tsherkin wrote:MyUniBroDavis wrote:I didn’t realize Bradley’s inside the arc scoring was as bad as it was, but what I’m saying witth that is Bradley is a guy who his 2 laker years wasn’t thaaat bad at shooting (39% this year, 36.4% 2020) but because of his general hesitance to shoot given how open he gets left all the time it ends up with him being a big negative
Oh, don't mistake me: we agree about Bradley. Despite being useless at anything else, just being able to hit spot-up 3s on kick-outs at a decent rate does have value.
I’d have to get synergy up for the last point and I don’t have time so I’ll get to that later, but I’ve always had a thing with thinking Kobe specifically translates extremely well to pretty much every era except his own in terms of his skillset based on his play type profile and stuff, although obviously there’s more to it than just that, but when it comes to transporting him to the 60s it’s not as much of a “I think Kobe does XXX” vs I just think the game progressed to the point that the absolute difference between them was pretty large, for a variety of factors
I absolutely agree that Kobe translates well to other eras. I think he wouldn't replace West specifically all that well on those Lakers because he wouldn't be quite the same level of wild-ass outlier in terms of scoring efficiency, but he'd still be very good. The value of what Kobe could do even with that rude translation I used earlier would be significant if he were replacing Baylor, for example, and there's an argument to be made that he MIGHT drive more aggressively, be a little less healthy and look a little different in profile from that translation, right? The other thing that we've only loosely discussed is that I like West's passing a lot more than Kobe's and I think that's a significant element of what he did for LA relative to Bryant in the context of that team. Kobe clashed some with the other volume scorer he played with in his career and I don't think that changes a lot with Baylor vs. Shaq. I still think they end up winning a ring or two together across the given time frame, of course, because he was just that good, but that's another thing that doesn't work for Bryant and does for West. Perhaps the smallest of all the considerations, though.
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
on topic with west though, I think again the issue for me isn’t so much how good is Kobe in that regard, it’s more how good is west, you get what I’m saying
I don’t really think it takes a player of Kobes level in an absolute sense to be an outlier of a perimeter scorer in the 1960s to be perfectly honest.
While I agree that defenses were probably at their strongest in the 1960s, I do think that’s relative to the level of nba offenses at the time. It’s kind of an iron sharpens iron thing for me.
Like one way for me to explain it. I don’t think you take the average perimeter player in the 1960s, you drop them in the 2000s and they’re able to be more effective offensively than they were in their time.
The inverse applies imo. Kobe would be effected by the rule changes negatively, of course.
But in an absolute sense it’s hard to compare guys of those times, and it’s all gonna be opinion, but if I’m gonna be quite honest I don’t think the average perimeter player in the 1960s is better than the average g league perimeter player at all, under either set of rules. I don’t really think it’s particularly close either.
There seems to be pushback against this idea because it sounds disrespectful, but even if you just consider the player pool it makes sense right? That’s without considering the 60-70 years of development.
The g league only has a slightly higher average TS than the nba, but it’s
substantially easier to score in. A guy like Clarkson probably averages a highly effecient 30-40 a game in the g league. A guy like Quinn cook is has been a 50-40-90 25ppg scorer for the past few seasons he played for example. It’s not as if they’d let guys score either, since they’re trying to make the team and one of the first things they look for in role players is defense
In that same vein, I do think you take a guy like Kobe, or really any high tier modern perimeter scoring superstar in the 60s, after they adjust to the ball handling rules and lack of a three point line they look
extremely out of place
If I’m gonna be completely honest, while I think west is better relative to his time, as a perimeter guy, compared to the average 60s player, if we’re talking about an absolute sense I think the two aren’t even remotely close, which is expected since one came 40
years later
It’s impossible to say anything with certainty, of course. At the end of the day we 40-50 year old eye tests where people said he was very athletic, was a great slasher and had a great shot, data that shows he was far better than his contemporaries, and film that supports him looking like he was far ahead of his time.
Outside of his max vert reach, which despite being something hyped up about him it seems isn’t particularly impressive at all given his measurements, a bit below average given his measurements From draft express (west’s barefoot height and wingspan match perfectly with the average shooting guard on draft express) in terms of the time travel debate I do think a lot of guys would look similarly out of place if they were dropped in the 1960s in place of him, which makes sense because they would be out of place.