Last October I posted Kobe Myths, a column that compared the regular season performances of Kobe Bryant, Paul Pierce, and Michael Jordan. This column presented evidence – and this should not be a surprise – that Kobe is nowhere near as productive as MJ. In addition – and this might be a surprise – Kobe and Paul Pierce are fairly similar in terms of overall productivity (with Pierce having the slight edge).
As I noted on Sunday, it is time to update this story with an examination of the NBA playoffs. Specifically, is Kobe “like Mike” in the NBA’s second season?
Before we get to that question, let me repeat one of my favorite stories from The Wages of Wins. Erick Eschker and I wrote a short article for the Journal of Economic Issues (published in 2005). This article specifically examined whether or not players could systematically play better in the playoffs. As we detail in Chapter Eight of The Wages of Wins, Eschker and I were unable to find players who “stepped it up” in the post-season. In fact, on average NBA players see their Win Score per 48 minutes [WS48 - not to be confused with WP48] decline by 1.26.
Now 1.26 is the average decline. What if we look specifically at Kobe, Pierce, and MJ? That examination is posted in Tables One and Two.
Tables One and Two: Comparing Kobe, Pierce, and MJ in the Playoffs
Table One compares the average performance of each player -across a host of statistics – in both the regular season and playoffs. When we look at Kobe, we see that except for turnovers and blocked shots, Kobe declines in every statistical category in the playoffs. And his overall WS48 decline surpasses the 1.26 drop-off we generally see in NBA players. In sum, Kobe is not a prime-time player. In the post-season, he tends to decline quite a bit.
What about Pierce? Pierce actually hits the boards better in the playoffs, which somewhat offsets his decline in shooting efficiency. “Somewhat offsets” is the key phrase. Overall, we still see a decline in WS48, it’s just not as big a drop-off as we tend to see.
The last player reported in Table One is Jordan. When we look at Jordan’s post-season performances we see how silly it is to compare Kobe (or Pierce) to MJ. Jordan was truly an amazing player in the playoffs. Of course, what is even more amazing is what MJ did in the regular season. Yes, as detailed in The Wages of Wins, even MJ tended to get worse in the playoffs (although he still offered much more than Kobe or Pierce).
In Table Two (beneath Table One above), we see each player’s performance from year-to-year. Kobe has now been to the playoffs eleven times. Nine of these trips saw his productivity – in terms of WS48 – decline.
Like Kobe, Pierce and MJ also were only better in the post-season twice. Pierce, though, has only been to the playoffs five times. So his batting average -relative to Kobe and MJ – is quite good. Interestingly, Pierce’s playoff performance this year – when he was named Finals MVP — was substantially worse than his corresponding regular season productivity.
Okay, what do all these numbers tell us?
- Kobe is not “like Mike”. We can clearly see this when we look at what each player did in the regular season and playoffs.
- Kobe and Pierce offer similar levels of productivity in the regular season.
- In the playoffs, Pierce has been much better than Kobe in his career.
- Although Pierce offers more than Kobe in the playoffs, Pierce — like Kobe — is still not “like Mike”.
One should note that one reason Pierce offers more is that he has spent more time at small forward. Again, small forwards tend to do more rebounding than shooting guards, so it’s not surprising to see small forwards post higher Win Scores. Even when we adjust for position played, though, Pierce still comes out ahead of Kobe.
Let me close by noting that this doesn’t make Pierce the “best” player in the game today (a label often given to Kobe). In fact, Pierce is not even the best player on his own team. As mentioned many times, Kevin Garnett has been the best player in the NBA for a number of years. And although Chris Paul surpassed KG in 2007-08, Garnett still offers much more than either “The Truth” or Kobe.
- DJ
The WoW Journal Comments Policy
Our research on the NBA was summarized HERE.
The Technical Notes at wagesofwins.com provides substantially more information on the published research behind Wins Produced and Win Score
Wins Produced, Win Score, and PAWSmin are also discussed in the following posts:
Simple Models of Player Performance
What Wins Produced Says and What It Does Not Say
Introducing PAWSmin — and a Defense of Box Score Statistics
Finally, A Guide to Evaluating Models contains useful hints on how to interpret and evaluate statistical models.
42 responses so far ↓
Kobe Myths - ” Playoff Edition | GOT FANATICS! // June 23, 2008 at 3:10 pm
[...] Last October I posted Kobe Myths , a column that compared the regular season performances of Kobe Bryant, Paul Pierce, and Michael Jordan.http://dberri.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/kob… [...]
portena // June 23, 2008 at 3:55 pm
I agree, it is silly to compare Kobe to MJ using winscore.
Huey // June 23, 2008 at 4:12 pm
I’m just going to pre-empt the comment flood and just say what they’re all going to say:
That’s ridiculous; this doesn’t pass the laugh test.
Kobe is the best player EVAR.
You can say whatever you want with stats.
Basketball stats don’t take into account interaction effects.
You overweigh rebounding.
You’re a Kobe hater.
All the GMs would pick Kobe over Pierce — this is proof that Kobe is better.
Just watch Kobe, it should be obvious how good he is.
Pierce is not as clutch as Kobe.
Am I missing any other “arguments?”
HV // June 23, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Right, we get it, Kobe isn’t as good as MJ. He also isn’t as good as Pierce, Ginobili, KG, Chris Paul, or my nephew who plays second grade basketball…
Like it or not, you do come across as having a slanted anti-Kobe agenda. Not in the fact that your analysis shows him as coming up short against other stellar NBA players. That, of course, is based on strict statistical analysis with a tested method, and cannot be disputed. Your analysis is sound, dispels a commonly-held notion, and may very well be true. No one’s disagreeing with that.
However, the veracity with which you have continually attacked “the Kobe myth” is pretty ridiculous- I can think of at least 3 (and those are articles that easily come to mind) features you have written on how Kobe is not a great NBA player (and that’s not to mention the countless other negative references made towards Kobe when discussing Chris Paul, KG, etc.- thinly veiled attempts to put down Bryant whenever possible).
You are one step above normal journalists in the sense that you at least use factual analysis to push your agenda. But, let it be said that you have belabored a point so endlessly that readers simply HAVE to begin to suspect where the motivation for that comes from. Are you using your advanced statistical analysis to uncover various truths in the vast game of basketball and in the process educate aficionados of the game on its many facets, or are you merely using the facts to reinforce your previously-held opinion and push the same point over and over again to your readers?
Make the decision.
portena // June 23, 2008 at 4:52 pm
You can’t argue with win score or wins produced at a Wages of Win website.
It’s like going to a Christian website and arguing that sexual preference is a human right.
“Homosexuality is bad! It’s not productive! It says so in the Bible!”
“Kobe Bryant is overrated! He’s not productive! His win score proves it!”
Frederic // June 23, 2008 at 4:54 pm
“Man – have you ever watched a single basketball game?”
But that might already be covered by your quotes no1 and 8, Huey.
I love it when this blog is linked!
NickP // June 23, 2008 at 6:12 pm
portena: You do understand the entire point of, first, his book and, now, this blog is to highlight instances when the public perception (be it the media or the conventional wisdom of fans) is far from reality, right? The degree to which Kobe is held up as the “best” is one of those instances. He could talk about all the times that the public is right on subjects (rarely), but what fun would that be?
Jeremy // June 23, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Huey,
your arguement is simply ignorant. Kobe is “more clutch” that Pierce?? Certainly not this month, and certainly not anytime they go head to head. I think we all saw what happened when the two of them Matched up.
He’s not a Kobe hater, you are a Kobe lover just like everyone else, blinded by the scoring. Dudes not the best player on the planet, in the NBA, or anywhere besides being the best player in Lower Merion High School History.
Your simple arguement just shows the total ignoramity of what typical fans see. KOBE IS THE BEST BLA BLA BLA. Dude if you believe that than why are you even on this site? This site speaks THE TRUTH.
Kid.
stephanie // June 23, 2008 at 10:42 pm
According to WoW, who’s the most productive player in NBA history?
Huey // June 23, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Jeremy, I hope you understood I was being sarcastic — I can’t tell if you are or not…
Dustin // June 23, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Win score is hardly the only statistical measure that doesn’t rate Kobe as the best player ever, or even in the league right now.
Dustin // June 23, 2008 at 11:01 pm
stephanie-
Some of the insane seasons from players like Wilt can only have their win score estimated because the box score did not include some statistics, such as blocks and turnovers (I think).
Also your question is vague, do you want the player with the most productive season or most productive career? Do you want most wins produced or highest wp48?
Jon // June 24, 2008 at 4:13 am
“However, the veracity with which you have continually attacked “the Kobe myth” is pretty ridiculous”
I think perhaps the word you were searching for was voracity. Or perhaps ferocity? “Veracity” means truth, and though I agree with you 100% that Prof. Berri attacks the Kobe myth with veracity, I fail to see how that could be considered a bad thing.
Christopher // June 24, 2008 at 7:59 am
“According to WoW, who’s the most productive player in NBA history?”
I believe Magic Johnson.
Christopher // June 24, 2008 at 8:07 am
A comment: I know one of the main things about sports is the passion it instills in folks. That’s where we are here… In terms of the “Kobe debate” tho this all seems really skewed. Kobe is an excellent player, so is Pierce, so is Garnett. FWIW, Bryant is on record saying he does not like or want to be compared to Jordan. Anyway, in the Finals the better team won. That is all. Why are so many somehow up in arms? The Celtics hd better players. Not even the Gasol trade factors here as Gasol was a de facto replacement for Bynum. The Celtics were one on the 2 teams in the Leastern Conference that actually do not deserve the Leastern moniker (DET is the other). And even so, any fictive adjustment for weakness of conference was likely matched by home court advantage. So, the better team won, the top players on each team are pretty good (not sure how you reach the finals without a decent core anyway), and the earth still revolves around the sun…
Celtics247.com » Blog Archive » Today’s Links 6/24 // June 24, 2008 at 8:39 am
[...] 20 years NY Times Rebound Rates Sports of Boston Celtics: Season in review Wages of Wins Journals Kobe myths – Playoffs edition Courtside View To the winners go the [...]
Tim // June 24, 2008 at 8:51 am
I love this website — I think D Berri writes incredibly insightful material on basketball — a must read for every GM in the NBA… Win Score & all the other statistics calculated on this site are absolutely great.
however…
Pierce 2007-2008
Regular 7.08
Playoffs 10.35
Kobe 2007-08
Regular 10.57
Playoffs 12.03
How can you write an article inspired by the 2007/2008 season and fail to note that Kobe surpassed Pierce’s WS numbers both in the regular season and the playoffs? Furthermore — Kobe’s WS numbers from this year are substantially similar to Jordan’s WS throughout the Bulls’ second three-peat.
mrparker // June 24, 2008 at 9:33 am
Tim,
I think you switched the playoff numbers and regular season numbers. Kobe had a 10.57 ws48 for the postseason which doesn’t compare to any of Jordan’s numbers pre 94.
Jeremy // June 24, 2008 at 9:35 am
Huey…I figured you were joking. But any chance to shoot down the KOBE I do it.
mrparker // June 24, 2008 at 9:38 am
RE career and season wp48;
I’m gonna guess that Karl Malone had the most productive career. He played at a high level for about 20 seasons and there aren’t any boxscores to support winscore calculation before the late 70s.
As far as seasons I’m gonna guess that Shaq in 99-00 had the most dominant regular season ever by wp48, followed closely Jordan in 87-88 and again in 95-96, and Kareem in 77-78.
I just ran a quick look over some numbers and I don’t really have to time to calculate every ws48 ever.
RAM // June 24, 2008 at 10:12 am
mrparker-
The significance of Tim’s post, in my opinion, is that it specifically compares the 08 Kobe playoffs WS48 to the post-94 Jordan playoffs WS48. The advantage of this is that it carves out some middle ground between the anti-Kobe pro-Kobe camps. If we can compare Kobe’s 08WS48 of 10.57 to Jordan’s post-94 title-run WS48s of 9.63, 10.75, & 8.59 (when, by general consensus, he was still “Jordanesque”), then perhaps we can slow down & breathe a little.
Tim // June 24, 2008 at 10:37 am
mrparker — Thanks for the correction, the flipped season/playoff number were a typo, which may have made the post unclear. As RAM noted though, the comparisons made in the accompanying text in my post are correct.
ilikeflowers // June 24, 2008 at 10:55 am
The charts says that Kobe is an OK playoff performer who on rare occasions is comparable to an old Jordan playing against more physical defenses. Kobe is basically a boom and bust type which is probably the source of the debate. One can easily imagine a player who’s best game is indeed the best in the league or close to it but whose typical game isn’t at the top ten level. This is basically what I thought of Kobe when I only had my eyeballs with which to measure him.
I imagine that there are quite a few players who are Jordanesque if you compare their best against his least. Pierce being a good example.
Tyson // June 24, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Looking over the numbers, the first thing that came to my mind was how well-rounded a player Jordan was. Was he above average in every statistical category that this website uses (points, rebounds, points per shot, steals, fouls, etc.)? Did Jordan ever have a season where he didn’t have a single weakness? I have a feeling that the only category where Mike was below average was turnovers.
Oh, and Kobe’s obviously not as good as Jordan.
Joe // June 24, 2008 at 8:01 pm
I don’t think anyone would argue that Kobe is a better player against this NBA than Jordan was against his NBA. I think the argument becomes one where the quality of the league being played in is taken into account.(at least I hope so for the person arguing)
The talent in the NBA nowadays is arguably far greater than that of 10 years ago or 20 years ago. The players are bigger, stronger, and faster almost across the board. The foreign game has grown substantially also meaning a greater pool for players to be pulled from.
ceteris paribus or whatever you economists say.
In my opinion, MJ was better by a decent amount.
Joe // June 24, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Random question,
Is the WP48 of the elite players, relative to the average, declining over time? One might think it means that the average talent level/production in the NBA is “catching up” to the elite talents like Jordan, Garnett, etc.
That could be worded poorly. Really just a thought…
Portena // June 24, 2008 at 10:12 pm
WoW says that Shaq’s freestyle rap was not productive.
Tim // June 24, 2008 at 10:41 pm
C’mon D Berri, no response on the lack of noting that Kobe’s win score was higher than Pierce’s in both regular season and playoffs in 07′08? This was the crux of my post — the Jordan comparison was also correct, but just color (clearly Jordon career > Kobe career). Not comparing Kobe this year to Pierce this year is a major flaw in your written anaylis.
Tim // June 24, 2008 at 10:43 pm
p.s. Typing on an iPhone is an adventure.
mrparker // June 25, 2008 at 6:37 am
Joe,
Basketball-reference.com has the efficiency rating for the league as a whole for every year since at least the 80s. This year’s NBA was very good, somewhere in the 107s.
Here are the last 20 years.1989 107.8 1990 108.1 1991 107.9 1992 108.2 1993 108 1994 106.3 1995 108.3 1996 107.6 1997 106.7 1998 105 1999 102.2 2000 104 2001 103 2002 104.5 2003 103.6 2004 102.9 2005 106.1 2006 106.2 2007 106.5 2008 107.4
From what I’ve studied overall talent level can easily be discerned from just following this measure. I came to this conclusion after compiling high school, college, and professional overall efficiency levels. High school ball is played in the 90s. College ball is played in the low 100s, and the pros play in the mid to upper 100s. Assuming that my conclusion is correct NBA talent level is very good right now but not at an all time high.
Itd be interesting to see if tv ratings correspond to overall efficiency levels.
Joe // June 25, 2008 at 9:15 am
mrparker,
Is there any way you can post a link to where the data is located? I have only been using b-r.com for a little while now and I am not especially comfortable with the navigation yet.
I don’t want to bother you with too many questions, but what you are saying would seem to indicate that NCAA basketball, during one year, may have been played at a higher level than NBA basketball, during a different year, over the course of the last 10 years, and that is hard for me to swallow. If you go team by team, I am sure you would find that the elite NCAA teams have efficiency ratings greater than Pro teams as well.(by a large margin?) I am merely speculating though admittedly.
Maybe I will get a book on statistical analysis and stop depending on your blog for my fix… I have been meaning to get Moneyball or your book for some time now.
Great work by the way.
portena // June 25, 2008 at 9:41 am
“The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.”
-Bertrand Russell
ilikeflowers // June 25, 2008 at 10:41 am
Are you cocksure about that?
mrparker // June 25, 2008 at 11:50 am
Joe,
The beginning of this millenium featured the worst basketball ever played by the NBA as a whole. At least in the last 30 years. That has changed dramatically. I think we have to consider that the college game features a 19 ft 3 pointer and 6 fouls along with 35 seconds to find the best shot possible. I’m assuming that under NBA rules college teams would fare much worse.
Dannie // June 25, 2008 at 1:16 pm
How do supporting cast figure in these numbers? Just like there are positional differences that favor different players I think the context and role a player is in as well as who he plays with matters as well.
portena // June 25, 2008 at 3:21 pm
ilikeflowers- not as cocksure as some are about the correlation between win score/wins produced and true basketball productivity.
ilikeflowers // June 25, 2008 at 3:39 pm
So you’re not as cocksure as some about stupid people being cocksure and intelligent people being full of doubt? Any other pearls of wisdom?
dberri // June 25, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Judging by the IP address, portena and Logic are the same person. As the comment policy states, you should pick one persona only. If you can’t follow the rules I will just delete your comments.
ilikeweeds // June 25, 2008 at 4:25 pm
I do seem to have trouble following the rules.
And yes I do have one last pearl wisdom for you:
“The well bred contradict other people. The wise contradict themselves.” -Oscar Wilde
Bye All!
ilikeflowers // June 25, 2008 at 6:54 pm
PorLogicWeed,
“The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.”
-Bertrand Russell
+
“The well bred contradict other people. The wise contradict themselves.” -Oscar Wilde
Did they say these things before or after they obtained wisdom? Was this final wisdom or was there more wisdom to come? Were they cocksure before or after? I seek clarification more than contradiction. At this point I don’t know whether I’m stupid, intelligent, well-bred, wise, purple, feather, or circle.
Faizan // June 25, 2008 at 9:41 pm
I came here hoping to read about some basketball in the comments. Or some statistics.
Huey // June 26, 2008 at 12:01 pm
I think we want to know about J O’Neal for T J Ford…