Kobe Bryant came to Bakersfield tonight. A few years ago I was given a court-side ticket for the annual visit by the Lakers to Bakersfield, but my source for that ticket (Rich Campbell, a sports marketing professor) has moved on from Cal-State Bakersfield (if Campbell was still here, though, I would have still missed the game since I teach on Thursday nights this quarter).
Although I didn’t get to see Kobe tonight, I have certainly heard much about him over this past week. Earlier in the summer we heard that Kobe wanted out of L.A. His reasoning… Kobe is a great player and great players deserve great teammates. Since the Lakers didn’t supply him with such teammates in a timely fashion, Kobe demanded that he be traded to an organization that could be more accommodating.
After discovering that his wishes were not the Lakers’ command, the story seemed to go away. Unfortunately, Jerry Buss – Kobe’s employer – re-ignited this saga by telling a few reporters that he was indeed willing to listen to offers for Kobe. And so this past week we have once again seen Kobe take over coverage of the NBA. Not to be left out of the spectacle, I thought I would chime in with a couple of comments detailing where the myth that is Kobe doesn’t seem to be consistent with the data.
Myth One: Kobe has “bad” teammates
Table One – which I posted last January – reports the Wins Produced of the “star” player employed by each NBA team in 2005-06 (where “star” is defined as the player who leads the team in Wins Produced). Additionally, this table reports the Wins Produced of Everyone Else on the roster. In other words, this table tells us the quality of the teammates the star is supposedly carrying.
Table One: Stars and Everyone Else in 2005-06
“Bad” is a relative term, and typically it means below average. On a per-48 minutes basis, two years ago Kobe’s teammates were the seventh most productive collection. Such results tell us that Kobe did not have “bad” teammates in 2005-06.
Table One: Stars and Everyone Else in 2006-07
When we repeat this analysis for last year, though, we see a dip in the productivity of Kobe’s mates. Why the dip? Unfortunately, as I detailed last June (when Kobe made his trade demand), injuries took a toll on the Lakers’ chance for success last season. If these injuries had not happened, it’s quite possible that Kobe’s teammates would have maintained the productivity observed two years ago.
And had that happened, perhaps Everyone Else on the Lakers could have demanded that the Lakers accommodate them with a better star. After all, if the Lakers could have traded Kobe for Kevin Garnett in 2005-06 this team could have come close to winning 60 games.
When we look at each of these tables we see that Kobe is indeed the star on the Lakers. But relative to other “stars” he comes up short. He simply is not as productive as Tim Duncan, Dirk Nowitzki, LeBron James, Jason Kidd, etc…
And this brings us to the second myth:
Myth Two: Kobe is the Best Player in the Game
This is probably not a myth that is widely believed (at least, I don’t think it is). Still, here is Mike Downey of the Chicago Tribune:
Is Kobe the best active player in basketball? Yes, he is.
Is Kobe the best player since Michael Jordan? Yes, he probably is.
Okay, we can see that Kobe is not the most productive player in the game. And clearly he is not the best player since Michael Jordan. But I thought I would add a bit more perspective to where Kobe ranks.
Table Three reports the productivity of four players: Kobe Bryant, Paul Pierce (and yes, I know Pierce plays a bit more small forward than Bryant), Michael Jordan, and the average shooting guard. The data on Bryant, Pierce, and Jordan are from the last eight years of each player’s career. In other words, I am comparing Bryant and Pierce in their prime to Jordan as an old guy.
Table Three: Comparing Bryant to Paul Pierce and Michael Jordan
Okay, neither Kobe nor Pierce is comparable to even an old Jordan. In fact, no shooting guard currently compares to MJ. Yes, he was indeed quite amazing.
Of course, I think people know Kobe is no MJ. But is it understood that Kobe is not much different from Pierce? Kobe gets a few more points and assists, but Pierce gets more rebounds. The net of these differences is about the same player over the last eight years. As far as I know, though, no one is calling Pierce the best player since MJ.
Let me summarize what all these tables tell us. Kobe is a great player. But he is not cursed with “bad” teammates. In fact, his teammates could argue that they are cursed with a star that isn’t quite as good as other stars.
My sense is that this is not well understood because people tend to assume leading scorer means best player. When we look at Jordan, though, we see that “best player” is about more than scoring. To be the best you need to be the total package. And Kobe isn’t quite there. And this is one reason the Lakers don’t compare to the top teams in the West. Their star simply doesn’t compare to the top stars in the game. Now once again, who should be demanding a trade in LA?
– DJ
Our research on the NBA was summarized HERE.
The equation connecting wins to offensive/defensive efficiency is given HERE
Wins Produced and Win Score are discussed in the following posts
Simple Models of Player Performance
What Wins Produced Says and What It Does Not Say
Wages of Wins Journal 
Pat
October 19, 2007
And why are bulls fans jumping at this then????
Why is Jay Mariotti insane??
Ok ill calm down.
In all seriousness, why would the bulls trade Luol Deng (who is the sticking point in this trade) for an older person who produces the same wins as Lu? Lu could possibly be better than Kobe when everything is said and done. Even worse a trade would require us to give up a combination Hinrich, Thomas, Noah, Duhon plus Deng.
Instead of dealing with having two players that can produce (*prays to the God that deals with Big Ben’s Knees*) more than 15 wins with a greats supporting cast, we have two aging players that can produce 15 wins with no supporting cast.
I just needed to vent about the stupidity of what people in Chicago are talking about. Forget Kobe stick with this team and see where it takes you.
andrew
October 19, 2007
I’ve actually begun to hear a clamoring for the cavs to trade lbj for kobe, which just seems absolutely insane to me. Perhaps you could devote a post to a comparison of those 2 players. Great blog. Thanks, Andrew
anonymous
October 19, 2007
Ok, I get that some people are ‘stats’ guys, but seriously, are you insane? Kobe is bar-none the most talented player in the league. It’s not just me saying that; players and coaches up and down the league have said the exact same thing, including LeBron. Why? Because they see him play up close and personal. They see his tenacity, his devotion to practice and perfecting his game, his raw ability just about every year, month, week, and day. Why has he failed so far? I admit he is not the best OVERALL player if you factor in the intangibles. That is, Kobe is not a natural leader. He is very similar to MJ in that he gets on his teammates alot to perform at a similar level. The difference is that MJ just had a different air about him that allowed him to push everyone to get better and play in a team system. With Kobe? He instills the same fear, gets the same push, but it results in his teammates being afraid to do anything outside of pass him the ball, leaving Kobe on an island to try and take the other team down by himself. Sometimes, his talent is in and of itself enough to overcome this (see Dallas, Toronto), but more often than not he can’t beat them by himself every time. This year it seems like this is changing somewhat as his teammates are responding more positively and taking confidence in their own ability (also PJ forcing Kobe to tone down his barrage by making him a ‘facilitator’) but make no mistake, Kobe is the best, most talented player in the league. His achilles’ heel thus far in his career has been his ability to play within a system of players less talented than him, which is everyone outside the all-star/USA team. That is the reality, and the stats only show a little bit of that.
Troy
October 19, 2007
Great post, Dave, this is exactly the kind of thoughtful debunking of the conventional wisdom we’ve come to love.
JChan
October 19, 2007
Oh boy, just got linked at TrueHoop, here come the comments. Just to stem the tide of incredulity, I’d like to talk about the people who are going to misinterpret your use of “best player” here.
Is Kobe the most talented basketball player in the league? Probably. His natural abilities are outstanding, he works ridiculously hard, and he can single-handedly change a game. If that is your definition of “best player” then Kobe probably is the best player.
But in the Wages of Wins, the argument is that the “best player” is the player who creates the most wins for his team. And the facts are that Kobe does not generate as many wins for his team as other superstars, like Garnett, Duncan and Dirk.
Bryant
October 19, 2007
Are you guys serious. Kobe is clearly the BEST player in the league hands down. He is not the best leader, or the best motivational speaker, but who cares. I dont want Jesse Jackson on my team. I wanna guy that will generate wins, and whether or not people realize this the object of the game is to score points. There is not one guy in the league who can pull a whole team the way Kobe does in the dreadfully hard western conference, not even LeBron. Kobe is the most talented, therefore he’s the best. Also, why does his teammates need someone else to push them? From what i hear his teammates are just little wimps, thats scared to play.
Alien Human Hybrid
October 19, 2007
@ Anonymous:
“The most talented” does not necessarily equate to “the most productive”.
Tim
October 19, 2007
JChan, Kobe works ridiculously hard at one end of the floor, but not both. Jordan was the first player I ever saw who worked ridiculously hard at both ends of the floor, and Pippen was the second. Even Bird and Magic tended to take a break on defense, although they made up for it with rebounds. Kobe is perfectly capable of lockdown defense, as he showed at the FIBA Americas Championship this summer. But he usually doesn’t do it.
Michael
October 19, 2007
The chart between Kobe, Pierce and Jordan also says that Jordan was probably far from the best player in the league in those 8 years.
I love the whole quantifying of sports performance but there are definitely biases to this whole wins produced stat that needs fine tuning, like biases by position. At first glance, I would hazard that big men have higher wins produced than guards. Am I right? Wins produced is more accurate when applied to a whole team vs. a single player as biases and an imperfect formula cancels out. Take this whole stat with a tablespoon of salt.
George
October 19, 2007
Kobe can’t afford to play lock down defense the entire game because, while the Lakers have some nice pieces, those same pieces have not proven themselves capable of shouldering a considerable amount of the scoring load. Furthermore, to compare defense in the NBA with FIBA is quite ridiculous. The players Kobe shut down in the tournament were not top tier NBA quality, while, in the best league in the world, defense is more of a team game. Consider the Spurs, or the Pistons, who have legit defenders, but play a team strategy on that side of the ball.
Sure, as a Laker fan, I’d truly appreciate more defensive energy from Kobe, but he can’t replicate his defensive play as efficiently now that he does not have Shaq behind him. Not only was he capable of supporting the Lakers on offense, where Kobe was a support player, he was a true presence in the paint on defense.
If anything, the recent FIBA play of Kobe shows that with additional help on offense, he would be able to translate a portion of the energy he expends to put the ball in the hoop to prohibit the other team from doing that. Unfortunately, the Lakers shooters have been incredibly streaky and inconsistent, which has been only further compounded by injuries.
Furthermore, for the sake of arguing best player, it is often useful to differentiate between prime player, and prime talent. Had the Lakers been capable of showcasing Bryant in the finals the past few years, or close to it, instead of being ushered out in the first round, he’d be considered the best player. Why? Because, at this moment, he is the best basketball talent available. Sure, with a J, and development, Lebron may put that assertion in precarious territory. But, with consideration of track record and achievements, it becomes quite obvious, that Kobe Bryant, is a one of a kind basketball talent, that plays the game at another level.
Tim
October 19, 2007
George, look at Michael Jordan during his first few years in the league, including 1987-88, when he won both MVP and Defensive Player of the Year. Yes, I know those are high standards, but that is the standard by which Kobe is being judged. If you want to be compared to MJ, you have to work ridiculously hard at both ends of the floor.
Mike H
October 19, 2007
‘But, with consideration of track record and achievements, it becomes quite obvious, that Kobe Bryant, is a one of a kind basketball talent, that plays the game at another level.’
George, do you mean his track record as a sidekick to a (quite obviously) vastly superior player or his (quite obviously) good but not great track record as his teams best player?
Mike H
October 19, 2007
And while we’re all engaging in opinions backed up by ‘what I thought I saw in the small percentage of games that I watched him in’, let me say that Kobe is a good sometimes great defender, a streaky shooter, and a ball-hog. When he’s ‘on’ he’s as good as there is, but he’s not ‘on’ consistently enough to help his team as much as a truly great (top 10) player does. Were Kobe less focused on shooting while double and triple teamed, then maybe he could be a more productive player – but at this point in his career he is not likely to change (for the better at least).
And there it is. I declare these observations to be more valid than any statistical nonsense – based entirely upon the many tens of games that I’ve seen Kobe play with the Lakers (and Team USA) and my own eminence in the judgment of athletic ability and potential.
Oh yeah, excellent sarcasm Bryant.
digz
October 19, 2007
So.. when kobe is being double/triple teamed who should he pass the ball to… Lamar? sorry, out injured again. Kwame ‘stone hands’ brown? Mihm ‘hands slightly softer than kwame’?
Granted last year Luke walton developed into a better shooter but is that a better option than trying to draw contact and shoot FTs? debatable.
One of the main things that has hurt kobe over the last couple years is that he has lost the ‘dont look at me or youll get a foul called on you’ aura that he once had. The negative image events that he has undergone has allowed the officials to stop giving him the ‘jordan’ treatment that he was used to receiving. Now, he gets doubled/tripled/fouled- and no foul is called. Officials seem to be trying to overcompensate for all the easy fouls they gave him in the past.
Kobe is the best player in the game. He may not have the best stats- but who has a better all-around game- no one. He is NOT the most effective player because he isnt 7ft tall. A skilled 7footer is obviously more effective thank a skilled 6’7 player. You have a far more limited skillset to master and can focus on 2 or maybe 3 things instead of 5 or 6. THAT is why TimmyD and KG are more effective than kobe, not because they are superior talents (they arent) or more complete players (they arent). They simply had less things to master.
Arthur
October 19, 2007
I agree with Mike H. I think there is a “proud parent” affect with Kobe. Because of his market/exposure more people are able to watch him make circus shots and his memorable shots give him a better ranking in people heads.
But anecdotal evidence isn’t necessarily statistical. There is a huge jump in batting average for getting one more hit a week (the crash davis phenomena), but it is hard from just watching (and not score keeping) to recognize that.
If he played in a smaller market then the consensus view would be more on his stats than his highlights.
And his stats (depending on position classification) put him as the best 2 guard in the league. Before Jordan that wasn’t nearly as important as a point guard or a big man.
The other stats – assists, rebounds, turnovers do matter which is why those positions tend to have higher wp. Kobe isn’t a triple double machine the way that say Jason Kidd is for a guard.
I do think there is some wiggle room about how an elite guard compares with an average center, but a top 5 center (with the exception of the jordan era) was usually better than the top shooting guard.
Still if we want to look at Mr. Bryant anecdotally, in Kobe’s three years without Shaq he hasn’t
1) Made his teammates better (see Butler with and without playing with Kobe).
2) Won a playoff series.
John (Vancouver)
October 19, 2007
Why choose Paul Pierce when he doesn’t even play the position? How does the “average” shooting guard do when he’s double and triple teamed as Kobe is nightly, since they know Smush Parker wasn’t shooting the ball and Kwame and Bynum were just as likely to drop it.
Your “stats” are faulty. Anyone can make their statistics say exactly what they want – but when people who play the game and play against him agree there isn’t anyone better than Kobe…
Arthur > How about Butler was just in his third year in the league when he played with Kobe, he improved his stats when he played with Kobe over his seasons in Miami, and being surrounded with a better coach (Eddie Jordan over Rudy T.) and developing a bit more would equate to him improving, not just that he’s not playing with Kobe.
Mike H
October 19, 2007
digz, for the double team stuff I can only reference his play for Team USA and the last time that I paid attention to the Lakers (season before last). Regardless, I think that your approach to this issue is best – so I shall emulate:
One of the main things that has helped Kobe over the years is that officials have awarded him with questionable fouls against his defenders due to his reputation which sometimes manifests itself as a fiery aura surrounding his hands and/or buttocks.
Kobe is not the best player.
Q.E.D.
JChan
October 19, 2007
Michael,
That’s why Wins Produced has a position adjustment. Yeah, a productive big man has better stats than a productive guard. But the Wins Produced stat adjusts that. Duncan, Dirk and KG don’t just produce a lot of wins, they produce a lot of wins in comparison to the average PF.
Ross
October 19, 2007
LeBron is the most athletically talented player in the game. Duncan is the best basketball player. Kobe makes sweet fadeaway jumpers like 42% of the time. Any general manager would rather have LeBron over Kobe, disregarding age even. Kobe could not have led the Cavs to the finals replacing LeBron, nor the Spurs to the finals replacing Duncan.
Owen
October 19, 2007
Digz – If the most effective player in the game isn’t the best player in the game, what definitions of best and effective are you using?
And you can say what you did about double and triple teams, but the truth of the matter is that Kobe’s true shooting percentage, i.e. the net of his field goal and ft attempts, was higher last year than any year in his career. It doesn’t appear that playing with ham handed teammates actually hurts him.
I think it’s relatively easy to make the argument that Kobe on his basketball stats alone isn’t the best shooting guard in the NBA. His greatest talent as a baller might actually be his ability to play a huge number of minutes. Because on a pure efficiency basis you would have to give it to Manu, who is a much better shooter, rebounder, and I would say defender. Manu has him by 3% in ts%.
I like the proud parent idea. What Kobe is is the most accomplished showman in the NBA. He is the most dramatic player, the most theatrical. the most suited to stand in the sands of the Coliseum. But he isn’t the soldier I would want by my side in a real hoops battle.
kevin
October 19, 2007
Wow whoever wrote this clearly does not follow basketball or lack complete understanding of the game. No one, and I mean NO ONE thinks Kobe is the best player in the league primarily on the fact that he is the leading scorer. In fact he has been touted as the best player before he won two scoring titles. He has the most complete package out of any players right now, he is a phenomenal scorer to be sure, and currently has the greatest shooting range among any players (he can make shots from anywhere, which dwyane wade and lebron lack currently), he is up there in his ability to penetrate and he also plays very good perimeter defense (although not the very best in the league or even comparable to jordan). These three factors along with his clutch scoring make him the best player in the league. It’s fine that you don’t think so but, I am sorry your opinion don’t mean jack when even his peers like lebron, dirk, arenas and various other coaching staffs agree on the fact that he is the best player on the planet.
joe
October 19, 2007
Comments like the above make me wish that Abbott wouldn’t link to these posts… when I read the comments sections of this blog I find that nearly every post is quality, except in these very cases.
kevin (and others): do not allow your eyes to deceive you. Additionally, do not trust the word of the “professionals” who play the game. For instance, there was a recent SI.com survey of baseball players asking them what the most important statistic was. 41% of players responded that RsBI was the most important statistic. Now, 19% DID say that OBP (2nd place) was most important, but RsBI was far and away the winner.
What does this tell us? Well for one it tells us that baseball players do not know how to play baseball (which was the headline if the FireJoeMorgan entry on this subject, to provide appropriate citation here), for they hold an arbitrary statistic in the highest regard. Second, it tells us to be wary of the supposed ‘experts’ who play the game.
Again, those of you who claim this to be a somehow flawed statistic need only look at the regression, which (if I am not mistaken) shows a .99 r^2 value in year to year team wins, and is a better predictor of future record than is previous record.
Me
October 19, 2007
Wait, so Kobe is the most talented player in the league and his only problem is that he can’t play with less talented people?
So he could only play with himself? Nice mental image there Anonymous.
Kobe is talented and a great scorer. He plays defense so I am told. But here’s the rub. Since Shaq moved on he’s not won squat. He has shot very poorly, and often. Turned the ball over a lot, given up on the team and pouted (allegedly) and thrown up more clutch time misses than anyone else who gets as much air time on ESPN.
Kobe is a great talent. He’s not a great player. And as near as I can tell he’s a lousy team mate.
Jason
October 19, 2007
It is an important point that those who play the game at the highest level may not be the most objective when it comes to knowing what is most important when it comes to that most important commodity: producing victories. Michael Jordan and Bill Russell are among the greatest to ever walk on the court, but I submit their failures as GMs as evidence.
Dan
October 19, 2007
The fact that this article is using statistical analysis to compare Kobe Bryant and Paul Pierce as great players demeans any arguments this arguments wants to make. How many GMs, professional players, fan who actually watch basketball would put these two players in the same tier? Not a single one.
Moreover, while comparing players greatness is a fun exercise and could be debated endless, it is ultimately a fruitless exercise. Michael Jordan, for those with faulty memories, benefited tremendously from a great team (Scottie Pippen is a top 50 NBA player of all time) and a great coach (Phil Jackson). Take aways those two things and put Jordan in an inemt team with poor managment personel and we could quite possibly say the same thing about Jordan. It’s very easy to comment on the greatness of a person by the number of wins and championship rings, but things really have to lineup perfectly for those things to happen.
I dare anyone to say Jordan can take the current Lakers team and take them past the Spurs, Mavs, Rockets, and Suns.
But please, don’t take my word for it. Take it from someone who has played with Jordan , is an expert NBA analysis, and a GM for one of the top teams in the NBA:
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=sk-mailbag033007&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
Pete
October 19, 2007
Holy crap. I don’t know where to start. For starters, you do not follow the game very closely if you think Kobe is not widely regarded as the best player in the NBA. He is. The only credible person in the media I have heard name someone else is Rick Kamla from NBATV, who thinks Wade is the best player in the league.
Me? It’s either Duncan or Kobe, but you look ridiculous trying to state that Pierce and Kobe are essentially pretty darn close. Production close or not, Kobe is by far the superior player.
Alien Human Hybrid
October 19, 2007
Fascinating. The conflation of talent and productivity continues unabated, without regard to data.
Mark
October 19, 2007
Wait a minute. Let’s slow down and look at the conclusions this stat is giving us in the first place. “Wins produced” stated that last year Kevin Martin and Dwyane Wade were equivalent players, a dubious claim that I doubt any of the regulars of this site would be willing to even begin to argue without Mr. Berri’s stat. It also tells us that Kobe was worse than Ben Wallace, Carlos Boozer, Marcus Camby, and Tyson Chandler, not just KG and Tim Duncan. While “wins produced” may sound nice in theory, I do not think it is a stat that stands up to actual basketball.
I am also amused by the regulars who dislike a new group of people coming in to dissent against a poor stat since this article was put up on Truehoop. I’m sure it was more fun when everyone on this blog just agreed that they had a magic basketball formula that beat the stupid conventional wisdom. But what many do not seem to realize is that while conventional wisdom has its deficiencies and blind spots, so does the Wins Produced stat. If a GM used this stat exclusively, as some on this site might like, he would do things like view Martin and Wade as interchangeable, or be willing to trade Kobe for Tyson Chandler. I suspect that someone relying on the WP stat as presented to build a team would fare worse than one of the conventional wisdom sheep. Please don’t confuse bad statistics with raw data.
Sam Cohen
October 20, 2007
Mark- if you go back and look at WP48 on the chart, you’ll notice that Wade (.291) is much better than Martin (.198). Over the course of the season, Martin produced almost as many wins because Wade was injured for a good portion of the season. Based on the numbers, any “regular” of this site would take Wade over Martin (assuming we could count on Wade being healthy for the postseason).
Dave- Any particular reason you didn’t include position-adjustment with the tables to go along with this post the way you normally do? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I would assume that the WP48 of the teammates of elite guards should be higher than for the teammates of elite interior players just because the WP48 averages for those interior positions are higher. That obviously doesn’t change the analysis that much with regards to Kobe versus Wade/LBJ/Pierce, but does position-adjustment change the analysis with regards to the supporting casts of some of the big men ranked ahead of Kobe?
Also, I was curious at first to know how Kobe’s WP48 from 2004-05 compared to those of LBJ and Wade from this past year, since I thought Kobe’s role in the Laker’s offense that year was more similar to the role LBJ and Wade played this year (i.e. be the entire thing) than Kobe’s current role in the Laker’s offense. I saw in your book that Kobe’s WP48 that year was actually low for him (.175). I was surprised since I remembered him playing well and keeping the team competitive, but then I remembered that he got hurt and never seemed the same when he came back from the injury. Can you let us know what his WP48 was before his injury that season?
Shubidupdup
October 20, 2007
Statistics are ALWAYS SUPERIOR to the experience and judgment of people who have been watching and playing the game for years don’t you know. Therefore, if Berri thinks that Kobe ain’t good, then he ain’t! His word is law! There’s no room for argument! WP is the rule that must be followed and anyone who says otherwise within this website must be toasted with more numbers!
It annoys me that he has yet to give a reason to the allegation that his system overrates rebounds by a large amount. I’d like to remind peple that he claimed Rodman was the main reason the pistons won back to back.
Jason
October 20, 2007
#1. It is much easier to respond to the argument that you *think* someone is making than to the argument someone actually makes. With this in mind, it’s important to realize that Berri and his colleagues have not said that Kobe Bryant “ain’t good.” The argument drawn from their model of efficiency is that he has not been as valuable in raising the probability of his team winning as the subjective opinion of him would have you believe.
#2 The counter arguments appear to center on a “that just can’t be right” that implies that what is already known is correct, ergo to disagree is flawed.
#3 If talent evaluation by watching the game was perfect, surprising results from trades should not occur. They do. To accept some of Berri’s conclusions does require that you suspend the notion that we already know what value is in the NBA. That appears to be something that the most vocal (usually anonymously named) posters are unwilling to even consider. I’m curious why people are not just unwilling to try the exercise, but seem outright angry at any notion that perhaps the conventional wisdom of player worth may not be as accurate as what is widely held.
#4 Whether or not Berri’s statistical evaluation (or any other) “stands up to basketball” can be either an empirical exercise (e.g. looking at what happens when players move like when Iverson left Philly and the team did not tank nor did Denver become great) or a subjective exercise. It doesn’t appear that the criticism of the statistical approach does anything more than claim that we already know what value is. that argument is very circular.
Old Man Winters
October 20, 2007
Wow. It just goes to show you that you can use stats to prove ANY flawed theory.
I think my IQ has been lowered just reading this.
Scott
October 20, 2007
You don’t even have to accept that Wins Produced is a good measurement of player ability to accept the argument that Bryant’s impact on winning is overrated. Look at Dean Oliver’s WP and WL and Justin Kubatko’s Win Shares at Basketball-Reference.com or even John Hollinger’s PER which rewards Kobe for taking all those shots, and you’ll see that Bryant is not the clearly the best player in the NBA. At the very least, LeBron James and Dwayne Wade are just as good. And Duncan is better than eveyone else in the NBA, which is likely why he’s been the center piece of 4 Championships, the last 3 without any of his teammates making an All-NBA team and with a grant total of 3 All-Star game apperances by his teammates in those championship years. Duncan is clearly better than Bryant, which alone makes giving Kobe the title of “best player in the NBA” preposterous.
Young Man Winters
October 20, 2007
To Old Man Winters:
I felt the same way after reading your comment.
Harris
October 20, 2007
David Lee was the second best player in the NBA last year, right? I think I saw that in the chart.
Shubidupdup
October 20, 2007
David Lee second best? Really now. Knicks must offer him megabux supahstar deal now rofl zzz
****
I actually agree with the conclusion that Kobe isn’t playing as well as people think he does. I just had to vent in this post. Damn man; I can’t believe I used to be an apologist for this stuff. Answer the rebounding question Dave, pls. And don’t give me that “statistical analysis has shown that the correlation is insignificant” or something lies. WoW = fail.
Young man winters, not funny, not original. you fail too.
Shubidupdup
October 20, 2007
And just because your name is “jason” doesn’t make you any less anonymous than anyone else here, save Mr. Berri himself.
dberri
October 20, 2007
What rebounding question?
Brian
October 21, 2007
Unfortunately, Berri has never and will never be able to account for the difficulty of shot. He stacks his formulas to actively avoid giving credit to the players who have to have an abnormally large number of offensive possessions. Kobe doesn’t play with any other playmakers – Odom on a good night once in awhile, but the rest of his cast cannot create opportunities – he has to do that, and he ends up taking better defended shots because of it. And makes them.
Berri’s statistics will always end up penalizing “purer” offensive players, because missed shots end up costing the shooter to an excessive degree…while rebounds are treated as if that one person is to be single-handedly credited for rescuing the possession, even though most rebounds are going to be made by the average player or even a nearby player. If Kobe weren’t so skilled of a shooter than Odom and Bynum’s rebounds wouldn’t produce shit, because no one would be able to convert those possessions into points.
You just really have to be suspicious of a formula that tries to argue that Rodman was the most “productive” player on the Bulls. The statistics being used here just aren’t precise enough to be very good at explaining what is happening on the floor, and that’s why players who get more boards end up looking way more productive. What is needed is some kind of position-specific VORP type thing.
demcavs
October 21, 2007
You do realize there is no degree of difficulty bonus in the NBA (yet)? For that reason, a 54.6% Tim Duncan dunking, laying it in, and shooting very repeatable 15 foot bank shots is more valuable than a 46.3% Kobe Bryant, even when you see him on Sportscenter making the occasional fadeaway with 6 hands in his face (it was soooo awesome, guyz!!!11!!!!!11!). It should be noted that 46.3% represents the high water mark for Kobe in the last 5 seasons, so he’s usually even worse.
And to the guy who said WP48 is biased against those players who have the most possessions, care to explain Nash (.348), Kidd (.405), Wade (.291), and Lebron (.262)?
Until Kobe becomes a more efficient scorer, he’ll be less valuable to a team’s W/L record (the true measure of value, can we all agree on that?) than those 4 guards.
The Franchise
October 21, 2007
I especially love the idea that “statistics can be made to say whatever you want them to say.” No, they can’t. Visitors seem upset about a couple of things: that since scoring lots of points is not clearly more valuable than creating possessions, shooting guards are generally less valuable than other players, and consequently, that many stars, like Mr. Bryant, who play the #2 spot, are not as influential as they seem.
Being an offensive “creator” doesn’t really matter much. Do the Lakers have more shot clock violations when Bryant is not on the floor? Or does the shooting percentage of his teammates decline sharply in that condition? If this is true, which I suspect it is not, (to any significant degree,) then he does produce real value for the Lakers that may be undermeasured by the WP metric.
WP has, at its core, a very simple concept. Basketball is about scoring more points than the opponent. (Not just scoring as much as possible. There’s a great post about the Nuggets of the early ’90s on here.) Therefore, teams should seek to maximize their own points/possession, minimize the other team’s points/possession, and maximize their relative amount of possessions in a game. Thus, rebounds and steals are important, because it’s really tough to score points without having the basketball. (This is why it’s good to have David Lee or Dwight Howard.) Taking low-percentage shots is damaging, because it gives the other team the ball with less to show for the effort. (This is why it is bad to have Antoine Walker.)
Ross
October 21, 2007
I don’t quite understand how watching the game doesn’t help in this instance. Anybody that has the NBA package or watches a ton of games without blinded, biased eyes knows there are quite a few guys more valuable than Kobe Bryant. The problem is when these “true fans” are “watching” a Sportscenter when Kobe hits a turn around fade over 4 hands to tie a game late. What Sportscenter doesn’t show these “diehard fans” is when Kobe bricks up 8 guns in a row and misses those same turn around fades late in other games.
The metric just reinforces this simple fact for actual game watchers.
dbg
October 21, 2007
Maybe Kobe will be traded and then we can see if the Lakers collapse without him.
Christopher
October 21, 2007
Good analysis but I do not see how EE Lakers should/could ask for a better superstar. There are not that many out there. Tweaking EE is easier and mgmt has not got it done. Kobe is a top tier player, arguably the best in terms of skill set, altho this does not translate into the most productive WP-wise. As to Pierce not being mentioned in the same breath, that’s easy. He plays in the Least and is somewhat brittle. I would really love to see a quality of opposition adjustment in your metrics. Another thought, do you have a way to generate CIs for the WP numbers?
Dan
October 21, 2007
Ross, who exactly are these “quite a few” players that are more valuable than Kobe Bryant. If you’re an actual game watcher yourself, you wouldn’t be making such preposterous statements.
No one ever said Kobe Bryant only makes difficult shots and nothing more. They are exciting to watch and that is all. When Bryant scored 60 points in 3 quarters against the Mavs, most were high percentage shots. The same with the 81 points against Toronto. No one is going to let you keep shooting, if you keep “bricking 8 shots” in a row.
Please keep in mind, statistics can always be skewed to support the argument. ALWAYS. Why? Statisticians can choose to show which relevant statistics support their case and leave out those that counter-argues their case.
Again, basketball is a team sport so it is very difficult to measure one player’s value against another player’s. This isn’t baseball where only two players touch the ball 90% of the time.
demcavs
October 21, 2007
I’ll field this one for Ross:
Duncan, KG, Nash, a healthy Wade, Lebron, J-Kidd.
Now please flame me.
Anonymous
October 22, 2007
The Lakers should trade Kobe and the next 4 years first round picks for Lebron. The Cavs might bite on that. If not, throw in a few more players.
Nisvet
October 22, 2007
Your arguments are weak and you don’t know basketball. You can’t put into numbers the many intangibles of a basketball player, nor do MJ’s numbers over last 8 yrs trump Bryant, if anything they are very close. Lest not also forget Kobe has just entered his prime and the next 4-5 yrs will be the best basketball of his career. I could make a very strong argument that Kobe is actually better than MJ, but since your knowledge of basketball is so weak you would have a really hard time understanding what I’m talking about so I shall refrain from wasting my time.
p.s. please don’t act like you know what you’re talking about, you’re clueless when it comes to basketball
H
October 22, 2007
Award goes to Nisvet for the least convincing response…
ds
October 22, 2007
Please keep in mind, statistics can always be skewed to support the argument. ALWAYS. Why? Statisticians can choose to show which relevant statistics support their case and leave out those that counter-argues their case.
—————————————————————-
People always say things like this while never bothering to skew those statistics in favour of their argument, so here is the challenge: those of you who think that statistics are so easy to skew or that they can say anything you want them to say….go ahead and do it. Make statistics say that Andrew Bogut was the best center in the League last year. Make statistics say that Smush Parker is better than Chris Paul. Make statistics say that Stephon Marbury really is the closest thing to Oscar Robertson around today. If it’s so easy, you should be able to find statistics to make a reasoned argument for any of those.
Or to get on point, make statistics say that Kobe Bryant is the best player in the game today. Instead of complaining about other peoples use of statistics, how about you show everyone else how to use them honestly?
Jason
October 22, 2007
While it is possible to construct some statistical arguments that mislead, actually doing so is much harder, especially when you do not confine the comparison to two possibilities. Most ‘fixed’ statistical evaluations will begin to fail as a wider net is cast to include more data points.
In general, a statistical analysis can be an accurate approximation (where errors are minimal–not absent, but minimal and within a range deemed acceptable for the purpose intended), they can be misleading, where predictions are off target in a predictable manner, or they can be meaningless where the predictions are no better than random noise. When formulaic analysis of systems like sports performance fail, they tend to generate noise more than they generate systematic error.
That WP by-and-large rates players widely regarded as very good as very good and by-and-large irrelevant players are rated poorly would indicate that it is not misleading nor meaningless. That predictions can be drawn from the results that are signficantly better than random further indicates this. That *all* predictions and all ratings do not line up perfectly with subjective evaluation does not invalidate the method.
Nisvet
October 23, 2007
Hi,
H, yes I agree my response sounded like an 8th-grader’s. But it is only so because this “state of the art” statistical analysis to any rational human being who has watched Kobe play basketball over the last ten years sounds like an 8th-grader dissecting some of the best basketball players by their statistics. The man tries and tries very hard to find any statistic that he could present in any way which would make MJ look better in comparison to Kobe. He goes as far as to involve Pierce who does not even play the same position, nor has he ever in his entire career been on a half decent team (which makes his stats obsolete by the virtue that they do not come from the same place as do Kobe’s and MJ’s). I think it is shameless and ridiculous. As is the last 8 years comparison, where he alleges that MJ was an old man while Kobe had been in his best years. I’m sorry, but wasn’t Kobe all of his 21 years of age at the start of this 8 year stretch? I believe I can make a sound argument that the basketball prime is between the ages of 28 and 32, and that Kobe has just entered his prime. On the other hand MJ was certainly not an old man at the point he retired in ’09. He was still a machine, as he should have been, and he had at least 2-3 more solid years of basketball. whether or not Kobe will last that long is a question mark, but he has entered the league at an earlier age. What I mean to say is that this statistical comparison over the 8 years has Kobe at a disadvantage as he had not yet entered his basketball prime and more than half of that stretch he had to share the spotlight with one of the game’s greatest in Shaq. MJ over those last 8 years (27 to 35 years of age) obviously benefits from his entire prime and a couple of years on the decline where he did not show much signs of aging. Still the stats seem almost identical to me and I think that anybody who can discern whose stats over that 8 year period of stretch are better is just being a big baby and being ridiculous. MJ wins a couple of categories, Kobe wins a couple… big deal!
Now as I said I don’t believe two players from two different, even though concurrent, eras can be compared statistically. In MJ’s time league average for scoring was MUCH higher than it has been in Kobe’s time which I believe if anything give Kobe a huge advantage statistically for scoring in comparison to the rest of his team percentage wise and in comparison to average scoring in the NBA way higher than MJ did in his time. Same would apply to assists going by the logic if there was more posessions per game and more points scored, then it would probably follow there was more assists per game, and if you were to average it out that Kobe is no more selfish than the “unselfish stars of yesteryear”.
I could go on and on and on and make a lot of sense but no. All I will say as a proud Kobe lover is that Kobe is a far better shooter than MJ ever was, that Kobe has way more range on his shot than MJ ever did have, that Kobe has the same killer instinct that MJ always gets credit for but for some reason Kobe does not, that Kobe has just as great of defensive skill as MJ does (which is evident at the tourney of Americas.. surround him with some talent then he’ll have inspiration to play D), and finally Kobe had three rings at the age MJ did not have a single one. Oh sure you’ll say it’s all Shaq. I counter that Pippen in his prime would be as good as Melo’s and Bronz and Wade’s.. and could you imagine Kobe having one of them as their second banana? It would be bananas!
Stop the hate, appreciate the maestro!
Owen
October 23, 2007
It’s not hate Nisvet. You seem to think that DB set out to prove that Bryant is not the best player in the NBA. That isn’t the case. He is simply going where the data takes him. The statistics show very clearly that Kobe isn’t Jordan-esque, or anything close.
There is something called the player comparison machine at Basketball Reference. Funnily enough, as part of its instructions, it says compare Kobe Bryant to Michael Jordan through age 28. And this link will allow you to do that exactly. You can see Jordan is better or much better than Bryant in every category other than PF.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/pcm.cgi?req=1&cum=1&p1=bryanko01&y1=2007&p2=jordami01&y2=1992
Nisvet
October 23, 2007
Owen,
I have been to the site before and looked at each year between the two, but thank you for pointing it out. Those stats are cumulative up until the age of 28. Since when do we find it fair to compare the garbage minutes Kobe got as a scrawny teenager to MJ’s full starter minutes since day one and after 3 years of college tutelage?
If you compare the actual year, again you’ll find them to be eerily similar in stats in most of the recent years.
Stats are not a reliable tool for comparison of players. According to stats, Stackhouse would be Jordanesque http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/pcm.cgi?req=1&cum=0&p1=stackje01&y1=2001&p2=jordami01&y2=1990 which he is clearly not.
I believe that the extent of Kobe’s greatness will not fully be known until his career is over. It’s unfair to compare his partial career to MJ’s entire career which is what happens in every conversation purposely or not. Which is why I really hope Kobe gets traded to Chicago (yes I’m from Chi, but even if I weren’t) to a talented group with solid management and coaching so we can see what he can do. His supporting cast since Shaq left has been miserably and embarrassingly awfully ridiculously hopelessly lousy. To collect all that money from the arguably most profitable team and to fail to put anybody around him is a damn shame and LA does not deserve to keep him for another second. MJ always had a GRRRREAT team around him ever since the Bulls grew into their own, and anyone who denies it needs to stop taking drugs. I’m a younger guy and more familiar with the 2nd threepeat: one of 50 greatest in Pippen, one of best rebounders and defensive players of all time in Rodman, the defining 6th man of his era in Kukoc, role players who accepted their roles, aging veterans, god what else could you want as a star player? Seriously! Kobe has who again? Seriously.. I’m the biggest basketball junkie but who’s on Lakers again haha? Kwame and Mihm up front, a real man’s “power forward” in Odom, Vujacic and Farmar dishing it to him, Brian Cook as the designated spot-up shooter??!?!?!? Come on people wake up! I could probably play on this team and they wouldn’t suffer. Had I been in his shoes I would have demanded that I go and leave Shaq to burn in that hellhole where the ownership is filling up their already too deep pockets at the expense of one of greatest athletes of all time all the while wasting his career away surrounding him with nobodies. They turned down Kidd for Bynum!! This is ridiculous. These days on TV there was a lot of stuff on “Producers” the musical, the Lakers organization is no different.
ds
October 23, 2007
…not only that, but if you use that same site and compare them year by year Jordan comes out on top every year.
As for Jordan getting to enjoy his entire “prime” in that comparison…that is absolutely not true. Jordan’s prime was from 23-29. A players prime is not a certain age, it is the time when that player is performing at his peak level. In this case, the time period that Berri uses includes some of Jordan’s worst seasons and none of his top 5 seasons.
And that is where I have a problem with your arguments…instead of proving why Kobe is comparable to Jordan, you make excuses to explain why there is no evidence that he is comparable to Jordan. To me, that’s not solid ground.
ds
October 23, 2007
Ugh, mine was to add to Owens post but I forgot to hit “submit” right away. Oh well.
ds
October 23, 2007
“Stats are not a reliable tool for comparison of players. According to stats, Stackhouse would be Jordanesque http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/pcm.cgi?req=1&cum=0&p1=stackje01&y1=2001&p2=jordami01&y2=1990 which he is clearly not.”
You seriously believe those stats show that Stackhouse is comparable to Jordan? Blocks and free throws are the only statistical categories that are comparable, Jordan holds a significant advantage in everything else.
Nisvet
October 24, 2007
MJ’s prime was not from 23-29! His numbers were really big in those years because he had less support around him and he was hungrier for individual accolades (read more selfish), but his prime certainly was not in those years. Prime is always around 28-30 unless a player suffers injuries that change the course of his career.
Paul
October 24, 2007
So many ILLOGICAL points being made in this aricle, ALLOW ME TO POINT THEM OUT FOR YOU
1) When you stats say that Paul Pierce is as good as Kobe, it doesn’t mean that Pierce is in fact as good as Kobe. It means that your methodology and analysis are FLAWED!
2) The best player should be the player who can garner the victory when the game really counts (like during the playoff), not the most efficient player whom can win lots of games.
Many players can be efficient and bring many wins during the regular season games but cannot step up his game (or even choke) when his team really need him the most and those players should be not be considered as the candidate for the best player.
3) Another flaw is that you took the regular-season game into account. Arguably greatest player, whether it’s MJ, younger Shaq, or TD had always saved up their energy and not tried their hardest during the regular season.
Nisvet
October 24, 2007
I really wish the author would respond to see what he has to say to all of this.
ds
October 24, 2007
“Prime is always around 28-30 unless a player suffers injuries that change the course of his career.”
Prime – First in excellence, quality, or value.
A players prime is the time in which he is performing at the highest level. Jordan’s career is remarkably stable, but according to all of the statistics I’ve seen Jordan was more productive earlier in his career. Your claim is basically that the comparison Berri makes is unfair to Kobe because it includes Jordan’s least productive seasons…that doesn’t make any sense to me.
Do a comparison year by year and Jordan will come out on top every year. Kobe only comes close once or twice.
Nisvet
October 24, 2007
Ok, I don’t frequent this site/sites and have stumbled across this by some accident (some link or whatever).
As I have learned long ago, talking to rabid MJ fans is a losing cause. You people do not show up for a discussion rather to repeat what you originally say like a parrot until the other party breaks down and cries or leaves the conversation as I’m doing right now. I find it oddly funny, hilarious even, that all MJ fans are the same everywhere and that all have the same mentality of overlooking any and all facts that point to the contrary. I could bring God almighty here to tell you that the comparison can not be made at this point and that if it could be, it would not be based on stats because stats come from different eras and different stages of their careers, and rabid MJ fans would barn back at God: OH BUT YOU MUST NOT UNDERSTAND, MJ’S THE BEST AND THERE NEVER WILL BE ANOTHER! (at this point I would also like to point out how ridiculous it is when people believe there will never be a player better than MJ.. how ridiculous are these people.. I mean really, let’s be rational.. how ridiculous are these people???)
Face it, MJ is yesterday’s news. We have Kobe, and also we have Bron and Wade up and coming. MJ is gramps with a gut and gray hair.. HAHAHA!! At least we get to enjoy watching Kobe drop 70-80 every here and there ;-) peace
gcaprio
October 24, 2007
What a strange comment Nisvet. As far as I can read, no one here is freaking out at the mere questiong of how great MJ was compared to Kobe. In fact, unless I read the above comments incorrectly, no one except you has even used CAPS when referring to MJ.
Since this is a primarily stats centric web site, there have been countless requests for you to provide some sort of stats to back up your position. If you don’t want to or don’t care to, that’s fine. But let’s leave it at that.
Frankly, this type of non-stat back and forth is better reserved for the forums at ESPN or something similar.
kike
December 5, 2007
what about adding t-mac to the comparisson?
parham h
December 5, 2007
I have to say, this may be the most flawed yet arrogant article i’ve read in a while. If you hate kobe bryant, that’s fine. It just makes you look silly to try to justify what you feel with your flawed methodology. Assessing a basketball player is not as simple combining their statistics into a formula to determine who the best is. And the fact that your formula places pierce at par with kobe tells me your methodology needs some work.
RG73
December 5, 2007
Parham–what is flawed about the methodology, from a statistical point of view? Why do the numbers need to correspond to what we think we know?
Over a 3 season span (03-04 to 05-06) Pierce hit more game winners (8 vs. 7) at a higher percentage (35% vs. 21%–league average is 29%) than Kobe and had more game winning assists (5 vs. 0). Even by the measure of late game heroics, Kobe comes up short compared to Pierce.
When you go by any number of measures–offensive rating, defensive rating, efficiency rating, PER, Win Shares, whatever, Kobe has consistently not come up as the most productive player in the league. Ever. The same holds when you look at clutch performance, game winning shots, etc. The numbers, the real, raw numbers from games, don’t support the notion that Kobe outperforms everyone else.
I mean if Kobe is the best then he ought to win more games than anyone else, win more games at the buzzer, be the best clutch performer, put up the best all around numbers, have the best +/- rating (e.g. points scored while he’s on the floor vs. points given up)…without even going to some metric like win shares, the data isn’t there to support the contention that Kobe is the best.
You can point to the “his peers say so” argument, or the most GM’s vote to give Kobe the last shot argument, but these don’t mean anything.
Kobe might be a better player in the sense of absolute skills than anyone else in the league. He can certainly hit higher degree of difficulty shots with more consistency than anyone else. Thus, Kobe is a cut above guys like AI or Tmac who also consistently take hard shots and shoot about 2-3% less than Kobe. But win share is interested in measuring wins, not degree of difficulty shots, not jaw dropping plays.
It isn’t like there is a lot keeping Kobe from actually being the best statistically–a few less forced shots, a few less turnovers, a few more assists, a little better, more consistent defense. But that isn’t going to happen anymore than AI is going to stop being a very talented, but knuckleheaded player who takes bad shots and coughs the ball up too much.
I mean you could point to something like, oh, gee, W48 penalizes shooting too much (whereas PER rewards it), and but even then, what do we see? Lebron, higher PER, more wins produced, better W48. Wade, higher PER, higher W48. Duncan, higher PER, better W48. We could go on and on with the list of guys ahead of Kobe by these measures. There might be maybe 10 or so. Kobe is certainly among the very best in the NBA, and he might be better, one-on-one, than anyone else. In an 5-on-5 game, where rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, turnovers, FG% all matter, he’s not the best.
I think Kobe is more skilled than Lebron, or Wade, or Tmac or Pierce, or any other 2/3 in the league. Pretty much all of those guys even think Kobe is more skilled. But at the end of the day, there’s Kobe still driving into 3 guys and getting stripped, there’s Kobe shooting a 22 foot turnaround, fadeaway over two defenders, there’s Kobe getting into an ego game on the floor and trying to make it a one-on-one game instead of focusing on winning as a team. Just this season I recall Kobe trying to play I’m the man with Redd and coming out on the losing end of that stick, shooting his team out of the game against Orlando and Houston (10 for 26; 13 for 32). He’s played some very disciplined ball this season and had some solid outings. But he can’t help those having those nights where he forces the issue–hence 8 of 18 games he’s shot below 43%, 7 of those 8 were 40% and under. That isn’t on his teammates because the same pattern was there when he was winning championships.
What stops Kobe from shooting 48-50%, getting 2 turnovers instead of 3, and getting 6 or 7 assists instead of 4 or 5 isn’t his teammates. He didn’t shoot better with Shaq, nor get more assists. His turnovers were a little better then, but he wasn’t the 1st option offensively (thus, he handled the ball less). So those things are because Kobe forces the issue, always has, always will. If he were playing with Dwight Howard or Duncan or KG right now, it wouldn’t be an issue. And maybe it won’t be in another 1-2 years if Bynum continues on his trajectory. But I simply don’t know how we can argue, without any facts, that he’s the BEST, when he doesn’t have a playoff series win to show for it in 4 years, and doesn’t have the most impact on both ends of the floor.
Tracker
December 21, 2007
If Kobe was injured all season how many less games would the Lakers win? I’m going to estimate 20 less (25-35 instead of 45-55). When Jordan first retired how many regular season whens did it cost the Bulls? The answer is 2 (57 wins in 92-93 with Jordan and 55 wins in 93-94 without). Now in 95-96 the Bulls got Jordan back along with Dennis Rodman. They won 25 more games than the previous year (72 compared to 47). Since we already established Jordan is good for 2 regular season wins, that means the addition of Rodman accounted for 23 wins that year! The stats don’t lie, Dennis Rodman is the best player to ever lace up!
Seriously, when comparing two players how can you not take into consideration how good the rest of the team is? When you are the number one option you will always be more efficient if the rest of your teammates or more efficient. The Jordan-less Bulls were efficient enough to win 55 games, the Kobe-less Lakers would probably win around 30 in the western conference. I always thought that if the Lakers somehow acquired Ron Artest (Pippen clone) you could almost compare them to the 90-92 Bulls, and if the acquired Ben Wallace (Rodman clone) you could compare them with the 95-97 Bulls. For those that say Jordan elevated the play of his teammates more than Kobe, he didn’t have to play with such a young team in his prime years. Kobe has to do more for his team, and when you have to do more of anything you lose efficiency. And for Paul Pierce comparisons, the Lakers would be in the conference finals every in the in East with the team they’ve had (well, maybe not this year). Someone mentioned something about Ginobli being more efficient, but could you imaging how efficient Kobe would be coming off the bench for the Spurs? Or to think of it another way, what would be the efficiency gained or loss of those two players if they switched teams?
It kind of reminds me of the Randy Moss debate pre-season. People where saying he is a shell of his former self, he would be the 2nd or 3rd option, when things go bad he’ll destroy the team, blah blah blah. As a reciever your efficientcy is going to suffer if you have Andrew Walters getting 2 seconds to throw you the ball compared to Tom Brady getting 10 seconds. Although not as dramatic, a superstar basketball player is going to be more efficient on a team that can win 50 games without him than one that can win 30.
LOL
May 20, 2008
LOL Bring this post from the dead. LOL @ Blogger
michael mcloughlin
May 31, 2008
It’s interesting reading this article half a year after it was written. Kobe has just led LA to the Finals and is universally regarded as the best player in the NBA. A Western Conference scout said Kobe was like a Maserati, and LeBron is like a Volvo. Win Score, on the other hand, says that LeBron is clearly better than Kobe. I don’t think so. Win Score overrated rebounds and underrates scoring.
miguel
May 31, 2008
Oh, and your site says that Kidd was the 3rd most valuable player this season in terms of wins produced, and Kobe was only 9th. Wow, that makes me question any wins produed result
Ben
June 22, 2008
From the original post: “Of course, I think people know Kobe is no MJ. But is it understood that Kobe is not much different from Pierce?”
After what happened in the Finals, I think this makes you look like a genius =). Also, Lebron had much greater success against the Celtics defense than Kobe did, so even more reason to think that perhaps Kobe isn’t as good as everyone thinks…
ilikeflowers
June 22, 2008
Kobeites, there’s a line for the crow just to your right. I don’t think that it tastes very good though.
Another Pete
June 22, 2008
You just don’t get it, ilikeflowers… Kobe is like a Maserati! And if that doesn’t convince you, I don’t know what will… :->.
loler
February 17, 2009
I know, man. Smush Parker, Luke Walton, and Kwame Brown were way better than the average starters for a playoff team. They are all on the verge of becoming all stars about now. And remember when Luke was on the ballot to become one! (happened) I just hate when people say those 3 suck and that kobe’s pretty good because he got the team to playoffs (i know, big deal, right) despite their “terrible” play. lol
Nikko
February 15, 2010
This is ironic because since we are now in the future, we can see that Kobes complaints about losing obviously was due to his teammates because he was the best player on a championship team last season LOL. So this guy is wrong at analyzing stats. Oh and Kobe had the most win shares in the playoffs of 2001 when everyone thought shaq was so dominant. Kobe deserved the MVP as much as shaq that season
The Present
March 15, 2010
Nikko,
You are never in the future, nor will you ever be.
Sincerely,
The Present
P.S. This thread is so full of fact-less conjecture it makes me wish Truehoop wouldn’t exist. Legions of subjective biases converge on data with the argument, “If you think Kobe isn’t the best player in the NBA, you must not be watching basketball!” Well, sirs, if you think that Kobe is the best player in the league, you must not be able to read. And that’s unfortunate, because the more you read, the more you know! And the more you know, the less you make assumptions and assertions based on small visual-samples which have very little correlation with the sum of basketball event outcomes (which are readily available to all of you). The sum and analysis of those outcomes say that Jordan, LeBron, Duncan, Wade, et al. are all significantly better than Kobe has ever been.
Thank you, Dave, for continuing your great work.