Taking shots like this will generally make you less efficient but….

[Kblaze8855]

….being great at them will generally make you more reliable in situations where you can’t assume a good shot will present itself. Often clutch situations.



https://youtu.be/idN7qkMYtmw?si=sAiug_4I8cZ20p0Z



So…. should we or should we not not encourage young players to play that way?

I remember a few years ago people blamed an off-season of Kobe tutelage for Tatum coming out taking a lot of bad shots and having an off year. I don’t know how true it is, but I definitely read about it.

Obviously being great at it is of some benefit but to get great…you have to work up to it. That build up might be ugly.

Where do you stand?

[Baller234]

Only stat dorks obsess over things like efficiency when comparing all time greats.

Results are all that matter.

[elementally morale]

I watch basketball for entertainment. So if efficiency result in some great basketball like with Duncan or Jokic I'm all for it. Larry Bird may have been less efficient than Duncan (I honestly don't know and don't care) but does it matter?

I think all this efficiency talk is usually hiding a dislike for a certain player. I, for one, didn't like Iverson because hewas a ballhog... young Jordan because he was a ballhog... and I like Kobe... because he was a ballhog that entertained me. Does it make sense? No. Should it? I don't think so.

[dankok8]

Thing is we should see a breakdown by scoring types/zones before we judge overall efficiency. For instance Kobe was amazing at isolation scoring which as OP said is useful in clutch situations or really any time when a better shot cannot be manufactured. Taking more such shots cratered Kobe's efficiency but helped his team.

[Kblaze8855]

Thing is we should see a breakdown by scoring types/zones before we judge overall efficiency. For instance Kobe was amazing at isolation scoring which as OP said is useful in clutch situations or really any time when a better shot cannot be manufactured. Taking more such shots cratered Kobe's efficiency but helped his team.


A lot of people shoot higher percentages not due to more skill…but less. Not being able to convert anything but the easier looks makes someone who stays in his lane shoot better from the field. But he doesn’t shoot better because he’s better. He shoots better because he’s worse. But that’s a discussion that a lot of people just won’t accept despite years of seeing guys with good shooting numbers turn useless when you need a shot.

People are hesitant to make the distinction between good scoring and efficient scoring because somewhere down the line it’s gonna conflict some other argument they wanna make.

Which gets us here:





I think all this efficiency talk is usually hiding a dislike for a certain player. I, for one, didn't like Iverson because hewas a ballhog... young Jordan because he was a ballhog... and I like Kobe... because he was a ballhog that entertained me. Does it make sense? No. Should it? I don't think so.





You don’t need to make a consistent argument across all situations. We are talking ball. It isn’t science. It isn’t math. The answers are not definitive and don’t need to be.

Its all case by case.

[Real Men Wear Green]

If you're only judging him by fg %age the "damage" to Tatum was permanent. His rookie year shooting remains the career high in that statistic even though it's been creeping up since the initial drop. I would say it's definitely more about Tatum becoming a superstar scorer. He could probably be a highly efficient off-ball roleplayer if all he did was cut to the basket and shoot open threes but featured scorers get too much defensive attention to play that way. You don't want Tatum to imitate Kobe all game long, the Celtics have too much talent for that to make sense, but you do want him able to create a shot like Kobe could at the end with the game on the line. So for Tatum it was a good thing to work with Bryant even though it had some growing pains.

But for most players you don't want them trying to be Kobe, because most players aren't superstar material.

The tricky part is figuring out who has what it takes to be a superstar. For the young player with "potential" there's no reason not to work on that kind of game because you want to push your talent as far as you can go but a franchise had better be able to tell the difference between JR Smith and Devin Booker. But just working out in the offseason why not push the envelope with your game? Just about every star wing could have been a 3 and D roleplayer. Almost none of those roleplayers could step up and play like a superstar.

[iamgine]

I don't think we should encourage young players to play that way. Just like we should not encourage young players to shoot like Curry/Trae.

It worked out for Kobe and Curry but we should encourage young players the exact opposite of that.

[Full Court]

I don't think we should encourage young players to play that way. Just like we should not encourage young players to shoot like Curry/Trae.

It worked out for Kobe and Curry but we should encourage young players the exact opposite of that.

I think this is the correct answer. There's a place for the player who can put up the crazy shots when needed, e.g. Luka, Steph, etc., but then you have other players without the requisite skill who try it, and it just makes them low IQ players (e.g. Talen Horton-Tucker).

[Kblaze8855]

If you're only judging him by fg %age the "damage" to Tatum was permanent. His rookie year shooting remains the career high in that statistic even though it's been creeping up since the initial drop. I would say it's definitely more about Tatum becoming a superstar scorer. He could probably be a highly efficient off-ball roleplayer if all he did was cut to the basket and shoot open threes but featured scorers get too much defensive attention to play that way. You don't want Tatum to imitate Kobe all game long, the Celtics have too much talent for that to make sense, but you do want him able to create a shot like Kobe could at the end with the game on the line. So for Tatum it was a good thing to work with Bryant even though it had some growing pains.

But for most players you don't want them trying to be Kobe, because most players aren't superstar material.

The tricky part is figuring out who has what it takes to be a superstar. For the young player with "potential" there's no reason not to work on that kind of game because you want to push your talent as far as you can go but a franchise had better be able to tell the difference between JR Smith and Devin Booker. But just working out in the offseason why not push the envelope with your game? Just about every star wing could have been a 3 and D roleplayer. Almost none of those roleplayers could step up and play like a superstar.

I do wonder about the end. How many Jeremy Lin or Flip Murray types are out there who could…if asked…make you wonder why you’re paying a star 20 times their salary if only for a month or so?

Of course there’s a difference between a few weeks and a career…but it’s hard to say just where the cutoff is between ability and opportunity. We say “Well you couldn’t win with him doing that…” but ignore all the superstars who don’t win doing it either.

[Kblaze8855]

Norman Powell for example. Tell him he can shoot 22 times a game forever with no consequences.

How sure are we that he wouldn’t be a star? That guy is nice as hell….sometimes. Is it because he’s only sometimes asked? Or only sometimes capable?

[FultzNationRISE]

“Creating a shot when you need one” is itself a pretty mythologized concept.

Going 3 on 1 and contorting your body as you fall backward is never a high probability shot, and rarely necessary. The amount of times where thats the only way a team can possible get a shot off, is very very small compared to the compromise of having a guy play the wrong way for 38 minutes over 82 games plus playoffs.

At the end of the game you can either run a play to get Steve Novak a spot up look, or if you dont wanna risk turning it over you can bring Marshon Brooks off the bench to “create his own” and heave something up. Theres as much chance his shot will go in as there is Tatum’s.

Having a ‘superstar’ compromise your team potential (and take up disproportionate cap room for his impact) all game and justifying it with “well we need him in situations where someone has to create a shot” is the kind of convoluted argument fans come up with to support a conclusion theyve already made, which is that their fav player is highly valuable.

Jason Tatum playing like Kobe instead of maximizing his ability to contribute within the team concept is not a boon to the Celtics winning chances. If you wanna argue it’s what fans wanna see at the end of the day, thats fine, altho its a debatable conclusion.

But acting like they “need” that is contrived, pretzel logic.

[dankok8]

A lot of people shoot higher percentages not due to more skill…but less. Not being able to convert anything but the easier looks makes someone who stays in his lane shoot better from the field. But he doesn’t shoot better because he’s better. He shoots better because he’s worse. But that’s a discussion that a lot of people just won’t accept despite years of seeing guys with good shooting numbers turn useless when you need a shot.

People are hesitant to make the distinction between good scoring and efficient scoring because somewhere down the line it’s gonna conflict some other argument they wanna make.

Which gets us here:





You don’t need to make a consistent argument across all situations. We are talking ball. It isn’t science. It isn’t math. The answers are not definitive and don’t need to be.

Its all case by case.

Right...

Going further with the Kobe example. If we simply look at his scoring statistically, he's a high volume scorer that was slightly (2-3%) above league efficiency in the playoffs and yet his teams were dominant offensively in the postseason. We have to look at the situations in which a player is scoring and look at relative efficiencies in those type of situations. For example Kobe from 2006-10 took the most isolation shots in the playoffs and had a 0.98 PPP in those situations compared to league average of 0.86 PPP.

[imdaman99]

Mamba mentality. I haven't come across anyone that skilled that they can make those kinda shots regularly when the defense is playing that well on them.

[Carbine]

I'd argue vigorously that the only reason Kobe isn't a consensus top 10 GOAT is because of his hero ball shot selection.

[tpols]

Only stat dorks obsess over things like efficiency when comparing all time greats.

Results are all that matter.

For scorers it matters even though there is a contextual thing to this where Kobe is providing elite spacing and doing this in a high level ball movement system ~ the triangle.

[tpols]

Kobe shot 16/24 in that game. 73 TS and 129 ORTG. Super elite efficiency.

For the whole 2009 playoff run he averaged 30/6/6 on 47/35/87 splits.

So despite taking those tough shots... he was very efficient. If he wasn't? Say he shot like 35% or whatever? The Lakers wouldn't have won a ring that year. The only reason they did is because in that run his tough shots were falling.

If Kobe shot like he did in 2004 every single playoff run nobody would be repping him. Because he wasn't making these shots at the same rate and his team was upset because of it.

The rate at which you put the ball in the hoop matters towards winning a basketball game. It's unbelievable people deny this still.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Best 'tough shot' maker in history.

I would argue he's the greatest 'heatcheck' player in history too. When Kobe got goin, he pulled bazookas out his bag.

All of that made him great. Maybe not 'GOAT' great, though still up there with a short list of people.


Kobe shot 16/24 in that game. 73 TS and 129 ORTG. Super elite efficiency.

For the whole 2009 playoff run he averaged 30/6/6 on 47/35/87 splits.

So despite taking those tough shots... he was very efficient. If he wasn't? Say he shot like 35% or whatever? The Lakers wouldn't have won a ring that year. The only reason they did is because in that run his tough shots were falling.

If Kobe shot like he did in 2004 every single playoff run nobody would be repping him. Because he wasn't making these shots at the same rate and his team was upset because of it.

The rate at which you put the ball in the hoop matters towards winning a basketball game. It's unbelievable people deny this still.

Well said, bud.

Suppose when dudes argue efficiency, they're debating "45%FG vs 50%" which is about a shot a game. Not much difference, but game to game, pretty significant.

[tpols]

It's also demoralizing to a team for them to give their best effort and still be dominated. Kind of puts a little quit in their step to know they played perfect defense and still got crushed.

But it's all contingent on the ball going in the basket. If it misses continually in will have the opposite effect and galvanize the opposing team increasing their confidence instead of sapping it. Like... this guys playing retarded and losing them the game. That's what Chauncey Billups said rallied the pistons to shit on the Lakers in 2004 happened. If Kobe actually hit the shots in that series the outcome and vibe would've been totally different.

[Kblaze8855]

The rate at which you put the ball in the hoop matters towards winning a basketball game. It's unbelievable people deny this still.




Nobody does. You just make a wild extrapolation to that conclusion because such black and white things are easy to argue and the meat of the discussion is conceptual where there is much more nuance and wiggle room. It’s like someone saying “Money won’t necessarily make you happy.” and you say “I can’t believe people deny money makes life easier”.

Its just ducking the real discussion by dumbing it down to a point nobody disagrees with to claim the undisputed win against nobody.

Whatever you think being efficient entails Kobe was less that than a lot of worse players. That doesn’t mean efficiency doesn’t matter. It means there’s a discussion to be had.

[Kblaze8855]

I'd argue vigorously that the only reason Kobe isn't a consensus top 10 GOAT is because of his hero ball shot selection.


Is anyone really consensus top 10 once you get past the top 5ish? There’s a wide range of guys on the same basic level after the true goat guys.

[Kblaze8855]

At the end of the game you can either run a play to get Steve Novak a spot up look, or if you dont wanna risk turning it over you can bring Marshon Brooks off the bench to “create his own” and heave something up. Theres as much chance his shot will go in as there is Tatum’s.




https://www.hostpic.org/images/2309232311460362.jpeg


I don’t know if that’s a sentiment A Pimp Named Slickback can cosign

[FultzNationRISE]

https://www.hostpic.org/images/2309232311460362.jpeg


I don’t know if that’s a sentiment A Pimp Named Slickback can cosign



https://youtu.be/2xqMsz-fZJg?si=Q_ODH5Kg_XmikZgm


This is not a shot most NBA players cant make 1 out of 3 times. He ran parallel to the arc for a moment and then rose up for a shot. It went in that time, many times it did not.

Danillo Gallinari could do that. Tim Hardaway Jr could do that. Tons of players in the game can do that. That shot was not some miraculous feat.

Actually, statistically, Kobe’s track record in those situations is TERRIBLE. So the idea you “need a Kobe for those situations” makes no sense at all.

Coaches usually let the star player just take every late game shot these days bc theyll get ran out of town if another player takes it and misses. Its just to cover their ass with an excuse. “Well I gave it to our star!” If a team wins, because it’s a good team, fans invariably overrate that star and act like all those wins were bc Him and all those clutch shots were bc Him.

I dont think thats the actual thing thats happening when a team is successful, personally.

[FultzNationRISE]

Half this message board truly, honestly in their heart believes Fisher ONLY made this shot because Kobe was also on the court and his presence transferred some kind of mystical will to win into Fisher’s mind.


https://youtu.be/NSnAvhvfniw?si=QsRQOxrNVIiX963w


In reality, a lot of NBA players can hit tough shots in crucial moments. Ofc the odds are always against any player. But the idea of “needing a closer”… I think thats a talk radio and gatorade commercial idea that fans have just bought into because it sounds great.

[Baller234]

If Kobe goes 9/20, that means he shot 45%.
If Kobe goes 11/20. that means he shot 55%.

A stat dork will interpret this as being the difference between Kobe having an "efficient" game and not having an efficient game. In reality it means jack shit.

When you consider everything else that Kobe brings to the table throughout the course of a given game, stewing over two possessions where he inadvertently misses a tough shot is nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking. As if those two singular possessions are what swung the game out of reach.

I don't care if the other team's best player is having a more "efficient" game because he's shooting 12/20 at 60%. Again we're splitting hairs. Tell me which player you want on your team during crunch time when the stakes matters most. And guess what, usually in the playoffs it boils down to which team executes better in crunch time.

[Kblaze8855]

I don’t think that anyone being able to make a lucky shot means it’s not generally better to have a Kobe/Bird/Jordan to give the ball to create a late shot than to select a player at random.

If I have time for a one or two dribble pull-up I’d much prefer a KD to take it than some player selected at random.

Would you disagree?

[warriorfan]

If Kobe goes 9/20, that means he shot 45%.
If Kobe goes 11/20. that means he shot 55%.

A stat dork will interpret this as being the difference between Kobe having an "efficient" game and not having an efficient game. In reality it means jack shit.

When you consider everything else that Kobe brings to the table throughout the course of a given game, stewing over two possessions where he inadvertently misses a tough shot is nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking. As if those two singular possessions are what swung the game out of reach.

I don't care if the other team's best player is having a more "efficient" game because he's shooting 12/20 at 60%. Again we're splitting hairs. Tell me which player you want on your team during crunch time when the stakes matters most. And guess what, usually in the playoffs it boils down to which team executes better in crunch time.

They can’t see the forest for the trees.

[Kblaze8855]

If Kobe goes 9/20, that means he shot 45%.
If Kobe goes 11/20. that means he shot 55%.

A stat dork will interpret this as being the difference between Kobe having an "efficient" game and not having an efficient game. In reality it means jack shit.






The way people talk the 2 shot difference between super efficient and garbage is the difference between two teams that both take 80 shots and end up 126-114. As if it changes the whole game if someone else missed the shots instead. As if every miss would be converted to a make if the star who missed left it to some nobody to take instead.

All that matters in the end is if your team scores more than the other team. Out of 150+ taken it doesn’t matter a bit who exactly misses the 35-40 the team is gonna miss no matter what.

Kobe missing 3 shots doesn’t mean some role player makes them and his bad shot cost the team anything. It’s just easy to assume all misses were better off not taken or taken by someone else because that hypothetical outcome is unknown.

[tpols]

Half this message board truly, honestly in their heart believes Fisher ONLY made this shot because Kobe was also on the court and his presence transferred some kind of mystical will to win into Fisher’s mind.


https://youtu.be/NSnAvhvfniw?si=QsRQOxrNVIiX963w


In reality, a lot of NBA players can hit tough shots in crucial moments. Ofc the odds are always against any player. But the idea of “needing a closer”… I think thats a talk radio and gatorade commercial idea that fans have just bought into because it sounds great.

Forget Kobe because you obviously have a vendetta against him.

But if you think giving the ball to Derek Fisher over like... MJ or Dirk for gamewinners that arent miracle .4 seconds on the clock having heaves... youre simply out of your mind. Yea, anybody can make a prayer. But if there's like 5 or 10 seconds left there's a huge difference in capability.

You can hate on Kobe all you want even though in these select playoff runs he was statistically, factually efficient en route to rings, but you can't discount the concept in general.

[FultzNationRISE]

]If Kobe goes 9/20, that means he shot 45%.
If Kobe goes 11/20. that means he shot 55%.

A stat dork will interpret this as being the difference between Kobe having an "efficient" game and not having an efficient game. In reality it means jack shit.

When you consider everything else that Kobe brings to the table throughout the course of a given game, stewing over two possessions where he inadvertently misses a tough shot is nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking.[/B] As if those two singular possessions are what swung the game out of reach.

I don't care if the other team's best player is having a more "efficient" game because he's shooting 12/20 at 60%. Again we're splitting hairs. Tell me which player you want on your team during crunch time when the stakes matters most. And guess what, usually in the playoffs it boils down to which team executes better in crunch time.


Bro the average margin of victory in the NBA is like 4 points :lol

Increasing your teams ppg by 5 points because you got two better shots over the course of the game is literally the difference between the bad teams and good teams in the NBA.

Everyone in the NBA is a paid professional. Lesser teams get higher draft picks. It’s all geared toward parity.

A couple extra good shots per game makes a huge difference in team record by the end of an 82 game season or a post season.

But frankly, if you enjoy the NBA because of the hero narratives it produces, even if I dont think theyre based in reality… thats okay. :confusedshrug:

You see it however you prefer to see it and I’ll do the same. It’s all good.

[FultzNationRISE]

Forget Kobe because you obviously have a vendetta against him.

But if you think giving the ball to Derek Fisher over like... MJ or Dirk for gamewinners that arent miracle .4 seconds on the clock having heaves... youre simply out of your mind. Yea, anybody can make a prayer. But if there's like 5 or 10 seconds left there's a huge difference in capability.

You can hate on Kobe all you want even though in these select playoff runs he was statistically, factually efficient en route to rings, but you can't discount the concept in general.

Im not saying having a tough shot maker on the court at the end of the game isnt helpful. Im saying that ability alone doesnt justify a guy playing sub optimal basketball for the whole game until that point.

Good teams tend to win even without their “irreplaceable stars” all the time. Teams with good records do not fall apart when Kobe sits, or TMac sits, Or Kyrie sits. Or if Ewing is out. Or when MJ skips a season. Or if Giannis misses a couple playoff games, or if Luka does.

Check the history on this sort of thing. There are exceptions of course (often involving Lebron). Individuals are way, way overcredited for the success of good teams in basketball. It’s simply the truth.

But again, to each their own.

[tpols]

Im not saying having a tough shot maker on the court at the end of the game isnt helpful. Im saying that ability alone doesnt justify a guy playing sub optimal basketball for the whole game until that point.



The 2009 Lakers went 65-17 with the 3rd best offense and 2nd best assist rank (ball movement).

They dimed more than 99% of teams in the league and Kobe was their assist leader.

And then they dominated the playoffs. How is that playing sub optimal basketball?

When it comes to Kobe you're like rrr3 vs Trump. Your partisanship in this regard is identical.

[Kblaze8855]

Increasing your teams ppg by 5 points because you got two better shots over the course of the game is literally the difference between the bad teams and good teams in the NBA.


Issue is….it isn’t 5 extra points. It’s just a different person shooting with an unknown outcome. Taking 2 misses from Kobe doesn’t just give the team two makes from Brian Cook.

[FultzNationRISE]

The 2009 Lakers went 65-17 with the 3rd best offense and 2nd best assist rank (ball movement).

And then they dominated the playoffs. How is that sub optimal basketball?

When it comes to Kobe you're like rrr3 vs Trump. Your partisanship in this regard is identical.

Rewatch the end to this game.


https://youtu.be/20uAYozx_5U?si=OtNJZFLHcQ-txWjK

Durant drives and lays it up, then Kobe responds with a quick iso 3. Scowls for the cameras and marinates in his hero narrative in progress.

Westbrook comes down and takes an iso three, BRICK.

Kobe comes back, no passes, jumper, BRICK.

Thunder, Westbrook, BRICK.

Lakers, Pau misses, rebound out to Artest, has the audacity to shoot an open shot, misses, Kobe throws his arms up because he wanted the shot.

Thunder, Durant makes a nice move, one pass to Westbrook at the elbow, Westbrook BRICK.

Lakers, Kobe isos for the jumper, BRICK, Gasol offensive rebound, putback is good, Lakers win.


The Kobe-Westbrook shit show at the end was an embarrassment to basketball. But because these two teams had GREAT role player depth that year, people thought it was some kind of epic duel between all time great ballaz :lol :facepalm


Thats just how people like seeing the game. So be it.

[FultzNationRISE]

If you go back and watch the half time shows of the Lakers finals runs, EVEN AS THEY WERE WINNING, all the studio analysts were talking in real time about the Lakers making it harder on themselves, they should be dumping it into Gasol and Bynum down low and just riding the size advantage.

Magic, Chuck, Legler, Greg Anthony, whoever was doing analysis… they were all saying Kobe was actually making it harder for the Lakers than it had to be :lol

[FultzNationRISE]

Issue is….it isn’t 5 extra points. It’s just a different person shooting with an unknown outcome. Taking 2 misses from Kobe doesn’t just give the team two makes from Brian Cook.

Thats true, but a good shot from a competent shooter (which most players on the court are) is better than a bad shot from a superstar.

So even a 1 or 2% increase in conversion efficiency… like, theres no down side. You dont get style points in basketball. So theres really no excuse for playing sub optimal. Just brushing it aside because “it doesnt make THAT much difference” doesnt make sense to me because theres no compensatory benefit. Youre just… playing sub optimal ball for no other reason than potential highlights. And it WILL cost you a few games over time.

Which again, if thats what the sport and the league and the business is about, thats fine. I enjoy a big clutch outburst as much as the next guy. But saying hero ball doesnt affect the outcome over time simply isnt true IMO.

[Kblaze8855]

Thats true, but a good shot from a competent shooter (which most players on the court are) is better than a bad shot from a superstar.

So even a 1 or 2% increase in conversion efficiency… like, theres no down side. You dont get style points in basketball. So theres really no excuse for playing sub optimal. Just brushing it aside because “it doesnt make THAT much difference” doesnt make sense to me because theres no compensatory benefit. Youre just… playing sub optimal ball for no other reason than potential highlights. And it WILL cost you a few games over time.

Which again, if thats what the sport and the league and the business is about, thats fine. I enjoy a big clutch outburst as much as the next guy. But saying hero ball doesnt affect the outcome over time simply isnt true IMO.


you’re speaking factually about things you only feel are true. There is absolutely no data to check to see what a role player shoots given a shot a star missed because you can’t isolate it from the other factors. You can’t just assume the percentage increases because you’re replacing a known miss with a potential make because to keep it fair you’d have to replace role player known misses with potential makes by the star and we’re back where we came from(except there are more non star misses to be offset by a potential star make).

all that matters in the end is your team scored more points than the other team. Who exactly misses each shot doesn’t matter. Who would have done what if the distribution were different is just based on assumption we could all change depending on the agenda we have.

in the end, it’s just us applying our unknowable assumptions in the manner best suiting our argument. I can talk about converting known Slava Medvedenko Misses to potential Kobe makes and you can do the other way.

plenty of Kobe misses were wide open good looks and plenty role player makes were tough. There is no way to know any of it. Just the final tally which tells us next to nothing. Even tracking the exact nature of the shots doesn’t tell us the path not taken.

Its all just feelings in the end.

[FultzNationRISE]

you’re speaking factually about things you only feel are true. There is absolutely no data to check to see what a role player shoots given a shot a star missed because you can’t isolate it from the other factors. You can’t just assume the percentage increases because you’re replacing a known miss with a potential make because to keep it fair you’d have to replace role player known misses with potential makes by the star and we’re back where we came from(except there are more non star misses to be offset by a potential star make).

all that matters in the end is your team scored more points than the other team. Who exactly misses each shot doesn’t matter. Who would have done what if the distribution were different is just based on assumption we could all change depending on the agenda we have.

in the end, it’s just us applying our unknowable assumptions in the manner best suiting our argument. I can talk about converting known Slava Medvedenko Misses to potential Kobe makes and you can do the other way.

plenty of Kobe misses were wide open good looks and plenty role player makes were tough. There is no way to know any of it. Just the final tally which tells us next to nothing. Even tracking the exact nature of the shots doesn’t tell us the path not taken.

Its all just feelings in the end.

Youre correct, however I believe they are reasonable assumptions based on what we do factually know about shooting percentages. Its true every heroball iso shot with 20 ticks left on the shotclock is not guaranteed to result in a wide open look as the alternative.

But theres still no reason to make the selfish play. It doesnt achieve anything. Theres no compensatory benefit to the team. Going for better looks will at least SOMETIMES result in getting better looks, and making them.

So altho we can’t prove the specifics of a hypothetical result, it is a reasonable assumption to make. More attempts to create good shots will result in more good shots. Good shots are converted more than iso heaves. Therefore, attempting to play the right way is highly likely generate more points overall.

[tpols]

Rewatch the end to this game.


https://youtu.be/20uAYozx_5U?si=OtNJZFLHcQ-txWjK

Durant drives and lays it up, then Kobe responds with a quick iso 3. Scowls for the cameras and marinates in his hero narrative in progress.

Westbrook comes down and takes an iso three, BRICK.

Kobe comes back, no passes, jumper, BRICK.

Thunder, Westbrook, BRICK.

Lakers, Pau misses, rebound out to Artest, has the audacity to shoot an open shot, misses, Kobe throws his arms up because he wanted the shot.

Thunder, Durant makes a nice move, one pass to Westbrook at the elbow, Westbrook BRICK.

Lakers, Kobe isos for the jumper, BRICK, Gasol offensive rebound, putback is good, Lakers win.


The Kobe-Westbrook shit show at the end was an embarrassment to basketball. But because these two teams had GREAT role player depth that year, people thought it was some kind of epic duel between all time great ballaz :lol :facepalm


Thats just how people like seeing the game. So be it.


This is.... 1 game from a playoff run that isn't even from the year OP was referencing. Prime Kobe crunchtime stats 5 minutes left in the game score close +/- 5 points are extremely elite for his career. All you seem to be able to do is cherrypick < 1% of available data.


But again... you said Kobes style of play outside crunchtime was "suboptimal" in a year he led a 65 win team to a championship where they had a top offensive rank and led the league in assists and ball movement. With Kobe having by far the most points and assists contributing to said ranks.

How do you justify your position here?

[Kblaze8855]

Yes, converting every tough miss into an even unlikely make of a better shot result in more points long-term. But as I said, in total, the other players take and miss more shots. If I replaced all 25 shots the role players miss with Kobe even shooting 30% on them? His personal percentage nose dives but the team scores more points in total with no extra misses. Making them better. That admittedly stupid(but correct) example going both ways is why we can’t even go down that path.

it’s all just a matter of how you look at it. Considering the results he got it’s hard for me to say Kobe should’ve done something different. What should he have won instead of five? Eight?

[FultzNationRISE]

This is.... 1 game from a playoff run that isn't even from the year OP was referencing. Prime Kobe crunchtime stats 5 minutes left in the game score close +/- 5 points are extremely elite for his career. All you seem to be able to do is cherrypick < 1% of available data.


But again... you said Kobes style of play outside crunchtime was "suboptimal" in a year he led a 65 win team to a championship where they had a top offensive rank and led the league in assists and ball movement. With Kobe having by far the most points and assists contributing to said ranks.

How do you justify your position here?

Well I obviously dont remember all the games of that regular season, so maybe youre right and he was an exceptional team player during that particular sample size. I cant say he wasnt because I dont have any memory of those games to analyze.

However I do remember many specific playoff examples where he wasnt, and playoffs count for a lot in my book.

In 04 he literally cost his team a title because he tried to outshine Shaq (who was dominating) and shot his team straight out of the series. Everyone remembers that, there is no debate.

Theres the famous 6-24 example in Game 7 verse the C’s where he got bailed out by Ron Artest.

Theres the OKC game 6 I just posted where he tried to take every shot in the last 5 minutes. Bailed out by Gasol.

People dont wanna remember these examples, they wanna look at his five team championships, his buzzer beater vs the Suns in a series they lost, and create a narrative around Kobe that they enjoy celebrating.

Im not trying to tell anyone not to if thats how they like remembering him. I just dont see it that way and Im gonna stand by it if people wanna challenge me.

[FultzNationRISE]

Yes, converting every tough miss into an even unlikely make of a better shot result in more points long-term. But as I said, in total, the other players take and miss more shots. If I replaced all 25 shots the role players miss with Kobe even shooting 30% on them? His personal percentage nose dives but the team scores more points in total with no extra misses. Making them better. That admittedly stupid(but correct) example going both ways is why we can’t even go down that path.

it’s all just a matter of how you look at it. Considering the results he got it’s hard for me to say Kobe should’ve done something different. What should he have won instead of five? Eight?

Hero narratives in basketball are like psychic readings.

There are ways to finesse what youre saying such that it can come off pretty convincing, and a lot of people may end up convinced.

But there are some people who dont think whats being sold as happening is whats really happening.

And youre right, neither side can PROVE the other is wrong.

:confusedshrug:

[sdot_thadon]

Kobe and Tmac were the 2 absolute best tough/bad shot makers I've ever seen with no peer. I think young guys should do this once they reach that certain level of skill but I have to wonder, if you don't come up from the bottom taking those shots can you ever become elite at making them? And also i see it as a double edged sword, you do want Kobe to take better looks because it may turn a few Ls into Ws, but do you really want anyone else taking those shots? I don't, so you take the good with the bad and hope it's one of those days he has it going and not a 10-30 game.

[Kblaze8855]

Well I obviously dont remember all the games of that regular season, so maybe youre right and he was an exceptional team player during that particular sample size. I cant say he wasnt because I dont have any memory of those games to analyze.

However I do remember many specific playoff examples where he wasnt, and playoffs count for a lot in my book.

In 04 he literally cost his team a title because he tried to outshine Shaq (who was dominating) and shot his team straight out of the series. Everyone remembers that, there is no debate.

Theres the famous 6-24 example in Game 7 verse the C’s where he got bailed out by Ron Artest.

Theres the OKC game 6 I just posted where he tried to take every shot in the last 5 minutes. Bailed out by Gasol.

People dont wanna remember these examples, they wanna look at his five team championships, his buzzer beater vs the Suns in a series they lost, and create a narrative around Kobe that they enjoy celebrating.

Im not trying to tell anyone not to if thats how they like remembering him. I just dont see it that way and Im gonna stand by it if people wanna challenge me.



you think people don’t remember he had 6 of 24 game or a bunch of other poor shooting ones on the Internet where people point such things out incessantly for decades at a time? People remember them they just don’t care. Everyone into downplaying the greatness of all these players be they Kobe or LeBron or Jordan, or anyone else consistently point out bad performances, and act like nobody acknowledges them. All of the haters are largely right in that but what they don’t accept is that people are justified in ignoring most bad performances and things that lead to losses because literally every single person since the 60s Celtic spends the extreme majority of their career losing. Great players are great because of the ups. The downs are just a part of life, and they will never get the spotlight shone on them the way people shine the light on success, because the down is the expected outcome.

you, nor any other hater will ever succeed in making a great players bad games be even close to as acknowledged as the great ones because try you might nobody gives a shit. Your legacy is pretty much entirely a list of your great accomplishments. You don’t see failures on the career summary, because failure is the expected outcome.

[tpols]

and playoffs count for a lot in my book.


:biggums:

The man has 4 rings performing with superstar impact.

4th most points scored in NBA playoff history only behind Lebron, Mj, and Kareem... and ahead of Shaq ironically.

What are you on bro?

[FultzNationRISE]

:biggums:

The man has 4 rings performing with superstar impact.

4th most points scored in NBA playoff history only behind Lebron, Mj, and Kareem... and ahead of Shaq ironically.

What are you on bro?


Im not saying he was a scrub dude :lol

Im saying theres simply a difference in the SIZE of the difference you think he made and I think he made.

Thats all. Im not saying Kobe wasnt a great player.

Just that Kobe’s style of play and statistical production wasnt the enormous factor in those Laker teams’ success as other people may think. Thats my opinion.

[warriorfan]

Im not saying he was a scrub dude :lol

Im saying theres simply a difference in the SIZE of the difference you think he made and I think he made.

Thats all. Im not saying Kobe wasnt a great player.

Just that Kobe’s style of play and statistical production wasnt the enormous factor in those Laker teams’ success as other people may think. Thats my opinion.

gasol soft euro who did nothing without kobe, especially if you utilize the heavy on playoff criteria

bynum an all around terrible player who was literally out of the league post kobe

lamar odom the lazy guy who’s into drugs and eating candy

derek fisher who ****s other dudes wives and beefs

sasha?

luke walton?

shannon brown?

ariza was a nice role playing defender but yeah


To try to act like that team isn’t total dogshit without kobe is being completely disingenuous.

If LeBron had that team we wouldnt hear the end of the beating of the drum “he needs more help.”

[FultzNationRISE]

gasol soft euro who did nothing without kobe, especially if you utilize the heavy on playoff criteria

bynum an all around terrible player who was literally out of the league post kobe

lamar odom the lazy guy who’s into drugs and eating candy

derek fisher who ****s other dudes wives and beefs

sasha?

luke walton?

shannon brown?

ariza was a nice role playing defender but yeah


To try to act like that team isn’t total dogshit without kobe is being completely disingenuous.

If LeBron had that team we wouldnt hear the end of the beating of the drum “he needs more help.”

Sometimes the whole is more than the sum of the parts.

Gasol may not look as effective playing with Damon Stoudamire and Mike Miller as he does playing off Bynum and Odom. Fisher was always clutch, he hit clutch playoff shots with Utah and OKC in his non Laker career. He had more success without Bean than vice versa. Walton was a great role player/glue guy. Just because he was the last guy youd want playing as the leading scorer doesnt mean he didnt bring a ton of value in his role. They gave him a big contract, he was highly valued at the time. And Phil Jackson obviously knew how to run a basketball team.

I remember clearly this team played good basketball even when Kobe was on the bench or when he was out with injury. Kobe was obviously an important piece just like every guy who played big minutes was. It was not one guy carrying a bunch of burdens. Thats nonsense. They played good basketball. In fact Fisher and Gasol and them were known to occasionally hint they could be playing even better basketball if they didnt fall back on ballhogging at times.

I happen to agree.

[warriorfan]

Sometimes the whole is more than the sum of the parts.

Gasol may not look as effective playing with Damon Stoudamire and Mike Miller as he does playing off Bynum and Odom. Fisher was always clutch, he hit clutch playoff shots with Utah and OKC in his non Laker career. He had more success without Bean than vice versa. Walton was a great role player/glue guy. Just because he was the last guy youd want playing as the leading scorer doesnt mean he didnt bring a ton of value in his role. They gave him a big contract, he was highly valued at the time. And Phil Jackson obviously knew how to run a basketball team.

I remember clearly this team played good basketball even when Kobe was on the bench or when he was out with injury. Kobe was obviously an important piece just like every guy who played big minutes was. It was not one guy carrying a bunch of burdens. Thats nonsense. They played good basketball. In fact Fisher and Gasol and them were known to occasionally hint they could be playing even better basketball if they didnt fall back on ballhogging at times.

I happen to agree.

that’s just insane

a group of toxic and soft misfits who never did a damn thing without kobe

put lebron on this team and he’s looking to skip out of town ASAP as “needs more help” chants go around

[Kblaze8855]

gasol soft euro who did nothing without kobe, especially if you utilize the heavy on playoff criteria




Gotta say one thing always bugged me about this narrative is this:


https://www.hostpic.org/images/2309240321290350.jpeg


https://www.hostpic.org/images/2309240323150362.jpeg

What would you say is reasonable to expect from such teams? Because 49 and 50 wins seems kinda….a lot?

other than McGrady’s magic, pretty much all the teams you see people complain about being the reason some star didn’t win anything are more talented than the team Gasol led to50 wins in a brutal conference. He gets a bad rep for doing more than he should because he got swept in the playoffs by the spurs, mavs, and Nash’s suns who had him beat like 9 all stars combined to him by himself.

He had a worse team than Kobe’s bad teams. Worse than Jordan’s bad ones. Worse than Lebrons. Worse than that Steph year they missed it after he came back.

Part of it is the era depressing the production of everyone but those teams were flat out not good but played above themselves and ran into 3 legit championship level teams the worst of which had Nash, Amare, Joe Johnson, and Marion.

Is calling him out for what those teams did really fair when we issue guys passes who had a lot more?

[warriorfan]

Gotta say one thing always bugged me about this narrative is this:


https://www.hostpic.org/images/2309240321290350.jpeg


https://www.hostpic.org/images/2309240323150362.jpeg

What would you say is reasonable to expect from such teams? Because 49 and 50 wins seems kinda….a lot?

other than McGrady’s magic, pretty much all the teams you see people complain about being the reason some star didn’t win anything are more talented than the team Gasol led to50 wins in a brutal conference. He gets a bad rep for doing more than he should because he got swept in the playoffs by the spurs, mavs, and Nash’s suns who had him beat like 9 all stars combined to him by himself.

He had a worse team than Kobe’s bad teams. Worse than Jordan’s bad ones. Worse than Lebrons. Worse than that Steph year they missed it after he came back.

Part of it is the era depressing the production of everyone but those teams were flat out not good but played above themselves and ran into 3 legit championship level teams the worst of which had Nash, Amare, Joe Johnson, and Marion.

Is calling him out for what those teams did really fair when we issue guys passes who had a lot more?

I’m almost positive i’ve heard you downplay Bosh not being a top player in the league pre decision because Toronto didn’t have playoff success

Not sure if it’s true but i’ve heard that thrown around a lot.

Oh no now I remember , it was K Love.

You threw Love under the bus because he didn’t do shit with the wolves and wrote off his stats as empty

So keep it consistent with your Pau analysis

[Real Men Wear Green]

Calling Gasol soft was a racist narrative of the time. Warriorfan is especially stupid so he's still doing it long after European players have shaken that label.

[warriorfan]

Calling Gasol soft was a racist narrative of the time. Warriorfan is especially stupid so he's still doing it long after European players have shaken that label.

get the **** out of here, men are talking basketball

[Real Men Wear Green]

get the **** out of here, men are talking basketball

Pau Gasol would kick your sorry crackhead ass. You call him soft. Does this mean you're less of a man?

[warriorfan]

Pau Gasol would kick your sorry crackhead ass. You call him soft. Does this mean you're less of a man?

honestly can you stop derailing threads with this ****ing nonsense? we are trying to talk basketball here

[RRR3]

Crackfan getting bullied by BOTH of the only two active mods left at the same time is quite something :lol

[warriorfan]

Crackfan getting bullied by BOTH of the only two active mods left at the same time is quite something :lol

look we have another low iq coming in here to not talk basketball and suck some dick at the same time

great.

[RRR3]

look we have another low iq coming in here to not talk basketball and suck some dick at the same time

great.
The irony of you whining about people derailing threads about basketball :roll:

[Real Men Wear Green]

honestly can you stop derailing threads with this ****ing nonsense? we are trying to talk basketball here

Calling Gail soft isn't intelligent analysis is stupid crap from a stupid poster. Now go report me to me again.

[warriorfan]

The irony of you whining about people derailing threads about basketball :roll:

go away.

[warriorfan]

Calling Gail soft isn't intelligent analysis is stupid crap from a stupid poster. Now go report me to me again.

ok great, you said your piece, thank you for your contribution to the discussion

carry on.

[tpols]

Odom and Bynum probably would've been out the league if it wasn't for Kobe. His work ethic clearly rubbed off on them. They totally gave up afterwards.

Pau was a legit All Star talent, really good player but cmon.... that's usually not enough to make a borderline dynasty with in the NBA. Much less so when all you guys said Kobe would never win anything without Shaq.

Meanwhile we have Lebron stans here propping Pau when he was a 19/10 guy while shitting on AD in the WCFs this year averaging 26/12 on better efficiency while being far better defensively.

Imagine AD on the Lakers instead of Pau. LOL. Some of yall would've had a field day propping him to spite Kobe.

[LAL]

honestly can you stop derailing threads with this ****ing nonsense? we are trying to talk basketball here

Right on.

Also @FultzNationRise Can you stfu about Kobe please, you sound dumb as f.

[LAL]

@Kblaze

Bronsexual

[Jasper]

Kobe was the ultimate ballhog . It is what a player does in a team concept that dictates if they are playing 1 against 5 or 5 on 5.

Kobe killed any team momentum of his own team , just to stat pad his brains heroics .

I've seen the Lakers clear out time after time , and when Kobe passed out expected his teammates to be in rhythm to nail a jumper.
I always wished they would of never passed the ball to him , in a qtr , then swing it to him , and expect him to make a shot.
He was a dick.

[RRR3]

Calling Gail soft isn't intelligent analysis is stupid crap from a stupid poster. Now go report me to me again.
And he calls other people low IQ :roll:

[LAL]

Kobe was the ultimate ballhog . It is what a player does in a team concept that dictates if they are playing 1 against 5 or 5 on 5.

Kobe killed any team momentum of his own team , just to stat pad his brains heroics .

I've seen the Lakers clear out time after time , and when Kobe passed out expected his teammates to be in rhythm to nail a jumper.
I always wished they would of never passed the ball to him , in a qtr , then swing it to him , and expect him to make a shot.
He was a dick.

He should've played in his own kobe system like in '13 with D'antoni but he actually played in A TEAM SYSTEM his whole career and was able to still dominate (without averaging triple doubles but instead dominating on both sides with flawless skills) and was able to 3peat with Shaq and almost with Pau in the toughest conference in that decade.

Kobe 5/7 from 2000 till 2010

Lebronze 4/10 from 2004 till 2023 (East mostly + mandatory lebron system)

[Axe]

ok great, you said your piece, thank you for your contribution to the discussion

carry on.
Meltdown.

[Kblaze8855]

I’m almost positive i’ve heard you downplay Bosh not being a top player in the league pre decision because Toronto didn’t have playoff success

Not sure if it’s true but i’ve heard that thrown around a lot.

Oh no now I remember , it was K Love.

You threw Love under the bus because he didn’t do shit with the wolves and wrote off his stats as empty

So keep it consistent with your Pau analysis



You’ve never seen me say Gasol was great because of his numbers. You’ve also never seen me say he was a superstar or an elite player. I said not winning in the playoffs with teams that shouldn’t be any good isn’t saying much. And Love is also on the list of people on more talented teams doing less. We’re talking about James Posey as a playoff number 2. Getting 10ppg from your second. We aren’t talking Kevin Martin or even Peković.

Pau was leading teams that at a glance should win 25 games to 49-50. It is absolutely nothing to call out.

Think of a team that won 50 games in a conference like that west with help like James Posey and company.

I’m not saying you can’t…I’m saying he had less than the people we give passes for doing less than he did with more. 0-12 isn’t a negative. Making it at all is a positive.

[FultzNationRISE]

Gasol in some ways was a little soft, if you roughed it up with him he was more likely to pout or complain than to retaliate. And frankly I think this was also true of Dirk early on, particularly when GS famously rattled his cage big time in the first round upset. Throw Bargnani into the mix and you can understand the origins of the soft euro stereotype.

Of course… those were all western euros. The eastern euros flooding into the league recently are a different story :lol

But even the western euros now arent pushovers. This gen grew up a lot more familiar with nba culture via social media. Most euros playing in the 00s probably never even SAW a black person til they got to the NBA. I think the culture shock made them a lil more timid than euros today.


That said… being soft doesnt disable your value. Its not ideal clearly, but great overall players can still have toughness as a weakness. Gasol was still an allstar level player.

[warriorfan]

You’ve never seen me say Gasol was great because of his numbers. You’ve also never seen me say he was a superstar or an elite player. I said not winning in the playoffs with teams that shouldn’t be any good isn’t saying much. And Love is also on the list of people on more talented teams doing less. We’re talking about James Posey as a playoff number 2. Getting 10ppg from your second. We aren’t talking Kevin Martin or even Peković.

Pau was leading teams that at a glance should win 25 games to 49-50. It is absolutely nothing to call out.

Think of a team that won 50 games in a conference like that west with help like James Posey and company.

I’m not saying you can’t…I’m saying he had less than the people we give passes for doing less than he did with more. 0-12 isn’t a negative. Making it at all is a positive.

I’ve seen you trash Love for not making the playoffs. Never heard you mention about his conference strength either. If you have to name drop petrovic and kevin martin you are just reinforcing my case at this point.

[FultzNationRISE]

Right on.

Also @FultzNationRise Can you stfu about Kobe please, you sound dumb as f.

This is what I mean. I know Kobe is a LOT of peoples favorite player. Im not trying to attack Kobe, ffs he was a good family man who died tragically, last thing I wanna do is shovel dirt on his name.

Im just trying to give my honest opinion about basketball in as level headed a manner as I can. If other people wanna see things a different way I dont mind. I remember there was a story a while back where some pundit critiqued Kobe on twitter, and a fan challenged him to a fight, the pundit suggested they meet up in Temecula (like two hours out of LA) and the angry fan actually showed up and took a picture of himself there and tweeted it to the pundit who of course only said it as a gag.

LAL could be that same guy. Kobe was very special to a lot of people. Im not trying to change that.

[LAL]

This is what I mean. I know Kobe is a LOT of peoples favorite player. Im not trying to attack Kobe, ffs he was a good family man who died tragically, last thing I wanna do is shovel dirt on his name.

Im just trying to give my honest opinion about basketball in as level headed a manner as I can. If other people wanna see things a different way I dont mind. I remember there was a story a while back where some pundit critiqued Kobe on twitter, and a fan challenged him to a fight, the pundit suggested they meet up in Temecula (like two hours out of LA) and the angry fan actually showed up and took a picture of himself there and tweeted it to the pundit who of course only said it as a gag.

LAL could be that same guy. Kobe was very special to a lot of people. Im not trying to change that.

**** off bro.

And damned right i would be that same guy, ****ing up any dumbass bronsexual would be satisfying, teach them a lesson or two.

[RRR3]

**** off bro.

And damned right i would be that same guy, ****ing up any dumbass bronsexual would be satisfying, teach them a lesson or two.
You tucked your tail between your legs and ran when FireDavidKahn challenged you to a fight

[Kblaze8855]

I’ve seen you trash Love for not making the playoffs. Never heard you mention about his conference strength either. If you have to name drop petrovic and kevin martin you are just reinforcing my case at this point.


Name drop? Are you not looking at the team in question? You’re talking about playoff success vs a title level team with a second option doing 10ppg. We are talking about a 50 win team that was Gasol and entirely role players. James Poseys 14/5 is the most production he got from a teammate from 2002 to 2007 while making multiple playoffs winning a lot of games. Pekovic for 4 straight years was more productive than anyone Gasol played with on his playoff teams. He never even had a Jalen Rose. I suspect Bargnani was more productive than anyone on Memphis other than Gasol from like 01 to that one Mike Miller scoring season that was in maybe 07 or early 08. For the record I’d take Shane Battier over some scorers but Pau just never had what we generally call good help.

And the point isn’t Love had a good team and Gasol didn’t. The fact is they both had teams that shouldn’t be much….but Gasol made his solid to good. His teams overachieved by quite a bit. When we say Kobe shouldn’t be able to do anything with Lamar or Lamar and Butler so those 3 years of nothing arent to be held against him(and for the record…they shouldn’t be) how are we then turning around saying Pau was a loser for winning more than Kobe at the time with James Posey?

Whatever you think of him without Kobe his playoff success shouldn’t decide it.

Nobody was or is saying he was an elite player league wide for leading those teams to gold records but many seem comfortable saying Love was dominant leading similar teams to worse ones.

Im not sure how you play a “But didn’t you say….” when you clown Pau for not winning. Wouldn’t your position need to be that they’re either all great or all losers? Not picking one who is a loser…and making it the one who did the most with the least.

Youve never seen me call Pau what many of you seem comfortable calling Bosh and Love. If I were saying he was a superstar and not them you might have a point. What’s happening is you acting like they were great and he was a loser for winning more than them on similar or worse teams.

The “He didn’t do anything” should either apply to all of them or none. I’ve never suggest Pau was some kinda elite player. I’ve said Bosh and Love weren’t. I said it then and now.

Cant pick one of them call a loser. Certainty can’t call Pau empty stats either. I don’t think anyone has even brought up his stats. I can’t even tell you what he averaged in Memphis but I definitely know the numbers some of you post every time about Love and Bosh.

The numbers thing has always been tied to them. Pau has never had a stats only based argument to call him empty stats over unless it’s one of those analytics idiots acting like he was better than Kobe.

I bet Pau did like 18/9 in Memphis. Of course he wouldn’t be called empty stats. That clearly isn’t where people would go to show his value.

[tpols]

Look at the shit storm you created with this thread kblaze.

You oughta be ashamed of yourself. :facepalm

[Kblaze8855]

Look at the shit storm you created with this thread kblaze.

You oughta be ashamed of yourself. :facepalm


I missed most of the non basketball part up there. My phone died walking around a mall I didn’t feel like being in.

[warriorfan]

Name drop? Are you not looking at the team in question? You’re talking about playoff success vs a title level team with a second option doing 10ppg. We are talking about a 50 win team that was Gasol and entirely role players. James Poseys 14/5 is the most production he got from a teammate from 2002 to 2007 while making multiple playoffs winning a lot of games. Pekovic for 4 straight years was more productive than anyone Gasol played with on his playoff teams. He never even had a Jalen Rose. I suspect Bargnani was more productive than anyone on Memphis other than Gasol from like 01 to that one Mike Miller scoring season that was in maybe 07 or early 08. For the record I’d take Shane Battier over some scorers but Pau just never had what we generally call good help.

And the point isn’t Love had a good team and Gasol didn’t. The fact is they both had teams that shouldn’t be much….but Gasol made his solid to good. His teams overachieved by quite a bit. When we say Kobe shouldn’t be able to do anything with Lamar or Lamar and Butler so those 3 years of nothing arent to be held against him(and for the record…they shouldn’t be) how are we then turning around saying Pau was a loser for winning more than Kobe at the time with James Posey?

Whatever you think of him without Kobe his playoff success shouldn’t decide it.

Nobody was or is saying he was an elite player league wide for leading those teams to gold records but many seem comfortable saying Love was dominant leading similar teams to worse ones.

Im not sure how you play a “But didn’t you say….” when you clown Pau for not winning. Wouldn’t your position need to be that they’re either all great or all losers? Not picking one who is a loser…and making it the one who did the most with the least.

Youve never seen me call Pau what many of you seem comfortable calling Bosh and Love. If I were saying he was a superstar and not them you might have a point. What’s happening is you acting like they were great and he was a loser for winning more than them on similar or worse teams.

The “He didn’t do anything” should either apply to all of them or none. I’ve never suggest Pau was some kinda elite player. I’ve said Bosh and Love weren’t. I said it then and now.

Cant pick one of them call a loser. Certainty can’t call Pau empty stats either. I don’t think anyone has even brought up his stats. I can’t even tell you what he averaged in Memphis but I definitely know the numbers some of you post every time about Love and Bosh.

The numbers thing has always been tied to them. Pau has never had a stats only based argument to call him empty stats over unless it’s one of those analytics idiots acting like he was better than Kobe.

I bet Pau did like 18/9 in Memphis. Of course he wouldn’t be called empty stats. That clearly isn’t where people would go to show his value.

It just feels like you are a lot more quick to examine all of the circumstances with Pau, when Kevin Love comes up you start glossing over all of it and lazily name dropping Kevin Martin and Petro like that is some sort of good core or something.

Just seems like your takes on the two aren’t using the same lense.

That’s just how I see it at least.

[Kblaze8855]

Am I talking about Gasol being a superstar? Am I saying his numbers mean he’s this or that?

You find my takes from the time I didn’t **** with Kevin Love much after ucla, didn’t **** with Bosh after maybe 2005, but was saying the Bulls needed to call off talks for Kobe and trade for Pau instead. My reasoning was…if Kobe costs your 4 best players you just have a bad team in the East. If Pau costs one good player and a pick you have a better team.

I’ve never thought any of them were megastars. But people only acted like two of them were and did so just off stats that don’t appear to have mattered and one was openly accused of stat padding by a teammate who said he’d cry if they won but he didn’t get his 20/10.

Of course they got more “What do these stats even matter?” talk.

Nobody ever talked up Paus stats to make it an issue to discuss. They should have all been left in the “Good but not superstar” bin of non elite but obviously good players but Bosh and love got dragged out into the light and made out to be more special than they were.

Pau just sat there with a bum ass squad and won more than they did only to get mocked for losing to teams with 3-4 hall of famers. He was talked about by basketball people.

Not in sports center stat stories. The others got a lot of talk for little getting done. Pau was virtually ignored. Ignored people don’t tend to get overrated.

He didn’t get that till idiots wanted to use him as a weapon against Kobe.

[Kblaze8855]

Anyway putting all that aside Id just like to say….I assume the guys traditionally considered “a bucket” of which Kobe is probably the best version of will be more and more rare on the nba level in time. I just don’t think it’s what teams are after nor do I think many will stand by and let young guys develop that way long enough to master it. I guess Luka has some of that thought melded with the 3 or layup approach. I guess we will find out. I just feel coaches are more likely to beat it outta the youth than they used to be.

[Reggie43]

You could get away with taking bad shots if you are a goat level talent like Kobe because he could impact the game in other ways but it is obviously better to take quality shots over the course of a game.

[Baller234]

Bro the average margin of victory in the NBA is like 4 points :lol

Increasing your teams ppg by 5 points because you got two better shots over the course of the game is literally the difference between the bad teams and good teams in the NBA.

Everyone in the NBA is a paid professional. Lesser teams get higher draft picks. It’s all geared toward parity.

A couple extra good shots per game makes a huge difference in team record by the end of an 82 game season or a post season.

But frankly, if you enjoy the NBA because of the hero narratives it produces, even if I dont think theyre based in reality… thats okay. :confusedshrug:

You see it however you prefer to see it and I’ll do the same. It’s all good.

If the average margin of victory is 4 points, those games tend to be decided in crunch time. Regardless of what happened the first 45 minutes of the game, when the game is close it boils down to which team executes last.

Which team do you want to be in crunch time? The team with Kobe or the team without Kobe? Who else would you rather have shooting clutch free throws?

Look at how valuable a guy like Jimmy Butler was during these recent playoffs, because when the chips are down the most valuable guy on the floor is the guy who could get you a bucket. Meanwhile Butler can't even sniff Kobe's jock.

[Lebron23]

Only stat dorks obsess over things like efficiency when comparing all time greats.

Results are all that matter.

That’s why you are a bench player in your league. Now get me some water and Gatorade you filthy son of a b1tch.

[Overdrive]

Â….being great at them will generally make you more reliable in situations where you canÂ’t assume a good shot will present itself. Often clutch situations.



https://youtu.be/idN7qkMYtmw?si=sAiug_4I8cZ20p0Z



SoÂ…. should we or should we not not encourage young players to play that way?

I remember a few years ago people blamed an off-season of Kobe tutelage for Tatum coming out taking a lot of bad shots and having an off year. I donÂ’t know how true it is, but I definitely read about it.

Obviously being great at it is of some benefit but to get greatÂ…you have to work up to it. That build up might be ugly.

Where do you stand?


Thats true, but a good shot from a competent shooter (which most players on the court are) is better than a bad shot from a superstar.

So even a 1 or 2% increase in conversion efficiency… like, theres no down side. You dont get style points in basketball. So theres really no excuse for playing sub optimal. Just brushing it aside because “it doesnt make THAT much difference” doesnt make sense to me because theres no compensatory benefit. Youre just… playing sub optimal ball for no other reason than potential highlights. And it WILL cost you a few games over time.

Which again, if thats what the sport and the league and the business is about, thats fine. I enjoy a big clutch outburst as much as the next guy. But saying hero ball doesnt affect the outcome over time simply isnt true IMO.

Of course what you say is factually true. If we take shots Kobe missed and give them to a player even shooting 10% it would raise the teams effictiveness as 1 in 10 shots would go in instead of zero.

But that's exactly the way 3ball forms his arguments, they're factually true, but still dishonest. Centerpoint of that argument is that Kobe took risky and stupid shots, while he could've created better situations, but you're arguing after the fact. You're only taking away the misses and not the makes. You'd have to include all those shots that weren't smart. Hit or miss.

So we'd need to lay out an criteria for what is considered a bad shot by Kobe and filter all his shots for that. Then we'd have to either take an average shooting % for his teammates and randomly distribute those shots to his teammates based on usage or actually assess the situations he took those shots, look at who was on the court at the time and who had which shot available and if they're less stupid shots.

Let's say Kobe gets doubled and takes a 16ft fader. His teammates on the court are Gasol, Odom, Vujacic and Fisher. The double comes off Vujacic.
Now is the chance for Vujacic hitting the shot actually higher than Kobe?

And that's only the direct outcome.
What if Kobe stops taking these shots? Will Vujacic get more tightly guarded in the future tanking his efficiency? So if Kobe distributes the ball to lesser players and they get guarded tighter his fader would again become more efficient than his worse teammate having to shoot over a defender.

The reality is that shotcreators have to find a balance. Giving up tough shots in general is as ineffective as taking them all the time. I agree that Kobe wasn't in perfect balance. He could've given up some shots he took, but the notion in general is overstated. People act like Ray Allen was some shooting god, while Kobe was a ballhog. They have the same fg% careerwise and Ray's ts% is just 3% higher whie being one of the most accomplished 3pt shooters ever.

[warriorfan]

Am I talking about Gasol being a superstar? Am I saying his numbers mean he’s this or that?

You find my takes from the time I didn’t **** with Kevin Love much after ucla, didn’t **** with Bosh after maybe 2005, but was saying the Bulls needed to call off talks for Kobe and trade for Pau instead. My reasoning was…if Kobe costs your 4 best players you just have a bad team in the East. If Pau costs one good player and a pick you have a better team.

I’ve never thought any of them were megastars. But people only acted like two of them were and did so just off stats that don’t appear to have mattered and one was openly accused of stat padding by a teammate who said he’d cry if they won but he didn’t get his 20/10.

Of course they got more “What do these stats even matter?” talk.

Nobody ever talked up Paus stats to make it an issue to discuss. They should have all been left in the “Good but not superstar” bin of non elite but obviously good players but Bosh and love got dragged out into the light and made out to be more special than they were.

Pau just sat there with a bum ass squad and won more than they did only to get mocked for losing to teams with 3-4 hall of famers. He was talked about by basketball people.

Not in sports center stat stories. The others got a lot of talk for little getting done. Pau was virtually ignored. Ignored people don’t tend to get overrated.

He didn’t get that till idiots wanted to use him as a weapon against Kobe.

For context what I was talking about was there was a time where I was touting Kevin Love’s accomplishments pre lebron and you threw shade because his teams never performed too well. And to be quite honest there isn’t much separating Pau and Love’s situations. They both had dogshit teams and didn’t make any noise in the playoffs but it wasn’t anything they were doing wrong necessarily. Their teams just sucked.

I agree that discrediting all play because the team wasn’t successful is wack. I’ve never thought that way. I was playing with the same rules that get kicked around here with Bosh and Love all the time.

Pau gets a pass for playing nice with not a lot of team success due to circumstance, interesting how Love and Bosh don’t get that same luxury.

[Overdrive]

For context what I was talking about was there was a time where I was touting Kevin Love’s accomplishments pre lebron and you threw shade because his teams never performed too well. And to be quite honest there isn’t much separating Pau and Love’s situations. They both had dogshit teams and didn’t make any noise in the playoffs but it wasn’t anything they were doing wrong necessarily. Their teams just sucked.

I agree that discrediting all play because the team wasn’t successful is wack. I’ve never thought that way. I was playing with the same rules that get kicked around here with Bosh and Love all the time.

Pau gets a pass for playing nice with not a lot of team success due to circumstance, interesting how Love and Bosh don’t get that same luxury.

They get the same luxury. Just depends if it's a Lebron or Kobe stan who makes the argument.

[Kblaze8855]

For context what I was talking about was there was a time where I was touting Kevin Love’s accomplishments pre lebron and you threw shade because his teams never performed too well. And to be quite honest there isn’t much separating Pau and Love’s situations. They both had dogshit teams and didn’t make any noise in the playoffs but it wasn’t anything they were doing wrong necessarily. Their teams just sucked.

I agree that discrediting all play because the team wasn’t successful is wack. I’ve never thought that way. I was playing with the same rules that get kicked around here with Bosh and Love all the time.

Pau gets a pass for playing nice with not a lot of team success due to circumstance, interesting how Love and Bosh don’t get that same luxury.


They’re obviously getting it from you and many others despite having worse teams with similar or better(depending on the season) talent while you have praised them as superstars and call Gasol weird names and say he’s a loser. I’ve not called any of them superstars or pulled out obviously flawed “advanced” stats be they per(your favorite to suggest Bosh was elite and apparently better than prime Kobe) or win shares(idiots way to suggest Pau led the lakers to the title). You never heard me say they weren’t all stars.

I said taking an obviously all time low on talent squad(how many good teams off the top of your head had worse than James Posey as a number 2 option) to multiple 49-50 win seasons doesn’t make you a loser because you run into legendary squads and teams that should have or did win titles.

Ive never put any of them where they don’t belong due to numbers. That’s been your side. You never heard me mention that Pau was once between Lebron and Nash in PER(tied with KG) or that he was second in the nba in win shares ahead of Kobe, Wade, Orlando Dwight, KD and so on.

That means nothing to me. I didn’t even know it till 2 minutes ago because I don’t care. That’s useless data to me. But if you were gonna give Gasol the credit you give Bosh and Love for obvious reasons you’d use it to conclude the lakers added an elite player in 08. But you don’t. You do exactly what you falsely claim I’m doing and change the standard to suit the argument.

I’ve never called any of the 3 elite over these useless numbers to begin with. They’re all the same tier. Depending on the year I’d go one way or the other on all of them.

Come tell me Pau is better than Kobe and prime Wade or that he’s Kareem because of some random number you’d find me on the other side of it. But you won’t. Pau simply never got that kinda overrating to argue against. At least not until he was used as a weapon against Kobe by trolls.

[warriorfan]

They’re obviously getting it from you and many others despite having worse teams with similar or better(depending on the season) talent while you have praised them as superstars and call Gasol weird names and say he’s a loser. I’ve not called any of them superstars or pulled out obviously flawed “advanced” stats be they per(your favorite to suggest Bosh was elite and apparently better than prime Kobe) or win shares(idiots way to suggest Pau led the lakers to the title). You never heard me say they weren’t all stars.

I said taking an obviously all time low on talent squad(how many good teams off the top of your head had worse than James Posey as a number 2 option) to multiple 49-50 win seasons doesn’t make you a loser because you run into legendary squads and teams that should have or did win titles.

Ive never put any of them where they don’t belong due to numbers. That’s been your side. You never heard me mention that Pau was once between Lebron and Nash in PER(tied with KG) or that he was second in the nba in win shares ahead of Kobe, Wade, Orlando Dwight, KD and so on.

That means nothing to me. I didn’t even know it till 2 minutes ago because I don’t care. That’s useless data to me. But if you were gonna give Gasol the credit you give Bosh and Love for obvious reasons you’d use it to conclude the lakers added an elite player in 08. But you don’t. You do exactly what you falsely claim I’m doing and change the standard to suit the argument.

I’ve never called any of the 3 elite over these useless numbers to begin with. They’re all the same tier. Depending on the year I’d go one way or the other on all of them.

Come tell me Pau is better than Kobe and prime Wade or that he’s Kareem because of some random number you’d find me on the other side of it. But you won’t. Pau simply never got that kinda overrating to argue against. At least not until he was used as a weapon against Kobe by trolls.

I’m not gonna search it up but you downplayed Kevin Loves insane statistics in minnesota. That’s all i’m saying. And yes I have used PER with Bosh because that’s one of LeBron dudes favorite stats. If you wanna use PER to prop bron then you gotta deal with it propping up his teammates. That’s just how it goes. Kevin Love would have made the playoffs and got swept if he was in the Eastern Conference. He finished with more wins than the Hawks who got in. All i’m saying is if you want to take Pau’s production for face value and downplay Love and Bosh it’s being disingenuous.

[Kblaze8855]

Disingenuous is you pretending you’ve seen me even post about Pau Gasol stats making him elite in the first place. I was never saying Pau is _____ because of these numbers. That was you with Bosh and love. I’m saying **** their numbers and **** his too when all are being used to compare them to superior players(be it Kobe or Wade or Kareem or whoever). It’s you changing from ignoring a lack of playoff success(or making it at all) to making it the entire basis of an argument against Pau who had better teams than either with help worse than almost anyone in history.

Ive been on the same “**** those numbers” kick for 20 years on here. I don’t post PER and winshares one day then act like they don’t matter the next because someone stupid did it so now I have to stand on the opposing argument with the same dumb logic for 10 years because I can’t admit my original point was mimicking a known troll and not my actual beliefs.

[warriorfan]

Disingenuous is you pretending you’ve ever seen me even post Pau Gasol stats in the first place. I was never saying Pau is _____ because of these numbers. That was you with Bosh and love. I’m saying **** their numbers and **** his too when all are being used to compare them to superior players(be it Kobe or Wade or Kareem or whoever). It’s you changing from ignoring a lack of playoff success(or making it at all) to making it the entire basis of an argument against Pau who had better teams than either with help worse than almost anyone in history.

Ive been on the same “**** those numbers” kick for 20 years on here. I don’t post PER and winshares one day then act like they don’t matter the next.

Ok well it seems like we are all on the same page then.

Pau, Love, Bosh were all very similar players

[1987_Lakers]

Ok well it seems like we are all on the same page then.

Pau, Love, Bosh were all very similar players

To some degree, yes. But I'm taking Pau over all of them.

[1987_Lakers]

gasol soft euro who did nothing without kobe, especially if you utilize the heavy on playoff criteria

bynum an all around terrible player who was literally out of the league post kobe

lamar odom the lazy guy who’s into drugs and eating candy

derek fisher who ****s other dudes wives and beefs

sasha?

luke walton?

shannon brown?

ariza was a nice role playing defender but yeah


To try to act like that team isn’t total dogshit without kobe is being completely disingenuous.

If LeBron had that team we wouldnt hear the end of the beating of the drum “he needs more help.”

What in the fvck is this shit? :oldlol:

[warriorfan]

What in the fvck is this shit? :oldlol:

Do you see LeBron doing anything with this cast? Or will it be “he needs more help” once again?

btw don’t even respond, go away. we don’t need more derailing by low iq’s we have had more than enough of that already

[1987_Lakers]

Do you see LeBron doing anything with this cast? Or will it be “he needs more help” once again?

btw don’t even respond, go away. we don’t need more derailing by low iq’s we have had more than enough of that already

Why even respond with "LeBron"? It's pretty obvious your insecurity about him has you taking low IQ takes by trying to shit on Kobe's cast.

For what it's worth, the Lakers were 6-3 without Kobe in 2010. Gasol was widely looked at as the best 2nd option in the league around that time, and even though Bynum was injured alot during that time, it's flat out retarded to say he was a "terrible player", many felt he was the 2nd best center in the league in 2012 behind Dwight. Hell, Odom was a 17/10/4 player before he got traded to the Lakers.

[warriorfan]

Why even respond with "LeBron"? It's pretty obvious your insecurity about him has you taking low IQ takes by trying to shit on Kobe's cast.

For what it's worth, the Lakers were 6-3 without Kobe in 2010. Gasol was widely looked at as the best 2nd option in the league around that time, and even though Bynum was injured alot during that time, it's flat out retarded to say he was a "terrible player", many felt he was the 2nd best center in the league in 2012 behind Dwight. Hell, Odom was a 17/10/4 player before he got traded to the Lakers.

bro you are transparent as **** if you don’t realize it, don’t be coy about why I mentioned lebron


you can leave now

[1987_Lakers]

bro you are transparent as **** if you don’t realize it, don’t be coy about why I mentioned lebron


you can leave now

You mentioned LeBron because it breaks your heart knowing he will always be looked at as a greater player than Curry after what happened in 2016.

You can leave now.

[Hey Yo]

I’m not gonna search it up but you downplayed Kevin Loves insane statistics in minnesota. That’s all i’m saying. And yes I have used PER with Bosh because that’s one of LeBron dudes favorite stats. If you wanna use PER to prop bron then you gotta deal with it propping up his teammates. That’s just how it goes. Kevin Love would have made the playoffs and got swept if he was in the Eastern Conference. He finished with more wins than the Hawks who got in. All i’m saying is if you want to take Pau’s production for face value and downplay Love and Bosh it’s being disingenuous.

You've referred to Bosh as a superstar many times, while also saying the EC was complete garbage at the time. Yet, your superstar could only win 3 playoff games over 7yrs in the so-called 'garbage conference'

[warriorfan]

You've referred to Bosh as a superstar many times, while also saying the EC was complete garbage at the time. Yet, your superstar could only win 3 playoff games over 7yrs in the so-called 'garbage conference'

peep his team hombre

you would be bawling your ****ing eyes out if bron was on any of those trash teams

[Hey Yo]

peep his team hombre

you would be bawling your ****ing eyes out if bron was on any of those trash teams

According to you, the entire conference was trash, which should have led to more postseason success for your superstar, no?

[warriorfan]

According to you, the entire conference was trash, which should have led to more postseason success for your superstar, no?

He needed more help

[RRR3]

Warriorfan getting brutally bullied as usual. Poor guy is gonna have another crack-fueled binge of sobbing for a week

[8Ball]

I don't think we should encourage young players to play that way. Just like we should not encourage young players to shoot like Curry/Trae.

It worked out for Kobe and Curry but we should encourage young players the exact opposite of that.

Sorry pops but one of them is a much better shooter than the other.

[8Ball]

….being great at them will generally make you more reliable in situations where you can’t assume a good shot will present itself. Often clutch situations.



https://youtu.be/idN7qkMYtmw?si=sAiug_4I8cZ20p0Z



So…. should we or should we not not encourage young players to play that way?

I remember a few years ago people blamed an off-season of Kobe tutelage for Tatum coming out taking a lot of bad shots and having an off year. I don’t know how true it is, but I definitely read about it.

Obviously being great at it is of some benefit but to get great…you have to work up to it. That build up might be ugly.

Where do you stand?


Which player in the league takes bad contested 2s like this?


I can't name one.


You can't run a modern offence with a large volume of bad mid range 2s from your leading scorer, you simply don't score enough points to make it worth while.

[RRR3]

Which player in the league takes bad contested 2s like this?


I can't name one.


You can't run a modern offence with a large volume of bad mid range 2s from your leading scorer, you simply don't score enough points to make it worth while.
DeRozan.

[8Ball]

DeRozan.

Derozan has better shot selection than Kobe did.

[ShawkFactory]

bro you are transparent as **** if you don’t realize it, don’t be coy about why I mentioned lebron


you can leave now

And you're unpredictable. Trashing Gasol while hyping Bosh and Love.

Hmmm.....

[Im Still Ballin]

The best available shot with the highest expected value should always be taken. The context and circumstance will dictate what that shot is. Plays will naturally break down, especially in the playoffs as increased physicality is allowed by the referees. Having someone who can salvage as many of these plays as possible is invaluable.

[Full Court]

The best available shot with the highest expected value should always be taken. The context and circumstance will dictate what that shot is. Plays will naturally break down, especially in the playoffs as increased physicality is allowed by the referees. Having someone who can salvage as many of these plays as possible is invaluable.

Agree. If I were coaching, I'd put a [figurative] boot up players' rear ends for taking tough shots if easier ones were available. It's about playing smart.

[Overdrive]

Agree. If I were coaching, I'd put a [figurative] boot up players' rear ends for taking tough shots if easier ones were available. It's about playing smart.

And yet you'll criticize Lebron for giving up a pull up 3 in order to pass to an open man.

[tpols]

Old Kobe did the same thing here in this short video.


https://youtu.be/m_SQop5DWw8?si=ZmkyAlROOHbSrva6


This is where I make the distinction between takeover scoring and in the flow scoring. Takeover is when you string together 3-5+ possessions in a row scoring or score like 20 in one quarter. In the flow is when you dip and dab like 5-8 points per quarter and only take the easiest opportunities.

It's like the difference between Durant and AD how you'll look at the box score after the game and see they scored 35 on 70TS but it didn't feel that dominant, where as when a guy like Kobe goes on a scoring binge its extremely noticeable because he does it all at once and you can feel the momentum shift in the game.

[Full Court]

And yet you'll criticize Lebron for giving up a pull up 3 in order to pass to an open man.

Incorrect. Either you mistake me for someone else, or you're assuming things that don't exist.

I have criticized Lebron numerous times on here, and been very consistent with it, for TAKING the clutch shots rather than passing when we all know he makes maybe 1 in 10 of them. How many times in just the last season did he put up the game tying or game winning shot and blow it? I lost count. There were TONS. I've also criticized his coaches for allowing it to happen over and over again. But I guess the name "LeShrivel" didn't just come out of nowhere.

[warriorfan]

Old Kobe did the same thing here in this short video.


https://youtu.be/m_SQop5DWw8?si=ZmkyAlROOHbSrva6


This is where I make the distinction between takeover scoring and in the flow scoring. Takeover is when you string together 3-5+ possessions in a row scoring or score like 20 in one quarter. In the flow is when you dip and dab like 5-8 points per quarter and only take the easiest opportunities.

It's like the difference between Durant and AD how you'll look at the box score after the game and see they scored 35 on 70TS but it didn't feel that dominant, where as when a guy like Kobe goes on a scoring binge its extremely noticeable because he does it all at once and you can feel the momentum shift in the game.

I was at a Warriors game well over 10 years when the Lakers were in town. Oakland was pretty bad and Kobe was somewhat coasting. Then he came back in and scored every possession for at least 4 or 5 in a row. Then sat down and was done.

[Axe]

And yet you'll criticize Lebron for giving up a pull up 3 in order to pass to an open man.
:oldlol:

Doesn't matter what lebron does on/off the court. That redneck jizzrag will always remain a gay casual who whines stupid, trivial stuff about him. Like how he allegedly 'trademarked taco tuesday'. :confusedshrug:

[Full Court]

:oldlol:

Doesn't matter what lebron does on/off the court. That redneck jizzrag will always remain a gay casual who whines stupid, trivial stuff about him. Like how he allegedly 'trademarked taco tuesday'. :confusedshrug:

Imagine being so obsessed with another man that you throw bitch fits every time someone criticizes him. :roll:

What an autistic loser.

[Axe]

Like i said, he always gets butthurt about the ugly truth most of the time. It's true he can never get lebron's dick out of his stupid mouth, after all. :sleeping

[HoopsNY]

I'd argue vigorously that the only reason Kobe isn't a consensus top 10 GOAT is because of his hero ball shot selection.

I wrote about this in a thread eviscerating 3ball, though it wasn't primarily about Kobe. It was about MJ and him taking 20+ FGA per game. I wish I had saved that thread because it had the relevant numbers in it, but this is something to really ponder upon....

RS Kobe '06-'12 <20 FGA: 148-43 (.775%)
RS Kobe '06-'12 >20 FGA: 202-141 (.589%)

PS Kobe '06-'12 <20 FGA: 22-10 (.688%)
PS Kobe '06-'12 >20 FGA: 37-32 (.532%)

I can't say this with complete certainty, but Kobe's shot selection seemed to have yielded significant differences.

[Full Court]

Like i said, he always gets butthurt about the ugly truth most of the time. It's true he can never get lebron's dick out of his stupid mouth, after all. :sleeping

Stinky biatch. :lol

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia1.tenor.com%2Fimages%2F8ddc1 2f8381184e8fe7311b3d9ebe4d0%2Ftenor.gif%3Fitemid%3 D5674628&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=7fe966681640fd7b70981aac9e7f6b44c8376b11f517c4 541255966b503082dd&ipo=images

[HoopsNY]

Odom and Bynum probably would've been out the league if it wasn't for Kobe. His work ethic clearly rubbed off on them. They totally gave up afterwards.

Pau was a legit All Star talent, really good player but cmon.... that's usually not enough to make a borderline dynasty with in the NBA. Much less so when all you guys said Kobe would never win anything without Shaq.

Meanwhile we have Lebron stans here propping Pau when he was a 19/10 guy while shitting on AD in the WCFs this year averaging 26/12 on better efficiency while being far better defensively.

Imagine AD on the Lakers instead of Pau. LOL. Some of yall would've had a field day propping him to spite Kobe.

This is true.

[Axe]

I wrote about this in a thread eviscerating 3ball, though it wasn't primarily about Kobe. It was about MJ and him taking 20+ FGA per game. I wish I had saved that thread because it had the relevant numbers in it, but this is something to really ponder upon....

RS Kobe '06-'12 <20 FGA: 148-43 (.775%)
RS Kobe '06-'12 >20 FGA: 202-141 (.589%)

PS Kobe '06-'12 <20 FGA: 22-10 (.688%)
PS Kobe '06-'12 >20 FGA: 37-32 (.532%)

I can't say this with complete certainty, but Kobe's shot selection seemed to have yielded significant differences.
Both of them are known to be ballhogs. The only difference is that kobe was more chaotic about it (thus more reckless and mistakes), esp. in his younger years. (https://i.ibb.co/g4tnXnv/IMG-20230626-052542.jpg)

[Im Still Ballin]

I wrote about this in a thread eviscerating 3ball, though it wasn't primarily about Kobe. It was about MJ and him taking 20+ FGA per game. I wish I had saved that thread because it had the relevant numbers in it, but this is something to really ponder upon....

RS Kobe '06-'12 <20 FGA: 148-43 (.775%)
RS Kobe '06-'12 >20 FGA: 202-141 (.589%)

PS Kobe '06-'12 <20 FGA: 22-10 (.688%)
PS Kobe '06-'12 >20 FGA: 37-32 (.532%)

I can't say this with complete certainty, but Kobe's shot selection seemed to have yielded significant differences.

Interesting numbers. Not sure what it means.

[dankok8]

I wrote about this in a thread eviscerating 3ball, though it wasn't primarily about Kobe. It was about MJ and him taking 20+ FGA per game. I wish I had saved that thread because it had the relevant numbers in it, but this is something to really ponder upon....

RS Kobe '06-'12 <20 FGA: 148-43 (.775%)
RS Kobe '06-'12 >20 FGA: 202-141 (.589%)

PS Kobe '06-'12 <20 FGA: 22-10 (.688%)
PS Kobe '06-'12 >20 FGA: 37-32 (.532%)

I can't say this with complete certainty, but Kobe's shot selection seemed to have yielded significant differences.

Well it could mean either a) Kobe shooting more made his team lose more games or b) when Kobe's teams were losing he shot more to try to win. There is correlation between him shooting less and a higher winning % but it doesn't show causation. For all we know he's playing fewer minutes in wins and thus shoots less.

[Overdrive]

Incorrect. Either you mistake me for someone else, or you're assuming things that don't exist.

I have criticized Lebron numerous times on here, and been very consistent with it, for TAKING the clutch shots rather than passing when we all know he makes maybe 1 in 10 of them. How many times in just the last season did he put up the game tying or game winning shot and blow it? I lost count. There were TONS. I've also criticized his coaches for allowing it to happen over and over again. But I guess the name "LeShrivel" didn't just come out of nowhere.

You act like we don't know that you're "straight_ballin".

[HoopsNY]

Both of them are known to be ballhogs. The only difference is that kobe was more chaotic about it (thus more reckless and mistakes), esp. in his younger years. (https://i.ibb.co/g4tnXnv/IMG-20230626-052542.jpg)

There's a reason I isolated 2006-12, as it coincides with his peak years (aside from '01), where he also didn't play with Shaq. Kobe's results are pretty glaring IMO.

[HoopsNY]

Well it could mean either a) Kobe shooting more made his team lose more games or b) when Kobe's teams were losing he shot more to try to win. There is correlation between him shooting less and a higher winning % but it doesn't show causation. For all we know he's playing fewer minutes in wins and thus shoots less.

I'd have to go deeper into the numbers, but I remember when we did this for MJ, I adjusted for those factors and the outcomes were still the same.

Intuition tells me this is no different with Kobe because winning basketball is dependent on a team and not an individual. And we have a clear example (though outside of the sample), of where Kobe's overshooting resulted in a finals loss (2004).

Maybe that's a bit of an exaggeration, as I doubt the Lakers win that series if Shaq had the majority of FGA, but I do think LA stood a much better chance. Interestingly enough, the Lakers were 14-10 without Kobe from 2006-2012. And from '08-'12 they were 11-6. Make of that what you will.

If I have time, i'll dissect the numbers a bit more.

PS*, I ran MJ's numbers again, and they're just completely staggering.

MJ '91-'93 >20 FGA: 119-53 (.693%)
MJ '91-'93 <20 FGA: 51-1 (.981%)

MJ '96-'98 >20 FGA: 132-36 (.786%)
MJ '96-'98 <20 FGA: 58-6 (.906%)

These are pretty astonishing.

[Baller234]

Stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats.


https://media.tenor.com/gn8Y9e3SAJwAAAAM/zach-galifianakis-math.gif



You guys are obsessed with stats. I'm not saying they don't have a time and place, but they're supposed to be an afterthought. They're cliff notes for people who haven't read the book. You're told the general plot but you don't absorb any of the context or nuance.

Kobe Bryant's "inefficient" style of play led to multiple finals appearances and multiple championships whether it was a supporting role or a lead role. So you can take the guy who's aiming for efficiency and I'll take the guy who's aiming to win.

[HoopsNY]

Stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats stats.


https://media.tenor.com/gn8Y9e3SAJwAAAAM/zach-galifianakis-math.gif



You guys are obsessed with stats. I'm not saying they don't have a time and place, but they're supposed to be an afterthought. They're cliff notes for people who haven't read the book. You're told the general plot but you don't absorb any of the context or nuance.

Kobe Bryant's "inefficient" style of play led to multiple finals appearances and multiple championships whether it was a supporting role or a lead role. So you can take the guy who's aiming for efficiency and I'll take the guy who's aiming to win.

It also led to them losing a finals in 2004. He stopped shooting in 2006, resulting in a game 7 loss (inexcusable in my opinion). Then in 2008 against Boston, he shot 9-26 (35%) in game 1. LA entered the 4th quarter down by just 4. Kobe shot 1-6 that quarter (17%).

In the game 4 loss, he shot 6-19 (32%). They lost that game by just 6 points.

We all watched Kobe for his entire career. And yea, he has 5 titles, but we can recall where his overshooting or bad shot selection proved detrimental to the team.

How about game 5 in 2007? 4th quarter of the deciding game, Lakers were down by what, 5? Kobe shoots 3-10 in the 4th.

The funny thing is that it's his peak years where Kobe developed this reputation. Yes he had a killer instinct and he did phenomenal things in his career, but everyone has blemishes and this is his. It doesn't mean he can't be considered top 10 or just outside the top 10. It's debatable.

[dankok8]

I'd have to go deeper into the numbers, but I remember when we did this for MJ, I adjusted for those factors and the outcomes were still the same.

Intuition tells me this is no different with Kobe because winning basketball is dependent on a team and not an individual. And we have a clear example (though outside of the sample), of where Kobe's overshooting resulted in a finals loss (2004).

Maybe that's a bit of an exaggeration, as I doubt the Lakers win that series if Shaq had the majority of FGA, but I do think LA stood a much better chance. Interestingly enough, the Lakers were 14-10 without Kobe from 2006-2012. And from '08-'12 they were 11-6. Make of that what you will.

If I have time, i'll dissect the numbers a bit more.

PS*, I ran MJ's numbers again, and they're just completely staggering.

MJ '91-'93 >20 FGA: 119-53 (.693%)
MJ '91-'93 <20 FGA: 51-1 (.981%)

MJ '96-'98 >20 FGA: 132-36 (.786%)
MJ '96-'98 <20 FGA: 58-6 (.906%)

These are pretty astonishing.

Correlation doesn't mean causation. And the direction of causation even if there is indeed causation is dubious. It could be that overshooting causes losses or it could be that losing makes certain stars take more shots to try and get the team the win. The 2004 Finals is obviously a bad series for Kobe though. Terrible...

As for the MJ data, I looked at 1991.

In the regular season, the team record was 19-1 when MJ took <20 FGA. A whopping 15 out of 19 wins were by double digits.

20 games with <20 FGA:
31.9 mpg
24.2 ppg
15.6 shots/game
0.49 shots/minute
62.3 %FG

62 games with >20 FGA:
38.6 mpg
33.8 ppg
24.6 shots/game
0.64 shots/minute
53.2 %FG

In the playoffs, the Bulls were 7-0 when MJ took <20 FGA. A whopping 6 out of 7 wins were by double digits.

7 playoff games with <20 FGA:
37.4 mpg
28.6 ppg
16.4 shots/game
0.44 shots/minute
59.1 %FG

10 playoff games with >20 FGA:
42.7 mpg
32.9 ppg
26.1 shots/game
0.61 shots/minute
49.6 %FG

But again correlation and causation are two different things. To me it's more likely that MJ shot more when the team was losing not that the team lost because he was shooting more. After all, he did score very efficiently.

[Baller234]

We all watched Kobe for his entire career. And yea, he has 5 titles, but we can recall where his overshooting or bad shot selection proved detrimental to the team.

How about game 5 in 2007? 4th quarter of the deciding game, Lakers were down by what, 5? Kobe shoots 3-10 in the 4th.

The funny thing is that it's his peak years where Kobe developed this reputation. Yes he had a killer instinct and he did phenomenal things in his career, but everyone has blemishes and this is his. It doesn't mean he can't be considered top 10 or just outside the top 10. It's debatable.

But I've seen people argue that Kobe isn't top 10 for these exact reasons, or that he doesn't belong in the discussion with (insert name here) because of these reasons.

I can't take anyone's basketball opinion seriously if they don't think Kobe is one of the ten best players to ever step foot onto a basketball court. It's pure brain rot, and no it's not debatable. I'm not talking about cultural relevance or historical impact, I'm talking pure value as a basketball player.

[tpols]

It also led to them losing a finals in 2004. He stopped shooting in 2006, resulting in a game 7 loss (inexcusable in my opinion). Then in 2008 against Boston, he shot 9-26 (35%) in game 1. LA entered the 4th quarter down by just 4. Kobe shot 1-6 that quarter (17%).

In the game 4 loss, he shot 6-19 (32%). They lost that game by just 6 points.

We all watched Kobe for his entire career. And yea, he has 5 titles, but we can recall where his overshooting or bad shot selection proved detrimental to the team.

How about game 5 in 2007? 4th quarter of the deciding game, Lakers were down by what, 5? Kobe shoots 3-10 in the 4th.

The funny thing is that it's his peak years where Kobe developed this reputation. Yes he had a killer instinct and he did phenomenal things in his career, but everyone has blemishes and this is his. It doesn't mean he can't be considered top 10 or just outside the top 10. It's debatable.

When it worked it worked, and when it didn't it didn't.

He had his ups and downs but tbh... his aggressiveness gave a ceiling that he'd never reach if he played timid. 2004 is worth it if 2001, 2009, and 2010 pay off. Most stars win nothing. Guy has 5 rings. His approach was obviously successful.

[Kblaze8855]

I can't take anyone's basketball opinion seriously if they don't think Kobe is one of the ten best players to ever step foot onto a basketball court. It's pure brain rot, and no it's not debatable.




Of course it is. Nothing concrete separates being number seven from being number 11 or hell number 16. Society being obsessed with the number 10 because it’s the first one arbitrarily decided to need two characters to represent doesnt doesn’t mean it’s any kind of real cut off.

something in our heads attracts us to the numbers 1, 3, 5, 10 and some multiples of 5 and 10 after that but that doesn’t mean they represent any real significant difference.

Being 9th as opposed to 11th doesn’t matter. It definitely isn’t a difference that makes it inarguable.

[Axe]

You act like we don't know that you're "straight_ballin".
:roll:

[Baller234]

Of course it is. Nothing concrete separates being number seven from being number 11 or hell number 16. Society being obsessed with the number 10 because it’s the first one arbitrarily decided to need two characters to represent doesnt doesn’t mean it’s any kind of real cut off.

something in our heads attracts us to the numbers 1, 3, 5, 10 and some multiples of 5 and 10 after that but that doesn’t mean they represent any real significant difference.

Being 9th as opposed to 11th doesn’t matter. It definitely isn’t a difference that makes it inarguable.

Dude, come on.

If we're talking the best player of all time after Air, at best there are a handful of guys in the discussion. Kobe is absolutely one of them.

It might be 3 guys, it might be 5... but it definitely isn't 10. I legitimately cannot not name 10 players who were better than Kobe, again speaking strictly in terms of value as a basketball player and not historical impact.

[HoopsNY]

Correlation doesn't mean causation. And the direction of causation even if there is indeed causation is dubious. It could be that overshooting causes losses or it could be that losing makes certain stars take more shots to try and get the team the win. The 2004 Finals is obviously a bad series for Kobe though. Terrible...

As for the MJ data, I looked at 1991.

In the regular season, the team record was 19-1 when MJ took <20 FGA. A whopping 15 out of 19 wins were by double digits.

20 games with <20 FGA:
31.9 mpg
24.2 ppg
15.6 shots/game
0.49 shots/minute
62.3 %FG

62 games with >20 FGA:
38.6 mpg
33.8 ppg
24.6 shots/game
0.64 shots/minute
53.2 %FG

In the playoffs, the Bulls were 7-0 when MJ took <20 FGA. A whopping 6 out of 7 wins were by double digits.

7 playoff games with <20 FGA:
37.4 mpg
28.6 ppg
16.4 shots/game
0.44 shots/minute
59.1 %FG

10 playoff games with >20 FGA:
42.7 mpg
32.9 ppg
26.1 shots/game
0.61 shots/minute
49.6 %FG

But again correlation and causation are two different things. To me it's more likely that MJ shot more when the team was losing not that the team lost because he was shooting more. After all, he did score very efficiently.

It depends how you look at it. I don't consider all double-digit wins to be blow outs. Chicago was 7-1 in games where he shot the ball less than 20 times and the team won by no more than 13 points. I consider 15 points to be a blow out.

There's only 2 of those games where Chicago won by more than 10 points. So that's a 5-1 record and if you include the +11 and +13 victories, then they're 7-1.

In 1992, Chicago was 10-0 when he took fewer than 20 FGA per game AND where they won by less than 15 points. Once again, the highest wins were +13. If we go by under 10 points or fewer, then Chicago is 6-0 in those games.

1993 has a much smaller sample. MJ only had 8 games where he attempted fewer than 20 FGA, but 3 of them were decided by less than 10 points. In fact, they were +4, +5, and +7, and Chicago won all 3 of those games. Otherwise, they were 8-0.

Let's go to 1996-98....

4 games where they won with such situations by less than 15 points, finishing 3-1. If we drop it to less than 10, then Chicago was 2-1.

1997 has 7 games with <15 pt victories. Chicago is 6-1 in those situations. If we isolate games decided by less than 10 pts, they're 2-1.

1998 they're 6-2 with <15 pt victories. Under 10 points and they're 4-2.

CHI '91-'96 w/<15 PTS: 44-5 (.897%)
CHI '91'96 w/<10 PTS: 22-5 (.814%)

All of these games had Chicago winning by no more than +13 PTS. And the majority were games decided by 10 or fewer points. I do have to admit that given the data stretches across 6 seasons, 47 total games by <15 PTS or 27 games by <10 PTS is not a very large sample. But I think it is enough to show that the team was still quite functional if he didn't shoot as much, to say the least.

[HoopsNY]

But I've seen people argue that Kobe isn't top 10 for these exact reasons, or that he doesn't belong in the discussion with (insert name here) because of these reasons.

I can't take anyone's basketball opinion seriously if they don't think Kobe is one of the ten best players to ever step foot onto a basketball court. It's pure brain rot, and no it's not debatable. I'm not talking about cultural relevance or historical impact, I'm talking pure value as a basketball player.

That's because such inefficiencies come at the most critical points of the season - the playoffs and finals. If you consider Kobe to be top 10, then I have no problem with that. I think the distance between guys from 6-10 or say, 6-13, is not very wide.

From 2006-12, Kobe shot 40.7% FG% with a 50.1% TS% in elimination playoff games. Make of that what you will, but I believe it is significant. As I mentioned in my earlier comment, Kobe's inefficiencies and shot selection really became glaring during his peak years.

They matter a lot more than his peers. Take D. Wade for example; from 2006-12, Wade shot 44.6% FG% with a 56.7% TS% in the same situations. But here's the real kicker...

Wade shot 32% from 3PT range on 4.8 attempts and 86% from the line during that stretch. Compare that to Kobe's 30% from the distance on 6.1 attempts and 78% from the line.

Wade is considerably better and it showed with the eye test. We just can't ignore these things because they lived in the game, not only the stat sheet.

[Full Court]

You act like we don't know that you're "straight_ballin".

Lol what? :roll:

Keep investigating, Sherlock.

[dankok8]

It depends how you look at it. I don't consider all double-digit wins to be blow outs. Chicago was 7-1 in games where he shot the ball less than 20 times and the team won by no more than 13 points. I consider 15 points to be a blow out.

There's only 2 of those games where Chicago won by more than 10 points. So that's a 5-1 record and if you include the +11 and +13 victories, then they're 7-1.

In 1992, Chicago was 10-0 when he took fewer than 20 FGA per game AND where they won by less than 15 points. Once again, the highest wins were +13. If we go by under 10 points or fewer, then Chicago is 6-0 in those games.

1993 has a much smaller sample. MJ only had 8 games where he attempted fewer than 20 FGA, but 3 of them were decided by less than 10 points. In fact, they were +4, +5, and +7, and Chicago won all 3 of those games. Otherwise, they were 8-0.

Let's go to 1996-98....

4 games where they won with such situations by less than 15 points, finishing 3-1. If we drop it to less than 10, then Chicago was 2-1.

1997 has 7 games with <15 pt victories. Chicago is 6-1 in those situations. If we isolate games decided by less than 10 pts, they're 2-1.

1998 they're 6-2 with <15 pt victories. Under 10 points and they're 4-2.

CHI '91-'96 w/<15 PTS: 44-5 (.897%)
CHI '91'96 w/<10 PTS: 22-5 (.814%)

All of these games had Chicago winning by no more than +13 PTS. And the majority were games decided by 10 or fewer points. I do have to admit that given the data stretches across 6 seasons, 47 total games by <15 PTS or 27 games by <10 PTS is not a very large sample. But I think it is enough to show that the team was still quite functional if he didn't shoot as much, to say the least.

Good post.

Sure but as you said, it depends how we look at it.

There is correlation between MJ shooting less and the team winning and that makes sense. We can see that even while MJ was around his peak from 1988-1993, as the Bulls got better, his shot attempts generally went down. This happens to most great teams. They rely less on one star as they become better. In 1993 the Bulls were worse than in previous title seasons as their depth in particular got compromised and MJ went up in volume again.

[HoopsNY]

Good post.

Sure but as you said, it depends how we look at it.

There is correlation between MJ shooting less and the team winning and that makes sense. We can see that even while MJ was around his peak from 1988-1993, as the Bulls got better, his shot attempts generally went down. This happens to most great teams. They rely less on one star as they become better. In 1993 the Bulls were worse than in previous title seasons as their depth in particular got compromised and MJ went up in volume again.

Well said.

[Axe]

Good post.

Sure but as you said, it depends how we look at it.

There is correlation between MJ shooting less and the team winning and that makes sense. We can see that even while MJ was around his peak from 1988-1993, as the Bulls got better, his shot attempts generally went down. This happens to most great teams. They rely less on one star as they become better. In 1993 the Bulls were worse than in previous title seasons as their depth in particular got compromised and MJ went up in volume again.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RqGDLV-do9c

[GimmeThat]

so the first shot taken is a Lebron shot, and the second shot taken is a Kobe/Jordan shot