Kobe Bryant vs. Karl Malone: Elimination Games

[ElGee]

A post I put together comparing the performance of Kobe Bryant and Karl Malone in elimination games: http://elgee35.wordpress.com/2010/12/20 ... ion-games/

The general impetus for the research was that in reviewing their careers, Bryant always struck me as having a number of really bad performances in huge games (6-24 was not an aberration), while Malone had a number of big games that no one really ever talked about. Yet in all-time comparisons, I constantly hear about how great of a "clutch winner" Bryant is and how much of a "choking loser" Malone is.

My biggest take away:
Kobe's scoring, shooting and assists dip heavily from his performances within the year.
Malone's scoring actually increases, and while his shooting drops as well, it's not nearly as sever as Bryant's.

Food for thought.

[mysticbb]

Check out Dirk Nowitzki in playoffs elimination games. Also a player labeled as a "choker". Add the record for those players too. ;)

[Doctor MJ]

I wish I had more to say in response other than "Whoa, very interesting", but I don't. Keep up the good work.

[mysticbb]

Just for the comparison: Nowitzki's numbers for the 19 elimination games vs. the weighted regular season games (per 75 possessions):

Code: Select all

   PPG   RPG  APG  SPG  BPG  TPG TS%  TOR
RS 25.5  9.4  2.9  1.0  1.1  2.1 58.6  7.7
Pl 25.8 10.7  2.5  0.9  1.1  1.7 60.8  6.6
   +0.3 +1.3 -0.4 -0.1    0 -0.4 +2.2 -1.1

The average defensive rating of the opponents is 103.6.

Well, he increased his scoring and rebounding while being much more efficient. The Mavericks won 10 of those 19 games. That doesn't look like a choker to me.

[D Nice]

Interesting read, though I'm sure a disproportionate number of Kobe's games were played...

a) Before he hit his prime
b) With a serious injury

Also, how big were the sample sizes? That's a pretty significant detail to omit.

You're Manning analogy only half-works too. He was called a choker not necessarily because he was completely incapable of winning/closing big games, but because when you compared him to his all-time peers (Montana, Aikman, Brady, etc) his track record was pretty awful early on, especially when you consider how incredibly STACKED his teams were. The point of him losing this label after one of his worse performances does hold water though.

Also, I'm not really sure why you referenced Gasol or Shaq in your closing statement. Bryant's efficiency IMPROVED without Shaq, and Gasol doesn't really command any special defensive attention while he's on the court with Bryant. Stockton visibly did a LOT more for Malone's game/efficiency than Gasol or Shaq ever did for Kobe.

Good read though.

Just for the comparison: Nowitzki's numbers for the 19 elimination games vs. the weighted regular season games (per 75 possessions):

Code: Select all

   PPG   RPG  APG  SPG  BPG  TPG TS%  TOR
RS 25.5  9.4  2.9  1.0  1.1  2.1 58.6  7.7
Pl 25.8 10.7  2.5  0.9  1.1  1.7 60.8  6.6
   +0.3 +1.3 -0.4 -0.1    0 -0.4 +2.2 -1.1

The average defensive rating of the opponents is 103.6.

Well, he increased his scoring and rebounding while being much more efficient. The Mavericks won 10 of those 19 games. That doesn't look like a choker to me.

Elimination games aren't why Dirk is considered a choker, nor are elimination games the sole criteria for being a "choker" or "clutch." Clutch players aren't supposed to get upset by 8th seeds with the entire roster in tact, or get 4-0'd after being up 2-0 in the finals with HCA (not that the refs didn't play a HUGE part in this).

I'm not even saying Dirk is a huge choker, but trying to disprove that by listing his performance in elimination games or even his career playoffs stats is just plain flawed. Sometimes, the aggregate view isn't the most accurate.

[Vinsanity420]

It's pretty much looking at the playoffs as a whole that Malone has choked, as opposed to pinning down his performances to a couple games here and there. For what it's worth, he sees the biggest percentage drop off from RS to playoffs in my Offensive SPM calculations on my list of Top 20 Greats...and I am pretty sure I have read stat dropoffs in other threads as well... would have to look for those. Bryant does well in some definitions of clutch, but not so great in others - like this one, which probably is affected by playoff series that were practically over by the time elimination game came around, like the C's Game in 08, where it was basically over, and the blowout would have happened either way.

And agree with mystic, DIrk basically gets an unfair reputation based on ONE series... Kobe got a chance to redeem himself after that 04 disaster, but Dirk never really has gotten a chance after his series against GSW.

[ElGee]

Interesting read, though I'm sure a disproportionate number of Kobe's games were played...

a) Before he hit his prime
b) With a serious injury

Also, how big were the sample sizes? That's a pretty significant detail to omit.

You're Manning analogy only half-works too. He was called a choker not necessarily because he was completely incapable of winning/closing big games, but because when you compared him to his all-time peers (Montana, Aikman, Brady, etc) his track record was pretty awful early on, especially when you consider how incredibly STACKED his teams were. The point of him losing this label after one of his worse performances does hold water though.

Also, I'm not really sure why you referenced Gasol or Shaq in your closing statement. Bryant's efficiency IMPROVED without Shaq, and Gasol doesn't really command any special defensive attention while he's on the court with Bryant. Stockton visibly did a LOT more for Malone's game/efficiency than Gasol or Shaq ever did for Kobe.

Good read though.

The weighted averages make the games proportionate -- if all his elimination games were from 2000, then his regular season averages would be ~ 22 points. I also can't remember any injury for one those games. Am I forgetting one?

Sample sizes were 16 games for Malone, 13 games for Kobe (Didn't I slip that into the text?)

re: Manning. As you mentioned, the perception would never have existed had he won. Just like it went away when he won, independent of his play.

re: Shaq and Gasol. The point was the other elite players performed well and help LA win. And winning impacts the perception of big-game performance. In watching those games again, Stockton did NOT help Malone immensely. His performance was horrible, and Karl ran a lot of iso's and one on ones. The PnR was there, but not as much as you might think. (Someone could hand-track this.)

It's pretty much looking at the playoffs as a whole that Malone has choked, as opposed to pinning down his performances to a couple games here and there. For what it's worth, he sees the biggest percentage drop off from RS to playoffs in my Offensive SPM calculations on my list of Top 20 Greats...and I am pretty sure I have read stat dropoffs in other threads as well... would have to look for those. Bryant does well in some definitions of clutch, but not so great in others - like this one, which probably is affected by playoff series that were practically over by the time elimination game came around, like the C's Game in 08, where it was basically over, and the blowout would have happened either way.

Hmm - Malone's overall numbers do go down in the playoffs. I'm not sure how much of that is due to him truly underperforming (99% of numbers decrease in the playoffs) versus matchup and teammate issues.

How are you doing Offensive SPM? I like the B-R ones quite a bit, so I'd be interested. Malone's turnovers do go down which would make up for some of his shooting decline for me.

As for Bryant, I don't buy the notion that a series is over by the time the elimination game came around. I certainly wouldn't say that about the 08 series - what kind of player wakes up and says "I'll just mail it in because things don't look to great." I mean, other than Bryant?

Thanks for reading guys. I think I might post more regularly on that blog so feel free to comment and discuss over there as well.

[mysticbb]

nor are elimination games the sole criteria for being a "choker" or "clutch."

Well, of course they are not, but if a player really is a choker, he should fail under pressure situations. Somehow Nowitzki managed to play more efficient in those games. This is a fact!

Clutch players aren't supposed to get upset by 8th seeds with the entire roster in tact, or get 4-0'd after being up 2-0 in the finals with HCA (not that the refs didn't play a HUGE part in this).

Sometimes those things are more a product of the situation than anything else. If I remember correctly the Lakers were also up by 3-1 and lost 3 in a row after that.
Also the HCA doesn't mean anything, when a team has to play 3 times in a row on the road.
Nowitzki bad game against the Warriors is also included in those stats.

Sometimes, the aggregate view isn't the most accurate.

Actually it is quite the opposite. Picking isolated cases to make a point will most likely give you an unaccurate view. Looking at the overall picture and include all games will give you a much better and more objective view.

[Andrewchos]

Actually it is quite the opposite. Picking isolated cases to make a point will most likely give you an unaccurate view. Looking at the overall picture and include all games will give you a much better and more objective view.

Exactly, but don't waste your time, Fanboys aren't the type to factor in stuff that's logical.

Great research dude, I enjoyed reading it.

[D Nice]

Interesting read, though I'm sure a disproportionate number of Kobe's games were played...

a) Before he hit his prime
b) With a serious injury

Also, how big were the sample sizes? That's a pretty significant detail to omit.

You're Manning analogy only half-works too. He was called a choker not necessarily because he was completely incapable of winning/closing big games, but because when you compared him to his all-time peers (Montana, Aikman, Brady, etc) his track record was pretty awful early on, especially when you consider how incredibly STACKED his teams were. The point of him losing this label after one of his worse performances does hold water though.

Also, I'm not really sure why you referenced Gasol or Shaq in your closing statement. Bryant's efficiency IMPROVED without Shaq, and Gasol doesn't really command any special defensive attention while he's on the court with Bryant. Stockton visibly did a LOT more for Malone's game/efficiency than Gasol or Shaq ever did for Kobe.

Good read though.

The weighted averages make the games proportionate -- if all his elimination games were from 2000, then his regular season averages would be ~ 22 points. I also can't remember any injury for one those games. Am I forgetting one?

Sprained Ankle vs. Indiana in 2000, and a bruised hip in the 2001 western conference series vs. the Blazers, so out of 13 games there's at least 2 or 3 where he was hampered by injury. And then you've got the infamous Suns game scewing the data too.

Sample sizes were 16 games for Malone, 13 games for Kobe (Didn't I slip that into the text?)

If you did I must've missed it.

re: Shaq and Gasol. The point was the other elite players performed well and help LA win. And winning impacts the perception of big-game performance. In watching those games again, Stockton did NOT help Malone immensely. His performance was horrible, and Karl ran a lot of iso's and one on ones. The PnR was there, but not as much as you might think. (Someone could hand-track this.).

Ah, Gotcha.

Sometimes those things are more a product of the situation than anything else. If I remember correctly the Lakers were also up by 3-1 and lost 3 in a row after that.
Also the HCA doesn't mean anything, when a team has to play 3 times in a row on the road.
Nowitzki bad game against the Warriors is also included in those stats.

The Lakers comparison is a pretty silly one for a couple of reasons. One, THEY were the 8th seed in this comparison, so they were (rightfully) expected to lose. Two, they were literally one possession away from winning the series anyway (if Kwame Brown could grab a rebound), so, as you said, extenuating circumstances can and, in this case did, play a huge role in the loss. It's a much better excuse than "their coach used to be our coach too!" (considering it's not uncommon for playoff teams to have a player or coach on their roster who used to be with their opponent).

Actually it is quite the opposite. Picking isolated cases to make a point will most likely give you an unaccurate view. Looking at the overall picture and include all games will give you a much better and more objective view.

Did you not see where I said sometimes? Obviously that's the operative word, because yes, the majority of the time the aggregate picture is the best analytical approach to a situation. Particularly when there are games/series that are (rightfully) weighted differently in the court of public opinion, series' where you're the overwhelming favorite with HCA and a better roster being one of those examples.

I'm not sure why you approached my post as if I were contending Dirk wasn't clutch either. I clearly stipulated that I didn't feel that was the case, merely playing devil's advocate and brining up the common and very fair critiques of Dirk's "clutch performance."

Actually it is quite the opposite. Picking isolated cases to make a point will most likely give you an unaccurate view. Looking at the overall picture and include all games will give you a much better and more objective view.

Exactly, but don't waste your time, Fanboys aren't the type to factor in stuff that's logical.

Great research dude, I enjoyed reading it.

Why is this troll still allowed to post?

[Andrewchos]

Making assumptions over who should of won a series is a bad way to judge a player/team. The Lakers lost to (imo) a pretty weak Clip's squad despite having a "Prime Bryant" I don't see any reason to make excuses for him.

[Vinsanity420]

Hmm - Malone's overall numbers do go down in the playoffs. I'm not sure how much of that is due to him truly underperforming (99% of numbers decrease in the playoffs) versus matchup and teammate issues.

How are you doing Offensive SPM? I like the B-R ones quite a bit, so I'd be interested. Malone's turnovers do go down which would make up for some of his shooting decline for me.

As for Bryant, I don't buy the notion that a series is over by the time the elimination game came around. I certainly wouldn't say that about the 08 series - what kind of player wakes up and says "I'll just mail it in because things don't look to great." I mean, other than Bryant?

Thanks for reading guys. I think I might post more regularly on that blog so feel free to comment and discuss over there as well.

I have used Neil Payne's formula, and I keep adjusting it since it's got plenty of outliers that make me go "How is that possible...". But every new OSPM result I come up with has him dropping a significant amount in comparison to other offensive players of his caliber. I think I'll create a blog and post up my regression results eventually.

Also, don't you think there's a point in most playoff series when one team knows the other is better? It's somewhat rare to see a series like the 2010 finals, which was a nail biter until the very end. To me, the 08 series real clutch time was when the Celtics went on that run and made an impossible comeback in Game 4... at that point, I think everyone knew what way the series would go. In the Phoenix comeback from 3-1 series, there was Game 6, where the Lakers HAD to close out the series... Kobe dropped 50, and that to me was the "clutch" part of the series. I am just saying I don't entirely agree with the elimination game necessary being the clutch time of every playoff series.

[mysticbb]

Particularly when there are games/series that are (rightfully) weighted differently in the court of public opinion, series' where you're the overwhelming favorite with HCA and a better roster being one of those examples.

This particular example shows the lack of knowledge more than anything else. The Warriors won all 3 regular season matches against the Mavericks. They had a huge matchup advantage in the BACKCOURT! Even if Nowitzki would have played as efficient as usual, the Mavericks would have lost due to their lack of perimeter and transition defense by their backcourt players. Baron Davis, Stephen Jackson and Jason Richardson made the majority of the points with a higher efficiency, because they overmatched Devin Harris, Jason Terry and Josh Howard in terms of size, strength and athleticism.
And that's not an outlier either. The Heat series was lost due to the same thing. Against the Suns in 2005 the backcourt was the problem, against the Kings one year before also. Go and watch the 2008 series against the Hornets, again the perimeter on defense is the problem, in 2009 against the Nuggets and 2010 against the Spurs it's the same.

Regarding the Heat series it should be noted that the Heat had a better SRS in games with Wade and Shaquille O'Neal than the Mavericks. Which means they were the better team. And in the end the Mavericks were one bad call (on the road) and two Howard and/or Terry mades (going 14 of 41 instead of 12 of 41 while a lot of those misses were wide open shots) away from winning a championship.

I'm not sure why you approached my post as if I were contending Dirk wasn't clutch either.

Why? Because those critiques are well known and I don't see the point of bringing them up in the way you did it. Especially with the comment, that sometimes the aggregated view would be misleading.

All evidence shows that Nowitzki was quite clutch during his career so far. He usually ranks in the top during clutch situations by 82games.com, he has numerous clutch performances in the playoffs including a 50 points outburst in which he completely outscored the Suns in the 4th quarter to secure a win in the WCF. He plays better in average in elimination games, the biggest pressure situations. And he even has a winning record in those games.
The Mavericks are usually getting more wins than expected due to the fact that they outscore their opponents in close games. His +/- per 48 minutes over the last couple of seasons during clutch situations is huge ever since 2004/05 when Nash left:

Code: Select all

2011: +41.9
2010: +28.7
2009: +16.3
2008: +16.5
2007: +29.5
2006: +16.6
2005: +22.0

In average the Mavericks outscore their opponents in close games by an margin of +22.7 while Nowitzki is on the court over a 7 year span (962 minutes sample). To understand that number better: In the remaining 24138 minutes the Mavericks outscored their opponents by +4.0 per 48 minutes.
Making the same thing for Bryant we get:

Code: Select all

2011: -16.8
2010:  +6.9
2009: +33.7
2008: +10.9
2007:  -0.6
2006:  -3.1
2005:  +1.0

During that time the Lakers outscored their opponents by an average margin of +5.9 per 48 minutes during close games (994 minutes sample) while they outscored their opponents by +3.3 per 48 minutes in the rest of the time.

There are also enough game winners and made late game shots. He has a way better conversation rate of those shots than Bryant for example.

As you can see the examples of the Heat series and the Warriors series are outliers. There is no indication overall that Nowitzki isn't at least as clutch as Bryant.

[ElGee]

@D Nice - Kobe wasn't injured for any elimination games. Those games you cited were closeout games for LA. The Lakers never faced elimination against Indiana or for the entire 2001 playoffs.

@VInsanity - Would love to see the SPM.

I do fundamentally disagree with your point about breaking other teams. It happens - but it shouldn't happen to good players. DId the 04 Red Sox "know" they weren't as good as the Yankees when they lost 19-8? Did the 06 Heat "know" they weren't as good as Dallas after being whipped for 136 minutes?

I do agree that elimination games aren't the pinnacle of clutch performance -- they are what they are.

[Wavy Q]

This is not only interesting, but quite depressing for me, being a Laker fan

good work

[semi-sentient]

This is not only interesting, but quite depressing for me, being a Laker fan

good work

There's nothing depressing about it. It's easy to crunch a bunch of numbers and draw conclusions without putting things into context, and it takes so much effort to go back through and provide proper analysis that most people don't even bother. However, in this case, I feel like I need to step in because the lack of analysis really bothers me (Cumulative box score numbers are now considered analysis? Lovely.), especially one that is attempting to label Kobe a choker (seriously? ).

Here's some actual analysis on Kobe, and I'd challenge Jazz fans to provide some analysis on Malone. Let's here about how Karl stepped it up from game to game. Let's hear about the defenders he went up against. Let's here about how he orchestrated the offense or led great comeback victories. BRING IT!



1999-00 - Kobe played in 2 elimination games this year and was brilliant both times. The first game was against the Kings where his offensive numbers were definitely below his playoff averages, but guess what? The game was a slaughter in favor of the Lakers so it doesn't matter. What he did on defensive end against Jason Williams/Tony Delk (and on their wings in general) was far more relevant and is exactly the kind of stuff that these statistical "analysis" threads lack. Sacramento's offense was completely shut down that game and Kobe deserves a ton of credit for that. I don't even need to talk about that infamous Game 7 against the Blazers where Kobe was the only guy who showed up in the 1st 3 quarters and helped led one of the greatest comebacks (along with Shaw and Shaq) in playoff history.

Code: Select all

               GP   MP    PTS    TS%    REB    AST    STL    BLK    TOV
========================================================================
     Playoffs  22   39.0  21.1   .517   4.5    4.4    1.5    1.5    2.5
  Elimination  2    40.5  21.0   .510   6.5    6.5    0.0    2.0    1.0

2001-02 - Kobe again played in 2 elimination games, this time against a much improved Sacramento Kings team that had an excellent wing defender in Doug Christie to throw at Kobe (the Kings had the 6th ranked defense overall). The Kings were pretty easily the best team that the Lakers faced that year in the post-season, and he registered back-to-back 30/10 games while running the offense to perfection (12 assists, 2 turnovers). In Game 6, Shaq and Kobe were the only 2 players who showed up and both were absolutely brilliant in a game that came down to the wire (the infamous Kobe elbow to Bibby's nose game). In Game 7, both guys again performed brilliantly (getting to the line at will) and every last bit of what Kobe brought mattered as the Lakers finished off the Kings in overtime. The Lakers essentially won a championship because Kobe (and Shaq, of course) delivered in a major way in consecutive closeout games.

Code: Select all

               GP   MP    PTS    TS%    REB    AST    STL    BLK    TOV
========================================================================
     Playoffs  16   43.8  26.6   .511   5.8    4.6    1.4    0.9    2.8
  Elimination  2    48.0  30.5   .552  10.5    6.0    1.0    0.0    1.0

2002-03 - The only elimination game this year came against the Spurs (#3 defense) who finally had an answer for Kobe (Bruce Bowen, a fantastic wing defender). However, the numbers in this game are fairly meaningless as the Spurs absolutely demolished the Lakers (by 28 points) thanks to a monstrous performance from Tim Duncan (because Fox, our best Duncan defender, was injured in Game 1). Not that it particularly matters, but the game was close up until Shaq picked up his 4th foul late in the 3rd, and that allowed the Spurs to go on a run that didn't really seem to end. Kobe could have probably done more, but it wouldn't have mattered because the Spurs were hitting from inside and out and the Lakers supporting cast was nowhere to be found (31 total points, 12 of which came from Slava). Whatever the case, it wasn't a good elimination game from Kobe.

Code: Select all

               GP   MP    PTS    TS%    REB    AST    STL    BLK    TOV
========================================================================
     Playoffs  12   44.3  32.1   .531   5.1    5.2    1.2    0.1    3.5
  Elimination  1    43.0  20.0   .503   2.0    6.0    1.0    0.0    7.0

2003-04 - In the only elimination game Kobe faced against a historically dominant (and very physical) Pistons defense, he was pretty bad. So was everyone else for that matter.

Code: Select all

               GP   MP    PTS    TS%    REB    AST    STL    BLK    TOV
========================================================================
     Playoffs  22   44.2  24.5   .506   4.7    5.5    1.9    0.3    2.8
  Elimination  1    45.0  24.0   .464   3.0    4.0    1.0    0.0    3.0

2005-06 - The Lakers lone elimination game came in game 7 against a Suns team that dominated offensively. This game was NEVER in question and it was a blowout from start to finish. While Kobe's numbers aren't all that hot, he is the only guy who really showed up and this loss wasn't on him at all. I thought he played exactly how he needed to, but the supporting cast was nowhere to be found, particularly on the defensive end (or maybe the Suns were just hot -- they couldn't seem to miss). This is one of those games where Kobe probably could have dropped 50 on great efficiency and it wouldn't have made one bit of difference. I think people are generally disappointed that Kobe wasn't out there stat-padding when the game was out of reach, but whatever. He tried to get guys going early in the 3rd and it just wasn't happening. We couldn't get stops and that's why this game was lost.

Code: Select all

               GP   MP    PTS    TS%    REB    AST    STL    BLK    TOV
========================================================================
     Playoffs  7    44.9  27.9   .587   6.3    5.1    1.1    0.4    4.7
  Elimination  1    43.0  24.0   .659   4.0    1.0    0.0    1.0    3.0

2006-07 - In game 5, the Lakers again lost once again because they couldn't stop the Suns offense in their only elimination game. Kobe did shoot the ball poorly, but much of that came late in the game when he starting chucking 3's to try to get the Lakers back in the game.

Code: Select all

               GP   MP    PTS    TS%    REB    AST    STL    BLK    TOV
========================================================================
     Playoffs  5    43.0  32.8   .561   5.2    4.4    1.0    0.4    4.4
  Elimination  1    46.0  34.0   .471   4.0    1.0    1.0    0.0    6.0

2007-08 - Kobe had 2 elimination games against another historically dominant defense. His numbers in the playoffs were very good overall, BUT, the Lakers hadn't played any comparable defenses up until they faced the Celtics, so his drop in numbers is actually to be expected. Whatever the case, Kobe had a decent game 5 which the Lakers won primarily due to Odom and Gasol stepping up (for a change). In game 6, the Lakers got massacred so Kobe's numbers didn't matter much. This game was lost because they couldn't play defense and was pretty much over at halftime.

Code: Select all

               GP   MP    PTS    TS%    REB    AST    STL    BLK    TOV
========================================================================
     Playoffs  21   41.1  30.1   .577   5.7    5.6    1.7    0.4    3.3
  Elimination  2    43.0  23.5   .488   5.0    2.5    3.0    0.0    5.0

2008-09 - The Lakers lone elimination game came against the Rockets (#4 defense in the league) in game 7 which was a no contest from start to finish. Kobe scored 14 points in limited minutes, but he played a great all around game (really, it was a team effort). Some might look at this game and suggest that he underperformed based on how his scoring/efficiency went down, but that's pretty much false because most of Kobe's damage was done in the first 2 1/2 quarters. His play-making and defense were excellent and he led a very balanced attack.

Code: Select all

               GP   MP    PTS    TS%    REB    AST    STL    BLK    TOV
========================================================================
     Playoffs  23   40.9  30.2   .564   5.3    5.5    1.7    0.9    2.6
  Elimination  1    33.0  14.0   .478   7.0    5.0    3.0    2.0    1.0

2009-10 - Interestingly enough, the Lakers face back-to-back elimination games which they must win in order to win a championship. In game 6, which was a laugher, Kobe played a great all around game. The key to this game wasn't even what he did on the court, but what he did before the game by firing his team up (or immediately after game 5, rather). I thought that was the real difference and that's why everyone came out focused and playing hard. Still, Kobe had a great overall game with 26/11. As for game 7, people love them some "6-24" in order to discredit Kobe, but that's a bunch of hogwash. He shot the ball poorly in the first half, but this was a very physical, grind it out type game where just about everyone shot poorly. His defense and rebounding were fantastic, and when the Lakers needed him to score in the 4th quarter he delivered. See, when guys like MJ have performances like this (and they did), all you here is talk about intangibles and how players elevate their games in other areas. This is one of those cases where Kobe picked it up in other areas to compensate for poor shooting, and the result was that he ended up with a 23/15 game to help secure the championship. Don't take my word for it though...

"I thought in Game 7 [of the 2010 NBA Finals], what gets lost on people, [Boston] was badly outrebounded, and he didn't have a particularly good shooting night, but he had a great rebounding night and that probably was the difference of the game."

Code: Select all

               GP   MP    PTS    TS%    REB    AST    STL    BLK    TOV
========================================================================
     Playoffs  23   40.1  29.2   .567   6.0    5.5    1.3    0.7    3.4
  Elimination  2    41.5  24.5   .465  13.0    2.5    2.5    0.0    3.0

[ronnymac2]

Just to comment on two things......Kobe was injured in that 03 series. He had a shoulder injury. He didn't seem like himself in that sixth game against San Antonio.


Also, Kobe was fantastic in the 09 elimination game against the Houston Rockets. I know the numbers won't jump out at you, but he played great. Every stat was meaningful, and he did a lot of things not captured in the boxscore. I remember that game specifically because I remember thinking that I SAW Bryant play great, yet his stats are pedestrian.


One more thing....There was an interesting article on the 2006 Game 7. I'll try to post it here at some point. IIRC, it displayed evidence that Bryant didn't just give up on his team and that he actually played as well as he could. It just wasn't in the cards for LA to win that game against a superior opponent.

[ElGee]

Just to comment on two things......Kobe was injured in that 03 series. He had a shoulder injury. He didn't seem like himself in that sixth game against San Antonio.


Also, Kobe was fantastic in the 09 elimination game against the Houston Rockets. I know the numbers won't jump out at you, but he played great. Every stat was meaningful, and he did a lot of things not captured in the boxscore. I remember that game specifically because I remember thinking that I SAW Bryant play great, yet his stats are pedestrian.


One more thing....There was an interesting article on the 2006 Game 7. I'll try to post it here at some point. IIRC, it displayed evidence that Bryant didn't just give up on his team and that he actually played as well as he could. It just wasn't in the cards for LA to win that game against a superior opponent.

I have to say there is a fairly large double-standard I see applied to these players. Which happened to be the impetus for the post in the first place.

You guys are quick to qualify every Kobe performance, yet don't do the same for Malone. This was one piece of a picture -- and it wasn't something conjured up or contrived, as I knew from re-watching games in the RPOY that Kobe didn't play well a lot and Malone had more good games than one would think in those situations. I just collected the stats of those games and -- voila -- they suggest something different than the standard story. That's all.

But in the meantime, I see a lot of this:

"Kobe was awesome despite low scoring numbers." Yet no one says that about other players.
"Kobe didn't need to be good because his team couldn't win." What on earth does this mean? I've never heard this standard applied to any athlete ever at any level and it' pretty weird.

And yet absolutely no similar qualification is applied to Karl Malone. If we want to do a breakdown of all 29 of these games, we can. I've seen almost every one (all 13 of Bryant's) and frankly I didn't think he was "great" against Houston. What I do remember is him not shooting his team out of it and playing well on defense and smart on offense. But that's not a "great" game.

I forgot about the shoulder in 03. Was it a sprain? He wore the sleeve IIRC...but is that any more of a significant injury than Dwyane Wade's knee in the 2006 NBA FInals?

Speaking of which, game 7 v Phoenix. How many times does it have to be rehashed? Go re-watch the second half. It was 60-45 at halftime. Much stranger things have happened than a 15-point comeback. (Lakers fans should KNOW about 15-point comebacks). By my count, he stands idly on 27 possessions.

When have you ever seen him or another superstar do this in a game?

PS - Mystic, I had someone come up to me at a party last night and start going bonkers about how I had Dirk Nowitzki too high and that he was a choker. Fortunately, I could reel off a number of Dirk clutch moments/big games off the top of my head because he has so many.

[ronnymac2]

I'd defend Malone, too, but it doesn't seem like he needs defending in this thread. Your blogpost and subsequent posts in this thread give SOME evidence for Malone not being a choker.

"Karl Malone was not a choker" is an idea that I fully support. I believe he wasn't a choker because I remember thinking the same thing in the RPOY project, watching some elimination games, and coming to the conclusion that the Utah Jazz were just always a deeply flawed team that didn't provide Malone with the necessary offensive help to win in the playoffs. Malone isn't perfect, being a hybrid face-up big/low-post big, but I believe he was truly a good enough offensive anchor to win championships. It didn't happen, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have happened.

Statistical analysis of these games is flawed though. I mean, it shows how the two players produced, but that's about it. I agree with you that Malone wasn't a playoff choker, but only 40% of the reasoning of why I agree with you is because of Malone's stats that you showed (random , arbitrary number of 40%, but you get the idea haha). The majority reasoning is because I saw Malone play well as an individual in elimination games.

My problem is this be-all-end-all conclusion through stats that Bryant isn't good in elimination games. My problem isn't even what that says about a Bryant vs. Malone comparison; my problem is simply what that says about Bryant, period. Semi has watched all of those games and accurately showed that while Bryant has had stinkers in elimination games, he plays well for his team for the most part.

The only times I feel Bryant sucked were in 03 and 04. 03 wasn't even that bad, and he played pretty well for the whole series against SA, a series in which Bryant and O'neal had to do ALL the heavy lifting (and Bryant did it injured, too). 04, no excuse. He was awful the entire series. Other than that, win or lose, I think Bryant played to the best of his considerable abilities for each given game.

Check it out:

http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/columns/story?id=5195953

[ElGee]

My problem is this be-all-end-all conclusion through stats that Bryant isn't good in elimination games. My problem isn't even what that says about a Bryant vs. Malone comparison; my problem is simply what that says about Bryant, period.

My problem is people concluding that the statistical information is a be-all-end-all. I'm not going to qualify every sentence I write down to the most rudimentary level. Heck, that's why I'm creating references on that blog to some of the more basic ideas of basketball analysis.

The idea is one I feel strongly about: individual performance is heavily conflated with team performance in sports. We have cognitive biases that remember more good ("clutch") performances in wins and wash away the ones in losses. Malone and Bryant are the two highest profile players that support that to me, and I'm throwing out a piece of information to challenge it.

The only times I feel Bryant sucked were in 03 and 04. 03 wasn't even that bad, and he played pretty well for the whole series against SA, a series in which Bryant and O'neal had to do ALL the heavy lifting (and Bryant did it injured, too). 04, no excuse. He was awful the entire series. Other than that, win or lose, I think Bryant played to the best of his considerable abilities for each given game.

Check it out:

http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/columns/story?id=5195953

Well, you're actually one of my favorite posters, but I find it hard to believe that you thought his play in 06, 08 (G6), or Game 7 last year was good. C'mon.

2006: He stands idly 27 times by my count in the second half. I've never seen a superstar do this. Watch the half again.

2008: Something like 16 of his 22 shots are deep jumpers. He doesn't create much. He gets burned on defense. He just doesn't play well. There's no other real way to describe it. The notion that the game became a blowout is independent of that.

2010: Frankly, one of the worst first half performances I've ever seen. Firing fadeaways while double-teamed off the side of the backboard? As a result, his overall game was just bad. 6-24 4 TOV and shady defense is just bad.

Kudos for glasswork in the second half -- really, love to see that -- but if that is boosting the performance in your mind, then what did LeBron do in his last Cavs game? Play the game of the century? Of the millenium?