Advanced Stats Comparison: Why is Kobe so "mediocre"?

[pancakes3]

Well I think it goes against the spirit of the OP to use advanced stats to explain advanced stats, but...

Since Kobe hasn't played any post-twilight seasons like MJ and Bird, and Lebron hasn't been afforded the luxury of a fully prime to mitigate his rookie numbers, let's just look at the top 3 seasons for each player in TS%:
Lebron: .605, .604, .594
Bird: .612, .608, .585
Jordan: .614, .606, .605
Bryant: .580, .576, .563

These numbers alone would show that Kobe is roughly 2-3% points off. The difference is just a bucket here or there. You're right. Being 1.5% TS% off while taking an average of ~20fga, ~8fta would translate to ~.35 ppg. However, in these marginal conversations especially ones involving PER, a little will go a long way since PER is meant to be a bell-curve-y metric. Put it this way, a 1.5 TS% difference from Bryant's .580 TS% season in '07 is the same difference between Kobe and Arenas that season. Slight, but noticeable.

Then look at the top 3 seasons relative to the league average.
Lebron: +7.8%, +6.1%, +5.2%
Bird: +7.4%, +7%, +4.2%
Jordan: +7.7%, +7, +7.1%
Bryan: +3.8%, +3.6%, +3.4%

It's not comical. It's not a conspiracy. It's just what it is.

[kasino]

sounds like 07 Lebron was right there with Kobe/Arenas

like my first post using his starting seasons he gets better in all categories of regular/advanced whatever stats
and even then his seasons without Shaq are better with any type of stats then those with Shaq coming from 26-33 already playing eight years. I'm not excusing him from anyone's criteria just showing he did best with control of his teams.

[ag101]

Many of these "advanced" stats are not really objective in nature, despite the misconception that they are both objective and elucidate more of the game for us as the viewer/reader.

Many of these stats were made up in the early 2000s and essentially served the purpose of showing the creator's inherent biases.

That is, of course if you think MJ's "sheer dominance" is the reason why he ranks at the top of almost every man-made advanced statistic.

All these stats are doing is conforming the reader to the principle that whatever made "x" player great also should measure player "y" and his greatness (or lack thereof).

So these stats were made to prop up Jordan? And in anticipation were built to mask Kobe's true worth I suppose.

Why would someone make a stat like PER that overvalues inefficient volume scoring?

Here go the clowns again trying to twist words and create asinine posts as their way of arguing.

If you believe a player is the best player at a certain intangible facet of the game, and you try to create a statistic to measure said facet, you've already created a cognitive bias where the best iteration of the statistic confirms your belief.

Unless you're naive and believe that advanced statistics were made up in a vacuum and didn't use the statistician's own belief/view as a sort of external validity.

[Not Bias]

Man Kobe u gotta step your game up. Some guys on a basketball forum site called realgm don't think your all that good based on some statistics they found on basketball-reference.

[That Nicka]

Career PER
Bird: 23.50
Kobe: 23.44

Best season:
Kobe: 27.97
Bird: 27.77

Best 3 seasons:
Bird: 26.90
Kobe: 26.73

Playoffs:
Kobe: 22.4
Bird: 21.4



I guess Bird is overrated too

[D.Brasco]

Career PER
Bird: 23.50
Kobe: 23.44

Best season:
Kobe: 27.97
Bird: 27.77

Best 3 seasons:
Bird: 26.90
Kobe: 26.73

Playoffs:
Kobe: 22.4
Bird: 21.4



I guess Bird is overrated too

Kobe's barely entered his twilight years, bird's last few years were hampered by injury so this far from a fair comparison using careers.

Match up their primes and i'm sure the picture would look different.

[ShowTimeERA]

Career PER
Bird: 23.50
Kobe: 23.44

Best season:
Kobe: 27.97
Bird: 27.77

Best 3 seasons:
Bird: 26.90
Kobe: 26.73

Playoffs:
Kobe: 22.4
Bird: 21.4



I guess Bird is overrated too

Kobe's barely entered his twilight years, bird's last few years were hampered by injury so this far from a fair comparison using careers.

Match up their primes and i'm sure the picture would look different.

So do we discount Kobe's first two seasons? Do we take into account offensive systems, team personnel?

Also Kobe has entered his "twilight years", difference is that Kobe is extremely skilled coupled with his extreme work ethic that he's still able to perform at an elite level. But lets not confuse this Kobe with Kobe of 10 years ago...

[starvinmarvin17]

Lotta Stannin up in here

[ervee]

Kobe does pretty well for himself if you look at his advanced numbers. There are some guys who've done better, some who haven't...

Same clown who thinks 98 Jordan and 2012 Durant and peak Nash/Dirk are better than Kobe ever was.^

Take with grain of salt.

You need to chill.

I didn't come in here saying Kobe was terrible. The OP asked essentially, "Kobe's known as a Top 10 all-time guy, but statistical measurements consistently show him to be be great but not quite that great. What gives?" All I said was "Yup, Kobe's outstanding be he is a tad overrated because of a couple things people fixate on."

For you to come in guns blazing, blasting me, while quoting stats that don't even rebut the OP, is just silly. Calm down.

And those "statistical measurements" also say Bird/Hakeem/Duncan shouldn't be top 10 either. They also say Stockton>your boy Nash, Robinson>>Hakeem,Dirk>Bird, etc etc.
'
So no, he's not overrated at all.

Try again.

[ervee]

[

I He's not inefficient, but he's not super-efficient either,

Actually he has very good efficiency. Consistently +3-4% relative to league average over his prime and on super-high volume.

Try again.

My statement here doesn't exactly seem like fighting words.

You compare Kobe to other world class perimeter scorers, he tends to look inefficient compared to them prime vs prime.

No, he doesn't. Most of them aren't doing +3-4% at that type of volume. And the vast majority don't even come close to him peak vs peak.

Try again.

[ervee]

I think the quick and easy answer is that he's a scoring guard. Scoring guards don't have the efficiency, or defensive impact (rebounds) of a post player and those things factor into advanced stats heavily. He's pretty darn efficient all things considered but he's not a Jordan/Lebron/Larry-esque wing player in terms of efficiency and he's not racking up double doubles like Dream and Shaq. It's not that hard to believe that his advanced box score isn't as high as others.

It is weird when I see people compare Larry's, Michaels, and Lebron's efficiency to Kobe's. I feel like people only remember Kobe from last season, where he was quite inefficient (and Lebron was the most efficient in his entire career). But if we are talking about career, he is only marginally less than them.

Career TS%:

Kobe: 55.4%
Jordan: 56.9%
Lebron: 56.9%
Bird: 56.4%

Do you realize how little 1.5% of TS% equates to in a single basketball game? We are talking about Kobe missing 1 shot more than those guys over a 4 game stretch.

It essentially equates to almost nothing. Yet people talk about Kobe being an "inefficient volume scorer" and Lebron, Bird, Jordan being "super efficient wings." It is almost comical. It is really just a way for people to dismiss Kobe's scoring ability.

Yup. People are morons.

Kobe was consistently at +3-4% relative to league average on HUGE volume and also did a good job taking care of the ball.

Prime Kobe had excellent efficiency. Deal with it haters.

[yongaz]

Career PER
Bird: 23.50
Kobe: 23.44

Best season:
Kobe: 27.97
Bird: 27.77

Best 3 seasons:
Bird: 26.90
Kobe: 26.73

Playoffs:
Kobe: 22.4
Bird: 21.4



I guess Bird is overrated too

Kobe's barely entered his twilight years, bird's last few years were hampered by injury so this far from a fair comparison using careers.

Match up their primes and i'm sure the picture would look different.

[SilkStream]

Kobe's Playoff TS% from 97-05 = 52% - ouch
Kobe's Playoff FG% (whole career) = 45% - mediocre

Kobe has usually been an inefficient scorer especially prior to 05.
He was a 52%TS scorer on average prior to 06 (rules changed in 05) despite practically never facing double teams or the focus of opposing defenses thanks to playing next to Prime / Peak Shaq.
-On his own or next to an average star he is probably a 46-50%TS type scorer if he go's for high volume... very Iverson-esque.

What seasonal and playoff %'s don't show you is his inconsistency.
Meaning he is not a consistent scorer on a night to night basis.
He has many ups and many downs.

For example in 2010 he had a playoff TS% of 56-57% which is quite good.
However... that doesn't show his inconsistency.

TS% (1st round) = 50%
TS% (Finals) = 52% (2 games under 50%) (1 game under 40%)
FG% in 4 Finals wins = 37%

He has always been mediocre in terms of scoring efficiency and even in the years and playoffs where he posts good overall efficiency he never had the consistency needed to be considered a truly efficient scorer.

[nikomCH]

52 TS%? Where in your ass did you pull that number from? Prior to the rule change his TS was 55% which is perfectly fine. If you were referring to PS only then his TS% from 97-02 was 52.4 which was 2.3% lower than his RS TS average. PRIME Shaq in that same period had a 57.9 TS% in the RS and a 56.3 TS% in the PS, a 1.6% drop off. Not that much better than Kobe.

This part was especially hilarious though

despite practically never facing double teams or the focus of opposing defenses thanks to playing next to Prime / Peak Shaq.
-On his own or next to an average star he is probably a 46-50%TS type scorer if he go's for high volume... very Iverson-esque.

Obvious bait attempt so not gonna even touch it.

Your 2010 Playoffs reference is also a joke. He played the 1st round injured and once he got his knee drained after Game 6 against OKC his TS went up to 63% over the next two rounds. Then in the Finals he had 4 games of over 56 TS% and 2 games over 60 TS%. This is all against a ridiculously good defense. He shot the ball with great efficiency in 4 out of the 7 games and yet you think it makes sense to bring that up in a talk about inconsistency? My god your arguments are horrid.

[SilkStream]

His TS% prior to 06 (in the playoffs) was 52%.
I did not make that up or pull it from anywhere.
If you wanna just ignore the playoffs because it makes him look bad that is fine.

Boston had a very good defense... not All-Time great.
Pierce and Allen are far from spectacular wing defenders and Rondo is a PG.
Either way All-Time Great players/scorers dont get to use excuses like that.

Not sure how you can try to actually sit here and say he was efficient in the 2010 Finals.
He shot 37% from the field in the 4 games they won.
He was below 45% TS in 2/4 games they won.

So yeah... no.

Even in 2009 which I consider to be his best year he struggled with his consistency.
He had a 52-53%TS in 2/4 playoff series that year.

[Glen20]

its safe to say kobe's first three rings were with him being Shaq's Pippen (with better scoring and worse defense)
the last two rings however is where his real legacy is

[kasino]

its safe to say 1A
no Grant/Rodman
yes better scoring and marginal defensive difference between the two, thus Kobe the better player

[kasino]

His TS% prior to 06 (in the playoffs) was 52%.
I did not make that up or pull it from anywhere.
If you wanna just ignore the playoffs because it makes him look bad that is fine.

Boston had a very good defense... not All-Time great.
Pierce and Allen are far from spectacular wing defenders and Rondo is a PG.
Either way All-Time Great players/scorers dont get to use excuses like that.

Not sure how you can try to actually sit here and say he was efficient in the 2010 Finals.
He shot 37% from the field in the 4 games they won.
He was below 45% TS in 2/4 games they won.

So yeah... no.

Even in 2009 which I consider to be his best year he struggled with his consistency.
He had a 52-53%TS in 2/4 playoff series that year.

.52% with Shaq
.55% without Shaq

IDK they are usually considered an all-time great defense
but your right no excuse, he did however out play everyone on his and the opposing team

what's with spotlighting certain games or series?
do others shot exactly the same each game or series?
I'm not going to look because they don't, so stop that
he shot .56 TS% in 09 and 10 for the entire PS

if you want to shot him down I can pick him up
since 06 he faced more 50 win teams then anyone
now we can look into his career then vs all-time, I got a feeling he's face more talent then most

[Doctor MJ]

Well I think it goes against the spirit of the OP to use advanced stats to explain advanced stats, but...

Since Kobe hasn't played any post-twilight seasons like MJ and Bird, and Lebron hasn't been afforded the luxury of a fully prime to mitigate his rookie numbers, let's just look at the top 3 seasons for each player in TS%:
Lebron: .605, .604, .594
Bird: .612, .608, .585
Jordan: .614, .606, .605
Bryant: .580, .576, .563

These numbers alone would show that Kobe is roughly 2-3% points off. The difference is just a bucket here or there. You're right. Being 1.5% TS% off while taking an average of ~20fga, ~8fta would translate to ~.35 ppg. However, in these marginal conversations especially ones involving PER, a little will go a long way since PER is meant to be a bell-curve-y metric. Put it this way, a 1.5 TS% difference from Bryant's .580 TS% season in '07 is the same difference between Kobe and Arenas that season. Slight, but noticeable.

Then look at the top 3 seasons relative to the league average.
Lebron: +7.8%, +6.1%, +5.2%
Bird: +7.4%, +7%, +4.2%
Jordan: +7.7%, +7, +7.1%
Bryan: +3.8%, +3.6%, +3.4%

It's not comical. It's not a conspiracy. It's just what it is.

Just wanted to highlight this post for anyone not understanding the efficiency issue.

I'll add in for anyone saying "3% is that big of an edge when you break down what that means in a game": Exactly. The efficiency edge these guys have over Kobe isn't actually that huge, but then neither is Kobe's edge of average players. The non-hugeness of it all is what allows non-volume scorers to make up ground in non-scoring areas pretty easily, but also, the key to understanding all of it is that players don't "create" shots out of nothing.

The vast majority of what even the best scorer produces as a scorer can be replaced by even a poor supporting cast. The edge he brings in pure scoring, he's bringing with his efficiency edge. Yes a volume scorer can milk some additional impact through the spacing he produces, but that impact is largely going to be based on him reliably passing to the open man once he produces that space. If instead he seems to prefer to take super-difficult shots rather than trust a teammate then those other theoretical benefits simply aren't being used.

I will note with Kobe that it's not like he's always problematic in this area. At times he's been great, but other times he's really got issues. And to be fair also: It's not like Jordan didn't also have similar issues. He did. They cause problems, but not in all situations, and this was a lot of the key to Jackson's success. When things were really going well, his scorers had faith that if they passed the ball, good things would happen.

[Doctor MJ]

You need to chill.

I didn't come in here saying Kobe was terrible. The OP asked essentially, "Kobe's known as a Top 10 all-time guy, but statistical measurements consistently show him to be be great but not quite that great. What gives?" All I said was "Yup, Kobe's outstanding be he is a tad overrated because of a couple things people fixate on."

For you to come in guns blazing, blasting me, while quoting stats that don't even rebut the OP, is just silly. Calm down.

And those "statistical measurements" also say Bird/Hakeem/Duncan shouldn't be top 10 either. They also say Stockton>your boy Nash, Robinson>>Hakeem,Dirk>Bird, etc etc.
'
So no, he's not overrated at all.

Try again.

I'll respond again here just for the benefit of others.

In case anyone wonders how a Tim Duncan (for example) can be considered a Top 10 player despite not looking like one by some measures, it's because those measures aren't perfect, and in particular they aren't well suited to studying someone with his skillset. First and foremost, defense is going to get underrated by any box score based metric.

The reason the OP and others find it puzzling Kobe doesn't look better by these stats, is because the guys he's typically compared to (Jordan & LeBron), look so dang good by them. As I pointed out, there is something to be said for Kobe not being optimally judged by these metrics either. However, if Kobe were anything of the magnitude of Jordan, yes, we'd certainly expect him to rival Jordan by these metrics.

He simply isn't Jordan. It's a shame the comparison is so common because it's ridiculously high standards when some are misguided enough to think you've "failed" by not rivaling Jordan. And of course, this is happening both because we wrongly tend to look at Jordan as the gold standard for comparison, and because Kobe's worked so hard to emulate Jordan himself. But Kobe's not Jordan. He doesn't have Jordan's ginormous hands. He doesn't have Jordan's core body strength. And he doesn't have young Jordan's obscene motor. As a result Kobe's signature has never been a player cutting all through the court (on both sides of the ball) like it was with Jordan.

Meanwhile, Kobe's a better shooter, and a much better shooter from distance, and in terms of all the fundamental moves Jordan had, Kobe's got'em too. These are great, great things to have, but they just aren't a replacement for some of Jordan's subtle gifts. And so Kobe's not an inferior version of Jordan, he's just a different player, with different strengths and weaknesses.