#13 Highest Peak of All Time (Julius '76 wins)

[MisterWestside]

I don't come here a lot so I'm not familiar with all the stats but what is SPM? Also where are your on-off numbers from? The ones I see on basketballvalue don't give the same numbers but maybe I'm looking at the wrong area.

SPM is a estimate of RAPM using the box score.

For on-off I'm also using basketballvalue http://basketballvalue.com/teamplayers. ... C&team=LAL

[nikomCH]

I don't come here a lot so I'm not familiar with all the stats but what is SPM? Also where are your on-off numbers from? The ones I see on basketballvalue don't give the same numbers but maybe I'm looking at the wrong area.

SPM is a estimate of RAPM using the box score.

For on-off I'm also using basketballvalue http://basketballvalue.com/teamplayers. ... C&team=LAL

Alright so how reliable are these numbers and what do they really tell you? Obviously you see Fisher with the best on-off and Odom is showing as a net negative. Or if you look at the 2011 Heat Playoffs LeBron's rating off the court is +16.23. So obviously there's something here I'm not getting since it seems apparent you can't take this stat at face value.

[therealbig3]

What about 03 Kobe? What's the issue with that season (or why isn't that being looked at as closely as 06 or 08)?

They went 5-10 in the games Shaq didn't play. Shaq was still clearly the best player on the team.

That doesn't mean Kobe wasn't as good as he would be in 06 or 08.

[colts18]

What about 03 Kobe? What's the issue with that season (or why isn't that being looked at as closely as 06 or 08)?

They went 5-10 in the games Shaq didn't play. Shaq was still clearly the best player on the team.

That doesn't mean Kobe wasn't as good as he would be in 06 or 08.

I'm pretty sure 06 Kobe is not going 5-10 with that squad considering he took a garbage cast to above .500.

[Doctor MJ]

I don't come here a lot so I'm not familiar with all the stats but what is SPM? Also where are your on-off numbers from? The ones I see on basketballvalue don't give the same numbers but maybe I'm looking at the wrong area.

SPM is a estimate of RAPM using the box score.

For on-off I'm also using basketballvalue http://basketballvalue.com/teamplayers. ... C&team=LAL

Alright so how reliable are these numbers and what do they really tell you? Obviously you see Fisher with the best on-off and Odom is showing as a net negative. Or if you look at the 2011 Heat Playoffs LeBron's rating off the court is +16.23. So obviously there's something here I'm not getting since it seems apparent you can't take this stat at face value.

Eh, the above answer is misleading.

Think of a stat like PER. What that stat does in its basis is attached weights to the good and bad things a player does. That's what SPM does to, however SPM determines the weights by applying regression on each good & bad thing.

The resulting stat still is far more like than PER than APM (or RAPM) and hence it is much more reliable than RAPM, but also not a replacement for RAPM in any way shape of form. Instead it actually makes the most sense to be using SPM & RAPM in concert.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Uh, we may need some other sources on this because that's not my memory at all. My memory is that the Lakers went away from the Triangle for less than a year, because Hamblen started re-implementing it the moment Rudy T left.

Clearly though, it was a weak supporting cast regardless.

The Laker squad in 2005 was vastly different from 2004, and then they added new players in 2006 too. I will look for quotes, but again, it's rather hard to find something like that from 2006.

That's ridiculous. Kobe STILL has his Frobe issues to some degree in 2012. It's obvious, and it has everything to do why people aren't sure if he and Nash can work together. If you aren't able to see this stuff, that's on your own personal myopia.

This is what Phil said back in 2006, when he decided to come back to LA.

"Kobe's very coachable. But the responsibility is my responsibility and his responsibility to make that work.

Kobe is a player in which if you give him a certain set of things that you want him to do, [he] will accomplish that. He wants to accomplish that.

And one of the things that I'm determined to do is take that best aspect of his game. I think a lot of times, I've tried to make him a playmaker -- although due to default -- and a lead guard in which he's had to do a lot of the work of setting up the team, which I think is something that ends up being like, "OK, be a playmaker, be a lead guard, be an organizer." And then where does his natural ability to score and really attack a team come in? I'd like to use him more as an attack player this year than just a playmaker and guy that's setting up the offense."
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2177339
^
Now notice what he was reffering to when he first said Frobe was uncoachable. It was about his role on the team with Shaq. Clearly, Phil is pointing out that he's taking a different apporach than what he did in the 3peat days.

I would also point you to the last sentence where he says he plans to use Kobe more as an attack player that year. Which is why Kobe went on that scoring rampage.

Well it's pretty clear you're just not going to get my point, so I'm just going to address your last part:

My concern is that some won't be able to distinguish between "Highest Peaks" and "Most Accomplished Season". Your answer is clearly, "It's easy, just don't fixate on the titles", but my specific concern is actually that people aren't able to understand that the fixation on individual volume stats is an "Accomplishment" just like the team stuff is.

Again: It's not a coincidence that Kobe's volume numbers peaked when he had his weakest supporting casts. Fixate on the volume too much then, and you run the danger of penalizing other versions of Kobe simply because they made the right play and passed the ball more rather than continuing to rack up the big PPG numbers that they could still put up.

I have pointed out quite a few times that scoring volume isn't my reason for 2006 being Kobe's peak. Kobe's skill/atheltic ability/2-way impact was peaking in 2006. The impact his play had was quite amazing(again, impact not volume).

I would say choosing 2003 over 2006 would be more about volume since Kobe's numbers were his all-around best that season. But my argument is about peak impact. The kind of impact that carries a very weak roster to the #7 2.52 SRS in a really large part due to Kobe's historic scoring feats. The kind of impact that allows a team where only Kobe/Kwame play D to end up with an above average DRtg. The kind of skillset that right up there with anyone else. 2006 Kobe was scoring in every possible way, postups, drives, fadeaways, pull ups, 3's, and he was doing when his athleticism was still elite. And his teammates were having career years too, so he was maximizing what he had around him.

I would say 2003 would be my choice for box score numbers, 2008/2009 for accomplishments, but 2006 as his actually impact peak. Put 2006 Kobe on the 2008 squad, and he's quicker, faster, and yet just as skilled, with better defense.

[Doctor MJ]

Good post AUF. I appreciate your digging up that interview.

I'll include one myself:

Oh, they're— they're using LeBron every possible way they can. He's such a great player. I still think his game is gonna grow. I still think it's gonna grow. But he was like Scottie Pippen was to the Bulls. He's maybe a pass first and shoot second player. Whereas, you know, Michael or Kobe are like, "I'm gonna shoot this ball." Every time they get the ball, they're looking to score. LeBron's not like that. And I love that about him. But he also, when he goes after scoring, he's also terrific. You want a player that can do both. I tried to get Kobe to do both for numbers of years, and he could. But his first instinct is to beat the guy that's in front of him.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball- ... --nba.html

To me it's pretty clear what we're seeing with Phi in these quotes. Kobe was not Phil's ideal animal. Kobe thinks too much about beating his man, as opposed to finding the easiest way to beat the other team. This led to conflict between Phil and Kobe.

What Phil learned to do was to give a little as he got Kobe to give a little. Kobe was too good of a talent to pass up, but taking him on meant that Phil would always have to keep tugging him in the right direction, and that tugging too hard would have bad side-effects.

Phil's return to the Lakers came with him recognizing that it was either going to be a compromise, or it was going to be nothing at all. So Phil came in with a happy medium in mind.

Does that means that in '05-06 Phil came in thinking, "If we're doing this right, Kobe's to dominate the Laker offense more than Jordan ever did on the Bulls?", nah. It just means he came in giving a bit, with the hope that when the time came that the supporting cast got talented enough, Kobe would strike a reasonable balance within the scheme that Phil was setting in place.

Getting back on Kobe vs Kobe, clearly you believe that Kobe's '06 approach made sense for that team, and so it doesn't matter that some changes had to be made as the Lakers got better talent. I'm not going to say that's a terribly wrong viewpoint, but I don't see it the same way.

[MisterWestside]

Eh, the above answer is misleading.

Think of a stat like PER. What that stat does in its basis is attached weights to the good and bad things a player does. That's what SPM does to, however SPM determines the weights by applying regression on each good & bad thing.

The resulting stat still is far more like than PER than APM (or RAPM) and hence it is much more reliable than RAPM, but also not a replacement for RAPM in any way shape of form. Instead it actually makes the most sense to be using SPM & RAPM in concert.

I apologize the the incomplete answer; didn't want to give the impression that SPM is a "replacement" for RAPM. Should've put "estimate" using box-score data in bold/underline since you're using a different dataset altogether.

But nikomCH, DocMJ's answer is a good and easy to understand summary.

Alright so how reliable are these numbers and what do they really tell you?

For on-off, it's simple: how well does your team perform (in points per 100 possessions) when you've on the court? You can compare that to how they perform when you're off the court and get a overall net rating, "+" for teams performing better with you versus "-" for teams performing better without you.

Of course, this isn't a be-all end all rating (and no stat is, from PER to RAPM) for several reasons that you're probably thinking of, and they're addressed here http://godismyjudgeok.com/DStats/2011/n ... ilization/. But on-off is still useful to look to help paint your picture of performance.

[Dr Positivity]

I like 09 Kobe over 08. I don't love 08 Kobe's performance against the Celtics and I think the 09 version dominated Denver and Orlando quietly well. I think he was in about the same form in each season, before starting to show some age in 2010 IMO

[An Unbiased Fan]

Good post AUF. I appreciate your digging up that interview.

I'll include one myself:

Oh, they're— they're using LeBron every possible way they can. He's such a great player. I still think his game is gonna grow. I still think it's gonna grow. But he was like Scottie Pippen was to the Bulls. He's maybe a pass first and shoot second player. Whereas, you know, Michael or Kobe are like, "I'm gonna shoot this ball." Every time they get the ball, they're looking to score. LeBron's not like that. And I love that about him. But he also, when he goes after scoring, he's also terrific. You want a player that can do both. I tried to get Kobe to do both for numbers of years, and he could. But his first instinct is to beat the guy that's in front of him.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball- ... --nba.html

To me it's pretty clear what we're seeing with Phi in these quotes. Kobe was not Phil's ideal animal. Kobe thinks too much about beating his man, as opposed to finding the easiest way to beat the other team. This led to conflict between Phil and Kobe.

What Phil learned to do was to give a little as he got Kobe to give a little. Kobe was too good of a talent to pass up, but taking him on meant that Phil would always have to keep tugging him in the right direction, and that tugging too hard would have bad side-effects.

Phil's return to the Lakers came with him recognizing that it was either going to be a compromise, or it was going to be nothing at all. So Phil came in with a happy medium in mind.

Does that means that in '05-06 Phil came in thinking, "If we're doing this right, Kobe's to dominate the Laker offense more than Jordan ever did on the Bulls?", nah. It just means he came in giving a bit, with the hope that when the time came that the supporting cast got talented enough, Kobe would strike a reasonable balance within the scheme that Phil was setting in place.

Getting back on Kobe vs Kobe, clearly you believe that Kobe's '06 approach made sense for that team, and so it doesn't matter that some changes had to be made as the Lakers got better talent. I'm not going to say that's a terribly wrong viewpoint, but I don't see it the same way.

I remember this from a few months back. I think your assessment is mostly correct. A few things though...

I think Phil wanted Kobe to play Pippen's role on the Laker team during the 3peat. But as he points out, Lebron/Pippen are "pass-first, shoot-second" players, while Kobe/MJ are "shoot-first, pass-second". In 2000 Kobe played that Pippen role, but by 2001 it was obvious that he wasn't satisfied with it, and wanted to maximize his potential. Much of the talk was about how to balance the 2 stars with Kobe taking more of a scoring load. This of course caused even more ficrtion with Phil. Kobe was the kinda guy who would challenge everyone, including his coach, and these were the "uncoachable" days, when Kobe would....err, freelance out of the offense occasionally.

I will say though that things balanced a bit more once the playoffs came around. Kobe/Shaq finally adjusted to Kobe's very non-Pippen/LBJ, but more MJ type role on the team. Was this good or bad, that's up for debate. i would say though, that 2001 Kobe/Shaq both going at full throttle delivered an all-time great playoff run, and carried them to the title in 2002.

By 2003, Shaq was having durability/injuries issues, and Phil did want Kobe to actually carry the offensive load, which he did while Shaq was banged up. I think the 40+ streak re-kindled the Kobe/Shaq feud, because many in LA media was starting to call it Kobe's team. By the end of 2004, after all the turmoil, I think everyone left with a bitter taste in their mouths. So when Phil was referencing how he never clarified Kobe's role, I think both he and Kobe struggled with when he should be a playmaker, and when he should be a scorer. it was a very difficult balance.

In 2006, I think Phil realized that Kobe's not the LBJ/Pippen type, and instead utilized his strengths ala what he did with MJ. The reasons it worked with Phil/Kobe the 2nd time around, was because the finally had an understanding of who each other were. Kobe gained an appeciation for the Tri after 2005, and Phil realized that Kobe's maximal potential is more in the MJ mold than LBJ.

I really feel Kobe's approach has been the same since 2006. The 2008 team was much better at passing, with Pau at C, and Odom at the 4, so LA's offense was much smoother. But I feel that was because of personnel, and that 2006 Kobe would have exceeded what 2008-2010 Kobe did. 2006 Kobe was a step quicker on offense/defense, and just as skilled. 2006 Kobe was effortless in his movements, while 08-09 Kobe had to work a little bit more.

[nikomCH]

Alright so how reliable are these numbers and what do they really tell you?

For on-off, it's simple: how well does your team perform (in points per 100 possessions) when you've on the court? You can compare that to how they perform when you're off the court and get a overall net rating, "+" for teams performing better with you versus "-" for teams performing better without you.

Of course, this isn't a be-all end all rating (and no stat is, from PER to RAPM) for several reasons that you're probably thinking of, and they're addressed here http://godismyjudgeok.com/DStats/2011/n ... ilization/. But on-off is still useful to look to help paint your picture of performance.

Yeah but when you see stuff like the team being a +16 with LeBron off the court for the 11' playoffs how useful can it really be? His net on-off for the 2011 post-season makes him look atrocious. Of course there are reasons for that and he wasn't nearly as bad as it looks right? But when you cite Gasol's +15.1 net you might be able to say something similar about him and that maybe his impact is exaggerated there. It seems to me this stat requires far too much context. Either that or I'm still not understanding its purpose.

[toodles23]

I like 09 Kobe over 08. I don't love 08 Kobe's performance against the Celtics and I think the 09 version dominated Denver and Orlando quietly well. I think he was in about the same form in each season, before starting to show some age in 2010 IMO

I lean a tad towards '09 as well. He seemed to be pretty much the same guy in both years, except he actually got it done in '09 and never at any point struggled like he did against the '08 Celtics. I think the '09 version would have fared a bit better against the Celtics D, too, after experiencing a playoff series against them. He had a more consistent supporting cast from start to finish in '09 which depressed his volume stats a little bit, but as far ability, he was pretty much identical both years with his success and extra experience in '09 as the tiebreaker.

[nikomCH]

I like 09 Kobe over 08. I don't love 08 Kobe's performance against the Celtics and I think the 09 version dominated Denver and Orlando quietly well. I think he was in about the same form in each season, before starting to show some age in 2010 IMO

I like 09 Kobe too because of his playoffs. Damnit Kobe is so annoying because he never seems to put his best all together in one season so it's so hard to rank him.

BUT if I had to pick now it would be 09 Kobe simply because he was still an offensive beast, solid defender, and dominated in the playoffs. If 08 Kobe took out the Celtics it would have easily been his best season though.

[ElGee]

I like 09 Kobe over 08. I don't love 08 Kobe's performance against the Celtics and I think the 09 version dominated Denver and Orlando quietly well. I think he was in about the same form in each season, before starting to show some age in 2010 IMO

I lean a tad towards '09 as well. He seemed to be pretty much the same guy in both years, except he actually got it done in '09 and never at any point struggled like he did against the '08 Celtics. I think the '09 version would have fared a bit better against the Celtics D, too, after experiencing a playoff series against them. He had a more consistent supporting cast from start to finish in '09 which depressed his volume stats a little bit, but as far ability, he was pretty much identical both years with his success and extra experience in '09 as the tiebreaker.

I don't like being dogmatic about a year that obviously wasn't a big dropoff...but N. O. on 2009 > 2008. When you say "dominated Orlando," I really have to wonder if I was too close to the team or if you are basing this statement on...well, what are you basing this on?

Kobe had a good G1. Very good G1. I always thought it was weird that he was chasing 40 in a 25 pt blowout in G1 of a series, but oh well. Still an awesome game if he never re-enters the game in the final 5 minutes where he went 1-5 and scored 4 points. (0.66 ppp)

G2 he was 10-22 with 7 turnovers. (94 ORtg)
G3 11-25 (53% TS) w 4 turnovers
G4 11-31 (1) 46% TS
G5 10-23 1 TOV 57% TS -- this was a good game

I don't see how this is "dominant" at all though. he shot 43% from the floor for the series, and 52.4% TS on VERY high volume. I really didn't like the series very much frankly.

[fatal9]

For Kobe, usually '06 and '07 are seen as "unipolar" acts, great numbers playing a style that could only make you a 50 win team at best. '08 is seen as a transformation to a team oriented player. But the "unipolar" label doesn't really fit Kobe in 2007, he played most of that season like 2008, but his game changed as circumstances changed. I personally think 2007 was Kobe's peak (slightly over '08). He was a few weeks behind in his conditioning to start the season probably because he was coming off surgery, but in a couple of months he was actually moving better than 2006. In 2007, we have a large sample of Kobe playing the way he did in 2008 and the team having a lot of success given the roster. This was also Kobe's most efficient scoring year in his career.

I see that season in stretches with Kobe showing some really nice offensive versatility. These aren't arbitrary stretches of the season, these stretches are marked by very real turning points.


First stretch:

"Good balanced team ball, team is healthy" - First games 21 games of the season. Then Odom gets injured.

Kobe's stats: 26.2 ppg, 4.8 rpg, 4.6 apg on 59.3 TS%
Team record: 15-6, MOV +3.9

Lakers unexpectedly start up as the best team in the Pacific. Kobe shows much better game management ability right from the start of the season. First month or so he was pacing himself and working himself into shape, but still controlled the game beautifully. We see a similar excellent start in 2008, but with Kobe playing worse but rest of the team playing better/healthier.


Second stretch:

Then came "Good balanced team ball, but roster is falling apart with injuries", team chemistry starting to become non-existant and starters dropping like flies. Odom gets hurt in the 21st game, Radmonovic gets hurt in the 25th game, Kwame Brown gets hurt in the 31st game. Lakers were still playing .500 ball in this time however UNTIL Walton gets hurt (27-16 before Walton injury) and then pretty much everything goes to hell (a mere 6-16 after his injury combined with others). Kobe plays like this for about 44 games culminated by a 7 games losing streak which prompted Phil to change his style:

Team Record: 18-26, MOV = -2.52
Stats: 30.3 ppg, 6.1 rpg, 6.1 apg on 57.6 TS%.

Of the 44 games, Odom missed 26, Kwame missed 25, Walton missed 21 (Walton was actually good this season), Radmanovic missed 12. That's the starting PF, the starting C, the starting SF AND the backup SF out for a significant amount of time on a team that's already not that talented.

Third Stretch:

Then came "Umm, we are losing a ridiculous amount of games, we might not make the playoffs" and 2006 Kobe comes back because Phil asks him to come back (documented how Phil gave him the "green light" after the 7 game losing streak) and he starts ridiculous level high volume scoring:

Team record: 9-8, MOV +1.35
Stats: 40.2 ppg, 5.6 rpg, 4.4 apg on 57.9 TS%

We basically have the same picture as '06, .500 team and monster scoring stats. Done out of necessity to get playoff spot.

Article on Phil asked Kobe change his style:

"We talked about going to Kobe early in games and not waiting," coach Phil Jackson said. "He had been playing the team role, feeling the game out and waiting 'til the second half to get going. But there's just not enough time right now in the season to develop that."

"I'm just being more aggressive at both ends of the floor," Bryant said. "At this point in the season, it's important that I stress the sense of urgency that we have to have, and the type of emotion and energy that you have to play with."

"Luke and Lamar both make my life a lot easier when they're out there because they're so good at recognizing situations on the floor," Bryant said. "They're great passers, so teams can't just front me or overplay me in certain areas. I think we as a team understand that in certain situations, they've got to bring it to me in the post or in the mid-post to allow me to facilitate or attack myself."


So I think automatically giving 2008 the nod because he played more team oriented ball that year is wrong because there is evidence Kobe could successfully play that style in 2007, but the circumstances and roster stability in '07 were completely different. I put 2007 over 2006 simply because I think Kobe was a better player after his '06 experience that contributed to his team play at the start of 2007 (the seed was set in the Suns series with Lakers having success with "team ball" Kobe, and then Lakers won first two games of '07 without him, I always felt that was behind his changed approach at start of '07). He was a maturer version of his 2006 self. To commit to playing in the way he did in '07 and '08, I felt he needed to go through that experience in 2006 which is why that season is below those.

I put 2007 over 2008 because I felt Kobe did decline a little bit physically between where he was in second half of '07 to '08 (as is normal between 28/29 and 29/30...Kobe was moving as good or better than '08 while being like 10 lbs heavier, he was noticeably physically stronger), so '07 kind of just had another scoring gear while still being able to play good team basketball (this "scoring gear" I see as being significant enough as I see '07 Kobe performing better against the '08 Celtics). I've noticed Kobe was a better ball handler in '07 as well so there could be a little bit of decline in skill as well(possibly related to finger issues?). Also I wasn't really that impressed with how he was playing individually when the team got off to good start in '08 (up until a few weeks before the Gasol trade I remember actually thinking Kobe had dramatically declined because he was shooting/scoring so poorly by his standards for a long stretch but he closed out the season really strongly), so offensively he was more consistent in '07 as well.

It's tough though, while I consider '07 superior than '08 offensively, he was so much better and more consistent on defense in '08 that it's basically dead even. I just went with '07 because I'm guessing Kobe would expend more energy on defense if he was surrounded by a better roster (like in '08).

[ardee]

@An Unbiased Fan:

Some excellent, excellent arguments, my friend.

A lot of what you said makes a ton of sense, and whether or not the other posters can see it, I would full agree that 2006 was Kobe's best regular season.

However, when I look at the Playoffs, it calls things into question. Obviously, when the Suns series came along, he turned into Bizarro Kobe (as Simmons calls him), and became a facilitator, letting the offense run through Kwame and Odom. He averaged 23-6-6 on 52% TS during the first 4 games but that doesn't come close to describing how much he helped the offense, by keeping it slowed down and not letting the Lakers get caught up in Phoenix's running game.

Now, by the box score, he turned into a monster for the last three games. 34-6-4 on 67% TS. That's Jordan-esque box score production. It's worth noting that he had a monstrous 50-8-5 on 66% TS in game 6, and the Lakers posted a 118 ORtg (look at the game, his team-mates all got decent shots).

The last game is a mess though. We know what happened: a Playoff series on the line, and Kobe decided to throw in the towel just to prove a point.

I'm not sure if '08 Kobe, a more mature version, would have done something like that. This was the Phoenix Suns: the most porous defense in the league that he could have torched with ease. I don't know if I can vote that year in good conscience when he did something so petty.

Again, I'm not questioning his impact, but rather, or his dedication, but rather, whether Kobe as a player and a person would have translated well to a championship level team.

It's very close, but I think I've decided....

Vote: 2008 Kobe Bryant

[nikomCH]

The last game is a mess though. We know what happened: a Playoff series on the line, and Kobe decided to throw in the towel just to prove a point.

We don't know what happened. What usually happens is one person starts a story and it keeps getting perpetuated until people start accepting it as fact. As a Laker fan I've refused to go back and watch that nightmare of a game, but as I recall he was shooting the ball a lot in the 1st half and it didn't help because the Lakers were still down by 15 points with Kobe 8/13 FG. Then in the second half he tried to get back to what worked in the first 4 games, but by that point the entire team had given up and there was nothing he could do. Why people mistake this for tanking a game I have no idea. But perhaps if someone goes through the game and can point to evidence of him doing so then I'll change my thinking.

[Doctor MJ]

The last game is a mess though. We know what happened: a Playoff series on the line, and Kobe decided to throw in the towel just to prove a point.

We don't know what happened. What usually happens is one person starts a story and it keeps getting perpetuated until people start accepting it as fact. As a Laker fan I've refused to go back and watch that nightmare of a game, but as I recall he was shooting the ball a lot in the 1st half and it didn't help because the Lakers were still down by 15 points with Kobe 8/13 FG. Then in the second half he tried to get back to what worked in the first 4 games, but by that point the entire team had given up and there was nothing he could do. Why people mistake this for tanking a game I have no idea. But perhaps if someone goes through the game and can point to evidence of him doing so then I'll change my thinking.

You're right that we don't know what happened, but something bad happened obviously. I mentioned this in an earlier thread: The Lakers have a pretty astoundingly bad track record when their back is against the wall.

If memory serves, in games where they have to win on the road or they'll be eliminated, the Lakers are 0-5 losing by an average margin of 26 points since the Kobe-sans-Shaq era began. By contrast, Laker opponents were 2-5 losing by an average of about 6 points in the analogous situation in the same time.

So yeah, it's a problem. Not a problem that started when Shaq left (Shaq was the king of getting swept), but a problem recurring enough that I don't think it makes sense to say "we don't know so we're going to assume it wasn't meaningful".

[nikomCH]

I don't see how any of that is relevant. Where is the evidence to indicate that the Lakers continually getting humiliated in road elimination games has to do with Kobe throwing in the towel? Having a bad game is a lot different than giving up or tanking the game to prove a point. In fact in this post-season Kobe was so fed up with LA getting destroyed in those final games that he did everything he could in Game 5 against OKC to keep LA in the game, but the minute he left the 4th Q for a rest they got blown out. Dude has too much pride to be throwing games just because their chances of winning are slim.

[Doctor MJ]

I don't see how any of that is relevant. Where is the evidence to indicate that the Lakers continually getting humiliated in road elimination games has to do with Kobe throwing in the towel? Having a bad game is a lot different than giving up or tanking the game to prove a point. In fact in this post-season Kobe was so fed up with LA getting destroyed in those final games that he did everything he could in Game 5 against OKC to keep LA in the game, but the minute he left the 4th Q for a rest they got blown out. Dude has too much pride to be throwing games just because their chances of winning are slim.

See from my perspective, the "why" is the not-necessarily-so-relevant part. It's interesting, but in the end it's the fact of the bad play that's the problem.

Now, the "why" can be related to a rebuttal where in someone argues that the trend has nothing to do with Kobe of course...

Re: "too much pride to give up". Tough to make an argument like that when the pride is also supposed to be the reason why he gave up ("you think you're better with me scoring less, well then you'll love this").