Kobe Bryant Breaks Down James Harden's Game

[dhsilv2]

The contrast between this topic and the Tim Duncan greatness topic is striking. 7 pages of people correctly pointing out that stats don't reflect TD's greatness, yet...with Kobe the opposite opinion.

That's their hypocrisy. They have to tear down Kobe, to defend their mancrush LeBron.

Now that I've watched an entire season of Lebron up close, there is just something about his game that I find is lacking. Perhaps not his game, but his mental makeup. His numbers are gaudy, but he plays with a certain level of fear that I think waters down his impact. I think he's satisfied, win or lose, if he can look at his stats at the end of the night and say "not my fault", whether he took the game by the steering wheel or not.

Kobe played with a doggedness that sometimes hurt his numbers, but it was that "win at all costs and live with the consequences" mentality that I feel can't be quantified or put on paper. There were just too many games I saw him drag the team to victory that they had no business winning. Too many shots that made me say "wtf are you doing" only to watch it fall in (or more often, miss!). His game just had me on the edge of my seat every night, because I knew he was going to leave it all on the floor. It was amazing to watch and I miss the guy.

The problem is your memory remembers the amazing, the comebacks, the crazy success. We remember greatness and forget bad just as quickly as we forget so so. Kobe is exciting to watch. He takes the last shot, forces the impossible up, and he's better than most at doing it. Still it wasn't like he was always hitting those shots. Lebron is boring...but boring isn't always a bad thing. It just isn't as memorable and doesn't give us that kick.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200106060LAL.html
https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200406130DET.html
https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200904230UTA.html
https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/201004240OKC.html

[theforumblue]

i dont have espn access. did anyone actually watch this? was it interesting? since there's no talk of "omg kobe is dissing harden to make himself look good" i'm guessing no one actually watched it?

[thebigbird]

Kobe stans what about players Lol.. why do they always say Kobe Mj lebron. Why ?? Lebron had tripe double in the finals in losing effort. Stats are part of the argument not the whole argument.

If you're looking for people to give you good evaluations on players, former greats are some of the worst you could ask. Look at how they've done in management positions. Magic and Jordan are two of the 10 best players ever, have 11 rings between the two of them, yet are both terrible at evaluating players and building teams.

Evaluating player and team is different. People who played against both KObe and Lebron always says Kobe... why is that ? Because they went head to head and Kobe scared them more. Kobe was killer. Kobe was a winner. Well by advance stats AD Harden and Westbrook are the best players in the league last 4 years not Lebron. Again my argument is stats aren't the only part of the argument. The other in the top in those cat are not even close to being top 10 all-time. Aka David Karl or Charles.
2013 Lebron
2014 Kevin Durant
2015 Curry
2016 advance stats Curry
2017 alot of the stats showed Russel as the best player..
2018 alot of the advance stats show Harden as the best player in the game

According to most of the advance stats... Lebron wasn't the best player in the game since 2013. He had case in 2017 but thats about it. Do you believe Lebron wasn't the best player in the game since 2013 ?

The idea that Kobe was a "killer" was complete nonsense.

Look at the playoff advanced numbers. That's where lebron has made a killing. Since 2013, in win shares he was 1st, 2nd, 1st, 1st, and 1st.

In PER he was 1st, 3rd, 1st, 2nd, 1st.

In BPM he was 1st, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 1st.

In VORP he was 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st

[Jazz9]

That's one derailed thread...

[ajdontwatchthat]

The contrast between this topic and the Tim Duncan greatness topic is striking. 7 pages of people correctly pointing out that stats don't reflect TD's greatness, yet...with Kobe the opposite opinion.

Tim Duncan is one of the most celebrated and love universally (and rightfully so and is arguably a GOAT candidate) while FS1, Bron stans, the analytics fans all dislike Kobe to push a narrative or prop up their favourite player when they are feeling insecure.

It's all about agendas. Funny how people said KD's and Steph rings don't count cause they teamed up and ruined the league but now apparently, they surpassed Kobe or will surpass him with those same accolades that they call meaningless.

People would rather watch the box scores and punch in numbers and move goalposts than actually watch the game of basketball.

[thebigbird]

The contrast between this topic and the Tim Duncan greatness topic is striking. 7 pages of people correctly pointing out that stats don't reflect TD's greatness, yet...with Kobe the opposite opinion.

Tim Duncan is one of the most celebrated and love universally (and rightfully so and is arguably a GOAT candidate) while FS1, Bron stans, the analytics fans all dislike Kobe to push a narrative or prop up their favourite player when they are feeling insecure.

It's all about agendas. Funny how people said KD's and Steph rings don't count cause they teamed up and ruined the league but now apparently, they surpassed Kobe or will surpass him with those same accolades that they call meaningless.

People would rather watch the box scores and punch in numbers and move goalposts than actually watch the game of basketball.

Nothing about the "eye test" is reliable because it's completely subjective. People only see what they want to see. Kobe stans' romanticized memories of his play aren't accurate recollections of his career. That's why people look at the numbers. The numbers say one thing about Kobe, the romanticized memories say another. I wonder which is more accurate...

[G-Mamba]

If you're looking for people to give you good evaluations on players, former greats are some of the worst you could ask. Look at how they've done in management positions. Magic and Jordan are two of the 10 best players ever, have 11 rings between the two of them, yet are both terrible at evaluating players and building teams.

Evaluating player and team is different. People who played against both KObe and Lebron always says Kobe... why is that ? Because they went head to head and Kobe scared them more. Kobe was killer. Kobe was a winner. Well by advance stats AD Harden and Westbrook are the best players in the league last 4 years not Lebron. Again my argument is stats aren't the only part of the argument. The other in the top in those cat are not even close to being top 10 all-time. Aka David Karl or Charles.
2013 Lebron
2014 Kevin Durant
2015 Curry
2016 advance stats Curry
2017 alot of the stats showed Russel as the best player..
2018 alot of the advance stats show Harden as the best player in the game

According to most of the advance stats... Lebron wasn't the best player in the game since 2013. He had case in 2017 but thats about it. Do you believe Lebron wasn't the best player in the game since 2013 ?

The idea that Kobe was a "killer" was complete nonsense.

Look at the playoff advanced numbers. That's where lebron has made a killing. Since 2013, in win shares he was 1st, 2nd, 1st, 1st, and 1st.

In PER he was 1st, 3rd, 1st, 2nd, 1st.

In BPM he was 1st, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 1st.

In VORP he was 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st

Amazing ... but what about 82 games Lol. Its not like he won chips all those years while being on stack teams. He was the best in the game no doubt. Kobe is killer.. the killer at age 34 who led the team into the playoffs. Lol

[MrDollarBills]

this thread title is false advertising.

[G35]

Stats do win games, though. People say that Westbrook just stat pads but look at the Thunder's record in games he has triple doubles in. They're 104-25 in games he has a triple double in. They've won 80.6% of his triple double games.

You make my point, according to you, WB's team lost 25 games when he got a triple double. How many more games have the Thunder won when Westbrook DID NOT get a triple double.

You cannot go into a game and say, "If WB gets a triple double we will win the game."

You cannot do that with any statistic.

You either win or you lose...that is why winning is timeless. It is a defined outcome. Statistics are all probability, not certainty......

No, I don't make your point for you. They win 80.6% of their games when Westbrook has a triple double. That's much higher than their percentage when he doesn't get a triple double. So, his "stats" do contribute to winning. The only reason Kobe stans hate stats is because none of them support their claim that Kobe is a top 5 player. He absolutely wasn't.

What stat shows that you win 100% of the time. I don't care what you say contributes to winning.

All that means is that if WB thinks like you he is going to chase triple doubles. If WB getting a triple double guaranteed a win all a defense would have to do is stop WB from getting a triple double and then you beat the Thunder. Easy.

That is the flaw when depending on stats. You just pick out one variable (maybe two if you really want to go deep ) and you don't apply any other basketball acumen...very simple minded......

[mudsak]

These are dope. I remember when he did one on Donovan Mitchell last year in the playoffs. I really enjoyed it. I would love to watch one on Harden, but it says it's unavailable in my region :/

[G35]

The contrast between this topic and the Tim Duncan greatness topic is striking. 7 pages of people correctly pointing out that stats don't reflect TD's greatness, yet...with Kobe the opposite opinion.

Tim Duncan is one of the most celebrated and love universally (and rightfully so and is arguably a GOAT candidate) while FS1, Bron stans, the analytics fans all dislike Kobe to push a narrative or prop up their favourite player when they are feeling insecure.

It's all about agendas. Funny how people said KD's and Steph rings don't count cause they teamed up and ruined the league but now apparently, they surpassed Kobe or will surpass him with those same accolades that they call meaningless.

People would rather watch the box scores and punch in numbers and move goalposts than actually watch the game of basketball.

Nothing about the "eye test" is reliable because it's completely subjective. People only see what they want to see. Kobe stans' romanticized memories of his play aren't accurate recollections of his career. That's why people look at the numbers. The numbers say one thing about Kobe, the romanticized memories say another. I wonder which is more accurate...

There is only one thing that is romanticized and that is the winning. If Kobe was averaging 50/10/10 and losing I would say he is a loser that scores a lot of points.

The only thing that makes stats relevant is whether you win the game or not. Losing is not romanticized.

Jerry West averaged 46 ppg in the finals and was awarded the only FMVP for a player on a losing team and he says he would rather have won the series than score all those points.

Winning applies context to stats.

You can't say if you do X then you will win the game because there are too many variables within a game.......

[mademan]

Tim Duncan is one of the most celebrated and love universally (and rightfully so and is arguably a GOAT candidate) while FS1, Bron stans, the analytics fans all dislike Kobe to push a narrative or prop up their favourite player when they are feeling insecure.

It's all about agendas. Funny how people said KD's and Steph rings don't count cause they teamed up and ruined the league but now apparently, they surpassed Kobe or will surpass him with those same accolades that they call meaningless.

People would rather watch the box scores and punch in numbers and move goalposts than actually watch the game of basketball.

Nothing about the "eye test" is reliable because it's completely subjective. People only see what they want to see. Kobe stans' romanticized memories of his play aren't accurate recollections of his career. That's why people look at the numbers. The numbers say one thing about Kobe, the romanticized memories say another. I wonder which is more accurate...

There is only one thing that is romanticized and that is the winning. If Kobe was averaging 50/10/10 and losing I would say he is a loser that scores a lot of points.

The only thing that makes stats relevant is whether you win the game or not. Losing is not romanticized.

Jerry West averaged 46 ppg in the finals and was awarded the only FMVP for a player on a losing team and he says he would rather have won the series than score all those points.

Winning applies context to stats.

You can't say if you do X then you will win the game because there are too many variables within a game.......

So KD is a better player in 2017 than he was in 2016?

Teams win. Not individual players. If a guy can go 6-24 in a deciding game and be seen better than a guy who averages 30+ in a losing effort in the finals, there's something wrong with your analysis.

[thebigbird]

Tim Duncan is one of the most celebrated and love universally (and rightfully so and is arguably a GOAT candidate) while FS1, Bron stans, the analytics fans all dislike Kobe to push a narrative or prop up their favourite player when they are feeling insecure.

It's all about agendas. Funny how people said KD's and Steph rings don't count cause they teamed up and ruined the league but now apparently, they surpassed Kobe or will surpass him with those same accolades that they call meaningless.

People would rather watch the box scores and punch in numbers and move goalposts than actually watch the game of basketball.

Nothing about the "eye test" is reliable because it's completely subjective. People only see what they want to see. Kobe stans' romanticized memories of his play aren't accurate recollections of his career. That's why people look at the numbers. The numbers say one thing about Kobe, the romanticized memories say another. I wonder which is more accurate...

There is only one thing that is romanticized and that is the winning. If Kobe was averaging 50/10/10 and losing I would say he is a loser that scores a lot of points.

The only thing that makes stats relevant is whether you win the game or not. Losing is not romanticized.

Jerry West averaged 46 ppg in the finals and was awarded the only FMVP for a player on a losing team and he says he would rather have won the series than score all those points.

Winning applies context to stats.

You can't say if you do X then you will win the game because there are too many variables within a game.......

Judging individual greatness by team success is beyond illogical. No player has ever won a championship by himself. LeBron averaged 33.6/12/10 on 63 TS% in 2017 but lost because he came up against a better team. Was he a worse player in the 2017 finals than 15.6/4.6/4.2 on 41.1 TS% Kobe in 2000 because LeBron's team lost and Kobe's team won? That doesn't even begin to make sense.

[The_Hater]

1 is rewarded for just being on a team, the other is an award. Neither are stats.

What about them? Every advanced number is against Kobe. You can take that and either 1) think the numbers all conspired to make Kobe look bad or 2) people's perception of him doesn't match the reality.

Advanced numbers aren't wrong. Go look at the career leaders in them. They're all all-time greats at the top. Kobe just isn't quite there.

This is the reality that people can't reconcile:

Stats do not win games. Not one game was one with TS%, PER, VORP, or regression methods.

The other reality is that the NBA is a sport that has a winner and a loser. Its competitive and the goal is to win games. If the goal was to see who accumulated the most stats then there would be a viable argument for putting stats at the top.

But lately, I hear everyone wants to be on the right side of history...history is written by winners not statkeepers......

Stats do win games, though. People say that Westbrook just stat pads but look at the Thunder's record in games he has triple doubles in. They're 104-25 in games he has a triple double in. They've won 80.6% of his triple double games.

Also during Westbrook's MVP season, his off-on splits were ridiculous. The Thunder were an awful, awful basketball team anytime he sat on the bench but managed to win 47 games solely because of RWB.

[The_Hater]

Nothing about the "eye test" is reliable because it's completely subjective. People only see what they want to see. Kobe stans' romanticized memories of his play aren't accurate recollections of his career. That's why people look at the numbers. The numbers say one thing about Kobe, the romanticized memories say another. I wonder which is more accurate...

There is only one thing that is romanticized and that is the winning. If Kobe was averaging 50/10/10 and losing I would say he is a loser that scores a lot of points.

The only thing that makes stats relevant is whether you win the game or not. Losing is not romanticized.

Jerry West averaged 46 ppg in the finals and was awarded the only FMVP for a player on a losing team and he says he would rather have won the series than score all those points.

Winning applies context to stats.

You can't say if you do X then you will win the game because there are too many variables within a game.......

Judging individual greatness by team success is beyond illogical. No player has ever won a championship by himself. LeBron averaged 33.6/12/10 on 63 TS% in 2017 but lost because he came up against a better team. Was he a worse player in the 2017 finals than 15.6/4.6/4.2 on 41.1 TS% Kobe in 2000 because LeBron's team lost and Kobe's team won? That doesn't even begin to make sense.

Don't try talking any sort of logic to the Kobe-ites, you'd have more fun and be less frustrated taking a hammer and beating your self over the head for the rest of the day.

[thebigbird]

There is only one thing that is romanticized and that is the winning. If Kobe was averaging 50/10/10 and losing I would say he is a loser that scores a lot of points.

The only thing that makes stats relevant is whether you win the game or not. Losing is not romanticized.

Jerry West averaged 46 ppg in the finals and was awarded the only FMVP for a player on a losing team and he says he would rather have won the series than score all those points.

Winning applies context to stats.

You can't say if you do X then you will win the game because there are too many variables within a game.......

Judging individual greatness by team success is beyond illogical. No player has ever won a championship by himself. LeBron averaged 33.6/12/10 on 63 TS% in 2017 but lost because he came up against a better team. Was he a worse player in the 2017 finals than 15.6/4.6/4.2 on 41.1 TS% Kobe in 2000 because LeBron's team lost and Kobe's team won? That doesn't even begin to make sense.

Don't try talking any sort of logic to the Kobe-ites, you'd have more fun and be less frustrated taking a hammer and beating your self over the head for the rest of the day.

Haaaa. So, so true. I really don't know why I bother wasting my time.

[LakerLegend]

Watching LeBron this season has been a real eye opener in terms of stat inflation and analytics. Kobe’s advanced and regular stats would be so much better if all he did was aggressively go after uncontested defensive rebs and bring up the ball repeatedly and just toss it to players cutting or curling off screens for assists. Kobe was also more of a gunner than a lot of player affecting his shooting percentage but that unpredictably is also what made him so dangerous and warped defenses.

[thebigbird]

Watching LeBron this season has been a real eye opener in terms of stat inflation and analytics. Kobe’s advanced and regular stats would be so much better if all he did was aggressively go after uncontested defensive rebs and bring up the ball repeatedly and just toss it to players cutting or curling off screens for assists. Kobe was also more of a gunner than a lot of player affecting his shooting percentage but that unpredictably is also what made him so dangerous and warped defenses.

Kobe had a higher usage rate than lebron despite being a role player his first 3 seasons and a second option his next 5.

[norcocredo]

There sure are a lot of current and x players that are Kobe fans/stans.

[Strepbacter]

Really miss Kobe, shame these analytic warriors continue to bring down his legacy.

You seriously think Kobe is top 15? He's not even close, look at advanced stats for a second, if you're smart enough to understand them I mean.

Let me put down my classwork for my Advanced Applications in Statistics class at MIT Open Courseware for a second to teach you a little something about how mathematical models work. You probably couldn't even begin to comprehend how the models I work on in my spare time work, but I'll try anyway. It's good to pass on the knowledge, especially to those who are not well endowed in the analytical side of things.

You must be one of those Lakers fans that thinks championships are actually important, completely ignorant to the fact that any legendary player (Duncan anyone?) would take a 55 FG% than some useless jewelry ring anyday.

You don't know anything about the PER valuations and the metrics used to accentuate intricate sample sets about autonomous principles that can be extracted to show that Kobe Bryant has never actually hit a game winner in his career. All his game winners are media hype tapes to sell shoes. Kobe is very fortunate that he's marketed so well by Nike and the Lakers franchise.

ESPN and the whole 'next Jordan' narrative has you thinking Kobe is clutch but he's not, every data point that was graphed on the Cartesian plane while prime factorization was allowed to exist in a null factor showed that Kobe continued to fail theses primitive tests. I studied statistical variations in geometric localities and each and every one of their correspondent asymptotic differentiations provided me with the conclusion that your so called Kobe is the worst clutch shooter in the NBA.

Cosine functions developed at Princeton while combined with the Bell curve allows us to measure basketball production without affecting Higgs Boson-like particles that would otherwise exist in non-zero environments. And where do you think Kobe ranks on that scale? The bottom of the Bell Curve. They ran about ten thousand trials of the same repeating polymorphic routes emulating artificially generated synergy optimization and the Mamba was nowhere to be found in either planes. "Eye tests" are a layman's tool for avoiding thinking and this kind of narrow tunnel vision only exacerbates current falsifications that we can rely on such a poor method of extrapolation. I don't watch basketball but the fact of the matter is that I don't need to. It's all in the stats. The numbers don't lie.

Your "Kobe" is just an average NBA player who gets an ungodly amount of touches thanks to his marketing. Kobe was never the best player in the league, nor even a top 250 player in the league at any point in his career. I wish people understood more the numbers side of basketball and woke up and finally realized that this guy not only is overrated, but flat out isn't good at basketball in any way whatsoever.