Lakers Offense Could be Better without Kobe

[MyInsatiableOne]

I saw the title of this thread, and though "is this guy **** serious?"

[Roscoe Sheed]

I didnt bother reading but Kobe is the best player in the game today, as much as I hate him and the Lakers Im not afraid to admit it.

he is ONE of the best, but not necessarily THE best

[MyInsatiableOne]

I didnt bother reading but Kobe is the best player in the game today, as much as I hate him and the Lakers Im not afraid to admit it.

he is ONE of the best, but not necessarily THE best

[Gus McCrae]

yes, and the cavs should drop Lebron and the Thunder should get rid of Durant, Nuggets need to drop Carmelo.

[ClubLakers KB8]

LMAO. Dumbest article in the history of journalism.

In 1997-1998 Jordan took 7 attempts per game more than his teammates... where's the fuss with the "GOAT" doing that? Some people just shouldn't write about sports. Teams that have players who do this generally are the ones that win titles. You rarely see teams that spread the wealth evenly hold up a trophy.

[NetsForce]

No... Just no.

[eloper]

Before everyone hates, this is an interesting theory, albeit with limited justification and real world proof, but it shouldn't just be brushed aside.

Basically, the more a guy is shooting, the more difficult shots he's taking, and ultimately those difficult shots are going to be low percentage. Kobe scores a ton of points, and sometimes does it in a way that looks spectacular, but often those spectacular plays are low percentage plays (something AI has mastered over his career), and in the long run hurt the team. Skinner is suggesting that the goal should be to find the right distribution of shots so that guys aren't put into situations where they're forcing shots at low percentages.

To me, it's interesting....though hard to make practical because defenses are always going to create difficult shots for offenses, and someone has to take them.

[andyhop]

This seems like another occasion where someone is trying too hard to draw attention to his work by creating controversy and ending up actually taking away from the point he was trying to make by doing so.

If he had left Kobe's name out of it and used generic examples people would actually listen to what he is saying rather than just go "wtf the Lakers would be better off without Kobe LOL".

He really isn't saying anything controversial with his underlying point that there is an optimal distribution of shots between players of differing abilities to maximise their effectiveness, although whether it is ever achieveable in reality is doubtful.