LeFraud DOUBTFUL for tonight's BIG game... then cries and whines about Lakers' schedule

[_Vcsgrizzfan_]

Imagine Kobe or MJ being GOOD ENOUGH to turn a "5th option" into such an incredible scorer.

WoW!!!

Explain how LeFraud turned Hachimura into an incredible scorer when he was Scoring just as much/more when he was with the Wizards.

I'll wait...

He didn't seem to be helping the Wizzard win many games?

[manchild98]

Every team has these players now because the league is so deep with talent. Someone else last night who averages 7 points a game dropped 29. Every team has these guys now. It's not like the 90's. There's talent every where.

[thedangerouskitchen]

Imagine Kobe or MJ being GOOD ENOUGH to turn a "5th option" into such an incredible scorer.

WoW!!!

Explain how LeFraud turned Hachimura into an incredible scorer when he was Scoring just as much/more when he was with the Wizards.

I'll wait...

He didn't seem to be helping the Wizzard win many games?

LeBron didn't help the Cavs win much during his first couple years in the league, either... and besides, basketball is a 5 man sport.

Furthermore the Lakers (under LeBron's leadership playing alongside 4 other future HOFERS) "led" the Lakers to just 33 Wins in 2022, and the following season (last year) LA was a dismal 22-27 until Hachimura joined the team mid-season... at which point the Lakers finished the season on a 21-12 run, and advanced to the WCF.

In other words it seems like LA's 5th option actually saved LeFraud from even more career embarrassment, as he was on the verrge of missing the Playoffs for 2 straight seasons.

[thedangerouskitchen]

Every team has these players now because the league is so deep with talent. Someone else last night who averages 7 points a game dropped 29. Every team has these guys now. It's not like the 90's. There's talent every where.

You must have missed it a couple weeks ago when NBA Commissioner Silver, the NBA's VP of Ops Dumars, along with other (current) players and coaches exposed the high Scoring of the NBA being linked to the fact that the rules in place are heavily favoring the Offense, while making the Defense weak/soft.

THAT is why even your 10th men off benches are capable of dropping 20 points on any given night. The so-called talent/skill is merely an illusion brought on by weak/soft Defense... unlike the 90's, when the players/teams actually TRIED to keep the opposition from Scoing.

Today's NBA is a glorified All-Star game.

Facts.

[thedangerouskitchen]

Scoring in the NBA has INCREASED a staggering 22-PPG today vs. when LeFraud was a rookie... and people actually believe this is because today's athlete is soooo much more talented/skilled than they were a mere 20 years ago?



Sorry but that's a load of crappola... the Commish, the VP, and several (current) players and coaches all confirmed that it's the rules in place today that make it sooooooo easy to Score. It's got nothing to do with any perceived notion of an increase in talent/skill (that would cause a 22+ PPG Scoring increase in the span of just two decades).

[Bush4Ever.]

The FT percentage (totally independent of rules) in 2004 was 75.2.

In 2024 it's 78.4.

The increase in 3pt percentage is 1.9 pnt points on 2.5x more made threes.

"Same skill level over a 20 year period"

[Bush4Ever.]

By the way, the difference in 2004 and 2024 points-per-100 possessions was 12.6 points (115.5-102.9).

The 2004 period was hyper-slow in terms of pace (2nd lowest in recorded history), and 2024 is slightly faster than the league average in recorded history.

More skill x WAY faster pace (compared to 2004 specifically) = more points.

[manchild98]

By the way, the difference in 2004 and 2024 points-per-100 possessions was 12.6 points (115.5-102.9).

The 2004 period was hyper-slow in terms of pace (2nd lowest in recorded history), and 2024 is slightly faster than the league average in recorded history.

More skill x WAY faster pace (compared to 2004 specifically) = more points.

Pistons had a lot of games where they held teams in the 60's and 70 point range. I think they even had a stretch where the held 5 or 6 consecutive opponents below 70 points. Now I was happy with it because they were winning but it certainly wasn't always great viewing.

[Havlicekstealsit]

By the way, the difference in 2004 and 2024 points-per-100 possessions was 12.6 points (115.5-102.9).

The 2004 period was hyper-slow in terms of pace (2nd lowest in recorded history), and 2024 is slightly faster than the league average in recorded history.

More skill x WAY faster pace (compared to 2004 specifically) = more points.

Pistons had a lot of games where they held teams in the 60's and 70 point range. I think they even had a stretch where the held 5 or 6 consecutive opponents below 70 points. Now I was happy with it because they were winning but it certainly wasn't always great viewing.

There was a playoff game where they held the Nets to 56 points, and the final 2 of the ECF held the Pacers to 65. Remarkable suffocating D.

[manchild98]

By the way, the difference in 2004 and 2024 points-per-100 possessions was 12.6 points (115.5-102.9).

The 2004 period was hyper-slow in terms of pace (2nd lowest in recorded history), and 2024 is slightly faster than the league average in recorded history.

More skill x WAY faster pace (compared to 2004 specifically) = more points.

Pistons had a lot of games where they held teams in the 60's and 70 point range. I think they even had a stretch where the held 5 or 6 consecutive opponents below 70 points. Now I was happy with it because they were winning but it certainly wasn't always great viewing.

There was a playoff game where they held the Nets to 56 points, and the final 2 of the ECF held the Pacers to 65. Remarkable suffocating D.

The Tayshaun Prince block on Reggie Miller was a 72-67 final score. There were a few teams playing great defense at that time...but also a lot of bad offense.

[thedangerouskitchen]

Pace/Scoring in the 60's and 70's >>> today... so according to bush's logic that means the players were more skilled/more talented back then.

Also, the NBA average for FT% in the late 1950's was the same as it was in the early-mid 2010's... according to bush the players in the late 50's were just as skilled and talented.

[Bush4Ever.]

Pace/Scoring in the 60's and 70's >>> today..

You norm to points-possession dummy, not total points. Pace played at has no inherent connection to how skilled a team is, but it will impact total points scored (but not per-possession):

Pts/100 Possessions:

1974: 98
1975: 98
1976: 98
1977: 100
1978: 101
1979: 104

2020: 110
2021: 111
2022: 112
2023: 115
2024: 116

The 1980s ranged from 105 to 108 and the 1990s pretty much the same save 1999.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/le ... _game.html

Spoiler:

Points/possession will always be interactive of both the strength of offense and the strength of defense matching against each other. Points were worse in the 70s because the defense outran the offense. Nowadays its the opposite...but knowing if it's because of true skill increases vs. artificial things is something that can't be derived strictly from point totals, since either great offense or bad defense produces increased points

[Bush4Ever.]

Also, the NBA average for FT% in the late 1950's was the same as it was in the early-mid 2010's... according to bush the players in the late 50's were just as skilled and talented.

FT percentage is probably the absolute most conservative (i.e-least likely to show differences in skill even if they exist) test possible because it's the easiest regular (frequent) shot in the game of basketball.

It would be like testing the math ability of two schools by asking them basic addition and subtraction problems instead of a mix of basic math, algebra, business math, calc/trig, etc...

Two groups being the same on an ultra-conservative test doesn't imply the skill level is the same, but if the groups are way different...it's a virtual guarantee there is a difference.

I can't even imagine what the difference would be like on some hypothetical "stop and pop or contested three" type measurement...it would probably be like 35 for the new school and 10-12 percent for the old school.

[thedangerouskitchen]

Bush-league ignores thes fact that today's players chuck 40% of their shots from deep, which is one reason why Scoring is higher today... got nothing to do with players being more skilled because 3PT% averages have only increased marginally over the years:

1990: .331%
2000: .353%
2010: .355%
2020: .366%

Couple that marginal increase with a steady decline in Defense and it's crystal clear the "more skilled/talented" argument is a Myth.

PS: How about those late 50's players with the same FT% as the players in the 2010's. Those late 50's players were just as skilled, eh bushy?

[thedangerouskitchen]

Also, the NBA average for FT% in the late 1950's was the same as it was in the early-mid 2010's... according to bush the players in the late 50's were just as skilled and talented.

Drivel

Just admit the players in the late 50's were just as talented/skilled as the players from the 2010's using YOUR criteria from earlier ITT.

[Bush4Ever.]

Bush-league ignores thes fact that today's players chuck 40% of their shots from deep, which is one reason why Scoring is higher today... got nothing to do with players being more skilled because 3PT% averages have only increased marginally over the years:

1990: .331%
2000: .353%
2010: .355%
2020: .366%

On more threes, and more difficult threes, stupid.

It's not a like-to-like comparison.

Free throws are a like-to-like comparison. Three point PERCENTAGE is not, unless the amount and difficulty of shots is the same, which is obviously not true.

The fact modern guys hit a superior percentage on more and more difficult threes conclusively proves the issue. Some combination of higher percentage but lower makes/less difficulty would be harder to untangle.

But more + more difficulty + higher percentage is a stone-cold wrap.

[Bush4Ever.]

Just admit the players in the late 50's were just as talented/skilled as the players from the 2010's using YOUR criteria from earlier ITT.

It's a test of skill, but the most conservative test in basketball because the shot is so easy.

Einstein and a regular seven year old being asked what 2+2 is will get the same score of 1/1 answers correct.

This isn't that complicated. It's literally what I said the first time I brought this up. Despite it being a conservative test and being resistant to reflecting differences...the modern era still CRUSHES the 1990s.

[thedangerouskitchen]

Bush-league ignores thes fact that today's players chuck 40% of their shots from deep, which is one reason why Scoring is higher today... got nothing to do with players being more skilled because 3PT% averages have only increased marginally over the years:

1990: .331%
2000: .353%
2010: .355%
2020: .366%

On more threes, and more difficult threes, stupid.

It's a marginal difference in %... and when your Defense today is soft and weak (according to the League/Players/Coaches) then that means it's EASIER to Score, not more difficult.



You just love pulling things out of your ass and trying to pass it off as fact, don't ya bush-league?

[thedangerouskitchen]

Just admit the players in the late 50's were just as talented/skilled as the players from the 2010's using YOUR criteria from earlier ITT.

It's a test of skill, but the most conservative test in basketball because the shot is so easy.

...aaaaaand using your logic of FT% (from this and previous threads) the players in the late 50s were just as skilled and talented as they were in the 2010's because they both shot the same from the stripe.

Face Facts bushy: You were talking out of your ass (trying to rip on the 90's players for their FT%) and you got called-out and exposed biggly wiggly time.

Walk it off.

[Bush4Ever.]

FTs as a test of skill is like "layup percentage conversion" as a test of skill. It's a test of skill, but so easy as to mute real differences.

It's the easiest shot in the game, so the ability to detect real differences in shooting ability by FTs is incredibly limited by comparison to threes, in-game distanced and contested 2s, etc...

The same basic dynamic would work in the opposite direction if you compared percentage on half-court shots across eras...since the shot is so hard real differences in ability would get muted by the difficulty of the shot. Just like the valedictorian at your local HS and dropout would get the same approximate score on the Putnam Exam (super hard math test for undergrad college)...but likely to possess very different levels of math ability.