Can you name 15 players in NBA history better than Kobe?

[Warspite]

Or I could have said that outside the Triangle offense Wade is the only leader of a title team. Still regardless the list of SGs is MJ, Kobe and Wade. Im just playing the odds. I grew up in the SF heyday and I watched the great players of the period and they couldnt sniff a title. Nique, English, Dantley, King, Aguirre, Johnson, Gervin and even my fav player of alltime DrJ couldnt win without a bigman. Its the same reason Bowie and Darko are drafted before Jordan and Wade. Sure you can find the exceptions to the rule but the rule is the rule for a reason.

Your statement about Magic being the last leader of a title team is either a moment retardedness or a slap in the face of all Pistons fans. Since 1988 3 Pistons Championships have been won by PGs who led there teams to a title.

[ElGee]

Glad you guys liked the post. B-R's DB doesn't have TS% and I didn't calculate it. In general, I'd imagine Bryant would get the biggest boost from his 3 pt shooting. It's easy to do for some of the tables, but I'm not sure how one would do it for the <40 / > 50 table using TS% since his game finder won't filter by advanced stats. (Why!)

Per Tim hardaway's suggestion, moved the post to here for further discussion/linkage: viewtopic.php?f=344&t=1048089

[Lakers05]

As I've shown with Dwight, bigs inherently have more impact than smalls, assuming that they're on the same level. The only reason you don't take the bigs over the smalls, assuming that they're on the same level, is because of injuries. But since these bigs have proven that they can stay healthy, you take them over the smalls. Now one might argue that MJ was on a different level from all of the bigs, other than Wilt, yes, but that's because his competition was very weak. In addition, Hakeem gives you the advantage of being able to play both big positions, which gives you flexibility in being able to obtain a small OR big to play with him(the fact that they didn't, until late in his career, just speaks to his management's incompetence, not him). Now while MJ could in theory play all three backcourt positions, that is not as important because there are still too many positions to fill.

In any event, if you draft a small like MJ, you have to, at the very least, hope to sign and trade for a starting caliber "defensive big that is not injury prone." Depending on the competition, Hakeem would probably have to do the same, however, he just needs "a quality guard," as opposed to any "specialized guard that can hit clutch shots(since he can do that himself) and is not injury-prone"(as most guards aren't, he already earned this advantage by not being injury-prone as a big.)

Now if you have a big like Malone, then you'd probably not only need a guard, but a guard that can hit clutch shots, but most guards are like that anyway. In addition, Malone has the advantage of longevity.

Finally, there are other variables such as payroll that can help or hurt a team. "Assuming everything is equal," then you take the (non-shot creating) big over Jordan, as he gives you a slight edge.

Now let's suppose that there was a hard cap(the only way to ensure that everything is equal), and this hard cap limit is such that you can only sign one max(including the franchise player drafted in question), and 4 role players, in which case, here you will see evidence of the impact of the big over small, as the small now cannot get a big to cancel out this big vs small effect. In fact, in this case, I'd take Dwight and 4 role players, over Jordan and 4 role players.

The conclusion here is that supposed that the league is structured in a way that ensures "parity among a large number of teams," Jordan is not close to the first guy that you would want to build around, as in theory, he would ALWAYS need a quality big, whereas a guy like Hakeem doesn't(necessarily need a quality small).

[Optimism Prime]

Post-Shaq (since 2005), Kobe has a whopping 64 games with 30+ FGA's. LeBron has 25. Wade 13. In those games, Kobe and LeBron average 41.6 ppg, Wade 41.3 ppg. But most NBA stars don't hoist 30 a night unless they have it going fairly well, which doesn't seem to hold true for Bryant, who's FG% in such games is significantly lower than his overall average during that span (45.5%)

I'd be fascinated to see the inverse breakdown of this--which stars get their 30, 40, 50 etc on the fewest FGA. Obviously, 3s and FTs need to be considered too, but I think that it'd be an interesting study. Would probably make sense to do wings (due to higher number of 3PA) and posts (lack of 3s), but. Food for thought.

Doubt you'll see this comment hidden way down here, though.

[Dr Positivity]

1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Wilt Chamberlain
4. Magic Johnson
5. Larry Bird
6. Bill Walton
7. Bill Russell
8. Tim Duncan
9. Shaqtus
10. Hakeem Olajuwon
11. Jerry West
12. Lebron James
13. Dwyane Wade
14. Julius Erving
15. Moses Malone

There you go

[semi-sentient]

There are some really poor arguments in this thread, but one really stands out above the rest. Career PPG average.

Criticizing Kobe's PPG is asinine considering the limited minutes he played during his first two seasons. As a starter, however, his numbers are pretty fantastic. From his 3rd year in the league (when he became a starter) up until this past season, he's been averaging 27.6 PPG. That would put him 4th on the all-time list behind Jordan, Chamberlain, and LeBron who all had the luxury of playing big (starter) minutes from the time they entered the league. Many of those seasons came alongside a prime Shaq who was the focal point of the offense, so it's hard to imagine that his averages wouldn't be even higher had the team been constructed around him from day 1.

Other than that, good post earlier ElGee. I think that pretty accurately reflects the issue that a lot of us Lakers fans have with Kobe. He can be streaky at times and when it's bad -- it's REALLY bad. I've seen him struggle with his shot for weeks at a time and try to shoot himself out of slumps. His decision-making at times is very questionable and he doesn't seem to know when to turn it down a notch and focus his energy elsewhere.

I do think that it does him some injustice to strictly focus on FG%, but it's still a solid comparison. I'd really love to see those numbers redone using TS% though (above 60% and below 50%). I'm willing to bet that things would change quite a bit, especially if we're using identical seasons to compare (from 2005 onward -- seeing as how rules changed to favor wings and all).

[italianleather]

Yea, other guys have gotten to 35(and more) without having their PPG raised by a whole point with a single game.

Consistent compared to who? He's not nearly as consistent as the other guys who have hit 35 before, and he's not as consistent scoring 30 as a lot of guys are.

His 63 point and 81 point games are a lot less often than his games that are terrible shooting games.

I mean, I guess it depends on what you like. If you prefer a guy that scores 20, 20, and then 60, to get a 33.3 average, that's cool, but I'd rather the guy that gets 30, 33, and 36, or the guy that gets 27, 33, 39. That's just me though.

seems like you're going out of your way to not give Bryant credit.


Hes had 5 seasons of averaging over 28 points. 9 different seasons of over 25. His scoring averages rank up there with pretty much any all time great scorer.

Still dont understand what you mean by consistent. Bryant is a player who is on pace right now to retire 3rd all time in points and I believe first in playoff points. Thats pretty consistent.

Neil over at B-R had a post a while ago about consistent vs. inconsistent individual performances and his findings were consistency gives the team a greater chance to win. In other words, it is better to have a guy with game scores of 30, 30, 30, 30, 30 in a series than 15, 45, 15, 45, 30.

I think that's NO-KG's point. When we call Bryant “inconsistent,” it's not a description of his season to season numbers, but instead a description of his game performances – really his shooting – from game to game as a high volume scorer. Consider the 3 best wings of the generation, Jordan, LeBron and Wade in their primes:

Frequency of “good” shooting games vs. “bad” – Regular Season FG%

Code: Select all

                  >50%  <40%     PPS
============================================
Jordan (91-98)    52%   14%      1.30
James (06-10      49%   17%      1.39
Wade (05-10)      47%   17%      1.39
Kobe (00-10)      39%   29%      1.26

*Kobe (00-10) shoots over 50% 39% of the time and under 40% 29% of the time. He's averaged 1.26 points per shot.

*Wade (06-10) shoots over 50% 47% of the time and under 40% 17% of the time. He's averaged 1.39 points per shot.

*James (06-10) shoots over 50% 49% of the time and under 40% 17% of the time. He's averaged 1.39 points per shot.

Jordan (91-98) shoots over 50% 52% of the time and under 40% 14% of the time. He averaged 1.30 points per shot. His numbers would obviously be better if we inlcude 87-91.

*As of this year's All-Star break.

So, relative to the players he's being compared to, Bryant is a streaky shooter.

--

As far as his raw scoring numbers go -- which seems to be a huge sticking point for a lot of his fans --he also just happens to shoot the ball a lot more than anyone else. We shouldn't minimize an outburst like 2006 -- which does statistically hold up to some of the better recent scoring seasons -- but for some people extra shots at a low percentage in favor of passing for a better percentage shot isn't good. This was NO-KG's point vis-a-vis Malone shooting more. Or any player, really.

If Bryant can "only" get 22 good looks a game, and those shots yield 30 points (1.36 points/shot), should he take 6 more forced shots at a low percentage or pass to a teammate for a better shot? That's the thinking, and it's fairly obvious what the better answer is. In this hypothetical, some people are in awe by the raw scoring numbers despite the 6 forced shots producing 5 extra points (0.83 points/shot, which would be horrendous). Assuming that were true, it's not that Bryant's overall performance isn't good, it's just that he actually "undoes" some of his goodness with those kinds of decisions.

So how much more does he shoot it..well...more?

Post-Shaq (since 2005), Kobe has a whopping 64 games with 30+ FGA's. LeBron has 25. Wade 13. In those games, Kobe and LeBron average 41.6 ppg, Wade 41.3 ppg. But most NBA stars don't hoist 30 a night unless they have it going fairly well, which doesn't seem to hold true for Bryant, who's FG% in such games is significantly lower than his overall average during that span (45.5%)

Wade shoots 48.8% in such situations. LeBron 47.7. Kobe, 43.8%. Only 13 of those 64 games were over 50% shooting for Kobe. Wade and James have fairly normal distributions of scoring and percentage, Bryant is all over the place.

Games with 30+ FGA's since 2005

Code: Select all

        #    % of Games     PPG     FG%     *Difference from Overall FG%
========================================================================
Kobe    64   13.9%          41.6    43.8%    -1.7%
Wade    13   3.2%           41.3    48.8%    +0.4%
James   25   5.3%           41.6    47.7%    -0.7%


All this is to illustrate what the eye is seeing: Bryant's shot selection leaves something to be desired and (as a result?) he's streakier, as a scorer, than other elite wing players. And that's probably not a good thing.

–

See5 noted his macroscopic consistency. Certainly, Bryant's sustained excellence from 01-present is a major bright spot on his resume. But there's been little discussion in this thread of the changes in his game over that time period. In 01 and 02 he was an elite 2-way wing player. In 2003 he basically turned the 3-point shot into a jump shot. That was part of the transformation into a more explosive, higher variance scorer. In 2006-2007 lots of shooting (from what I can gather, the most polarizing period in people's assessments of him). From 2008-2010 a little more balance -- better decision making, shot selection. If there were a version with optimal shot-selection/playmaking, defense and rebounding, then yes, that peak would certainly be top 10 peak of all-time. Maybe top 5. But there isn't...

His advanced stats from that time:

Code: Select all

     WS/48  On/Off      Roland
====================================
03   .210   10.3      
04   .210   5.8      
05   .145   2.7
06   .224   12.4        14.8
07   .199   5.9         12.4
08   .208   7.1         12.0
09   .206   11.9        12.6
10   .160   12.3        11.7

For me, those versions of Kobe have all had comparable impact on the game. The earlier versions more complete but not as good offensively. The middle versions more one-dimensional and shot-happy (excluding 05, where he just flat out struggled). The later versions probably exerting the smallest defensive impact with the largest offensive one (I'd take healthy 2010 Bryant over, perhaps, all of them).

Hope that shed some light on the issue and the semantics involved. It is the subtle differences that separate elite players, after all.

Insightful post!

A few points:

1) Why the insistence of using raw FG% when TS% has proved to be a more revealing stat? If we are really going for an in depth analysis, we should use the more accurate stat.

2) With regards to consistency in his 35ppg season, lets analyse by taking out the outliers.
Kobe scores 2832 throughout the RS over 80 games.
Take away his top and bottom 2 scoring games (i.e. 81, 62, 17, 11).
This yields 2661 pts over 76 games i.e. 35 ppg.

Take away his top and bottom 5 scoring games (i.e. 81, 62, 51, 51, 50, 21, 20, 18, 17, 11).
This yields 2450 pts over 70 games i.e. 35 ppg.

He scores 25 - 45 pts (+-10pts of his avg) 59 times.

So... where is the inconsistency or streaky-ness that people are talking about?

3) Again, people like to extrapolate stats and says that player X can score just as much he shoots more. Well Wade topped 30ppg and Lebron at 31ppg as 1st options.

Since they are such efficient scorers, why don't there "just shoot more" and help their team win more games? They have **** supporting casts in those years anyway. And if they want to shoot more, where are the extra shots coming from? Driving to basket 5 more times?

Kobe is able to keep up his efficiency even with his increase volume because he is a threat from almost everywhere.

[mopper8]

He scores 25 - 45 pts (+-10pts of his avg) 59 times.

10 ppg is a pretty big standard deviation (not saying that's actually the SD, but its the number you're throwing out there and I'm certainly in no mood to calculate the actual #).

[Bruh Man]

Or I could have said that outside the Triangle offense Wade is the only leader of a title team. Still regardless the list of SGs is MJ, Kobe and Wade. Im just playing the odds. I grew up in the SF heyday and I watched the great players of the period and they couldnt sniff a title. Nique, English, Dantley, King, Aguirre, Johnson, Gervin and even my fav player of alltime DrJ couldnt win without a bigman. Its the same reason Bowie and Darko are drafted before Jordan and Wade. Sure you can find the exceptions to the rule but the rule is the rule for a reason.

Your statement about Magic being the last leader of a title team is either a moment retardedness or a slap in the face of all Pistons fans. Since 1988 3 Pistons Championships have been won by PGs who led there teams to a title.

You must be Pistons fan, you're right about Isiah but I wouldn't consider Billups a Superstar. It's not like bigs can win without wing players either: Shaq had Kobe, Duncan had Parker 'n Ginobli, KG had Pierce and Allen.

[italianleather]

He scores 25 - 45 pts (+-10pts of his avg) 59 times.

10 ppg is a pretty big standard deviation (not saying that's actually the SD, but its the number you're throwing out there and I'm certainly in no mood to calculate the actual #).

Agreed.

Well, just want debunk the theory that Kobe's is "artificially boosted" by a couple of high scoring games.

If some one is interested, they could do a +-5 ppg analysis.

[Jordan23Forever]

whats was their average shots per game for 2fg%?

Doesn't matter, really - obviously it was higher for MJ, which goes back to the original point I made, which was this:

This is a stupid argument since Jordan was doing so on higher ppg volume (by about 5-6 ppg, which is not trivial with players at this level; data below). That means he was generating significantly more good 2-point opportunities.

In other words, why talk about the fact that Kobe shoots "almost as well as" whoever on 2-point FG attempts (which has been disproven for Kobe/MJ in my previous post - they're not close at all) when one player is capable of generating several more good looks for himself from 2 every game? Higher volume AND higher efficiency = a yawning gulf in terms of their respective efficiencies in terms of 2FG%. A 5-6 ppg/5+% FG difference is absolutely gargantuan when comparing players at this level (i.e., two excellent players) - I don't think some people realize how big of a gap that is. When volume increases, efficiency decreases; here we have the exact opposite.

[Vincent 666]

whats was their average shots per game for 2fg%?

Doesn't matter, really - obviously it was higher for MJ, which goes back to the original point I made,
.

Of course it matters.

It goes back to efficiency.

If Jordan averaged 6 more points but needed 5 more shots to do so.........its relevant.

That type of logic is always used against Bryant.

[Jordan23Forever]

I can't believe that anyone is arguing AGAINST the fact that Kobe is streakier than guys like Lebron/Wade/Jordan. I mean, seriously? Do people not understand what's meant by this? You can look at his ppg or his FG%, but he's more streaky in terms of his FGM-FGA. Kobe's variance from the mean is larger than other players' is. Let's say you have two players shooting 50% FG. One player's 10-game statlines look like this (FGM-FGA):

11-20
9-21
12-22
10-19
9-19
10-17
9-16
10-24
13-22
9-20

(Note that I didn't calculate whether these lines average out to 50% in either case, but just looking at them you'll see the pattern.) And the other player's lines are like this:

7-21
12-20
6-19
14-21
13-19
4-20
8-22
11-19
7-20
15-25

Assuming similar ppg and DrawF averages, the former player is more valuable to a team than the latter player is from a scoring perspective.

[Jordan23Forever]

Of course it matters.

It goes back to efficiency.

If Jordan averaged 6 more points but needed 5 more shots to do so.........its relevant.

That type of logic is always used against Bryant.

First off, you're hopeless. Second, no, it was not 5 more shots for 6 more points. LMAO @ that. Whatever the number above Kobe's 2FGA/gm that Jordan took, his points per shot on those extra attempts was STELLAR. Again, efficiency tends to DECREASE with increased volume, yet here one guy has both (significantly) greater volume and much better efficiency and you're trying to attribute that to...volume? Yeah...it doesn't work that way, kid.

[Vincent 666]

Of course it matters.

It goes back to efficiency.

If Jordan averaged 6 more points but needed 5 more shots to do so.........its relevant.

That type of logic is always used against Bryant.

First off, you're hopeless. Second, no, it was not 5 more shots for 6 more points. LMAO @ that. Whatever the number above Kobe's 2FGA/gm that Jordan took, his points per shot on those extra attempts was STELLAR. Again, efficiency tends to DECREASE with increased volume, yet here one guy has both (significantly) greater volume and much better efficiency and you're trying to attribute that to...volume? Yeah...it doesn't work that way, kid.

I dont understand why you're getting so mad over me asking how many shots it took certain players to hit their averages.

[Jordan23Forever]

I dont understand why you're getting so mad over me asking how many shots it took certain players to hit their averages.

I'm not getting mad, but first off you made an assumption (6 more points came on 5 more FGA, which is false); secondly, you don't seem to understand that volume (i.e., volume of shots taken) and efficiency are generally INVERSELY correlated. Yes, OBVIOUSLY greater ppg is tied to greater FGA in most cases, but when one can maintain much better efficiency on significantly higher volume, certain conclusions are inescapable...except if you're a Kobe fan, I suppose.

[Vincent 666]

I dont understand why you're getting so mad over me asking how many shots it took certain players to hit their averages.

I'm not getting mad, but first off you made an assumption (6 more points came on 5 more FGA, which is false); secondly, you don't seem to understand that volume (i.e., volume of shots taken) and efficiency are generally INVERSELY correlated. Yes, OBVIOUSLY greater ppg is tied to greater FGA in most cases, but when one can maintain much better efficiency on significantly higher volume, certain conclusions are inescapable...except if you're a Kobe fan, I suppose.

So do you have those numbers?

[Vincent 666]

I can't believe that anyone is arguing AGAINST the fact that Kobe is streakier than guys like Lebron/Wade/Jordan. I mean, seriously? Do people not understand what's meant by this? You can look at his ppg or his FG%, but he's more streaky in terms of his FGM-FGA. Kobe's variance from the mean is larger than other players' is. Let's say you have two players shooting 50% FG. One player's 10-game statlines look like this (FGM-FGA):

.

The original comment was that Bryant was inconsistent..........not that he was inconsistent compared to Lebron and Wade.

Reading comprehension, kid.

[ElGee]

Optimism and Semi: viewtopic.php?f=344&t=1048089&start=0

[Bruh Man]

How many people have accomplished as much as Kobe at his age? It's really quite impressive he's already a top 10 player all-time and he's only 31.