Greater: Kobe Bryant vs Stephen Curry

[Brooklyn91]

...

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.

Or maybe Kobe is just the better, more accomplished player and curry only had 4-5 years of a superstar prime. Maybe, just maybe it’s that simple

[Steelo Green]

Kobe.

[clyde21]

...

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.

Or maybe Kobe is just the better, more accomplished player and curry only had 4-5 years of a superstar prime. Maybe, just maybe it’s that simple

that's your opinion and that's fine, but just know that literally nothing suggests that from a facts or stats viewpoint

[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.

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.

See post below yours. Would you agree that "the individual performance in past has nothing to do with evaluating talent today" position is very uncommon when you apply it to other organizations/endeavors? So how exactly is basketball different in this respect, other than the opinions of folks you're listening to on TV are hand-picked to say the dumbest and most contentious things?

[XxIronChainzxX]

...

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.

This is a long and detailed post and I do want to be fair to you. I think there are a couple of points in play: there is a difference between the analysis of "players" (nebulously, as a collective) and a "player" (as in, one person). With one identifiable person we can rely on 1) their past talent evaluations (a proxy for whether they know what they're talking about) and 2) get their reason for it. With the mass, who knows what's going into the mix.

The difference between this kind of qualitative opinion and a quantitative (statistical) one is that the supporting rationale is built into the latter but not the former. If, say, someone says Kanter had a great PER and is a star, we can point out why PER (the supporting rationale) is a bad one. If a player says Kanter is a star, point blank, who knows what's gone into the mix.

That's part of the issue. Players' concensus about who's great - especially when they haven't played against anyone - is an issue. And that's what I'm rallying against. That, and assuming that a player's own greatness provide the reason for why they know what they're talking about.

If you want an example of the issues, look at the players vote for all-star.

[XxIronChainzxX]

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.

See post below yours. Would you agree that "the individual performance in past has nothing to do with evaluating talent today" position is very uncommon when you apply it to other organizations/endeavors? So how exactly is basketball different in this respect, other than the opinions of folks you're listening to on TV are hand-picked to say the dumbest and most contentious things?

I'm not sure I follow. This is a common mistake made in many industries but it's as problematic.

[mademan]

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.

See post below yours. Would you agree that "the individual performance in past has nothing to do with evaluating talent today" position is very uncommon when you apply it to other organizations/endeavors? So how exactly is basketball different in this respect, other than the opinions of folks you're listening to on TV are hand-picked to say the dumbest and most contentious things?

Again, i have seen zero evidence to suggest that playing basketball and evaluating basketball have anything to do with each other. You keep staying in this lane of "well it's self-evident"; it's not. I'm not going to give credit to an opinion that has nothing behind it besides the authority that the guy once played in the league.

[levon]

This is a long and detailed post and I do want to be fair to you. I think there are a couple of points in play: there is a difference between the analysis of "players" (nebulously, as a collective) and a "player" (as in, one person). With one identifiable person we can rely on 1) their past talent evaluations (a proxy for whether they know what they're talking about) and 2) get their reason for it. With the mass, who knows what's going into the mix.

The difference between this kind of qualitative opinion and a quantitative (statistical) one is that the supporting rationale is built into the latter but not the former. If, say, someone says Kanter had a great PER and is a star, we can point out why PER (the supporting rationale) is a bad one. If a player says Kanter is a star, point blank, who knows what's gone into the mix.

This is fair and I addressed it at the end of my post, but I fail to see why this would disqualify player opinion. Qualitative analysis is coded and employed daily in so many empirical studies (like surveys containing Likert scales, for instance). I think by now you understand I have an interest in coding and quantifying the opinions of past players rather than bringing up youtube clips or popularity contest votes.

That's part of the issue. Players' consensus about who's great - especially when they haven't played against anyone - is an issue. And that's what I'm rallying against. That, and assuming that a player's own greatness provide the reason for why they know what they're talking about.

This, again, is not what I'm saying. I'm saying players provide qualitative perspectives, which I think matter more in discussions about greatness vs discussions about effectiveness, because they've literally been on the court and have faced the players they're evaluating or players like them. They have subject matter knowledge you and I, regardless of how avid we are as fans, will never know. And what I'm saying is it doesn't matter whether they're great or a benchwarmer--it shouldn't just be disregarded. The assumption that player opinion doesn't matter in these comparisons is pretty ludicrous considering they're some of the most avid fans of the game themselves.

[cupcakesnake]

I made one passing mention of it, and I'm overrating it?
So properly rating defense for you would be, what exactly? Never mentioning it as an aspect of the sport at all?

Btw, Kobe's career offensive win shares is way higher than Curry's. It's not even close. Same with VORP.
Not sure what impact metrics you are referring to. Curry has him beat in OBPM, but that's it.

Can you please not use stats that you don't understand? This post is embarassing.
Win Shares and VORP are accumulative. You literally add them on top of each other, game after game, season after season. Kobe played 20 seasons! Steph is currently headed into his 11th. You can't use VORP or Win Shares for players who played different amount of games. FYI, Curry's win shares per minute are at a higher rate than Kobe's. Use these stats in any equal stretches of their careers, and Steph wins these numbers quite handily.

In terms of the defense thing... Kobe had a way higher ceiling on defense. But anyone who watched 2000s basketball, know that by the mid 2000s, Kobe was done playing defense. You can see if it you watch the games. Kobe loafs like Harden/Melo, but occasionally ball hawks just enough to keep us impressed. If you don't agree, ask Phil Jackson. He claims Kobe stopped playing defense in 2002.

The entire debate. I would bet that Curry eclipses Kobe. They're in the same tier to me right now. But Curry probably has another 5+ seasons, with maybe 3-4 all-nba level ones. He has arguably the highest offensive peak ever, and while he has a late start on Kobe (Kobe was an 18 year old rookie, Steph was 21), I think Steph will climb just a little higher than Kobe.

Of course I used career stats to compare two players. What did you think I would use? The value of their Topps rookie cards?


You can extrapolate out as many future All-NBA selections for Curry as you want, but you can't predict the future so it's completely worthless and doesn't add an iota of intelligence to the debate.
When Curry does it, I'll give him credit for it.

And saying that per/game or per/48 or per/season stats are a better comparison than career numbers is just a way to skew the debate toward Curry. Of course his per/x stats will be better because he is still in his prime. Kobe's per/x numbers were brought down by the end of his career when he was past his prime.

I'm a Spurs fan, btw, and completely agree with those saying Kobe's defense was overrated -- it was also still significantly better than Curry's. Kobe was better on-ball, more versatile, and a better defensive rebounder.
I'm far from some Kobestan, and have been on the "Kobe Hater" bandwagon for a looong time for simply having him outside my top-10 all time. His efficiency was downright bad at times, and his defense was overrated, for sure. He was a media and fan darling and for that he became overrated at one point, though still great, obviously.
But he still had a much longer, more accomplished career (so far), and I give him credit where it's due.
So, please, don't be so insulting when you post. You're embarrassing yourself by coming off as pompous and petty and unable to have a rational debate without resorting to the kind of childish behavior I wouldn't tolerate from my toddler. It's just a basketball forum. Feel free to disagree with me, but trying to denigrate my opinion with insults to pump yourself up is a bit pathetic, tbh.

you can't use career total stats to compare players unless they're both retired, and even then it can just amount to a longevity argument (do you think Karl Malone is better than Michael Jordan for example?). You also used these stats to vaguely prove that Kobe might be more offensively impactful than Curry. Kobe still meaningfully added to his win share total and VORP until his 18th season. (Kobe is rare in that he actually did post negative VORP and WS in his final seasons. There isn't really any other star ever who was allowed to carry such a large role while being so bad). It is possible but unlikely for Curry to ever post negatives in those categories. But who knows? Curry will certainly post some crappier numbers before his career is over, but I never said anything about asking you to use per game or per 36. I think comparing their peaks, season over season is the most helpful. Doing this, Curry highest VORP seasons (9.8, 7.9, 6.7, 6.2, 5.6, 4.9) top Kobe's (7.1, 6.5, 6.0, 5.3, 5.1, 5.0). Curry highest WS (17.9, 15.7, 13.4, 12.6, 11.2, 9.7) eclipse Kobe's (15.3, 14.9, 13.8, 13.0, 12.7, 12.7). While Curry hits a significantly higher peak than Kobe, Kobe carves out a prime that lasts around 10 years, which Curry may or may not do.

I agree that Kobe is a better defender than Curry. I think Curry gives a more consistent effort, but hey Kobe was a 6'6 beast athlete, and Curry is...not. While resting on defense Kobe still came across as a neutral defender (until his later years), Curry gets hunted in the playoffs in a way you wouldn't try with Kobe.

I was ready to apologize for the antagonizing beginning of my post, where I called your post "embarrassing". But since you followed up by calling me embarrassing, pompous, petty, childish, lesser than a toddler, denigrating, pathetic... I think you've more than exacted your pound of flesh and we good (if your toddler ever calls me these things, i will find it impressive and hilarious).

I still think you're using VORP and WS inappropriately, either on purpose or by mistake. Either way, I'm arguing they are completely unhelpful metrics to use in this comparison the way you used them. I don't think we disagree on the main points though.

[levon]

Again, i have seen zero evidence to suggest that playing basketball and evaluating basketball have anything to do with each other. You keep staying in this lane of "well it's self-evident"; it's not. I'm not going to give credit to an opinion that has nothing behind it besides the authority that the guy once played in the league.

You didn't address my actual argument in this quote, and at this point I'm fairly certain you're strawmanning it.

[dhsilv2]

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.

1. I can manage a team of developers to create a product without knowing how to write or do the development work. Do you think a CEO knows sales, accounting, and the creation of the product equally? Point is you don't need to always know those details as an individual contributor and as one moves up, it becomes increasingly less important.

2. Lets look at some anecdotal things, but lets leave the MJ's of the world out. Richard Jefferson on a podcast made a comment about how he had no idea Manu was a legit 6'6 until he played FOR the spurs. This despite not only playing each other head to head but doing so in the 2003 nba finals! Now maybe Jefferson is an idiot but I somewhat doubt it. Players just don't focus on this stuff for the most part as much as people so often think they would. Do you think a scout even a year in would not know how tall Manu is?

[mademan]

Again, i have seen zero evidence to suggest that playing basketball and evaluating basketball have anything to do with each other. You keep staying in this lane of "well it's self-evident"; it's not. I'm not going to give credit to an opinion that has nothing behind it besides the authority that the guy once played in the league.

You didn't address my actual argument in this quote, and at this point I'm fairly certain you're strawmanning it.

Youre not making an argument, youre trying to get me to refute a negative. You've given no evidence that player opinion means anything and youre asking me to prove that it doesnt. Thats not on me. Youre the one appealing to their authority or saying that their authority has credence.

[Ball so hard]

Again, i have seen zero evidence to suggest that playing basketball and evaluating basketball have anything to do with each other. You keep staying in this lane of "well it's self-evident"; it's not. I'm not going to give credit to an opinion that has nothing behind it besides the authority that the guy once played in the league.

You didn't address my actual argument in this quote, and at this point I'm fairly certain you're strawmanning it.

Youre not making an argument, youre trying to get me to refute a negative. You've given no evidence that player opinion means anything and youre asking me to prove that it doesnt. Thats not on me. Youre the one appealing to their authority or saying that their authority has credence.

Why would he even need to provide evidence that players' onions matter? Of course their opinions matter... this is also not the same as saying players know best and their opinions should be taken as a fact. No one ever made such a claim.

[levon]

Again, i have seen zero evidence to suggest that playing basketball and evaluating basketball have anything to do with each other. You keep staying in this lane of "well it's self-evident"; it's not. I'm not going to give credit to an opinion that has nothing behind it besides the authority that the guy once played in the league.

You didn't address my actual argument in this quote, and at this point I'm fairly certain you're strawmanning it.

Youre not making an argument, youre trying to get me to refute a negative. You've given no evidence that player opinion means anything and youre asking me to prove that it doesnt. Thats not on me. Youre the one appealing to their authority or saying that their authority has credence.

What about the evidence of every other organization valuing individual contributors as talent evaluators? Do you require the corporate research behind that?

Other orgs don't disregard individual contributors, especially not great ones. You can choose to reject that, at which point there's nothing more to talk about. If you accept that, I'd like to know how basketball is any different, or why basketball orgs should operate any differently.

[CIN-C-STAR]

Can you please not use stats that you don't understand? This post is embarassing.
Win Shares and VORP are accumulative. You literally add them on top of each other, game after game, season after season. Kobe played 20 seasons! Steph is currently headed into his 11th. You can't use VORP or Win Shares for players who played different amount of games. FYI, Curry's win shares per minute are at a higher rate than Kobe's. Use these stats in any equal stretches of their careers, and Steph wins these numbers quite handily.

In terms of the defense thing... Kobe had a way higher ceiling on defense. But anyone who watched 2000s basketball, know that by the mid 2000s, Kobe was done playing defense. You can see if it you watch the games. Kobe loafs like Harden/Melo, but occasionally ball hawks just enough to keep us impressed. If you don't agree, ask Phil Jackson. He claims Kobe stopped playing defense in 2002.

The entire debate. I would bet that Curry eclipses Kobe. They're in the same tier to me right now. But Curry probably has another 5+ seasons, with maybe 3-4 all-nba level ones. He has arguably the highest offensive peak ever, and while he has a late start on Kobe (Kobe was an 18 year old rookie, Steph was 21), I think Steph will climb just a little higher than Kobe.

Of course I used career stats to compare two players. What did you think I would use? The value of their Topps rookie cards?


You can extrapolate out as many future All-NBA selections for Curry as you want, but you can't predict the future so it's completely worthless and doesn't add an iota of intelligence to the debate.
When Curry does it, I'll give him credit for it.

And saying that per/game or per/48 or per/season stats are a better comparison than career numbers is just a way to skew the debate toward Curry. Of course his per/x stats will be better because he is still in his prime. Kobe's per/x numbers were brought down by the end of his career when he was past his prime.

I'm a Spurs fan, btw, and completely agree with those saying Kobe's defense was overrated -- it was also still significantly better than Curry's. Kobe was better on-ball, more versatile, and a better defensive rebounder.
I'm far from some Kobestan, and have been on the "Kobe Hater" bandwagon for a looong time for simply having him outside my top-10 all time. His efficiency was downright bad at times, and his defense was overrated, for sure. He was a media and fan darling and for that he became overrated at one point, though still great, obviously.
But he still had a much longer, more accomplished career (so far), and I give him credit where it's due.
So, please, don't be so insulting when you post. You're embarrassing yourself by coming off as pompous and petty and unable to have a rational debate without resorting to the kind of childish behavior I wouldn't tolerate from my toddler. It's just a basketball forum. Feel free to disagree with me, but trying to denigrate my opinion with insults to pump yourself up is a bit pathetic, tbh.

you can't use career total stats to compare players unless they're both retired, and even then it can just amount to a longevity argument (do you think Karl Malone is better than Michael Jordan for example?). You also used these stats to vaguely prove that Kobe might be more offensively impactful than Curry. Kobe still meaningfully added to his win share total and VORP until his 18th season. (Kobe is rare in that he actually did post negative VORP and WS in his final seasons. There isn't really any other star ever who was allowed to carry such a large role while being so bad). It is possible but unlikely for Curry to ever post negatives in those categories. But who knows? Curry will certainly post some crappier numbers before his career is over, but I never said anything about asking you to use per game or per 36. I think comparing their peaks, season over season is the most helpful. Doing this, Curry highest VORP seasons (9.8, 7.9, 6.7, 6.2, 5.6, 4.9) top Kobe's (7.1, 6.5, 6.0, 5.3, 5.1, 5.0). Curry highest WS (17.9, 15.7, 13.4, 12.6, 11.2, 9.7) eclipse Kobe's (15.3, 14.9, 13.8, 13.0, 12.7, 12.7). While Curry hits a significantly higher peak than Kobe, Kobe carves out a prime that lasts around 10 years, which Curry may or may not do.

I agree that Kobe is a better defender than Curry. I think Curry gives a more consistent effort, but hey Kobe was a 6'6 beast athlete, and Curry is...not. While resting on defense Kobe still came across as a neutral defender (until his later years), Curry gets hunted in the playoffs in a way you wouldn't try with Kobe.

I was ready to apologize for the antagonizing beginning of my post, where I called your post "embarrassing". But since you followed up by calling me embarrassing, pompous, petty, childish, lesser than a toddler, denigrating, pathetic... I think you've more than exacted your pound of flesh and we good (if your toddler ever calls me these things, i will find it impressive and hilarious).

I still think you're using VORP and WS inappropriately, either on purpose or by mistake. Either way, I'm arguing they are completely unhelpful metrics to use in this comparison the way you used them. I don't think we disagree on the main points though.

Yeah, we good, lol
Just for the record, though, I don't think nor did I argue that Kobe was more offensively impactful than Curry.
Certainly not if we're talking about impact in a single game or season. I completely agree without hesitation that Curry's offensive peak was higher than Kobe's. His 2016 season is ridiculous.
I just think people have two different ways of looking at the question, and neither has to be right or wrong. When someone asks me who was a better player, to me they are mainly asking who had a better career. Others might think of it as who was better at their peak.
I think any thorough analysis has to take both into account, but it's fair for some people to lean one way more than the other. Either take could result in a ridiculous hypothetical scenario, where a guy who played only one great season is ranked higher than another guy who had a good 20-year career, on the one hand, or where a role player who played 20+ seasons is ranked higher than a guy who was an MVP but had a short career, on the other. Either take would be fairly ridiculous, imo, so you can't go all one way or another.
I agree that the comparison here is close, but I do think Kobe is just more accomplished over a much longer career, though Curry obviously has a strong chance to catch and surpass him.
I like these kinds of debates but they are subjective by nature. No need for insults. Apologies for being too harsh, my dude

[G35]

The reason why Kobe is greater than Steph has nothing to do with TS%/efficiency or any of these other metrics.

Its because of his play in the playoffs and Steph has not stepped up in moments like Kobe has.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1160616-power-ranking-kobe-byants-11-greatest-playoff-moments#slide1

Kobe’s line read 15 points, six assists and four rebounds, which is nothing spectacular. The Bean was the third-leading scorer in the game behind Shaquille O'Neal and Glen Rice, of all people.

This game rebukes the notion that Bryant is selfish as he also only took 11 shots, choosing rather to be a distributor and defender.

However, true greatness can neither be denied nor suppressed, and with the game in the balance the Laker took a "shot" at being great. The player Bryant hit the game-winner over was none other than All-Defensive second-team member Jason Kidd.

In 2001 the Lakers were sweeping their opponents out of the playoffs. The Kings were next to be swept out of the postseason. Bryant opened the game scoring 13 points in the first quarter and closed it out by scoring 15 points in the fourth quarter; in total he went for a game-high 48 points.

The Laker great was also the game’s leading rebounder with 16. Yes, the 6'8" guard outrebounded Shaq, Vlade Divac and Chris Webber—so much for one-dimensional.

When people discuss who the greatest player from 2000-2010 was, there are only two stars who should be mentioned: Kobe Bryant and Tim Duncan.

The two were on the floor together in this 2002 classic.

Duncan finished with 30 points and 11 rebounds, but it was Bryant who stole the show. Kobe secured an offensive rebound and put-back against both Duncan and David Robinson. The Lakers took an 87-85 lead and eventually won the game and the series.

It's plays like that against some of the game’s premier players that should thrust Bryant above the competition.

The Lakers were down 2-1 in this series and needed Game 4 if they were to come back and win the series.

The Lakers opened the fourth quarter up by just five points after trailing for the better part of the game.

Bryant then scored 15 of the LA’s 24 fourth-quarter points and finished the game with 42 points. Bryant carried a Lakers club that only put one other player in double figures (Shaq) in a game they had to have.

Los Angeles won this game and eventually the series, 4-2.

Bryant was cocked and loaded in this contest. The guard was primed for another bout with his nemesis Tim Duncan and the San Antonio Spurs.

The Lakers had been down by as many as 20 points and trailed for the bulk of the fourth quarter. Once taking the lead it was Duncan who tied the game at 85 with 41 seconds left, thus setting the stage for another Bryant memorable moment.

The guard put LA up for good with 23 seconds left and finished Game 1 with 27 points and nine assists.

Los Angeles went on to beat the Spurs 4-1.

The Lakers looked lost and, quite honestly, shook to death at the prospect of being Western Conference champions, yet alone NBA champions. Down by as many as 15 points in the fourth quarter, the Purple and Gold appeared headed for a summer of discontent. Then a huge block on Bonzi Wells by Bryant and corner pocket three-pointer by Brian Shaw suddenly knocked the deficit down to 10.

A Robert Horry three got the lead down to five and after a Bryant elbow, jumper Brian “Dead-Eye” Shaw tied the game up. Shaq put the Lakers ahead and Kobe took the game over from there. A jumpshot and alley-oop later, LA was headed to its first NBA Finals appearance in nine years.

Bryant led both teams in assists with seven, in blocks with four and in rebounds with 11. The Laker was the complete package in and it was is block that sparked the biggest comeback in Game 7 history.

It was no accident Kobe Bryant led his team past the Boston Celtics on this day. Bryant's shot was not falling but the champion reverted back to prior game seven performances and directed his attention
elsewhere.

The guard would outrebound both Kevin Garnett and Rasheed Wallace to the tune of 15 rebounds. Yet with the game still in jeopardy it was Bryant’s three straight defensive rebounds that would help push the Lakers over the Celtics.

Known throughout his career as a selfish scorer it was this game seven with the spotlight squarely on him the Laker great found another way become a champion. The guard showed his versatility and most of all
his heart with this performance.

From the 2010 Finals everyone wants to talk about Kobe's poor shooting.

Who really gives a damn about poor shooting. Everyone in that game shot poorly.

Kobe got 3 consecutive defensive rebounds in a tight game...that is what people miss when judging Kobe is that its not just about shooting, or making assists, or anything. Kobe just does whatever it takes to win.

Whereas with other players, you judge them on only their efficiency or so random impact stat.

Who remembers any of that crap years later....no one.

We only care about did you win the game.

Steph is great, I don't have really anything negative to say about him, but he has not done the "other things" that greats do to win in the playoffs. Its strictly about his shooting......

Curry has won 70% of his playoff games vs Kobe's 61.4%. Curry has averaged more playoff points on way better efficiency. I'm just not seeing why Kobe is the superior playoff performer other than narrative.

Which means nothing because Curry has played 110 playoff games to Kobes 220. Kobe has played twice as many games and it is highly unlikely Curry even catches Kobe in playoff games played or maintains his winning %.

Which is also something that is going to decrease as Curry gets over is....everything. Your numbers only decline as you age.

The narrative is the whole point. Kobe saved the Lakers multiple times in winning titles. Not just playoff games, but titles. You can't point to any series and say Curry was the turning point to why the Warriors won a title.

Which is why you don't want to argue the narrative......

[No-more-rings]

Kobe will definitely be seen as having the better career among most, Curry got started too late as a superstar, had too many playoff injuries and is probably done winning rings as a superstar. He'll be 32 come next playoffs, and with no KD, and Klay out for an unknown amount of time he can't afford to rest in the regular season.

I think if we're talking a one or even 3 year peak sure Curry has a good case but beyond that i think Kobe runs away with it.

[ccameron]

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.

You are listing stats again and I'm just going to point out 1) you are comparing stats across eras, not taking into account scoring inflation or other systemic differences which are NOT just attributable to one player's skill, and 2) Kobe's finals range from age 21-31 (which stretches before his prime to the downward part of his prime), and Curry's finals are all from age 26-30, the heart of his prime.

But my post was specifically about something beyond stats which was getting to the heart of Kerr's statements. I think Harden can run a more efficient offense in the regular season than Kobe. Harden's offensive stats blow Kobe out of the water. I can even make a case that Harden's playoff stats are comparable to Kobe's. I might still take Kobe, on offense, over Harden in the playoffs (and so seemingly would Kerr, if I had to guess what he was referring to when he mentioned fouls). Why? Because Kobe is less predictable, and is less dependent on running any kind of offensive system. I think there is something similar going on with Curry.

Here is Curry's shot chart from 2016 regular season:

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/curryst01/shooting/2016

Here is Kobe's shot chart from 2009:

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bryanko01/shooting/2009

These are pretty representative of all their prime seasons. Steph has a much better shot selection. 3s and lay-ups, the most efficient shots in the game, and it's very similar to Harden's shot chart. In comparison, Kobe's shot chart is all over the place. Plenty of long 2s in there. Of course the stats are going to show that Curry is more efficient and is leading more efficient offenses. But which player is going to be easier to take out of their game? Kobe may not be the best at any individual kind of shot, but he has a million tools at his disposal, and there really is no predicting what he is going to do. You can hope he gets cold and shoots himself out of the game with bad shots, and that is indeed what teams would try to do, but basically you can only hope. Maybe not as high a ceiling for the offense, but a more resilient offense. And that's exactly what I want in those games where you just don't have a plan left, a resilient offense. And I don't care how good you are, how efficient an offense you run, those games are going to come deep in the playoffs. That is what Kerr is talking about, and this is one of Kobe's greatest strengths. I don't see it as Curry's strength at all.

Don't take what I am saying as "Steph only is good when he plays his system and is useless when you take him out of his game," or "Kobe is unstoppable and there is nothing you can do to slow him down." Obviously this is not black and white. Aside from the clear advantage Kobe has on defense and longevity, this is also a real thing, but you seem to just think this is some closed case or something.

[No-more-rings]

Curry definitely peaked higher. They are neck and neck as far as careers go, with maybe a slight edge to Kobe (for now). Even that is debatable.

How?

Curry's all star/superstar seasons are: 2013-2019 with missing a ton of games in 2018, and several playoff games from 2016-2018.

Kobe has basically 2000-2013, with an average of 74 games played per season.

If you don't care at all about durability/missed games then sure Curry has a case.

And I'll tell you this, for most of Kobe's prime there's no way Kobe could miss a whole playoff series and his team still advance. Curry's had the luxury of missing playoff games and his team still wins anyway.

[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.

1. I can manage a team of developers to create a product without knowing how to write or do the development work. Do you think a CEO knows sales, accounting, and the creation of the product equally? Point is you don't need to always know those details as an individual contributor and as one moves up, it becomes increasingly less important.

2. Lets look at some anecdotal things, but lets leave the MJ's of the world out. Richard Jefferson on a podcast made a comment about how he had no idea Manu was a legit 6'6 until he played FOR the spurs. This despite not only playing each other head to head but doing so in the 2003 nba finals! Now maybe Jefferson is an idiot but I somewhat doubt it. Players just don't focus on this stuff for the most part as much as people so often think they would. Do you think a scout even a year in would not know how tall Manu is?

1. I'm gonna ignore the CEO analogy because I don't think it's a very apt one in this case; we're simply talking about basketball players evaluating basketball player greatness, not evaluating team sales, etc.
Sure you can manage a team of devs as a product manager, but speaking as someone who's very familiar with this, devs themselves prefer other devs as their leads. The devs of course cooperate with other managers and stakeholders. Saying you can do it this way doesn't mean it's the most optimal way to do it. It ultimately boils down to leaders with subject matter experience in other categories understanding how something is performing (ie are we meeting deadlines, a real, concrete measure) but have far less understanding as to why.

The relatability is fundamental. We see this with NBA players voicing support for coaches that were former players. Opinions hold more water coming from an expert than a non-expert (not exactly controversial). Those coaches are making player eval decisions every day.

I mean, I guess you could clear house and have everyone basically just be an analyst and auto-generate lineups/decisions, and have the best Silicon Valley managers as coaches. Acknowledging that that's not how it's done today (really in any organization) can hold as evidence for its in-optimality without being a rash appeal to authority.

2. The ability to looking up Manu Ginobili's exact height isn't exactly a criterion I would use to evaluate a stats-based arguer vs a qualitative one for player greatness.