Moderators: Clav, Domejandro, ken6199, bisme37, Dirk, KingDavid, cupcakesnake, bwgood77, zimpy27, infinite11285
Devilanche wrote:As an OKC fan, SGA can get his kudos and compliment against other era folks when he start doing more in the playoffs.
Let him win some more playoffs and hopefully get a ring or two before comparing him to players on other era .
og15 wrote:Sure, if you compare to 1957 when players still shot with two hands, dribbling was super restricted and the skills were primitive and a running hook was a good shot, it can support the blanket conclusion that there's no relative era comparison. Of course we compare players from 02-03 and 03-04 to 04-05 and 06-07, which means there's no large gap, primarily perimeter guys, and we have to adjust for rule changes don't we.One_and_Done wrote:GreatWhiteStiff wrote:
You have to compare their abilities relative to their peers in their respective eras or whatever though, I'm not sure how to do that, or if you've done that.
No, I don't. If I think a bad era was bad, I'm not giving you bonus points for being one of the better players in said era. Bob Cousy was good relative to the 60s, but would not make the league today.
I think relative TS% is a bad stat. You can't just make a flat adjustment like that. If a guy shot 1% above league average in 1957, it doesn't mean he'll be 1% above average today (that's basically impossible).
In the last 3 years Shai is averaging 42.4pp100 on 631 TS% with a 127 Ortg.
From 00-10 Kobe only averaged only 36.9pp100, with a TS% of 558, and an Ortg of only 113. Kobe's career high Ortg is only 115. His career high TS% is 580.
SGA averages as many rebounds per 100, and more assists. SGA can run a low TO offense, which Kobe cannot. SGA is a better defender. It's very clear SGA has already surpassed Kobe, he just needs more longevity.
Then we add many of the same guys and compare to a league without bigs clogging the paint and with more spacing, and hmm, we have to adjust again, and we can see the clear difference, but if we of course act like we're comparing to 1957, then yes, we can make the argument that way.
One_and_Done wrote:I'll just direct people here to one of the many threads discussing whether Kobe would be better today or not, to save time.
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2353348&start=140
Just to elaborateI think Iggy’s belated defence says it best. In order to say Kobe would be impactful today, he has to imagine a player that never existed. For me, that is not the right approach. Players can only get judged for the way they actually played.
The way Kobe played was incredibly selfish, and had an overrated impact on winning. To talk of a player developing in a different way in the modern age is just too hypothetical. It seems especially ridiculous to do so when that player had a terrible attitude, and showed during his own career that he had no interest whatever in adapting his style of play. I don’t need to imagine what Kobe would be like under a modern coach, because I actually saw it in 2013, and it was a huge disaster.
The 2013 Lakers were hailed as the overwhelming title favourites; and were a huge disappointment as a 45 win team who needed a great deal of home cooking by the refs down the stretch to even make the playoffs. Yeh, Nash was hurt, but that’s no excuse. They underachieved massively, and Kobe’s attitude and playstyle was a major reason for that underachievement (and a major reason that many people in hindsight decided he would have fit poorly with Nash anyway).
Kobe’s greatest strength was that he was an inelastic offensive player. Basically his chances of hitting a hard shot were just as high, no matter what you did, which meant playoff defence couldn’t scheme to take that away from him. The downside of that was:
1) If you are going to take the same inefficient, high degree of difficulty shots no matter what the D does, then you don’t really gain any benefit from improved spacing. That’s why this talk of “wow, Kobe would take advantage of today’s spacing” is off the mark.
2) High difficulty mid-rangers are now recognised as the least desirable shot in today’s game. They have a place, but they are just not a shot you want to build your offense around, because 2 points is worth less than 3.
3) Kobe’s efficiency on high degree of difficulty shots was acceptable back then because teams were less efficient. Now teams play so much more efficiently, and have so much more sophisticated offenses, that Kobe’s offense would be subpar.
That’s why Kobe would struggle more on offense in today’s game. But even in Kobe’s own era, his impact was plainly overstated. From 99-07 he led the Lakers to a 135-137 record in games where Shaq/Pau did not play; and no, it’s not because the team was so bad that it couldn’t be carried without Shaq/Pau. In games Kobe missed, Shaq had the Lakers playing like a 60+ win team. We also saw from 05-07 how much Kobe struggled as a floor raiser. Kobe’s strength was providing an extra weapon for an already good team in the playoffs. Unfortunately that strength would be significantly weakened in today’s game.
As I touch on; his D would also be a huge issue today. He could not get away with the things he did, modern D demands so much more from players. People like to point to SGA, as a way of pointing to an archetype that suggests “hey, maybe Kobe would be good today still”. The problem is SGA is a better 3pt shooter than Kobe, and runs the team’s offense as a highly efficient and low turnover point guard. Kobe can’t run an offense like SGA, and his iso-tendencies and lack of off-ball game would be highly limiting as a shooting guard. He’d basically be like a better version of DeRozan, which is good for about 6-12th most impactful in the league right now at best.
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
One_and_Done wrote:GreatWhiteStiff wrote:One_and_Done wrote:Both are true.
If you look at the per100 #s and TS% the last 3 years, Shai is way ahead of Kobe.
You have to compare their abilities relative to their peers in their respective eras or whatever though, I'm not sure how to do that, or if you've done that.
No, I don't. If I think a bad era was bad, I'm not giving you bonus points for being one of the better players in said era. Bob Cousy was good relative to the 60s, but would not make the league today.
I think relative TS% is a bad stat. You can't just make a flat adjustment like that. If a guy shot 1% above league average in 1957, it doesn't mean he'll be 1% above average today (that's basically impossible).
In the last 3 years Shai is averaging 42.4pp100 on 631 TS% with a 127 Ortg.
From 00-10 Kobe only averaged only 36.9pp100, with a TS% of 558, and an Ortg of only 113. Kobe's career high Ortg is only 115. His career high TS% is 580.
SGA averages as many rebounds per 100, and more assists. SGA can run a low TO offense, which Kobe cannot. SGA is a better defender. It's very clear SGA has already surpassed Kobe, he just needs more longevity.
basketballto wrote:One_and_Done wrote:GreatWhiteStiff wrote:
You have to compare their abilities relative to their peers in their respective eras or whatever though, I'm not sure how to do that, or if you've done that.
No, I don't. If I think a bad era was bad, I'm not giving you bonus points for being one of the better players in said era. Bob Cousy was good relative to the 60s, but would not make the league today.
I think relative TS% is a bad stat. You can't just make a flat adjustment like that. If a guy shot 1% above league average in 1957, it doesn't mean he'll be 1% above average today (that's basically impossible).
In the last 3 years Shai is averaging 42.4pp100 on 631 TS% with a 127 Ortg.
From 00-10 Kobe only averaged only 36.9pp100, with a TS% of 558, and an Ortg of only 113. Kobe's career high Ortg is only 115. His career high TS% is 580.
SGA averages as many rebounds per 100, and more assists. SGA can run a low TO offense, which Kobe cannot. SGA is a better defender. It's very clear SGA has already surpassed Kobe, he just needs more longevity.
Who is a better playmaker than Bob Cousy in this era? He invented behind the back dribbling, behind the back shooting. Lead the nba in assists for 8 years. Besides the 13 all star games or 10 first team picks he had a better nickname than anyone today Houdini of the hardwood. Aside from the lack of distance shooting he could make any team in the nba now if prime Cousy was around. We are not in an elite point guard era.
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
One_and_Done wrote:I've seen footage of Cousy, and I doubt he could make a G-League team today. He looks more like a YMCA player than a pro. That doesn't mean we can't honour his legacy, that's what statues and retired numbers are for, but in terms of him playing today? That's just not realistic.
basketballto wrote:One_and_Done wrote:I've seen footage of Cousy, and I doubt he could make a G-League team today. He looks more like a YMCA player than a pro. That doesn't mean we can't honour his legacy, that's what statues and retired numbers are for, but in terms of him playing today? That's just not realistic.
The level of YMCA player in your area must be high. A player who can control the passing game at an extremely high level of speed would be welcome.
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
Patsfan1081 wrote:I know this is a boring answer but……different era.
basketballto wrote:One_and_Done wrote:GreatWhiteStiff wrote:
You have to compare their abilities relative to their peers in their respective eras or whatever though, I'm not sure how to do that, or if you've done that.
No, I don't. If I think a bad era was bad, I'm not giving you bonus points for being one of the better players in said era. Bob Cousy was good relative to the 60s, but would not make the league today.
I think relative TS% is a bad stat. You can't just make a flat adjustment like that. If a guy shot 1% above league average in 1957, it doesn't mean he'll be 1% above average today (that's basically impossible).
In the last 3 years Shai is averaging 42.4pp100 on 631 TS% with a 127 Ortg.
From 00-10 Kobe only averaged only 36.9pp100, with a TS% of 558, and an Ortg of only 113. Kobe's career high Ortg is only 115. His career high TS% is 580.
SGA averages as many rebounds per 100, and more assists. SGA can run a low TO offense, which Kobe cannot. SGA is a better defender. It's very clear SGA has already surpassed Kobe, he just needs more longevity.
Who is a better playmaker than Bob Cousy in this era? He invented behind the back dribbling, behind the back shooting. Lead the nba in assists for 8 years. Besides the 13 all star games or 10 first team picks he had a better nickname than anyone today Houdini of the hardwood. Aside from the lack of distance shooting he could make any team in the nba now if prime Cousy was around. We are not in an elite point guard era.
Hair Jordan wrote:SGA is about to average 30+ for the third straight season. Kobe scored 30+ just 3X in his entire 20 year career. SGA is also about to average 50% FG for the third straight year and fourth time in the last five seasons. Kobe never averaged 50% in any season in his career. SGA also shoots a higher % from the FT line and the arc. SGA just scored his career high of 45 points. Kobe could score 45 points in his sleep. He once scored 55 in one half and 62 in 3 quarters. As a volume scorer, Kobe crushes SGA but SGA seems to crush Kobe everywhere else. Is SGA a massively underrated scorer or was Kobe massively overrated as a scorer?
Hair Jordan wrote:SGA is about to average 30+ for the third straight season. Kobe scored 30+ just 3X in his entire 20 year career. SGA is also about to average 50% FG for the third straight year and fourth time in the last five seasons. Kobe never averaged 50% in any season in his career. SGA also shoots a higher % from the FT line and the arc. SGA just scored his career high of 45 points. Kobe could score 45 points in his sleep. He once scored 55 in one half and 62 in 3 quarters. As a volume scorer, Kobe crushes SGA but SGA seems to crush Kobe everywhere else. Is SGA a massively underrated scorer or was Kobe massively overrated as a scorer?
sashaturiaf wrote:Kobe **** hard on SGA and it's not even close. Stop looking at stats today's game isn't comparable in anyway to the league Kobe played in.
Go and look at SGA stats in the tournament finals when the refs swallowed their whistles. That **** OKC team would barely get to 90ppg on a good day with 2000s refs. He's nothing near Kobe.
Even geriatric Lebron averages 20+ now, the offensive stats in the league mean nothing now. Prime Kobe would rip this league up for 40ppg on good efficiency for free
Lalouie wrote:maybe today's nba game is overrated
the context is the league 3pt fga has doubled since kobe's era
Wagonband wrote:Very civil thread, as expected
Game is simply played very differently now compared to 20 years ago. SGA hasn't really proven anything yet when it really matters, and that's something Kobe showed. When the games slow down, where every bucket and every defensive play matters, there are few people who he that focus/skill necessary like Kobe.
But, SGA has become a legit top 5 player in the NBA, which is where Kobe also resided for most of his career. If SGA can start winning rings and taking OKC deep into the playoffs every year while remaining as efficient as he is, he can most certainly surpass Kobe. But he is not there yet
