Blackfoot wrote:

8th ave wrote:People were saying that about San Antonio the last 2 or 3 years. Don't know the exact ages but I would assume that lakers are younger.

The comparison doesn't work because the Spurs have an elite bench. They get a lot of production from both units.


Looking at last year Lakers team they were probably the sixth best team in the western conference. Point differential is the best indicator of team strength and future success. They added Nash and Dwight. Dwight is better than Bynum, by a full one point on PER last year. And Steve Nash is better by four points on PER over Ramon. So, they are definitely better than sixth best, but I am not sure that pushes them over the Thunder. I am not convinced they are better than the Spurs in terms of standings next year. They definitely match up well and would beat them in the playoffs, but in terms of standings I am thinking

Thunder
Spurs
Lakers

With Lakers and Thunder meeting in the finals. Thunder probably beating us, Nuggets, or Grizzlies in the second round.

Definitely only best all time if you go back to 06 with all these names. Lots of mileage on everyone besides Dwight.

I think the Lakers added a few good players to their bench and they have solid backups in Jamison, JHill, Duhon, Meeks and Clark, that's a pretty good bench.

As I said before, Nash makes others around him so much better and Dwight is among the best ever bigs defensively and with rebounding. They should be great.

Yes, but Nash is also 39. His own efficiency has gone down for the last three years. It's pretty evident he is in the decline. As is Kobe and Pau. Diwght makes them an instant 50+ win team, and maybe even sixty, but I'd bet money they would not win 70.

1, I dunno Blackfoot. The age argument is starting to sound like a few months ago, when people were scrambling for an argument to make the 92 Dream Team look subordinate to this year's Olympic roster; claiming Bird and Magic were "past their prime" when, clearly, both players were still putting up LeBron-ish numbers. Using that logic, Kobe could be regarded as "past his prime." And let's be clear: EVERYONE in Phoenix has seen a drop in production... since the departure of Mike D'Antonni. Nash is 39, but he also hands out 11 assists per game. How many guys in the league can say that?

2, the Lakers bench is better, but not great. I still think they'd rather have the Lamar Odom of 08 or 09 instead of the one-dimensional Jamison. Odom was a catalyst who contributed on defense, as well as taking pressure of the starters by handling the ball. And don't forget the most important bench piece: this team may feature the best roster since 2001, but it's being coached into the ground by the moronic Mike Brown who managed to evaporate all of his Poppovich clout by rooting the city of Cleveland of their prized prodigal son.

In the end, this team will win a ring next year... But it's built for short-term production, Nash will hang it up after he gets gold, Kobe is 2 years from delivering his Jordan speech, and DHoward has done ANYTHING but prove he can deliver a championship with a team built around him. As long as its the Kobe Show, this team is elite.

They were still putting up great numbers, but we are talking about efficiency.

Kobe, Pau, and Nash have been consistently dropping in their PER. Especially Pau, his decline has been the fastest.

Well, regarding Kobe and Nash, that's the chicken/egg argument with PER. If they played more minutes and sustained their production, their efficiency ratings would be higher. They're declining in efficiency in the same way Duncan is; less minutes, less digits, less efficient rating.

I guess, to me, the only thing that matters is that Nash is still the closest thing to Stockton in today's offensive game (not to mention, among the league's deadliest wide-open shooters). Can he defend? Nah, but he never could. Can he still get 10 points a night in the paint? Doubtful, but the Lakers don't need him to do that.

And Kobe... Well, he's still Kobe. Would you want the ball in his hands with the shot-clock off and the Lakers down by 2?

That's not how PER works. It is just the negative things and the good things you did while you were playing. It's not a longevity stat. It's why Curry with only 28 minutes a game was higher than Deron Williams in PER despite D. Will playing eight more minutes on average.

Kobe's Career average with 24 seconds left on the clock is 31.3 percent. And in the playoffs under the same circumstances is 26 percent.

Isolation offense doesn't work.

I'm no expert at PER, but I'd be interested to know what that stat for the 2004 Lakers was, in particular, the starting player, especially Payton and KMalone.

Blackfoot wrote:That's not how PER works. It is just the negative things and the good things you did while you were playing. It's not a longevity stat. It's why Curry with only 28 minutes a game was higher than Deron Williams in PER despite D. Will playing eight more minutes on average.

Kobe's Career average with 24 seconds left on the clock is 31.3 percent. And in the playoffs under the same circumstances is 26 percent.

Isolation offense doesn't work.

Actually, from what I've read, PER takes minutes into account at the very initial stages of the formula. Without splitting hairs about all the unnecessaries, the general gist of it is this: shooting 50% for 30 minutes yields a higher rating than shooting the same percentage in less minutes. It actually makes sense, seeing as its harder to keep a percentage high the more times one shoots. But seeing as Nash's attempts and minutes both simultaneously dropped, it only makes sense that his efficiency rating dipped. But to me, it's just an example of how stats don't tell the whole story.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/per.html

And, I'm unclear... Are you saying you'd be comfortable with Kobe Bryant taking the last shot against your team?

One of us is misinterpreting it because I am pretty sure it is all the good things you did in that minute and not if you played more minutes. How you did in that one minute you played. I could be wrong, but I see a lot of dudes with less minutes than others that are higher up. Particularly with Stephen Curry who is ahead of Deron in PER and behind by eight minutes a game and ahead of Steve Nash in PER and behind in three minutes a game.

Edit: 2004 / 2013

Shaq, Age 31, PER 24.4 --- vs --- Howard, Age 27, PER 24.2
Malone, Age 40, PER 17.8 --- vs --- Gasol, Age 32, PER 20.5
George, Age 27, PER 11.5 --- vs --- Metta, Age 33, PER 11.0
Bryant, Age 25, PER 23.7 --- vs --- Bryant, Age 34, PER 21.9
Payton, Age 35, PER 17.3 --- vs ---- Nash, Age 38, PER 20.3

2013 Lakers would win this match up, but like I said, I'd imagine some drop in the performance of all the Lakers older players.

no expert at adv. stats either, but any formula that has Rondo as the #21 PG in the league looks like it could have some flaws. I mean PER's got Nate Robinson rated higher than Rondo lol. Although EFF. has Rondo at #5 and Nash at #6. One of the things advanced stats can't tell us is how good a team will be from the sum of its parts. Different stats on different teams. But this Lakers team fusion of 4 HOFer's still playing at a high level could be some beautiful basketball to watch even tho it's the Lakers.

http://www.hoopdata.com/advancedstats.a ... p=0&mins=0

Yeah, there are some flaws to using PER, main reason why I am using them is because they do plot out when someone enters their prime and enters their decline. The PER only includes blocks and steals for defense so players like Rondo who are elite defensively take a hit on the PER while players like Steve Nash have a very encouraging rating despite bad defense. That's the problem with it.

For me, stats can give some good information, but the best thing is to have watched the players in question. That way you can see what they can do and what they mean to their teams. Nash was so valuable in Phoenix, where even on a very bad roster he still managed to get them to win some games, still got alot of assists and still made some players around him better. Dwight was so valuable in Orlando, where on a pretty bad roster he still managed to take them to one final and very far in the playoffs for the last few years, being the best defensive player three straight times and I believe still is.

That means that the Lakers have gotten two players that make others around them alot better. That's why I think the Lakers could have close to the best season ever. Their coach is what could be the most negative factor, as he has not been that good so far in his career. If they had Phil Jackson, I'd say championship without much doubt.

I just don't see a best ever season with the amount of mileage in every spot including their nonstar spot.

Pretty good explanation of how Nash and Dwight will effect the Lakers.

Well the Dubs are only ranked 17 on espn, that would mean no playoffs. I am not buying it. They have one of the best front courts and back courts.