How close is SGA to Peak Kobe?

[Lalouie]

two things can be true at the same time. shai is better than peak kobe. kobe has more accolades and team accomplishments. see, not hard.

tying those accolades and team accomplishments to player impact is always silly since it would logically require you to believe all sorts of other things that aren't true. is pau gasol better than patrick ewing?

kobe wasn't playing in the 1960's. we have the tools and the data to show that this version of shai is simply better than any version of kobe.

it is a debate that can be bent in many ways

i will posit that the question evaluates kobe down to it's lowest common denominator and avoids what kobe was all about. because kobe's legacy was his drive and the resultant influence on his generation.,,,,and his 5rings.

otherwise there are innumerable stats that people can use to compare a lesser player to an hof'er. so it becomes a question, for me, of merit and achievement. sga doesn't merit anything other than being the best player on the best team in 2025. it's a topic that will always bring up the "eraX was tougher than eraZ" and that never ends well. i'm just happy to the the genZ's finally getting off bird/magic/mj's back and onto kobe's generation -time moves fast in basketball.

anyway this is one of those "come back in 5yrs and ask me again" questions

[dhsilv2]

two things can be true at the same time. shai is better than peak kobe. kobe has more accolades and team accomplishments. see, not hard.

tying those accolades and team accomplishments to player impact is always silly since it would logically require you to believe all sorts of other things that aren't true. is pau gasol better than patrick ewing?

kobe wasn't playing in the 1960's. we have the tools and the data to show that this version of shai is simply better than any version of kobe.

it is a debate that can be bent in many ways

i will posit that the question evaluates kobe down to it's lowest common denominator and avoids what kobe was all about. because kobe's legacy was his drive and the resultant influence on his generation.,,,,and his 5rings.

otherwise there are innumerable stats that people can use to compare a lesser player to an hof'er. so it becomes a question, for me, of merit and achievement. sga doesn't merit anything other than being the best player on the best team in 2025. this is one of those "come back in 5yrs and ask me again" questions

You're not answering the question. The question is how does this singular year for SGA compare to Kobe singular best season. Given we don't have a post season for SGA, I'm not sure why we're addressing it beyond what most did, qualifying that he has to get it done in the playoffs too.

But 5 rings aren't a part of Kobe's "peak" legacy. Many would argue his peak was 2006 where he lost in the first round after all. Others could and do obviously look at 2001 or 2008.

[slick_watts]

it is a debate that can be bent in many ways

i will posit that the question evaluates kobe down to it's lowest common denominator and avoids what kobe was all about. because kobe's legacy was his drive and the resultant influence on his generation.,,,,and his 5rings.

otherwise there are innumerable stats that people can use to compare a lesser player to an hof'er. so it becomes a question, for me, of merit and achievement. sga doesn't merit anything other than being the best player on the best team in 2025. this is one of those "come back in 5yrs and ask me again" questions

i have no problem with qualitative analysis of basketball as long as that analysis is logically sound.

i don't think your position that kobe is better than shai because he has more achievements is logically sound. because we can use that same reasoning to support a number of oddball claims.

where qualitative analysis might matter a lot more is in a jordan v. lebron debate, for example.

[Lalouie]

it is a debate that can be bent in many ways

i will posit that the question evaluates kobe down to it's lowest common denominator and avoids what kobe was all about. because kobe's legacy was his drive and the resultant influence on his generation.,,,,and his 5rings.

otherwise there are innumerable stats that people can use to compare a lesser player to an hof'er. so it becomes a question, for me, of merit and achievement. sga doesn't merit anything other than being the best player on the best team in 2025. this is one of those "come back in 5yrs and ask me again" questions

i have no problem with qualitative analysis of basketball as long as that analysis is logically sound.

i don't think your position that kobe is better than shai because he has more achievements is logically sound. because we can use that same reasoning to support a number of oddball claims.

where qualitative analysis might matter a lot more is in a jordan v. lebron debate, for example.

other than deploring these comparisons in the first place,,,,the question always brings in the additional debate of era's and rule changes, and then people go around in circles

i'm surprised there's been no stat summary of comparing players from different eras TO THEIR PEER GROUP.
for instance how good a rebounder is 2025playerX if he is a 14rpg and his top 5 peers are 13.8 ppg, and how do those 5 or 6 compare to the remaining 24. in that way you can understand "dominance" quantitatively

[slick_watts]

i'm surprised there's been no stat summary of comparing players from different eras TO THEIR PEER GROUP.
for instance how good a rebounder is 2025playerX if he is a 14rpg and his top 5 peers are 13.8 ppg, and how do those 5 or 6 compare to the remaining 24. in that way you can understand "dominance" quantitatively

there have been posts in this very thread containing #'s relative to league average.

[Lockdown504090]

it is a debate that can be bent in many ways

i will posit that the question evaluates kobe down to it's lowest common denominator and avoids what kobe was all about. because kobe's legacy was his drive and the resultant influence on his generation.,,,,and his 5rings.

otherwise there are innumerable stats that people can use to compare a lesser player to an hof'er. so it becomes a question, for me, of merit and achievement. sga doesn't merit anything other than being the best player on the best team in 2025. this is one of those "come back in 5yrs and ask me again" questions

i have no problem with qualitative analysis of basketball as long as that analysis is logically sound.

i don't think your position that kobe is better than shai because he has more achievements is logically sound. because we can use that same reasoning to support a number of oddball claims.

where qualitative analysis might matter a lot more is in a jordan v. lebron debate, for example.

other than deploring these comparisons in the first place,,,,the question always brings in the additional debate of era's and rule changes, and then people go around in circles

i'm surprised there's been no stat summary of comparing players from different eras TO THEIR PEER GROUP.
for instance how good a rebounder is 2025playerX if he is a 14rpg and his top 5 peers are 13.8 ppg, and how do those 5 or 6 compare to the remaining 24. in that way you can understand "dominance" quantitatively

I see the relative true shooting numbers often, but I dont think thats what we are talking about when we look at these players from that era. The bottom like is that bryant averaged 35 ppg on decent relative efficency in a league where teams averaged less than 100. Thats an eyepopping level or burden that bryant was shouldering. When kobe doesnt create the offense there was no offense. if shai doesnt score, the team is still going to score. thats how the nba is now. there was a game against memphis where kobe didnt shoot the ball much and they scored 73 points in total. https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200511140MEM.html

[ballzboyee]

why do people keep doing this stuff? EVERY metric we look at adjusts for all of this already. Its' so weird that people will know what something like TS% is but not understand that we look at TS%+ or that PER and WS and VORP are league adjusted as well.

Like you said, they are just subjectively weighted metrics -- not statistics. You can't really normalize them across eras for comparative purposes. To give you an example, Shai this year has a BPM of 11 on just 34 mpg. Hakeem in 95 when he was Finals MVP averaged 33pts/10reb/5ast/3blk/1.2stl in the playoffs. Hakeem's BMP that year was just 5. BPM maintains that Shai is much much bigger impact player than Hakeem when compared to the league average. Do you honestly believe that Shai is +6 better on the court than a top 10 player and a more impactful defender than maybe the greatest defensive anchor at center ever? But that's what BPM's says. Come on, man. It's a joke.

Also, higher TS% of today's players is simply a reflection of the volume and higher percentages of 3's across the league. It's isn't normalized across various eras to reflect a true percentile rank relative to their peers and to account for variance. Something like rTS is just a raw number and doesn't really tell you that much. Furthermore, schemes today are heavily predicated on matchups and there is lot less freelancing on the court. No long 2's, fewer heaves, and shots have to come out of 2 man and 3 man set plays with the rest of the team spreading the court . None of these advanced "stats" do a good job of reflecting the fact that players also self-select their shooting splits to pump their averages or the fact that coaching staffs are using advanced numbers to draw up schemes and plays. Analytics create favorable shot selections for players and push false advanced stat narratives.

Over-reliance on advanced stats for comparative purposes is just an example of Dunning-Kruger naive scientism. Ya'll just need to pump breaks on this deterministic belief system that these subjectively weighted metrics are absolutist mathematical models that can be used for ranking players across vastly different eras. Advanced stats are only good for understanding certain aspects of a player's performance and that's about it.

I don’t have a dog in this fight but you should write more stuff. What a great post.

Thanks! I might write some longer responses to some of the pro-Shai posts in this thread (especially in relation to advanced stats like BPM and the delusion that because it controls for pace that it somehow objective when actually the opposite can be true depending on the positional comparison), but I generally see it as an exercise in futility. A lot of hardcore basketball fans have internalized an almost religious belief in analytics and advanced stats. For example, in this thread we have seen posters attempt argue that a finesse guard like Shai playing in an overwhelmingly offensive era is somehow an equivalent defender to Hakeem. Hakeem had five straight seasons in which he led the league in DRtg. He won DPOY of the year twice and should have won it several other seasons. As a true 7 footer with a monstrous wingspan and mobility, he could guard all five positions and by himself wreck an entire teams offensive scheme because of his ability to cover the floor from beneath the basket to the top of the key. His ability to roam, to block, to deflect, and to alter shots was pretty much unparalleled. It's not valid to use advanced stats to compare a little perimeter guy like Shai to a monster all-world defender like Hakeem. Yet that's what the advanced stats do in fact say Shai is the more impactful defender, and people actually believe it.

And then of course he's somehow an average rebounder for a center even though he's playing in an era in which he's often being double teamed by multiple 7 footers and athletic PF's like Barkley and Karl Malone. Oh, btw, he led the league in rebounding twice and is top 15 all-time for a career in rebounds. I guess he's a bad rebounder because his DRB% doesn't hold up to modern bigs who are literally standing all alone on an island picking off uncontested rebounds from missed 3p's. Who are these guys facing today that is going to stop them from getting their lazy uncontested rebounds? Nobody. Meanwhile, Hakeem literally posts 33ppg and 12rpg against a 300 pound Shaq in the Finals and each possession a war takes place underneath the basket.

[slick_watts]

i have no problem with qualitative analysis of basketball as long as that analysis is logically sound.

i don't think your position that kobe is better than shai because he has more achievements is logically sound. because we can use that same reasoning to support a number of oddball claims.

where qualitative analysis might matter a lot more is in a jordan v. lebron debate, for example.

other than deploring these comparisons in the first place,,,,the question always brings in the additional debate of era's and rule changes, and then people go around in circles

i'm surprised there's been no stat summary of comparing players from different eras TO THEIR PEER GROUP.
for instance how good a rebounder is 2025playerX if he is a 14rpg and his top 5 peers are 13.8 ppg, and how do those 5 or 6 compare to the remaining 24. in that way you can understand "dominance" quantitatively

I see the relative true shooting numbers often, but I dont think thats what we are talking about when we look at these players from that era. The bottom like is that bryant averaged 35 ppg on decent relative efficency in a league where teams averaged less than 100. Thats an eyepopping level or burden that bryant was shouldering. When kobe doesnt create the offense there was no offense. if shai doesnt score, the team is still going to score. thats how the nba is now. there was a game against memphis where kobe didnt shoot the ball much and they scored 73 points in total. https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200511140MEM.html

kobe scored 40% of his team's points when he was in the game. shai scores 37% of his teams points when he is in the game. the difference isn't that much.

[runtmc]

i have no problem with qualitative analysis of basketball as long as that analysis is logically sound.

i don't think your position that kobe is better than shai because he has more achievements is logically sound. because we can use that same reasoning to support a number of oddball claims.

where qualitative analysis might matter a lot more is in a jordan v. lebron debate, for example.

other than deploring these comparisons in the first place,,,,the question always brings in the additional debate of era's and rule changes, and then people go around in circles

i'm surprised there's been no stat summary of comparing players from different eras TO THEIR PEER GROUP.
for instance how good a rebounder is 2025playerX if he is a 14rpg and his top 5 peers are 13.8 ppg, and how do those 5 or 6 compare to the remaining 24. in that way you can understand "dominance" quantitatively

I see the relative true shooting numbers often, but I dont think thats what we are talking about when we look at these players from that era. The bottom like is that bryant averaged 35 ppg on decent relative efficency in a league where teams averaged less than 100. Thats an eyepopping level or burden that bryant was shouldering. When kobe doesnt create the offense there was no offense. if shai doesnt score, the team is still going to score. thats how the nba is now. there was a game against memphis where kobe didnt shoot the ball much and they scored 73 points in total. https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200511140MEM.html

There's a stat for that, its called usage, or what percentage of a team's possessions a player uses. Kobe's career usage rate is 31.8%, his career high was 38.1%. Typically, in any given season, only a handful of players will top 30%, and only twice in NBA history has a player ever topped 40% -- Kobe's 38.1% is actually 4th highest all time. SGA is at 34.5% this season though, so there's not a dramatic difference between SGA this season and Kobe's career high -- in fact, Kobe only broke a 34.5% mark 4 times in his 20 seasons, and SGA's mark this season would still be a top-50 usage rate all-time, so to act like SGA isnt shouldering a massive offensive burden is just flat out not true.

[uncleduck13]

For the record , I think Kobe is better . The gap isn’t really gaping tho.

[ChumboChappati]

Accolades aside, strictly hoops

SGA Peak > Kobe Peak

[runtmc]

Thanks! I might write some longer responses to some of the pro-Shai posts in this thread (especially in relation to advanced stats like BPM and the delusion that because it controls for pace that it somehow objective when actually the opposite can be true depending on the positional comparison), but I generally see it as an exercise in futility. A lot of hardcore basketball fans have internalized an almost religious belief in analytics and advanced stats. For example, in this thread we have seen posters attempt argue that a finesse guard like Shai playing in an overwhelmingly offensive era is somehow an equivalent defender to Hakeem. Hakeem had five straight seasons in which he led the league in DRtg. He won DPOY of the year twice and should have won it several other seasons. As a true 7 footer with a monstrous wingspan and mobility, he could guard all five positions and by himself wreck an entire teams offensive scheme because of his ability to cover the floor from beneath the basket to the top of the key. His ability to roam, to block, to deflect, and to alter shots was pretty much unparalleled. It's not valid to use advanced stats to compare a little perimeter guy like Shai to a monster all-world defender like Hakeem. Yet that's what the advanced stats do in fact say Shai is the more impactful defender, and people actually believe it.

And then of course he's somehow an average rebounder for a center even though he's playing in an era in which he's often being double teamed by multiple 7 footers and athletic PF's like Barkley and Karl Malone. Oh, btw, he led the league in rebounding twice and is top 15 all-time for a career in rebounds. I guess he's a bad rebounder because his DRB% doesn't hold up to modern bigs who are literally standing all alone on an island picking off uncontested rebounds from missed 3p's. Who are these guys facing today that is going to stop them from getting their lazy uncontested rebounds? Nobody. Meanwhile, Hakeem literally posts 33ppg and 12rpg against a 300 pound Shaq in the Finals and each possession a war takes place underneath the basket.

You're obviously referring to my post -- only youre doing nothing but making strawman arguments. I never said SGA was an "equivalent defender" to Hakeem, which implies some sort of career comparison -- what I said was that if you compare SGA, this season, to Hakeem in 94-95, the season *you brought up*, there wasnt a *large gap* between them defensively -- which is absolutely true. In 94-95, Hakeem was already past his prime and had regressed from his peak defensive years -- this isnt really controversial. You mention for example that Hakeem lead the league in DRTG 5 years in a row, well, *by your own stat*, he was 5th in DRTG in 94-95, while SGA is 4th this season (and the only guard in the top 5). But if you want to try and stretch that out into me saying they were "equivalent defenders" to try and score argument points, sure.

Second, you're again trying to strawman the rebounding argument as though I compared him to a modern NBA big, and that I only used DRB% to make the comparison (if anything I would use ORB% if I was using just one rebounding stat, since its by far the most valuable) -- but no, he wasnt doing well relative to the league in 94-95, which is what I said. I dont have his exact rankings in the playoffs at hand, but a quick look shows he wasnt top 10 in the RS for any of TRB%/DRB%/ORB%, and his playoff rebounding numbers were worse than his RS numbers. Also -- you're comparing him to Shaq as though he dominated Shaq? Shaq had an ORB% of 14% in 94-95 in the playoffs, Hakeem had 5%, that's literally triple Hakeem's rate. TRB% of 18 vs 14. Shaq flat out murdered him on the glass in the 94-95 playoffs. And again, this isnt something Im bringing up -- these are your examples, Im just pointing out the holes in your arguments, while you keep misrepresenting what I said.

But I guess any time you use evidence to support a statement, and not just "trust me bro" or the "eye test", its just advanced metrics Dunning-Kruger because the evidence doesnt support your opinion, right? You're the same dude in here pounding the stats when they showed what you wanted them to, which is why you've mentioned things like Hakeem leading the league in DRTG 5 times. You want to use stats to support your opinions, great, you just want to give your opinion on things, great, but dont talk out of both sides of your mouth saying people that use stats are just examples of "naive scientism" when it doesnt support whatever your opinion is while using them yourself. Then you just look like a hypocrite. And stop using strawmen, its getting old.

[Slimjimzv]

SGA has improved every season. We don't even know if we've seen his peak yet. Let's wait for that before we comp him to top-tier Hall of Famers.

[Birth of the Cool]

I think it's quite a thing where SGA comparison has to be to PEAK Kobe and not just Kobe in general.
I think the question itself answers a lot.

Personally I take SGA. More efficient, better 3pt shooter and everything else is pretty close on both ends of the court. Then "off" the court I'd give SGA the large edge (teammate, lockeroom, coachability). Kobe without HOF talent like Shaq & Gasol was lottery or non-Championship caliber. SGA is leading his team once again to one of the best records in the NBA. Imagine this dude running with Shaq or Gasol/Odom/Artest/etc.

[Doctor MJ]

My thoughts:

1. The thread asked about peak play, not career, not entertainment value, etc, so many of the arguments made by posters are just plain off topic, and those posters pretty clearly have major emotional attachments keeping them from reading the OP correctly.

2. It does make sense to put caveats in about SGA in the playoffs. Time will tell on that. Good news is that SGA looked great in last year's playoffs compared to my fears, so at this point I have no reason to be skeptical about his ability to keep doing his thing in the playoffs.

3. There's a lot of nostalgia in people talking about Kobe in general, and I'll note specifically with regard to his playoff performance. He wasn't someone who got less effective offensively in the playoffs, and I do think his defense generally improved, but he's really not one of those rare guys who who just seem to go up tiers in the playoffs.

4. SGA's regular season impact at this point is way beyond what Kobe ever did, and it just is what it is. Adjust for anything reasonable to adjust for, it still doesn't matter, Kobe just didn't have this kind of impact.

5. There is of course a good question of what Kobe would be like in later eras. The thing about him and some other guys (like Iverson) is that much of what we're talking about that we'd expect him to do differently, was stuff he really should have been doing when he played. I might say that when it comes to individual vs team attitude, Kobe was kinda like Ant. He literally didn't want to pass the ball even when it was the right move - except when he was on a kick to show that he could be a point guard, but that was just to prove a point and not something that actually paid dividends when he was playing in the preferred style he used for the vast majority of his career.

6. Kobe was of course way smarter than Ant in many, many ways...which was why it was so frustrating to watch him bleed points with his stubbornness. Great that he got the 5 rings and there's no doubt he had an all-time great career...but we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinkin that 5 rings is the most you could possibly get in an NBA career. Kobe could have achieved more if he'd been more willing to listen to other points of view, and this has everything to do with why his impact generally lagged behind what we're seeing from guys like SGA & Jokic this year.

[ballzboyee]

You're obviously referring to my post -- only youre doing nothing but making strawman arguments. I never said SGA was an "equivalent defender" to Hakeem, which implies some sort of career comparison -- what I said was that if you compare SGA, this season, to Hakeem in 94-95, the season *you brought up*, there wasnt a *large gap* between them defensively -- which is absolutely true. In 94-95, Hakeem was already past his prime and had regressed from his peak defensive years -- this isnt really controversial. You mention for example that Hakeem lead the league in DRTG 5 years in a row, well, *by your own stat*, he was 5th in DRTG in 94-95, while SGA is 4th this season (and the only guard in the top 5). But if you want to try and stretch that out into me saying they were "equivalent defenders" to try and score argument points, sure.

There is a huge gap between them defensively. You are simply taking BPM and ex post facto trying to fit it to a narrative with the insinuation being that -- because BPM implies it -- they are somehow having equivalent seasons. Therefore, so the argument goes, it must be true that they are "similar" -- which is laughable. It is absolutely not true. Shai is on any level an equivalent defender to Hakeem. In 1995 Hakeem finished third in DPOY voting and after coming off back-to-back DPOY awards. 1995 Hakeem was only 32-years-old and still in his prime. He was Finals MVP and dominated the playoffs. He was not in anyway "past his prime."

Second, you're again trying to strawman the rebounding argument as though I compared him to a modern NBA big, and that I only used DRB% to make the comparison (if anything I would use ORB% if I was using just one rebounding stat, since its by far the most valuable) -- but no, he wasnt doing well relative to the league in 94-95, which is what I said. I dont have his exact rankings in the playoffs at hand, but a quick look shows he wasnt top 10 in the RS for any of TRB%/DRB%/ORB%, and his playoff rebounding numbers were worse than his RS numbers. Also -- you're comparing him to Shaq as though he dominated Shaq? Shaq had an ORB% of 14% in 94-95 in the playoffs, Hakeem had 5%, that's literally triple Hakeem's rate. TRB% of 18 vs 14. Shaq flat out murdered him on the glass in the 94-95 playoffs. And again, this isnt something Im bringing up -- these are your examples, Im just pointing out the holes in your arguments, while you keep misrepresenting what I said.

Look, man, he led the league in rebounding several years and was a monster on the glass. He was not one of the better rebounders, he was the best rebounder in the league throughout segments of his career and one of the greatest of all-time on the glass. He also led the league multiple seasons in rebounding percentage on both ends. He wasn't out there trying to kill himself on the glass every night to prove a point in a physical era, so as his value to franchise expanded the need for him to fill up the box score diminished. His job was to lead the team's offense primarily and be a defensive anchor. Old saying goes jack of trades, but master of none. There is no doubt that Hakeem's numbers on the glass were reflection of Houston's desire to protect their star player. Context is important, and this is what your argument lacks. You simply took the numbers without context and plugged them into a terrible argument based upon stats are far too removed from the raw numbers and events on the court to have any real value. The analytics always results in reductionist mathematical arguments such as this that have no real feel for the game.

But I guess any time you use evidence to support a statement, and not just "trust me bro" or the "eye test", its just advanced metrics Dunning-Kruger because the evidence doesnt support your opinion, right? You're the same dude in here pounding the stats when they showed what you wanted them to, which is why you've mentioned things like Hakeem leading the league in DRTG 5 times. You want to use stats to support your opinions, great, you just want to give your opinion on things, great, but dont talk out of both sides of your mouth saying people that use stats are just examples of "naive scientism" when it doesnt support whatever your opinion is while using them yourself. Then you just look like a hypocrite. And stop using strawmen, its getting old.

Shai's defensive rating this year is not even all that elite, but OKC's team defense is likely carrying some of those numbers considering he chucking like prime Harden or Westbrook on offense. He is having a great season overall, but I could easly make the case that he's at best their third best overall defender. Certainly, he's no Hakeem. It gets weird when using advanced stats you actually attempt to make the argument that Shai is not just the best defender on his team, but somehow comparable in stats where Hakeem's numbers are not just good -- but the best all-time for a center. Hakeem is like the only center ranked in the top 60 in steals per game. He was simply a god on defense. All-time he's ahead of maybe the best defensive player of this era in Draymond Green, and he's a true 7 footer! Think about that for a second and what that means before you try to compare Shai to him in this area. Also, take your blks argument, for example. This is what it looks like all-time:

Rank Player BLK
1. Hakeem Olajuwon* 3830
2. Dikembe Mutombo* 3289
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 3189
4. Artis Gilmore* 3178
5. Mark Eaton 3064
6. Tim Duncan* 3020
7. David Robinson* 2954
8. Patrick Ewing* 2894
9. Shaquille O'Neal* 2732
10. Tree Rollins 2542

Next closest guy is 600 blocks behind Hakeem and all of those players are retired. Hakeem is literally the Magic Johnson of blocks. Like Magic's playoff assist numbers, Hakeems block numbers are likely a stat that will never be broken. No, Shai is not comparable to Hakeem in blocks and steals and the analytics are just noise. Never mind that if were stat for shots contested or altered, Hakeem would obviously be on different planet that any little guard out there on the perimeter.

[uncleduck13]

My thoughts:

1. The thread asked about peak play, not career, not entertainment value, etc, so many of the arguments made by posters are just plain off topic, and those posters pretty clearly have major emotional attachments keeping them from reading the OP correctly.

This is the most annoying part about any conversation regarding Kobe. The emotional element. Everything always has to get turned into a career / legacy debate…even when you specifically say ‘accolades aside’

I get it, Kobe is an iconic figure with a Hollywood script career (and life). He’s one of the greatest, no question. I’m just saying, If you remove the ‘story’ of Kobe , each and every accolade, look at him strictly for what he was a player ..there’s a serious argument to be made for SGA

[KyRo23]

Everything points to SGA, but it just doesn’t feel right and I don’t even like Kobe. It’s tough comparing players across eras and there will never be a concrete answer.

SGA is killing it and his numbers are great, but I think Kobe in this league today would be more effective than he used to be. These inflated offensive stats don’t tell the whole story. Like LeBron is averaging better numbers than probably his best peak season in Miami no he is not a better player today.

Gimme Kobe I guess

[runtmc]

You're obviously referring to my post -- only youre doing nothing but making strawman arguments. I never said SGA was an "equivalent defender" to Hakeem, which implies some sort of career comparison -- what I said was that if you compare SGA, this season, to Hakeem in 94-95, the season *you brought up*, there wasnt a *large gap* between them defensively -- which is absolutely true. In 94-95, Hakeem was already past his prime and had regressed from his peak defensive years -- this isnt really controversial. You mention for example that Hakeem lead the league in DRTG 5 years in a row, well, *by your own stat*, he was 5th in DRTG in 94-95, while SGA is 4th this season (and the only guard in the top 5). But if you want to try and stretch that out into me saying they were "equivalent defenders" to try and score argument points, sure.

There is a huge gap between them defensively. You are simply taking BPM and ex post facto trying to fit it to a narrative with the insinuation being that -- because BPM implies it -- they are somehow having equivalent seasons. Therefore, so the argument goes, it must be true that they are "similar" -- which is laughable. It is absolutely not true. Shai is on any level an equivalent defender to Hakeem. In 1995 Hakeem finished third in DPOY voting and after coming off back-to-back DPOY awards. 1995 Hakeem was only 32-years-old and still in his prime. He was Finals MVP and dominated the playoffs. He was not in anyway "past his prime."

Why do you keep using strawman arguments? Do you see BPM or DBPM mentioned anywhere in my post, let alone the part of it you're quoting? So why are you saying that's what Im basing this argument off of? I *literally* spelled out what I based my argument on -- I used your own DRTG stat that *you* brought up. Again, *by your own stat*, that *you* brought up, Hakeem was 5th in DRTG that season, while Shai is 4th this season. You mention Hakeem finished 3rd in DPOY -- Shai finished 7th last year, and will likely finish higher this year, because he's been better defensively this year than last. Again, we're talking about *your own examples* -- nothing to do with BPM. Even 3rd vs 7th in DPOY is not remotely a *large gap*. There's quite a bit more evidence, but we cant even get to that unless youre going to address the actual arguments being made. Do you have any actual evidence that says there was a large gap between them defensively, or are you just going to keep strawmanning me?

Look, man, he led the league in rebounding several years and was a monster on the glass. He was not one of the better rebounders, he was the best rebounder in the league throughout segments of his career and one of the greatest of all-time on the glass. He also led the league multiple seasons in rebounding percentage on both ends. He wasn't out there trying to kill himself on the glass every night to prove a point in a physical era, so as his value to franchise expanded the need for him to fill up the box score diminished. His job was to lead the team's offense primarily and be a defensive anchor. Old saying goes jack of trades, but master of none. There is no doubt that Hakeem's numbers on the glass were reflection of Houston's desire to protect their star player. Context is important, and this is what your argument lacks. You simply took the numbers without context and plugged them into a terrible argument based upon stats are far too removed from the raw numbers and events on the court to have any real value. The analytics always results in reductionist mathematical arguments such as this that have no real feel for the game.

Cool, he lead the league previously. You werent talking about previous seasons in your post, you were talking about the 94-95 playoffs vs SGA this year, so that's irrelevant. Stick to the topic at hand and stop shifting goalposts. The rest of this is just hand-waving nonsense to make it look like you have something to say when you dont have any *evidence* to support your claims, and you did nothing to refute my point that rebounding was a weakness for Hakeem in the 94-95 playoffs.

Trying to take a shot at "analytics" at the end is again a joke -- you have no problem using analytics any time it supports your opinion, and then denigrate anyone using them when the analytics disagrees with your opinion. The issue isnt the analytics -- they're facts in a vacuum. The issue is a person's interpretation of the analytics, and sure, people can misinterpret analytics and what theyre actually telling you. You know how you combat that? You give the proper interpretation and context using evidence, you dont put down analytics as a whole or people using them. But that seems like a foreign concept to you.

Shai's defensive rating this year is not even all that elite, but OKC's team defense is likely carrying some of those numbers considering he chucking like prime Harden or Westbrook on offense.

4th in the NBA and the top guard in the NBA is "not all that elite"? Or do you mean not all that elite in comparison to past seasons? Because please tell me you arent the same guy saying that we have to adjust TS relative to era, but then not also realizing that league-wide DRTGs have increased across the board due to increased efficiency? The double talk is mind boggling. Pick one view point and stick with it, stop trying to argue things from both sides.

He is having a great season overall, but I could easly make the case that he's at best their third best overall defender.

You could. Defensive stats are noisy like that, and he has multiple great defensive teammates, and trying to untangle team defense/award defensive value is very tricky. The thing is, it doesn't really change much about the analysis in the end -- he's having a great defensive season regardless.

Certainly, he's no Hakeem.

Peak vs peak? I agree. 94-95 playoff Hakeem, vs SGA this year, the comparison *you brought up*? Not so much.

It gets weird when using advanced stats you actually attempt to make the argument that Shai is not just the best defender on his team, but somehow comparable in stats where Hakeem's numbers are not just good -- but the best all-time for a center. Hakeem is like the only center ranked in the top 60 in steals per game. He was simply a god on defense. All-time he's ahead of maybe the best defensive player of this era in Draymond Green, and he's a true 7 footer! Think about that for a second and what that means before you try to compare Shai to him in this area. Also, take your blks argument, for example. This is what it looks like all-time:

Rank Player BLK
1. Hakeem Olajuwon* 3830
2. Dikembe Mutombo* 3289
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 3189
4. Artis Gilmore* 3178
5. Mark Eaton 3064
6. Tim Duncan* 3020
7. David Robinson* 2954
8. Patrick Ewing* 2894
9. Shaquille O'Neal* 2732
10. Tree Rollins 2542

Next closest guy is 600 blocks behind Hakeem and all of those players are retired. Hakeem is literally the Magic Johnson of blocks. Like Magic's playoff assist numbers, Hakeems block numbers are likely a stat that will never be broken. No, Shai is not comparable to Hakeem in blocks and steals and the analytics are just noise. Never mind that if were stat for shots contested or altered, Hakeem would obviously be on different planet that any little guard out there on the perimeter.

All of this is irrelevant, and again a strawman -- stop doing this. You're talking about career numbers, when what *YOU* brought up, and what I disputed, is Hakeem's 94-95 playoffs vs SGA this season. If you want to start using past Hakeem seasons, those are completely different arguments.

Your argument as it stands basically goes something like "in the 94-95 playoffs, when Hakeem was 32 and past his prime, the advanced stats like BPM say he was only All-NBA caliber that season, and not historically great, so they must be wrong. Look at how good he was years earlier, when he was still in his prime! Look at his career numbers, theyre amazing! It cant be true if he was that good years earlier that he was only All-NBA in the 94-95 playoffs".

Do you get it? These things have nothing to do with each other. So why do you keep using them as evidence for your arguments? If you want to prove BPM is misjudging Hakeem in the 94-95 playoffs, or overvaluing SGA this year, using numbers from past seasons or their careers doesnt make any sense.

Are you trying to argue something else? If so, say so, otherwise Im starting to get the impression you dont know how to make a basic argument and support it with evidence.

[michaelm]

You're obviously referring to my post -- only youre doing nothing but making strawman arguments. I never said SGA was an "equivalent defender" to Hakeem, which implies some sort of career comparison -- what I said was that if you compare SGA, this season, to Hakeem in 94-95, the season *you brought up*, there wasnt a *large gap* between them defensively -- which is absolutely true. In 94-95, Hakeem was already past his prime and had regressed from his peak defensive years -- this isnt really controversial. You mention for example that Hakeem lead the league in DRTG 5 years in a row, well, *by your own stat*, he was 5th in DRTG in 94-95, while SGA is 4th this season (and the only guard in the top 5). But if you want to try and stretch that out into me saying they were "equivalent defenders" to try and score argument points, sure.

There is a huge gap between them defensively. You are simply taking BPM and ex post facto trying to fit it to a narrative with the insinuation being that -- because BPM implies it -- they are somehow having equivalent seasons. Therefore, so the argument goes, it must be true that they are "similar" -- which is laughable. It is absolutely not true. Shai is on any level an equivalent defender to Hakeem. In 1995 Hakeem finished third in DPOY voting and after coming off back-to-back DPOY awards. 1995 Hakeem was only 32-years-old and still in his prime. He was Finals MVP and dominated the playoffs. He was not in anyway "past his prime."

Second, you're again trying to strawman the rebounding argument as though I compared him to a modern NBA big, and that I only used DRB% to make the comparison (if anything I would use ORB% if I was using just one rebounding stat, since its by far the most valuable) -- but no, he wasnt doing well relative to the league in 94-95, which is what I said. I dont have his exact rankings in the playoffs at hand, but a quick look shows he wasnt top 10 in the RS for any of TRB%/DRB%/ORB%, and his playoff rebounding numbers were worse than his RS numbers. Also -- you're comparing him to Shaq as though he dominated Shaq? Shaq had an ORB% of 14% in 94-95 in the playoffs, Hakeem had 5%, that's literally triple Hakeem's rate. TRB% of 18 vs 14. Shaq flat out murdered him on the glass in the 94-95 playoffs. And again, this isnt something Im bringing up -- these are your examples, Im just pointing out the holes in your arguments, while you keep misrepresenting what I said.

Look, man, he led the league in rebounding several years and was a monster on the glass. He was not one of the better rebounders, he was the best rebounder in the league throughout segments of his career and one of the greatest of all-time on the glass. He also led the league multiple seasons in rebounding percentage on both ends. He wasn't out there trying to kill himself on the glass every night to prove a point in a physical era, so as his value to franchise expanded the need for him to fill up the box score diminished. His job was to lead the team's offense primarily and be a defensive anchor. Old saying goes jack of trades, but master of none. There is no doubt that Hakeem's numbers on the glass were reflection of Houston's desire to protect their star player. Context is important, and this is what your argument lacks. You simply took the numbers without context and plugged them into a terrible argument based upon stats are far too removed from the raw numbers and events on the court to have any real value. The analytics always results in reductionist mathematical arguments such as this that have no real feel for the game.

But I guess any time you use evidence to support a statement, and not just "trust me bro" or the "eye test", its just advanced metrics Dunning-Kruger because the evidence doesnt support your opinion, right? You're the same dude in here pounding the stats when they showed what you wanted them to, which is why you've mentioned things like Hakeem leading the league in DRTG 5 times. You want to use stats to support your opinions, great, you just want to give your opinion on things, great, but dont talk out of both sides of your mouth saying people that use stats are just examples of "naive scientism" when it doesnt support whatever your opinion is while using them yourself. Then you just look like a hypocrite. And stop using strawmen, its getting old.

Shai's defensive rating this year is not even all that elite, but OKC's team defense is likely carrying some of those numbers considering he chucking like prime Harden or Westbrook on offense. He is having a great season overall, but I could easly make the case that he's at best their third best overall defender. Certainly, he's no Hakeem. It gets weird when using advanced stats you actually attempt to make the argument that Shai is not just the best defender on his team, but somehow comparable in stats where Hakeem's numbers are not just good -- but the best all-time for a center. Hakeem is like the only center ranked in the top 60 in steals per game. He was simply a god on defense. All-time he's ahead of maybe the best defensive player of this era in Draymond Green, and he's a true 7 footer! Think about that for a second and what that means before you try to compare Shai to him in this area. Also, take your blks argument, for example. This is what it looks like all-time:

Rank Player BLK
1. Hakeem Olajuwon* 3830
2. Dikembe Mutombo* 3289
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 3189
4. Artis Gilmore* 3178
5. Mark Eaton 3064
6. Tim Duncan* 3020
7. David Robinson* 2954
8. Patrick Ewing* 2894
9. Shaquille O'Neal* 2732
10. Tree Rollins 2542

Next closest guy is 600 blocks behind Hakeem and all of those players are retired. Hakeem is literally the Magic Johnson of blocks. Like Magic's playoff assist numbers, Hakeems block numbers are likely a stat that will never be broken. No, Shai is not comparable to Hakeem in blocks and steals and the analytics are just noise. Never mind that if were stat for shots contested or altered, Hakeem would obviously be on different planet that any little guard out there on the perimeter.

As a more recent example in regard to rebounding Russell Westbrook was a very good rebounder as a guard, but not I believe a better rebounder than Steve Adams. It was a deliberate strategy In the year he averaged a triple double to get the ball into his hands early.

Analytics are a tool and imo have most value and are best validated by being predictive, but were not I believe devised to be an end in themselves or to retrospectively evaluate players from different eras. They have clearly had a significant influence on changing how the game is played, and rule changes obviously also have had an influence compared to previous eras. I am sure neither Jordan nor Kobe generated 3 FTs from being fouled on 3 point shots, by far the most efficient method of scoring, as Harden did at Houston playing Moreyball, but they weren’t trying to do so as a strategy. SGA and peak Harden both get/got awarded a high number of FTs significantly because of the difficulty of defending them in general Imo btw. but more than a few of those Harden 3 point shot attempts were fairly perfunctory.

As for the topic of the thread SGA this year seems to me to be a more efficient scorer/have better shot selection than peak Kobe. He hasn’t demonstrated the ability to make clutch baskets deep in the play-offs yet, but may well start doing so soon. I don’t see him as a game altering defensive player like peak Kobe, but he can obviously be a component of a team which is elite defensively in the regular season, and we will soon see how this translates to the play-offs as well.

In regard to this and similar threads of course no player can win “ringgz” on his own. Winning games and titles rather than generating statistics as an individual player is the object of the game however. SGA is already leading OKC this year to an all time great regular season record which looks likely to eclipse the regular season record of any of Kobe’s teams.