RedsLakers24
02-27-2009, 12:37 AM
Kobe v. LeBron: PER Doesn't Tell the Entire Story
Posted Jan 19th 2009 7:00AM by Nate Jones (RSS feed)
Filed Under: Cavaliers, Lakers
On Friday, our own Tom Ziller used statistical analysis to declare that LeBron James is a better player than Kobe Bryant. Although I loved the read and the analysis, I must disagree with Ziller's final conclusion.
The metric for Ziller's well-written stat-based conclusion was a comparison of Kobe and LeBron's PER throughout their careers. John Hollinger's PER (Player Efficiency Rating) tries to statistically rank the best players in the NBA. I have to say it probably does a better job of it than any other statistical measure out there.
Just look at the top five players in PER this season and you'll likely agree. Any statistical measurement that didn't have LeBron James, Chris Paul, Dwyane Wade, Dwight Howard and Kobe Bryant close to the top would be irrelevant, and PER definitely avoids that pothole. If you follow the PER metric alone, LeBron is probably playing better than any player in the modern era right now. But utilizing PER alone to compare and contrast players might not always be the best decision.
First of all, PER is weighted in favor of players who have games predicated on scoring closer to the basket and playing in the paint. The rebound rate for someone that defends the low post, plays in the low post or does most of their dirty work getting to the rim is going to be a bit higher than someone that spends most of their time out on the perimeter. Same could be said for field goal percentages, as those that get to the rim or play close to the rim are going to be higher than those that play around the perimeter.
Proof of this comes from the fact that the top 100 individual season PERs in the history of the NBA are dominated by the greatest Centers and Power Forwards in the history of the game. The only non power position players in the top 100 are Michael Jordan, LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade, Chris Paul, Magic Johnson, Tracy McGrady, Larry Bird and Oscar Robertson. Those non power position players only combine for 28 of the top 100 single season PERs. Of course, Michael Jordan owns nine of those 28 slots. So basically, if you exclude the real G.O.A.T. (Jordan), there are only 19 seasons where non power position players have had PERs at or above 26 (The PER level needed to enter the top 100).
If you look at the all-time career PERs you'll see more proof of the power player favoritism as a guy like Elton Brand has a better PER than Gary Payton, Scottie Pippen, John Stockton, Clyde Drexler, etc.
LeBron plays small forward, has guard skills, and has a power forward's body. He spends most of his time abusing people on drives to the basket. Kobe Bryant has a prototypical shooting guards game and a prototypical shooting guards body. He spends most of his time launching butter soft jumpers from the perimeter. Those differences ring true in their respective PERs. LeBron in build and skill set is closer to the typical PER great than Kobe. Yet LeBron's career PER is not substantially better than Kobe's (25.72 to 23.63).
What's that you say? Kobe has had more years in the league as a fully formed ball player than LeBron? LeBron's career PER will become greater as the years go by, while Kobe's will likely fall? Okay. That may indeed be true. However, let's not forget that Kobe and LeBron had almost polar opposite experiences when they entered the league.
Kobe Bryant came into the league on a stacked team. His first year in the league he hardly got off the pine. And in his second year in the league he was asked to be a sixth man. LeBron was given the opportunity to be the man from the jump. Kobe didn't really get a chance to be the man until his ninth year in the league.
Out of the top 25 all-time career PER leaders, Kobe Bryant might be the only player that has spent the majority of his career as a second fiddle. I wonder what Kobe Bryant's PER would have been from 2001-2004 if he would have been allowed to be the man. LeBron at 24 is playing under an entire different set of circumstances than Kobe at that age. During that time -- even when he was on the verge of having historic outbursts -- Phil Jackson would mute Kobe almost to say: "know your role on this team". There are several occasions during those years where Kobe was close to scoring above 60 points only to have Phil Jackson sit him for nearly the entire fourth quarter. I'm talking Memphis in 2002 and Washington in 2003. How many players have reached 50 points by the third quarter and then been asked to sit for the rest of the game? That's the kind of leash Phil had on Kobe during those days. But who knows what Kobe could have produced during that time if he was allowed to go full blast the way LeBron always has been allowed to throughout his career. I mean, we got glimpses of Kobe's potential to destroy the entire league at points during that time (40+ points in nine straight games in 2003), but for the most part he was asked to fall back. Yet he still has one of the top 15 all-time career PERs.
People love to say that Kobe's production during Phil Jackson's first stint with the Lakers was a direct benefit of Shaquille O'neal's dominance. However that's just not the case. In fact, there has never been a second fiddle in the history of the NBA to produce the way Kobe did during his years behind Shaq. The player that came closest to the role Kobe played during his years as Shaq's second fiddle was Scottie Pippen. Kobe's PER in his second fiddle years absolutely destroys Pippen's second fiddle PER. Kobe's PERs during his second fiddle years under Phil Jackson (1999-00 to 2003-04) were: 21.7, 24.5, 23.2, 26.2, and 23.7. Pippen's PER during his second fiddle years under Phil Jackson (1989-90 to 1992-93 and 1995-96 to 1997-9http://lakers.topbuzz.com/modules/PNphpBB2/images/smiles/icon_cool.gif were: 16.3, 20.6, 21.5, 19.2, 21.0, 21.3, and 20.4. Kobe's worst year in his second fiddle role was better than Pippen's best as Michael Jordan's sidekick. During Pippen's two years as the man (1993-94 to 1994-95) Pippen's PER jumped to 23.2 and 22.6 respectively. Who knows what Kobe Bryant's PER would have been from 1999-00 to 2003-04 had he been given the chance to be the man during that time. It likely would have made his career PER look much higher. As well, who knows what LeBron James' career PER would be if he were forced to be a second fiddle during his first six seasons.
A second fiddle traditional shooting guard has one of the top 15 PERs of all time. This is pretty much unheard of. PER is a metric weighted in favor of first option stars and power players and yet Kobe is still in the top 15 all-time career PERs. Despite spending the majority of his career as a second fiddle and having a game that is not really favored by the PER metric, his career PER measure is not that far behind LeBron's.
I do believe that LeBron will eventually go down as the greatest player of all time. But to say he's currently better than Kobe and has already had a better career than Kobe based on a facial analysis of each players PER is just not fair.
http://nba.fanhouse.com/2009/01/19/kobe-v-lebron-per-doesnt-tell-the-entire-story/
Posted Jan 19th 2009 7:00AM by Nate Jones (RSS feed)
Filed Under: Cavaliers, Lakers
On Friday, our own Tom Ziller used statistical analysis to declare that LeBron James is a better player than Kobe Bryant. Although I loved the read and the analysis, I must disagree with Ziller's final conclusion.
The metric for Ziller's well-written stat-based conclusion was a comparison of Kobe and LeBron's PER throughout their careers. John Hollinger's PER (Player Efficiency Rating) tries to statistically rank the best players in the NBA. I have to say it probably does a better job of it than any other statistical measure out there.
Just look at the top five players in PER this season and you'll likely agree. Any statistical measurement that didn't have LeBron James, Chris Paul, Dwyane Wade, Dwight Howard and Kobe Bryant close to the top would be irrelevant, and PER definitely avoids that pothole. If you follow the PER metric alone, LeBron is probably playing better than any player in the modern era right now. But utilizing PER alone to compare and contrast players might not always be the best decision.
First of all, PER is weighted in favor of players who have games predicated on scoring closer to the basket and playing in the paint. The rebound rate for someone that defends the low post, plays in the low post or does most of their dirty work getting to the rim is going to be a bit higher than someone that spends most of their time out on the perimeter. Same could be said for field goal percentages, as those that get to the rim or play close to the rim are going to be higher than those that play around the perimeter.
Proof of this comes from the fact that the top 100 individual season PERs in the history of the NBA are dominated by the greatest Centers and Power Forwards in the history of the game. The only non power position players in the top 100 are Michael Jordan, LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade, Chris Paul, Magic Johnson, Tracy McGrady, Larry Bird and Oscar Robertson. Those non power position players only combine for 28 of the top 100 single season PERs. Of course, Michael Jordan owns nine of those 28 slots. So basically, if you exclude the real G.O.A.T. (Jordan), there are only 19 seasons where non power position players have had PERs at or above 26 (The PER level needed to enter the top 100).
If you look at the all-time career PERs you'll see more proof of the power player favoritism as a guy like Elton Brand has a better PER than Gary Payton, Scottie Pippen, John Stockton, Clyde Drexler, etc.
LeBron plays small forward, has guard skills, and has a power forward's body. He spends most of his time abusing people on drives to the basket. Kobe Bryant has a prototypical shooting guards game and a prototypical shooting guards body. He spends most of his time launching butter soft jumpers from the perimeter. Those differences ring true in their respective PERs. LeBron in build and skill set is closer to the typical PER great than Kobe. Yet LeBron's career PER is not substantially better than Kobe's (25.72 to 23.63).
What's that you say? Kobe has had more years in the league as a fully formed ball player than LeBron? LeBron's career PER will become greater as the years go by, while Kobe's will likely fall? Okay. That may indeed be true. However, let's not forget that Kobe and LeBron had almost polar opposite experiences when they entered the league.
Kobe Bryant came into the league on a stacked team. His first year in the league he hardly got off the pine. And in his second year in the league he was asked to be a sixth man. LeBron was given the opportunity to be the man from the jump. Kobe didn't really get a chance to be the man until his ninth year in the league.
Out of the top 25 all-time career PER leaders, Kobe Bryant might be the only player that has spent the majority of his career as a second fiddle. I wonder what Kobe Bryant's PER would have been from 2001-2004 if he would have been allowed to be the man. LeBron at 24 is playing under an entire different set of circumstances than Kobe at that age. During that time -- even when he was on the verge of having historic outbursts -- Phil Jackson would mute Kobe almost to say: "know your role on this team". There are several occasions during those years where Kobe was close to scoring above 60 points only to have Phil Jackson sit him for nearly the entire fourth quarter. I'm talking Memphis in 2002 and Washington in 2003. How many players have reached 50 points by the third quarter and then been asked to sit for the rest of the game? That's the kind of leash Phil had on Kobe during those days. But who knows what Kobe could have produced during that time if he was allowed to go full blast the way LeBron always has been allowed to throughout his career. I mean, we got glimpses of Kobe's potential to destroy the entire league at points during that time (40+ points in nine straight games in 2003), but for the most part he was asked to fall back. Yet he still has one of the top 15 all-time career PERs.
People love to say that Kobe's production during Phil Jackson's first stint with the Lakers was a direct benefit of Shaquille O'neal's dominance. However that's just not the case. In fact, there has never been a second fiddle in the history of the NBA to produce the way Kobe did during his years behind Shaq. The player that came closest to the role Kobe played during his years as Shaq's second fiddle was Scottie Pippen. Kobe's PER in his second fiddle years absolutely destroys Pippen's second fiddle PER. Kobe's PERs during his second fiddle years under Phil Jackson (1999-00 to 2003-04) were: 21.7, 24.5, 23.2, 26.2, and 23.7. Pippen's PER during his second fiddle years under Phil Jackson (1989-90 to 1992-93 and 1995-96 to 1997-9http://lakers.topbuzz.com/modules/PNphpBB2/images/smiles/icon_cool.gif were: 16.3, 20.6, 21.5, 19.2, 21.0, 21.3, and 20.4. Kobe's worst year in his second fiddle role was better than Pippen's best as Michael Jordan's sidekick. During Pippen's two years as the man (1993-94 to 1994-95) Pippen's PER jumped to 23.2 and 22.6 respectively. Who knows what Kobe Bryant's PER would have been from 1999-00 to 2003-04 had he been given the chance to be the man during that time. It likely would have made his career PER look much higher. As well, who knows what LeBron James' career PER would be if he were forced to be a second fiddle during his first six seasons.
A second fiddle traditional shooting guard has one of the top 15 PERs of all time. This is pretty much unheard of. PER is a metric weighted in favor of first option stars and power players and yet Kobe is still in the top 15 all-time career PERs. Despite spending the majority of his career as a second fiddle and having a game that is not really favored by the PER metric, his career PER measure is not that far behind LeBron's.
I do believe that LeBron will eventually go down as the greatest player of all time. But to say he's currently better than Kobe and has already had a better career than Kobe based on a facial analysis of each players PER is just not fair.
http://nba.fanhouse.com/2009/01/19/kobe-v-lebron-per-doesnt-tell-the-entire-story/