RealGM

Kobe+Shaq +9.28
Kobe -3.07
Shaq +4.38
Neither of Them -7.28

Certainly supportive of Shaq being the clear alpha of these teams.

https://www.pbpstats.com/wowy-combos/nba?TeamId=1610612747&Season=2000-01,2001-02,2002-03,2003-04&SeasonType=All&PlayerIds=977,406

This is slightly off-topic but out of the all-time greats of the plus-minus era I find Kobe's plus-minus the most surprising in a negative way. I was never a huge Kobe guy in the 00s but I never questioned his status as an ATG. Even in 2005 when people were most down on him.

But if you look at him from a plus minus perspective, either peak or career, he looks significantly weaker than his reputation. His best 5 year stretch isn't in the top 20 from 97-01 based on this study. https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/ahmed.cheema8618/viz/FiveYearRAPMPeaks1997-2021/FiveYearRAPMPeaks1997-2021

Again he looks to be a very good player but it isn't anything close to what you'd expect. To be clear, I'm not saying plus/minus is the be all end all.

What? Is there really an argument that Kobe was on Shaq's level (1A/1B)? I know there are many, many goofy Kobe fanboys that might feel that way, but anybody with eyes and functioning gray matter knows that Shaq was the lone alpha on that team. Kobe was a great number 2 guy, though.

Edit: My bad. I had my dates wrong. I was going from 2000 to 2002. The three championship years.

Ian Scuffling wrote:What? Is there really an argument that Kobe was on Shaq's level (1A/1B)?

Yes. In the 2001 Playoffs, 2003 Regular Season they were very much 1A/1B. Also lesser extent in 2004, mainly because Shaq was declining.

That First Round of 2004 Playoffs v Houston, Shaq was terrible in that series. The Lakers were just lucky they played a bad Offensive Team that couldn't score in Houston in that series.

Ian Scuffling wrote:What? Is there really an argument that Kobe was on Shaq's level (1A/1B)? I know there are many, many goofy Kobe fanboys that might feel that way, but anybody with eyes and functioning gray matter knows that Shaq was the lone alpha on that team. Kobe was a great number 2 guy, though.

I am a Kobe fan boy as you call it, what ever doesn't worry me. I don't take this #@@! to heart. No doubt In my mind that Kobe was/Is a 2nd fiddle to Shaq... I mean I created a thread viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2414239

Saying Shaq was a Lone alpha on the other hand, I'm not so sure.

sp6r=underrated wrote:This is slightly off-topic but out of the all-time greats of the plus-minus era I find Kobe's plus-minus the most surprising in a negative way. I was never a huge Kobe guy in the 00s but I never questioned his status as an ATG. Even in 2005 when people were most down on him.

But if you look at him from a plus minus perspective, either peak or career, he looks significantly weaker than his reputation. His best 5 year stretch isn't in the top 20 from 97-01 based on this study. https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/ahmed.cheema8618/viz/FiveYearRAPMPeaks1997-2021/FiveYearRAPMPeaks1997-2021

Again he looks to be a very good player but it isn't anything close to what you'd expect. To be clear, I'm not saying plus/minus is the be all end all.

Generally he's held down by the defense where (despite the 10+ All-Defense Teams) Kobe is a slight net negative on that end according to the plus-minus stats. https://public.tableau.com/views/14YearRAPM/14YearRAPM?%3Aembed=y&%3AshowVizHome=no

Special_Puppy wrote:Kobe+Shaq +9.28
Kobe -3.07
Shaq +4.38
Neither of Them -7.28

Certainly supportive of Shaq being the clear alpha of these teams.

https://www.pbpstats.com/wowy-combos/nba?TeamId=1610612747&Season=2000-01,2001-02,2002-03,2003-04&SeasonType=All&PlayerIds=977,406

Also interesting that there is such a strong synergistic effect instead of being purely additive. Is this generally true or unusual for two top tier players playing together?

unfortunately, due to kobe's poor plus/minus, he was never able to lead his team to 3 consecutive finals and back to back championships.

f4p wrote:unfortunately, due to kobe's poor plus/minus, he was never able to lead his team to 3 consecutive finals and back to back championships.

The success of the 2008-2010 Laker doesn't neccessarily poke a hole in the plus-minus data. Could be that we are undercrediting how good Kobe's supporting cast was those years (but I don't think that's personally the case). Could also be that Kobe's impact in the playoffs went up these 3 years (which I definately do think was the case, but I'm not sure what the magnitude of the chance was). Could also be that these were Kobe's 3 year impact peak and Kobe is less impressive during the rest of his prime (Kobe's on/off data exceeded +10 during this 3 year stretch while it was around +6 during the rest of Kobe's prime)

f4p wrote:unfortunately, due to kobe's poor plus/minus, he was never able to lead his team to 3 consecutive finals and back to back championships.

I don't disagree. I'm just saying I always find it suprising because the data doesn't jive with my impression of him. The inverse of this is Stockton.

Special_Puppy wrote:

f4p wrote:unfortunately, due to kobe's poor plus/minus, he was never able to lead his team to 3 consecutive finals and back to back championships.

The success of the 2008-2010 Laker doesn't neccessarily poke a hole in the plus-minus data. Could be that we are undercrediting how good Kobe's supporting cast was those years (but I don't think that's personally the case). Could also be that Kobe's impact in the playoffs went up these 3 years (which I definately do think was the case, but I'm not sure what the magnitude of the chance was). Could also be that these were Kobe's 3 year impact peak and Kobe is less impressive during the rest of his prime (Kobe's on/off data exceeded +10 during this 3 year stretch while it was around +6 during the rest of Kobe's prime)

IMO this has a lot to do with Kobe's defensive effort. His defensive effort was relatively poor (even when young) during most of the regular season, but a lot higher in the playoffs (and a few marquee regular season games). This is why the Lakers tended to underachieve (compared to their talent levels) during the regular season but were very strong playoff performers.

It's also why his defensive reputation (built during the playoffs and a few marquee regular season games) is so much higher than full regular season defensive stats show.

f4p wrote:unfortunately, due to kobe's poor plus/minus, he was never able to lead his team to 3 consecutive finals and back to back championships.

Fortunately he had a stacked team around him for all his finals runs.

From the same source.

https://www.pbpstats.com/wowy-combos/nba?TeamId=1610612747&Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs&PlayerIds=977,406&OnlyCommonGames=true

Kobe is the undisputed leader of the '01 playoffs run then.

carlquincy wrote:From the same source.

https://www.pbpstats.com/wowy-combos/nba?TeamId=1610612747&Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs&PlayerIds=977,406&OnlyCommonGames=true

Kobe is the undisputed leader of the '01 playoffs run then.

Dude unironically citing 73 minute samples

Special_Puppy wrote:

carlquincy wrote:From the same source.

https://www.pbpstats.com/wowy-combos/nba?TeamId=1610612747&Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs&PlayerIds=977,406&OnlyCommonGames=true

Kobe is the undisputed leader of the '01 playoffs run then.

Dude unironically citing 73 minute samples

Of course I did. If the short term samples are unreliable, what makes you think the long term results are accurate?

carlquincy wrote:

Special_Puppy wrote:

carlquincy wrote:From the same source.

https://www.pbpstats.com/wowy-combos/nba?TeamId=1610612747&Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Playoffs&PlayerIds=977,406&OnlyCommonGames=true

Kobe is the undisputed leader of the '01 playoffs run then.

Dude unironically citing 73 minute samples

Of course I did. If the short term samples are unreliable, what makes you think the long term results are accurate?

Because a 2000+ minute sample is more likely to be signal than noise than a 73 minute sample?

Special_Puppy wrote:

carlquincy wrote:

Special_Puppy wrote:
Dude unironically citing 73 minute samples

Of course I did. If the short term samples are unreliable, what makes you think the long term results are accurate?

Because a 2000+ minute sample is more likely to be signal than noise than a 73 minute sample?

So the stat is not accurate?

carlquincy wrote:

Special_Puppy wrote:

carlquincy wrote:
Of course I did. If the short term samples are unreliable, what makes you think the long term results are accurate?

Because a 2000+ minute sample is more likely to be signal than noise than a 73 minute sample?

So the stat is not accurate?

A 73 minute sample is more likely to noise then signal. A 2000+ minute sample is more likely to be signal than noise

We are measuring over 1 entire playoff run. Are you implying that the stats you shared should not be applied to this interval?

carlquincy wrote:We are measuring over 1 entire playoff run. Are you implying that the stats you shared should not be applied to this interval?

No, just that a small sample size has a larger likelihood of error than a larger one. If Kobe is that impressive over his decade+ of playoff runs, then we can say with greater certainty that he was one of the great playoff risers in NBA history like we do with Hakeem. But generally 12 games is less convincing than 80 games which is less convincing than 400 games unless there are clear outside modifiers (like injuries) that would affect the numbers.