RealGM

Assume shaq and kobe are both peaking throughout

So I assume I have 10-straight 2001 Shaq seasons and I need to ask myself how many 2008 Kobe Bryant seasons I need to top that?

Is this not the same as simply asking how much better was 2001 Shaq versus 2008 Kobe? Hypothetically, 2001 Shaq were a "97" in value and 2008 Kobe were a "94", 10 seasons of 2001 Shaq is 970 and 10 seasons of 2008 Kobe is 940, meaning roughly 1 more season of 2008 Kobe puts him ahead of Shaq.

Colbinii wrote:So I assume I have 10-straight 2001 Shaq seasons and I need to ask myself how many 2008 Kobe Bryant seasons I need to top that?

Is this not the same as simply asking how much better was 2001 Shaq versus 2008 Kobe? Hypothetically, 2001 Shaq were a "97" in value and 2008 Kobe were a "94", 10 seasons of 2001 Shaq is 970 and 10 seasons of 2008 Kobe is 940, meaning roughly 1 more season of 2008 Kobe puts him ahead of Shaq.

Well, to be specific, it's asking how much[i][/i] better is shaq in 01 than kobe 08 or if you have it flipped the reverse of that. I guess if you're really generous they're looking for a specific longetvity-prime trade-off as well

Rather have 10 consecutive seasons of Kobe than 10 consecutive seasons of Shaq.

10 seasons of Shaq isn't an attractive prospect as you think. Recalling Shaq's entire prime, he'd use the off season as full blown vacations and use the first 2-3 months of the Regular Season as his own personal training camp. He generally never got into game shape until 3-6 weeks before All-Star break and compounded with the fact he'll likely miss 30%-35% of total basketball over the course of 3-Season intervals.

Would undoubtedly take 5-Years of Shaq over any player not named Jordan, Lebron and Kareem.

I would rather have the best 10 years of Shaq than the entire career of Kobe.

If my choice is somehow as Colbini put it, probably need 30 or so Kobe seasons which feels so unrealistic as again make the choice I'm never taking Kobe.

Because peak Shaq makes me the championship favorite every year. Peak Kobe doesn't even guarantee me a playoff series win.

Texas Chuck wrote:I would rather have the best 10 years of Shaq than the entire career of Kobe.

If my choice is somehow as Colbini put it, probably need 30 or so Kobe seasons which feels so unrealistic as again make the choice I'm never taking Kobe.

Because peak Shaq makes me the championship favorite every year. Peak Kobe doesn't even guarantee me a playoff series win.

that seems excessive. 30 years would be miles off by even the most generous to peak team-wide studies

Texas Chuck wrote:I would rather have the best 10 years of Shaq than the entire career of Kobe.

If my choice is somehow as Colbini put it, probably need 30 or so Kobe seasons which feels so unrealistic as again make the choice I'm never taking Kobe.

Because peak Shaq makes me the championship favorite every year. Peak Kobe doesn't even guarantee me a playoff series win.

Before 2006 Shaq was a monster and top 3-5 player amongst alltime greats in his era. His team was always near the top except his first two seasons.

OhayoKD wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:I would rather have the best 10 years of Shaq than the entire career of Kobe.

If my choice is somehow as Colbini put it, probably need 30 or so Kobe seasons which feels so unrealistic as again make the choice I'm never taking Kobe.

Because peak Shaq makes me the championship favorite every year. Peak Kobe doesn't even guarantee me a playoff series win.

that seems excessive. 30 years would be miles off by even the most generous to peak team-wide studies

I'm not trying to actually put a number on it because I value dominant seasons so much more than even all-NBA type seasons. And when I get 10 consecutive peak Shaq seasons, its impossible for Kobe to play enough seasons to make that up. Because I'm winning 6 or 7 titles on average with a chance to do better than that. With Kobe for say a ridiculous 15 year peak level play run, I'm probably lucky to win one or two and that's if I can find a Pau Gasol level player to pair with him.

This is why guys like Duncan and Russell and Mike and Shaq and Lebron are the GOAT's. These guys have you contending for titles year in and year out. Even great players on the fringes of the top ten like Kobe, Dream, Dirk, KG, can't do the same. We pretend a lot like the difference between the best players in the world and the 5th or 6th best player is small, but its not. Right now Curry and Giannis and Jokic are a lot better than Luka and Ja and Tatum and Booker and Butler. That gap is actually quite meaningful.

So I'm always going to want those dominant seasons. Doesn't mean I don't value longevity. I value longevity a great deal when evaluating a career. But here I am tasked as a GM. And my job is to win titles. Shaq does way for me in that regard than Kobe.

Texas Chuck wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:I would rather have the best 10 years of Shaq than the entire career of Kobe.

If my choice is somehow as Colbini put it, probably need 30 or so Kobe seasons which feels so unrealistic as again make the choice I'm never taking Kobe.

Because peak Shaq makes me the championship favorite every year. Peak Kobe doesn't even guarantee me a playoff series win.

that seems excessive. 30 years would be miles off by even the most generous to peak team-wide studies

I'm not trying to actually put a number on it because I value dominant seasons so much more than even all-NBA type seasons. And when I get 10 consecutive peak Shaq seasons, its impossible for Kobe to play enough seasons to make that up. Because I'm winning 6 or 7 titles on average with a chance to do better than that. With Kobe for say a ridiculous 15 year peak level play run, I'm probably lucky to win one or two and that's if I can find a Pau Gasol level player to pair with him.

This is why guys like Duncan and Russell and Mike and Shaq and Lebron are the GOAT's. These guys have you contending for titles year in and year out. Even great players on the fringes of the top ten like Kobe, Dream, Dirk, KG, can't do the same. We pretend a lot like the difference between the best players in the world and the 5th or 6th best player is small, but its not. Right now Curry and Giannis and Jokic are a lot better than Luka and Ja and Tatum and Booker and Butler. That gap is actually quite meaningful.

So I'm always going to want those dominant seasons. Doesn't mean I don't value longevity. I value longevity a great deal when evaluating a career. But here I am tasked as a GM. And my job is to win titles. Shaq does way for me in that regard than Kobe.

And what i'm saying is the studies we have on thi say that the 30 year kobe stretch is getting you waay more titles than the shorter 10 year shaq one.

Your estimate is probably just wrong.

OhayoKD wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:that seems excessive. 30 years would be miles off by even the most generous to peak team-wide studies

I'm not trying to actually put a number on it because I value dominant seasons so much more than even all-NBA type seasons. And when I get 10 consecutive peak Shaq seasons, its impossible for Kobe to play enough seasons to make that up. Because I'm winning 6 or 7 titles on average with a chance to do better than that. With Kobe for say a ridiculous 15 year peak level play run, I'm probably lucky to win one or two and that's if I can find a Pau Gasol level player to pair with him.

This is why guys like Duncan and Russell and Mike and Shaq and Lebron are the GOAT's. These guys have you contending for titles year in and year out. Even great players on the fringes of the top ten like Kobe, Dream, Dirk, KG, can't do the same. We pretend a lot like the difference between the best players in the world and the 5th or 6th best player is small, but its not. Right now Curry and Giannis and Jokic are a lot better than Luka and Ja and Tatum and Booker and Butler. That gap is actually quite meaningful.

So I'm always going to want those dominant seasons. Doesn't mean I don't value longevity. I value longevity a great deal when evaluating a career. But here I am tasked as a GM. And my job is to win titles. Shaq does way for me in that regard than Kobe.

And what i'm saying is the studies we have on thi say that the 30 year kobe stretch is getting you waay more titles than the shorter 10 year shaq one.

Your estimate is probably just wrong.

What studies?

They are guessing just as I am lol.

And I feel really good about my choice of Shaq over Kobe, thanks.

Texas Chuck wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:
I'm not trying to actually put a number on it because I value dominant seasons so much more than even all-NBA type seasons. And when I get 10 consecutive peak Shaq seasons, its impossible for Kobe to play enough seasons to make that up. Because I'm winning 6 or 7 titles on average with a chance to do better than that. With Kobe for say a ridiculous 15 year peak level play run, I'm probably lucky to win one or two and that's if I can find a Pau Gasol level player to pair with him.

This is why guys like Duncan and Russell and Mike and Shaq and Lebron are the GOAT's. These guys have you contending for titles year in and year out. Even great players on the fringes of the top ten like Kobe, Dream, Dirk, KG, can't do the same. We pretend a lot like the difference between the best players in the world and the 5th or 6th best player is small, but its not. Right now Curry and Giannis and Jokic are a lot better than Luka and Ja and Tatum and Booker and Butler. That gap is actually quite meaningful.

So I'm always going to want those dominant seasons. Doesn't mean I don't value longevity. I value longevity a great deal when evaluating a career. But here I am tasked as a GM. And my job is to win titles. Shaq does way for me in that regard than Kobe.

And what i'm saying is the studies we have on thi say that the 30 year kobe stretch is getting you waay more titles than the shorter 10 year shaq one.

Your estimate is probably just wrong.

What studies?

They are guessing just as I am lol.

And I feel really good about my choice of Shaq over Kobe, thanks.

I domt think anyone disagrees with shaq over kobe lol, but 30 years of kobe? I would take that bet tbh

falcolombardi wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:And what i'm saying is the studies we have on thi say that the 30 year kobe stretch is getting you waay more titles than the shorter 10 year shaq one.

Your estimate is probably just wrong.

What studies?

They are guessing just as I am lol.

And I feel really good about my choice of Shaq over Kobe, thanks.

I domt think anyone disagrees with shaq over kobe lol, but 30 years of kobe? I would take that bet tbh

You can't get 30 years. Nobody lasts that long. That's on me for using that number, but its meaningless.

But let's say I get 15 years of Kobe followed by 15 years of KG. I'm still taking 10 years of Shaq. If my goal is to win titles. Obviously if the owner's goal is just to fill the building in a tough market I might not get that choice.

Texas Chuck wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:
I'm not trying to actually put a number on it because I value dominant seasons so much more than even all-NBA type seasons. And when I get 10 consecutive peak Shaq seasons, its impossible for Kobe to play enough seasons to make that up. Because I'm winning 6 or 7 titles on average with a chance to do better than that. With Kobe for say a ridiculous 15 year peak level play run, I'm probably lucky to win one or two and that's if I can find a Pau Gasol level player to pair with him.

This is why guys like Duncan and Russell and Mike and Shaq and Lebron are the GOAT's. These guys have you contending for titles year in and year out. Even great players on the fringes of the top ten like Kobe, Dream, Dirk, KG, can't do the same. We pretend a lot like the difference between the best players in the world and the 5th or 6th best player is small, but its not. Right now Curry and Giannis and Jokic are a lot better than Luka and Ja and Tatum and Booker and Butler. That gap is actually quite meaningful.

So I'm always going to want those dominant seasons. Doesn't mean I don't value longevity. I value longevity a great deal when evaluating a career. But here I am tasked as a GM. And my job is to win titles. Shaq does way for me in that regard than Kobe.

And what i'm saying is the studies we have on thi say that the 30 year kobe stretch is getting you waay more titles than the shorter 10 year shaq one.

Your estimate is probably just wrong.

What studies?

They are guessing just as I am lol.

And I feel really good about my choice of Shaq over Kobe, thanks.

ben's srs/title studies? He looked at srs/rapm scores/titles to derive the longetvity/peak weighting. I suppose its not an exact science, but it's alot more than guess work

yeah Ben is smarter than me. And an infinitely better communicator. But he's guessing. We can dress it up and call it statistical projection, but its pure conjecture just as mine is.

And I will stand by my position over his here. Feel free to laugh at my hubris.

Texas Chuck wrote:

falcolombardi wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:
What studies?

They are guessing just as I am lol.

And I feel really good about my choice of Shaq over Kobe, thanks.

I domt think anyone disagrees with shaq over kobe lol, but 30 years of kobe? I would take that bet tbh

You can't get 30 years. Nobody lasts that long. That's on me for using that number, but its meaningless.

But let's say I get 15 years of Kobe followed by 15 years of KG. I'm still taking 10 years of Shaq. If my goal is to win titles. Obviously if the owner's goal is just to fill the building in a tough market I might not get that choice.

I understoof the question as 30 years of kobe level play. Like if you had kobe then got a similar player right after then another one

Texas Chuck wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:I would rather have the best 10 years of Shaq than the entire career of Kobe.

If my choice is somehow as Colbini put it, probably need 30 or so Kobe seasons which feels so unrealistic as again make the choice I'm never taking Kobe.

Because peak Shaq makes me the championship favorite every year. Peak Kobe doesn't even guarantee me a playoff series win.

that seems excessive. 30 years would be miles off by even the most generous to peak team-wide studies

I'm not trying to actually put a number on it because I value dominant seasons so much more than even all-NBA type seasons. And when I get 10 consecutive peak Shaq seasons, its impossible for Kobe to play enough seasons to make that up. Because I'm winning 6 or 7 titles on average with a chance to do better than that. With Kobe for say a ridiculous 15 year peak level play run, I'm probably lucky to win one or two and that's if I can find a Pau Gasol level player to pair with him.

This is why guys like Duncan and Russell and Mike and Shaq and Lebron are the GOAT's. These guys have you contending for titles year in and year out. Even great players on the fringes of the top ten like Kobe, Dream, Dirk, KG, can't do the same. We pretend a lot like the difference between the best players in the world and the 5th or 6th best player is small, but its not. Right now Curry and Giannis and Jokic are a lot better than Luka and Ja and Tatum and Booker and Butler. That gap is actually quite meaningful.

So I'm always going to want those dominant seasons. Doesn't mean I don't value longevity. I value longevity a great deal when evaluating a career. But here I am tasked as a GM. And my job is to win titles. Shaq does way for me in that regard than Kobe.

Peak Kobe wasn't the 5th or 6th best player in the world, and it's a bit of a clown take to insinuate he was. He's Jokic in your comp, not Booker.

Texas Chuck wrote:yeah Ben is smarter than me. And an infinitely better communicator. But he's guessing. We can dress it up and call it statistical projection, but its pure conjecture just as mine is.

And I will stand by my position over his here. Feel free to laugh at my hubris.

Well its's a statistical derivation from actual data. I suppose you can question the accuracy but it's not "pure conjecture"

OhayoKD wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:yeah Ben is smarter than me. And an infinitely better communicator. But he's guessing. We can dress it up and call it statistical projection, but its pure conjecture just as mine is.

And I will stand by my position over his here. Feel free to laugh at my hubris.

Well its's a statistical derivation from actual data. I suppose you can question the accuracy but it's not "pure conjecture"

Yes it is.

Look at Nate Silver and 538. He has far more extensive models than Ben. And he's guessing. As evidence by how inaccurate even one of the best data people in the world is.

I mean this is basic. I concede his methodology is more developed than mine. And you should definitely trust them more than me. but in the end we are all taking available information and projecting what we think would happen. I happen to believe there aren't alogrithms for everything. That basketball has far too many variables to be solved. Others here disagree and believe for instance Curry, Kerr, and the Warriors have solved basketball.

End of clown take.

eminence wrote: and it's a bit of a clown take to insinuate he was.

Thanks

I don't have Kobe as ever being the best player in the world. I'm not even sure there is a season I have him one of the 3 best players in the world. He has a bunch as a top 5 guy, but I don't have him approaching a season like Jokic just had.

You can disagree, but I can defend that position. There is no year where Kobe is clear cut the best player in the world. Not by a long shot.

Texas Chuck wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:yeah Ben is smarter than me. And an infinitely better communicator. But he's guessing. We can dress it up and call it statistical projection, but its pure conjecture just as mine is.

And I will stand by my position over his here. Feel free to laugh at my hubris.

Well its's a statistical derivation from actual data. I suppose you can question the accuracy but it's not "pure conjecture"

Yes it is.

Look at Nate Silver and 538. He has far more extensive models than Ben. And he's guessing. As evidence by how inaccurate even one of the best data people in the world is.

Nate's models are pretty predictive actually:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/checking-our-work/
If you're going to call anything that lacks 100% certainity "pure conjecure", then this would apply for all scienctific knowledge in every field. Is the world being round "pure conjecture" to you?


Just because you make a baseless claims does not mean all other claims about a subject are baseless...