Better at basketball, Jokić or Kobe?

[QUOTE=brownmamba00;15033273]Sengun took a dump on Jokic just the other day:oldlol:[/QUOTE]

I’ve seen Michael Finley shit on Jordan before. What does that prove?

[QUOTE=j3lademaster;15033279]I’ve seen Michael Finley shit on Jordan before. What does that prove?[/QUOTE]

Jokic is a lame that rides horses in the summer don't you dare compare him to the black Bruce Wayne.

Well it took a month but I'm glad common sense finally put Kobe over Jokic

Its funny. We're just supposed to take Jokic's numbers at face value. Even though the guys he's being compared to...played in a league where league-wide DRTG was like 10 points lower. Damn all context and gimme da stats! :lol

[QUOTE=Tavr;15033343]Its funny. We're just supposed to take Jokic's numbers at face value. Even though the guys he's being compared to...played in a league where league-wide DRTG was like 10 points lower. Damn all context and gimme da stats! :lol[/QUOTE]
Impact stats adjust for that.











Dim :(

[QUOTE=RRR3;15033366]Impact stats adjust for that.











Dim :([/QUOTE]

Which impact stats take defense into account...across multiple years :confusedshrug:

Are you ok?

[QUOTE=Tavr;15033382]Which impact stats take defense into account...across multiple years :confusedshrug:

Are you ok?[/QUOTE]
They all take defense into account? All the big ones like RAPM, LEBRON, and EPM at least.

[QUOTE=RRR3;15033385]They all take defense into account? All the big ones like RAPM, LEBRON, and EPM at least.[/QUOTE]

Obviously they take defense into account. I'm talking about across eras, hence Kobe vs Joker. We don't have data that contextualizes Joker's impact with 2000 defensive stats. And the 2000s is arguably the best defensive era of all time.

Bringing up "RAPM" is cool for a 3-5 year sample, and within that time frame. But just using it to compare players from different eras isn't smart. Whoever told you otherwise did you a big disservice lol

[QUOTE=Tavr;15033343]Its funny. We're just supposed to take Jokic's numbers at face value. Even though the guys he's being compared to...played in a league where league-wide DRTG was like 10 points lower. Damn all context and gimme da stats! :lol[/QUOTE]

Forget the made up stats even, they obsess over a few percentage points.

"My favorite player's RXPMZK is 58%, yours is 52%. Clearly my guy is better..."

Op is a turd

[QUOTE=Baller234;15033430]Forget the made up stats even, they obsess over a few percentage points.

"My favorite player's RXPMZK is 58%, yours is 52%. Clearly my guy is better..."[/QUOTE]
We’re all biased, some more than others, so there needs to have some kind of objective measure in a debate. The eye test is only so reliable when people only see what they want to see(like Jokić not being able to take and hit big shots), plus there are so many games played you need data to get the full picture. I mean, Lebron has 40k points and 11k assists not even counting playoffs; how do we account for all of them, or even a majority? At some point we have to pull up the shot charts and shooting percentages, especially if we want a fair discussion. Stats matter, that’s why you want Sam Presti, Brad Steven’s scouting talent for your front office and not Jordan, Isiah and Magic.

[QUOTE=brownmamba00;15033300]Jokic is a lame that rides horses in the summer don't you dare compare him to the black Bruce Wayne.[/QUOTE]

I didn’t compare them, just pointing out the flaw in that logic. MJ > Jokic, and Sengun > Finley. MJ should have no business ever being outplayed by a Michael Finley tier player… going by your logic ofc.

[QUOTE=Baller234;15033430]Forget the made up stats even, they obsess over a few percentage points.

"My favorite player's RXPMZK is 58%, yours is 52%. Clearly my guy is better..."[/QUOTE]

True, but let me preface this by saying I'm not anti stats. Numbers definitely matter its just I think people need to use them more responsibly. I mean damn...at least [I]attempt[/I] to talk basketball :lol

Regarding who's better between the two? Its fairly close imo. I'd probably take Jokic because of his impact on offense (gets cleaner looks because of his height and is a tremendous passer). I'm not mad at anyone picking Kobe though.

I guess the nbs should just delete their entire archive of games and consolidate them into an excel spreadsheet

[QUOTE=warriorfan;15033496]I guess the nbs should just delete their entire archive of games and consolidate them into an excel spreadsheet[/QUOTE]

:yaohappy:

Stat nerds are simply the laziest individuals to ever walk the earth

Instead of playing the game for thousands of hours and watching thousands of hours of play, they think they can shortcut all of that by comparing two numbers and seeing which one is higher than the other

lol.

[QUOTE=Tavr;15033387]Obviously they take defense into account. I'm talking about across eras, hence Kobe vs Joker. We don't have data that contextualizes Joker's impact with 2000 defensive stats. And the 2000s is arguably the best defensive era of all time.

Bringing up "RAPM" is cool for a 3-5 year sample, and within that time frame. But just using it to compare players from different eras isn't smart. Whoever told you otherwise did you a big disservice lol[/QUOTE]
So you just don’t compare players from different eras at all?

[QUOTE=RRR3;15033558]So you just don’t compare players from different eras at all?[/QUOTE]

it’s better than not educating yourself and taking random numbers and thinking you know it all

[QUOTE=RRR3;15033558]So you just don’t compare players from different eras at all?[/QUOTE]

When I compare players from separate eras, I'm using film and breaking the game down way before I get into numbers. You should already be cognizant of that for the reasons I mentioned... Defense being one of the biggest.

[QUOTE=HoopsNY;15032754]Kobe is becoming underrated on this board and elsewhere. People are bringing up inefficiencies way too much and not considering the gauntlet that he typically had to run through, or the fact that he played a considerable amount of his prime in the height of the defensive era.

Furthermore, his overall offensive efficiency wasn't some anomaly given the time period.

[B]PS Kobe '00-'10: 28 PPG on 45/34/82 splits (56% TS%)[/B]

PS TMac '00-'08: 29 PPG on 43/30/77 splits (52% TS%)

PS Iverson '00-08: 30 PPG on 40/33/77 splits (52% TS%)

PS Sprewell '00-'04: 20 PPG on 42/36/78 splits (50% TS%)

PS Allen '00-'10: 19 PPG on 44/40/90 splits (58% TS%)

PS Vince '00-'10: 23 PPG on 41/31/79 splits (51% TS%)

PS LeBron '06-'10: 29 PPG on 46/32/74 splits (56% TS%)

PS Manu '03-'10: 16 PPG on 44/38/83 splits (58% TS%)

PS Wade '04-'10: 26 PPG on 48/35/79 splits (57% TS%)


What are we really arguing here? Clearly during Kobe's prime, his efficiency was relative to his peers. And I'd argue that it was usually on the tougher road, given he played the entire time in the Western Conference. T-Mac, for example, faced one top 5 defense (Detroit) in that entire spread. Kobe faced two top 5 defenses just in 2000 alone. And that doesn't even account for the mix of offense that those teams brought to the table.

I'm biased, but I believe the 2000s was the greatest era we ever saw. It brought all the elements of historical basketball all into one, with the highest level of guard play we had ever seen. Kobe likely stands on top of that hill, and that means a lot.[/QUOTE]

Made a mistake here, it should be 55% for Kobe, and not 56%. I also looked up some other elite guys and here's what I found.

PS Duncan '01-'10: 55% TS%

PS Garnett '00-'10: 53% TS%

PS Shaq '00-'06: 56% TS%

What's telling is how similar Kobe's performances were to his peers. In some cases better. I'm actually surprised Shaq's TS% was similar. LeBron's sat at 56% also. Duncan is also surprising to me. His is roughly the same as Kobe's. And these are big men who were regularly taking higher percentage shots.

I'm beginning to think that Kobe wasn't inefficient at all. I watched his whole career. The conversations I recall having was his overshooting, and not necessarily inefficiency. Iverson was always the inefficient one IIRC.

[QUOTE=j3lademaster;15033480][B]We’re all biased, some more than others, so there needs to have some kind of objective measure in a debate. The eye test is only so reliable when people only see what they want to see[/B](like Jokić not being able to take and hit big shots), plus there are so many games played you need data to get the full picture. I mean, Lebron has 40k points and 11k assists not even counting playoffs; how do we account for all of them, or even a majority? At some point we have to pull up the shot charts and shooting percentages, especially if we want a fair discussion. Stats matter, that’s why you want Sam Presti, Brad Steven’s scouting talent for your front office and not Jordan, Isiah and Magic.[/QUOTE]

Uh.. the objective measure is results and accomplishments. How good and how dominant they were relative to their competition. How instrumental were they when it came to actually winning. Great this guy is more "efficient"... and? That is your grand thesis? He's efficient therefore he's better? Sorry but you don't play for efficiency, you play to win.

Kobe was a key ingredient in FIVE championships. He was either a 1a or a 1b, which means NONE of those teams win without him. The years he was 1a, he did NOT have a stacked team. Of all the teams I've seen win a championship in my lifetime, those Laker teams rank NOWHERE NEAR the top.

So for the sake of just being nice, I will even leave out the Shaq rings. They definitely, ABSOLUTELY count but let's put them aside just for fun. That means Kobe as a 1a went to the finals three straight years and won TWICE, and they beat a REALLY GOOD Celtics team.

Yolk has to win AT LEAST one more to really make the conversation interesting. He has to show he can win under MULTIPLE sets of conditions.

You need open heart surgery. You have two choices:

- 5x best surgeon award winner.
- 1x best surgeon award winner.

Who do you want performing your surgery.