NBAWOWY Stats: 2008~11 Lakers (Kobe, Gasol + Odom)

[lorak]

What RAPM are you looking at?

NPI published by Engelmann after '15 season (your numbers are PI done by Engelmann before this big '15 update):

Code: Select all

2008   2009   2010   2011   PLAYER
3,96   3,98   4,15   3,83   Kobe Bryant
4,02   2,45   1,66   1,01   Pau Gasol


[Senior]

What RAPM are you looking at?

NPI published by Engelmann after '15 season (your numbers are PI done by Engelmann before this big '15 update):

Code: Select all

2008   2009   2010   2011   PLAYER
3,96   3,98   4,15   3,83   Kobe Bryant
4,02   2,45   1,66   1,01   Pau Gasol


OK. I don't want to get into NPI vs PI atm but...

This RAPM doesn't really disprove what I said. Assuming that NPI RAPM does similar dispersal of credit for defense (i.e. bigs get bulk of the credit on defense) Kobe beats Pau in 3/4 years and only barely loses the other - which is almost certainly made up of DRAPM. Also, don't you find it strange that Pau's 2 best years of 2010/2011 are the worst two by RAPM?

If anything this difference in raw RAPM further proves my point because Kobe's DRAPM in those years wasn't more than like 0.5 and the difference is almost all on offense. The DRAPM difference between Kobe/Pau in those years was ~0.5 to begin with.

[lorak]

What RAPM are you looking at?

NPI published by Engelmann after '15 season (your numbers are PI done by Engelmann before this big '15 update):

Code: Select all

2008   2009   2010   2011   PLAYER
3,96   3,98   4,15   3,83   Kobe Bryant
4,02   2,45   1,66   1,01   Pau Gasol


OK. I don't want to get into NPI vs PI atm but...

This RAPM doesn't really disprove what I said. Assuming that NPI RAPM does similar dispersal of credit for defense (i.e. bigs get bulk of the credit on defense) Kobe beats Pau in 3/4 years and only barely loses the other - which is almost certainly made up of DRAPM.

I'm not sure if I understand what you are saying here, but if I read this correctly, then the same applies for offense, where perimeter players are generally favored over bigs, because they have more ball in their hands. So this arguments leads us nowhere. (Not to mention I disagree with it, because there is reason why bigs are better on defense and RAPM "sees" it - but I think you are well aware of that.)

Also, don't you find it strange that Pau's 2 best years of 2010/2011 are the worst two by RAPM?

First of all, I made mistake in that table: 3,83 in 2011 is Pau's RAPM.

And in 2010 looks like Gasol regressed quite a bit on defense - probably playing with Bynum didn't help him (and injury?).

% of Pau's minutes he was on the floor with Andrew (don't have data from 2008):

2009 - 29,5%
2010 - 37,7%
2011 - 28,5%

[Colbinii]

The only select few IMO are MJ/Kareem.

Every other player (Russ/Wilt/Dream/Shaq/Duncan/Lebron/Magic/Bird) lacked either post season production/offensive game/longevity/work ethic/benefited from a great system or coach/played in a weak conference/had multiple closers in Kyrie/Ray Ray or Wade, etc.

This depends on how you weigh each of these. For example:

Post-Season Production: LeBron and Russell would be at the top in terms of what they have provided in the postseason throughout their respective careers.

Offensive Game: How do you measure this? Impact? Versatility? Ability to produce great offense with little talent? Ability to raise the ceiling of an already good offense? Ability to fit in with other players?

Longevity: This is difficult. Is it better to have 12 seasons as a top 5 player or 10 seasons as a top 3 player?

Work Ethic: How do we measure this? I mean, it is easy to put Shaq towards the bottom end, but how do we evaluate work ethic? Is it time spent in the gym? What about time spent caring for your body? What about work done outside of the gym?

Benefited from a great system or Coach? LeBron, Wilt, and Dream seem to be the ones who had the least benefit, while Duncan, Kobe, Shaq, and Magic all played with arguably top 3-5 coaches of all-time. Not sure how much weight I would put here, but there is clearly a disadvantage of playing for Mike Brown, Tyronne Lue, Rudy Tomjanovich, and Don Chaney.

Weak Conference? Only so much. This should only be held against a player if his team DIDN'T make it out of the conference. I see no reason to penalize a player for "Winning" his "weak" conference year after year.

Multiple Closers? What if a player is having a bigger impact in "closing" by playing defense and making players rather than hitting shots? What if a player is making shots AND playing elite defense and making the right play for his team? Are you penalizing him there?

Offensive players are generally more impactful as well.

I don't disagree, especially with the G-word...Generally. We have impact data that shows that there have been multiple players very impactful over the past 15 years. Also, how do you define offensive players? Is KG an "offensive player"? Is Duncan? Is Hakeem? Russell played in an era where his defense was far more impactful than any offensive player given the rules, are we to discredit that?

Also for those discusisng Pau, where was he in Boston from games 3-5 of the 2010 Finals?

I would be careful when citing single, or even 3 game sample sizes. Pau played better than Kobe in Games 6 and 7 in that same series.

[sp6r=underrated]

Weak Conference? Only so much. This should only be held against a player if his team DIDN'T make it out of the conference. I see no reason to penalize a player for "Winning" his "weak" conference year after year.

Couldn't disagree more. Teams are evaluated on a season by season basis. You have to take into account quality of opposition when evaluating team performance. OKC in 2016 played more impressively in the WC playoffs than the 2002 or 2003 Nets did in the EC playoffs. It isn't arguable.

Ranking teams on post-season performance when draws are vastly different is silly. It is one reason to avoid ranking players and teams primarily on post-season play.

[deezerweeze]

Just more evidence that Bryant was the best player by far on those teams and that his impact went far beyond the box-score and crap like PERzzz and WSzz and BPMzzz, but I've shown plenty of evidence for this already (from on/off, to WOWY, to APM, to RAPM) so I doubt this will convince his detractors. Of course everybody with a brain already knew this, but it's absurd how many people actually think Pau has any sort of case, and it's absurd how overrated he became in 09 & 10. I remember tons of people calling him the best big in the league (in a league with prime Dwight!), best PF in the league (when Prime Dirk was around ), and the best player on those Laker teams. Just absolutely ridiculous.

This was Pau's resume in six seasons before he got lucky enough to join a top two player in the world:

1 All-Star team
0 All-NBA teams
0 MVP votes
Made post-season three times, swept in all three appearances
Not even regarded as top five at his own position
Consensus top 20-25 type in the league

These were his RAPM numbers:
2002: -0.3 (256)
2003: -0.8 (254)
2004: -0.2 (153)
2005: 1.4 (61)
2006: 1.3 (64)
2007: 0 (140)

The guy was nothing more than a borderline all-star type before LA, but joins the best offensive player in the world and not so coincidentally sees a huge jump in his efficiency (which of course is also reflected in his PERz and WSz) and starts getting overrated as ****. No, he was nowhere near as good as Bryant. No, he wasn't on the same planet as guys like prime Dwight and Dirk. No, hes not a top fifty player of all-time.

I'm not trying to bag on Pau here. He was a legit great top 15 player in the world from 08-11, and the way he instantly fit in and had immediate synergy with Kobe was amazing and he deserves tons of credit for that, but he wasn't comparable to prime Bryant. That's a fact.

[Colbinii]

Weak Conference? Only so much. This should only be held against a player if his team DIDN'T make it out of the conference. I see no reason to penalize a player for "Winning" his "weak" conference year after year.

Couldn't disagree more. Teams are evaluated on a season by season basis. You have to take into account quality of opposition when evaluating team performance. OKC in 2016 played more impressively in the WC playoffs than the 2002 or 2003 Nets did in the EC playoffs. It isn't arguable.

Ranking teams on post-season performance when draws are vastly different is silly. It is one reason to avoid ranking players and teams primarily on post-season play.

Well, that is why I said "only so much". For example, LeBron has played in a fairly "weak" conference, yet has gone 3-3 in the last 6 NBA Finals (and likely would have been 4-2 if not for his 2nd and 3rd options getting hurt in 2015). This is far different than Kidd and the nets getting spanked in the NBA Finals the two visits they had.

2016 OKC was easily a stronger team than the Nets and as you said, played better.

We should be taking into account level of competition when ranking post season play, I don't disagree with that notion one bit. However, when a team or player is consistently making the Finals and playing fantastic in them then it helps mitigate the lack of competition in the conference.

[sp6r=underrated]

However, when a team or player is consistently making the Finals and playing fantastic in them

Are they playing fantastic?
They've played 36 finals games since 2011. They're 17-19 with a -3 MOV. In 4 out of the 6 finals they have been outscored by the opposition.

I did a rough SRS. HC is worth 3 points. This is back of the envelope.

Code: Select all

2011:       2.08
2012:       9.84
2013:       5.53
2014:      -5.40
2015:       2.84
2016:      11.38
Avg. SRS:   4.72

They don't look dominant at all and far closer to a generic WC elite team. Their RS performance which has never produced an ATG team and isn't even that special. Their PS performance has been erratic which is what you would expect given the short sample size of the post-season. As an example the 2016 Cavs played better in the post-season than the 2013 Heat but I have little doubt which club was better.

I feel very confident that they would not have 6 straight final appearances in balanced conference okat. My post in this thread isn't so much to rag on the finals streak but rather focus on the fact the post-season tournament is just that a tournament and should not be the sole focus when evaluating teams.

[pastis]

what about Winshares/PER? Btw: i think most people were talking about PLAYOFFS. I watched the entire 2010 lakers postseason and for me gasol was not far away from bryant by impact.

2009 Postseason, Gasol had 4.3 WS (.221 WS/48) and PER of 22 and Kobe and WS of 4.7 (.238 WS/48) and PER of 26.8

2010 Postseason, Gasol had 4.3 WS (.224 WS/48) and PER of 24 and Kobe had 3.6 WS (.190 WS/48) and PER of 24.7. Gasol also lead the team in DS(1.1 to Kobe's 0.9) and OWS(3.2 to Kobe's 2.7).



Regular Season:
2009 Gasol had a WS of 13.9 (WS/48 of .223) and PER of 22.2 to Kobes 12.7 (WS/48 of .206) and PER of 24.4

2010 gasol had a WS of 11(WS/48 of .220) and PER of 22.9 to Kobes 9.4 (WS/48 of .160) and PER of 21.9

2011 gasol had a WS of 14.7 (WS/48 of .232) an PER of 23.3 to Kobes 10.8 (WS/48 of .178) and PER 23.9

Gasol and Bryant were a perfect team. Both profited form each other and i dont think that Gasol would have had the same succes without Kobe and - to a lesser extent - vice versa

Kobe is obviously closer to top 10 than 12, based off career resume, but his prime and peak could be argued anywhere within the 10-20 range. With the Moses Malone, Jerry West, KG, Barkley and Dirk's of the world.

[mademan]

Should dispel any nonsense about Gasol being equally valuable in 09 and 2010. Yes some anti Kobe guys have said that.

He was in the playoffs. 19-11-3, 56 FG%, 23 PER, 6.4 BPM, all while playing elite defense (shut down KG and Howard)

Don't talk to me about shutting down a hobbled 34 year old Kg that was still getting right from surgery.

Cumulatively, Kobe was very clearly the most impactful player on the 2008-2010 Lakers. I dont think, however, that it's a stretch at all to think that Pau was more impactful against the C's in 2010. To dismiss it as even a competition is pretty ridiculous to me

[Senior]

I'm not sure if I understand what you are saying here, but if I read this correctly, then the same applies for offense, where perimeter players are generally favored over bigs, because they have more ball in their hands. So this arguments leads us nowhere. (Not to mention I disagree with it, because there is reason why bigs are better on defense and RAPM "sees" it - but I think you are well aware of that.)

Sort of - it's not a matter of just having the ball more, it's that the ATG playmakers can influence the game more. Same with ATG defensive bigs - but I don't really believe Pau to be in that level. It's the same idea we discussed with Dirk vs Kobe a little while ago - I feel the same way here about Pau's defense.

First of all, I made mistake in that table: 3,83 in 2011 is Pau's RAPM.

And in 2010 looks like Gasol regressed quite a bit on defense - probably playing with Bynum didn't help him (and injury?).

% of Pau's minutes he was on the floor with Andrew (don't have data from 2008):

2009 - 29,5%
2010 - 37,7%
2011 - 28,5%

OK, so Kobe is 1.01 and Pau is 3.83? That makes a little more sense considering how that year went - Pau was having a really great start to the season and Kobe had the knee surgery in the 2010 offseason so he was up and down the whole season. I definitely buy that Kobe had taken a step down in 2011 and I'd bet anything that he was a - in DRAPM.

That said, even with Odom and Pau having great years (arguably better than 2010), the Lakers got demolished in the playoffs anyway despite having the same W-L/better SRS vs 2010 - since Kobe couldn't play at the level he did in 2009/2010. Pau also had a lot of problems (girlfriend/Shannon Brown thing) but part of that had to do with Kobe no longer able to play at the level he once did. Remember how Kobe couldn't even practice consistently with his team in 2011?

As long as Kobe was prime-level Kobe LA was fine. Once he wasn't, they were boned even with Pau/Odom having excellent years, the 2011 bench being better than what they had in 08-10, and Bynum giving LA more than he had given them in the previous title years. If that's not significant impact, I don't know what is. Pretty much everything from the 09/10 Lakers stayed the same or improved except for Kobe's health. The WOWY even shows this - LA was -1.1 with Kobe alone and +8.8 with Pau alone...the problem was that LA wasn't a contender with Pau as the best player, and that's why they limped past NOH and got killed vs Dallas.

I don't really know if Pau's defense was affected by Bynum in 2010 - I'd say the entire team was more on half coast-mode in the 2010 RS. Kobe, Pau, and Bynum all missed a handful of games and they were prioritizing health as they were an older team looking at the playoffs. It's not surprising to see from a Phil Jackson team.

They were actually a tiny bit better by DRTG in 2010 RS than 2009 but Vlad Rad played 46 games for the 09 Lakers - once Ariza came into the starting lineup the 09 Lakers were dominant on defense (they were actually better on absolute DRTG vs their RS despite playing 4 good offensive teams). I don't really believe that the Pau/Bynum pairing is inherently flawed (not many PFs can take advantage of Pau imo), but I do believe that it hurts LA's defense in that Odom probably isn't playing with Pau/Bynum and he was their best (or 2nd best) defender due to his length/versatility/mobility. Helps to have Pau at C but having LO helps more I think since Pau's not really a traditional rim protector/defensive C.

[carlquincy]

Great series man!!

Wow, this '09 trio actually beat out '08 Celtics trio, and the Heat trio!!

Only the '05 Spurs trio came close.

[rebirthoftheM]

What is most amusing is that when a Kobe comes across looking great in a stat, or a +/-, the automatic reaction is to try and contextualize things to explain away his advantage. But when Kobe comes across looking bad in a stat, or a +/- there is no further analysis cause "the stats don't lie and my eyes confirm".

As is happening with Westbrook this season, the discussion about Kobe's play amongst NBA heads on forums is corrupted. Strong strong bias in the way certain players are approached.

[andrewww]

What is most amusing is that when a Kobe comes across looking great in a stat, or a +/-, the automatic reaction is to try and contextualize things to explain away his advantage. But when Kobe comes across looking bad in a stat, or a +/- there is no further analysis cause "the stats don't lie and my eyes confirm".

As is happening with Westbrook this season, the discussion about Kobe's play amongst NBA heads on forums is corrupted. Strong strong bias in the way certain players are approached.

Its beyond obvious. The Kobe haters are typically the ones dismissing valid arguments and putting a negative spin on anything remotely in his favor. Just look at the response in any pro-Kobe thread. You generally hear crickets aside from a few usual suspects who try to downplay him.

I mean, even Westbrook putting him historic numbers as a 6 seed isnt too far off from 2006 Kobe. Yet we all know Kobe was portrayed as a selfish gunner who ran Shaq out of town and deserved a weak supporting cast. The narrative in 2017 is that KD left Westbrook and being the hero that he is, Westbrook should be the MVP. Funny how narratives and player bias play a HUGE role in MVP debates. Oh so now we can make an exception for a player not on a top 3 team? Its a joke.

[G35]

Weak Conference? Only so much. This should only be held against a player if his team DIDN'T make it out of the conference. I see no reason to penalize a player for "Winning" his "weak" conference year after year.

Couldn't disagree more. Teams are evaluated on a season by season basis. You have to take into account quality of opposition when evaluating team performance. OKC in 2016 played more impressively in the WC playoffs than the 2002 or 2003 Nets did in the EC playoffs. It isn't arguable.

Ranking teams on post-season performance when draws are vastly different is silly. It is one reason to avoid ranking players and teams primarily on post-season play.

Well, that is why I said "only so much". For example, LeBron has played in a fairly "weak" conference, yet has gone 3-3 in the last 6 NBA Finals (and likely would have been 4-2 if not for his 2nd and 3rd options getting hurt in 2015). This is far different than Kidd and the nets getting spanked in the NBA Finals the two visits they had.

2016 OKC was easily a stronger team than the Nets and as you said, played better.

We should be taking into account level of competition when ranking post season play, I don't disagree with that notion one bit. However, when a team or player is consistently making the Finals and playing fantastic in them then it helps mitigate the lack of competition in the conference.

You are looking at Lebron's record with a glass half full/best case scenario

Lebron's finals record
2007 0-4 not even a series...Cavs were lucky to be there
2011 2-4 Lost to an underdog Mavericks team who went Cinderella in the playoffs (which is more likely to happen in WC than EC)
2012 4-1 Convincingly beat the Thunder, this helps his case
2013 4-3 The Spurs blew that series, should have won in 6 if not for the Ray Allen shot
2014 1-4 Spurs mopped the Cavs
2015 2-4 Cavs lost with injuries playing a factor in the series
2016 4-3 Cavs won the series with injuries/suspensions playing a factor in the series/first team to come back from 3-1 w/o HC


Finals record total 17- 23
Could have easily lost the 2013 and 2016 series for a finals record of 1-6

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/lebrons-finals-record-isnt-really-a-disappointment/

This site talks about Lebron's teams chances of winning the finals in each year:

% chance of winning
2007 13%
2011 63%
2012 51%
2013 66%
2014 31%
2015 28%
2016 25%

Now this somewhat excuses Lebron's poor finals record...but then it highlights the fact that if those teams were in the West they likely do not even make it to the finals. Also, Lebron lost in 2011 with a 63% chance of winning and nearly lost in 2013 with 66% chance of winning.

So the two titles that prop Lebron up is 2011 and 2016. Particularly, the 2016, without that comeback Lebron is 2-5 in the finals and the EC is looking even more like the junior varsity division......

[G35]

What is most amusing is that when a Kobe comes across looking great in a stat, or a +/-, the automatic reaction is to try and contextualize things to explain away his advantage. But when Kobe comes across looking bad in a stat, or a +/- there is no further analysis cause "the stats don't lie and my eyes confirm".

As is happening with Westbrook this season, the discussion about Kobe's play amongst NBA heads on forums is corrupted. Strong strong bias in the way certain players are approached.

Its beyond obvious. The Kobe haters are typically the ones dismissing valid arguments and putting a negative spin on anything remotely in his favor. Just look at the response in any pro-Kobe thread. You generally hear crickets aside from a few usual suspects who try to downplay him.

I mean, even Westbrook putting him historic numbers as a 6 seed isnt too far off from 2006 Kobe. Yet we all know Kobe was portrayed as a selfish gunner who ran Shaq out of town and deserved a weak supporting cast. The narrative in 2017 is that KD left Westbrook and being the hero that he is, Westbrook should be the MVP. Funny how narratives and player bias play a HUGE role in MVP debates. Oh so now we can make an exception for a player not on a top 3 team? Its a joke.

Good points, I have been wondering all year why Harden and WB are being celebrated for what Kobe did in 2006 with a weaker supporting cast. Kobe had to overcome all the narratives after the Shaq breakup, everyone in the media was down on Kobe.......

[THKNKG]

I don't like Kobe at all, but I appreciate his 08-10 seasons, because he showed he could integrate with lots of talent without it all blowing up (like it did early in his career).

[Jedi32]

I don't like Kobe at all, but I appreciate his 08-10 seasons, because he showed he could integrate with lots of talent without it all blowing up (like it did early in his career).

lol it didn't blow up early in his career. dr buss decided to trade shaq a year early rather than a year late. before that he and shaq wen't to 4 finals in 5 years winning three. sounds like a pretty dominant duo to me.

[THKNKG]

I don't like Kobe at all, but I appreciate his 08-10 seasons, because he showed he could integrate with lots of talent without it all blowing up (like it did early in his career).

lol it didn't blow up early in his career. dr buss decided to trade shaq a year early rather than a year late. before that he and shaq wen't to 4 finals in 5 years winning three. sounds like a pretty dominant duo to me.

I'm not saying that like they accomplished nothing, but they certainly could have accomplished more if they didn't let their egos get in the way.

[Colbinii]

I don't like Kobe at all, but I appreciate his 08-10 seasons, because he showed he could integrate with lots of talent without it all blowing up (like it did early in his career).

lol it didn't blow up early in his career. dr buss decided to trade shaq a year early rather than a year late. before that he and shaq wen't to 4 finals in 5 years winning three. sounds like a pretty dominant duo to me.

I think what Micahclay was trying to say is they didn't stay together like Magic/Kareem or MJ/Pippen. Shaq still had a few impactful seasons left and the writing was on the wall before Shaq was past his prime.

Sent from my SM-G920P using RealGM mobile app