thebottomline wrote:I find the Kobe vs. Kobe debate really thought-provoking as I try to peg down when he peaked in terms of player value. The argument that replacing '08 Kobe with '06 Kobe would yield better results for the '08 Lakers is a compelling one to me.
Could '06 Kobe, if asked to play '08 Kobe's role on the '08 Lakers, have done better at that role than '08 Kobe did? How do we even determine this? Well, I think the relevant question to ask is - did '08 Kobe improve in any way over '06 Kobe - mentally, offensively, defensively? '08 Kobe certainly displayed a more well-rounded game than '06 Kobe, but I find myself feeling that it was simply due to team circumstance, having a better supporting cast that took some of the offensive burden off of him and allowed him to focus on doing other things.
My gut tells me '06 Kobe could have fulfilled '08 Kobe's role slightly better. Slightly better athleticism due to younger legs, just as polished offensively, probably better defensively when going full effort. Heck, he played a more all-around game in prior years such as '01 and '03. But in '06, his coach wanted him to carry a bigger offensive load, and he did it very well. But could '01, '03, or '08 Kobe have played '06 Kobe's role on the '06 Lakers just as well as '06 Kobe did? I find myself saying no, not quite.
So if my gut tells me '06 Kobe could have played '01, '03 and '08 Kobe's role just as well, but the reverse isn't quite as true... doesn't that mean in my view, Kobe's skillset, his value, peaked in 2006?
You're asking the wrong question IMO. What good is it to look at a team that has essentially no chance of winning a title? The question is could 06 Kobe have played 08 Kobe's role as well. I lean toward not really, and here's why:
The 2003 Break Out
After the 2002 season, Kobe put some work in. His offensive arsenal was ridiculous in 2003 -- he made some tweaks to his jump shot and this allowed him to turn the 3-pointer into a contested jumper. This was range -- covered and uncovered -- that he simply didn't have before. And BOOM -- he became a scoring machine. Of all the youtube highlights I re-watch occasionally for "LOLs" Kobe's 55 pt against Washington is near the top. He also had a 40-point month in 2003 (including 9 straight 40-point games). Not 2006, with cushy rule changes to help perimeter player, in 2003, where the league was close to bottoming out defensively.
The first thing everyone criticizes about 2003 is his games without Shaq. Well, they came at the beginning of the year, and there was a learning curve for Bryant:
(1) Learning to play in a BAD unipolar system (the 03 team was thin -- even Fox was out early)
(2) Learning to play with his new skills
Because WITH Shaq on the team, we still see this:
"Month" 1 (thru New Year): 25.1 ppg 54% TS 4.3 TOV (3.6 BEV)
January: 30.1 ppg 57% TS 3.2 TOV (7.6 BEV)
February: 39.7 ppg 58% TS 3.4 TOV (8.4 BEV)
March: 27.9 ppg 55% TS 3.0 TOV (5.3 BEV)
3g in Feb w.out Shaq: 44 ppg 59% TS 3.7 TOV (7.8 BEV)
There is a clear progression of Kobe "ramping up" as the year unfolds. I've talked about this before, particularly with the 98 Jazz (Stockton misses first 18g), but TIME is a confounding variable in some cases. Here, and watching the year, it was pretty clear to me Kobe would have looked a lot better if O'Neal missed his 15g in February instead of November.
OK, so what the heck does this have to do with 2006-2008?
The Pause (04-05)
Here's what: in 2004, the Lakers went Super Team I. Kobe had a court case. He played a totally different role and there was no way he was going to unleash scoring bombs the way he did in 03. In 05, the team dissolved and he was AGAIN put in a different role...one which saw him on the ball constantly, defenses cueing on him, and led to frustrating decision-making and turnovers. He had a new coach and offenses to. He did not adapt as well as I thought he would have. Again,
he did not adapt as well.The Resume Scoring Mode
So what did he do in 2006? He just shot the living hell out of the ball again. We don't really need to delve into whether this was "optimal" or not, because we KNOW on good teams it just wouldn't be necessary. But the point is the difference in skill and athleticism between 03 and 06 is REALLY small IMO (although nod to 06 there), only people overlook the obvious contextual changes around the Lakers and fixate on the numbers. It just so happens that 2003 and 2006 didn't happen back-to-back.
In 2007, it's a little more of the same. The Lakers were on year 3 of the post-Shaq decision...and things weren't looking good. But Bryant's decision to try and find a more optimal balance, even with a flawed team, was a BETTER strategy -- any strategy that promotes balance, diversity and growth is better than a 5% single-minded approach. (I've said it before: maybe playing like that in 06 has the 06 team 3% more ready against Phoenix...which results in a win.)
Finding a Better Balance in 2007
2007 Kobe showed he had the same scoring mojo -- another 40-point month in March. What people never seem to bring up about the 2007 Lakers is that with Bryant dialing it way back into better balance mode, they started 26-13 (2.7 SRS, +4.1 ORtg). That was with Lamar missing a bunch of games (I analyzed the 07 season extensively earlier). LA then went 6-16 with Odom back -- what the heck happened?
Vlad Radmanovic missed a bunch of games. All that 3-point shooting the Odom-less stretch (39% around Bryant) dropped to 33% for this stretch of games. They had a 6-game losing streak, then at the end of it another 6-game losing streak. In that stretch, Bryant started to shoot more (up to 24.2 FGA/g) and LA put together a 5-game win streak. But Bryant kept shooting...
7-26 v Mem (L) 92 ORtg
19-44 v Hou (L) 98 ORtg
He stopped for a game against Sacramento (6-14) -- the Lakers posted a 130 ORtg in a win.
14-31 v Den (L) 102 ORtg
13-34 @ LAC (L) 97 ORtg
13-27 in Sea (W) 120 ORtg (38 TS attempts in this game!)14-25 v Pho (L) 109 ORtg
9-30 @ Den (L) 113 ORtg (teammates 8-17 from 3)
17-33 v LAC (L) 110 ORtg (40 TS attempts)
7-26 @ Pho (L) 95 ORtg
All told, over those games Bryant took THIRY ONE FGA's a game (11 FTA). The team's offense was +2.6 (+1.2 if you exclude the Sac game). In the swoon before the strategy change, the team's offense (w/Kobe and Lamar in) was +1.9. This, in a nutshell, should tell you why you don't NEED to play this brand of basketball, even when the team ain't very good. 40 ppg and 56% TS is really cool for youtube, but it's not conducive to winning titles. And it's not conducive for 'making other guys better" (ie making them treats on the court), which will make the team more diverse offensively. Which finally leads me to 2008...
Finding Balance In 2008Kobe finally snapped in the off season and demanded a trade. Then he just came to work and played. In the first 36 games, before Bynum's injury,
the Lakers were a 7 SRS team. Seven. The ORtg was again +4. His shot attempts were back down to 20 per. He averaged 13.9% DREB% -- a clear increase there. And the young Lakers had a good bench (depth), better defense (Bynum), and a stable off-guard (Fisher). But offensively, it still looked like
Odom 13.5 ppg
Bynum 13 ppg
Fisher 12.4 ppg
Farmar 9.3 ppg
Walton 7.9 ppg
Radmanovic 7.4 ppg
The Lakers shot 37% from 3 in that stretch. Their bench scored 71 points in a game at one point. So yes, Bryant only returned to the championship spotlight and won the MVP because Gasol joined team/KG got hurt...but the touting of his play that year doesn't necessarily come from the end of his season, it comes from what he was doing at the beginning. The final piece of the puzzle is that he was playing in such a way with his teammates that the introduction of a mid-post passing big tailor-made for the triangle was as seamless as one could imagine.
Do I think 2006 Bryant COULD have done the same? Probably. Do I think he could have done better simply because in 2006 (and parts of 2007) he played Kobe-ball? No -- don't see any evidence for that. Do I think it's likely that 2006 Bryant could have done what 2008 Bryant did
without all the experience that I just listed? Not really. At least not
quite as well. In other words, I don't 2006 Bryant would have
adapted as well.
Yes, he was the Suns one lone "true" big man on defense. (Random string of adjectives ftw.)
