RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #13 (Kobe Bryant)

[70sFan]

My issue with evaluations of these players is, what we have right now are a few highlight clips and spliced up game film quarter to quarter that isn’t continuous. I’d be lying if I said I’m impressed regardless by west regardless, but for any of this conclusions like how he was as a slasher or how he’d look today I’d want to have unedited full games or quarter film on him, it’s veryvsoliced up even on ur full games section. I don’t feel like a highlight reel demonstrates much to be honest

I agree, highlights are useless to evaluate players. Unfortunately, all I have on my Patreon is unedited footage I could find. We have a few full games from West career, but not much unfortunately.

it just is that the more I watch the less impressed I get lol,

That's very interesting, most people come out very unimpressed by first look at West (mostly his "highlights" which are not really highlights) but usually people gain more and more respect as they start watching full games. Not saying you are wrong, but it's not the usual impression I get from basketball fans

[MyUniBroDavis]

Replying to the earlier point too

Iso defenders aren’t worse today but are less equipped to guard or have help that isn’t countered, whereas back then the talent gap outweighs the schematic differences

Ok, that's a fair point. I don't think it applies to the 1990s, but for the late 2000s I can see that.

1. Time travelled against modern players and defenders? Don’t think so lol. The defense on west drives is astonishing half the time.

I think we are running circles here, maybe you can find some examples you find "astonishing"? Without it, I don't even know what you mean.

2. Synergy data isn’t even available during the early 2000s, not what I was referring to.

OK, but I only mentioned 2003 because that's the season I am watching recently. You can pick 2008 if you like, Spurs didn't change their scheme then.

Pick and roll isn’t less effective now or more difficult now. Teams generally run drop and diversify their coverages later on and there are extremely specific counters to that that are built in. This isn’t some sort of a huge absurd list of things we could ever understand as fans lol the only area I don’t know as well is vs blitz.

P&R isn't less effective, because players running that play are better. To argue they are not better defended is silly though, watch any mid-00s games and imagine modern team against such defense.

There’s like what, 6 ball screen coverages and 4 screen coverages with 2 that overlap? Something like that. All of them have built in counters that good teams run

Well, I think it's important to remember that teams don't really guard P&Rs 2 on 2, the rest of the team is also important. Besides, how many of these were even relevant back in the mid-00s?

Weak/ice/over/under/trap/switch?

Drop+variants/catch/trap/showrecover/switch?

Probably missing a few but yeah the counters are very clear, and there’s a reason pick and roll play is more effective now. Stuff are built in and coverages are easy to see.

How many of these were consistently run against Bryant? You also have to include that players scout and train P&R coverages more than ever, while back then most bigs simply drop by default.

Defensive coverages are more complex is silly when it got more complex because offense evolved against it and it’s trying to keep up with that. Most checkmate moments are a teams deficiencies and not the players defeciencies nowadays anyways.

How is that silly? Defenses were forced to adapt and they did, but Kobe wouldn't necessarily create such threats, as he never had to face all these coverages.

3.
Sure, maybe 1969 specifically too, maybe I’ll take another look at it but this would more make me rate the 90s lower than the 60s higher lol. I somewhat doubt it though to be honest, it would certainly be a suprise, early 60s guards genuinely don’t look like they know what they’re doing sometimes, but it looked more polished in the games later in the decade I saw

If 1969 looks more polished than 1962 to you, but West was significantly better in 1969 than 1962, then maybe he showed capacity to adjust for tougher era? Or not at all?

Then again, a fair comparison would be 1961 to 1991, not 1969 to 1991 lol

Why? West peaked in 1966-69 period, not in 1961 when he was a rookie and had his worst fulls season of whole career.

1. I’m not gonna lie I’m not even remotely interested in going back and forth with the film lol, it was in general I thought the defense was very poor and defenders were consistenly beaten by pretty soft moves that modern players wouldn’t be consistently beaten by. Not to say he didn’t make contested shots but I would say in general the level of defense was very poor, not everyone was as bad as like, cousy in the 63 finals where I do think he was a general member of the population on that end one on one though lol. The ones I saw fully were one of the Celtics games, the hawks game, and a Knicks game, but can’t remember which ones specifically, can check later maybe. The defense on drives he got by I felt was exceptionally poor, on pullups and post definately feel defenders got lost and fell for stuff far more than they should have but some defenders certainly did better than others

Which full games do we have? Can’t tell if I’ve gone through them yet, but I’d be more open to evaluating him In a whole game sense

2.
Yeah I’m not trying to be a dick but I’m really not interested in going through how the pick and roll has changed over and over again if you don’t know how teams run it or defend it now lol. It’s a non issue and he absolutely went against all of these coverages. Show and recover was pretty common, obviously he’s dealt with traps. The ball handler coverage he probably faced all of them before he was 16 lmao, and beating ice is more about preventing it in the first place with delay stuff or dribble pitches into pick and rolls imo but teams would just run with it back then I think? Or flip the screen.

Catch hedges and switches were maybe less common back then but catch hedges Lowkey suck if a team knows what they’re doing and switches don’t even make sense as a coverage against Kobe and that’s probably what a Kobe led offense would want.

High drop? Maybe, but countering a high drop is almost entirely based on having a lob threat rather than the ball handler, because Curry got pretty clamped up whenever the Lakers ran that successfully instead of their more aggressive coverages, and it only works for specific teams going against teams with specific roster construction weaknesses.


Like I’m sorry but I feel if you understand how pick and roll offense and defense has evolved it’s not really a point with any real substance behind it lol


Anyways teams scout in the postseason but RS unless ur like Curry they’ll usually drop or do whatever works for their roster, but Kobe certainly knew how to beat these coverages and certain ones rely more on the team than the individual since it’s about getting it out of his hands.
More than anything beating alotnof these coverages on an individual level mixes and matches, if a way to beat catch hedges is to get around the guy like in hard ones, preventing aggressive coverages with ram action (screen for screener), etc etc.


The more modern counters are on a team level not an individual level.



Again the bar is in hell because when I say polished I mean they look like pro basketball players, it’s more being unimpressed with early 60s than impressed with the late 60s, and I still don’t think they’re nearly as good as D1 guards.


On west looking worse and worse, when I view him in the context of the 60s as a guy ahead of his time he looks amazing, it’s when the idea that he could plug and play today where it’s really unimpressive to me. It’s not a knock on him he played in that era lol. I can see why people are impressed by him but he doesn’t differentiate himself offensively to me than a modern D1 player in that context as well

[One_and_Done]

It took a thread with the most votes, and most pages so far (and several late votes), for Kobe to edge out West by one vote. Perhaps appropriate.

Clearly over time Kobe is being viewed in a more rational way on here. I think he's still too high, but in a few years he'll drop a few more places anyhow.

Kind of shocking that a round with a run-off was the one garnering more analysis and, thus, volume (not mentioning the fact that both [1] Kobe and West remained a debate in good faith between two functionally similar players, with nuanced votes being put forth on both ends and [2] your ulterior tactics under the guise of 'helpful' gatekeeping and back-seat administrating with the intention to prevent a Bryant induction took up a fair share of posts on the thread.

There have been two slates of complaints thus far in this project. One temper tantrum about Jordan being 3 (in the view such was too low, outside of the scope at this point anyways..) and now this about Kobe being 13 (which is claimed as too high). I have Kobe around 10/11 and voted him three rounds. So at root, I don't agree with the order - but that doesn't take away my respect for other voters , their intel, and the effort put forth into running such a robust project (including many whom didn't include Kobe on their ballots [with some obvious exceptions *cough* ]). I'm sure the top 13 determined by group isn't going to be the same as any participants' personal list of 13 names - and most disagreement has either not been vocal or has been civil. Pretty stark contrast from denigrating the likes of 60s players, Jokic, or Kobe yet ignoring any rebuttal of such - then proceeding to spam the same thing in an echo-chamber esque manner.

You ok bro? I think maybe you should out for a bit and regain your composure.

I disagree with you, and have ample rational basis for those disagreements.

[rk2023]

It took a thread with the most votes, and most pages so far (and several late votes), for Kobe to edge out West by one vote. Perhaps appropriate.

Clearly over time Kobe is being viewed in a more rational way on here. I think he's still too high, but in a few years he'll drop a few more places anyhow.

Kind of shocking that a round with a run-off was the one garnering more analysis and, thus, volume (not mentioning the fact that both [1] Kobe and West remained a debate in good faith between two functionally similar players, with nuanced votes being put forth on both ends and [2] your ulterior tactics under the guise of 'helpful' gatekeeping and back-seat administrating with the intention to prevent a Bryant induction took up a fair share of posts on the thread.

There have been two slates of complaints thus far in this project. One temper tantrum about Jordan being 3 (in the view such was too low, outside of the scope at this point anyways..) and now this about Kobe being 13 (which is claimed as too high). I have Kobe around 10/11 and voted him three rounds. So at root, I don't agree with the order - but that doesn't take away my respect for other voters , their intel, and the effort put forth into running such a robust project (including many whom didn't include Kobe on their ballots [with some obvious exceptions *cough* ]). I'm sure the top 13 determined by group isn't going to be the same as any participants' personal list of 13 names - and most disagreement has either not been vocal or has been civil. Pretty stark contrast from denigrating the likes of 60s players, Jokic, or Kobe yet ignoring any rebuttal of such - then proceeding to spam the same thing in an echo-chamber esque manner.

You ok bro? I think maybe you should out for a bit and regain your composure.

I disagree with you, and have ample rational basis for those disagreements.

Oh I’m all good. Just pointing out nonsensical activity as I see it unfold. Am perfectly fine and acquainted with many who disagree regarding basketball topics and much more generally, that notion in itself is cool with me with obvious exceptions. What is outright odd is the attention to trying to backseat mod the 12 and 13 rounds in particular. The deadlines have been lax since the project kicked off, why should there be an urge all of a sudden to have a deadline down to a precise clock time? What last minute votes shouldn’t be counted? And is the argument against them really “principled”? Will you continue such now that Kobe, the player you have campaigned against obsessively, has been voted in? And on that note, if BBR /100 stats & raw TS% stands as ample rational basis serving as an end all be all.. to each their own is all I have to add.

[OhayoKD]

but why? mathematically, i mean. you've mentioned things are suppressed in the 60's, but how?

Because mathematically a bigger number of teams means bigger fluctuations and bigger disparities. For a team to win by 8, another team needs to lose by 8. With more teams there are bigger losers and bigger winners and in games where the losers are filtered out, that leaves bigger winners.

Moreover

kobe played most of his career after decades worth of the talent pool expanding

SRS does not measure how a team performs relative to the talent pool, it measures how a team peforms relative to the league. Since SRS is an average, "winners' will rack up lower SRS over the best 150 players than they would against the best 450. When you say "+3 in 1960=+3 in 1990 or 2000", what you are really saying is "+3 over the best 150 players = +3 over the best 450". The talent pool being better or worse does not matter. A smaller league is more talented relative to that pool.

if the best 150 come from the only 150 people on earth who play basketball and the 450 comes from a talent pool of 1 billion people playing basketball, of course it would matter. it will be much easier to stand out against the 150. again, to say the smaller league is more talented requires you to say you don't think the talent pool has tripled since the 1960's. maybe you don't think it has, but that's what it requires.

[/quote]
It matters if you are breaking era-relativity. Otherwise, no. "people were worse at basketball back then" is true. Just as it was true in the 70's, the 80's, the 90's, the 2000's, and even the 10's.

SRS is a proxy, it is not the real thing, and in situations where it no longer functions as a proxy, it's "purity" is not so relevant. Say Kobe beat a bunch of good teams, saying he beat better teams than Boston relative to era is nonsense.

so you really don't think the duncan spurs are as good as any team from the 1960's?

No. I specifically highlighted the spurs for that reason. Equating any of their teams with the 67 sixers or the 69 lakers is probably still a stretch, but they actually were impressive when you take the lakers out of the picture

[OhayoKD]

Don't you think that's incredibly inconsistent?

You rave about Kobe era being incredibly difficult, but he played against archaic defensive systems against slow footed bigs and less talented perimeter defenders. He doesn't have a reliable modern three point line, he never proved himself as a spread P&R ball-handler, he isn't a physical freak...

You think West would be useless in 2020s, but I don't think it's a given that time machined 2006 Kobe would be anything special. It just seems that you have a nostalgia for Kobe times and none of that to West of course. If we start to analyze Kobe highlights like you did with West, you'll realize that perimeter defense wasn't close to what it is now back then either.

Carrying ball-handling is a rythm thing, you absolutely can play that way and it's much easier than handling the ball in the 1960s way. It's not about unability to handle the ball, but beating the defensive pressure and playmaking while doing so.

I think West would have an easier time to adjust to modern gather steps and ball-handling rules than most 2020s players to much stricter 1960s rules and it shouldn't be controversial. 1960s rules were objectively harder to play within as a perimeter player. To use your words, "anyone with a brain" knows that.

Combining these two posts

I agree that modern players would struggle to adjust to those rules if you kept them against modern players. Not really the argument here, though.

If you put modern players in a setting where they know they can’t carry the ball, and no gather step, you give them a month and they’ll be able to do it, they just won’t be nearly as effective and will look stiff and awkward, in particular some ball handlers especially depending on how strict we go with the palming.

The idea that they can’t control a basketball without carrying like 1960s players did is silly though lol, it’s not that hard to dribble with ur palm facing up and down and protecting the ball with ur body pivoting back and forth to get 10 feet in, or a push cross off the triple threat or a stationary dribble.

This entire idea of adjusting is that if you take a 2020s ball handler and out them in the 1960s scenario they’re immediately one of the best ball handlers because they have a better feel for the ball, I’m sorry but if you think it’s hard to dribble the ball up and down and move at a jogging pace around the halfcourt with an occasional one two dribble burst of speed you probably can’t play basketball lol, it ain’t tough it just feels and looks stupid.

If you take one person that’s lived their life dribbling the ball stiff up and down and the other person who lives their life dribbling a by ball freely without restrictions and switch them up, there’s a catastrophic gap there.

Tell a guy whose always dribbled with his palm facing down and you don’t suddenly get Kyrie lol, you’ll get a dude that can dribble the ball at a moderate rate similar to a forward without much ball handling duties maybe. There were some guys who had decent handles regardless I think, but it’s silly to say west is one of them. I’ve seen a decent amount of west now, even subscribed to your patreon to make sure, a single change of speed push cross, fake opposite jab drive, and just pivoting and protecting the ball with the body back and forth untill you get 10 feet ish.

It’s never been, take out palming rules and he’ll struggle, that’s stupid. It’s not to expect some sort of huge dribbling boost when you take them out, he’ll be able to dribble a basketball but he certainly would be the weakest ball handler of guards who dribbled their whole life in a more complex and skillful way. And it is absolutely more skillful let’s not even try to debate that lol.

And on the other end, it’s not, they’ll look exactly the same without palming rules, it’s that they’ll easily replicate the ball handlers of the 1960s who by far and in large, aren’t impressive ball handlers.

The issue isn’t “west would struggle to adapt to modern rules” because that’s silly. Modern rules inherently allow more freedom and more skill. The idea is that the level of play his risen above the point where a guy 60 years ago is gonna do much at all if you time travel them and inform them of the rules, because telling them “oh you don’t have to keep worrying about carrying anymore” won’t give them abilities they won’t have. Yeah they’ll be able to dribble the basketball and go around the court with it, maybe a few one tempo changes of pace and a push cross, but ball handling won’t be a strength at all, which is important for a guard that isn’t too explosive or athletic.

I watched a decent amount of Jerry west and everything on the Lakers on your patreon by now, although honestly I stopped before the knicks games because to be honest it wasn’t particularly fun basketball to watch lol. I tried to go through full games but it was mostly just quarters and halves. I definately saw all the footage on YouTube awhile back as well, when talking about KD in the 60s


offensively speaking I have absolutely no reason to believe Jerry west is at all explosive or had a good first step off the dribble. and his change of speeds was pretty limited to stop fast or slow fast. he was listed at 175 and maybe was around 180-190 in the nba. So pretty severely underweight at his height and wingspan, to an extent that actually is an issue, didnt look particularly quick off the dribble compared to modern players (although fast enough to get by cousy). Not as if it was just a rules thing either I saw other guys driving fairly normally. Obviously his actual max vert is seemingly pretty bad so the high flier narrative doesn’t seem true either.

In any case, I haven’t seen a drive to the rim where he demonstrates a very impressive shiftiness or explosiveness, and it didn’t look like he had a plethora of ways to get to the rim as much as he was good at picking his spots in that regard when they were closing out or out of position or he had a bit of a mismatch (and holy hell did some guys not know how to defend on the perimeter). I although I guess in that 1963 game vs the Celtics he was Lowkey slashing like crazy, although I don’t know if anyone is gonna watch that and think that says more about him being explosive and crafty or how awful the perimeter defense is (bob cousy may be worse than some junior varsity players 1 on 1 I’ve never seen on defense played like that before lol)

In terms of his finishing, I mean, I don’t really see much lol. I saw you uploaded one a month ago and he did make some good finishes there, although he’s still going for a two handed reverse layup which is a bit silly, but all in all it felt like most layups with a degree of difficulty he didn’t hit, although the sample I saw is somewhat limited. Made open ones though.

Certainly wouldn’t say he had a good touch around the rim compared to modern players at all, but I guess that’s not really something we can determine without a more comprehensive breakdown of makes and misses. I’m not gonna sit here and say he had a horrible touch and couldn’t make layups, it was certainly better than his peers and I’ve definately seen some nice finishes from him, at the same time I saw some bad misses and a few tough finishes doesn’t change much.



Slashing wise, yeah I don’t see it at all. Sure we can pool some highlights and maybe see him hitting a reverse over bill Russell but, looks like he’s a solid cutter, but the slashing and finishing doesn’t really look anything out of the ordinary and certainly nothing that would make me think he’d be a particularly effective one today. He moved off ball actively and cut actively.


Shooting wise, I’m not sure honestly. Defenders kind of sucked lol, they were just so reactive and inactive lol it was kind of crazy, although maybe that’s the rules. Saw some strange jump shot fouls, maybe they hit him and I didn’t see it, but it was definately peculiar. I was tracking his jumpers a bit, felt like a good chunk of his jumpers were off of pretty bad contests or the defender being gone from a pump fake, sure credit to him for the move but I don’t know how you stationary guard someone in the post end up to their side on a straight up and down pump fake, that many times in a row. Wasn’t doing much lol. Most of these shots are pretty in rhythm too more than I thought they would be, vs sudden changes in levels. If I’m gonna be honest the degree of difficulty wasn’t as high as I was expecting for most of these shots, I broke down the shots in the KD post awhile back, but… yeah it’s just not to impressive from the defenders point of view. Something i definately is how afraid defenders were to jump at times on pullups where their body’s were connected, maybe it’s a refereeing thing? If you shoot stright up and down like that today in the situations he was in like, the 62 finals for instance that much, thats getting sent back by a good defender for sure lol

Obviously a good shooter, obviously could make some very contested shots (the sample of shots I got probably wasn’t representative but he definately wasn’t hitting them very consistently off decent contests I’d say, although that’s to be expected I guess? Somewhat?), but I certainly think it’s a byproduct of the defense as well to an extent

But overall like, I don’t know I’d be lying if I said I was impressed, seemed like he was ahead of his time, far ahead of his time, and in era I certainly can see why he was impactful as he was and if that’s your criteria that’s fine, but if ur talking an absolute sense how good he is I certainly don’t see anything like a good Modern nba guard that a team can run their offense through here. Probably D1 though.


Athletically, I mean he’s ok? He’s 6ft4.5 with a 6ft9 wingspan, according to rough estimates I think because i think I’ve heard that number thrown around, he’s 185-190 id assume so he’s certainly too light, and he’s quick but not particularly explosive either, based on his drives to the rim, and his shiftiness on his drives isn’t impressive either. Talked about his vertical before but for his reputation as a good leaper, if it’s a unlimited approach where he measured at 11ft4 that’s a good deal below average for his position as well, probably not just at an nba level either.

Slashing wise, didnt see anything that remotely makes me think he’s an modern NBA level slasher, maybe he can attack closeouts but question marks on his finishing for sure I think. Hard to evaluate finishing without full unbiased film of course, but a few nba level layups is not an nba player, and I didn’t exactly see anything promising showing me he can beat any decent modern defenders off the dribble and get to the rim.

Didnt feel he was anything impressive playmaking wise either, made a few good passes but threw some absolute brain dead ones too. Definately had more time to make reads with how lax the defense seemed at times, seemed more like a dude throwing passes in chill pick up game, which is wild because most of the games were playoffs or finals games iirc

At the end of the day, there are a lot of variables here, and this is basically scouting prospects with how different the league was

At times, although not on this thread so far, there’s been some hostility, almost a type of, “well you clearly haven’t seen enough film of this time!” Or “you don’t understand the rules!” Whenever someone looks at the 60s and, to be frank, thinks that it was an era with a few clear pioneers that were a few decades behind their time and majority below average LA Fitness talent, and I think it’s a bit silly. Sure if you focus on every positive it looks fine, if you start looking at how dumb it looks when you compare it to the modern game that doesn’t really hold up.


I’ve gone through why Kobe would be good today, I’m not even remotely interested in rehashing it over and over again, and I don’t even have a synergy account to site all of that stuff anymore anyways, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard the argument that wing and isolation defense is better today than it was in the 2000s lol. Im sure if I went through and cherry picked every bad clip of 2000s defense I could make it look bad but what I did was watch the horror that is 60s basketball and see perhaps the worst perimeter defense I’ve ever seen lol. Some of y’all think I was getting excited watching guys not know how to contest shots or fall for the weakest pump fakes ever man you know how boring it was to watch a bunch of possessions go bad defense worse offense lol. I’m gonna be honest and say I was a bit shocked whenever I go back to watching 60s games it’s looking at how slow paced everyone isoving Around and how bad most the defenders on the perimeter are usually, exceptions exist of course but it’s pretty eye opening. Yeah, the paint is clogged for sure, but that’s pretty much it, and I don’t think a congested paint makes up for 1960s perimeter defenders, and it’s silly to suggest that 1960s perimeter defenders are closer to 2000s ones than 2000s ones are to 2020 ones.

Like genuinely people will hype up random 60s players doing basic basketball plays because it looks out of place back then. Like sure maybe they look like these crazy 2020 nba players to you but there’s no real reason to believe a good D1 guard can’t look like they know how to play basketball in that environment either. The 60s was a great period of pioneering for the history of the game but let’s not act like it’s comparable or “just different” than the guys today lol, nah these guys are fully worse at basketball. I ain’t ever seen as many open uncontested midrange shots hit side rim, dumb decisions around the rim, ridiculous turnovers from not being able to dribble or people not know how to protect the ball, two handed underhand layups, etc etc etc. normally I wouldn’t be annoyed and I’d understand yeah of course this is gonna happen the sport is developing but man spending 4 dollars half expecting to be incredibly impressed and seeing that BS for like 2-3 hours was mad annoying lol

(Only for guards to be clear, wilt was hella cool to watch when he was on the team)


I will 100% admit that yeah, we won’t ever know without a time machine if West in an absolute sense is comparable to Kobe or not, we also don’t know if he’d be as good as Austin reaves or even if he’s an nba player. Maybe he’s better than kobe, or maybe he’s a worse discount version of Austin reaves, which in an absolute sense you could absolutely make that argument if you want to make this Kobe and west one an argument too lol.

I don’t even know where you were going with when you said modern defensive scheme lol, unless you mean the slight variations in coverages they had to make as offenses got more freedom or counters in order to help stop certain offensive counter to certain coverages in the pick and roll. Or like, man and zone switches midnpossession that came up recently?

Honestly kind of wild how much people went up on West because of a highlight reel. Then again, a poster also completely changed their evaluation of Bird's passing based on a highlight reel(before ignoring what happened when highlights were used comparatively to players they were voting him over).

[Primedeion]

Damn Kobe just keeps dropping as time goes on. Kinda sad but it is what it is

Almost as sad as the way Magic/Bird keep dropping. I remember when they were both considered part of the "immortal six"

[Colbinii]

Damn Kobe just keeps dropping as time goes on. Kinda sad but it is what it is

Almost as sad as the way Magic/Bird keep dropping. I remember when they were both considered part of the "immortal six"

Yeah, bring back cable television!

[Matt15]

Damn Kobe just keeps dropping as time goes on. Kinda sad but it is what it is

Looking back at the past Top 100 projects since 2008 I’d say its actually Bird that has dropped the most. He went from #6 to #10 then #12. Kobe has generally stayed in that #10-13 range. But yes the addition of Curry to the top 10 has changed things up, KG as well.

[f4p]

This is an interesting thought exercise and how to compare these players.

On one hand, West led his team to a ton of NBA Finals while West/Oscar were clearly a tier up on all other perimeter players from that era.

On the other hand, arguments for CP3/Wade/LeBron/Nash as perimeter players were all close to, at, or above Kobe's level peak-for-peak.

Now, Kobe's prime longevity is a feather in his cap against just about any perimeter player post-Miller and pre-LeBron.

Which kind of speaks to how much better depth is on the perimeter in terms of talent in the last 20 years vs the 60s/70s. Kobe not standing out as much has more to do with how much better the talent pool became than West/Oscar being that much better than him imo. I think in terms of distance from best player (West vs Russell/Wilt and Kobe vs Shaq/Duncan/LeBron), it’s pretty much the same. It’s just that there were more guys with an argument for being “next best” in Kobe’s time (CP3/Wade/Nash…none of whom actually have a good case over West or Oscar because of weak longevity, but I think you’ll find their peak arguments to be quite strong).

I am going to be nominating Nash shortly

man, looking at the last project, nash over wade just seems kind of wild. he had basically 8 playoffs from 2002 to 2010 when he was a prime type player (wasn't good in the 2001 playoffs) and his 2 short playoffs during that time were pretty terrible so 6 real prime playoffs. after not being a starter until 26. depending on how you feel about 2013/14, wade has 6 great playoffs without including those years, and then 2 decent-enough-to-make-the-finals-with-lebron playoffs if you include 2013/14. and just such a higher peak with the 2006 ecf/finals compared to nash who never did anything like that (and probably not anything like 2011 or the 2010 series vs the celtics), who is in the robinson/curry range of pretty big playoff fallers.

[lessthanjake]

Which kind of speaks to how much better depth is on the perimeter in terms of talent in the last 20 years vs the 60s/70s. Kobe not standing out as much has more to do with how much better the talent pool became than West/Oscar being that much better than him imo. I think in terms of distance from best player (West vs Russell/Wilt and Kobe vs Shaq/Duncan/LeBron), it’s pretty much the same. It’s just that there were more guys with an argument for being “next best” in Kobe’s time (CP3/Wade/Nash…none of whom actually have a good case over West or Oscar because of weak longevity, but I think you’ll find their peak arguments to be quite strong).

I am going to be nominating Nash shortly

man, looking at the last project, nash over wade just seems kind of wild. he had basically 8 playoffs from 2002 to 2010 when he was a prime type player (wasn't good in the 2001 playoffs) and his 2 short playoffs during that time were pretty terrible so 6 real prime playoffs. after not being a starter until 26. depending on how you feel about 2013/14, wade has 6 great playoffs without including those years, and then 2 decent-enough-to-make-the-finals-with-lebron playoffs if you include 2013/14. and just such a higher peak with the 2006 ecf/finals compared to nash who never did anything like that (and probably not anything like 2011 or the 2010 series vs the celtics), who is in the robinson/curry range of pretty big playoff fallers.

I struggle with something like this because Wade achieved a lot more at a team level. But Nash being ranked highly is sensical IMO. He’s probably the best offensive player in league history IMO. You say he didn’t do anything like the 2006 ECF/finals for Wade. And in a sense that’s true since he never won a title. But Nash led a couple of the best playoff offenses of all time (2005 and 2010 Suns are both top 5 all time in playoff rORTG). And Nash was spectacular in those runs. For instance, I’d urge you to watch Nash’s performances against the Mavericks in the conference semifinals in 2005. It was some of the best basketball I’ve ever watched anyone play (and while it was only in the conference semifinals, it was against a legitimately great team that they only met in the second round because seeding rules were weird back then).

[70sFan]

Which full games do we have? Can’t tell if I’ve gone through them yet, but I’d be more open to evaluating him In a whole game sense

Complete games only:

24.04.1963 LA Lakers Boston Celtics
08.05.1970 NY Knicks LA Lakers
09.01.1972 Milwaukee Bucks LA Lakers
13.04.1973 Chicago Bulls LA Lakers
10.05.1973 LA Lakers NY Knicks

Games with significant amount of footage:

18.04.1962 Boston Celtics LA Lakers
18.04.1965 Boston Celtics LA Lakers
28.04.1966 Boston Celtics LA Lakers
07.02.1969 LA Lakers Philadelphia 76ers
23.04.1969 LA Lakers Boston Celtics
01.05.1969 LA Lakers Boston Celtics
05.05.1969 LA Lakers Boston Celtics
18.03.1970 LA Lakers Boston Celtics
17.04.1970 LA Lakers Atlanta Hawks
29.04.1970 LA Lakers NY Knicks
01.05.1970 LA Lakers NY Knicks
04.05.1970 NY Knicks LA Lakers
06.05.1970 LA Lakers NY Knicks
07.01.1972 Atlanta Hawks LA Lakers
16.02.1972 Phoenix Suns LA Lakers
14.04.1972 Milwaukee Bucks LA Lakers
16.04.1972 Milwaukee Bucks LA Lakers
07.02.1973 Boston Celtics LA Lakers
27.03.1973 LA Lakers Milwaukee Bucks

I didn't include AP Archive edited films, because I am aware that many people don't like watching them. Not a lot of games, but significant enough to draw some conclusions.

Yeah I’m not trying to be a dick but I’m really not interested in going through how the pick and roll has changed over and over again if you don’t know how teams run it or defend it now lol.

So you don't want to be a dick, but you are. Sorry, but just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't understand P&R coverages. I don't assume you are stupid when we discuss, please do not the same thing.

[OhayoKD]

So you don't want to be a dick, but you are. Sorry, but just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't understand P&R coverages. I don't assume you are stupid when we discuss, please do not the same thing.

I mean...




You certainly aren't stupid and I'd say you "know ball" better than I do, but Unibro might have a point about pick and roll here. Kobe still did pretty good in PnR post-prime facing all those coverages.

[70sFan]

So you don't want to be a dick, but you are. Sorry, but just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't understand P&R coverages. I don't assume you are stupid when we discuss, please do not the same thing.

I mean...




You certainly aren't stupid and I'd say you "know ball" better than I do, but Unibro might have a point about pick and roll here. Kobe still did pretty good in PnR post-prime facing all those coverages.

Could be wrong, because I didn't spend much time re-watching 2013 Kobe (much more 2001-08 era), but teams don't defend P&Rs the same way now they did in 2013. It's not only about what two defenders directly included in P&R play do, but it's also a matter of whole scheme. It's also a matter of personel, back then switching was less relevant because most teams played double bigs lineups, so Kobe mostly faced drops or hedges (and traps at times). I don't think any team would try to defend Kobe P&R in a way 2000s Spurs did (they didn't care that Kobe wasn't your typical PG from that era and got destroyed by that play every single time).

Now, I think Kobe is versatile enough that it wouldn't give him a lot of problems (though his inconsistent 3 point shooting wouldn't help him), but the question is whether Kobe is a modern player or not - not whether he'd be good. I think at this point we can say that Kobe didn't play in a league that was similar to how basketball is played now and I don't think his style was revolutionary or modern, so it's fair to say that Kobe isn't a modern player. That's fine, I don't care either way because he was amazing and would be so today, but he'd have to adjust big time and he wouldn't dominate the league on a fly from time machine.

[MyUniBroDavis]

So you don't want to be a dick, but you are. Sorry, but just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't understand P&R coverages. I don't assume you are stupid when we discuss, please do not the same thing.

I mean...




You certainly aren't stupid and I'd say you "know ball" better than I do, but Unibro might have a point about pick and roll here. Kobe still did pretty good in PnR post-prime facing all those coverages.

Could be wrong, because I didn't spend much time re-watching 2013 Kobe (much more 2001-08 era), but teams don't defend P&Rs the same way now they did in 2013. It's not only about what two defenders directly included in P&R play do, but it's also a matter of whole scheme. It's also a matter of personel, back then switching was less relevant because most teams played double bigs lineups, so Kobe mostly faced drops or hedges (and traps at times). I don't think any team would try to defend Kobe P&R in a way 2000s Spurs did (they didn't care that Kobe wasn't your typical PG from that era and got destroyed by that play every single time).

Now, I think Kobe is versatile enough that it wouldn't give him a lot of problems (though his inconsistent 3 point shooting wouldn't help him), but the question is whether Kobe is a modern player or not - not whether he'd be good. I think at this point we can say that Kobe didn't play in a league that was similar to how basketball is played now and I don't think his style was revolutionary or modern, so it's fair to say that Kobe isn't a modern player. That's fine, I don't care either way because he was amazing and would be so today, but he'd have to adjust big time and he wouldn't dominate the league on a fly from time machine.

Ngl I made a long post and it logged my out and I lost it lol so I’m a bit annoyed rn

Paraphrasing somewhat

Most people don’t understand how teams attack pick and rolls, I don’t know why I would assume you would that info isn’t super available online unless you really dig deep into that. I didn’t say you don’t know what coverages were.

If you told me I don’t know 70s and 80s film I wouldn’t consider it a dick move it’s facts. A lot of what you were saying just didn’t make sense which is why I said that lol

“but Duncan and Robinson repeatedly used that soft, out of position hedge that didn't give any advantage to ball defender. Pop never thought it's a bad idea back then, it stands out in the film though.”

A soft out of position hedge doesn’t make sense. Soft refers to the position when it comes to hedging, so do you mean a soft hedge executed incorrectly, or a hard hedge that’s executed weakly? It’s legitimately really confusing. I’m assuming it’s a hard hedge that’s executed poorly, but hard hedges look stupid half the time anyways. They’re not neccessarily bad and are probably less exploitable than traps or catch hedges, although I wouldn’t call any of these coverages incorrect.

“How many of these were consistently run against Bryant? You also have to include that players scout and train P&R coverages more than ever, while back then most bigs simply drop by default.”
“It's not only about what two defenders directly included in P&R play do, but it's also a matter of whole scheme. It's also a matter of personel, back then switching was less relevant because most teams played double bigs lineups, so Kobe mostly faced drops or hedges (and traps at times). “

Most teams still drop by default lol. Some more mobile teams don’t but drop coverage is probably most popular coverage in the regular season unless a team is playing like the warriors or something (they got clamped by a high drop though). Teams will switch more or catch or hard hedges more when a guard is the screener defender, and some teams attack that.

Teams don’t really go crazy with changing their coverages till the playoffs.

In any case, when it comes to how many he faced, the ball handler coverages are basically a non point, he certainly has faced every single one and logically weaking ball screens doesn’t make sense. They’re very straightforward.

So if you’re saying he faced drops, hedges, and traps at times that’s 4/5 coverages lol. Switching is the coverage that’s the simplest to beat (not the easiest of course) because while here’s some stuff you can do it probably is just gonna devolve into can u beat a mismatch one on one.

More than that the way to attack traps and both types of hedges are fairly similar and Kobe was adept at it, beat around the corner, split the screen, or just pass it to the open guy.

The “overall scheme” is somewhat of a buzzword, teams mainly do the same thing in the perspective of helpside rotations, low man and all of that.

But like breaking it down, yes, pick and roll action isn’t just 2 on 2, but that’s because much pick and roll action generally leads to a number advantage which is what modern basketball tries to exploit with spacing and whatnot.

The “overall scheme” with pick and roll defense isn’t like this wonderful complex 5 on 5 interplay lol, for 3/5 coverages it’s “damn let’s try to have these 3 guys guard these 4 the best we can till we can recover” and drop is basiclaly just regular help side rotation principles usually, although obviously it’s a bit more complex than that and how you run drop isn’t set in stone or anything.

Catch hedges, hard hedges, and traps all lead to numbers advantages if the offense aims for it, and with modern spacing and offense attacking the numbers advantage is very effective. Of course, the main idea is to defensively be prepared for this but essentially you’re still trying to stop a 4 on 3 situation, the ball handler isn’t really at fault if his teammates can’t perform there. It’s really not more complicated that that, of course there’s nuance to what happens in that 4 on 3 situation but at the “perfect equilibrium” or whatever the offense has a big advantage there. In any case though yeah if you get it to the short roller you did your job.


Drop coverage, attacking it is fairly simple nowadays in that the counters and the reads aren’t super tough, but even if you just run it normally spaced out it’s a 2 on 1 downhill a lot of the times and whatever help side rotations the defense does which is just regular help side rotations most of the time, again it’s basically plugging holes in a sinking ship. They’ll have a weakness somewhere and offenses are very good at exploiting that, whether it be the ball handlers or the principles the offense plays under, but it’s not hard to see where the help is coming from for good ball handlers since it’s usually gonna be the weakside corner. There are pretty good counters against it and having a pick and pop big also makes it pretty easy as well.


For sure it can get more complex and teams can get cute with it but by that point it’s not really on the ball handler to figure things out and it’s more on the staff to figure that out and relay to the ball handler what’s open and what’s not.

How is that silly? Defenses were forced to adapt and they did, but Kobe wouldn't necessarily create such threats, as he never had to face all these coverages. P&R isn't less effective, because players running that play are better. To argue they are not better defended is silly though, watch any mid-00s games and imagine modern team against such defense.

The main change is a few guys auto pullup 3 vs drop coverage if the ball screen defender can’t contest well, and some guys are so good at that that against a deep drop it is basically auto three. It’s not exactly checkmate in either way, a high drop destroyed the warriors offense vs the Lakers whenever they went with that instead of their aggressive coverages that got annihilated since the warriors kill those, but that’s not really currys fault as much as it was the weaknesses of his team, if draymond was a lob threat the strategy is somewhat dead.

Id maybe say players find lobs better but spacing means those windows are far more open.

The way defenses have evolved is more trying to plug holes into sinking ships and doing schematic stuff like trying to stop specific coverage counters like stack/spain by not following the cutter and the popper and press itching and stuff like that, it’s more schematic vs specific counters, but offense has completely outpaced defense.

Switching is kind of the cure all where hard schematic consistent counters are tough but it’s easier said than done for obvious reasons, since beating the mismatch is kind of the way to go

In any case kobe pretty much faced all of these coverages one way or another, and I don’t really see switching as a threat to guard him when an offense system around him would probably be largely focused on high leverage 1 on 1 plays through forcing switches in general.

[70sFan]

Ngl I made a long post and it logged my out and I lost it lol so I’m a bit annoyed rn

Paraphrasing somewhat

Most people don’t understand how teams attack pick and rolls, I don’t know why I would assume you would that info isn’t super available online unless you really dig deep into that. I didn’t say you don’t know what coverages were.

If you told me I don’t know 70s and 80s film I wouldn’t consider it a dick move it’s facts. A lot of what you were saying just didn’t make sense which is why I said that lol

What makes no sense exactly? That teams defend P&Rs differently now than 15 years ago?

A soft out of position hedge doesn’t make sense. Soft refers to the position when it comes to hedging, so do you mean a soft hedge executed incorrectly, or a hard hedge that’s executed weakly? It’s legitimately really confusing. I’m assuming it’s a hard hedge that’s executed poorly, but hard hedges look stupid half the time anyways. They’re not neccessarily bad and are probably less exploitable than traps or catch hedges, although I wouldn’t call any of these coverages incorrect.

It was confusing from my part, I meant hard hedges that were executed badly. Sorry for that.

I am not saying that hedge is incorrect, but you should rewatch a few 2002 Spurs vs Lakers games to see how Spurs used it and how Kobe consistently destroyed it... and how Spurs didn't adjust at all. This would never happen today, because the emphasis on P&R defense is significantly bigger than back then.

Most teams still drop by default lol.

Against average opponent yes, but usually not against the best guards in the league and even if they do, ball defender defends screens differently than 20 years ago, when most of them went under the screen even in drop situations.

Teams don’t really go crazy with changing their coverages till the playoffs.

Yeah, but why shouldn't we care about playoffs? If Kobe would be fine in RS, but struggled massively in the playoffs then it doesn't help his case.

The “overall scheme” is somewhat of a buzzword, teams mainly do the same thing in the perspective of helpside rotations, low man and all of that.

No, that's not true at all. Watch random 2008 Lakers game and tell me that defenses used the same defense against P&R coverages with straight face. Seriously, you look very selective at what you consider an evolution and what not, probably because you grew up watching these games. 2008 defensive schemes are much different than what teams play now, you can't deny that.

But like breaking it down, yes, pick and roll action isn’t just 2 on 2, but that’s because much pick and roll action generally leads to a number advantage which is what modern basketball tries to exploit with spacing and whatnot.

The “overall scheme” with pick and roll defense isn’t like this wonderful complex 5 on 5 interplay lol, for 3/5 coverages it’s “damn let’s try to have these 3 guys guard these 4 the best we can till we can recover” and drop is basiclaly just regular help side rotation principles usually, although obviously it’s a bit more complex than that and how you run drop isn’t set in stone or anything.

Catch hedges, hard hedges, and traps all lead to numbers advantages if the offense aims for it, and with modern spacing and offense attacking the numbers advantage is very effective. Of course, the main idea is to defensively be prepared for this but essentially you’re still trying to stop a 4 on 3 situation, the ball handler isn’t really at fault if his teammates can’t perform there. It’s really not more complicated that that, of course there’s nuance to what happens in that 4 on 3 situation but at the “perfect equilibrium” or whatever the offense has a big advantage there. In any case though yeah if you get it to the short roller you did your job.

I really wish I had more time discussing this with clips examples, but no, it's really not that easy. Otherwise you'd not see such a drastic shift in defensive schemes from 2015 to 2020.

For sure it can get more complex and teams can get cute with it but by that point it’s not really on the ball handler to figure things out and it’s more on the staff to figure that out and relay to the ball handler what’s open and what’s not.

I don't think it's that simple, of course coaching staff has to work this out but Kobe doesn't have any experience facing modern defenses, so he wouldn't just get time machined and say "got it coach, easy". It's basically a more nuanced version of someone saying that Jerry West would be a capable ball-handler today with looser rules on the fly. It's wrong, Kobe would have to gain a lot of experience to make it work consistently. He struggled immensely against 2008 Celtics defense which wouldn't work today, as they played back then. 2008 Celtics defense was revolutionary 15 years ago, but it would be archaic now.

The main change is a few guys auto pullup 3 vs drop coverage if the ball screen defender can’t contest well, and some guys are so good at that that against a deep drop it is basically auto three. It’s not exactly checkmate in either way, a high drop destroyed the warriors offense vs the Lakers whenever they went with that instead of their aggressive coverages that got annihilated since the warriors kill those, but that’s not really currys fault as much as it was the weaknesses of his team, if draymond was a lob threat the strategy is somewhat dead.

So you think Curry did everything fine against high drop coverages? Do you think his limitations didn't play a part in that game?

The way defenses have evolved is more trying to plug holes into sinking ships and doing schematic stuff like trying to stop specific coverage counters like stack/spain by not following the cutter and the popper and press itching and stuff like that, it’s more schematic vs specific counters, but offense has completely outpaced defense.

Offense built by modern players, not by Kobe Bryants.

[Tomtolbert]

Damn Kobe just keeps dropping as time goes on. Kinda sad but it is what it is

Almost as sad as the way Magic/Bird keep dropping. I remember when they were both considered part of the "immortal six"

But it's expected with time. The majority of players who have jumped ahead of Magic and Bird came after when I'm guessing that immortal six was defined.

[MyUniBroDavis]

What makes no sense exactly? That teams defend P&Rs differently now than 15 years ago?

No lol nothing you are saying about the pick and roll makes sense to anyone that knows what these coverages generally give up

It was confusing from my part, I meant hard hedges that were executed badly. Sorry for that.
I am not saying that hedge is incorrect, but you should rewatch a few 2002 Spurs vs Lakers games to see how Spurs used it and how Kobe consistently destroyed it... and how Spurs didn't adjust at all. This would never happen today, because the emphasis on P&R defense is significantly bigger than back then.

You mean this?

Watch on YouTube

;t=741s&pp=ygUPa29iZSAyMDAyIHNwdXJz

yeah these are mostly just catch hedges lol.

2:37 catch hedge
3:20 high ish drop
4:05 tried to run a catch hedge and Kobe rejected the screen before it came
4:30 catch hedge and Kobe drove by
5:45catch hedge, screener skips and the ball handler defender tries to stick with him somewhat and they just show and recover which was kind of weird
6:50 hard hedge

There was one catch hedge he split too that I didn’t mark.

I mean, I don’t think it was the right coverage to run from the highlights, but yeah this is a normal coverage lol, and the ball handler reads if you don’t play into the 4 on 3 (which wasn’t as effective with the spacing back then) are splitting the screen or turning the corner, or rejecting it if they go too hard

I personally don’t think a catch hedge vs Kobe makes that much sense in the context they were in, but this is just fully a catch hedge most of the time lol.

Watch on YouTube

;pp=ygUObGlsbEFyZCBwb2ludHM%3D

Lillard rejecting it at 1:45
Lillard turning the corner at 2:25
Lillard splitting it at 2:40
Lillard turning the corner at 3:15
Lillard splitting it at 3:32

The blazers run it higher out because the higher out you run it the harder it is for the center to keep up, and it’s lillard. Would certainly say they’re the catch hedges are better but the counters are exactly the same lol, although definately Spurs would go a bit too early. Blazers are certainly attacking it better too although they could have some weakside action on the drives when they help there as hard as they did at times

Spurs weren’t executing it super well, Lakers certainly weren’t attacking it purposefully or anything.

As you can see with the helpside rotations once you get by someone is always open, with the better schematic offenses when they help weakside you probably see a pin in flare or baseline cut too for good measure to overload the low man. The cavs helped strong side but that’s uncommon


I’m not saying Kobe is as good of a pick and roll ball handler of lillard obviously (to be clear, lillard has statistically been the best pick and roll ball handler of the past 6 years when you consider volume and effeciency, and that includes Curry) but the reads are the same, because these coverages are the same. Lillard made some great finishes with a head of steam but also you know they aren’t gonna fully commit helping strong side corner for some of his finishes too.

Against average opponent yes, but usually not against the best guards in the league and even if they do, ball defender defends screens differently than 20 years ago, when most of them went under the screen even in drop situations.

Is Ja an average guard?

Drop coverage isn’t an easy mode it’s a coverage lol. Drop and under isn’t inherently a bad coverage it’s literally just a coverage that does better at protecting against slashing but gives up the pull up three.

Anyways drop is fairly beatable like any other coverage if you have the right players around you, and you can probably just set butt screens anyway

Yeah, but why shouldn't we care about playoffs? If Kobe would be fine in RS, but struggled massively in the playoffs then it doesn't help his case.

Ok? Which coverage would he struggle with? You were saying teams scout and pinpoint guys more than ever, they do that in the playoffs but mainly they run drop in the regular season.

No, that's not true at all. Watch random 2008 Lakers game and tell me that defenses used the same defense against P&R coverages with straight face. Seriously, you look very selective at what you consider an evolution and what not, probably because you grew up watching these games. 2008 defensive schemes are much different than what teams play now, you can't deny that.

How would you defend against a coverage lol, coverages are the defense. Are you trying to argue that the coverages that were popular between now versus before are different, or that new coverages are being made.

If it’s the former, sure, there was far less switching and more hard hedges I’d think. Which isn’t particularly relevant in this context. If it’s the latter then tell me the name of this new majestic coverage lol I’m curious. Unless you’re talking about help side rotations? Which yeah they’re somewhat universal around the league today in terms of basic concepts people follow like low man anchor sinking and stuff like that. Miami and whoever nurse is coaching maybe does some wild stuff

I didn’t grow up watching these games lol. Don’t know where you’re getting that from.

I really wish I had more time discussing this with clips examples, but no, it's really not that easy. Otherwise you'd not see such a drastic shift in defensive schemes from 2015 to 2020.

I mean to an extent I’m oversimplifying it but yeah for the ball handler it is pretty much that simple lol. This isn’t me stating an opinion, when it comes to aggressive screen coverages generally if your spacing/positioning is right going with them leads to 4 on 3 situations where you have to scramble and rotate. A ball handlers job if he doesn’t get a direct scoring opportunity to attack the aggressive screen coverage, doing the same reads people have always done, would simply be to pass it to the short roller or someone lifting up from the corner to the wing lol, depending on which you want and which the defense tries to give up


Mild oversimplification, but really not that much of one. The point of aggressive screen coverages is to get it out of the ball handlers hands while giving up a numbers advantage you try to recover from. You can also force a switch by stringing out a catch hedge laterally.

In any case if you don’t attempt to score (which many dont vs aggressive coverages) you just play into the 4 on 3.

The complexities lie in concurrent weakside action to occupy the defense in these situations to generate a better shot in those 4 on 3 scenarios. but this isn’t something the ball handler is generally a part of lol.

I’m assuming you don’t mean like, how players stunt on drives or something like that lol, that would be silly

I don't think it's that simple, of course coaching staff has to work this out but Kobe doesn't have any experience facing modern defenses, so he wouldn't just get time machined and say "got it coach, easy". It's basically a more nuanced version of someone saying that Jerry West would be a capable ball-handler today with looser rules on the fly. It's wrong, Kobe would have to gain a lot of experience to make it work consistently. He struggled immensely against 2008 Celtics defense which wouldn't work today, as they played back then. 2008 Celtics defense was revolutionary 15 years ago, but it would be archaic now.

To be clear, the scoring reads are the same as they’ve always been for these coverages. Aggressive coverages you can split/turn the corner, or reject the screen if they do it too aggressively, so it’s more the playmaking reads in these aggressive pick and roll situations.

Which for the most part is pass it to the short roller or player on the wing depending on whose open lol. There are specific things you can run if you want to do it differently and have the ball handler get an assist I guess but it’s not entirely necessary and most of those reads are 1-2 level stuff, either X is open or Y is open type of stuff.

It’s basically the same as running a set and not a complicated one either. We’re talking 1-2 depth concurrent weakside actions and 1 decision point, it’s not a difficult concept nor one that’s more difficult in practice.

So you think Curry did everything fine against high drop coverages? Do you think his limitations didn't play a part in that game?

It’s funny to hate on him, but with the absence of a lob threat or a scoring threat as a roll man, here are the things Curry could have done on his own to beat that high drop

- shoot from 30 feet over AD

There were probably drop beaters the team could have ran not sure if they did or not and how that worked out from a process standpoint

Offense built by modern players, not by Kobe Bryants.

The “play” I was referring to here quite literally has the word spain in it

[70sFan]

No lol nothing you are saying about the pick and roll makes sense to anyone that knows what these coverages generally give up

I think this will be my last response to you on that matter, I don't need to waste my time on discussing with someone who acts in arrogant way but can't be specific in criticism.

yeah these are mostly just catch hedges lol.

2:37 catch hedge
3:20 high ish drop
4:05 tried to run a catch hedge and Kobe rejected the screen before it came
4:30 catch hedge and Kobe drove by
5:45catch hedge, screener skips and the ball handler defender tries to stick with him somewhat and they just show and recover which was kind of weird
6:50 hard hedge

There was one catch hedge he split too that I didn’t mark.

I mean, I don’t think it was the right coverage to run from the highlights, but yeah this is a normal coverage lol, and the ball handler reads if you don’t play into the 4 on 3 (which wasn’t as effective with the spacing back then) are splitting the screen or turning the corner, or rejecting it if they go too hard

I personally don’t think a catch hedge vs Kobe makes that much sense in the context they were in, but this is just fully a catch hedge most of the time lol.

I literally said this was a poorly executed hedge, what did you expect? Do you fail to see the difference in how they were executed vs how teams play them now? Seriously?

If so, then I can give you examples of hedges, switches, drops and traps even from the 1970s - would you say that 1970s guard had the experience with modern defensive schemes? That's what you're suggesting.

Watch on YouTube

;pp=ygUObGlsbEFyZCBwb2ludHM%3D

Lillard rejecting it at 1:45
Lillard turning the corner at 2:25
Lillard splitting it at 2:40
Lillard turning the corner at 3:15
Lillard splitting it at 3:32

The blazers run it higher out because lillard can shoot from there and the higher out you run it the harder it is for the center to keep up. Would certainly say they’re running it better but the counters are exactly the same lol, although definately Spurs would go a bit too early. Blazers are certainly attacking it better too although I’d want weakside action when they help there as hard as they did at times

What are you trying to prove here? Lillard wasn't defended the same way as Kobe in these clips even if the coverages are the same. Even you admited that Kobe was defended poorly on these possessions.

Do you think modern teams wouldn't be able to do any better? If not, then what is your argument?

As you can see with the helpside rotations once you get by someone is always open, with the better schematic offenses when they help weakside you probably see a pin in flare or baseline cut too for good measure to overload the low man. The cavs helped strong side but that’s uncommon

If that's so easy, then why not all guards are capable of leading efficient offenses through these possessions?

I’m not saying Kobe is as good of a pick and roll ball handler of lillard obviously (to be clear, lillard has statistically been the best pick and roll ball handler of the past 6 years when you consider volume and effeciency, and that includes Curry) but the reads are the same, because these coverages are the same. Lillard made some crazy shots but also you know they aren’t gonna fully commit helping strong side corner for some of his finishes too.

I'd say the coverages are the same, but the effort, positioning and team commitment was much different in these possessions.

Is Ja an average guard?

I said "usually". Kobe doesn't have Morant's slashing ability by the way.

Drop coverage isn’t an easy mode it’s a coverage lol. Drop and under isn’t inherently a bad coverage it’s literally just a coverage that does better at protecting against slashing but gives up the pull up three.

When did I say anything about drop being easy mode? Can you show me that?

I said teams didn't prioritise P&R defense back then as much as now, not that drop coverage is an easy mode. Drop coverages can be executed well or badly, you know?

Ok? Which coverage would he struggle with? You were saying teams scout and pinpoint guys more than ever, they do that in the playoffs but mainly they run drop in the regular season.

I don't know which coverages would he struggle with, I haven't seen him against modern defenses. I haven't seen him gunning P&Rs like players does now, he didn't play that way in his prime.

I think his shooting could be a concern for a drop (though I guess his midrange could help him), but I think he'd do fine mostly. It's my guess though, I wouldn't call anyone stupid for disagreeing (like you did).

How would you defend against a coverage lol, coverages are the defense. Are you trying to argue that the coverages that were popular between now versus before are different, or that new coverages are being made.

That was a typo, I meant against P&R possessions.

My point isn't that there are new 2 on 2 coverages now, they largely exist since the 1960s at least. My point is that teams are much smarter and more knowledgeable about using it and players practice it way more now. P&R coverage is a priority now, back then it wasn't that important.

I didn’t grow up watching these games lol

Cool, so you don't see the difference between teams guarding Kobe in 2002 and teams guarding "insert any perimeter star" now?

I mean to an extent I’m oversimplifying it but yeah for the ball handler it is pretty much that simple lol. This isn’t me stating an opinion, when it comes to aggressive screen coverages generally if your spacing/positioning is right going with them leads to 4 on 3 situations where you have to scramble and rotate. A ball handlers job if he doesn’t get a direct scoring opportunity to attack the aggressive screen coverage, doing the same reads people have always done, would simply be to pass it to the short roller or someone lifting up from the corner to the wing lol, depending on which you want and which the defense tries to give up

Have always done, you mean at least since the 1960s?

Mild oversimplification, but really not that much of one. The point of aggressive screen coverages is to get it out of the ball handlers hands while giving up a numbers advantage you try to recover from. You can also force a switch by stringing out a catch hedge laterally

I know that, are these your "you can't see it in common discussion" secret knowledge?

If reads are that easy, then why you can't put a HS guard into the league and he'd always make the right decision? Maybe it's a bit more nuanced and your "oversimplification" is actually outside the range of what you could consider a realistic characterisation of the problem?

If you think all that matters is types of coverages, then Jerry West also faced all kinds of coverages back in his prime. Why don't you think he'd do well?

It’s funny to hate on him, but with the absence of a lob threat or a scoring threat as a roll man, here are the things Curry could have done on his own to beat that high drop

- shoot from 30 feet over AD

There were probably drop beaters the team could have ran not sure if they did or not

So you think such drop would work against any type of player without lob threat? Why don't teams just spam it against all of them then?

[MyUniBroDavis]

I think this will be my last response to you on that matter, I don't need to waste my time on discussing with someone who acts in arrogant way but can't be specific in criticism.

I’ve literally gone point by point but this is just silly lol you keep talking about a topic you clearly don’t understand

I literally said this was a poorly executed hedge, what did you expect? Do you fail to see the difference in how they were executed vs how teams play them now? Seriously?

If so, then I can give you examples of hedges, switches, drops and traps even from the 1970s - would you say that 1970s guard had the experience with modern defensive schemes? That's what you're suggesting.

Well for one I didn’t expect a catch hedge when you called it a poorly executed hard hedge.

What are you trying to prove here? Lillard wasn't defended the same way as Kobe in these clips even if the coverages are the same. Even you admited that Kobe was defended poorly on these possessions.

Do you think modern teams wouldn't be able to do any better? If not, then what is your argument?

The real point to make here, which you didn’t make, is that dames shooting range may have been a large reason they ran the catch hedge so far out which wouldn’t be relevant to Kobe.

I think the coverage was wrong
, and they probably were a bit too aggressive pre-emptively doing it probably because of the inside being more clogged

They didn’t even run it that badly outside of that show and recover near the end kind of and shooting into it too early when they prerotated anyway, beating your man around means you beat the coverage.

If that's so easy, then why not all guards are capable of leading efficient offenses through these possessions?

Because not all teams do this? Because not all teams are run well offensively? Because some guards aren’t strong driving threats and can’t beat catch hedges these ways? Because not all guards are elite slashers or finishers? Because most teams don’t help aggressively strong side corner now because it’s generally not seen as a good thing?

I'd say the coverages are the same, but the effort, positioning and team commitment was much different in these possessions.

By team commitment do you mean help coming from the strong side corner and the opposite wing and dame quite literally is getting a running start from 7 feet behind the three point line? You think those are difficult reads for elite slashers? To know if they have enough room to finish?

I said "usually". Kobe doesn't have Morant's slashing ability by the way.
When did I say anything about drop being easy mode? Can you show me that?
I said teams didn't prioritise P&R defense back then as much as now, not that drop coverage is an easy mode. Drop coverages can be executed well or badly, you know
I don't know which coverages would he struggle with, I haven't seen him against modern defenses. I haven't seen him gunning P&Rs like players does now, he didn't play that way in his prime.
I think his shooting could be a concern for a drop (though I guess his midrange could help him), but I think he'd do fine mostly. It's my guess though, I wouldn't call anyone stupid for disagreeing (like you did).
My point isn't that there are new 2 on 2 coverages now, they largely exist since the 1960s at least. My point is that teams are much smarter and more knowledgeable about using it and players practice it way more now. P&R coverage is a priority now, back then it wasn't that important.

Not a single human being said kobe was ja morant lol.

Literally you earlier btw:

Well, I think it's important to remember that teams don't really guard P&Rs 2 on 2, the rest of the team is also important. Besides, how many of these were even relevant back in the mid-00s?
Well, I think it's important to remember that teams don't really guard P&Rs 2 on 2, the rest of the team is also important. Besides, how many of thesewere even relevant back in the mid-00s?
How is that silly? Defenses were forced to adapt and they did, but Kobe wouldn't necessarily create such threats, as he never had to face all these coverages.

Going back to drop after all of that is wild

Cool, so you don't see the difference between teams guarding Kobe in 2002 and teams guarding "insert any perimeter star" now?

I see strong defenders and offensive players who benifit from modern nba scheme and spacing lol.

Have always done, you mean at least since the 1960s?

Howd they go from not relevant to the 2000s to being done since the 1960s lol

So you think such drop would work against any type of player without lob threat? Why don't teams just spam it against all of them then?

Because a high drop inherently requires a hyper mobile switchable big that is simultaneously an interior force? Are you seriously asking why a coverage the Lakers ran because they had AD isn’t run by everyone? Because not everyone is more of a threat from 30 feet out than slashing while simultaneously being an elite slasher and finisher? How do you think deandre jordan would look in a high drop? What the hell?

Also Because drop counters exist depending on the roster you have, I don’t know if the warriors ran it or not or how it worked. Hell Curry just popped it vs the celtics when they ran it

If reads are that easy, then why you can't put a HS guard into the league and he'd always make the right decision? Maybe it's a bit more nuanced and your "oversimplification" is actually outside the range of what you could consider a realistic characterisation of the problem?
If you think all that matters is types of coverages, then Jerry West also faced all kinds of coverages back in his prime. Why don't you think he'd do well?

Your basically asking if a guard can make the right read 4 on 3 with a head of steam to the rim with help defenders helping late, or if they can pass out of a double team. You’re trying to make a point that doesn’t exist because a highschool player won’t be in a position where a team runs a coverage to get the ball away from them, they get the ball through that defense and the real nba players look at little Kevin Pringle and decide to break defensive principles and help strong side corner because this 10th grader is such a awesome driving threat

Lillard also, ya know, went all the way with his finishes here lol, because it’s easy to finish with a head of steam when ur an elite athlete with elite finishing in 2023.

You’re trying to create a slippery slope here when it doesn’t exist with these sudden “look at all these coverages in the 70s” take when ive said nothing about that era lol. The way you describe the Kobe pick and roll clips it’s like you’re watching west film though lol

I know that, are these your "you can't see it in common discussion" secret knowledge?

Yeah the fact that you can even possible consider the fact that aggressive screen coverages try to get the ball out of a ball handlers hands to be what I was referring to shows Ur level of knowledge in this area.

I’ll list out some random stuff, all of them are under l specific screener coverages. Some of the branch names aren’t official but anyone who knows them will know what I mean. Obviously these aren’t a list of pick and roll counters more than concepts in many cases but if you have knowledge on how things are run I’m sure you can fit them to coverages and what each ones trying to do. Obviously this isn’t exhaustive

Veer
Stack
Stack back
Stack down
Horns flare cut both options
Bruin action
Horns Bruin
Double drag
Miami action handoff into ballscreen
45 degree cut lift
Ram action
Delay 5 out
Flat?

So no my knowledge on how pick and roll coverages work is not limited to the things you learn on a middle school basketball team. This isn’t “secret knowledge” it’s just knowledge you don’t have lol, don’t take it personally. You know about the 70s and 80s, and that’s great!

This has been a complete utter waste of time.