Shaq vs Kobe: who do you rank higher all time?

[Vamos Rafa]

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.

 

[LightningStorm]

The world's full of clueless people. Kobe is one of the most overrated players ever. And a rapist as well.

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.

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 do agree that his team success leads to him getting overrated. In the 2000's, I thought Kobe and Duncan each got undue credit as "winners" when in reality their 5 rings are mostly a product of the 2 greatly ideal, albeit very different, circumstances they got drafted into. But while Kobe's circumstances are at bare minimum 95% of the reason he has 5 rings and Dirk, CP3 and Harden have a combined 1 (Dirk's). I still think he was a better player than those 3 regardless.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

This thread is the perfect example as to why advanced stats aren't that great.

One of my favourite quotes jumps out to me after reading this thread: "Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital" (Aaron Levenstein, professor of business & economics)

 

[Neutrinos]

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

So, I did watch the video, and it pretty much says Kobe's versatility allowed him to do a lot of great things offensively, however, his shot selection/efficiency, along with his defence prevented him from being among the game's elite players

In the updated version of the top playoff performers since '97 that you posted, Kobe ranks 13th, however, his score of +4.4 is lower than some ranked below him on the list (Nowitzki 15th/+4.7, Paul 19th/+4.8), so I'm not entirely sure what criteria was used to determine the order

Thinking Basketball

Thinking Basketball

backpicks.com

Kobe was 13th since 1997 in Pelton’s best playoff rankings by box score, and he falls in the same slot here. Bryant shows great consistency, with four seasons above +4 and six above +3, but never authored a big apex (peaking at +4.4 from 2008-10). Kobe’s teams typically managed without him, and he only led his team in raw on/off three during three playoff stretches of his career.

And here in Pelton's 50 greatest individual playoffs in the modern era according to WARP, Kobe doesn't appear on the list until #22, however, Pelton adds 1 additional point to a player's score if their team wins the championship, and an additional .5 if they're named Finals MVP. So, Kobe's WARP of 7.4 in 2009 was actually only 5.9. For comparison sake, LeBron's 2018 postseason WARP without the bonus points was 7.9

Ranking 50 greatest individual postseasons in modern NBA history

Where do LeBron, Steph and KD land on our list of the best playoff performances?

www.espn.com

Where their seasons ranked, and their highest score minus the 1.5 additional points for the championship and Finals MVP:

Jordan #1, #5, #17
8.3 (1991)

LeBron #2, #8, #10, #16, #20
8.2 (2012)

Duncan #3, #13
8 (2003)

Shaq #4, #6, #14
7.8 (2000)

Olajuwon #7
7.4 (1994)

Moses Malone #9
7.3 (1983)

Bird #10, #11
7 (1984)

Wade #15
6.4 (2006)

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar #18
6.7 (1980)

Magic #19
6.1 (1987)

Curry #21
6.4 (2017)

Kobe #22
5.9 (2009)

But without those additional 1.5 points for the championship and Finals MVP, these players below him in the rankings actually posted a WARP higher than Kobe's personal best of 5.9

Bird #24
6.3 (1981)

Duncan #26
6.2 (2009)

LeBron #27
7.1 (Lost in the ECF in 2009)

Curry #28
6.1 (2015)

LeBron #33
6.8 (2014)

Olajuwon #34
6.7 (1986)

Barkley #41
6.5 (1993)

Durant #44
6.4 (2012)

Jordan #45
6.3 (Lost in ECF in 1990)

Howard #46
6.3 (2009)

LeBron #48
6.2 (2007)

Nowitzki #49
6.2 (2006)


So, again, Kobe's peak doesn't come close to being among the best of his era, and his actual on-court value would suggest he's either among the weaker inclusions in the 3rd tier of players, or among the best in the 4th tier

 

[Neutrinos]

Quite 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 PER, 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 insignificant, 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?

 

[Terry Yake]

Quite 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?

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

 

[InjuredChoker]

@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

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

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.

 

[LightningStorm]

@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.

 

[Neutrinos]

@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.

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 (134 games)
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

 

[thefutures]

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?

 

[Neutrinos]

Is James Harden better than Kobe Bryant?

Generally speaking, during their respective primes, the positive value that Harden provided to his team was greater than what Kobe provided to his

 

[thefutures]

Generally 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

 

[Neutrinos]

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

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

 

[thefutures]

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.

 

[Neutrinos]

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

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 choose to accept that fact is irrelevant

The truth doesn't change because you refuse to believe it

 

[dahrougem2]

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.

 

[Neutrinos]

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.

*yawn"

 

[Voight]

Generally speaking, during their respective primes, the positive value that Harden provided to his team was greater than what Kobe provided to his

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

 

[JackSlater]

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

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.

 

[Neutrinos]

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

Almost as bad as Kobe's 8 point game in the Finals when he shot 4 for 20

 

[Terry Yake]

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.

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

 

[JackSlater]

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

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.

 

[Neutrinos]

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.

Kobe was never the best player in basketball

 

[JackSlater]

Kobe was never the best player in basketball

In 2006 he probably was. Not nearly as much as his reputation suggested though.

 

[thefutures]

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

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 Iverson