as you already know is exaggerated and meaningless because over time things like that even out.
|
|
|
Post by Jogo on Jun 18, 2008 18:56:10 GMT -4
There's no doubt about that. Especially because he brings rebounding and shot blocking. 2 of the biggest problems Lakers had in the finals series. But if you add Bynum to the team and take Gasol out, the team will not be in better shape IMO. Off course, Gasol won't be going anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by Bish on Jun 18, 2008 18:58:26 GMT -4
What does taking Gasol off have to do with anything? They'll all be back next year, which is why it's so intriguing.
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Slough on Jun 18, 2008 19:03:51 GMT -4
The main arguement is that the lakers would be better with Bynum over gasol. If bynum is healthy do the Lakers really go after another big men? Doubt it, which probably lands gasol in pheonix where they would have been much better off then getting shaq. Yes next year they should be better with both of them, but Im stating that the lakers wouldn't have made it as far if they had bynum compared to gasol or odom.
|
|
|
Post by Kobe Dominates! on Jun 18, 2008 19:07:49 GMT -4
The main arguement is that the lakers would be better with Bynum over gasol. If bynum is healthy do the Lakers really go after another big men? Doubt it, which probably lands gasol in pheonix where they would have been much better off then getting shaq. Yes next year they should be better with both of them, but Im stating that the lakers wouldn't have made it as far if they had bynum compared to gasol or odom. Bynum and Gasol >>>> Gasol and Odom. You cats watch some highlights and think Odom is the second coming. I bet you he gets traded in the offseason. Ill humor you in your theory which team do you think the Lakers would not beat if they had Bynum instead of Gasol?
|
|
|
Post by Jogo on Jun 18, 2008 19:20:20 GMT -4
Odom sucks. Point is Gasol and Odom >>> Bynum and Odom.
Oh and for the theory, I'd say the Utah Jazz probably. No Gasol and I'd say it would be pretty hard to get past the Jazz and get past the 2nd round.
|
|
|
Post by Kobe Dominates! on Jun 18, 2008 19:26:24 GMT -4
Odom sucks. Point is Gasol and Odom >>> Bynum and Odom. Oh and for the theory, I'd say the Utah Jazz probably. No Gasol and I'd say it would be pretty hard to get past the Jazz and get past the 2nd round. Kobe lit up the Jazz by himself. Its not like they were double teaming Gasol and Kobe was taking open jumpers as a result. In fact their main weaknesses in that series were A) rebounding and B) penetration by Deron Williams. Bynum is the better player to fix both of those problems. There must be another team out there.
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Slough on Jun 18, 2008 19:29:27 GMT -4
Hornets, but paul is too young still, but they will get better.
|
|
|
Post by Kobe Dominates! on Jun 18, 2008 19:32:38 GMT -4
Hornets, but paul is too young still, but they will get better. This is dumb for a couple of reasons A) The Gasol Lakers never faced the Hornets in the playoffs B) Bynum completely dominated Chandler when they met in the regular season msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/7657106
|
|
|
Post by Jogo on Jun 18, 2008 19:33:29 GMT -4
Kobe lit up the Jazz by himself. Its not like they were double teaming Gasol and Kobe was taking open jumpers as a result. In fact their main weaknesses in that series were A) rebounding and B) penetration by Deron Williams. Bynum is the better player to fix both of those problems. There must be another team out there. This is all hypotetical speaking so it's hard to prove anything so lets avoid pointless arguments. But just for the record, hypotetically speaking, you think that with Bynum healthy and no Gasol the Lakers would still be #1 seed and get at least to the Finals?
|
|
|
Post by Kobe Dominates! on Jun 18, 2008 19:47:29 GMT -4
Kobe lit up the Jazz by himself. Its not like they were double teaming Gasol and Kobe was taking open jumpers as a result. In fact their main weaknesses in that series were A) rebounding and B) penetration by Deron Williams. Bynum is the better player to fix both of those problems. There must be another team out there. This is all hypotetical speaking so it's hard to prove anything so lets avoid pointless arguments. But just for the record, hypotetically speaking, you think that with Bynum healthy and no Gasol the Lakers would still be #1 seed and get at least to the Finals? I don't see why not. Bynum solves more matchup problems against playoff teams for the Lakers than Gasol. The Lakers have never had a problem scoring points. Kobe is more than capable of taking a few extra shots to make up for Gasol. The Spurs, Nuggets and Jazz couldn't stop him. Who was going to guard him on the Hornets? Peja? Bynums post presence would have been perfect to match up with a number of teams defensively.
|
|
|
Post by Jogo on Jun 18, 2008 20:17:35 GMT -4
I disagree. Even Kobe needs a #2 that can share some of the offensive load. He can take a few extra shots no problem but the team as a whole is never as efficient. The Lakers problems in the past seasons weren't just defensive. One of the problems the Lakers had was that Odom could never be that #2 that Kobe needed on offense. Although this is all hipotetically speaking, I seriously doubt the Lakers would have finished with the #1 seed even if they had it for a while before getting Gasol. The season before they had a good start too but ending up losing gas.
|
|
|
Post by Kobe Dominates! on Jun 18, 2008 20:26:38 GMT -4
2007-08 Los Angeles Lakers
Offensive Rating: 113.0 (3rd of 30) / Defensive Rating: 105.5 (5th of 30)
2006-07 Los Angeles Lakers
Offensive Rating: 108.6 (7th of 30) / Defensive Rating: 108.6 (24th of 30)
2005-06 Los Angeles Lakers
Offensive Rating: 108.4 (8th of 30) / Defensive Rating: 105.7 (15th of 30)
2004-05 Los Angeles Lakers
Offensive Rating: 108.1 (7th of 30) / Defensive Rating: 111.4 (30th of 30)
Which rating stands out the most to you?
|
|