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

[An Unbiased Fan]

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.

For clarification, I wasn't referring to your post, but some that came after it.

[HilltopperJay]

What exactly IS the proper way to evaluate Kobe then?

Can't use PER, can't use Win Shares, can't use TS% unless you tweak it a certain way & only compare it to certain players in certain years, can't use fg% because that's obviously not ever going to favor Kobe, & you can't compare efficiency relative to league average.

[Chosen01]

What exactly IS the proper way to evaluate Kobe then?

Can't use PER, can't use Win Shares, can't use TS% unless you tweak it a certain way & only compare it to certain players in certain years, can't use fg% because that's obviously not ever going to favor Kobe, & you can't compare efficiency relative to league average.

PPG. But seriously, although he isn't as efficient as LeBron,MJ and co there aren't many players that are as perimeter-oriented and shoot with such volume as he does with a 55+% TS. Though I'd still take MJ,Wade and LeBron's style of play any day due to it being more reliable especially in the playoffs.

[microfib4thewin]

What exactly IS the proper way to evaluate Kobe then?

Can't use PER, can't use Win Shares, can't use TS% unless you tweak it a certain way & only compare it to certain players in certain years, can't use fg% because that's obviously not ever going to favor Kobe, & you can't compare efficiency relative to league average.

Ring count, but use stats when someone has more rings than Kobe does.

[An Unbiased Fan]

What exactly IS the proper way to evaluate Kobe then?

The same way you evaluate everyone else. Don't just look at one stat and say "Player A had a higher PER". Don't just say "Player A had a better TS% than Kobe, so he's a better scorer".

Add context.

[HilltopperJay]

What exactly IS the proper way to evaluate Kobe then?

The same way you evaluate everyone else. Don't just look at one stat and say "Player A had a higher PER". Don't just say "Player A had a better TS% than Kobe, so he's a better scorer".

Pretty sure no one does this, most do take into account multiple stats & ways of measuring production & efficiency. Although if a player is the main scorer for their team & shoots on a similar volume with higher efficiency & same/higher scoring output, as is the case with some who have been mentioned in this thread, pretty sure that makes them a better scorer.

[Doctor MJ]

The same way you evaluate everyone else. Don't just look at one stat and say "Player A had a higher PER". Don't just say "Player A had a better TS% than Kobe, so he's a better scorer".

Add context.

So here's the situation again and again here:

Topics A, B, C... are all relevant, but were someone to try to address them all at once, the vast majority of people would tune out.

So, people address A really well to try to get to the crux quickly, and some people bring up B.

People then address B in a coherent argument that fits with A, and some people bring up C, or don't even go that far, complaining "Well you should have brought up A & B at the same time, now it just looks fishy."

The reality is that there's no perfect way to communicate to an audience of multiple people. If the way people are discussing things isn't the way that's going to convince you that's too bad, but it's not like you can expect them to be psychic.

And of course there's also the matter that if you really are determined to find an issue with an argument relating to a belief which you holistically disagree with, you can find it because of the reasons outlined.

[kasino]

I don't like PER and can't understand a winshare
but starting
RS 24.39 12th all-time/PS 23.9 11th all-time
RS 154.3 averaging 11WS per season jumps from 20th to 8th/PS 28 averaging 2.1 then 32.2 going 7th to 5th

now I don't know how WS/48 works it looks like an average, could be wrong
if it is
RS--.194 WS/48
PS--.174 WS/48

now I could be wrong how some of these things works if you know how and see an error of my ways do tell
I do know however mediocre isn't Kobe in any way you spin it

and all his best seasons come without Shaq, safe to say without him would have better personal stats/better individual awards for his younger years and less championship hardware

[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

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.

And Kobe has played 16 years to Bird's 12.. not to mention their best 3 years is virtually identical (it's posted above)

[An Unbiased Fan]

The same way you evaluate everyone else. Don't just look at one stat and say "Player A had a higher PER". Don't just say "Player A had a better TS% than Kobe, so he's a better scorer".

Add context.

So here's the situation again and again here:

Topics A, B, C... are all relevant, but were someone to try to address them all at once, the vast majority of people would tune out.

So, people address A really well to try to get to the crux quickly, and some people bring up B.

People then address B in a coherent argument that fits with A, and some people bring up C, or don't even go that far, complaining "Well you should have brought up A & B at the same time, now it just looks fishy."

The reality is that there's no perfect way to communicate to an audience of multiple people. If the way people are discussing things isn't the way that's going to convince you that's too bad, but it's not like you can expect them to be psychic.

And of course there's also the matter that if you really are determined to find an issue with an argument relating to a belief which you holistically disagree with, you can find it because of the reasons outlined.

I'm not sure how you extrapolate all that out of my statement.

Again, people should use the same logic with Kobe, that they do everyone else. Citing one stat, and making a sweeping statement on it, shouldn't be the case. This is something I have said a million times on RealGM.

Not everyone uses the same logic when evaluating players to be sure, all I think is that they should be consistent in their process, and that they look at the complete comparison, not just certain aspects that favor their position. Too often I see people use one process to compare player A to player B, and then a different one to compare player C to player D.

[shobe_24]

Great so Kobe's "advanced stats" are mediocre.

Well, here's my evaluation:

The eye test! We've seen most of these player play basketball, so it isn't difficult to tell apart the good from the "mediocre"
5 Championships for a SUPERSTAR franchise level player (Don't bring the Robert Horry BS).

How many Franchise level Superstars have 5 championships?

Thank You.

[HilltopperJay]

How many Franchise level Superstars have 5 championships?

Thank You.

How many franchise level superstars got to play with the most dominant player of their era for half their career?

[shobe_24]

And the amount of hate for Kobe is really REALLY strong on this forum.

Yes players have fans who support the heck outta their player, but damn! I've never seen a player receive so much hate with so much detail as Kobe receives. They discredit him every which way possible, Championships? Well, "Most dominant center" "Most stacked front-court EVAHHH" 81 Points: "Worst defense EVAHHH" Being the best SG for 10+ Years: "Well, he's no MJ and he's a copycat" Consistently one of the best most successful players: "Well, he's got the best franchise in the NBA!"

There's no win with you haters.

[shobe_24]

And the amount of hate for Kobe is really REALLY strong on this forum.

Yes players have fans who support the heck outta their player, but damn! I've never seen a player receive so much hate with so much detail as Kobe receives. They discredit him every which way possible, Championships? Well, "Most dominant center" "Most stacked front-court EVAHHH" 81 Points: "Worst defense EVAHHH" Being the best SG for 10+ Years: "Well, he's no MJ and he's a copycat" Consistently one of the best most successful players: "Well, he's got the best franchise in the NBA!"

There's no win with you haters.

How many franchise level superstars got to play with the most dominant player of their era for half their career?

Exhibit A!

[Doctor MJ]

I do know however mediocre isn't Kobe in any way you spin it

The OP is using the word "mediocre" in quotes to try to express that the results are below what he'd expect given Kobe's reputation. He probably could have phrased it better, but he's most definitely not trying to call Kobe a mediocre player.

[Doctor MJ]

I'm not sure how you extrapolate all that out of my statement.

Again, people should use the same logic with Kobe, that they do everyone else. Citing one stat, and making a sweeping statement on it, shouldn't be the case. This is something I have said a million times on RealGM.

Not everyone uses the same logic when evaluating players to be sure, all I think is that they should be consistent in their process, and that they look at the complete comparison, not just certain aspects that favor their position. Too often I see people use one process to compare player A to player B, and then a different one to compare player C to player D.

Anyone who's worth their salt as an analyst isn't judging scorers simply by scoring volume & efficiency. However, when people wonder how people could possibly argue that Kobe wasn't just as effective of a scorer as Player X, using a couple quick statistics is the easiest way to do this. Refusing to use statistics oftentimes simply means the other person will say "no he isn't". Using more statistics than that, or using statistic-prose layered arguments that factor in common rebuttals, is almost certainly going to leave a fair amount of the population totally lost.

In many circumstances, it's best to just give a quick stat response, and expect to have to clarify from there based the questions or concerns the other poster has.

[Doctor MJ]

And the amount of hate for Kobe is really REALLY strong on this forum.

Yes players have fans who support the heck outta their player, but damn! I've never seen a player receive so much hate with so much detail as Kobe receives. They discredit him every which way possible, Championships? Well, "Most dominant center" "Most stacked front-court EVAHHH" 81 Points: "Worst defense EVAHHH" Being the best SG for 10+ Years: "Well, he's no MJ and he's a copycat" Consistently one of the best most successful players: "Well, he's got the best franchise in the NBA!"

There's no win with you haters.

You'll get to the bottom of stuff a lot better if you refrain from dismissing other people with name-calling labels. Just rationally speaking, when you're calling someone a hater, you're implying that they have so much anger in their heart toward a player that they get off on saying any kind of mean or negative thing about him, and that's their motivation for spending their free time on a basketball board. Who does that? I mean, if you see a Celtic fan gleefully troll the Laker board, yes, that's exactly what they're doing, but what about everyone else?

I say all this because there's a very obvious reason why Kobe's so controversial on these boards that's mentioned in the TITLE of this thread: Kobe typically doesn't look as good by advanced stats as a large number of people think he should. So you get the people who dismiss the stats, and you get people who don't, and they're not going to agree. It's almost as simple as that.

If you want to understand where "the other side" is coming from when someone talks about Kobe's stats, go understand Kobe's stats.

If you want to try to show "stat people" why they're wrong, go understand Kobe's stats and come back with good arguments.

If you don't want to do either of those things, that's fine, but stop calling people names.

[GetItDone]

Why is Kobe so mediocre in the Finals, too?

Career Finals stats:

25/5/5 41% FG

[Minge]

Why is Kobe so mediocre in the Finals, too?

2000 Finals: 19 Pts. 4 Reb. 5 Ast. | G1. G2. G3. G4. G5. G6.
2001 Finals: 27 Pts. 9 Reb. 6 Ast. | G1. G2. G3. G4. G5.
2002 Finals: 27 Pts. 6 Reb. 5 Ast. | G1. G2. G3. G4.
2004 Finals: 22 Pts. 3 Reb. 4 Ast. | G1. G2. G3. G4. G5.
2008 Finals: 25 Pts. 5 Reb. 5 Ast. | G1. G2. G3. G4. G5. G6.
2009 Finals: 32 Pts. 6 Reb. 7 Ast. | G1. G2. G3. G4. G5.
2010 Finals: 28 Pts. 8 Reb. 4 Ast. | G1. G2. G3. G4. G5. G6. G7.

[nikomCH]

I'm going based off memory but I'm pretty sure all of those teams except the 00 Pacers were top 5 defensively and 4 of those 7 were top TWO defensively. Can anyone name another player who went through something similar to that in the Finals in recent history? Kobe has not exactly had the fortune to go up against good, but not great, defenses in the Finals.