Re:stats comparison

[Tammo29@xxxxxxx]

Here's what I was getting at with Pierce and Walker taking too many of the 
team's shots.  Last year they took 49% of the shots; Kobe and Shaq took less 
than 42% for the Lakers.  Pierce shot 44% to Kobe's 47 and Antoine 39% to 
Shaq's 58.  In other words, their two big guys shoot better, shoot less, and 
(with a mediocre supporting cast) win more.  I'm not really big on stat 
comparison; I do think, however, that these numbers constitute the real 
threat to the Celtics offense.  It appals me to read that we "just play 
basketball" on offense.  That works against the weak sisters, most of the 
time.  But for the big games, we need plays to get the ball low to Vin, to 
get a clear three from Shammond, or an isolation for whoever.  Relying on the 
superiority of our captains to beat their man, draw the doubleteam, etc. only 
goes so far; and this year, I don't think it will go to the conference 
finals.  We need a disciplined offense. Gene

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 While I would also like to see an offensive game plan that would involve 
more of a team philosophy I feel I should point out that your Lakers-Celtics 
comparison seems a bit flawed in my opinion.
  You don't take into consideration that both Shaq and Kobe missed a good 
deal of time because of injuries. And even in games played, they get more 
bench time, usually because their games are not as close.  So they also 
didn't play as many minutes per game as Walker and Pierce.

Bryant played 3063 minutes and took 1597 shots or 1 shot every 1.92 minutes
O'Neal played 2422 minutes and took 1229 shots or 1 shot every 1.97 minutes
                    ******                            *******
Pierce played 3302minutes and took 1598 shots or 1 shot every 2.07 minutes
Walker played 3406 minutes and took 1689 shots or 1 shot every 2.02 minutes
                     ******                           ********                
     
 
You would also have to think that Hack a Shaq has to come into play somewhere 
here. 
Bryant and Pierce are fairly close in FTA per game (7.4 to 7.8)  
But O'Neal went to the line 10.7 per game to Walkers 4.0. 

It's hard to argue that the Lakers offense is any more team oriented than the 
Celtics when you see these numbers.   

Also, when comparing FG% you don't take the 3 point shot into consideration.
O'Neal should have the best FG% in the league (which he does).  He rarely 
takes a shot outside 6 feet and most of his shots are dunks. 
 Kobe isn't known for his 3's either.  
On the other hand we all know O'Brien's love affair with the three point 
shot.
So adjusted FG% or even points per shot would be a much more fair barometer 
of offensive efficiency than simple FG%. 

ADJ FG% drops Shaq to #2 in the league at .579
Bryant goes down to .479 (65th)
Walker goes to .460 (84th)
Pierce moves nearer to the top with .508 (tied with Duncan for 27th)

PPS takes FT's more into consideration which helps Shaq, Pierce and Bryant 
but hurts Walker.
Shaq 1.48 (#1)
Pierce 1.34 (16th)
Bryant 1.26 (26th)
Walker 1.06 (96th)            

As long as teams win by putting more points on the board than their 
opponents, then FG% alone is not a good barometer to judge a players 
efficiency.
Shaq and Kobe together obviously are the more efficient pair.  But anyone you 
lump with O'Neal is going to be better for it and Kobe isn't all that 
efficient.

And I still stand by my opinion that the Lakers weren't any more team 
oriented than we were last year.  That's despite the difference in offensive 
talent between players 3-9 for the Lakers and 3-9 for the Celtics.
Is anyone going to argue that relying on Rick Fox and Robert Horry isn't 
easier than relying on Eric Williams and Tony Battie?