Replace Larry Bird with Kobe Bryant on the 80s Celtics

[IGOTGAME]

How many more titles would the Boston Celtics win if they had Larry Bird replaced by Kobe Bryant.

Does Kobe win a ring playing in the 80s with Bird's squad? 2 rings? or 0 rings?

[catch24]

http://www.deweyshouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/nomar-300x260.jpg

I see what you did there :lol

[kaiiu]

3 rings

[asdf1990]

900 rings/

[Bring-Your-Js]

:oldlol:

[G-Funk]

3-4

[andgar923]

they win 2 titles per season!!!

[jlauber]

Interesting topic. With McHale and Parish...it would depend on who they could get at SF, but I don't see any drop-off.

[The-Legend-24]

3 to 4 rings.

[DMAVS41]

2 or 3 titles.

[guy]

I'll say the same thing I said for Dirk. Given the year-by-year comparison, i.e. 97 Kobe on the 80 Celtics, 98 Kobe on the 81 Celtics, etc. (and I'll even consider the fact that he plays longer and put 2010 and 2011 Kobe on the 1993 and 1994 Celtics) and he wins 1 title in 1986 (2003 Kobe).

[L.Kizzle]

an Kobe get by the defense of prime Sidney Monceirf though?

[8BeastlyXOIAD]

an Kobe get by the defense of prime Sidney Monceirf though?

Lmfao @ 80's defense :oldlol:

80's defense (excluding the "Bad Boys" Pistons) was trash and shouldn't even be compare to what Players have to deal with now.

[Eric Cartman]

4 rings.

[Micku]

Kobe probably would play SF in the 80s me thinks.

And he'll win 5 titles a year.

[Jacks3]

2-3 titles. Kobe would destroy with the weak, pathetic defenses of the 80's.

His 30/7/6/2/1/55% TS stat-line in 03 would look more like 31/8/7/2/57% TS in the 80's.

[Scoooter]

I don't think either Mchale or Parish were the caliber of player to carry Kobe a la Shaq or Pau. No rings.

[BEAST Griffin]

He'd win 1 ring and then destroy the team's chemistry

[OldSchoolBBall]

1-2 rings. I don't even think they make the Finals some years Boston did. Kobe is not as good as Bird, and doesn't do as many of the little things that help to win games. He doesn't infuse Boston with his gritty, hustling, team-first character the way Bird did because he simply is not as gritty or hustling or team-first.

[IGOTGAME]

I don't think either Mchale or Parish were the caliber of player to carry Kobe a la Shaq or Pau. No rings.

:roll:

[jlauber]

I'll say the same thing I said for Dirk. Given the year-by-year comparison, i.e. 97 Kobe on the 80 Celtics, 98 Kobe on the 81 Celtics, etc. (and I'll even consider the fact that he plays longer and put 2010 and 2011 Kobe on the 1993 and 1994 Celtics) and he wins 1 title in 1986 (2003 Kobe).

Bird won his first title at age 24, and was nowhere near the pure scorer that Kobe was at 24 ...ANYTIME in his career, much less at 24. IMHO, Kobe wins in '81 at 24 (especially against the 40-42 Rockets.). At age 27 Kobe had surpassed Bird as a pure offensive machine (35.4 ppg in a league that averaged 97.0 ppg), and with the same luck that Bird's Celtics had in '84, Kobe wins #2. In '86, and with the Rockets shocking the Lakers, a 29 year old Kobe probably wins #3, again, playing against a 51-31 Rockets team. The real question would be how much better Kobe would have played in the post-seasons at age 30, and 31... BUT, I don't see Kobe taking the Celtics in '87 any further than Bird did. Those Lakers were CLEARLY a better team than the '87 Celtics. And while Bird choked against the Pistons in '88, I don't think a better Kobe would have beaten the Pistons, much less Magic's Lakers.

Probably as many as Bird, and in the same seasons...

[Da Heroic One]

They'd win 3-4 rings. I don't think epople realize how close this comparison is and how neither Bird or Kobe should be insulted if one is considered better or greater than the other.

[Jacks3]

http://www.backpicks.com/2011/06/29/who-played-the-hardest-defenses-adjusting-playoff-stats-by-competition-part-i/

Absolutely laughable how much better the defenses Kobe has seen in the PS are. :facepalm

[The-Legend-24]

If the celtics won 3 rings with Bird, with Kobe they win 4 maybe even 5.

[G-Funk]

1-2 rings. I don't even think they make the Finals some years Boston did. Kobe is not as good as Bird, and doesn't do as many of the little things that help to win games. He doesn't infuse Boston with his gritty, hustling, team-first character the way Bird did because he simply is not as gritty or hustling or team-first.

I dont think he needs to be all that! he led his team to 5 tittles, his way!

[G-Funk]

He'd win 1 ring and then destroy the team's chemistry

Just like he destroyed this repeat team?

[ballerz]

I don't see how kobe makes this team better because bird can score and pass as well as kobe

[Jacks3]

lol @ bird being a better scorer.

[All Net]

I would say 3 but 4 is possible

[Rnbizzle]

Kobe > Bird.

[Ronaldinho]

He would probably be the Bill Russel of the 80s

[OldSchoolBBall]

I dont think he needs to be all that! he led his team to 5 tittles, his way!

He led his team to two titles, not five.

lol @ people seriously suggesting that Kobe > Bird in terms of impact, especially on a talented team. :oldlol:

[MaxFly]

I hope this isn't an attempt to put Bryant ahead of Legend on the all time rankings list. I think Larry still has him beaten pretty easily. However, if we are to be objective, I think we'd have to say that Bryant would win at least 2 championships, and likely more. Bryant would have to be placed at the SF position, which he can play, or the team would have had to have been tweaked to have him start at SG. In any event, his numbers (perhaps not scoring given the team he would have) and efficiency would go up in the fast paced 80s in comparison to what they have been over the last decade.

That aside... what's the agenda behind this thread?

[asdf1990]

2-3 titles. Kobe would destroy with the weak, pathetic defenses of the 80's.

His 30/7/6/2/1/55% TS stat-line in 03 would look more like 31/8/7/2/57% TS in the 80's.

oh sweet jesus he would average 1 more ppg/ 1 more apg/ 1 more rpg/ 1 more spg . What a fuvking incredible improvement. Kobe going god mode on them bitches in the 80s.

[Soothing Layup]

Celtics win 3 rings
Shaq and bird team up for a legendary 4-peat.

[Calabis]

Bird won his first title at age 24, and was nowhere near the pure scorer that Kobe was at 24 ...ANYTIME in his career, much less at 24. IMHO, Kobe wins in '81 at 24 (especially against the 40-42 Rockets.). At age 27 Kobe had surpassed Bird as a pure offensive machine (35.4 ppg in a league that averaged 97.0 ppg), and with the same luck that Bird's Celtics had in '84, Kobe wins #2. In '86, and with the Rockets shocking the Lakers, a 29 year old Kobe probably wins #3, again, playing against a 51-31 Rockets team. The real question would be how much better Kobe would have played in the post-seasons at age 30, and 31... BUT, I don't see Kobe taking the Celtics in '87 any further than Bird did. Those Lakers were CLEARLY a better team than the '87 Celtics. And while Bird choked against the Pistons in '88, I don't think a better Kobe would have beaten the Pistons, much less Magic's Lakers.

Probably as many as Bird, and in the same seasons...

Dude shut the hell up...pure scorer, Bird shot the ball 20 or more times in his career 4 times(22 max)....his avg during those seasons 27.8 PPG....Kobe has shot the ball 20 or more times 10 times(27 max), his avg 28.6 ppg, wth are u talking about he couldn't score..hell one of those 20 shot seasons by Bird was post back injury and heel surgery Bird.....Bird was a all around player and I'm tired of this Kobe age excuse, if that's the case then take away his 5 years of NBA exp and take away his game which he patterned after MJ...so that makes Kobe a 24 year old second year player, with a game like who???

[rodman91]

Kobe would have 1 or 2 rings in 80's Celtics.
Bird would have probably 8 rings in 00's Lakers.

[Jacks3]

oh sweet jesus he would average 1 more ppg/ 1 more apg/ 1 more rpg/ 1 more spg . What a fuvking incredible improvement. Kobe going god mode on them bitches in the 80s.
Yeah, 30/8/7/2/57% TS while being one of the best perimeter defenders in the league is going God-mode. Kobe would shit on those weak 80's defenses, especially in the playoffs. :pimp:

[code green]

Lmfao @ 80's defense :oldlol:

80's defense (excluding the "Bad Boys" Pistons) was trash and shouldn't even be compare to what Players have to deal with now.

:facepalm

[Butters]

Gimi that shooting guard with worse everything over that crappy small forward any day.

20+ rings,easily.

[andgar923]

I am not sure if some people here actually believe that Kobe could win the amount of titles they believe he could.

What made the Celtics great was Bird's play.

He made them a threat with his passing abilities and scoring abilities from the FORWARD position.

There is no way in hell that Kobe wins a title with that squad, because he wouldn't keep them involved like Bird did. And as some of those that actually saw them play would agree with, what made the Celtics special was their ability to move the ball around and keep the defense off guard.

Kobe would obviously disrupt any and all of this and would make them a lesser team. Kobe isn't the unselfish player that Bird was, nor is he a 6'8 player that could create the mismatch problems for teams (specially in that time).

But more importantly, Kobe is nowhere near on the same level of IQ that Bird was...... not close.

Players like Parrish, DJ, Maxwell, etc.etc would become obsolete, since Bird knew how to incorporate them into the offense and get them easy shots. McHale would be Kobe's only help offensively, but even then, his productivity would decrease.

The Celtics with Kobe win "0" titles.

They would actually go from the elite of the elites, to a middle of the pack team, having to claw their way to the playoffs.

Go ahead... get mad.

[Eat Like A Bosh]

Playing with Mchale and Parish, hmmm.
As long as the one playing SF is not a complete scrub, they should be fine.
I don't see a mjor drop off.
Yeah I'm pretty sure they can snatch 3 titles.

[Micku]

I think that Kobe would play SF in the 80s.

He might win a little more or less depending on the circumstances. If we are talking year by year, then he'll probably win less or at least not in the order that Bird won. Kobe wouldn't have won in 81 and may not in 84, but he'll probably be more of a force in the late 80s seeing how his prime came later in his 10th season.

Despite the ability Kobe has, you take few things away with Kobe. Kobe don't have the playmaking and the rebounding ability that Bird has. This may affect the team and everything, plus his bad shots. He has other aspects. Kobe defense, especially in his early years, would be awesome and Kobe is a better scorer. While Bird could score more if he wanted to, Kobe is just better at it and does it more often. And Kobe isn't injury prone like Bird was, and stuff.

But we are talking about what would really happen if Kobe was born earlier and play in the 80s then he would be a completely different player. I doubt he would have been good defensively and his game would possibly change a lot.

[LeFraud James]

I am not sure if some people here actually believe that Kobe could win the amount of titles they believe he could.

What made the Celtics great was Bird's play.

He made them a threat with his passing abilities and scoring abilities from the FORWARD position.

There is no way in hell that Kobe wins a title with that squad, because he wouldn't keep them involved like Bird did. And as some of those that actually saw them play would agree with, what made the Celtics special was their ability to move the ball around and keep the defense off guard.

Kobe would obviously disrupt any and all of this and would make them a lesser team. Kobe isn't the unselfish player that Bird was, nor is he a 6'8 player that could create the mismatch problems for teams (specially in that time).

But more importantly, Kobe is nowhere near on the same level of IQ that Bird was...... not close.

Players like Parrish, DJ, Maxwell, etc.etc would become obsolete, since Bird knew how to incorporate them into the offense and get them easy shots. McHale would be Kobe's only help offensively, but even then, his productivity would decrease.

The Celtics with Kobe win "0" titles.

They would actually go from the elite of the elites, to a middle of the pack team, having to claw their way to the playoffs.

Go ahead... get mad.

You're reaching here.

I wonder if any of your 7859 posts could be any more rudimentary than this. :facepalm

[Micku]

Y'know what we need? We need replace Kobe with Magic thread. Or any player with Magic thread. That would be fun because Magic is probably one of the best offensive players in history who doesn't score much.

Like I say that Magic is a much greater offensive impact player than than...01 Kobe or Melo now. And then ppl will be like:
"Wtf! lol! Kobe scorez like 5 pointz moar and Melo can scorez anywere on teh flor!"

And then I would say Magic impact reach far more than scoring. Not only does he score at a hella efficient level, he is like one of the few ppl who just makes everything easier on the team. Plus his shot selection was pretty epic.

Bird is similar. His offensive impact goes beyond than scoring.

[colts19]

Y'know what we need? We need replace Kobe with Magic thread. Or any player with Magic thread. That would be fun because Magic is probably one of the best offensive players in history who doesn't score much.

Like I say that Magic is a much greater offensive impact player than than...01 Kobe or Melo now. And then ppl will be like:
"Wtf! lol! Kobe scorez like 5 pointz moar and Melo can scorez anywere on teh flor!"

And then I would say Magic impact reach far more than scoring. Not only does he score at a hella efficient level, he is like one of the few ppl who just makes everything easier on the team. Plus his shot selection was pretty epic.

Bird is similar. His offensive impact goes beyond than scoring.

This

[The-Legend-24]

Kobe > Bird.
:applause:

[Da Heroic One]

The Celtics with Kobe win "0" titles.

They would actually go from the elite of the elites, to a middle of the pack team, having to claw their way to the playoffs.

Go ahead... get mad.
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z270/IK2121/TI.gif

[Jacks3]

Bird is similar. His offensive impact goes beyond than scoring.
Yeah, because Kobe isn't one of the best non-PG play-makers ever, doesn't draw a ton of defensive attention, and his high-volume scoring comes on very good-to-great efficiency (56-58% TS ). :facepalm

[Doctor Rivers]

I am not sure if some people here actually believe that Kobe could win the amount of titles they believe he could.

What made the Celtics great was Bird's play.

He made them a threat with his passing abilities and scoring abilities from the FORWARD position.

There is no way in hell that Kobe wins a title with that squad, because he wouldn't keep them involved like Bird did. And as some of those that actually saw them play would agree with, what made the Celtics special was their ability to move the ball around and keep the defense off guard.

Kobe would obviously disrupt any and all of this and would make them a lesser team. Kobe isn't the unselfish player that Bird was, nor is he a 6'8 player that could create the mismatch problems for teams (specially in that time).

But more importantly, Kobe is nowhere near on the same level of IQ that Bird was...... not close.

Players like Parrish, DJ, Maxwell, etc.etc would become obsolete, since Bird knew how to incorporate them into the offense and get them easy shots. McHale would be Kobe's only help offensively, but even then, his productivity would decrease.

The Celtics with Kobe win "0" titles.

They would actually go from the elite of the elites, to a middle of the pack team, having to claw their way to the playoffs.

Go ahead... get mad.

I don't get mad at stupid things. I :oldlol: :oldlol: at stupid things.

[Micku]

Yeah, because Kobe isn't one of the best non-PG play-makers ever, doesn't draw a ton of defensive attention, and his high-volume scoring comes on very good-to-great efficiency (56-58% TS ). :facepalm

Did I say Kobe couldn't be a playmaker or did I say Bird was similar to Magic in offensive impact?

[tpols]

I am not sure if some people here actually believe that Kobe could win the amount of titles they believe he could.

What made the Celtics great was Bird's play.

He made them a threat with his passing abilities and scoring abilities from the FORWARD position.
Uh... Kobe damn near created a dynasty with Pau Gasol.. who is inferior to Kevin McHale. And the rest of Larry's team outside of McHale was better than the rest of Kobe's outside of Pau. Larry had way better teams all around the board and Kobe already has proven he could win multiple times with less.

Stupid argument.:oldlol:

[Micku]

Uh... Kobe damn near created a dynasty with Pau Gasol.. who is inferior to Kevin McHale. And the rest of Larry's team outside of McHale was better than the rest of Kobe's outside of Pau. Larry had way better teams all around the board and Kobe already has proven he could win multiple times with less.

Stupid argument.:oldlol:

It depends on the year, but the 80s Celtics cast>08-11 Lakers cast. The Celtics had more talent and stuff.

But, the 80s were stacked in general. The 76ers, the Bucks, the Hawks, the Lakers, the Pistons, Denver and others. Competition was high.

Like Showtime Lakers talent>Celtics. You can argue that the 76ers talent was better than the Celtics in the early 80s as well.


With Kobe having that type of talent on his team, it would fun to watch. Not to say that Kobe doesn't have talent now, but Kevin Mchale and Robert Parish is better than Pau Gasol and Andrew Bynum. And Dennis Johnson would be the best PG Kobe has ever played with for a season.

[jlauber]

Dude shut the hell up...pure scorer, Bird shot the ball 20 or more times in his career 4 times(22 max)....his avg during those seasons 27.8 PPG....Kobe has shot the ball 20 or more times 10 times(27 max), his avg 28.6 ppg, wth are u talking about he couldn't score..hell one of those 20 shot seasons by Bird was post back injury and heel surgery Bird.....Bird was a all around player and I'm tired of this Kobe age excuse, if that's the case then take away his 5 years of NBA exp and take away his game which he patterned after MJ...so that makes Kobe a 24 year old second year player, with a game like who???

Kobe DOMINATED the Spurs for the nearly the entire decade of the 00's. I'm sorry, but for almost every post-season series between LA-SA, Kobe was the BEST player on the floor. As for Bird's scoring...of course he could have scored more. Hell, look up Walt Wesley's career stats sometime. He was something like an 8 ppg scorer...yet, he had a 50 point game. What separates the truly ELITE scorers are those players that can score 30 ppg against ANY defense, ANY defender (or defenders), and from anywhere on the floor. Bird was a great shooter, but if let's face reality here. Kobe at 24 was hanging 40+ point playoff games. Bird at 24, was struggling to score 15 ppg in the Finals with as poor a roster as he ever had, and against the worst Finals opponent in NBA history. Bird played with loaded rosters, and seldom faced the defensive pressure that Kobe did. And by 27 Kobe was perhaps the 3rd greatest scorer in NBA HISTORY...single-handedly carrying a pathetic roster.

Bird could more things, to be sure, but he was NOT the pure scorer that Kobe was, and to be honest, there have only been 3-4 other players that were. Kobe's FG% came in lower scoring leagues and tougher defenses...and as THE focal point of the offense. I get sick-and-tired of those that disparage Kobe as some kind of shot-jacker. The man played on FIVE title teams, and he was much more than just Shaq's second option on the "three-peat" teams. He was a FAR greater all-around player than a McGrady, Iverson, or so many other gunners who could not lead their teams to much success.

Who was the greater player? I don't have a problem with either, but let's not act like Bird was an overwhelmingly better player...particularly in the post-season, where he tended to shrink. I have also read posters here claiming that Bird was the greatest "clutch" player of all-time. Huh???? He won THREE titles, on LOADED rosters in the 80's. His shooting dropped dramatically in the post-season, and he came up SMALL on at least a few occasions. It's not as if her were "Jordan-esqe" in his post-season play, nor did he approach the play of Chamberlain in the playoffs, either. (BTW, I get a kick out of those that somehow believe Bird to have been more "clutch" than Wilt, which was a flat out joke...but that is a topic for another time.)

Kobe has had his share of disappointing playoff moments, too, but he also has had some SPECTACULAR one's, as well. He has had SEVEN post-seasons of higher scoring than Bird, and here again, in lower scoring, and lower shooting leagues. And, one more time, Kobe has a 5-3 edge in rings...so it is not as if Bird were a greater "winner."

One more time...Bird was among the greatest ever, and I don't have a problem with those that rank him higher than Kobe...but Kobe has arguably had a greater career, and is right there with him.

[IGOTGAME]

One more time...Bird was among the greatest ever, and I don't have a problem with those that rank him higher than Kobe...but Kobe has arguably had a greater career, and is right there with him.

and guess what? It's not over yet...Kobe may go and win 1 or 2 more titles and Finals MVPs.

After the lockout, when he comes be rejuvenated who knows how he will play. If it is a shortened season, maybe an MVP. Remember he is only 32 years old.

[jlauber]

and guess what? It's not over yet...Kobe may go and win 1 or 2 more titles and Finals MVPs.

After the lockout, when he comes be rejuvenated who knows how he will play. If it is a shortened season, maybe an MVP. Remember he is only 32 years old.

And, that is another argument in Kobe's favor, too. The man has been a STAR player in the NBA for more seasons that Bird even played, and he is not done yet, either. In terms of CAREERS, I honestly can't see Bird having an edge. I might give Bird an edge in PEAK play, but Kobe's greatness has extended well beyond Bird's.

[raptorfan_dr07]

I am not sure if some people here actually believe that Kobe could win the amount of titles they believe he could.

What made the Celtics great was Bird's play.

He made them a threat with his passing abilities and scoring abilities from the FORWARD position.

There is no way in hell that Kobe wins a title with that squad, because he wouldn't keep them involved like Bird did. And as some of those that actually saw them play would agree with, what made the Celtics special was their ability to move the ball around and keep the defense off guard.

Kobe would obviously disrupt any and all of this and would make them a lesser team. Kobe isn't the unselfish player that Bird was, nor is he a 6'8 player that could create the mismatch problems for teams (specially in that time).

But more importantly, Kobe is nowhere near on the same level of IQ that Bird was...... not close.

Players like Parrish, DJ, Maxwell, etc.etc would become obsolete, since Bird knew how to incorporate them into the offense and get them easy shots. McHale would be Kobe's only help offensively, but even then, his productivity would decrease.

The Celtics with Kobe win "0" titles.

They would actually go from the elite of the elites, to a middle of the pack team, having to claw their way to the playoffs.

Go ahead... get mad.

Pretty much. Those years Boston played Chicago, the Bulls would've beaten Boston no problem with young Jordan taking a steaming dump on Kobe. Detroit would've taken turns pushing his sh*t in. We've all seen Kobe against physical defenses, he shrivels up like a punk and cries to the refs for help. I don't even think Boston gets through the Eastern Conference with that chump instead of Bird. Who knows though, maybe McHale and Parrish are able to carry him some rounds.

[chazzy]

That awkward moment when raptorfan posts

[andgar923]

One can't simply transpose a player and believe that because they were good in one situation, that the same will apply.

FACT is, Bird played a completely different game than Kobe does. And Bird's style suited that team for that time.

Even if Kobe comes into the Celtics and averages 45 points per game, it doesn't guarantee that they'll be any better.

Again.... people need to understand what made the Celtics so special.

And it was their unselfish ball movement, and all of this was anchored by Bird.

And it wasn't just about the assists, statistics aside, it was how and when Bird made the plays, everybody else just fed off that and it was contagious.

The same doesn't happen with Kobe replacing Bird... no way.

[jlauber]

One can't simply transpose a player and believe that because they were good in one situation, that the same will apply.

FACT is, Bird played a completely different game than Kobe does. And Bird's style suited that team for that time.

Even if Kobe comes into the Celtics and averages 45 points per game, it doesn't guarantee that they'll be any better.

Again.... people need to understand what made the Celtics so special.

And it was their unselfish ball movement, and all of this was anchored by Bird.

And it wasn't just about the assists, statistics aside, it was how and when Bird made the plays, everybody else just fed off that and it was contagious.

The same doesn't happen with Kobe replacing Bird... no way.

Of course, using that logic, Bird doesn't come close to the FIVE rings that Kobe had in the 00's, had he replaced Kobe.

[IGOTGAME]

One can't simply transpose a player and believe that because they were good in one situation, that the same will apply.

FACT is, Bird played a completely different game than Kobe does. And Bird's style suited that team for that time.

Even if Kobe comes into the Celtics and averages 45 points per game, it doesn't guarantee that they'll be any better.

Again.... people need to understand what made the Celtics so special.

And it was their unselfish ball movement, and all of this was anchored by Bird.

And it wasn't just about the assists, statistics aside, it was how and when Bird made the plays, everybody else just fed off that and it was contagious.

The same doesn't happen with Kobe replacing Bird... no way.

what you don't get is that it doesn't need to happen for the Celtics to win with Kobe. Kevin McHale and Robert Parish are outstanding players regardless of Larry Bird being there or not. The Celtics team doesn't have to play the same way they only have to win titles.

[G-Funk]

He led his team to two titles, not five.

lol @ people seriously suggesting that Kobe > Bird in terms of impact, especially on a talented team. :oldlol:

he did not help Shaq lead the Lakers to a 3peat???

[Jacks3]

Did I say Kobe couldn't be a playmaker or did I say Bird was similar to Magic in offensive impact?
You seemed to be implying prime Kobe was some one-dimensional player like a Durant when in reality he's one of the most well-rounded players of the era along with KG and LeBron. :confusedshrug: Maybe I read wrong.

[Calabis]

Yeah, because Kobe isn't one of the best non-PG play-makers ever, doesn't draw a ton of defensive attention, and his high-volume scoring comes on very good-to-great efficiency (56-58% TS ). :facepalm

Dude get the hell outta here with that TS% shit....dude is 41% lifetime in Finals...that's good efficiency?? Mf'er shot 43% in 04-05 yet his true shooting % was 56%, which was higher than the following year when he shot 45% from the field, his TS% was 55.9%...u'r the only moron trying to shove this down peoples throat

Larry Bird shot 48% from the field, yet he was less efficient than Kobe, because he didn't jack a ton of threes??? Or avg 10 free throws a game??

[Nevaeh]

Dude get the hell outta here with that TS% shit....dude is 41% lifetime in Finals...that's good efficiency?? Mf'er shot 43% in 04-05 yet his true shooting % was 56%, which was higher than the following year when he shot 45% from the field, his TS% was 55.9%...u'r the only moron trying to shove this down peoples throat

Larry Bird shot 48% from the field, yet he was less efficient than Kobe, because he didn't jack a ton of threes??? Or avg 10 free throws a game??

Yeah that TS% stat is just used to hide Kobe's Inefficiency and low B-Ball IQ. I'm willing to bet his TS% was through the roof during the 2004 Finals as well, despite the retarded shots he was taking.

[Jacks3]

Larry Bird shot 48% from the field, yet he was less efficient than Kobe, because he didn't jack a ton of threes??? Or avg 10 free throws a game??
Yeah, the fact that Kobe is so much better at getting to the line due to his vastly superior quickness is relevant. That's a strength for Bryant in comparison.

It's not rocket science. And lol @ acting like Bird didn't have poor-shooting Finals.

Moron.

[LeFraud James]

Yeah that TS% stat is just used to hide Kobe's Inefficiency and low B-Ball IQ. I'm willing to bet his TS% was through the roof during the 2004 Finals as well, despite the retarded shots he was taking.

666 posts. :eek:

[Jacks3]

Mf'er shot 43% in 04-05 yet his true shooting % was 56%, which was higher than the following year when he shot 45% from the field, his TS% was 55.9%..
His volume went way up (+8 PPG) and he did a better job from the field, but his 3-pt/FT line percentages/volume saw no great change. Simple.

Your dumb-ass doesn't even understand the stat. :facepalm

[Calabis]

Yeah, the fact that Kobe is so much better at getting to the line due to his vastly superior quickness is relevant. That's a strength for Bryant in comparison.

It's not rocket science. And lol @ acting like Bird didn't have poor-shooting Finals.

Moron.

Yeah his jump shooting ass got to the line 9+ times 4 years in a row after rule changes....gtfoh with this TS%

[andgar923]

Yeah, the fact that Kobe is so much better at getting to the line due to his vastly superior quickness is relevant. That's a strength for Bryant in comparison.

It's not rocket science. And lol @ acting like Bird didn't have poor-shooting Finals.

Moron.

I see.

*takes mental note*

[Calabis]

His volume went way up (+8 PPG) and he did a better job from the field, but his 3-pt/FT line percentages/volume saw no great change. Simple.

Your dumb-ass doesn't even understand the stat. :facepalm

Like I said 43% FG is not efficient....you can keep telling urself that 55% TS is some god like performance...I guess Larry can at least claim that he hit the 60+% in TS percentage in his career and has a higher TS% career avg than Kobe in the regular season and playoffs:eek:

[catch24]

lmao at idiots overrating TS% and thinking it's a better form of efficiency.

When has it ever taken into account missed shots = bad offense? Oh, that's right... never.

[tpols]

lmao at idiots overrating TS% and thinking it's a better form of efficiency.

When has it ever taken into account missed shots = bad offense? Oh, that's right... never.
And FG doesn't take into account that 3pt shots are worth more points than 2pt shots, and a trip to the FT line means nothing towards your efficiency despite the fact that when players are fouled in the act, they usually had a much higher chance of putting the ball in the basket. It goes both ways.

[catch24]

And FG doesn't take into account that 3pt shots are worth more points than 2pt shots, and a trip to the FT line means nothing towards your efficiency despite the fact that when players are fouled in the act, they usually had a much higher chance of putting the ball in the basket. It goes both ways.

That's what the 3PT/eFG figures are for. When reading a box-score and looking up a players FG% - say Reggie Miller; during the height of his career, I'd be inclined to look at how many 3PT he took.

Despite the context, the 3PT shot, in retrospect... is a low % shot. Shooting too many is bad shot-selection; most coaches will tell you that.

[tpols]

That's what the 3PT/eFG figures are for. When reading a box-score and looking up a players FG% - say Reggie Miller; during the height of his career, I'd be inclined to look at how many 3PT he took.

Despite the context, the 3PT shot, in retrospect... is a low % shot. Shooting too many is bad shot-selection; most coaches will tell you that.
Many people disregard eFG just like you disregard TS. They feel it's on the level of PER or WS, when it is not at all. They[TS and eFG] are both very simple measures of efficiency that aren't just made up formulas. They take into account the three different ways a player can score.. no bs.

[catch24]

Many people disregard eFG just like you disregard TS. They feel it's on the level of PER or WS, when it is not at all. They[TS and eFG] are both very simple measures of efficiency that aren't just made up formulas. They take into account the three different ways a player can score.. no bs.

If there were an adjusted statistic I'd recommend it would be eFG%. TS% would be one of the last on my list. Just don't see the logic in grouping together FTs and points from the perimeter/field (you know... where defense is actually being played?)

I can read a box-score and say Player A shot horribly - most attempts were from 3PT - but he did get to the line (was aggressive). Not sure how that's difficult?

TS% doesn't put perspective on a players actual shooting percentage/shot-selection from the field. It often inflates the total % because of FTs (with the way the games called today, using this stat alone is incredibly deceptive). Anyway, just my two cents. If people want to continue using it, that's fine, but to totally disregard shot-selection and act like missed shots don't matter is silly.

[gengiskhan]

Kobe & the Celtics dont win any Championships in the '80s cuz the era was too stacked with well balanced teams from the east.

Pistons will advance most of the time against kobe's celtics cuz kobe cannot handle pistons rough & tough Physical D.

Kobe & the celtics might make it to 1 finals in their best year but loose to Magic & the lakers easily.

Bird made Mchale & Parish better players by his court vision, IQ & efficiency

Kobe has non of those GOAT traits.

shot jocking ball hogging Kobe will make Mchale & Parish stand around & the famous Mchale typical stare down to Kobe with both hands behind his head.

[chazzy]

It's just total scoring efficiency.. how efficient you are in terms of total possessions used - and yes, a play in which you get fouled and get to the line uses up a scoring possession just like a shot from the field would. Just because you aren't being defended at the line doesn't make those points count any less, and FT% obviously varies.

I just don't get why people act like it's some "Kobe stat" when he's not even super elite in it. Just among his peers, guys like Lebron, Wade, Durant, Dirk have been better than him.. and when you compare efficiency across eras, you have to consider the increased FT rates of current perimeter players.

It doesn't tell you about shot selection etc., but neither does FG% alone. That actually tells you a lot less as a stand alone stat. I see criticism that can be used for the other efficiency stats as well. It just has to be used properly and with context (like just because someone is more efficient doesn't make them a better scorer.) Ideally you'd want to look at the distribution of their shot attempts to better gauge whether their attempts hurt their team's offense more than others, but that's not always available. And even then, it's not always easy to determine which statline is more efficient just by looking at the total line.

Think of it more as rewarding the player that goes 4/10 from the field and 8/8 from the FT line. FG% says that was a 40% game, while TS% gives proper credit for the points scored at the line

[Jacks3]

Yeah his jump shooting ass got to the line 9+ times 4 years in a row after rule changes....gtfoh with this TS%
His efficiency was around 55-56% TS before the rule changes you idiot.

[Jacks3]

Like I said 43% FG is not efficient....you can keep telling urself that 55% TS is some god like performance...I guess Larry can at least claim that he hit the 60+% in TS percentage in his career and has a higher TS% career avg than Kobe in the regular season and playoffs:eek:
When did I deny Bird was more efficient than Bryant? :hammerhead:

[Jacks3]

lol @ idiots like catch still using FG% when it says nothing about actual efficiency. Yes, let's ignore the FT's and the extra value of threes.

Idiot.

[catch24]

FG% says nothing about efficiency? You're truly one of a kind, Jackie!

:roll:

[Samurai Swoosh]

If there were an adjusted statistic I'd recommend it would be eFG%. TS% would be one of the last on my list. Just don't see the logic in grouping together FTs and points from the perimeter/field (you know... where defense is actually being played?)

I can read a box-score and say Player A shot horribly - most attempts were from 3PT - but he did get to the line (was aggressive). Not sure how that's difficult?

TS% doesn't put perspective on a players actual shooting percentage/shot-selection from the field. It often inflates the total % because of FTs (with the way the games called today, using this stat alone is incredibly deceptive). Anyway, just my two cents. If people want to continue using it, that's fine, but to totally disregard shot-selection and act like missed shots don't matter is silly.
Gets it.

:pimp:

[Jacks3]

A stat that doesn't include the extra value of threes or the worth of FT's is useless for determining actual efficiency. Seriously, how stupid do you have to be to not understand this? A player can go 10/20 (OMG! 50%!), but still be inefficient because he's not getting to the line or hitting threes, so he's not generating as many points per possession. Only retards like catch can fail to understand such a ridiculously simple concept.

What an idiot.

[28renyoy]

FG% says nothing about efficiency? You're truly one of a kind, Jackie!

:roll:

No...FG% is total garbage. TS% and eFG% are the only valuable efficiency measurements.

Celtics probably win 2 titles with Kobe. 86 is obvious and I'm betting they win another one at some point.

[IGOTGAME]

Kobe & the Celtics dont win any Championships in the '80s cuz the era was too stacked with well balanced teams from the east.

Pistons will advance most of the time against kobe's celtics cuz kobe cannot handle pistons rough & tough Physical D.

Kobe & the celtics might make it to 1 finals in their best year but loose to Magic & the lakers easily.

Bird made Mchale & Parish better players by his court vision, IQ & efficiency

Kobe has non of those GOAT traits.

shot jocking ball hogging Kobe will make Mchale & Parish stand around & the famous Mchale typical stare down to Kobe with both hands behind his head.

yeah because everyone was raving about Pau Gasol before he got on the lakers and began playing with Kobe.

I just don't get the fascination with these supposed advanced stats....they just don't really have much of a factor on my decesions when coming to conclusions about players.

[catch24]

A stat that doesn't include the extra value of threes or the worth of FT's is useless for determining actual efficiency. Seriously, how stupid do you have to be to not understand this? A player can go 10/20 (OMG! 50%!), but still be inefficient because he's not getting to the line or hitting threes, so he's not generating as many points per possession. Only retards like catch can fail to understand such a ridiculously simple concept.

What an idiot.

You sound upset, bro. Take a breather, you'll be OK.

In the meantime, FG% takes into account shot-selection and what you generate from the field. FTs should always be a separate entity; especially the way the games called today.

[Bring-Your-Js]

It's just total scoring efficiency.. how efficient you are in terms of total possessions used - and yes, a play in which you get fouled and get to the line uses up a scoring possession just like a shot from the field would. Just because you aren't being defended at the line doesn't make those points count any less, and FT% obviously varies.

I just don't get why people act like it's some "Kobe stat" when he's not even super elite in it. Just among his peers, guys like Lebron, Wade, Durant, Dirk have been better than him.. and when you compare efficiency across eras, you have to consider the increased FT rates of current perimeter players.

It doesn't tell you about shot selection etc., but neither does FG% alone. That actually tells you a lot less as a stand alone stat. I see criticism that can be used for the other efficiency stats as well. It just has to be used properly and with context (like just because someone is more efficient doesn't make them a better scorer.) Ideally you'd want to look at the distribution of their shot attempts to better gauge whether their attempts hurt their team's offense more than others, but that's not always available. And even then, it's not always easy to determine which statline is more efficient just by looking at the total line.

Think of it more as rewarding the player that goes 4/10 from the field and 8/8 from the FT line. FG% says that was a 40% game, while TS% gives proper credit for the points scored at the line

20/13/4 on 57%FG/62%TS/58%EFG
23/15/5 on 59%FG/66%TS/61%EFG
28/12/3 on 59%FG/67%TS/60%EFG
26/13/4 on 58%FG/65%TS/59%EFG
25/12/4 on 60%FG/66%TS/61%EFG
28/10/4 on 57%FG/64%TS/59%EFG
23/11/4 on 55%FG/61%TS/57%EFG
26/12/5 on 52%FG/60%TS/55%EFG

:eek: :eek:

:oldlol:

[Jacks3]

lol @ this moron. Clown keeps repeating the same garbage over and over again.

FT's are not separate. They still count you idiot. How a player generates his points doesn't matter as long as he's doing it efficiently. A player can have excellent shot-selection and shoot 50%, but if he's not getting to the line/hitting threes...his efficiency is still mediocre!

FG% is already included in TS% anyway. All TS% is doing is adding the FT's and extra value of threes. There's nothing advanced about it. Seriously.

[catch24]

No one is saying they don't count, "wee one". The point is it's deceptive to tally that on to a players actual efficiency. Who says he earned those FTs? With the perimeter-rules being completely shredded how does one not concede it being somewhat flawed?

It's one thing to take the 3PT into consideration using eFG or looking at stat-sheets and be cognizant of the 3P/A someone is taking; it's another to include FTs where no defense is being played and can be difficult to differentiate in-terms of whether the calls were complete shit or not.

Would I consider someone going 6-24 and making 11/11 of their FTs efficient? Absolutely not. Of course, you and your ilk would though.

[tpols]

Would I consider someone going 6-24 and making 11/11 of their FTs efficient? Absolutely not. Of course, you and your ilk would though.
That wouldn't be considered efficient under TS either. That's like 24 points on 30+possessions.. well under 50%TS.

[catch24]

That wouldn't be considered efficient under TS either. That's like 24 points on 30+possessions.. well under 50%TS.

Nah, I know that (it'd be somewhere in between 35-40% TS). Kiddies like Jacks would consider it efficient though, because he made all of his FTs. They should count too!!!

Hilarious

[Jacks3]

Would I consider someone going 6-24 and making 11/11 of their FTs efficient? Absolutely not. Of course, you and your ilk would though.
That's a terrible TS% you idiot. Didn't I just say FG% is included?

Holy crap. You are dense. :oldlol:

[catch24]

Never mind the fact most perimeter players are shooting above 50 TS% - which is 'good' according to that measure. What the statistic doesn't say is that a lot of the guys that have quote-on-quote "good efficiency" are shot-jackers. The stat doesn't penalize you for missed shots/shot jacking (some of which can be long shots that lead into open floor dunks/scoring--basically a zero out for your offense who missed an opportunity to score anywhere from 2-3 points that possession). Missing FT's on the other hand are not as bad; you miss a FT and that's considered one point deducted, unlike a missed FG (which in most cases are considered 2PTs).

[ThaSwagg3r]

The only time you use TS% to compare players is when you compare a perimeter player to a big. (Ex. Kobe Bryant vs. Dwight Howard) It really has no purpose when comparing players of the same position. Otherwise we would just be asking who shoots FTs better.

eFG% is a much more better and accurate stat than TS%. TS% just a cheap way to boost up or hide one's garbage FG%.

And you certainly don't use TS% when proving one shut down the other. TS% is a pure offensive stat. eFG% and FG% can show how well the opposing player defended that player. It also accounts shot selection, which TS% doesn't really do.

[catch24]

eFG% is a much more better and accurate stat than TS%. TS% just a cheap way to boost up or hide one's garbage FG%.

And you certainly don't use TS% when proving one shut down the other. TS% is a pure offensive stat. eFG% and FG% can show how well the opposing player defended that player. It also accounts shot selection, which TS% doesn't really do.

Agreed; and if you noticed, it's overused and completely taken out of context by the same certain group of fans.

[catch24]

That's a terrible TS% you idiot. Didn't I just say FG% is included?

Holy crap. You are dense. :oldlol:

Where did I say it was a good TS%? I was referencing your FTs should count crap.

Brush up on that comprehension, kiddo.

[Jacks3]

Never mind the fact most perimeter players are shooting above 50 TS% - which is 'good' according to that measure.
Above 50% TS? Like 51-53%? That's terrible-mediocre. :wtf:

[Jacks3]

Where did I say it was a good TS%? .
Your ignorance is astounding, kid.

[catch24]

Above 50% TS? Like 51-53%? That's terrible-mediocre. :wtf:

Read up on the statistic. Any where above is 50+ is considered good; above 60+ is exceptional. (http://www.ehow.com/how_2092829_calculate-true-shooting-percentage-basketball.html)

[tpols]

The only time you use TS% to compare players is when you compare a perimeter player to a big. (Ex. Kobe Bryant vs. Dwight Howard) It really has no purpose when comparing players of the same position. Otherwise we would just be asking who shoots FTs better.

eFG% is a much more better and accurate stat than TS%. TS% just a cheap way to boost up or hide one's garbage FG%.

And you certainly don't use TS% when proving one shut down the other. TS% is a pure offensive stat. eFG% and FG% can show how well the opposing player defended that player. It also accounts shot selection, which TS% doesn't really do.
In general, TS is never even used for big men because they are poor free throw shooters. TS can easily be used to compare two players of the same position. It's just a general efficiency measure.. you guys are making it out to be like PER or something.

And I agree for perimeter players eFG paints a better picture than TS.. but they both have their place. All TS is is eFG with FTs included.

TS doesn't hide anything. It just has a smaller range than FG does for what is considered good. A 52%TS may look good to someone who has only dealt with FG before because they might think it has some relation to 52%FG. But it doesn't. A 2% difference in TS is more signifigant than a 2% difference in FG.. that is why people look at TS as something that hides the truth. It doesn't. It just has a smaller range of what is considered close or good.

And TS can still show how well a player guarded someone else.. What if the defender wasn't good at staying in front and his man kept getting by him forcing his help defense to foul him at the rim? That would certainly be an indication on how well the defense is being played and it wouldn't show up at all in any FG or eFG stat.. And that is actually a very common thing that happens in the league.

[Jacks3]

It really has no purpose when comparing players of the same position. Otherwise we would just be asking who shoots FTs better.


Hitting higher FT%=more points generated (assuming a similar amount of volume).

Yeah, that's not important. :rolleyes:

[Jacks3]

Read up on the statistic. Any where above is 50+ is considered good; above 60+ is exceptional. (http://www.ehow.com/how_2092829_calculate-true-shooting-percentage-basketball.html)
This is so wrong. The average TS% is around 54%. 51-52% is terrible. 53% is still mediocre. 55% is solid. 56%-57% is good. 58% is very, very good. Anything above is excellent/phenomenal/exceptional.

:facepalm

[catch24]

This is so wrong. The average TS% is around 54%. 51-52% is terrible. 53% is still mediocre. 55% is solid. 56%-57% is good. 58% is very, very good. Anything above is excellent/phenomenal/exceptional.

:facepalm

lmao, right. Ok guy.

[tpols]

Read up on the statistic. Any where above is 50+ is considered good; above 60+ is exceptional. (http://www.ehow.com/how_2092829_calculate-true-shooting-percentage-basketball.html)
Nah.. the range for TS is different than FG.

As far as efficiency for TS:
50-53: mediocre
54-56: above average
56-60: elite
60+: legendary

For FG:
42-44: mediocre
45-48: above average
48-51: elite
51+: legendary

Thats why you see people thinking TS hides a player's true efficiency.. it just has a higher scale.

[Jacks3]

lmao, right. Ok guy.
Um, that's correct. What's funny? :wtf:

[catch24]

Nah.. the range for TS is different than FG.

As far as efficiency for TS:
50-53: mediocre
54-56: above average
56-60: elite
60+: legendary

For FG:
42-44: mediocre
45-48: above average
48-51: elite
51+: legendary

Thats why you see people thinking TS hides a player's true efficiency.. it just has a higher scale.

So the person who wrote the "article" calculated TS% incorrectly?

[tpols]

So the person who wrote the "article" calculated TS% incorrectly?
I dont know about your article.. but for example, Allen Iverson's FG was always in the low 40%s and his TS was always in the low 50%s.. Kobe's FG was always in the middle 40%s and his TS was always in the mid 50%s.. Lebron's FG of the past few years was right around 50% even and his TS has been right around 60%. That is the scale.. you can add anywhere from 8-10% to any star player's FG and that will give you their TS... It is LARGELY a component of FG as it is so thats not a surprise. The first 45-50% of a player's TS is basically all FG, and that extra 8-10% is scaling for FTs and 3pt shots.

[Bring-Your-Js]

I dont know about your article.. but for example, Allen Iverson's FG was always in the low 40%s and his TS was always in the low 50%s.. Kobe's FG was always in the middle 40%s and his TS was always in the mid 50%s.. Lebron's FG of the past few years was right around 50% even and his TS has been right around 60%. That is the scale.. you can add anywhere from 8-10% to any star player's FG and that will give you their TS... It is LARGELY a component of FG as it is so thats not a surprise. The first 45-50% of a player's TS is basically all FG, and that extra 8-10% is scaling for FTs and 3pt shots.

Shaq and Wilt don't like it. :lol :lol

[tpols]

Shaq and Wilt don't like it. :lol :lol
Thats because they dont get nearly the 8-10% bonus from FT scaling. They actually get a negative because their FT shooting actually takes AWAY from their efficiency.:oldlol:

[catch24]

I dont know about your article.. but for example, Allen Iverson's FG was always in the low 40%s and his TS was always in the low 50%s.. Kobe's FG was always in the middle 40%s and his TS was always in the mid 50%s.. Lebron's FG of the past few years was right around 50% even and his TS has been right around 60%. That is the scale.. you can add anywhere from 8-10% to any star player's FG and that will give you their TS... It is LARGELY a component of FG as it is so thats not a surprise. The first 45-50% of a player's TS is basically all FG, and that extra 8-10% is scaling for FTs and 3pt shots.

Still doesn't explain why the person who formulated the piece, believes 50% and or < is considered 'good'.

The writer uses the same formula as basketball-reference as well:

Multiply free throws attempted by .44. Add to that number the total number of field goals attempted and then multiply the number of points scored by 50 (divide the resulting number by the number you got on the preceding step).

Kobe's TS% still comes up to 56%, his career percentage...

[tpols]

Still doesn't explain why the person who formulated the piece, believes 50% and or < is considered 'good'.

The writer uses the same formula as basketball-reference as well:

Multiply free throws attempted by .44. Add to that number the total number of field goals attempted and then multiply the number of points scored by 50 (divide the resulting number by the number you got on the preceding step).

Kobe's TS% still comes up to 56%, his career percentage...
Thats just one guys take on it.. it doesn't make it necessarily true. :confusedshrug:

People on here generally look at anything greater than 54%TS as being pretty good, and anywhere 57%TS and above really good. I've never heard anyone on this site say 'woah, he shot 52%TS that was an efficient game'.. Kobe actually shot well over 50%TS for the Finals last year I believe and he got crucified for his efficiency. That alone should tell you that 50%TS is no benchmark for effectiveness.

[colts19]

Of course, using that logic, Bird doesn't come close to the FIVE rings that Kobe had in the 00's, had he replaced Kobe.

Come on dude, put bird with shaq and they win thoses titles too. Only difference is bird wouldn't have ran shaq off and they would have won like six or seven in a row.

[catch24]

Thats just one guys take on it.. it doesn't make it necessarily true. :confusedshrug:

People on here generally look at anything greater than 54%TS as being pretty good, and anywhere 57%TS and above really good. I've never heard anyone on this site say 'woah, he shot 52%TS that was an efficient game'.. Kobe actually shot well over 50%TS for the Finals last year I believe and he got crucified for his efficiency. That alone should tell you that 50%TS is no benchmark for effectiveness.

There's a different between good and great. I don't think the writer is saying "He shot 50%TS... that's GREAT efficiency"; more like it's average-good (he should have broke down the percentages a broader way, I agree there).

I still feel eFG and FG% are better measures of a players scoring ability/efficiency. I also understand where you're coming from and why you think the statistic is relevant to begin with though.

[DeronMillsap]

10 rings

[Bring-Your-Js]

Come on dude, put bird with shaq and they win thoses titles too. Only difference is bird wouldn't have ran shaq off and they would have won like six or seven in a row.

He doesn't like Larry Bird.

You'll also find him trashing Jabbar & Olajuwon. Backhanded compliments at best for Russell.

[DMAVS41]

This whole "how does he fit" thing is kind of BS. There is some truth to it I guess, but great players are great players. Kobe is versatile. I have no doubt he wins at least 2 rings. Probably three, and maybe more.

Kobe is one of the best players ever. Its reasonable to think you put him on those loaded teams and he comes through just like he has throughout his career.

It doesn't make him better than Bird or anything, but acting like Bird put those teams on his back every year more than Kobe did the last few years is silly.

And again, the Celtics only beat the Lakers once. They beat a fluke Rockets team in 81 and a good, but not great Rockets team in 86. Again, the 86 Celtics are not losing with Kobe in place of Bird. No way. That team is just too good.

And then there are years in which Bird was hurt...etc.

Its all speculation of course and anything could happen, but logic leads to 2 or 3 titles.

[DMAVS41]

It's just total scoring efficiency.. how efficient you are in terms of total possessions used - and yes, a play in which you get fouled and get to the line uses up a scoring possession just like a shot from the field would. Just because you aren't being defended at the line doesn't make those points count any less, and FT% obviously varies.

I just don't get why people act like it's some "Kobe stat" when he's not even super elite in it. Just among his peers, guys like Lebron, Wade, Durant, Dirk have been better than him.. and when you compare efficiency across eras, you have to consider the increased FT rates of current perimeter players.

It doesn't tell you about shot selection etc., but neither does FG% alone. That actually tells you a lot less as a stand alone stat. I see criticism that can be used for the other efficiency stats as well. It just has to be used properly and with context (like just because someone is more efficient doesn't make them a better scorer.) Ideally you'd want to look at the distribution of their shot attempts to better gauge whether their attempts hurt their team's offense more than others, but that's not always available. And even then, it's not always easy to determine which statline is more efficient just by looking at the total line.

Think of it more as rewarding the player that goes 4/10 from the field and 8/8 from the FT line. FG% says that was a 40% game, while TS% gives proper credit for the points scored at the line

I agree with most of this...and I do admit I've come around a little. I do still think its a bit artificial at times and I do still think raw numbers are much better. However, after posting the raw numbers, listing TS is fine for convenience.

Like any stat though, sometimes is good and sometimes its bad. It is a formula, so even extra context is needed.

For example.

I'll take Hakeem's 53/22/72 26 points over....
Dirk's 46/38/89 26 points

Even though Dirk's TS is 1.5 higher. I think the nearly 7% difference in fg% is more telling than Dirk's higher TS.

However, I do think Dirk's 58.4% TS is more telling in a comparison with Kobe for example.

Dirk only shoot like 1% better than Kobe in fg%, but he's 4.2% better than him based on TS. In this case, TS is more accurate. Dirk is far more efficient from the three point line (5%) and the the ft line (8%)

So like anything, I think context needs to be used. I do think guys like Dirk, Kobe, and Lebron do get a little bit of an artificial bump in efficiency at times, but overall its a decent stat.

Still prefer the raw numbers though.

[MaxFly]

A stat that doesn't include the extra value of threes or the worth of FT's is useless for determining actual efficiency. Seriously, how stupid do you have to be to not understand this? A player can go 10/20 (OMG! 50%!), but still be inefficient because he's not getting to the line or hitting threes, so he's not generating as many points per possession. Only retards like catch can fail to understand such a ridiculously simple concept.

What an idiot.

It's best to use numbers. Simply put, you have a player who scores 20 points from the field shooting 10/20. You have another player who scores 25 points from the field on 10/20 shooting, having gone 5/10 from 2 and 5/10 from 3. Who was the more efficient scorer?

[MaxFly]

Nah.. the range for TS is different than FG.

As far as efficiency for TS:
50-53: mediocre
54-56: above average
56-60: elite
60+: legendary

For FG:
42-44: mediocre
45-48: above average
48-51: elite
51+: legendary

Thats why you see people thinking TS hides a player's true efficiency.. it just has a higher scale.

The problem with this is that big men play closer to the basket and intrinsically have a better chance of getting a higher % shot than other players, whether it's from self-created offense close to the basket or put backs from rebounds. 51% shouldn't be considered legendary for a center or power forwards.

[MaxFly]

Come on dude, put bird with shaq and they win thoses titles too. Only difference is bird wouldn't have ran shaq off and they would have won like six or seven in a row.

Given how competitive Larry was and how serious he was about the game and everyone putting in max effort, I wouldn't be sure about that. The "I got injured on company time so I'll get better on company time" debacle would have likely turned out much worse had Larry been on that team.

[OldSchoolBBall]

Above 50% TS? Like 51-53%? That's terrible-mediocre. :wtf:

Kobe Bryant:

2000 postseason - 51.7% TS
2002 postseason - 51.1% TS
2003 postseason - 53.1% TS
2004 postseason - 50.6% TS

Glad to know you agree that those are terrible. :oldlol:

[catch24]

Kobe Bryant:

2000 postseason - 51.7% TS
2002 postseason - 51.1% TS
2003 postseason - 53.1% TS
2004 postseason - 50.6% TS

Glad to know you agree that those are terrible. :oldlol:

:applause:

[DMAVS41]

Kobe Bryant:

2000 postseason - 51.7% TS
2002 postseason - 51.1% TS
2003 postseason - 53.1% TS
2004 postseason - 50.6% TS

Glad to know you agree that those are terrible. :oldlol:

Uh oh.

:applause:

[greymatter]

I am not sure if some people here actually believe that Kobe could win the amount of titles they believe he could.

What made the Celtics great was Bird's play.

He made them a threat with his passing abilities and scoring abilities from the FORWARD position.

There is no way in hell that Kobe wins a title with that squad, because he wouldn't keep them involved like Bird did. And as some of those that actually saw them play would agree with, what made the Celtics special was their ability to move the ball around and keep the defense off guard.

Kobe would obviously disrupt any and all of this and would make them a lesser team. Kobe isn't the unselfish player that Bird was, nor is he a 6'8 player that could create the mismatch problems for teams (specially in that time).

But more importantly, Kobe is nowhere near on the same level of IQ that Bird was...... not close.

Players like Parrish, DJ, Maxwell, etc.etc would become obsolete, since Bird knew how to incorporate them into the offense and get them easy shots. McHale would be Kobe's only help offensively, but even then, his productivity would decrease.

The Celtics with Kobe win "0" titles.

They would actually go from the elite of the elites, to a middle of the pack team, having to claw their way to the playoffs.

Go ahead... get mad.

This.

What all the Bird haters and Kobe nutthuggers don't understand is how Bird's style of play was much like Russell's in that their teammates fed off of them and allowed them to become HOFers. Kobe could never be able to thread all those passes into the paint to give Parish/Mchale 5-6 easy buckets a game. He simply never had the court vision or IQ. Magic, Bird, and Russell were the best at making their teammates better. It's precisely that quality which makes them a more valuable teammate than a Kobe or MJ. Kobe and MJ only knew how to bitch at their teammates to try to get them to work harder. Any improved play from a teammate was through pressure and their own efforts.

[guy]

Bird won his first title at age 24, and was nowhere near the pure scorer that Kobe was at 24 ...ANYTIME in his career, much less at 24. IMHO, Kobe wins in '81 at 24 (especially against the 40-42 Rockets.). At age 27 Kobe had surpassed Bird as a pure offensive machine (35.4 ppg in a league that averaged 97.0 ppg), and with the same luck that Bird's Celtics had in '84, Kobe wins #2. In '86, and with the Rockets shocking the Lakers, a 29 year old Kobe probably wins #3, again, playing against a 51-31 Rockets team. The real question would be how much better Kobe would have played in the post-seasons at age 30, and 31... BUT, I don't see Kobe taking the Celtics in '87 any further than Bird did. Those Lakers were CLEARLY a better team than the '87 Celtics. And while Bird choked against the Pistons in '88, I don't think a better Kobe would have beaten the Pistons, much less Magic's Lakers.

Probably as many as Bird, and in the same seasons...

Kobe didn't come into the league as a 23 year old, so thats irrelevant. He's played 15 seasons now, and Bird played 13. If you want me to start with Kobe's 3rd year, fine.

1980 (99 Kobe) - lose early in the playoffs.
1981 (00 Kobe) - lose to Sixers
1982 (01 Kobe) - lose to Sixers
1983 (02 Kobe) - lose to Bucks or Sixers
1984 (03 Kobe) - lose to Lakers in Finals
1985 (04 Kobe) - lose to Lakers in Finals
1986 (05 Kobe) - Beat Rockets in Finals
1987 (06 Kobe) - lose to Lakers in Finals
1988 (07 Kobe) - lose to Lakers in Finals
1989 (08 Kobe) - lose to Pistons
1990 (09 Kobe) - lose to Pistons
1991 (10 Kobe) - lose to Bulls
1992 (11 Kobe) - lose to Bulls or Knicks

[Jacks3]

Kobe Bryant:

2000 postseason - 51.7% TS
2002 postseason - 51.1% TS
2003 postseason - 53.1% TS
2004 postseason - 50.6% TS

Glad to know you agree that those are terrible. :oldlol:
About as terrible as 98 Jordan. 53% TS. :oldlol:

97 playoffs--52% TS
98 playoffs--54% TS

:oldlol:

[catch24]

About as terrible as 98 Jordan. 53% TS. :oldlol:

97 playoffs--52% TS
98 playoffs--54% TS

:oldlol:

So Kobe was a terrible scorer during the 2000, 2002, 2003, and 2004 playoffs?

[Jacks3]

So Kobe was a terrible scorer during the 2000, 2002, 2003, and 2004 playoffs?
When did I say anything about scoring.


I said 51-53% TS is a poor TS% in general. Obviously you can't just look at TS%. Volume, defensive attention, play-making, TO's etc are also relevant.

[Jacks3]

2001-20010 in Playoffs: 29/6/6/2/56% TS

Some of his runs:

01: 29.4/7.3/6.1/1.5/56%. Wins Championship.
08: 30.1/5.7/5.6/1.4/58%. Leads team to NBA Finals
09: 30.2/5.5/5.4/1.6/57%. Wins NBA Championship.
10: 29.2/6.0/5.5/1.4/57%. Wins NBA Championship.

Loco is :mad:

[OldSchoolBBall]

About as terrible as 98 Jordan. 53% TS. :oldlol:

97 playoffs--52% TS
98 playoffs--54% TS

:oldlol:

Jordan had a torn ligament and cracked knuckle on the index finger of his shooting hand in '98. After the first 15 games when he adjusted his shooting form, he was at ~55% TS the remaining 65 games.

And he had a 52.4% TS in the '97 playoffs, which was equal to or better than his 2nd/3rd/4th leading scorer that postseason. In 1998 he had a 54.5% TS (which is 55%, not 54% if you're rounding), which was better than his 2nd/4th/5th leading scorers.

Compare that with Kobe:

2000 - worse TS% than Shaq and Rice, the next 2 leading scorers on the team

2002 - worse TS% than Shaq/Fox/Horry, the team's 1st/4th/5th leading scorers.

2003 - worse TS% than Shaq/Fisher/George, the team's 2nd/3rd/4th leading scorers.

2004 - worse TS% than Shaq/Fisher, the team's 2nd/5th leading scorers.


This is actually the difference between Kobe and Jordan: while Jordan did have bad shooting series, he almost always (with like one exception) shot better (FG%-wise) than his second option, and better than his team did excluding him. Kobe, by contrast, not only has many, many more bad shooting series, but he almost ALWAYS shoots worse than his second best player, and worse than his team does excluding him - sometimes significantly worse.

Big difference.

[catch24]

When did I say anything about scoring.


I said 51-53% TS is a poor TS% in general. Obviously you can't just look at TS%. Volume, defensive attention, play-making, TO's etc are also relevant.

Yesterday you made it seem like it was poor efficiency/scoring all-together.

I agree with you though. All the factors you mentioned must be taken into account.

[tpols]

Jordan had a torn ligament and cracked knuckle on the index finger of his shooting hand in '98. After the first 15 games when he adjusted his shooting form, he was at ~55% TS the remaining 65 games.

And he had a 52.4% TS in the '97 playoffs, which was equal to or better than his 2nd/3rd/4th leading scorer that postseason. In 1998 he had a 54.5% TS (which is 55%, not 54% if you're rounding), which was better than his 2nd/4th/5th leading scorers.

Compare that with Kobe:

2000 - worse TS% than Shaq and Rice, the next 2 leading scorers on the team

2002 - worse TS% than Shaq/Fox/Horry, the team's 1st/4th/5th leading scorers.

2003 - worse TS% than Shaq/Fisher/George, the team's 2nd/3rd/4th leading scorers.

2004 - worse TS% than Shaq/Fisher, the team's 2nd/5th leading scorers.


This is actually the difference between Kobe and Jordan: while Jordan did have bad shooting series, he almost always (with like one exception) shot better (FG%-wise) than his second option, and better than his team did excluding him. Kobe, by contrast, not only has many, many more bad shooting series, but he almost ALWAYS shoots worse than his second best player, and worse than his team does excluding him - sometimes significantly worse.

Big difference.
Are you really using players like Fisher, George, and Horry to compare efficiencies to Kobe who scores on 10x higher volume? Are you really going to act like Pippen even remotely compares in efficiency to Shaq? Are we going to act like Jordan would have EVER been more efficient than prime Shaq?

:roll:

[Jacks3]

Jordan had a torn ligament and cracked knuckle on the index finger of his shooting hand in '98. After the first 15 games when he adjusted his shooting form, he was at ~55% TS the remaining 65 games.



lol @ your excuses.

2000--Kobe wasn't even a superstar yet. That's like bringing up Wizards Jordan.
2003--Kobe plays with a severely sprained shoulder in PS, which he had to get surgery on in the off-season
2004--Kobe plays injured all-year (has knee and shoulder surgery in the off-season,never rehabbed properly), is out of shape all year, and is dealing with the rape trial. Physically, he's nowhere near close to 100%. Look at how skinny and weak he looks compared to 03.

See? I can make excuses too. :oldlol:

[Jacks3]

Are you really using players like Fisher, George, and Horry to compare efficiencies to Kobe who scores on 10x higher volume? Are you really going to act like Pippen even remotely compares in efficiency to Shaq? Are we going to act like Jordan would have EVER been more efficient than prime Shaq?

:roll:
lol @ that clown seriously trying to compare the TS% of role-players to superstars. :oldlol:

[OldSchoolBBall]

Are we going to act like Jordan would have EVER been more efficient than prime Shaq?

:roll:

By TS%, which is what we're discussing here, yes, Jordan had a very good chance of being more efficient than Shaq. Shaq was a 56-57% TS player in the playoffs in his prime. MJ was a 56-60% TS player in the playoffs in his prime. Don't be mad because Kobe only managed an atrocious TS% several postseasons. :oldlol:

[Jacks3]

Don't be mad because Jordan had several atrocious post-seasons by TS% and then comes back several seasons later and becomes the most inefficient 20+ PPG scorer in history.

:oldlol:

[kaiiu]

how the hell did Tony Allen make his way in this debate? :oldlol:

[Eat Like A Bosh]

These threads are getting old.
What's next?
Who would win? A Kobe Bryant lead Celtics team or a LeBron lead Lakers team? :lol :lol

[Calabis]

Kobe Bryant:

2000 postseason - 51.7% TS
2002 postseason - 51.1% TS
2003 postseason - 53.1% TS
2004 postseason - 50.6% TS

Glad to know you agree that those are terrible. :oldlol:

:roll:

[Jacks3]

About as terrible as 98 Jordan. 53% TS. :oldlol:

97 playoffs--52% TS
98 playoffs--54% TS

:oldlol:

2002--47% TS
2003--49% TS

:roll:

[DMAVS41]

2002--47% TS
2003--49% TS

:roll:

:facepalm

[OldSchoolBBall]

Don't be mad because Jordan had several atrocious post-seasons by TS% and then comes back several seasons later and becomes the most inefficient 20+ PPG scorer in history.

:oldlol:

He had ONE postseason as a Bull that was sub-par by TS% (1998, at 52.4% - and again, he equaled/bettered his 2nd/3rd/4th option anyway).

Please name these "several" atrocious TS% postseasons. 54.5% is not "atrocious". Note that "several" means at least three, and more commonly four.

[Bring-Your-Js]

He had ONE postseason as a Bull that was sub-par by TS% (1998, at 52.4% - and again, he equaled/bettered his 2nd/3rd/4th option anyway).

Please name these "several" atrocious TS% postseasons. 54.5% is not "atrocious".

Lol don't bother. You just shut this shit DOWN. Maybe forever.

[Jacks3]

He had ONE postseason as a Bull that was sub-par by TS% (1998, at 52.4% - and again, he equaled/bettered his 2nd/3rd/4th option anyway).

Please name these "several" atrocious TS% postseasons. 54.5% is not "atrocious". Note that "several" means at least three, and more commonly four.
lol. You're a clown.

87 playoffs--53% TS
97 playoffs--52% TS.
98 playoffs--54.5% TS
02--47% TS
03--49% TS

Most inefficient 20+ PPG scorer in history. :oldlol:

[OldSchoolBBall]

lol. You're a clown.

87 playoffs--53% TS
97 playoffs--52% TS.
98 playoffs--54.5% TS
02--47% TS
03--49% TS

Most inefficient 20+ PPG scorer in history. :oldlol:

First off, you have the numbers for the '97 and '98 playoffs backwards. Secondly, 54.5% TS is not "atrocious." And in '98 it was 52.4% TS, and was still better than his 2nd option. So you have two postseasons in the 52-53% TS range (and it should be noted that he averaged 36 ppg in the 1987 playoffs and had zero offensive help, to put that TS% in context; the second leading scorer Woolridge had a 46% TS :oldlol:).

Where are the "several" postseasons with atrocious TS%? I see two that are on the high end of sub-par and no "atrocious" ones. Kobe, meanwhile, has 5 postseasons of sub-52% TS, including two in his prime in '02 and '04 at 51.1% TS an 50.6% TS. Ghastly.

[bdreason]

I don't think Kobe would win any rings with Scottie. They would have been good, but other teams would have been better.

[Jacks3]

81 Finals--15 PPG/47% TS
PS--22 PPG/53% TS

1982--18 PPG/47% TS
1983--21 PPG/48% TS

1985--26 PG/54% TS, 85 Finals--24 PPG/53% TS

1988 ECF--47% TS

Let's not act like the guy was perfect. He has some failures like Kobe.

Anybody who thinks Bryant isn't getting 2-3 titles is kidding themselves.

[Jacks3]

First off, you have the numbers for the '97 and '98 playoffs backwards. Secondly, 54.5% TS is not "atrocious." And in '98 it was 52.4% TS, and was still better than his 2nd option. So you have two postseasons in the 52-53% TS range (and it should be noted that he averaged 36 ppg in the 1987 playoffs and had zero offensive help, to put that TS% in context; the second leading scorer Woolridge had a 46% TS :oldlol:).
So it's okay to use context with Jordan but not Bryant? :oldlol:




Where are the "several" postseasons with atrocious TS%? I see two that are on the high end of sub-par and no "atrocious" ones. Kobe, meanwhile, has 5 postseasons of sub-52% TS, including two in his prime in '02 and '04 at 51.1% TS an 50.6% TS. Ghastly.
87 playoffs--53% TS
98 playoffs--52% TS.
97 playoffs--54.5% TS
02--47% TS
03--49% TS

Ghastly. 47% TS? Wow. :oldlol:

And LOL @ 04 being a prime Bryant season.

[OldSchoolBBall]

So it's okay to use context with Jordan but not Bryant? :oldlol:




87 playoffs--53% TS
98 playoffs--52% TS.
97 playoffs--54.5% TS
02--47% TS
03--49% TS

Ghastly. 47% TS? Wow. :oldlol:

And LOL @ 04 being a prime Bryant season.

Why are you posting regular season numbers (and regular season numbers at age 39/40, at that)? You said "several atrocious postseasons" - POSTseasons, not regular seasons You previously defined atrocious TS% as 51-53%, yet you're listing a 54.5% TS mark for MJ from the 1997 playoffs as one of his "atrocious" ones? :oldlol: No.

He has two sub-par TS% postseasons, in 1987 (52.9% TS on 36 ppg and with his second best scorer averaging 46% TS :oldlol:) and one in 1998 (52.4%, again, better than his second best scorer Pippen).

So where are the "several" postseasons? :confusedshrug:

[Jacks3]

lol @ loco trying to argue semantics. :oldlol:

87 playoffs--53% TS
98 playoffs--52% TS
97 playoffs--54.5% TS

98 reg season--53% TS
02--47% TS
03--49% TS

And what's worse-only 3.5 APG in the 98 playoffs. Pathetic.

That clown loco is furious. :oldlol:

[Duncan21formvp]

How many more titles would the Boston Celtics win if they had Larry Bird replaced by Kobe Bryant.

Does Kobe win a ring playing in the 80s with Bird's squad? 2 rings? or 0 rings?
Well Bird lost 7 series with HCA and never won any series without it.

[Nick Young]

7+ rings

[1Time4YourMind]

well this question is stupid anyways. kobe wont win a lot of titles with this celtics crew because:

1) HE ISNT THE RIGHT FIT
2) the showtime lakers

you guys are comparing 2 players that dont even play the same position. a big part of bird's job was rebounding/posting up for shots near the basket, do you honestly think kobe filled that void? smh :facepalm

[the_wise_one]

No ring.