Re: Re:stats comparison

["Lance Jacobson" <lancejacob@xxxxxxxxx>]

There's a flaw in this analysis as well, IMO.  With Shaq missing so many
games and yet the team still makes the playoffs easily, it's fair to say
that the Lakers can miss either of these guys and still win games.  When
Shaq and Pierce are available, they get the minutes and the shots.  We can
also see that they win games when one of their Big Two are out.  Can the
Celts say the same thing?  We don't know, since the captains missed one game
combined last year.

In any case, the comparison is irrelevant when Shaq is compared to Walker.
Tell me a team in the NBA that wouldn't consider dropping the ball down to
Shaq-In-the-Box a no-brainer for two points, compared to a Walker spin move
or 3.  I love what he brings to the team, but we can question Twan's shot
selection, but we'd be crazy to question Shaq's, or the Lakers' desire to go
to him.

He's Dominant, duh.  Twan isn't.  PP and Kobe play a similar game, but the
Lakers look for shots, yet when they need them they go to Shaq for the
world's highest percentage shot.--a dunk with two guys hanging on your 330
lb athlete that gets a foul shot to boot.

After all the numbers are crunched, it boils down to asking whether you'd
rather have Shaq or Twan, not the offenses designed around either.

I'd just as soon count needles in a Kansas haystack as prove the stats on
the Lakers vs. Celts have to do with the types of offenses each team runs.
----- Original Message -----
From: <Tammo29@AOL.com>
To: <celtics@igtc.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 12:57 PM
Subject: Re:stats comparison


> 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?