Kobe: the only top 10 player never top 2 in PER or WS

[Javat_90]

Umm, you're kidding right?

I should have said respectable portion of his prime, instead of career.

[chazzy]

Better peak PER than Bird, Duncan, Hakeem, Magic, Russell..

[Insiderbball]

i remember KG5mvp posted about this earlier

[OldSchoolBBall]

Id have to say it is. Those particular numbers are totally without value to me. I doubt I rank Kobe as high as most here....but these absurd formulas have nothing to do with it. If I wont hold it against Bill Russell or Magic I wont hold it against Kobe. I dont factor it in when the issue is Michael Redd vs Deron Williams nor do I care Drob is like 3rd all time and Kobe is ahead of Larry Bird(not like Larry has his late career dragging him down either...his final seasons PER is higher than his first two seasons).

Its information I will read about and...consider I guess. But if I didnt need it to know who the best was 5 years ago I dont see why I need it now.

I'm not saying one NEEDS it, I'm saying that when every other top 10 player shows evidence for their greatness by way of stats and ONE player doesn't, it is counterintuitive to try and act like stats simply hate that ONE player. The more logical answer is that that ONE player was never as good (at least peak vs. peak) as the other players, especially the players in that list who DOMINATED by every metric.

Better peak PER than Bird, Duncan, Hakeem, Magic, Russell..

Yeah, in a season where every perimeter player and their mother had career years. And he still was only good enough to finish third in PER anyway. If he's so great, why can't he distinguish himself from his peers, much less from all-time greats like those listed earlier?

[Disaprine]

Reggie Miller - 174.40 win shares
Tim Duncan - 169.97 win shares
Bill Russell - 163.51 win shares

[Carbine]

If you concede that the stat is flawed, why bother using it?

[OldSchoolBBall]

Reggie Miller - 174.40 win shares
Bill Russell - 163.51 win shares

Keep ignoring the obvious, Kobe fans. Keep on truckin'. Again, WS is based on one's TANGIBLE (i.e., statistical) contribution to team wins; Russell was a INTANGIBLES and DEFENSIVE player. Kobe is not. Kobe is EXACTLY the type of player which PER/WS overvalue, yet despite this, he doesn't rate. Sad.

[Doranku]

I'm not saying one NEEDS it, I'm saying that when every other top 10 player shows evidence for their greatness by way of stats and ONE player doesn't, it is counterintuitive to try and act like stats simply hate that ONE player. The more logical answer is that that ONE player was never as good (at least peak vs. peak) as the other players, especially the players in that list who DOMINATED by every metric.



Yeah, in a season where every perimeter player and their mother had career years. And he still was only good enough to finish third in PER anyway. If he's so great, why can't he distinguish himself from his peers, much less from all-time greats like those listed earlier?

So Kobe's 30/6/6 playoff averages over the last three years (over 60 games) isn't a stat that proves his greatness?

How about his 29/7/6 run in '01 where he led Shaq in win shares? Or his dominating stat lines in various WCFs?

Like others have mentioned, Kobe has a higher peak PER than half of the top 10 players. Why don't you point out these stats?

Oh, because they don't fit your agenda. Typical ISH.

[guy]

Dont get me wrong, Kobe has been very lucky in playing with the teammates he played with.

But look at the players on that list, except Hakeem and Jordan, all of them have had pretty good teams almost every year of their careers, or even prime.

Maybe im wrong, but I cant recall prime Shaq, Wilt, Russell, Magic or Bird playing for average teams like Kobe did from 05-07. He was wasting what were arguably his best years playing for sub-par teams.

Same problem Jordan had in the 80s, and same problem Lebron has had in Cleveland.

That has to affect statistic somehow, dont you think?

Kobe has played with bad teammates 3 out of 15 seasons. He's had great enough teammates to contend for about 80% of his career. He's had 12 seasons where his team could contend, which is the same amount as Magic and Bird. Jordan on the other hand played 7 out of 15 seasons on bad teams and Lebron played his first 6-7 seasons on bad teams. And 05 was one of his worst years anyway. I don't think he was that much better in 06 and 07 as he was in 02, 03, 08, and 09.

[DMAVS41]

Reggie Miller - 174.40 win shares
Tim Duncan - 169.97 win shares
Bill Russell - 163.51 win shares

Another person trying to poke holes in a stat that doesn't even understand how they are figured.

Reggie Miller is higher because he played more years.

Dude, if you are going to post like that, learn about the stat first.

A much better stat because of longevity issues:

Win shares per 48

duncan .216
russell .193







miller .176

ROFL. Good effort though.

reggie miller needed 5 more seasons than russell to get his number. LOL....please respond.

[chazzy]

Yeah, in a season where every perimeter player and their mother had career years.

Ah, so NOW we're using context I see. Still the fact remains. Better peak PER than 4 of the top 10

Manu has a better WS/48 than Duncan since 04

[Mr. I'm So Rad]

Agreed that his shot selection affects all his numbers.



KAJ, Wilt, and Jordan spent just as many years as Kobe on average/poor teams (Kobe only spent 3 years on bad teams, '05-'07) yet had no trouble leading the league in WS etc. No excuse.



Then people should acknowledge the bolded and stop spouting nonsense.

WHO ON THIS BOARD THAT IS NOT A TROLL SAYS THAT KOBE > JORDAN!!!

Seriously you guys keep bringing this shit up saying that Kobe stans need to accept the truth except that no poster here, at least ones that aren't trolling say that Kobe > Jordan. We all know Jordan is the GOAT

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Just speaks highly of his ability to lead unlikely champions to championships time and time again. Kobe is David in the David and Goliath story and he his coming to knock down Goliath for the 6th time without two HOF teammates or two all stars unlike everybody else in the top 10.

[Kblaze8855]

Odd thing about that is...Russell has far better numbers than Reggie.

18/3/3 and a steal vs 15/23/4? I dont even see how not having Russells blocks and steals would make up that vast difference. Added to that...Reggie has TOs dragging his down but Russell doesnt. Is shooting percentage and FT percentage THAT major in these numbers?

What kind of math is done to conclude 15/23/4 isnt better than 18/3/3 if it ISNT just the percentages?

The steals and shooting percentages must weigh in heavily.

[OldSchoolBBall]

So Kobe's 30/6/6 playoff averages over the last three years (over 60 games) isn't a stat that proves his greatness?

Anyone can chuck/ballhog their way to numbers. PER/WS measure efficiency and overall statistical contribution to team success. Again, no one denies that Kobe is a top 10 player - he's just not as good as many/most of the rest of the top 10 if we're talking prime vs. prime - especially not the guys on that list who clearly dominated by every metric. When people stop acting like HE IS as good as or better than those guys, I'll shut up.

How about his 29/7/6 run in '01 where he led Shaq in win shares? Or his dominating stat lines in various WCFs?

He led in WS in a PLAYOFFS (not for a full season), and it was by .1, which is miniscule (and was largely because Kobe played 1.1 more mpg than Shaq). Meanwhile, Shaq led in PER that postseason by like 4, a much more significant difference.

Like others have mentioned, Kobe has a higher peak PER than half of the top 10 players. Why don't you point out these stats?

Oh, because they don't fit your agenda. Typical ISH.

Kobe had ONE season with a peak PER of 28.0, and he finished THIRD that season in PER. Sorry, but I and every other reasonable person look at how a player performs relative to their peers. Two players outperformed Kobe by way of PER in 2006, so he wasn't even the best that season. But he's supposedly better than guys like MJ/KAJ/Shaq/Wilt? Sorry, but no. And it's that last point that I'm arguing against, and which was the impetus for this thread.