RealGM Top 100 List #11

[Baller2014]

If volume scoring and the D/O dichotomy is so important, surely Karl Malone beats out Kobe. Karl Malone scores as well as Kobe (giving up some volume in exchange for better efficiency), kills Kobe on the defensive end in terms of impact, and has much more longevity.

[RayBan-Sematra]

So Kobe's 29ppg on 57TS% & 5.5 assists in 2010 playoffs is inefficient offense? Wow.

He was inefficient VS OKC & Boston in that playoff run.
Did you even read my post?

In outlier years like 2001/2009 when he was pretty efficient from start to finish the teams he played on won very confidently without those close scrapes.

The point is that when Kobe is not efficient it does hurt his teams.

[Baller2014]

The discussion over the next ten should be very interesting, imo. Am looking forward to reading it. My three primary considerations for #11 are Kobe, Garnett, and the Mailman; early leaning is toward Kobe, but I'm still open to influence. Will try to write a bit on each later, as well as some other rambling thoughts bouncing around in my head. If I can find the time to organize.....

Don't forget to factor in all his negatives as a player though.

[tsherkin]

Where is the pro-Kobe argument, I'm curious?

Based on team success and/or higher-volume scoring after pace-adjustment? I'm interested to see that.

FWIW, West's in-era numbers:

RS: 27 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 6.7 apg, 55.0% TS (very impressive relative to league average)

Ps: 29.1 ppg, 5.6 rpg, 6.3 apg, 54.1% TS

So -0.9% TS%, +2.1 ppg

Kobe:

RS: 25.5 ppg, 5.3 rpg, 4.8 apg, 55.5% TS
PS: 25.6 ppg, 5.1 rpg, 4.7 apg, 54.1% TS

So +0.1 ppg, -1.4% TS

Let's look at 01-10 as a way to remove his decline and earliest years:

RS: 28.5 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 5.2 apg, 55.9% TS
PS: 28.8 ppg, 5.7 rpg, 5.4 apg, 54.8% TS

+0.3 ppg, -1.1% TS

Really not sufficiently remarkable to discredit West here, and his 3 titles with Shaq represent a talent level relative to the league and Finals competition which outstrips what West had going up against the Celtics. By no means is that a definitive pro-West argument, but Kobe proponents should probably calm down some. It is a close comparison.

[tsherkin]

The point is that when Kobe is not efficient it does hurt his teams.

And?

This is true of ANY volume scorer.

[RayBan-Sematra]

And?

This is true of ANY volume scorer.

I know.
ballefan took my post out of context.

You'd have to go back a page or two to see the discussion I was involved in to understand why I made that point.
Anyway... let us return to more relevant topics.

[Basketballefan]

Kobe in his prime was every bit as good as West, and did it for longer. With that i fail to even see an argument for West.

That sounds like more of an opinion then a fact.

West was the more efficient scorer.
He was certainly the better Finals performer.
He was probably the better defender when comparing their extended Primes.
He had less issues when it came to team play & getting along with others be it players or management.

They also have comparable longevity.
West has 11 quality years.
Kobe had 11 quality years (or 13 if you give him 11-12).

I see many reasonable arguments for The Logo.
Not saying you can't argue for Kobe to be above him but to dismiss West is silly.

Extra note :
When looking at playoff PER West has 4 out of the 5 best marks between them despite I believe his PER being lower then it should be due to missing stats.

Pace inflation can't just totally be dismissed for you arbitrary reasoning, your claim that West would be able to average 40 ppg in playoff series against the top defenses today is rather bold.(from a different post) And again with the "quality seasons" measure of yours i don't know how Kobe from 2011-2013 aren't quality years, i'm pretty sure 25-27 ppg 5 rbs 5 assist on good efficiency qualifies as a quality season. Also keep in mind that although West's playoff numbers look better his playoff runs are based on smaller samples as he never had to go through 3 rounds to get to the finals. So longevity goes to Kobe, Peak goes to Kobe imo, accomplishments goes to Kobe.

There probably is more of an argument for West than i initially realized but i don't think it's a very strong one when you consider the inflation of his numbers due to pace. His scoring from a raw standpoint isn't any more impressive than Kobe's and as for the assists i think Kobe could've averaged around 7-8 assists back then.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Where is the pro-Kobe argument, I'm curious?

Based on team success and/or higher-volume scoring after pace-adjustment? I'm interested to see that.

FWIW, West's in-era numbers:

RS: 27 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 6.7 apg, 55.0% TS (very impressive relative to league average)

Ps: 29.1 ppg, 5.6 rpg, 6.3 apg, 54.1% TS

So -0.9% TS%, +2.1 ppg

Kobe:

RS: 25.5 ppg, 5.3 rpg, 4.8 apg, 55.5% TS
PS: 25.6 ppg, 5.1 rpg, 4.7 apg, 54.1% TS

So +0.1 ppg, -1.4% TS

Let's look at 01-10 as a way to remove his decline and earliest years:

RS: 28.5 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 5.2 apg, 55.9% TS
PS: 28.8 ppg, 5.7 rpg, 5.4 apg, 54.8% TS

+0.3 ppg, -1.1% TS

Really not sufficiently remarkable to discredit West here, and his 3 titles with Shaq represent a talent level relative to the league and Finals competition which outstrips what West had going up against the Celtics. By no means is that a definitive pro-West argument, but Kobe proponents should probably calm down some. It is a close comparison.

I literally posted West's pace-adjusted numbers on page 3.....

61-69 West: 25.7 ppg, 4.5 apg, 4.1 rpg 54.8% TS
01-10 Kobe: 28.5 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 5.2 apg, 55.9% TS

[Basketballefan]

So Kobe's 29ppg on 57TS% & 5.5 assists in 2010 playoffs is inefficient offense? Wow.

He was inefficient VS OKC & Boston in that playoff run.
Did you even read my post?

In outlier years like 2001/2009 when he was pretty efficient from start to finish the teams he played on won very confidently without those close scrapes.

The point is that when Kobe is not efficient it does hurt his teams.

Yes i did. But even if he wasn't very efficient in those series he was still critical to their offense and wouldn't have had a chance to win without him. I don't think it's fair to say Kobe hurt his teams in those series.

[tsherkin]

And?

This is true of ANY volume scorer.

I know.
ballefan took my post out of context.

You'd have to go back a page or two to see the discussion I was involved in to understand why I made that point.
Anyway... let us return to more relevant topics.

Not really. You had a semi-valid point but overstated it a bit.

I think his offensive inefficiency does hurt his team which is why in years like 00, 02 and 10 his teams struggled to win it all and had some extremely close scrapes.

00: Maybe; 51.7% TS, 107 ORTG, but huge in G7 vs POR
02: similar performance, higher usage, murdered New Jersey's face in the Finals but was rough in the West
10: 56.7% TS, 115 ORTG, facing an amazing BOS D in the Finals

[tsherkin]

I literally posted West's pace-adjusted numbers on page 3.....

61-69 West: 25.7 ppg, 4.5 apg, 4.1 rpg 54.8% TS
01-10 Kobe: 28.5 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 5.2 apg, 55.9% TS

Yes, but hey are a tad questionable and still don't leave a meanigful gap between the two even still.

[SactoKingsFan]

KG vs Malone is an interesting debate.

Spoiler:

Regular Season per 100:
87-01 Mailman: 36.0 ppg, 17.0 AST%, 16.4 TRB%, 59% TS
99-13 Garnett: 29.1 ppg, 20.7 AST%, 17.8 TRB%, 55% TS

Playoffs per 100:
87-01 Mailman: 34.8 ppg, 15.5 AST%, 16.2 TRB%, 53% TS
99-13 Garnett: 27.5 ppg, 18.1 AST%, 17.5 TRB%, 53% TS

Top 5 MVP Seasons
Mailman - 9
KG - 5

All-NBA 1st teams
Mailman - 11
KG - 4

MVP Shares
Mailman - 4.296
KG - 2.753

MVP Shares per near-prime Seasons
87-01 Mailman - 0.286
99-13 KG - 0.183

I don't really think it's much of a debate. Malone is a better scorer, but KG is the superior defender, rebounder and passer/playmaker. KG also had the more impressive peak.

[RayBan-Sematra]

Yes i did. But even if he wasn't very efficient in those series he was still critical to their offense and wouldn't have had a chance to win without him. I don't think it's fair to say Kobe hurt his teams in those series.

Of course he didn't hurt his teams in those series.
I don't think Kobe ever hurt his team in a series (well maybe 2012 VS OKC).

Now can we please drop it. This discussion is so silly.

[An Unbiased Fan]

I literally posted West's pace-adjusted numbers on page 3.....

61-69 West: 25.7 ppg, 4.5 apg, 4.1 rpg 54.8% TS
01-10 Kobe: 28.5 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 5.2 apg, 55.9% TS

Yes, but hey are a tad questionable and still don't leave a meanigful gap between the two even still.

I guess I don't quite understand. Kobe has better across the board numbers, and longevity. Again, I'm a West fan, but....what are we arguing here?

[RayBan-Sematra]

I guess I don't quite understand. Kobe has better across the board numbers, and longevity. Again, I'm a West fan, but....what are we arguing here?

You are acting like pace adjustment is a perfect science.
West needed 22-23 shots to score his point in many of his 27-30ppg years.

That is right where Peak Kobe was during his title runs.

Why couldn't West take his 22-23 shots in this era?
I see no reason he would be forced to take less shots.

I also don't see his APG dropping and I do consider him the more impressive playmaker of the two. Not that Kobe was bad but West could play PG and did play PG. Even going by a pace adjusted stat like AST% what West did in the latter half of his career passing wise is much greater then any stretch by Bryant.

[trex_8063]

Some thoughts on West VS Kobe.
The longevity gaps is much smaller then most assume.

West had 11 quality years 61-73 (minus 67 due to injury)
Kobe had 11 quality years 00-10

Statistically they are close over their Prime years.
West : 29 / 6apg on 47%FG / 56%TS
Kobe : 28 / 5apg on 45%FG / 54%TS

West would probably have a higher TS% if he played in later years due to the 3pt shot.

Yes Kobe also has 11-12 but I felt he was a very low impact player those two years and I discount his 13 season due to injury. I also discounted Wests 67 year due to injury so its fair.

Re: Kobe '11 thru '13.....
He was All-NBA 1st Team all three years. Sure, you can definitely make a case he didn't deserve 1st Team any of those years, but he was easily deserving of SOME All-NBA recognition (probably not worse than 2nd in most instances).

'11
25.3 ppg/5.1 rpg/4.7 apg on .548 TS% (marginally above league avg) with 3.0 topg
PER 23.9, .178 WS/48 on 33.9 mpg (somewhat reduced minutes, though his per 100 possession numbers were the strongest they'd been since his '06 season); admittedly his individual ORtg and DRtg relative to team average were nothing special
PI RAPM was pretty good: +2.6 (27th in league)
Under-performed a bit in the playoffs.

'12
27.9 ppg/5.4 rpg/4.6 apg on .527 TS%, though 3.5 topg
PER 21.9, .132 WS/48 on big 38.5 mpg. ORtg and DRtg a little bit meh relative to team avg.
PI RAPM was still decent (46th in league; vast majority ahead of him were playing fewer minutes/possessions).
Performed fairly well in the playoffs (basically going for 30/5/4).

'13
Not sure why his injury is particular relevant to this year. He missed 4 rs games, and then missed the playoffs (but let's face it: the Lakers were gonna be eliminated in the 1st round with or without Kobe). Otherwise.....
27.3 ppg/ 5.6 rpg/6.0 apg on .570 TS%, 3.7 topg
PER 23.0, .174 WS/48 on big-time 38.6 mpg. ORtg 112.
PI RAPM was in the + column.

idk, not calling these "quality years" seems like a bit of a stretch to me. Maybe I'm just more liberal in what I'd classify as "quality", because I'd call West in '67 a relevant year, too.

[90sAllDecade]

Wanted to repost this here for discussion sake:

I have to agree that playoff performance over a career indicates how well a player's game translates against multiple matchups, over several years against better teams, usually better defenses, who game-plan against stopping that star player for a 5-7 game series. It's harder and a career sample is a large one imo, not taking only a couple games or series.

The pace slows down, transition or easy baskets decrease, what a player normally could get away with gets taken away or pressured into a different method of attack. This matters imo and I use it often as a tiebreaker between close players.

Similarly, you are doing what you are advocating against -- you are looking at a small sample sample and attributing something special about the playoffs to make conclusions instead of looking at larger pieces of data. Do you think it's more likely that the PS is radically different and pace significantly changes, or do you think players just play better defenses? And do you think you can get a better and more diverse sample from 1 to 4 PS series or from the entire season?

I disagree, that was never my assertion. I wasn't comparing PO sample size to regular season, I was said career playoff sample size is large enough to infer an idea of how a player's game translates in the post season. The regular season sample is larger, but the sample type changes in the post season.

Yes, the playoffs are different and are more difficult for the majority of players.

You said yourself 70% of players stats decrease in the post season. That stat alone shows it separates the wheat from the chaff. It is harder to succeed. Why?

If you don't see that then we have to agree to disagree. Defenses not only improve, there are many times players have spoken about playing teams a few times a season. But when they play a series they become more familiar with each other and advantages/disadvantages magnify.

Frankly its seems very easy to identify that the intensity (the games mean more, players play harder), atmosphere (fan & media scrutiny increases) and difficulty (better teams, defenses and 5-7 series game-planning) in the playoffs increase. Stress levels from many avenues increase.

Some teams or players are regular season stars but falter under playoff pressure, others consistently thrive. Why? Why do some coaches suggest young teams often struggle without playoff experience? Is it because the experience is different?

This can't often can't be quantified, like many things in the mathematics or scientific world. Many great scientists are the first to admit they don't know everything and their methods have flaws or are imperfect at times. I'm a regular person and I can admit I don't know everything, but I do understand certain things I've studied, that the playoffs are harder to be successful in for players than the regular season.

I respect your input Elgee, so I hope your don't take my argument personally. But I think we get so caught up in quantitative data, that qualitative gets dismissed. But since many posters here value quantifying the game, I'll make a statistical comparison.

NBA 80-88 Pace Comparison Regular Season vs Playoffs:
League RS Averages for Pace:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... stats.html
79-80 RS: 103.1
PO: 98.4
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... _1980.html
81 RS: 101.8
PO: 95.2
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... _1981.html
82 RS: 100.9
PO: 98.4
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... _1982.html
83 RS: 103.1
PO: 100.2
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... _1983.html
84 RS: 101.4
PO: 97.9
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... _1984.html
85 RS: 102.1
PO: 103.5
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... _1985.html
86 RS: 102.1
PO: 99.0
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... _1986.html
87 RS: 100.8
PO: 97.5
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... _1987.html
88 RS: 99.6
PO: 94.0
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... _1988.html

Except for one year, every year in 80-88, using Bird as an example, the pace slowed down in the playoffs. The game changes in the post season imo. How about a really slow paced year like 05-06?

06 RS Pace: 90.5
PO: 89.2
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... _2006.html

[An Unbiased Fan]

I guess I don't quite understand. Kobe has better across the board numbers, and longevity. Again, I'm a West fan, but....what are we arguing here?

You are acting like pace adjustment is a perfect science.
West needed 22-23 shots to score his point in many of his 27-30ppg years.

That is right where Peak Kobe was during his title runs.

Why couldn't West take his 22-23 shots in this era?
I see no reason he would be forced to take less shots.

I also don't see his APG dropping and I do consider him the more impressive playmaker of the two. Not that Kobe was bad but West could play PG and did play PG. Even going by a pace adjusted stat like AST% what West did in the latter half of his career passing wise is much greater then any stretch by Bryant.

Pace is about possessions, not shot attempts. No one is saying West could take 22-23 shots in this era, but instead that what West DID do in his career wasn't at that pace.

[drza]

My computer is acting up so I cannot do this myself, but if anyone has a spreadsheet set up, I wanted to post numbers for (a) career and (b) peak year normed to year 2000 stats (adjusted for points, rebounds, assists, ts%, etc. so that the numbers each player posted would be the equivalent distance from the average for the year 2000) for some of the top candidates for the next 10 spots.

Spoiler:

I find this more useful than rebound rate, etc. because it presents the information in a consistent and easily recognized and compared format.

IF I can get a new computer bought and set up and transfer over my spreadsheets (which looks unlikely right now), I will try to get to this but at the moment, I am taking forever just to post simple posts.

Players I would like to see comps v. league norm for . . .

Mikan
Pettit
Oscar
West
Havlicek
Gilmore
Erving
Moses
Ewing
DRobinson
KMalone
Barkley
Kobe
Garnett
Dirk
Nash

I don't have the exact format that you requested, nor did I do all 15 of the players you named. But here are some per-100 possessions numbers for many of the names mentioned so far, just to give us some somewhat normalized baseline box score stats to compare.

Notes:

*Oscar and West don't have per-100 numbers on B-R, but since they almost certainly were playing at least 100 possessions/game pace I'm just going to use their actual per-game numbers

*I used exactly 10 years for everyone. For Robinson, since he only played 6 games in '97, I added an extra year to his to keep it at 10 full years

Regular season, 10 year primes per100 possessions
Oscar Robertson ('61 - 70): 29.3 pts (57.2% TS), 8.5 reb, 10.3 ast (TO not recorded)
Jerry West (1962 - 1971): 29.0 pts (56% TS), 6 reb, 6.4 asts (TO not recorded)
Moses Malone (1979 - 88): 31.5 pts (57.2% TS), 17.4 reb, 2 asts, 4.4 TO
Karl Malone (1990 - 1999): 36.8 pts (59.3% TS), 14.5 reb, 5 ast, 4 TO
David Robinson (90 - 2000): 33.3 pts (58.8% TS), 15.9 reb, 4 ast, 3.9 TO
Kevin Garnett (1999 - 2008): 30.2 pts (55% TS), 16.8 reb, 6.6 ast, 3.7 TO
Kobe Bryant (2001 - 2010): 37.5 pts (55.9% TS), 7.6 reb, 6.9 ast, 4.1 TO
Dirk Nowitzki (2002 - 2011): 34.5 pts (58.4% TS), 12.3 reb, 4 ast, 2.8 TO

Playoffs, 10 year primes per 100 possessions (Edited to correct West)
Oscar Robertson ('61 - 70): 29.7 pts (56.6% TS), 9.3 reb, 9.4 ast (TO not recorded)
Jerry West (1962 - 1971): 31.8 pts (55.6% TS), 5.6 reb, 5.9 ast (TO not recorded)
Moses Malone (1979 - 88): 28.9 pts (54.5%), 16.8 reb, 2 asts, 3.4 TO
Karl Malone (1990 - 1999): 35 pts (52.9%), 15 reb, 4.4 asts, 3.7 TO
David Robinson (90 - 2000): 30 pts (54.6%), 16.1 reb, 3.8 ast, 3.7 TO
Kevin Garnett (1999 - 2008): 29.5 pts (52.3%), 16.8 reb, 5.9 ast, 3.9 TO
Kobe Bryant (2001 - 2010): 35.8 pts (54.8%), 7.1 reb, 6.7 ast, 4.0 TO
Dirk Nowitzki (2002 - 2011): 33.4 pts (58.5%), 13.5 reb, 3.5 ast, 3.0 TO

A few thoughts:

*You all know that, where available, I feel like "impact" stat (e.g. +/-, WOWY, RAPM, etc.) help give a more complete picture than the box scores alone. So trends I see here aren't necessarily "ranking" trends. But they're still worth noting

*Going strictly off the box scores, Oscar has more impressive numbers than West. Similar scoring volume and efficiency, many more assists and rebounds. It should be noted, though, that West would probably be helped most by the 3-point line, so his volume and true shooting percentage both likely rise in this era. Interestingly, the 10-year periods that I chose for both ended the year before both of their championship teams

*In this view, Kobe does indeed look slightly better than West as well. But they are very similar outside of volume scoring, which would (again) likely be changed if West had a 3-point line to work with. Plus, he may have been credited with more assists in this era as well, and we'd actually have a TO number to work with which would be nice

*Moses may be the player hurt most by viewing the stats in this way, because his claim to fame is his high scoring/rebounding efforts as he doesn't contribute as much as others on defense or passing. But in this per-100 view, his scoring doesn't separate him in any way from any of the big men chosen, and his rebounding (while still at the top of this list) is right in the group with the other bigs. As such, his glaringly terrible assist-to-TO ratio stands out more and emphasizes how poor his passing skills were, which makes me question the ability to build a top offense centered around him.

*Karl was gypped by the 10-year standard, as he easily had 4 more years that could have fit in this look. He truly has outstanding longevity. His biggest blemish, obviously, is his postseason scoring efficiency. I'm one that thinks the focus on scoring efficiency is extremely over-blown, but a drop of 6.4% is at least worth being noted.

*Robinson was the biggest stretch to use a 10-year prime for, as years 8 - 11 obviously weren't the same level as 1 - 7. But as always, his box score stats look amazing. Even his postseason stats look solid when compared to the other bigs

*Garnett is the anti-Moses here, and may be the player most helped by the per 100 possessions view. His scoring is considered the closest thing that he has to a weakness, but volume-wise he's right there in the mix around 30 pts/100 poss. He has the lowest TS% on this list in both the regular and postseason. On the other hand, he's right at the top in rebounds and his assist/TO numbers compare well with the non-Oscar guards and separate him from the other bigs.

*Kobe is the highest volume scorer here in both the regular and post-seasons, and his scoring efficiency is very solid. As noted above, his box score stats look slightly better than West's but I'd say that Oscar's trump his.

*Dirk clearly makes his name here with amazing scoring efficiency that goes UP (slightly) in the playoffs. Karl and Robinson had higher regular season TS%, but Dirk maintains the efficiency at a higher postseason volume than everyone except Kobe and Karl. Dirk's weakness here is rebounds (relatively...still solid, but at the bottom of the big men here)

[RayBan-Sematra]

Re: Kobe '11 thru '13.....
He was All-NBA 1st Team all three years. Sure, you can definitely make a case he didn't deserve 1st Team any of those years, but he was easily deserving of SOME All-NBA recognition (probably not worse than 2nd in most instances).

Kobe from 2011-2012 was extremely inconsistent when it came to his offensive efficiency and he was extremely ball dominant.
His individual ability had declined so he often needed to dominate the ball and gun in order to achieve the scoring volume he desired.
This alienated his teammates and weakened the team offense.
His usage rate was absurdly high those two years (35% & 36%) despite him playing with two All-Star bigs.
Those marks are the highest of his career by far sans 2006.

His 2011 regular-season wasn't terrible (though the numbers overrate it) but he bombed in the playoffs.

In 2012 he had two entire months where he shot below 40%.
Then in the playoffs when facing OKC he was very ball dominant.
He gunned hard in the first 3 games while failing to shoot above 40% in one of them.
He also tried to completely carry the team in one 4th quarter and blew a big lead.
He then tried to completely carry the team in the last game of the series which led to failure as he gassed himself out by the 4th and yet still kept gunning.

The point is that I feel his offensive numbers were to a significant degree empty due to his highly inconsistent effiency and the fact that he dominated the ball to the detriment of his teammates in many games.

Whatever positive impact he was having on his teams offense those two years was largely negated by his own desire to take on a role he couldn't handle.

Add to that the fact that he was a considerable negative on the defensive end and I don't see a guy who was having much impact.