’02 Kobe Bryant vs ’23 Jayson Tatum

[KingofTheClay]

Tatum laid two consecutive eggs in the finals. If it weren’t for Jrue or Brown or even Kristaps in G1 he’d still be ringless.

Kobe wasn't particularly good in the Finals.

For illustration:

2000: 15.6 ppg, 4.6 rpg, 4.2 apg, 41.1% TS on 36.7% FG, 20.0% 3P, 90.9% FT
2001: 24.6 ppg, 7.8 rpg, 5.8 apg, 50.1% TS on 41.5% FG, 33.3% 3P, 84.2% FT
2002: 26.8 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 5.3 apg, 62.3% TS on 51.4% FG, 54.5% 3P (6/11), 80.6% FT
2004: 22.6 ppg, 2.8 rpg, 4.4 apg, 45.6% TS on 38.1% FG, 17.4% 3P, 92.0% FT
2008: 25.7 ppg, 4.7 rpg, 5.0 apg, 50.5% TS on 40.5% FG, 32.1% 3P, 79.6% FT
2009: 32.4 ppg, 5.6 rpg, 7.4 apg, 52.5% TS on 43.0% FG, 36.0% 3P, 84.1% FT
2010: 28.6 ppg, 8.0 rpg, 3.9 apg, 52.8% TS on 40.5% FG, 31.9% 3P, 88.3% FT

So I'm not sure that arguing Finals efficacy is really the angle you want to take. He basically sucked in 5/7 Finals appearances and was okay in another. That 09 series against Orlando had good volume, but that 52.5% TS was 1.9% below playoff league average. Great defense with Dwight in the middle, so not ultra surprising, but still not an ATG series from a dude who was still only 30.

Tatum's 2024 scoring sucked. That much is clear. Apart from the final game, he was quite bad at putting the ball through the hoop. He used himself as a decoy well enough, moved the ball effectively, got out of the way of Brown initiating and wielded his position in the post well, but he was not hitting anything at all, which was brutal. But the majority of Kobe's Finals appearances have been marred by terrible shooting. Note that he's shot 42% FG or better only twice in his Finals appearances, and 53%+ TS only the once. He did not shine on that stage, apart from 2002 against the Nets.

So yeah, not sure that argument is as effective as you want it to be.

2004, 2008 and 2010 were defensive battles against historically great defenses. No high volume scorer was scoring efficiently against those guys especially in a hard-nosed defensive lockdown era. Pistons and Celtics. Goddamn. He still was pretty good in 2010 barring that G7. Tatum was ass in pretty much 80% of his finals against Dallas, so this isn’t fair.

2009 he went beserk volume wise and still had around league-average efficiency. 2002 he went bonkers while having unparalleled efficiency.

2000 and 2001 were the only real knocks. He was absolute crap in 2000, no excuse…
2001 Kobe had an absolute pathetic game 1 but killed it in the next 4 games on ~55% TS at 27 ppg. That’s really good in that era.

Kobe didn’t have the luxury of mismatch hunting a fat hobbled Luka every possession. I shudder to think how he would have demolished Dallas’ Swiss cheese perimeter defense in the finals.

Looking at the stats nominally, without any adjustment, Kobe still shot at higher efficiency (25 ppg at 51% TS) vs Tatums (22 ppg at 49% TS). If you discount the 2000 series, when he was still in diapers, then he’s at the respective league average TS.

So yeah adjusting by slow offensive pace of the era, stat deflation of said era and the defensive strength of opponents, Kobe definitely performed better in the finals.

[tsherkin]

Personally, I actually think he played really well against Boston in 2010 as well. He had that one really bad shooting night in game 7, which was basically what Tatum did the entire time in the Finals: shoot like crap, contribute elsewhere. But that’s 1 game out of 7, Kobe was actually doing a really good job scoring the ball too through the first 6 games. So I think the aggregate underrates his actual series.

45.5, 40.0, 34.5, 45.5, 48.1, 47.4, 25.0%.

Those were his game-by-game FG% numbers in the 2010 Finals. He had his struggles prior to the final game.

By TS%:

56.8%, 49.2%, 44.6%, 64.7%, 61.4%, 58.9%, 37.6%.

So in other words, he was extremely hit-or-miss. Also, in games 4 and 5, he was 6/11 and 4/10 from 3, which were atypically-hot shooting percentages from beyond the arc for him. He was otherwise 5/26 in the series. Additionally, he had 4, 5, 1, 7, 4, 2 and 4 turnovers in that series (3.9 tpg).

Boston, of course, was a really good defense. Not quite as intense as they'd been in 2008, but still very good. Some degree of drop-off was to be expected, and Kobe hadn't exactly been lighting it up in the RS. He'd been a 54.5% TS guy that season (+0.2% rTS), and a 56.7% TS guy on the playoffs, for which league average was 54.3% (same as the RS). Kobe was a 52.8% TS guy in that series, for some context. So, still a rough performance.

You can argue it wasn't as flagrantly poor as some of his others and that makes sense. He didn't have Shaq next to him leading the charge, for example, and that certainly was an outlet for defensive pressure to ease things up on him. And even being forward out of the horribly rough scoring environment of the late 90s and early 2000s,he was still facing a -3.8 defense (from the RS, -6.9 in the playoffs) in Boston. So it's not like it was easy-going. Deeper into the playoffs, tougher scoring environment, obviously, especially in that case.

But in context of his broader theme, it fits his pattern of playing poorly in the Finals compared to a lot of his contemporaries.

[KingofTheClay]

Personally, I actually think he played really well against Boston in 2010 as well. He had that one really bad shooting night in game 7, which was basically what Tatum did the entire time in the Finals: shoot like crap, contribute elsewhere. But that’s 1 game out of 7, Kobe was actually doing a really good job scoring the ball too through the first 6 games. So I think the aggregate underrates his actual series.

45.5, 40.0, 34.5, 45.5, 48.1, 47.4, 25.0%.

Those were his game-by-game FG% numbers in the 2010 Finals. He had his struggles prior to the final game.

By TS%:

56.8%, 49.2%, 44.6%, 64.7%, 61.4%, 58.9%, 37.6%.

So in other words, he was extremely hit-or-miss. Also, in games 4 and 5, he was 6/11 and 4/10 from 3, which were atypically-hot shooting percentages from beyond the arc for him. He was otherwise 5/26 in the series. Additionally, he had 4, 5, 1, 7, 4, 2 and 4 turnovers in that series (3.9 tpg).

Boston, of course, was a really good defense. Not quite as intense as they'd been in 2008, but still very good. Some degree of drop-off was to be expected, and Kobe hadn't exactly been lighting it up in the RS. He'd been a 54.5% TS guy that season (+0.2% rTS), and a 56.7% TS guy on the playoffs, for which league average was 54.3% (same as the RS). Kobe was a 52.8% TS guy in that series, for some context. So, still a rough performance.

You can argue it wasn't as flagrantly poor as some of his others and that makes sense. He didn't have Shaq next to him leading the charge, for example, and that certainly was an outlet for defensive pressure to ease things up on him. And even being forward out of the horribly rough scoring environment of the late 90s and early 2000s,he was still facing a -3.8 defense (from the RS, -6.9 in the playoffs) in Boston. So it's not like it was easy-going. Deeper into the playoffs, tougher scoring environment, obviously, especially in that case.

But in context of his broader theme, it fits his pattern of playing poorly in the Finals compared to a lot of his contemporaries.

Kobe was efficient, significantly above league average playoff TS, in 4/7 finals games in 2010.

Tatum was below league average playoff TS in every game besides g4 of the Mavs series, in which he only shot 10 times to score 15 points.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tsherkin]

Kobe was efficient, significantly above league average playoff TS, in 4/7 finals games in 2010.

Tatum was below league average playoff TS in every game besides g4 of the Mavs series, in which he only shot 10 times to score 15 points.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right, you can author the argument that Kobe was a little better than Tatum. It doesn't really alter the general premise that he struggled a lot in the Finals, and he was BRUTAL in a couple games in the 2010 Finals in particular. Tatum's last three games in the Finals were 42.3%, 40% and 45.8% FG, or 55.0%, 59.3% and 56.3% TS against a league playoff average of 56.6%, so his relative performance was mostly quite similar.

Naturally, it's worth noting that Tatum is a high-volume 3pt shooter with no real middle game. He posts well, but he doesn't take or make a lot of shots outside of the RA and beneath the arc. They aren't threat zones from him, so he struggles badly when that 3 isn't falling, even more so than Kobe.

Now, look at the 2010 Finals. 54.3% league playoff average. So Kobe was +2.5, -5.1, -9.7, +10.4, +7.1, +4.6 and -16.7 for an average of -0.99% rTS in the 2010 Finals.

Tatum was -9.2, -20.1, -1.6, +2.7 and +0.3, average of -5.7.

Shorter series, less opportunity to have a hot game or 2 as did Kobe in 2010. But fairly similar in overall profile. Kobe had 2 more games and 2 hot games inside a 7-game sample of generally being bleh. Tatum had a similar run of wretched and mediocre performances and one solid one.

I'm not here to contend that Tatum was better; I don't think he was. My point was more that arguing on the basis of Kobe's Finals performances isn't that effective because he wasn't traditionally a stunning performer in the Finals.

[KingofTheClay]

Kobe was efficient, significantly above league average playoff TS, in 4/7 finals games in 2010.

Tatum was below league average playoff TS in every game besides g4 of the Mavs series, in which he only shot 10 times to score 15 points.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right, you can author the argument that Kobe was a little better than Tatum. It doesn't really alter the general premise that he struggled a lot in the Finals, and he was BRUTAL in a couple games in the 2010 Finals in particular. Tatum's last three games in the Finals were 42.3%, 40% and 45.8% FG, or 55.0%, 59.3% and 56.3% TS against a league playoff average of 56.6%, so his relative performance was mostly quite similar.

Naturally, it's worth noting that Tatum is a high-volume 3pt shooter with no real middle game. He posts well, but he doesn't take or make a lot of shots outside of the RA and beneath the arc. They aren't threat zones from him, so he struggles badly when that 3 isn't falling, even more so than Kobe.

Now, look at the 2010 Finals. 54.3% league playoff average. So Kobe was +2.5, -5.1, -9.7, +10.4, +7.1, +4.6 and -16.7 for an average of -0.99% rTS in the 2010 Finals.

Tatum was -9.2, -20.1, -1.6, +2.7 and +0.3, average of -5.7.

Shorter series, less opportunity to have a hot game or 2 as did Kobe in 2010. But fairly similar in overall profile. Kobe had 2 more games and 2 hot games inside a 7-game sample of generally being bleh. Tatum had a similar run of wretched and mediocre performances and one solid one.

I'm not here to contend that Tatum was better; I don't think he was. My point was more that arguing on the basis of Kobe's Finals performances isn't that effective because he wasn't traditionally a stunning performer in the Finals.

Kobe was 1 pp below playoff league average TS in 2001, 2.5 pp below in 2008, 1.5 below in 2009, and 1 pp below in 2010. In 2002 he’s like 10 pp above league average. And Kobe averaged like 27 ppg in these finals, which is like 32 ppg in 2024.

The only real time he’s really crapped the bed was in 2000, when he was like 21, and 2004 against a historically amazing defense.

Tatums averaged 22 ppg on 49% TS in the finals, which is 6-7 pp less than playoff league average TS.

And strictly speaking of 2010, Kobe had 3 standout games hovering 60+% TS or substantially above with high volume scoring.

Tatums not had any of those games. The one where he was above league average TS was when he scored 15 pts on ten shots. And he has no excuse. Gets to mismatch hunt one legged Luka, and 6’3 Kyrie to oblivion.

There’s really no comparison here. Even in terms of pure efficiency Kobe was markedly better.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tsherkin]

There’s really no comparison here. Even in terms of pure efficiency Kobe was markedly better.

We can agree to disagree on this, at this point.

[KingofTheClay]

If Tatum is averaging 32 ppg on 53% TS (3-4 pp below league TS average) in the playoffs, and has maybe 2 games where he goes 11-30 or 6-22 yet has multiple standout 62%+ TS at 33 ppg, then that is very Kobe-esque, and it’s efficient considering the volume. In my mind that is a top-shelf scorer.

If Tatum played in the same era as Kobe, against the same quality of defense, then Kobe was still more efficient and better, but 49% TS with 22ppg could be deemed as somewhat close to Kobe’s 26 ppg @ 51% TS.

But the different eras and quality of the oppositions defense make any case for Tatum’s Finals comparability untenable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Statlanta]

For me there is a level of dynamic athleticism that seperates the two that statistics just can't quantify

The natural follow up is how do you feel that manifested on the court, and how much does the size difference mitigate that?

And then from a skill-focused profile, given that Kobe was basically the best perimeter iso scorer for a decade and Tatum is largely useless away from the RA and under the arc, do you feel Kobe's efficacy there was bolstered more by athleticism or by handles and his shooting ability in traffic?

For me it is represented in playmaking, particularly ball-handling. I feel like Tatum plays PF because Mazzulla wants to maximize playmakers on the court so he adds more PG/SGs. Bryant was able to play with no All-Star backcourt teammate because of his ability to be a lead-ball handler especially in his youth. Many people malign Tatum's ability to get to the hoop, which falls under ball-handling failures or similar IQ decisions to Bryant's worse shot selection, and he plays in an offensive system that can put 5 shooters on the floor even when adjusted for era.

I see your counterpoint on size but I feel it is mostly used on defense where Tatum was able to guard Power Forwards and inept offensive Centers. I don't feel he actively uses his size on offense besides his jumpshot.

[tsherkin]

For me it is represented in playmaking, particularly ball-handling. I feel like Tatum plays PF because Mazzulla wants to maximize playmakers on the court so he adds more PG/SGs. Bryant was able to play with no All-Star backcourt teammate because of his ability to be a lead-ball handler especially in his youth.

That makes sense to me, yes.

Many people malign Tatum's ability to get to the hoop, which falls under ball-handling failures or similar IQ decisions to Bryant's worse shot selection, and he plays in an offensive system that can put 5 shooters on the floor even when adjusted for era.

I don't know that it's right to malign him for not being able to get to the hoop. Maybe out of a perimeter iso, but he shoots nearly a quarter of his attempts at the rim. He does a good job of getting there from how he's used at the elbow and what-not, he's just not an elite live-dribble slasher.

I see your counterpoint on size but I feel it is mostly used on defense where Tatum was able to guard Power Forwards and inept offensive Centers. I don't feel he actively uses his size on offense besides his jumpshot.

Mmm, yeah. He could certainly stand to use it more than he does, for sure.

[web123888]

Obviously Kobe. Tatum isn’t in the same class.

Tatum is more comparable to Scottie Pippen/Paul Pierce.

[carlquincy]

Kobe was efficient, significantly above league average playoff TS, in 4/7 finals games in 2010.

Tatum was below league average playoff TS in every game besides g4 of the Mavs series, in which he only shot 10 times to score 15 points.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right, you can author the argument that Kobe was a little better than Tatum. It doesn't really alter the general premise that he struggled a lot in the Finals, and he was BRUTAL in a couple games in the 2010 Finals in particular. Tatum's last three games in the Finals were 42.3%, 40% and 45.8% FG, or 55.0%, 59.3% and 56.3% TS against a league playoff average of 56.6%, so his relative performance was mostly quite similar.

Naturally, it's worth noting that Tatum is a high-volume 3pt shooter with no real middle game. He posts well, but he doesn't take or make a lot of shots outside of the RA and beneath the arc. They aren't threat zones from him, so he struggles badly when that 3 isn't falling, even more so than Kobe.

Now, look at the 2010 Finals. 54.3% league playoff average. So Kobe was +2.5, -5.1, -9.7, +10.4, +7.1, +4.6 and -16.7 for an average of -0.99% rTS in the 2010 Finals.

Tatum was -9.2, -20.1, -1.6, +2.7 and +0.3, average of -5.7.

Shorter series, less opportunity to have a hot game or 2 as did Kobe in 2010. But fairly similar in overall profile. Kobe had 2 more games and 2 hot games inside a 7-game sample of generally being bleh. Tatum had a similar run of wretched and mediocre performances and one solid one.

I'm not here to contend that Tatum was better; I don't think he was. My point was more that arguing on the basis of Kobe's Finals performances isn't that effective because he wasn't traditionally a stunning performer in the Finals.

Bad example to compare the '10 series to the' 24 series.

Kobe is much better there.

+1.8% vs -4.4% if we are comparing against the series TS%.

A better comparison would be 08 Kobe.

[KingofTheClay]

Kobe was efficient, significantly above league average playoff TS, in 4/7 finals games in 2010.

Tatum was below league average playoff TS in every game besides g4 of the Mavs series, in which he only shot 10 times to score 15 points.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right, you can author the argument that Kobe was a little better than Tatum. It doesn't really alter the general premise that he struggled a lot in the Finals, and he was BRUTAL in a couple games in the 2010 Finals in particular. Tatum's last three games in the Finals were 42.3%, 40% and 45.8% FG, or 55.0%, 59.3% and 56.3% TS against a league playoff average of 56.6%, so his relative performance was mostly quite similar.

Naturally, it's worth noting that Tatum is a high-volume 3pt shooter with no real middle game. He posts well, but he doesn't take or make a lot of shots outside of the RA and beneath the arc. They aren't threat zones from him, so he struggles badly when that 3 isn't falling, even more so than Kobe.

Now, look at the 2010 Finals. 54.3% league playoff average. So Kobe was +2.5, -5.1, -9.7, +10.4, +7.1, +4.6 and -16.7 for an average of -0.99% rTS in the 2010 Finals.

Tatum was -9.2, -20.1, -1.6, +2.7 and +0.3, average of -5.7.

Shorter series, less opportunity to have a hot game or 2 as did Kobe in 2010. But fairly similar in overall profile. Kobe had 2 more games and 2 hot games inside a 7-game sample of generally being bleh. Tatum had a similar run of wretched and mediocre performances and one solid one.

I'm not here to contend that Tatum was better; I don't think he was. My point was more that arguing on the basis of Kobe's Finals performances isn't that effective because he wasn't traditionally a stunning performer in the Finals.

Bad example to compare the '10 series to the' 24 series.

Kobe is much better there.

+1.8% vs -4.4% if we are comparing against the series TS%.

A better comparison would be 08 Kobe.

I shudder to think how Tatum would do against an inspired Pierce, KG and Perk on defense in 2008. Pierce was defending Kobe like Kawhi on cocaine in those finals.

Does he even crack 35% TS if he doesn’t have the luxury of mismatch hunting hobbled fat Luka every possession?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ceoofkobefans]

Tatum laid two consecutive eggs in the finals. If it weren’t for Jrue or Brown or even Kristaps in G1 he’d still be ringless.

Kobe wasn't particularly good in the Finals.

For illustration:

2000: 15.6 ppg, 4.6 rpg, 4.2 apg, 41.1% TS on 36.7% FG, 20.0% 3P, 90.9% FT
2001: 24.6 ppg, 7.8 rpg, 5.8 apg, 50.1% TS on 41.5% FG, 33.3% 3P, 84.2% FT
2002: 26.8 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 5.3 apg, 62.3% TS on 51.4% FG, 54.5% 3P (6/11), 80.6% FT
2004: 22.6 ppg, 2.8 rpg, 4.4 apg, 45.6% TS on 38.1% FG, 17.4% 3P, 92.0% FT
2008: 25.7 ppg, 4.7 rpg, 5.0 apg, 50.5% TS on 40.5% FG, 32.1% 3P, 79.6% FT
2009: 32.4 ppg, 5.6 rpg, 7.4 apg, 52.5% TS on 43.0% FG, 36.0% 3P, 84.1% FT
2010: 28.6 ppg, 8.0 rpg, 3.9 apg, 52.8% TS on 40.5% FG, 31.9% 3P, 88.3% FT

So I'm not sure that arguing Finals efficacy is really the angle you want to take. He basically sucked in 5/7 Finals appearances and was okay in another. That 09 series against Orlando had good volume, but that 52.5% TS was 1.9% below playoff league average. Great defense with Dwight in the middle, so not ultra surprising, but still not an ATG series from a dude who was still only 30.

Tatum's 2024 scoring sucked. That much is clear. Apart from the final game, he was quite bad at putting the ball through the hoop. He used himself as a decoy well enough, moved the ball effectively, got out of the way of Brown initiating and wielded his position in the post well, but he was not hitting anything at all, which was brutal. But the majority of Kobe's Finals appearances have been marred by terrible shooting. Note that he's shot 42% FG or better only twice in his Finals appearances, and 53%+ TS only the once. He did not shine on that stage, apart from 2002 against the Nets.

So yeah, not sure that argument is as effective as you want it to be.

Saying Kobe didn’t shine in the finals any year other than 00 or 04 (00 he was injured anyway) but especially in 08-10 is just looking at TS% and nothing else lol

[ceoofkobefans]

Tatum laid two consecutive eggs in the finals. If it weren’t for Jrue or Brown or even Kristaps in G1 he’d still be ringless.

Kobe wasn't particularly good in the Finals.

For illustration:

2000: 15.6 ppg, 4.6 rpg, 4.2 apg, 41.1% TS on 36.7% FG, 20.0% 3P, 90.9% FT
2001: 24.6 ppg, 7.8 rpg, 5.8 apg, 50.1% TS on 41.5% FG, 33.3% 3P, 84.2% FT
2002: 26.8 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 5.3 apg, 62.3% TS on 51.4% FG, 54.5% 3P (6/11), 80.6% FT
2004: 22.6 ppg, 2.8 rpg, 4.4 apg, 45.6% TS on 38.1% FG, 17.4% 3P, 92.0% FT
2008: 25.7 ppg, 4.7 rpg, 5.0 apg, 50.5% TS on 40.5% FG, 32.1% 3P, 79.6% FT
2009: 32.4 ppg, 5.6 rpg, 7.4 apg, 52.5% TS on 43.0% FG, 36.0% 3P, 84.1% FT
2010: 28.6 ppg, 8.0 rpg, 3.9 apg, 52.8% TS on 40.5% FG, 31.9% 3P, 88.3% FT

So I'm not sure that arguing Finals efficacy is really the angle you want to take. He basically sucked in 5/7 Finals appearances and was okay in another. That 09 series against Orlando had good volume, but that 52.5% TS was 1.9% below playoff league average. Great defense with Dwight in the middle, so not ultra surprising, but still not an ATG series from a dude who was still only 30.

Tatum's 2024 scoring sucked. That much is clear. Apart from the final game, he was quite bad at putting the ball through the hoop. He used himself as a decoy well enough, moved the ball effectively, got out of the way of Brown initiating and wielded his position in the post well, but he was not hitting anything at all, which was brutal. But the majority of Kobe's Finals appearances have been marred by terrible shooting. Note that he's shot 42% FG or better only twice in his Finals appearances, and 53%+ TS only the once. He did not shine on that stage, apart from 2002 against the Nets.

So yeah, not sure that argument is as effective as you want it to be.

2004, 2008 and 2010 were defensive battles against historically great defenses. No high volume scorer was scoring efficiently against those guys especially in a hard-nosed defensive lockdown era. Pistons and Celtics. Goddamn. He still was pretty good in 2010 barring that G7. Tatum was ass in pretty much 80% of his finals against Dallas, so this isn’t fair.

2009 he went beserk volume wise and still had around league-average efficiency. 2002 he went bonkers while having unparalleled efficiency.

2000 and 2001 were the only real knocks. He was absolute crap in 2000, no excuse…
2001 Kobe had an absolute pathetic game 1 but killed it in the next 4 games on ~55% TS at 27 ppg. That’s really good in that era.

Kobe didn’t have the luxury of mismatch hunting a fat hobbled Luka every possession. I shudder to think how he would have demolished Dallas’ Swiss cheese perimeter defense in the finals.

Looking at the stats nominally, without any adjustment, Kobe still shot at higher efficiency (25 ppg at 51% TS) vs Tatums (22 ppg at 49% TS). If you discount the 2000 series, when he was still in diapers, then he’s at the respective league average TS.

So yeah adjusting by slow offensive pace of the era, stat deflation of said era and the defensive strength of opponents, Kobe definitely performed better in the finals.

2009 he was also playing an all time great defense and in that finals had as much defensive attention faced in a finals series as anyone in nba history him averaging 32 on slightly above average efficiency relative to the defense faced is extremely impressive

[LakerLegend]

Tatum laid two consecutive eggs in the finals. If it weren’t for Jrue or Brown or even Kristaps in G1 he’d still be ringless.

Kobe wasn't particularly good in the Finals.

For illustration:

2000: 15.6 ppg, 4.6 rpg, 4.2 apg, 41.1% TS on 36.7% FG, 20.0% 3P, 90.9% FT
2001: 24.6 ppg, 7.8 rpg, 5.8 apg, 50.1% TS on 41.5% FG, 33.3% 3P, 84.2% FT
2002: 26.8 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 5.3 apg, 62.3% TS on 51.4% FG, 54.5% 3P (6/11), 80.6% FT
2004: 22.6 ppg, 2.8 rpg, 4.4 apg, 45.6% TS on 38.1% FG, 17.4% 3P, 92.0% FT
2008: 25.7 ppg, 4.7 rpg, 5.0 apg, 50.5% TS on 40.5% FG, 32.1% 3P, 79.6% FT
2009: 32.4 ppg, 5.6 rpg, 7.4 apg, 52.5% TS on 43.0% FG, 36.0% 3P, 84.1% FT
2010: 28.6 ppg, 8.0 rpg, 3.9 apg, 52.8% TS on 40.5% FG, 31.9% 3P, 88.3% FT

So I'm not sure that arguing Finals efficacy is really the angle you want to take. He basically sucked in 5/7 Finals appearances and was okay in another. That 09 series against Orlando had good volume, but that 52.5% TS was 1.9% below playoff league average. Great defense with Dwight in the middle, so not ultra surprising, but still not an ATG series from a dude who was still only 30.

Tatum's 2024 scoring sucked. That much is clear. Apart from the final game, he was quite bad at putting the ball through the hoop. He used himself as a decoy well enough, moved the ball effectively, got out of the way of Brown initiating and wielded his position in the post well, but he was not hitting anything at all, which was brutal. But the majority of Kobe's Finals appearances have been marred by terrible shooting. Note that he's shot 42% FG or better only twice in his Finals appearances, and 53%+ TS only the once. He did not shine on that stage, apart from 2002 against the Nets.

So yeah, not sure that argument is as effective as you want it to be.

2004, 2008 and 2010 were defensive battles against historically great defenses. No high volume scorer was scoring efficiently against those guys especially in a hard-nosed defensive lockdown era. Pistons and Celtics. Goddamn. He still was pretty good in 2010 barring that G7. Tatum was ass in pretty much 80% of his finals against Dallas, so this isn’t fair.

2009 he went beserk volume wise and still had around league-average efficiency. 2002 he went bonkers while having unparalleled efficiency.

2000 and 2001 were the only real knocks. He was absolute crap in 2000, no excuse…
2001 Kobe had an absolute pathetic game 1 but killed it in the next 4 games on ~55% TS at 27 ppg. That’s really good in that era.

Kobe didn’t have the luxury of mismatch hunting a fat hobbled Luka every possession. I shudder to think how he would have demolished Dallas’ Swiss cheese perimeter defense in the finals.

Looking at the stats nominally, without any adjustment, Kobe still shot at higher efficiency (25 ppg at 51% TS) vs Tatums (22 ppg at 49% TS). If you discount the 2000 series, when he was still in diapers, then he’s at the respective league average TS.

So yeah adjusting by slow offensive pace of the era, stat deflation of said era and the defensive strength of opponents, Kobe definitely performed better in the finals.

Kobe was injured during the 2000 Finals bringing his stats down.

Tsherkin knows this but for some reason doesn't put stats into context anymore.

Look what he did in Game 7 vs the Blazers, he played better than Shaq.

2004 he also was coming off knee and shoulder surgeries with no proper rehab. Not to mention in 2004 the league was letting players play WWF on defense.

[therealbig3]

IDK, I strongly disagree with his 10 Finals being anything less than very good. I won't say great, but that was one of his best Finals performances. 09 was really good too.

When accounting for overall offensive responsibility and the volume of creation he was tasked with, and considering the defenses he faced in those Finals, I'd give him props more than anything.

[tsherkin]

Kobe was injured during the 2000 Finals bringing his stats down.

Tsherkin knows this but for some reason doesn't put stats into context anymore.

Tatum was injured in 2022, but no one's talking about that. I figured that's how we were approaching things.

[OhayoKD]

Kobe was efficient, significantly above league average playoff TS, in 4/7 finals games in 2010.

Tatum was below league average playoff TS in every game besides g4 of the Mavs series, in which he only shot 10 times to score 15 points.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right, you can author the argument that Kobe was a little better than Tatum. It doesn't really alter the general premise that he struggled a lot in the Finals, and he was BRUTAL in a couple games in the 2010 Finals in particular. Tatum's last three games in the Finals were 42.3%, 40% and 45.8% FG, or 55.0%, 59.3% and 56.3% TS against a league playoff average of 56.6%, so his relative performance was mostly quite similar.

Naturally, it's worth noting that Tatum is a high-volume 3pt shooter with no real middle game. He posts well, but he doesn't take or make a lot of shots outside of the RA and beneath the arc. They aren't threat zones from him, so he struggles badly when that 3 isn't falling, even more so than Kobe.

Now, look at the 2010 Finals. 54.3% league playoff average. So Kobe was +2.5, -5.1, -9.7, +10.4, +7.1, +4.6 and -16.7 for an average of -0.99% rTS in the 2010 Finals.

Tatum was -9.2, -20.1, -1.6, +2.7 and +0.3, average of -5.7.

Shorter series, less opportunity to have a hot game or 2 as did Kobe in 2010. But fairly similar in overall profile. Kobe had 2 more games and 2 hot games inside a 7-game sample of generally being bleh. Tatum had a similar run of wretched and mediocre performances and one solid one.

I'm not here to contend that Tatum was better; I don't think he was. My point was more that arguing on the basis of Kobe's Finals performances isn't that effective because he wasn't traditionally a stunning performer in the Finals.

I think you can argue for more than Kobe being a "little better" than tatum if we consider Kobe faced more defensive attention relative to his teammates, had a heavier load as a ball-handler and a creator, and is credited by teammates for helping devise the lakers defensive schemes.

[KingofTheClay]

Kobe wasn't particularly good in the Finals.

For illustration:

2000: 15.6 ppg, 4.6 rpg, 4.2 apg, 41.1% TS on 36.7% FG, 20.0% 3P, 90.9% FT
2001: 24.6 ppg, 7.8 rpg, 5.8 apg, 50.1% TS on 41.5% FG, 33.3% 3P, 84.2% FT
2002: 26.8 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 5.3 apg, 62.3% TS on 51.4% FG, 54.5% 3P (6/11), 80.6% FT
2004: 22.6 ppg, 2.8 rpg, 4.4 apg, 45.6% TS on 38.1% FG, 17.4% 3P, 92.0% FT
2008: 25.7 ppg, 4.7 rpg, 5.0 apg, 50.5% TS on 40.5% FG, 32.1% 3P, 79.6% FT
2009: 32.4 ppg, 5.6 rpg, 7.4 apg, 52.5% TS on 43.0% FG, 36.0% 3P, 84.1% FT
2010: 28.6 ppg, 8.0 rpg, 3.9 apg, 52.8% TS on 40.5% FG, 31.9% 3P, 88.3% FT

So I'm not sure that arguing Finals efficacy is really the angle you want to take. He basically sucked in 5/7 Finals appearances and was okay in another. That 09 series against Orlando had good volume, but that 52.5% TS was 1.9% below playoff league average. Great defense with Dwight in the middle, so not ultra surprising, but still not an ATG series from a dude who was still only 30.

Tatum's 2024 scoring sucked. That much is clear. Apart from the final game, he was quite bad at putting the ball through the hoop. He used himself as a decoy well enough, moved the ball effectively, got out of the way of Brown initiating and wielded his position in the post well, but he was not hitting anything at all, which was brutal. But the majority of Kobe's Finals appearances have been marred by terrible shooting. Note that he's shot 42% FG or better only twice in his Finals appearances, and 53%+ TS only the once. He did not shine on that stage, apart from 2002 against the Nets.

So yeah, not sure that argument is as effective as you want it to be.

2004, 2008 and 2010 were defensive battles against historically great defenses. No high volume scorer was scoring efficiently against those guys especially in a hard-nosed defensive lockdown era. Pistons and Celtics. Goddamn. He still was pretty good in 2010 barring that G7. Tatum was ass in pretty much 80% of his finals against Dallas, so this isn’t fair.

2009 he went beserk volume wise and still had around league-average efficiency. 2002 he went bonkers while having unparalleled efficiency.

2000 and 2001 were the only real knocks. He was absolute crap in 2000, no excuse…
2001 Kobe had an absolute pathetic game 1 but killed it in the next 4 games on ~55% TS at 27 ppg. That’s really good in that era.

Kobe didn’t have the luxury of mismatch hunting a fat hobbled Luka every possession. I shudder to think how he would have demolished Dallas’ Swiss cheese perimeter defense in the finals.

Looking at the stats nominally, without any adjustment, Kobe still shot at higher efficiency (25 ppg at 51% TS) vs Tatums (22 ppg at 49% TS). If you discount the 2000 series, when he was still in diapers, then he’s at the respective league average TS.

So yeah adjusting by slow offensive pace of the era, stat deflation of said era and the defensive strength of opponents, Kobe definitely performed better in the finals.

Kobe was injured during the 2000 Finals bringing his stats down.

Tsherkin knows this but for some reason doesn't put stats into context anymore.

Look what he did in Game 7 vs the Blazers, he played better than Shaq.

2004 he also was coming off knee and shoulder surgeries with no proper rehab. Not to mention in 2004 the league was letting players play WWF on defense.

Im not going to give these players excuses by claiming injuries.

Tatum was playing with a fractured wrist and shoulder injury in the 2022 finals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KingofTheClay]

Kobe was efficient, significantly above league average playoff TS, in 4/7 finals games in 2010.

Tatum was below league average playoff TS in every game besides g4 of the Mavs series, in which he only shot 10 times to score 15 points.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right, you can author the argument that Kobe was a little better than Tatum. It doesn't really alter the general premise that he struggled a lot in the Finals, and he was BRUTAL in a couple games in the 2010 Finals in particular. Tatum's last three games in the Finals were 42.3%, 40% and 45.8% FG, or 55.0%, 59.3% and 56.3% TS against a league playoff average of 56.6%, so his relative performance was mostly quite similar.

Naturally, it's worth noting that Tatum is a high-volume 3pt shooter with no real middle game. He posts well, but he doesn't take or make a lot of shots outside of the RA and beneath the arc. They aren't threat zones from him, so he struggles badly when that 3 isn't falling, even more so than Kobe.

Now, look at the 2010 Finals. 54.3% league playoff average. So Kobe was +2.5, -5.1, -9.7, +10.4, +7.1, +4.6 and -16.7 for an average of -0.99% rTS in the 2010 Finals.

Tatum was -9.2, -20.1, -1.6, +2.7 and +0.3, average of -5.7.

Shorter series, less opportunity to have a hot game or 2 as did Kobe in 2010. But fairly similar in overall profile. Kobe had 2 more games and 2 hot games inside a 7-game sample of generally being bleh. Tatum had a similar run of wretched and mediocre performances and one solid one.

I'm not here to contend that Tatum was better; I don't think he was. My point was more that arguing on the basis of Kobe's Finals performances isn't that effective because he wasn't traditionally a stunning performer in the Finals.

I think you can argue for more than Kobe being a "little better" than tatum if we consider Kobe faced more defensive attention relative to his teammates, had a heavier load as a ball-handler and a creator, and is credited by teammates for helping devise the lakers defensive schemes.

In my opinion that’s not why Kobe was better.

Tatum was the primary ball-handler, received the most defensive attention with the ball in his hands, and his defensive versatility was probably the main reason why the Celtics were able to shut down the Mavs PnR offense completely.

It’s because Kobe was much more efficient relative to league average, much more clutch, and put up these stats at much higher volume in a much slower, hard nosed era. Scoring wise Kobe is light years and light years ahead.

The other facets of the game are arguable although I give Tatum a decent edge because of his size, help defense, and ability to guard 1-5.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk