According to Adrian Wojnarowski (of Yahoo! Sports), Pau Gasol isn’t happy. Gasol seems to think the Kobe Bryant is taking too many shots. Or more specifically, Gasol is not taking enough.
The Focus on Scoring Leads to Frustration
When we look at the data, we see that Gasol has a point. His per-game scoring average is at an all-time low. Kobe Bryant is also taking nearly 10 more field goal attempts per game than Gasol. And since scoring is the primary focus in the NBA, Gasol is now bemoaning his lack of touches.
Of course, one wonders if NBA players shouldn’t be able to focus on more than scoring. After all, a player’s impact on wins is about more than his points scored per game. As Table One reveals, when we look at everything in the box score, Gasol should be very happy. His WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] currently stands at 0.287. In contrast, Kobe’s mark is only 0.185. So when we look beyond scoring, Gasol is doing more. Yet, Gasol is unhappy.
Table One: The LA Lakers after 66 games in 2009-10
This story highlights a problem with player evaluation in the NBA. Because so much attention is paid to scoring (and we see this when we look at the pay of free agents, voting for the All-Rookie team, allocation of minutes, and the NBA draft) players tend to obsess on their own shot attempts. And when those shots don’t happen with the frequency the players prefer, unhappiness and resentment is the result.
The obvious solution to this problem is to teach players like Gasol that their impact goes beyond scoring. Coaches often try to teach this lesson. Much of what the players hear — and how players are rewarded — contradicts this story. Consequently, Kobe is considered one of the greatest players to ever play the game. And Gasol keeps expressing his frustration.
The Greatness of Kobe
Recently a few of the comments in this forum have once again focused on the issue of Kobe’s greatness. Many people who comment here (and this is not a surprise), question the notion that Kobe is equal – or even close – to Michael Jordan. Some have also wondered where Kobe ranks in NBA history.
In an effort to address that issue, let’s consider Table Two.
Table Two: The Best Performance by a Shooting Guard from 1977-78 to 2008-09
Table Two reports the 50 best performances – in terms of Wins Produced — by a shooting guard in the since the 1977-78 season. As one can see, the top seven slots in the list are held by Michael Jordan. And Kobe’s very best season doesn’t appear until the 27th slot. In all, Kobe appears three times on the list while MJ shows up 10 times. So Jordan was much better than Kobe. And really, the difference is very large (a point made back in 2007).
Kobe is also not number two on the list. Clyde Drexler appears four times before Kobe shows up the first time. Overall, eight of Drexler’s seasons rank in the top 50 overall.
When we look at career Wins Produced, we see – as the following list indicates — that Kobe currently ranks 4th among shooting guards who started their career after 1977.
- Michael Jordan: 283.6
- Clyde Drexler: 222.8
- Reggie Miller: 162.9
- Kobe Bryant: 149.0
Again, the difference between Kobe and MJ is huge (and Kobe is never going to close the difference). It does seem likely, though, that Kobe will surpass Reggie Miller. But he needs to produce more than 60 additional wins to catch Drexler. And Kobe is already 31 years old. Yes, MJ did produce more than 70 wins after the age of 31. But as has already been noted, Kobe is no MJ; and it doesn’t look like Kobe is Clyde the Glide either.
– 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.
Wages of Wins Journal 
Alex
March 14, 2010
Not that I necessarily think this is what Pau is trying to say, but shouldn’t it be better for the Lakers, and not just himself, if he shoots more? He’s a fairly efficient scorer, at least compared to Kobe, so shouldn’t the Lakers win more if he shoots more?
diehardNFFLbarnone
March 14, 2010
Given how many minutes Kobe has played, I think Brandon Roy is likely to pass Miller first.
brian
March 14, 2010
Kobe should need a little over a year to pass Miller, assuming he doesn’t get injured. Unless Roy can produce ~100 wins in that time span, I think it’s safe to say that Kobe will top Miller sooner…
ilikeflowers
March 14, 2010
That list just reminds me of how awesome pre-injury Tracy McGrady was. His stats and my eyeballs were on the same page. He was amazing to watch.
Mike
March 14, 2010
What Alex said. High efficiency Gasol > low efficiency Kobe.
Evan
March 14, 2010
That Wojnarowski article was way too sycophantic for me.
Man of Steele
March 14, 2010
Wow, I didn’t realize that Clyde Drexler was so good. I guess I had thought of him as a high-scoring SG who was overrated. Even given how high we are on Tracy McGrady around here, Drexler was better, and for a much longer period of time. Forget the next Jordan, perhaps we should all be asking if Kobe/Dwayne Wade might be the next Clyde Drexler.
mrparker
March 14, 2010
I thought Drexler was a small forward. Did he play that for one season or something? I made a list of guards the other day and just assumed he was a small forward.
todd2
March 14, 2010
Also comparing apples to oranges to some degree in terms of career wins produced. Most of the guys on that list played a few years of college ball. Kobe should have an advantage in career stats because of his jump from high school.
Daniel
March 14, 2010
Drexler played at the 2 in Portland and the 3 in Houston.
John Giagnorio
March 14, 2010
Wow, thanks for putting this up Dave! This is a wonderful reference to have against all the insane arguments in favor of Bryant. For what it’s worth, when I proposed to a Lakers fan that Kobe Bryant was “more on Drexler’s level than Jordan’s” I was accused of being a “hater” :-p
Based on the (limited) analysis that I did, it looked like Drexler and McGrady were defensive stars and somewhat lesser offensive players. Jordan, of course, was amazing at both.
Johnny Y.
March 14, 2010
I don’t see this as a case of scoring being overvalued by players/evaluators.
Its just more fun in general to score. When you play a pug at your local gym, does your average guy want to just rebound and defend? No, he wants to touch the ball occasionally and take some shots cause its fun to score. Gasol already got his extension so i doubt hes looking for more points just to increase his potential future value.
Lets face it, Kobe is one of the biggest blackholes in the nba. Balls come in, and rarely go out.
diehardNFFLbarnone
March 14, 2010
@ brian – here are my projections for Kobe Bryant and Brandon Roy through 2012-2013:
Kobe Bryant:
2010-2011 5.0 WP 0.113 WP48
2011-2012 3.2 WP 0.085 WP48
2012-2013 1.1 WP 0.022 WP48
Brandon Roy:
2010-2011 17.4 WP 0.277 WP48
2011-2012 21.1 WP 0.335 WP48
2012-2013 25.5 WP 0.399 WP48
Italian Stallion
March 14, 2010
I don’t think Gasol’s complaint is necessarily about his desire to score more points. I think he realizes that he and Bynum can score more efficiently in the paint than Kobe can score shooting from the perimeter (especially considering Kobe’s occasionally suspect shot selection). I think Gasol’s primary motivation is to make the team better. He realizes that means Kobe must be willing to sacrifice touches.
Italian Stallion
March 14, 2010
I should add, I totally agree with Gasol and argued along those lines in the previous thread.
Kobe has that “alpha dog” personality. It’s an advantage to have a hyper confident player that wants the ball under fire, that can create for himself and others, that can take a game over late and score under heavy pressure, etc… However, a player like that has to learn to trust his teammates and make the higher percentage play when it’s available.
Magic, Bird, Jordan and most of the other great players understood that. Even Lebron understands it despite being much younger and having so much less talent around him.
Kobe does not and never has.
Alvy
March 15, 2010
D. Berri,
I think Gasol is frustrated with how poorly Kobe Bryant is shooting, especially since he or Bynum could score much more efficiently. However, it’s not about “scoring” when it comes to Gasol asking for possessions, it’s mostly about initiating the offense, it’s about running the offense from Gasol, not entirely to Gasol. In other words, going “inside out,” passing to the cutters in the offense, or taking advantage of smaller front-courts. I think Gasol’s scoring will go up giving more touches, of course, but it’s simply not entirely about scoring more points (especially after signing a brand new contract).
TRad
March 15, 2010
I agree with IS. Here is a full quote from Gasol:
“I’ve always been a good post-up player, getting looks for myself, but also finding cutters, passing the ball out. It’s a good way to attack. I’ve always been a big believer that you work the game from inside out, and it becomes easier”.
It’s not about more shots for Gasol, it’s about using his skills. He’s good passer and does very well with recognizing doubles and reacting to them.
I’d love to see what would happen if Lakers let Gasol increase his USG%. He has the same OffRtg as Bosh (118, top10 among players > 30mpg), but only 20% USG (while Bosh has 28%).
reservoirgod
March 15, 2010
Prof. Berri, thanks for the list. I thought Fat Lever played PG for Denver & Alvin Robertson played PG for San Antonio. I know this doesn’t greatly impact their WP, but maybe it frees up spots on the list? Also, in the new book – do you discuss the high school players like Kobe & Garnett and how they age vs college players?
brgulker
March 15, 2010
I agree with others who think that Gasol shooting more and Kobe shooting less would be good for the Lakers overall, which seems to be Gasol’s point.
Thanks for posting this, Dr. Berri. I always loved watching Drexler, but I didn’t realize that he was so productive. Same for Reggie Miller. For whatever reason, I didn’t realize that these two players were so productive throughout their careers.
Learn something new every day…
Ken
March 15, 2010
I think it’s incredible Reggie Miller ranks 3rd in career wins produced, yet did not have a single top 50 season in wins producted. A testament to his consistency and longevity – in and of itself a form of greatness.
Mike G.
March 15, 2010
If true, would opponents benefit from focusing their defense more on stopping Pau, rather than Kobe?
brian
March 15, 2010
diehardNFFLbarnone: I feel like you just pulled those numbers out of a hat. Any evidence that Roy will spike up in productivity *that* dramatically?? The trend is that after age 24, players tend to drop off slightly, and Roy is like 25 now I think. I agree that Roy will probably surpass Kobe eventually, though. And yes, Kobe is pretty overrated, but he’s been pretty consistent throughout his career–even with his finger injury he’s posting a 0.18 ish WP48, which is still pretty good. Even a 0.15 WP48 throughout the 10-11 year will put him a shade below Miller.
John Giagnorio
March 15, 2010
Bryant’s strength really seems to be playing an ungodly amount of minutes at an excellent but not superstar level. Each time he appears on the list his WP48 is significantly lower than that of the players immediately preceding and following him.
Andrew
March 15, 2010
I agree that gasol should get the ball more but Kobe behind reggie and drexler is bs. How many rings did they win? I’m not going to knock you’re stats but shouldn’t you use multiple different stats to evaluate a player. Picking one stat and using it to determine a players worth is ridiculous.
casey
March 15, 2010
Kobe schmobe, what I take out of this is that Fat Lever was one of the most underrated players of all time. Look at that “best seasons by a shooting guard” list. Wow.
Christian
March 15, 2010
It’s kind of ridiculous when people look at one statistical model and rank someone’s legacy based on it. Wins produced? I think the real measure is how many championship rings a player has AND what their individual impact on the team was in winning those championships. Kobe has 4. If he reaches 6, then he’s in the discussion with MJ. If he doesn’t, then he’s not. And don’t say that Shaq was the reason Kobe won 3 of those rings, because Pippen was the reason MJ won 6. It doesn’t take away from any of these players; basketball is a team sport.
Back to the discussion though, the offense should be run through Pau more using the triangle. I would love to see more dives to the basket by Artest too. Ariza got a lot of easy reverse layups that way. Our PGs need to make harder cuts into the lane and try to a) draw the defense away from Pau or b) get easy layups.
Chris Yeh
March 15, 2010
How did the players in the “Top Shooting Guard” performances table get classified?
* Fat Lever was a point guard.
* Brent Barry played point guard the year he made the list.
* Alvin Robertson was a point guard
* Rodney McCray was a small forward
* Paul Piece is a small forward
* David Thompson was a small forward
* Nate McMillan was a point guard
Interesting to note that neither Reggie Miller or Mitch Ritchmond, generally considered the two best shooting guards of the Jordan era not named Jordan or Drexler, made the list. One-dimensional scorers just don’t create that many wins.
GQue
March 15, 2010
Typical Hit piece vs Kobes greatness. Very comical and another horrible post. Now you have Drexler and Reggie as better than Kobe. Both Drexler & Reggie would admit on live TV that Kobe is ahnds down the better overall player! Stats can be made to make almost any point or case. Ability, skill,talent, & will to be great can only betruely viewed by that players peers both from past & present.
Yes the media seem to have a problem with acknowledging Kobes greatness but his fans & peers understand the propaganda. Continue to make MJ’s auroa untouchable until the NBA is fully ready to give LBJ all the praise for being best ever! Plain old bafoonery
ilikeflowers
March 15, 2010
Christian,
So Kobe has been the second or third most productive player on the Lakers for all of their titles. So you’re argument is that Kobe is as good as Scottie Pippen? Probably not, but a much better argument.
GQue,
What fantasy land do you live in where Kobe’s greatness is unacknowledged? It isn’t the USA. I’m guessing that your real issue is the lack of unanimous acknowledgment. The point that all the ‘advanced’ stats sites make is that Kobe is great, yet overrated by the media.
Quotes of true genius:
‘Stats can be made to make almost any point or case’
‘Words can be made to make almost any point or case’
‘Any idiot can make almost any point or case’.
Michael
March 15, 2010
So Christian, if Kobe gets another 3 rings, does that mean he will be in the conversation with Robert Horry?
Or could it be that rings aren’t everything?
You think Shaq isnt the main reason for 3 of Kobes rings? How many Finals M.V.Ps did he win during the threepeat? As for Pippen being the reason for Jordans 6 titles…well that makes sense considering Pippen was a six time finals MVP winner…..oh wait.
john
March 15, 2010
Do coaches “often try and teach this lesson?” Perhaps they often try TO teach this lesson.
TRad
March 15, 2010
I think we have another “skills versus production” discussion.
It is absolutely possible that Bryant has more skills, more athletic abilities and more talent than Drexler or Miller. But the basketball isn’t about skills and talent, but about production. I don’t care how acrobatic are Bryant’s baskets – all I care is how effective he is in using possessions.
And Bryant is very productive. Only Drexler and Miller were even more productive.
Funny thing – I’ve seen recently a diagram of Bryant’s efficiency vs usage. It’s flat. No matter how high or how low Kobe’s usg% is – his OffRtg is constans. Unusual.
But it means that replacing some Kobe’s possessions by Gasol’s possessions would be good for Lakers.
In short words: Bryant could do amazing things, but sometimes it is better to not try anything amazing.
Alex
March 15, 2010
The main reason that this stat (and your analysis) is hard to swallow is that what your stat identifies as Kobe’s “best” season, does not pass the smell test.
2005-2006 was Kobe dragging a D-league team to 45 wins. Does not appear on the list of 50 best seasons by a shooting guard at all? Really?
2001-2002 Kobe played the complementary guard perfectly and was widely considered to be his best year until the MVP year. Doesn’t appear at all? Really?
And the MVP year appears only at 38, whereas his best year is 2001-2002, which Kobe himself would probably admit is not in his top 5 seasons of basketball.
Second off, your list seems to have great trouble identifying what a shooting guard actually is, which makes it all the less credible.
Anyways, I realize that the entire point of your post and your stat in general is that scoring is overrated and that large men who rebound and shoot from closer than 15 feet are what makes a team win, but when your points don’t even pass the smell test, it doesn’t make people stand back and re-evaluate what they know, it makes people just point and laugh and not take you seriously. This happened to Winston. You do not want to be in the same breath as Winston, as I’m sure you probably know.
simon
March 15, 2010
Alex//
Smell test is useless. It just means you have your conclusion already and looking to justify what your nose has already told you.
And the 05-06 Lakers weren’t that bad. Odom has consistently been a very good win producer, and guys like Smush Parker and Luke Walton all held their own. The current team’s much better with the addition of Bynum and Gasol, but otherwise, that team in 05-06 was far from being all-Kobe.
Tindall
March 15, 2010
Kwame Brown and Smush Parker are either fat, out of the league, or both at this point. Yet both posted respectable numbers on those Lakers teams – could it be that playing next to Kobe made them better? And what about Luke Walton? His Wp48 is not what it used to be. Have injuries prematurely reduced his productivity, or was playing with a tremendous shooting guard a part of his success?
ilikeflowers
March 15, 2010
‘Anyways, I realize that the entire point of your post and your stat in general is that scoring is overrated…’
This statement is false. The point is that inefficient scoring is overrated. Which seems like a simple concept, but apparently isn’t.
‘…and that large men who rebound and shoot from closer than 15 feet are what makes a team win’
They are closer to basket, thus they get the lion’s share of the high-percentage shots and they get the possessions (if they’re big/tall enough). This is the low-hanging fruit – this is where it’s easiest to be efficient. What’s hard to accept about this? Maybe they are generally less skillful than a less productive SG, but you can’t teach size and it counts – a lot.
Curiously, until Jordan came along this was what the coaches and sportswriters thought as well. And of course after Jordan we see that all of the champion’s best players were big men with the exception of Miami and Wade’s truly Jordanesque performance. Of course San Antonio has recieved tremendous production out of Ginobili as well – which even eyeballs could see. And to give credit where credit is due, Kobe was essentially just as important as Gasol last year, although those Lakers were an unusually egalitarian team.
simon
March 15, 2010
Tindall//
It has been mentioned before, but Kwame’s best season did not come with the Lakers. Smush Parker was indeed best playing with Kobe but his rookie year numbers suggests he was very capable of playing at that level. I wonder what gotten to him?
And you haven’t mentioned how Pau Gasol and Ron Artest aren’t playing with Kobe than they used to do. On average, there’s very little evidence that Kobe, or most other players, improve their teammates.
simon
March 15, 2010
that should be “Pau Gasol and Ron Artest aren’t playing better with Kobe than they used to do before coming to the Lakers. “
khandor
March 15, 2010
Although Clyde Drexler and Reggie Miller were “more productive” players, according to their individual numbers, than Kobe Bryant has been, to this point in his career, it would be a serious mistake in basketball acumen to claim that either Drexler or Miller was, in fact, a “better/superior” basketball player, in comparison with Bryant.
“Better and superior” are qualitative terms of assessment; while, “more [or less] productive” is a quantitative measure.
Alex
March 15, 2010
The 05-06 Lakers absolutely were terrible. You are looking at it from a stat only point of view. The 2nd best player (Odom) mailed in roughly 40 games that year. But hey, he stayed (mostly) healthy and kept piling up rebounds and he was on the floor with Kobe so he accumulated win shares by accident. Smush Parker went from “playing decently alongside Kobe” to “out of the league” just like that. Luke Walton is an embarrassment of an NBA player and only accumulated stats because he happened to be standing on the court and was guarded roughly 30% of the time. Kwame Brown…enough said.
I realize that the entire point of the advanced stat movement is to get attention and you need outrageous claims to do that, but try saying that the 05-06 Lakers outside of Kobe “weren’t that bad” and see how far that gets you. The biggest problem with the advanced stat movement is how insulated it is. You believe something is right only because the rest of your small world agree with it. Reality is over that way.
simon
March 15, 2010
Alex,
“Enough said” is correct. You do realise Kwame Brown had better seasons other places right?
Obviously box score-based stats have its limitation, but how is advances stat movement is more “insulated” than the common wisdom where things just…”are” because people claim they “just know” by looking at things?
brian
March 15, 2010
no, people believe in the advanced stats because they tend to predict things better than the naked eye can (and also because the results are easily reproducible). Alex, all your statements are predicated on your previous opinions of how good the various Laker players were, but when doing analysis we should always go back to the empirical evidence–eFG%, rebounds, assists, TO’s, steals, etc–and *not* our old conclusions. The current model takes those numbers and more for the past 30-ish years, makes no subjective assumptions about what should make a player good, and regresses them to team wins/eff differential before making any conclusions about what should and should not lead to wins. We can tell it’s good-but not perfect- because simply by following the Win Score formula (a rough estimate of player productivity) and evaluating it for each player on a team, we automagically end up with a number that ends up strikingly close to the actual number of wins. And at the end of the day, all we care about is winning (games, championships…)
jbrett
March 15, 2010
Chris Yeh:
Brent Barry shared the backcourt with Gary Payton; who was the point guard, again? Alvin Robertson’s best year in San Antonio was with Johnny Moore; no question who ran the offense. In Milwaukee, he played with Paul Pressey–the original ‘point forward,’ remember?
You’re dead on about Lever and McMillan, and you left out Richardson; all point guards. I agree with you about McCray and Pierce, and disagree on Thompson.
Interesting what conclusions can be drawn with those changes. MJ is the only SG with a WP48 over .350 in over thirty years. And Kobe is in the top ten, but clearly behind guys like Drexler and Moncrief. Anyone who doubts he has a spectacular skill set is not paying attention; anyone who thinks he has used those skills to produce like MJ is delusional. He’s great at what he does–but he doesn’t do what MJ did. I’m a Laker fan; if Kobe and MJ came into the league together, and you offered me that trade at ANY point, my only question would be how many first-round draft picks I had to throw in.
jbrett
March 15, 2010
I’ll throw another idea out there: Several SG have had a more productive PEAK season, or handful of peak seasons, than Kobe; however, on a career basis, he has been far more consistent. So where is the tipping point? How good does someone have to be, and for how long, to be preferable to Kobe’s 10-plus steady, highly productive, but measurably less than spectacular years? Factoring in his evident need to be the alpha dog would seem necessary. Certainly the makeup of the roster would be a factor; Dave’s observation that few championship teams lack a .300 WP48 player must be taken into account.
MJ and Clyde have to be above Kobe on any kind of team. Moncrief and his 5-6 great, healthy years? I say yes. Wade? Too soon to be sure, but maybe. McGrady? No way. Put him in one place, and maybe you get more consistency–or maybe there’s a reason teams trade him away. Robertson, Ginobili? Moncrief lite–maybe too lite. Who else?
So, is Kobe in the top 4-5 SG of the last 30-plus years? Probably, lo0king at the whole career. Can you win a title with him? Helps to have two other guys with the same kind of production, but yes. Does the ability to be clutch in crunch-time bump him up the list? Maybe a little; I’m not one of the myriad disciples of the ‘shot-creators have value that can’t be measured’ school who post here–but there is certainly value in making shots that win games.
So who’s better right now? Wade has been better some years, worse others; if you knew he would be healthy, you’d take him first. Roy is younger, and his peak potential looks promising, but there’s a lot that remains to be seen. Kobe, while clearly on the downhill side, is still pretty good, and still strikes fear in opponents.
My Mount Rushmore of modern (post ’77) SG, total body of work? MJ, Clyde, The Squid, and The Mamba, in that order. Someone playing now could replace him; wouldn’t surprise me. But I will suggest that:
A) Kobe is very, very good;
B) He is also very overrated in some circles; and
C) His overrated-ness is also exaggerated (see A, above).
Do I wish his amazing skills resulted in greater production? Sure, but to suggest he had the capability to be greater requires an explanation of how–and possibly a belief in transformation that would border on mystical.
Jason J
March 15, 2010
Anybody think maybe Bryant’s knee injury in 2003 (surgery summer ’04 prior to the alleged rape) messed up his game? He was way more of an all-around producer in 2003, I believe (and table two agrees) that 2003 was his best season. 2004-present he becomes much more of a volume scorer and less of an all-around presence.
Phil
March 16, 2010
jbrett,
“Anyone who doubts he has a spectacular skill set is not paying attention; anyone who thinks he has used those skills to produce like MJ is delusional. He’s great at what he does–but he doesn’t do what MJ did.”
Fantastic stuff.
As a parallel, I think of Baron Davis; which players are more skilled than him? But for whatever reason – lack of motivation, poor decision making, etc – he has never consistently been an elite PG. But think about players like Billups and Kidd. They’re “skilled” players, but not spectacularly so. They are consistently good decision makers. And they’re always still playing games in May.
The difference between Davis and Kidd/Billups is far more pronounced than that between Kobe and Jordan, and I’ll say to Kobe’s credit that motivation has never been an issue for him. But Jordan’s still on a whole other level, and you do a fantastic job of explaining why.
Alex,
Smush was out of the league because he was a mediocre player (no matter where he was playing) and clashed with Pat Riley, a notoriously less flexible coach than Phil Jackson. It was about temperament, not lack of ability or productivity.
Are we supposed to believe that Kobe’s prodigious scoring kept Smush from being a headcase?
brgulker
March 16, 2010
jbrett just won this thread.
There’s no question that Kobe has the physical toolset that MJ had. It’s eerily similar and obvious to anyone who’s seen them both play.
But Kobe just doesn’t do as much with his talent on a consistent basis, which is why he hasn’t produced as much over the course of his career.
I don’t know why this is the case. He has the same coach, the same system, and a better supporting cast.
Ashwin
March 16, 2010
This idea that people should put Kobe ahead of others because he’s won more championships is a case looking at facts without also examining the context behind them.
Yes, Kobe is great player. For my money he’s a top-20 player of all time and a top-3 shooting guard. However he was 2nd fiddle to Shaq’s leading act in the Lakers’ threepeat.
When Kobe got the chance to lead the team by himself he failed to get them to the playoffs the first year, lost in the first round the next year (his famous Game 7 disappearing act) and then bitched and whined about getting traded during that offseason.
He came into that season and nobody even gave them a shot to win a championship until they added Gasol at which point they became legitimate contenders. Obviously last year they won as we all know, with the most talented team in the NBA.
The fact of the matter is Kobe may have been the “franchise”player, but they won because nobody could match up with a frontcourt of Bynum, Gasol and Odom, not to mention some clutch plays made by Ariza.
In contrast a player like Drexler only won one championship, but he also played during the great Lakers, Celtics dynasties of the 80’s, the Pistons after that and then MJ’s Bulls.
Considering the good, but middling talent that surrounded Clyde in Portland it’s quite an achievement he had the success he had of even getting them to a Finals.
Clyde got his ring alongside Olajuwon in 1995
when he was traded to the Rockets mid-season.
Great big men win over great guard play, MJ withstanding. Kobe has had the great fortune of playing alongside the most dominant big man of his time in Shaq and a trio of talented big men on the current Lakers team.
Is Kobe a great player yes, but to say he’s better because of more rings without examining the context behind it is foolish. It would be like saying Robert Horry is a greater player than Kobe Bryant because he won 7 rings and Kobe’s only won 4.
brgulker
March 16, 2010
Speaking of Olajuwon, has his productivity ever been discussed here (or elsewhere)?
He was my all-time favorite big man in terms of entertainment value (and I would argue overall skill), but I’ve never seen his productivity stacked up against other great big men.
ilikeflowers
March 16, 2010
brgulker,
https://dberri.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/ewing-or-olajuwon-who-was-better/
Olajuwon had three seasons right around 0.400.
Megalo Arenas
March 16, 2010
Interesting list, I knew Kobe was not nearly as productive as MJ, but some of the names on that list are new to me, such as Sidney Moncrief and Michael Ray Richardson.
Im very interested in a list involving the power forwards.
simon
March 16, 2010
Another post of interest is
https://dberri.wordpress.com/2008/09/07/the-best-nba-center-in-my-student%E2%80%99s-life/
where David Robinson takes the crown and people are unhappy :D
brgulker
March 16, 2010
Thanks, guys. I’ll read those tonight.
mrparker
March 16, 2010
For those who claim Kobe has the same skillset as Jordan please watch this comparison video for a small sample of why that is simply not true. The video is 2 minutes long.
dberri
March 16, 2010
How do you imbed a video into the comments?
mrparker
March 16, 2010
and i didnt mean to link the video in the comments…i have no idea how i did that…i apologize to the prof is that is against the rules
Tindall
March 16, 2010
I can understand people getting upset over David Robinson’s ranking, but they should remember that his ranking is based on the regular season, not the post-season where he regularly under-performed.
dberri
March 16, 2010
What rules? I just had no idea how one did something like this.
ilikeflowers
March 16, 2010
ilikeflowers
March 16, 2010
It looks like all you have to do is paste the link from YouTube and the browser will take care of the rest.
brgulker
March 16, 2010
Testing, 1, 2, 3…
brgulker
March 16, 2010
My browser is Firefox … I did some googling, and I think it might actually be WordPress, not the browser, that embeds the video automatically.
I’m not 100% though.
mrparker
March 16, 2010
Prof,
I hadn’t seen videos imbedded before. I didn’t want to be the first to start something that might take away from the idea of the site.
dberri
March 16, 2010
Very cool!!! New assignment for all readers. Find the video that supports the post.
Then again… I suppose it is just as easy to do this for the post.
John Giagnorio
March 16, 2010
Cmon brgulker, no one wants to see that stuff ;)
ilikeflowers
March 16, 2010
Alex
March 16, 2010
There are so many things wrong here that I can’t even begin to hit everything, but let’s start at the top.
1) Stats CAN in fact tell whatever story you want them to tell. Let me prove that to you. Here are stats that show Kobe can and has outperformed both Drexler and Miller.
a) PER. Drexler’s best season PER wise is a 24.1 in 87-88. Kobe has SIX seasons that top that. Reggie Miller’s best season PER wise is a 21.2. Kobe tops that every year of his career besides the 1st 3. Reggie’s best years only top Kobe’s absolute worst!
b) Offensive win shares. Kobe has three years in double digits. Drexler has ZERO. Miller has two. Drexler’s best year would be Kobe’s 5th best year. Clyde tops Kobe overall because he racks up higher DWS. The only reason this is true is because DWS overrates defensive rebounds. The win share stat seems to believe that scoring is a fungible commodity but makes no such distinction on rebounding which is even more fungible!
Side note: Let’s quickly go over how ludicrous it is that Clyde should be on Kobe’s level as far as contributing to a win defensively. How many years of Drexler on the All NBA 1st team defensively. Hm…that’s funny, it’s 0! How many years of Drexler on the All NBA 2nd team defensively. Why that’s funny, there are none here either! The stat of defensive win shares does not actually measure DEFENSE, it just rewarded Drexler because he picked up rebounds. You should call this “rebound shares” instead of defensive win shares because if it screwed up this badly, it doesn’t measure defense at all!
By the stats I just showed you, Drexler doesn’t match up with Kobe in the slightest. Miller makes a somewhat better case, but Kobe destroys him on both ends of the court. And we haven’t even gotten into the playoffs, where Kobe crushes both of them in any measure you like.
So yes. Stats can be juggled to prove anything you want.
As far as Smush Parker goes, if he could play, he would have gotten minutes on somebody’s team. The only years he tallied higher than a 0.1 in win shares were the years he was on the Lakers. He started 162 games with the Lakers. He started 21 in the rest of his NBA career combined. He accumulated those win shares by virtue of standing on the court while Kobe was there and benefiting from not being guarded, same as Luke Walton did. Since this blog is a win share blog, I would like someone to prove to me that Smush was showing signs that he was capable of producing win shares without Kobe holding his hand. His best year without Kobe Bryant was a 0.1!!! Without Kobe, he had negative offensive win shares every year of his career!
In order to tear down Kobe Bryant, you all are trying to build up Smush Parker, Kwame Brown and Luke Walton, guys whose names are literally punchlines around the NBA and trying to say that they’re “not that bad”, but stats show that Smush Parker and Luke Walton aren’t that bad, they’re even worse. We can’t do the same kind of analysis with Luke Walton since he hasn’t been away from Kobe his entire life, but if the Lakers were to hypothetically release him, he likely wouldn’t get another NBA job.
And Ashwin, tell me you aren’t trying to say that Odom/Gasol/Bynum are why the Lakers won the title last year. Even stats wise (win shares, PER), Kobe beat Gasol and Odom. Bynum no showed the whole playoffs. You guys can’t try to put everything on stats, then change your argument to “well this is the reason they REALLY won” when the stats don’t suit you. Live by your sword, die by it. The eyes said Kobe was the star, the hardware said he was (M.V.P.), and even your precious stats say he was also.
simon
March 16, 2010
Alex//
Even if you want to use PER, Gasol, Kwame, Derek Fisher, Artest all had their best seasons elsewhere. In fact, Artest is enjoying easily his worst season ever. Shouldn’t they all improve with the amazing Kobe?
About Smush Parker, if you take a look at his rookie season, it’s very similar to what he did in the Lakers, especially the 2nd season. So yes, I’d say he showed the sign very early indeed.
As for the rest of the stuff, I have a feeling I have read similar stuff in 2006. Try your local library to at least understand the reasoning and justification behind dberri’s method in his book.
Alex
March 16, 2010
Oh and one more thing to Ashwin. You want to say that Kobe played 2nd fiddle to Shaq throughout the 3peat years? Well, seems to me that in 2000-2001 (widely considered the best of the Lakers title teams and an all-time great team), Kobe edged Shaq in win shares. So since this is the win share blog, looks like Shaq was playing 2nd fiddle to Kobe on the greatest Laker team of the decade.
(Note: Is this true? Hell no, it isn’t, but if the stats say it, it MUST be true! Yet another case of stats proving anything you want)
Alex
March 16, 2010
simon:
When you have to share the ball, your PER goes down unless you’re a huge assist man. Out of Jordan’s 5 highest PER seasons, only 1 came on a championship team and that was the 90-91 team where Jordan and Pip were basically on their own. Only Horace Grant cracked 14.0 in PER that year. Artest, Gasol, Kwame and Fish all had to share more with the Lakers than they did elsewhere.
But it’s cool that you’re cherrypicking, I can do that too. Hey, whatever happened to Trevor Ariza?
This brings me to yet another problem with the advanced stat community. You think that if someone disagrees with you, they just don’t understand. Here’s a newsflash for you, I understand, your methods are just flawed at best and ridiculous at worst. Instead of sticking your fingers in your ears when you’re criticized, try tweaking your numbers so reality can get in.
Alex
March 16, 2010
14.0 in the Bulls example is a typo. Should read 15.0.
simon
March 16, 2010
Exactly. You can always cherry pick and whether you use PER, WS or WP, but there’s no evidence of Kobe improving other players.
And cherry picking is precisely why we like the advanced stats. dberri provides figures and formula(well, at least the logics on his book) on how the system was developed and what R2 value you can expect year to year on player production. Because, in case you haven’t noticed, the system was derived from the “reality.” i.e. it’s based on regression analysis
Otherwise, you just fall into the logic of “I know player X is productive because he looks good to me (or smells nice ;) ) and other people agree with me.”
And no, this blog is not a “win share blog,” win share is another system which is more based on Dean Oliver’s and Bill James’ work. So although you insist that you “understand” it, but you don’t even know exactly which system you’re criticizing. Again, at least go to a local library and read the book.
jbrett
March 16, 2010
Alex,
I think (hope) you are employing a sarcasm too subtle for me; if not, and you are genuinely arguing for one player over another using PER, on THIS blog…well, you are still a very funny guy, just in a different way. The fact that you quote a statistical measure which has been debunked at length here, then refer to Kobe ‘passing the eye test’ without a hint of self-consciousness, is certainly daring.
As for the ‘Kobe as Moses Malone’ argument, with Smush and Luke as two of the four guys from Petersburg–I have to lump it in with the ‘shot-creators have value to a team, even if it is entirely unmeasurable’ school of thought. I might argue that those two benefited from Phil’s coaching (one of the few coaches shown in studies to actually improve a team), or the triangle offense itself (interesting how many players fade to obscurity when they leave it).
simon
March 16, 2010
jbrett//
Urg, you made my horrid writing look even worse there.
Alex//
I should’ve mentioned before that one of very first things dberri mentions in his book is his position on the “laugh test,” which is analogous to your “smell test,” and it’s explained more in depth there.
Alex
March 16, 2010
My overall point is that your stat has just as much validity as PER. Both have a real substantive problem with association != causation, which is somewhat inevitable when you deal with the sport of basketball. Team PER has value just like team WS has value. Association does not mean causation in either case. PER at least makes an effort though. A team of 5 high PER men will do better than a team of the 5 high WP48 men. This year at the halfway point you would have had Mike Miller as your 2!
Just as PER has been debunked here, other places on the internet have debunked “rebound shares”. You don’t believe in PER and have chosen to throw your allegiance behind something else that’s just as silly. How you choose to ignore what actually happens doesn’t make too much difference to me.
Also re: Shaq/Kobe 2001, the WS compared was in the playoffs.
simon
March 16, 2010
Alex //
In a word, no. Both this blog and the book have explanations on why PER isn’t up to the snuff as an indicator of players’ contribution to wins, and you have to be more specific than just bringing up player names here and there.
jbrett
March 16, 2010
Alex,
Your first paragraph above contains five statements you present as fact; each is actually a theory, which you make no attempt to explain. Do us all a favor, and pretend someone you respect, who genuinely wants to understand the points you are trying to make, is simply asking “Why? What makes that statement accurate?” Make your case with something other than variations of “I know what I saw.” If you can’t marshal a fact-based argument, you might as well be browbeating astronomers to heed their horoscopes, or telling doctors about the wonders of phrenology.
By fact-based, I mean to reference things like the actual debunking of PER, which boils down to “if you can shoot 32% from the floor, which I dare say every NBA player since the mid-1950’s has managed to do, more shots equals higher PER.” Fact–if doing something you do poorly even more frequently than before causes your score to IMPROVE, then the scale isn’t working.
So dazzle us all with some facts, some logical conclusions drawn from those facts, and a modicum of intellectual rigor, and make the debate entertaining. Trying to hold a conversation with an opinionated naysayer loses its luster quite rapidly.
brgulker
March 17, 2010
Alex does this here, and it’s been done several times in this thread.
Being named to an All NBA Team, being named League MVP, and/or being named Finals MVP is NOT A STAT. It is an award which is given solely on the basis of opinion and perception.
That argument carries almost no weight, because at its core, it’s nothing more than, “I think player X is good, and the media agrees with me.”
To those who have made the argument in this thread, please stop using it. It doesn’t get you anywhere, and TBH, it just makes you look silly.
Phil
March 17, 2010
mrparker,
You’ve stumbled on something wonderful or horrble, and I’m not sure which.
Alex,
I’d be quite interested in reading your sources which critisize “rebound shares”.
Is rebounding not one of the most consistent statistics from year to year among NBA players? I’m honestly asking.
I (mis?)remember reading a review of Wages of Wins that discussed consistency of scoring versus non-scoring aspects of the game in regards to WP/min. It found a very strong correlation; r-squared of .85, I believe, and rebounds are a big part of the non-scoring aspects of WP (and WP as a whole, for that matter).
I’d also hazard a guess that blocks and tend to fluctuate quite a bit. But I could easily be mistaken.
All this leads me to think that rebounds are a consistent stat.
That is not to say that diminishing returns do not exist; they do, though the extent is debatable. Nor am I saying that external coaching schemes (some teams elect not to have players go for offensive rebounds) or other players (for instance, someone adept at contesting shots and forcing misses) don’t have an impact. And I am certainly not saying that everything in defense can be captured from the box score.
But rebounds matter, and rebounding performance tends to be consistent.