Woo, glad Walton finally made it. Still a sad fall, but at least the guys who moved ahead were on either side of the era extremes.
Changing my vote and vote reasoning in light of some recent posts that made better arguments than what I was using.
1. Kobe Bryant a.) 2008 b.) 2009My personal #15 peak. Although I find it fun to annoy his superfans, they are probably right in that the RealGM trend to downgrade him out of the top twenty peaks is pretty reactionary and often based in a misapplication of “analytics.” He is an all-time scorer with flexible range and exceptional diversity, a pretty good defender for his position and offensive load (overrated by fans, casuals, and accolades, yes, but we need not flip the complete opposite direction in response), an elite positional passer who absolutely had his personal creation rates schematically and stylistically undersold throughout his prime, and one of the great playoff resilience cases at his peak.
MyUniBroDavis wrote:So with Kobe for me it’s more so I think he translates better to other eras than his own, or a player of his strengths translates better to other eras than his own.
I think the 2000s were the worst time as a high volume elite iso 1v1 perimeter player.
Defining it as 250+ isolations
05-10
2005
Of 22 players, he ranked 2nd
2006
Of 36 players, he ranked 12th
2007
Of 27 players, he ranked 1st
2008
Of 23 players, he ranked 2nd
2009
Of 33 players, he ranked 11th
2010
Of 29 players, he ranked 9th
Kobes volume was usually somewhere from 700-1000, so defining high volume as 250+ would be a bit unfair in terms of respecting his volume although that’s obvious
Overall, in regards to limiting it to high volume scorers, while he’s not first every year or anything this does end up as quite elite. Randoms or people you maybe wouldn’t expect end up being far higher than expected even with these restrictions on.
Under similar restrictions, in only pure effeciency, he grades out better than Kawhi through his 17-21 run, not quite as good as Durant the past few years, although comparable all things considered (Kobe peaked higher but was more inconsistent, Durant was more consistently 3-7 outside of a first place 2014 finish, Kawhi was similar to Kobe in terms of being great one year and not as great the next but his best years weren’t as high and his worst years were worse)
Overall his percentiles in these are quite good as well
In terms of pure effeciency, His 1v1 scoring as a whole could be seen somewhere inbetween kawhi and Durant, definately closer to Durant.
(1v1 scoring doesn’t imply when teams didn’t help or anything, so this would include when Kobe would take dumb shots into help and stuff)
I don’t think Kobe is inherently unable to be hyper effecient as an offense player because of him taking dumb shots. While I do agree he took a lot of stupid shots, for sure, I also think some of that is a function of isolation play in the 2000s in general.
Kobe was generally a very effecient player, but didn’t get as much of his in transition as guys like Lebron and Wade did. According to synergy, of players with 1250+ more scoring possessions (I did this to generally get the top 20-30 highest players by scoring possessions each year)
Kobe ranked
12 out of 17 in 2005
8 out of 27 in 2006
3 out of 19 in 2007
7 out of 33 in 2008
3 out of 27 in 2009
21 out of 29 in 2010
Which matches most data in him going up a tier 06-09 and dropping off a bit in 2005. 07 him having an issue of just refusing to pass, which shows up on the a post somewhere about him basically not passing out of iso that year
More interestingly though, looking at the data more carefully
In 06, 4th, 6th, and 7th place are guards (Ray has some seperation but he’s basically pretty close with arenas and redd)
In 07, he is only beaten by Dirk and amare
In 08, pierce beats him (although he has 2/3s the volume) and everyone else is a big
In 09, gasol and Dirk beat him out (although he and Dirk are in a virtual tie)
There are very obvious caveats to this for sure, but as a whole Kobe was a very effecient scorer, while he did most of his work in the halfcourt, he did also grade out well in transition, and the Lakers were a good transition team in general which fits with his offensive impact being as high as it was during his prime
I’m rambling a bit but my main point is that I think kobes offense is seen as, high volume but not too elite effeciency wise, whereas I think he did combine the best of both worlds as much as a perimeter player in the 2000s could.
The reason I’m harping on halfcourt vs transition is, I think that the two things you have to look at are
Does a players presence mean easier shots are being taken (for example, lebrons presence means more transition opportunities so that’s a plus)
Kobes presence didn’t seem to detract from his team’s transition opportunities (given his teams ranking in that regard were decent in 08 and 09) and he only didn’t have much of them in comparison to Wade and lebron, he had a good amount of them and was very good at that as well
I guess a similar comparison would be hitting threes at a 42% rate on tough shots vs them at a 45% rate on wide open ones?
This isn’t to say he was just as effecient as lebron in 09 or anything, of course not, but I think it’s a situation where he’s shooting well on contested threes, and in terms of the halfcourt vs transition situation.
A way to see it would be, he’s taking a tougher role on offense (a more halfcourt dominant role) and doing so at a very effecient rate within that role throughout his prime.
Taking the harder role doesn’t mean the easier role that leads to more effecient shots is inherently limited, but it does mean his expected fg% will be lower, despite it not being a negative impact, does that make sense idk if I’m explaining my thoughts well here
Could he have been even more effecient if he didn’t take dumb shots at times? Sure, but I don’t think he wasn’t substantially more effecient than his peers.
Furthermore, I do think that illegal D>hand checking in terms of impact it had on iso perimeter players, at least in kobes case, and obviously their offense didn’t exactly evolve, so I don’t think it’s inherently impossible for Kobe to be an outlier effecient player under the right circumstances or era.
His shot selection could be better, but I do think part of that is a product of the teams offense as well, and he was very effecient in spite of it overall given the role he had.
In 2013 for example, the team ran a bit more of a pick and roll offense, although it wasn’t really one because of all the Dwight drama, and Kobe did flourish much more after having dropped off offensively for awhile. There’s more too it than that of course but still, that he got to the paint as much as he did in his prime and was as effecient as he was in his prime after the seasons leading up to it makes me think 06-09 Kobe in 2013 kobes position probably ends up as a super high raw effeciency volume type player.
ardee wrote:2008 Lakers have a 7.4 SRS, 57 wins, no.1 seed.
The standard line-up with everyone healthy was Fisher/Kobe/Radmanovic/Odom/Pau. Pau was only healthy 27 games. Bynum was healthy for 35, and they never played together.
Player by player: Fisher had a good year. 12/23, 44% from the field and 41% from 3. He was still all right on defense. I want you to note his jump in efficiency going from the Jazz to playing with Kobe. This is something that has been seen when many players play with and then without Kobe. He draws so much attention that they see their percentages rank.
Radmanovic was also basically a shooter. He shot 41% from 3, and 44% for the first half of the '09 season. This dipped to 36% when he was traded in the second half, and further to 28 the next season. So elite shooter with Kobe, average to bad without.
Odom was phenomenal that year, no doubts about it, great player all around. The main reason was because we first had Bynum and then Pau to be the second option to Kobe, while Odom was more comfortable as no. 3. His TS% jumped 3.5% from 55 '05-'07, when he was no. 2, to 58.5 in '08, when he was no. 3. In the stretch between Bynum's injury and the Gasol trade when he had to be the no. 2 option again, he shot 42% TS.
Pau was the perfect no. 2 option for Kobe, of course he was, we won 2 titles with him. Remember 2 things though:
1. He played 27 games.
2. As the no. 1 in Memphis, his team was 13-32 before he got traded. They ended up 22-60, so they went from a .280 win pace with him to a .244 win pace without him.
Bynum was also good, however, he wasn't as good as Pau, the numbers spell it out. He played 35 games, and would likely get injured quicker if he
Kobe took this cast to a 7.4 SRS and 57 wins.
I want you to imagine this team with no Kobe.
You'd be starting Fisher/Vujacic/Radmanovic/Odom/27 games of Pau + 35 games of Bynum + 16 games of Turiaf.
The best team would be the one with Pau. Consider, however, like I said, how Pau did on a Memphis team that was poorly built but still had some talent. Their lead scorer was Rudy Gay, who is a flawed player but can at least provide some kind of offense when needed. They had a lights out shooter at the 2 in Mike Miller.
This hypothetical Lakers team built around Pau would have Odom as their second option. Scoring wise, he is worse than Gay for this role. I have already shown he struggles to be consistent in that role. He struggles like that with KOBE as his first option. Pau is a far inferior first option to Kobe and that would put a ton more pressure on Odom. Fisher and Radmanovic can't create, neither can Sasha, and their efficiency dropped heavily when not playing with Kobe.
You can make the argument that this efficiency was due to the triangle partially, and not all Kobe, but the triangle only WORKS when you have an elite perimeter creator like Kobe. So therefore, you can rest assured their efficiency would drop a good bit, if not all the way down to what it was when they didn't play for the Lakers.
So, Pau, inconsistent in the 2nd option role Odom now with the added pressure of playing with a worse no. 1 option than Kobe, and Sasha, Fisher and Radmanovic offering little. I honestly don't see more than .500 in those 27 games and that's being VERY optimstic. In fact, it's more likely to be like 10-11 wins out of 27. The Blazers were a .500 team and they had 2 legit scoring options in Roy and Aldridge surrounded by fitting role players. The Lakers without Kobe are worse then that, even with Pau. Let's call it a push at 12-13 wins in those 27 games.
Bynum's 35 games. Bynum was worse than Pau at everything. He doesn't offer Pau's high-post playmaking. He can still be the main scorer but now Odom has to be the primary creator. More pressure on him. Bynum might get injured from the extra strain. I don't see more than 12-14 wins out of 35. Again, optimstically.
16 games of Turiaf. Odom in the no. 1 role. The team completely falls apart. Maybe 1-2 wins in 16 games.
So essentially, that team in a full season without Kobe wins 25-29 games. They won 57. Kobe was providing roughly ~30 wins of lift.
With this knowledge, it is hard for me to rank Kobe lower than 12 on the all-time peaks. I have Walton at 11, and this is equivalent to the kind of lift we know him to provide.
This was not a good supporting cast. If he had a full season of Pau it would be different, I think the '09 Lakers were great, but 27 games means he was working with a lot less for the rest of the season. It was a good-fitting supporting cast but aside from Pau all the players were supremely dependant on Kobe to do well in their roles.
He took an otherwise lottery team to elite status and put up a historical ORtg for the team when he had Pau.
Through the first 3 rounds of the Playoffs, the Lakers played 3 50 win teams and Kobe averaged 32-6-6 on 60% TS. That is peak Jordan level production against elite opposition. People forget the Jazz were a 7 SRS team and Kobe averaged 33-7-7 against them. People forget he dropped 30 ppg on 53% from the field against the defending champ Spurs while no other star in the series got anything going on that end.
The questions giving me the most pause for 2008 versus 2009:
— How does 2008 Kobe, or how do the 2008 Lakers, fare in a Finals matchup with the Pistons or Cavaliers?
— Is there some demonstrable improvement in Kobe’s game in 2009 that would help him see more success against any of those defensively tougher 2008 eastern conference teams?
2. Dwyane Wade a.) 2009 b.) 2006Incredible athlete capable of lifting weak teams to the postseason (questionable for Davis and Kawhi with their traditionally lightened regular season loads) and decent teams to contention through elite scoring volume, strong creation, and versatile defence. His series against the 2006 Pistons is one of the most impressive remaining (Kawhi against the 2019 76ers is the other main contender), and although his fit limitations keep below Kobe for me, I am confident a contender could be built around him in any era.
3. Anthony Davis (2020)Proxy’s commentary on Kawhi + my recent exploration of Dirk was enough to swap Kawhi and Davis from my initial rankings. On that Dirk note: imagine 2020, or even 2018, Davis on a slightly adjusted (to make up for the spacing decline going from Dirk to Davis) version of that 2011 Mavericks team. As a playoff scorer, prime Davis in a limited sample showed his acumen, and we also know he can be the world’s best defender. I would take that profile over the more one-sided skillsets of Dirk and Durant.
For a more thorough analysis, Unibro’s take is close to definitive:
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2215651#p100682968
