View Full Version : Kobe Bryant on Michael Jordan, LeBron, winning championships, etc
Heilige
03-15-2013, 06:30 PM
"It's a tough call with me because everybody wants to make the comparison between me and Michael, but our paths were just different," he says. "You almost have to evaluate our careers from two different lenses. Ultimately, I want to be known as a person who was just hell-bent on winning. If people say that about me, I'll be happy."
It's interesting Horford would call Bryant the best player in the NBA. Hasn't he been kicked out of that conversation by James, who has been anointed in the media as the reigning hoops god? Does it annoy Kobe that recent conversations have compared Jordan and LeBron while, somehow, omitting him? "I think it's a numbers thing," he says. "They look at the individual numbers Michael put up and those LeBron is putting up. My numbers are great, but I played with Shaq. So those numbers have to be looked at from that perspective. They didn't have to play with a 7-foot-1, 350-pound dominant force.
"My motivation is to win every year. When I was growing up and Magic had five and Michael was getting his [six], I decided this is what I'm supposed to do: win as many as I possibly can. [Bill] Russell had 11, so this is what it is. It does bother me that during your career, everyone says, 'Win championships.' Now, at the end of your career, they want to look at [individual] numbers. That drives me crazy a little."
Would he want to coach? "Uhhhhhh," he says, meaning no.
How about owning a team? "Only if it's in a big market," he says with a nervous laugh, knowing Jordan's chronically failing team is in Charlotte, a small market. L.A. is a big market. How about owning a piece of the Lakers? Like the idea?
"Of course, I would," he says. "Honestly, this franchise is part of me. I've been very lucky that I followed this team religiously [while growing up] and I've just happened to play for this team my whole career. I would love [ownership]. If I could be part of this organization forever, it would be very special."
Neither Jim nor Jeanie was available for comment.
"I didn't just give them advice. I sort of made demands,'' says Bryant, laughing as he recalls that version of himself. "To me, it's about one thing only -- winning. You can have all the talent in the world, but if the organization isn't making the smartest decisions, you're not going to win. Dominique Wilkins had a great career, but he never got to that [championship] level. I didn't want to be that for the second half of my career. [Management] made a conscious call to cut costs then and kind of ride their goose with the golden eggs, and I wasn't OK with that. I said, 'Hey, look, you guys have got to do something.' ''
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/9051655/nba-los-angeles-lakers-kobe-bryant-running-show
If Kobe had never played with Shaq, would his numbers/stat line be similar to MJ and LeBron like he is alluding to?
Levity
03-15-2013, 06:34 PM
"It does bother me that during your career, everyone says, 'Win championships.' Now, at the end of your career, they want to look at [individual] numbers. That drives me crazy a little."
great quote.
willds09
03-15-2013, 06:35 PM
No matter what Lebron wud be way below mj and Kobe for being a franchise quitter:applause:
gengiskhan
03-15-2013, 06:49 PM
No matter what Lebron wud be way below mj and Kobe for being a franchise quitter:applause:
In 2007, Kobe almost quit his favorite franchise aka NBAs winningest franchise that GIFTED him 3 rings. He was begging for a trade. This was after he was GIFTED 3 rings. Nobody is a bigger quitter than Kobe.
LBJ is guaranteeing himself Top 10 GOAT status as MIA. In hindsight, it is turning out to be his best decision ever.
Kobe is definitely below LBJ.
coin24
03-15-2013, 06:53 PM
"It does bother me that during your career, everyone says, 'Win championships.' Now, at the end of your career, they want to look at [individual] numbers. That drives me crazy a little."
great quote.
This:applause:
francesco totti
03-15-2013, 07:03 PM
winning championships should not be everything.How its been won should be taken into debate as well. second fiddle, lot of help etc etc.
This is why Kobe being 2nd fiddle to shaq, and lebron with this huge help with miami will not surpass jordan
gengiskhan
03-15-2013, 07:06 PM
winning championships should not be everything.How its been won should be taken into debate as well. second fiddle, lot of help etc etc.
This is why Kobe being 2nd fiddle to shaq, and lebron with this huge help with miami will not surpass jordan
couldn't have said it better myself.
Well balanced Teams kicking on all cylinders win championships!
If you aint a leader, NUMERO UNO option, then you are just part of a well oiled machine.
Kobe can be credited for just 1 ring 2009 ring. (HINT: 6/24 in Game 7 for 2010)
LBJ can be credited for 1 ring too cuz he was clearly a leader of well oiled machine called MIAMI HEAT in 2012.
Calabis
03-15-2013, 07:08 PM
No Kobe they didn't play with a dominant force which is why they didn't have instant success at the beginning of their careers as far as team wins(3 of your chips are because of Shaq) and you coming into a playoff team. And no Kobe, you would have not matched their numbers in your first two to three seasons....if that's the case you would have been more dominant early on and not sitting behind Eddie Jones.
Rysio
03-15-2013, 07:15 PM
No Kobe they didn't play with a dominant force which is why they didn't have instant success at the beginning of their careers as far as team wins(3 of your chips are because of Shaq) and you coming into a playoff team. And no Kobe, you would have not matched their numbers in your first two to three seasons....if that's the case you would have been more dominant early on and not sitting behind Eddie Jones.
:no:
yea he would just look at what happened to james harden went from super role player to a superstar in just few months. kobe was way more skilled than harden too.
RoundMoundOfReb
03-15-2013, 07:18 PM
He has s point. if the laker were a bad team (no shaq) he would have gotten more PT in his first couple of years so he would've had better numbers those years.
All Net
03-15-2013, 07:22 PM
Can see both sides to the playing with Shaq when it comes to more spacing and less numbers stand point..can work that either way for whatever you are argueing. Without Shaq lord knows how much better Kobe's numbers would of been but yes the titles may not of been there...
GOBB_Junior
03-15-2013, 07:38 PM
winning championships should not be everything.How its been won should be taken into debate as well. second fiddle, lot of help etc etc.
This is why Kobe being 2nd fiddle to shaq, and lebron with this huge help with miami will not surpass jordan
http://myvintagephotos.com/images/John_Havlicek_February_1969.jpg
I couldn't have said it better myself. John Havlicek won 8 NBA championships, and the 1974 Finals MVP.
You don't see some of his fans ranking him over Hakeem, LeBron, Erving, West, Garnett, Barkley, Malone, Moses Malone, and Bob Pettit. He's still a top 18-20 player of all time.
LeBron won an NBA Championship last year with Bosh missing a lot of games in the post season. LBJ led his team in poinst, rebounds, assists, and steals in the playoffs.
ripthekik
03-15-2013, 07:41 PM
LeBron won an NBA Championship last year with Bosh missing a lot of games in the post season. LBJ led his team in point, rebounds, assists, and steals in the playoffs.
stay banned, lebron23
lmao, the fan of lebron james is the one who says rings don't matter, then adds in "bosh was injured" :roll: :roll: :roll:
Yao Ming's Foot
03-15-2013, 07:45 PM
There is no greater myth than Kobe's legacy relies on championships. Throw out everybody's post season resume and Kobe is still a top 10 player in NBA history. :confusedshrug:
Calabis
03-15-2013, 07:45 PM
:no:
yea he would just look at what happened to james harden went from super role player to a superstar in just few months. kobe was way more skilled than harden too.
:wtf: are you talking about...your telling me rookie Kobe was as good as Kobe year 3 and 4? No his little ass wouldn't have avg 28 ppg or 20/5/5 as the main focus.
Was rookie Harden as good as Harden this year?:facepalm
GOBB_Junior
03-15-2013, 07:48 PM
stay banned, lebron23
lmao, the fan of lebron james is the one who says rings don't matter, then adds in "bosh was injured" :roll: :roll: :roll:
Winning Finals MVP does matter. Kobe wasn't the best player of the 2000-2002 Lakers. LBJ was the best player of the 2012 Miami Heat in the regular season, playoffs, and in the Finals.
Yao Ming's Foot
03-15-2013, 07:52 PM
Winning Finals MVP does matter. Kobe wasn't the best player of the 2000-2002 Lakers.
:facepalm
Lebron James winning a hypothetical title with prime Shaq and 10 scrubs is more impressive than Lebron James winning a hypothetical title with 11 other all star players.
Teammates strength matters, Finals mvp doesn't. Basketball isn't a 2 on 2 game.
:oldlol: I love how Kobe makes it seem like playing with Shaq was some sort of burden or some shit.
ripthekik
03-15-2013, 07:56 PM
Winning Finals MVP does matter. Kobe wasn't the best player of the 2000-2002 Lakers. LBJ was the best player of the 2012 Miami Heat in the regular season, playoffs, and in the Finals.
Yet still needed the help of Top 2 SG Wade and Top 5 PF Bosh, what type of best player is that? They basically handed him the ring, and he got all the credit.
Oh, don't forget... 5>1*
GOBB_Junior
03-15-2013, 08:01 PM
:facepalm
Lebron James winning a hypothetical title with prime Shaq and 10 scrubs is more impressive than Lebron James winning a hypothetical title with 11 other all star players.
Teammates strength matters, Finals mvp doesn't. Basketball isn't a 2 on 2 game.
Who's the other 11 star players? I know you guys never play or touch a basketball in your entire life, but this is a very stupid logic.
Prime Shaq is the most dominant finals performer in NBA History. Lakers won an NBA Championship with an injured Kobe Bryant in the 2000 NBA Finals. Kobe averaged 15.6 ppg in under 40 FG% againts the Pacers.
Calabis
03-15-2013, 08:01 PM
:oldlol: I love how Kobe makes it seem like playing with Shaq was some sort of burden or some shit.
:applause:
GOBB_Junior
03-15-2013, 08:05 PM
Yet still needed the help of Top 2 SG Wade and Top 5 PF Bosh, what type of best player is that? They basically handed him the ring, and he got all the credit.
Oh, don't forget... 5>1*
LeBron was Miami's best player from the first round of the playoffs up to the NBA Finals.
Watch the 2012 NBA Playoffs run on youtube. Enough of this asterisk bull$hit. Miami beat the best team in the Western Conference in the NBA Finals. Thunder swept the defending NBA Champion in the first round, abused the Lakers in the 2nd round, and came back from a 0-2 deficit againts a veteran Spurs team in the conference finals.
Yao Ming's Foot
03-15-2013, 08:13 PM
Who's the other 11 star players? I know you guys never play or touch a basketball in your entire life, but this is a very stupid logic.
Prime Shaq is the most dominant finals performer in NBA History. Lakers won an NBA Championship with an injured Kobe Bryant in the 2000 NBA Finals. Kobe averaged 15.6 ppg in under 40 FG% againts the Pacers.
The redeem team. Those are his teammates. Lebron wins the Finals MVP. Are you super impressed?
Meanwhile Lebron is paired with prime Shaq and 10 D league players. They win the title yet Shaq wins the Finals MVP. For the postseason Lebron averages 29/7/6.
Why would it be more impressive for Lebron to win with amazing teammates than with weaker ones?
The redeem team. Those are his teammates. Lebron wins the Finals MVP. Are you super impressed?
Meanwhile Lebron is paired with prime Shaq and 10 D league players. They win the title yet Shaq wins the Finals MVP. For the postseason Lebron averages 29/7/6.
Why would it be more impressive for Lebron to win with amazing teammates than with weaker ones?
No one except delusional Kobe fans think LeBron's 2012 playoffs wasn't super impessive.
LOL @ acting like Peak Shaq isn't a ridiculous amount of help. :oldlol:
GOBB_Junior
03-15-2013, 08:22 PM
The redeem team. Those are his teammates. Lebron wins the Finals MVP. Are you super impressed?
Meanwhile Lebron is paired with prime Shaq and 10 D league players. They win the title yet Shaq wins the Finals MVP.
Why would it be more impressive for Lebron to win with amazing teammates than with weaker ones?
LeBron and Wade were the best players of the redeem team. Bird and Magic won multiple NBA titles with all star teammates and MVP/MVP Candidates.
Bird played with Mchale, Parish, former finals MVP Dennis Johnson, Danny Ainge, and a bunch of good role players. Magic also had a very good supporting casts. ( Kareem, Worthy, Nixon, Scott, and etc.) These 2 teams dominated the 1980's because they were the most stacked and talented teams of all time.
ripthekik
03-15-2013, 08:23 PM
No one except delusional Kobe fans think LeBron's 2012 playoffs wasn't super impessive.
LOL @ acting like Peak Shaq isn't a ridiculous amount of help. :oldlol:
How impressive?
Look at who they played in the weak east- not one superstar, injuries to Rose and Dwight, Lebron had Wade and Bosh, and played the youngest team in NBA finals history. So impressive.
Yao Ming's Foot
03-15-2013, 08:24 PM
No one except delusional Kobe fans think LeBron's 2012 playoffs wasn't super impessive.
LOL @ acting like Peak Shaq isn't a ridiculous amount of help. :oldlol:
Its a ridiculous amount of help if it was a 2 on 2 tournament. But its not.
Unlike other NBA legends those Kobe/Shaq teams featured
- no 3rd HOFer
- no 3rd all star
- no all defensive team level role players
- no great shooters
- weak benches
Its not a ridiculous amount of help by any reasonable definition of the word. :confusedshrug:
GOBB_Junior
03-15-2013, 08:24 PM
No one except delusional Kobe fans think LeBron's 2012 playoffs wasn't super impessive.
LOL @ acting like Peak Shaq isn't a ridiculous amount of help. :oldlol:
I'll trade Bosh and Wade for Prime Shaq. Prime Shaq would be the best player in today's NBA.
Yao Ming's Foot
03-15-2013, 08:27 PM
LeBron and Wade were the best players of the redeem team. Bird and Magic won multiple NBA titles with all star teammates and MVP/MVP Candidates.
Bird played with Mchale, Parish, former finals MVP Dennis Johnson, Danny Ainge, and a bunch of good role players. Magic also had a very good supporting casts. ( Kareem, Worthy, Nixon, Scott, and etc.) These 2 teams dominated the 1980's because they were the most stacked and talented teams of all time.
Yet Kobe wins 5 titles with just one HOF teammate per title team and its his teams that get the "stacked" label. :oldlol:
Legends66NBA7
03-15-2013, 08:27 PM
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/9051655/nba-los-angeles-lakers-kobe-bryant-running-show
If Kobe had never played with Shaq, would his numbers/stat line be similar to MJ and LeBron like he is alluding to?
Kobe wouldn't have matched the numbers early on, IMO, but his overall career numbers would be better... I don't know how much better, but there would be a clear difference.
"It does bother me that during your career, everyone says, 'Win championships.' Now, at the end of your career, they want to look at [individual] numbers. That drives me crazy a little."
great quote.
I agree, but I also think people look for context when they haven't seen the performances at hand and numbers are what they got to work with.
Yao Ming's Foot
03-15-2013, 08:28 PM
I'll trade Bosh and Wade for Prime Shaq. Prime Shaq would be the best player in today's NBA.
I wish you were a GM when Shaq was traded a couple years later for Caron Butler and Lamar Odom. :confusedshrug:
Its a ridiculous amount of help if it was a 2 on 2 tournament. But its not.
Unlike other NBA legends those Kobe/Shaq teams featured
- no 3rd HOFer
- no 3rd all star
- no all defensive team level role players
- no great shooters
- weak benches
Its not a ridiculous amount of help by any reasonable definition of the word. :confusedshrug:
Glen Rice wasn't a great shooter?
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAL/2001.html-3 guys over 39% on threes in regular season. Fisher 52% on threes in playoffs :bowdown: :bowdown:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAL/2002.html-Some good percentages, especially Fisher.
GOBB_Junior
03-15-2013, 08:33 PM
I wish you were a GM when Shaq was traded a couple years later for Caron Butler and Lamar Odom. :confusedshrug:
Shaq was past his prime in the 2004-05 NBA Off season, but he still finished 2nd in MVP voting in the regular season.
GOBB_Junior
03-15-2013, 08:35 PM
Glen Rice wasn't a great shooter?
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAL/2001.html-3 guys over 39% on threes in regular season. Fisher 52% on threes in playoffs :bowdown: :bowdown:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAL/2002.html-Some good percentages, especially Fisher.
He just started to watch the NBA after Kobe scored 81 points againts that Raptors Team
Legends66NBA7
03-15-2013, 08:35 PM
Glen Rice wasn't a great shooter?
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAL/2001.html-3 guys over 39% on threes in regular season. Fisher 52% on threes in playoffs :bowdown: :bowdown:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAL/2002.html-Some good percentages, especially Fisher.
Why does it say File Not Found ?
Legends66NBA7
03-15-2013, 08:38 PM
The knock on Rice (should ask ShaqAttack for a better break down) on the Lakers is that he wasn't scoring enough as a 3rd option during the Lakers run and didn't play good defense.
Fisher's only runs that stand out to me is 01 and 08. Outside of that, it wasn't anything special.
Both were good shooters, though.
Yao Ming's Foot
03-15-2013, 08:39 PM
Shaq was past his prime in the 2004-05 NBA Off season, but he still finished 2nd in MVP voting in the regular season.
Then why was the market so weak for him. :confusedshrug:
I didn't follow basketball at all until 2002, so I can't speak on this. I only followed TMac back then mostly :D
Just trolling YMF :banana:
Yao Ming's Foot
03-15-2013, 08:42 PM
Glen Rice wasn't a great shooter?
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAL/2001.html-3 guys over 39% on threes in regular season. Fisher 52% on threes in playoffs :bowdown: :bowdown:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAL/2002.html-Some good percentages, especially Fisher.
Glen Rice was sub 40% 3 pt shooter for the Lakers. That's not great.
Fisher also never ranked a 3pt % leader board for the Lakers. :confusedshrug:
Mr. I'm So Rad
03-15-2013, 08:44 PM
:oldlol: I love how Kobe makes it seem like playing with Shaq was some sort of burden or some shit.
:facepalm
I'm at the point now where I don't know if you n!ggas are trolling or really just dumb as hell.
dh144498
03-15-2013, 08:47 PM
Kobe, the ultimate competitor. :applause:
:mad: :mad: :mad:
Furious.
Legends66NBA7
03-15-2013, 08:52 PM
:facepalm
I'm at the point now where I don't know if you n!ggas are trolling or really just dumb as hell.
Yeah true, it's not what he said at all.
Though, I still don't see that much of difference in his numbers individually if he didn't play with Shaq. Probably does average more ppg/rpg/apg etc... efficiency might not be the same...
Mr. I'm So Rad
03-15-2013, 09:02 PM
Furious.
It's a feeling of pity rather than anger.
Yeah true, it's not what he said at all.
Though, I still don't see that much of difference in his numbers individually if he didn't play with Shaq. Probably does average more ppg/rpg/apg etc... efficiency might not be the same...
I don't really like indulging in hypothetical scenarios but his numbers wouldn't automatically jump much higher than they are now considering by the time he developed into a star player he had to carry a 1st option load anyway. Maybe in 2000 and 2002 he averages 26-29 ppg instead of 22 and 25 idk. I also think his efficiency would be the same. If the only difference were Shaq was gone but Kobe still had the tutelage of Phil and Tex I think he could handle more volume without his efficiency dropping much if at all. Kobe's always been right around or above average efficiency wise for most of his career since he's developed into a star/franchise player (1999-2000).
:oldlol: Does anyone actually think YMF is a good poster?
longtime lurker
03-15-2013, 10:09 PM
:facepalm
I'm at the point now where I don't know if you n!ggas are trolling or really just dumb as hell.
A little bit of column A and a little bit of column B. We've seen the type of numbers Kobe can put up without Shaq so I don't see why it's wrong to say that he'd have better numbers. People just hate for the sake of hating.
Mirko Cro Cop
03-16-2013, 12:26 AM
"Ultimately, I want to be known as a person who was just hell-bent on winning. If people say that about me, I'll be happy."
Spoken like a true alpha
I love LeBron but I've always liked Kobe because of his mentality, he's the definition of "driven" :applause:
TheWINdyCity
03-16-2013, 03:27 AM
:oldlol: Does anyone actually think YMF is a good poster?
he's a troll with an obvious kobe proping agenda.... so no
Deuce Bigalow
03-16-2013, 03:31 AM
It's painfully obvious that Gobb_Junior is Lebron23. Posting like a robot :oldlol:
Yao Ming's Foot
03-16-2013, 03:33 AM
he's a troll with an obvious kobe proping agenda.... so no
Which post of mine do you disagree with and why?
Shooting the messenger might help appease your insecurities but it does nothing to disprove anything that I ever written on this board. :confusedshrug:
ripthekik
03-16-2013, 03:44 AM
How impressive?
Look at who they played in the weak east- not one superstar, injuries to Rose and Dwight, Lebron had Wade and Bosh, and played the youngest team in NBA finals history. So impressive.
and on this post i got negged (not really sure i believe it's lebron23)
F*ck you you black n*gger. I'm going to f*ck your n*gger mom. Lebron wil be the GOAT and is already better than Kobe. I'm going to neg you when I get unbanned as Lebron23 to make you even more red you bakla. -Gobb_Junior
I<3NBA
03-16-2013, 03:47 AM
"They look at the individual numbers Michael put up and those LeBron is putting up. My numbers are great, but I played with Shaq. So those numbers have to be looked at from that perspective. They didn't have to play with a 7-foot-1, 350-pound dominant force.
this fkng loser :lol without Shaq, yeah you'd have better numbers. but you'd have a career just like Iverson's you stupid motherfkr. remember when Shaq left, you couldn't even carry the team deep into the playoffs? you needed Gasol to get over the hump.
this is is the greatest quote Kobe said
You can have all the talent in the world, but if the organization isn't making the smartest decisions, you're not going to win. Dominique Wilkins had a great career, but he never got to that [championship] level.
that right there is him admitting that if he wasn't on the Lakers he'd be another Iverson or as he said, Dominique Wilkins. so can we finally stop blaming Lebron for being drafted by a shitty franchise?
How about owning a team? "Only if it's in a big market,"
and Kobetards say Lebron is the biggest front-runner :facepalm Kobe is an even bigger front runner than Lebron. look at this guy's whole career. refuses to be drafted by a small market team. pouts when he doesn't get a stacked team. then will only want to own a big market team. does that speak of a guy wanting to win through adversity and overcome challenges? doesn't that sound like a guy who wants to win the easy way? this is how big the difference is between Kobe and Jordan is. so kobetards, choke on that you motherfkng losers!
ripthekik
03-16-2013, 03:54 AM
does that speak of a guy wanting to win through adversity and overcome challenges?
Yes, his career and actions show us so.
doesn't that sound like a guy who wants to win the easy way?
No, that sounds like lebron, who left his own team to join a stacked team with top 3 player and proven Champion Wade, and top 5 PF Bosh. That action spoke loudly: he gave up, he couldnt do it, he just wants it the easy way.
this is how big the difference is between Kobe/Jordan and Lebron is. so lebrontards, choke on that you motherfkng losers!
fixed.
imnew09
03-16-2013, 04:36 AM
The more I read about him, the more I like him.
Kobe, the best! :bowdown:
Doranku
03-16-2013, 04:53 AM
It's sad.. from everything that I've seen, people dislike Kobe because of his fans, not because of him as a player. I think if people took a step back and just evaluated Kobe for who he is as a player, he'd have a lot more fans and a lot less hell-bent haters.
livingby3's
03-16-2013, 05:08 AM
isn't posting great stats and being the best player on a stacked team more impressive than being the only go to guy on a team? like a gem in a pile of rocks, or gem among the gems, u can't really judge them head to head though. That said LeBron led mo Williams and jamison, then today he leads Wade n bosh, don't think u can say the same for many players
j3lademaster
03-16-2013, 05:14 AM
Then why was the market so weak for him. :confusedshrug:Because he was old and injury prone. A player's value isn't always based on how good he is. Paul George is more valuable than Kobe. Is he better? No. Not even close. But you get 10 more quality years out of George and a much better contract.
knicksman
03-16-2013, 07:09 AM
"It does bother me that during your career, everyone says, 'Win championships.' Now, at the end of your career, they want to look at [individual] numbers. That drives me crazy a little."
great quote.
I agree with kobe here thats why its a joke to compare him and lebron. He has 5 rings to lebrons 1. Kobe had shaq but lebron has much better teammates in bosh and wade. If he wants to beat kobe, then he should win at least 5 rings. Now for jordan, he won as the man for his 6 rings. So only 2 of kobes rings is comparable. So when it comes to ranking
jordan>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>kobe>>>>>>>>>>>>lebron
knicksman
03-16-2013, 07:14 AM
:oldlol: I love how Kobe makes it seem like playing with Shaq was some sort of burden or some shit.
yet wants to credit the 3 rings as his own. And worse is that shaq clearly doesnt him need as evidenced by shaq winning with just a 6th man kobe.
DMAVS41
03-16-2013, 07:16 AM
It's sad.. from everything that I've seen, people dislike Kobe because of his fans, not because of him as a player. I think if people took a step back and just evaluated Kobe for who he is as a player, he'd have a lot more fans and a lot less hell-bent haters.
At times, yes...but him wanting his numbers to be looked at differently than other players and then harping on winning so much just seems absurd.
To put it simply, there was only 1 way in which Kobe wins his first 3 titles...Shaq. That's it. No other player in the league could have come in to the Lakers (assuming he doesn't get Duncan as a replacement) and allowed him to win those 3 titles.
Not to mention Kobe was just simply not good enough in his first 2 years to do what guys like Lebron, MJ, and Wade did. It wasn't until Kobe's 3rd season in which he became starter worthy really. And again...he still wasn't elite...probably wasn't elite until the 2nd of year 4 or beginning of year 5. And what happened then? He got up as many shots as anyone...
18 shots a game in 00 and 22 shots a game in 01...and he's been shooting more than anyone ever since...LOL
swag2011
03-16-2013, 07:31 AM
yet wants to credit the 3 rings as his own. And worse is that shaq clearly doesnt him need as evidenced by shaq winning with just a 6th man kobe.
Yet shaq never won a ring till paired up with Kobe. Even then, it took lobe coming a full starter for the rings to come in. So really, if shaq didn't need Kobe, then where are his rings, FMVP's, and MVP award PRIOR to Kobe? Or after him lol? 1 ring after Kobe, which dwhistle was the reason for.
I<3NBA
03-16-2013, 07:45 AM
Yet shaq never won a ring till paired up with Kobe. Even then, it took lobe coming a full starter for the rings to come in. So really, if shaq didn't need Kobe, then where are his rings, FMVP's, and MVP award PRIOR to Kobe? Or after him lol? 1 ring after Kobe, which dwhistle was the reason for.
Kobe already addressed this dumbass
You can have all the talent in the world, but if the organization isn't making the smartest decisions, you're not going to win.
maybe it wasn't Kobe that helped Shaq finally get a ring, ever thought of that? Maybe it was the Lakers organization. maybe it was the front office building a real formidable team around Shaq. maybe it was Phil Jackson. Shaq went to Miami and still won. then went to Suns and Cavs but didn't again. see a pattern? shitty organizations never win.
Vienceslav
03-16-2013, 08:04 AM
Great read , thanks for posting.
knicksman
03-16-2013, 08:28 AM
Yet shaq never won a ring till paired up with Kobe. Even then, it took lobe coming a full starter for the rings to come in. So really, if shaq didn't need Kobe, then where are his rings, FMVP's, and MVP award PRIOR to Kobe? Or after him lol? 1 ring after Kobe, which dwhistle was the reason for.
maybe coz of injuries. All i know is shaq won with just a 6th man kobe and shaq too made the finals in his 2nd or 3rd yr.
Yet shaq never won a ring till paired up with Kobe. Even then, it took lobe coming a full starter for the rings to come in. So really, if shaq didn't need Kobe, then where are his rings, FMVP's, and MVP award PRIOR to Kobe? Or after him lol? 1 ring after Kobe, which dwhistle was the reason for.
As we all know, if something happened a certain way, such as Shaq winning his first ring with Kobe, then that was the only way universally possible that that something could've happened. :rolleyes:
:facepalm
Lebron James winning a hypothetical title with prime Shaq and 10 scrubs is more impressive than Lebron James winning a hypothetical title with 11 other all star players.
Teammates strength matters, Finals mvp doesn't. Basketball isn't a 2 on 2 game.
:oldlol: Apparently every player in the league is either an all-star or a scrub/D-League player. There's no in between.
NoGunzJustSkillz
03-16-2013, 04:17 PM
couldn't have said it better myself.
Well balanced Teams kicking on all cylinders win championships!
If you aint a leader, NUMERO UNO option, then you are just part of a well oiled machine.
Kobe can be credited for just 1 ring 2009 ring. (HINT: 6/24 in Game 7 for 2010)
LBJ can be credited for 1 ring too cuz he was clearly a leader of well oiled machine called MIAMI HEAT in 2012.
Date of Birth:
March 31, 1979
Age:
33
:lol
NoGunzJustSkillz
03-16-2013, 04:20 PM
Furious.
somebody post this loser's picture so he can disappear again.
Yao Ming's Foot
03-16-2013, 07:02 PM
:oldlol: Apparently every player in the league is either an all-star or a scrub/D-League player. There's no in between.
Do you know what the word hypothetical means?
Do you know what the word hypothetical means?
My bad, but it did sound like you were implying that Kobe won with Shaq and 10 scrubs, while Lebron had 11 all star teammates. Either way, I don't really understand why we are arguing team strength here when Lebrons title was clearly more impressive the any of Kobe's first 3 and probably his last two as well, Finals MVP or not.
Yao Ming's Foot
03-16-2013, 07:21 PM
My bad, but it did sound like you were implying that Kobe won with Shaq and 10 scrubs, while Lebron had 11 all star teammates. Either way, I don't really understand why we are arguing team strength here when Lebrons title was clearly more impressive the any of Kobe's first 3 and probably his last two as well, Finals MVP or not.
Not based on strength of teammates
Not based on strength of defenses faced
Not based on strength of opponents faced
:confusedshrug:
KingBeasley08
03-16-2013, 07:45 PM
Not based on strength of teammates
Not based on strength of defenses faced
Not based on strength of opponents faced
:confusedshrug:
but based on performance, you know... the most important thing
Yao Ming's Foot
03-16-2013, 07:52 PM
but based on performance, you know... the most important thing
Kobe's performance during the first 3 peat in the playoffs is on par with many other legends. :confusedshrug:
This entire conversation was born out of the desire to ignore performance and instead focus on not strength of teammates altogether but rather Finals MVP and/or mythical best player on the team status. Now you are telling me performance is what is most important.
KingBeasley08
03-16-2013, 07:54 PM
Kobe's performance during the first 3 peat in the playoffs is on par with many other legends. :confusedshrug:
This entire conversation was born out of the desire to ignore performance and instead focus on not strength of teammates altogether but rather Finals MVP and/or mythical best player on the team status. Now you are telling me performance is what is most important.
Why should being the best be ignored? I think its an important to note who the best player is on every championship team
Rubio2Gasol
03-16-2013, 07:57 PM
When you a top 3 player in the game (Top 2 in my opinion - but Duncan is debatable) and you're actually a better player in some series than supposedly the most dominant center ever in the peak of his career - you don't just write that off as a sidekick accomplishment.
There needs to be a little context to every story.
Yao Ming's Foot
03-16-2013, 07:59 PM
Why should being the best be ignored? I think its an important to note who the best player is on every championship team
Because it ignores the 10 other teammates. It's not a 2 vs 2 sport. Put Kobe on the Kings or Blazers during the 3 peat and his path to the championship is easier no matter if he would now be the team's best player.
Not based on strength of teammates
Not based on strength of defenses faced
Not based on strength of opponents faced
:confusedshrug:
And thats according to who? Your delusional biased self?
Yao Ming's Foot
03-16-2013, 08:25 PM
And thats according to who? Your delusional biased self?
All star/ hall of fame voters
Defensive rating of opponents
Win loss record of opponents
:confusedshrug:
kuniva_dAMiGhTy
03-17-2013, 11:22 AM
And Mike's (statistical output) would be higher if he didn't play w/ Pippen. LBJ's would be higher the last 2 years if he didn't play w/ Wade.
Magic and Bird's would be higher if they didn't play w/ great players. Same is true of everyone, so that point isn't really relevant.
kuniva_dAMiGhTy
03-17-2013, 11:34 AM
No Kobe they didn't play with a dominant force which is why they didn't have instant success at the beginning of their careers as far as team wins(3 of your chips are because of Shaq) and you coming into a playoff team. And no Kobe, you would have not matched their numbers in your first two to three seasons....if that's the case you would have been more dominant early on and not sitting behind Eddie Jones.
Exactly. Funny how Kobe talks about numbers, yet fails to mention he took MORE shots than Shaq. :oldlol:
2000-01, FGA: Kobe-22.2, Shaq-19.2
2001-02, FGA: Kobe-20, Shaq-18.3
2002-03, FGA: Kobe-23.5, Shaq-18.1
2003-04, FGA: Kobe-18.1, Shaq-14.1
Bean was a second option in '99, and '99-00. In '98, he was more like a third or fourth option, and in '96-97, Kobe was more like a seventh option. There's a reason for that. He wasn't that great coming out of highschool AND had to earn the right to lead the way offensively.
ripthekik
03-17-2013, 11:41 AM
Exactly. Funny how Kobe talks about numbers, yet fails to mention he took MORE shots than Shaq. :oldlol:
2000-01, FGA: Kobe-22.2, Shaq-19.2
2001-02, FGA: Kobe-20, Shaq-18.3
2002-03, FGA: Kobe-23.5, Shaq-18.1
2003-04, FGA: Kobe-18.1, Shaq-14.1
Bean was a second option in '99, and '99-00. In '98, he was more like a third or fourth option, and in '96-97, Kobe was more like a seventh option. There's a reason for that. He wasn't that great coming out of highschool AND had to earn the right to lead the way offensively.
because he wasn't given the minutes and green light to shoot in his first day in the league, unlike someone else. Kobe earned, someone else given.
DatAsh
03-17-2013, 11:52 AM
And Mike's (statistical output) would be higher if he didn't play w/ Pippen. LBJ's would be higher the last 2 years if he didn't play w/ Wade.
Magic and Bird's would be higher if they didn't play w/ great players. Same is true of everyone, so that point isn't really relevant.
I think his point was that he spent all but a couple years of his career surrounded by great players. Jordan spent almost half his career on bad to mediocre teams which possibly inflated his stats a bit.
There's really two ways to look at here, in terms of success and in terms of numbers. Great teammates have an affect on both. Kobe's numbers probably stand to improve more than Jordan's or Lebron's if the supporting casts were equalized.
Yao Ming's Foot
03-17-2013, 11:52 AM
Exactly. Funny how Kobe talks about numbers, yet fails to mention he took MORE shots than Shaq. :oldlol:
2000-01, FGA: Kobe-22.2, Shaq-19.2
2001-02, FGA: Kobe-20, Shaq-18.3
2002-03, FGA: Kobe-23.5, Shaq-18.1
2003-04, FGA: Kobe-18.1, Shaq-14.1
Bean was a second option in '99, and '99-00. In '98, he was more like a third or fourth option, and in '96-97, Kobe was more like a seventh option. There's a reason for that. He wasn't that great coming out of highschool AND had to earn the right to lead the way offensively.
You don't think usage % would be the much more logical statistic to look at for the point you are trying to make?
Shaq getting hacked doesn't show up as a shot attempt in a box score but it certainly impacts his teammates raw scoring totals. :confusedshrug:
kuniva_dAMiGhTy
03-17-2013, 11:55 AM
There's really two ways to look at here, in terms of success and in terms of numbers. Great teammates have an affect on both. Kobe's numbers would probably stand to improve more than Jordan's or Lebron's if the supporting casts were equalized.
Well, it also shows that whether or not Shaq was on his team, Kobe was gonna put up 20+ shots a season. So Shaq wasn't taking shots away from him. If anything, having him on his team really helped, because the defense would often collapse on Shaq (giving more and better looks to the other Lakers).
I don't really buy that all of the "Kobe's stats would have been better if Shaq wasn't on the team" stuff. He would have scored more, but probably less efficiently. That's about it. :confusedshrug:
DatAsh
03-17-2013, 12:00 PM
I don't really buy that all of the "Kobe's stats would have been better if Shaq wasn't on the team" stuff. He would have scored more, but probably less efficiently. That's about it. :confusedshrug:
I think you're correct in thinking that his ppg would go up while his efficiency would go down. His rebounds might also go up a bit.
The biggest difference would be that he probably would have had to carry a bigger offensive load in the late 90's. Without Shaq there to run the offense through, the shots would have to be distributed more evenly, and Kobe would probably be one of the players most affected by that.
NumberSix
03-17-2013, 12:02 PM
I think his point was that he spent all but a couple years of his career surrounded by great players. Jordan spent almost half his career on bad to mediocre teams which possibly inflated his stats a bit.
There's really two ways to look at here, in terms of success and in terms of numbers. Great teammates have an affect on both. Kobe's numbers probably stand to improve more than Jordan's or Lebron's if the supporting casts were equalized.
Context matters. If Kobe spent like 8 seasons on a non-contender he could have put up 5 or 6 35+ PPG seasons.
If MJ came into the league playing with an already established superstar dominant center, his scoring numbers would be drastically decreased.
You could also say though, that although MJs numbers would be lower, he might have started winning championships earlier.
This is why it's stupid to judge players with blanket criteria. Every player has completely different circumstances.
DatAsh
03-17-2013, 12:10 PM
Context matters. If Kobe spent like 8 seasons on a non-contender he could have put up 5 or 6 35+ PPG seasons.
If MJ came into the league playing with an already established superstar dominant center, his scoring numbers would be drastically decreased.
You could also say though, that although MJs numbers would be lower, he might have started winning championships earlier.
This is why it's stupid to judge players with blanket criteria. Every player has completely different circumstances.
I don't disagree, but I was speaking strictly to the numbers side of things.
cotdt
03-17-2013, 12:15 PM
Kobe started off the bench and that really hurt his stats. He has had to earn his way through. The only modern day equivalent would be James Harden. Now all the best players are from #1 pick, they get teams built around them from the onset and are crowned the franchise player before they even play a game.
Scholar
03-17-2013, 12:25 PM
"It does bother me that during your career, everyone says, 'Win championships.' Now, at the end of your career, they want to look at [individual] numbers. That drives me crazy a little."
great quote.
Agreed.
Rubio2Gasol
03-17-2013, 12:27 PM
I think Kobe doesn't care about stats and it annoys him that other people do. I find myself in the same position quite often :lol
NumberSix
03-17-2013, 12:31 PM
Kobe started off the bench and that really hurt his stats. He has had to earn his way through. The only modern day equivalent would be James Harden. Now all the best players are from #1 pick, they get teams built around them from the onset and are crowned the franchise player before they even play a game.
Well, that's how it has always been. When you're a #1 pick, you're going to a bad team that obviously needs a good player at that position. Obviously you're going to be a starter. If LeBron James somehow got drafted by the celtics he wouldn't have been a starter either.
cotdt
03-17-2013, 12:39 PM
Well, that's how it has always been. When you're a #1 pick, you're going to a bad team that obviously needs a good player at that position. Obviously you're going to be a starter. If LeBron James somehow got drafted by the celtics he wouldn't have been a starter either.
Those people who are the #1 pick get spoiled because they start out as the top dog. Look at how humble James Harden is, compared to someone like Allen Iverson who refuses to come off the bench even though he is washed up.
All star/ hall of fame voters
What about MVPs? all-NBA first team? Let me guess, no need for you to dig deeper and differentiate, because equating MVPs and all-NBA first team honors with just being all-star and HOFer doesn't fit your agenda? :oldlol:
And do you even factor in that Bosh missed almost half the playoffs and Wade was playing hurt for much of the playoffs? Because you know, that context isn't reflected by your stupid criteria.
Defensive rating of opponents
Win loss record of opponents
:confusedshrug:
I'm not even going to bother looking, because if thats the only way to assess their opponents, then we would never see a team with a better record lose in the playoffs to teams with worse records.
Either way, I'm not even disagreeing with you that Kobe faced better opponents in the first three-peat. But only a biased idiot like yourself would think that the difference is that big to explain the difference in performance and insinuate that Kobe had an incredibly tougher time, especially when Kobe had Shaq taking so much attention away from him and actually being the more dominant player.
Yao Ming's Foot
03-17-2013, 08:28 PM
What about MVPs? all-NBA first team? Let me guess, no need for you to dig deeper and differentiate, because equating MVPs and all-NBA first team honors with just being all-star and HOFer doesn't fit your agenda? :oldlol:
And do you even factor in that Bosh missed almost half the playoffs and Wade was playing hurt for much of the playoffs? Because you know, that context isn't reflected by your stupid criteria.
I'm not even going to bother looking, because if thats the only way to assess their opponents, then we would never see a team with a better record lose in the playoffs to teams with worse records.
Either way, I'm not even disagreeing with you that Kobe faced better opponents in the first three-peat. But only a biased idiot like yourself would think that the difference is that big to explain the difference in performance and insinuate that Kobe had an incredibly tougher time, especially when Kobe had Shaq taking so much attention away from him and actually being the more dominant player.
Stop arguing against what you imagine I think and allude to and instead focus on the words that I actually post.
:facepalm
As far as the topic goes, there's absolutely no reason to think Kobe would be on par statistically with Jordan and Lebron if he wasn't playing with Shaq. Compare them when they are in similar situations and you would see that.
Best 3 seasons where they had to carry a shitty team (since it was only 3 for Kobe):
Jordan 87-89: 34.9 ppg/6.2 rpg/6.2 apg/3.0 spg/1.3 bpg/51.6 FG%/59.1 TS%
Kobe 05-07: 31.8 ppg/5.6 rpg/5.3 apg/1.5 spg/0.5 bpg/45.0 FG%/56.7 TS%
Lebron 08-10: 29.4 ppg/7.6 rpg/7.7 apg/1.7 spg/1.1 bpg/49.2 FG%/58.7 TS%
Best 3 seasons where they were leading a title contending team (since its only been 3 for Lebron)
Jordan 90-92: 31.7 ppg/6.4 rpg/6.0 apg/2.6 spg/0.9 bpg/52.8 FG%/59.7 TS%
Kobe 08-10: 27.4 ppg/5.6 rpg/5.1 apg/1.6 spg/0.4 bpg/46.1 FG%/56.1 TS%
Lebron 11-13: 26.8 ppg/7.8 rpg/6.8 apg/1.7 spg/0.8 bpg/53.0 FG%/60.8 TS%
So Kobe's only advantage over anyone is ppg over Lebron in both situations, which isn't significant. Jordan beats him in absolutely everything with significant advantages in scoring, efficiency, and defense, while Lebron beats him in everything but scoring, and has significant advantages in rebounding, assists, defense, and efficiency.
Now would his total stats be on par with them if he had more seasons playing on bad teams? Keep in mind that he was probably at his peak/prime around the time he was playing on bad teams, while those numbers on bad teams that Jordan and Lebron put up were probably before they were at their best. On top of that, we have to realize that out of all 3 of them, Kobe probably came into the league the least ready, which means his earlier are still probably not as impressive. And on top of that, we have to realize that Kobe's efficiency stats are probably even lower with worse teams, and his assists maybe lower as well (really, the only stat that would more then likely be positively affected by being on worst teams is ppg, while everything else is unchanged or lower).
Taking all that into account really, his stats from 97-04 without Shaq and on a bad team is probably not that different from Iverson's, who was 27.0 ppg/4.1 rpg/5.7 apg/2.4 spg/0.2 bpg/41.7 FG%/50.5 TS%. I'd probably just say maybe +1.0 rpg/ -0.5 apg/ -1.0 spg/+0.4 bpg/+3.0 FG%/+4.0 TS%.
Stop arguing against what you imagine I think and allude to and instead focus on the words that I actually post.
:facepalm
Umm, did you not point to all-star appearances as a basis for Lebron having a stronger team, while not mentioning MVPs or All-NBA 1st team honors?
Yao Ming's Foot
03-17-2013, 09:11 PM
Umm, did you not point to all-star appearances as a basis for Lebron having a stronger team, while not mentioning MVPs or All-NBA 1st team honors?
Kobe won 4 titles without a MVP teammate. He won two without a All-NBA 1st team teammate. I have no idea what you imagine the bias you have uncovered by making that distinction. :confusedshrug:
Kobe won 4 titles without a MVP teammate. He won two without a All-NBA 1st team teammate. I have no idea what you imagine the bias you have uncovered by making that distinction. :confusedshrug:
The comparison I made was Lebron's title run to Kobe's 3-peat. I wasn't arguing Kobe's other two title runs. I said Lebron's title run was "probably" more impressive then those two, but I wasn't going to bother arguing that if you disagree. I did say Lebron's title run was "clearly" more impressive then any of Kobe's first 3 and then you typically list a bunch of shit like all-star appearances without any context such as a differentiation between these all-stars.
Yao Ming's Foot
03-17-2013, 09:46 PM
The comparison I made was Lebron's title run to Kobe's 3-peat. I wasn't arguing Kobe's other two title runs. I said Lebron's title run was "probably" more impressive then those two, but I wasn't going to bother arguing that if you disagree. I did say Lebron's title run was "clearly" more impressive then any of Kobe's first 3 and then you typically list a bunch of shit like all-star appearances without any context such as a differentiation between these all-stars.
When you write that you probably believe something I wasn't aware that I was supposed to ignore it because you did not want to support your statement with facts.
My post had to do with Kobe's 5 titles in general. On average Kobe has faced tougher defenses, beat better teams and had less help than Lebron James. :confusedshrug:
The Iron Fist
03-17-2013, 09:50 PM
When you write that you probably believe something I wasn't aware that I was supposed to ignore it because you did not want to support your statement with facts.
My post had to do with Kobe's 5 titles in general. On average Kobe has faced tougher defenses, beat better teams and had less help than Lebron James. :confusedshrug:
Bronze has faced five .500 or less teams in the playoffs. People act like that's impressive when it comes to stats and completely ignore context.
dh144498
03-17-2013, 09:58 PM
because he wasn't given the minutes and green light to shoot in his first day in the league, unlike someone else. Kobe earned, someone else given.
one of the most epic comments I have ever read. :applause: :bowdown: bravo.
Yao Ming's Foot
03-17-2013, 10:03 PM
Bronze has faced five .500 or less teams in the playoffs. People act like that's impressive when it comes to stats and completely ignore context.
Its pretty likely that Kobe's 1st round opponents from 08-10 will have a better record than the team the Heat face in the Eastern Conference Finals this year.
When you write that you probably believe something I wasn't aware that I was supposed to ignore it because you did not want to support your statement with facts.
My post had to do with Kobe's 5 titles in general. On average Kobe has faced tougher defenses, beat better teams and had less help than Lebron James. :confusedshrug:
I wasn't going to bother arguing with you over his last 2 titles if you already believe Kobe was more impressive and had a tougher time in his first 3 titles. There's no point of arguing against your less idiotic view, when you have a separate view thats incredibly more stupid.
You do realize none of your opinions are backed up by facts right? Its not a fact that Kobe faced tougher defenses, beat better teams, and had less help then Lebron? They're opinions that may have some numbers behind it, but those numbers don't measure context, which means they don't turn an opinion into a fact.
DatAsh
03-17-2013, 10:08 PM
On average Kobe has faced tougher defenses, beat better teams and had less help than Lebron James. :confusedshrug:
Are you referring to just finals series here?
Yao Ming's Foot
03-17-2013, 10:11 PM
Are you referring to just finals series here?
Path to the championship
Yao Ming's Foot
03-17-2013, 10:15 PM
I wasn't going to bother arguing with you over his last 2 titles if you already believe Kobe was more impressive and had a tougher time in his first 3 titles. There's no point of arguing against your less idiotic view, when you have a separate view thats incredibly more stupid.
You do realize none of your opinions are backed up by facts right? Its not a fact that Kobe faced tougher defenses, beat better teams, and had less help then Lebron? They're opinions that may have some numbers behind it, but those numbers don't measure context, which means they don't turn an opinion into a fact.
Everything is subjective when making any sports comparisons.
There is nothing remotely controversial about considering all star teammates or HOF teammates when talking about a given player's help
There is nothing remotely controversial about looking at team records to figure out about how good a team was...
There is nothing remotely controversial about looking at points allowed per possession to figure out how good a defense was...
:confusedshrug:
Everything is subjective when making any sports comparisons.
There is nothing remotely controversial about considering all star teammates or HOF teammates when talking about a given player's help
There is nothing remotely controversial about looking at team records to figure out about how good a team was...
There is nothing remotely controversial about looking at points allowed per possession to figure out how good a defense was...
:confusedshrug:
Never said it was controversial. But its stupid to just ignore context.
Question: Do you think having Wade was just as beneficial to Lebron as having Shaq was to Kobe since both were all-star teammates for them? Ignore the rest of the teams. I'm just asking about that factor by itself.
Yao Ming's Foot
03-17-2013, 10:28 PM
Never said it was controversial. But its stupid to just ignore context.
Question: Do you think having Wade was just as beneficial to Lebron as having Shaq was to Kobe since both were all-star teammates for them? Ignore the rest of the teams. I'm just asking about that factor by itself.
No but I think he's better than Gasol. :confusedshrug:
No but I think he's better than Gasol. :confusedshrug:
Well, I didn't ask about Gasol. But fair enough.
DMAVS41
03-17-2013, 10:59 PM
When you write that you probably believe something I wasn't aware that I was supposed to ignore it because you did not want to support your statement with facts.
My post had to do with Kobe's 5 titles in general. On average Kobe has faced tougher defenses, beat better teams and had less help than Lebron James. :confusedshrug:
This is true. But yet again...people don't view Lebron winning the title as what makes him elite. The title was necessary to prove he's a champion. So all of this numbers vs titles...etc. Really doesn't matter now that Lebron won one.
Unless he gets injured or falls of dramatically, Lebron will go down as a better player than Kobe. Why? Because he's a better basketball player.
I can just see these stupid ring arguments morphing into...5 rings vs 4 mvps...:facepalm
poido123
03-17-2013, 11:06 PM
It's sad.. from everything that I've seen, people dislike Kobe because of his fans, not because of him as a player. I think if people took a step back and just evaluated Kobe for who he is as a player, he'd have a lot more fans and a lot less hell-bent haters.
No, his actions and quotes both on and off the court give me reason to dislike him, the fans are just the icing :facepalm:
I don't dislike his talent, I dont dislike his game. I dislike his fake persona, I dislike his quotes about Shaq, how he wanted out on the Lakers when they werent a stacked team but now he talks about how loyal he is etc etc. I dislike his injury claims and how he uses that to make out like some kind of 'warrior', i dislike his mannerisms and how he eerily resembles Jordan and how he did things. I dislike the comments he said about Gasol last year and year before, and basically calling out the team, avoiding all responsibility for his own shot jacking and ordinary defense. I dislike the league's propensity to give Kobe awards that he does not deserve, i dislike his unwillingness to admit fault in most situations. I mean there is so many things, but it would take a long time to write it all.
Yao Ming's Foot
03-17-2013, 11:12 PM
This is true. But yet again...people don't view Lebron winning the title as what makes him elite. The title was necessary to prove he's a champion. So all of this numbers vs titles...etc. Really doesn't matter now that Lebron won one.
Unless he gets injured or falls of dramatically, Lebron will go down as a better player than Kobe. Why? Because he's a better basketball player.
I can just see these stupid ring arguments morphing into...5 rings vs 4 mvps...:facepalm
Its circular reasoning. People discredit Kobe's first 3 titles due to Shaq yet when I point Kobe had less help we are supposed to go back to numbers. When I point out Kobe had great playoff numbers during the first 3 peat. It goes back to help. When I point out Lebron had more help. It goes back to numbers. :confusedshrug:
Its circular reasoning. People discredit Kobe's first 3 titles due to Shaq yet when I point Kobe had less help we are supposed to go back to numbers. When I point out Kobe had great playoff numbers during the first 3 peat. It goes back to help. When I point out Lebron had more help. It goes back to numbers. :confusedshrug:
You pointing out that Kobe had less help during the first three-peat is irrelevant because no one believes that nor do they agree with the context-less criteria you base that on. And even if he did somehow had less help, no one in their right mind thinks he had so much more of a difficult time that it explains the difference statistically between the two.
And I don't think anyone has ever said Kobe didn't put up great playoff numbers during that time. It just doesn't compare to Lebron's and some other greats.
LOL, he wants to have it both ways. Sorry, Kobe, winning multiple rings while putting up insane stats belongs to MJ. Pathetic that he's commenting on Shaq when Shaq is the reason he has those first 3 rings. No way is he winning in 00-02 without Shaq. Like he isn't chasing the numbers too - that's why he keeps jacking up those shots and chasing KAJ. It's a joke that he even thinks he could be putting up the all-round numbers that Lebron is - only in the scoring. Kobe-system indeed.
DMAVS41
03-18-2013, 11:00 AM
Its circular reasoning. People discredit Kobe's first 3 titles due to Shaq yet when I point Kobe had less help we are supposed to go back to numbers. When I point out Kobe had great playoff numbers during the first 3 peat. It goes back to help. When I point out Lebron had more help. It goes back to numbers. :confusedshrug:
Well, that is kind of my point.
The difference is simple though. Kobe simply could not have won without Shaq. End of story. Not one other player in the league could have come in and allowed Kobe to win those 3 rings. Even with Duncan, depending on what Shaq had around him, he might not win.
With Lebron, it's a little different, but not entirely.
My point was simple. Kobe fans use the 5 rings as the main source of evidence for his greatness. While Lebron fans use his level of play as the main source of evidence for his greatness. There is a bit of a difference there.
Only until this era of "ring counting"...generally by Kobe fans using this to prop Kobe up....did fans and players (MJ for example) think ring count defined a player this much. Level of play and what you do with your help is what matters. Obviously Kobe didn't have the same chance as Lebron to put up the same numbers early on...partly because of his team and in more so because he just wasn't good enough. At the same time, Lebron obviously had a completely different early career...joining a 17 win team...playing without a championship roster or coach.
Kobe has literally played with like 12 legit championship rosters. Lebron has played with 3 now. That has to be factored in.
And what is wrong with Kobe's numbers? They are some of the best ever. So I don't even get what the hell he is talking about.
Yao Ming's Foot
03-18-2013, 11:01 AM
You pointing out that Kobe had less help during the first three-peat is irrelevant because no one believes that nor do they agree with the context-less criteria you base that on. And even if he did somehow had less help, no one in their right mind thinks he had so much more of a difficult time that it explains the difference statistically between the two.
And I don't think anyone has ever said Kobe didn't put up great playoff numbers during that time. It just doesn't compare to Lebron's and some other greats.
29.4 PPG/ 7.3 REB/ 6.1 ASS 56 TS%
101.8 DEF RAT 50-32
99.6 DEF RAT 55-27
98.9 DEF RAT 56-26
98.0 DEF RAT 58-24
15-1 RECORD
Doesn't compare to who exactly?
:confusedshrug:
LOL, he wants to have it both ways. Sorry, Kobe, winning multiple rings while putting up insane stats belongs to MJ. Pathetic that he's commenting on Shaq when Shaq is the reason he has those first 3 rings. No way is he winning in 00-02 without Shaq. Like he isn't chasing the numbers too - that's why he keeps jacking up those shots and chasing KAJ. It's a joke that he even thinks he could be putting up the all-round numbers that Lebron is - only in the scoring. Kobe-system indeed.
This. And people need to look at a few things. If Kobe was drafted onto a bad team where he could've put up ridiculous stats, the longest he would've been in that situation is probably about 8 years at the most, because if a player is that good, which Kobe was, his team is either getting the right pieces around him to lighten his load or that superstar is going somewhere else either thru FA or by demanding a trade.
Now lets say Kobe gets the worst scenario, where he's in that situation for his first 8 years. No matter who's he with, he's not breaking 30 ppg in any of his first 4 years, and probably not 20 ppg or 25 ppg in a few of his first years, and definitely not on some high efficiency. He's not coming out the gate just dominating. As athletic as he was, coming out of HS he just wasn't as NBA ready, athletic enough, and physically imposing enough to dominate right away the way Lebron did, nor was he athletic enough, skilled enough, and mature enough to dominate right away the way Jordan did. So that leaves at the most another 4 years to put up absolutely ridiculous stats, which he may have. But we saw what he did in those 3 years which he was at his peak/prime, so lets just assume he had those same 3 years and another one like it. Are we really saying anything much different?
And then after that lets say he gets his Gasol/Odom/Bynum/Artest like help, where he's still the best player. He's probably putting up the same stats he was putting up anyway. Probably not any better, or any worse. On top of that, I'd like to point out, he only really became a superstar in 2001. Look at his stats from 01-03 where he played with Shaq, and ignore 04 since that season was pretty tumultous with Kobe's rape case, injuries, Malone and Payton joining, etc. Compare his stats from 01-03 with his stats from 08-10. 01-03, his stats were 28/6/5/ on 46% and from 08-10 they were 27/6/5 on 46%. Not much different, in fact slightly better in the Shaq years. So, it really doesn't have to do much with Shaq, but just playing with better players in general. But as we see, playing with better players in general, never really stopped Jordan or Lebron from putting up these jaw dropping statistical seasons, which they've done numerous times even while playing on contending teams. Not to say that Kobe hasn't been impressive statistically on good teams, just not as impressive as them.
29.4 PPG/ 7.3 REB/ 6.1 ASS 56 TS%
101.8 DEF RAT 50-32
99.6 DEF RAT 55-27
98.9 DEF RAT 56-26
98.0 DEF RAT 58-24
15-1 RECORD
Doesn't compare to who exactly?
:confusedshrug:
31.1 PPG/ 6.4 RPG/ 8.4 APG 52 FG% 60 TS%
34.5 PPG/ 6.2 RPG/ 5.8 APG 50 FG% 57 TS%
35.1 PPG/ 6.7 RPG/ 6.0 APG 48 FG% 55 TS%
30.3 PPG/ 9.7 RPG/ 5.6 APG 50 FG% 58 TS%
while not having arguably the most dominant player ever at his peak divert attention away.
:confusedshrug:
dh144498
03-18-2013, 12:16 PM
31.1 PPG/ 6.4 RPG/ 8.4 APG 52 FG% 60 TS%
34.5 PPG/ 6.2 RPG/ 5.8 APG 50 FG% 57 TS%
35.1 PPG/ 6.7 RPG/ 6.0 APG 48 FG% 55 TS%
30.3 PPG/ 9.7 RPG/ 5.6 APG 50 FG% 58 TS%
while not having arguably the most dominant player ever at his peak divert attention away.
:confusedshrug:
weak defense :lol
Yao Ming's Foot
03-18-2013, 01:33 PM
31.1 PPG/ 6.4 RPG/ 8.4 APG 52 FG% 60 TS%
34.5 PPG/ 6.2 RPG/ 5.8 APG 50 FG% 57 TS%
35.1 PPG/ 6.7 RPG/ 6.0 APG 48 FG% 55 TS%
30.3 PPG/ 9.7 RPG/ 5.6 APG 50 FG% 58 TS%
while not having arguably the most dominant player ever at his peak divert attention away.
:confusedshrug:
Who did they face and what were their defensive ratings? You clamor for context but present very little. :confusedshrug:
Kobe put up numbers with Shaq. He put up numbers with Kwame. He put them up with Gasol. He continues to put them up with Dwight. 4 very different offensive forces. The only constant is Kobe putting up numbers. The notion that Kobe's 3 peat numbers are the result of Shaq is unsupported by the evidence. In fact I would hypothesize that the majority of Kobe's greatest offensive performances came when he was the undisputed sole player worthy of "attention" on the floor.
AirFederer
03-18-2013, 01:50 PM
Who did they face and what were their defensive ratings? You clamor for context but present very little. :confusedshrug:
Kobe put up numbers with Shaq. He put up numbers with Kwame. He put them up with Gasol. He continues to put them up with Dwight. 4 very different offensive forces. The only constant is Kobe putting up numbers. The notion that Kobe's 3 peat numbers are the result of Shaq is unsupported by the evidence. In fact I would hypothesize that the majority of Kobe's greatest offensive performances came when he was the undisputed sole player worthy of "attention" on the floor.
:milton
Who did they face and what were their defensive ratings? You clamor for context but present very little. :confusedshrug:
I'm not going to bother looking up everyone's DRTG cause I've done this before with you. And I remember that the difference of the average DRTG of the teams Jordan faced in his 6 title runs vs teams Kobe faced in his 5 title runs was like 2-3, meaning like a 2-3% difference, meaning if Kobe's opponents had a 100 DRTG and Jordan's were a 103 DRTG, then Kobe's opponents allowed 1 point per possession, while Jordan's allowed 1.03 points per possession. Sure, overall stats should be very slightly down as a result of that, but that's for teams as a whole, not individuals, which means individual statistic differences as a whole would be virtually non-existant, and not explain why one player had considerably better stats then someone who's apparently his equal or better. Bringing up that small of a difference in DRTG is just as dumb as taking two players with close to equal stats and making a big deal out of 1 of them shooting 45.5 FG% and the other shooting 46.0 FG%.
Bringing up the DRTG doesn't really offer that much valuable context, as the difference is almost always nearly irrelevant. On the other hand saying dumb shit like Kobe in the three-peat had less help then Lebron in his title run by pointing out he was playing with one all-star while Lebron was playing with two all-stars, basically implying that all all-stars are at the same level by not pointing out that the one Kobe was playing with actually won MVP 1 year, was top 3 in MVP voting and all-nba first team all 3 years while Lebron's two all-stare teammates didn't come close to any of that, is completely ignorant of context.
Kobe put up numbers with Shaq. He put up numbers with Kwame. He put them up with Gasol. He continues to put them up with Dwight. 4 very different offensive forces. The only constant is Kobe putting up numbers. The notion that Kobe's 3 peat numbers are the result of Shaq is unsupported by the evidence. In fact I would hypothesize that the majority of Kobe's greatest offensive performances came when he was the undisputed sole player worthy of "attention" on the floor.
Right. I don't actually think Kobe's numbers were a product of Shaq. I was just doing the same stupid thing you do by exaggerating some nearly irrelevant factor to imply that something other then just how good the player is significantly explains a statistic or difference in statistics.
By the way, so if you really think Kobe's numbers had nothing to do with Shaq, then I'm assuming that you agree that Kobe's overall numbers for his career and for each season don't really change much if he never played with Shaq correct?
Yao Ming's Foot
03-18-2013, 05:28 PM
I'm not going to bother looking up everyone's DRTG cause I've done this before with you. And I remember that the difference of the average DRTG of the teams Jordan faced in his 6 title runs vs teams Kobe faced in his 5 title runs was like 2-3, meaning like a 2-3% difference, meaning if Kobe's opponents had a 100 DRTG and Jordan's were a 103 DRTG, then Kobe's opponents allowed 1 point per possession, while Jordan's allowed 1.03 points per possession. Sure, overall stats should be very slightly down as a result of that, but that's for teams as a whole, not individuals, which means individual statistic differences as a whole would be virtually non-existant, and not explain why one player had considerably better stats then someone who's apparently his equal or better. Bringing up that small of a difference in DRTG is just as dumb as taking two players with close to equal stats and making a big deal out of 1 of them shooting 45.5 FG% and the other shooting 46.0 FG%.
Those differences in defensive rating are no less significant than these differences that you appear to believe make the runs incomparable :confusedshrug:
1.7 PPG/ -0.9 RPG/ 2.3 APG 4 TS%
5.1 PPG/-1.1 RPG/ -0.3 APG 1 TS%
5.7 PPG/ -0.6 RPG/ -0.1 APG -1 TS%
0.9 PPG/ 2.4 RPG/ -0.5 APG -2 TS%
Bringing up the DRTG doesn't really offer that much valuable context, as the difference is almost always nearly irrelevant. On the other hand saying dumb shit like Kobe in the three-peat had less help then Lebron in his title run by pointing out he was playing with one all-star while Lebron was playing with two all-stars, basically implying that all all-stars are at the same level by not pointing out that the one Kobe was playing with actually won MVP 1 year, was top 3 in MVP voting and all-nba first team all 3 years while Lebron's two all-stare teammates didn't come close to any of that, is completely ignorant of context.
Of course defense matters when considering offensive numbers. That's a silly statement. If it didn't matter why was Lebron so bad against the Spurs in the Finals. Why was Jordan so inefficient against the Heat and Knicks in the playoffs?
I never claimed Kobe's 3 peat had less help than Lebron's 1 peat. I said on average including all 5 of his titles he had less help. I don't expect people on this board to have a reasonable valuation of what Shaq was "worth". I don't think its insulting to figure Shaq is worth about the 2nd best SG in the league and a perennial all star big man. But as Larry Bird fans will tell you Shaq is worth 5+ HOFers in some people minds.
Right. I don't actually think Kobe's numbers were a product of Shaq. I was just doing the same stupid thing you do by exaggerating some nearly irrelevant factor to imply that something other then just how good the player is significantly explains a statistic or difference in statistics.
By the way, so if you really think Kobe's numbers had nothing to do with Shaq, then I'm assuming that you agree that Kobe's overall numbers for his career and for each season don't really change much if he never played with Shaq correct?
If Kobe is on those same Lakers and Shaq if off the team it would make sense that even more of the scoring load would be on Kobe.
Those differences in defensive rating are no less significant than these differences that you appear to believe make the runs incomparable :confusedshrug:
1.7 PPG/ -0.9 RPG/ 2.3 APG 4 TS%
5.1 PPG/-1.1 RPG/ -0.3 APG 1 TS%
5.7 PPG/ -0.6 RPG/ -0.1 APG -1 TS%
0.9 PPG/ 2.4 RPG/ -0.5 APG -2 TS%
I don't really see how a 2-3% difference in DRTG explains and is comparable to up to a 20% difference in PPG, 33% difference in RPG, 38% difference in APG. :confusedshrug:
Of course defense matters when considering offensive numbers. That's a silly statement. If it didn't matter why was Lebron so bad against the Spurs in the Finals. Why was Jordan so inefficient against the Heat and Knicks in the playoffs?
I never said defense didn't matter. I said that the difference in DRTG that they've faced is not significant enough that it even deserves mentioning, especially when using it as an excuse to explain Kobe's lower overall statistics.
Round Mound
03-18-2013, 07:01 PM
Well, it also shows that whether or not Shaq was on his team, Kobe was gonna put up 20+ shots a season. So Shaq wasn't taking shots away from him. If anything, having him on his team really helped, because the defense would often collapse on Shaq (giving more and better looks to the other Lakers).
I don't really buy that all of the "Kobe's stats would have been better if Shaq wasn't on the team" stuff. He would have scored more, but probably less efficiently. That's about it. :confusedshrug:
[B] This :applause:
And Kobe Tards Complain Why There are Kobe Haters Around? :rolleyes: The Dude Sounds Like He Regrets His Numbers While Playing With Shaq. The Dude Would Have Shot below 43% FG If It Wasn
Yao Ming's Foot
03-18-2013, 07:18 PM
I don't really see how a 2-3% difference in DRTG explains and is comparable to up to a 20% difference in PPG, 33% difference in RPG, 38% difference in APG. :confusedshrug:
I never said defense didn't matter. I said that the difference in DRTG that they've faced is not significant enough that it even deserves mentioning, especially when using it as an excuse to explain Kobe's lower overall statistics.
The net changes of your cherry picked seasons are
3.3 more ppg , 0.05 less rpg, 0.35 more apg, and 0.5 higher TS%
You would be hard pressed to find more similar playoff runs among any other players in history.
If you can't compare those runs with Kobe's then you cant compare any playoff runs period.
:confusedshrug:
The net changes of your cherry picked seasons are
3.3 more ppg , 0.05 less rpg, 0.35 more apg, and 0.5 higher TS%
You would be hard pressed to find more similar playoff runs among any other players in history.
If you can't compare those runs with Kobe's then you cant compare any playoff runs period.
:confusedshrug:
You can compare them and every time come to the conclusion that Kobe's wasnt as good. It's similar, just not on the same level I.E. not as good. There probably aren't any playoff runs from other perimeter players that are on that level. It's not really an odd thing to say when they're probably the greatest playoff runs from a perimeter player in general.
:confusedshrug:
Yao Ming's Foot
03-19-2013, 12:05 AM
You can compare them and every time come to the conclusion that Kobe's wasnt as good. It's similar, just not on the same level I.E. not as good. There probably aren't any playoff runs from other perimeter players that are on that level. It's not really an odd thing to say when they're probably the greatest playoff runs from a perimeter player in general.
:confusedshrug:
They are roughly 3 pts a game not as good against much better defenses and yet it is casually dismissed because GASP his teammates that season were at best on par with other legendary players.
They are roughly 3 pts a game not as good against much better defenses and yet it is casually dismissed because GASP his teammates that season were at best on par with other legendary players.
I dont really get where you're getting 3 pts a game from. What I see is one scenario with 2 more points, 2 more assists and considerably better efficiency, another with about 5 more points, and another with about 6 more points, and another that was just clearly better all around. As has been pointed out, there's nothing behind your claim that suggests he played much better defenses, especially to explain that gap.
:confusedshrug:
Yao Ming's Foot
03-19-2013, 12:46 AM
I dont really get where you're getting 3 pts a game from. What I see is one scenario with 2 more points, 2 more assists and considerably better efficiency, another with about 5 more points, and another with about 6 more points, and another that was just clearly better all around. As has been pointed out, there's nothing behind your claim that suggests he played much better defenses, especially to explain that gap.
:confusedshrug:
Kobe's "sidekick" performance
29.4 PPG/ 7.3 REB/ 6.1 APG /56 TS%
Jordan's incomparable performances averaged together
32.75 PPG/ 7.25 RPG/ 6.45 APG/ 57.5 TS%
What do you mean there is nothing to the claim he played better defenses? :oldlol: Of course Kobe did. He faced more sub 100 rated defenses that playoff run than Jordan did in his entire career in the playoffs.
Jordan's line against sub 100 rated Ds in the playoffs btw
http://i.imgur.com/SUxvy.png
http://i.imgur.com/tPFxI.png
Nope no impact. Nothing to see here folks. Keep it moving.
:roll:
Leviathon1121
03-19-2013, 01:31 AM
I think the real question is, how much stock can we put in the DRT of teams who's defensive game plan was focused on Shaq.
Sorry, theres that context thing again, we all know YMF hates it unless it is cherry picked to suit his DRT agenda.
Yao Ming's Foot
03-19-2013, 01:39 AM
I think the real question is, how much stock can we put in the DRT of teams who's defensive game plan was focused on Shaq.
Sorry, theres that context thing again, we all know YMF hates it unless it is cherry picked to suit his DRT agenda.
I love context. I am amused by unsupported myths. Guess which one your post falls under.
dh144498
03-19-2013, 02:23 AM
Kobe's "sidekick" performance
29.4 PPG/ 7.3 REB/ 6.1 APG /56 TS%
Jordan's incomparable performances averaged together
32.75 PPG/ 7.25 RPG/ 6.45 APG/ 57.5 TS%
What do you mean there is nothing to the claim he played better defenses? :oldlol: Of course Kobe did. He faced more sub 100 rated defenses that playoff run than Jordan did in his entire career in the playoffs.
Jordan's line against sub 100 rated Ds in the playoffs btw
http://i.imgur.com/SUxvy.png
http://i.imgur.com/tPFxI.png
Nope no impact. Nothing to see here folks. Keep it moving.
:roll:
:applause:
a very well knowledged Laker fan. :cheers:
Kobe's "sidekick" performance
29.4 PPG/ 7.3 REB/ 6.1 APG /56 TS%
Jordan's incomparable performances averaged together
32.75 PPG/ 7.25 RPG/ 6.45 APG/ 57.5 TS%
What do you mean there is nothing to the claim he played better defenses? :oldlol: Of course Kobe did. He faced more sub 100 rated defenses that playoff run than Jordan did in his entire career in the playoffs.
Jordan's line against sub 100 rated Ds in the playoffs btw
http://i.imgur.com/SUxvy.png
http://i.imgur.com/tPFxI.png
Nope no impact. Nothing to see here folks. Keep it moving.
:roll:
You're stacking up three runs against one. How is that remotely comparable? The fact that he still falls short despite the smaller size illustrates my point. That's no different then comparing a whole series to one game, a whole playoff run to one series, a whole season to one month :roll:
As I've said countless times now, even if DRTG is the end all be all that determines the quality of defense, we are literally talking about in a 2-3% difference overall throughout their career, which is not "much" better. But we are supposed to hold alot of weight in it when the statistical difference between the two is significantly bigger then 2-3% overall in multiple categories. Mathematically it doesn't make much sense :confusedshrug:
Yao Ming's Foot
03-19-2013, 09:51 AM
You're stacking up three runs against one. How is that remotely comparable? The fact that he still falls short despite the smaller size illustrates my point. That's no different then comparing a whole series to one game, a whole playoff run to one series, a whole season to one month :roll:
As I've said countless times now, even if DRTG is the end all be all that determines the quality of defense, we are literally talking about in a 2-3% difference overall throughout their career, which is not "much" better. But we are supposed to hold alot of weight in it when the statistical difference between the two is significantly bigger then 2-3% overall in multiple categories. Mathematically it doesn't make much sense :confusedshrug:
:biggums:
Those are the 4 playoff runs you specifically chose that represent superior performance than Kobe's 01 run. If Kobe's run is extremely similar to their average it makes no sense to consider it on a different level. It fits right in with the other 4 that you chose.
You are just inventing numbers at this point with no rhyme or reason. Who said anything about their careers? I'm talking about these specific playoff runs. A 5% difference (another bizarre calculation based on nothing) is roughly the different between the best D in the league in a given year and an average one. If you want to believe that its just as easy/impressive to put up great numbers against the best D in the league and an average one it wouldn't be the only absurd belief your delusion clings to but it would be one of the dumbest.
Yao Ming's Foot
03-19-2013, 10:14 AM
Since you seem to be struggling with listing the actual differences and your estimations are vastly wrong I went ahead and calculated their actual differences...
Kobe's
99.575
Jordan's
106.25
106.875
105.65
Lebron's
101.375
In today's era
Kobe's opponents are the top ranked Pacers 99.1
Lebron's opponents are 3rd ranked Spurs 101.2
Jordan's opponents are the 17th ranked Knicks 106.2:facepalm
Those are the 4 playoff runs you specifically chose that represent superior performance than Kobe's 01 run. If Kobe's run is extremely similar to their average it makes no sense to consider it on a different level. It fits right in with the other 4 that you chose.
I wouldn't necessarily say a 3 point +PPG average is extremely similar. And I also wouldn't say its extremely similar based on FG% (Obviously you think FG% is irrelevant when we have TS%, which I think is nonsensical because more missed shots in general by one team lead to easier shots for the opposing team because the defense can't set themselves.)
Either way, I wasn't comparing the aggregate of those 4 runs to Kobe's 1 run. I was comparing each of them individually to Kobe's because thats an apples to apples comparison. It doesn't make sense to average them out because some of them were better for different reasons. Like I said, you can take a large size sample and compare it MANY smaller size samples and the averages equal. There's probably plenty of Kobe Bryant playoff series that were statistically better then entire Jordan playoff runs. T-Mac's 2003 season is statistically better then some, if not all, 3 season-runs of Kobe, Lebron, and Wade. What exactly does that mean? Absolutely nothing.
You are just inventing numbers at this point with no rhyme or reason. Who said anything about their careers? I'm talking about these specific playoff runs. A 5% difference (another bizarre calculation based on nothing) is roughly the different between the best D in the league in a given year and an average one. If you want to believe that its just as easy/impressive to put up great numbers against the best D in the league and an average one it wouldn't be the only absurd belief your delusion clings to but it would be one of the dumbest.
I never brought up a 5% difference calculation? :confusedshrug: I brought up a 2-3% difference for what they faced in their careers in the playoffs. The difference was like 105 vs. 102 in the playoffs, and 107 vs. 105 in the regular season. The other calculations were based on the difference in a stat i.e. 35.1 ppg is nearly 20% more then 29.4 ppg, 8.4 apg is nearly 38% more then 6.1 apg, etc. :confusedshrug:
I never said its just as easy to play against harder defenses. I said its not a significant difference to suggest that wide of a statistical gap for individuals. Furthermore, using DRTG as the be all end all is stupid in general. So much of what may limit an individual is what the defense is focused on. Both great and bad defenses many times specifically pick their poison, whether its focusing on one of two stars, or focusing between the role players or the stars, etc. Bottom line is there's too many factors to strictly go off DRTG and pretend its the Bible that explains better vs worse performances.
Since you seem to be struggling with listing the actual differences and your estimations are vastly wrong I went ahead and calculated their actual differences...
Kobe's
99.575
Jordan's
106.25
106.875
105.65
Lebron's
101.375
In today's era
Kobe's opponents are the top ranked Pacers 99.1
Lebron's opponents are 3rd ranked Spurs 101.2
Jordan's opponents are the 17th ranked Knicks 106.2:facepalm
Cool. Not 2-3% for these situations, 6-7%, explaining a 20% individual ppg gap and other more significant gaps.
And an only an idiot seriously thinks the difference in defense is that much.
By the way, you do realize that with DRTG/ORTG, there's no more evidence to suggest that defenses got better then to suggest offenses just got worse right? And it may not be a coincidence that during the times that DRTG/ORTG was at its lowest (late 70s, late 90s-early 00s), it was filled with criticisms like selfishness, too much isolation, too much flash and no substance, lack of ball movement, lack of fundamentals, too many high schoolers and players leaving college too early, etc. But hey, why consider that? :confusedshrug:
Yao Ming's Foot
03-19-2013, 07:31 PM
I wouldn't necessarily say a 3 point +PPG average is extremely similar. And I also wouldn't say its extremely similar based on FG% (Obviously you think FG% is irrelevant when we have TS%, which I think is nonsensical because more missed shots in general by one team lead to easier shots for the opposing team because the defense can't set themselves.)
FG% is irrelevant if we have TS% data. I see no reason why we wouldn't include 3 pters and FT in the players efficiency totals. Your blurb about defense doesn't even make sense.
Either way, I wasn't comparing the aggregate of those 4 runs to Kobe's 1 run. I was comparing each of them individually to Kobe's because thats an apples to apples comparison. It doesn't make sense to average them out because some of them were better for different reasons. Like I said, you can take a large size sample and compare it MANY smaller size samples and the averages equal. There's probably plenty of Kobe Bryant playoff series that were statistically better then entire Jordan playoff runs. T-Mac's 2003 season is statistically better then some, if not all, 3 season-runs of Kobe, Lebron, and Wade. What exactly does that mean? Absolutely nothing.
Some of them are worse for different reasons too. That's why I took the average of all of them. You can't tell me 1st season is vastly superior due to to something like assists in one season yet ignore it when the gap favors Kobe in a different year. Who said anything about playoff series? This is about the performance in a championship winning run. Tmac never made it past the first round.
I never brought up a 5% difference calculation? :confusedshrug: I brought up a 2-3% difference for what they faced in their careers in the playoffs. The difference was like 105 vs. 102 in the playoffs, and 107 vs. 105 in the regular season. The other calculations were based on the difference in a stat i.e. 35.1 ppg is nearly 20% more then 29.4 ppg, 8.4 apg is nearly 38% more then 6.1 apg, etc. :confusedshrug:
5% was my guess at the real difference. Turns out I was pretty much dead on.
I never said its just as easy to play against harder defenses. I said its not a significant difference to suggest that wide of a statistical gap for individuals. Furthermore, using DRTG as the be all end all is stupid in general. So much of what may limit an individual is what the defense is focused on. Both great and bad defenses many times specifically pick their poison, whether its focusing on one of two stars, or focusing between the role players or the stars, etc. Bottom line is there's too many factors to strictly go off DRTG and pretend its the Bible that explains better vs worse performances.
Of course it's a significant difference. Its the the difference between the best defense in the league and a below average one. There isn't a defensive ranking system in the world that will put Jordan's opponents on par with Kobe's in 2001.
Cool. Not 2-3% for these situations, 6-7%, explaining a 20% individual ppg gap and other more significant gaps.
And an only an idiot seriously thinks the difference in defense is that much.
By the way, you do realize that with DRTG/ORTG, there's no more evidence to suggest that defenses got better then to suggest offenses just got worse right? And it may not be a coincidence that during the times that DRTG/ORTG was at its lowest (late 70s, late 90s-early 00s), it was filled with criticisms like selfishness, too much isolation, too much flash and no substance, lack of ball movement, lack of fundamentals, too many high schoolers and players leaving college too early, etc. But hey, why consider that? :confusedshrug:
Ya I think a below average D might give up an extra layup to a star player than the best D in the league. :confusedshrug: Yes the same tired unsupported theory that all these high schoolers messed up offensive efficiency. Except A) they were collectively getting very few minutes and B) those who were getting minutes were better offensive players than defensive ones. Its amusing how many half baked theories you are willing to throw out without any evidence to support them.
FG% is irrelevant if we have TS% data. I see no reason why we wouldn't include 3 pters and FT in the players efficiency totals. Your blurb about defense doesn't even make sense.
Well let me spell it out for you then. If player A goes 12/20 on all 2s and player B goes 8/20 on all 3s, the team that's better off is player A's team. Why's that? Because its 8 misses vs. 12 misses. Both players may have scored 24 points on the same amount of shots, but more misses means more likely faster tempo/transition opportunities for the opposition since its easier to push the ball off a miss and its harder for player B's team to set their defense, especially misses off 3s which are more prone to longer rebounds. And I'm not even getting into how if both players took the same approach all game, where player As approach is attacking while player Bs approach is camping behind the 3 point line, how that effects each team as a whole which is clearly better for player A's team. Given the choice of each scenario, there's no coach in their right mind that would be indifferent or rather have player B.
I understand that the function of a stat and TS% specifically isn't to take into account those other factors, but its also why you can't just completely rely on it, and rely on any stat in general since none of them take into account other factors, and just ignore FG%.
I never said you shouldn't or couldn't use TS%, or you shouldn't take into account 3 pointers or FTs. Obviously TS% has its advantages. But ignoring FG% because you think efficiency is as simple as same amount of points on same amount of shots is just stupid.
Some of them are worse for different reasons too. That's why I took the average of all of them. You can't tell me 1st season is vastly superior due to to something like assists in one season yet ignore it when the gap favors Kobe in a different year. Who said anything about playoff series? This is about the performance in a championship winning run. Tmac never made it past the first round.
Overall statistically, none of them are worse. Kobe's biggest advantage in a single stat is 1.2 more RPG over 1992 Jordan. In those 4 runs, Jordan/Lebron have more significant advantages then that in PPG, APG, RPG, TS%, FG% in certain years. And I didn't even bother getting into SPG, BPG, TPG, FT%, 3P%.
Maybe we're just arguing cemantics here. I don't think I've said that these runs were by far better. Kobe's run was all-time great and deserves a ton recognition. I've said they were clearly better, which means I don't really see any good reason to argue Kobe's was as good or better.
I brought up playoff series and T-Mac because its the same situation, where you're comparing a much larger sample size to a smaller sample size, which is misleading and stupid. Just cause they're not exactly about championship winning runs, doesn't mean the same logic isn't applied.
5% was my guess at the real difference. Turns out I was pretty much dead on.
Huh? No it was 2-3% like I said :confusedshrug:
Of course it's a significant difference. Its the the difference between the best defense in the league and a below average one. There isn't a defensive ranking system in the world that will put Jordan's opponents on par with Kobe's in 2001.
Ummm, did you ever think that maybe there just isn't a defensive ranking system in the world that you could heavily rely on especially when comparing across eras? Especially a ranking system that basically uses the same methodology to rank offenses? How does that even make sense?
Did you ever think that there's something weird about a system that ranks the 2003 Wizards as a greater defense then the 1991 Bulls? Or the 1993 Warriors as a greater offense then the 2001 Lakers? :confusedshrug:
Ya I think a below average D might give up an extra layup to a star player than the best D in the league. :confusedshrug: Yes the same tired unsupported theory that all these high schoolers messed up offensive efficiency. Except A) they were collectively getting very few minutes and B) those who were getting minutes were better offensive players than defensive ones. Its amusing how many half baked theories you are willing to throw out without any evidence to support them.
:oldlol: What tired theory? Out of all that, the only thing you can respond to was the high schoolers? :oldlol: That was just part of what I said. And what evidence do you have besides a stat that simultaneously says offenses got worse? How stupid are you to cling on to a stat like that? Again, what evidence do you have besides a stat that SIMULTANEOUSLY says OFFENSES GOT WORSE?
Maybe you should stop reading numbers so much and actually do some research of what well educated experts, coaches, players, etc that studied the game for years were saying during these times? Oh nevermind, thats not evidence. :oldlol:
:confusedshrug:
Yao Ming's Foot
03-20-2013, 02:02 AM
[QUOTE]Well let me spell it out for you then. If player A goes 12/20 on all 2s and player B goes 8/20 on all 3s, the team that's better off is player A's team. Why's that? Because its 8 misses vs. 12 misses. Both players may have scored 24 points on the same amount of shots, but more misses means more likely faster tempo/transition opportunities for the opposition since its easier to push the ball off a miss and its harder for player B's team to set their defense, especially misses off 3s which are more prone to longer rebounds. And I'm not even getting into how if both players took the same approach all game, where player As approach is attacking while player Bs approach is camping behind the 3 point line, how that effects each team as a whole which is clearly better for player A's team. Given the choice of each scenario, there's no coach in their right mind that would be indifferent or rather have player B.
It also means more offensive rebounding opportunities. Considering that the Bulls and Lakers were some of the better offensive rebounding teams in the league I see no reason why they wouldn't happily take the 4 extra shots at the rebound. As usual its a best a push without any evidence to prove otherwise.
I understand that the function of a stat and TS% specifically isn't to take into account those other factors, but its also why you can't just completely rely on it, and rely on any stat in general since none of them take into account other factors, and just ignore FG%.
I never said you shouldn't or couldn't use TS%, or you shouldn't take into account 3 pointers or FTs. Obviously TS% has its advantages. But ignoring FG% because you think efficiency is as simple as same amount of points on same amount of shots is just stupid.
I'm not ignoring FG% by posting TS%. It just a more complete measurement of efficiency. There isn't a logical reason to favor FG% over it. You just prefer because Jordan doesn't take as many three pointers as Kobe.
Overall statistically, none of them are worse. Kobe's biggest advantage in a single stat is 1.2 more RPG over 1992 Jordan. In those 4 runs, Jordan/Lebron have more significant advantages then that in PPG, APG, RPG, TS%, FG% in certain years. And I didn't even bother getting into SPG, BPG, TPG, FT%, 3P%.
I'm not sure why you went back to raw numbers when talking about Kobe's advantages. Its not 1.2 more rebounds. It's an 18% increase remember. You also failed to mention a 9% increase in assists in another season.
Maybe we're just arguing cemantics here. I don't think I've said that these runs were by far better. Kobe's run was all-time great and deserves a ton recognition. I've said they were clearly better, which means I don't really see any good reason to argue Kobe's was as good or better.
That's not how the conversation went. Someone claimed that all that matters is performance when I pointed out that Lebron had more help than Kobe. Then I reminded them that Kobe's performance during the 3 peat was on par with other legends. You claimed it wasn't by cherry picking 4 playoff runs who biggest difference was one extra bucket a game, then whined about TS% as a measure of efficiency and Defensive rating as a measure of defensive efficiency.
I brought up playoff series and T-Mac because its the same situation, where you're comparing a much larger sample size to a smaller sample size, which is misleading and stupid. Just cause they're not exactly about championship winning runs, doesn't mean the same logic isn't applied.
You are the one who selected the entire sample size. Those were the legends you hand selected who would prove Kobe's "sidekick" numbers don't measure up. Now you are telling me its unfair to include all of them. Why list them in the first place? :oldlol:
Huh? No it was 2-3% like I said :confusedshrug:
Whatever you are claiming was 2-3% A) I have no idea if its true B) isn't relevant to this specific discussion about specific playoff runs.
Ummm, did you ever think that maybe there just isn't a defensive ranking system in the world that you could heavily rely on especially when comparing across eras? Especially a ranking system that basically uses the same methodology to rank offenses? How does that even make sense?
Did you ever think that there's something weird about a system that ranks the 2003 Wizards as a greater defense then the 1991 Bulls? Or the 1993 Warriors as a greater offense then the 2001 Lakers? :confusedshrug:
There is nothing weird about it. It's simply a points allowed per possession measurement times 100. Its derived by looking at simple defensive success of a team. How many points did they allow? How many possessions did it take for the team to score those points? What is controversial about that?
:oldlol: What tired theory? Out of all that, the only thing you can respond to was the high schoolers? :oldlol: That was just part of what I said. And what evidence do you have besides a stat that simultaneously says offenses got worse? How stupid are you to cling on to a stat like that? Again, what evidence do you have besides a stat that SIMULTANEOUSLY says OFFENSES GOT WORSE?
Maybe you should stop reading numbers so much and actually do some research of what well educated experts, coaches, players, etc that studied the game for years were saying during these times? Oh nevermind, thats not evidence. :oldlol:
:confusedshrug:
Your emotions and emoticons distract from whatever you are trying to convey. It appears you are arguing about the gradual improvement of defensive efficiency over the last 20 years. That's not the topic. What defensive measurements are you comfortable with? Points allowed per game? Field goal percentage allowed per game? Points allowed per possession? Defensive ranking of the opponents within that specific year only? Do you just want to keep the inflated offensive numbers and use those for comparisons across era but throw out the defensive ones because suddenly across era comparisons are not fair?
It also means more offensive rebounding opportunities. Considering that the Bulls and Lakers were some of the better offensive rebounding teams in the league I see no reason why they wouldn't happily take the 4 extra shots at the rebound. As usual its a best a push without any evidence to prove otherwise.
In what world does that make any sense? Why would a team rather have 4 more offensive rebounding opportunities that may or may not result in a basket, when the alternative is a guaranteed 4 more makes and not 4 more misses? Tell me the coach that would say he wouldn't care either way cause his team MIGHT get the offensive rebound? And you're vastly overstating offensive rebounds. The ratio of offensive rebounds to total rebounds is like 1 to 3 or 1 to 4, even for the best rebounding teams.
I'm not ignoring FG% by posting TS%. It just a more complete measurement of efficiency. There isn't a logical reason to favor FG% over it. You just prefer because Jordan doesn't take as many three pointers as Kobe.
Its not about favoring one or the other, because they both have flaws. I'm not completely ignoring one or the other, like you are.
I'm not sure why you went back to raw numbers when talking about Kobe's advantages. Its not 1.2 more rebounds. It's an 18% increase remember. You also failed to mention a 9% increase in assists in another season.
Fair enough. Personally, I don't think rebounds is as much of a valuable category as points and assists because it doesn't lead directly to points. But you're right to point out that inconsistency.
I didn't fail to mention his 9% increase in assists, because I was only mentioning his biggest difference.
That's not how the conversation went. Someone claimed that all that matters is performance when I pointed out that Lebron had more help than Kobe. Then I reminded them that Kobe's performance during the 3 peat was on par with other legends. You claimed it wasn't by cherry picking 4 playoff runs who biggest difference was one extra bucket a game, then whined about TS% as a measure of efficiency and Defensive rating as a measure of defensive efficiency.
Well, I only said they were clearly better, not better by far. What someone else said doesn't matter in our argument. :confusedshrug:
Saying Kobe's performance wasn't up there with Lebron or some other greats, which is what I said, isn't the same thing as saying it wasn't on par with other legends. "Other legends" is a very broad category. Saying Kobe's performance isn't up there with Lebron's isn't the same thing as saying it wasn't up there with some Dominique Wilkins' run either or that it more on par with some Jeff Hornacek run. As I said, sounds like we're just arguing semantics here.
You asked me what runs I don't feel they compare to, so I brought them up? :confusedshrug:
You are the one who selected the entire sample size. Those were the legends you hand selected who would prove Kobe's "sidekick" numbers don't measure up. Now you are telling me its unfair to include all of them. Why list them in the first place? :oldlol:
I didn't say its unfair to include them. I said you should compare them individually, not in aggregate, because they are not all better then Kobe's for the same reason. If someone asked me to compare Kobe's 05-07 seasons, and I brought up T-Mac single 2003 season, that makes no sense.
Either way, not sure this really needs to be argued anymore since even in aggregate, the 4 runs I mentioned were better. :confusedshrug:
There is nothing weird about it. It's simply a points allowed per possession measurement times 100. Its derived by looking at simple defensive success of a team. How many points did they allow? How many possessions did it take for the team to score those points? What is controversial about that?
Its a simple statistic who's results can be interpreted many different ways, meaning that it may have been harder, equal, or even easier for a player or team from one season to reach a certain level of performance against another team from another season regardless of each team's ORTG and DRTG, with no evidence confirming that the probability of it being harder, equal, or easier is not equal.
Your emotions and emoticons distract from whatever you are trying to convey. It appears you are arguing about the gradual improvement of defensive efficiency over the last 20 years. That's not the topic. What defensive measurements are you comfortable with? Points allowed per game? Field goal percentage allowed per game? Points allowed per possession? Defensive ranking of the opponents within that specific year only? Do you just want to keep the inflated offensive numbers and use those for comparisons across era but throw out the defensive ones because suddenly across era comparisons are not fair?
Its a topic now because you constantly refer to it because you think it holds alot of weight in this discussion. Points allowed and FG% allowed suffer from the same problems. Defensive rankings don't mean much cause its possible that the 5th ranked offensive team or 5th ranked defensive team from one season is better offensively or defensively then the 1st ranked offensive team or 1st ranked defensive team in another season (suffers the same problem that comparing win-loss records across eras). I'm not really comfortable with any defensive measurement across eras. If there was a stat where an improvement/decline in the defensive efficiency stat didn't automatically correspond with the decline/improvement in the corresponding offensive efficiency stat, then that would be very useful to compare across eras, but thats obviously not possible.
According to your logic, DRTG would indicate that 1992 Jordan would have a harder time compiling the same stats he had vs. the 1992 Blazers then he would vs. the 2001 Kings, because the Kings have a lower DRTG. However, your logic completely depends on the Kings having a lower DRTG because there defense was actually better and the average offense remained unchanged from 1992, or that both there defense was better and the average offense they faced was even better but their defense was better to a greater degree. However, its completely possible that the 1992 Blazers had an equal defense to the 2001 Kings, but had to play against better offensive teams on average, which would inflate their DRTG in comparison, or that they actually had both a better defense and offense, but the average offense was better to a greater degree. There's no evidence that says that either of the 4 scenarios are more likely then any of the other 3. With that being the case, that has no effect on how good Jordan and the Bulls are, which means without having any indication of which one of those 4 scenarios are present here, Jordan could've put up worse, equal, or better stats vs. the 2002 Kings then he did vs. 1992 Blazers without any of these 4 scenarios being more likely then the other.
For you to not understand this or thinks its irrelevant means you're either stupid or have no problem completely ignoring simple logic. :confusedshrug:
TheMan
03-20-2013, 11:40 AM
In what world does that make any sense? Why would a team rather have 4 more offensive rebounding opportunities that may or may not result in a basket, when the alternative is a guaranteed 4 more makes and not 4 more misses? Tell me the coach that would say he wouldn't care either way cause his team MIGHT get the offensive rebound? And you're vastly overstating offensive rebounds. The ratio of offensive rebounds to total rebounds is like 1 to 3 or 1 to 4, even for the best rebounding teams.
Its not about favoring one or the other, because they both have flaws. I'm not completely ignoring one or the other, like you are.
Fair enough. Personally, I don't think rebounds is as much of a valuable category as points and assists because it doesn't lead directly to points. But you're right to point out that inconsistency.
I didn't fail to mention his 9% increase in assists, because I was only mentioning his biggest difference.
Well, I only said they were clearly better, not better by far. What someone else said doesn't matter in our argument. :confusedshrug:
Saying Kobe's performance wasn't up there with Lebron or some other greats, which is what I said, isn't the same thing as saying it wasn't on par with other legends. "Other legends" is a very broad category. Saying Kobe's performance isn't up there with Lebron's isn't the same thing as saying it wasn't up there with some Dominique Wilkins' run either or that it more on par with some Jeff Hornacek run. As I said, sounds like we're just arguing semantics here.
You asked me what runs I don't feel they compare to, so I brought them up? :confusedshrug:
I didn't say its unfair to include them. I said you should compare them individually, not in aggregate, because they are not all better then Kobe's for the same reason. If someone asked me to compare Kobe's 05-07 seasons, and I brought up T-Mac single 2003 season, that makes no sense.
Either way, not sure this really needs to be argued anymore since even in aggregate, the 4 runs I mentioned were better. :confusedshrug:
Its a simple statistic who's results can be interpreted many different ways, meaning that it may have been harder, equal, or even easier for a player or team from one season to reach a certain level of performance against another team from another season regardless of each team's ORTG and DRTG, with no evidence confirming that the probability of it being harder, equal, or easier is not equal.
Its a topic now because you constantly refer to it because you think it holds alot of weight in this discussion. Points allowed and FG% allowed suffer from the same problems. Defensive rankings don't mean much cause its possible that the 5th ranked offensive team or 5th ranked defensive team from one season is better offensively or defensively then the 1st ranked offensive team or 1st ranked defensive team in another season (suffers the same problem that comparing win-loss records across eras). I'm not really comfortable with any defensive measurement across eras. If there was a stat where an improvement/decline in the defensive efficiency stat didn't automatically correspond with the decline/improvement in the corresponding offensive efficiency stat, then that would be very useful to compare across eras, but thats obviously not possible.
According to your logic, DRTG would indicate that 1992 Jordan would have a harder time compiling the same stats he had vs. the 1992 Blazers then he would vs. the 2001 Kings, because the Kings have a lower DRTG. However, your logic completely depends on the Kings having a lower DRTG because there defense was actually better and the average offense remained unchanged from 1992, or that both there defense was better and the average offense they faced was even better but their defense was better to a greater degree. However, its completely possible that the 1992 Blazers had an equal defense to the 2001 Kings, but had to play against better offensive teams on average, which would inflate their DRTG in comparison, or that they actually had both a better defense and offense, but the average offense was better to a greater degree. There's no evidence that
says that either of the 4 scenarios are more likely then any of the other 3. With that being the case, that has no effect on how good Jordan and the Bulls are, which means without having any indication of which one of those 4 scenarios are present here, Jordan could've put up worse, equal, or better stats vs. the 2002 Kings then he did vs. 1992 Blazers without any of these 4 scenarios being more likely then the other.
For you to not understand this or thinks its irrelevant means you're either stupid or have no problem completely ignoring simple logic. :confusedshrug:
:applause:
tontoz
03-20-2013, 12:02 PM
Well let me spell it out for you then. If player A goes 12/20 on all 2s and player B goes 8/20 on all 3s, the team that's better off is player A's team.
Ever heard of floor spacing? There is a reason why teams covet 3 point shooters even if they can't do much else.
Ever heard of floor spacing? There is a reason why teams covet 3 point shooters even if they can't do much else.
What's your point? I never said nobody should ever take 3s. I don't really understand how this relates to what I said?
tontoz
03-20-2013, 12:40 PM
What's your point? I never said nobody should ever take 3s. I don't really understand how this relates to what I said?
You somehow came to the conclusion that 12/20 on 2s > 8/20 on 3s. You reasoning was based solely on increased defensive rebounds for the opposition, as if that is the only consideration.
It isn't. Second chance opportunities and floor spacing also come into play, which you completely ignored.
NumberSix
03-20-2013, 12:48 PM
Well, that is kind of my point.
The difference is simple though. Kobe simply could not have won without Shaq. End of story. Not one other player in the league could have come in and allowed Kobe to win those 3 rings. Even with Duncan, depending on what Shaq had around him, he might not win.
With Lebron, it's a little different, but not entirely.
My point was simple. Kobe fans use the 5 rings as the main source of evidence for his greatness. While Lebron fans use his level of play as the main source of evidence for his greatness. There is a bit of a difference there.
Only until this era of "ring counting"...generally by Kobe fans using this to prop Kobe up....did fans and players (MJ for example) think ring count defined a player this much. Level of play and what you do with your help is what matters. Obviously Kobe didn't have the same chance as Lebron to put up the same numbers early on...partly because of his team and in more so because he just wasn't good enough. At the same time, Lebron obviously had a completely different early career...joining a 17 win team...playing without a championship roster or coach.
Kobe has literally played with like 12 legit championship rosters. Lebron has played with 3 now. That has to be factored in.
And what is wrong with Kobe's numbers? They are some of the best ever. So I don't even get what the hell he is talking about.
This. When MJ retired with 3 rings, there was no question whatsoever that he was better than Magic. You didn't have idiots running around saying "5 rings" or "magic is 2 rings better than MJ".
You somehow came to the conclusion that 12/20 on 2s > 8/20 on 3s. You reasoning was based solely on increased defensive rebounds for the opposition, as if that is the only consideration.
It isn't. Second chance opportunities and floor spacing also come into play, which you completely ignored.
Huh? I did address second chance opportunities in my next post. In those 4 extra plays where a miss takes place, the 8/20 player's team's offense MIGHT get the offensive rebound, and then MIGHT convert the second chance opportunity into points. But its not even an issue for the 12/20 player's team because the desired end result is already achieved.
I still fail to see how floor spacing for one team has an affect on the transition opportunities for the other team.
DMAVS41
03-20-2013, 01:19 PM
This. When MJ retired with 3 rings, there was no question whatsoever that he was better than Magic. You didn't have idiots running around saying "5 rings" or "magic is 2 rings better than MJ".
Exactly.
Not sure why or how this whole ring thing really started...my guess is that it was Kobe fans and MJ fans going back and forth in the early 2000s or something.
Now, it has ruined much of how we judge and analyze players.
I was saying it for years about Dirk. Winning the title doesn't make him any greater than he was...he finally got a legit team around him in the right circumstance to win. You have to judge how players play the game first and foremost.
tontoz
03-20-2013, 01:22 PM
Huh? I did address second chance opportunities in my next post. In those 4 extra plays where a miss takes place, the 8/20 player's team's offense MIGHT get the offensive rebound, and then MIGHT convert the second chance opportunity into points. But its not even an issue for the 12/20 player's team because the desired end result is already achieved.
Desired result? They scored 24 points on 20 possessions. The team with the 8-20 3 point shooter will always get AT LEAST 24 points and possibly more.
In basketball the desired result is to score as many points as possible.
I still fail to see how floor spacing for one team has an affect on the transition opportunities for the other team.
The operative word in that sentence is FAIL.
It isn't just about the points the player scores it is about the points the team scores. Better floor spacing makes it easier for his teamates to score.
And you are vastly overstating the importance of fast breaks. The average team gets 42 defensive rebounds per game but scores only 13.6 fast break points per game.
http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/fastbreak-points-per-game
NumberSix
03-20-2013, 01:42 PM
Exactly.
Not sure why or how this whole ring thing really started...my guess is that it was Kobe fans and MJ fans going back and forth in the early 2000s or something.
Now, it has ruined much of how we judge and analyze players.
I was saying it for years about Dirk. Winning the title doesn't make him any greater than he was...he finally got a legit team around him in the right circumstance to win. You have to judge how players play the game first and foremost.
Nah, I remember what the narrative was at that time.
When Kobe first entered the league, it was when the media was labelling every other young player with the "could this be the next Jordan" question. By the time of the lakers winning chips and the Shaq/Kobe beef, the general sentiment about the "next Jordan" thing was, "we'll, that ship has sailed", as it had with Grant Hill, Penny and all the other potential "next MJ's".
Don't forget. For years, Kobe was labelled as a guy who will never lead a team to a championship, can't win without Shaq, etc.. In no way was he thought of as some Jordan type of player. He was almost looked at like a Pippen without his Jordan. People forget that Kobe DID take a lot of criticism for many years.
Once the lakers started getting back to the finals though, the revisionist history started flowing, as it always does. If you would have stopped paying attention to basketball for a few years and came back, you'd be like "wait, what? Who are they saying is on Jordan's level? Huh? Kobe? What? When did this happen?".
I mean, just look at LeBron. Just a year ago the narrative was he's a serial choker, he can't lead a team to a championship, etc. all of a sudden after 1 ring the narrative from the same media people is he's on Jordan's level.
Yao Ming's Foot
03-20-2013, 02:10 PM
In what world does that make any sense? Why would a team rather have 4 more offensive rebounding opportunities that may or may not result in a basket, when the alternative is a guaranteed 4 more makes and not 4 more misses? Tell me the coach that would say he wouldn't care either way cause his team MIGHT get the offensive rebound? And you're vastly overstating offensive rebounds. The ratio of offensive rebounds to total rebounds is like 1 to 3 or 1 to 4, even for the best rebounding teams.
Looks like somebody is already trying to explain it to you but the goal is to score the most points not have the highest FG percentage. The fact that my 3pt shooting team has 4 more chances to continue the possession matters.
Its not about favoring one or the other, because they both have flaws. I'm not completely ignoring one or the other, like you are.
TS% doesn't have a flaw. It also doesn't ignore FG%. It includes FG% but makes note that 3 pters are worth 3 pts and efficiency from the line matters too.
Well, I only said they were clearly better, not better by far. What someone else said doesn't matter in our argument. :confusedshrug:
I don't who said what. You all sound the same to me. If it wasn't you that's when you jumped into the conversation.
I didn't say its unfair to include them. I said you should compare them individually, not in aggregate, because they are not all better then Kobe's for the same reason. If someone asked me to compare Kobe's 05-07 seasons, and I brought up T-Mac single 2003 season, that makes no sense.
Either way, not sure this really needs to be argued anymore since even in aggregate, the 4 runs I mentioned were better. :confusedshrug:
If they all 4 runs are better on their own then you shouldn't have a problem with combining all of them and taking the average.
Its a simple statistic who's results can be interpreted many different ways, meaning that it may have been harder, equal, or even easier for a player or team from one season to reach a certain level of performance against another team from another season regardless of each team's ORTG and DRTG, with no evidence confirming that the probability of it being harder, equal, or easier is not equal.
It doesn't require an interpretation anymore than field goal percentage does. This team over the course of an 82 games season allowed X amount of points and defended Y possessions. X/Y times 100 = DEF Rating. That's it.
Its a topic now because you constantly refer to it because you think it holds alot of weight in this discussion. Points allowed and FG% allowed suffer from the same problems. Defensive rankings don't mean much cause its possible that the 5th ranked offensive team or 5th ranked defensive team from one season is better offensively or defensively then the 1st ranked offensive team or 1st ranked defensive team in another season (suffers the same problem that comparing win-loss records across eras). I'm not really comfortable with any defensive measurement across eras.
So it's the last choice, We are going to keep all the inflated offensive stats regardless of eras and ignore the defensive ones because they make you feel uncomfortable. :oldlol:
According to your logic, DRTG would indicate that 1992 Jordan would have a harder time compiling the same stats he had vs. the 1992 Blazers then he would vs. the 2001 Kings, because the Kings have a lower DRTG. However, your logic completely depends on the Kings having a lower DRTG because there defense was actually better and the average offense remained unchanged from 1992, or that both there defense was better and the average offense they faced was even better but their defense was better to a greater degree. However, its completely possible that the 1992 Blazers had an equal defense to the 2001 Kings, but had to play against better offensive teams on average, which would inflate their DRTG in comparison, or that they actually had both a better defense and offense, but the average offense was better to a greater degree. There's no evidence that says that either of the 4 scenarios are more likely then any of the other 3. With that being the case, that has no effect on how good Jordan and the Bulls are, which means without having any indication of which one of those 4 scenarios are present here, Jordan could've put up worse, equal, or better stats vs. the 2002 Kings then he did vs. 1992 Blazers without any of these 4 scenarios being more likely then the other.
You don't get a good defensive rating without other good defensive numbers.
.471 eFG
14.3% TOV%
69.9 DRB%
.251 FT/FGA
104.1 points allowed per game
vs
.467 eFG
13.6% TOV%
71.7 DRB %
.185 FT/FGA
97.0 points allowed per game
I'd bet Jordan was good for about 3 more points on Team A. :confusedshrug:
You still think I bring up defensive rating to compare defenses against each other. I don't. I bring up defenses to establish the context in which the offensive numbers are derived. League wide offensive numbers were up during Jordan's prime. During the first 3 peat offensive numbers were down league wide. A few years later and they were up again. The levels of talent and coaching don't change that drastically in a few years. It has to be the rules and the interpretation of those rules. The Kings would have a higher DEF rating if they were time traveled to 92. But thats not we are looking at here. We are looking at Jordan being time traveled to early 00s or Kobe taking a trip to the high pace, high efficiency 90s. It would change their offensive numbers.
BTW you don't even need defensive efficiency to explain a 3 pt difference. Just look at the differences in points allowed per game, multiply it by Kobe's typical share of the scoring load and voila there is 2-3 points and now you are left telling me that his line doesn't compare to 4 other ones when he is <1 to their average in every relevant category.
Desired result? They scored 24 points on 20 possessions. The team with the 8-20 3 point shooter will always get AT LEAST 24 points and possibly more.
In basketball the desired result is to score as many points as possible.
Why? Because of extra offensive rebounds? Well for those 20 plays, the 12/20 player's teams can also get offensive rebounds in the 8 plays they missed.
Lets boil it down to the 12 plays, where the one that goes 12/20 on 2s hits all of them and the other that goes 8/20 from 3 hits 3s on 8 possession but misses 4. You're right, its possible that the team with the 4 misses can get an offensive rebound. But defensive rebounds are usually at least twice as more likely, and on top of that, even if an offensive rebound is obtained, it doesn't guarantee a point.
For fractional simplicity sakes, lets say instead of 4 more misses its 12 more misses, and on average a 3rd of them are offensive rebounds while the rest are defensive rebounds, and lets say in each situation they convert points on 50% of them. One team would get 4 offensive rebounds, and then 4 points as a result, while the other team would get 8 defensive rebounds and 8 points as a result. Thats a 4 point net negative. On the other hand, take the other situation where instead of 12 missed threes (converted from 4), its 12 made twos, and the opposing team converts on 50% of the following possessions (which is very generous because its unlikely they would convert at the same rate with no transition opportunities). That would be 24 points vs. 12 points, a 12 point net positive. Put them together and its a 16 point difference.
Lets say a team shoots 100 2s and no other shots on 60% in one game, and then shoots 100 3s and no other shots on 40% in the next game. They score 120 points in each game, but what game do you think they gave up more points in?
The operative word in that sentence is FAIL.
It isn't just about the points the player scores it is about the points the team scores. Better floor spacing makes it easier for his teamates to score.
And the same can be said about players that regularly attack and draw defenders away from their teammates, also drawing more fouls in the process. That's a more efficient approach overall, and historically thats usually been more of a superstars' role then creating floor spacing, which is usually reserved for sharpshooter role players.
And you are vastly overstating the importance of fast breaks. The average team gets 42 defensive rebounds per game but scores only 13.6 fast break points per game.
http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/fastbreak-points-per-game
I'm not just talking about fast breaks but higher uptempo possessions in general. And 13.6 points is pretty significant. All that tells me is if a team is missing more shots, which they would on 3s, then more defensive rebounds for the other team will result and more fast break points in general.
tontoz
03-20-2013, 02:45 PM
For fractional simplicity sakes, lets say instead of 4 more misses its 12 more misses, and on average a 3rd of them are offensive rebounds while the rest are defensive rebounds, and lets say in each situation they convert points on 50% of them. One team would get 4 offensive rebounds, and then 4 points as a result, while the other team would get 8 defensive rebounds and 8 points as a result. Thats a 4 point net negative.
:facepalm
The defense is going to get a possession even if the offense makes the shot. However the team shooting is gaining an additional possession by getting a rebound.
Secondly just because the defense gets a defensive rebound and scores doesn't mean it is was a fast break. If teams got a fast break point for every defensive rebound they would average over 40 fast break points per game instead of 13.6.
And the same can be said about players that regularly attack and draw defenders away from their teammates, also drawing more fouls in the process. That's a more efficient approach overall
And it is also easier to defend because the defense has less area to cover.
I'm not just talking about fast breaks (actually that is exactly what you were talking about) but higher uptempo possessions in general. And 13.6 points is pretty significant. All that tells me is if a team is missing more shots, which they would on 3s, then more defensive rebounds for the other team will result and more fast break points in general.
The problem is that a defensive rebound is only worth .33 fast break points on average. It takes 6 defensive rebounds to get one fast break field goal.
And long rebounds are more likely to be gotten by the offense since the defense has inside position.
KingBeasley08
03-20-2013, 02:47 PM
So basically.. Kobe's saying "how good you are actually matters?". Lmao well no shit it does Bean
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.