How close is SGA to Peak Kobe?

[dhsilv2]

Yes, he had a bunch of them. If Kobe was playing in this era he'd be averaging 40. It doesn't matter though. If SGA wants to be talked about with the greats he's gonna have to do it in more than the regular season.

So you're saying that in Kobe's era there were more players as good or better than today's best players? In other words in any given individual season there were 3-4 guys playing as well as Jokic is today.

In Kobe’s era it was harder to put up big efficient scoring numbers. Someone like Gasol would probably be putting up similar numbers as Jokic if he was in his prime today.

Was it harder to stand out compared to other players in that era?

[PostGameDaVinci]

It's hard to say how close SGA is without seeing him make a deep playoff run. We're comparing a current player to a HOFers legacy & legacies are made in the playoffs.
I'm going with Kobe for now. Advanced stats may favor SGA but they don't tell the whole story. Kobe would put up crazy numbers in this offense focused era. I think he'd embrace some of the more modern statistics/playstyle and improve his shot selection.
Shai would cook in Kobe's era, but his herky jerky midrange game benefits tremendously from modern space. It wouldn't have the same impact with the paint clogged.

[PostGameDaVinci]

Yes, he had a bunch of them. If Kobe was playing in this era he'd be averaging 40. It doesn't matter though. If SGA wants to be talked about with the greats he's gonna have to do it in more than the regular season.

So you're saying that in Kobe's era there were more players as good or better than today's best players? In other words in any given individual season there were 3-4 guys playing as well as Jokic is today.

In Kobe’s era it was harder to put up big efficient scoring numbers. Someone like Gasol would probably be putting up similar numbers as Jokic if he was in his prime today.

This Gasol take is preposterous lmao.

[xAIRNESSx]

Kobe never shot 50% from the field

[Big J]

So you're saying that in Kobe's era there were more players as good or better than today's best players? In other words in any given individual season there were 3-4 guys playing as well as Jokic is today.

In Kobe’s era it was harder to put up big efficient scoring numbers. Someone like Gasol would probably be putting up similar numbers as Jokic if he was in his prime today.

Was it harder to stand out compared to other players in that era?

Not really, the stars who won the most were the ones who stood out. Same as today.

[Big J]

So you're saying that in Kobe's era there were more players as good or better than today's best players? In other words in any given individual season there were 3-4 guys playing as well as Jokic is today.

In Kobe’s era it was harder to put up big efficient scoring numbers. Someone like Gasol would probably be putting up similar numbers as Jokic if he was in his prime today.

This Gasol take is preposterous lmao.

It’s actually not. You put Gasol in a heliocentric role in today’s game and he’s gonna put up similar numbers. His game was very similar to Jokics, he just played in very different systems. It just seems like it is when all you do is look at raw data and try to make a 1 to 1 comparison across eras. Just look at the numbers that Domantas Sabonis has put up, and he’s not even close to the player that Gasol was.

[juju14]

In Kobe’s era it was harder to put up big efficient scoring numbers. Someone like Gasol would probably be putting up similar numbers as Jokic if he was in his prime today.

This Gasol take is preposterous lmao.

It’s actually not. You put Gasol in a heliocentric role in today’s game and he’s gonna put up similar numbers. His game was very similar to Jokics, he just played in very different systems. It just seems like it is when all you do is look at raw data and try to make a 1 to 1 comparison across eras. Just look at the numbers that Domantas Sabonis has put up, and he’s not even close to the player that Gasol was.

Gasoline is nowhere near has good has Jokic or was ecer good enough to be MVP candidate.

[Big J]

This Gasol take is preposterous lmao.

It’s actually not. You put Gasol in a heliocentric role in today’s game and he’s gonna put up similar numbers. His game was very similar to Jokics, he just played in very different systems. It just seems like it is when all you do is look at raw data and try to make a 1 to 1 comparison across eras. Just look at the numbers that Domantas Sabonis has put up, and he’s not even close to the player that Gasol was.

Gasoline is nowhere near has good has Jokic or was ecer good enough to be MVP candidate.

That’s because he played in an era that didn’t maximize his skills. If you don’t think he would be used differently in todays game you’re lost brother.

[PostGameDaVinci]

In Kobe’s era it was harder to put up big efficient scoring numbers. Someone like Gasol would probably be putting up similar numbers as Jokic if he was in his prime today.

This Gasol take is preposterous lmao.

It’s actually not. You put Gasol in a heliocentric role in today’s game and he’s gonna put up similar numbers. His game was very similar to Jokics, he just played in very different systems. It just seems like it is when all you do is look at raw data and try to make a 1 to 1 comparison across eras. Just look at the numbers that Domantas Sabonis has put up, and he’s not even close to the player that Gasol was.

I'm a huge Gasol fan (both of them) but he's not averaging a 30pt triple double or close. Jokic is a much better passer and scorer and he does it with full defensive attention.
He'd put up good numbers but he wouldn't have the playmaking. Gasol was a great playmaker for a big. Jokic is an alltime great.
Also, Sabonis is flawed but he's still amazing. Gasol would be closer to him than Jokic.

[cupcakesnake]

In Kobe’s era it was harder to put up big efficient scoring numbers. Someone like Gasol would probably be putting up similar numbers as Jokic if he was in his prime today.

This Gasol take is preposterous lmao.

It’s actually not. You put Gasol in a heliocentric role in today’s game and he’s gonna put up similar numbers. His game was very similar to Jokics, he just played in very different systems. It just seems like it is when all you do is look at raw data and try to make a 1 to 1 comparison across eras. Just look at the numbers that Domantas Sabonis has put up, and he’s not even close to the player that Gasol was.

Man, this is so silly. Forget the magic of "today's game" and think about what these guys can do on the basketball court.

Pau Gasol was an excellent passer. One of the best big man passers ever. He in no way- funtionally- can pass like Jokic, in any era, in any system. There's zero evidence that Gasol has those passes in his bag, and Gasol did all his passing from static post ups, while Jokic can pass on the move, off the dribble... just look at how they pass and try to convince yourself of a planet where Gasol can do the same things as Jokic.

Then there's the massive gap in shooting touch. Pau was a solid midrange shooter who dabbled a bit with the 3 late in his caeer. Jokic simply has the best shooting touch of all-time. I'm not even talking about the 3-ball. No version of Pau Gasol is shooting above 55% on midrangers for full seasons like Jokic has done. No one is doing in this in any era.

If you want to say that Gasol could be put on Sacramento today, and average Sabonis-like assists, I think I'm fine with that. But saying a helicocentric Gasol could put up Jokic numbers is inane. Think of what "similar numbers as Jokic" actually means. 29-13-10, shooting 58/44/82 spits.

[Big J]

This Gasol take is preposterous lmao.

It’s actually not. You put Gasol in a heliocentric role in today’s game and he’s gonna put up similar numbers. His game was very similar to Jokics, he just played in very different systems. It just seems like it is when all you do is look at raw data and try to make a 1 to 1 comparison across eras. Just look at the numbers that Domantas Sabonis has put up, and he’s not even close to the player that Gasol was.

Man, this is so silly. Forget the magic of "today's game" and think about what these guys can do on the basketball court.

Pau Gasol was an excellent passer. One of the best big man passers ever. He in no way- funtionally- can pass like Jokic, in any era, in any system. There's zero evidence that Gasol has those passes in his bag, and Gasol did all his passing from static post ups, while Jokic can pass on the move, off the dribble... just look at how they pass and try to convince yourself of a planet where Gasol can do the same things as Jokic.

Then there's the massive gap in shooting touch. Pau was a solid midrange shooter who dabbled a bit with the 3 late in his caeer. Jokic simply has the best shooting touch of all-time. I'm not even talking about the 3-ball. No version of Pau Gasol is shooting above 55% on midrangers for full seasons like Jokic has done. No one is doing in this in any era.

If you want to say that Gasol could be put on Sacramento today, and average Sabonis-like assists, I think I'm fine with that. But saying a helicocentric Gasol could put up Jokic numbers is inane. Think of what "similar numbers as Jokic" actually means. 29-13-10, shooting 58/44/82 spits.

Sabonis isn’t half the player that Gasol was, look at his numbers and think about that for a second.

[dhsilv2]

In Kobe’s era it was harder to put up big efficient scoring numbers. Someone like Gasol would probably be putting up similar numbers as Jokic if he was in his prime today.

Was it harder to stand out compared to other players in that era?

Not really, the stars who won the most were the ones who stood out. Same as today.

Then why didn't Kobe standout then like say Jokic does today? Or Shai since that's the topic.

[Xatticus]

This constant comparing players in today against Bryant is getting laughable at this point, the recency bias is just silly. This doesn't even go on to mention how different the league was when Bryant played compared to let's say a league SGA has played in so here are a few comparing the 20 seasons Bryant played compared to the 7 seasons SGA has played:

League TS%: 57.4% (SGA) vs. 53.6 (KB)
League Offensive Rating: 112.8 (SGA) vs. 105.5 (KB)
League Pace: 99.2 (SGA) vs. 91.7 (KB)

Which is to say, SGA plays in a league that has promoted offense over everything, where Bryant played in a league that was arguably the most grind it out in the leagues history, especially the beginning of his career. This is something that is constantly talked about yet seemingly ignored in these conversations.

I mean guys openly admit to not taking heaves so their percentages don't suffer these days. I'm not faulting these younger players, but the use of advanced data we've seen over the past 10 years in the league coupled with the leagues promotion of scoring, it's crazy how you can try to use Kobe's percentages against him against guys playing with these advantages.

I know the hate for Kobe runs deep, but these arguments lack an sort of context.

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.

[Xatticus]

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."



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.



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. SGS 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.

Actually the entire reason to create BPM was to give us a level of cross era analysis. Same with PER.

RAPM was designed on being predictive. BPM is just a box metric designed to correlate to RAPM for the purpose of historical context. It has flaws in doing that, but that was the intent. Similar to why Hollinger wanted to make PER set to 15 for the league average. It gives it comparative value over time.

This. Someone always brings up BPM to denigrate statistics without understanding why BPM is inherently flawed.

[cupcakesnake]

It’s actually not. You put Gasol in a heliocentric role in today’s game and he’s gonna put up similar numbers. His game was very similar to Jokics, he just played in very different systems. It just seems like it is when all you do is look at raw data and try to make a 1 to 1 comparison across eras. Just look at the numbers that Domantas Sabonis has put up, and he’s not even close to the player that Gasol was.

Man, this is so silly. Forget the magic of "today's game" and think about what these guys can do on the basketball court.

Pau Gasol was an excellent passer. One of the best big man passers ever. He in no way- funtionally- can pass like Jokic, in any era, in any system. There's zero evidence that Gasol has those passes in his bag, and Gasol did all his passing from static post ups, while Jokic can pass on the move, off the dribble... just look at how they pass and try to convince yourself of a planet where Gasol can do the same things as Jokic.

Then there's the massive gap in shooting touch. Pau was a solid midrange shooter who dabbled a bit with the 3 late in his caeer. Jokic simply has the best shooting touch of all-time. I'm not even talking about the 3-ball. No version of Pau Gasol is shooting above 55% on midrangers for full seasons like Jokic has done. No one is doing in this in any era.

If you want to say that Gasol could be put on Sacramento today, and average Sabonis-like assists, I think I'm fine with that. But saying a helicocentric Gasol could put up Jokic numbers is inane. Think of what "similar numbers as Jokic" actually means. 29-13-10, shooting 58/44/82 spits.

Sabonis isn’t half the player that Gasol was, look at his numbers and think about that for a second.

I agree Gasol is better. His superior length made him much more of a 2-way player. Pau Gasol could be the center in a good defense, where Sabonis has some limitations you have to work around. Gasol is a more skilled/dextrous player with better shooting range and maybe better hands (they both have fantastic hands).

Sabonis has some advantages over Gasol. The big one being raw strength. Gasol would struggle with his scoring game sometimes because his main scoring game was being a long athlete who could drive and finish with touch. Strong guys could push him off his driving lanes. Sabonis can basically truck through almost anyone. Sabonis' strength advantage also comes up in terms of screening and rebounding. Two areas he's much better than Gasol in. I think Sabonis is probably a slightly better passer than Gasol was, but they're both really good. Sabonis' strength allows his to set up and own space, and create DHO situations whenever he wants.

Neither Gasol or Sabonis are A-tier scorers. You probably want to pair them with another big scorer if you want a great offense.

Gasol in the modern game, would have an easier time as an interior scorer. He'd face less lineups with 2-3 bigs at a time. He'd get to play center full time and be more of a matchup problem. I'm not sure we'd see transfomatively different stats, but I can picture him in an offense where he racks up more assists.

No idea what you mean by "half the player", and your original comment about Jokic is still completely false.

[JimmyFromNz]

It’s actually not. You put Gasol in a heliocentric role in today’s game and he’s gonna put up similar numbers. His game was very similar to Jokics, he just played in very different systems. It just seems like it is when all you do is look at raw data and try to make a 1 to 1 comparison across eras. Just look at the numbers that Domantas Sabonis has put up, and he’s not even close to the player that Gasol was.

Gasoline is nowhere near has good has Jokic or was ecer good enough to be MVP candidate.

That’s because he played in an era that didn’t maximize his skills. If you don’t think he would be used differently in todays game you’re lost brother.

Perhaps ease up on the determining who's 'lost'

To your original point re: Gasol game really wasn't as similar as you say it was and certainly does not equate to putting up Jokic numbers. It's just a bit lazy, foreign big man with some offensive similarities within 15 ft and the ability to initiate a high post offense... that's not a firm basis to reach the end conclusions made.

There is no evidence:

- offensively that Pau could score at all 3 levels in the same manner and with similar results as Jokic.
- Pau could bring the ball up and initiate the offense in the same manner Jokic can.
- Pau has the body control or handle to play off the dribble and drive and kick like Jokic can.
- Pau has remotely the same combination of vision and passing variety.

We can of course say that Pau's base skillset could flourish (at least on one end of the floor) in a modern offense, and that his passing skill would be a strong asset - maybe he could average 6 apg - that's still not a base for comparison to someone operating at all time levels. Shifting to a Sabonis comparison, that's been addressed by others, but the key point there is that Sabonis is a mobile/quicker big, screener and passer that enables him to put up those types of numbers in a modern offense. Pau is absolutely the better player but the projection into today's offense doesn't fit with that comparison.

[benson13]

Strictly hoops, SGA is is closest thing to Kobe since prime Kobe. His scoring package is insane.

For his career Kobe took ~12% of his shots from the 3 to 10 ft area, and 27% from the 16 ft to 3pt area. SGA on the other hand takes 25% of his shots from the 3 to 10 ft area, and only 7% from 16 ft to 3pt.

SGA consistently plays near the paint and uses his footwork to get a lot of high quality clean looks, his shot selection is excellent which is why he's so efficient. Kobe on the other hand, while being the better player, had shoddy shot selection and took a lot of contested long 2s. They are both skilled offensive players who can knock down mid range jumpers, but that's where the similarities end.

I don't know if I agree with this. Kobe did take a lot of long twos, but his shot distribution alone can't explain the discrepancy in their efficiencies.

[Edrees]

Not a surprising result from the same forum that thought Warriors lost the Jimmy Butler trade. Voting with emotions rather than logic as always.

All the same arguements of SGA > Kobe can also be said to say that SGA > or = Jordan and when you make that arguement you realize how silly these arguements are when compared across eras.

This constant comparing players in today against Bryant is getting laughable at this point, the recency bias is just silly. This doesn't even go on to mention how different the league was when Bryant played compared to let's say a league SGA has played in so here are a few comparing the 20 seasons Bryant played compared to the 7 seasons SGA has played:

League TS%: 57.4% (SGA) vs. 53.6 (KB)
League Offensive Rating: 112.8 (SGA) vs. 105.5 (KB)
League Pace: 99.2 (SGA) vs. 91.7 (KB)

Which is to say, SGA plays in a league that has promoted offense over everything, where Bryant played in a league that was arguably the most grind it out in the leagues history, especially the beginning of his career. This is something that is constantly talked about yet seemingly ignored in these conversations.

I mean guys openly admit to not taking heaves so their percentages don't suffer these days. I'm not faulting these younger players, but the use of advanced data we've seen over the past 10 years in the league coupled with the leagues promotion of scoring, it's crazy how you can try to use Kobe's percentages against him against guys playing with these advantages.

I know the hate for Kobe runs deep, but these arguments lack an sort of context.

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 want to print and frame this post.

[dhsilv2]

Not a surprising result from the same forum that thought Warriors lost the Jimmy Butler trade. Voting with emotions rather than logic as always.

All the same arguements of SGA > Kobe can also be said to say that SGA > or = Jordan and when you make that arguement you realize how silly these arguements are when compared across eras.

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 want to print and frame this post.

There is absolutely zero argument for SGA over MJ. That's just nonsense.

[falcolombardi]

Not a surprising result from the same forum that thought Warriors lost the Jimmy Butler trade. Voting with emotions rather than logic as always.

All the same arguements of SGA > Kobe can also be said to say that SGA > or = Jordan and when you make that arguement you realize how silly these arguements are when compared across eras.

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 want to print and frame this post.

No one is saying shai is greater/as great or has as great of a career as kobe

Neither is kobe some near unassailable peak even if he is a probable top 10 all time player

Like there is a balance between too quickly crowning new superstars over all time greats, and automatically scoffing when a new or still ringless player gets brought up in comparision

Like i am sure in 2008 there were people scoffing at the idea of comparing a ringless lebron to the likes of magic or bird (let alone jordan) and yet it was obvious back that as long as he remained healthy he was gonna end up at minimum in their same league as them.
Same thingh with the people who brought up jokic as an all time tier center before 2023 ring being dismissed

We dont need to wait for rings or finished careers to realize dominant players are dominant, we can see them play and see their stats in real time too