Is Kobe given the most flack of any star? Highlighting inconsistent arguments against him.

[flytimes11]

Westbrook does very well in box metrics. RAPM +/- were much less favorable with him. I don't have elgee's CORP stats, but given he uses WOWY and RAPM in that I'd assume he'd be lower than these other elite peaks.

Remember I started by explaining why CURRY would rank ahead of Kobe and we added KG for context. In terms of longevity KG is also ahead of Kobe in the metrics, obviously Curry isn't. Thus why if you rank Curry over Kobe you can still take KG. Meanwhile if you rank Kobe over Curry you could ALSO still take KG while being consistent.

Harden peaks over Kobe in VORP. RAPM data doesn't paint as strong a picture. We have good and strong data to show that Harden has under-preformed beyond just statistical noise in the playoffs, so you certainly should discount for that. This is a clear example of where we have good data.

As for the winning stuff, if KG never went to Boston, and we didn't see him have one of the greatest defensive years ever. I think it would be MUCH harder to make a strong case beyond just box/+/- stats, but because we do have the data point with the celtics and his one year where he got a 0 time allstar in Cassell (though imo he'd been at that level a while) and it turned that Wolves team into a legit contender...I think it's safe to say his impact/play was absolutely winning basketball. He just did have historically, truly unprecedented bad teammates. We can even get there with some stats to compare his 2007 team to Kobe's 2005 team and look at the metrics. Kobe's team wasn't good. KG's was idiotically bad.

Oh and yeah Jokic passing Lebron or Jordan is a VERY VERY tough task. I'd bet a lot against it, but it's not crazy to think it's possible. Very few guys however have sustained the greatness of Jokic the last 3 years as long as MJ and Lebron did.

My thing with advanced stats is that the games still have to be played. Looking at the numbers on paper would make one think there is no need to watch the game I’m sure advanced stats would have said 2010 Celtics would have swept the 2010 lakers but that did not happen or 07 mavs losing first round, 11 spurs losing first round etc. It’s the reason the 2016 finals is so crazy because warriors still had to win a 4th game which they never did. While Kobe’s play style could be inefficient it still proved to win. That’s part of who he was as a player, relentless going at the opponent every possession wearing them down mentally and physically. Now of course you could argue his shot selection is what holds him back, and his numbers reflect that. Stats tell you a lot but they do not tell you everything. And what they don’t tell you is that Kobe is a great shooter, that took difficult shots – partly because he was an aggressive scorer, and partly because he had to be an aggressive scorer, at times. The Lakers did not have that many great backcourt shooters (klay/kyrie etc) Kobe could pass to and rely on, particular in the middle of his prime (the mid 2000s). The Lakers roster in the late 2000s did rely on him making tough shots – there were not other players that could help generate an open shot for Kobe.



Another note I want to add is Team USA struggled in the Olympics until Kobe joined and in the gold medal game the offense was ran through him when LeBron and Wade were on the team. He also had a much better showing than Duncan.


Lastly the accolades and accomplishments speak for themselves. It seems disingenuous to imply that Kobe is Kobe because of his teammates. He led a team to 3 straight finals and was part of a 3 peat, something very rare in the NBA. We can’t just assume because some of these players have better advanced stats that if we put them in the same circumstances they win as much as Kobe because basketball isn’t played on excel spreadsheets. No hypotheticals, he actually won 5 championships. It would be hard for me to put Jokic, Steph or Kg over Kobe because given the circumstances and scenarios he was able to do everything those guys did.

You're starting your analysis with "winner bias". Your entire thread is about bias. Winning bias is the most pervasive thing we have in sports and what makes real discussions the most difficult.

You're right, we did see Kobe, with Great teammates win and win a lot. Other players never had teams as good as Kobe's best. It's great that we know that Kobe can win in that situation. But we don't know if others would have as well. We never saw Kobe on a team as bad as the 2007 Wolves, so how can we know how good/bad he would have been there?

At some point you need a consistent method that goes beyond just stats and just TEAM results. It isn't being inconsistent to do the best with the limited data you have. It's inconsistent to only take winning into account and not take losing into account. It's not consistent to dismiss a player based on his team not excelling with terrible teammates but to hype up a player's success when his teammates are great. Or worse here, Kobe did at BEST as well as KG with poor teammates in 2005 and 2006. But Kobe really never had a team that was as bad as KG's worse teams. Again, you're focused on Kobe at his best, with the best around him. While KG always gets knocked for when his team was at it's absolute worst.

Similarly, laker's fans who dismiss KG>Kobe will also get angry about Duncan>Kobe and will go to that Duncan had better teammates and Pop. You know vs Kobe with Shaq, Pau, and Phil. That's hypocrisy in one's analysis.

And I have no idea why we're getting into the international stuff. That isn't' NBA or used when ranking NBA players. Also...the roster was completely different that year. It was a complete rebuild/branding. If you want to give Kobe credit for joining the team, that's cool I guess. I'm sure he helped recruiting.

To counter your point, once Kg joined Boston he never averaged 20 again. So likely if KG plays with more talent earlier in his career his advanced stats likely don’t paint the same story they do now. As far as Kobe and Duncan I feel they played with similar talent throughout their careers and both ended up with 5 championships. I can see an argument for either direction. IMO Kg is closer to Dirk, similarly to how you feel Cp3 is close to Kobe.

[cpower]

so apparently Steph Curry was carried by Iggy and Green.

[dhsilv2]

My thing with advanced stats is that the games still have to be played. Looking at the numbers on paper would make one think there is no need to watch the game I’m sure advanced stats would have said 2010 Celtics would have swept the 2010 lakers but that did not happen or 07 mavs losing first round, 11 spurs losing first round etc. It’s the reason the 2016 finals is so crazy because warriors still had to win a 4th game which they never did. While Kobe’s play style could be inefficient it still proved to win. That’s part of who he was as a player, relentless going at the opponent every possession wearing them down mentally and physically. Now of course you could argue his shot selection is what holds him back, and his numbers reflect that. Stats tell you a lot but they do not tell you everything. And what they don’t tell you is that Kobe is a great shooter, that took difficult shots – partly because he was an aggressive scorer, and partly because he had to be an aggressive scorer, at times. The Lakers did not have that many great backcourt shooters (klay/kyrie etc) Kobe could pass to and rely on, particular in the middle of his prime (the mid 2000s). The Lakers roster in the late 2000s did rely on him making tough shots – there were not other players that could help generate an open shot for Kobe.



Another note I want to add is Team USA struggled in the Olympics until Kobe joined and in the gold medal game the offense was ran through him when LeBron and Wade were on the team. He also had a much better showing than Duncan.


Lastly the accolades and accomplishments speak for themselves. It seems disingenuous to imply that Kobe is Kobe because of his teammates. He led a team to 3 straight finals and was part of a 3 peat, something very rare in the NBA. We can’t just assume because some of these players have better advanced stats that if we put them in the same circumstances they win as much as Kobe because basketball isn’t played on excel spreadsheets. No hypotheticals, he actually won 5 championships. It would be hard for me to put Jokic, Steph or Kg over Kobe because given the circumstances and scenarios he was able to do everything those guys did.

You're starting your analysis with "winner bias". Your entire thread is about bias. Winning bias is the most pervasive thing we have in sports and what makes real discussions the most difficult.

You're right, we did see Kobe, with Great teammates win and win a lot. Other players never had teams as good as Kobe's best. It's great that we know that Kobe can win in that situation. But we don't know if others would have as well. We never saw Kobe on a team as bad as the 2007 Wolves, so how can we know how good/bad he would have been there?

At some point you need a consistent method that goes beyond just stats and just TEAM results. It isn't being inconsistent to do the best with the limited data you have. It's inconsistent to only take winning into account and not take losing into account. It's not consistent to dismiss a player based on his team not excelling with terrible teammates but to hype up a player's success when his teammates are great. Or worse here, Kobe did at BEST as well as KG with poor teammates in 2005 and 2006. But Kobe really never had a team that was as bad as KG's worse teams. Again, you're focused on Kobe at his best, with the best around him. While KG always gets knocked for when his team was at it's absolute worst.

Similarly, laker's fans who dismiss KG>Kobe will also get angry about Duncan>Kobe and will go to that Duncan had better teammates and Pop. You know vs Kobe with Shaq, Pau, and Phil. That's hypocrisy in one's analysis.

And I have no idea why we're getting into the international stuff. That isn't' NBA or used when ranking NBA players. Also...the roster was completely different that year. It was a complete rebuild/branding. If you want to give Kobe credit for joining the team, that's cool I guess. I'm sure he helped recruiting.

To counter your point, once Kg joined Boston he never averaged 20 again. So likely if KG plays with more talent earlier in his career his advanced stats likely don’t paint the same story they do now. As far as Kobe and Duncan I feel they played with similar talent throughout their careers and both ended up with 5 championships. I can see an argument for either direction. IMO Kg is closer to Dirk, similarly to how you feel Cp3 is close to Kobe.

2008 KG has a case for the best player in the league by the metrics.

RPM 1st
RAPM 1st
PER 4th
WS/48 2nd
BPM 4th

So the argument that scoring less points in 2008 hurt the stats is completely false and you went to that without even looking at the stats. So, no the data would tend to indicate when KG had better teammates 2004 and 2008 he had even better stats and that his stats were held back by a lack of quality teammates during those really terrible seasons, 2007 being the biggest example.

The inconsistency we're seeing is in your views on this topic. Not from others. You want to see Kobe as better than KG. You want to see Kobe as better than Curry. So you're actively looking for reasons to rank him higher. Not starting with the question of "who ranks higher" and solving from there.

[flytimes11]

You're starting your analysis with "winner bias". Your entire thread is about bias. Winning bias is the most pervasive thing we have in sports and what makes real discussions the most difficult.

You're right, we did see Kobe, with Great teammates win and win a lot. Other players never had teams as good as Kobe's best. It's great that we know that Kobe can win in that situation. But we don't know if others would have as well. We never saw Kobe on a team as bad as the 2007 Wolves, so how can we know how good/bad he would have been there?

At some point you need a consistent method that goes beyond just stats and just TEAM results. It isn't being inconsistent to do the best with the limited data you have. It's inconsistent to only take winning into account and not take losing into account. It's not consistent to dismiss a player based on his team not excelling with terrible teammates but to hype up a player's success when his teammates are great. Or worse here, Kobe did at BEST as well as KG with poor teammates in 2005 and 2006. But Kobe really never had a team that was as bad as KG's worse teams. Again, you're focused on Kobe at his best, with the best around him. While KG always gets knocked for when his team was at it's absolute worst.

Similarly, laker's fans who dismiss KG>Kobe will also get angry about Duncan>Kobe and will go to that Duncan had better teammates and Pop. You know vs Kobe with Shaq, Pau, and Phil. That's hypocrisy in one's analysis.

And I have no idea why we're getting into the international stuff. That isn't' NBA or used when ranking NBA players. Also...the roster was completely different that year. It was a complete rebuild/branding. If you want to give Kobe credit for joining the team, that's cool I guess. I'm sure he helped recruiting.

To counter your point, once Kg joined Boston he never averaged 20 again. So likely if KG plays with more talent earlier in his career his advanced stats likely don’t paint the same story they do now. As far as Kobe and Duncan I feel they played with similar talent throughout their careers and both ended up with 5 championships. I can see an argument for either direction. IMO Kg is closer to Dirk, similarly to how you feel Cp3 is close to Kobe.

2008 KG has a case for the best player in the league by the metrics.

RPM 1st
RAPM 1st
PER 4th
WS/48 2nd
BPM 4th

So the argument that scoring less points in 2008 hurt the stats is completely false and you went to that without even looking at the stats. So, no the data would tend to indicate when KG had better teammates 2004 and 2008 he had even better stats and that his stats were held back by a lack of quality teammates during those really terrible seasons, 2007 being the biggest example.

The inconsistency we're seeing is in your views on this topic. Not from others. You want to see Kobe as better than KG. You want to see Kobe as better than Curry. So you're actively looking for reasons to rank him higher. Not starting with the question of "who ranks higher" and solving from there.

Isn’t Ginobili #1 in rpm for 08? That’s only 1 season. Nobody was arguing for Kg for best player in 2008, you were using vorp in your other comparisons. 08 Celtics were a super team relative to the rest of the league. Advanced stats don’t tell the entire story. The inconsistencies I highlighted would be the narrative that finals mvp is the best player/most important on the team. Kg wasn’t that. Even then you are acting like games are played on spreadsheets.

[dhsilv2]

To counter your point, once Kg joined Boston he never averaged 20 again. So likely if KG plays with more talent earlier in his career his advanced stats likely don’t paint the same story they do now. As far as Kobe and Duncan I feel they played with similar talent throughout their careers and both ended up with 5 championships. I can see an argument for either direction. IMO Kg is closer to Dirk, similarly to how you feel Cp3 is close to Kobe.

2008 KG has a case for the best player in the league by the metrics.

RPM 1st
RAPM 1st
PER 4th
WS/48 2nd
BPM 4th

So the argument that scoring less points in 2008 hurt the stats is completely false and you went to that without even looking at the stats. So, no the data would tend to indicate when KG had better teammates 2004 and 2008 he had even better stats and that his stats were held back by a lack of quality teammates during those really terrible seasons, 2007 being the biggest example.

The inconsistency we're seeing is in your views on this topic. Not from others. You want to see Kobe as better than KG. You want to see Kobe as better than Curry. So you're actively looking for reasons to rank him higher. Not starting with the question of "who ranks higher" and solving from there.

Isn’t Ginobili #1 in rpm for 08? That’s only 1 season. Nobody was arguing for Kg for best player in 2008, you were using vorp in your other comparisons. 08 Celtics were a super team relative to the rest of the league. Advanced stats don’t tell the entire story. The inconsistencies I highlighted would be the narrative that finals mvp is the best player/most important on the team. Kg wasn’t that. Even then you are acting like games are played on spreadsheets.

https://basketball-analytics.gitlab.io/rapm-data/season/2007-08/regular-season/

Manu was 4th. 1 year RAPM has it's issues of course.

KG was 3rd in MVP voting in 2008 with 15 first place votes.

Here is a discussion on these forums in 2010 (a perfect time really) to review the best player from 2008 and the results. Keep in mind best player and MVP do not mean the same thing.

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1006832

I never once said advanced stats tell the entire story. I added multiple layers as we discussed how to consistently use these metrics. I added RAPM, I added CORP, I never limited the discussion to just VORP and nobody does that. I even discussed why we can use the data on Harden to discount his regular season stats and WHY that was reasonable and we could apply it consistently. You however cannot go back and makeup a narrative that is false such as KG's 2008 PPG indicates that his stats would have been worse with a better team. All of his box based on +/- stats went up from 2007 to 2008 when he got better teammates. With limited information we see that for KG the better his teammates the better his stats.

As for finals MVP - I don't believe anyone uses that. But more importantly, I don't think it applies to Kobe who wasn't the best player on any team he didn't get finals MVP and 2010 there are many who argue Gasol was more important. Now KG was the best and most important player on his 2008 title team. Just like Curry was on the 2015 team. Just like Magic was in 1987. Just like Duncan was in 2007. And we can go on...there have been countless bad finals MVP's selected. That's why awards alone aren't a good way to rank players.

And no...hell half these stats can't even be calculated on a damn spread sheet lol. I'm saying the RESULTS of a game can be quantified to allow us to see what happened more clearly. My analysis and the analysis of others isn't going stop with stats. Stats are just a first step. But when you have enough of them and they are consistent between two players and they paint very clearly different tiers, I would tend to move on unless I had game based reasons to question them. For example, CP3 you might want to discount his RAPM because he had some times when his fellow starters were really good but his bench was really bad. That's enough reason to at least pause with RAPM and think it through. Here...KG had amazing RAPM when his starters were worse than other team's benches and when he was on the celtics. Not much to worry about with that one. Kobe similarly was consistent enough and we saw him with at least enough different team setups. I'm pretty good with the feeling that both players were fairly judges for their careers.

edit - you said RPM with manu. You are correct...either my memory sucks or they changed it on me. Either way we're talking two of the best players in the league that year.

[flytimes11]

2008 KG has a case for the best player in the league by the metrics.

RPM 1st
RAPM 1st
PER 4th
WS/48 2nd
BPM 4th

So the argument that scoring less points in 2008 hurt the stats is completely false and you went to that without even looking at the stats. So, no the data would tend to indicate when KG had better teammates 2004 and 2008 he had even better stats and that his stats were held back by a lack of quality teammates during those really terrible seasons, 2007 being the biggest example.

The inconsistency we're seeing is in your views on this topic. Not from others. You want to see Kobe as better than KG. You want to see Kobe as better than Curry. So you're actively looking for reasons to rank him higher. Not starting with the question of "who ranks higher" and solving from there.

Isn’t Ginobili #1 in rpm for 08? That’s only 1 season. Nobody was arguing for Kg for best player in 2008, you were using vorp in your other comparisons. 08 Celtics were a super team relative to the rest of the league. Advanced stats don’t tell the entire story. The inconsistencies I highlighted would be the narrative that finals mvp is the best player/most important on the team. Kg wasn’t that. Even then you are acting like games are played on spreadsheets.

https://basketball-analytics.gitlab.io/rapm-data/season/2007-08/regular-season/

Manu was 4th. 1 year RAPM has it's issues of course.

KG was 3rd in MVP voting in 2008 with 15 first place votes.

Here is a discussion on these forums in 2010 (a perfect time really) to review the best player from 2008 and the results. Keep in mind best player and MVP do not mean the same thing.

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1006832

I never once said advanced stats tell the entire story. I added multiple layers as we discussed how to consistently use these metrics. I added RAPM, I added CORP, I never limited the discussion to just VORP and nobody does that. I even discussed why we can use the data on Harden to discount his regular season stats and WHY that was reasonable and we could apply it consistently. You however cannot go back and makeup a narrative that is false such as KG's 2008 PPG indicates that his stats would have been worse with a better team. All of his box based on +/- stats went up from 2007 to 2008 when he got better teammates. With limited information we see that for KG the better his teammates the better his stats.

As for finals MVP - I don't believe anyone uses that. But more importantly, I don't think it applies to Kobe who wasn't the best player on any team he didn't get finals MVP and 2010 there are many who argue Gasol was more important. Now KG was the best and most important player on his 2008 title team. Just like Curry was on the 2015 team. Just like Magic was in 1987. Just like Duncan was in 2007. And we can go on...there have been countless bad finals MVP's selected. That's why awards alone aren't a good way to rank players.

And no...hell half these stats can't even be calculated on a damn spread sheet lol. I'm saying the RESULTS of a game can be quantified to allow us to see what happened more clearly. My analysis and the analysis of others isn't going stop with stats. Stats are just a first step. But when you have enough of them and they are consistent between two players and they paint very clearly different tiers, I would tend to move on unless I had game based reasons to question them. For example, CP3 you might want to discount his RAPM because he had some times when his fellow starters were really good but his bench was really bad. That's enough reason to at least pause with RAPM and think it through. Here...KG had amazing RAPM when his starters were worse than other team's benches and when he was on the celtics. Not much to worry about with that one. Kobe similarly was consistent enough and we saw him with at least enough different team setups. I'm pretty good with the feeling that both players were fairly judges for their careers.

edit - you said RPM with manu. You are correct...either my memory sucks or they changed it on me. Either way we're talking two of the best players in the league that year.

The willingness to take and ability to make the difficult shots while being sole focus of the defense is what made him so great but also makes him look bad in discussions like this. His numbers weren’t off the charts… but some of the shots he made would ‘rip your heart out.’ It really takes it back to Lebrons quote of “2 points isn’t 2 points” similar to LeBrons block in the finals it’s more than just a block. It's a psychological game not a mathematical game. That's the point stats people miss. The fear from the defense that no shot is safe and no defense is effective.

As far as Gasol being more important. Before arriving to Los Angeles, Pau Gasol was a first option in Memphis. In his 3 post-seasons in Memphis, he won a grand total of ZERO playoff games, going 0-12. Across his first 3 post-seasons, Pau Gasol averaged 20.0 PPG on 53.7 TS%.

In his first 3 post-seasons with Los Angeles, Pau Gasol averaged 18.3 PPG on 59.7% TS. Despite being a 2nd option in Los Angeles, Pau Gasol's scoring output hardly dropped while his efficiency was better. I don’t think that’s a coincidence. Also Kobe playing with Shaq shouldn’t be held against him when he has shown what he could do without Shaq. We always say Kobe had Shaq but we don’t discuss as much how Shaq had Kobe when discussing Shaqs greatness.

Lastly I like advanced stats but it looks like Manu would have a case for best player in 08 as well and I just can’t ever agree with that.

[Kobeskillz]

Robbery Horry has 7 chips, you don’t do that by just being “good”. Oh wait…

Yeah cause Horry was the main star on his teams.

You kinda proved his point.... you have to look at team context, performance etc... rather than just listing # of rings. I'm sure Brandon Roy has several titles/finals appearances if he's healthy and playing with prime Shaq for 5 years

No I didn’t. Kobe made 3 more finals after Shaq. As the man. Won 2 of them as well. As the man. It’s not complicated.

[dhsilv2]

Isn’t Ginobili #1 in rpm for 08? That’s only 1 season. Nobody was arguing for Kg for best player in 2008, you were using vorp in your other comparisons. 08 Celtics were a super team relative to the rest of the league. Advanced stats don’t tell the entire story. The inconsistencies I highlighted would be the narrative that finals mvp is the best player/most important on the team. Kg wasn’t that. Even then you are acting like games are played on spreadsheets.

https://basketball-analytics.gitlab.io/rapm-data/season/2007-08/regular-season/

Manu was 4th. 1 year RAPM has it's issues of course.

KG was 3rd in MVP voting in 2008 with 15 first place votes.

Here is a discussion on these forums in 2010 (a perfect time really) to review the best player from 2008 and the results. Keep in mind best player and MVP do not mean the same thing.

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1006832

I never once said advanced stats tell the entire story. I added multiple layers as we discussed how to consistently use these metrics. I added RAPM, I added CORP, I never limited the discussion to just VORP and nobody does that. I even discussed why we can use the data on Harden to discount his regular season stats and WHY that was reasonable and we could apply it consistently. You however cannot go back and makeup a narrative that is false such as KG's 2008 PPG indicates that his stats would have been worse with a better team. All of his box based on +/- stats went up from 2007 to 2008 when he got better teammates. With limited information we see that for KG the better his teammates the better his stats.

As for finals MVP - I don't believe anyone uses that. But more importantly, I don't think it applies to Kobe who wasn't the best player on any team he didn't get finals MVP and 2010 there are many who argue Gasol was more important. Now KG was the best and most important player on his 2008 title team. Just like Curry was on the 2015 team. Just like Magic was in 1987. Just like Duncan was in 2007. And we can go on...there have been countless bad finals MVP's selected. That's why awards alone aren't a good way to rank players.

And no...hell half these stats can't even be calculated on a damn spread sheet lol. I'm saying the RESULTS of a game can be quantified to allow us to see what happened more clearly. My analysis and the analysis of others isn't going stop with stats. Stats are just a first step. But when you have enough of them and they are consistent between two players and they paint very clearly different tiers, I would tend to move on unless I had game based reasons to question them. For example, CP3 you might want to discount his RAPM because he had some times when his fellow starters were really good but his bench was really bad. That's enough reason to at least pause with RAPM and think it through. Here...KG had amazing RAPM when his starters were worse than other team's benches and when he was on the celtics. Not much to worry about with that one. Kobe similarly was consistent enough and we saw him with at least enough different team setups. I'm pretty good with the feeling that both players were fairly judges for their careers.

edit - you said RPM with manu. You are correct...either my memory sucks or they changed it on me. Either way we're talking two of the best players in the league that year.

The willingness to take and ability to make the difficult shots while being sole focus of the defense is what made him so great but also makes him look bad in discussions like this. His numbers weren’t off the charts… but some of the shots he made would ‘rip your heart out.’ It really takes it back to Lebrons quote of “2 points isn’t 2 points” similar to LeBrons block in the finals it’s more than just a block. It's a psychological game not a mathematical game. That's the point stats people miss. The fear from the defense that no shot is safe and no defense is effective.

As far as Gasol being more important. Before arriving to Los Angeles, Pau Gasol was a first option in Memphis. In his 3 post-seasons in Memphis, he won a grand total of ZERO playoff games, going 0-12. Across his first 3 post-seasons, Pau Gasol averaged 20.0 PPG on 53.7 TS%.

In his first 3 post-seasons with Los Angeles, Pau Gasol averaged 18.3 PPG on 59.7% TS. Despite being a 2nd option in Los Angeles, Pau Gasol's scoring output hardly dropped while his efficiency was better. I don’t think that’s a coincidence. Also Kobe playing with Shaq shouldn’t be held against him when he has shown what he could do without Shaq. We always say Kobe had Shaq but we don’t discuss as much how Shaq had Kobe when discussing Shaqs greatness.

Lastly I like advanced stats but it looks like Manu would have a case for best player in 08 as well and I just can’t ever agree with that.

You're just once again going on about your bias. You're starting with your love of Kobe and trying to build a case.

FYI, shaq gets constantly talked about needing another elite guard and that he managed to get 3 of them over his career! Read more about Shaq.

The stats need context and the context is the game film. But you're not doing a very good job or painting why the unbiased data needs to be adjusted.

As for Manu...I don't see why him being the best player in 2008 is absurd. I don't think he is, but Manu was absolutely on Kobe's level at his best. If manu could sustain himself and his health the spurs win 7-8 titles and he's right there with Duncan in the top 15 all time.

[flytimes11]

https://basketball-analytics.gitlab.io/rapm-data/season/2007-08/regular-season/

Manu was 4th. 1 year RAPM has it's issues of course.

KG was 3rd in MVP voting in 2008 with 15 first place votes.

Here is a discussion on these forums in 2010 (a perfect time really) to review the best player from 2008 and the results. Keep in mind best player and MVP do not mean the same thing.

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1006832

I never once said advanced stats tell the entire story. I added multiple layers as we discussed how to consistently use these metrics. I added RAPM, I added CORP, I never limited the discussion to just VORP and nobody does that. I even discussed why we can use the data on Harden to discount his regular season stats and WHY that was reasonable and we could apply it consistently. You however cannot go back and makeup a narrative that is false such as KG's 2008 PPG indicates that his stats would have been worse with a better team. All of his box based on +/- stats went up from 2007 to 2008 when he got better teammates. With limited information we see that for KG the better his teammates the better his stats.

As for finals MVP - I don't believe anyone uses that. But more importantly, I don't think it applies to Kobe who wasn't the best player on any team he didn't get finals MVP and 2010 there are many who argue Gasol was more important. Now KG was the best and most important player on his 2008 title team. Just like Curry was on the 2015 team. Just like Magic was in 1987. Just like Duncan was in 2007. And we can go on...there have been countless bad finals MVP's selected. That's why awards alone aren't a good way to rank players.

And no...hell half these stats can't even be calculated on a damn spread sheet lol. I'm saying the RESULTS of a game can be quantified to allow us to see what happened more clearly. My analysis and the analysis of others isn't going stop with stats. Stats are just a first step. But when you have enough of them and they are consistent between two players and they paint very clearly different tiers, I would tend to move on unless I had game based reasons to question them. For example, CP3 you might want to discount his RAPM because he had some times when his fellow starters were really good but his bench was really bad. That's enough reason to at least pause with RAPM and think it through. Here...KG had amazing RAPM when his starters were worse than other team's benches and when he was on the celtics. Not much to worry about with that one. Kobe similarly was consistent enough and we saw him with at least enough different team setups. I'm pretty good with the feeling that both players were fairly judges for their careers.

edit - you said RPM with manu. You are correct...either my memory sucks or they changed it on me. Either way we're talking two of the best players in the league that year.

The willingness to take and ability to make the difficult shots while being sole focus of the defense is what made him so great but also makes him look bad in discussions like this. His numbers weren’t off the charts… but some of the shots he made would ‘rip your heart out.’ It really takes it back to Lebrons quote of “2 points isn’t 2 points” similar to LeBrons block in the finals it’s more than just a block. It's a psychological game not a mathematical game. That's the point stats people miss. The fear from the defense that no shot is safe and no defense is effective.

As far as Gasol being more important. Before arriving to Los Angeles, Pau Gasol was a first option in Memphis. In his 3 post-seasons in Memphis, he won a grand total of ZERO playoff games, going 0-12. Across his first 3 post-seasons, Pau Gasol averaged 20.0 PPG on 53.7 TS%.

In his first 3 post-seasons with Los Angeles, Pau Gasol averaged 18.3 PPG on 59.7% TS. Despite being a 2nd option in Los Angeles, Pau Gasol's scoring output hardly dropped while his efficiency was better. I don’t think that’s a coincidence. Also Kobe playing with Shaq shouldn’t be held against him when he has shown what he could do without Shaq. We always say Kobe had Shaq but we don’t discuss as much how Shaq had Kobe when discussing Shaqs greatness.

Lastly I like advanced stats but it looks like Manu would have a case for best player in 08 as well and I just can’t ever agree with that.

You're just once again going on about your bias. You're starting with your love of Kobe and trying to build a case.

FYI, shaq gets constantly talked about needing another elite guard and that he managed to get 3 of them over his career! Read more about Shaq.

The stats need context and the context is the game film. But you're not doing a very good job or painting why the unbiased data needs to be adjusted.

As for Manu...I don't see why him being the best player in 2008 is absurd. I don't think he is, but Manu was absolutely on Kobe's level at his best. If manu could sustain himself and his health the spurs win 7-8 titles and he's right there with Duncan in the top 15 all time.

What am I saying that isn’t true? I’ve acknowledged Kobe as not being the most efficient. I honestly don’t feel like I’m being biased. It’s not like I’m making a claim many wouldn’t agree with outside of realgm.

Kobe has never had elite spacing and multiple all stars but when I read your analysis I would think Kobe played with the warriors his whole career.

The narrative here is Shaq carried Kobe. You even said the finals mvps arguments don’t apply to Kobe as if he was a Horry level player or had his 2000 production every series. In 01 spurs were better than sixers but Kobe outplayed him in that series. It seems like there may be a bias on both sides.

wasn’t manu coming off the bench by 08? 7-8 titles? Top 15 all time? Let’s not do hypotheticals. Either way Kobe made quick work of the spurs in 08

[Michael Jackson]

Don't think he gets near the hate Lebron gets.

Been on RealGM a long time myself... pre retirement Kobe got all that hate too FWIW. Jordan also got all that hate before he started winning etc... We love them more when they are gone. In Bryant's case he sadly passed very tragically just at his peak of people loving him. Young Kobe might have been the most hated player in the league though and post colorado... Not well loved. He really matured and we do tend to love the greats after they are in our face 24-7 (OMG LeBron will be missed when he is gone trust me) When Emoni Bates is the biggest thing ever (ha ha ha just jokes but picked to be that guy 3-4 years ago) all the people who grew up with LeBron or Kobe or MJ or Bird or Russell etc... will always be scratching their heads. When you fully get to digest the body of a players work and they aren't the center of every discussion appreciation grows in my sort old man experience.

[NO-KG-AI]

If there's one thing I learned in 20 years of watching Kobe, it's that he was going to get his shots up no matter what. I don't know if that qualifies as stad-padding or not, but it's definitely in the ballpark. Watching him try to learn the team concept over the first decade or so of his career was just painful.

The big dog gets to eat first.

Except in the 2nd half of game 7 against Phoenix. The big dog lost his appetite.

“Kobe would never quit” and has one of the biggest quits ever.

“Kobe would never leave his team” literally has a public trade request lmao.

[xinxin]

The big dog gets to eat first.

Except in the 2nd half of game 7 against Phoenix. The big dog lost his appetite.

“Kobe would never quit” and has one of the biggest quits ever.

“Kobe would never leave his team” literally has a public trade request lmao.

as a die hard lakers fan, it was really painful to watch Kobe grow into maturity.. It took like forever.

I didnt think he 'quit' exactly in game 7, I felt like he was trying to prove a stupid point to PJ and to the team.. either way, it was a horrible sight...

thankfully he matured eventually .. & the team was gifted with the 09 and 10 titles.

[NbaAllDay]

Hard to talk about all time, but at least over the past years it's been Lebron by a landslide.

It's also pretty simple to understand that those who are idolised the most by a specific group of fans, will also recieve the most hate, as it is often in 'retaliation'

Of course players like Kobe, MJ and Lebron have done things to be 'disliked' but the level of hate for a player people have never met, or has any real impact on their life, can be baffling.

Kobe is amongst the most polarising for a number things he has done, the All tome level player he is, and the obsessive subset of fans he has.

As I said there is really on LBJ and MJ who have a combo that rival that.

[NbaAllDay]

One more thing to add. MOST (outside of pre 70s greats like Russell and Wilt) players are within a relatively small 'all time ranking' spectrum.

Most people recognise that it's very difficult ult to place Lebron or MJ outside of the top 3 (assuming above names are ignored) with a consistent criteria.

Kobe however seems to have one of the most varied ranking of any player ever. You will often see a subset of people rank him as high as 1-5 all time, versus an often more 'consensus' 9-13ish. something you almost never see from anyone else.

It is more often not based on consistent criteria and discussions around it are often not constructive.

Even a Die hard Lebron fan who has him as number 1 right now, is (imo) far less ludarise than having Kobe in your top 5.

When his ranking is so polarising, there is often no wonder people will see criticism against him as 'unfair'

[FluLikeSymptoms]

I feel refreshed. Now let’s all forget the past 25 years and rally around OP’s favourite player.

[dhsilv2]

The willingness to take and ability to make the difficult shots while being sole focus of the defense is what made him so great but also makes him look bad in discussions like this. His numbers weren’t off the charts… but some of the shots he made would ‘rip your heart out.’ It really takes it back to Lebrons quote of “2 points isn’t 2 points” similar to LeBrons block in the finals it’s more than just a block. It's a psychological game not a mathematical game. That's the point stats people miss. The fear from the defense that no shot is safe and no defense is effective.

As far as Gasol being more important. Before arriving to Los Angeles, Pau Gasol was a first option in Memphis. In his 3 post-seasons in Memphis, he won a grand total of ZERO playoff games, going 0-12. Across his first 3 post-seasons, Pau Gasol averaged 20.0 PPG on 53.7 TS%.

In his first 3 post-seasons with Los Angeles, Pau Gasol averaged 18.3 PPG on 59.7% TS. Despite being a 2nd option in Los Angeles, Pau Gasol's scoring output hardly dropped while his efficiency was better. I don’t think that’s a coincidence. Also Kobe playing with Shaq shouldn’t be held against him when he has shown what he could do without Shaq. We always say Kobe had Shaq but we don’t discuss as much how Shaq had Kobe when discussing Shaqs greatness.

Lastly I like advanced stats but it looks like Manu would have a case for best player in 08 as well and I just can’t ever agree with that.

You're just once again going on about your bias. You're starting with your love of Kobe and trying to build a case.

FYI, shaq gets constantly talked about needing another elite guard and that he managed to get 3 of them over his career! Read more about Shaq.

The stats need context and the context is the game film. But you're not doing a very good job or painting why the unbiased data needs to be adjusted.

As for Manu...I don't see why him being the best player in 2008 is absurd. I don't think he is, but Manu was absolutely on Kobe's level at his best. If manu could sustain himself and his health the spurs win 7-8 titles and he's right there with Duncan in the top 15 all time.

What am I saying that isn’t true? I’ve acknowledged Kobe as not being the most efficient. I honestly don’t feel like I’m being biased. It’s not like I’m making a claim many wouldn’t agree with outside of realgm.

Kobe has never had elite spacing and multiple all stars but when I read your analysis I would think Kobe played with the warriors his whole career.

The narrative here is Shaq carried Kobe. You even said the finals mvps arguments don’t apply to Kobe as if he was a Horry level player or had his 2000 production every series. In 01 spurs were better than sixers but Kobe outplayed him in that series. It seems like there may be a bias on both sides.

wasn’t manu coming off the bench by 08? 7-8 titles? Top 15 all time? Let’s not do hypotheticals. Either way Kobe made quick work of the spurs in 08

Kobe for his era did in general have elite teams around him. Many of which for the era had top tier spacing. Heck you bring up the Warriors, the core of Kerr's offensive system is the triangle that Phil was running on the lakers. Obviously, he's integrated Pop's motion offense into it for obvious reasons but the whole point of and reason for running the triangle was because it created superior spacing for players.

The narrative everywhere is that Kobe was not the best player on the Lakers during the first 3 titles. The levels of this are HOTLY contested by many different posters with many different views on that. There's no consensus on those levels here or anywhere else in the world. You're the one randomly bringing Horry into this....though he was a key reason both Kobe and Duncan experience great spacing during different title runs of theirs. Not to mention him being one of the most versatile big men defenders of all time.

Also not sure why Manu coming off the bench or not would matter. There's nothing special about starting or not. Manu was an all time great when he was on the floor. But he unfortunately wasn't able to play 40 minutes a game and stay healthy. Manu was an all time great passer, elite finisher, elite defender, and one of the most creative guys I've ever seen. He could completely bomb out shooting one night and still find 30 other ways to help his team. There aren't 10 guys in NBA history I can think of who could find more ways to help their team win when their shot wasn't going down. Sure a few might have been say better defenders overall, but only say a Bill Russell could find as many creative tricks to add value to help the team win.

[flytimes11]

You're just once again going on about your bias. You're starting with your love of Kobe and trying to build a case.

FYI, shaq gets constantly talked about needing another elite guard and that he managed to get 3 of them over his career! Read more about Shaq.

The stats need context and the context is the game film. But you're not doing a very good job or painting why the unbiased data needs to be adjusted.

As for Manu...I don't see why him being the best player in 2008 is absurd. I don't think he is, but Manu was absolutely on Kobe's level at his best. If manu could sustain himself and his health the spurs win 7-8 titles and he's right there with Duncan in the top 15 all time.

What am I saying that isn’t true? I’ve acknowledged Kobe as not being the most efficient. I honestly don’t feel like I’m being biased. It’s not like I’m making a claim many wouldn’t agree with outside of realgm.

Kobe has never had elite spacing and multiple all stars but when I read your analysis I would think Kobe played with the warriors his whole career.

The narrative here is Shaq carried Kobe. You even said the finals mvps arguments don’t apply to Kobe as if he was a Horry level player or had his 2000 production every series. In 01 spurs were better than sixers but Kobe outplayed him in that series. It seems like there may be a bias on both sides.

wasn’t manu coming off the bench by 08? 7-8 titles? Top 15 all time? Let’s not do hypotheticals. Either way Kobe made quick work of the spurs in 08

Kobe for his era did in general have elite teams around him. Many of which for the era had top tier spacing. Heck you bring up the Warriors, the core of Kerr's offensive system is the triangle that Phil was running on the lakers. Obviously, he's integrated Pop's motion offense into it for obvious reasons but the whole point of and reason for running the triangle was because it created superior spacing for players.

The narrative everywhere is that Kobe was not the best player on the Lakers during the first 3 titles. The levels of this are HOTLY contested by many different posters with many different views on that. There's no consensus on those levels here or anywhere else in the world. You're the one randomly bringing Horry into this....though he was a key reason both Kobe and Duncan experience great spacing during different title runs of theirs. Not to mention him being one of the most versatile big men defenders of all time.

Also not sure why Manu coming off the bench or not would matter. There's nothing special about starting or not. Manu was an all time great when he was on the floor. But he unfortunately wasn't able to play 40 minutes a game and stay healthy. Manu was an all time great passer, elite finisher, elite defender, and one of the most creative guys I've ever seen. He could completely bomb out shooting one night and still find 30 other ways to help his team. There aren't 10 guys in NBA history I can think of who could find more ways to help their team win when their shot wasn't going down. Sure a few might have been say better defenders overall, but only say a Bill Russell could find as many creative tricks to add value to help the team win.

It seems to me that you believe all the other all time great teams were great because of Kg or Steph or whatever player but when you talk about Kobe it seems you are implying that he only gets by due to his teams. YOU are the biased one. You are contradictory in your view on manu and Kobe. You call manu an elite defender and then earlier said the numbers don’t paint Kobe as one. So now manu a better defender than Kobe? I’m not sure Manu was ever top 5 in nba, he at best was borderline top 10, your advanced stats aren’t gonna change my mind on that. You are clearly biased trying to push a guy that was barely top 10 in the league into the top 15 all time, either biased or delusional.

[dhsilv2]

What am I saying that isn’t true? I’ve acknowledged Kobe as not being the most efficient. I honestly don’t feel like I’m being biased. It’s not like I’m making a claim many wouldn’t agree with outside of realgm.

Kobe has never had elite spacing and multiple all stars but when I read your analysis I would think Kobe played with the warriors his whole career.

The narrative here is Shaq carried Kobe. You even said the finals mvps arguments don’t apply to Kobe as if he was a Horry level player or had his 2000 production every series. In 01 spurs were better than sixers but Kobe outplayed him in that series. It seems like there may be a bias on both sides.

wasn’t manu coming off the bench by 08? 7-8 titles? Top 15 all time? Let’s not do hypotheticals. Either way Kobe made quick work of the spurs in 08

Kobe for his era did in general have elite teams around him. Many of which for the era had top tier spacing. Heck you bring up the Warriors, the core of Kerr's offensive system is the triangle that Phil was running on the lakers. Obviously, he's integrated Pop's motion offense into it for obvious reasons but the whole point of and reason for running the triangle was because it created superior spacing for players.

The narrative everywhere is that Kobe was not the best player on the Lakers during the first 3 titles. The levels of this are HOTLY contested by many different posters with many different views on that. There's no consensus on those levels here or anywhere else in the world. You're the one randomly bringing Horry into this....though he was a key reason both Kobe and Duncan experience great spacing during different title runs of theirs. Not to mention him being one of the most versatile big men defenders of all time.

Also not sure why Manu coming off the bench or not would matter. There's nothing special about starting or not. Manu was an all time great when he was on the floor. But he unfortunately wasn't able to play 40 minutes a game and stay healthy. Manu was an all time great passer, elite finisher, elite defender, and one of the most creative guys I've ever seen. He could completely bomb out shooting one night and still find 30 other ways to help his team. There aren't 10 guys in NBA history I can think of who could find more ways to help their team win when their shot wasn't going down. Sure a few might have been say better defenders overall, but only say a Bill Russell could find as many creative tricks to add value to help the team win.

It seems to me that you believe all the other all time great teams were great because of Kg or Steph or whatever player but when you talk about Kobe it seems you are implying that he only gets by due to his teams. YOU are the biased one. You are contradictory in your view on manu and Kobe. You call manu an elite defender and then earlier said the numbers don’t paint Kobe as one. So now manu a better defender than Kobe? I’m not sure Manu was ever top 5 in nba, he at best was borderline top 10, your advanced stats aren’t gonna change my mind on that. You are clearly biased trying to push a guy that was barely top 10 in the league into the top 15 all time, either biased or delusional.

I rank Manu as a top 40 all time player. I said IF he had been healthy enough to play at the level he played at, things could have changed. That's a HUGE task and highly unlikely. But yeah, I think Manu overall was a much better defender. Kobe early in his career when he was highly focused and had Shaq to pickup more offensive load, he had a bit better on ball ability due to strength. But as Kobe's role expanded and he had to be the central offensive hub, his defense massively dropped off. So no, that's not an inconsistency at all.

I never said or implied that KG or Steph's teams were great only because of them. Draymond Green is an all time great defender with elite passing ability. He's been HUGE for Curry. Having Iggy off the bench was huge. KG doesn't win without Pierce having huge games in 2008.

The reason I focused so much on teammates before you bringing up the stupid finals MVP stuff, was that KG is the most extreme example possible of terrible teammates. Much like a Magic Johnson had a just absurdly great supporting cast his entire career. To rank players you have to do your best to pull away all those layers of differences. It might not be perfect.

To this point, I've only really shown you a consistent example of why KG would rank over Kobe and I showed that if someone is focused on peaks vs longevity that Curry's argument over Kobe isn't inconsistent.

I generally see Kobe around 11-15th all time. That's right where the vast majority of people rank him. I'd hardly call it a biased placement for him. And my process that ranks him there is certainly consistent, though with active players it does get a bit more difficult.

[Sign5]

Lol maybe OP has this board confused with reddit where there is far more of a hivemind. On realgm, it's quite the opposite. You're more like to see various parties play contrarion or devil's advocate just because.

Also Kobe stans hate this place because posters actually use logical and tangible arguments rather than the emotional tirades of how Kobe was some diety like a lot of his stans get away with on various other social media platforms that are less stat/analytic based.

[flytimes11]

Kobe for his era did in general have elite teams around him. Many of which for the era had top tier spacing. Heck you bring up the Warriors, the core of Kerr's offensive system is the triangle that Phil was running on the lakers. Obviously, he's integrated Pop's motion offense into it for obvious reasons but the whole point of and reason for running the triangle was because it created superior spacing for players.

The narrative everywhere is that Kobe was not the best player on the Lakers during the first 3 titles. The levels of this are HOTLY contested by many different posters with many different views on that. There's no consensus on those levels here or anywhere else in the world. You're the one randomly bringing Horry into this....though he was a key reason both Kobe and Duncan experience great spacing during different title runs of theirs. Not to mention him being one of the most versatile big men defenders of all time.

Also not sure why Manu coming off the bench or not would matter. There's nothing special about starting or not. Manu was an all time great when he was on the floor. But he unfortunately wasn't able to play 40 minutes a game and stay healthy. Manu was an all time great passer, elite finisher, elite defender, and one of the most creative guys I've ever seen. He could completely bomb out shooting one night and still find 30 other ways to help his team. There aren't 10 guys in NBA history I can think of who could find more ways to help their team win when their shot wasn't going down. Sure a few might have been say better defenders overall, but only say a Bill Russell could find as many creative tricks to add value to help the team win.

It seems to me that you believe all the other all time great teams were great because of Kg or Steph or whatever player but when you talk about Kobe it seems you are implying that he only gets by due to his teams. YOU are the biased one. You are contradictory in your view on manu and Kobe. You call manu an elite defender and then earlier said the numbers don’t paint Kobe as one. So now manu a better defender than Kobe? I’m not sure Manu was ever top 5 in nba, he at best was borderline top 10, your advanced stats aren’t gonna change my mind on that. You are clearly biased trying to push a guy that was barely top 10 in the league into the top 15 all time, either biased or delusional.

I rank Manu as a top 40 all time player. I said IF he had been healthy enough to play at the level he played at, things could have changed. That's a HUGE task and highly unlikely. But yeah, I think Manu overall was a much better defender. Kobe early in his career when he was highly focused and had Shaq to pickup more offensive load, he had a bit better on ball ability due to strength. But as Kobe's role expanded and he had to be the central offensive hub, his defense massively dropped off. So no, that's not an inconsistency at all.

I never said or implied that KG or Steph's teams were great only because of them. Draymond Green is an all time great defender with elite passing ability. He's been HUGE for Curry. Having Iggy off the bench was huge. KG doesn't win without Pierce having huge games in 2008.

The reason I focused so much on teammates before you bringing up the stupid finals MVP stuff, was that KG is the most extreme example possible of terrible teammates. Much like a Magic Johnson had a just absurdly great supporting cast his entire career. To rank players you have to do your best to pull away all those layers of differences. It might not be perfect.

To this point, I've only really shown you a consistent example of why KG would rank over Kobe and I showed that if someone is focused on peaks vs longevity that Curry's argument over Kobe isn't inconsistent.

I generally see Kobe around 11-15th all time. That's right where the vast majority of people rank him. I'd hardly call it a biased placement for him. And my process that ranks him there is certainly consistent, though with active players it does get a bit more difficult.

Where are your numbers that support manu being a better defender. You’ve based everything off of that to this point and mention Kobe having Shaq with no mention of Duncan again BIAS. The 9 first team all defense selections say otherwise but let me guess you don’t honor those because they weren’t deserved right?

The idea of peak is just flawed imo and seems like cherry-picking. The year Steph “PEAKED” he had a team more than capable of winning the chip but he did not he had the biggest choke in finals history during his PEAK. Kobe on the other hand won back 2 back titles as the man. To me that’s a higher Peak. Before you bring up your advanced stats I’m speaking on results, what actually happened.

I see Kobe generally ranked much higher than that outside of realgm. Players and coaches seem to rank him way higher than folks who just look at numbers like you and base everything off of hypotheticals and computers like these guys are robots.