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

[flytimes11]

I've shown you MULTIPLE stats. When I used VORP here is what I said.



It is a QUICK and DIRTY method, that shows just an example of why one can take KG over Kobe for peak. You THEN wanted to get into a single season comparison. So I didn't provide you with a QUICK AND DIRTY analysis. I presented you with a list of multiple metrics to give you context for why that case could be made. You stated that KG wasn't even in the conversation at the time, so I used MVP voting to point out that KG had numerous media votes to show that it was a CONVERSATION at the time. I then gave you a multiple page breakdown from dozens of posters from 2010 to show you in that time frame a detailed breakdown and debate among dozens of people on who was the best player in 2008 so you could see multiple view points, detailed stats, detailed GAME based breakdown, and more information than I could possibly write up myself.

Effectively, I provided you with pages upon pages upon pages of information on why KG can be seen as the best player from 2008.

You somehow with me providing you with all of that are now coming back and flat out lying about me using VORP and nothing else? A stat I opened with by stating it was just a quick and dirty metric to give you a quick snap shot for context. You took me flat out telling you that I wouldn't use it exclusively and are now trying to claim I did so. Do you see how absurd that is?

You're clearly upset that your attempt to insult the integrity of posters here as turned into you trying to argue for Kobe while I'm not even trying to get into this debate. I'm just sticking to why people can be consistent and rank kobe lower.

You brought up 08. You are inconsistent. I stopped taking you serious soon as you said Manu was same level as Kobe. You are cherry-picking stats and not taking the real world into consideration. Nobody is upset. You are proving my point and the link you provided didn’t even work. Any metric that paints manu as best in the league is flawed. He wasn’t even best on his own team. When you were arguing PEAKS you kept using Vorp not much else. Then you bringing up how going from a 32-50 team to the number 1 team in the east with multiple all stars raising KGs advanced stats is crazy, of course that would happen. Paul Pierce led the entire league in plus/minus in 08.I’m done talking with you. The irony is you are the biased one not me.

Just wild someone questions Manu and Kobe being of equal value per minute.

But to correct you.

1. I showed CORP and VORP, two completely different metrics. Remember all those graphs? That wasn't VORP!
2. I didn't say i was going to make a complete argument for KG. I was explaining how one CAN do so and be consistent with Curry and KG.
3. YOU were the one that stated KG's points per game went down in 2008 and thus his advanced stats wouldn't have been as good had he always played with other allstars. Which I showed you was wrong...because it was.

Reading the CORP stat it says “(1) Floor-raising tends to be overstated, and thus overly glorified.“

How does this help your argument?

[monopoman]

Realgm isn't one person.
One person making one argument and another person making another argument is not an inconsistency.

Your OP is a flourishing garden of strawmen.

We do become one person when Voltron is assembled of course, or the Zord for the Power Ranger generation.

[dhsilv2]

You brought up 08. You are inconsistent. I stopped taking you serious soon as you said Manu was same level as Kobe. You are cherry-picking stats and not taking the real world into consideration. Nobody is upset. You are proving my point and the link you provided didn’t even work. Any metric that paints manu as best in the league is flawed. He wasn’t even best on his own team. When you were arguing PEAKS you kept using Vorp not much else. Then you bringing up how going from a 32-50 team to the number 1 team in the east with multiple all stars raising KGs advanced stats is crazy, of course that would happen. Paul Pierce led the entire league in plus/minus in 08.I’m done talking with you. The irony is you are the biased one not me.

Just wild someone questions Manu and Kobe being of equal value per minute.

But to correct you.

1. I showed CORP and VORP, two completely different metrics. Remember all those graphs? That wasn't VORP!
2. I didn't say i was going to make a complete argument for KG. I was explaining how one CAN do so and be consistent with Curry and KG.
3. YOU were the one that stated KG's points per game went down in 2008 and thus his advanced stats wouldn't have been as good had he always played with other allstars. Which I showed you was wrong...because it was.

Reading the CORP stat it says “(1) Floor-raising tends to be overstated, and thus overly glorified.“

How does this help your argument?

I didn't make an argument for anything. I laid out how one could start to make one using some basic metrics and how that would be consistent.

I didn't make an argument directly that KG > Kobe. I laid out how you can do so consistently with Curry over KG. You then started to argue with me, so I explained why you could stay consistent and I did just that. In doing that I expanded to show a good 3-4% of how I'd breakdown these players and grade them.

There's a reason my posts aren't long.

And there's a reason when you got into 2008, instead of me writing something up, I linked you to the player comp board so you could read in depth detail there vs me hashing it all back out.

As for CORP, I used it because that comes from an article I would assume you've read from one of the most respected writers on the NBA and someone who's earned a reputation for his breakdowns on these very topics. If you think people are inconsistent because they agree with Ben Taylor's breakdowns that combine game film and stats, I'm not sure what to tell you. I'd argue any top 10 list that doesn't include watching/reading Ben's work isn't going to be a well thought out list in 2023. I sure as heck having broken down 1/10th of the game film that he's done, and I doubt anyone on this board has either. Nor have I or anyone else here created multiple stats used to breakdown player strengths that are used all over the internet...but once again...Ben has. I didn't write a book either on biases in sports...but once again. Ben did.

[dhsilv2]

Realgm isn't one person.
One person making one argument and another person making another argument is not an inconsistency.

Your OP is a flourishing garden of strawmen.

We do become one person when Voltron is assembled of course, or the Zord for the Power Ranger generation.

Bro..your zippers showing!

[flytimes11]

Just wild someone questions Manu and Kobe being of equal value per minute.

But to correct you.

1. I showed CORP and VORP, two completely different metrics. Remember all those graphs? That wasn't VORP!
2. I didn't say i was going to make a complete argument for KG. I was explaining how one CAN do so and be consistent with Curry and KG.
3. YOU were the one that stated KG's points per game went down in 2008 and thus his advanced stats wouldn't have been as good had he always played with other allstars. Which I showed you was wrong...because it was.

Reading the CORP stat it says “(1) Floor-raising tends to be overstated, and thus overly glorified.“

How does this help your argument?

I didn't make an argument for anything. I laid out how one could start to make one using some basic metrics and how that would be consistent.

I didn't make an argument directly that KG > Kobe. I laid out how you can do so consistently with Curry over KG. You then started to argue with me, so I explained why you could stay consistent and I did just that. In doing that I expanded to show a good 3-4% of how I'd breakdown these players and grade them.

There's a reason my posts aren't long.

And there's a reason when you got into 2008, instead of me writing something up, I linked you to the player comp board so you could read in depth detail there vs me hashing it all back out.

As for CORP, I used it because that comes from an article I would assume you've read from one of the most respected writers on the NBA and someone who's earned a reputation for his breakdowns on these very topics. If you think people are inconsistent because they agree with Ben Taylor's breakdowns that combine game film and stats, I'm not sure what to tell you. I'd argue any top 10 list that doesn't include watching/reading Ben's work isn't going to be a well thought out list in 2023. I sure as heck having broken down 1/10th of the game film that he's done, and I doubt anyone on this board has either. Nor have I or anyone else here created multiple stats used to breakdown player strengths that are used all over the internet...but once again...Ben has. I didn't write a book either on biases in sports...but once again. Ben did.

Ok. So because Ben Taylor says it I am to believe it. When Kevin Durant or Shaq or other all time greats call Kobe top 5 that means nothing because the numbers don’t support it because basketball is played on excel sheets and hypotheticals rule the day.

[dhsilv2]

Reading the CORP stat it says “(1) Floor-raising tends to be overstated, and thus overly glorified.“

How does this help your argument?

I didn't make an argument for anything. I laid out how one could start to make one using some basic metrics and how that would be consistent.

I didn't make an argument directly that KG > Kobe. I laid out how you can do so consistently with Curry over KG. You then started to argue with me, so I explained why you could stay consistent and I did just that. In doing that I expanded to show a good 3-4% of how I'd breakdown these players and grade them.

There's a reason my posts aren't long.

And there's a reason when you got into 2008, instead of me writing something up, I linked you to the player comp board so you could read in depth detail there vs me hashing it all back out.

As for CORP, I used it because that comes from an article I would assume you've read from one of the most respected writers on the NBA and someone who's earned a reputation for his breakdowns on these very topics. If you think people are inconsistent because they agree with Ben Taylor's breakdowns that combine game film and stats, I'm not sure what to tell you. I'd argue any top 10 list that doesn't include watching/reading Ben's work isn't going to be a well thought out list in 2023. I sure as heck having broken down 1/10th of the game film that he's done, and I doubt anyone on this board has either. Nor have I or anyone else here created multiple stats used to breakdown player strengths that are used all over the internet...but once again...Ben has. I didn't write a book either on biases in sports...but once again. Ben did.

Ok. So because Ben Taylor says it I am to believe it. When Kevin Durant or Shaq or other all time greats call Kobe top 5 that means nothing because the numbers don’t support it because basketball is played on excel sheets and hypotheticals rule the day.

You keep talking about excel. Excel is what accountants use.

And if shaq or KD say something...and I agree with them. I'd have serious questions about myself! Yeah Ben Taylor is a lot more credible than either of those guys. Have you ever seen EITHER of them breakdown game film? I've seen Ben do it.

[DOT]

Kobe could have scored more efficiently but chose not to in order to keep his narrative of being the best tough shot maker

True GOAT move right there, everybody knows playing worse than you can is how legends are made.

[flytimes11]

I didn't make an argument for anything. I laid out how one could start to make one using some basic metrics and how that would be consistent.

I didn't make an argument directly that KG > Kobe. I laid out how you can do so consistently with Curry over KG. You then started to argue with me, so I explained why you could stay consistent and I did just that. In doing that I expanded to show a good 3-4% of how I'd breakdown these players and grade them.

There's a reason my posts aren't long.

And there's a reason when you got into 2008, instead of me writing something up, I linked you to the player comp board so you could read in depth detail there vs me hashing it all back out.

As for CORP, I used it because that comes from an article I would assume you've read from one of the most respected writers on the NBA and someone who's earned a reputation for his breakdowns on these very topics. If you think people are inconsistent because they agree with Ben Taylor's breakdowns that combine game film and stats, I'm not sure what to tell you. I'd argue any top 10 list that doesn't include watching/reading Ben's work isn't going to be a well thought out list in 2023. I sure as heck having broken down 1/10th of the game film that he's done, and I doubt anyone on this board has either. Nor have I or anyone else here created multiple stats used to breakdown player strengths that are used all over the internet...but once again...Ben has. I didn't write a book either on biases in sports...but once again. Ben did.

Ok. So because Ben Taylor says it I am to believe it. When Kevin Durant or Shaq or other all time greats call Kobe top 5 that means nothing because the numbers don’t support it because basketball is played on excel sheets and hypotheticals rule the day.

You keep talking about excel. Excel is what accountants use.

And if shaq or KD say something...and I agree with them. I'd have serious questions about myself! Yeah Ben Taylor is a lot more credible than either of those guys. Have you ever seen EITHER of them breakdown game film? I've seen Ben do it.

Yea you right the numerous number of guys who actually played the game and ranked Kobe in top 5 are clueless. Phil Jackson said Kobe was more skilled than mike, I’m sure he hasn’t watched as much game film on those two as Ben Taylor has though. You probably think you know more than your Doctor because of something you read on webmd. I’ve seen the greatest peaks Series. He doesn’t factor in accolades and championships or difficulty of shots made and focuses on stats which clearly I’ve said several times Kobe wasn’t the most efficient but even he said he could have Kobe as high as 8 but you only focus on numbers so it’s pointless talking to you. He wouldn’t say something as foolish as you did about Manu.

[dhsilv2]

Ok. So because Ben Taylor says it I am to believe it. When Kevin Durant or Shaq or other all time greats call Kobe top 5 that means nothing because the numbers don’t support it because basketball is played on excel sheets and hypotheticals rule the day.

You keep talking about excel. Excel is what accountants use.

And if shaq or KD say something...and I agree with them. I'd have serious questions about myself! Yeah Ben Taylor is a lot more credible than either of those guys. Have you ever seen EITHER of them breakdown game film? I've seen Ben do it.

Yea you right the numerous number of guys who actually played the game and ranked Kobe in top 5 are clueless. Phil Jackson said Kobe was more skilled than mike, I’m sure he hasn’t watched as much game film on those two as Ben Taylor has though. You probably think you know more than your Doctor because of something you read on webmd. I’ve seen the greatest peaks Series. He doesn’t factor in accolades and championships or difficulty of shots made and focuses on stats which clearly I’ve said several times Kobe wasn’t the most efficient but even he said he could have Kobe as high as 8 but you only focus on numbers so it’s pointless talking to you. He wouldn’t say something as foolish as you did about Manu.

Of course Ben doesn't actor in difficulty of shots or accolaids. The first would be encouraging a player to actively play worse. The second would defeat the purpose of doing the videos in the first place. If you're ranking a player based on a team accomplishment, then you're ranking their career and not their play. Kobe has a clearly better career than KG. KG was the better player. They are two very different things.

And man Phil has crapped on and complemented every player he's ever had. You won't find anything consistent from him. Just like you'll never find a top 50 list by any of these players because NONE of them have ever thought through this subject. Shaq once said Allen Iverson is a top 10 all time player.

[flytimes11]

You keep talking about excel. Excel is what accountants use.

And if shaq or KD say something...and I agree with them. I'd have serious questions about myself! Yeah Ben Taylor is a lot more credible than either of those guys. Have you ever seen EITHER of them breakdown game film? I've seen Ben do it.

Yea you right the numerous number of guys who actually played the game and ranked Kobe in top 5 are clueless. Phil Jackson said Kobe was more skilled than mike, I’m sure he hasn’t watched as much game film on those two as Ben Taylor has though. You probably think you know more than your Doctor because of something you read on webmd. I’ve seen the greatest peaks Series. He doesn’t factor in accolades and championships or difficulty of shots made and focuses on stats which clearly I’ve said several times Kobe wasn’t the most efficient but even he said he could have Kobe as high as 8 but you only focus on numbers so it’s pointless talking to you. He wouldn’t say something as foolish as you did about Manu.

Of course Ben doesn't actor in difficulty of shots or accolaids. The first would be encouraging a player to actively play worse. The second would defeat the purpose of doing the videos in the first place. If you're ranking a player based on a team accomplishment, then you're ranking their career and not their play. Kobe has a clearly better career than KG. KG was the better player. They are two very different things.

And man Phil has crapped on and complemented every player he's ever had. You won't find anything consistent from him. Just like you'll never find a top 50 list by any of these players because NONE of them have ever thought through this subject. Shaq once said Allen Iverson is a top 10 all time player.

Kg is a better player if you overglorify floor raising and only care about numbers/efficieny, however the game is played to win, not to see who can put up the best stats. Do you factor in the psychological part of the game at all? A peak discussion is hypothetical and the only way we could ever simulate a season of all guys in their peak is to do so on 2k. IMO We have to go off results because correlation doesn’t equal causation.

05-06 lakers went 45-37. 04-05 wolves went 44-38 teams were similar in talent level. Kg advanced stats were better but Kobes team won more. Then when you look at Kobe 08-10 in playoffs I feel it gets near impossible trying to argue KG was a better player.

[dhsilv2]

Yea you right the numerous number of guys who actually played the game and ranked Kobe in top 5 are clueless. Phil Jackson said Kobe was more skilled than mike, I’m sure he hasn’t watched as much game film on those two as Ben Taylor has though. You probably think you know more than your Doctor because of something you read on webmd. I’ve seen the greatest peaks Series. He doesn’t factor in accolades and championships or difficulty of shots made and focuses on stats which clearly I’ve said several times Kobe wasn’t the most efficient but even he said he could have Kobe as high as 8 but you only focus on numbers so it’s pointless talking to you. He wouldn’t say something as foolish as you did about Manu.

Of course Ben doesn't actor in difficulty of shots or accolaids. The first would be encouraging a player to actively play worse. The second would defeat the purpose of doing the videos in the first place. If you're ranking a player based on a team accomplishment, then you're ranking their career and not their play. Kobe has a clearly better career than KG. KG was the better player. They are two very different things.

And man Phil has crapped on and complemented every player he's ever had. You won't find anything consistent from him. Just like you'll never find a top 50 list by any of these players because NONE of them have ever thought through this subject. Shaq once said Allen Iverson is a top 10 all time player.

Kg is a better player if you overglorify floor raising and only care about numbers/efficieny, however the game is played to win, not to see who can put up the best stats. Do you factor in the psychological part of the game at all? A peak discussion is hypothetical and the only way we could ever simulate a season of all guys in their peak is to do so on 2k. IMO We have to go off results because correlation doesn’t equal causation.

05-06 lakers went 45-37. 04-05 wolves went 44-38 teams were similar in talent level. Kg advanced stats were better but Kobes team won more. Then when you look at Kobe 08-10 in playoffs I feel it gets near impossible trying to argue KG was a better player.

I would agree that we can only go off of results. But results need to be measured by play, not by game, season, series, or playoff run. If we look at the results of KG and Kobe's career at the singular play level, we should see the impact of any psychological aspect of the game. If losing a few players early lead to far more successful plays later, we'd see the net benefit.

When looking play by play through their careers and doing everything humanly possible to isolate them from teammates, we see KG having been the vastly vastly better player.

[Blame Rasho]

This is a great thread for chuckles.

[flytimes11]

Of course Ben doesn't actor in difficulty of shots or accolaids. The first would be encouraging a player to actively play worse. The second would defeat the purpose of doing the videos in the first place. If you're ranking a player based on a team accomplishment, then you're ranking their career and not their play. Kobe has a clearly better career than KG. KG was the better player. They are two very different things.

And man Phil has crapped on and complemented every player he's ever had. You won't find anything consistent from him. Just like you'll never find a top 50 list by any of these players because NONE of them have ever thought through this subject. Shaq once said Allen Iverson is a top 10 all time player.

Kg is a better player if you overglorify floor raising and only care about numbers/efficieny, however the game is played to win, not to see who can put up the best stats. Do you factor in the psychological part of the game at all? A peak discussion is hypothetical and the only way we could ever simulate a season of all guys in their peak is to do so on 2k. IMO We have to go off results because correlation doesn’t equal causation.

05-06 lakers went 45-37. 04-05 wolves went 44-38 teams were similar in talent level. Kg advanced stats were better but Kobes team won more. Then when you look at Kobe 08-10 in playoffs I feel it gets near impossible trying to argue KG was a better player.

I would agree that we can only go off of results. But results need to be measured by play, not by game, season, series, or playoff run. If we look at the results of KG and Kobe's career at the singular play level, we should see the impact of any psychological aspect of the game. If losing a few players early lead to far more successful plays later, we'd see the net benefit.

When looking play by play through their careers and doing everything humanly possible to isolate them from teammates, we see KG having been the vastly vastly better player.

This is what I don’t agree with. These advanced stats have flaws and can’t measure certain intangible things. This comes down to you valuing efficiency as I remember you making a comment on how you’ll make more 15 foot jumpers than insane fadeaways but there isn’t a magic play that’s gonna get you an open 15 foot fadeaway everytime. In the flow of a game Kobe is invaluable, and can make something out of nothing, he causes the defense to overreact so even when he is forcing his bigs have chances at rebounds due to the defense being so out of position, we also never saw Kobe with anybody who could relieve him from having to set the table for everyone he never was able to play with another premier perimeter player.

Lastly you cant isolate teammates because you can’t win 1 on 5 so what we are really arguing is pointless and there is no way to definitively prove it, but what can be proven for sure without question is Kobe has a top 10 or top 5 career when you factor in accolades and accomplishments and he has won just as much as any star who has had similar talent.

[dhsilv2]

Kg is a better player if you overglorify floor raising and only care about numbers/efficieny, however the game is played to win, not to see who can put up the best stats. Do you factor in the psychological part of the game at all? A peak discussion is hypothetical and the only way we could ever simulate a season of all guys in their peak is to do so on 2k. IMO We have to go off results because correlation doesn’t equal causation.

05-06 lakers went 45-37. 04-05 wolves went 44-38 teams were similar in talent level. Kg advanced stats were better but Kobes team won more. Then when you look at Kobe 08-10 in playoffs I feel it gets near impossible trying to argue KG was a better player.

I would agree that we can only go off of results. But results need to be measured by play, not by game, season, series, or playoff run. If we look at the results of KG and Kobe's career at the singular play level, we should see the impact of any psychological aspect of the game. If losing a few players early lead to far more successful plays later, we'd see the net benefit.

When looking play by play through their careers and doing everything humanly possible to isolate them from teammates, we see KG having been the vastly vastly better player.

This is what I don’t agree with. These advanced stats have flaws and can’t measure certain intangible things. This comes down to you valuing efficiency as I remember you making a comment on how you’ll make more 15 foot jumpers than insane fadeaways but there isn’t a magic play that’s gonna get you an open 15 foot fadeaway everytime. In the flow of a game Kobe is invaluable, and can make something out of nothing, he causes the defense to overreact so even when he is forcing his bigs have chances at rebounds due to the defense being so out of position, we also never saw Kobe with anybody who could relieve him from having to set the table for everyone he never was able to play with another premier perimeter player.

Lastly you cant isolate teammates because you can’t win 1 on 5 so what we are really arguing is pointless and there is no way to definitively prove it, but what can be proven for sure without question is Kobe has a top 10 or top 5 career when you factor in accolades and accomplishments and he has won just as much as any star who has had similar talent.

No test to measure something is perfect. That said if something cannot be found or proven no matter how much data you look through, in a game where every positive outcome can be measured play by play, it's not real. It's one thing to bring up why a metric could be wrong, and that's a huge part of deeper dives into player after we establish a baseline of how the metrics and data mark them.

The problem here is you're trying to tell me Kobe is the ONLY player ever who's got this unique ability that isn't captured by the stats. It's Kobe and nobody else ever. I'm sorry but there was nothing so unique about Kobe that would lead anyone to that conclusion. Here's the cold hard reality. Kobe too often left the triangle to isolate. As the rules changed and his style of player become increasingly difficult to play, he doubled down vs adapting. Kobe's talents were impressive and he could have very likely been a top 10 player all time. But his decision making held him back.

[flytimes11]

I would agree that we can only go off of results. But results need to be measured by play, not by game, season, series, or playoff run. If we look at the results of KG and Kobe's career at the singular play level, we should see the impact of any psychological aspect of the game. If losing a few players early lead to far more successful plays later, we'd see the net benefit.

When looking play by play through their careers and doing everything humanly possible to isolate them from teammates, we see KG having been the vastly vastly better player.

This is what I don’t agree with. These advanced stats have flaws and can’t measure certain intangible things. This comes down to you valuing efficiency as I remember you making a comment on how you’ll make more 15 foot jumpers than insane fadeaways but there isn’t a magic play that’s gonna get you an open 15 foot fadeaway everytime. In the flow of a game Kobe is invaluable, and can make something out of nothing, he causes the defense to overreact so even when he is forcing his bigs have chances at rebounds due to the defense being so out of position, we also never saw Kobe with anybody who could relieve him from having to set the table for everyone he never was able to play with another premier perimeter player.

Lastly you cant isolate teammates because you can’t win 1 on 5 so what we are really arguing is pointless and there is no way to definitively prove it, but what can be proven for sure without question is Kobe has a top 10 or top 5 career when you factor in accolades and accomplishments and he has won just as much as any star who has had similar talent.

No test to measure something is perfect. That said if something cannot be found or proven no matter how much data you look through, in a game where every positive outcome can be measured play by play, it's not real. It's one thing to bring up why a metric could be wrong, and that's a huge part of deeper dives into player after we establish a baseline of how the metrics and data mark them.

The problem here is you're trying to tell me Kobe is the ONLY player ever who's got this unique ability that isn't captured by the stats. It's Kobe and nobody else ever. I'm sorry but there was nothing so unique about Kobe that would lead anyone to that conclusion. Here's the cold hard reality. Kobe too often left the triangle to isolate. As the rules changed and his style of player become increasingly difficult to play, he doubled down vs adapting. Kobe's talents were impressive and he could have very likely been a top 10 player all time. But his decision making held him back.

Lol Kobe is probably the most difficult shot taker and maker in history, that is unique and can’t be measured. The guys who were more efficient didn’t have the same volume of scoring. The cold hard reality is you value efficiency over winning when evaluating players. Again correlation doesn’t equal causation, despite his numbers not painting him as efficient due to his shot selection, he did what all the all time greats did, he did it his way. I don’t see how you can argue someone was held back with a resume like his. Also if you could prove to me that Kobe’s style of play couldn’t lead to chips I’d be more willing to accept what you are saying, but the game is played to win not stats and it’s a team game at the end of the day so that kind of stuff has to be taken into account winners bias or not. What’s the point of debating who is better? To determine who would win the most chips or just for bragging rights?

[tsherkin]

When Kevin Durant or Shaq or other all time greats call Kobe top 5 that means nothing because the numbers don’t support it because basketball is played on excel sheets and hypotheticals rule the day.

It means less because they aren't analysts. Shaq routinely says stupid things about basketball on network television which render any consideration of his individual opinion moot. He is an ego-driven dude with an old-school mentality who says things which have been conclusively overturned. He is an entertainer, not a man well-educated in how to appropriately examine and analyze the sport. I haven't heard Garnett speak on the sport enough to comment, but Shaq almost never says anything much worth listening to in terms of analysis.

Lol Kobe is probably the most difficult shot taker and maker in history, that is unique and can’t be measured.

It kind of can, but it's also immaterial. It's a nice little anecdote, but it's his own fault for taking those low-percentage looks when he didn't need to much of the time.

The guys who were more efficient didn’t have the same volume of scoring. The cold hard reality is you value efficiency over winning when evaluating players.

That isn't accurate either. You have very clearly established your stance and aren't interested in listening to alternate positions.

[hoosierdaddy34]

What I know about Kobe is that he gave zero **** about haters. So these weird geeky kids and they’re misused stats they truly don’t understand really are inconsequential.

[tsherkin]

What I know about Kobe is that he gave zero **** about haters. So these weird geeky kids and they’re misused stats they truly don’t understand really are inconsequential.

This is something of an ignorant position.

It's alright to have a disagreement in methodology, but disparaging the group you disagree with isn't really productive or indicative of a willingness to potentially learn something new.

[docholliday99]

Every star has their turn being torn down and for me the reason is rather simple; the higher you succeed, the more haters you get. What sets these greats apart from the rest of the players and us, is they simply don't care about the hate, they were driven from inside not from other peoples words.

[flytimes11]

When Kevin Durant or Shaq or other all time greats call Kobe top 5 that means nothing because the numbers don’t support it because basketball is played on excel sheets and hypotheticals rule the day.

It means less because they aren't analysts. Shaq routinely says stupid things about basketball on network television which render any consideration of his individual opinion moot. He is an ego-driven dude with an old-school mentality who says things which have been conclusively overturned. He is an entertainer, not a man well-educated in how to appropriately examine and analyze the sport. I haven't heard Garnett speak on the sport enough to comment, but Shaq almost never says anything much worth listening to in terms of analysis.

Lol Kobe is probably the most difficult shot taker and maker in history, that is unique and can’t be measured.

It kind of can, but it's also immaterial. It's a nice little anecdote, but it's his own fault for taking those low-percentage looks when he didn't need to much of the time.

The guys who were more efficient didn’t have the same volume of scoring. The cold hard reality is you value efficiency over winning when evaluating players.

That isn't accurate either. You have very clearly established your stance and aren't interested in listening to alternate positions.

Plenty of all time greats have spoke highly of Kobe these guys did this everyday. Analysts can be biased as well don’t discount someone who was actually on the floor.

Despite his “low percentage looks” he still won back 2 back chips. If you could prove to me that you can’t win this way then again I’d be more willing to hear the argument… but…. you can’t.