Official #24 NBA Player Of All Time According To ISH

[L.Kizzle]

The #23 greatest player voting is complete. The guy that probably changed the way the point guard position was played comes in at number 23. Mr. Basketball, the Houdini of the Hardwood, Bob Cousy.

| PPG 18.4 | RPG 5.2 | APG 7.5 |
13 All-Star Games
12 All-NBA Teams
1 MVP Award
6 NBA Championships


http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/PHO/AAEH004~Bob-Cousy-With-ball-Photofile-Posters.jpg


ISH 100 Greatest NBA Players of All-Time

1. Michael Jordan
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
4. Earvin 'Magic' Johnson
5. Larry Bird
6. Bill Russell
7. Shaquille O'Neal
8. Oscar Robertson
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Tim Duncan
-----
11. Jerry West
12. Julius Erving
13. Moses Malone
14. Elgin Baylor
15. Bob Pettit
16. John Havlicek
17. Karl Malone
18. George Mikan
19. David Robinson
20. Isiah Thomas
-----
21. Charles Barkley
22. John Stockton
23. Bob Cousy


Let’s get into the ‘NUMBER 24’ spot ?


Some players to consider:


Rick Barry
Walt Frazier
Elvin Hayes
Dolph Schayes
Kobe Bryant
Dave Cowens
George Gervin


#23 Greatest Player Voting
Bob Cousy = 27 votes
Kobe Bryant = 25 votes
Rick Barry = 4 votes
Allen Iverson = 3 vote
Scottie Pippen = 2 votes
Steve Nash = 2 votes
Walt Frazier = 1 vote
George Gervin = 1 vote
Patrick Ewing = 1 vote
Willis Reed = 1 vote


Official #23 NBA Player Of All Time According To ISH (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49372)

[YAWN]

KOBE BRYANT
http://www.the-planets.com/star-biography/Kobe_Bryant_Biography.jpg
9-time NBA All-Star (started at all appearances)
9-time All-NBA Selection
7-time All-Defensive Selection
3-time NBA Champion: 2000, 2001, 2002
2-time Scoring Champion: 2006, 2007
2-time NBA All-Star Game MVP: 2002, 2007

IMO his best season thus far was the 2000 - 2001 season title run.
Season:
29/6/5
Playoffs:
29/7/6

Career Averages Thus Far
| PPG 24.6 | RPG 5.2 | APG 4.5 | SPG 1.5 | BPG .6

[Kobe24]

Kobe

[Kiddlovesnets]

Scottie Pippen
http://preview.thesis.photosite.com/~photos/tn/8602215_1024.ts1171864098000.jpg

[dudeguykid]

Kobe Bryant

[hateraid]

Kobe

[mlh1981]

Kobe

[Excentric]

Kobe " Black Mamba" Bryant

[Chalkmaze]

I have Adrian Dantley as the #2 best SF since the 1980's... He has clearly done more than Kobe has, though Kobe will likely finish likely finish higher.

Just check the stats, and percentages.. and you'll see.

Adrian Dantley is my vote

[evinecz]

allen iverson

[LakerWarrior12]

Kobe Bryant.

[Agent_Zero]

Kobe.

[AI Nuggets3]

Allen Iverson

[otmtheshank]

Damn, Cousy over Rick Barry? Looks like I should start campaigning so that Rick at least gets top 25.

Some of his accomplishments...

Only player to ever lead the NBA, ABA, and NCAA in scoring.
NBA Rookie of the Year in 1966
NBA All-star game MVP 1967
NBA Finals Ring and MVP 1975
Five Time All NBA First Team
8 Time NBA All-Star

Rick Barry is arguably one of the greatest scorers of all-time, with a career high of 35.6ppg in '67. He was also a terrific rebounder for his size, averaging >10rpg as a NBA rookie. He was also a magnificient passer and ballhandler, averaging a career high of 6.3apg. Rick was also an early prototype for the modern day point forward, as he combined his great court vision, scoring and playmaking skills, and carried his teams to success. Rick, unlike Kobe, Cousy, and Pippen, was well-known for his ability to take a mediocre team, and achieve astounding levels of excellence with them.

I can't see how Cousy is any better than him. If you voted for Cousy based on his innovation and influence at the pg position, Barry had that aspect too.
I also think Rick is above Kobe and Pippen too. The only thing Kobe has is his 3 rings, and his defense, and Pippen also only has a bunch of rings and superior defense. That's why you should vote Rick Barry for this spot.

[DLeagueWannabe]

Kobe

[Collie]

Look I dislike Kobe as much as the next guy, but even I have to say he deserves this spot. For him not to be on the top 25 of all time is ludicrous.

[L.Kizzle]

My vote is for Drew Barry's father. He took the mothafrugin' Golden Stae Warriors to the NBA title in 1975 over Wes Unseld, Elvin Hayes, Bobby Dandridge and the Washington Bullets. He is the only player to lead the NCAA, NBA & ABA in scoring. He averaged alomst 36 PPG his 2nd season in the league.

[otmtheshank]

Look I dislike Kobe as much as the next guy, but even I have to say he deserves this spot. For him not to be on the top 25 of all time is ludicrous.

I somewhat agree with that, but Rick Barry is clearly more deserving than Kobe for this spot. I think I have Kobe at 25 just ahead of Pippen, only because Kobe has a few more years to accomplish some solo success, while Pippen only had that ECF in 1994.

[qrich]

Rick Barry here gets my vote

[Richie2k6]

I guess it's time for Kobe Bryant.

[Kblaze8855]

With Nique, Pippen, Gervin, Barry, Drexler, and English not in yet...or Ewing, Kidd, KG, Hayes, and Willis Reed....no way Dantley is enen up for consideration yet. Hes down in the 60s if not 70s with Mark Aguirre. And yes I know Dantleys numbers. And I saw him play. Put up like 29-30 over 7 years shooting 54-60 percent yearly. But he was never an elite player. In the 80s alone at the 3:

Moncrief
Bird
Doc
King
English
Nique
Gervin
Drexler

All above him in either dominance or accomplishments. Most in both. 2 didnt have long careers but peaked higher. Adrian was productive but not top 24 all time over guys with MVPs and a couple rings like reed and Cowens who have not even been really considered yet. Long long time before Adrian matters.

[mhg88]

Rick Barry

[rs98762001]

Bryant.

[Chalkmaze]

With Nique, Pippen, Gervin, Barry, Drexler, and English not in yet...or Ewing, Kidd, KG, Hayes, and Willis Reed....no way Dantley is enen up for consideration yet. Hes down in the 60s if not 70s with Mark Aguirre. And yes I know Dantleys numbers. And I saw him play. Put up like 29-30 over 7 years shooting 54-60 percent yearly. But he was never an elite player. In the 80s alone at the 3:

Moncrief
Bird
Doc
King
English
Nique
Gervin
Drexler

All above him in either dominance or accomplishments. Most in both. 2 didnt have long careers but peaked higher. Adrian was productive but not top 24 all time over guys with MVPs and a couple rings like reed and Cowens who have not even been really considered yet. Long long time before Adrian matters.

We've already discussed it... People can read it here. http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=37651

I'm not big on awards either... Too many times I've disagreed with awards given.

Would you agree that he did more than Kobe? Sure he didn't play along Shaq and get rings, but can you imagine if he would have?? The Lakers would have been a much better team with AD and Shaq, than with Kobe.

[XxNeXuSxX]

Gary Payton.

[Psileas]

Kobe.

Barry is close, though.

[Collie]

I would rank Walt Bellamy over Adrian Dantley in the overall scheme of things.

[Twiens]

Mr.81

[beau_boy04]

I guess it's time for Kobe Bryant.


Please not!!!! we all know Rick Barry is/was superior than Kobe Bryant!!!!!

And my vote goes to Rick Barry! please let's all gather together and show respect to the great Barry :applause:

[Chalkmaze]

I would rank Walt Bellamy over Adrian Dantley in the overall scheme of things.

shrug, hard for me to rate guys I havn't seen... Walt averaged 20.1 points off 51% shooting and 13.7 rebounds in an era when rebounds were easy to come by... AD had more points, both in total and on average, and shot a higher percentage.

Though I didn't watch Walt, so I can't say.

[Collie]

Yeah, but I never saw Dantley either, so like most posters, my ranking come mostly based off stats, conjecture, a little reading up on history and some personal bias.

[Skywalker]

Dick Barry

[YAWN]

My vote is for Drew Barry's father. He took the mothafrugin' Golden Stae Warriors to the NBA title in 1975 over Wes Unseld, Elvin Hayes, Bobby Dandridge and the Washington Bullets. He is the only player to lead the NCAA, NBA & ABA in scoring. He averaged alomst 36 PPG his 2nd season in the league.
which is why hes gonna get my vote when we get to #25

[D-Fence]

The Best of the Rest

It's getting tough now. I'm going to narrow it down by position.

At the center position, L.Kizzle has suggested Dave Cowens. A few others have been bringing up Patrick Ewing and Bob McAdoo. No, I don't think it's any of these three for the next center. The players I'm seriously considering are Willis Reed and Nate Thurmond.

Reed was the leader of 2 championship teams--taking home Finals MVP both times and a regular season MVP. Now, I admit, there were times when it was debatable whether the best player on those Knicks teams was Reed or Walt Frazier. But, when looking at how the Knicks won and lost, it seems the player the outcome most hinged on was Reed--the captain. Size matters; the Knicks needed someone to match-up with the likes of Wilt Chamberlain. Reed lost a lot of his career to injury, but not as much as, say, Bill Walton, and Reed's prime is strong enough to seriously consider at this point.

Nate Thurmond, like Elgin Baylor, Karl Malone, Charles Barkley and John Stockton, never won a title. He never was even selected for an All-NBA team. Okay, but that needs to be qualified. Only 2 centers made the All-NBA teams (3 nowadays, but 2 back then), and Thurmond's contemporaries included Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell and Willis Reed. Other centers to share seasons in the same league with him were the younger Dave Cowens, Bob McAdoo and Wes Unseld. That is stiff competition. Three of those centers are already on this list, so we can excuse Thurmond for losing to them. Cowens, McAdoo and Unseld came into the league as Thurmond was nearing his exit, so I can't really hold them against him either. So, that leaves Reed, who's the other center I'm seriously considering. Reed had a stronger peak, but Thurmond had the longevity. What really impresses me about Thurmond, aside from some great stats, with a peak of averaging about 20 PPG and 20 RPG, is that both Kareem and Wilt have said that he was the toughest defender they ever played against. Thurmond is also one of the greatest shot blockers ever, but suffers like Russell and Chamberlain for the lack of stat tracking back then.

At power forward, L.Kizzle has suggested Elvin Hayes and Dolph Schayes. Behind these two, there are mostly the unglamorous fours who did the dirty work, rebounded, maybe sometimes scored a few put backs, worked on defense and that sort of stuff. Hayes and Schayes (I like the sound of that) weren't those kind of players--not at all. Schayes wasn't even a power forward.

Schayes was a left forward or something like that--whatever that is. I've also heard that forwards in those days were split as a scoring forward and a defensive forward. Schayes was a scoring forward--not much defensively I hear. Today, I think his game would fit the four spot well, but in the eras between, he was probably more of a small forward. He could score from anywhere--he had a complete inside and outside game, although he lacked a jump shot. He was also an excellent rebounder. Moreover, as players kept going higher in the air, Schayes still continues to solidly lead his team (once to a title) and continued to make All-NBA teams. He didn't revolutionize the game much, but he was definitely great.

Elvin Hayes was a good scorer and rebounder who had nice defensive statistics (although he wasn't really that good defensively). He won a title teaming up with Wes Unseld and the Bullets. Two things with Hayes, though: first, he wasn't selected to the NBA's 50 Greatest Players, and I think that was a close call, not a huge omission. Second, Unseld was the leader and the better player on those Bullets' teams. I'm not voting for Hayes unless Unseld is already on the list, and I'm not ready to vote for Unseld.

Kevin Garnett is another four that should be in the running now.

At small forward, Rick Barry and Scottie Pippen have been mentioned. Barry was the best player on a championship team. Pippen was the second best player on 6 championship teams. Both had well-rounded games. Barry was a better scorer and shooter, but was a bit weak in some areas. Pippen wasn't weak anywhere.

Shooting guard is easy. Kobe Bryant is the best of the rest here. Who else is there? Sam Jones, Hal Greer, George Gervin, Clyde Drexler, Allen Iverson. No way any of those guys go above Bryant. Bryant was the second best player on 3 championships teams and is a great scorer and has a well-rounded game. Yet, shooting guard is historically probably the weakest position.

At point guard, there's Walt Frazier, Jason Kidd, Gary Payton and Nate Archibald. For reasons made apparentl earlier, I'm not taking Frazier over teammate Willis Reed. I'm not taking Jason Kidd over contemporary Kobe Bryant. Gary Payton and Nate Archibald weren't the best player on their teams when their teams went the furthest. Kidd has some great stats, and Archibald had great stats, especially early in his career. Frazier and Payton weren't the greatest passing and playmaking point guards ever, but they were better scorers than some of the assist leaders and they excelled defensively. I think I'll wait a while before voting for another point guard. As for Steve Nash, there are the 2 MVPs, but they're controversial. He's never been to the Finals and has only played this well for 3 seasons. He's a bad defender, too.

---

I vote for Willis Reed.

[Richie2k6]

:applause: @ D-Fence.

[Collie]

To be sure, I'd have wanted to vote for someone like Willis Reed too (and he isn't a worse player than Kobe is), but I think we should get Kobe out of the way first, so that this can move on to the older guys.

[KINGD]

kobe averaged 37/6/5 post-all star break this year. thats insane!kobe kobe kobe

[Kblaze8855]

We've already discussed it... People can read it here. http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=37651

I'm not big on awards either... Too many times I've disagreed with awards given.

Would you agree that he did more than Kobe? Sure he didn't play along Shaq and get rings, but can you imagine if he would have?? The Lakers would have been a much better team with AD and Shaq, than with Kobe.

I think Kobe played off him better than Ad would. Dantley was post based and may get in Shaqs way more than a well rounded slasher/shooter like Kobe.


And Rick Barry may be the guy here. Know he put up like 38/19 in college? 5-6 time all nba first team and thats with leaving for the ABA in his prime. Plus hes in the small group of non bigmen to lead a team to a title.

But at this point hes too tied up with other guys. Level wise I mean. Nobody to go i nthe next 10-15 picks will be on a whoel other level than anyone listed #20 or later.

[barne100]

KB24.

because i say so.

[Nashformvp]

Nash

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

Kobe
...and it's a protest vote.

[Richie2k6]

Nobody to go i nthe next 10-15 picks will be on a whoel other level than anyone listed #20 or later.
I agree, same here.

[-primetime-]

Pippen

[Selenium]

Kobe Bryant.

[haji_d_robertas]

Elvin Hayes was a good scorer and rebounder who had nice defensive statistics (although he wasn't really that good defensively). He won a title teaming up with Wes Unseld and the Bullets. Two things with Hayes, though: first, he wasn't selected to the NBA's 50 Greatest Players, and I think that was a close call, not a huge omission. Second, Unseld was the leader and the better player on those Bullets' teams. I'm not voting for Hayes unless Unseld is already on the list, and I'm not ready to vote for Unseld.


You are mistaken. Elvin Hayes is selected as one of the NBA's 50 greatest players.

My vote? Elvin Hayes.

[dhenk]

Scottie Pippen

But the list is funny,because Kareem and Magic are on 2 and 4...and Bird on 5..so,back in the 80ies it was Larry Bird against the Lakers or what?Respect,Mr Bird...

[lakers_forever]

Kobe!

[vert48]

Kobe

[Pyro]

Kobe is #24

Thats realy why he changed his jersey number to #24

[beau_boy04]

I can't believe ya all voting for Kobe :oldlol: what an injustice to the great Rick Barry :rockon:

[L.Kizzle]

I can't believe ya all voting for Kobe :oldlol: what an injustice to the great Rick Barry :rockon:
I think it's because Barry's a KKK (Kool Kaucasian Kid)

[Richie2k6]

I can't believe ya all voting for Kobe :oldlol: what an injustice to the great Rick Barry :rockon:
It's not like Barry and Kobe are that far apart.

[Hawker]

Nash

lol what a joke...

kobe is my vote

[beau_boy04]

according to my computer data this is Rick Barry representation

http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/9771/69617113uh3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


and this is Kobes!

http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/7585/evanomakeupeditbo2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


Rick Barry :applause:

[sammdogg]

I think Kobe is too far down the list but whatever. Kobe.

[LakerWarrior12]

according to my computer data this is Rick Barry representation

http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/9771/69617113uh3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


and this is Kobes!

http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/7585/evanomakeupeditbo2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


Rick Barry :applause:



I'd give the first picture a 10/10 for the bobs.

[beau_boy04]

I'd give the first picture a 10/10 for the bobs.


she's amazing but she is dating a guy now .... hehehe i hope my girl doesn't see this message :oldlol:

[skillswithaz]

Patrick Ewing

[Crazy Style]

Why not just give it to #24 already? I vote Kobe.

[Fudge]

.etoV yM steG tnayrB eboK

[Crazy Style]

.etoV yM steG tnayrB eboK

What, do you mean Kobe?

[Selenium]

What, do you mean Kobe?

I don't have any mirrors handy, but I'm fairly certain that's what he means.

[TheHonestTruth]

Rick Barry. Kobe should not even be in top 50.

[playtetris]

Rick Barry. Kobe should not even be in top 50.

stupid...

my vote is for kobe. he deserves to be around this spot. top 25, as someone said before

[dawsey6]

http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/9771/69617113uh3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


i vote her.

[dawsey6]

no but seriously, pippen.

[Aussie Outcast]

I think it is time for Kobe now

[haji_d_robertas]

It's interesting to me that Kobe Bryant, who was considered the 2nd option on the Lakers dynasty squad, who won three titles, is going to go above Scottie Pippen, the 2nd option on the Bulls dynasty team, who won six titles.

[ereed6]

Kobe

[B-Low]

Kobe's turn. We've waited long enough

[bomber]

Scottie Pippen

[Selenium]

It's interesting to me that Kobe Bryant, who was considered the 2nd option on the Lakers dynasty squad, who won three titles, is going to go above Scottie Pippen, the 2nd option on the Bulls dynasty team, who won six titles.

Well, John Stockton was the number 2 on a team that didn't win a championship at all, and he's above them both. There are other factors to consider.

[IGOTGAME]

I vote for Kobe

[haji_d_robertas]

Well, John Stockton was the number 2 on a team that didn't win a championship at all, and he's above them both. There are other factors to consider.

What are the other factors to consider?

[IGOTGAME]

What are the other factors to consider?

maybe that almost every player in the league considers Kobe the best or second best player in the world...

[haji_d_robertas]

maybe that almost every player in the league considers Kobe the best or second best player in the world...

Ok, do you think he did a good job of accepting his role as the #2 option on the Lakers when they didn't get the tiltle the final two years? Do you think Scottie Pippen did a better job of accepting this role behind Jordan?

[IGOTGAME]

Ok, do you think he did a good job of accepting his role as the #2 option on the Lakers when they didn't get the tiltle the final two years? Do you think Scottie Pippen did a better job of accepting this role behind Jordan?

i dont know we were voting on who was the better second option??? i thought we were voting on who was the #24 NBA Player...and it wasnt pippen

[haji_d_robertas]

i dont know we were voting on who was the better second option??? i thought we were voting on who was the #24 NBA Player...and it wasnt pippen

I understand, but what is your answer to my question?

[AirGordon7]

Scottie Pippen!!!:pimp:

[Brunch@Five]

Kobe Bryant.

[Kebab Stall]

Rick Barry

[Kobe=MVP07`]

kobe

haha u guys are such Aholes for making him number 24.. his number

[John Starks]

I honestly don't understand the Kobe vote. Not even a little. I don't understand how he gets on before Allen Iverson or about 10 other player. Kobe has 2 Scoring titles - AI has 4. Kobe has 0 MVP's, AI has 1. AI has led the league in steals a couple of times, Kobe has done is 0 times. Kobe hasn't led the league in any category except for scoring. The only thing Kobe has on AI is three titles, but Kobe was the the 2nd best player on the 3 title teams and AI was the ONLY player on a team that went to the Finals. If AI played with Shaq, there isn't an honest soul on here that beleives he wouldn't have won a few titles - replace Kobe with about a dozen players through history and they all win a few with Shaq.

That being said, I cannot even vote for AI here - he shoots for crap (like Kobe), does it too much (like Kobe) and is a poor defender (like Kobe). So I don't get a vote for either of these guys. The volume scoring guard on a mediocre team is a well-established proto-type throughout league history. Kobe-AI-Barry-Gervin-English-Thompson-Dantley are all just another in a looong chain of these players. I don't know how that gets a vote at this point.

To me, Dave Cowens, Willis Reed, Wes Unseld, and Bill Walton ALL get on before those guys. Choice between the volume socring guard, and the strong-solid-defensive-winning-leader C and WE ALL take the C - EVERY TIME. Each of thse guys have MVP's, they ALL won titles as the best players on those teams. They were all good scorers (except Wes), GREAT defenders, GREAt team players, and despite lacking the "assists" all GREAT team passers.

The only weakness - specifcally for Walton - is a lack of games played. Reed was hurt and ended his career short, as was Walton and Cowens. But for ANYONE to think they'd build around a Kobe or an AI or even a Barry before and of these monsters is a fool and would build a team that would lose alot of games (but they'd have a player scoring a ton of points).

Gun to my head - I'm taking Reed (and that's my vote). Best scorer of the batch. Was the best player on the Knicks team - not the best offensive player, but he was the anchor in the middle of the team. Ask Clyde, and he'll tell you Willis. His fg% is a bit light for a C, but we're well past fg% in this vote - right?

Reed was a big game player, a big shot shooter, incredibly clutch and inicredibly tough. He was leaser on great Knicks teams - won 2 titles in the process. Averaged 18 and 12 in a prematurely ended career. Dude was smart and knew how to play.

Reed.

Starks' wild prediction - Kobe will get on, and these threads will become shorter because all the kobe-holics will stop voting. They don't care abot who is actually the #25 on the list, they only care about one thing KOBE KOBE KOBE which is fine for them. They love him and that's great. Not sure how that adds up to #25 all-time but that's part of the problem with democracy - irrational people's votes count.

[Brunch@Five]

His fg% is a bit light for a C, but we're well past fg% in this vote - right?

Isn't that the reason you're not voting for guys like AI, Barry, Kobe?

[beau_boy04]

yo people Vote for Rick Barry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/8215/fhtafcditwfdfgp4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Shot with DSC-T10 (http://profile.imageshack.us/camerabuy.php?model=DSC-T10&make=SONY)

[Lebron23]

yo people Vote for Rick Barry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/8215/fhtafcditwfdfgp4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Shot with DSC-T10 (http://profile.imageshack.us/camerabuy.php?model=DSC-T10&make=SONY)

Beauboy, I do not know if you are a girl, or a boy please englighten us.

[beau_boy04]

Beauboy, I do not know if you are a girl, or a boy please englighten us.


I'm not a boy! I'm a man :cheers:

however at the other site my girl posts there too using my same account but she doesn't post here

:rockon:


Rick Barry please !!!!!! he deserves it more than kobeman

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/913/zzzjk3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[miles berg]

At this point you begin looking at the modern day guys that are dominant. Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, Dirk Nowitzki, and Jason Kidd are the next guys on that list. Past greats like Patrick Ewing and Scottie Pippen come to mind also.

Give me Kobe Bryant at this point.

[John Starks]

Isn't that the reason you're not voting for guys like AI, Barry, Kobe?

These volume shooters are highly one-dimensional. The spend so much time scoring, they forget to do the rest - like move the ball, keep teammates involved, work for good shots, defend, rebound, lead.

That was Barry, that is Kobe and AI.

When most of us started watching the NBA, MJ was taking over...so it appeared that the dominant volume scorer is the most important thing a player can be. MJ was the GOAT, he was the greatest volume scorer ever, so the guys who are the runners-up must be close.

Its unfortunate, that the most popuar times of the NBA revolve around volume scorers and dominant superstars. The best team-play and greatest parity that the league has seen actually takes place during its least popular time.

Right around the ABA merger, we had a different champ every year - Seattle, NY, Port, Wash, Phil, and ALL these team had in common was great team play. It was a fan low-point for the league, but these teams all defended, moved the ball, and kept the entire team involved. Only really Phil had super-super stars. Otherwise, the teams did not have any top-5 scorers. In our current era, there is great parity, and the champs all defend and move the ball and keep everyone involved - SA, Det, Mia (to a degree) and were absent top 5 scorers at the time of the championships.

Team basketball.

People prefer volume socrers - despite, aside form MJ and some blips along the way - it has been regularly proven that its not the way to win baskebtall games.

...but vote for kobe. I wish you were all GMs.


...also willis had 2 seasons (of his only 9) where he shot over .500 (surprise, one .500+ in a title year) and 2 more where he was .480+. Still light, but not what these volume guards shoot.

[Rockets(T-mac)]

Rick Barry.

[Lebron23]

Kobe " Mr. 81" Bryant :cheers:

[MaxFly]

...also willis had 2 seasons (of his only 9) where he shot over .500 (surprise, one .500+ in a title year) and 2 more where he was .480+. Still light, but not what these volume guards shoot.

Starks, you've citing stats, but you've consistently failed to realize that FG% doesn't provide the best assessment of how efficient a player is offensively. eFG% and TS% are better measures.


Shooting Efficiency - If there is an on-base percentage in the NBA - a statistic that has traditionally been undervalued - it would probably be some measure of a player's efficiency in scoring points. There's a stereotype that all statistical analysts think someone like Allen Iverson (who has a 41.7% career field-goal percentage) is a bad player that is untrue because Iverson's ability to create shots and get his teammates better looks is valuable. Still, being efficient with your shots is very important. The two most common ways of measuring the concept of shooting efficiency are Effective Field-Goal Percentage (eFG%) and what this site calls True Shooting Percentage (TS%).

Effective Field-Goal Percentage was popularized by current L.A. Clippers Coach Mike Dunleavy and the Rick Barry's Pro Basketball Bible series. It adjusts for the added value of three-pointers by counting them as 1.5 field goals, thus make it more fair to three-point shooters than field-goal percentage.

eFG% = (FGM + .5*3PM)/FGA

True Shooting Percentage goes a step further by factoring in a player's performance at the free-throw line and considering their efficiency on all types of shots.

TS% = Pts/(2*(FGA + (.44*FTA)))

Because he is shooting 54.8% from the field and gets to the free-throw line regularly, Fortson currently leads the NBA with a 69.5% true shooting percentage. Getting the picture that he's a pretty valuable player?

http://www.nba.com/sonics/news/stats101.html

Willis Reed, as you mentioned, had two seasons where he averaged over 50% shooting: 68-69 where he averaged 52.1% and 69-70 where he averaged 50.7%. His eFG% and TS% were 52.1 eFG% and 56.2 TS% and 50.7 eFG% and 55.2 TS% respectively.

John Barry only had one season shooting over 50%... 68-69 where he averaged 51.1%, and his second highest coming the next season at 49.9%. His eFG% and TS% were 51.3 eFG% and 61.5 TS% and 50.3 eFG% and 58.2 TS% respectively. Fact of the matter is that efficiency wise, Barry and Reed were comparitively similar in scoring efficiency.

Career wise, Rick Barry shot 45.6% and Reed shot 47.6%. However, Barry put up career eFG% and TS%s of 46% and 52.5%. Reed put up career eFG% and TS%s of 47.6% and 52.3%. Pretty comparable, and most NBA coaches, GMs, owners and players would agree. It seems that you're holding onto this antiquated way of viewing scoring efficiency because you lack a proper understanding of why FG% isn't the most accurate way of regarding efficiency.

[Psileas]

I honestly don't understand the Kobe vote. Not even a little. I don't understand how he gets on before Allen Iverson or about 10 other player. Kobe has 2 Scoring titles - AI has 4.

Kobe has had nowhere near the freedom of AI to gun for points whenever he wanted. After 2000, whenever Iverson outscored Kobe, he took 3.3, 7.8, 5.3 and 4.1 shots more (plus a few more free throws as well) to score 2.6, 6.2, 2.4 and 3.1 points more, respectively. Actually, Iverson outshot Kobe even in 2003, although he averaged 2.4 ppg less. Kobe with Iverson's scoring responsibility (and minutes played) would have anywhere between 5 and 7 scoring titles till now...So would a few more players.


Kobe has 0 MVP's, AI has 1.

OK. Note however that AI has been a top-5 candidate only once more, while Kobe made the top-5 five times.


AI has led the league in steals a couple of times, Kobe has done is 0 times. Kobe hasn't led the league in any category except for scoring. The only thing Kobe has on AI is three titles, but Kobe was the the 2nd best player on the 3 title teams and AI was the ONLY player on a team that went to the Finals. If AI played with Shaq, there isn't an honest soul on here that beleives he wouldn't have won a few titles - replace Kobe with about a dozen players through history and they all win a few with Shaq.

Sure, Iverson could replicate some of Kobe's success, including a few titles, in 2000 and 2001. But whether or not he could do anything Kobe could is just speculation and I'm not sure I'd bet for it. For sure, he wouldn't have all these scoring titles till now. :)


That being said, I cannot even vote for AI here - he shoots for crap (like Kobe), does it too much (like Kobe) and is a poor defender (like Kobe).

Not quite. Simply, you just can't add these two in the same category. You want shooting? Kobe throughout his career shoots 7.1% better in FG% (45.3% vs 42.3%), 7.6 in eFG (48.4 vs 45), 7.8 in TSP (55.5 vs 51.5) and 7.9 in FTS (83.8 vs 77.7). To imply that these numbers are comparable is about as accurate as to say that Kobe's and Jordan's numbers are comparable and say that "Jordan shot well, like Kobe".
As for volume shooting, I've shown that Iverson usually takes a good deal of shots more than Kobe.
Poor defense for Kobe? There's a difference between not probably being as good a defender as you are advertised (All-D teams every year) and being a poor defender. Kobe was never a poor defender. He was simply worse than advertised, but still better (to much better) than the average and certainly more potent than Iverson.


So I don't get a vote for either of these guys. The volume scoring guard on a mediocre team is a well-established proto-type throughout league history. Kobe-AI-Barry-Gervin-English-Thompson-Dantley are all just another in a looong chain of these players. I don't know how that gets a vote at this point.

Kobe, AI and Barry were better passers than the rest. They were/are more feared in the clutch. Kobe is a better long range shooter than any of them except Barry. He's a good mid-range shooter, although most of them were. He's a better defender than any of them, with only Barry coming close. He was in the position to win more rings than any of them. In general, I feel that Kobe was the most complete among these guys, with Barry coming second.


To me, Dave Cowens, Willis Reed, Wes Unseld, and Bill Walton ALL get on before those guys. Choice between the volume socring guard, and the strong-solid-defensive-winning-leader C and WE ALL take the C - EVERY TIME. Each of thse guys have MVP's, they ALL won titles as the best players on those teams. They were all good scorers (except Wes), GREAT defenders, GREAt team players, and despite lacking the "assists" all GREAT team passers.

The only weakness - specifcally for Walton - is a lack of games played. Reed was hurt and ended his career short, as was Walton and Cowens. But for ANYONE to think they'd build around a Kobe or an AI or even a Barry before and of these monsters is a fool and would build a team that would lose alot of games (but they'd have a player scoring a ton of points).

The durability issue plays a large role in picking the greatest careers for many posters, including me. If you ask me if Bill Walton, in his prime, was among the 50 greatest to have ever played, I'd answer "certainly". But career-wise? Sorry, can't do it. 2 great years, 2-3 good ones and a bunch of seasons playing only once in a while isn't top-50 material for me. Reed lasted longer, but not much longer, so I can't put him too high. I like Cowens a bit more, because I always believed he was more versatile.

[John Starks]

Well, the TFG% gives extra points for ft shooting and 3's. Its unfair to big men, because as we all know, big men don't shoot 3's and are not as good at shooting ft's as guards. I think the TFG% is used to try to levle the playing field for guards, who take more outside shots as part of the offense and thus lower % shots. That's fine, except, I don't think the field needs to be leveled - big and smalls have reasons why their numbers are skewed.

For example - Guards get more touches than bigs. They hold the ball so long that big men don't get as many opportunities at the basket. So shouldn't a big man's 18 points on say 30 touches a game be worth more than a guards 25 points on 50 touches a game? Maybe we should also give big men a break on fouls. Big men have to protect the basket - when a guard gets beat, its the big man that picks up the foul. So shouldn't 5 fouls on a big man really be the same as 3 fouls on a guard? Also big men travel further on every possession - baseline to baseline v. top of the arc to top of the arc. Shouldn't 30 mpg for a C be worth more than 35mpg for a guard?

I like fg% because it measures exactly how many shots you took, how many you missed and how many you hit. Seems fair enough.

But I am excusing Reed's poor shooting because he was so good in the other dominant areas of the game - rebounding, defending, leadership, passing.

[John Starks]

The durability issue plays a large role in picking the greatest careers for many posters, including me. If you ask me if Bill Walton, in his prime, was among the 50 greatest to have ever played, I'd answer "certainly". But career-wise? Sorry, can't do it. 2 great years, 2-3 good ones and a bunch of seasons playing only once in a while isn't top-50 material for me. Reed lasted longer, but not much longer, so I can't put him too high. I like Cowens a bit more, because I always believed he was more versatile.

These guys defended the strongest people in the game - they got pounded all game long. Little guys can stand outside and chuck and not get hurt. Whoop-dee-damn-dooo!!

Maybe I'm not seeing the kobe argument because I see missed shots and not adjusted %'s for his benefit. Maybe because I don't value 2 scoring titles as much as others.

But more power- I'm glad he's getting voted in -- it makes 0 sense but it'll stop the rift in the universe being caused by people trying ot prove that he is efficient - which anyone with eyes can tell you he is not

[KWALI]

Well, the TFG% gives extra points for ft shooting and 3's. Its unfair to big men, because as we all know, big men don't shoot 3's and are not as good at shooting ft's as guards. I think the TFG% is used to try to levle the playing field for guards, who take more outside shots as part of the offense and thus lower % shots. That's fine, except, I don't think the field needs to be leveled - big and smalls have reasons why their numbers are skewed.

For example - Guards get more touches than bigs. They hold the ball so long that big men don't get as many opportunities at the basket. So shouldn't a big man's 18 points on say 30 touches a game be worth more than a guards 25 points on 50 touches a game? Maybe we should also give big men a break on fouls. Big men have to protect the basket - when a guard gets beat, its the big man that picks up the foul. So shouldn't 5 fouls on a big man really be the same as 3 fouls on a guard? Also big men travel further on every possession - baseline to baseline v. top of the arc to top of the arc. Shouldn't 30 mpg for a C be worth more than 35mpg for a guard?

I like fg% because it measures exactly how many shots you took, how many you missed and how many you hit. Seems fair enough.

But I am excusing Reed's poor shooting because he was so good in the other dominant areas of the game - rebounding, defending, leadership, passing.

It's not really a fairness thing its a accuracy thing, interms of a players shooting impact on the game...Having less touches doesn't really reflect or impact on the game and the distance run point is not even relevant really no post player runs more than RIP...... These efficiency measures are on shots...and shots taken from three are higher risk/gain shots.....what happens around these shots ...longer rebounds etc are not a part of an individuals offensive efficiency.....touches without a shot effect team efficiency but not an individuals.

[dejordan]

Kobe.

Barry is close, though.
i agree. kobe.

[John Starks]

...Having less touches doesn't really reflect or impact on the game and the distance run point is not even relevant really no post player runs more than RIP

The number of times a touch results in a score is not relevant? What are you smoking?

If length of career is going to be a factor, the lets be accurate and say that big men cannot play a smany minutes because they run further, pick up fouls from guards missed assignments and defend stronger players.

[LakerzFan4Life]

Kobe Bryant

[Batchoy]

Hold on a minute. I gotta put myself in the mood...

:hammerhead:

:hammerhead:

:hammerhead:

:hammerhead:

:hammerhead:

:hammerhead:

:hammerhead:

:hammerhead:

:hammerhead:

:hammerhead:

OK, Now I can say it.


Kobe


Now, I gotta take a shower.

[MaxFly]

Well, the TFG% gives extra points for ft shooting and 3's. Its unfair to big men, because as we all know, big men don't shoot 3's and are not as good at shooting ft's as guards.

It would also be unfair to guards and swingmen if we were to not take all forms of scoring into account due to the fact that, by nature, their position on the court is on the perimeter whereas the big men are generally closer to the basket and have an easier time shooting close range shots. Swingmen are often forced to create their own shots starting from the perimeter. Big men don't have that challenge. Because we are talking about scoring efficiency, and because 3s and free throws are facets of scoring in the NBA, it is only reasonable to take into account their impact on overall scoring efficiency. eFG% and TS% weren't developed in order to "even the playing field" for guards and swingmen. They were developed in order to create a more accurate assessment of player scoring efficiency.

A player who takes twenty shots, all of which are threes, and hits 8 of them scores more points than a player who takes 20 shots, all of which are twos, and hits 10. Yes, the player who hit the 10 twos shot 50%, but he scored fewer points given the same number of shots than the other player.

Also, FTs are important because they are a facet of scoring. They should not be discounted simply because many big men in the league fail to shoot them well... unless, of course, if we are trying to skew things in favor of big men...



For example - Guards get more touches than bigs. They hold the ball so long that big men don't get as many opportunities at the basket. So shouldn't a big man's 18 points on say 30 touches a game be worth more than a guards 25 points on 50 touches a game?

Big men often don't create their own shots. It is often the swingman that gets them the ball in a scoring position. As a result, it is natural for a swingman to see more touches in a game because not only is he creating for himself, but often times, he has to also help create for others on his team, especially his big man. Because guards generally have the ball handling skills and the ability to create their own shots, they are called to handle the ball as a fundamental part of their role within the offense. It is only logical that a swingman would see more touches a game due to the very nature of his role.



Maybe we should also give big men a break on fouls. Big men have to protect the basket - when a guard gets beat, its the big man that picks up the foul. So shouldn't 5 fouls on a big man really be the same as 3 fouls on a guard? Also big men travel further on every possession - baseline to baseline v. top of the arc to top of the arc. Shouldn't 30 mpg for a C be worth more than 35mpg for a guard?

Maybe we should give guards a break on turnovers. They are forced to handle the ball more than big men, and as a result, have a better chance of turning the ball over. Perhaps we should also give them a break on rebounds... They generally aren't in positions on the court where they can fight for rebounds. We should also increase the worth of assists, should we not. Not only are guards creating for themselves, but they have to consistently create for big men.

Look, those things are abstract... 3 pointers and freethrows are solid aspects of scoring. It makes not sense to discount them when you're debating scoring efficiency. A 3 pointer counts for more points than a 2 point field goal. That should be reflected in efficiency.


I like fg% because it measures exactly how many shots you took, how many you missed and how many you hit. Seems fair enough.

I like eFG% and TS% because they are more accurate. I'm not interested in what merely seems easier to calculate; I want a more honest and accurate assessment of a player's scoring efficiency. A 3 point shot is not the same as a 2 point shot; they don't count for the same number of points. That must be reflected when we regard scoring efficiency.

[Optimus Prime]

For my first vote ever...

Kobe Bryant!

[clayton]

Kobe Kobe Kobe

[xrvdx]

kobe

[KWALI]

The number of times a touch results in a score is not relevant? What are you smoking?

If length of career is going to be a factor, the lets be accurate and say that big men cannot play a smany minutes because they run further, pick up fouls from guards missed assignments and defend stronger players.

Um your being obtuse


For example - Guards get more touches than bigs. They hold the ball so long that big men don't get as many opportunities at the basket. So shouldn't a big man's 18 points on say 30 touches a game be worth more than a guards 25 points on 50 touches a game? Maybe we should also give big men a break on fouls.

This is what you wrote.....Hold the ball so long? You are being unclear here your saying they get more touches than bigs..which is not true of all teams at all)..I thought that meant in a team offensive possession a guard can have the ball for a greater time it's what you allude to when you say "they hold the ball so long"...That really isn't relevent and that's what I was reffering to....but these abstractions you are using aren't even proving your saying Bigs out run perimeter players...where is the proof...your acting as if guard don't break to the block and then cut from there....

There are plenty of bigs who aren't capable of getting more touches...even if someone was willing to get them touches they neither create the space to receive the rock nor do they have teh ability to convert.

If anyone is smoking its you and these dumb abstractions your making up.

[John Starks]

I am as against abstractions as anybody -- I like the idea of measuring the number of shots you hit v. the the number of shots you take. Its clear - has no abstractions and proves - quite simply - who hits (or misses) the highest % of their shots.

I do not like abstractions like (FGM + .5*3PM)/FGA -- and why is it .5 times the 3pm? Where do we get that abstraction from?

and what is Pts/(2*(FGA + (.44*FTA) - why .44? Why not .48 or .34 or .52?

You write it like I am infavor of these big man abstractions - I'm against all of it. I watch a game - I see a guy shoot if he misses, then that is bad, if he hits that is good. A guy who misses alot is bad - a guy who hits alot is good. I don't need to multiply by .44 to know that getting more ft's helps...I also don't need ot multiply by .44 to know that the bonus you get individually wiht ft's abnd 3's isa a higher scoring average - why we need to further add them up and multiply by variables to make it like it was efficient is beyond me.

...but if multiplying by .44 lets fans of guards sleep better at night thinking that their guy is "more efficient" then more power to them.

...and please do not come back to me with what alot of team use to evaluate talent - because 1) teams use factors that we do not know about (I know SA charts certain hustle plays, for example) - none of which we are using here to base out votes and 2) we all know that the vast vast vast majority of teams cannot evlauate talent for sh!t - so why should I trust their multiplcation by .44 over what I see with my own two eyes.

[Uchiha_Hai]

KOBE BRYANT
http://www.the-planets.com/star-biography/Kobe_Bryant_Biography.jpg
9-time NBA All-Star (started at all appearances)
9-time All-NBA Selection
7-time All-Defensive Selection
3-time NBA Champion: 2000, 2001, 2002
2-time Scoring Champion: 2006, 2007
2-time NBA All-Star Game MVP: 2002, 2007

IMO his best season thus far was the 2000 - 2001 season title run.
Season:
29/6/5
Playoffs:
29/7/6

Career Averages Thus Far
| PPG 24.6 | RPG 5.2 | APG 4.5 | SPG 1.5 | BPG .6


Kobe Bryant

[IGOTGAME]

kobe is the most talked about bball player in the world and at the same time the most loved and most hated...he can start crazy debates between strangers at the drop of a time...All this while the NBA tries their hardest to go in a different direction then kobe...should that influence alone matter in comparison to Pippen who had nothing similar to that..

[ALlArOuNDPIaya]

kobe is the most talked about bball player in the world and at the same time the most loved and most hated...he can start crazy debates between strangers at the drop of a time...All this while the NBA tries their hardest to go in a different direction then kobe...should that influence alone matter in comparison to Pippen who had nothing similar to that..
This isn't that idiotic "whose now?" on ESPN.

Rick Barry.

[John Starks]

kobe is the most talked about bball player in the world and at the same time the most loved and most hated...

well when you have press conferences to announce that you didn't cheat on your wife, following by another press conference that you did...

when you cry at an NBA half-tome show about your wife not getting along with your in-laws (has this ever happened before?)

when you go ono every radio show on the plant to demand a trade

...these things tend to happen. Doesn't make you a great player -- makes you a princess.


All this while the NBA tries their hardest to go in a different direction then kobe

NBA tried real hard- only gave KOBE 5 national games and the x-mas game for the 3rd consecutive year.

[IGOTGAME]

well when you have press conferences to announce that you didn't cheat on your wife, following by another press conference that you did...

when you cry at an NBA half-tome show about your wife not getting along with your in-laws (has this ever happened before?)

when you go ono every radio show on the plant to demand a trade

...these things tend to happen. Doesn't make you a great player -- makes you a princess.



NBA tried real hard- only gave KOBE 5 national games and the x-mas game for the 3rd consecutive year.

then why not ignore him...Why spend so much time trying to prove he is nothing special..That every bball player, announcer, analyst is wrong and you are right.... Why do you care, you lost the battle, kobe got the spot. Now grow up and more on..

The funny part is Kobe will very likely more up this list...

[John Starks]

then why not ignore him...Why spend so much time trying to prove he is nothing special..That every bball player, announcer, analyst is wrong and you are right.... Why do you care, you lost the battle, kobe got the spot. Now grow up and more on..

The funny part is Kobe will very likely more up this list...

Well 1) I like to be right - and, if you hadn't noticed, announcers and analysts are idiots. Every single one. They change their tune in a minute based on what they can sell.

2) He's nothing special - in terms of the history of the game - and i find him specifically loathesome.

I am very very very happy he got the spot. You have no idea. Two reasons 1) his fanboys, who are dumbasses, will disappear making for a better list and 2) I don't have to hear made up stats about how efficient he is anymore.

His spot on the list less dependent on his limited game and more dependent on the pathology of his fans. So it is funny that he will likely move up.

[MaxFly]

I am as against abstractions as anybody -- I like the idea of measuring the number of shots you hit v. the the number of shots you take. Its clear - has no abstractions and proves - quite simply - who hits (or misses) the highest % of their shots.

It's nice, because it's easy... but the problem is that it isn't accurate enough. Understand, a three point shot counts for more points than a regular 2 point field goal. Again, this needs to be taken into account if were are to get a more accurate measure of scoring efficiency. FG%, while serviceable, lacks proper context. It doesn't take into account the fact that a player is more efficient if he hits a three rather than a two. There's no problem if we are using FG% to see who hits a higher percentage of their shots, but when we really get into debates about who is more efficient, it is imperative that we use a more accurate measure than FG%.


I do not like abstractions like (FGM + .5*3PM)/FGA -- and why is it .5 times the 3pm? Where do we get that abstraction from?

It's actually very, very simple math. 2 pointers count for 2 points. 3 pointers count for 50% more points than 2 pointers. This is where the "0.5" comes from... Here's an example...

Player A takes 10 shots (all two pointers) and hits 5 of them. He has scored 10 points on 50% shooting.

Player B takes 10 shots and hits 3 two pointers and 2 three pointers. He has scored 12 points on what FG% would say is 50% shooting.

The reason FG% isn't as accurate as eFG% is that here, you have two players taking the same number of shots, hitting the same number of shots, shooting the same FG% percentage, but one player actually being more efficient than the other as evidenced by his scoring. FG% would indicate that they are equally efficient, even though it is clear they they are not. eFG% seeks to provide a more accurate measure of efficiency.

Lets plug player B's stats into the eFG% equation.

(5 + (0.5)*2)/10 = 0.6 ......... Player B's eFG% is 60%.

This means that player A would have to hit 60% of his two point shots to match the efficiency of player B in scoring. Put more clearly, player A would have to hit 6 out of 10 2 point shots shooting 60% to get to the 12 points that player B got shooting 50%, hitting only 5 shots.


and what is Pts/(2*(FGA + (.44*FTA) - why .44? Why not .48 or .34
or .52?

0.44 has come about because, on average, about 88% of all FT are shot as 2-shot, possession-using events. 0.88/2 = 0.44. This is a number arrived by NBA statitians. Discounted are extra freethrows resulting from technical fouls (anyone can shoot a tech... you didn't earn it) and ones, and flagrants.

If a player comes down the lane, draws a foul, and gets to the free throw line for two shot attempts, he is using up one of his teams possessions. However, his scoring impact on that possession isn't reflected when people use FG% to measure efficiency. TS% endeavors to count free throw shooting in scoring efficiency. If a player comes down the court and gets fouled on several plays, gets to the line, but only shoots 60% from the line, that negatively impacts a team, and it is helpful to have that indicated in his overall scoring efficiency.


You write it like I am infavor of these big man abstractions - I'm against all of it. I watch a game - I see a guy shoot if he misses, then that is bad, if he hits that is good. A guy who misses alot is bad - a guy who hits alot is good. I don't need to multiply by .44 to know that getting more ft's helps...I also don't need ot multiply by .44 to know that the bonus you get individually wiht ft's abnd 3's isa a higher scoring average - why we need to further add them up and multiply by variables to make it like it was efficient is beyond me.

When you watch the game, do you also realize that a player who can hit the three consistently helps his team space the floor better because he is a three point threat. Do you take into account the fact that a player who hits a good percentage of his threes as well as twos is more efficient than a player who hits a similar percentage of only twos... same issue with free throws. This is what eFG% and TS% take into account, and though you say that you are taking those factors into account, if you are only going by FG% to determine a player's scoring efficiency, you really aren't.


...and please do not come back to me with what alot of team use to evaluate talent - because 1) teams use factors that we do not know about (I know SA charts certain hustle plays, for example) - none of which we are using here to base out votes and 2) we all know that the vast vast vast majority of teams cannot evlauate talent for sh!t - so why should I trust their multiplcation by .44 over what I see with my own two eyes.

Because you don't know to take 3pt% and FT% into account when regarding a player's scoring efficiency. As bad at evaluating talent as teams are, they have this over you. :confusedshrug:

[MaxFly]

kobe is the most talked about bball player in the world and at the same time the most loved and most hated...he can start crazy debates between strangers at the drop of a time...All this while the NBA tries their hardest to go in a different direction then kobe...should that influence alone matter in comparison to Pippen who had nothing similar to that..

Not really... in terms of a legacy and talent ranking...

I guess you can argue that Bryant is more talked about than Pippen, but that's subjective. It isn't something you would take into account when ranking players.

[John Starks]

That's a lot of info...but riddle me this - lets say that I thought that shooting 3 pt attempts is, in fact, inefficient. It leads to long rebounds, and in many cases, the first pass in the other team's fast break. Lets also say that the 3pt arc is a fool's temptation because the shots so easy to get off but are low %, that players inefficiently use the 3 pt arc.

This % assumes good use of 3's and smart play...but as I see - players that shoot alot of 3's are in fact inefficinet and hurt the team with chucking rather than working it inside for higher % shot that is worth less.

Maybe the math is right - who am I to disagree...maybe all these 45% shooters are really 58% shooters. I'll start seeijg misses more productively now.

However, if your math figures that Kobe is an efficient player - then i know for a fact that your math is wrong. I have no idea how efficient Rick Barry was, but I've seen a ton of kobe and he is among the least efficient players - in terms of use of clock, energy, movement, shots, teammates, his decision-making, and dribbling - that I have ever seen. If your math tells you otherwise, you need better math.

[Brunch@Five]

lets say that I thought that shooting 3 pt attempts is, in fact, inefficient.
depends on how good a three point shooter you are. Shooting .333 from three is as efficient as shooting .500 from two.


Anyways, when will you grasp the idea that made threes are worth more than made twos? It isn't about misses being less inefficient than missing a two-point shot, it's about made threes being more effective than made twos.

[MaxFly]

Starks, when will you grasp the idea that made threes are worth more than made twos? It isn't about misses being less inefficient than missing a two-point shot, it's about made threes being more effective than made twos.


Exactly... but I'm going to answer his question anyway.

[dejordan]

regarding the incorporation of the 3 pointer into TS%, i think it's important to note on one hand, but i don't think you can make a 1 to 1 comparison. yes if you take 12 two point shots and make 50% of them you get 12 points. and if you take 12 three point shots and hit 33% of them you get 12 points, so in terms of scoring efficiency you are taking the same number of shots to get that number of points. unfortunately you're also not getting fouls on the defense, and the team that has hit 2 more shots has had two more chances to get back and set up on defense after made baskets, and if they took the ball to rim, more chances for offensive rebounds. so in terms of pure scoring, hitting those 4 threes was worth the same as hitting those 6 twos. but in terms of actual game play, the team taking and making more twos has an edge.

[MaxFly]

That's a lot of info...but riddle me this - lets say that I thought that shooting 3 pt attempts is, in fact, inefficient. It leads to long rebounds, and in many cases, the first pass in the other team's fast break. Lets also say that the 3pt arc is a fool's temptation because the shots so easy to get off but are low %, that players inefficiently use the 3 pt arc. This % assumes good use of 3's and smart play...but as I see - players that shoot alot of 3's are in fact inefficinet and hurt the team with chucking rather than working it inside for higher % shot that is worth less.



Not necessarily. Players who bypass the open three and charge into the lane often turn the ball over due to defenders reaching in and pick up more charges due to running into defenders while trying to force the issue. Also, I've seen a number of long rebounds lead to the offensive team getting the rebound and resetting their offense... in fact, just as much as I've seen the other team run the fast break off a missed three.

Shooting too many threes can indeed lead to inefficiency. By nature, it's a lower percentage shot, which is why it counts more than a closer shot. However, if a player takes too many threes and hits a poor percentage, that will reflect in their eFG%.

I'll use an example similar to the one I used earlier...

Player A takes 10 shots (all two pointers) and hits 5 of them. He has scored 10 points on 50% shooting.

Player B takes 10 shots (shoots 6 threes) and hits 2 two pointers and 1 three pointer. He has scored 7 points on what FG% would say is 30% shooting.

Player A's eFG% is 50%. Player's B's eFG% is 35%. eFG% reflects player B's poor efficiency.


Maybe the math is right - who am I to disagree...maybe all these 45% shooters are really 58% shooters. I'll start seeijg misses more productively now.

I'm not asking you to start seeing misses as productive. I'm pointing out that the 3 point shot should be taken into account since it counts for more points than the two. If a player hits 4 of 5 threes and a player hits 4 of 5 twos, FG% indicates that they are just as efficient as each other. You know this isn't the case, do you not?


However, if your math figures that Kobe is an efficient player - then i know for a fact that your math is wrong.

The problem is that you've already come to that conclusion and you won't relent even though it's not as cut and dry as you seem to believe.


I have no idea how efficient Rick Barry was,

Earlier, you grouped Barry with Bryant and others, but now you're saying that you don't know how efficient he was? If you don't know, say that you don't know from the jump. Here I was thinking that you made a statement that you actually thought was correct. Turns out that you didn't even know.


but I've seen a ton of kobe and he is among the least efficient players - in terms of use of clock, energy, movement, shots, teammates, his decision-making, and dribbling - that I have ever seen. If your math tells you otherwise, you need better math.

It's statements like these that make it hard to take the things you say seriously, I'm sorry. It makes me question how much basketball you have watched.

[John Starks]

Anyways, when will you grasp the idea that made threes are worth more than made twos? It isn't about misses being less inefficient than missing a two-point shot, it's about made threes being more effective than made twos.

I get your concept -- I always have. 3>2 so its ok to miss the occassinoal 3 because it only takes 2 3's to add up the same amount as 3 made 2 pt baskets.

I get it.

What concept YOU are not getting is the human element of basketball. The human element that 3's are frequently bail out plays. That's 3 go up too quickly without making the defense make aplay. That 3's go up when the player is tired and just wants to get a shot up that'll bring the team back in a hurry.

That 3's will only spread the floor effectively, if the inside is worked.

That's the human. So you want ot tell me that guards are efficient when they make 3's instead of 2's - ok - fine beleive it all you want. Its good for you. Fine..Reggie built a career on it - the Shaq Magic invented shootng 3's on the break and rode that to the finals. It CAN work.

I think its a bad idea (i won't use efficient becuase it gets you guys all hepped up) to count 3's as 50% more valuable than 2's...they are fool's gold.

[John Starks]

The problem is that you've already come to that conclusion and you won't relent even though it's not as cut and dry as you seem to believe.



The problem is that he misses a ton of shots and turns the ball over a ton. The propblem is that he gets the ball dribbles the ball, fakes the ball drives the ball and shoots the ball all by himself.

I'll relent when I see him play an efficient game. A game where he catches the ball, moves the ball, moves himself, gets the ball back in good positoon and hits an open shot...and does it throughout the game.

That's efficient use of body and ball and game. Dribbling up, faking and moving and faking and going and shooting is not effieicent anything - no matter your math.


It's statements like these that make it hard to take the things you say seriously, I'm sorry. It makes me question how much basketball you have watched.

Obviously not enough.

I'll try to watch more Kobe in the future -- hopefully he'll be on TV every sunday so I can be told about his efficiency as I watch him miss shots.

[MaxFly]

regarding the incorporation of the 3 pointer into TS%, i think it's important to note on one hand, but i don't think you can make a 1 to 1 comparison. yes if you take 12 two point shots and make 50% of them you get 12 points. and if you take 12 three point shots and hit 33% of them you get 12 points, so in terms of scoring efficiency you are taking the same number of shots to get that number of points. unfortunately you're also not getting fouls on the defense, and the team that has hit 2 more shots has had two more chances to get back and set up on defense after made baskets, and if they took the ball to rim, more chances for offensive rebounds. so in terms of pure scoring, hitting those 4 threes was worth the same as hitting those 6 twos. but in terms of actual game play, the team taking and making more twos has an edge.

Not necessarily. There are a number of factors in play here. I have often seen players take threes only to have someone else on his team chase it down. Because players crash the boards, it often happens that the long rebound goes to the offensive team due to positioning.

Also, while a player doesn't generally draw the foul on the three, he's also less likely to turn the ball over on a strip (which would lead to a fast break) or pick up a change if he forces the issue.

We also have to take into account the fact that a good three point shooter helps to space the floor better, so the mere threat of the three may very well help in getting his team higher FG attempts. You'll see a player leave a man deep in the paint and run out to a three point shooter who is open or has been given a lot of space.

Also, it's important to note that we're talking about players who are shooting a difference in FG% of 2-4%, not 17%.

You make a great point. There are negative aspects of shooting too many threes. However, these are well known. I think the problem is that we are completely ignoring the positive aspects of a three, and when we take scoring efficiency into account, we can't discount the three pointer and the free throw.

[beau_boy04]

Rick Barry Rick Barry Rick Barry Rick Barry

Give the man the respect he deserves ! :applause:



http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/8510/zzjaoks2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[YAWN]

Rick Barry Rick Barry Rick Barry Rick Barry

Give the man the respect he deserves ! :applause:



you are weird.

[Brunch@Five]

The problem is that he misses a ton of shots and turns the ball over a ton.

look, that's where it starts with you, this is simply not true. For every 100 shots he takes, he misses like 2 more than a player like Wade and Bron. He misses more shots than he makes (unless you're counting FTs), but it's not like he is shooting Cousy-like percentages below 40% or even like AI in the low 40's.
He also doesn't turn the ball over "a ton". He has .4 TOs per game more than Tim Duncan. He has less TOs than Steve Nash. About as many as Bron and Wade.

@beau_boy, stop posting those stupid pictures. You are reported.

[MaxFly]

The problem is that he misses a ton of shots and turns the ball over a ton. The propblem is that he gets the ball dribbles the ball, fakes the ball drives the ball and shoots the ball all by himself.


I'm not so much concerned about Bryant. My point is the general idea that to get an accurate understanding of a player's scoring efficiency, FG% will not do. You've yet to put forward a coherent argument for FG%. You've spent most of your time trying to debase eFG% and TS%. You grouped Rick Barry with players like Bryant without knowing how efficient he was. You don't seem well prepared for this debate.

[MaxFly]

beau_boy04, is that you girl?

[John Starks]

You've yet to put forward a coherent argument for FG%. You've spent most of your time trying to debase eFG% and TS%. You grouped Rick Barry with players like Bryant without knowing how efficient he was. You don't seem well prepared for this debate.

I thought I had - you just don't agree with it - much how I don't agree with your "more accurate" player eff.

FG% measures, without any arbitrary weight, how many shots you take as compared to how many shots you maske. Its a fair measure of makes and misses.

makes sense

[John Starks]

look, that's where it starts with you, this is simply not true. For every 100 shots he takes, he misses like 2 more than a player like Wade and Bron. He misses more shots than he makes (unless you're counting FTs), but it's not like he is shooting Cousy-like percentages below 40% or even like AI in the low 40's.
He also doesn't turn the ball over "a ton". He has .4 TOs per game more than Tim Duncan. He has less TOs than Steve Nash. About as many as Bron and Wade.


..and it always ends with you --well others are as bad as him, so its not that bad.

,...and who is saying that Nash doesn't turn the ball over a ton? - His ratio is better because his risky passes pay off more often than not.

[Brunch@Five]

,...and who is saying that Nash doesn't turn the ball over a ton? - His ratio is better because his risky passes pay off more often than not.

now apply that logic on shooting/threes, and we're on same terms.

[John Starks]

Wow - you are a craftsman Brunch.

I just wanted to add to the fg% - it tells me the liklihood of a player making or missing shots- which eff cannot tell you. So take Kobe for example, if he comes out and goes 2 for 4, I know he's probably going to miss his next shot (and probably turn it over after that and then pouit to his teammates with a scowl)....but if that miss is a 3, he missed it with GREAT efficiency.

[Brunch@Five]

Wow - you are a craftsman Brunch.

I just wanted to add to the fg% - it tells me the liklihood of a player making or missing shots- which eff cannot tell you. So take Kobe for example, if he comes out and goes 2 for 4, I know he's probably going to miss his next shot (and probably turn it over after that and then pouit to his teammates with a scowl)....but if that miss is a 3, he missed it with GREAT efficiency.

eff can tell me how many shots a player scores per possesion he uses though ... far more valuable a stat than FG%.


His ratio is better because his risky passes pay off more often than not.

please explain how this is different from Kobe shooting more threes but yielding better results despite more misses.

[Selenium]

I think its a bad idea to count 3's as 50% more valuable than 2's...

But, they are 50% more valuable.

[MaxFly]

I thought I had - you just don't agree with it - much how I don't agree with your "more accurate" player eff. FG% measures, without any arbitrary weight, how many shots you take as compared to how many shots you maske. Its a fair measure of makes and misses.

makes sense


It would make sense if all shots yielded the same number of points. The fact is that they don't. As a result, FG% isn't the best indication of actual scoring efficiency. The fact that 3s count more than 2s isn't arbitrary in any sense. When a player shoots a shot that was clearly a three, there is no subjectivity on the part of the score keeper.

This is why I've said that you haven't given a coherent argument as to why FG% is a better measure. While FG% is a fair measure of makes and misses, it isn't the best measure of scoring efficiency. :confusedshrug:

[MaxFly]

Just as a tanget... this thread is an example of why we need to be careful in how they apply and analyze stats.

[John Starks]

This is why I've said that you haven't given a coherent argument as to why FG% is a better measure. While FG% is a fair measure of makes and misses, it isn't the best measure of scoring efficiency. :confusedshrug:

So then we're in agreement :confusedshrug: because I want to predict makes and misses.

You want to know how much each shot is worth. ok - good luck. you think its more accurate way to predict efficiency of their shooting. Sounds great!

I think when a player misses alot of shots they are a bad shooter - no matter how much each shot is worth. I can recognize that going to a line gets the team points, but it does not make the player a good shooter. I am very happy for the player and the team when they can have 2 ft's - doesn't make them a good shooter - under your def makes them more efficient per possession. ok.

I'm a little wiped from this - seems like alot of time and thought spent on a bit of nonsense.

One thing I do know - KOBE IS GREAT! Now I've read this compelling thread and the arguments for his efficiency and I am convinced. KOBE KOBE KOBE

[Brunch@Five]

I think when a player misses alot of shots they are a bad shooter

but you realize a three is a harder shot than a midrange jumper?

[John Starks]

but you realize a three is a harder shot than a midrange jumper?

ok - when a player misses alot he is a goodshooter. you've convinced me.

[Brunch@Five]

ok - when a player misses alot he is a goodshooter. you've convinced me.

you're hard to talk with.

let's look at Arenas: he had 45 FG% in 05-06, but shot 52.5% from two-point range that year.
compare him to Hamilton, who barely shoots any threes and is considered by many to be the best midrange shooter in the league: 49 FG%, 49.3% from two-point range.
Kobe that same season shot 45% from the field as well, but look, 54% from 2-point range!

my point should be clear

[MaxFly]

So then we're in agreement :confusedshrug: because I want to predict makes and misses.


Ah, I understand. You're not really concerned about scoring efficiency. You don't really want to know how efficient a player is. You're more worried about predicting if they will make their next shot. Yeah, I used to do that when I was a child myself, so I understand. I stopped when I had a better understanding of the game.


You want to know how much each shot is worth. ok - good luck. you think its more accurate way to predict efficiency of their shooting. Sounds great!

No, I know it's more accurate. Moreover, I've demonstrated clearly that it is. Most NBA analysts and coaches will back up what I have said in this thread.


I think when a player misses alot of shots they are a bad shooter - no matter how much each shot is worth.

Pretty elementary way of looking at the issue, but like I said, I used to think this way when I was a child as well. Once your understanding of basketball develops, you'll shed viewpoints like this.


I can recognize that going to a line gets the team points, but it does not make the player a good shooter. I am very happy for the player and the team when they can have 2 ft's - doesn't make them a good shooter - under your def makes them more efficient per possession. ok.

And that's why we're talking about scoring efficiency and not just good shooting.

Incidentally, if you're really concerned about shooting, why aren't you mentioning things such as opposing defensive pressure and team systems. These things certainly affect how good a shooter a player may be in a game. For example, Reggie Miller was a great defender, but when teams began focussing their defensive attention on him, his FG% dropped. What about players who are consistently double teamed? I just find it funny that you haven't mentioned these factors, but you're supposedly concerned about shooting. :confusedshrug:

[L.Kizzle]

Who will take it this time around?

[Dave3]

Who will take it this time around?
It's crazy how much the list changed in just 3-5 years. Kobe goes from 24/25 to 10th (some people think 5) in a matter of 3 years (he was there by 2010, or even 2009), LeBron goes from nowhere to be found to 11th.

Insane.

[longtime lurker]

For a site that thinks championships are overrated and a team accomplishment 1 championship seems to hold a lot of weight for an individual(I'm looking at you Lebron, KG and Dirk) :lol