Greater: Kobe Bryant vs Stephen Curry

[Triple7]

I think Kobe has a slight edge right now. Kobe is an elite defender, while Curry is average at best. Most top players are great on both sides. If Curry could somehow win another ring with a fmvp to go with it, i could easily put him in my top ten of all time. Him not winning at least one fmvp ruined everything. Not bad being the robin to KD though. Like Kyrie to Lebron in that cavs championship. Until he wins one fmvp, he’ll have a hard time cracking most top 10 of all time lists. Right now i have him inside top 15. Kobe around 10 or 11th.

I totally agree with everything in this take except calling Curry the Kyrie to KD's LeBron (way off) and the idea that FMVP's mean anything. It's the biased opinion of like six people based on a handful of games. It's utterly meaningless in actually evaluating players. But I agree with your conclusions. Kobe has the slight edge now. I have Kobe 11th. Curry 12th. I mean, the gap is a lot bigger than that makes it look, but when we're talking about 20-year careers, it's a "slight" edge.

Well fmvp’s should have less importance, but with Curry winning 3 rings with zero fmvp’s made him looked like a robin. That’s just what it is. It also means that he’s not playing his best basketball when it matters most, which is the finals. or someone is actually playing better. I think getting KD ruined this for Curry. Now lets see what he does this season.

[Ball so hard]

Obviously the accolades weigh in Kobe's favor but in terms of skill/prowess on a basketball court its a good comparison. Get out of here with Kobe's all defensive teams though, the guy was good during the threepeat but pretty average the rest of his career.

No it's not. They're actually farther apart from a skill standpoint. It would be pretty hard to find a deficiency in Kobe's skillset. One could easily find 1 or 2 skills in which Steph is deficient.

[Ball so hard]

A few weeks back I ran an analysis of offensive "potency" relative to season averages (I'll probably be sharing the notebook soon). I was really interested in comparing scoring dominance across eras.

What I found was that Lebron, Curry, and Durant were the 3 most offensively potent perimeter players of all-time, with Harden just trailing. Curry is an all-time great and largely hacked the game. Harden, Durant, Lebron too. But the 3 is a serious distorter of stats. If you can shoot the 3 at an above average efficiency at above average volume, you literally break the game open for your team. Every stat is affected by it. That's why I don't get overwhelmed by comparing across multiple stats: they're basically linear combinations of each other, so they're largely saying the same thing over and over.

Greatness imo is your ability to perform against odds, as well as longevity. 2016 remains a bad stain on Curry's legacy, like 2011 for Lebron or 2004 for Kobe, etc. I just don't (anecdotally) have enough evidence to put Curry above Kobe at this point in time. I wish my argument was more quantified. I may try to dig deeper into the numbers in the future if I have time.

tl;dr: I don't think career averages are all that useful about drawing conclusions about "greatness" across eras, since my definition of "greatness" is more about an average across discrete, critical events, and since the 3 has introduced this warped inflection point. Anecdotal evidence is brought up due to dearth of real quantitative analysis, but it shouldn't be dismissed for blunt career averages. The two should be working together to confirm/deny biases.

Also, tangent but, Lebron might be the greatest offensive player of all time given what he's able to achieve without shooting the 3 well. Not even accounting for his assisting.

Good post.

I find the bolded part to be the most pertinent. I've been saying for a while now, it's simply not possible to accurately compare players who played in different eras, as there are simply far too many variables, some of which can't even be quantified. It's a lazy comparison to simply look up some advanced metric and say gotcha, player X is definitively better.

Like I've said before, it would be pretty hard to find many current, former players and coaches who would say Steph is better. And I get it, fans on this board know far more than those who played and coached the game.

[XxIronChainzxX]

A few weeks back I ran an analysis of offensive "potency" relative to season averages (I'll probably be sharing the notebook soon). I was really interested in comparing scoring dominance across eras.

What I found was that Lebron, Curry, and Durant were the 3 most offensively potent perimeter players of all-time, with Harden just trailing. Curry is an all-time great and largely hacked the game. Harden, Durant, Lebron too. But the 3 is a serious distorter of stats. If you can shoot the 3 at an above average efficiency at above average volume, you literally break the game open for your team. Every stat is affected by it. That's why I don't get overwhelmed by comparing across multiple stats: they're basically linear combinations of each other, so they're largely saying the same thing over and over.

Greatness imo is your ability to perform against odds, as well as longevity. 2016 remains a bad stain on Curry's legacy, like 2011 for Lebron or 2004 for Kobe, etc. I just don't (anecdotally) have enough evidence to put Curry above Kobe at this point in time. I wish my argument was more quantified. I may try to dig deeper into the numbers in the future if I have time.

tl;dr: I don't think career averages are all that useful about drawing conclusions about "greatness" across eras, since my definition of "greatness" is more about an average across discrete, critical events, and since the 3 has introduced this warped inflection point. Anecdotal evidence is brought up due to dearth of real quantitative analysis, but it shouldn't be dismissed for blunt career averages. The two should be working together to confirm/deny biases.

Also, tangent but, Lebron might be the greatest offensive player of all time given what he's able to achieve without shooting the 3 well. Not even accounting for his assisting.

Good post.

I find the bolded part to be the most pertinent. I've been saying for a while now, it's simply not possible to accurately compare players who played in different eras, as there are simply far too many variables, some of which can't even be quantified. It's a lazy comparison to simply look up some advanced metric and say gotcha, player X is definitively better.

Like I've said before, it would be pretty hard to find many current, former players and coaches who would say Steph is better. And I get it, fans on this board know far more than those who played and coached the game.

Yeah, people mean this as some kind of insult but it's not. One, this is an incredibly narrow and serious NBA fan group. We're not talking about random casual fans. Not that everyone here is a scout or FO analytics person, but more knowledgeable than the average bear so to speak. And we've seen the absurd hilariously of even GOAT players at talent selection - MJ sucks at seeing talent, LeGM is a running joke, and Magic just finished a season on the brilliant idea to put non shooters around LeBron.

Actual GMs get it wrong all the time too - just look at trades or draft picks. It's not easy to see talent.

[Amares]

Curry is better player is going to be higher on all-time list.

[levon]

Yeah, people mean this as some kind of insult but it's not. One, this is an incredibly narrow and serious NBA fan group. We're not talking about random casual fans. Not that everyone here is a scout or FO analytics person, but more knowledgeable than the average bear so to speak. And we've seen the absurd hilariously of even GOAT players at talent selection - MJ sucks at seeing talent, LeGM is a running joke, and Magic just finished a season on the brilliant idea to put non shooters around LeBron.

Actual GMs get it wrong all the time too - just look at trades or draft picks. It's not easy to see talent.

To be fair, LeGM assembled some of the best teams in history. The 12-13 Heat and 16-17 Cavs were on another level.

There's a significant difference between team-building and drafting and taking into account your experiences being around/playing against all-time-great players when defining greatness. It's just so funny to me when the opinion of folks who dedicated their lives to basketball are so quickly dismissed in favor of Joe Schmo who listened to a podcast or two and can open basketball-reference. It's always the same stuff too: Paul Pierce and Magic are dumb. If I sampled the basketball takes on this forum, I'm pretty sure outlier takes based on stats are just as foolish, if not more so.

At the very least not treating peer opinion as another data point is markedly un-empirical to me.

[Optms]

Curry is better player, there is no question about that, but is he greater thought? I don't think he is yet, but if he continues to perform on a high level, he probably will be in few years.

Doesn't need years. He could do it this season alone with one more MVP, which is highly possible.

[XxIronChainzxX]

Yeah, people mean this as some kind of insult but it's not. One, this is an incredibly narrow and serious NBA fan group. We're not talking about random casual fans. Not that everyone here is a scout or FO analytics person, but more knowledgeable than the average bear so to speak. And we've seen the absurd hilariously of even GOAT players at talent selection - MJ sucks at seeing talent, LeGM is a running joke, and Magic just finished a season on the brilliant idea to put non shooters around LeBron.

Actual GMs get it wrong all the time too - just look at trades or draft picks. It's not easy to see talent.

To be fair, LeGM assembled some of the best teams in history. The 12-13 Heat and 16-17 Cavs were on another level.

There's a significant difference between team-building and drafting and taking into account your experiences being around/playing against all-time-great players when defining greatness. It's just so funny to me when the opinion of folks who dedicated their lives to basketball are so quickly dismissed in favor of Joe Schmo who listened to a podcast or two and can open basketball-reference. It's always the same stuff too: Paul Pierce and Magic are dumb. If I sampled the basketball takes on this forum, I'm pretty sure outlier takes based on stats are just as foolish, if not more so.

At the very least not treating peer opinion as another data point is markedly un-empirical to me.

LeGM also played on those teams. It was basically LeBron and his superstar buddy + Bosh the first time, and (in some ways) a better LeBron + 2 big name players the second time. The + LeBron part is an important element of this one.

The problem with players is that they approach this in a fundamentally different way. Let's use an example. That KG show once had a bunch of guys come in and talk about who they had the toughest time guarding. GP was on the show. His answer wasn't prime Jordan: it was Stockton. And he said Stockton was tough because it was mentally draining: Stockton would not take any plays off, full stop, and made it a huge grind mentally for GP.

Does that mean that Stockton is tougher to guard that Jordan? A better offensive player? That's bonkers.

To me, asking a player about scouring - because that's what this is closer to - is like asking a surgeon about veterinary medicine. It's not that you'll get an uninformed opinion. It's that the skill you're lauding these guys for is not the thing we're all evaluating, or the skill you're asking them to use.

[LKN]

Yeah, people mean this as some kind of insult but it's not. One, this is an incredibly narrow and serious NBA fan group. We're not talking about random casual fans. Not that everyone here is a scout or FO analytics person, but more knowledgeable than the average bear so to speak. And we've seen the absurd hilariously of even GOAT players at talent selection - MJ sucks at seeing talent, LeGM is a running joke, and Magic just finished a season on the brilliant idea to put non shooters around LeBron.

Actual GMs get it wrong all the time too - just look at trades or draft picks. It's not easy to see talent.

To be fair, LeGM assembled some of the best teams in history. The 12-13 Heat and 16-17 Cavs were on another level.

There's a significant difference between team-building and drafting and taking into account your experiences being around/playing against all-time-great players when defining greatness. It's just so funny to me when the opinion of folks who dedicated their lives to basketball are so quickly dismissed in favor of Joe Schmo who listened to a podcast or two and can open basketball-reference. It's always the same stuff too: Paul Pierce and Magic are dumb. If I sampled the basketball takes on this forum, I'm pretty sure outlier takes based on stats are just as foolish, if not more so.

At the very least not treating peer opinion as another data point is markedly un-empirical to me.

LeGM also played on those teams. It was basically LeBron and his superstar buddy + Bosh the first time, and (in some ways) a better LeBron + 2 big name players the second time. The + LeBron part is an important element of this one.

The problem with players is that they approach this in a fundamentally different way. Let's use an example. That KG show once had a bunch of guys come in and talk about who they had the toughest time guarding. GP was on the show. His answer wasn't prime Jordan: it was Stockton. And he said Stockton was tough because it was mentally draining: Stockton would not take any plays off, full stop, and made it a huge grind mentally for GP.

Does that mean that Stockton is tougher to guard that Jordan? A better offensive player? That's bonkers.

To me, asking a player about scouring - because that's what this is closer to - is like asking a surgeon about veterinary medicine. It's not that you'll get an uninformed opinion. It's that the skill you're lauding these guys for is not the thing we're all evaluating, or the skill you're asking them to use.

As you said scouting is REALLY, REALLY hard. Guys who are really good at it and get paid good money to do it still fail quite a bit of the time.

Even the best GMs are going to draft busts, etc. Even with detailed synergy stats, mountains of analytics, etc. it's still not close to a perfect science.


Not a perfect analogy.... but it's sort of like baseball... even the best hitters make a lot of outs.

[XxIronChainzxX]

To be fair, LeGM assembled some of the best teams in history. The 12-13 Heat and 16-17 Cavs were on another level.

There's a significant difference between team-building and drafting and taking into account your experiences being around/playing against all-time-great players when defining greatness. It's just so funny to me when the opinion of folks who dedicated their lives to basketball are so quickly dismissed in favor of Joe Schmo who listened to a podcast or two and can open basketball-reference. It's always the same stuff too: Paul Pierce and Magic are dumb. If I sampled the basketball takes on this forum, I'm pretty sure outlier takes based on stats are just as foolish, if not more so.

At the very least not treating peer opinion as another data point is markedly un-empirical to me.

LeGM also played on those teams. It was basically LeBron and his superstar buddy + Bosh the first time, and (in some ways) a better LeBron + 2 big name players the second time. The + LeBron part is an important element of this one.

The problem with players is that they approach this in a fundamentally different way. Let's use an example. That KG show once had a bunch of guys come in and talk about who they had the toughest time guarding. GP was on the show. His answer wasn't prime Jordan: it was Stockton. And he said Stockton was tough because it was mentally draining: Stockton would not take any plays off, full stop, and made it a huge grind mentally for GP.

Does that mean that Stockton is tougher to guard that Jordan? A better offensive player? That's bonkers.

To me, asking a player about scouring - because that's what this is closer to - is like asking a surgeon about veterinary medicine. It's not that you'll get an uninformed opinion. It's that the skill you're lauding these guys for is not the thing we're all evaluating, or the skill you're asking them to use.

As you said scouting is REALLY, REALLY hard. Guys who are really good at it and get paid good money to do it still fail quite a bit of the time.

Even the best GMs are going to draft busts, etc. Even with detailed synergy stats, mountains of analytics, etc. it's still not close to a perfect science.


Not a perfect analogy.... but it's sort of like baseball... even the best hitters make a lot of outs.

Sure. My point is just that being super awesome at bball - even a GOAT candidate - doesn't necessarily mean you're any good at evaluating players as a scout / talent ranker vs. just appreciating their skills.

[Chanel Bomber]

My two all-time favorite players alongside Dirk, Pat and MJ.

Funny they both choked hard in a Game 7 of the Finals, Kobe with a happier outcome however.

But if I'm building a team I'm picking Steph. Kobe could never be the focal point of such a historically dominant team as the Warriors.

[clyde21]

Generally, if your favorite player isn't great at skill X, there's a good chance you don't really think skill X is that important. On ball defense for a guard is definitely important. And arguably it was even more important in Kobe's era than it is now with more restrictions now than ever, so you need to look at it from that angle.

But even now, this is a league where almost all the stars are perimeter players. Perimiter defense is the first line of defense. It determines their first step. If the opposing team has a star perimiter player (which is guaranteed right now, every team that is a threat right now has a star perimeter player), having someone who can harrass them is definitely valuable. Kobe could do that.

Lots of guys might have a higher peak than Kobe, and I include Steph in that category, but IMO it's going to be hard for Steph to catch Kobe, 1) because of longevity, and 2) It's really hard to argue against his results.

I think Kobe is overrated by the casual fan, and underrated by people who are obsessed with advanced metrics.

has nothing to do with Steph, this has always been my position regarding perimeter on ball defense...obviously it's important in its own capacity, but on a per position basis it's not nearly as valuable as many other aspects, especially when 're talking about all-time level offenses etc...it's not as simple as hey 'they're both good on offense but Kobe is better on defense so Kobe > Steph'. if that was the case we'd see it reflected in the advanced metrics...and it's not and has never been (take a look at Klay for example)

again, Steph has a better career, TS%, better PER, better WS/48, better BPM, better On/Off and it's not really that close...Kobe's best BPM season would rank as Steph's 7th best, Kobe's best TS% season would rank as Steph's 9th, Kobe's best WS/48 would rank as Steph's 4th...and Steph isn't even out of his prime yet.

to give the advantage to Kobe here because of 'defense' here just doesn't add up, no way does individual perimeter defense hold that much water in this discussion given the discrepancy in other more important categories

I can acknowledge all that, but there is more than just the stats. And his argument over Steph is not only defense. Kobe has some better box score stats, Steph generally has better advanced stats, and I'm not going to argue that, but something worth bringing up is Steve's Kerr's response to Durant's recent comments:

"I wasn't at all offended what Kevin said because it's basically the truth," Kerr told The Athletic's Anthony Slater. "You look at any system, I mean, I played the triangle with Michael Jordan. The offense ran a lot smoother all regular season and the first couple rounds of the playoffs than it did in the conference finals and Finals. It just did.

"That's why guys like Michael Jordan and Kevin Durant and Kobe Bryant are who they are. They can transcend any defense. But defenses in the playoffs, deep in the playoffs, combined with the physicality of the game -- where refs can't possibly call a foul every time -- means that superstars have to take over. No system is just going to dice a Finals defense up. You have to rely on individual play. I didn't look at (his comment) as offensive. I look at that as fact."

Notice he brought up Kobe. Yeah, he was not as efficient as Steph. He probably couldn't run the system Steph is running and lead as efficient an offense as Steph. But he doesn't have to run that system. I've said this many times, whether it's in the conference finals or the finals, you are going to face the best of the best, and unless somehow the other team is completely overmatched (as rarely happens in the finals), your plan A, B, and C are going to fail. At the end of the day, you need somene to take over when all your plans go out the window (and they will, bank on it), and Kobe is one of those guys. I'm not sure Steph is. There are maybe advantages and disadvantages to being that kind of player, maybe. But that's why it's not so simple as you saying Steph's advanced stats are better so case closed.

Kerr lumps Kobe and Durant in there with Jordan as someone who can transcend any defense. Not sure if the omission of Steph was intentional, but considering the context it's worth noting. I suspect when he is talking about refs not calling fouls on every play it might have been a dig at Harden's playoff performances.

ehhh, Kobe always gets mentioned like this because the Kobe myth is bigger and better than the actual player...there are plenty of people that mention Kobe in the GOAT discussion and that's far far far away from being reality tbh.

and really...what makes Kobe better than Steph even in finals?

Kobe in 7 finals: 25.3ppg / 5.7rpg / 5.0apg / 1.7spg

Steph in 5 finals: 26.8ppg / 5.7rpg / 6.4apg / 1.6spg

with better efficiency across the board...so it's either Kobe is an overrated finals performer or Steph is an underrated finals performer...which is it?

even overall in the playoffs Steph has a better BPM, TS%, WS/48, PER, On/Off, etc.

again, other than longevity, Kobe doesn't really have an argument...Steph has him equaled in the box scores, dwarfed in advanced metrics both in the RS and PS, and is an infinitely more portable and versatile player to play with and build around.

[Spintown]

The better question would be Curry Vs Wade. About a year ago I made a poll about who’s greater and wade was winning that poll by a large margin. I don’t see how a failed year will change those results.

[Lalouie]

i think they're equal

kobe has had a longer career and he's impacted younger players with his mental approach to the game.

curry is impacting the game with his 3s to where he's forcing other teams/players to adapt or die

[mademan]

Kobe's longevity will be far too difficult to overcome, though i think Steph is the better player. TBH, i dont think their best 5 years (Steph 2015-2019 vs Kobe whatever) is all that close. Steph crushes him, even with some of his playoff falls (which Kobe has some of as well).

Im gonna enjoy cheering for Steph and W's again. It sucked hating on them cause of KD (and to a lesser extent Green) but i love watching Steph play

[levon]

...

Sure. My point is just that being super awesome at bball - even a GOAT candidate - doesn't necessarily mean you're any good at evaluating players as a scout / talent ranker vs. just appreciating their skills.

Again, imo we're talking about different things and on different scales. You're saying there's no correlation between greatness of player and talent evaluator/scout, sure (although I might add that the best players were devoured scouting reports, but I digress).

I'm saying the average opinion of former NBA people about player greatness shouldn't simply be discarded because of poor qualitative insights from the schmucks on TV who are paid to give hot takes. Again, I can take take crappy statistical arguments on this board and present them as arguments that we shouldn't use stats to do anything, but that would be irresponsible, right? You're talking outliers, I'm talking medians.

It becomes particularly important when you want to define a quantitative metric(s) of greatness. What you do when you wanna define a metric of _anything_ is go talk to subject matter experts and try to capture their wisdom in models. That's how we even have these stats and detailed scouting reports anyways. Scouting in particular is a largely qualitative analysis.

You could say Kobe's generation was in an NBA that hadn't fully adopted advanced stats, or that they have nostalgia, or that they're biased towards old greats to rationalize why they lost against them. So you could weight those lower. But far too often I've seen it completely disregarded. If you ran a staff that disregarded things like that, Jerry West wouldn't be on it.

[mademan]

...

Sure. My point is just that being super awesome at bball - even a GOAT candidate - doesn't necessarily mean you're any good at evaluating players as a scout / talent ranker vs. just appreciating their skills.

Again, imo we're talking about different things and on different scales. You're saying there's no correlation between greatness of player and talent evaluator/scout, sure (although I might add that the best players were devoured scouting reports, but I digress).

I'm saying the average opinion of former NBA people about player greatness shouldn't simply be discarded because of poor qualitative insights from the schmucks on TV who are paid to give hot takes. Again, I can take take crappy statistical arguments on this board and present them as arguments that we shouldn't use stats to do anything, but that would be irresponsible, right? You're talking outliers, I'm talking medians.

It becomes particularly important when you want to define a quantitative metric(s) of greatness. What you do when you wanna define a metric of _anything_ is go talk to subject matter experts and try to capture their wisdom in models. That's how we even have these stats and detailed scouting reports anyways. Scouting in particular is a largely qualitative analysis.

You could say Kobe's generation was in an NBA that hadn't fully adopted advanced stats, or that they have nostalgia, or that they're biased towards old greats to rationalize why they lost against them. So you could weight those lower. But far too often I've seen it completely disregarded. If you ran a staff that disregarded things like that, Jerry West wouldn't be on it.

Youre making the mistake of assuming that there's any correlation at all in being an expert at playing and being an expert at evaluating. I'd say there's very little evidence to suggest there is.

[levon]

Youre making the mistake of assuming that there's any correlation at all in being an expert at playing and being an expert at evaluating. I'd say there's very little evidence to suggest there is.

Based on what evidence? Especially considering most of the league's decision-makers have been around the league/basketball and/or have played in some capacity? I'm willing to bet your argument is based on more of the same anecdotal Magic and Jordan evidence, for which there's also the anecdotal Jerry West.

And "evaluating" is a massive blanket term. I'm talking about evaluating greatness, not effectiveness from shooting the corner 3.

[mademan]

Youre making the mistake of assuming that there's any correlation at all in being an expert at playing and being an expert at evaluating. I'd say there's very little evidence to suggest there is.

Based on what evidence? Especially considering most of the league's decision-makers have been around the league/basketball and/or have played in some capacity? I'm willing to bet your argument is based on more of the same anecdotal Magic and Jordan evidence, for which there's also the anecdotal Jerry West.

I havent made an argument. All i've done is say that you have no argument.

You're claim is that players have good knowledge of basketball so we should appeal to their authority.

I said there's little evidence to suggest that they know more about basketball than an avid fan (like you'd find on message boards).

You can try to refute that, but youre entire argument is based on an assumption that there is some kind of correlation between playing basketball and evaluating basketball talent, both at an individual level and a group level. You have yet to show any evidence for it.

[levon]

I'm not really sure why this point is so contentious other than it offending the egos of basketball-reference folks and possibly getting mischaracterized as anti-stats. But maybe it's helpful to think of it as any other organization. The leaders in that org should ideally have experience as individual contributors for the folks they're leading, even if they had that experience when the rules were different back in the day.

And they're always welcome to lean heavily on their analytics department. But to say there's no correlation between being an individual in that role in the past with evaluating other folks in that role in the present is pretty absurd.