What's the most impressive performance in the Conference Semis?

[Cobb]

Got it from NBA.com

 

What do you think was the most impressive performance in the Conference Semifinals?

[Make It Naaaashty]

What Dragic did for us in the 4th was just amazing. Idk how you can not vote for him even though Rondo was pretty rediculous too.

[His Greatness]

Easily Rondo's triple double for me. 29-13-18 are video game numbers. Dragic's performance was impressive, but Rondo dominated all quarters, against better competition, and was much more vital to his team's W.

[Poe]

Gunna go with Dragic's 4th quarter performance. I mean, 23 points in 12 minutes is absolutely crazy, especially for a role player like Dragic. He missed two free throws too, so it could have easily been 25 points... a quarter hundred. Damn crazy. I believe he even had a couple of assists that quarter as well, to top it all off.

 

 

Rondo also had a nasty performance statistically. 29 points, 13 assists, and 18 rebounds, plus 2 steals. It sounds impressive, and it is, but if you consider the by-minute-production, it doesn't quite top what Dragic did. What Rajon did was in 47 minutes, and Goran only had 17 minutes of action. If you even out the playing field where they both play a regular starter's minutes (36 minutes), Rajon would have had 22 points, 10 assists, 14 rebounds, and 1 steal - a typical Jason Kidd triple-double. Dragic would have had 55 points, 4 assists, 6 rebounds, and 2 steals - an Iverson-esque playoff scoring performance.

Edited May 11, 2010 by Poe

[Check my Stats]

Rondo's is more impressive to me, especially against a superior team.

[His Greatness]

Gunna go with Dragic's 4th quarter performance. I mean, 23 points in 12 minutes is absolutely crazy, especially for a role player like Dragic. He missed two free throws too, so it could have easily been 25 points... a quarter hundred. Damn crazy. I believe he even had a couple of assists that quarter as well, to top it all off.

 

 

Rondo also had a nasty performance statistically. 29 points, 13 assists, and 18 rebounds, plus 2 steals. It sounds impressive, and it is, but if you consider the by-minute-production, it doesn't quite top what Dragic did. What Rajon did was in 47 minutes, and Goran only had 17 minutes of action. If you even out the playing field where they both play a regular starter's minutes (36 minutes), Rajon would have had 22 points, 10 assists, 14 rebounds, and 1 steal - a typical Jason Kidd triple-double. Dragic would have had 55 points, 4 assists, 6 rebounds, and 2 steals - an Iverson-esque playoff scoring performance.

We are judging the performance and the total production, so therefore the minutes are irrelevant, also meaning the minutes they played are irrelevant. Did Dragic score 55 points?

[moeroadkill]

im going with Dragic i didn't see the Celts game but that was nuts what he did in such little time and basically won the game for the suns. he had a 4 point play nailed a few 3's made some tough layups and few assists.

[Poe]

We are judging the performance and the total production, so therefore the minutes are irrelevant, also meaning the minutes they played are irrelevant. Did Dragic score 55 points?

Minutes played are completely relevant. What has more impact, 20 points in 24 minutes or 20 points in 48 minutes? Obviously the more points per minute, cause while this player was on the bench the replacement may have added to the score, making the total even larger for the position played.

 

Scoring 23 points and 2 assists in one quarter is much more impressive than 29 points and 13 assists playing the entirety of 4 quarters. Maybe you have an argument with the 18 rebounds grabbed by a guard.

[His Greatness]

Minutes played are completely relevant. What has more impact, 20 points in 24 minutes or 20 points in 48 minutes? Obviously the more points per minute, cause while this player was on the bench the replacement may have added to the score, making the total even larger for the position played.

 

Scoring 23 points and 2 assists in one quarter is much more impressive than 29 points and 13 assists playing the entirety of 4 quarters. Maybe you have an argument with the 18 rebounds grabbed by a guard.

Way different, because it's the same production in both scenarios, whereas Rondo outproduced Dragic, dominated the entire game, controlled the flow, played defense, and was just as instrumental to his team in the fourth.

[Poe]

Way different, because it's the same production in both scenarios, whereas Rondo outproduced Dragic, dominated the entire game, controlled the flow, played defense, and was just as instrumental to his team in the fourth.

It's not the same production. Let's say all 5 starters in a team played 48 minutes and each had 20 points, which if you looked at their scores you'd say they had a good game, yet the team lost 110 to 100. Had the players produced the same amount of points in less time, and the available minutes allows a bench player to score 12, they would have won.

 

 

And I'm not denying that Rondo had an outstanding game. Dragic did more with less, therefore it was more impressive.

[His Greatness]

It's not the same production. Let's say all 5 starters in a team played 48 minutes and each had 20 points, which if you looked at their scores you'd say they had a good game, yet the team lost 110 to 100. Had the players produced the same amount of points in less time, and the available minutes allows a bench player to score 12, they would have won.

Do you know how situational that scenario sounds? You could map out an imaginary scenario like that with anything to make it favorable to one side.

 

For instance, let's say it was a closely contested, down to the wire game — assuming the player that played 48 minutes scored in all quarters, which player has more impact? The player that gave consistent production through four quarters and kept his team in a game, or a player that comes in for one quarter and scores the same amount? And keep in mind that the players have absolutely no control over what happens in the game while they're on the bench, so the production (20 points) is the same, barring a significant difference in efficiency and importance.

 

Besides, it absolutely does not apply here because neither players lost, and Rondo outproduced Dragic and had a better game. So your vague hypothetical is still irrelevant.

 

And I'm not denying that Rondo had an outstanding game. Dragic did more with less, therefore it was more impressive.

He scored 23 points in the fourth quarter. Exceptional performance, but Rondo not only scored more, but he had the advantage everywhere else too.

[Poe]

For instance, let's say it was a closely contested, down to the wire game — assuming the player that played 48 minutes scored in all quarters, which player has more impact? The player that gave consistent production through four quarters and kept his team in a game, or a player that comes in for one quarter and scores the same amount? And keep in mind that the players have absolutely no control over what happens in the game while they're on the bench, so the production (20 points) is the same, barring a significant difference in efficiency and importance.

 

20 points is 20 points. Whether you scored all of them in a single quarter or spread out through all quarters. Discrediting everything else and just focusing on how well a player scored, what is most important is 1) how many shots it took to do it, and 2) how much time it took.

 

What's most important is what came out of the position itself, how much production came out of the combined players to play the single position between starter and subs, and how much of the 20% value the position filled out of the total 100% distributed between 5 positions, but that's mostly irrelevant to this argument.

 

 

Besides, it absolutely does not apply here because neither players lost, and Rondo outproduced Dragic and had a better game. So your vague hypothetical is still irrelevant.

 

I don't think you understood my point. The more minutes someone plays, the more overall production should be expected to judge whether it was a good performance or not (or better/worse than another). If you score 5 points, 2 assists, and 3 rebounds in 10 minutes, you played well. Put the same numbers in 30 minutes, and it's a below average game and far less helpful to helping your team win.

 

Same thing in every game, every player. The more you do per minute, the more you help your team (not counting intangibles). It's more helpful to score 20 points in one quarter of playing time than if it takes more time, like 48 minutes.

 

He scored 23 points in the fourth quarter. Exceptional performance, but Rondo not only scored more, but he had the advantage everywhere else too.

 

The playing field is uneven because Rondo had more time to do what he did. When comparing the production per minute, Dragic outscores Rondo so much that it makes up for the differences in other areas.

[His Greatness]

20 points is 20 points. Whether you scored all of them in a single quarter or spread out through all quarters.

It is, but impact varies depending on the situation. However, you can only assume the production is the same because no background information is given.

 

Discrediting everything else and just focusing on how well a player scored, what is most important is 1) how many shots it took to do it, and 2) how much time it took.

Minutes only manner in the most extreme cases. Generally, I want efficiency (shots taken) and timely production (situational). Three points at the end of a blowout is not nearly as important as three to end a drought in a close game.

 

What's most important is what came out of the position itself, how much production came out of the combined players to play the single position between starter and subs, and how much of the 20% value the position filled out of the total 100% distributed between 5 positions, but that's mostly irrelevant to this argument.

You're overthinking this.

 

No player can control what happens in the game when they're benched, meaning there is no guarantee that the subs will even score. I'm not sure why you even argued this. You realize that points are cumulative right? And that two players cannot score at the same time?

 

I don't think you understood my point. The more minutes someone plays, the more overall production should be expected to judge whether it was a good performance or not (or better/worse than another). If you score 5 points, 2 assists, and 3 rebounds in 10 minutes, you played well. Put the same numbers in 30 minutes, and it's a below average game and far less helpful to helping your team win.

Yes it looks worse because you changed the production to an extreme scenario to suit your argument, but generally, and especially with the topic at hand, it's quite insignificant. I understand what you're saying and it makes sense, but the logic is not invariably correct, and becomes flawed as you progress with it, such as with this case.

 

The playing field is uneven because Rondo had more time to do what he did. When comparing the production per minute, Dragic outscores Rondo so much that it makes up for the differences in other areas.

You're debating using rates and projection rather than what actually happened. Dragic did not score 55 points (and he still would never have been close if he played the same minutes as Rondo). He scored 21 points. Rondo scored more, contributed in every area, and completely outproduced and outperformed Dragic from top to bottom.

 

According to the PER 48 metrics (essentially your logic), Paul Davis 'really' averaged 30.1 PPG, 18 APG, and was the year's top shot-blocker with a historic 6.01 BPG (new record), Kevin Love was a better rebounder than Dwight Howard with 18.4 RPG, and Corey Maggette was the 9th best scorer this season. After all, production per minute is what matters most.

[ChosenOne]

Rondo's triple-double in Game 4

 

because it was a beastly triple double, not just a everyday triple double

Edited May 12, 2010 by ChosenOne

[Cobb]

I voted Dragic's fourth quarter in Game 3 but Rondo's performance was also nice. Both were very impressive.

[The Regime]

18 rebounds for a six foot one guard, that's unheard of. Rondo dominated the entire game against a far better team, he gets my vote. The 23 points from Dragic are a fluke, he had one of those moments where everything fell.

[Lemon]

I say Dragic because it ultimately lead to the sweep. Even if Spurs are old, they're good enough to have won the series. It's rare for someone especially from the bench to step up that much in the court of the opponent facing a 0-3 deficit. 23 points in the 4th quarter? That's some real closing.

 

Rondo's performance was more dramatic. He dished some sick assists and he lead his team up 3-2 against the cavs who are the favorites to win the the whole thing.

[Kobe24]

I think Dragic's performance was ridiculous because he had to play to let Nash rest. He was facing a tough Spurs team that did not want to go down 0-3 but he willed the Suns to victory. He basically dominated the 4th quarter on every possession.

 

Rondo was ridiculous and probably more instrumental to his team's overall victory, but I think the game plan of the coach helps him get those rebounds. Just an observation I made watching the 4th quarter where he got like 7 straight defensive rebounds. They realize that their most effective fast break is when he gets the rebound and pushes it.

[Poe]

It is, but impact varies depending on the situation. However, you can only assume the production is the same because no background information is given.

 

 

Minutes only manner in the most extreme cases. Generally, I want efficiency (shots taken) and timely production (situational). Three points at the end of a blowout is not nearly as important as three to end a drought in a close game.

 

Personally, I don't believe in momentum and runs. The last basket should have no affect on the upcoming basket, whether your team failed or succeeded to score in all of the last 5 possessions. The 6th possession should be approached the same way - take the highest percentage shot possible within 24 seconds. Of course, all this can change depending on defensive adjustments, needing quicker baskets in certain situations, game-winning baskets, and whatnot.

 

Basically, what that's leading to is that 3 points scored is 3 points. Whether it's in the beginning or towards the end, the stat remains the same. Sure, shots near the end get more approval in close games, but in actuality, it's no more important than the first shot of the game. Even during garbage time of blow-outs. Coaches are always evaluating players, so there's always the possibility of earning playing time for the next game.

 

 

I can see what you mean as far as shots taken > amount of time, but this thread is about how "impressive" a certain performance was. So I'm still sticking by that scoring a quarter hundred in a single quarter by a role player is more impressive than an all star point guard, that is known for triple doubles, gets an unusually high one after playing the entirety of four quarters.

 

You're debating using rates and projection rather than what actually happened. Dragic did not score 55 points (and he still would never have been close if he played the same minutes as Rondo). He scored 21 points. Rondo scored more, contributed in every area, and completely outproduced and outperformed Dragic from top to bottom.

 

We don't know what Dragic would have done with more playing time, just like we don't know how Rondo's stats would have changed had his minutes been more limited. I'm evening out the playing time to better compare the two performances.

 

Really, this thread is about what Dragic did in the fourth quarter alone versus Rondo's whole game, so if I adjust the stats based on that, Dragic blows Rondo by a mile.

 

According to the PER 48 metrics (essentially your logic), Paul Davis 'really' averaged 30.1 PPG, 18 APG, and was the year's top shot-blocker with a historic 6.01 BPG (new record), Kevin Love was a better rebounder than Dwight Howard with 18.4 RPG, and Corey Maggette was the 9th best scorer this season. After all, production per minute is what matters most.

 

That doesn't work because apparently this guy played 4 minutes in 2 games, which for one is not enough time to impact a game very much, and 2 games isn't enough to get a true measurement of someone's average.

 

 

Overall, I'm just trying to say that you have to compare their production to the amount of playing time to evaluate how much impact a player had. You are saying that it doesn't matter the amount of time a player was on the court, it's the actual production that counts. I suppose that's where we are different.

[His Greatness]

Personally, I don't believe in momentum and runs. The last basket should have no affect on the upcoming basket, whether your team failed or succeeded to score in all of the last 5 possessions. The 6th possession should be approached the same way - take the highest percentage shot possible within 24 seconds. Of course, all this can change depending on defensive adjustments, needing quicker baskets in certain situations, game-winning baskets, and whatnot.

Agreed on everything but the first sentence. Momentum and runs are very real and a part of basketball.

 

Basically, what that's leading to is that 3 points scored is 3 points. Whether it's in the beginning or towards the end, the stat remains the same. Sure, shots near the end get more approval in close games, but in actuality, it's no more important than the first shot of the game. Even during garbage time of blow-outs. Coaches are always evaluating players, so there's always the possibility of earning playing time for the next game.

And coaches will always value clutch/important baskets in tight games over worthless points against no defense in a blowout. Absolutely not the same in importance.

 

I can see what you mean as far as shots taken > amount of time, but this thread is about how "impressive" a certain performance was. So I'm still sticking by that scoring a quarter hundred in a single quarter by a role player is more impressive than an all star point guard, that is known for triple doubles, gets an unusually high one after playing the entirety of four quarters.

I refuse to hand out handicaps. I'll judge the performances by what they were.

 

We don't know what Dragic would have done with more playing time, just like we don't know how Rondo's stats would have changed had his minutes been more limited. I'm evening out the playing time to better compare the two performances.

 

Really, this thread is about what Dragic did in the fourth quarter alone versus Rondo's whole game, so if I adjust the stats based on that, Dragic blows Rondo by a mile.

I understand your point, but you realize how it's flawed logic to project a 21 minute game over a larger volume and assume that value? It's an incredible rate of scoring, but you just cannot expect him to score at the same rate and pace for 26 more minutes. I suppose it isn't literally impossible, but you do understand how illogical that argument looks though, right? Things like PER 48 are maybe worthy of projecting over a full season because there is a bigger sample size, but single games? Nah, just take them for what they were and don't overthink it.

 

That doesn't work because apparently this guy played 4 minutes in 2 games, which for one is not enough time to impact a game very much, and 2 games isn't enough to get a true measurement of someone's average.

Yet, 21 minutes of streaky scoring is enough to assume Dragic would've scored 55 points?

 

And fair enough — explain the other two. Explain Eric Maynor, Darren Collison, Sergio Rodriguez, and Sebastian Telfair averaging 9+ APG. Explain McGee's 5.01 BPG, Thabeet's 4.84, and Andersen's 4.05... all better than Howard's metrics.

 

Overall, I'm just trying to say that you have to compare their production to the amount of playing time to evaluate how much impact a player had. You are saying that it doesn't matter the amount of time a player was on the court, it's the actual production that counts. I suppose that's where we are different.

They matter to an extent, but not so much that it begins to warp logic. Both games were outstanding, but you have to understand this: Dragic didn't score 55 points, he scored 23.