RealGM Top 100 List 2017: #11

[andrewww]

I disagree. I'm going to repost some of my previous post, which looked at some broad-strokes statistical comparison using the "all-in-one" box-based rate metrics: PER, WS/48, BPM, and efficiency differential.
Few things it's important to acknowledge too.....
PER puts a lot of value in volume scoring and low turnover rate.
WS/48, BPM, and efficiency differential all have some degree of "winner's bias", as the actual player value is drawn somewhat from the team result:
*Total WS is constructed such that the total for a team is going to be somewhat close to the team's actual number of wins (thus WS/48 is affected by this).
**BPM and ORtg/DRtg are curved towards the team's scoring differential.

What that means is: if Player A and Player B had the EXACT same box stats (exactly the same ppg, orpg, drpg, apg, spg, bpg, topg, and FG/FT numbers in the EXACT same mpg)........but Player A's team had a better record or MOV, then Player A will be rated better by WS/48, BPM, and efficiency differential.
Not saying this isn't justifiable or without reason (I've often suggested it's one thing to put up a particular stat line for a basement level team, quite another to do so for a good team); but merely pointing out that these metrics (all other things being equal) do have winner's bias.

This could be relevant in a Kobe v Garnett comparison, as Kobe had the better teammates (and thus team results) over much of their respective careers. One could debate that they had things pretty even (as far as quality of supporting casts) from '05 on if they want; but no one can really argue (with sincerity) that Kobe didn't have it better from '03/'04 and earlier. And yet.....

Kobe peak statistical year ('06): 28.0 PER, .224 WS/48, +5.8 BPM, 114 ORtg/105 DRtg (+9) in 41.0 mpg
Garnett peak statistical year ('04): 29.4 PER, .272 WS/48, +9.9 BPM, 112 ORtg/92 DRtg (+20) in 39.4 mpg
*KG in '05 and arguably '06 as well, both statistically superior to Kobe's best year, fwiw

Kobe '00-'13 (14 seasons): 24.1 PER, .190 WS/48, +4.7 BPM, 112 ORtg/105 DRtg (+7) in 38.8 mpg
Garnett '99-'12 (14 seasons): 24.4 PER, .207 WS/48, +6.5 BPM, 111 ORtg/98 DRtg (+13) in 36.7 mpg

^^^I would say there's a not huge but clear edge to Garnett in the rs.


Playoffs swing things closer, but still very nearly a draw:

Kobe in playoffs '00-'12: 23.0 PER, .166 WS/48, +4.8 BPM, 110 ORtg/106 DRtg (+4) in 41.5 mpg
Garnett in playoffs '99-'11: 22.1 PER, .162 WS/48, +5.5 BPM, 106 ORtg/99 DRtg (+7) in 38.8 mpg


I'm just not seeing how this clearly reflects Kobe as the superior player. And this before getting into on/off, RAPM, or other impact indicators (which largely paint Garnett as superior).

So Kobe has a minuscule edge, while KG destroys him as a defensive player, which is poorly captured in box score stats. He destroys him in +/-. And he had the worse team most of the time. How that isn't a big deal is beyond me.

nonsense
Nobody destroys nobody in terms of +/-

it's like saying Garnett destroys Kobe(a policeman) in the field of cooking

We can debate the semantics of a word like "destroys", but on/off and RAPM do [fairly heavily at times] favor Garnett in this comparison.

Most of the raw stats in today's NBA also reflect Westbrook for example, as the superior player to Kawhi. This year's +/- also reflect Kawhi as a net negative player defensively. Do you really believe that though?

I'll take Kawhi over Westbrook any day of the week.

Agree to disagree but I don't evaluate players on the metrics you subscribe to as the best way to determine a player's impact.

[trex_8063]

Agree to disagree but I don't evaluate players on the metrics you subscribe to as the best way to determine a player's impact.

I'm not suggesting player comparisons should be a simple as comparing those 4-5 stats.
I'm merely responding to the statement you made: that "the actual stats reflect Kobe as the superior player". In fact, the "actual stats" (as shown above) do not reflect that at all. And it's not as though I cherry-picked one metric to "prove" a point; I used ALL of the all-in-one rate metrics available on bbref, and was going by what they collectively appear to be saying.

[zonedefense]

Let me repost this

I think its about time to talk about Charles Barkley

The only player to win an Mvp over Jordan in his absolute prime.

Charles Barkley

Career Leaders and Records for Offensive Rating

1. Chris Paul 122.44 (G)
2. Reggie Miller 121.48 (SG)
3. Magic Johnson* 120.79 (PG-Point F)
4. John Stockton* 120.55 (PG)
5. Kiki Vandeweghe 119.49 (SF-SG)
6. Sidney Moncrief 119.40 (CG-PG)
7. Charles Barkley* 119.31 (PF)

SHOT MADE/MISS DIFFERENTIAL STAT-
(minimum 15,000 shot attempts)

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: +3,367.5
2. Shaquille O'Neal: +3,200.5
3. Wilt Chamberlain: +1,865
4. Charles Barkley: +1,434

NBA & ABA Career Leaders and Records for Player Efficiency Rating


1. Michael Jordan* 27.91
2. LeBron James 26.91
3. Shaquille O'Neal 26.43
4. David Robinson* 26.18
5. Wilt Chamberlain* 26.13
6. Dwyane Wade 25.65
7. Bob Pettit* 25.35
8. Chris Paul 25.22
9. Tim Duncan 24.84
10. Neil Johnston* 24.63
11. Charles Barkley* 24.63

NBA & ABA Career Playoff Leaders and Records for Player Efficiency Rating


1. Michael Jordan* 28.59
2. George Mikan* 28.51
3. LeBron James 26.31
4. Shaquille O'Neal 26.12
5. Hakeem Olajuwon* 25.69
6. Tim Duncan 25.43
7. Dirk Nowitzki 24.75
8. Tracy McGrady 24.66
9. Dwyane Wade 24.56
10. Charles Barkley* 24.18

Nba all time career leaders in True Shooting %

1. Cedric Maxwell .6294
2. Artis Gilmore .6227
3. Dave Twardzik .6184
4. James Donaldson .6177
5. Adrian Dantley .6166
6. Tyson Chandler .6166
7. Reggie Miler .6139
8. Charles Barkley .6120

Most seasons with a 2 point percentage of 60% or more ( playing at least 60 games)

1 Artis Gilmore 1981 1986 6
2 Charles Barkley 1987 1991 5
3 Tyson Chandler 2007 2013 5
4 Wilt Chamberlain 1967 1973 3


The common theme you see in a lot of these efficiency stats, is that role players who have a lot of baskets created for them are near the top. However, with Barkley you have a player near the top in all these effiency stats, who at the same time was one of the single most double teamed players in nba history.



Charles Barkley playoff games
Charles Barkley – 1 (50 point playoff game)
Charles Barkley- 5 (40 point playoff game)
Charles Barkley- 28 (30 point playoff games)

For comparison Kevin Garnett has only scored 30 points in 9 playoff games.

The more I watch of Barkley and Garnett, the more I'm convinced that the gap between them offensively, is almost as substantial as the gap between them defensively. With Barkley you literally have a 6'4 power foward, scoring the ball with Shaq level efficiency during his prime.

For four straight years during his prime he led the league in True shooting percentage.

1986-1987- .660
1987-1988- .665
1988-1989- .653
1989-1990- .661

For comparison sake, Kevin Garnett does not have a single season of 60 TS% or better. Whiles Barkley is ranked #9 in career TS% and has a career TS% of .6120, Kevin Garnett is ranked #193 all time with a TS% of only .5472 for his career.


And he was doing this whiles being one of the most double teamed players in nba history.There's literally less than a handful of players in nba history who have been able to score as much at as high an efficiency against both playoff and regular season defenses as Charles Barkley. The only guys who have, have already been voted in as top 5 players in this project.

Also I forgot to add on, just how good Charles Barkley was on the offensive glass. For three straight seasons he led the league in offensive rebounds

1986-1987- 390 offensive rebounds
1987-1988- 385 offensive rebounds
1988-1989- 403 offensive rebounds

For his career he's ranked 6th all time in offensive rebounds

1. Moses Malone -7382
2. Artis Gilmore - 4816
3. Robert Parish -4598
4. Buck Williams- 4526
5. Dennis Rodman-4329
6. Charles Barkley- 4260

This is even more impressive considering he only played a 15 year career, and a lot of those were after his body broke down.

Sir Charles is right up there with Adrian Dantley as the most efficient superscorer not yet selected; however, while you can get away with terrible defense sometimes as a wing or even a point, it's more damaging as a big and why he is behind Garnett, KMalone, and probably Bob Pettit on my list. His locker room issues are a real thing too, sliding him behind Dirk as well. So, he is probably 5th among the remaining 4's. I probably rank DRobinson, Moses, and Ewing ahead of him as well though Ewing I'd have to think about because of Barkley's playoff numbers.

It's interesting that you say that, because I think Barkley actually did well on defense considering his lack of good defensive centers throughout his career. Even Dirk had some pretty good shotblockers next to him with Chandler/Camby. I'd probally argue that the best defensive center he played next to was an aging Moses. The thing is Barkley realized this, and as a result focused on generating steals, which lead to one of the highest spg average in league history. I'm not saying that he was a positive, but he definitly used his hands as a way to disrupt defenses in the absence of any real shotblockers.

Camby never played in Dallas...best bigs after Chandler are probably Dampier and Haywood or early 2000s Bradley when it comes to rim protection.

[andrewww]

Agree to disagree but I don't evaluate players on the metrics you subscribe to as the best way to determine a player's impact.

I'm not suggesting player comparisons should be a simple as comparing those 4-5 stats.
I'm merely responding to the statement you made: that "the actual stats reflect Kobe as the superior player". In fact, the "actual stats" (as shown above) do not reflect that at all. And it's not as though I cherry-picked one metric to "prove" a point; I used ALL of the all-in-one rate metrics available on bbref, and was going by what they collectively appear to be saying.

The question, what constitutes as "actual facts"? My original response to the other poster was also to counter the "all stats suggest KG was superior" narrative. If you look at raw stats like PPG, accolades, etc. those all favour Kobe.

A lot of the stats you showed.. have too many variables to accurately determine a player's worth so to speak. On/Off, PER..we all know the short comings of these stats and if the results and eye test support that, I would be more inclined to the suggestion that KG is as good as you think he is. I think he's good too, just not as top dog or co-top dog on a championship level team. 2008 Boston was the best team KG was ever on, and there weren't dominant at any point in time during those playoffs. He also had not 1 but 2 offensive stars in Pierce and Ray Ray. The Bynum injury really changed the dynamic much moreso than people realize. In short, I believe you'd need more help around KG to build a sustained winner than it is for Kobe.

If KG's calling card didnt translate into much from 05-07, yet Kobe's cast imo was equally as bad (on the same tier).. I'm more inclined to the belief that an offensive anchor like Kobe brought more impact that was reflected in the team results than KG's defensive impact had in Minny.

Then when you factor in Kobe's ability to play multiple roles on winning teams that were also more dominant, and with more sustained results..its difficult for many to envision KG being as great as you claim. For the record, I think Duncan is a bit high on this list so I don't subscribe to the theory that Duncan was WAY superior to KG, but I do believe Duncan as a rim protector and post scorer were more impactful than KG's ability to be a chameleon on defense.

[mischievous]

Vote: Kobe
5 championships, 2 as the best player

Excellent longevity- 11 bonafide superstar seasons(01-10+2013), and at least 15 all star caliber years(99-2013)

Scary 3 year playoff peak: 2008-2010

29.8/5.7/5.5 25.5 PER 56.9 ts% 6.0 OBPM

That's crazy consistently elite production for 3 straight finals trips.

2nd vote- Oscar

[Joao Saraiva]

Agree to disagree but I don't evaluate players on the metrics you subscribe to as the best way to determine a player's impact.

I'm not suggesting player comparisons should be a simple as comparing those 4-5 stats.
I'm merely responding to the statement you made: that "the actual stats reflect Kobe as the superior player". In fact, the "actual stats" (as shown above) do not reflect that at all. And it's not as though I cherry-picked one metric to "prove" a point; I used ALL of the all-in-one rate metrics available on bbref, and was going by what they collectively appear to be saying.

The question, what constitutes as "actual facts"? My original response to the other poster was also to counter the "all stats suggest KG was superior" narrative. If you look at raw stats like PPG, accolades, etc. those all favour Kobe.

A lot of the stats you showed.. have too many variables to accurately determine a player's worth so to speak. On/Off, PER..we all know the short comings of these stats and if the results and eye test support that, I would be more inclined to the suggestion that KG is as good as you think he is. I think he's good too, just not as top dog or co-top dog on a championship level team. 2008 Boston was the best team KG was ever on, and there weren't dominant at any point in time during those playoffs. He also had not 1 but 2 offensive stars in Pierce and Ray Ray. The Bynum injury really changed the dynamic much moreso than people realize. In short, I believe you'd need more help around KG to build a sustained winner than it is for Kobe.

If KG's calling card didnt translate into much from 05-07, yet Kobe's cast imo was equally as bad (on the same tier).. I'm more inclined to the belief that an offensive anchor like Kobe brought more impact that was reflected in the team results than KG's defensive impact had in Minny.

Then when you factor in Kobe's ability to play multiple roles on winning teams that were also more dominant, and with more sustained results..its difficult for many to envision KG being as great as you claim. For the record, I think Duncan is a bit high on this list so I don't subscribe to the theory that Duncan was WAY superior to KG, but I do believe Duncan as a rim protector and post scorer were more impactful than KG's ability to be a chameleon on defense.

Duncan ranked where he is doesn't show he's a lot better than KG even if KG ends up at 14th or something (I believe he won't). People tend to forget that there are no gigantic gaps between players in the top 20. Even between Jordan and Hakeem the gap is not gigantic. Or between KAJ and O'Neal. Or between Magic Johnson and Karl Malone.

Gaps might be clear enough, but certainly not big.

[andrewww]

Duncan ranked where he is doesn't show he's a lot better than KG even if KG ends up at 14th or something (I believe he won't). People tend to forget that there are no gigantic gaps between players in the top 20. Even between Jordan and Hakeem the gap is not gigantic. Or between KAJ and O'Neal. Or between Magic Johnson and Karl Malone.

Gaps might be clear enough, but certainly not big.

That's a very reasonable stance and one I share.

[AdagioPace]

So Kobe has a minuscule edge, while KG destroys him as a defensive player, which is poorly captured in box score stats. He destroys him in +/-. And he had the worse team most of the time. How that isn't a big deal is beyond me.

nonsense
Nobody destroys nobody in terms of +/-

it's like saying Garnett destroys Kobe(a policeman) in the field of cooking

We can debate the semantics of a word like "destroys", but on/off and RAPM do [fairly heavily at times] favor Garnett in this comparison.

(sorry for the lenght Trex...I went FULL philosophical )



what does "favor" mean?
the expression
(my +/-) >>> (your +/-)
hardly has a meaning



Is garnett better than Kobe? Is Garnett better than Kobe in that particular context? Is Garnett better than Kobe at elevating Sam Cassell? Is Kobe better than GArnett at elevating Gasol?

I find +/- and family a quite useful tool to gauge how important is that player for that team. And I also find it useful in case I need to see who's the most valuable. Does that mean that I can use +/- as a comparative tool to define who's better especially historically?
As I said in another post, It fails to really capture the absolute differences between players,especially superstars which are about at the same level.
Trying to put pure numbers (+15 or whatever) extracted from different contexts,into a "scale" it's like saying. Which's the best between [Km] or [°C] ? That's why "results/wins/accolades"-driven analysis, despite being somehow rudimental cannot completely be put aside by the somehow arrogant and at the same time ambitious mission to define a player through a single pure number,the result of a convoluted process that by nature goes further from the object the more complex become.
Even RPM that tries to normalize these differences still has its foundations in points differential. Personally,I'm not ready to completely surrender to numbers, especially those numbers that are the result of artificiality
This is the reason why I'm not caught in the KG=GOAT frenzy or other hyperboles. I understand that a statistical-driven mind (like many people here) are fascinated by technologies like RAPM/RPM etc...This is the biggest mistake a scientist can do: associate the progressivness,the advanced-like charachter/authority of those technologies and give the results the same kind of authority! Basically the blind faith in the tools extended to the results,identifying Tools with Results! Has anybody questioned why one person should have blind faith on a number which is the result of personal formula which has been chosen,arbitrarly, as the "chosen one"

Every progress,every new comfy technology brings within itself the dangers of laziness. Becoming too reliant on the perfect,beatifully packaged,ready results in the form of a number
I've seen in this exact page users that completely discard empirical evidence,boxscore,eye test,results,accolades and blindly become reliant on a single result like +/-.
Even the notion that RAPM become more precise the bigger the sample size has failed to impress me,especially when extended to decades. We're talking about decades of NBA, thousands of rosters, an always changing strenght of the league,different styles etc..
Does RAPM account for heterogeneity?

As I said in another #, I have doubts that a bigger career RAPM = better player. It's a matter of semantics. Bigger is a different adjective and it doesn't pertain to the adjective Better.
This is a crucial point especially when comparing all-time superstars. It's like doing the ranking of the Greek gods or the ranking of teh animal species. That's the reason why there should be only one hall of fame (and only for superstars).
We're discussing rankings, people are obsessed with rankings, a big % of the threads here have "rankings" as the main topic! We're getting accustomed without even noticing it with the idea that players can be ranked,when infact it's mostly arbitrary. The idea that players can be ranked sort of justified the obsessive use of scales and numbers.

That's my point of view in a "bullet". I love players like CP3, KG, Curry but I would never dare to say that they are better than another player with a average RAPM of 1 point less.I trust Lebron's RAPM because he won 4 mvps and he beat the WArriors by himself,but why should I say that KG is better than Kobe,Duncan or Hakeem just because one number tells me so when he didn't really set himself apart in other more tangible ways?

[JoeMalburg]

KG was just the clearly superior player imo based on the eye test, and pretty much all of the numbers back that up.

Two totally different things here. The numbers clearly say KG was better, but the eye test favors Kobe by a landslide. Maybe not to you or I, but we're weirdos who look for different things than the average fan, to the vast majority of fans and former players Kobe is among the greatest ever, Garnett is not.

The eye test isn't a statement of what casual fans see. It's a personal thing.

Casual fans don't actually see anything other than the ball.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Sure, but the ball is the most important thing to see. That's one of the first things they teach you when you learne defensive fundamentals.

And if we're going to put stock in what you admit is a personally subjective matter, perhaps it's best to differ to the democratic process over the emminintley flawed single opinion. (Too small a sample size)

That was my point.

[Jaivl]

If KG's calling card didnt translate into much from 05-07, yet Kobe's cast imo was equally as bad (on the same tier)..

...really, still with this?

[therealbig3]

I feel like y'all must have missed where I put "imo"...to ME, KG is clearly superior when I watch both of them play. I get that the general masses disagree, but the general masses have some pretty crazy opinions in general that are based on flawed logic most of the time, so why would I really care what they think?

It's funny, so much resistance to RAPM because of perceived bizarre results, but consensus opinion is valued when it yields even more bizarre results.

I've never been impressed with Kobe's defense, but I do think he's one of the greatest offensive forces the game has ever seen...just not all the way on that top tier, just due to some limitations he has with regards to shot selection, tunnel vision, and overall efficiency (in relation to the GOAT offensive anchors, like Jordan, LeBron, Bird, Magic, etc...not relative to anyone else).

Now, I used to be much lower on KG and both his offense and defense. But the more I learned about him, I first started to really recognize his defensive capabilities first, and how his horizontal impact really changes the game up, and puts him right up there with anyone else. His intelligence, leadership, and skills on defense are second to none, and he combines that with crazy athleticism, mobility, and length. And then I saw that if he got some talent around him on the defensive side of the ball, he could anchor a defense as good as any we've ever seen. So I saw no reason at that point to not view him as a GOAT-level defender.

But yeah, his offensive abilities took the longest for me to reconcile with. But I think I just started viewing basketball in a different way, and then KG became way more impressive to me after that. Simply put, a high usage, volume scoring big man is not the best way to go about things offensively, unless you're truly special in that regard (Shaq, Kareem, Hakeem, Dirk, Barkley, etc). If you're not at that level, which most bigs aren't (and Duncan/Robinson/Malone weren't), then it's the other skills you bring to the table beyond ISO scoring that become supremely important from an offensive standpoint. In that regard, KG is an elite shooting big man, the best one of his generation other than Dirk. He has amazing hands and finishes around the basket at an elite level. He's a dual threat with the PnR and the PnP (not to mention his wildly effective screening). His passing and vision was elite, and he also had near-guard skills as a ball handler (and often times played PG), so he could also punish teams if you gave him space to put the ball on the ground. He could essentially initiate offense or have sets run through him, and he could be a legitimate threat to the defense, from ANYWHERE, as a result of his ball handling, his passing, his shooting, and his ability to catch the ball and finish in traffic. And all of this has insane gravity on opposing defenses. Combine that with his defense, which I understand other people disagree, but I view it as GOAT-level defense.

So essentially, you have a guy who is on that 2nd tier of all big men offensively (the guys that don't volume score in isolation at an elite level), and he's better than all of them at the "other" skills. So yeah, people say that KG might not be getting criticism from his supporters, as if he was the perfect player, and that's just biased, but honestly, I DON'T see him as having any real weaknesses in his game other than his ISO scoring, which I don't see as a big deal, since most bigs in history were non-elite ISO scorers.

Furthermore, it's not like he's Draymond Green here...I ran the numbers before and posted them in a previous thread, but during his playoff prime, against top 10 defenses, he averaged 20+ ppg on above average scoring efficiency (I believe it was 51.3% TS vs 50.5% TS allowed), and he did that on mostly weaker teams against stacked defenses.

So to bring it back to Kobe vs KG...Kobe is an outstanding offensive player, clearly superior to Garnett. But Garnett is really good in his own right, one of the best offensive bigs ever tbh, and he has WILDLY more defensive impact than Kobe. He can just change a game more than Kobe, when you look at what he brings to the table on both sides of the ball.

[therealbig3]

Having Phil Jackson automatically makes the Lakers supporting cast better in 06 and 07 than the Wolves. Not close.

Pretty sure the Wolves would have looked a lot better and the Lakers would have looked a lot worse, if the Wolves had Phil Jackson and the Lakers had Dwyane Casey.

[andrewww]

If KG's calling card didnt translate into much from 05-07, yet Kobe's cast imo was equally as bad (on the same tier)..

...really, still with this?

Absolutely, I have yet to see one convincing argument stating otherwise. Not sure what supporting cast could possibly be infinitely worse than Kwame Brown/Smush Parker/Chris Mihm.

[andrewww]

Having Phil Jackson automatically makes the Lakers supporting cast better in 06 and 07 than the Wolves. Not close.

Pretty sure the Wolves would have looked a lot better and the Lakers would have looked a lot worse, if the Wolves had Phil Jackson and the Lakers had Dwyane Casey.

Doubtful they would be MUCH better. Besides, it was the understanding of the triangle that enabled Kobe to take a terrible offensive cast into a top 10 offense in the league that pushed the Phoenix Suns in the first round to a 3-2 deficit no less.

You're just simply stating Phil would help much more to make bring Kobe down a notch. The offense that RS was to give him the ball and get out of the way.

I think you're just going by general perception as supposed to those who actually watched the Lakers that year.

[Purch]

Sir Charles is right up there with Adrian Dantley as the most efficient superscorer not yet selected; however, while you can get away with terrible defense sometimes as a wing or even a point, it's more damaging as a big and why he is behind Garnett, KMalone, and probably Bob Pettit on my list. His locker room issues are a real thing too, sliding him behind Dirk as well. So, he is probably 5th among the remaining 4's. I probably rank DRobinson, Moses, and Ewing ahead of him as well though Ewing I'd have to think about because of Barkley's playoff numbers.

It's interesting that you say that, because I think Barkley actually did well on defense considering his lack of good defensive centers throughout his career. Even Dirk had some pretty good shotblockers next to him with Chandler/Camby. I'd probally argue that the best defensive center he played next to was an aging Moses. The thing is Barkley realized this, and as a result focused on generating steals, which lead to one of the highest spg average in league history. I'm not saying that he was a positive, but he definitly used his hands as a way to disrupt defenses in the absence of any real shotblockers.

Camby never played in Dallas...best bigs after Chandler are probably Dampier and Haywood or early 2000s Bradley when it comes to rim protection.

You're right lol, I don't know why I have this memory of Camby playing with Dirk for a season

[therealbig3]

Having Phil Jackson automatically makes the Lakers supporting cast better in 06 and 07 than the Wolves. Not close.

Pretty sure the Wolves would have looked a lot better and the Lakers would have looked a lot worse, if the Wolves had Phil Jackson and the Lakers had Dwyane Casey.

Doubtful they would be MUCH better. Besides, it was the understanding of the triangle that enabled Kobe to take a terrible offensive cast into a top 10 offense in the league that pushed the Phoenix Suns in the first round to a 3-2 deficit no less.

You're just simply stating Phil would help much more to make bring Kobe down a notch. The offense that RS was to give him the ball and get out of the way.

You really don't think Phil Jackson made a difference for those role players? You just keep saying that the supporting casts were comparable to bring KG down a notch. Again, regardless of the talent you think the Lakers lacked and it being comparable to the Wolves, the Lakers role players were performing better than the Wolves role players, as evidenced by both +/- and box score metrics (yeah, they have flaws, but it's not like it's just one metric, it's multiple different ones saying the same thing)...was that because of Kobe being better than KG, or maybe it was because of Phil Jackson being way better than Dwyane Casey?

And honestly, you keep bringing up that series against the Suns in 06...yeah, they did a good job against them in that 1st round (not like it was peak Phoenix Suns or anything, but whatever)...with Kobe NOT going off for 35+ ppg every game and instead running the offense through the post more...and it's also then fair to point out how Kobe quit on the team in game 7.

[andrewww]

You really don't think Phil Jackson made a difference for those role players? You just keep saying that the supporting casts were comparable to bring KG down a notch. Again, regardless of the talent you think the Lakers lacked and it being comparable to the Wolves, the Lakers role players were performing better than the Wolves role players, as evidenced by both +/- and box score metrics (yeah, they have flaws, but it's not like it's just one metric, it's multiple different ones saying the same thing)...was that because of Kobe being better than KG, or maybe it was because of Phil Jackson being way better than Dwyane Casey?

And honestly, you keep bringing up that series against the Suns in 06...yeah, they did a good job against them in that 1st round (not like it was peak Phoenix Suns or anything, but whatever)...with Kobe NOT going off for 35+ ppg every game and instead running the offense through the post more...and it's also then fair to point out how Kobe quit on the team in game 7.

I think Phil makes a difference, but when the talent level isn't there no coach in history can coach up a d-league level player into a legitimate contributor. Its not like the Lakers had anyone on the team who was even a true second option. Odom is a swiss army knife who is at best the 3rd leading scorer type on a championship level team. He thrived on the 08-10 teams when he came off the bench playing beside Pau Gasol primarily as a facilitator.

As I've stated with +/- before, there are too many team variables involved to draw a definitive conclusion on who was better or worse. Westbrook has better stats than Kawhi too but does that mean he's a better player? You're relying on a narrative that he quit in game 7, there isn't much to support that notion because if he came out gunning in game 7, you'd claim he was a ball hog and not following the game plan.

If you want to talk about quitting, there are numerous examples of players in this forum's top 10 that have obvious examples that would fit much more than Kobe.

I've stated that KG is a 6-11 Scottie Pippen. Good scorer, great defender. But if he's your go-to player (ala Curry and KD were for GSW this year) your team is in trouble. And the actual results support this.

[RoyceDa59]

Not an official voter, but this has to be Kobe at this point, who's resume stacks up?

[THKNKG]

If KG's calling card didnt translate into much from 05-07, yet Kobe's cast imo was equally as bad (on the same tier)..

...really, still with this?

Absolutely, I have yet to see one convincing argument stating otherwise. Not sure what supporting cast could possibly be infinitely worse than Kwame Brown/Smush Parker/Chris Mihm.

I just... I'm at a loss for words.

[therealbig3]

You really don't think Phil Jackson made a difference for those role players? You just keep saying that the supporting casts were comparable to bring KG down a notch. Again, regardless of the talent you think the Lakers lacked and it being comparable to the Wolves, the Lakers role players were performing better than the Wolves role players, as evidenced by both +/- and box score metrics (yeah, they have flaws, but it's not like it's just one metric, it's multiple different ones saying the same thing)...was that because of Kobe being better than KG, or maybe it was because of Phil Jackson being way better than Dwyane Casey?

And honestly, you keep bringing up that series against the Suns in 06...yeah, they did a good job against them in that 1st round (not like it was peak Phoenix Suns or anything, but whatever)...with Kobe NOT going off for 35+ ppg every game and instead running the offense through the post more...and it's also then fair to point out how Kobe quit on the team in game 7.

I think Phil makes a difference, but when the talent level isn't there no coach in history can coach up a d-league level player into a legitimate contributor.

As I've stated with +/- before, there are too many team variables involved to draw a definitive conclusion on who was better or worse. Westbrook has better stats than Kawhi too but does that mean he's a better player? You're relying on a narrative that he quit in game 7, there isn't much to support that notion because if he came out gunning in game 7, you'd claim he was a ball hog and not following the game plan.

If you want to talk about quitting, there are numerous examples of players in this forum's top 10 that have obvious examples that would fit much more than Kobe.

I've stated that KG is a 6-11 Scottie Pippen. Good scorer, great defender. But if he's your go-to player (ala Curry and KD were for GSW this year) your team is in trouble. And the actual results support this.

Phil Jackson vs Dwyane Casey can be the difference between putting a mediocre talent in position to do well vs a mediocre talent being a complete non-factor. Popovich does this every year. And this isn't theoretical, this is actually what happened with the Lakers vs the Timberwolves at the time.

You're just going to dismiss all the objective evidence because they all have flaws, so that you can continue your narrative that the Lakers supporting cast (including the coaching) was just as bad as the Wolves, when it's just not true. Kobe was in a much better situation based on coaching alone.

You're also basing my supposed criticism if he came out guns blazing on absolutely nothing, because I thought he was absolutely brilliant in game 6 when he dropped 50 points, and that the criticisms of him that game were baseless. I'm saying he quit in game 7, because he was noticeably more passive and seemed to have checked out (he took like 3 shots and scored 1 point in that second half, lol come on), as the game got way out of hand and they got blown off the court. It was a 15 point deficit at half time...that is NOT an insurmountable deficit whatsoever, and I've always heard how Kobe never quits, has a killer mentality, is an assassin, and he can singlehandedly will teams back into it by going on insane scoring runs...and then he scores 1 point with 3 shot attempts, is noticeably not looking to attack at all, and the Lakers end up losing by like 30.

That's quitting if I've ever seen it. KG never did that.