If Kobe replaced West on his teams from 1960 to 1974 how many rings does he win.

Moderators: Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal

User avatar
An Unbiased Fan
RealGM
Posts: 11,732
And1: 5,705
Joined: Jan 16, 2009
       

Re: If Kobe replaced West on his teams from 1960 to 1974 how many rings does he win. 

Post#21 » by An Unbiased Fan » Thu Aug 11, 2022 1:23 am

MyUniBroDavis wrote:
An Unbiased Fan wrote:Kobe was much more explosive, better in the post, and more explosive at the rim, along with a great mid-range. I bring these up in the context of that era and the type of players who would have to try and defend him.

61 Lakers / 00 Kobe - Lose in Finals to Celtics
62 Lakers / 01 Kobe - Lakers beat Celtics in finals
63 Lakers / 02 Kobe - Lakers beat Celtics in finals
64 Lakers / 03 Kobe - Lose in Finals to Celtics
65 Lakers / 04 Kobe - Lose in Finals to Celtics
66 Lakers / 05 Kobe - Lose to Hawks in WCF
67 Lakers / 06 Kobe - Lose to 76ers in Finals
68 Lakers / 07 Kobe - Lakers beat Celtics in Finals
69 Lakers / 08 Kobe - Lakers beat Celtics in Finals
70 Lakers / 09 Kobe - Lakers beat Knicks in Finals
71 Lakers / 10 Kobe - Lakers beat Bucks in Finals
72 Lakers / 11 Kobe - Lakers beat Knicks in Finals
73 Lakers / 12 Kobe - Lakers beat Knicks in Finals
74 Lakers / 13 Kobe - Lakers lose to Bucks in 1st round

Lakers go back to back early in the 60s before Hondo is going. And become dominant once Wilt comes over creating the GOAT big 3 in NBA history.


I don’t think it’s Kobe teleported back then vs if he was born at the time right? (Without the more obvious social complications of doing so)

In that regard him winning 7 seems kind of absurd lol

He won 5 in 11 years, in a league over 3 times as big. How in the world is it absurd? Which years am I wrong on?
7-time RealGM MVPoster 2009-2016
Inducted into RealGM HOF 1st ballot in 2017
User avatar
An Unbiased Fan
RealGM
Posts: 11,732
And1: 5,705
Joined: Jan 16, 2009
       

Re: If Kobe replaced West on his teams from 1960 to 1974 how many rings does he win. 

Post#22 » by An Unbiased Fan » Thu Aug 11, 2022 1:39 am

capfan33 wrote:
An Unbiased Fan wrote:
Stan wrote:Seriously, 8 titles? And you want to claim you’re an unbiased fan lol.

Kobe is in no way, shape or form worth 7 more titles than West. This is a guy who was routinely mediocre in the Finals, and you think he’s wining 7 more titles than a guy who was often brilliant in them?

Kobe had 5 rings, and got them in a NBA with more than 8 teams. Tell me which years are wrong?

Prime Kobe won three straight with Shaq, and back to back with Pau. Once Wilt comes to LA in 69 with that defensive focus, who is beating LA's big 3 of Kobe, Wilt, Elgin??? What guards are they throwing at Kobe to even try to defend while Wilt is down below?

Yes, put Kobe on those Laker teams and he feasts. Keep in mind how many times West made the Finals.


They aren't winning in 62, 63, 69, 71, or 73. 68 and 70 are tenous at best. And West was a better playoff performer than Kobe, the time-machine argument is a fair one but just based on what they did during their careers it isn't close.

How was West a better playoff performer? Or are we using 60s stats as if they are comparable to 00s stats?

I mean who on the 62 Celtics is guarding Kobe? He would post up Sam Jones all game long. And Sam was more of a shooter than defender. Baylor dropped 40/18 against the 62 Celtics, and it went 7 games. Kobe would have matched West's 31ppg, and likely had 40 ppg himself against Jones.



In 1963, Baylor was 34/15. Kobe would have done more than West's 29.5 in that series, Boston had no one to check him and we all know what Kobe does when you put weak defenders on him. That 2-4 lost becomes a Laker title.

Not sure how they lose in 1969. Kobe/Wilt/Baylor? That series went 7 games with West, the Celtics lose in 5.

1970...again LA lost in 7 games, and the Knicks don't stop that Kobe/Wilt duo.

1973? West was old and giving like 21ppg at that point. Kobe/Goodrich/Wilt win those Finals.

Again, the NBA was much smaller back then, than in the 00s when Kobe got 5 rings. But someone he can't get 7 or 8 in a much smaller NBA paired with guys like Baylor and Wilt? Especially when LA was already going to quite a few game 7s in the FInals?
7-time RealGM MVPoster 2009-2016
Inducted into RealGM HOF 1st ballot in 2017
tsherkin
Forum Mod - Raptors
Forum Mod - Raptors
Posts: 92,130
And1: 31,718
Joined: Oct 14, 2003
 

Re: If Kobe replaced West on his teams from 1960 to 1974 how many rings does he win. 

Post#23 » by tsherkin » Thu Aug 11, 2022 1:40 am

An Unbiased Fan wrote:He won 5 in 11 years, in a league over 3 times as big. How in the world is it absurd? Which years am I wrong on?


How are his achievements in a different league environment with different teammates salient to how he might perform in the 60s and 70s jumping on to the teams as they were as a replacement for West?
MyUniBroDavis
General Manager
Posts: 7,827
And1: 5,032
Joined: Jan 14, 2013

Re: If Kobe replaced West on his teams from 1960 to 1974 how many rings does he win. 

Post#24 » by MyUniBroDavis » Thu Aug 11, 2022 1:46 am

tsherkin wrote:
MyUniBroDavis wrote:[ there weren’t that many people he would emulate if he was born in the 40s, and developed as a player pre pro in the 50s, west was ridiculously ahead of his time watching it


I don't know. he could have easily been drafted later than Baylor and looked up to him growing up. The effort and focus were clearly there, so I think he would have found some source of motivation regardless.

Kobe especially is someone that probably translates well to earlier eras, in the sense that you could make the argument all things considered he’s been the best 1v1 perimeter scorer in the 21st century, that relied more than his peers on his post game, which through his prime (06-09 imo) does show up as absolutely ridiculous for a perimeter player


If you take in context that he was a good shooter who had a post game, I can't see him being worse than, for example, Baylor. He had size, he had athleticism, he had a game which suited well even without being able to get to the rim quite the same way as he did in his own career because of how packed the paint was. He drew fouls well enough, like it's pretty clear Kobe would be a top-end perimeter star at any point in league history. He might struggle with the modern age a little in terms of the relative value of his offense because he wasn't a prize 3pt shooter and was never dominant with his efficiency... but then we can play with stuff like "how would he develop born a little later" and all that.


My point wasn't to say Kobe couldn't play in the 60s, I just meant that there would be some little things which would alter his direct performance profile and so looking at what he did in his own time and projecting back is tough when trying to look at replacing West. For example, would he be a comparable offensive option? Well, in-era, 64-72, West was a 56.6% TS guy. Kobe was a career 55.0% TS guy, and 52.0% without the 3PT shot. But of course, that's on his whole career vs a selection from West. So instead, let's look at 2000-2013. Now we see that he's at 55.6% TS for that stretch, and 52.8% without the 3. All of a sudden, he looks a lot more like Baylor, right? Better, though, somewhere in between Baylor (who was a career 49.4% TS guy and never reached 52%) and West.

Food for thought, anyway. Kobe was a better shooter than Baylor, so perhaps that difference isn't so surprising, but we're discussing replacing West. I think the Lakers would be materially worse for having done so, but they'd be a lot better if they replaced Baylor with Kobe.



I’m confused lol it sounds like you replied before I edited my post cuz it almost looks like I was anti kobe here lol

I feel calling his post game good is a bit of an understatement, his effeciency in the post is higher than dirks from 07-09 every year (who is transcendent in that regard), and the volume difference isn’t particularly crazy either (about 700 to 1150 possessions overall in the three year stretch)

I think Kobe in the modern era looks pretty good personally, his three point shooting was pretty solid during his prime given the shots he would take and the value of three point shooting is more so spacing rather than 3 vs 2 off ball, it’s similar to bron grading out as a near elite theee point shooter the past few years if you take into account the shots he take even though his percentages are decent, and he wasn’t someone that was bad in a pick and roll offense vs just didn’t do it much (and looked pretty fantastic in one more focused on that post prime).

Projecting back and forward will mostly depend on what you believe the talent gap to be, vs the rule changes, so I don’t really think we can project back and forward with just their TS like that
tsherkin
Forum Mod - Raptors
Forum Mod - Raptors
Posts: 92,130
And1: 31,718
Joined: Oct 14, 2003
 

Re: If Kobe replaced West on his teams from 1960 to 1974 how many rings does he win. 

Post#25 » by tsherkin » Thu Aug 11, 2022 1:58 am

MyUniBroDavis wrote:I’m confused lol it sounds like you replied before I edited my post cuz it almost looks like I was anti kobe here lol


I didn't take what you said as anti-Kobe, no.

I feel calling his post game good is a bit of an understatement, his effeciency in the post is higher than dirks from 07-09 every year (who is transcendent in that regard), and the volume difference isn’t particularly crazy either (about 700 to 1150 possessions overall in the three year stretch)


Sure, that's fair. It doesn't change anything, but yes, he was one of the best post-up guards we've seen.

I think Kobe in the modern era looks pretty good personally, his three point shooting was pretty solid during his prime given the shots he would take


And that's the question. Does he still take dumb-ass BS shots? Does he clean that up? Does he find a nice middle ground? I'm sure he'd still be very good, it's just the degree of efficacy which would be impacted.

Projecting back and forward will mostly depend on what you believe the talent gap to be, vs the rule changes, so I don’t really think we can project back and forward with just their TS like that


No, I think there are a bunch of different factors which I mentioned in my first post which still play in, for sure. And of course, the raw TS% is only so important. League-average TS% was 50.3% in 1974, so even if Kobe was "only" a 52.6% TS player or what have you, that's still pretty efficient in-era, and notably more valuable than Baylor.

Where he stands relative to West is interesting. Kobe didn't show the willingness to really ham-hand it to the rim for fouls quite the same way as West did, while others during Kobe's own time did. Even post 05, he didn't really stun with his draw rate most years, and that would go down some if his shooting volume went up in the 60s and 70s, you know? So I don't really see Kobe as playing a game comparable in efficiency to West in the absence of the 3pt shot. He'd still be very valuable, of course, and again, a top perimeter player in the league. But REPLACING West probably wouldn't be ideal for those Lakers, IMHO.
capfan33
Pro Prospect
Posts: 874
And1: 751
Joined: May 21, 2022
 

Re: If Kobe replaced West on his teams from 1960 to 1974 how many rings does he win. 

Post#26 » by capfan33 » Thu Aug 11, 2022 2:33 am

An Unbiased Fan wrote:
capfan33 wrote:
An Unbiased Fan wrote:Kobe had 5 rings, and got them in a NBA with more than 8 teams. Tell me which years are wrong?

Prime Kobe won three straight with Shaq, and back to back with Pau. Once Wilt comes to LA in 69 with that defensive focus, who is beating LA's big 3 of Kobe, Wilt, Elgin??? What guards are they throwing at Kobe to even try to defend while Wilt is down below?

Yes, put Kobe on those Laker teams and he feasts. Keep in mind how many times West made the Finals.


They aren't winning in 62, 63, 69, 71, or 73. 68 and 70 are tenous at best. And West was a better playoff performer than Kobe, the time-machine argument is a fair one but just based on what they did during their careers it isn't close.

How was West a better playoff performer? Or are we using 60s stats as if they are comparable to 00s stats?

I mean who on the 62 Celtics is guarding Kobe? He would post up Sam Jones all game long. And Sam was more of a shooter than defender. Baylor dropped 40/18 against the 62 Celtics, and it went 7 games. Kobe would have matched West's 31ppg, and likely had 40 ppg himself against Jones.



In 1963, Baylor was 34/15. Kobe would have done more than West's 29.5 in that series, Boston had no one to check him and we all know what Kobe does when you put weak defenders on him. That 2-4 lost becomes a Laker title.

Not sure how they lose in 1969. Kobe/Wilt/Baylor? That series went 7 games with West, the Celtics lose in 5.

1970...again LA lost in 7 games, and the Knicks don't stop that Kobe/Wilt duo.

1973? West was old and giving like 21ppg at that point. Kobe/Goodrich/Wilt win those Finals.

Again, the NBA was much smaller back then, than in the 00s when Kobe got 5 rings. But someone he can't get 7 or 8 in a much smaller NBA paired with guys like Baylor and Wilt? Especially when LA was already going to quite a few game 7s in the FInals?


I did say independent of the time-machine argument. Moreover, while Kobe played in a more mature league West played in the toughest environment for perimeter offense in modern NBA history, and West was a massive outlier in this environment. Also, less teams means a greater concentration of talent on each team. I'm not sure what empirical data exists that suggests more teams automatically means winning multiple titles is harder.

In terms of defense it's not the perimeter defenders per say but, you know, Bill Russell manning the middle in an era with 0 spacing that would have been challenging. I'm sure Kobe would get his points but I have doubts he would've approached West's efficiency. Hell, the most comparable rim protector Kobe ever went against in the finals was Ben Wallace and we don't need to discuss Kobe's performance in that series. Moreover, even if Kobe is marginally better than West, assuming that he would be enough to coinsistently beat the greatest dynasty in north American team sports history is... an interesting leap.

2 other things, you might be right on 73 at least in this comparison beacuse Kobe even independent of era prob has better longevity than West so he could actually make the difference there, West was past his prime. Also, if you replayed West's career a 1000 times I suspect he would end up with more than 1 title on average because I do think the Celtics got quite lucky in the current timeline. They underperformed in the playoffs and the 62 and 69 series specifically very easily could have and maybe should've gone to West's side.
MyUniBroDavis
General Manager
Posts: 7,827
And1: 5,032
Joined: Jan 14, 2013

Re: If Kobe replaced West on his teams from 1960 to 1974 how many rings does he win. 

Post#27 » by MyUniBroDavis » Thu Aug 11, 2022 4:39 am

tsherkin wrote:
MyUniBroDavis wrote:I’m confused lol it sounds like you replied before I edited my post cuz it almost looks like I was anti kobe here lol


I didn't take what you said as anti-Kobe, no.

I feel calling his post game good is a bit of an understatement, his effeciency in the post is higher than dirks from 07-09 every year (who is transcendent in that regard), and the volume difference isn’t particularly crazy either (about 700 to 1150 possessions overall in the three year stretch)


Sure, that's fair. It doesn't change anything, but yes, he was one of the best post-up guards we've seen.

I think Kobe in the modern era looks pretty good personally, his three point shooting was pretty solid during his prime given the shots he would take


And that's the question. Does he still take dumb-ass BS shots? Does he clean that up? Does he find a nice middle ground? I'm sure he'd still be very good, it's just the degree of efficacy which would be impacted.

Projecting back and forward will mostly depend on what you believe the talent gap to be, vs the rule changes, so I don’t really think we can project back and forward with just their TS like that


No, I think there are a bunch of different factors which I mentioned in my first post which still play in, for sure. And of course, the raw TS% is only so important. League-average TS% was 50.3% in 1974, so even if Kobe was "only" a 52.6% TS player or what have you, that's still pretty efficient in-era, and notably more valuable than Baylor.

Where he stands relative to West is interesting. Kobe didn't show the willingness to really ham-hand it to the rim for fouls quite the same way as West did, while others during Kobe's own time did. Even post 05, he didn't really stun with his draw rate most years, and that would go down some if his shooting volume went up in the 60s and 70s, you know? So I don't really see Kobe as playing a game comparable in efficiency to West in the absence of the 3pt shot. He'd still be very valuable, of course, and again, a top perimeter player in the league. But REPLACING West probably wouldn't be ideal for those Lakers, IMHO.



On shooting:

I think the value of three point shooting is in the spacing it provides vs the value of the shot itself, he did have questionable shot selection for sure but it’s a reason why Avery Bradley for example is considered an extremely poor offensive player despite being decent from three

It’s a bit counterintuitive but generally it’s better to shoot 33-34% on 4-5 threes a game than 40% on 1-2 a game, not because of the value but because of he threat

Of course a guy who shoots 4-5 in 40% is more ideal

I think modern spacing does help him a lot though, he was overall more effecient as a 1v1 player relative to the league than Kawhi and near Durant Iirc, and also comparable in other areas with more emphasis today outside of spot up shooting where he still looks quite solid his best years, especially taking into account that his catch and shoots from midrange would be gone

The modern era more so helps out in the sense of mismatch spaced out basketball with counters for teams stunting or pre rotating for smart teams (although I guess if he was on the Lakers he wouldn’t get this lol)

His shot selection isn’t as much of an issue if he doesn’t have to deal with shooting into help as much in the first place if the team counters correctly

I think when it comes to Kobe, he was pretty consistent with saying that he would have gone right at the rim in other eras right? There was a bit of a shift I feel pre 05 and post 05 for him, while most perimeter wing guys iirc seemed to attack or get to the rim more post 05 Kobe kinda went the opposite way, which I assume was a play style change.

I don’t think his shot profile changes to be like harden or anything of course but I could see a Kawhi looking one for sure with more emphasis on post play which Kawhi obviously is already great at

I think where our disagreement lies is in how large we see the gap between 1960 players and 2000s players, I think for their time west probably was better at his best, but I don’t really have them close at all in an absolute sense
tsherkin
Forum Mod - Raptors
Forum Mod - Raptors
Posts: 92,130
And1: 31,718
Joined: Oct 14, 2003
 

Re: If Kobe replaced West on his teams from 1960 to 1974 how many rings does he win. 

Post#28 » by tsherkin » Thu Aug 11, 2022 4:44 am

MyUniBroDavis wrote:I think the value of three point shooting is in the spacing it provides vs the value of the shot itself, he did have questionable shot selection for sure but it’s a reason why Avery Bradley for example is considered an extremely poor offensive player despite being decent from three


Well, that and he doesn't really do much else, and manages to be inefficient regardless. He's a roleplayer, he's there to hit open shots when consequential players create opportunities, that's all. We agree, spacing has value.

It’s a bit counterintuitive but generally it’s better to shoot 33-34% on 4-5 threes a game than 40% on 1-2 a game, not because of the value but because of he threat


Yes, I'm with you on that. I just wish Kobe wouldn't have bothered with so many pointless "heat check" threes. Those aren't super valuable shots. Understand, this is a nitpick more than anything else, because Kobe was obviously very effective and had his physical prime matched up with the 05-and-later portion of his career, he'd have also looked a little different, I recognize.


I think where our disagreement lies is in how large we see the gap between 1960 players and 2000s players, I think for their time west probably was better at his best, but I don’t really have them close at all in an absolute sense


Mmm. West was a better playmaker and his efficiency in the absence of a 3pt shot was a major outlier in his era. I don't think Kobe replicates that back then and I don't think his offensive value does a capable job replacing West in-era. I'm struggling to see what would make Kobe overwhelm back then when he didn't do it in his own era. Loads of respect for Kobe, he's an ATG, but I don't think he replaces West well on those teams.
MyUniBroDavis
General Manager
Posts: 7,827
And1: 5,032
Joined: Jan 14, 2013

Re: If Kobe replaced West on his teams from 1960 to 1974 how many rings does he win. 

Post#29 » by MyUniBroDavis » Thu Aug 11, 2022 5:37 am

tsherkin wrote:
MyUniBroDavis wrote:I think the value of three point shooting is in the spacing it provides vs the value of the shot itself, he did have questionable shot selection for sure but it’s a reason why Avery Bradley for example is considered an extremely poor offensive player despite being decent from three


Well, that and he doesn't really do much else, and manages to be inefficient regardless. He's a roleplayer, he's there to hit open shots when consequential players create opportunities, that's all. We agree, spacing has value.

It’s a bit counterintuitive but generally it’s better to shoot 33-34% on 4-5 threes a game than 40% on 1-2 a game, not because of the value but because of he threat


Yes, I'm with you on that. I just wish Kobe wouldn't have bothered with so many pointless "heat check" threes. Those aren't super valuable shots. Understand, this is a nitpick more than anything else, because Kobe was obviously very effective and had his physical prime matched up with the 05-and-later portion of his career, he'd have also looked a little different, I recognize.


I think where our disagreement lies is in how large we see the gap between 1960 players and 2000s players, I think for their time west probably was better at his best, but I don’t really have them close at all in an absolute sense


Mmm. West was a better playmaker and his efficiency in the absence of a 3pt shot was a major outlier in his era. I don't think Kobe replicates that back then and I don't think his offensive value does a capable job replacing West in-era. I'm struggling to see what would make Kobe overwhelm back then when he didn't do it in his own era. Loads of respect for Kobe, he's an ATG, but I don't think he replaces West well on those teams.



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

Might not have been the best example but my general thing is most of value from three point shooting as a role player comes from the spacing you provide, even when it comes to the sharpshooters a lot of it is based on the fact that the better u should the more they can’t help

Of course, hitting 45% from three is better than hitting 38%

Agree on part 2


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

My assumption is guard scoring was less effecient in the 60s (which makes west look even more impressive for his time of course), but even just looking at inside the arc scoring teams shot around 43-45% late 60s, whereas it was around 45-48% early 00s inside the arc

I would have to get the fg% of each guard in the 60s and the 2p% in the 2000-2004 period, but I do think that watching 2000s basketball vs 60s basketball, at least from what I’ve seen, while there’s definately still a vibe of offenses not being as advanced as today in terms of the skill level and stuff I do feel there’s a pretty big gap there of more than that number, if we’re going by average

Another way to say it is I don’t think it takes a player of kobes caliber in an absolute sense to do the things west did, although time travel arguments all come down to how you evaluate the skill level of those respective times, and like how much of an outlier the great perimeter guys were in an absolute sense, west was an outlier for his time more than Kobe was for his, but I think the “his time” aspect is pretty important here

I’m a good bit higher on Kobe than most but that’s not really what makes me put him much over west in an absolute ends
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 29,894
And1: 25,232
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: If Kobe replaced West on his teams from 1960 to 1974 how many rings does he win. 

Post#30 » by 70sFan » Thu Aug 11, 2022 6:25 am

An Unbiased Fan wrote:
70sFan wrote:
An Unbiased Fan wrote:Kobe was much more explosive, better in the post, and more explosive at the rim, along with a great mid-range. I bring these up in the context of that era and the type of players who would have to try and defend him.

61 Lakers / 00 Kobe - Lose in Finals to Celtics
62 Lakers / 01 Kobe - Lakers beat Celtics in finals
63 Lakers / 02 Kobe - Lakers beat Celtics in finals
64 Lakers / 03 Kobe - Lose in Finals to Celtics
65 Lakers / 04 Kobe - Lose in Finals to Celtics
66 Lakers / 05 Kobe - Lose to Hawks in WCF
67 Lakers / 06 Kobe - Lose to 76ers in Finals
68 Lakers / 07 Kobe - Lakers beat Celtics in Finals
69 Lakers / 08 Kobe - Lakers beat Celtics in Finals
70 Lakers / 09 Kobe - Lakers beat Knicks in Finals
71 Lakers / 10 Kobe - Lakers beat Bucks in Finals
72 Lakers / 11 Kobe - Lakers beat Knicks in Finals
73 Lakers / 12 Kobe - Lakers beat Knicks in Finals
74 Lakers / 13 Kobe - Lakers lose to Bucks in 1st round

Lakers go back to back early in the 60s before Hondo is going. And become dominant once Wilt comes over creating the GOAT big 3 in NBA history.

2013 Kobe with 1974 Lakers roster winning the champion in the finals against a team that played in the same conference - I have seen it all...

Huh?? I literally have 2013 Kobe on the 74 team losing in the 1st round. He got hurt right before the playoffs

Sorry, for some reason I read it wrong. Then again - beating the Bucks in 1971 finals would be impossible as well
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 29,894
And1: 25,232
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: If Kobe replaced West on his teams from 1960 to 1974 how many rings does he win. 

Post#31 » by 70sFan » Thu Aug 11, 2022 6:29 am

The only ones I can see is 1962, 1969 and 1970. Not really because Kobe was better than West, but because these series were so close.

I don't view Kobe as the better player than West, but they are fairly close and Kobe was more durable, giving his team more opportunities to win it all.
SinceGatlingWasARookie
RealGM
Posts: 11,712
And1: 2,759
Joined: Aug 25, 2005
Location: Northern California

Re: If Kobe replaced West on his teams from 1960 to 1974 how many rings does he win. 

Post#32 » by SinceGatlingWasARookie » Thu Aug 11, 2022 6:42 am

Kobe is the better player if you ignore the fact that modern players don’t know how to dribble by 1960s rules.
tsherkin
Forum Mod - Raptors
Forum Mod - Raptors
Posts: 92,130
And1: 31,718
Joined: Oct 14, 2003
 

Re: If Kobe replaced West on his teams from 1960 to 1974 how many rings does he win. 

Post#33 » by tsherkin » Thu Aug 11, 2022 6:30 pm

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.
Samurai
General Manager
Posts: 8,904
And1: 3,115
Joined: Jul 01, 2014
     

Re: If Kobe replaced West on his teams from 1960 to 1974 how many rings does he win. 

Post#34 » by Samurai » Thu Aug 11, 2022 6:38 pm

If Kobe were born in 1938, I think it would be more likely for the Lakers to win a few more titles if Kobe replaced Baylor instead of West. While I don't consider prime Kobe to be better than West, I do think he was better than Baylor. The biggest question for me would be whether the Lakers' coaching staff could make the necessary adjustments since Kobe is a different type of player than Baylor.
MyUniBroDavis
General Manager
Posts: 7,827
And1: 5,032
Joined: Jan 14, 2013

Re: If Kobe replaced West on his teams from 1960 to 1974 how many rings does he win. 

Post#35 » by MyUniBroDavis » Sun Aug 14, 2022 1:53 pm

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.
tsherkin
Forum Mod - Raptors
Forum Mod - Raptors
Posts: 92,130
And1: 31,718
Joined: Oct 14, 2003
 

Re: If Kobe replaced West on his teams from 1960 to 1974 how many rings does he win. 

Post#36 » by tsherkin » Sun Aug 14, 2022 7:12 pm

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 mean, I see what you're saying. That kind of offense is still only so efficient, though, and I'm not feeling it gets a LOT better in earlier eras. I think after 02, it got a little worse for him as illegal D was normalized. We saw some of the same things curbing Vince Carter when they made it harder for him to get that catch-and-rip elbow set as often as he did earlier in his career and just in general as Ds adjusted to being allowed to flood.

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.


"Hyper efficient" never really described him, and his own self-described style of play is at odds with any kind of really threateningly-high TS% or anything like that. Which is fine, because in-era and in previous ones, he'd still certainly be efficient enough to be a very valuable player. And I'd expect at least SOME minute changes in his game translating forward, because he was certainly a smart player on top of his tools and skills.

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.


I mean, he was efficient in his own era. IT was, at the time, a common misconception that he was an inefficient player from people dropping the "chucker" label on him, but that was certainly not true. The guys who were more efficient than him at the time were mostly guys like Pierce and Ray Ray. Some of the difference was certainly 3pt shooting, where Kobe lagged behind those guys. Some of it, certainly 03 and later, leaned into volume-related stuff. But at the end of the day, Kobe was a very good mid-range shooter, a dirty slasher and very skilled. He had about every move you could have at one point or another, even to the point of that left-handed 3 from the corner Dirk gets so hot and bothered about xD He'd be fine in any era. Exactly what he looked like would vary and the specific degree of his value would certainly also shift.

I think you're not being quite kind enough to West as I personally believe appropriate, but a little disagreement is a healthy thing, heh.
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 30,315
And1: 9,877
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: If Kobe replaced West on his teams from 1960 to 1974 how many rings does he win. 

Post#37 » by penbeast0 » Sun Aug 14, 2022 7:43 pm

While I think Kobe, like most modern players could make adjustments, they wouldn't be easy. His slashing game would be hurt by the ballhandling rules unless he starts getting superstar calls (refs let some players get away with illegal moves because its "their move."). His 3 point shot would be only worth two. And, he is so used to the leaping of the modern game, with the primitive shoes and unyielding floors of the day, he'd almost certainly have serious knee problems like every other 60s great leaper (Elgin, Hawkins, Gus Johnson, etc.) so his career would most likely be much shorter. That's of course with the time machine version that people are using.

Without modern nutrition, weight work, medicine, etc. he would be a much skinnier, weaker player. On the other hand, his talent and work ethic would still be outstanding, he would be an amazing player in any era including the 60s. Joe Caldwell with a great midrange game; and probably one of the top 5-8 players of the era even if not quite up to the level of impact of a Russell/Wilt/West/Oscar but up there with Baylor, Pettit, Thurmond, etc. for 5th greatest of that era even though it's a poor fit for his skillset.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.

Return to Player Comparisons