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

[tsherkin]

Boston had a very good defense... not All-Time great.

Pardon?

[magicman1978]

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.

What you're essentially saying is that just about every single advance stat that we have has been created to prop up MJ. So it's pretty much the statistics that are biased.

[Jordan23Forever]

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.

From age 21-30 (the effective portion of a player's career):

Jordan: 59.2% TS @ 32.5 ppg

Kobe: 55.8% TS @ 28.6 ppg

That is a LARGE difference (+3.4% TS), especially at these volumes and when considering that MJ was doing it on nearly 4 more ppg. Kobe is not inefficient, but posting career numbers which are dragged down by MJ's post-prime and Wizards years isn't an accurate comparison, especially when they don't account for ppg volume (since efficiency and volume are inversely correlated).

[nikomCH]

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.

I like how not ONE thing you said in this post was relevant at all. Respond to what I actually said and not what you want to say just so you have something to type.

[jaypo]

To answer the OP, it's OBVIOUS that the stats were just created to bash Kobe! Am I right??

[Shot Clock]

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.

What you're essentially saying is that just about every single advance stat that we have has been created to prop up MJ. So it's pretty much the statistics that are biased.

Conspiracy theory would explain how stats never support the wild claims around Kobe's greatness.

The people that made these formula's should be given recognition to come up with such incredibly nuanced stats that a guard who mimics his game after Jordan, played for the same coach in the same system as Jordan, could never equal his numbers in these measures.

Truly diabolical equation making.

[pancakes3]

1) Why are there no biased statisticians out there creating advanced stats in favor of Kobe? This conspiracy may run deeper than any of us dare to uncover.

2)

Boston had a very good defense... not All-Time great.

Pardon?

I think (hope) they're talking about the 2010 finals where Boston's defense was merely "great" and not "GOAT".

3) Thanks for the shout-out DocMJ but I don't think we'll be shouting down any actively posting dissenters. Maybe a few lurkers have been convinced though.

[nikomCH]

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.

From age 21-30 (the effective portion of a player's career):

Jordan: 59.2% TS @ 32.5 ppg

Kobe: 55.8% TS @ 28.6 ppg

That is a LARGE difference (+3.4% TS), especially at these volumes and when considering that MJ was doing it on nearly 4 more ppg. Kobe is not inefficient, but posting career numbers which are dragged down by MJ's post-prime and Wizards years isn't an accurate comparison, especially when they don't account for ppg volume (since efficiency and volume are inversely correlated).

Use the league averages

Jordan from 84-93: 58.9 TS% (+5.2)
Kobe from 99-08: 55.9 TS% (+3.2)

Jordan was more efficient, but not as big of a gap as you say.

Hell even look at LeBron from 03-12: 56.9 TS (+3.4)

Efficiency is really not the biggest issue here.

[nikomCH]

1) Why are there no biased statisticians out there creating advanced stats in favor of Kobe? This conspiracy may run deeper than any of us dare to uncover.

2)

Boston had a very good defense... not All-Time great.

Pardon?

I think (hope) they're talking about the 2010 finals where Boston's defense was merely "great" and not "GOAT".

3) Thanks for the shout-out DocMJ but I don't think we'll be shouting down any actively posting dissenters. Maybe a few lurkers have been convinced though.

If I wanted to say GOAT I would have said GOAT. That guy can't read, don't blame me.

[ag101]

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.

What you're essentially saying is that just about every single advance stat that we have has been created to prop up MJ. So it's pretty much the statistics that are biased.

"Advanced" statistics in basketball have an inherent confirmation bias.
There is little to no baseline for many of these advanced statistics.

Therefore a pseudo-statistician will rely heavily on their own perception to confirm for themselves whether they think the statistics measure what they are supposed to measure.

Read into that how you will.


Seriously, if you deny any confirmation bias, you (for lack of a better term) just have your head stuck up your ass..

[microfib4thewin]

I think that in the long run Kobe will be recognized as a top 15-20 player as opposed to a top 10 player. Baseball used to overvalue wins for a pitcher before Sabermetrics came along, and when advanced statistics for basketball is well developed enough people will put less value on ring counts.

[An Unbiased Fan]

People are abusing TS% numbers as usually, and misusing them.

Two words..... Adrian Dantley. Was he a better scorer than MJ or not??? I say NO, but the posts in this thread suggest that Dantley was a superior scorer. To the point that Dantley to MJ, is like MJ to Iverson

Discuss

[tsherkin]

People are abusing TS% numbers as usually, and misusing them.

Two words..... Adrian Dantley. Was he a better scorer than MJ or not??? I say NO, but the posts in this thread suggest that Dantley was a superior scorer. To the point that Dantley to MJ, is like MJ to Iverson

Discuss

This isn't relevant, because the players in question are relatively similar in approach. Dantley took for-freaking-EVER to isolate and do his thing, plus he was a consistently terrible passer. This is a standard, lazy way to disregard an obvious difference between players. Yeah, TS% tells you certain information and it's limited in scope but when players are comparable in approach and one guy is twice as effective relative to league average (particularly when that league average is often very similar, such as 80s league-average TS% compared to late 2000s lgav TS%), then that comparison is meaningful. There need be other elements to the discussion, but it remains salient.

[An Unbiased Fan]

People are abusing TS% numbers as usually, and misusing them.

Two words..... Adrian Dantley. Was he a better scorer than MJ or not??? I say NO, but the posts in this thread suggest that Dantley was a superior scorer. To the point that Dantley to MJ, is like MJ to Iverson

Discuss

This isn't relevant, because the players in question are relatively similar in approach. Dantley took for-freaking-EVER to isolate and do his thing, plus he was a consistently terrible passer. This is a standard, lazy way to disregard an obvious difference between players. Yeah, TS% tells you certain information and it's limited in scope but when players are comparable in approach and one guy is twice as effective relative to league average (particularly when that league average is often very similar, such as 80s league-average TS% compared to late 2000s lgav TS%), then that comparison is meaningful. There need be other elements to the discussion, but it remains salient.

Of course it's relevant. Kobe doesn't score the same way as Lebron does, yet his name was brought up. And Kobe doesn't really score much the way young MJ did either. Kobe's TS% with the perimeter-based MJ is pretty much the same, so I don't see how you can say all of the above players had the same approach. I would also point out that MJ benefited from the shortened 3pt line(95-97'), which effects those TS% numbers in his perimeter orientated 30's.

TS% is a very useful tool, but it's being misused in this thread simply to put down a player.

[tsherkin]

Of course it's relevant. Kobe doesn't score the same way as Lebron does, yet his name was brought up.

They're both perimeter scorers with passing responsibilities. Kobe's a better shooter, but he's more inconsistent because he relies on his perimeter shot a lot more and doesn't drive as effectively as big old tank James. As a result, he hasn't made it to the lane with the same frequency and because he isn't an elite 3pt shooter (albeit he's a hell of a streak shooter from 3), he doesn't translate out quite as well. He's not as efficient a scorer as Lebron, that's irrefutable.

Is he a better scorer? No. Is he a CONSIDERABLY worse scorer? No, they're in the same tier. They both score damned well come the playoffs and Kobe's more aggressive mentality towards shooting is as much a crutch (and benefit) as Lebron's more pass-first mentality. Both are dominant. Peak to peak, it's pretty clear that Kobe was in the same tier as Lebron as a scorer, even if he isn't right now because he's older and oft-injured. There's a pretty tangible gap based on physical attributes, though, so it's also pretty respectable and defensible to argue that Lebron is the better scoring threat even compared to Kobe in his prime. Debatable, but it's a strong position to take.

TS% alone, I agree, is not enough to just look and say "oh, > TS% = > scorer." You have to talk minutes, whether or not you're a first option, passing support, etc, etc. But when the players fill similar roles, shoot at similar volumes and score in similar volumes, then yeah, it becomes very relevant.

And Kobe doesn't really score much the way young MJ did either. Kobe's TS% with the perimeter-based MJ is pretty much the same, so I don't see how you can say all of the above players had the same approach. I would also point out that MJ benefited from the shortened 3pt line(95-97'), which effects those TS% numbers in his perimeter orientated 30's.

Not really, though, given the volumes at which he used the three and his shooting percentages at similar volume from 3 outside of those seasons, though.

TS% is a very useful tool, but it's being misused in this thread simply to put down a player.

Kobe doesn't stack up in terms of efficiency, not quite as well. He is a little bit below MJ as a scorer, that much is readily apparent and essentially irrefutable. That's not a diss to Kobe, it's a discussion in the context of sometimes marginal differences between upper tier players.

[MisterWestside]

I would also point out that MJ benefited from the shortened 3pt line(95-97'), which effects those TS% numbers in his perimeter orientated 30's.

Well if it affects MJ, it affects (most) everyone else who plays in the league from the perimeter. Which is why we compare to league averages.

[magicman1978]

"Advanced" statistics in basketball have an inherent confirmation bias.
There is little to no baseline for many of these advanced statistics.

Therefore a pseudo-statistician will rely heavily on their own perception to confirm for themselves whether they think the statistics measure what they are supposed to measure.

Read into that how you will.


Seriously, if you deny any confirmation bias, you (for lack of a better term) just have your head stuck up your ass..

Maybe you didn't understand what I was saying, every single statistic you look at - doesn't even have to be "advanced", pretty much favors Jordan. It has nothing to do with confirmation bias, but the actual statistics themselves.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Of course it's relevant. Kobe doesn't score the same way as Lebron does, yet his name was brought up.

They're both perimeter scorers with passing responsibilities. Kobe's a better shooter, but he's more inconsistent because he relies on his perimeter shot a lot more and doesn't drive as effectively as big old tank James. As a result, he hasn't made it to the lane with the same frequency and because he isn't an elite 3pt shooter (albeit he's a hell of a streak shooter from 3), he doesn't translate out quite as well. He's not as efficient a scorer as Lebron, that's irrefutable.

Is he a better scorer? No. Is he a CONSIDERABLY worse scorer? No, they're in the same tier. They both score damned well come the playoffs and Kobe's more aggressive mentality towards shooting is as much a crutch (and benefit) as Lebron's more pass-first mentality. Both are dominant. Peak to peak, it's pretty clear that Kobe was in the same tier as Lebron as a scorer, even if he isn't right now because he's older and oft-injured. There's a pretty tangible gap based on physical attributes, though, so it's also pretty respectable and defensible to argue that Lebron is the better scoring threat even compared to Kobe in his prime. Debatable, but it's a strong position to take.

TS% alone, I agree, is not enough to just look and say "oh, > TS% = > scorer." You have to talk minutes, whether or not you're a first option, passing support, etc, etc. But when the players fill similar roles, shoot at similar volumes and score in similar volumes, then yeah, it becomes very relevant.

Except Lebron is not a perimeter scorer, he's a guy looking to attack inside. His game reminds me way more of Dantley than Kobe's does. Kobe's role is similar to 2nd peat MJ, and his TS% is comparable.

My point again, was simply to point out that TS% has been misused in this thread. You made some good points, and your line of thinking is more useful than most of what's been discussed.

[pancakes3]

misused in what way?

i feel like when someone asks why Kobe's advanced stats like PER and WS don't measure up and the answer comes "efficiency and rebounds" TS% not only appropriate but the crux of the argument.

Nobody (with a rational argument) is making claims on who's a better player or who's a better scorer. Merely that the differences in scoring efficiency explain the higher advanced stats.

[tsherkin]

Except Lebron is not a perimeter scorer, he's a guy looking to attack inside. His game reminds me way more of Dantley than Kobe's does. Kobe's role is similar to 2nd peat MJ, and his TS% is comparable.

His game is nothing like Dantley's, who thrived in post-up isolations.

Lebron is a perimeter scorer; his primary method of attacking starts from the outside and goes in. He begins with a lot of pick-and-roll entry to the lane and goes hard to the basket, as well as using isos. He's been posting more, which has improved his game, but he's always been a predominantly perimeter scorer. More to the point, though he doesn't loft as many jumpers as does Kobe, he still has habitually taken 5-6 shots from the perimeter two-point areas, plus another 2.5 - 5 shots from downtown, plus another 1 or 2 mid-range jumpers. He takes PLENTY of perimeter shots, so your characterization is both odd and incorrect.

My point again, was simply to point out that TS% has been misused in this thread. You made some good points, and your line of thinking is more useful than most of what's been discussed.

I will say this: it would be foolish to attempt to use TS% to denigrate Kobe down to, say, even Iverson's level. Bryant has always been efficient relative to league average, even in most of his highest-volume shooting seasons (the last few seasons excepted because of age, injury, mileage, lockouts, etc). +3% over league average is still very good. It's better than Melo, who is still a very good scorer, and AI (who was also a pretty good scorer, but overrated by many as a result of raw averages and ignoring his actually poor efficiency). Bryant is definitely a legitimately dominant player and should be recognized as such. It's just that, speaking from the standpoint of efficiency, Lebron and Jordan are examples of guys who do it better, and at similar volume while occupying similar loads in terms of being the primary option, being tasked to make plays for others, etc. Jordan is an especially good point of comparison because they played in the same system, filling the same role, so a lot of the contextual variables line up as far as making a more direct comparison.

TL;DR - Kobe's sick, and should be recognized as such, but there are a couple of guys who are definitely better and TS% can be used, as long as it is used with other supporting evidence, as one way of showing that.

But you are right, there are some people who try to make more of it than is there. He's not inefficient (especially outside of the NBA Finals), he's actually been rather efficient in general and relative to league average throughout the majority of his NBA career, including at his scoring peak. Just not as dominant as some. And yeah, Kobe is an example of a player who is way better than Dantley, something highlighted by the fact that the Pistons went bananas once they shipped Dantley's crappy-passing ass out in favor of Mark Aguirre... who actually assumed a lesser volume-shooting role in order to facilitate team offense (and giving up something like 4%+ in relative TS, though Aguirre was still very good).