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

[tsherkin]

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.

They do tend to be less so, however.

This isn't to say Kobe wasn't good; he's inarguably an all-time great player. The only question is about specific ranking, which is more subjective. Shaq is a terribly analyst who rarely knows what he's talking about. It's like trying to listen to Chris Webber talk about post play, it just isn't sensible. Having played the game, there are things which they experienced on which they can speak sensibly, but their ability to sensibly evaluate a player without processing all of the available information is inherently stuck on biases, ignorance and absence of understanding.

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.

Strawman, though. I didn't say anything about that. You are committed to the idea that everyone thinks Kobe is trash for some reason. Relax for a second.

Yes, Kobe is very good. No one is actually arguing otherwise, so quit propping up a BS strawman.

[dhsilv2]

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?

There are a lot of higher volume scorers who were more efficient. But I rest my case. You think bad shots can be justified and they can't. When presented with data, you go with your feelings because you want that to be true even if there's no evidence what so ever to support it.

[flytimes11]

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?

There are a lot of higher volume scorers who were more efficient. But I rest my case. You think bad shots can be justified and they can't. When presented with data, you go with your feelings because you want that to be true even if there's no evidence what so ever to support it.

Lol again correlation doesn’t equal causation. Go with the results. Your numbers are just that, numbers. You have brought up so many hypotheticals while I’m focusing on what actually happened. You think games are simulated so I rest mine.

[dhsilv2]

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?

There are a lot of higher volume scorers who were more efficient. But I rest my case. You think bad shots can be justified and they can't. When presented with data, you go with your feelings because you want that to be true even if there's no evidence what so ever to support it.

Lol again correlation doesn’t equal causation. Go with the results. Your numbers are just that, numbers. You have brought up so many hypotheticals while I’m focusing on what actually happened. You think games are simulated so I rest mine.

I'm not saying you can use stats to play out the game. I'm saying you can look at stats to see what actually happened, and you can! Again, you still can't answer why Kobe is this unique butterfly. You want everyone to rank Kobe higher without the same criteria and support used for every other player ever.

[tsherkin]

Lol again correlation doesn’t equal causation. Go with the results. Your numbers are just that, numbers. You have brought up so many hypotheticals while I’m focusing on what actually happened. You think games are simulated so I rest mine.

Yes, but you make a litany of classical fallacies because you choose not to accept hard data. I can understand a certain degree of reticence towards the more obscure analytics, but you don't even understand what you're arguing about. You're making pointless remarks about tough shots as if that matters, when one of the biggest issues with Kobe was his poor shot selection. It didn't stop him from being a high-efficiency volume scorer relative to his era pre-2005, though. The only guys who were a lot more efficient that him and actually mattered were Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, one season from Vince and Peja (at consequential volume, anyhow). So Kobe definitely stood out in that regard.

Bryant was very good and accomplished a lot. He had his flaws, as does any player, though, and railing against that basic premise is just foolishness.

[flytimes11]

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.

They do tend to be less so, however.

This isn't to say Kobe wasn't good; he's inarguably an all-time great player. The only question is about specific ranking, which is more subjective. Shaq is a terribly analyst who rarely knows what he's talking about. It's like trying to listen to Chris Webber talk about post play, it just isn't sensible. Having played the game, there are things which they experienced on which they can speak sensibly, but their ability to sensibly evaluate a player without processing all of the available information is inherently stuck on biases, ignorance and absence of understanding.

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.

Strawman, though. I didn't say anything about that. You are committed to the idea that everyone thinks Kobe is trash for some reason. Relax for a second.

Yes, Kobe is very good. No one is actually arguing otherwise, so quit propping up a BS strawman.

It’s not. I’m saying efficiency is overrated if the results still lead to winning. Just say you don’t like his approach to the game. Stats/data doesn’t prove who is better. The games have to be played not simulated

[tsherkin]

It’s not. I’m saying efficiency is overrated if the results still lead to winning.

Within a certain boundary, sure. And if you look at certain matchups, you see Kobe playing efficient basketball and contributing to winning. And sometimes, he shot poorly and Shaq or Pau bailed him out (which is an altogether normal, and non-unique thing that has happened to many other stars, and which he sometimes provided for his teammates as well). When you look at a game where they scored poorly and the team largely won based on offensive rebounding, that becomes less about Kobe and more about team defense and rebounding, of course. There is always context to consider.

Just say you don’t like his approach to the game.
Stats/data doesn’t prove who is better. The games have to be played not simulated

This isn't a coherent statement, and you're attempting to attribute a position to me which isn't true. Stop that, you're not telepathic and you don't understand my position at all.

Stats and data are relevant. Ethereal crap like "best tough shot maker" is not particularly relevant except to personal engagement as a fan. Which is fine, but not really important to the actual results of the game. The stats show us what happened and, when combined with the game footage, help us understand what went on. You want to completely ignore the data component for some reason, seemingly because you enjoy narrative more than accuracy.

[flytimes11]

Lol again correlation doesn’t equal causation. Go with the results. Your numbers are just that, numbers. You have brought up so many hypotheticals while I’m focusing on what actually happened. You think games are simulated so I rest mine.

Yes, but you make a litany of classical fallacies because you choose not to accept hard data. I can understand a certain degree of reticence towards the more obscure analytics, but you don't even understand what you're arguing about. You're making pointless remarks about tough shots as if that matters, when one of the biggest issues with Kobe was his poor shot selection. It didn't stop him from being a high-efficiency volume scorer relative to his era pre-2005, though. The only guys who were a lot more efficient that him and actually mattered were Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, one season from Vince and Peja (at consequential volume, anyhow). So Kobe definitely stood out in that regard.

Bryant was very good and accomplished a lot. He had his flaws, as does any player, though, and railing against that basic premise is just foolishness.

Do you believe what LeBron said about how two points isn’t two points? Idk I guess we value different things in the game.

[flytimes11]

It’s not. I’m saying efficiency is overrated if the results still lead to winning.

Within a certain boundary, sure. And if you look at certain matchups, you see Kobe playing efficient basketball and contributing to winning. And sometimes, he shot poorly and Shaq or Pau bailed him out (which is an altogether normal, and non-unique thing that has happened to many other stars, and which he sometimes provided for his teammates as well). When you look at a game where they scored poorly and the team largely won based on offensive rebounding, that becomes less about Kobe and more about team defense and rebounding, of course. There is always context to consider.

Just say you don’t like his approach to the game.
Stats/data doesn’t prove who is better. The games have to be played not simulated

This isn't a coherent statement, and you're attempting to attribute a position to me which isn't true. Stop that, you're not telepathic and you don't understand my position at all.

Stats and data are relevant. Ethereal crap like "best tough shot maker" is not particularly relevant except to personal engagement as a fan. Which is fine, but not really important to the actual results of the game. The stats show us what happened and, when combined with the game footage, help us understand what went on. You want to completely ignore the data component for some reason, seemingly because you enjoy narrative more than accuracy.

Yes they are relevant but advanced stats will paint pictures and allow people to create narratives. Stockton and Malone I’m sure have arguments for being better than some other top players. It seems like you all are taking the winning aspect out though. I personally don’t care where people have Kobe ranked I was just saying he is in the same convo as Lebron I never said he was better and career wise I feel like he has had a better career than Steph and Kg. Arguing leaks just seems subjective to me. Almost like cherry picking . We can never know what 2015 curry would do against 2006 Kobe or teammates involved etc.

[Lalouie]

I’ve noticed that realgm is really inconsistent in terms of its arguments. One I see often is how Curry isn’t considered carried despite only having 1 fmvp. I also see people put Curry over kobe despite kobe having more career points, rebounds, assists etc. Many call 17-18 w,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Lastly What argument really does a player like Kg have over Kobe because I see stuff like that all the time, he doesn’t even have a finals mvp since That is brought up so much in discussion. These are just a few of the arguments against Kobe I’ve seen but I’m sure there are more biased arguments out there. Please enlighten me.

no one is EVER consistant about their biases. the only way you can be objective is if you are a third party with no "give-a-sh**" interest in the subject. i can use an argument for kobe and then flip it against lebron.

however i think LEBRON is the most devisive superstar goat candidate of all of them.
1...half the people never saw the other goats if you consider the last TRUE goat candidate was mj 25years ago. hardley anyone nowadays has even lived through his era, much less any previous goat before him

2...people have recency bias and all those millenials populate voting public. i mean, some people think curry is a goat candidate!!

kobe gets flack imo mostly because many people place him higher than he should be(imho)

[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.

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.

You are telling on yourself right now. If one uses statistics to tell the ENTIRE story, that’s one thing. But I was talking about a many users who do not. They cite one random stat of their choice and generally don’t use it in correct context. And no..there isn’t an opportunity to learn something new there. No one needs to know how to use stats in such a bogus way. Either take a wholistic approach to statistics or don’t use them.

[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.

You are telling on yourself right now. If one uses statistics to tell the ENTIRE story, that’s one thing. But I was talking about a many users who do not. They cite one random stat of their choice and generally don’t use it in correct context. And no..there isn’t an opportunity to learn something new there. No one needs to know how to use stats in such a bogus way. Either take a wholistic approach to statistics or don’t use them.

Give an example of what you mean when you say someone is citing "one random stat."

[NoStatsGuy]

the problem i have comparing kobe and lebron they are just very different players.

lebron was a willing passer the second he entered the league. kobe played in an era where hero ball and heavy iso was prelevant. lebron did not rly play in that era for long, if at all. you could say in some sense he changed the game a bit aswell. i think the spurs, lebron and curry are mainly responsible for the "death of the hero ball"

and kobe was the posterboy of the hero ball era. who changed his mentality a bit late in his career. im not even talking about the reasons or the why. kobe arguably did not have the teammates.. he did not trust them after shaq left, whereas lebron trusted his teammates maybe too much at times. thats why hes getting flack for not having that killer instinct of an MJ or Kobe.

both players are great for different reasons and no statistical split can fully explain the context.

imo, they definitley belong in the same sentence when it comes to the all time greats. everybody has their own list, everybody values things differently. both players were huge for for us and our generation. some people dont like kobe, some people dont like lebron, some people dont like either. but both of these players are among the most beloved players ever. so i think they definitley belong in the same realm behind MJ obviously.

[DoItALL9]

The Warriors in 2017 matched the 2001 Lakers with the best playoff record overall, I believe. Actually they stayed undefeated longer, no?

[hoosierdaddy34]

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.

You are telling on yourself right now. If one uses statistics to tell the ENTIRE story, that’s one thing. But I was talking about a many users who do not. They cite one random stat of their choice and generally don’t use it in correct context. And no..there isn’t an opportunity to learn something new there. No one needs to know how to use stats in such a bogus way. Either take a wholistic approach to statistics or don’t use them.

Give an example of what you mean when you say someone is citing "one random stat."

Anyone taking any of these “efficiency” stats, take your pick. But not looking at how different the freedom of movement rules have made it easier on the offense. The grabbing, the holding etc is far less than it was 20 years ago. How the additional floor spacing today has made scoring easier, there is so much room for offensive players to operate versus 15, 20 years ago. Citing how much the increased pace of todays game has impacted offensive output, easy transition buckets are far more prevalent today than the walk it up and get into your offense style we saw in 2002 that resulted in 84-76 slug fests. Not too mention just more scoring opportunities exist today through the increased pace of the game.

You can’t take stats and do an apples to oranges comparison from the game in 2003 to the game in 2020s. It’s a vastly different game and it’s much much easier to score today than it ever has been. And if you aren’t taking that into consideration when citing stats? It’s an extremely incomplete analysis. And that’s all I ever see anyone do on this board. So yeah, it’s all garbage.

[DoItALL9]

If Jordan doesn't exist I wonder who Kobe would've spent his entire career mimicking?

Magic? Drexler?

He wanted to be considered the best ever, Kareem?

[tsherkin]

Anyone taking any of these “efficiency” stats, take your pick. But not looking at how different the freedom of movement rules have made it easier on the offense. The grabbing, the holding etc is far less than it was 20 years ago. How the additional floor spacing today has made scoring easier, there is so much room for offensive players to operate versus 15, 20 years ago.

I suppose if you mean only comparing raw efficiency and not looking also at separation from league average (RS and PS), then that has some merit, sure. Like, it's clear that in a league with higher 3PAr and FTr, you'll see higher raw efficiency stats. But you tend to see dominant offensive stars deviating from league average by rTS% margins that aren't too different in most cases.

Citing how much the increased pace of todays game has impacted offensive output, easy transition buckets are far more prevalent today than the walk it up and get into your offense style we saw in 2002 that resulted in 84-76 slug fests. Not too mention just more scoring opportunities exist today through the increased pace of the game.

Compared to the late 90s and early 2000s, sure. But the early 90s were of a similar pace and the 80s and earlier were all faster, so that matters only for very specific comparisons.

And that’s all I ever see anyone do on this board.

Well, part of your problem then is that you're looking for high-end comparative examination on the General Board. Go to the PC Board and you'll find a decidedly different experience

So yeah, it’s all garbage.

An understandable sentiment, even if it's the wrong conclusion.

[John Murdoch]

Its not hate with kobe ...its more so analytics that are used to discredit him to genz

[lebootz21]

Most of realgm only watch highlights and formulate their argument through stats (which can be misleading).

It's rare this tik tok generation can watch a full game.

You can make Lebron look good by picking and choosing which stats to highlight, but it's hard to argue the non stats such as durability, mentality, and killer instinct Kobe is by far superior in.

You don't see those in highlights.

[hoosierdaddy34]

Anyone taking any of these “efficiency” stats, take your pick. But not looking at how different the freedom of movement rules have made it easier on the offense. The grabbing, the holding etc is far less than it was 20 years ago. How the additional floor spacing today has made scoring easier, there is so much room for offensive players to operate versus 15, 20 years ago.

I suppose if you mean only comparing raw efficiency and not looking also at separation from league average (RS and PS), then that has some merit, sure. Like, it's clear that in a league with higher 3PAr and FTr, you'll see higher raw efficiency stats. But you tend to see dominant offensive stars deviating from league average by rTS% margins that aren't too different in most cases.

Citing how much the increased pace of todays game has impacted offensive output, easy transition buckets are far more prevalent today than the walk it up and get into your offense style we saw in 2002 that resulted in 84-76 slug fests. Not too mention just more scoring opportunities exist today through the increased pace of the game.

Compared to the late 90s and early 2000s, sure. But the early 90s were of a similar pace and the 80s and earlier were all faster, so that matters only for very specific comparisons.

And that’s all I ever see anyone do on this board.

Well, part of your problem then is that you're looking for high-end comparative examination on the General Board. Go to the PC Board and you'll find a decidedly different experience

So yeah, it’s all garbage.

An understandable sentiment, even if it's the wrong conclusion.

I’ve rarely if ever seen an argument on here that compared to the mean of the era, which would make absolutely more sense in many cases. That’s a great example of what I was talking about. More apples to apples comparisons.

“Sure when compared to the 90s and early 2000s but the early 1990s…” ummm this is a thread about Kobe Bryant. There will be a little more consistency comparing pace today with the 80s and very early 90s…but what does that have to do with Kobe? I do generally try to keep (at least loosely) to the subject at hand.

Correct I am referring to the General Board..that’s the board we are posting on. And the crux of my argument that most of these arguments on this board citing stats are garbage. Again…let’s keep to the current thread and board.

“…even if it’s the wrong conclusion” huh…you just restated one of my points in new words and removing the context of the thread in two other of your points and that equals a strong argument that I’ve come to the wrong conclusion? You care to actually give some poignant arguments to that fact instead of what you’ve posted? Cause you haven’t gotten close to making that point in your response.