Vamos Rafa
Registered User
Also I would say Harden is a more talented player than Kobe was.I wouldn't say I disagree but it's a lot closer than most people think. Especially with Dirk. Team success is the main thing Kobe has over those guys.
Also I would say Harden is a more talented player than Kobe was.I wouldn't say I disagree but it's a lot closer than most people think. Especially with Dirk. Team success is the main thing Kobe has over those guys.
The world's full of clueless people. Kobe is one of the most overrated players ever. And a rapist as well.
On average I think Kobe is properly rated. mainly because the large factions that both overrate and underrate him more or less cancel each other out. He's overrated if you compare him to MJ and LBJ, but underrated if you dismiss him as an Iverson or McGrady who simply got lucky by ending up on the Lakers.I wouldn't say I disagree but it's a lot closer than most people think. Especially with Dirk. Team success is the main thing Kobe has over those guys.
This thread is the perfect example as to why advanced stats aren't that great.
WOWY's are here. methodology is also outlined behind the link. dirk is slightly better than kobe in but not by much. he's clearly better than paul and harden though harden had his best year after 2016 (last update was 2016 not sure if there have been updates since). plus-minus data can be found, here, here and updated version here.
issue with WS, BPM and VORP is they are box score-derived. so i think they kind of miss out on impact. they don't show kobe's gravity, you couldn't leave him open. now you can say you couldn't leave dirk open either but kobe was arguably better player off-ball; and certainly better off-ball player than paul and harden as the latter barely moved when he didn't have the ball in his hands. thus, kobe could impact the game without touching the ball more than those guys, save for maybe dirk.
anyway, i think the case for (and against) kobe's peak is best told in this video
already mentioned it before. it's pretty simpleQuite a few posters in this thread have been dismissive of the advanced metrics I've used to measure the on-court value of players, however, nobody has provided an explanation as to why these statistics fail to provide an accurate measurement of Kobe's value
Essentially, there's been a lot of "advanced stats don't tell the whole story" claims, but that doesn't explain why these statistics are so favourable to Jordan, LeBron, Harden, Paul, McGrady, Durant, Curry, etc. but not Kobe
Jordan's career highs:
31.7, 21.2 Win Shares, .321 WS/48, 13 BPM, 12.5 VORP
Harden's career highs:
30.6 PER, 16.4 Win Shares, .289 WS/48, 11 BPM, 9.3 VORP
Durant's career highs:
29.8 PER, 19.2 Win Shares, .295 WS/48, 10.2 BPM, 9.6 VORP
McGrady's career highs:
30.3 PER, 16.1 Win Shares, .262 WS/48, 10.5 BPM, 9.3 VORP
Chris Paul's career highs:
30 PER, 18.3 Win Shares, .292 WS/48, 11 BPM, 9.9 VORP
Curry's career highs:
31.5 PER, 17.9 Win Shares, .318 WS/48, 11.9 BPM, 9.5 VORP
LeBron's career highs:
31.7 PER, 20.3 Win Shares, .322 WS/48, 13.2 BPM, 11.8 VORP
Kobe's career highs:
28 PER, 15.3 Win Shares, .224 WS/48, 7.6 BPM, 8.0 VORP
The difference in their peak seasons isn't significant, there's quite a gap between Kobe's best vs the others
So, if advanced metrics support the opinion that Jordan and LeBron were better than Harden, Paul, and McGrady, why is it that those same advanced metrics fail to show Kobe's superiority?
I tried to balance peak and longevity in listing the most impressive ledgers of the last 22 years. Per game peak AuPM is included in parentheses
I mostly agree that Kobe's prime and longevity stands out more than his peak. I define peak as best 3-5 seasons and prime as 7-10. Longevity has 2 parts, the first being how long they are in their prime (for example, Gretzky maintained the level of his best 10 seasons beyond those 10 years), and how long they were an effective player before and after their prime.@Neutrinos i do agree that kobe's peak (if we define peak as the best season) is a tier, maybe two below the best of the best. however, kobe's prime (best 5 years) and longevity (about 12 years as a top 5 player) raise him in the top 10 for me or at least very close to it.
as for the updated AuPM playoff performers list, Ben Taylor says
that's why kobe ranks higher than some other despite having lower his AuPM score. he was able to maintain for longer periods.
i also think kobe gets underrated more when there is stronger emphasis on regular season. kobe was one of the few all-time greats who was able to maintain or even elevate his game in the playoffs. kobe was already taking and making tough contested shots during the regular season. so the strategy of forcing the star to take tough shots didn't hurt kobe's efficiency that much since that's how he always played, for better or worse.
@Neutrinos i do agree that kobe's peak (if we define peak as the best season) is a tier, maybe two below the best of the best. however, kobe's prime (best 5 years) and longevity (about 12 years as a top 5 player) raise him in the top 10 for me or at least very close to it.
as for the updated AuPM playoff performers list, Ben Taylor says
that's why kobe ranks higher than some other despite having lower his AuPM score. he was able to maintain for longer periods.
i also think kobe gets underrated more when there is stronger emphasis on regular season. kobe was one of the few all-time greats who was able to maintain or even elevate his game in the playoffs. kobe was already taking and making tough contested shots during the regular season. so the strategy of forcing the star to take tough shots didn't hurt kobe's efficiency that much since that's how he always played, for better or worse.
I mostly agree that Kobe's prime and longevity stands out more than his peak. I define peak as best 3-5 seasons and prime as 7-10. Longevity has 2 parts, the first being how long they are in their prime (for example, Gretzky maintained the level of his best 10 seasons beyond those 10 years), and how long they were an effective player before and after their prime.
For Kobe, having a 13 season prime (00/01-12/13) is what stands out most for him. To put it another way, his prime was longer than most. As I said upthread, Shaq had the better prime (better 7-10 best seasons), but Kobe had the longer prime, since he maintained that level longer.
His efficiency is also basically the same in the regular season and playoffs, and one could attribute that to regularly taking the difficult shots that exist in the playoffs.
Is James Harden better than Kobe Bryant?Let's take a look at the playoff numbers of some players during their prime, shall we?
Kobe '99 - '13 (178 games)
22.8 PER, .544 TS%, 5.8 BPM, .164 WS/48 (2 playoffs with a WS/48 above .2, career high of .26)
Lead the playoffs in VORP 2x, WS 1x
Shaq '95 - '04 (155 games)
28.3 PER, .568 TS%. 6.9 BPM, .212 WS/48 (7 playoffs with a WS/48 above .2, career high of .26)
Lead the playoffs in PER 4x, OWS 3x, DWS 2x, WS 3x, WS/48 2x, OBPM 1x, VORP 2x
Paul '08 - '22 (142 games)
23.6 PER, .587 TS%, 6.9 BPM, .193 WS/48 (6 playoffs with a WS/48 above .2, career high of .322)
Lead the playoffs in PER 3x, OWS 1x, WS/48 3x, OBPM 2x, BPM 2x
Duncan '98 - '15 (241 games)
24.6 PER, .549 TS%, 6.0 BPM, .197 WS/48 (7 playoffs with a WS/48 above .2, career high of .279)
Lead the playoffs in PER 2x, OWS 2x, DWS 1x, WS/48 1x, DBPM 2x, BPM 1x, VORP 2x
Harden '13 - '21 (94 games)
24 PER, .584 TS%, 7.7 BPM, .182 WS/48 (3 playoffs with a WS/48 above .2, career high of .263)
Lead the playoffs in OBPM 1x
Wade '05 - '12 (97 games)
24.9 PER, .565 TS%, 7.4 BPM, .193 WS/48 (3 playoffs with a WS/48 above .2, career high of .24)
Lead the playoffs in PER 1x, TS% 1x, DWS 1x, OBPM 1x, BPM 1x, VORP 1x
Durant '11 - '21 (145 games)
24.9 PER, .604 TS%, 7.4 BPM, .205 WS/48 (7 playoffs with a WS/48 above .2, career high of .28)
Never lead the playoffs in any advanced statistic
Nowitzki '01 - '12 (128 games)
24.7 PER, .584 TS%, 6.6 BPM, .205 WS/48 (6 playoffs with a WS/48 above .2, career high of .291)
Lead the playoffs in PER 1x, OWS 2x, WS 1x, WS/48 3x, OBPM 1x, BPM 1x, VORP 1x
Curry '13 - '22
23.2 PER, .608 TS%, 7.1 BPM, .195 WS/48 (3 playoffs with a WS/48 above .2, career high of .272)
Lead the playoffs in WS 1x, VORP 2x
Leonard '03 - '21 (121 games)
25 PER, .621 TS%, 8.5 BPM, .232 WS/48 (5 playoffs with a WS/48 above .2, career high of .314)
Lead the playoffs in PER 2x, OWS 1x, DWS 1x, WS 1x, WS/48 1x, OBPM 1x, BPM 2x, VORP 1x
LeBron '06 - '20 (260 games)
28.4 PER, .584 TS%, 10.2 BPM, .245 WS/48 (10 seasons with a WS/48 above. 2, career high of .399)
Lead the playoff in PER 5x, OWS 8x, DWS 4x, WS 9x, WS/48 4x, OBPM 5x, BPM 5x, VORP 9x
Jordan '85 - '98 (179 games)
28.6 PER, .568 TS%, 11.1 BPM, .255 WS/48 (9 playoffs with a WS/48 above .2, career high of .333)
Lead the playoffs in PER 6x, OWS 7x, DWS 1x, WS 7x, WS/48 5x, OBPM 8x, DBPM 1x, BPM 9x, VORP 8x
Please note that in an attempt to provide an accurate representation of a player's playoff value during their prime, their prime was considered to have ended once there was a noticeable drop in their playoff production after the age of 30. For example, despite Kobe's 2012 regular season being more or less in line with other seasons from his prime, there was a significant drop in his playoff production from the year before, so 2011 would be viewed as the final season of his prime
So, of the 12 players listed above, Kobe has the lowest PER, TS%, BPM, and WS/48 in the playoffs during their primes
Is James Harden better than Kobe Bryant?
That's enough for me to not take those advanced stats seriously or with a grain of salt, cause these 2 players are in different stratospheres imoGenerally speaking, during their respective primes, the positve value that Harden provided to his team was greater than what Kobe provided to his
That's enough for me to not take those advanced stats seriously or with a grain of salt, cause these 2 players are in different stratospheres imo
Line any gm in history up and have them answer the kobe or Harden question I asked you, none will agree with you not even Daryl Morey. it's not a biased opinion cause I like kobe or dislike Harden it is simply obvious if you watched both play.Stats > Opinion
So, you think because the advanced metrics which are used throughout the basketball community to assess a player's on-court value don't align with your opinion of a particular player, that those metrics should be disregarded?
Maybe it's your misguided, biased opinion that you should disregard
Line any gm in history up and have them answer the kobe or Harden question I asked you, none will agree with you not even Daryl Morey. it's not a biased opinion cause I like kobe or dislike Harden it is simply obvious if you watched both play.
Just because there is a subjectively created truth to align with your opinion regarding advanced statistics does not make things true.Stats > Opinion
It doesn't matter whose opinion it is
Now, if you had said "I think a coach might prefer Kobe over Harden because they may feel as though they could implement a system which would maximize Kobe's immense talent". that would be an opinion which wouldn't have to be supported by any type of metric. It would be purely speculative, and you wouldn't get any push back from me about it
But it is a fact that generally speaking, during their respective primes, the positive value that Harden provided to his team was greater than what Kobe provided to his
Whether you or anyone else chooses to accept that fact is irrelevant
The truth doesn't change because you refuse to believe it
Just because there is a subjectively created truth to align with your opinion regarding advanced statistics does not make things true.
Whether you or anyone else chooses to accept that fact is irrelevant.
Same stat whackers out here claiming Jesse Puljujarvi could be one of the best two-way wingers in hockey.
Generally speaking, during their respective primes, the positive value that Harden provided to his team was greater than what Kobe provided to his
already mentioned it before. it's pretty simple
advanced stats aren't kind to kobe because his entire game was based on taking difficult shots. he produced a ton but he wasn't the most efficient player (which is what advanced stats value most) because of his penchant for taking long, contested shots
James Harden Stats Game 5 Against Warriors In 2015 Playoffs | StatMuse
James Harden had 14 points and added 6 rebounds, 5 assists and 3 steals against the Warriors in Game 5 of the 2015 Western Conference Finals on May 27, 2015.www.statmuse.com
are you referring to those 05-06 and 06-07 lakers teams? because those teams would not have been better at all if kobe had decided to be a more all around player instead of a pure scorer. he single-handedly got those teams into the playoffs by putting up 30+ a game because he was playing with scrubs like chris mihm and smush parker every nightThat's part of the problem with Bryant though. He chose to play in an inefficient way and ended up being maybe the biggest example of hero ball. If Bryant had kept along the more well-rounded way he was trending in 2000 and 2001, he would have scored a bit less when he peaked but he would have been a more effective player and his teams would have been better. He still peaked for a season as the best player in basketball (2006) but he could have been better. O'Neal is the same story, but his issue was totally different.
I'm talking about his whole career after 2001, but yes the Lakers would have been better, even after he'd forced O'Neal out, if he had played better all around basketball. Can't say it wasn't entertaining to watch 2006 Kobe Bryant though.are you referring to those 05-06 and 06-07 lakers teams? because those teams would not have been better at all if kobe had decided to be a more all around player instead of a pure scorer. he single-handedly got those teams into the playoffs by putting up 30+ a game because he was playing with scrubs like chris mihm and smush parker every night
where i do agree with your argument is in relation to the 04 finals, which is the only black mark on his resume and when the lakers would have been a better team if kobe had passed more. he took hero ball to another level that series
That's part of the problem with Bryant though. He chose to play in an inefficient way and ended up being maybe the biggest example of hero ball. If Bryant had kept along the more well-rounded way he was trending in 2000 and 2001, he would have scored a bit less when he peaked but he would have been a more effective player and his teams would have been better. He still peaked for a season as the best player in basketball (2006) but he could have been better. O'Neal is the same story, but his issue was totally different.
In 2006 he probably was. Not nearly as much as his reputation suggested though.Kobe was never the best player in basketball
I don't care how you word it, kobe is a better basketball player than Harden and it's hilarious you think this is close. This is take a fraudulent casual fan would have don't care what the fancy stats say, Harden isn't even better than Wade or IversonStats > Opinion
It doesn't matter whose opinion it is
Now, if you had said "I think a coach might prefer Kobe over Harden because they may feel as though they could implement a system which would maximize Kobe's immense talent". that would be an opinion which wouldn't have to be supported by any type of metric. It would be purely speculative, and you wouldn't get any push back from me about it
But it is a fact that generally speaking, during their respective primes, the positive value that Harden provided to his team was greater than what Kobe provided to his
Whether you or anyone else chooses to accept that fact is irrelevant
The truth doesn't change because you refuse to believe it