Greater: Kobe Bryant vs Stephen Curry

[GeorgeMarcus]

Winning percentage? Seriously? Yeah, that's going to happen when you're playing on a team that's so stacked they can go 9-3 in the post-season without Steph Curry since 2015. When Curry plays less then 20 minutes (or doesn't play at all) they are still 11-3 in the post-season. Taking into account opponent faced and to put it into perspective, in the 14 games in the post-season where Curry doesn't play (or plays less than 20 minutes), the average SRS faced was 1.58 (account for games played against each foe) and the average MOV for all games was 13.2 points. This puts their SRS roughly at 14.78 through the 13 games without Curry. 10-3 with a +9.8 MOV (as of 5-5-2019).

Less points? Did you miss the part where I said was talking about prime?

01-10 Kobe: 28.5 PPG and 36.0 Points 100 possessions
14-19 Curry: 26.9 PPG and 35.6 Points Per 100 possessions

Curry has better SCORING efficiency. But you people don't understand is that scoring efficiency isn't overall efficiency. Turnovers matter. And Prime Kobe (10.8%) had a significantly lower turnover rate than Prime Curry (13.8%) in the post-season.

From 14-19 Curry has a 116 individual offensive rating against teams with a average DRTG of 107 (+9)
From 01-10 Kobe had a 110 individual offensive rating against teams with a average DRTG of 102 (+9)

All this nonsense about Curry's "far" better efficiency is a MYTH when it comes to the post-season. Their overall efficiency is essentially EVEN after you adjust for comp/environment.

Maybe someday you people will realize that scoring efficiency isn't overall efficiency

As for the rest of your post...

1) We don't have DRPM for Bryant

2) We don't have post-season RAPM for prime Bryant. We DO know that's Curry's post-season RAPM's marks are noticeably worse than they are in the regular season. For example, in the 14-19 post-season RAPM, Curry is all the way down at #8:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQdG8Zv84zqKEzETDjd8KPsClcw9bPETX9v_x_KEAxjv9NrFaWikOoiSaciy1jbMiygg2D-V8DUQn0O/pubhtml?gid=721454147&single=true

Two of his teammates are ahead of him.

3) Steals are worthless as a measure of defense.

Seriously, name me one Curry series that's even close to the best defensive series of Bryant's prime (09 Finals, 08 Finals, 01 Finals, 09 WCSF, etc) Oh, wait. You can't.

All your nonsense about Bryant's "inflated" rep but you can't even get your numbers straight.

Kobe is top ten all-time. Deal with it.

A lot wrong with this post.
- Curry has the highest average playoff RAPM of any player in the span you referenced.
- Playoff RAPM IS available for Kobe- not sure why you believe it's not.
- Efficiency is a term generally used to describe scoring efficiency. If you want to expand beyond that, you might as well expand to offensive impact as a whole.
- You talk about comparing across eras, and yet you compare their DRtg? Can't tell if you don't understand or are being purposely disingenuous. Kobe's average DRAPM is worse than Curry's. "Steals are overrated" is what's overrated. It doesn't always indicate defensive ability, but playing the passing lanes is much more conducive to defensive impact than on-ball perimeter defense. I'd love to see you argue that point with data of your choosing.

I'm sorry I seemed to have touched on a soft spot for you but I don't have any emotional attachment to my opinion.

-Yeah, no. He's #8 in playoff RAPM from 15-19
-Please link me to playoff RAPM for prime Kobe
-Because most don't understand that scoring efficiency isn't efficiency. I've already explained this. Prime Kobe and Prime Curry have extremely comparable overall efficiency. That's a fact.
-I'm comparing the DRTG's of the teams they played. Use relative DRTG if you want. The fact remains that Bryant played far better defensive comp. From 01-10 the average team he played ranked #5 in DRTG.
-Again, try getting your facts straight.

My facts are straight. Clearly you are using a different RAPM dataset. https://basketball-analytics.gitlab.io/rapm-data/

Scoring efficiency is efficiency. You are just trying to draw the line in a place that positively reflects Kobe. With your logic we may as well expand to "basketball efficiency" to include all elements of the game.

"I'm comparing the DRTG's of the teams they played for. Use relative DRTG if you want." That's a neat trick you did... trying to deflect from the fact that you referenced a non-relative stat after criticizing me for using non-relative scoring efficiency.

[GeorgeMarcus]

I don't always agree with every point you make - but you are the best pro Kobe poster here.

Seriously

No offense LKN, but much of that post was factually incorrect. I question your opinion on this one.

Sure the Warriors went 9-3 without Curry against teams like the LeMarcus Aldridge-led Spurs of last year. That's a pretty small blip in the ocean of data we have.

Well as I said - I don't agree with all of it.

I was more complimenting him for actually putting forth some metrics based arguments.

That's fair. It is refreshing that he's using data to support his claims, rather than relying on narratives and Mamba Mentality.

[GeorgeMarcus]

I don't always agree with every point you make - but you are the best pro Kobe poster here.

Seriously

No offense LKN, but much of that post was factually incorrect. I question your opinion on this one.

Sure the Warriors went 9-3 without Curry against teams like the LeMarcus Aldridge-led Spurs of last year. That's a pretty small blip in the ocean of data we have.

Literally everything I said in that post is a fact. Nice try.

Keep acting like the Warriors going 10-3 with a massive point differential in the post-season without Curry isn't a big deal tho. You think the 08-10 Lakers are pulling off anything like that without Bryant? Heh.

I doubt on/off is where you want to draw attention to in an anti-Curry argument.

Regular Season:
2014: +15.1
2015: +18.1
2016: +22.6
2017: +17.1
2018: +12.1
2019: +16.2

Playoffs:
2014: +37.4
2015: +7.6
2016: -3.7
2017: +20.6
2018: +3.8
2019: +13.2

What do you know? Higher than both regular season and playoff Kobe, even if you specify Kobe's prime. As you say "deal with it"

[LKN]

No offense LKN, but much of that post was factually incorrect. I question your opinion on this one.

Sure the Warriors went 9-3 without Curry against teams like the LeMarcus Aldridge-led Spurs of last year. That's a pretty small blip in the ocean of data we have.

Well as I said - I don't agree with all of it.

I was more complimenting him for actually putting forth some metrics based arguments.

That's fair. It is refreshing that he's using data to support his claims, rather than relying on narratives and Mamba Mentality.

Exactly - you can actually debate his points in a rational manner.

[LKN]

A lot wrong with this post.
- Curry has the highest average playoff RAPM of any player in the span you referenced.
- Playoff RAPM IS available for Kobe- not sure why you believe it's not.
- Efficiency is a term generally used to describe scoring efficiency. If you want to expand beyond that, you might as well expand to offensive impact as a whole.
- You talk about comparing across eras, and yet you compare their DRtg? Can't tell if you don't understand or are being purposely disingenuous. Kobe's average DRAPM is worse than Curry's. "Steals are overrated" is what's overrated. It doesn't always indicate defensive ability, but playing the passing lanes is much more conducive to defensive impact than on-ball perimeter defense. I'd love to see you argue that point with data of your choosing.

I'm sorry I seemed to have touched on a soft spot for you but I don't have any emotional attachment to my opinion.

-Yeah, no. He's #8 in playoff RAPM from 15-19
-Please link me to playoff RAPM for prime Kobe
-Because most don't understand that scoring efficiency isn't efficiency. I've already explained this. Prime Kobe and Prime Curry have extremely comparable overall efficiency. That's a fact.
-I'm comparing the DRTG's of the teams they played. Use relative DRTG if you want. The fact remains that Bryant played far better defensive comp. From 01-10 the average team he played ranked #5 in DRTG.
-Again, try getting your facts straight.

My facts are straight. Clearly you are using a different RAPM dataset. https://basketball-analytics.gitlab.io/rapm-data/

Scoring efficiency is efficiency. You are just trying to draw the line in a place that positively reflects Kobe. With your logic we may as well expand to "basketball efficiency" to include all elements of the game.

"I'm comparing the DRTG's of the teams they played for. Use relative DRTG if you want." That's a neat trick you did... trying to deflect from the fact that you referenced a non-relative stat after criticizing me for using non-relative scoring efficiency.

To be extremely pedantic (because this is a pet peeve of mine). There is no measure I'm aware of for "scoring efficiency". TS is a pretty accurate estimate of "Efficiency on shot attempts" (or "shooting attempts"). Sure non shooting FTs and such get thrown in, but those usually dont screw with the numbers too much. TS does not account for turnovers at all (and turnovers can be much worse in some cases than missed shots), so it's absolutely NOT a measure of scoring efficiency. Unfortunately (esp for older players) you really don't have any options other than TS and ORTG.... so you can either look at "shooting efficiency" or "offensive efficiency" (I usually compare individual ORTG to overall team ORTG and sometimes compare it to opponent DRTG). Of course individual ORTG is also an estimate.. so another grain of salt. We have stuff like OBPM too.... but OBPM has it's own sets of issues.

/ Silly rant over

[GeorgeMarcus]

-Yeah, no. He's #8 in playoff RAPM from 15-19
-Please link me to playoff RAPM for prime Kobe
-Because most don't understand that scoring efficiency isn't efficiency. I've already explained this. Prime Kobe and Prime Curry have extremely comparable overall efficiency. That's a fact.
-I'm comparing the DRTG's of the teams they played. Use relative DRTG if you want. The fact remains that Bryant played far better defensive comp. From 01-10 the average team he played ranked #5 in DRTG.
-Again, try getting your facts straight.

My facts are straight. Clearly you are using a different RAPM dataset. https://basketball-analytics.gitlab.io/rapm-data/

Scoring efficiency is efficiency. You are just trying to draw the line in a place that positively reflects Kobe. With your logic we may as well expand to "basketball efficiency" to include all elements of the game.

"I'm comparing the DRTG's of the teams they played for. Use relative DRTG if you want." That's a neat trick you did... trying to deflect from the fact that you referenced a non-relative stat after criticizing me for using non-relative scoring efficiency.

To be extremely pedantic (because this is a pet peeve of mine). There is no measure I'm aware of for "scoring efficiency". TS is a pretty accurate estimate of "Efficiency on shot attempts" (or "shooting attempts"). Sure non shooting FTs and such get thrown in, but those usually dont screw with the numbers too much. TS does not account for turnovers at all (and turnovers can be much worse in some cases than missed shots), so it's absolutely NOT a measure of scoring efficiency. Unfortunately (esp for older players) you really don't have any options other than TS and ORTG.... so you can either look at "shooting efficiency" or "offensive efficiency" (I usually compare individual ORTG to overall team ORTG and sometimes compare it to opponent DRTG). Of course individual ORTG is also an estimate.. so another grain of salt. We have stuff like OBPM too.... but OBPM has it's own sets of issues.

/ Silly rant over

Here is the problem with that logic:

You say TS% doesn't account for TO's, which is correct. You use that to say it doesn't measure scoring efficiency, which is incorrect. A turnover is not a scoring opportunity for a player, and thus cannot be included in scoring efficiency.

I expect you might respond "yes but TO's affect TEAM scoring efficiency".

You're right, they do. So does playmaking, off ball gravity, and a host of other offensive metrics that are being swept under the rug here. When it comes to a player's scoring efficiency, TS% does exactly what it is intended to.

[LKN]

My facts are straight. Clearly you are using a different RAPM dataset. https://basketball-analytics.gitlab.io/rapm-data/

Scoring efficiency is efficiency. You are just trying to draw the line in a place that positively reflects Kobe. With your logic we may as well expand to "basketball efficiency" to include all elements of the game.

"I'm comparing the DRTG's of the teams they played for. Use relative DRTG if you want." That's a neat trick you did... trying to deflect from the fact that you referenced a non-relative stat after criticizing me for using non-relative scoring efficiency.

To be extremely pedantic (because this is a pet peeve of mine). There is no measure I'm aware of for "scoring efficiency". TS is a pretty accurate estimate of "Efficiency on shot attempts" (or "shooting attempts"). Sure non shooting FTs and such get thrown in, but those usually dont screw with the numbers too much. TS does not account for turnovers at all (and turnovers can be much worse in some cases than missed shots), so it's absolutely NOT a measure of scoring efficiency. Unfortunately (esp for older players) you really don't have any options other than TS and ORTG.... so you can either look at "shooting efficiency" or "offensive efficiency" (I usually compare individual ORTG to overall team ORTG and sometimes compare it to opponent DRTG). Of course individual ORTG is also an estimate.. so another grain of salt. We have stuff like OBPM too.... but OBPM has it's own sets of issues.

/ Silly rant over

Here is the problem with that logic:

You say TS% doesn't account for TO's, which is correct. You use that to say it doesn't measure scoring efficiency, which is incorrect. A turnover is not a scoring opportunity for a player, and thus cannot be included in scoring efficiency.

I expect you might respond "yes but TO's affect TEAM scoring efficiency".

You're right, they do. So does playmaking, off ball gravity, and a host of other offensive metrics that are being swept under the rug here. When it comes to a player's scoring efficiency, TS% does exactly what it is intended to.

I mean we all know that turnovers occur during scoring attempts right? We just don't have statistics to track those (although I think they are tracked with synergy data now)

In any case your points are fair; I'm probably being way overly pedantic. And does it really matter if we call it scoring or shooting efficiency anyways? I suppose not .


Good post and fair points.

[Brooklyn91]

Again, imo we're talking about different things and on different scales. You're saying there's no correlation between greatness of player and talent evaluator/scout, sure (although I might add that the best players were devoured scouting reports, but I digress).

I'm saying the average opinion of former NBA people about player greatness shouldn't simply be discarded because of poor qualitative insights from the schmucks on TV who are paid to give hot takes. Again, I can take take crappy statistical arguments on this board and present them as arguments that we shouldn't use stats to do anything, but that would be irresponsible, right? You're talking outliers, I'm talking medians.

It becomes particularly important when you want to define a quantitative metric(s) of greatness. What you do when you wanna define a metric of _anything_ is go talk to subject matter experts and try to capture their wisdom in models. That's how we even have these stats and detailed scouting reports anyways. Scouting in particular is a largely qualitative analysis.

You could say Kobe's generation was in an NBA that hadn't fully adopted advanced stats, or that they have nostalgia, or that they're biased towards old greats to rationalize why they lost against them. So you could weight those lower. But far too often I've seen it completely disregarded. If you ran a staff that disregarded things like that, Jerry West wouldn't be on it.

Or maybe Kobe is just the better, more accomplished player and curry only had 4-5 years of a superstar prime. Maybe, just maybe it’s that simple

that's your opinion and that's fine, but just know that literally nothing suggests that from a facts or stats viewpoint

Kobe has a longer peak, averaged More points, rebounds, and blocks. And was a 2 way player the ****? Lol. Steph spent more than half of his career hurt and had 4/5 good years compared to Kobe, who had 12 years of all star play. Don’t matter though cause the thread is asking who is greater, in which Steph isn’t even close.

[Strepbacter]

No offense LKN, but much of that post was factually incorrect. I question your opinion on this one.

Sure the Warriors went 9-3 without Curry against teams like the LeMarcus Aldridge-led Spurs of last year. That's a pretty small blip in the ocean of data we have.

Literally everything I said in that post is a fact. Nice try.

Keep acting like the Warriors going 10-3 with a massive point differential in the post-season without Curry isn't a big deal tho. You think the 08-10 Lakers are pulling off anything like that without Bryant? Heh.

I doubt on/off is where you want to draw attention to in an anti-Curry argument.

Regular Season:
2014: +15.1
2015: +18.1
2016: +22.6
2017: +17.1
2018: +12.1
2019: +16.2

Playoffs:
2014: +37.4
2015: +7.6
2016: -3.7
2017: +20.6
2018: +3.8
2019: +13.2

What do you know? Higher than both regular season and playoff Kobe, even if you specify Kobe's prime. As you say "deal with it"

Cool. Where did I mention on/off? Answer: I didn't.

None of this changes the Warriors completely dominating in the post-season even when Curry doesn't play.

Again,

9-3 in the post-season without Steph Curry since 2015. When Curry plays less then 20 minutes (or doesn't play at all) they are still 11-3 in the post-season. Taking into account opponent faced and to put it into perspective, in the 14 games in the post-season where Curry doesn't play (or plays less than 20 minutes), the average SRS faced was 1.58 (account for games played against each foe) and the average MOV for all games was 13.2 points. This puts their SRS roughly at 14.78 through the 13 games without Curry. 10-3 with a +9.8 MOV (as of 5-5-2019).


Damn.

[GeorgeMarcus]

Literally everything I said in that post is a fact. Nice try.

Keep acting like the Warriors going 10-3 with a massive point differential in the post-season without Curry isn't a big deal tho. You think the 08-10 Lakers are pulling off anything like that without Bryant? Heh.

I doubt on/off is where you want to draw attention to in an anti-Curry argument.

Regular Season:
2014: +15.1
2015: +18.1
2016: +22.6
2017: +17.1
2018: +12.1
2019: +16.2

Playoffs:
2014: +37.4
2015: +7.6
2016: -3.7
2017: +20.6
2018: +3.8
2019: +13.2

What do you know? Higher than both regular season and playoff Kobe, even if you specify Kobe's prime. As you say "deal with it"

Cool. Where did I mention on/off? Answer: I didn't.

None of this changes the Warriors completely dominating in the post-season even when Curry doesn't play.

Again,

9-3 in the post-season without Steph Curry since 2015. When Curry plays less then 20 minutes (or doesn't play at all) they are still 11-3 in the post-season. Taking into account opponent faced and to put it into perspective, in the 14 games in the post-season where Curry doesn't play (or plays less than 20 minutes), the average SRS faced was 1.58 (account for games played against each foe) and the average MOV for all games was 13.2 points. This puts their SRS roughly at 14.78 through the 13 games without Curry. 10-3 with a +9.8 MOV (as of 5-5-2019).


Damn.

Do you know what on/off means? You compared the Warriors playing without Curry vs playing with him. That is exactly what is encapsulated in on/off, except we have a much better sample size to work with than 12 games against fringe playoff teams.

[Strepbacter]

I doubt on/off is where you want to draw attention to in an anti-Curry argument.

Regular Season:
2014: +15.1
2015: +18.1
2016: +22.6
2017: +17.1
2018: +12.1
2019: +16.2

Playoffs:
2014: +37.4
2015: +7.6
2016: -3.7
2017: +20.6
2018: +3.8
2019: +13.2

What do you know? Higher than both regular season and playoff Kobe, even if you specify Kobe's prime. As you say "deal with it"

Cool. Where did I mention on/off? Answer: I didn't.

None of this changes the Warriors completely dominating in the post-season even when Curry doesn't play.

Again,

9-3 in the post-season without Steph Curry since 2015. When Curry plays less then 20 minutes (or doesn't play at all) they are still 11-3 in the post-season. Taking into account opponent faced and to put it into perspective, in the 14 games in the post-season where Curry doesn't play (or plays less than 20 minutes), the average SRS faced was 1.58 (account for games played against each foe) and the average MOV for all games was 13.2 points. This puts their SRS roughly at 14.78 through the 13 games without Curry. 10-3 with a +9.8 MOV (as of 5-5-2019).


Damn.

Do you know what on/off means? You compared the Warriors playing without Curry vs playing with him. That is exactly what is encapsulated in on/off, except we have a much better sample size to work with than 12 games against fringe playoff teams.

If you knew anything about on/off, you'd know how wonky it is.

Fringe playoff teams that they completely obliterated without him. So much for on/off.

Again, are the 08-10 Lakers going 10-3 with a massive point differential without Bryant? Nah. Not even close.

...but somehow you're up here seriously using playoff winning percentage. It's just laughable.

[Strepbacter]

A lot wrong with this post.
- Curry has the highest average playoff RAPM of any player in the span you referenced.
- Playoff RAPM IS available for Kobe- not sure why you believe it's not.
- Efficiency is a term generally used to describe scoring efficiency. If you want to expand beyond that, you might as well expand to offensive impact as a whole.
- You talk about comparing across eras, and yet you compare their DRtg? Can't tell if you don't understand or are being purposely disingenuous. Kobe's average DRAPM is worse than Curry's. "Steals are overrated" is what's overrated. It doesn't always indicate defensive ability, but playing the passing lanes is much more conducive to defensive impact than on-ball perimeter defense. I'd love to see you argue that point with data of your choosing.

I'm sorry I seemed to have touched on a soft spot for you but I don't have any emotional attachment to my opinion.

-Yeah, no. He's #8 in playoff RAPM from 15-19
-Please link me to playoff RAPM for prime Kobe
-Because most don't understand that scoring efficiency isn't efficiency. I've already explained this. Prime Kobe and Prime Curry have extremely comparable overall efficiency. That's a fact.
-I'm comparing the DRTG's of the teams they played. Use relative DRTG if you want. The fact remains that Bryant played far better defensive comp. From 01-10 the average team he played ranked #5 in DRTG.
-Again, try getting your facts straight.

My facts are straight. Clearly you are using a different RAPM dataset. https://basketball-analytics.gitlab.io/rapm-data/

Scoring efficiency is efficiency. You are just trying to draw the line in a place that positively reflects Kobe. With your logic we may as well expand to "basketball efficiency" to include all elements of the game.

"I'm comparing the DRTG's of the teams they played for. Use relative DRTG if you want." That's a neat trick you did... trying to deflect from the fact that you referenced a non-relative stat after criticizing me for using non-relative scoring efficiency.

-You're using a data set that is notoriously wonky.

That link doesn't have accurate data at all. Some random dude just published those with no information on how they calculated it and it's far off the results of the creator of RAPM.

The guy who is working off the creator of RAPM DOES have the numbers and Curry's numbers are quite a bit down from his regular season marks

2019 playoff RAPM---Curry at #12
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQdG8Zv84zqKEzETDjd8KPsClcw9bPETX9v_x_KEAxjv9NrFaWikOoiSaciy1jbMiygg2D-V8DUQn0O/pubhtml?gid=787477114&single=true

15-19 playoff RAPM--Curry at #7
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQdG8Zv84zqKEzETDjd8KPsClcw9bPETX9v_x_KEAxjv9NrFaWikOoiSaciy1jbMiygg2D-V8DUQn0O/pubhtml?gid=721454147&single=true

2018 playoff RAPM ---Curry at #5 (again, behind two of his teammates)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vSzp3G5rwP9xgCgluVGmR3Qj4-BMoGSYiuTKM6o_pzES6s95oQE1nQvB2CXed-4fRc_MMGgpULtDaJ_/pubhtml?gid=730970445&single=true

-No, it's one part of overall efficiency. And so is taking care of the ball is part of whether you like it or not. Again, this is why we have individual ORTG.

-I adjusted their overall individual efficiency against the teams they played against. Did you that miss this part:

From 14-19 Curry has a 116 individual offensive rating against teams with a average DRTG of 107 (+9)
From 01-10 Kobe had a 111 individual offensive rating against teams with a average DRTG of 102 (+9)

All this nonsense about Curry's "far" better efficiency is a MYTH when it comes to the post-season. Their overall efficiency is essentially EVEN after you adjust for comp/environment.

The huge gap in their defensive environments is reflected in their raw numbers. Use whatever method you want, the fact remains that their overall efficiency is extremely comparable after adjusting for their comp/environment. That's a fact.

Actually, it's amazing just how much better prime Kobe's comp was defensively.

01-10 Kobe
28 series
Average opp: #5 in DRTG
Average raw DRTG: 102.2
Average relative DRTG: -3.2

14-19 Curry
21 Series
Average opp: #14 in DRTG
Average raw DRTG: 107.2
Average relative DRTG: -0.5

Damn. I knew Kobe played much better defensive comp, but the difference is massive.

[dhsilv2]

I'm not really sure why this point is so contentious other than it offending the egos of basketball-reference folks and possibly getting mischaracterized as anti-stats. But maybe it's helpful to think of it as any other organization. The leaders in that org should ideally have experience as individual contributors for the folks they're leading, even if they had that experience when the rules were different back in the day.

And they're always welcome to lean heavily on their analytics department. But to say there's no correlation between being an individual in that role in the past with evaluating other folks in that role in the present is pretty absurd.

1. I can manage a team of developers to create a product without knowing how to write or do the development work. Do you think a CEO knows sales, accounting, and the creation of the product equally? Point is you don't need to always know those details as an individual contributor and as one moves up, it becomes increasingly less important.

2. Lets look at some anecdotal things, but lets leave the MJ's of the world out. Richard Jefferson on a podcast made a comment about how he had no idea Manu was a legit 6'6 until he played FOR the spurs. This despite not only playing each other head to head but doing so in the 2003 nba finals! Now maybe Jefferson is an idiot but I somewhat doubt it. Players just don't focus on this stuff for the most part as much as people so often think they would. Do you think a scout even a year in would not know how tall Manu is?

1. I'm gonna ignore the CEO analogy because I don't think it's a very apt one in this case; we're simply talking about basketball players evaluating basketball player greatness, not evaluating team sales, etc.
Sure you can manage a team of devs as a product manager, but speaking as someone who's very familiar with this, devs themselves prefer other devs as their leads. The devs of course cooperate with other managers and stakeholders. Saying you can do it this way doesn't mean it's the most optimal way to do it. It ultimately boils down to leaders with subject matter experience in other categories understanding how something is performing (ie are we meeting deadlines, a real, concrete measure) but have far less understanding as to why.

The relatability is fundamental. We see this with NBA players voicing support for coaches that were former players. Opinions hold more water coming from an expert than a non-expert (not exactly controversial). Those coaches are making player eval decisions every day.

I mean, I guess you could clear house and have everyone basically just be an analyst and auto-generate lineups/decisions, and have the best Silicon Valley managers as coaches. Acknowledging that that's not how it's done today (really in any organization) can hold as evidence for its in-optimality without being a rash appeal to authority.

2. The ability to looking up Manu Ginobili's exact height isn't exactly a criterion I would use to evaluate a stats-based arguer vs a qualitative one for player greatness.

2. Just starting here. He was shocked at how tall manu was, the exact height is meaningless here. This again a player who he played against in a finals and he didn't realize how tall the guy was until he was on a team with him. That's a MAJOR shocker to me, but at the same time maybe it shouldn't have been. These guys don't always follow basketball unless it is on the court that night.

1. There's nothing wrong with being a player first. I have zero doubt that it helps. There's also a lot more to basketball than the x's and o's on the floor when it comes to management and decision making of a team. That said all that matters at the end of the day is that you get results. We've seen time and time again the players, especially the elite ones just don't get results. Often having outside insight is also critical to creating a winning environment, everyone being a former player creates group think problems. Thus why teams are now filling up with MIT analysts and over time, I expect we'll see far more people in key basketball decision making roles from areas outside of the sport.

[GeorgeMarcus]

-Yeah, no. He's #8 in playoff RAPM from 15-19
-Please link me to playoff RAPM for prime Kobe
-Because most don't understand that scoring efficiency isn't efficiency. I've already explained this. Prime Kobe and Prime Curry have extremely comparable overall efficiency. That's a fact.
-I'm comparing the DRTG's of the teams they played. Use relative DRTG if you want. The fact remains that Bryant played far better defensive comp. From 01-10 the average team he played ranked #5 in DRTG.
-Again, try getting your facts straight.

My facts are straight. Clearly you are using a different RAPM dataset. https://basketball-analytics.gitlab.io/rapm-data/

Scoring efficiency is efficiency. You are just trying to draw the line in a place that positively reflects Kobe. With your logic we may as well expand to "basketball efficiency" to include all elements of the game.

"I'm comparing the DRTG's of the teams they played for. Use relative DRTG if you want." That's a neat trick you did... trying to deflect from the fact that you referenced a non-relative stat after criticizing me for using non-relative scoring efficiency.

-You're using a data set that is notoriously wonky.

That link doesn't have accurate data at all. Some random dude just published those with no information on how they calculated it and it's far off the results of the creator of RAPM.

The guy who is working off the creator of RAPM DOES have the numbers and Curry's numbers are quite a bit down from his regular season marks

2019 playoff RAPM---Curry at #12
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQdG8Zv84zqKEzETDjd8KPsClcw9bPETX9v_x_KEAxjv9NrFaWikOoiSaciy1jbMiygg2D-V8DUQn0O/pubhtml?gid=787477114&single=true

15-19 playoff RAPM--Curry at #7
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQdG8Zv84zqKEzETDjd8KPsClcw9bPETX9v_x_KEAxjv9NrFaWikOoiSaciy1jbMiygg2D-V8DUQn0O/pubhtml?gid=721454147&single=true

2018 playoff RAPM ---Curry at #5 (again, behind two of his teammates)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vSzp3G5rwP9xgCgluVGmR3Qj4-BMoGSYiuTKM6o_pzES6s95oQE1nQvB2CXed-4fRc_MMGgpULtDaJ_/pubhtml?gid=730970445&single=true

-No, it's one part of overall efficiency. And so is taking care of the ball is part of whether you like it or not. Again, this is why we have individual ORTG.

-I adjusted their overall individual efficiency against the teams they played against. Did you that miss this part:

From 14-19 Curry has a 116 individual offensive rating against teams with a average DRTG of 107 (+9)
From 01-10 Kobe had a 111 individual offensive rating against teams with a average DRTG of 102 (+9)

All this nonsense about Curry's "far" better efficiency is a MYTH when it comes to the post-season. Their overall efficiency is essentially EVEN after you adjust for comp/environment.

The huge gap in their defensive environments is reflected in their raw numbers. Use whatever method you want, the fact remains that their overall efficiency is extremely comparable after adjusting for their comp/environment. That's a fact.

Actually, it's amazing just how much better prime Kobe's comp was defensively.

01-10 Kobe
28 series
Average opp: #5 in DRTG
Average raw DRTG: 102.2
Average relative DRTG: -3.2

14-19 Curry
21 Series
Average opp: #14 in DRTG
Average raw DRTG: 107.2
Average relative DRTG: -0.5

Damn. I knew Kobe played much better defensive comp, but the difference is massive.

The link is 100% accurate. It doesn’t use a prior, which is grounded in subjective opinion. So ironically the data that I provided you is much more digestible/a direct reflection of what RAPM is designed to do.

And now you are harping on DRtg again, a notoriously bad indicator for individual defensive impact (even when you weight for era). It’s completely grounded in team defense, so yeah a lot of those Lakers teams had better defenses than the Warriors. Ok.

I already addressed your “efficiency” argument as eloquently as I could with LKN. If you want to factor TOs into efficiency then you are (A) talking about something different than player scoring efficiency or (B) ignoring a long list of variables if you are talking about team offensive efficiency.

[GeorgeMarcus]

Cool. Where did I mention on/off? Answer: I didn't.

None of this changes the Warriors completely dominating in the post-season even when Curry doesn't play.

Again,

9-3 in the post-season without Steph Curry since 2015. When Curry plays less then 20 minutes (or doesn't play at all) they are still 11-3 in the post-season. Taking into account opponent faced and to put it into perspective, in the 14 games in the post-season where Curry doesn't play (or plays less than 20 minutes), the average SRS faced was 1.58 (account for games played against each foe) and the average MOV for all games was 13.2 points. This puts their SRS roughly at 14.78 through the 13 games without Curry. 10-3 with a +9.8 MOV (as of 5-5-2019).


Damn.

Do you know what on/off means? You compared the Warriors playing without Curry vs playing with him. That is exactly what is encapsulated in on/off, except we have a much better sample size to work with than 12 games against fringe playoff teams.

If you knew anything about on/off, you'd know how wonky it is.

Fringe playoff teams that they completely obliterated without him. So much for on/off.

Again, are the 08-10 Lakers going 10-3 with a massive point differential without Bryant? Nah. Not even close.

...but somehow you're up here seriously using playoff winning percentage. It's just laughable.

You are exposing yourself if you can’t see the hypocrisy in this post Sometimes I give people too much credit.

Actually, I won’t let you off that easy. How can you possibly say it’s wonky when we know what it measures? It measures EXACTLY what you’re trying to talk about, but in a much greater sample size. Curry roasts Kobe in that category and you’re referencing it in a pro Kobe argument lol

[First Take]

I'd take LeBron over both of them. But to answer the question at hand, I'm going to have to Kobe Bryant is better than Stephen Curry.

[Chanel Bomber]

But if I'm building a team I'm picking Steph. Kobe could never be the focal point of such a historically dominant team as the Warriors.

This is utter nonsense. The 09 Lakers were insanely dominant. In fact, they grade out as one of the most dominant teams in history, and their level of talent doesn't even compare to the Warriors.

The 09 Lakers were one of the best teams ever, and I'd describe Kobe's support as very good but hardly special in all-time sense

--They won 65 gms with a 7.3 SRS and won a great conference by ten games. They were one of the best "healthy" teams ever:



2008 Lakers: +9.7
2009 Lakers: +9.0

2008-09 Lakers and Celtics. These teams were fantastic in an incredibly competitive league. The Celtics were +8.8 and +9.3 when healthy, and the Lakers +9.7 and +9.0 once Pau Gasol joined. Kevin Garnett’s injury robbed us of possibly the NBA’s greatest trilogy

Amazingly, of the top 40 healthy teams of all-time, seven are Pop’s Spurs teams. Five are Jordan’s Bulls. Four are Laker teams with Kobe Bryant.

The 09 Lakers rank sixth all-time in leverage-adjusted playoff SRS

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-year-of-the-warriors/

https://fivethirtyeight.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/neil-warriors-2-0617.png?w=575

Ahead of teams like the 1992 Bulls, 87 Lakers, 08 Celtics, and 1997 Bulls.

Seventh all-time in ELO blend
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/after-all-that-the-warriors-arent-even-the-second-best-team-ever/


Ahead of teams like the 92 and 91 Bulls, 83 Sixers, 14 Spurs, and 72 and 87 Lakers.

The best NBA teams ever (according to Elo). The 09 Lakers ranked eighth all-time in overall ELO.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-warriors-are-in-the-goat-debate-but-they-blew-their-chance-to-end-it


The 09 Lakers are higher than teams like the 92 Bulls, 91 Bulls, 83 Sixers,2014 Spurs, etc

The 09 Lakers had the [b]sixth greatest peak ELO Rating in NBA histroy at 1790.0:
[/b]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/last-years-warriors-werent-the-best-ever-but-this-years-might-be/

They completely dominated in the post-season:

Their post-season adjusted SRS of 12.7[/b] was the sixth highest since 1984: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-year-of-the-warriors

Here they're ahead of teams like the 85 Lakers, 87 Lakers, 08 Celtics, and 97 Bulls.



2008 Lakers: +9.7
2009 Lakers: +9.0

2008-09 Lakers and Celtics. These teams were fantastic in an incredibly competitive league. The Celtics were +8.8 and +9.3 when healthy, and the Lakers +9.7 and +9.0 once Pau Gasol joined. Kevin Garnett’s injury robbed us of possibly the NBA’s greatest trilogy

Amazingly, of the top 40 healthy teams of all-time, seven are Pop’s Spurs teams. Five are Jordan’s Bulls. Four are Laker teams with Kobe Bryant.

The 09 Lakers rank sixth all-time in leverage-adjusted playoff SRS

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-year-of-the-warriors/

https://fivethirtyeight.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/neil-warriors-2-0617.png?w=575

Ahead of teams like the 1992 Bulls, 87 Lakers, 08 Celtics, and 1997 Bulls.

Seventh all-time in ELO blend
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/after-all-that-the-warriors-arent-even-the-second-best-team-ever/


Ahead of teams like the 92 and 91 Bulls, 83 Sixers, 14 Spurs, and 72 and 87 Lakers.

The best NBA teams ever (according to Elo). The 09 Lakers ranked eighth all-time in overall ELO.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-warriors-are-in-the-goat-debate-but-they-blew-their-chance-to-end-it

*The 2011 Mavs rank #50

The 09 Lakers are higher than teams like the 92 Bulls, 91 Bulls, 83 Sixers,2014 Spurs, etc

The 09 Lakers had the [b]sixth greatest peak ELO Rating in NBA histroy at 1790.0:
[/b]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/last-years-warriors-werent-the-best-ever-but-this-years-might-be/

They completely dominated in the post-season:

Their post-season adjusted SRS of 12.7[/b] was the sixth highest since 1984: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-year-of-the-warriors

Here they're ahead of teams like the 85 Lakers, 87 Lakers, 08 Celtics, and 97 Bulls.

Man the sheer amount of ignorance around Bryant's career here is astounding.

Wow bro relax, I’m a big Kobe fan and I’ve been saying ad nauseam how underrated I feel he’s become. That information you posted is real interesting, and I loved those Lakers teams, still I found the Curry-led Warriors more dominant than those great Lakers teams and I feel the edge in scoring efficiency that Curry had over Kobe has something to do with that. You want to argue that Kobe is greater than Curry, fine, it’s a reasonable take and I’m fine with it. I know how great Kobe and those Kobe-led teams were. I’m a fan.

[CodeBreaker]

Kobe currently with a 58 point lead over Steph

[Baski]

A lot wrong with this post.
- Curry has the highest average playoff RAPM of any player in the span you referenced.
- Playoff RAPM IS available for Kobe- not sure why you believe it's not.
- Efficiency is a term generally used to describe scoring efficiency. If you want to expand beyond that, you might as well expand to offensive impact as a whole.
- You talk about comparing across eras, and yet you compare their DRtg? Can't tell if you don't understand or are being purposely disingenuous. Kobe's average DRAPM is worse than Curry's. "Steals are overrated" is what's overrated. It doesn't always indicate defensive ability, but playing the passing lanes is much more conducive to defensive impact than on-ball perimeter defense. I'd love to see you argue that point with data of your choosing.

I'm sorry I seemed to have touched on a soft spot for you but I don't have any emotional attachment to my opinion.

-Yeah, no. He's #8 in playoff RAPM from 15-19
-Please link me to playoff RAPM for prime Kobe
-Because most don't understand that scoring efficiency isn't efficiency. I've already explained this. Prime Kobe and Prime Curry have extremely comparable overall efficiency. That's a fact.
-I'm comparing the DRTG's of the teams they played. Use relative DRTG if you want. The fact remains that Bryant played far better defensive comp. From 01-10 the average team he played ranked #5 in DRTG.
-Again, try getting your facts straight.

My facts are straight. Clearly you are using a different RAPM dataset. https://basketball-analytics.gitlab.io/rapm-data/

Scoring efficiency is efficiency. You are just trying to draw the line in a place that positively reflects Kobe. With your logic we may as well expand to "basketball efficiency" to include all elements of the game.

"I'm comparing the DRTG's of the teams they played for. Use relative DRTG if you want." That's a neat trick you did... trying to deflect from the fact that you referenced a non-relative stat after criticizing me for using non-relative scoring efficiency

I believe he used each player's Ortg for their respective year against the Avg Drtg of opponents faced for those same respective years. That's as relative as it gets isn't it? How would one even adjust for that?

[GeorgeMarcus]

-Yeah, no. He's #8 in playoff RAPM from 15-19
-Please link me to playoff RAPM for prime Kobe
-Because most don't understand that scoring efficiency isn't efficiency. I've already explained this. Prime Kobe and Prime Curry have extremely comparable overall efficiency. That's a fact.
-I'm comparing the DRTG's of the teams they played. Use relative DRTG if you want. The fact remains that Bryant played far better defensive comp. From 01-10 the average team he played ranked #5 in DRTG.
-Again, try getting your facts straight.

My facts are straight. Clearly you are using a different RAPM dataset. https://basketball-analytics.gitlab.io/rapm-data/

Scoring efficiency is efficiency. You are just trying to draw the line in a place that positively reflects Kobe. With your logic we may as well expand to "basketball efficiency" to include all elements of the game.

"I'm comparing the DRTG's of the teams they played for. Use relative DRTG if you want." That's a neat trick you did... trying to deflect from the fact that you referenced a non-relative stat after criticizing me for using non-relative scoring efficiency

I believe he used each player's Ortg for their respective year against the Avg Drtg of opponents faced for those same respective years. That's as relative as it gets isn't it? How would one even adjust for that?

See it's interesting- I misread that part of his original post but when I questioned it he didn't clarify the misunderstanding. Thank you for doing so. Offensive rating is still a team stat but now that portion of his post is much more palatable.