Dream Team ASPM, response to recent article.

[Mike G]

... the 2 best players are from the 2012 team (by a hair).

Uh, no. You may imagine Chris Paul at age 26 is better than Michael Jordan at age 28, but you would be very far off the mark. Jordan was cementing his status as greatest player of all time, and Paul is just very damn good.

Such a conclusion could suggest a referendum on Win Shares per Minute, perhaps.

No guard ever came even close to equalling Jordan in a playoff series. LeBron vs Jordan, however, would be an awesome matchup. Even if they weren't assigned to cover one another, they often enough would.

[DSMok1]

Yeah, Chris Paul is likely overrated by stats, since his strongest points are what stats see. Vs. Jordan, he shot as well, rebounded worse, had way more assists, more steals, and fewer blocks. And took way fewer shots than Jordan.

I would say, though, that Lebron last year was probably better than Jordan in 92, at least looking at the stats. Lebron was better in just about every way.

[Mike G]

LeBron is 27 this year, which would be 1990-91 for Jordan.
For both players, it was the first year they had the luxury of playing less than 39 MPG -- down to 37 for Jordan (playing every game), 37.5 for LeBron. Both players hit some career-best marks.
http://bkref.com/tiny/sMnQn

Virtually equal: TS%, FTA/36, Blk%
LeBron has better (than MJ) 3FG%, rebound and assist rates, but also more turnovers.
Jordan takes FT%, Stl%, PER, WS/48 ... and check out their playoff numbers -- the gaps widen, and the Ast% disparity reverses.

Jordan had actually turned 28 by the end of '91. Here are their cumulative stats leading up to first NBA titles -
http://bkref.com/tiny/t6QSI

[huevonkiller]

I think you are strongly over-weighting post season in your comments here. The sample size in post season is considerably smaller than the regular season.

D-Rob has a considerable drop-off in the playoffs, throughout his prime. I didn't waste time posting the numbers because it seems fairly obvious from the data I've seen on basketball-reference.

His WS/48 is more appropriate during the Duncan era, but he wasn't supposed to carry the league on his shoulders by then.

Jordan was dominant in the post-season in 90, 91, and 93...just because he had a relatively down post-season in 92 doesn't mean he wasn't dominant. Just that he had a relatively poor post season, with a small sample size. Any number of reasons possible, including just "luck". His regular season was still dominant.

Well my standards are high, merely playing well is not sufficient especially not when some authors aggrandize the Dream Team. And to me this is a non-issue had LeBron stayed in Cleveland, so it looks extremely gimmicky.

To me both seasons matter, and the post-season more than the regular season. I'll take someone like Kobe Bryant or Dwyane Wade over a clearly superior player, if they perform better in the post-season over their careers. Think of Shaq versus KG, it does indeed matter.

2012 Lebron crushes 92 Jordan? I find that quite a strong statement.

It doesn't shock me at all, seeing as LeBron already has the GOAT-season in 2009.

And Jordan has a history of playing below his standards against the Pistons, maybe not in 1990 but in other seasons. He looks especially vulnerable in 1992, the most important year of reference.

I don't know about your David Robinson CLEARLY not the same player in post season. I believe I saw a study on playoffs vs. regular season, and the reduction he saw wasn't unusual. He was plenty good in the '91 playoffs!

Sure, show me your study I don't mind.

[huevonkiller]

The 95, 96, 97, and 98 Bulls played in a weak era and pumped up their wins so to speak...

What is the argument that it was a weak era? Relative to what era?

My own analysis concludes that 1993 was the low point of competitiveness in the Bulls era, and the weakest year since '83; but stronger than any year before 1983.

NP's justification for league strength might be wrong, that is possible. If I remember correctly, he said he measured players in back-to-back seasons and adjusted for age, then measured their dropoff in ASPM.

If that is what he did, that could still be a flawed analysis. Each couple of years the NBA could still have a more athletic league environment. The rising or falling of a player's rate averages would therefore not be full context.

Meanwhile, 1997-98 looks like as strong a year as any; based on minutes and rebound rates by players who also played in prior seasons.

Jordan was dominant in the post-season in 90, 91, and 93...just because he had a relatively down post-season in 92 doesn't mean he wasn't dominant. Just that he had a relatively poor post season...

He was dominant; was he "relatively down"?
His scoring relative to opponent scoring was higher than for any other season or postseason in the Bulls' title years.
His playoff rebound and assist rates were essentially the same as his season's. Same TS%. For most players, these rates fall off in the playoffs.

The '92 Bulls were opposed by 2 of the 3 best defenses in the league (NY and Por) for 13 of their 22 playoff games. This may have something to do with depressed stats.

His rate stats are clearly not the same, although Horace Grant had his best season so the Bulls didn't care.

It's been my experience that the articles on ESPN Insider are rarely the best work of any given author.

Ah ok, but he works there now so I don't have much to draw from.

LeBron is 27 this year, which would be 1990-91 for Jordan.
For both players, it was the first year they had the luxury of playing less than 39 MPG -- down to 37 for Jordan (playing every game), 37.5 for LeBron. Both players hit some career-best marks.
http://bkref.com/tiny/sMnQn

Virtually equal: TS%, FTA/36, Blk%
LeBron has better (than MJ) 3FG%, rebound and assist rates, but also more turnovers.
Jordan takes FT%, Stl%, PER, WS/48 ... and check out their playoff numbers -- the gaps widen, and the Ast% disparity reverses.

Jordan had actually turned 28 by the end of '91. Here are their cumulative stats leading up to first NBA titles -
http://bkref.com/tiny/t6QSI

And LeBron's best season wasn't 2012, and Jordan wasn't 27 in 1992. I tried to stick with the facts up to now. LeBron's four year averages in the playoffs are also better slightly. LeBron is in his prime and he's better now.

~~~

I want to mention some other players now. On the Dream Team a bunch of other players might score more points, who knows. Barkley was the leading scorer in 1992 and Jordan had "meh" efficiency. Carmelo and Durant are very efficient offensively too, Kevin Love is nice per-minute as well. Both LeBron and Jordan seem to defer in this tournament. FWIW I love watching Anthony Davis play. I wish he got more time, I love defense.

[Mike G]

... His playoff rebound and assist rates were essentially the same as his season's. Same TS%. For most players, these rates fall off in the playoffs.

The '92 Bulls were opposed by 2 of the 3 best defenses in the league (NY and Por) for 13 of their 22 playoff games. This may have something to do with depressed stats.

His rate stats are clearly not the same, although Horace Grant had his best season so the Bulls didn't care...

Or they didn't mind that Jordan's playoff rates were as good or better than during the season?

Code: Select all

'92   mpg    PER   TS%  Reb%   Ast%   Stl%  Blk%  TO%   Usg%   PPG  Pts/36
RS   38.8   27.7  .579   9.5   25.7   3.0   1.5   8.8   31.7   30.1   27.9
PO   41.8   27.2  .571   9.1   28.3   2.6   1.2  10.9   37.1   34.5   29.7

Which rates are "clearly not the same"? He shot more, shot just as well, and assisted more.
Every rate which dropped is insignificant or better than the dropoff most players get during playoffs.

[huevonkiller]

... His playoff rebound and assist rates were essentially the same as his season's. Same TS%. For most players, these rates fall off in the playoffs.

The '92 Bulls were opposed by 2 of the 3 best defenses in the league (NY and Por) for 13 of their 22 playoff games. This may have something to do with depressed stats.

His rate stats are clearly not the same, although Horace Grant had his best season so the Bulls didn't care...

Or they didn't mind that Jordan's playoff rates were as good or better than during the season?

Code: Select all

'92   mpg    PER   TS%  Reb%   Ast%   Stl%  Blk%  TO%   Usg%   PPG  Pts/36
RS   38.8   27.7  .579   9.5   25.7   3.0   1.5   8.8   31.7   30.1   27.9
PO   41.8   27.2  .571   9.1   28.3   2.6   1.2  10.9   37.1   34.5   29.7

Which rates are "clearly not the same"? He shot more, shot just as well, and assisted more.
Every rate which dropped is insignificant or better than the dropoff most players get during playoffs.

His dip in offensive rating is significant. The raw numbers mean little if you're comparing two different league environments.


You overlooked the 1992 playoff team average of 111.4 o-rating. His offensive rating was only 115 in the playoffs, but in the regular season Jordan was +13 points above league average. Jordan's extra usage doesn't account for the large dip either. Jordan definitely underperformed and simply hogged the ball to get his numbers.

His usage-rate adjusted PER is pretty bad for his standards, and he didn't improve at all defensively. The NBA was weaker defensively back in that season and pace inflated.

[Mike G]

The Bulls didn't play all 15 other teams in the 1992 playoffs. The average ORtg (and DRtg) was 111.4, but the best defensive teams were NY (DRtg 104.6, with 7 of their 12 games against the Bulls), Chi (105.3), Det (105.8, losing to NY in 1st round), Cle (109.8, 6 of 17 games vs Chi), and Por (110.1, 6 of 22 games vs Chi).
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... _1992.html

Miami was worst (126.4, all 3 games vs Chi). These other Bulls' victims (Chi ORtg 112.2) of course had even better DRtg before falling to them.

Jordan definitely underperformed and simply hogged the ball to get his numbers.

Tell that to the Heat, Knicks, Cavs, and Blazers.
Or just look up their guards' numbers vs Chicago.

[huevonkiller]

The Bulls didn't play all 15 other teams in the 1992 playoffs.

Kobe Bryant doesn't play all 15 other teams in the 2009 playoffs. Every first round team inflates every defensive rating across all eras.

MJ had a weak offensive performance in 1992 for his talent level, and ended up playing like an almost-peak Kobe (or maybe not even that if you look at Kobe's 01 postseason). His extremely inefficient PER suggests this is an accurate comparison.

The average ORtg (and DRtg) was 111.4, but the best defensive teams were NY (DRtg 104.6, with 7 of their 12 games against the Bulls), Chi (105.3), Det (105.8, losing to NY in 1st round), Cle (109.8, 6 of 17 games vs Chi), and Por (110.1, 6 of 22 games vs Chi).
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... _1992.html

Miami was worst (126.4, all 3 games vs Chi). These other Bulls' victims (Chi ORtg 112.2) of course had even better DRtg before falling to them.

Jordan definitely underperformed and simply hogged the ball to get his numbers.

Tell that to the Heat, Knicks, Cavs, and Blazers.
Or just look up their guards' numbers vs Chicago.

Ok, I don't mind criticizing those teams. Your argument is pretty random since MJ's opponents averaged 110.4 defensively.

The fact is that 1992 has incredibly bad defensive teams for modern-day standards. The Heat were weak, and the Cavs and Blazers were also pretty bad for today's standards.

[Mike G]

MJ had a weak offensive performance in 1992 for his talent level, and ended up playing like an almost-peak Kobe. His extremely inefficient PER suggests this is an accurate comparison.

Kobe has never had a 27.2 PER for a postseason. Once for a regular season.
After Jordan's 27.2 in 1992, we find Karl Malone at 25.0 in the #2 slot.
(That would be #2 in Kobe's playoff career, as well.)

... MJ's opponents averaged 110.4 defensively.

Yes, after playing the Bulls.
In the regular season, they were #2 (NY), #3 (Por), #11 (Cle) and #24 (Mia).
That's 13 of 22 games vs the #2-3 defensive teams. Too random?

[kjb]

What do "today's standards" have to do with assessing teams in 1992? Shouldn't be teams of one time be compared to teams of their own time? As in, the Knicks and Blazers were both excellent defensive teams in 1992, and Cleveland was better than average.

[Mike G]

I for one can't tell if 1992 teams were all really bad defensively, or if they dealt with relatively strong offensive lineups.

[kjb]

I for one can't tell if 1992 teams were all really bad defensively, or if they dealt with relatively strong offensive lineups.

And, it doesn't matter. Those teams were for 1992, not 2012.

[DSMok1]

I for one can't tell if 1992 teams were all really bad defensively, or if they dealt with relatively strong offensive lineups.

Neither. Different rules environment.

[EvanZ]

It would be great if we had 25 years of play-by-play data and could calculate RAPM going all the way back to '92. Oh, well.