User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.6847 seconds
51 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Agreed. Still, they were the first road team to win there in the playoffs.
I forgot about that play, yeah that was important.
That's what my brother and I were talking about after the game. I'm not sure if that's the best Miami can play, but Miami played extremely well last night and had a lot of things go right for them; yet the game came down to a possession or 2 at the end.
Great 2 games so far. The potential is there. But to rank among the best Finals it has to go at least 6 and preferably 7.
My favorites, in chronological order:
1988 - Lakers needed 2 wins at home to beat the Pistons in 7. Game 6 was a 1 point game, Kareem coming up big one last time, Isiah almost single-handedly carrying the Pistons playing on a sprained ankle. Big Game James Worthy then earned his nickname with his game 7 performance.
1993 - Jordan v Barkley, and the John Paxson shot to win it. Series only went 6, strangely enough the home team only won once.
1998 - Jordan over Russell. 1997 was a great series too. Jazz gave the Bulls some great battles.
2010 - Lakers over Celtics. Memorable for the resiliant effort more than the great basketball play. These two teams gave everything they had in a game 7 war. First watchable game 7 since 1988 in my opinion. I was bored by the Knicks - Rockets and Pistons - Spurs.
The 2012 series definitely has the potential to surpass all of those.
That's a good point. I think it's also worth pointing Lebron got hacked several times on drives without getting the call, so, while Durant was clearly fouled on the last play, I think the Heat win was probably still a just result.
Exactly. And outside of the Durant non-charge not-6th foul, the whistles tended to benefit them too.
OKC hasn't had everything line up for them in a game yet like it did for Miami last night. That game could be a 25 point blowout win for the Thunder if it happens.
EDIT: Also, the Thunder need to not be trailing at double digits at halftime or after 5 minutes of gametime again.
I agree with that. In the end, Miami was the better team last night. OKC nearly stole the game, but the Heat deserved to win.
That was close, and if they call a charge there Durant isn't around to scare Miami at the end. I don't think the refs were going to call an offensive foul on Durant at that point unless he pulled out a gun and shot Battier on the way to the basket. But I think they got that call right, and Battier was still moving a bit when the contact occurred.
I mostly like your list, but among Lakers/Celtics matchups, I'd argue 1984 was a better series than 2010. Then again, we are both biased.
Why? That's when they start playing their best basketball. I feel like when Miami gets a lead they go into protect mode too early, they focus on winding the clock down instead of being the aggressive team that built the lead in the first place. I'd almost feel more comfortable with the Heat playing a close game throughout, instead of them building a decent, but surmountable lead, and watching it slowly disappear.
No argument. 7 games and Bird-Magic at their peaks. I didn't have it on the list because I didn't see it. I didn't really start following basketball until 1986-87. Before that I only cared about baseball.
Agreed. And Battier's #1 defensive strategy is to simply fall down. They can't call it every time.
Hell, if it were up to me, they wouldn't call it almost ANY time...
I'm not seeing why last night's game was "great." The Heat went up huge early, and we spent the whole game watching the Thunder try to chip away at the lead, with small success until the last few minutes, and they never actually tied the game. Yes, the last couple minutes were fun, but, shrug. The whole game felt like the Thunder _might_ be able to come back, but the feeling that it was an uphill battle that would likely end in defeat was almost always present.
Right, and that's funny, since a lot of the recent thread has been talking about how much we hate that call. So in that sense, I was glad it wasn't a charge.
Why? That's when they start playing their best basketball. I feel like when Miami gets a lead they go into protect mode too early, they focus on winding the clock down instead of being the aggressive team that built the lead in the first place. I'd almost feel more comfortable with the Heat playing a close game throughout, instead of them building a decent, but surmountable lead, and watching it slowly disappear.
####, if the Heat panic with the lead, I wonder what they'll do with a huge deficit. Literally piss themselves?
But there needs to be some level of consistency. I think that's called a charge if Durant doesn't have 5 fouls. Either way, the Heat did play well, but Durant is going to (probably) have a poor shooting game. And I think people are underestimating how difficult it is to win on the road. And Harden's usage and points went way up while Durant was out... basically, I don't think OKC played a poor game. Westbrook missed some shots, but that's about it.
As much as I usually cringe at that kind of talk, it's just an inescapable fact, isn't it? You still see solid individual plays- Lebron's free throws and bank shot, Wade's drive and dish, some key rebounds- but it's like they collectively forget how to play professional basketball out there in the final quarter. Considering how successful they've been these past two years, it's pretty incredible.
Between the crowd and the fact that they have Durant, Westbrook and Harden at no point did I think OKC was out of reach. There were several points where they only managed to cut to 9, 10 or 11 and I honestly thought the game was tied or they had taken the lead because of the crowd’s intensity. It was reminiscent of how I used to feel about the crowd/atmosphere when the Knicks played the Pacers at Market Square Arena.
As for who “won” the referee battle, I missed the first half of the game and I’m not sure what the final tally ended up being…but about midway through the 4th one of the stats guys pointed out that OKC had the FT advantage despite taking a lot more 3s.
EDIT: That reminds me, I think the refs have done a great job not calling fouls on incidental/offensive player initiated contact post 3 point/long 2 attempt.
Correct. They need to consistently not call that. :)
The image that sticks in my mind is Pau Gasol getting about a dozen offensive rebounds and missed putbacks on one play before finally getting fouled and draining his free throws.
I don't want to talk about this anymore.
Sematics, but I'd say Miami was clearly the better team 7 games out of 7. And I'd stick to this even if they had lost game 7. Boston was the clear underdog going in. Boston did play better basketball in some of those games though.
Fair enough, that's true. I was referring to the subject of your second sentence. I think we can also probably agree that OKC will be the better team in 7 out of 7 games, but Miami will almost certainly win a few (more).
EDIT: Ugh, your third sentence, not your second, about Boston playing better basketball.
EDIT: Holy god I'm an idiot. Ignore me.
He played good D, but Durant got some looks that he's capable of making and just clanked them. I think the start was mostly OKC just being cold from the field. I don't think Miami's defense was any worse later, but Durant just started making his shots.
I have this metaphor in my head that he's like a 6'11" or 7' Reggie Miller. I caught some flak on another board for that, I think because they don't see Reggie Miller as that great of a player. But I think if you take that skill-set (great shooter, great FT shooter, long defender) and stretch it out another 4-5" and maybe stretch the arms even more, you really are talking about a top-tier all-time great.
My memory may be off, but in addition to everything you said, Durant (at 6'a lot'' no less) is much better off the dribble than Miller was. At least he has been this year.
Miller never had Durants ballhandling skills or athleticism on drives and such, did he? From what I remember, Reggie was pretty much a pure shooter, sort of a taller and (much) better version of Jeff Hornacek. Am I wrong?
Hornacek was a heck of a ballplayer (and, uh, a personal favorite), so careful. Sure, Miller was better, but Hornacek could legitimately play point - which closes some of the gap. If you look at rate metrics like WS/48, PER, etc... - Miller's ahead, but not by huge margins.
Oh I loved Horny. He's probably my 3rd favorite player of all time, actually. I included the (much) better part when comparing Reggie to him partly so people wouldn't say my bias is showing. :)
But I remember Hornacek mainly from his late career Jazz years when his knees were shot to hell and he'd lost most of his mobility. If he was actually fast and/or a great ball handler in his Phoenix/Philly years, well, I regret that I missed it. :(
That's a bit harsh. Dunn is basically terrible at everything other than walking and hitting homers. Miller may not have been great at anything other than hitting J's and drawing fouls, but I don't think he was awful at everything else, either.
Going in a different direction, maybe Tim Raines.
I think Reggie was a great player. He was the best player on a championship contending team. In a 3 year stretch they 1) finished 2nd in the East, took Jordan's last Bulls team to a close game 7 2) Tied for the East best record, lost in an ECF upset to the Knicks, Larry Johnson's 4 point play going down in infamy 3)Best record in East, lost to the 67 win Lakers in the first Shaq/Kobe championship run. Reggie was more than just a shooter, he got to the free throw line pretty well, 500-600 times a year at his peak.
He was not as good as Durant, but that's kind of the point while mentioning the height. Durant does all the great things Reggie did, but can also get you 8 rebounds a game and cause problems on defense with his wingspan.
Hornacek was the centerpiece of the Barkley trade. While that was a dark day in Sixers history, he was a legitimately good player. I suspect he played without the ball more in his Jazz career because of Stockton and Malone.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/millere01.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/duranke01.html
But that's also going to tend to happen with Durant's higher usage.
We know the average stats for NBA players — height, weight, etc. — has been pretty steady, but does anyone know what the median stats are?
But we're comparing basketball players to baseball players, so it's on topic no matter which thread we discuss it in. :)
What's driving the idea that they'd be substantially different? Usually you see skews in those when one end is open-ended and the other isn't.
Only if you watch them. :)
Comparing their stats is tricky, given Gervin's ABA time as much as anything, but they're in the same general territories in terms of assist / steal / turnover / block rates, getting to the line. Durant's a bit better defensive rebounder (length + role), Gervin on the offensive boards. Gervin didn't have all the threes, but was a better shooter from two. Usage is in the same ballpark. Both shoot in the mid-to-upper 80s from the line.
Career ORtgs (not accounting for context, which is important here, or age/career length): Durant 112, Gervin 111
Career DRtgs: Durant 106, Gervin 106
**
Hornacek was never fast, mind you.
**
Being in the same conference as Jordan didn't help Miller's All-Star case.
**
I think a career PER of 18.4 better describes his contributions. Yes, he was an efficient scorer. Part of that is because of the offenses they ran for him and the team he had around him (and part was the fact that he was a great shooter).
Some of those stats overrate him, especially win shares, given the uncertainty current defensive stats contain, and the fact that many of his teams offenses were specifically designed to get him good looks. (Edit: Coke to Spivey)
Also, while Reggie is a deserving Hall of Famer on the back of his outstanding offense - he was such a good defensive player, to put it charitably.
In a hypothetical "Survivor" situation, where you're ranking the greatest players ever but starting with, say, 50 and voting them off one by one, who gets voted off first - Reggie or Ray Allen?
It's closer than you might think - in the advanced stats - Reggie has the advantage by win shares, Ray by PER. Reggie certainly the more efficient scorer, but Ray has small advantages in rebounding, passing and defense that make up much if not all of the difference, IMO. Very close.
Probably best to put baseball comps out of your head. Unlearn what you have learned, only then can you hope to understand basketball.
Some differences are that in basketball, little guys often are most important for an offense and big guys are more important to the defense, the exact opposite from baseball. Allen Iverson = Ryan Howard? Dikembe Mutombo = Adam Everett? The visuals make no sense at all.
I'll bet the coach had something to do with that.
I agree that MLB/NBA comps generally don't work, but I love this one!
Most great player has their offense designed around them.
Being in the same era as Jordan hurt a lot of players' resumes.
Maybe I'm crazy, but I would take Allen over Miller any day of the week. They are near equals in scoring, but Allen seems to have a more varied offensive game, (slightly) better rebound/assist numbers, and is more committed defensively.
PER classically underrates lower volume/high efficiency scores that stretch the floor in particular. Kevin Pelton's study on 3PAs and 3P% as helping overall team offense is of particular importance in thinking about Reggie.
That's a fair point, baudib. Reggie's was different from that of many (most?) great scorers, though - he wasn't (maybe my memory is incorrect here) a big off the dribb;e/create your own shot guy like most great offensive players - the point, I guess, was more that he *needed* all of those screens and plays to make him look so good - whereas other great players could do more of it themselves. Something like that, anyway.
The more-athletic Dirk has always seemed like the best Durant comp to me -- I think we went over this a couple months ago. Both are primarily unguardable because of their height/long arms combined with deadeye shooting. Durant is better at other stuff which certainly adds to it, but when it comes down to it with both guys a lot of the time you just kind of have to hope they miss.
Fair point. Devil's advocate: You used win shares in your example of why Reggie was so great - why should we like win shares so much more than PER?
We're excluding defense and playmaking, I presume? Don't get me wrong, I can see it - but they were real different players.
As for his being handsome, really? My visual memory is horrific - but I hope he was fully shaved by that point or that your wife is forgiving wrt hairlines. (Much as mine is learning to be, I hope ... sigh.)
PER classically underrates lower volume/high efficiency scores that stretch the floor in particular.
It does (and I was tempted to write the same), but it also doesn't penalize guys for needing offense to be created for them (as hoopdata's adjusted PER corrects for).
I prefer avoiding baseball/basketball comps altogether (which I think you're also advocating, AROM). For instance, I understand the appeal of the Howard/Iverson comp, but it ignores how much of the load AI was taking on and how it enabled them to play the other guys they did and still be successful.
And, at least last year, while also posting stupidly high offensive efficiency ratings. His name came up a lot near Harden's when I was looking at what an offensively efficient season Harden had.
Could Josh Hamilton be as efficient if he used more than 1/9th of his team ABs? The Rangers gotta get that guy to the plate more. I don't know what Ron Washington is thinking with his offense.
(I think I follow baseball enough that all of the above are still things that are real)
I think it's particularly important to look at the quality of a team's offense with a particular player on the floor when we think of them as atypically good at certain things, or if we have reasons to think they won't be modeled well by the stats we have: Ray and Reggie stand out, as do Nash's Suns--sadly Rondo's Celtics probably cut the other way. In general, I think players who are very good or very bad at shooting are tougher to model, as are players who are very high usage/low efficiency and very high efficiency/low usage (or mostly off dunks/putbacks). Some examples to follow.
My favorite Dirk comp is the far inferior and also not really a great match Ilyasova, if only 'cause of the nickname Turk Nowitzki, which consistently makes me chuckle.
(I'm totally gonna talk a lot about Ersan once it's silly season - he's an interesting free agent who's likely to leave his team.)
Reggie Miller's teams were 7,7,6,5,11,8,6,15,4,1,1,15,15 for his long-ass prime.
Nash I don't need to tell you the team ORtgs, which were basically first in the league for 10-12 years. He's 10th all time in offensive win shares, 16th all time in ORtg, and 57th all time in PER behind Carmelo Anthony, Al Jefferson, and Carlos Boozer.
But I think that those are the most relevant parts of them as players (well, not the fame). Durant has some other skills that Dirk doesn't, but I would say that those are his complementary skills, and they have the same primary skills.
EDIT: 1674 said it better.
Bargnani (but good)? Danny Granger?
Reggie Miller's teams were 7,7,6,5,11,8,6,15,4,1,1,15,15 for his long-ass prime.
Nash I don't need to tell you the team ORtgs, which were basically first in the league for 10-12 years. He's 10th all time in offensive win shares, 16th all time in ORtg, and 57th all time in PER behind Carmelo Anthony, Al Jefferson, and Carlos Boozer.
Reggie had better teammates than Ray, at least prior to Ray's arrival in Boston, FWIW.
As much as anything (and this may well be my hangup), I'm hung up on Dirk's a 4/5 who lacks footspeed and lateral mobility, whereas Durant is a 3/4 (that began his career (strangely, I admit) as a two) who's a terror in transition and has really, er, long length. There's also the issue of Dirk _seeming_ a lot more passive than Durant, offensively.
Yeah -- I think players outlier players really warrant more sophisticated positional analysis. Positional Revolution and all.
Bargnani (but good)? Danny Granger?
Ability to generate shots. That's the third point of comparison. There's plenty of tall guys who shoot well, but very few who can do so off the dribble and sustain a high usage rate.
Reggie Miller's teams were 7,7,6,5,11,8,6,15,4,1,1,15,15 for his long-ass prime.
Nash I don't need to tell you the team ORtgs, which were basically first in the league for 10-12 years. He's 10th all time in offensive win shares, 16th all time in ORtg, and 57th all time in PER behind Carmelo Anthony, Al Jefferson, and Carlos Boozer.
Nash is a completely different can of worms, as not only was he so efficient but in his prime he was probably the best passing point guard of the last 15 years. This is reflected in his assist numbers. Basketball hasn't been completely reduced to one number, even on the offensive side of things. But with Nash you saw a guy who could get you buckets at a highly efficient rate and set up a ton of highly efficient shots for his team every time down, which I think was reflected in his points and assist numbers. I think it's fair to say that peak Nash was historically great offensively.
Reggie Miller is a more durable Ray Allen. I don't think that Ray Allen is historically great offensively - I'll give you "historically great shooter". As an aside after looking them both up, Steve Nash's rebounds per 36 are higher than Reggie Miller's.
The extent to which these two things are correlated I think goes massively under-appreciated. I want to quote this in full (in part bc his page seems to be getting hit by some sort of attack) but this from ElGee speaks to it strongly: http://www.backpicks.com/2011/11/26/exploring-the-spacing-effect/
Anyway, I take Miller (no knock on Allen). Interestingly, one metric where Allen has Miller beat is the HOF predictor: Allen 93.8% chance, Miller 6.4% (he, as already mentioned, made it).
***
Well that's part of it - there's a reason Durant and Dirk are future and past MVPs, unlike those other guys. But you're still left with guys like Bargnani (very good ballhandler, usage rate in Dirk territory) - actually, he pretty much is what Dirk would be minus that pesky efficiency and some defensive boards and some defense and...
Which is why you can say that Durant is more like Dirk on the whole than Bargnani is - but that's more saying that a great player is more like a great player than is a not great player.
(ugh: major downgade in title font from the hardcover to paperback editions)
Miller is second all-time in this rate stat, a hair behind Chris Paul, whose numbers will fall, given a decline phase.
why? He hit over half his twos, almost 40% of his threes (which he shot frequently), almost 90% of his free throws (where he went often) and had a career assist to turnover ratio that was a bit under 1.8 and posting a solid usage rate.
I wouldn't claim that he's one of the top 20 offensive players of all time myself, but that efficiency (and ability to spread the floor and to create his own shot when need be) is really, really valuable.
He also had a long career, where he missed few games - so he was an accumulator (7th in games, 8th in minutes) without being a super high usage guy (or ever posting a monster season).
17th all time in points, 14th in ftm, 2nd in 3pm - also 6th in true shooting percentage (combines FG/ft/3p). Was in the top 10 in ortg 14 times in 15 seasons.
These guys rank higher on the all-time lists than you think. There actually aren't that many tremendous scoring 2-guards in history. After a couple of obvious names, you run out of guys you'd take over Miller or Allen pretty quickly.
******
It hasn't really been mentioned, but I suppose we should talk about the obvious. Miller's probably one of the three or four greatest clutch shooters in NBA history, and Allen's not far behind.
Yes.
These guys rank higher on the all-time lists than you think. There actually aren't that many tremendous scoring 2-guards in history. After a couple of obvious names, you run out of guys you'd take over Miller or Allen pretty quickly.
I don't doubt he's pretty highly rated in terms of #2 guards. I just don't think there are a ton of 2 guards that rate highly on the all-time list. Basically, if you're a 2 guard I think you have to be an elite defender, a good rebounder, or a good passer to be considered on the same level as a top flight point guard or big.
What if you're a 2 guard and just shoot the sh1t out of the ball? You have to have a 2 guard or you'll have a ton of passed balls.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main