Why is Kobe so underrated in this board and so overrated outside?

[TyCobb]

This thread makes me sick. What an awful read.

[tsherkin]

This thread makes me sick. What an awful read.

I think one of the problems some people have with evaluating Kobe is an issue of perspective, and then of course perpetuation of myths and such.

Whatever individual, specific ranking people want to haggle over is one thing. Was he ever the best in the league? Some say yes, some say no. Regardless, he was clearly among the very best in the league, and for quite a long time. Well-decorated, even if only the one MVP. Perhaps the better measure is that he was top 5 in the MVP vote 11 times. Couple of scoring titles, good longevity. Won with Shaq, won without Shaq.

There's a weird myth about him being inefficient, which isn't really true. I had something of a conversation about this on the PC Board; his scoring numbers in the Finals are rough and unpleasant to look at (outside of 2002), but the playoffs tend to get harder as you go along. Kobe's Finals series were at -10.6, -1.0, +10.9, -4.4 (2000-2004), -2.7, -1.9, -1.5 (2008-2010). But by contrast, Jordan posted 53.8 (rTS of +0.0) in 96, 53.2% in 97 (-0.3 rTS) and 51.6% in 98 (-1.3%). So unlike in the RS, neutral scoring efficiency on volume seems to be okay... when you win, and if you have reasonable passing and turnover economy (which Kobe did). It opens up a different way to look at Karl Malone, as well, as an aside. And of course, there are some large WCF performances in Kobe's career. Pretty huge against the Blazers in 2000, lighting it up from downtown, a big 33 in Game 6 and he led the Lakers in scoring in Game 7. Stank at the line but he was over 50% inside the arc, flying around and swatting shots. Absolutely smashed the Spurs in 2001, and led the Lakers in scoring while doing it. Mashed up the Spurs again in 2008. Absolutely obliterated the Nuggets in 2009 and he stepped all over the Suns in 2010. Pretty consistently, he was dropping strong WCF performances.

So if we pull away from the somewhat myopic view of just the Finals, there are some very impressive postseason performances from Kobe. He was a really good player. You can argue from this statistical perspective or that who was exactly ranked where, but by most measures, it's pretty clear Kobe was hanging at the top. It makes sense people argue someone like Shaq or Duncan ahead of him. I can see where some of the pro-KG arguments come from. And then he has other peers later on in his career, because he had very good longevity. There really isn't any space to look at Kobe as anything among the best players in the league for pretty much a dozen consecutive seasons. Arguing AGAINST Kobe has become something of a trend for a long time now, in some cases as a response to sometimes overzealous supporters, and sometimes because fans of other players felt threatened. The truth, naturally, is somewhere in between the extremes. Undeniably, however, he was amazing, and among the best ever to do it. We get fairly excited about efficiency in today's game, but here's something to consider:

Top 6 scorers in 2023:

Embiid, 33.1 ppg, +7.4% rTS
Luka, 32.4 ppg, +2.8% rTS
Lillard, 32.2 ppg, +6.4% rTS
SGA, 31.4 ppg, +4.5% rTS
Giannis, 31.1 ppg, +2.4% rTS
Tatum, 30.1 ppg, 60.7% TS, +2.6% rTS

Kobe from 01-13 averaged +2.4% rTS, so fairly similar to Luka, Giannis and Tatum. He averaged +3.2% from 01-08, and then tailed off as he got older, injuries added up... he had a rough lockout year at +0. 04 and 05, he was at +3.5 and +3.4, then +3.9 and +3.6 in 07 and 08. So he compares pretty well. He doesn't really stand in that most extreme tier in terms of blending volume with efficiency, in part because he just never nailed down 3pt shooting at a strong level and it part because his athletic prime was spent in a much grindier era. But he was the best blend of volume and efficiency apart from Shaq and Pierce in the early 2000s, and he was better in the playoffs than Pierce. And Kobe had the highest volume, apart from 02 Shaq.

01-04, there were 11 player-seasons of 60+ GP, 25+ ppg and 55%+ TS. Kobe, Shaq and Pierce were the only ones to do it twice or more.

[iggymcfrack]

This thread makes me sick. What an awful read.

I think one of the problems some people have with evaluating Kobe is an issue of perspective, and then of course perpetuation of myths and such.

Whatever individual, specific ranking people want to haggle over is one thing. Was he ever the best in the league? Some say yes, some say no. Regardless, he was clearly among the very best in the league, and for quite a long time. Well-decorated, even if only the one MVP. Perhaps the better measure is that he was top 5 in the MVP vote 11 times. Couple of scoring titles, good longevity. Won with Shaq, won without Shaq.

There's a weird myth about him being inefficient, which isn't really true. I had something of a conversation about this on the PC Board; his scoring numbers in the Finals are rough and unpleasant to look at (outside of 2002), but the playoffs tend to get harder as you go along. Kobe's Finals series were at -10.6, -1.0, +10.9, -4.4 (2000-2004), -2.7, -1.9, -1.5 (2008-2010). But by contrast, Jordan posted 53.8 (rTS of +0.0) in 96, 53.2% in 97 (-0.3 rTS) and 51.6% in 98 (-1.3%). So unlike in the RS, neutral scoring efficiency on volume seems to be okay... when you win, and if you have reasonable passing and turnover economy (which Kobe did). It opens up a different way to look at Karl Malone, as well, as an aside. And of course, there are some large WCF performances in Kobe's career. Pretty huge against the Blazers in 2000, lighting it up from downtown, a big 33 in Game 6 and he led the Lakers in scoring in Game 7. Stank at the line but he was over 50% inside the arc, flying around and swatting shots. Absolutely smashed the Spurs in 2001, and led the Lakers in scoring while doing it. Mashed up the Spurs again in 2008. Absolutely obliterated the Nuggets in 2009 and he stepped all over the Suns in 2010. Pretty consistently, he was dropping strong WCF performances.

So if we pull away from the somewhat myopic view of just the Finals, there are some very impressive postseason performances from Kobe. He was a really good player. You can argue from this statistical perspective or that who was exactly ranked where, but by most measures, it's pretty clear Kobe was hanging at the top. It makes sense people argue someone like Shaq or Duncan ahead of him. I can see where some of the pro-KG arguments come from. And then he has other peers later on in his career, because he had very good longevity. There really isn't any space to look at Kobe as anything among the best players in the league for pretty much a dozen consecutive seasons. Arguing AGAINST Kobe has become something of a trend for a long time now, in some cases as a response to sometimes overzealous supporters, and sometimes because fans of other players felt threatened. The truth, naturally, is somewhere in between the extremes. Undeniably, however, he was amazing, and among the best ever to do it. We get fairly excited about efficiency in today's game, but here's something to consider:

Top 6 scorers in 2023:

Embiid, 33.1 ppg, +7.4% rTS
Luka, 32.4 ppg, +2.8% rTS
Lillard, 32.2 ppg, +6.4% rTS
SGA, 31.4 ppg, +4.5% rTS
Giannis, 31.1 ppg, +2.4% rTS
Tatum, 30.1 ppg, 60.7% TS, +2.6% rTS

Kobe from 01-13 averaged +2.4% rTS, so fairly similar to Luka, Giannis and Tatum. He averaged +3.2% from 01-08, and then tailed off as he got older, injuries added up... he had a rough lockout year at +0. 04 and 05, he was at +3.5 and +3.4, then +3.9 and +3.6 in 07 and 08. So he compares pretty well. He doesn't really stand in that most extreme tier in terms of blending volume with efficiency, in part because he just never nailed down 3pt shooting at a strong level and it part because his athletic prime was spent in a much grindier era. But he was the best blend of volume and efficiency apart from Shaq and Pierce in the early 2000s, and he was better in the playoffs than Pierce. And Kobe had the highest volume, apart from 02 Shaq.

01-04, there were 11 player-seasons of 60+ GP, 25+ ppg and 55%+ TS. Kobe, Shaq and Pierce were the only ones to do it twice or more.

The thing about Kobe’s efficiency is no one’s saying he’s less efficient than an average player or something. He’s obviously a very good scorer. The issue is that he often took very inefficient shots in high leverage situations when there were better options available. That’s why his clutch shooting percentages are so bad for instance.

Plus, he spent a lot of his career playing next to the most dominant scorer in the game so when he took inefficient shots, there was a huge opportunity cost compared to just working the ball into Shaq. Look at the ‘04 Finals, one of the biggest upsets in the history of the NBA. Shaq shoots 53/84 from the field for the series and even with poor FT shooting has a TS% of .615. Kobe shoots 43/113 from the field and has a TS% of .456. Now the Pistons had a very tough defense and while I can’t find the actual TS% they gave up for the playoffs, I think it was probably under .500. So in a vacuum, Kobe’s shots were probably barely below average efficiency for the playoffs against Detroit.

The problem is that there was a much better option available and in order to make sure he was the leading scorer, Kobe added some truly awful shots over double teams to get there. Like if he just took the terrible looks out of his shot diet, not only would they have been replaced with better looks from teammates, but Kobe probably would have been at a TS% of .530 or so. It was the selfish, terrible inefficient shots added to the good looks that he hit a very high rate that brought him down.

[tsherkin]

The thing about Kobe’s efficiency is no one’s saying he’s less efficient than an average player or something. He’s obviously a very good scorer. The issue is that he often took very inefficient shots in high leverage situations when there were better options available. That’s why his clutch shooting percentages are so bad for instance.

Yes, that's true. More accurate than to say that he was inefficient is to say that his shot selection left a lot to be desired and it caused problems at times, for sure.

Plus, he spent a lot of his career playing next to the most dominant scorer in the game so when he took inefficient shots, there was a huge opportunity cost compared to just working the ball into Shaq. Look at the ‘04 Finals, one of the biggest upsets in the history of the NBA. Shaq shoots 53/84 from the field for the series and even with poor FT shooting has a TS% of .615. Kobe shoots 43/113 from the field and has a TS% of .456. Now the Pistons had a very tough defense and while I can’t find the actual TS% they gave up for the playoffs, I think it was probably under .500. So in a vacuum, Kobe’s shots were probably barely below average efficiency for the playoffs against Detroit.

Kobe's efficiency in that series was 4.4% below playoff league average in 2004, yes.

The problem is that there was a much better option available and in order to make sure he was the leading scorer, Kobe added some truly awful shots over double teams to get there. Like if he just took the terrible looks out of his shot diet, not only would they have been replaced with better looks from teammates, but Kobe probably would have been at a TS% of .530 or so. It was the selfish, terrible inefficient shots added to the good looks that he hit a very high rate that brought him down.

That's possible, yes. Discussing his Finals performance is surely worthy of note. But it is, to at least some extent, matched off by his WCFs, yes? Not as visible a series, somehow, I guess? But still relevant to the team even making the Finals in some seasons.

Again, where people want to rank him particularly is their business. But we get a sort of pendulum with Kobe. People want to overrate or underrate him for whatever reason, and then a lot of the time, reasonable discussion gets lost. Kobe had his flaws, unquestionably, but so does any player. Just trying to add some context, you know?

[iggymcfrack]

The thing about Kobe’s efficiency is no one’s saying he’s less efficient than an average player or something. He’s obviously a very good scorer. The issue is that he often took very inefficient shots in high leverage situations when there were better options available. That’s why his clutch shooting percentages are so bad for instance.

Yes, that's true. More accurate than to say that he was inefficient is to say that his shot selection left a lot to be desired and it caused problems at times, for sure.

Plus, he spent a lot of his career playing next to the most dominant scorer in the game so when he took inefficient shots, there was a huge opportunity cost compared to just working the ball into Shaq. Look at the ‘04 Finals, one of the biggest upsets in the history of the NBA. Shaq shoots 53/84 from the field for the series and even with poor FT shooting has a TS% of .615. Kobe shoots 43/113 from the field and has a TS% of .456. Now the Pistons had a very tough defense and while I can’t find the actual TS% they gave up for the playoffs, I think it was probably under .500. So in a vacuum, Kobe’s shots were probably barely below average efficiency for the playoffs against Detroit.

Kobe's efficiency in that series was 4.4% below playoff league average in 2004, yes.

The problem is that there was a much better option available and in order to make sure he was the leading scorer, Kobe added some truly awful shots over double teams to get there. Like if he just took the terrible looks out of his shot diet, not only would they have been replaced with better looks from teammates, but Kobe probably would have been at a TS% of .530 or so. It was the selfish, terrible inefficient shots added to the good looks that he hit a very high rate that brought him down.

That's possible, yes. Discussing his Finals performance is surely worthy of note. But it is, to at least some extent, matched off by his WCFs, yes? Not as visible a series, somehow, I guess? But still relevant to the team even making the Finals in some seasons.

Again, where people want to rank him particularly is their business. But we get a sort of pendulum with Kobe. People want to overrate or underrate him for whatever reason, and then a lot of the time, reasonable discussion gets lost. Kobe had his flaws, unquestionably, but so does any player. Just trying to add some context, you know?

Kobe kinda reminds me of Wilt in some ways, both were incredibly skilled and talented, and probably should have been ranked about where they commonly are ranked if strategic flaws didn’t hold them back. Wilt started out as an extremely shoot first player, completely ignoring teammates, and later was so pass first that he was going an entire game without shooting to try to keep his streak of shots without a miss going and set the field goal percentage record. Likewise, Kobe was more focused on volume scoring and being “the ultimate alpha” then he was in playing the best team ball.

In both cases, when they got the balance right it was amazing. Wilt in ‘67 had an all-time peak season and led the Sixers to the best record in league history at the time, easily beating Russell’s Celtics in the playoffs. Kobe in 2009 took the Lakers on a dominant playoff run, cruising to the title without any of the 6/24 type games that often marked his playoff runs.

But again, in both cases, those years were very much the minority and not the majority. I think Wilt had the potential to be in the same tier with Hakeem, Duncan, Kareem, Shaq, and KG if he’d played with that balance throughout his career and likewise, Kobe had the potential to be in the same tier of perimeter players as Curry, CP3, and Magic, but both were dogged by bad decisions which is why I have Wilt and Kobe at 15 and 23 respectively instead of the 3-8 and 8-15 ranges they could have occupied.

[10DayContract]

I think he's got a large spread in where people put him all time. His game was a little streaky too. So it fits. Depends what you value. Some people are stans but you can make an argument for him in the top 10 for sure. 5 to 20 range I think is where most fans have him and it's a big spread. Some have him higher some lower but much fewer. He was unstoppable when he was on. It's why I think some favor him.

Ya, I won't get into this huge debate cause people have their minds made up...

But the argument for Kobe is that when he played his best, he's pretty much the best player that every lived. That goes a loooooong way in these kind of debates.

[tsherkin]

In both cases, when they got the balance right it was amazing. Wilt in ‘67 had an all-time peak season and led the Sixers to the best record in league history at the time, easily beating Russell’s Celtics in the playoffs. Kobe in 2009 took the Lakers on a dominant playoff run, cruising to the title without any of the 6/24 type games that often marked his playoff runs.

He was 5/24 in the third game of the 2009 playoffs. 11/28, 7/17, 11/27, 10/26, and he was 11/31 in the second-last game of the Finals...

[tsherkin]

But the argument for Kobe is that when he played his best, he's pretty much the best player that every lived. That goes a loooooong way in these kind of debates.

That isn't really a sensible argument for Kobe, though, which is why there is pushback.

[iggymcfrack]

I think he's got a large spread in where people put him all time. His game was a little streaky too. So it fits. Depends what you value. Some people are stans but you can make an argument for him in the top 10 for sure. 5 to 20 range I think is where most fans have him and it's a big spread. Some have him higher some lower but much fewer. He was unstoppable when he was on. It's why I think some favor him.

Ya, I won't get into this huge debate cause people have their minds made up...

But the argument for Kobe is that when he played his best, he's pretty much the best player that every lived. That goes a loooooong way in these kind of debates.

Well no. When he played his best was 2009 and he was clearly behind Bron and Wade that year:

Regular season
LeBron: 31.7 PER on .591 TS%, 13.2 BPM, +21.2 on/off
Wade: 30.4 PER on .574 TS%, 10.6 BPM, +14.2 on/off
Kobe: 24.4 PER on .561 TS%, 5.9 BPM, +11.1 on/off

Postseason
LeBron: 37.4 PER on .618 TS%, 17.5 BPM, +8.4 on/off
Wade: 26.3 PER on .565 TS%, 7.3 BPM, +13.5 on/off
Kobe: 26.8 PER on .564 TS%, 9.1 BPM, +12.4 on/off

The argument for Kobe is more that he played a long time and was on a lot of winning teams. Although of those 5 teams he won rings on he was basically the clearcut best player on one (2009), he was a 1a/1b on two (2001, 2010), and was the clearcut #2 on the other two (2000, 2002).

[10DayContract]

I think he's got a large spread in where people put him all time. His game was a little streaky too. So it fits. Depends what you value. Some people are stans but you can make an argument for him in the top 10 for sure. 5 to 20 range I think is where most fans have him and it's a big spread. Some have him higher some lower but much fewer. He was unstoppable when he was on. It's why I think some favor him.

Ya, I won't get into this huge debate cause people have their minds made up...

But the argument for Kobe is that when he played his best, he's pretty much the best player that every lived. That goes a loooooong way in these kind of debates.

Well no. When he played his best was 2009 and he was clearly behind Bron and Wade that year:

Regular season
LeBron: 31.7 PER on .591 TS%, 13.2 BPM, +21.2 on/off
Wade: 30.4 PER on .574 TS%, 10.6 BPM, +14.2 on/off
Kobe: 24.4 PER on .561 TS%, 5.9 BPM, +11.1 on/off

Postseason
LeBron: 37.4 PER on .618 TS%, 17.5 BPM, +8.4 on/off
Wade: 26.3 PER on .565 TS%, 7.3 BPM, +13.5 on/off
Kobe: 26.8 PER on .564 TS%, 9.1 BPM, +12.4 on/off

The argument for Kobe is more that he played a long time and was on a lot of winning teams. Although of those 5 teams he won rings on he was basically the clearcut best player on one (2009), he was a 1a/1b on two (2001, 2010), and was the clearcut #2 on the other two (2000, 2002).

I'm speaking on a more micro sense.

The best version of Bryant (5, 10, 20, 30 games stretches), is basically the highest level of basketball played. I'm not here to debate about it either. If you don't agree, fine. But that's what his supporters believe.

[iggymcfrack]

Ya, I won't get into this huge debate cause people have their minds made up...

But the argument for Kobe is that when he played his best, he's pretty much the best player that every lived. That goes a loooooong way in these kind of debates.

Well no. When he played his best was 2009 and he was clearly behind Bron and Wade that year:

Regular season
LeBron: 31.7 PER on .591 TS%, 13.2 BPM, +21.2 on/off
Wade: 30.4 PER on .574 TS%, 10.6 BPM, +14.2 on/off
Kobe: 24.4 PER on .561 TS%, 5.9 BPM, +11.1 on/off

Postseason
LeBron: 37.4 PER on .618 TS%, 17.5 BPM, +8.4 on/off
Wade: 26.3 PER on .565 TS%, 7.3 BPM, +13.5 on/off
Kobe: 26.8 PER on .564 TS%, 9.1 BPM, +12.4 on/off

The argument for Kobe is more that he played a long time and was on a lot of winning teams. Although of those 5 teams he won rings on he was basically the clearcut best player on one (2009), he was a 1a/1b on two (2001, 2010), and was the clearcut #2 on the other two (2000, 2002).

I'm speaking on a more micro sense.

The best version of Bryant (5, 10, 20, 30 games stretches), is basically the highest level of basketball played. I'm not here to debate about it either. If you don't agree, fine. But that's what his supporters believe.

Yeah, I guess he’s had some great short stretches in the regular season. He hasn’t really had one of those in the postseason that I can think of though.

[Calvin Klein]

Some players are bigger and more popular than their actual “greatness”. This is one of those cases. Still an all time great, top 10ish player.

[yellowknifer]

Well no. When he played his best was 2009 and he was clearly behind Bron and Wade that year:

Regular season
LeBron: 31.7 PER on .591 TS%, 13.2 BPM, +21.2 on/off
Wade: 30.4 PER on .574 TS%, 10.6 BPM, +14.2 on/off
Kobe: 24.4 PER on .561 TS%, 5.9 BPM, +11.1 on/off

Postseason
LeBron: 37.4 PER on .618 TS%, 17.5 BPM, +8.4 on/off
Wade: 26.3 PER on .565 TS%, 7.3 BPM, +13.5 on/off
Kobe: 26.8 PER on .564 TS%, 9.1 BPM, +12.4 on/off

The argument for Kobe is more that he played a long time and was on a lot of winning teams. Although of those 5 teams he won rings on he was basically the clearcut best player on one (2009), he was a 1a/1b on two (2001, 2010), and was the clearcut #2 on the other two (2000, 2002).

I'm speaking on a more micro sense.

The best version of Bryant (5, 10, 20, 30 games stretches), is basically the highest level of basketball played. I'm not here to debate about it either. If you don't agree, fine. But that's what his supporters believe.

Yeah, I guess he’s had some great short stretches in the regular season. He hasn’t really had one of those in the postseason that I can think of though.

He had some awesome post season runs with very clutch shots in the championship runs with Shaq. He wasn't the best player on his own team however. But some of the daggers were memorable.

[shrink]

Maybe some people can’t be fans of rapists, and others can overlook rapists, if they are talented enough with a bright orange ball?

[CodeBreaker]

It won't be long before Kobe doesn't even have a credible case for top 15. Too many good players are on pace to exceed him once they have enough longevity (Giannis, Joker, etc, Curry and KD are probably already ahead).

KD literally has no argument to be above Kobe

[One_and_Done]

It won't be long before Kobe doesn't even have a credible case for top 15. Too many good players are on pace to exceed him once they have enough longevity (Giannis, Joker, etc, Curry and KD are probably already ahead).

KD literally has no argument to be above Kobe

Better on O and D, and more versatile.

[Gusto1903]

It won't be long before Kobe doesn't even have a credible case for top 15. Too many good players are on pace to exceed him once they have enough longevity (Giannis, Joker, etc, Curry and KD are probably already ahead).

KD literally has no argument to be above Kobe

Better on O and D, and more versatile.

better twittergame also lol

[skones]

I think he's got a large spread in where people put him all time. His game was a little streaky too. So it fits. Depends what you value. Some people are stans but you can make an argument for him in the top 10 for sure. 5 to 20 range I think is where most fans have him and it's a big spread. Some have him higher some lower but much fewer. He was unstoppable when he was on. It's why I think some favor him.

Ya, I won't get into this huge debate cause people have their minds made up...

But the argument for Kobe is that when he played his best, he's pretty much the best player that every lived. That goes a loooooong way in these kind of debates.

Lol no. That's actually a ridiculous thing to say.

[tsherkin]

I think he's got a large spread in where people put him all time. His game was a little streaky too. So it fits. Depends what you value. Some people are stans but you can make an argument for him in the top 10 for sure. 5 to 20 range I think is where most fans have him and it's a big spread. Some have him higher some lower but much fewer. He was unstoppable when he was on. It's why I think some favor him.

Ya, I won't get into this huge debate cause people have their minds made up...

But the argument for Kobe is that when he played his best, he's pretty much the best player that every lived. That goes a loooooong way in these kind of debates.

Lol no. That's actually a ridiculous thing to say.

The more I read what he wrote, the more I wonder if he is outlining the beliefs of the pro-Kobe crowd, rather than attempting to suggest it is his own stance.

[skones]

Ya, I won't get into this huge debate cause people have their minds made up...

But the argument for Kobe is that when he played his best, he's pretty much the best player that every lived. That goes a loooooong way in these kind of debates.

Lol no. That's actually a ridiculous thing to say.

The more I read what he wrote, the more I wonder if he is outlining the beliefs of the pro-Kobe crowd, rather than attempting to suggest it is his own stance.

Given his previous history with Kobe stuff, I'm not entirely sure.