Better at basketball, Jokić or Kobe?

[QUOTE=HoopsNY;15031800]Who classified Bird as being an average defender at his peak when that was when he was known for his help defense? I didn't watch him then (I was just born), and you're younger than me by like 7 years, so I'm curious to know how you arrived at that conclusion.

Bird got DPOY votes in '84 and finished All-Defensive 2nd Team. '84 was a peak year. You could argue he was in his peak in '83 also (2nd in MVP voting), and he was All-Defensive 2nd Team. Now, he was mostly a PF in those years, but defense is defense.

If you're gonna say Bird was average and Jokic is average, then you're saying they're the same.[/QUOTE]

That poster likes to make weird claims about players defense who has never watched them play or doesn’t have stats to back it up

He’s basically a guy who parrots dumb shit he reads on realgm and hears from ben taylor

[QUOTE=HoopsNY;15031800]Who classified Bird as being an average defender at his peak when that was when he was known for his help defense? I didn't watch him then (I was just born), and you're younger than me by like 7 years, so I'm curious to know how you arrived at that conclusion.

Bird got DPOY votes in '84 and finished All-Defensive 2nd Team. '84 was a peak year. You could argue he was in his peak in '83 also (2nd in MVP voting), and he was All-Defensive 2nd Team. Now, he was mostly a PF in those years, but defense is defense.

If you're gonna say Bird was average and Jokic is average, then you're saying they're the same.[/QUOTE]
Isn't Jokic known for his help defense as well? To top it off he's always near the top in the league at deflections, great defensive rebounder, & good position defender who is alert out there, he has the IQ Bird had that makes him an effective defender while both have physical limitations that stop them from being elite at that end. I would say peak Bird was the better defender, but it's not some crazy huge edge. Jokic does have a noticeable edge as an offensive player though.

[QUOTE=warriorfan;15031802]That poster likes to make weird claims about players defense who has never watched them play or doesn’t have stats to back it up

He’s basically a guy who parrots dumb shit he reads on realgm and hears from ben taylor[/QUOTE]

I've watched a shit ton of 80's games before Ben Taylor was even a thing. One thing about Boston is Ainge & DJ would rarely dunk, Parish ran like the wind on a fast break. Sichting never missed from mid-range. Ainge was kinda underrated as a combo guard, labeled a 2, but could be the main ball-handler if asked to.

You are still mad I called out your horrific Kobe game 7 take.

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;15031814]I've watched a shit ton of 80's games before Ben Taylor was even a thing. One thing about Boston is Ainge & DJ would rarely dunk, Parish ran like the wind on a fast break. Sichting never missed from mid-range. Ainge was kinda underrated as a combo guard, labeled a 2, but could be the main ball-handler if asked to.

You are still mad I called out your horrific Kobe game 7 take.[/QUOTE]

This is so rudimentary lmao

Tbh I didn’t see your response to my post about game 7 Kobe vs Boston and I’m not about to go look it up.

You are a low iq guy who couldn’t tell the difference between a basketball hoop and your asshole even if your life depended on it.

Legit have zero interest in your input.

[QUOTE=warriorfan;15031819]This is so rudimentary lmao

[B]Tbh I didn’t see your response to my post about game 7 Kobe vs Boston [/B]and I’m not about to go look it up.

You are a low iq guy who couldn’t tell the difference between a basketball hoop and your asshole even if your life depended on it.

Legit have zero interest in your input.[/QUOTE]

Sure you didn't. :lol

[QUOTE=warriorfan;15031819]Legit have zero interest in your input.[/QUOTE]

You were up at 3am posting about me. You seem interested. lol

Im going to wait for you to say you were up early to get a workout before work, but we all know you were tweaked out on meth.

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;15031813]Isn't Jokic known for his help defense as well? To top it off he's always near the top in the league at deflections, great defensive rebounder, & good position defender who is alert out there, he has the IQ Bird had that makes him an effective defender while both have physical limitations that stop them from being elite at that end. I would say peak Bird was the better defender, but it's not some crazy huge edge. Jokic does have a noticeable edge as an offensive player though.[/QUOTE]

This is what I was referring to before about recency bias. It's easy to make these claims while Jokic is in the midst of his peak. It should also be noted that he only finished top 3 in deflections this past season IIRC. I don't think it's fair to hinge the discussion on a subset of a category to determine Jokic's defensive acumen based on one season of play when he's ten years into his career.

I'd also take issue with deflections as a single primary statistic (one that is granular), because it's really an extension of steals. I'm sure if deflections existed before 2016 (and back in the 80s), Magic would have probably had a few seasons where he was top 3 or so. He won the steals title twice, but I don't think anyone considered him as being better or even on the same level as Bird defensively.

Bird led the league in DWS 4 times. Only 4 other players have done that in league history, and he secured 3 All-Defensive selections early on in his career. By the mid to late 80s, he was more of help defender but highly regarded from what I've read and heard from others.

That can easily span 8-9 seasons. It's hard for me to understand how one season for Jokic (assuming being an above average defender hinges on deflections) is a parallel.

[QUOTE=Tavr;15031710]And I'd counter argue saying the notion we just throwaway defense and only hone in on numbers...is even more comical. I mean, why watch or play the game? We can just punch-in numbers on a calculator lol. Nobody argued Kobe's defense "made up" for his shooting. What I'm challenging is your ridiculous claim that these games were "inarguably poor" while you simply regurgitate stats.

Kobe began his prime sometime during the middle of that 3-peat. You acknowledge that, ok fine, but still only posted his numbers from 2003 lol. You also removed Kobe's first 2 years off the bench, and then included non prime years like 1999 and 2000. Again no problem, but I was strictly talking about Kobe's prime.

You absolutely added additional criteria :lol Kobe had alright numbers in some of those, but you still made a point to talk about his team losing and getting crushed as favorites. You concluded that only like 2 games were 'good". Its disingenuous. Just say Kobe has a different standard than your favorite player, and stop beating around the bush.

I thought we were strictly debating individual performance. Now this dude is talking about LA "losing by 13" lol[/QUOTE]
Just to emphasize how ridiculous your point about his defense is, here's how many points the Lakers gave up each time they were eliminated

2003: 110
2004: 100
2006: 121
2007: 119
2008: 131
2011: 122
2012: 106

I'm sure Kobe's defense was making all the difference in the world in these games :lol

If you want to focus solely on his prime years, 2001-2012, his elimination game numbers are 25/6/3 on 51%TS, nearly identical if you include '99 & '00.

And I'm adding the outcome because Kobe was favored in most of these series ('03, '04, 08, '11) and his team got fvcking eviscerated, losses by 28, 36 & 39, and they were losing by 28 with 5 minutes to go in '04 before cutting that in half. In addition to playing terribly in these games, his team, as the series favorite, got absolutely destroyed. I think that's relevant.

So you double down on your absurd take and yet again in some odd, passive-aggressive manner...bring up team performance. Since when did individual defense equal a team's ENTIRE output? Are you under the impression its Kobe vs 5 other starters? :oldlol:

I mean think about your logic. You'd rather cling to LA losing by some arbitrary number than account for individual defense. In a topic debating singular performance. Weird hill to die on lol

[QUOTE=Tavr;15032042]So you double down on your absurd take and yet again in some odd, passive-aggressive manner...bring up team performance. Since when did individual defense equal a team's ENTIRE output? Are you under the impression its Kobe vs 5 other starters? :oldlol:

I mean think about your logic. You'd rather cling to LA losing by some arbitrary number than account for individual defense. In a topic debating singular performance. Weird hill to die on lol[/QUOTE]
Show me proof of this impactful defense Kobe was exhibiting in these games that offsets his often underwhelming-dismal offensive performance. I doubt you're going to find it in the games I listed where these teams scored an avalanche on the Lakers, you won't find it in '02 when Bibby was scoring at will in Game 7. You were the one making the claim Kobe's defense needed to be factored in, show me where it made an impact, is it just the Game 7 against Boston?

[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;15032050]Show me proof of this impactful defense Kobe was exhibiting in these games that offsets his often underwhelming-dismal offensive performance. I doubt you're going to find it in the games I listed where these teams scored an avalanche on the Lakers, you won't find it in '02 when Bibby was scoring at will in Game 7. You were the one making the claim Kobe's defense needed to be factored in, show me where it made an impact, is it just the Game 7 against Boston?[/QUOTE]

Post the full games. :confusedshrug: If they aren't free or available to stream then don't ask me for a ridiculous request.

Your claim is that Kobe's defense had no impact. Stick to that. I absolutely disagree with this notion, considering 1. the praise Kobe received from his peers ([URL="https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nba/rajon-rondo-on-how-kobe-bryant-outplayed-him-in-game-7-of-the-2010-nba-finals-he-affected-the-game-in-so-many-different-ways/ar-AA1rnAoJ"]Rajon Rondo's thoughts on Kobe's game 7[/URL]) and 2. his reputation for giving consistent effort on that end in big games

I'm still wondering why a good performance is negated because a players team was favored...or because they were "down by double digits and then lost by 7 points" lol. After you justify that then explain why half of LeBrons "great" elimination games are excluded :lol

Think that's pretty close to a tie and the poll reflects that.

Kobe's issues are not his skillset, his skillset and abilities are impeccable, probably one of the most skilled players ever. It was his mentality and lack of maturity with his game at times that could get him into trouble.

Jokic obviously has a great skill set though his athleticism is some what lacking and he simply can't be the 1 on 1 type of iso scoring threat that Kobe is due to a lack of speed/agility, but for his size he is still quite good in those areas. Passing ability is obviously off the charts.

[QUOTE=Soundwave;15032069]Think that's pretty close to a tie and the poll reflects that.

Kobe's issues are not his skillset, his skillset and abilities are impeccable, probably one of the most skilled players ever. It was his mentality and lack of maturity with his game at times that could get him into trouble.

Jokic obviously has a great skill set though his athleticism is some what lacking and he simply can't be the 1 on 1 type of iso scoring threat that Kobe is due to a lack of speed/agility, but for his size he is still quite good in those areas. Passing ability is obviously off the charts.[/QUOTE]

This is why Kobe's better though.

You said it, Kobe's only flaw was his ego. Yolk's flaws are physical and tangible. His flaw is mobility. He's a great scorer in the post but he can't break you down one on one from just anywhere on the court. When it's the final few minutes and the game slows down, his weaknesses really get exposed.

Yolk brings a lot to the table sure, but if you're building a team you could find someone else to run point. You could find someone else to score inside. You could find someone else to rebound. What Kobe brings to the table is just a lot harder to replace, and that's the ability to [B]close[/B].

[url]https://youtu.be/8wJUA9m82D8?si=mMtB0xI4e-nWk6h7[/url]




Poor bawler :lol

[QUOTE=Baller234;15032110]This is why Kobe's better though.

You said it, Kobe's only flaw was his ego. Yolk's flaws are physical and tangible. His flaw is mobility. He's a great scorer in the post but he can't break you down one on one from just anywhere on the court. When it's the final few minutes and the game slows down, his weaknesses really get exposed.

Yolk brings a lot to the table sure, but if you're building a team you could find someone else to [B]run point[/B]. You could find someone else to [B]score inside[/B]. You could find someone else to [B]rebound[/B]. What Kobe brings to the table is just a lot harder to replace, and that's the ability to [B]close[/B].[/QUOTE]

IMO, you place too much emphasis on the ability to close. You said it yourself above but Jokic can run point, score (inside AND out) and rebound - [B]all in one player[/B]. And ego, selfishness, lack of passing to teammates are very big pluses for Jokic and very big minuses for Kobe. Ok, so Jokic is slow - so were a lot of big men like Moses Malone (3 MVPs) and Shaq (not at the beginning).

[QUOTE=rmt;15032419]IMO, you place too much emphasis on the ability to close. You said it yourself above but Jokic can run point, score (inside AND out) and rebound - [B]all in one player[/B]. And ego, selfishness, lack of passing to teammates are very big pluses for Jokic and very big minuses for Kobe. Ok, so Jokic is slow - so were a lot of big men like Moses Malone (3 MVPs) and Shaq (not at the beginning).[/QUOTE]

Yolk is a versatile player yes, but what he brings to the table can be replaced. You might need a combination of players to do it, but it can be replaced. A team with a good point guard and a good big doesn't need Yolk. Not like you're missing anything on defense.

But very few players can truly close like Kobe. Very few players even wanna be that guy in the first place.

And yes Yolk and those guys were slow, which means you cannot just give them the ball anywhere on the court and let them go to work. They need the ball in their spot first. It's why Caruso was able to give Yolk fits. He kept him out of his spot.

Kobe doesn't have "spots". You could inbound the ball to Kobe and let him do the rest. Sure you could get that from other great scorers that can go for 25-40 in the playoffs... but with Kobe you're getting 35-50. Plus you're getting a suicidal competitor on top of that. A guy that hustles on defense and leads by example.

[QUOTE=Baller234;15032429]Yolk is a versatile player yes, but what he brings to the table can be replaced. You might need a combination of players to do it, but it can be replaced. A team with a good point guard and a good big doesn't need Yolk. Not like you're missing anything on defense.

But very few players can truly close like Kobe. Very few players even wanna be that guy in the first place.

And yes Yolk and those guys were slow, which means you cannot just give them the ball anywhere on the court and let them go to work. They need the ball in their spot first. It's why Caruso was able to give Yolk fits. He kept him out of his spot.

Kobe doesn't have "spots". You could inbound the ball to Kobe and let him do the rest. Sure you could get that from other great scorers that can go for 25-40 in the playoffs... but with Kobe you're getting 35-50. Plus you're getting a suicidal competitor on top of that. A guy that hustles on defense and leads by example.[/QUOTE]
Nice fanfiction. In reality Jokic scores better than Kobe in the playoffs.

Kobe's definitely made some incredible shots in crunchtime. The degree of difficulty, over double teams etc. Just a really good TOUGH shot maker. I'll say this though... I think his reputation in crunchtime does get overblown, especially in the playoffs. There were players during his prime that were equally and statistically better in the clutch. Wade, Dirk and some years contrary to narratives, LeBron.

If the criteria for clutch shot making is 5 minutes left and down/up 5 or tied...yes, there are players who were equally as clutch. If the criteria is less than 24 seconds to tie or take the lead, same thing.

People can say both are talented. Joker is more versatile and involves his teammates to his plays, can probably even play as a sf if needed. That's why he stands out, esp. for someone his size. Otoh, kobe leans on being traditional, was obsessed in making shots and is like a mediocre jordan who used to be so selfish more or less.

[QUOTE=Baller234;15030899]But sure, they're just retarded stans.[/QUOTE]
[Url=https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRPZqPRPHIF2xVI5uiUFQ7DcZyo3SNqMMQAlw&usqp=CAU][img]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/image.php?u=827668&dateline=1624237688[/img][/url]

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.

GOAT.

[video=youtube_share;hCH-owsrC-A]https://youtu.be/hCH-owsrC-A?si=Zl9L7yZ2fimdC8rg[/video]

A lot of yall just dont know who Kobe was.

Kobes winning the poll.

:oldlol:

You guys need to make some alts.

Kobe stans are notorious for having alts.

I felt like it didn't make sense to lump in seasons where these guys were clearly not yet in/past their prime, I was curious what their numbers would look like if you focused solely on that

Kobe 2001-2010: 29/6/5 on 55%TS

T-Mac 2001-2007: 30/7/6 on 53%TS

Iverson 1999-2006: 31/4/6 on 49%TS

Allen 2000-2007: 25/5/5 on 60%TS

Vince 2000-2007: 26/7/5 on 52%TS

Wade 2005-2011: 27/6/6 on 58%TS

I left out Spree as he just had no business being in the discussion, Manu just didn't have the volume, and most of LeBron's took place after Kobe's prime anyway. The most notable thing is how undeserved McGrady's playoff rep is when despite never getting out of the first round, he was usually ballin.

[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;15032772]I felt like it didn't make sense to lump in seasons where these guys were clearly not yet in/past their prime, I was curious what their numbers would look like if you focused solely on that

Kobe 2001-2010: 29/6/5 on 55%TS

T-Mac 2001-2007: 30/7/6 on 53%TS

Iverson 1999-2006: 31/4/6 on 49%TS

Allen 2000-2007: 25/5/5 on 60%TS

Vince 2000-2007: 26/7/5 on 52%TS

Wade 2005-2011: 27/6/6 on 58%TS

I left out Spree as he just had no business being in the discussion, Manu just didn't have the volume, and most of LeBron's took place after Kobe's prime anyway. The most notable thing is how undeserved McGrady's playoff rep is when despite never getting out of the first round, he was usually ballin.[/QUOTE]

Tmac has become underrated. 20 something years ago Tmac vs Kobe was a real discussion, and if you actually use 3ball's criteria which is 'max defensive attention' with minimal offensive help Tmac exemplified it and still delivered solid performances. He had Dirk in cuffs during the houston mavs series and the only reason Dirk was even able to get his shooting percentage past 30 that series was feasting on Ryan Bowen and Scott Padgett. McGrady looked all defensive first team when he wanted to.

[QUOTE=j3lademaster;15032776]Tmac has become underrated. 20 something years ago Tmac vs Kobe was a real discussion, and if you actually use 3ball's criteria which is 'max defensive attention' with minimal offensive help Tmac exemplified it and still delivered solid performances. He had Dirk in cuffs during the houston mavs series and the only reason Dirk was even able to get his shooting percentage past 30 that series was feasting on Ryan Bowen and Scott Padgett. McGrady looked all defensive first team when he wanted to.[/QUOTE]
I feel like between roster construction/injury, T-Mac was arguably the unluckiest player of all time. He was trapped on legitimately the worst rosters I've ever seen in Orlando, then in Houston injuries started to affect his game while Yao constantly missed time.

If Doc doesn't tell Duncan his family can't fly on the team plane, they would've been battling Shaq & Kobe in some epic Finals.

[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;15032782]I feel like between roster construction/injury, T-Mac was arguably the unluckiest player of all time. He was trapped on legitimately the worst rosters I've ever seen in Orlando, then in Houston injuries started to affect his game while Yao constantly missed time.

[B]If Doc doesn't tell Duncan his family can't fly on the team plane, they would've been battling Shaq & Kobe in some epic Finals.[/B][/QUOTE]That's always been one of the weirdest stories for me. I get Doc was trying to assert his authority, but it's Tim Duncan who is one of the least problematic stars ever. And the Spurs, an incredibly well run organization with a coach who famously holds his own stars accountable is letting Duncan do it with no problems, why not Orlando?

[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;15032772]I felt like it didn't make sense to lump in seasons where these guys were clearly not yet in/past their prime, I was curious what their numbers would look like if you focused solely on that

Kobe 2001-2010: 29/6/5 on 55%TS

T-Mac 2001-2007: 30/7/6 on 53%TS

Iverson 1999-2006: 31/4/6 on 49%TS

Allen 2000-2007: 25/5/5 on 60%TS

Vince 2000-2007: 26/7/5 on 52%TS

Wade 2005-2011: 27/6/6 on 58%TS

I left out Spree as he just had no business being in the discussion, Manu just didn't have the volume, and most of LeBron's took place after Kobe's prime anyway. The most notable thing is how undeserved McGrady's playoff rep is when despite never getting out of the first round, he was usually ballin.[/QUOTE]

I was intentional to use 2000-10 as a spread because it aligned with Kobe's prime and quite frankly, just about everyone else's. Secondly, I didn't use those years for every single player. For example, TMac's last postseason that was meaningful was 2008.

Manu didn't need to have the volume. The point was that his efficiency wasn't leaps and bounds above Kobe's.

You could adjust for Ray Allen's but I wouldn't stop at 2007. I think 2008-10 are still included in his prime despite production falling, but that was due to being on a superteam. Even if you use 2000-07 for his PS, then he's at 58% TS%.

And I specifically focused on the postseason because that's what ultimately matters. Kobe's efficiency was in some cases better, but mostly on par with the elite players of his time.

Either way, the efficiency numbers are blown out of proportion. How many series were lost during that decade that we can truly pin on Kobe for his overshooting and poor efficiency? Maybe 1?

Lastly, I didn't use other statistics like rebounds or assists because that wasn't the point of my comment. I started by discussing efficiency because he's consistently targeted for it and I think he has become underrated in this forum, which I think is unfair.

[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;15032772]I felt like it didn't make sense to lump in seasons where these guys were clearly not yet in/past their prime, I was curious what their numbers would look like if you focused solely on that

Kobe 2001-2010: 29/6/5 on 55%TS

T-Mac 2001-2007: 30/7/6 on 53%TS

Iverson 1999-2006: 31/4/6 on 49%TS

Allen 2000-2007: 25/5/5 on 60%TS

Vince 2000-2007: 26/7/5 on 52%TS

Wade 2005-2011: 27/6/6 on 58%TS

I left out Spree as he just had no business being in the discussion, Manu just didn't have the volume, and most of LeBron's took place after Kobe's prime anyway. The most notable thing is how undeserved McGrady's playoff rep is when despite never getting out of the first round, he was usually ballin.[/QUOTE]

Forgot to mention, I added guards like Spree just to show a pattern. Here's some other guards/wings:

PS Melo '05-'10: 26 PPG on 53% TS%

PS Payton '00-'03: 23 PPG on 48% TS%

PS Peja '01-'07: 19 PPG on 54% TS%

PS Hamilton '03-'09: 21 PPG on 52% TS%

I avoided posting splits because they'd just show more of the same and it's actually a lot worse for these guys. Kobe's supposed shooting woes are overblown.

Here are the NBA's TS% in the playoffs between 2000-2010:

2000: 51.7%
2001: 51.1%
2002: 51.4%
2003: 52.5%
2004: 50.0%
2005: 53.4%
2006: 54.7%
2007: 53.0%
2008: 53.2%
2009: 54.4%
2010: 54.3%

It seems that the league hovered somewhere around 52-53% during this time, which is about a rTS of +3.5 or so when it comes to Kobe.

Looking at the Jokic's, his TS% 61% whereas the league hovered around 56-57% in the playoffs...his rTS would be around +4.5 let's say. It's higher than Kobe's, but I think Jokic benefits from a lot more close range shots 10 ft and under, which skews the data a little. Given all considerations, I think the gap isn't as wide as I had originally believed.

This isn't to say that Kobe is on the same level offensively as Jokic. He isn't. But I think it helps to clarify the inefficiency argument at least, which I think is overused far too often to not just criticize Kobe, but to make him appear as if he was some net negative overall.

I personally don't think this is close.

Jokic has been enjoying one of the best peaks EVER. He is at the same table as early 90s Jordan, mid 80s Bird, early 00's Shaq and a couple others.

Kobe is not at this table. His peak has never been seen through that extent - goat level.

[QUOTE=HoopsNY;15032921]Here are the NBA's TS% in the playoffs between 2000-2010:

2000: 51.7%
2001: 51.1%
2002: 51.4%
2003: 52.5%
2004: 50.0%
2005: 53.4%
2006: 54.7%
2007: 53.0%
2008: 53.2%
2009: 54.4%
2010: 54.3%

It seems that the league hovered somewhere around 52-53% during this time, which is about a rTS of +3.5 or so when it comes to Kobe.

Looking at the Jokic's, his TS% 61% whereas the league hovered around 56-57% in the playoffs...his rTS would be around +4.5 let's say. It's higher than Kobe's, but I think Jokic benefits from a lot more close range shots 10 ft and under, which skews the data a little. Given all considerations, I think the gap isn't as wide as I had originally believed.

[B]This isn't to say that Kobe is on the same level offensively as Jokic. He isn't.[/B] But I think it helps to clarify the inefficiency argument at least, which I think is overused far too often to not just criticize Kobe, but to make him appear as if he was some net negative overall.[/QUOTE]

I appreciate you putting in the time and the work and doing the research. I think it's obvious at this point that the efficiency dorks are lost in the sauce.

But in regard to the bolded and what defines the best offensive player:

The best offensive player, to me, is the one who can [B]instantly[/B] create offense. It's what gave OKC the edge over every other team. Jalen Williams is good but he's not THAT good. It's not like having him as your 2nd best player means your all but GUARANTEED to win a championship. OKC had the edge in the playoffs because at the end of the day they had a bucket getter who couldn't be stopped.

As you can see I have a lot of respect for SGA's game. I think he gets away with a lot of carries, but his finesse and his skill is undeniable. He's as talented as anyone that has ever played the position. Top 10 for sure. Maybe even Top 7-8, but definitely Top 10. There's no question he has a legitimate claim for being the best offensive player in basketball right now.

And yet having said all that, as much as I respect his game, Kobe was even better. More natural. More aggressive.

SGA is definitely not as talented as anyone to ever play his position.

He is a SKILLFUL player with very good length for his position with decent athletic ability.

Lebron.... Shaq..... Jordan....


These guys are goat talent level. SGA belongs nowhere near them.

[QUOTE=Carbine;15033072]SGA is definitely not as talented as anyone to ever play his position.

He is a SKILLFUL player with very good length for his position with decent athletic ability.

Lebron.... Shaq..... Jordan....


These guys are goat talent level. SGA belongs nowhere near them.[/QUOTE]

Lol no, I meant he is as talented as any SG ever.

[QUOTE=Carbine;15033063]I personally don't think this is close.

Jokic has been enjoying one of the best peaks EVER. He is at the same table as early 90s Jordan, mid 80s Bird, early 00's Shaq and a couple others.

Kobe is not at this table. His peak has never been seen through that extent - goat level.[/QUOTE]

Offensively? I agree. Jokic's ability to dish the roc puts him at a level above Kobe. This can't be denied. That being said, I think Kobe's defensive ability more than makes up for it. I also think Kobe's playmaking ability is severely underrated.

In the first 3 peat, Kobe was the primary playmaker, regardless of what assists say. He was also the team's closer despite playing alongside peak Shaq.

But my going through the analysis on efficiency wasn't for me to prove that Kobe > Jokic offensively. I truly don't believe that he is. What I wanted to highlight is that people on this forum have an obsession with Kobe's efficiency whereas they're not accounting for a myriad of factors.

We can't ignore the era he played in and the fact that he was either better or on the same level relative to his peers — guys who were at the same position or similar, and played in pinnacle of the best era in the 75+ years of the NBA that was also an era that saw the highest levels of defensive intensity, particularly on the perimeter. When you couple that with the fact that he did this entirely in the Western Conference, it just makes it all the more impressive.

His rTS in the playoffs during this stretch is also impressive. I showed how he managed to post such numbers even though he consistently faced elite defensive schemes. Guys who were compared to him, like T-Mac, weren't doing it against the same levels of defensive competition. When you add in the fact that he did that against teams who [I]also[/I] had great offenses, it just adds to the mix.

These points are almost [I]always[/I] left out of the conversation. And it's also impressive that he did what he did despite consistent injuries. Kobe laid it all out on the court. Whether it was the ankle, shoulder, shooting hand, hips, knees, etc, Kobe still managed to do what he did.

So who has amassed such a resume, on both ends of the court, while playing hurt half of the time — 5 championships, 7 finals appearances, and being a finals threat nearly every year? A handful of guys fit this mix, but none did it in the best era while also being in the best conference; not Bird, Magic, Kareem, Hakeem, LeBron, or even Jordan. The only one who did this is probably Duncan.

Kobe isn't above any of these guys, but he's in the conversation, and his naysayers won't admit that much...cause ya know....eFfiCiEnCy!

[QUOTE=Baller234;15033068]I appreciate you putting in the time and the work and doing the research. I think it's obvious at this point that the efficiency dorks are lost in the sauce.

But in regard to the bolded and what defines the best offensive player:

The best offensive player, to me, is the one who can [B]instantly[/B] create offense. It's what gave OKC the edge over every other team. Jalen Williams is good but he's not THAT good. It's not like having him as your 2nd best player means your all but GUARANTEED to win a championship. OKC had the edge in the playoffs because at the end of the day they had a bucket getter who couldn't be stopped.

As you can see I have a lot of respect for SGA's game. I think he gets away with a lot of carries, but his finesse and his skill is undeniable. He's as talented as anyone that has ever played the position. Top 10 for sure. Maybe even Top 7-8, but definitely Top 10. There's no question he has a legitimate claim for being the best offensive player in basketball right now.

And yet having said all that, as much as I respect his game, Kobe was even better. More natural. More aggressive.[/QUOTE]

Thank you. Just wanna be clear, I don't agree with you, lol. Not saying your analysis doesn't have merit. I do think what Jokic is doing is ridiculous. And it's simply a step above what Kobe did. I just wanted to stick it to the haters. :lol

[QUOTE=Baller234;15033073]Lol no, I meant he is as talented as any SG ever.[/QUOTE]

He absolutely 100 percent is not as talented as Jordan.

TMac, Clyde, etc are all level or levels above SGA in terms of raw physical talent. A lot of people are.

SGA is as good as he is because of his skills and IQ.

[QUOTE=Carbine;15033063]I personally don't think this is close.

Jokic has been enjoying one of the best peaks EVER. He is at the same table as early 90s Jordan, mid 80s Bird, early 00's Shaq and a couple others.

Kobe is not at this table. His peak has never been seen through that extent - goat level.[/QUOTE]

One last point....if peak Kobe is in this era...then he's dominating, probably putting up 30-35 a night on better efficiency. The spacing would give him more open looks on the perimeter and the clear path to the basket would just be NBA Live entertainment.

Give him a big who produces similar to Murray and we're likely talking about multiple championships. If Tatum is putting up numbers like 30/9/6 in some seasons, what's Kobe doing? And I think we can all agree Kobe is a better scorer, defender, and passer than Tatum is.

If Jokic is in Kobe's era, drop the spacing, drop the 3 point attempts, slow the game down....yea, he'll dominate, but we're not seeing triple double numbers at all. We're seeing Dirk like numbers with more assists. Couple him with a guard akin to Gasol production and it's also good for a chip, but can he produce 10+ years with the same level of success as Kobe? Maybe. I'm just not convinced......[I]yet.[/I]

[QUOTE=Carbine;15033084]He absolutely 100 percent is not as talented as Jordan.

TMac, Clyde, etc are all level or levels above SGA in terms of raw physical talent. A lot of people are.

SGA is as good as he is because of his skills and IQ.[/QUOTE]

Uh, my guy. I didn't say best, I said top 10. Obviously I don't think he's more talented than MJ.

You are smoking glass if you don't think he's more talented than Clyde though. Jordan was leaps more talented than Clyde and every great SG that came after him modeled their game after him. SGA is an offshoot of an offshoot of MJ. Clyde is old software.

[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]


People are obsessed with doing these either disingenuous or ignorant box score comparisons across vastly different eras. Check league average in Kobe years, check league average efficiency. To try to write off Kobe is trying to write off an entire era of basketball. They are low key trying to give the 2000’s the 1960’s treatment. Everyone in the NBA sucked back then, that is their spin.

Sengun took a dump on Jokic just the other day:oldlol: