How good would Kobe have been without bad knees?

[tsherkin]

It does mean SOMETHING of value. Even if you don't think it means everything it claims to be.

No, I mean, it's a violently misleading thing with misused names that don't line up with the actual stats, and which doesn't actually show what it purports to show.

The actual run Kobe had in those years was absolutely remarkable, but craptacular presentation like that tweet sullies the actual achievement.

[Black Jack]

Goat tier for sure

[LakerLegend]

It does mean SOMETHING of value. Even if you don't think it means everything it claims to be.

No, I mean, it's a violently misleading thing with misused names that don't line up with the actual stats, and which doesn't actually show what it purports to show.

The actual run Kobe had in those years was absolutely remarkable, but craptacular presentation like that tweet sullies the actual achievement.

Using overly dramatic verbiage doesn't make what you're saying a fact.

One can argue about the significance of the numbers, but all of the numbers cited are just what they are, cold hard numbers.

[tsherkin]

Using overly dramatic verbiage doesn't make what you're saying a fact.

None of what I said was overly dramatic, you just don't like it. That isn't the same thing.

One can argue about the significance of the numbers, but all of the numbers cited are just what they are, cold hard numbers.

But again, it doesn't actually prove what it tries to say it proved. And some of those numbers are actually wrong.

It would have been smarter, and higher-impact, for them to just post the numbers to support the notion that it was a remarkable run, instead of outright lying.

[Optms]

Good knees or bad knees Kobe's shot selection always left something to be desired and this always drags him down in the all-time lists.

Ridiculous take.

His shot selection is what brought him success. Take away his shot selection and he has nowhere near the success.

[Ruma85]

Good knees or bad knees Kobe's shot selection always left something to be desired and this always drags him down in the all-time lists.

Ridiculous take.

His shot selection is what brought him success. Take away his shot selection and he has nowhere near the success.

I'm the biggest Kobe fan on these forums I would say, even I would admit he forced shots, if he didn't his fg% would easily be in the 50's.

[Maxthirty]

Good knees or bad knees Kobe's shot selection always left something to be desired and this always drags him down in the all-time lists.

Ridiculous take.

His shot selection is what brought him success. Take away his shot selection and he has nowhere near the success.

I'm the biggest Kobe fan on these forums I would say, even I would admit he forced shots, if he didn't his fg% would easily be in the 50's.

Yeah, it was pretty dumb basketball.

[Yank3525]

Gary Vitti also said Kobe was a fast/junk food addict and apparently didn’t clean up his diet until winning his fifth title so I’m sure that didn’t help.

Honestly, I doubt that mattered. His cardio never really seemed to be the issue and he worked out enough to deal with that. It was going to cause him more issues after retirement more than anything else.

Yeah, Jordan was like that in Chicago. Dude loved his McDonalds.

From Kobe's generation, which superstars had "much better longevity"? I assume there is a few based on the phrasing. This a strange turn since Kobe played in 18 all star games and is top 10 all time in minutes played

Yup. His longevity was excellent and I don't think his "methods" hurt him. A freak injury is the only thing that really derailed him and that could have happened to anyone.

[TheGeneral99]

Kobe was always a little bit overrated in my books because of his awful shot selection and average efficiency. The dude never once shot over 47% from the field and was a career 33% shooter from 3. Compare this to MJ whose career average from the field was 50% and he routinely shot in the low 50s in his prime. Or compare to Kawhi who is also a career 50% shooter and career 39% shooter from 3.

Obviously an incredible player, and he was clutch as hell, but always thought he didn't play the right way.

[Yank3525]

People really love their round numbers. There isn't that big of difference between a 45% career shooter and 50% career shooter.

[TheGeneral99]

People really love their round numbers. There isn't that big of difference between a 45% career shooter and 50% career shooter.

I can't tell if I'm reading this right or if you are serious.

A 45% shooter is around league average and a 50% shooter is an elite scorer in terms of efficiency, it's a huge difference.

Same thing from 3. A 33% shooter from 3 is around league average and a 38% shooter from 3 is ELITE. If you are a 30% from 3 that's bad, if you are a 35% shooter from 3 that's good.

[Yank3525]

People really love their round numbers. There isn't that big of difference between a 45% career shooter and 50% career shooter.

I can't tell if I'm reading this right or if you are serious.

A 45% shooter is around league average and a 50% shooter is an elite scorer in terms of efficiency, it's a huge difference.

Same thing from 3. A 33% shooter from 3 is around league average and a 38% shooter from 3 is ELITE. If you are a 30% from 3 that's bad, if you are a 35% shooter from 3 that's good.

9/20 is 45% and 10/20 is 50%. The difference is usually a few shots over a couple of games. It matters since the margins in the NBA are slim, but it isn't that signficant.

Also using raw FG% to messure efficiency is a bit outdated IMO.

[TheGeneral99]

People really love their round numbers. There isn't that big of difference between a 45% career shooter and 50% career shooter.

I can't tell if I'm reading this right or if you are serious.

A 45% shooter is around league average and a 50% shooter is an elite scorer in terms of efficiency, it's a huge difference.

Same thing from 3. A 33% shooter from 3 is around league average and a 38% shooter from 3 is ELITE. If you are a 30% from 3 that's bad, if you are a 35% shooter from 3 that's good.

9/20 is 45% and 10/20 is 50%. The difference is usually a few shots over a couple of games. It matters since the margins in the NBA are slim, but it isn't that signficant.

Also using raw FG% to messure efficiency is a bit outdated IMO.

You look at these numbers over a year span, not one game.

Again, 45% is good and 50% is elite, I don't know why are you arguing this.

Okay so look at TS as well, and you will see that guys like Kawhi and Jordan were much more efficient than Kobe by any metric.

Value Over Replacement Player (VORP): Of the top 250 highest VORP seasons, Kobe holds #84, #118, and #154. MJ dominates this stat with the 2 best 3 seasons of all time.

Box Plus/Minus (BPM): Lebron has 5 of the top 10 best seasons, including the #1 spot. Kobe's best comes in at #155. Even lesser greats like Tmac, KG, and David Robinson all have seasons in the top 30.

Win Shares per 48: Kareem had 3 of the top 5 greatest win share seasons of all time. Lesser greats like Chris Paul, Dirk, Wade, and Barkley managed to make the top 50. Kobe doesn't have a season in the top 200.

True Shooting Percentage (TS%): This stat is dominated by bigs; however wing players such as Lebron, Harden, Curry, and Magic have all made the top 50. Kobe doesn't a season in the top 250.

Player Efficiency Rating (PER): This stat is basically a box score aggregate that tends to favor bigs and volume scorers, so it's no surprise that Wilt and Jordan have 4 of the top 5 best seasons. Kobe Bryant's historic 2006 season comes in at #59.


Now this isn't to say Kobe wasn't great...he was unbelievable, and he took a ton of incredibly difficult shots which reduced his efficiency, but I wasn't a big fan of his playstyle overall.