This is awesome hoop heads. Which gen wins?

[HuskerCradle2Grave]

Well, maybe because using win shares was just stupid.

So what do you suggest? The eyeball test? Gut feelings? What stat do you want to use to compare?

 

[Lakers+USC=#1]

So what do you suggest? The eyeball test? Gut feelings? What stat do you want to use to compare?

Stats and eyeball test.

 

[HuskerCradle2Grave]

Stats and eyeball test.

Annnnd? What stats? Because we know your eyeball test is biased....

 

[Lakers+USC=#1]

Annnnd? What stats? Because we know your eyeball test is biased....

All stats, not just focus on one, like you did with win shares.

 

[HuskerCradle2Grave]

All stats, not just focus on one, like you did with win shares.

Oh! Why didn't you say so! You don't know what win shares are! Totally makes sense now!

 

[HuskerCradle2Grave]

00s won't lose in a 7 game series to any team.

01 Iverson
06 Bryant
08 James
05 Duncan
00 Shaq

So what are you basing your opinion on? Eyeball test? Gut feeling?

 

[CodeBreaker]

Iverson is a pretty big weakness. Subpar/bad on defense, 40-42% shooter and was a volume usage player that was often a SG but undersized. He has no business being on that team of otherwise ideal players.

2001 Iverson will never be a weakness to any team.

 

[CodeBreaker]

So what are you basing your opinion on? Eyeball test? Gut feeling?

Based it on their impacts on their respective teams.

 

[HuskerCradle2Grave]

Based it on their impacts on their respective teams.

So you agree with the win shares stat. But tell you what, I will also do a PER, Elo, Box +/-, and Value over replacement player comparisons just so you can see the hard numbers.

Because, you know, all you want to rely on is opinions...

 

[HuskerCradle2Grave]

Bad news kids. Aside from being run out of the gym on the win shares stat, Team '90's owns Team '00's in pretty much every other advanced metric there is.

Box +/- Team '90's (29.30) > Team '00's (26.51)

Value Over Replacement Player Team '90's (443.50) > Team '00's (378.26)

Elo Team '90's (11,572) > Team '00's (9,656)

The only stat that Team '00's beats Team '90's is the PER
PER Team '90's (121.86) < Team '00's (122.69)

That being said, according to advanced metrics, David Robinson was better than Dream. If we get the better player (Robinson) substituted onto the list in place of Dream, Team '00's loses the PER comparison as well, not to mention the margin of superiority for Team '90's increases across nearly every other stat (except for the Elo but Robinson's rating doesn't lower the overall rating of Team '90's enough for Team '00's to prevail. It still isn't even close.)

So go ahead and make your arguments for how your opinion has more weight in this discussion than the stats. I can't wait to hear them...

 

[HuskerCradle2Grave]

2001 Iverson will never be a weakness to any team.

Actually metrics wise, yeah, routinely one of the worst on Team '00's. Of the three new metrics I posted, he was the lowest in three and no better than middle of the pack (3 of 5) in the 4th...

 

[HuskerCradle2Grave]

00s won't lose in a 7 game series to any team.

01 Iverson
06 Bryant
08 James
05 Duncan
00 Shaq

I am done crunching numbers. Why don't you back up your claim and plug all of the numbers for these players for the years you mentioned into the win shares formula and then go find the best years for Team '90's and do the same thing and let us know the outcome...

 

[CodeBreaker]

That's all? Stats? 90s stats > 00s stats so they will beat them?

If that's the case, by your logic, then LeBron would beat Jordan because statistically he's better than him...

 

[HuskerCradle2Grave]

That's all? Stats? 90s stats > 00s stats so they will beat them?

If that's the case, by your logic, then LeBron would beat Jordan because statistically he's better than him...

Indeed. Statistically better? Which stats? How do you rank the importance of these stats?

You just don't understand what metrics are. Read up on the defensive win shares post. Educate your self. Because virtually every metric has Jordan ranked higher than Lebron. So you are wrong again about the "statistically better" thing.

Again, metrics, son, metrics...

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

If that's the case, by your logic, then LeBron would beat Jordan because statistically he's better than him...

Really?!?

6 > 2

 

[Lakers+USC=#1]

Bad news kids. Aside from being run out of the gym on the win shares stat, Team '90's owns Team '00's in pretty much every other advanced metric there is.

Box +/- Team '90's (29.30) > Team '00's (26.51)

Value Over Replacement Player Team '90's (443.50) > Team '00's (378.26)

Elo Team '90's (11,572) > Team '00's (9,656)

The only stat that Team '00's beats Team '90's is the PER
PER Team '90's (121.86) < Team '00's (122.69)

That being said, according to advanced metrics, David Robinson was better than Dream. If we get the better player (Robinson) substituted onto the list in place of Dream, Team '00's loses the PER comparison as well, not to mention the margin of superiority for Team '90's increases across nearly every other stat (except for the Elo but Robinson's rating doesn't lower the overall rating of Team '90's enough for Team '00's to prevail. It still isn't even close.)

So go ahead and make your arguments for how your opinion has more weight in this discussion than the stats. I can't wait to hear them...

Fuck! I hate stat nerds like you, who think they determine everything. Just look how you think David Robinson is better than The Dream. Foolish!

 

[HuskerCradle2Grave]

Fuck! I hate stat nerds like you, who think they determine everything. Just look how you think David Robinson is better than The Dream. Foolish!

Fuck! I hate stat nerds like you, who think they determine everything. Just look how you think David Robinson is better than The Dream. Foolish!

So how was he better? I mean we have a pretty good baseline. Jordan is the GOAT and all the metrics support that.

You may not like stat geeks but you have heard of money ball. The shit works.

I did notice that you cannot rebut any of my statements or questions with a sound counter argument. All I get from you is gut feelings. But yeah, I am sure your gut is right.

 

[HuskerCradle2Grave]

Fuck! I hate stat nerds like you, who think they determine everything. Just look how you think David Robinson is better than The Dream. Foolish!

Oh, and for the record moron, Robinson's numbers are virtually identical to Hakeem's.

PPG Admiral 21.1 Dream 21.8
ORB Admiral 3.1 Dream 3.3
DRB Admiral 7.5 Dream 7.8
AST Admiral 2.5 Dream 2.5
BLK Admiral 3.0 Dream 3.1
FG% Admiral .518 Dream .512
FT% Admiral .736 Dream .712

Quit talking basketball. You are just making yourself look very stupid discussing this topic. Stick to what you know. Boogers and the different techniques you use to get them out of your nose...

 

[CodeBreaker]

Really?!?

6 > 2

Did you understand my post? Lol. I guess you haven't learned what sarcasm is. And oh wait, I said stats, not rings SMH. Im talking about LeBron's number of games with 20 pts 7 rebs and 7 ast compared to MJs. But that doesnt mean lebron is better than mj because mj >>>

 

[Shanemansj13]

I didn't mean that people should just have intuited it. I think the eyeball test says by the looks of these teams, it could have been any of them (except '10's). I had to put metrics to it. I just mean the eyeball test always includes personal bias.

But good on you making the switch.

I like you idea of the decade drafted team. That would be interesting as well. Although at first glance it would be the '80's with Bird, Magic and MJ. Although with The Admiral drafted in 1990, it may be closer than I think.

But honestly I would put MJ in the 90's, which I didnt do before the switch. Most of his success came from the 90's, well pretty much all of it.