picc wrote:From distance, certainly. Though i’d argue that Kobe’s range extends beyond Nash’s in spite of his inferior accuracy from the arc.
There's a) nothing to prove that because Kobe doesn't hit those shots consistently or at a good percentage and b) no reason to reward Kobe for taking stupid shots.
Free throws are a common thread in arguments for shooters over one another, but they represent the most basic, nuance-free aspect of the skill possible. You could say that goes to prove your point, and reference its pure simplicity as further evidence of the fact. I would go the other way, and say that shooting is such a finely nuanced and layered act in actual live game scenarios that situations involving a player standing still, taking his time and shooting a straight line with no physical hindrances at all represents too much of a static read to be more than a correlation. Similar to career spot-up shooters, and the reason players like Steve Novak can convert at a machine-like rate when left alone to concentrate yet become tentative bricklayers under pressure.
It's not the sum of my argument, and there's something to be said for an inverse correlation between volume and efficiency, it was merely one element of the commentary I was making.
But its not just that. He’s able to nail attempts where he doesn’t have any look, under pressure that should theoretically be impossible to even shoot over, let alone shoot over accurately. As a result of his ability to perfectly square his shoulders and follow-through, Kobe needs literally zero airspace to convert field goal attempts, from any range. And often needs to as a result of his playing style.
You're arguing luck on bad shot attempts that are themselves representative of a small sample. You're also failing to account for cognitive bias, because we certainly remember the ones he makes, but he misses a lot of shots before those go in. You shoot enough, you're gonna hit some of tht. Now, to some extent, there are definitely shots which Nash would a) never take and b) couldn't make because he doesn't have the physical tools to do quite what Kobe was doing. I penalize him a lot of the time for those shots when they aren't under clock pressure because they aren't smart or consistently efficient looks. They aren't, in other words, necessary. 05, 06, sure, I won't say anything, but when he's taking those on deeper, more talented teams (which he has), it's not good stuff or reflective of shooting quality. You're effectively arguing that sound shot selection and discretion are bad things, when this is precisely the root of one of the major criticisms of Kobe's game.
I don't think that he'd be able to shoot the way Nash does given a similar role, and I think that's the separation right there. Kobe's better at volume scoring, creating opportunities for himself, but that doesn't mean he's the better shooter, it means he's superior at generating shots. He's a much more dangerous slasher and post up player, but his actual ability to let fly and sink a jumper doesn't seem to compare.
Here is my issue with this. If Bryant started taking better, more selective shots during one of the prior seasons, focusing on maximizing his hot zones and raising his FG%, would he actually be an inherently better shooter than before?
Yes. "Better" is a subjective term, but playing more intelligently is definitely a good thing and representative of skill development.
So the dilemma here is that if Kobe entered his prime with a less bullheaded, more efficiency-oriented approach, cut out those nutty “kobe shots” he’s famous for, and ended up with a higher career FG%, your proposed philosophy would see him regarded as a better shooter than he is now, while not actually representing a boost in natural talent for it.
Does that seem fair to you?
Yes. Intelligence and focus are natural talents, and they are relevant to shooting ability. The results on the court are important, and the deviation between those results is similarly so.
You're never going to prove that Kobe has more natural talent for shooting than Nash, but it's demonstrably true that he's more stubborn and willing to do stupid things than Nash, and I'll not credit him for that. Nash lets fly from 3pt range 3.2 times per game on his career and had 3 straight seasons at 4.3/g or higher, which is volume very similar to much of Kobe's career (himself a career 3.9 3PA/g player). On those seasons, he obliterated anything Bryant has ever done, and was still doing all kinds of nasty things with his mid-range jumper on 5, 6 attempts per game. You're trying to correct for the volume gap, but the result is still that Nash is shooting a fair bit and doing so at levels we don't really see from Bryant. The biggest argument you've got is that he's willing to take percentage-dropping, low-quality shots in bulk and without regard for superior options around him. That is most certainly a negative. That he DOES let fly from longer distances than does Nash (and doesn't really hit with all that great frequency or efficiency when he does so) really isn't an argument that he has greater range, it's an argument that he's willing to take dumber shots until they go in.
Kobe's an ATG player, but you're butting into territory where you're trying to wield his greatest weakness as a strength and description of his shooting talent, and to me, that doesn't really make a lot of sense.
I sense we're beginning to circle here, though, so I"ll just call "agree to disagree" on this one.
And i’ll add LaMarcus Aldridge to my previous statement. He’s as good as you’re going to get as far as guard-like shooting talents in modern bigmen. The almighty Dirk aside, of course.
Mmmm.... He's a very good shooter, but he's actually less effective at it than Garnett and doesn't do anything in terms of those shooting abilities to separate himself from KG. Quite talented, of course, and certainly in the mix with all of the other big mid-range shooters we're discussing, absolutely.
