RealGM Top 100 List #13

[acrossthecourt]

Synergy is an awful way to judge defense and it's completely untested.

Novak famously had one of the best defensive ratings on Synergy in 2013. Why? Most of that is because they put him on weak defenders.

This is honestly hilarious coming from someone who's been spouting off +/- numbers left & right.

The beauty of Synergy is that we can look at Novak, and put the context of who he actually guards into the equation. And we have individual based metrics...not lineup data.

...How is this nonsense? Synergy is not tested, and advanced +/- stats are.

No, you can't put the context of who he guards into the equation because that data is lacking on Synergy. That's the problem.

[An Unbiased Fan]

No offense, but that's a terrible way to look at careers. Dirk was competing against Duncan, Garnett, LeBron, and later Durant for All-NBA squads. All players at or above his level. Kobe had to compete against whom, Nash? CP3? Deron Williams? Wade and his very few healthy seasons? Gimme a break. Using All-NBA or even MVP voting, especially not even using the same years, to define a career is ludicrous.

Kobe had to deal with GP, Kidd, Vince, Tmac, Ray, Wade, Nash, CP3, Deron. Even if you throw out All-NBA teams, we have....

MVP Shares:
Kobe: 4.206
Dirk: 1.810

Again, I like Dirk, but what's his case offensively, defensively, longevity-wise, and for their overall careers? Kobe seems to win every criteria.

[colts18]

Kobe was definitely hidden on some defenders in his prime. He was always guarding Raja Bell and Bruce Bowen types. Plus he was guarding Rondo in 2008 rather than the clearly better perimeter players like Allen and Pierce.

[BmanInBigD]

No offense, but that's a terrible way to look at careers. Dirk was competing against Duncan, Garnett, LeBron, and later Durant for All-NBA squads. All players at or above his level. Kobe had to compete against whom, Nash? CP3? Deron Williams? Wade and his very few healthy seasons? Gimme a break. Using All-NBA or even MVP voting, especially not even using the same years, to define a career is ludicrous.

Kobe had to deal with GP, Kidd, Vince, Tmac, Ray, Wade, Nash, CP3, Deron. Even if you throw out All-NBA teams, we have....

MVP Shares:
Kobe: 4.206
Dirk: 1.810

Again, I like Dirk, but what's his case offensively, defensively, longevity-wise, and for their overall careers? Kobe seems to win every criteria.

C'mon, you know none of those guys are in Duncan's or Garnett's or Lebron's class, either in ability OR longevity.

MVP shares: Popularity contest and/or lifetime achievement award.

How about +/-, on-off, Win Shares, all the things that actually have something to do with your ability to help your team win games. I'm not saying Dirk is better than Kobe, but it's closer than most like to admit unless you wanna just go by rings, jersey sales, popular votes, etc.

[Notanoob]

What about Jerry West?

He has better efficiency if you adjust for era, he was likely a better defender and more consistently good defender. He was certainly a better play maker than Kobe, and he raised his game in the playoffs too.

Well, West is a better candidate than Malone, but West's defense is more of an unknown than Kobe's since we really haven't seen much of it, I firmly believe Kobe was a better scorer and don't believe West had more of an offensive impact than Kobe did. Plus, I don't adjust for efficiency, and don't factor in that efficiency was lower in West's era because from what I have seen of West's era, I strongly believe Kobe faced tougher defenses anyway, so I'm left with the conclusion that the lower shooting percentages of that era were more a result of bad shot selection, less guards and wings having the ability to create off the dribble and get to the basket at the same rate and inferior shooting overall. While West had a very nice, modern looking jump shot, not all players, especially early in West's career did, or had one they could get off contested or off the dribble like West did. So I believe those are the reasons efficiency was likely lower league-wide.

I think that you have to at least take into account that West didn't have a 3 point line to take advantage of like Kobe does when comparing efficiency. Furthermore, you have to adjust it due to certain rules regarding FTAs (as outlined here). Even so, they are very close in terms of TS% before adjustment.

And although I know that steals and blocks do not necessarily equal defense, you have to be impressed (nay, stunned) that a 35 year old West was getting 2.6spg and .7bpg. Kobe's never even reached 2.6spg, and the last time he got .7bpg he was 25! West was likely a serious outlier as a help-defender in his prime, which is backed up by contemporary accounts IIRC.

[ardee]

Vote: Kobe Bryant

A look at Kobe's relevant career: 2000-2013:

Early years and emergence as a superstar: 2000-2003

Spoiler:

But in any case, let's take a look at an overview of Kobe's relevant career, which starts in 2000. Warning, this'll be a long post.

2000: Played the sidekick role perfectly to one of the GOAT peaks. Averaged 23-6-5 on +2.4% TS in a very slow and inefficient era. Doubled up as one of the top perimeter defenders in the league: it's hard to call anyone but Payton definitely better. He torched the Kings in the first round to 28 ppg on 50% from the floor. This was the only series that went the distance so they definitely needed it. In the next round he locked up Jason Kidd: badly. The guy had one good game where he shot 8-13, other than that he went 1-6, 5-9, 1-9, and 3-13. Along with a 25% TOV. Kobe was a beast on defense that year. We all know his heroic games 6 and 7 performances against the Blazers. The Finals were poor, admittedly, but the ankle injury is obvious, and he still won the Lakers a game by himself in game 4 OT.

Overall, I'd say this is on par with any Pippen year outside of '92, '94, and '95. The only players I'd definitely take ahead of him that year were Shaq, Duncan, Malone, KG and Mourning.

2001: The birth of superstar Kobe. I feel everyone knows how good his Playoffs were that year, but his regular season is underrated. Especially in the start of the season, he was outplaying Shaq. Shaq was having trouble with fouls and free-throw shooting (REALLY bad, was going through a sub 40% stretch), so Kobe took over early and averaged 32-5-5 on a 117 ORtg for about 30 games, while Shaq was at about 24-13-4 on 106 ORtg. For the first half of the season before the AS Break, it's arguable Kobe was the best player in the league, considering if you remember Kobe was still ELITE on defense that year.

He then began suffering some niggling injuries, and the team suffered. Then Shaq got his groove back, and once Kobe was healthy as well the team was clicking on all cylinders. They were both more or less on cruise control against the Blazers, and then took turns dropping 40/15 games on the poor Kings. Kobe had his best ever series against the Spurs, and was 32-7-6 on 121 ORtg against the entire Western conference. He really was playing better than Shaq at that point. If someone wants to use the Finals gap (Kobe still did play well after game 1, 27-9-6 on 55% TS) to rank Shaq ahead for the whole Playoffs, I guess its fair, but Kobe WAS the driving force for the offense for the majority of the Playoffs for the best Playoff team ever.

He was undoubtedly second to only Shaq that year. I can't see any reason to rank Duncan over him that year, not when Duncan had a real solid team around him with a D-Rob who led the league in WS/48, and got so badly trounced and destroyed by the Lakers.

2002: A bit of a down-year for him. He still had a good regular season, 25/6/6 on a 112 ORtg, but didn't hit the heights of 2001. Worth noting he had to carry the team more with Shaq missing 15 games. The supporting cast was pretty poor by that point. Fisher played the whole season for a change, but Grant was gone, Horry was aging, and the Lakers were dependent on guys like Samaki Walker and Devean George for reliable contributions. It was impressive the way Shaq and Kobe got the team to a title that year. Kobe was the best player in a beatdown of the Spurs and MVP Duncan, and against the Kings he put up 31/11/6 in games 6 and 7, him and Shaq dragging the Lakers back from the abyss. He also had his best Finals of the Shaq era, 27/6/6 on 62% TS against the best defensive team in the league.

I'd rank Shaq/Duncan over him (hard choice between those two that year), and I can see some kind of argument for Garnett but don't buy it. This was the best supporting cast KG ever had before 2004, and they still finished with a below average defense and got roasted by the Mavs. I'm not seeing the impact that year. In 2003 I'll rank KG ahead because of his improved offensive game and he really did do less with more. This year I think Kobe's value as an offensive constant able to put consistent pressure on the defense. beats out whatever KG was doing.... especially since I really don't like his defense that year. I have no clue what 2002 KG was doing against the Mavs, it looked like he was playing some kind of crazy one man zone. Furthers my point I made earlier that Minny KG is overrated on defense. So, Kobe is third.

2003: One of the best years of his career. Perfect storm, his all-around game really came together. His 3-point shot was like a pull-up 5 footer at that point, had it almost on automatic. He averaged 28-8-7 for the first 40 games, almost LeBron-like. He really had to carry a pretty awful team for some time with Shaq out. Still, the team was dysfunctional and plodding by the half-way point, 19-23 through 42 games. Phil asked Kobe to take a bigger role in the offense, and he did. 41-5-3 on 59% TS over the next 14 games, leading the Lakers to a 12-2 record over that stretch, putting them over .500 for good and into the thick of the Playoff seedings. He closed the year out with several more monster games, including the 55 point one against Jordan with 9 threes, 42 in the first half.

At the close of the regular season, I'd say Kobe was right there with Duncan and KG for the best player in the league. He was very effective against the Wolves, but I will admit that the injury + shot selection a little out of control in the Spurs series harmed the Lakers. Still, if Horry's shot had gone in in game 5, Kobe would have successfully made up for it all by leading the Lakers back from 25 down, and was anyone stopping a 4th straight title then?

I have him 3rd this year, behind Duncan and KG. Shaq and McGrady battling it out for 4th/5th. I can't see Shaq over him this year, not when the Lakers season turned around after it was KOBE who took a bigger role and put the team on his back.

So far, we're looking at a very good sidekick year where he was in the 6-7 range in the league, and 3 top 3 years, one of which he was the second best player in the league.

The in-between years: 2004-2005

Spoiler:

Going onto the rest of his career:

2004/2005: The two worst years of his prime, I'm clubbing them together. 2004 in particular really smarts. He's coming off an epic season that propelled him into the MJ discussion, and now his raw numbers and efficiency drop across the board, plus he misses 17 games. The raw numbers are explainable, he was now splitting possessions with three other HOFs, and it's possible that all of them were affected by a system that just did not fit the roster very well. Still, it was a notch below '01 and '03, and even '02. He still kept it up defensively though. He had a terrible Rockets series efficiency-wise, but then killed the Spurs (30/6/6 over the four comeback games). Average against the Wolves and had the worst series of his career in the Finals. He played well defensively though, locking down Rip, converse to Shaq who killed it offensively and was a sieve on defense. I place equal responsibility on those two for the Finals loss. In any normal year, it'd be enough for me to rank both out of the top 5, but this was such a weak year that after KG/Duncan I have to rank Shaq and Kobe at nos. 3 and 4. I'll say this, Kobe is probably the weakest number 4 as far as I can remember, in 2004.

2005 is an underestimated year. 28-6-6 on 56% TS, 109 On-Court ORtg with a truly terrible supporting casts. I've seen several nonsensical posts about how good guys like Brian Grant and Chucky Atkins were and it makes me shake my head. If Kobe and Odom had been healthy they'd have still made the Playoffs (32-29 through 61 games), but Rudy's retirement and the injuries just really took their toll. Kobe still performed well individually, started the season averaging 29-7-7 with a bunch of triple doubles in the first 30 games, with the Lakers at 16-12. I still have no problem ranking him possibly near the end of the top 10, this was a very strong year for the league. Nash, Duncan, KG, Dirk, Wade, Shaq, McGrady, and Stoudemire would all be over him.

Now we enter Kobe's true prime. Right now we have a top 2 year, two top 3 years, a top 4 year (admittedly very weak), and two years where he's close to the bottom of the top 10. Not bad for a pre-prime guy.

The volume years: 2006/2007

Spoiler:

2006: What a season. What a player. I'm going to leave this to the best poster on the board, ShaqAttack, because he had a GOAT level post on '06 Kobe.

In hindsight, I think Nash was a good choice for 2005, though I was in the "Shaq was robbed" crowd at the time. However, I don't think Nash was the right choice in 2006. I'd go with Kobe in 2006.

First I will say that since the MVP is the closest things the NBA has to a best player award, I try to keep best player in mind to some degree, though of course, I don't always think it should go to the best player since games played and record are factors. But to me, 2006 was the most obvious year he was the best player in the league. I think he was the best in '07 as well, but you could at least make the case for Duncan in '07 and Paul in '08.

Anyway, not only were Kobe's individual feats exceptional in 2006, but they led to the Lakers overachieving and exceeding most expectations following a 34-48 season. Phil asked Kobe to carry the offense because many of the players didn't know the triangle and probably due to their lack of talent as well, and he did so in a remarkable way.

Warning, this will be a LONG post since I will look over their entire supporting casts.

Kobe only had one other player on the roster you could call a legit NBA starter, and that was Lamar Odom who was inconsistent throughout the first half. Odom averaged just 14/9/5 on 45% shooting and just 53 TS% in the first half, though Kobe still carried the Lakers to a .500 record at 26-26 while averaging 35/5/4 on 44/34/84 shooting and 55 TS%. Odom was obviously a good player, but he shouldn't be your second best player by a huge margin as he was on the 2006 Lakers when he was relied on to play 40.3 mpg. We saw how valuable Odom could be when he became the 3rd guy after Gasol was acquired and he was noticeably more comfortable playing his game. His versatile skill set can obviously be an asset with his strong rebounding, ball-handling skills at 6'10" and the ability to get the rebound and create or finish the fast break by himself. This was also the last year Lamar played a lot of the 3 which had been his position as a young player with the Clippers and when Phil tried Odom in the Scottie Pippen point forward role with mixed results, though passing has always been one of Lamar's strengths and he did lead the Lakers with 5.5 apg while averaging just 2.7 turnovers. Lamar did have talent as a scorer as evidenced by his transition game, he could be a threat to create off the dribble, had the length to finish, and while I wouldn't say he was ever a good shooter, he did shoot 37.2% on 3s in 2006 while making one per game. However, Odom couldn't go right which made him predictable, as mentioned, he wasn't a great shooter, and perhaps most importantly, he lacked the consistent focus and aggressiveness to be a really good scorer so scoring really wasn't his forte as evidenced by the fact that his season high was 27 points in 2006. However, Odom became more consistent late in the year and played like a borderline all-star averaging 16/9/6 on 53% shooting in the second half as well as 43% on 3s and 60 TS%. Kobe also raised his game during this time averaging 36/5/5 on 46/36/87 shooting and 57 TS% as the Lakers went 19-11, a 52 win pace. Pretty impressive to win at that pace with just one legitimately good, but not great teammate.

As for the rest of the team, they had Smush Parker starting at PG and playing 33.8 mpg. Smush was a bit of a surprise for LA this year, but to put things in perspective, despite being just 24 at the time, Smush didn't even last 2 more years in the NBA. Then there was Kwame Brown whose only legitimate asset was his post defense, and he can only be described as a liability at the offensive end. Of course there's the infamous small hands which prevented him from being a reliable catch and finish player around the rim, one of the more basic skills asked of a big man offensively, his footwork and shooting touch were horrible leaving him without a single decent post move, he was a terrible free throw shooter at 54.5% and he could get rattled very easily. Chris Mihm was another starter for most of the year, and while he had a decent offensive skill set, he wasn't much of a defender or rebounder, and the Lakers played their best ball by far after Mihm's injury so he wasn't an impact player. Devean George was one of the few holdovers from the champion Lakers, and while he was a decent defender, he was a poor offensive player who didn't shoot particularly well at just 40 FG% and 31.2 3P% and couldn't create. Then there was Luke Walton whose only real skill was passing. Brian Cook's only value could be as a stretch 4, but he wasn't a good defender, rebounder or post player. Finally, Sasha Vujacic was in the rotation getting 19 mpg despite the fact that he shot a horrendous 34.6% from the floor for the season and even his 3 point shooting was underwhelming at 34.3%.

That's the team Kobe made 7th in scoring and 8th in offensive rating, and I'd bet they were near the top in the second half when Odom finally played more consistently.

Nash's Suns were obviously a more potent offense, and they were 1st in scoring and 2nd in offensive rating, but they had a lot more talent to work with, and had a team who not only fit well in D'Antoni's system, but played off of Nash well as almost all of them were dangerous 3 point shooters, slashers or good open court players. Shawn Marion had a much better year than Odom and made the all-nba 3rd team. Marion averaged 22/11 on 53% shooting with 2 spg, 1.7 bpg and just 1.5 turnovers per game. Obviously, Marion benefited from playing with Nash since his strengths offensively were his finishing in the open court, his slashing and he liked the corner 3, but Marion was already a 20 ppg scorer before he played with Nash so Nash just made him more efficient. Of course, Marion's versatility, particularly defensively was very valuable as well. Boris Diaw was also voted the Most Improved Player as he averaged 13/7/6 on 53% shooting. Diaw has always been a great passer, he had a nice post game, made his mid-range shots, and despite playing a different style, he gave the Suns something similar to what Odom gave the Lakers with his versatility. Diaw was a forward who had entered the league as a guard with the Hawks and was often the Suns' biggest player on the court as the de facto center while being an excellent secondary facilitator. Diaw also didn't start the year as a starter, but played his way into that role and like Odom, got better as the year went on averaging 16/7/7 on 57% shooting in the second half. Nash also got a great year out of Raja Bell who in addition to his defense, shot lights out from 3. No question he capitalized on Nash's passing, but you still have to make the shots, and Bell did just that averaging 14.7 ppg while making 2.5 threes per game while shooting 44.2%, which was 5th best in the NBA, and he was 3rd in made 3s with 197, just behind Gilbert Arenas who only made 2 more, but took one more game to do it. Bell was also 3rd in eFG% at 56.3%. Leandro Barbosa was one of the fastest players in the league and averaged 13 ppg while coming off the bench most of the year. He complemented his speed with a very dangerous 3 point shot as evidenced by his 44.4 3P%, which was 3rd best in the league and his 55.8 eFG%. They also had Tim Thomas late in the year, and he was always a talented offensive player at 6'10" who averaged 11 ppg in just 24 mpg for them while shooting 43% on 3s and had even more shooters in Eddie House and James Jones who averaged between 9-10 ppg, shot about 39% on 3s, made 1.5 of them per game and did it in just 17.5 and 23.6 mpg, respectively. To round out the cast was Kurt Thomas who was one of their few big men, but a good defender and rebounder with a consistent mid-range shot who was definitely better than any of the Lakers' big men excluding Odom. Not surprisingly, Phoenix finished first at 39.9% and led the league with 837 made 3s, 212 more than the Warriors who were 2nd.

Given the enormous disparity in the talent, I'd argue the Lakers having the 8th best offense was more impressive than Phoenix having the 2nd best offense. Kobe's cast was really bad lacking a legit 2nd option, being surrounded by fringe players other than Odom, lacking shooters as evidenced by the fact that they were in the bottom half in 3P% and a pretty mediocre defense(which was actually virtually identical to the Suns' defense statistically.) The only thing you can really say is that the Lakers were a solid rebounding team outrebounding opponents by 2 rpg. Nash's cast certainly lacked size, but there's no question they had loads of offensive talent with more shooters than anyone could hope for, versatile forwards like Marion and Diaw and if you look at their sixth man Leandro Barbosa, he was definitely a more dangerous scorer than any of Kobe's teammates.

There's so many things to look at, but aside from how impressive it is to lead your team to a very productive offensive season while being asked to play 41 mpg and take over 27 shots per game, just look at how each of these team's offenses fared with and without the stars. The Suns offensive rating was a phenomenal 114.8 with Nash on the court, but still respectable without him at 106.4, which was just above league average. Meanwhile, the Lakers had an excellent 112.6 offensive rating with Kobe on the court, but it was horrendous with him off the court at 93.7. Finally, it's worth noting that Nash played 35.4 mpg, while Kobe played 41 mpg as mentioned before. What it comes down to is there's no question in my mind that Kobe was a better player and had a better season, and there's also no question in my mind that the disparity in team success was not nearly as great as the disparity in talent, and Kobe's success was more impressive considering their situations.

The more I think about this season, the more I'm leaning towards it as Kobe's peak over 2008.

Historical stuff from Bryant. This is a year, offensively, I'd rank only slightly below peak Magic/Bird/Jordan/LeBron. He was at his peak athleticism wise, jumper was there, he could basically do whatever he wanted to any defense he wanted.

Undoubtedly the best in the league. To me, when I was watching back then, it wasn't even close. Only Dirk really had an argument. Once Odom started playing at a decent level for the last 30 games, Kobe had the Lakers at a 111.5 ORtg, 0.1 behind the Mavs for the league lead. Kobe was anchoring a league-best offense with ONE other serviceable offensive player. This says it all I think.

2007: The most efficient season of Kobe's career. It also gave a good glance of the game-management and facilitation skills that Kobe would show in 2008-10.

Through 39 games, he had the Lakers at 26-13. In fact, they were 14-6 through the first 20 games before Odom got hurt. Odom was playing like a near AS, averaging 18-9-5 on good efficiency. This should really dispell notions that Kobe at that era couldn't play with good teammates. Walton was benefiting too, averaging 12-5-4 on 50-43-75 through that good start. Kobe was playing steady basketball as the captain of a ship that was cruising along at a 112.2 ORtg, with 28-6-6 on 59% TS.

Then the injuries really took their toll. As soon as Odom returned, Walton got injured. And Odom was playing far worse than he was pre-injury. Kobe continued to play his part-facilitator role, but the team was just too bad for it to be effective. With Kobe, a broken Odom, and a D-League roster, the Lakers stumbled to a 7-18 record over the next 25 games. They were going to be out of the Playoffs, until Phil told Kobe to completely take over the offense. He did, to the tune of 40-6-5 on 58% TS. The Lakers managed to crack .500 for that stretch at 9-8, showing the difference between Kobe taking a step back (like his detractors love him to) and actually taking control of the offense on a terrible team.

His Playoffs were good by his own standards, but not spectacular. His team was so outmatched there really wasn't much he could do. It is memorable for that 45-6-6 game 3 when he threw the kitchen sink at the Suns and somehow came away with a win despite the Lakers getting 86% of their points from him, Odom and Kwame.

He probably was better than in '06 when he really got going, but for the whole season, probably just slightly worse. I'd put him behind Duncan for second best in the league.

The MVP and repeat years: 2008-10

Spoiler:

2008: The promised land. People love to claim that it was just Pau that turned the franchise around but Kobe had the Lakers at 25-11 through 36 games with his second option, Bynum, averaging 13-10. That's one of the worse second options in the league, and Kobe still had them comfortably in the middle of the WCF standings, flitting between the 2-4 seeds.

The Bynum injury, by all rights, should have killed the Lakers season. Possibly scared of the prospect of being the second option again, Odom went into a funk and averaged 12-10 on 42% shooting over the next 11 games. Kobe refused to let the team slip, going into supernova, averaging 34-8-6 on 61% TS in the same stretch, somehow keeping Fisher, Sasha, Turiaf, Farmar and Walton at a 6-5 record until the front office found a way to replace Bynum's production.

The Gasol trade was the best thing to happen to Kobe's career. It showed just how effective he could make a team with one other truly reliable offensive player. Kobe increased his efficiency, rebounding, facilitation and played better defense, with his volume remaining pretty much the same. Gasol's efficiency jumped up from 50.1% FG to 58.9% FG playing with Kobe, and the Lakers went 22-5 in the games that both played.

Overall, Kobe averaged 28-6-5 with elite defense, on 57% TS. The Lakers finished with a 7.3 SRS, and this was on a team with another truly reliable player for less than a third of the season. This was an underestimated carry job by Kobe. The Lakers could have slipped into oblivion at any time but he didn't let them.

The Playoffs were the cherry on the cake. ShaqAttack again:

The Lakers were virtually unbeatable with Gasol at 22-4 excluding the 2-3 minute game and then dominated the West including the defending champion Spurs in 5 during the WCF. The Spurs were no joke either since they had Duncan who was only slightly past his prime and 2 other all-star caliber players in Parker and Ginobili who was at his peak and probably the 2nd best shooting guard behind only Kobe that year. What was so impressive about Kobe's playoff run is that he almost seemed to be toying with his West opponents as he averaged 31.9 ppg, 6.1 rpg and 5.8 apg on 50.9 FG% in 15 games during the 3 West rounds playing that team-oriented style. Despite the finals loss, I still consider this Kobe's best playoff run. He had that game vs Denver when he shot 18/27 overall, 5/9 on 3s and 8/9 from the line for 49 points, and while I haven't seen the game since, I remember him being so hot that it looked like he could have had 60+ early had he pushed the issue, but LA won easily by 15 points.

32-6-6 on 61% TS against 3 top 6 defenses and 50 win teams. The Finals against the Cs was underwhelming, but as good as the Lakers were the Celtics were just so loaded they were clearly outmatched. I'm not one of those Laker fans that think Bynum would've made a difference. The big 3 were playing at a historic level at that point. Hold it against him if you wish, but remember, make sure to hold KG's failures against him too when his team is lacking in comparative talent.

I have Kobe no. 1 again, the last year he will be at this spot. I do think he was the best overall player for '06-'08, and in terms of three-year peaks it's not quite in the '91-'93 MJ, '63-'65 Russell or '66-'68 Wilt level but I think it matches up fairly well with guys like Bird and Hakeem.

2009: I summed this up with a post in a thread I made a few months ago:

I was watching parts of the Lakers '09 Playoffs and it just occurred to me that 2009 doesn't get brought up enough when talking about Kobe's best seasons, and indeed some of the best seasons by a wing, ever.

The Lakers had a 10 game lead on one of the toughest conferences in history. Not to say Kobe didn't have a great cast, but this was a 7.8 SRS team and he was +11.1 on/off for the +/- guys. For an elite team, it doesn't get too much higher, because they aren't going to be putrid when the star is off, they wouldn't be elite then. His +116.1 On-Court ORtg is among the highest we've seen from a player not on the Suns dynasty.

He was also still quite elite on defense, probably the last year he was consistently up there.

The Lakers cruised to a 37-9 record, and then Bynum got injured. Many people feared a slowdown, but Kobe took on the extra load and averaged a 32-5-5 over the next 12 games, leading the Lakers to a 11-1 record. That stretch shows he was still absolutely capable of scoring how many ever points he needed to, just like '06 and '07, he just took it easy to get the team-mates into the game as well.

That stretch put the Lakers in the driving seat for the conference and they cruised from then on. They beat every other contender, home or away. Snapped the Celtics' 19 and 12 game winning streaks, and the Cavs' 23 game home winning streak. Kobe kept them focused as hell, this was probably when his team-mates' fear of him transformed into a determination to please. His leadership had real, tangible impact on the Lakers that season.

Then in the Playoffs, the Lakers stomped. The Houston series was a minor blip where they were losing focus from time to time, but every time they lost they responded with a blowout. After that 118-78 result, did they ever look like losing that series? Kobe was still consistent enough in that series, it was the supporting cast who couldn't keep it together mentally. He did, however, along with Phil, keep getting them back on track and winning all the statement games. He did so while dealing with Battier and Artest tag-teaming him on defense.

The Denver series was his magnum opus. Has anyone forgotten that 'bad mofo' face? Has anyone forgotten all the insane shots he hit with a hand in his face, Dahntay and the other Nuggets playing picture perfect defense? Has anyone forgotten the way he pulled a team that was struggling to close game 1 to a victory by scoring or assisting 13 of the last 15 points? Has anyone forgotten that game 6 when he basically looked untouchable, going for a 35/10 and ripping the Nuggets to shreds while the Lakers won by 30? Has anyone forgotten the ridiculous 35/6/6 overall performance he put together?

I'm not saying he was better than LeBron that year, but this should be considered one of the best seasons by a wing ever. His numbers weren't as good as they used to be, but what was he supposed to do, put up nicer stats when he had Odom/Gasol and lose instead? He did everything his team needed him to, and when his guys were sagging, he picked up all the slack and dominated, as we saw in multiple stretches throughout the season.

Really, I think the only Playoff run by a wing definitely better than this (after Jordan) is '12 LeBron. What do you guys think?

LeBron was definitely better this year. No question in my mind. But Kobe was a deserved no. 2. I can get ranking Wade over him, but I think Kobe played just as well in the later Playoff rounds as Wade did in the regular season, and Wade really didn't have a good Playoffs at all.

2010: A very underrated year for Kobe.

This was the year he completed the development of his post-game, and it was more effective than Jordan's ever was. Here's Bill Simmons on Kobe during the first half of the season, a stretch when Bryant had the Lakers at 25-6 through 31 games (more than half of which Pau missed by the way), averaging 30-6-5 on 57% TS.

I can't remember anyone reinventing himself historically as well as Kobe did these past 16 months. The Olympics, then the 2009 Finals, then the media victory lap that everyone ate up … and then, when it seemed as if we were headed for a decline, he reinvented himself as the second coming of post-baseball Jordan and developed an even nastier, more physical post-up game than MJ had. I can't believe what I am watching. It's staggering. He's like a 6-foot-6 Hakeem Olajuwon. I went into this season thinking Kobe would be able to last just one or two more seasons at a high level; now I'm wondering whether he could play like this well into his late 30s. Why not? I mean, Karl Malone did it. Like Malone, Kobe is a workout freak who takes care of his body and seems predisposed to staying healthy, anyway. Malone averaged a 26-10 and made second-team All-NBA in the 1999-2000 season when he was 36 years old … and then he played four years after that. Kobe is only 31. Could he replicate Malone's longevity and consistency?

He did get injured later on, yes, no one is disputing that. But before that, he was playing as well as he ever had, and picked up at that level in the Playoffs. I don't know why people were shocked in the Playoffs, he played just as well in the first half... For 9 games before his injury, he averaged 37-7-5 on 58% TS!

I'm not going to lie and say the second half of the regular season was pretty. Coming out of the regular season one could argue he was behind LeBron, Durant and Howard all.

But then he went and had one of his best Playoffs ever. He still struggled with his knee for a bit at the beginning of the OKC series, but after game 5 had his knee drained and then ripped off an all-time hot streak. He averaged 31-7-6 on 59% TS over the last 18 games of the regular season. He was easily the best player in the Playoffs that year, and I think it should boost him over Durant and Howard. I'd still give LeBron the edge that year, with Kobe 2nd. Wade, Nash, Durant and Howard fight it out for spots 3-5.

He had that historic Phoenix series, averaging 34-7-8 on a 135 ORtg, 64% TS!!! People don't appreciate how dominant he was in that series.

His Finals got marred by game 7, but before that he was doing 30/7/4 on 56% TS. Against the kind of defense he was facing, that's remarkable to say the least.

It's hard to argue against what Kobe did in the Playoffs that year.

Overall, I think Kobe from 2008-10 was more impressive than second threepeat Jordan in the Playoffs... But that's just me.

I know that was a ridiculously long post, lemme give it to you in cliffs:

-2000 was a great second option year, comparable to prime Pippen. Got the Lakers out of several tight situations (game 7 Portland, game 4 Indy), and doubled up as the best perimeter defender in the league. Perfect second option to Shaq.

-2001: Underrated regular season, historical Playoffs. Carried the Lakers while Shaq was less than his usual self at the start, combined with him for the best run by a duo in NBA history in the Playoffs, was Jordan-esque in the WC Playoffs (32-7-6 on 60% TS).

-2002: Slightly underwhelming regular season but still solid. Killed the Spurs in the Playoffs, came up big in games 6 and 7 against the Kings with Shaq, and had the best finals of the threepeat part of his career.

-2003: Became a complete player. Arguably his best defensive year, added the 3 point shot. Had an all-time 35/40 point game streak to drag the Lakers back into Playoff contention

-2006/2007: All-time offensive years. Dragged garbage to top 7-8 offenses, and when Odom actually played well and gave him a good second option he took the team to the best offense in the league for that same stretch, in both seasons.

-2008: Peak year. Got his defense back. Showed that he could make a bad team decent as well as make a decent team elite, as soon as Pau arrived. What's impressive is the Lakers had a 7.3 SRS with Pau only playing 27 games for them that year. Historically dominant in the Playoffs.

-2009: lead one of the best Laker teams ever despite Bynum getting injured AGAIN, with Pau again his only real reliable teammate. Dominated in the Playoffs, had possibly his best series ever against Denver, and was decisive in the Finals against Orlando.

-2010: Killed it for the first two months in the regular season, clearly the second best player behind LeBron for that stretch. Developed the post-game. Slipped into injuries, but shook them off in the Playoffs to dominate again. Killed the Jazz and Suns, had a good series against Boston considering the level of defense he was facing.

-From 2000 to 2010, here's how I'd rank Kobe in the league year by year: 8, 2, 3, 3, 4, 9, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2. Other than the blip of 2005, that is stunning consistency over a long stretch. Comparable to prime Bird easily.

-In terms of peak play, Bird was better at his absolute zenith, but Kobe gives you 7 years at that level: 2001, 2003, 2006-10, while Bird has 1984-88. The two extra years make a real difference, at that level.

I don't think I can do more talking about the meat of Kobe's career. I'll answer any questions anyone has, and expand more on 2011-13 later.

Still not going to post much else until Kobe gets voted in, the conversation has been terrible for the last few threads.

[Owly]

Statistical peaks of various big men

Code: Select all

Player             Season   ORB   DRB    TRB   AST   STL   BLK   TOV    PTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Duncan        2001-02   3.3   9.4   12.7   3.7   0.7   2.5   3.2   25.5
Kevin Garnett     2003-04   3.0  10.9   13.9   5.0   1.5   2.2   2.6   24.2
Karl Malone       1989-90   2.8   8.3   11.1   2.8   1.5   0.6   3.7   31.0
Moses Malone      1981-82   6.9   7.8   14.7   1.8   0.9   1.5   3.6   31.1
Shaquille O'Neal  1999-00   4.3   9.4   13.6   3.8   0.5   3.0   2.8   29.7
David Robinson    1993-94   3.0   7.7   10.7   4.8   1.7   3.3   3.2   29.8

Not a perfect like with like comparison.

Firstly percentages are omitted (and then translating to versus league norms, though this can take a while, so for a quick and dirty replacement let's look at where they ranked in their league

of those not in yet (to qualify I've listed 400fga minimum, basketball-ref requires 500 tsa for that span but you can't put that into their search)

David Robinson '94: TS% 0.576997579 ; 15th (of 190 players meeting shots threshold) http://bkref.com/tiny/88kRC (listed 17th but only calculated to shown decimal places then alphabetically, his real number is better than Gilliam and Ellis)

Karl Malone '91: TS% 0.626010489 ; 5th (of 194) http://bkref.com/tiny/21Y1N

Karl Malone '97 (MVP, best metrics season though less superficially impressive due to lower league norms): TS% 0.599861304 ; 14th (of 183) http://bkref.com/tiny/KYfOH

Moses Malone '82: TS% 0.576426885 ; 24th (of 172) http://bkref.com/tiny/Ulu7j

then there's pace not factored in
'82 Rockets: 97.2 pace factor (est possessions per game)
'94 Spurs: 90.1 pace factor
'90 Jazz: 96.1 pf
'97 Jazz: 90.0 pf

Advanced composite boxscore metrics (PER, WS, WS/48, based on imperfect information for Moses but it's a safe assumption WARP) all think Robinson's was the best peak (and Karl's was second each time), and the thing these things tend to be worst at quantifying is D and the general perception (and accolades) suggest that the order there is Robinson, Karl, Moses. I don't they boxscore metrics are perfect across eras but they translate better than raw numbers.

Edit: Best guess for WARP was wrong. Karl's peak WARP was 20.5.
Based on Moses having 44.9 WARP over three seasons in Houston (80-82, WARP first calculatable in the '80 season, http://www.basketballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=838) I figured those three season were not sufficiently different for Moses to break the 20 WARP barrier in any single one. Apparently he did, in Pelton's what if a team had all their players at their peaks article, Moses is cited as 21.9 WARP peak. Whilst this is surprising (if both numbers are correct his best - presumably '82 - campaign added almost as many WARP as the other two seasons combined) it is worth noting that one metric has Moses' peak as superior to Karl, though likely not on a per minute basis (if Karl Malone's 20.5 WARP peak comes from his per minute best campaign in '97 - or indeed if any of his 3 20+ WARP campaigns are the '97 - then the 400 minute advantage in minutes played for Moses - assuming his best WARP campaign is '82 which I think is a safe assumption - means WARP per minute would find Karl to have the higher peak. Still my general assumption was incorrect.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Synergy is an awful way to judge defense and it's completely untested.

Novak famously had one of the best defensive ratings on Synergy in 2013. Why? Most of that is because they put him on weak defenders.

This is honestly hilarious coming from someone who's been spouting off +/- numbers left & right.

The beauty of Synergy is that we can look at Novak, and put the context of who he actually guards into the equation. And we have individual based metrics...not lineup data.

...How is this nonsense? Synergy is not tested, and advanced +/- stats are.

No, you can't put the context of who he guards into the equation because that data is lacking on Synergy. That's the problem.

Again, Synergy isolates the individual(good for comparisons), while lineup based +/- doesn't(bad for comparisons). We can see Novak's numbers , and then put them into context(quality of the guys he was guarding). BUT, Novak's stats are accurate, unlike RAPM which is more about the rotations he was used in.

Kobe was definitely hidden on some defenders in his prime. He was always guarding Raja Bell and Bruce Bowen types. Plus he was guarding Rondo in 2008 rather than the clearly better perimeter players like Allen and Pierce.

Why do you keep repeating this nonsense. Kobe was put on Rondo to disrupt Boston's offense. Do you think LA would put Fisher on a tougher defensive assignment?

Kobe had to deal with GP, Kidd, Vince, Tmac, Ray, Wade, Nash, CP3, Deron. Even if you throw out All-NBA teams, we have....

MVP Shares:
Kobe: 4.206
Dirk: 1.810

Again, I like Dirk, but what's his case offensively, defensively, longevity-wise, and for their overall careers? Kobe seems to win every criteria.

C'mon, you know none of those guys are in Duncan's or Garnett's or Lebron's class, either in ability OR longevity.

MVP shares: Popularity contest and/or lifetime achievement award.

How about +/-, on-off, Win Shares, all the things that actually have something to do with your ability to help your team win games. I'm not saying Dirk is better than Kobe, but it's closer than most like to admit unless you wanna just go by rings, jersey sales, popular votes, etc.

1) I brought up scoring, playmaking, and defense. Things you haven't even addressed.

2) Win shares is basically a team stat portioned out based on box score production. +/- stats have numerous issues that have been outlined throughout this project.

3) No sorry, but the fact Kobe has been consistently regarded as better from season to season weighs heavily for me, just like it did with guys like Russell/Jabbar in earlier votes. I make no apologies for bringing up MVP shares because it shows clearly how much distance career-wise Kobe has over Dirk.

[Jim Naismith]

Statistical peaks of various big men

Code: Select all

Player             Season   ORB   DRB    TRB   AST   STL   BLK   TOV    PTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Duncan        2001-02   3.3   9.4   12.7   3.7   0.7   2.5   3.2   25.5
Kevin Garnett     2003-04   3.0  10.9   13.9   5.0   1.5   2.2   2.6   24.2
Karl Malone       1989-90   2.8   8.3   11.1   2.8   1.5   0.6   3.7   31.0
Moses Malone      1981-82   6.9   7.8   14.7   1.8   0.9   1.5   3.6   31.1
Shaquille O'Neal  1999-00   4.3   9.4   13.6   3.8   0.5   3.0   2.8   29.7
David Robinson    1993-94   3.0   7.7   10.7   4.8   1.7   3.3   3.2   29.8

To measure their offense, let TotalOffense = PTS + ORB + AST - TOV

TotalOffense
Moses Malone.......36.2
Shaquille O'Neal.....35.0
David Robinson.....34.4
Karl Malone..........32.9
Kevin Garnett.......29.6
Tim Duncan.........29.3

To measure their defense, let TotalDefense = DRB + STL + BLK

TotalDefense
Kevin Garnett.......14.6
Shaquille O'Neal.....12.9
David Robinson.....12.7
Tim Duncan.........12.6
Karl Malone..........10.4
Moses Malone.......10.2

[colts18]

Why do you keep repeating this nonsense. Kobe was put on Rondo to disrupt Boston's offense. Do you think LA would put Fisher on a tougher defensive assignment?

Do you think that 2nd year Rondo that was average 11/5, .515 TS% was a good offensive player? Do you think he was better than Ray Allen in 2008 on offense? They signed Cassell in the middle of that season because they had little trust in Rondo.

He was hidden on Rondo because they didn't want Kobe to expend the energy needed to guard Allen or Pierce.

[MistyMountain20]

Kobe was definitely hidden on some defenders in his prime. He was always guarding Raja Bell and Bruce Bowen types. Plus he was guarding Rondo in 2008 rather than the clearly better perimeter players like Allen and Pierce.

I'm sorry, that doesn't count as being hidden. Bell is a shooting guard, Nash is a point guard. Just because Bryant didn't always guard the best player doesn't mean he was being hidden. Similar to that end with the Spurs, Bryant didn't always guard Parker (although if memory serves right he at times did take the assignment) but that doesn't constituent as being hidden.

And your history of the '08 Celtics series isn't accurate. The Lakers were 0-4 (counting the regular season) against the Celtics in '08 prior to Bryant guarding Rondo. Through the first two games of the series, Rondo totaled 22 assists against the Lakers and was breaking their defense down with ease. The Lakers were in the midst of getting blown out in game 2 until Phil made the adjustment of putting Kobe on Rondo and going with a perimeter oriented lineup which brought the Lakers and almost won them the game. The next 3 games in that series Rondo struggled mightily and the Lakers performance improved. Rondo didn't have a good game in that series until game 6 where they blew out the Lakers. Rondo might not have been the Celtics best player, but he was arguably the biggest problem for the Lakers on the defensive end. Their overall record since putting Kobe on Rondo is 10-5.

[acrossthecourt]

(fixed)
Since the playoffs are the deciding factor for David Robinson, I decided to look at whether or not his teams underperformed in the playoffs as a whole, not just looking at his shooting percentages.

Using SRS, point margins, and HCA (3.2 points), I calculated the difference between the point differential the Spurs had versus the expected one given the opponent.

Robinson's teams in the playoffs, excluding the year he missed due to injury (1992) and Duncan in 2000:
+0.05 points per game better than expected. (Weighted by games in the series.)

1990 to 1996:
+0.40 points per game better than expected.

I'd like to go through each series and look for key injuries or other factors (Duckworth was injured one year, for instance), but this is in Robinson's favor. But they do have high-profile beatdowns via Karl/Olajuwon. They do much better against worse competition?

Doing the same for Drtg:
-0.09 (points per 100 possessions where the negative sign means they were worse on defense than expected.)

1990 to 1996:
-0.08

Those are pretty small differences. There's effectively no difference.

So I wouldn't say they underperformed with David Robinson. There might be something to the fact that they feasted on weaker teams in the playoffs, however. This gives me pause. But that's tougher to prove with the small sample sizes.

[ceiling raiser]

David Robinson vs Karl Malone

I don't know if I'll be able to get to all of the contemporary 1-on-1 matchups I mentioned, but here is part 2. Earlier I did Dirk vs Kobe, and they essentially fought each other to a draw. Now I want to look closer at the Admiral vs the Mailman.

Background thoughts

Spoiler:

My evaluations of these two have evolved over time. Live action, there was no question to me that Robinson was better. I've said it before, but Robinson was one of the most electric players that I've ever seen. I remember when he was at Navy, watching him burst onto the national scene in that tournament run was kind of like how Barry Sanders came out of nowhere at Oklahoma State in football. I was planning to see the greatness of Danny Manning (or Aikman/Peete in football), and instead this phenom exploded all over the place and stole the show. I impatiently waited for Robinson to serve his Naval duties, and when the time came for him to make his NBA debut I was watching avidly. And he didn't disappoint, building even upon the promise he showed in college to quickly become one of the best players in the NBA. He came in right as the best of my childhood (Magic and Bird) were on the way out, and it wasn't long before Jordan was leaving as well to go swing at baseballs. I was sure that it wouldn't be long before Robinson was the acknowledged best in the NBA.

On the flip side, Malone had been in the NBA pretty almost as long as I could remember. I was watching the NBA before he came in, but I was really young and I really wasn't paying attention to Utah at that time. By the time I started, Stockton and Malone were already becoming household names. I always knew they were good, but neither one of them ever struck me as the best. I thought that Barkley was better than Malone in general (even though when they matched up 1-on-1 it seemed like Malone was just too big for him), and there was just never a time through the 80s and into the early 90s when I saw Malone on that level.

By the mid-90s I was in college and not watching the NBA as closely. Maybe that's part of why my opinions of these two didn't evolve that much even as Malone started having more success. I remember being stunned at how badly Hakeem outplayed Robinson in that fateful series. I remember how meh I felt when the Jazz and Bulls faced off back-to-back (I was never a fan of either squad, and wanted them both to lose). Actually, I was pretty bummed that the Rockets weren't the ones making the FInals from the West because I really wanted to see old Hakeem/Barkley against Jordan and Pip. But no, the daggone Jazz had to get in the way. I think the biggest disappointment was that I was positive that the Jazz couldn't beat the Bulls, because I was sure that Malone didn't have that extra gear. I thought Hakeem and/or Chuck might be able to find something inside, but I never believed that Malone would. And when they made it close, only to have Jordan strip Malone and then immortalize Byron Russell that just put the taste of ashes in my mouth.

Anyway, by the time we did the RPoY project in 2010, I still had Robinson as the better of the two in my mind. I thought that his legacy had been overly tarnished by that one series against Hakeem, and that by going through year-by-year as we were it would be clear that Robinson was a beast. Instead, a poster named Kaima brought up the 1994 and 1996 playoffs (in addition to the expected 1995 Hakeem match-up) in which Robinson really didn't look good against Malone and the Jazz. He shifted the argument from "Robinson just got outplayed by a transcendant Hakeem" to "Robinson consistently got outplayed in the postseason" to "Robinson just wasn't a good postseason performer". At the time I wasn't expecting that line or argument, and in going year-by-year and playoff series by playoff series, the argument that the Admiral couldn't perform in the postseason sounded plausible.

Then, the next year we did the 2011 Top 100 and by then it was accepted dogma among many of the voters that Robinson's offensive style simply wasn't suited for the postseaosn. That his offense took too much advantage of fast breaks and face-up opportunities that weren't there in the postseason, and thus that he could never be a championship team's #1 option. Meanwhile, ElGee also led the charge for Malone, pointing out his ridiculous longevity and arguing that his playoff downfalls weren't as bad as advertised. Before I knew it, Malone was voted in at #12, a full 10 spots before Robinson.

But it's never really set well with me. I keep finding myself re-considering the evidence and arguments made in those projects. And the more I look, the more hollow they seem. So today I want to start over with a clean slate and see what conclusions my analysis leads to.

Longevity

Spoiler:

The absolute first thing that has to be mentioned in a Malone vs. Robinson comparison, even before we get to the numbers, is the difference in prime longevity. Malone is the iron man of NBA history, never really missing a game over 20 years and with a graceful decline in his box score numbers. As I pointed out when I first posted the 10-year prime box score data (seen below for Malone and Robinson), Malone has about four more seasons at this exact same level while I had to add an extra year (to make up for the missed '97) and include some years when Robinson was "playing 2nd fiddle" to Duncan in order for the Admiral to get his 10 year prime. And even in one of those seasons (1992), Robinson got hurt and missed the playoffs. When looked at that way, the longevity gap seems insurmountable. And maybe it is. But.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Robinson was actually significantly better than Malone. Suppose, in fact, that Robinson at his best was as good as Larry Bird. If Robinson were that good, would longevity still be an obstacle that couldn't be overcome? Seemingly not, right, since Bird was voted in at #10 and longevity king Malone is still waiting on the call. So before go any further, let's stop for a moment and compare Robinson's longevity to Bird's.

Bird: 9 prime years from 1980 - 1988, one full missed season (1989), 2 lesser but productive seasons (1990 and 91) and a final season when his body broke down and he couldn't finish the season.

Robinson: 7 prime years from 1990 - 1996, one full missed season (1997), four more "side kick" seasons (1998 - 2001), one productive but lesser season where his body broke down and he couldn't finish the season (2002) and a final season in which he was physically limited but still a strong role player in limited minutes.

Is there really a difference there? The key, for me, is how to characterize those 1998 - 2001 years for Robinson. Because he was only playing 32 mpg over that stretch and Duncan was acknowledged as the star, most (including me) considered these to be post-prime years for Robinson. But while we're here, let's compare Robinson's 1998 - 2001 stretch to the late prime of one player that's already been voted in, and to the early prime of Bird himself:

Regular Season
1998 - 2001 Robinson: 32 mpg, 17.5 ppg (57% TS), 9.7 rpg, 2 apg, 2.1 TO; 25.3 PER, 47 WS
2005 - 2008 Duncan: 34 mpg, 19.5 ppg (55% TS), 11 rpg, 3 apg, 2.4 TO, 25 PER, 46.2 WS
1980 - 1983 Bird: 38 mpg, 22.2 ppg (55% TS), 10.8 rpg, 5.4 apg, 3.3 TO, 21.7 PER, 48.4 WS

Playoffs
1998 - 2001 Robinson: 35 mpg, 17.4 ppg (53% TS), 11.7 rpg, 2.3 apg, 2.3 TO, 24 PER, 6.9 WS (43 games)
2005 - 2008 Duncan: 38 mpg, 22.4 ppg (54% TS), 12.3 rpg, 3.1 apg, 2.7 TO, 25.8 PER, 11.1 WS (73 games)
1980 - 1983 Bird: 42 mpg, 20.5 ppg (51% TS), 12.8 rpg, 5.8 apg, 3.5 TO, 19.9 PER, 6.4 WS (44 games)

Now, the point of this isn't to make this a Robinson vs Duncan or Bird thread. But just take a look at those statlines again. Robinson was only playing a few minutes less than Duncan, and outside of scoring volume (Duncan by a bit) he was contributing very similarly in the box scores in both regular and postseason to Duncan during years universally included in his prime. Bird was playing much heavier minutes than Robinson, and was also the player most helped by pace here (for example, Robinson's rebound rate is higher despite Bird's higher raw boards due to pace). But even with that, Robinson had almost as many win shares (used as a cumulative catch-all stat, as opposed to a rate one) as Bird in the regular season and more in the playoffs with a much higher PER and WS/48. Again, these are years universally included in Bird's "productive prime" years tallies.

Plus, because we have RAPM studies starting in 1998, we know that Robinson's RAPM from 1998 - 2000 (using Doc MJ's normalized PI RAPM method) was +7.4, +8.9, and +8.3 (with a heavy defensive influence, notching DRAPM's that match the best that we ever saw from Duncan in his career). Those overall RAPMs in the ~8.2 range couldn't quite keep up with the best-of-the-best in the study, but they were right there on average with the average of the highest three career RAPM scores of Nash (+8.2 3-year average) or Kobe (+8.0) and just below 2005 - 08 Duncan (4-year average 9.3 RAPM). Robinson wasn't playing as many minutes as any of them, so they would have had higher volume impacts on game than these years of Robinson, but the point is that Robinson appeared to be still having huge impact on games from 98 - 2001 according to both the box scores AND the +/- data.

Thus, if we return to our Bird longevity comparison, I now see it:

Bird: 9 prime years from 1980 - 1988, one full missed season (1989), 2 lesser but productive seasons (1990 and 91) and a final season when his body broke down and he couldn't finish the season

Robinson: 7 prime years from 1990 - 1996, one full missed season (1997), four more almost prime seasons on the order of 1980 - 1983 Bird (1998 - 2001), one lesser but productive season when his body broke down and he couldn't finish the season (2002) and a final season in which he was physically limited but still a strong role player.

Suddenly, Robinson's longevity looks EXACTLY like Bird's to me. And if Bird's career length is the gate-keeper for being ranked this high, suddenly Robinson is eligible. If his prime is strong enough. So let's get away from quantity, and look at quality.

Who's best at their best?
Box Score Statistics

Spoiler:

Regular season, 10 year primes per100 possessions
Karl Malone (1990 - 1999): 36.8 pts (59.3% TS), 14.5 reb, 5 ast, 4 TO
David Robinson (90 - 2000): 33.3 pts (58.8% TS), 15.9 reb, 4 ast, 3.9 TO

Playoffs, 10 year primes per 100 possessions
Karl Malone (1990 - 1999): 35 pts (52.9%), 15 reb, 4.4 asts, 3.7 TO
David Robinson (90 - 2000): 30 pts (54.6%), 16.1 reb, 3.8 ast, 3.7 TO

One thing that jumps out at me when I look at these numbers is that Robinson was a MUCH better player than Malone, both regular season and post-season. The numbers itself don't tell me that, of course. Numerically, you'd be hard pressed to find any space at all between the general box score stats displayed above. But that, of course, is the problem (for Malone). Because if he couldn't create any space between he and Robinson with his offense, then of course he's going to get left behind because Robinson smokes him on defense. Malone was a rugged post defender who earned an air of intimidation with his hatchet man tendencies. And ironically, he limited Robinson in the 1994 postseason with those same strong 1-on-1 defensive skills. But Robinson is one of the best team defenders that ever lived, a true defensive anchor. And more and more I've come to appreciate that the game isn't neatly broken down into a box score battle with a small tie-breaker for defense and everything else. No, an elite defender can have defensive impact that rivals the best offensive impacts. And Robinson was definitely that.

Available +/- data

Spoiler:

Obviously, since the first available play-by-play data doesn't start till '97, we missed the majority of both players' primes. However, '98 is widely considered by many (including Malone) as potentially his peak season and he was the MVP in '99. Thus, I think it's reasonable to see what types of impacts he was having in those seasons. We've already touched briefly on Robinson's available +/- results, but I'd like to put them in some context as well.

Malone
98: 9.0 (+8.8 ORAPM; 0.2 DRAPM)
99: 5.8 (+6.4 ORAPM; -.6 DRAPM)
00: 5.5 (+6.9 ORAPM; -1.4 DRAPM)

Robinson
98:7.4 (+1.2 ORAPM; +6.2 DRAPM)
99: 8.9 (+2.3 ORAPM; +6.6 DRAPM)
00: 8.3 (+2.7 ORAPM; +5.6 DRAPM)

For those that don't know, this data came from Doc MJ's normalized PI RAPM spreadsheet from 1998 - 2012. I only did 1998 - 2000 for both players, because we don't have +/- data in 2001 and only partial for 2002, and by 2003 both were on their last legs. I found these numbers revealing for a few reasons. Malone's value in these years was almost all offense, while Robinson's value was primarily defense. Here are a few thoughts that come to mind:

1) Malone's offense aged gracefully. There's been some speculation that Malone may have made a mistake later in his career by continuing to play the same offensive role for the Jazz as his physical tools eroded. I've seen this idea put forth by (I believe) Doc MJ, and I know that Ronnie Mac addressed this potential concern in one of his big Malone posts. However, when we break the RAPM numbers into offensive and defensive components, it doesn't appear at all that Malone's offense was struggling by the turn of the century. He was still putting up offensive numbers over 6, which compare very favorably with the best career ORAPM numbers that we saw from Dirk, KG or Duncan.

2) Robinson's defense was elite till the end. Robinson obviously became the subordinate to Tim Duncan in an overall sense, but defensively Robinson appears to be the anchor through at least 2000. Robinson's average DRAPM from 98 - 2000 (+6.1) was almost double the DRAPM of young Duncan (+3.2). Duncan's impact on those teams was bigger due to offense and minutes played, and his impact grew over time while Robinson's waned, but defensively in the first few years of their union Robinson was the man. Plus, Robinson maintained a DRAPM up around +6 all the way until he retired in 2003, indicating that even as his body broke down and limited his minutes, he was still a defensive beast for every moment that he could spend on the court.

3) Mailman's defensive impact was surprisingly low. Or maybe it wasn't. Malone's rep is as a strong 1-on-1 post defender, not as a team anchor. However, one theme we see repeatedly is that team defenders make a much bigger mark than individual defenders. Malone's DRAPM scores here look remarkably like Kobe's DRAPM scores during the parts of his career when he was gaining recognition for his 1-on-1 defense.

We have to be careful about extrapolating the conclusions from this RAPM info over their entire careers, because again this is just three years near the end for each. However, as mentioned, these were three years where both were still having star impact and I think we can do some qualitative projections backwards. Namely:

1) I believe that these years represented Malone's offensive peak (or at least the end of it). Early Malone put up better scoring numbers, but he was almost purely a finisher. Late Malone was a better passer and much better initiator, plus he had a better mid-range game. These are all things that generally lead to better offensive impact.

2) I believe that these years represented Robinson's defensive peak as well (as far as measurable impact). Robinson, in the Duncan years, played a similar role to Garnett after the championship year in Boston. At this point in their careers, both were focusing more on their defense and ceding more offensive responsibility to teammates. It is to both of their immense credits that they could maintain overall impacts just a step down from the elite (+ 8 range) primarily with defense, because it indicates the versatility of their impact. But, like Garnett, this also means that during the years when Robinson was having to carry both the offense and defense his DRAPM scores likely weren't quite as high.

Playoffs

Spoiler:

I'll finish off with a discussion on Malone and Robinson in the playoffs, as this is the big criticism that both face. As has been pointed out many times, both saw a drop in both volume and scoring efficiency in the postseason when compared to their regular season numbers (Malone -1.8 pts, -6.4% across 10-years displayed here, Robinson -3.3 points and -4.2% TS drop).

ElGee and AcrossTheCourt have done a lot of great work normalizing their production in the face of defensive quality. ElGee that both Robinson and Malone did a lot of feasting on poor defenses in the regular season, that their scoring (volume and efficiency) dropped quite a bit in either the regular season against good defenses or the postseason against "bad" defenses, and that they dropped the most in the postseason against good defenses. It appears that Malone's drops may have been larger than Robinson's.

The resulting narrative is that both Robinson and Malone have offensive styles too predicated on things like easy buckets, face-up mismatches and/or getting set up by teammates that are more limited by good defenses than other offensive skills. Thus, that it isn't a fluke that their scoring was attenuated, that it was a result of the flaws in their games that could only be exposed in the crucible of the post-season.

I'm on record in this project (and really, for awhile now) as believing that scoring efficiency is (way) over-used as a mechanism for determining individual offensive contributions. The fact that all of the most commonly referenced individual box score metrics (PER, win shares, offensive rating, TS%) all are strongly dependent on scoring efficiency tends to, IMO, cause us to double- and triple- count scoring efficiency either for or against players to the degree that it skews the results. This is especially true for players that have large parts of their impacts in areas besides scoring (e.g. Larry Bird' or Garnett).

This thought process makes me want to give Robinson the benefit of the doubt, because his all-world defense might not be fully captured by postseason box score stats. If that's true, and he's still having mega impact on games when his scoring was off due to his defense then I would be inclined not to be as worried by his scoring drop. However, this leniency is tempered because his three peak playoffs (1994 - 96) all ended with him out-right losing a perceived 1-on-1 match-up against a similar caliber big man on teams that seemingly were well-matched. Plus, unlike Bird or Garnett, Robinson didn't have the offense initiation/distribution skills to have a positive team impact on offense when his shot was off. So he would really need to demonstrate a strong team defensive trend in the postseason for me to feel comfortable overlooking the scoring issues, and I haven't had the time to do any type of team defensive analysis for Robinson's Spurs. I'd love to see a breakdown of the Spurs' playoff opponents' regular season/expected offensive ratings vs. their actual offensive ratings against Robinson's 90 - 96 Spurs defenses. If anyone has the time to do that, I'd be appreciative.

With Malone, on the other hand, I have a really hard time seeing how his drop-off in scoring shouldn't be a big deal. Not only is scoring his primary role, but we saw in the 98 - 2000 RAPM data that at (what I consider to be) his peak his value was almost ENTIRELY on offense. His defense, though solid 1-on-1, didn't seem to move the needle much on a team level. Older Malone was a better passer than young Malone, so perhaps later in his career he was able to help mitigate the scoring a bit by setting up teammates. But on the whole, it seems hard to credit Malone with much non-scoring impact and thus the more than 6% drop in TS% could be significant. But he has the opposite caveat as Robinson, because my perception is that in 94 and 96 his individual defense DID have an impact on how Robinson played and thus the results of the series. So, just like with Robinson, if a more thorough examination of the Jazz's defensive results through the years suggests a previously unexpected strength and that strength can be traced to Malone, then that might change how I see him in the postseason for the better.

Bottom line

Robinson and Malone are two of the best big men left on the board. Malone was an awesome offensive threat in the regular season for a lot of years, and a still strong presence in the postseason. His 1-on-1 defense was rugged, but at least late in his career did not appear to be moving the needle as much as I'd have thought in terms of defensive impact. Robinson was an awesome 2-way threat early in his career in the regular season, and a ridiculous defensive player who was strong as a secondary scorer in both the regular and postseason at the end of his career.

Karl Malone played forever at a really high level. But I tend to feel that Robinson was the better player during his prime, and upon further examination I'm seeing that productive prime stretch for Robinson at closer to 10 years than the 6.5 I previously credited him with. In theory, Robinson should have also been a better postseason performer than Malone because his defense should translate better, but I'd like to look into that further before finalizing that conclusion.

On the whole, at the moment, I'm leaning Robinson over Malone (just like I had them pre- RPoY project). But, just like with those projects, I'm still willing to listen and learn and could be talked into changing my mind.

Another HOF level post, thanks for writing this drza. Really appreciate it, especially since this thread and the last one have revolved a bit much around box score stats and accolades (neither of which is my cup of tea). Nothing against that type of discussion, but it's very easy for me to get disengaged from the project when most of the conversation comes back to either or both. I'm crossing my fingers that there'll be more posts like the above, with new research and analysis.

I need to try and watch some footage of Robinson's first three seasons, and just do some checking on the 92 thumb injury. From what I can tell, it was a freak occurrence, so I'm not sure what to make of it.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Why do you keep repeating this nonsense. Kobe was put on Rondo to disrupt Boston's offense. Do you think LA would put Fisher on a tougher defensive assignment?

Do you think that 2nd year Rondo that was average 11/5, .515 TS% was a good offensive player? Do you think he was better than Ray Allen in 2008 on offense?

He was hidden on Rondo because they didn't want Kobe to expend the energy needed to guard Allen or Pierce.

I know, from Phil's own mouth, that Kobe was on Rondo to disrupt Boston's offense. Ray is a shooter so they could put Fisher on him. This doesn't even take into account that Kobe played all 3 perimeter players throughout that series, depending on the lineups. The notion Kobe was hidden is laughable.

[Texas Chuck]

Spoiler:

Well in terms of offense, Kobe's the more prolific scorer, and more prolific playmaker.

Reg. Season
01-10 Kobe: 37.5 ppg/100 on 56% TS, 25.0 AST%
02-11 Dirk: 34.5 ppg/100 on 58% TS, 13.9 AST%

Playoffs
01-10 Kobe: 35.8 ppg/100 on 55% TS, 24.5 AST%
02-11 Dirk: 33.4 ppg/100 on 59% TS, 12.2 AST%
^
Dirk's shooting efficiency is great, no doubt. But Kobe isn't just scoring at a high level, he's always facilitating at a high duel level. Kobe has the most 25+ ppg/54%+ TS/20 AST% reg. seasons in NBA history, at 11 while Dirk has only 2 seasons above 15 AST%. in the playoffs, only MJ & Lebron have more.

Defensively, Dirk wasn't of note until Avery came. From there he certainly improved, but didn't have the defensive tools, timing, mobility, explosiveness that Kobe possessed on that side of the court.

Just look at their career arcs:

Age 20:
Kobe: All-NBA 3rd

Age 21:
Kobe: All-NBA 2nd

Age 22:
Kobe: #9 MVP/All-NBA 2nd
Dirk: All-NBA 3rd

Age 23:
Kobe: #5 MVP/All-NBA 1st
Dirk: #8 MVP/All-NBA 2nd

Age 24:
Kobe: #3 MVP/All-NBA 1st
Dirk: #7 MVP/All-NBA 2nd

Age 25:
Kobe: #5 MVP/All-NBA 1st
Dirk: #10 MVP/All-NBA 3rd

Age 26:
Dirk: #3 MVP/All-NBA 1st
Kobe: All-NBA 3rd

Age 27:
Dirk: #3 MVP/All-NBA 1st
Kobe: #4 MVP/All-NBA 1st

Age 28:
Dirk: #1 MVP/All-NBA 1st
Kobe: #3 MVP/All-NBA 1st

Age 29:
Kobe: #1 MVP/All-NBA 1st
Dirk: All-NBA 2nd

Age 30:
Kobe: #2 MVP/All-NBA 1st
Dirk: #10 MVP/All-NBA 1st

Age 31:
Kobe: #3 MVP/All-NBA 1st
Dirk: #7 MVP/All-NBA 2nd

Age 32:
Dirk: #6 MVP/All-NBa 2nd/Finals MVP
Kobe: #4 MVP/All-NBA 1st

Age 33:
Kobe: #4 MVP/All-NBA 1st
Dirk: All-NBA 3rd

Age 34:
Kobe: #5 MVP/All-NBA 1st
Dirk: N/A

11-4 age levels in favor of Kobe

.

Im curious why you continue to use assists instead of the evidence that shows what a difference Dirk makes in terms of getting teammates good shots. Dirk doesnt play guard and was never his team's primary ballhandler. He's never going to compete in terms of assists, but that doesn't automatically make Kobe the guy superior at creating great shots for teammates.

As far as defense, obviously Kobe has more accolades and in several of those years deservedly so, but we need to also take into account the difference in competition between a guard and a guy who played C and PF. Just more impactful defenders to compete with for those awards.

Kobe is a better playmaker--but Im not at all convinced he's a superior offensive anchor. And I think the defense thing is pretty close tho I would concede Kobe is a better relative defender considering position.

[Texas Chuck]

Kobe was definitely hidden on some defenders in his prime. He was always guarding Raja Bell and Bruce Bowen types. Plus he was guarding Rondo in 2008 rather than the clearly better perimeter players like Allen and Pierce.

Dirk was hidden too from 05 on.

[Jim Naismith]

Statistical peaks of various big men

Code: Select all

Player             Season   ORB   DRB    TRB   AST   STL   BLK   TOV    PTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Duncan        2001-02   3.3   9.4   12.7   3.7   0.7   2.5   3.2   25.5
Kevin Garnett     2003-04   3.0  10.9   13.9   5.0   1.5   2.2   2.6   24.2
Karl Malone       1989-90   2.8   8.3   11.1   2.8   1.5   0.6   3.7   31.0
Moses Malone      1981-82   6.9   7.8   14.7   1.8   0.9   1.5   3.6   31.1
Shaquille O'Neal  1999-00   4.3   9.4   13.6   3.8   0.5   3.0   2.8   29.7
David Robinson    1993-94   3.0   7.7   10.7   4.8   1.7   3.3   3.2   29.8

I think that would be a much more useful comparison on a per100possession basis.

Doesn't per-100 and per-36 assume that basketball performance is perfectly linear with respect to pace and time?

In other words, the (shaky) assumption is that those playing fewer minutes at slower pace suffer no performance degradation when their pace and minutes increase.

(cf. Manu Ginóbili)

[Melodabeast]

Game 5 2004 vs Spurs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEHbGDyTc2w

1st Quarter:
--11:30---good help defense. cuts off parker's penetration and force him to pass.

Lets look at first part of that game and EVERY Lakers defensive possessions:

Spoiler:

1. 11:30 - yes, his help D was ok, but only at first stage of the play. Notice, that Spurs possessions didn't end with Parker's pass, but Kobe's defense did - and that's bad thing. The moment Hedo had passed to Bowen and George rotated to Bowen, Kobe should have rotated to wide open Turkoglu, but he give up and doesn't do anything. Lakers didn't lost points on that play, but that doesn't change the fact that Bryant's defense wasn't good. On that play Spurs corner player (Bowen) didn't pass back to open man, but on most possessions he would and in these kind of situations Kobe would be late, because he finished defending the moment Parker had passed the ball.

2. 11:03 what is that?! Back to the player he is defending? Doesn't look good, even if we consider that Bowen was probably still in Spurs backcourt (because if that's the case, then he should have help on Duncan).

3. 10:30 overhelps, gambles and leaves his man open screwing Lakers defensive rotations. Very bad D.

4. 10:00 nothing to judge here, because he's on weak side and doesn't do much (good or bad).

5. 9:35 same as #4

6. 9:15 very good help D, stopped fast break.

7. 8:40 overhelping again, Malone was already in good position, yet Kobe leaves his man (and probably lost track of where he is) and that lead to Bowen's open3.

8 8:00 same as #4 and #5

9. 7:30 nothing flashy, but good , fundamentally sound team D - that's how he should defending instead of constantly overhelping

10. 6:50 again, nothing flashy, but sound team D

So overall 10 possessions on defense, on 4 of them his D was bad (overhelping or lack of effort), on 3 nothing to judge because he was on weak side, on 1 very good D and on 2 sound team D.

Doesn't look like positive impact on defense. He definitely was capable of playing good D (play #6), but quite often would rather try risky plays or give up (#1, #2, #3, #7) instead of playing fundamentally sound team defense (like possessions #9 and #10). I know, it's just 10 possessions, but I don't have time to watch more right now and really it doesn't look inconsistent with data we have about his defense - so that he was rather around average defensive player. or even with negative impact (what's not surprising considering how often he had been breaking team D).

--------
For me it's probably between Kobe and DRob. But I can also see Dirk, West, Dr J or even Barkley at this spot. Definitely not Karl Malone (or Moses, for that matter)

11:30---what? bryant denies parker's drive, and he passes it to hedo, who swings it to bowen who immediately catches and shoots. bryant is in position to run out to hedo but there's no need to. bowen airballs and lakers get possession. this is good defense.

11:03--huh?? this is good transition defense by the entire laker team. everyone including bryant finds their man, and no, the lakers gameplan in this series was to single-cover duncan with malone (who was doing a GREAT job) and then start trapping/doubling duncan in the 4th if they needed to. so bryant did the correct thing. the lakers wanted to single-cover duncan as much as possible, why double with the great job malone was doing?

10:30--overhelps? parker gets the step and bryant is there to deny him penetration. remember that malone is reluctant to help off duncan, and parker has a great floater in the middle of the lane. also remember that that phil's/ defensive schemes have always stressed shutting down layups/dunks even if it leads to threes.

10:00--ok

9;35--ok

9:15--agreed. very good defense.

8;40--again, this is way off. the first rule of transition defense is to stop the ball. parker gets by payton and has a clear driving lane to the middle of the lane, which is death for nba defenses. this is good transition defense by bryant. bryant doesn't help and parker almost certainly gets by malone to the rim for a layup/foul

8:00--did the right thing to not help on duncan

7:30--thats an excellent defensive play. cuts off duncan's initial pass to the shooter, and then is ready to quickly get to bowen. leads to turnover.

6:50--this is exactly what you want defensively from SG. help and recovery, ball denial, switches on the screen to pick up parker...good defense.

in 10 possessions he has 1 (arguable) mistake and a bunch of good/solid plays. there really isn't a single play where he shows lack of effort. seriously, what?...but that's only 10 possessions. i tracked his entire game for this game and several others and his defense both as a team/help defender and one-on-one/on-ball was consistently very good.

[batmana]

My vote goes to Kobe Bryant.

He was a player who could handle the pressure and the demands to be a centerpiece, a franchise player on a championship caliber team. He was probably the best No. 2 player ever on three consecutive championship teams, on a team that had only role players outside of the big 2. He put up big numbers, had a very long prime, may have peaked at two distinct points of his career. His defense, even though it became overrated as he aged, used to be very good and he certainly deserved a lot of his All-D selections.

Jerry West is a player I have the closest to Kobe, again. West was by all accounts a fascinating player who was a fierce competitor, a big-time performer, and has arguably as many marquee games and moments as Kobe.

I believe these two are above Karl Malone, Dirk, The Admiral, Moses and Dr J who I also considered here. Karl Malone couldn't elevate his game (partially because he was one of the most consistent players ever and always performed at a high level) and has some well-documented shortcomings. Dr J is a difficult player for me to gauge because the best part of his legacy was written in the ABA. Moses' peak was much better than the rest of his prime or career, and The Admiral, though peaking at a very high level, had his shortcomings as well. Dirk is a player who I feel was at an all-time great level for a shorter time than Kobe and West and that's why they stand out ahead of him. His offensive resume is nearly flawless but I don't think he had such a huge impact early in his career, despite the numbers.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Spoiler:

Well in terms of offense, Kobe's the more prolific scorer, and more prolific playmaker.

Reg. Season
01-10 Kobe: 37.5 ppg/100 on 56% TS, 25.0 AST%
02-11 Dirk: 34.5 ppg/100 on 58% TS, 13.9 AST%

Playoffs
01-10 Kobe: 35.8 ppg/100 on 55% TS, 24.5 AST%
02-11 Dirk: 33.4 ppg/100 on 59% TS, 12.2 AST%
^
Dirk's shooting efficiency is great, no doubt. But Kobe isn't just scoring at a high level, he's always facilitating at a high duel level. Kobe has the most 25+ ppg/54%+ TS/20 AST% reg. seasons in NBA history, at 11 while Dirk has only 2 seasons above 15 AST%. in the playoffs, only MJ & Lebron have more.

Defensively, Dirk wasn't of note until Avery came. From there he certainly improved, but didn't have the defensive tools, timing, mobility, explosiveness that Kobe possessed on that side of the court.

Just look at their career arcs:

Age 20:
Kobe: All-NBA 3rd

Age 21:
Kobe: All-NBA 2nd

Age 22:
Kobe: #9 MVP/All-NBA 2nd
Dirk: All-NBA 3rd

Age 23:
Kobe: #5 MVP/All-NBA 1st
Dirk: #8 MVP/All-NBA 2nd

Age 24:
Kobe: #3 MVP/All-NBA 1st
Dirk: #7 MVP/All-NBA 2nd

Age 25:
Kobe: #5 MVP/All-NBA 1st
Dirk: #10 MVP/All-NBA 3rd

Age 26:
Dirk: #3 MVP/All-NBA 1st
Kobe: All-NBA 3rd

Age 27:
Dirk: #3 MVP/All-NBA 1st
Kobe: #4 MVP/All-NBA 1st

Age 28:
Dirk: #1 MVP/All-NBA 1st
Kobe: #3 MVP/All-NBA 1st

Age 29:
Kobe: #1 MVP/All-NBA 1st
Dirk: All-NBA 2nd

Age 30:
Kobe: #2 MVP/All-NBA 1st
Dirk: #10 MVP/All-NBA 1st

Age 31:
Kobe: #3 MVP/All-NBA 1st
Dirk: #7 MVP/All-NBA 2nd

Age 32:
Dirk: #6 MVP/All-NBa 2nd/Finals MVP
Kobe: #4 MVP/All-NBA 1st

Age 33:
Kobe: #4 MVP/All-NBA 1st
Dirk: All-NBA 3rd

Age 34:
Kobe: #5 MVP/All-NBA 1st
Dirk: N/A

11-4 age levels in favor of Kobe

.

Im curious why you continue to use assists instead of the evidence that shows what a difference Dirk makes in terms of getting teammates good shots. Dirk doesnt play guard and was never his team's primary ballhandler. He's never going to compete in terms of assists, but that doesn't automatically make Kobe the guy superior at creating great shots for teammates.

As far as defense, obviously Kobe has more accolades and in several of those years deservedly so, but we need to also take into account the difference in competition between a guard and a guy who played C and PF. Just more impactful defenders to compete with for those awards.

Kobe is a better playmaker--but Im not at all convinced he's a superior offensive anchor. And I think the defense thing is pretty close tho I would concede Kobe is a better relative defender considering position.

The fact Kobe was LA's primary scorer and playmaker is kind of the point. His offensive imapct was greater because he was dropping 30, while also setting everyone up. As an offensive anchor, isn't this the kind of thing we praised Lebron, and Bird for? Dirk definitely helped with spacing due to his presence, but so did Kobe, so that's a wash to me.

To me, if Kobe has the edge on offense/defense/longevity, then he should clearly be ranked higher. No knock on Dirk, I just find this an awkward comparison. I feel he has a much stronger case against KG/Malone.