NBA Win Share Leader of the last 19 champions

[ambchang]

For interest's sake, I looked into the win share leader of the last 19 champions (1993), and pulled out all the numbers as a way to gauge the impact of that leader on his team.

CHAMP: That year’s championship team
TEAM WS LEADER: The player who led that championship team in win shares
WS: The actual win share of said player
DIFF to RUNNER UP: The difference between the team leader’s win share and the closest teammate (runner up)
FMVP: Finals MVP
RS: Regular Season
PO: Playoffs
The following are the results:

RSPO
 CHAMPTEAM WS LEADERWSDIFF to RUNNER UPTEAM WS LEADERWSDIFF to RUNNER UPFMVP
1993CHIJORDAN17.28.1JORDAN4.42JORDAN
1994HOUHAKEEM14.34.5HAKEEM4.31.8HAKEEM
1995HOUHAKEEM10.74.6DREXLER30.2HAKEEM
1996CHIJORDAN20.48.1JORDAN4.71.7JORDAN
1997CHIJORDAN18.35.2JORDAN3.91.6JORDAN
1998CHIJORDAN15.88JORDAN4.81.9JORDAN
1999SASDUNCAN8.70.3DUNCAN3.70.7DUNCAN
2000LALSHAQ18.68SHAQ4.72.6SHAQ
2001LALSHAQ14.93.6KOBE3.80.1SHAQ
2002LALSHAQ13.20.5SHAQ3.81.2SHAQ
2003SASDUNCAN16.58.8DUNCAN5.93.6DUNCAN
2004DETBILLUPS11.31.1BILLUPS3.70.1BILLUPS
2005SASDUNCAN11.20.2GINOBILI4.20.7DUNCAN
2006MIAWADE14.47.4WADE4.82.7WADE
2007SASDUNCAN132.4DUNCAN3.30.7PARKER
2008BOSGARNETT12.90.5GARNETT4.11PIERCE
2009LALGASOL13.91.2BRYANT4.70.4KOBE
2010LALGASOL111.6GASOL4.30.7KOBE
2011MAVDIRK11.11.7DIRK3.60.9DIRK
2012MIALEBRON14.56.8LEBRON5.82.7LEBRON

The average RS WS of champion leaders are 14.1, with a diff over runner up of 4.1, the number for the playoffs are 4.3 and 1.4, respectively.
There were a few numbers that came as a surprise to me:
#1: Drexler led the 95 Rockets in WS in the playoffs, but he only had a 0.2 lead over Hakeem
#2: Kobe led the 01 Lakers in WS in the playoffs, but he only had a 0.1 lead over Shaq (and the reason was Shaq played less minutes)
#3 Duncan, not Jordan, had the largest WS lead in both the regular season and the playoffs, both accomplished in 03.
#4: Ginobili had quite a lead on Duncan in 05 playoffs.
#5: Not shown in table, but Parker was only #4 in PO WS in 07
#6: Dirk’s WS lead in both RS and PO was not as drastic as I thought it would be.

On the other hand, these numbers confirmed a lot of what we already know, namely:
#1: Jordan was GOAT (look at those WS numbers, and his lead over his teammates)
#2: Duncan was ridiculously dominant in 03
#3, Shaq’s influence on the Lakers diminishes over the three years (Injuries had a big impact as he just started to play less games)
#4: Billups really was the leader of the Pistons, not Wallace
#5 Pau was the leader for the Lakers, not Kobe

Discuss ….

[Thread]

Boiled down:::

Kobe: 5

the tired old shit bag Duncan: 4

Let us proceed...

[Deuce Bigalow]

How about you post real stats? Like points, rebounds, assists?

[Killakobe81]

For interest's sake, I looked into the win share leader of the last 19 champions (1993), and pulled out all the numbers as a way to gauge the impact of that leader on his team.

CHAMP: That year’s championship team
TEAM WS LEADER: The player who led that championship team in win shares
WS: The actual win share of said player
DIFF to RUNNER UP: The difference between the team leader’s win share and the closest teammate (runner up)
FMVP: Finals MVP
RS: Regular Season
PO: Playoffs
The following are the results:

RSPO
*CHAMPTEAM WS LEADERWSDIFF to RUNNER UPTEAM WS LEADERWSDIFF to RUNNER UPFMVP
1993CHIJORDAN17.28.1JORDAN4.42JORDAN
1994HOUHAKEEM14.34.5HAKEEM4.31.8HAKEEM
1995HOUHAKEEM10.74.6DREXLER30.2HAKEEM
1996CHIJORDAN20.48.1JORDAN4.71.7JORDAN
1997CHIJORDAN18.35.2JORDAN3.91.6JORDAN
1998CHIJORDAN15.88JORDAN4.81.9JORDAN
1999SASDUNCAN8.70.3DUNCAN3.70.7DUNCAN
2000LALSHAQ18.68SHAQ4.72.6SHAQ
2001LALSHAQ14.93.6KOBE3.80.1SHAQ
2002LALSHAQ13.20.5SHAQ3.81.2SHAQ
2003SASDUNCAN16.58.8DUNCAN5.93.6DUNCAN
2004DETBILLUPS11.31.1BILLUPS3.70.1BILLUPS
2005SASDUNCAN11.20.2GINOBILI4.20.7DUNCAN
2006MIAWADE14.47.4WADE4.82.7WADE
2007SASDUNCAN132.4DUNCAN3.30.7PARKER
2008BOSGARNETT12.90.5GARNETT4.11PIERCE
2009LALGASOL13.91.2BRYANT4.70.4KOBE
2010LALGASOL111.6GASOL4.30.7KOBE
2011MAVDIRK11.11.7DIRK3.60.9DIRK
2012MIALEBRON14.56.8LEBRON5.82.7LEBRON

The average RS WS of champion leaders are 14.1, with a diff over runner up of 4.1, the number for the playoffs are 4.3 and 1.4, respectively.
There were a few numbers that came as a surprise to me:
#1: Drexler led the 95 Rockets in WS in the playoffs, but he only had a 0.2 lead over Hakeem
#2: Kobe led the 01 Lakers in WS in the playoffs, but he only had a 0.1 lead over Shaq (and the reason was Shaq played less minutes)#3 Duncan, not Jordan, had the largest WS lead in both the regular season and the playoffs, both accomplished in 03.
#4: Ginobili had quite a lead on Duncan in 05 playoffs.
#5: Not shown in table, but Parker was only #4 in PO WS in 07
#6: Dirk’s WS lead in both RS and PO was not as drastic as I thought it would be.

On the other hand, these numbers confirmed a lot of what we already know, namely:
#1: Jordan was GOAT (look at those WS numbers, and his lead over his teammates)
#2: Duncan was ridiculously dominant in 03
#3, Shaq’s influence on the Lakers diminishes over the three years (Injuries had a big impact as he just started to play less games)
#4: Billups really was the leader of the Pistons, not Wallace
#5 Pau was the leader for the Lakers, not Kobe

Discuss ….

#1 No shit you needed to pull this to tell you that?! You could of stopped with they confirm what we already know ...
#2 Absolutely Duncan was a beast in 1999 and 2003 not only was he better than Kobe but Shaq too ...
#3 Shaq was already heading towards his I already won so I will get fat stage by 2002 he just got in shape for the Finals ..
#4.Posting all of that but then having to add a disclaimer" but, but Shaq played less minutes ... that is why Kobe surpassed him" by 2001 Kobe was just as important to our success as Shaq was ...anyone without bias could tell you that it was Shaq's team but he NEEDED Kobe.
#4 of course Rasheed played the Pau role To Chauncey just like McHale, Dumars Pippen and Worthy before him ....
#5 :lol :rollin :lmao Amb "Chimpy" Hollinger is in the building ...

SO me the non stat lover came to the same conclusions with no computers and no refference material ....as Amb with his winshares ...
BAsically my eye test can do the same thing you just did in less time and we only disagree on #5 (PAu) from your second list. Nothing on there really surprised me except the drexler thing but that does not change my feelings on Hakeem since the game is not played on a computer. and much like with Duncan or Kobe just because Pau or Parker or Manu benefited and played amazing ball doesnt change the fact that Parker and PAu benefited from the attention paid to Duncan and Kobe. Just like you nimwits like to point out about Kobe (with Shaq)....
So Amb, by using stats alone you could argue MAnu was the true leader of the 2005 SPurs?! GTFO Duncan was the leader for all 4 of his rings imho ...but maybe I should convert to Ambs new gospel ... I love this amb, great work you just established (since you claim to be right about Pau) if we buy this winshare doctrine:

1. I know at LEAST as much about ball as you do, no winshares needed
2. IF Pau is the leader of the 2009-2010 Lakers MAnu led the 2005 Spurs and Parker led in 2007 SO Timmy only led two championship teams
3. 2011 MAvs were a better team than you gave them credit for (We just argued about that this week) you acted liek Dirk carried a bunch of role players but his winshares were closer than you thought ...
4. Kobe led the Lakers in the 2001 Playoffs


Just to prove Kobe did not lead the last two Laker titles you discounted two of Duncan's ...what a smart simien you are ... I am saving this one for our Duncan vs. Kobe debate after they retire some fine work indeed ...

Oh yeah one more thing .... boiled down:

5>4 ...

[Arcadian]

:lol This thread upsets Laker fans

That's a really interesting table, though. Thanks ambchang.

[ambchang]

How about you post real stats? Like points, rebounds, assists?

Ahhh .... the simpleton who couldn't understand that the ultimate goal of a player is to help his team win, not pad stats.

[Thread]

Ahhh .... the simpleton who couldn't understand that the ultimate goal of a player is to help his team win, not pad stats.

That's how we got to you holding the dirty of the 5-4 stick. You thought he'd launch from the top of that key. tee, hee,,,so did I.

Uh, uh.

[Killakobe81]

On a more serious note, that is my problem with advanced stats. AMb wont admit it, but he went in to that exercise with bias and to prove his point about Pau.
But when he was surprised by data he was sure to explain it away ...and that is a problem.

No I dont thnk eye test alone is sufficient you need a balance just like rangs alone is not good enough either you need a balance. But the only way I can completely trust advanced stats is if the person creating/compling that data is not a fan beforehand. IF you are a hoop fan and you create a system based on your own beliefs and bias (PER) then that data will support those beliefs.
I trust what I See. The stats, and the advanced ones mostly support what I see. If thay don't ... No need to explain away ... because in the end it's all opinions anyway. Hollinger or anyone else that did not play or coach in the league's opinion is no more valuable than mine. He is a fan with better access. And if we do go by stats, why are your or his stats better than mine ... because Hollinger or some other nerd says so? The spirit of a great debate can never be decided by numbers alone. Any number ... even rings. I just emphasize those over advanced stats because the goal is to win. I get trying to see how much someone contributed etc. And like I said before all of those factors should be considered, we just differ on what carries the most weight. For me:

1. Rings (Stars only)
2. Eye Test
3. Traditional stats
4. Advanced stats

But again Amb, we will have our day to make these arguments thanks for the afternoon diversion ....good stuff.

[Killakobe81]

:lol This thread upsets Laker fans

That's a really interesting table, though. Thanks ambchang.

How so? He just admitted Kobe was the playoff leader in 2001 which collapses a WHOLE bunch of arguments on this forum for the past 4 years ...

[Thread]

On a more serious note, that is my problem with advanced stats. AMb wont admit it, but he went in to that exercise with bias and to prove his point about Pau.

Of course. Amb is driven by Bryant. '10 enraged him. That's the inherent richness of the NBA Title.

[Killakobe81]

Ahhh .... the simpleton who couldn't understand that the ultimate goal of a player is to help his team win, not pad stats.

Yep that's why rings matter ...

I could just as easily said the goal of a star player is to lead his team to a title not be most efficient or to lead in winshares ...

[ambchang]

#1 No shit you needed to pull this to tell you that?! You could of stopped with they confirm what we already know ...

Not sure if need is the right word, but it confirms it. Not really a surprise to anyone.


#2 Absolutely Duncan was a beast in 1999 and 2003 not only was he better than Kobe but Shaq too ...
#3 Shaq was already heading towards his I already won so I will get fat stage by 2002 he just got in shape for the Finals ..

Which speaks to how truly dominate he was. He can just switch this on and off.


#4Posting all of that but then having to add a disclaimer" but, but Shaq played less minutes ... that is why Kobe surpassed him" by 2001 Kobe was just as important to our success as Shaq was ...anyone without bias could tell you that it was Shaq's team but he NEEDED Kobe.

I had a disclaimer because he was the only guy who did this in the last 19 years. Couldn’t find another case.


#4 of course Rasheed played the Pau role To Chauncey just like McHale, Dumars Pippen and Worthy before him ....

Should have been clearer, that Wallace was Ben, not Rasheed.


#5 :lol :rollin :lmao Amb "Chimpy" Hollinger is in the building ...

SO me the non stat lover came to the same conclusions with no computers and no refference material ....as Amb with his winshares ...
BAsically my eye test can do the same thing you just did in less time and we only disagree on #5 (PAu) from your second list. Nothing on there really surprised me except the drexler thing but that does not change my feelings on Hakeem since the game is not played on a computer. and much like with Duncan or Kobe just because PAu or PArker or Manu benefited and played amazing ball doesnt change the fact that Parker and PAu benefited from the attention paid to Duncan and Kobe. Just like you nimwits like to point out about Kobe .... SO by using stats alone you could argue MAnu was the true leader of the 2005 SPurs?! GTFO Duncan was the leader for all 4 of his rings imho ...but maybe I should convert to Ambs new gospel ... I love this amb, great work you just established (since you claim to be right about Pau) if we buy this winshare crap:
Not sure if you got the gist of how the numbers worked, but the more important number to look at is regular season win shares because the expected team leader led in that category in every single year. The playoffs could be a little different due to a number of factors:
1) A player caught fire, and due to the less number of games, a good stretch of games can really skew the results (see Parker in 07)
2) Matchup problems allowed teams to exploit the oppositions weaknesses (See Kobe in 01 vs. Spurs)


1. I know at LEAST as much about ball as you do, no winshares needed

Except you don’t, because it’s your eye test vs. real actual numbers.


2. IF Pau is the leader of the 2009-2010 Lakers MAnu led the 2005 Spurs and Parker led in 2007 SO Timmy only led two championship teams

See response above, the key is to look into RS WS. Duncan led the Spurs in WS in every single one of those 4 championships, so I guess your observation is in line with my numbers, you just chose the wrong ones to argue.


3. 2011 MAvs were a better team than you gave them credit for (We just argued about that this week)

The 2nd best Mav was Chandler, which really wasn’t that much of a surprise. The surprise was that Dirk > Chandler only to the same degree Pau > Kobe.

4. Kobe led the Lakers in the 2001 Playoffs

Not necessarily true, see numbers above. Just the same way Drexler didn’t lead the Rockets in 95, or Ginobili didn’t lead the Spurs in 05.



Just to prove Kobe did not lead the last two Laker titles you discounted two of Duncan's ...what a smart simien you are ... I am saving this one for our Duncan vs. Kobe debate after they retire some fine work indeed ...

Not sure how you read two of Duncan’s, he led the Spurs in WS in all four regular seasons, and three of the four playoffs, how do you figure?


Oh yeah one more thing .... boiled down:

5>4 ...
Another thing, it also, once again, confirms the fact that regular season is a greater gauge of a player’s impact to the team, precisely because of the two reasons I stated above. It is non-biased, non-skewed, and take an entire body of work over a select number of games against a very specific group of opponents (maximum of 4).

We have seen a consistent trend of behaviour, and EVERY SINGLE SEASON FOR THE PAST 19 years have followed that trend, which is to say that the expected leader of the team has led the team in RS WS, and led, or close to #1, in PO WS.

Not sure why, according to you, Kobe would be that exception.

[Phillip]

I don't think there is any question as to the importance of Pau to the Lakers, but any non-biased viewer knows that the main guy for the Lakers was Kobe. Just like any non-biased viewer knows that in the Shaq/Kobe era, that Shaq was the main guy, even though Kobe was incredibly important.

[Thread]

I don't think there is any question as to the importance of Pau to the Lakers, but any non-biased viewer knows that the main guy for the Lakers was Kobe. Just like any non-biased viewer knows that in the Shaq/Kobe era, that Shaq was the main guy, even though Kobe was incredibly important.

If we acknowledge that this Forum will be like it was before I returned:::dead in the ground.

[ambchang]

On a more serious note, that is my problem with advanced stats. AMb wont admit it, but he went in to that exercise with bias and to prove his point about Pau.
But when he was surprised by data he was sure to explain it away ...and that is a problem.

No I dont thnk eye test alone is sufficient you need a balance just like rangs alone is not good enough either you need a balance. But the only way I can completely trust advanced stats is if the person creating/compling that data is not a fan beforehand. IF you are a hoop fan and you create a system based on your own beliefs and bias (PER) then that data will support those beliefs.
I trust what I See. The stats, and the advanced ones mostly support what I see. If thay don't ... No need to explain away ... because in the end it's all opinions anyway. Hollinger or anyone else that did not play or coach in the league's opinion is no more valuable than mine. He is a fan with better access. And if we do go by stats, why are your or his stats better than mine ... because Hollinger or some other nerd says so? The spirit of a great debate can never be decided by numbers alone. Any number ... even rings. I just emphasize those over advanced stats because the goal is to win. I get trying to see how much someone contributed etc. And like I said before all of those factors should be considered, we just differ on what carries the most weight. For me:

1. Rings (Stars only)
2. Eye Test
3. Traditional stats
4. Advanced stats

But again Amb, we will have our day to make these arguments thanks for the afternoon diversion ....good stuff.

And here is the problem, how do you define stars? The only disclaimer I put in was, gasp, because Shaq was nursing in grown toe nails to rest his body from the wear and tear. He knew he could just come back and dominate, so he played 50 to 60 games a year instead of 82. If you want to, look up the WS/48, Shaq led those by quite a wide margin vs. Kobe in those 3 championship season, highly consistent with actual history, and not some made up crap.

The advanced stats have supported every single dominant player being dominant throughout the history of the league, well, except Kobe. Which really could mean that Kobe is not dominant, at all, and is a 2nd tier player masquerading as a #1 on a fantastic team. Did he do his share? Sure he did, just not as much as Kobe fanbois made him out to.

[ambchang]

How so? He just admitted Kobe was the playoff leader in 2001 which collapses a WHOLE bunch of arguments on this forum for the past 4 years ...

Read above, it didn't.

[ambchang]

Yep that's why rings matter ...

I could just as easily said the goal of a star player is to lead his team to a title not be most efficient or to lead in winshares ...

So answer this, was 06 Kobe better, or was 10 Kobe better?

[Killakobe81]

Come on Amb, I was mostly poking fun. But if you were surprised by as many things as you were, then yes I do know as much as you do.

1. Who would of thought either Wallace was more valuable than Chauncey? Sure Wallace palyed great d but he was a feeble FT shooter and limited scorer.
2. LAker fans and even some Spur ones already knew Kobe was a 2001 beast Ashy (or someone else) made the case if Kobe had been more consistent in the 2001 Finals the MVP should of been his ...

One thing this win share stuff is not factoring (especialy playoffs) the amount of attention: Hakeem, Duncan Kobe etc drew. Come playoff time defense becomes more focused and teams do a better job of taking away initial options. It's kinda like the #1 WR role. Plenty of good players have thrived in the #2 role ALvin Harper, Victor Cruz, John Taylor ... but when it's time to be a #1 Most of those guys (even Taylor to a degree but we didnt get to see much of that) struggle to be the man. Spurs have not won since Duncan was not dominant, Pau won nary a playoff game in that role. KG needed Pierce to take that offensive load off his shoulders. I get the need to "rate" Kobe properly since he threatens Timmy in your eyes but no need to overrate Pau. Great player, with good hands and foot work a nice touch for passing and scoring. But he is no superstar and struggles as a#1 option that is not hating that is truth.

[Killakobe81]

The problem with your scenario is when was Pau ever the focus of anyone's defensive strategy?
Was PAu ever constantly doubled on the LAkers the way Dirk, Shaq, Kobe or Duncan are?

PArt of the reason why Pop an others was pissed we got Pau was we got a top 10 player to play our #2 role, when Kobe was already a top 3 player. That was teh issue. When was PAu ever even a top 5 player in the NBA? 10? Yes. Top 5. Nope.

[Killakobe81]

And here is the problem, how do you define stars? The only disclaimer I put in was, gasp, because Shaq was nursing in grown toe nails to rest his body from the wear and tear. He knew he could just come back and dominate, so he played 50 to 60 games a year instead of 82. If you want to, look up the WS/48, Shaq led those by quite a wide margin vs. Kobe in those 3 championship season, highly consistent with actual history, and not some made up crap.

The advanced stats have supported every single dominant player being dominant throughout the history of the league, well, except Kobe. Which really could mean that Kobe is not dominant, at all, and is a 2nd tier player masquerading as a #1 on a fantastic team. Did he do his share? Sure he did, just not as much as Kobe fanbois made him out to.

Based on win shares ... rings tell another story.

LOL, That Pau he sure is dominant ... leading Lakers to something Duncan could not do a repeat ...

[ambchang]

Come on Amb, I was mostly poking fun. But if you were surprised by as many things as you were, then yes I do know as much as you do.

1. Who would of thought either Wallace was more valuable than Chauncey? Sure Wallace palyed great d but he was a feeble FT shooter and limited scorer.
2. LAker fans and even some Spur ones already knew Kobe was a 2001 beast Ashy (or someone else) made the case if Kobe had been more consistent in the 2001 Finals the MVP should of been his ...

One thing this win share stuff is not factoring (especialy playoffs) the amount of attention: Hakeem, Duncan Kobe etc drew. Come playoff time defense becomes more focused and teams do a better job of taking away initial options. It's kinda like the #1 WR role. Plenty of good players have thrived in the #2 role ALvin Harper, Victor Cruz, John Taylor ... but when it's time to be a #1 Most of those guys (even Taylor to a degree but we didnt get to see much of that) struggle to be the man. Spurs have not won since Duncan was not dominant, Pau won nary a playoff game in that role. KG needed Pierce to take that offensive load off his shoulders. I get the need to "rate" Kobe properly since he threatens Timmy in your eyes but no need to overrate Pau. Great player, with good hands and foot work a nice touch for passing and scoring. But he is no superstar and struggles as a#1 option that is not hating that is truth.

And you just strengthened my long held belief that the marks of a good player should be judged by his performance in the RS, not playoffs, because, as you said, playoffs are extremely skewed.

Also, as for the Billups comment, it was part of the "confirmed what I know" piece. I stated that because there is still a group of people believing that Billups was not the true leader of that group, Wallace was.

[ambchang]

The problem with your scenario is when was Pau ever the focus of anyone's defensive strategy?
Was PAu ever constantly doubled on the LAkers the way Dirk, Shaq, Kobe or Duncan are?

PArt of the reason why Pop an others was pissed we got Pau was we got a top 10 player to play our #2 role, when Kobe was already a top 3 player. That was teh issue. When was PAu ever even a top 5 player in the NBA? 10? Yes. Top 5. Nope.
So now that you are pulling this card, will you finally admit that Shaq drew the attention in 00 to 02, allowing Kobe to be who he was, especially the 01 playoffs?

[ambchang]

Based on win shares ... rings tell another story.

LOL, That Pau he sure is dominant ... leading Lakers to something Duncan could not do a repeat ...

And that is another issue with Laker fans, putting stock on repeats. I still have yet to hear a logical reason as to why repeats are so important.

[Killakobe81]

And you just strengthened my long held belief that the marks of a good player should be judged by his performance in the RS, not playoffs, because, as you said, playoffs are extremely skewed.

Also, as for the Billups comment, it was part of the "confirmed what I know" piece. I stated that because there is still a group of people believing that Billups was not the true leader of that group, Wallace was.

I Agree to a point, just saying that I would of voted for Duncan in 2007 for Finals MVP, in 2005 I could see it going either way. I LOVED how Manu played in 2005,
by far his best season imho ...and Iw as in SA at that time to see it up close.

[Killakobe81]

So now that you are pulling this card, will you finally admit that Shaq drew the attention in 00 to 02, allowing Kobe to be who he was, especially the 01 playoffs?

Of course that was a factor ...never said it was not. Like you said Shaq's role decreased through the 3peat but especially the first two years Kobe benefitted, of course!
So did Shaq ...Kobe is better than any team-mate Duncan had ...

Liek Shaq said they were the best 1-2 punch but Kobe was the#2 for at least 2 and despite him being the better playoff performer in 2001 stopping Shaq was still the first priority

[mindcrime]

The problem with your scenario is when was Pau ever the focus of anyone's defensive strategy?
Was PAu ever constantly doubled on the LAkers the way Dirk, Shaq, Kobe or Duncan are?

PArt of the reason why Pop an others was pissed we got Pau was we got a top 10 player to play our #2 role, when Kobe was already a top 3 player. That was teh issue. When was PAu ever even a top 5 player in the NBA? 10? Yes. Top 5. Nope.

This honestly puts an end to the Pau > Kobe 'debate'. Defensive strategies are constructed to limit the best player of a team. In very rare instances (where you have two 'best' players) such as the 2000 - 2002 Lakers, teams weren't able to limit either. That was because both Kobe and Shaq were dominant in their particular roles.

[ambchang]

I Agree to a point, just saying that I would of voted for Duncan in 2007 for Finals MVP, in 2005 I could see it going either way. I LOVED how Manu played in 2005,
by far his best season imho ...and Iw as in SA at that time to see it up close.

07 was most definitely Parker. Duncan for sure was the leader of the team, nobody will dispute that, but Parker won the FINALS MVP fair and square, key word being Finals. Duncan was going up against very good defenders in Varaejo, with help from Ilgaukas, not to mention an entire Cavs defense crowding him, while Parker was most defended by Boobie Gibson or Mo Williams, with none of the defensive pressure.

As for 05, Ginobili was great in wins, but he was horrible in the losses, and yes, losses count as well.

[ambchang]

Of course that was a factor ...never said it was not. Liek you said Shaq role decreased through the 3peat but especially teh first two years Kobe benefitted of course so did Shaq ...Kobe is better than any team-mate Duncan had

From a skills stand point, yes. As a teammate stand point, no. None of Duncan's teammates ever ran him out of town, and especially not during his peak. In fact, Robinson flew back from Hawaii to convince Duncan to stay.

[Thread]

The problem with your scenario is when was Pau ever the focus of anyone's defensive strategy?
Was PAu ever constantly doubled on the LAkers

They (Perkins '08/Dirk/Chandler '11) just put a foot in his ass & he started crying to everybody.

Howard in ''09 wouldn't think of doing something like that & Perkins in '10 was mercifully shinin' pine.

[ambchang]

This honestly puts an end to the Pau > Kobe 'debate'. Defensive strategies are constructed to limit the best player of a team. In very rare instances (where you have two 'best' players) such as the 2000 - 2002 Lakers, teams weren't able to limit either. That was because both Kobe and Shaq were dominant in their particular roles.

The RS WS numbers begs to differ. People say that the 09 and 10 Lakers were Kobe driven, but they were not, they were frontline driven, with Pau being the centerpiece of it. The frontline of Pau and Odom created an absolute nightmare problem for the opposition, and nobody could stop it. Kobe, on the other hand, could be, he had a string of horrible games during important parts of the playoffs, but the frontline of Pau + Odom provided them consistently great looks close to the basket, defense and rebounding.

[ambchang]

One more thing KK81, tell me, was 06 Kobe better, or was 10 Kobe better.

[Killakobe81]

This honestly puts an end to the Pau > Kobe 'debate'. Defensive strategies are constructed to limit the best player of a team. In very rare instances (where you have two 'best' players) such as the 2000 - 2002 Lakers, teams weren't able to limit either. That was because both Kobe and Shaq were dominant in their particular roles.

Yep. Dont listen to Amb, he is trying to build this case to help another (Duncan vs. Kobe) Just like Kobe fanbois discredit Shaq/Pau to elevate Kobe. Neither needs to be done. Bird had McHale, DJ and PArish no one tries discredit his 3 or Magic's 5. If you are a key piece not a key role player like Horry rings matter in a legacy debate. Horry has his rings but you can only argue he was a top 3 player on maybe only the the first Rox championship ...

Kobe gets some love on TNT and Amb goes to work. Not much to see here mindcrime Im just bored but gotta get back 2 work soon ...most of this is just trolling by Spur fan but Amb I think really believes Pau was the leader of the Lakers #WINSHARES!!!

[AaronY]

What the fuck are win shares anyway? Like how they are even calculated

[Killakobe81]

One more thing KK81, tell me, was 06 Kobe better, or was 10 Kobe better.

Depends on what you mean? Im a rings guy so my gut tells me 10. I dont care if he did more to help his team in 2006 (sure you will tell me) but they did not win ... so it matters in the overall scheme ...but big picture ... it's just highlights and numbers. Thing is, I dont even throw around traditional numbers. For eample, Kobe had a triple double the other night, big deal. But if you watched the game, his impact was bigger than that. What was his winshares for the Dallas game for argument sakes?

[whitemamba]

KK81 going ham

[Killakobe81]

One more thing Amb, I enjoy our back and forth but hate that you sometimes get me to do what I accuse you of ... downgrading Shaq or Pau. I am a Kobe apologist but not a fanboi ... I know Shaq and Pau and ESPECIALLY Phil played a huge role in Kobe's success. I will freely admit without Phil (even with Shaq) my guess is ... Kobe gets two rings max. Not sure even with the talent/support on the 5 title teams they can even win 3 without Phil, I thought he was blessed and lucky (but also a good coach) before he joined Lakers, but seeing him up close ...he is a master ... tbh only Pop and Riles are in his class tbh.

[Clipper Nation]

It's amazing, the lengths that Lakerfan will go to in order to diminish the frontcourt they had in '08, '09 and '10.... the Celtics were really the only team who ever had an answer for it, and even then, they got owned in 2010.... meanwhile, Kirby was being his same old shot-chucking self, the one who was missing the playoffs or getting bounced in the first round in the years between Shaq and Pau....

[Thread]

Kirby was being his same old shot-chucking self

Save the shovel to Artest.

tee, hee.

[mindcrime]

One more thing Amb, I enjoy our back and forth but hate that you sometimes get me to do what I accuse you of ... downgrading Shaq or Pau. I am a Kobe apologist but not a fanboi ... I know Shaq and Pau and ESPECIALLY Phil played a huge role in Kobe's success. I will freely admit without Phil (even with Shaq) my guess is ... Kobe gets two rings max. Not sure even with the talent/support on the 5 title teams they can even win 3 without Phil, I thought he was blessed and lucky (but also a good coach) before he joined Lakers, but seeing him up close ...he is a master ... tbh only Pop and Riles are in his class tbh.

The only time the man ever lost a finals series was when his team was truly outmatched.

2004 - Nobody was denying the Pistons that year.
2008 - Pierce played out of his mind, KG was KG, and the rest of the team stepped up when it counted most.

[ambchang]

What the fuck are win shares anyway? Like how they are even calculated

http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html

[ambchang]

Depends on what you mean? Im a rings guy so my gut tells me 10. I dont care if he did more to help his team in 2006 (sure you will tell me) but they did not win ... so it matters in the overall scheme ...but big picture ... it's just highlights and numbers. Thing is, I dont even throw around traditional numbers. For eample, Kobe had a triple double the other night, big deal. But if you watched the game, his impact was bigger than that. What was his winshares for the Dallas game for argument sakes?

In other words, you are avoiding the question, because the obvious answer is 06 Kobe > 10 Kobe. But it flew in the face of your titles theory.

[ambchang]

KK81 going ham

How so? He has shown that my statistical methods have been consistent for 19 straight years (probably more so if I go back further). The only argument that I have heard so far is "I saw it with my eyes".

[Killakobe81]

In other words, you are avoiding the question, because the obvious answer is 06 Kobe > 10 Kobe. But it flew in the face of your titles theory.

Read what I said again ...

[AaronY]

Lol @ advanced stats nerds...good luck in your quest to make following sports about as much fun as doing your taxes

[ambchang]

One more thing Amb, I enjoy our back and forth but hate that you sometimes get me to do what I accuse you of ... downgrading Shaq or Pau. I am a Kobe apologist but not a fanboi ... I know Shaq and Pau and ESPECIALLY Phil played a huge role in Kobe's success. I will freely admit without Phil (even with Shaq) my guess is ... Kobe gets two rings max. Not sure even with the talent/support on the 5 title teams they can even win 3 without Phil, I thought he was blessed and lucky (but also a good coach) before he joined Lakers, but seeing him up close ...he is a master ... tbh only Pop and Riles are in his class tbh.

Without Shaq, Pau and Phil, Kobe gets 0 rings, both of us knows it, and therein lies the problem of using rings, namely, they are extremely teammate dependent.

No Shaq, Kobe gets 2
No Pau, Kobe gets 3
No Phil, Kobe gets 0

This isn't even a point to argue.

And based on your logic, if Kobe didn't have Shaq, he would have been a worse player than he really is, even though he has the same game, the same career, same points, same assists, same rebounds, same everything except having one of the most dominant big man in the game as his teammate? That doesn't make ANY sense at all. None.

And that brings us to looking at WS, which is how a player helps his team wins, which is, both of us agree, is ultimately the most important role of any player.

[Killakobe81]

Amb was so quick with his reply he missed that I said 2010 regular season and first 6 games of playoffs 2006 was fine work but no ring amb, in the end that is what matters.

[AaronY]

brb gettin my Texas Instruments equipment so I can follow this basketball game..

[ambchang]

The only time the man ever lost a finals series was when his team was truly outmatched.

2004 - Nobody was denying the Pistons that year.
2008 - Pierce played out of his mind, KG was KG, and the rest of the team stepped up when it counted most.

Untrue. If you actually watched both of those series, you would have seen how Kobe made it his mission to shoot the ball every time he's got. Shaq was absolutely destroying the Pistons frontline, and yet Kobe kept shooting these fade away bullshit long range jumpers. So what did the media change the story to? They said Shaq was old and over the hill (even though Shaq finished #2 in MVP voting the very next season in Miami).

In 08, Kobe kept his chucking , and ignored Pau in the low post. Gasol had 62 total FG in the entire series despite shooting 53%, while Kobe had 131 despite shooting 131 (that's more than double). The media made up this story about Gasol wilting under pressure, took sound bites out of context, and used one or two plays at the end of the game to justify Gasol as soft, blaming the entire blame on him.

[AaronY]

Seriously, that page he linked, man...wtf was that, apparently I need a tutor to follow basketball now

[Killakobe81]

Without Shaq, Pau and Phil, Kobe gets 0 rings, both of us knows it, and therein lies the problem of using rings, namely, they are extremely teammate dependent.

No Shaq, Kobe gets 2
No Pau, Kobe gets 3
No Phil, Kobe gets 0

This isn't even a point to argue.

I think shaq/Kobe were talented enough to win eventually sans Phil ...but no way they 3 peat
The back2back Lakers were good but without PJ they lose to Celts and Rox those years


And based on your logic, if Kobe didn't have Shaq, he would have been a worse player than he really is, even though he has the same game, the same career, same points, same assists, same rebounds, same everything except having one of the most dominant big man in the game as his teammate? That doesn't make ANY sense at all. None.

And that brings us to looking at WS, which is how a player helps his team wins, which is, both of us agree, is ultimately the most important role of any player.

[ambchang]

Read what I said again ...

I did. You didn't give a straight answer. You said you didn't care. But you did, that's why you are still here.

[ambchang]

Lol @ advanced stats nerds...good luck in your quest to make following sports about as much fun as doing your taxes

I am sorry you are a numbers retard. Good luck in getting the right number of nickels and dimes when you are giving change back to the customer at the cashier.

[ambchang]

Amb was so quick with his reply he missed that I said 2010 regular season and first 6 games of playoffs 2006 was fine work but no ring amb, in the end that is what matters.

Which means you didn't answer the question.

[ambchang]

Seriously, that page he linked, man...wtf was that, apparently I need a tutor to follow basketball now

You don't need to, somebody smarter than us already did the calculations.

And you don't have to know which players are overrated to enjoy the game. You can just go chant "defense" with the rest of the crowd and think you have a hand in helping the team win.

[Killakobe81]

Untrue. If you actually watched both of those series, you would have seen how Kobe made it his mission to shoot the ball every time he's got. Shaq was absolutely destroying the Pistons frontline, and yet Kobe kept shooting these fade away bullshit long range jumpers. So what did the media change the story to? They said Shaq was old and over the hill (even though Shaq finished #2 in MVP voting the very next season in Miami).

In 08, Kobe kept his chucking , and ignored Pau in the low post. Gasol had 62 total FG in the entire series despite shooting 53%, while Kobe had 131 despite shooting 131 (that's more than double). The media made up this story about Gasol wilting under pressure, took sound bites out of context, and used one or two plays at the end of the game to justify Gasol as soft, blaming the entire blame on him.


Stick to facts, Amb when you get passionate your hate, bias and agenda show. Why do you care so much about Pau's legacy? LOL

[ambchang]

I think shaq/Kobe were talented enough to win eventually sans Phil ...but no way they 3 peat
The back2back Lakers were good but without PJ they lose to Celts and Rox those years

Tough to say, we have seen plenty of extremely talented teams not win because they don't have good coaches. Coaches bring structure and direction to a team (well, good ones), and without Phil, Kobe and Shaq would have imploded way before 2004.

[Killakobe81]

Which means you didn't answer the question.

I did, read the first three lines you just don't like my answer ..rings baby

[ambchang]

Stick to facts, Amb when you get passionate your hate, bias and agenda show. Why do you care so much about Pau's legacy? LOL

Those were the facts.

I hate it when players don't get their due (see my stance on Dirk, a one time major adversary to the Spurs)

I also hate it when players get way more than their due.

[ambchang]

I did read the first three lines.

2010 it is then, but then you didn't care.

And that is absolutely the wrong answer.

Kobe was at his absolute prime from early to mid 00s.

[mindcrime]

Untrue. If you actually watched both of those series, you would have seen how Kobe made it his mission to shoot the ball every time he's got. Shaq was absolutely destroying the Pistons frontline, and yet Kobe kept shooting these fade away bullshit long range jumpers. So what did the media change the story to? They said Shaq was old and over the hill (even though Shaq finished #2 in MVP voting the very next season in Miami).

In 08, Kobe kept his chucking , and ignored Pau in the low post. Gasol had 62 total FG in the entire series despite shooting 53%, while Kobe had 131 despite shooting 131 (that's more than double). The media made up this story about Gasol wilting under pressure, took sound bites out of context, and used one or two plays at the end of the game to justify Gasol as soft, blaming the entire blame on him.

Kobe is selfish and shoots too much, we know. Had either Shaq (04) or Pau (08) received more touches, the final outcomes of the series would be the same. The Pistons and Celtics were hungrier. They were not going to be denied.

[Killakobe81]

Those were the facts.

I hate it when players don't get their due (see my stance on Dirk, a one time major adversary to the Spurs)

I also hate it when players get way more than their due.

Thing that kills me you call him a superstar and a leader, but sans Kobe ...Pau (again a great player) had a penchant for coming up small in big games going back to his national team play, Phil and to a lessor extent Kobe was the best thing that happened to him. Also media did not make Phil poke Pau in his chest or shrink from Celts physical play. That happened you excuse that cuz u love Pau but skewer Kobe cuz you don't even a stat nerd is biased which further proves my case, thanks!

[Killakobe81]

Your ego is Kobeesque so cuz u say its so my answer is wrong?
God complex much?

[Killakobe81]

Dirk was in his prime in 2005 I still take 2011 Dirk
Kg was in his prime in 2004 I still take 2008 KG ...so what? No ring you get MVP for regular season greatness rings stamp your legacy

[SpursBills]

why are we still arguing kobe versus duncan using the rings argument?

kobe: 2 rings as the 1st option (not disputing that), 3 rings as the second option
duncan: 4 rings as the 1st option

take away the 2 rings as the 1st option from both those guys and it's kobe's 3 as the beta versus duncan's 2 as the alpha.

i've yet to run into any dumbass who would tell me that pippen's 6 as a beta > olajuwon's 2 as an alpha. so why are we using the rings argument to take kobe over duncan?

[ambchang]

Kobe is selfish and shoots too much, we know. Had either Shaq (04) or Pau (08) received more touches, the final outcomes of the series would be the same. The Pistons and Celtics were hungrier. They were not going to be denied.

I can't prove either way, and Pau in 08 was a tossup, but if Shaq got more touches in 04, the Lakers had a very good chance.

[Killakobe81]

Kobe is selfish and shoots too much, we know. Had either Shaq (04) or Pau (08) received more touches, the final outcomes of the series would be the same. The Pistons and Celtics were hungrier. They were not going to be denied.
This. Celts had hca and a long winstreak they maintained through the tougher West (on a road trip).
Pistons were the perfect storm like the 2011 Mavs with Dirk shooting like Larry Bird. Pistons had Chauncey who was uber clutch that year and living off that rep since

[AaronY]

Those assaults against my intelligence were just so devastating.

[Killakobe81]

So Amb please address Pau and his poor play in the playoffs and internationally prior to Lakers?
Again I'm not knocking Pau helped us win 2 but superstar and leader?

[ambchang]

Thing that kills me you call him a superstar and a leader, but sans Kobe ...Pau (again a great player) had a penchant for coming up small in big games going back to his national team play, Phil and to a lessor extent Kobe was the best thing that happened to him. Also media did not make Phil poke Pau in his chest or shrink from Celts physical play. That happened you excuse that cuz u love Pau but skewer Kobe cuz you don't even a stat nerd is biased which further proves my case, thanks!

I don't love Pau, I don't hate Kobe. I just think they were unfairly criticised. And by leader, I meant to say Pau was the leader in WS, not the leader leader of the team. However, he was the reason the Lakers were successful, there is no question about it. Does he shrink under pressure? Sure! But so what? He did lead the Lakers to two titles.

As for the superstar moniker, he led the Lakers to b2b, not sure what else you would have called him.


Your ego is Kobeesque so cuz u say its so my answer is wrong?
God complex much?

See below.


Dirk was in his prime in 2005 I still take 2011 Dirk
Kg was in his prime in 2004 I still take 2008 KG ...so what? No ring you get MVP for regular season greatness rings stamp your legacy

We all know 06 Kobe was a better player than 10 Kobe, you know it, and I know it. We all know that 05 Dirk > 11 Dirk. We all know 04 Garnett > 08 Garneet.

And yet you said you will take the lesser version in each and every case not because they were better players, but because they had better teammates and coaches. Put 04 Garnett on the 08 Celtics team, and they would have been better. Put 06 Kobe on the 10 team, the Lakers would have been better. Put 05 Dirk on the 11 Mavs, and they would have been better, and yet you would willingly take the lesser player not because of a players' ability, but because of other factors such as coaching, teammates, system, and opposition.

Thus, this is the wrong answer.

It's like you are willing to take a Honda Civic over a Bugatti because Dale Earnhardt drove that Civic, while an idiot 6 year old drove the Bugatti.

[mindcrime]

I can't prove either way, and Pau in 08 was a tossup, but if Shaq got more touches in 04, the Lakers had a very good chance.

In all honesty, I believe they had a good chance to possibly extend the series, not win it. The only chance the Lakers had to win that year was if Malone was anywhere near 100%. Malone played hobbled, the Pistons smelled blood.

[ambchang]

This. Celts had hca and a long winstreak they maintained through the tougher West (on a road trip).
Pistons were the perfect storm like the 2011 Mavs with Dirk shooting like Larry Bird. Pistons had Chauncey who was uber clutch that year and living off that rep since

the Celts barely got by the Hawks and the Cavs (only got by the Hawks because Garnett was not suspended, which was BS to begin with).

[Brazil]

I am sorry you are a numbers retard. Good luck in getting the right number of nickels and dimes when you are giving change back to the customer at the cashier.

amb with the no mercy for human life goods :lol

[ambchang]

Those assaults against my intelligence were just so devastating.

Then please stop posting to further exhibit them.

[ambchang]

So Amb please address Pau and his poor play in the playoffs and internationally prior to Lakers?
Again I'm not knocking Pau helped us win 2 but superstar and leader?

Please cite specific examples.

And while you are at it, please address Kobe's poor play during 05 to 07, his 6-24, and a list of other horrible playoff games.

[AaronY]

Don't worry bro, I know my place now. I know this is basketball stuff is 2deep4me

[ElNono]

Water is wet thread, tbh... despite salty mad Kobefanbois...

[Killakobe81]

the Celts barely got by the Hawks and the Cavs (only got by the Hawks because Garnett was not suspended, which was BS to begin with).

Faulty argument.

2011,mavs blow a huge lead face deficit in round one Heat also had them down still won convincingly
2010 Lakers trail Celts 3-2
2009 Lakers face elimination by Rox sans Yao most of series
You covered 2008
I could keep going but most title teams face adversity Heat trailed Pacers, 2000 Lakers were down big in game 7 of WCF the fact those teams still won only proves mindcrimes point ...title teams won't be denied

[Killakobe81]

Please cite specific examples.

And while you are at it, please address Kobe's poor play during 05 to 07, his 6-24, and a list of other horrible playoff games.

No playof wins not one.
U the research stat guy google it.
You the one trying to change the narrative I asked you to explain superstar and leader status the honus is on you ...Kobe we shall debate another day wer talking about Pau here.

[ambchang]

Faulty argument.

2011,mavs blow a huge lead face deficit in round one Heat also had them down still won convincingly
2010 Lakers trail Celts 3-2
2009 Lakers face elimination by Rox sans Yao most of series
You covered 2008
I could keep going but most title teams face adversity Heat trailed Pacers, 2000 Lakers were down big in game 7 of WCF the fact those teams still won only proves mindcrimes point ...title teams won't be denied

My point is, 08 Celtics were not that dominant of a team. Barely getting by 1st and 2nd round opponents is not a sign of a dominant team. The 11 Mavs were not a dominant team, neither were the 10 and 09 Lakers. We all know that. And if Garnett was suspended like he should for bumping the ref, the Celts won't go past the first round. BTW, this feeds the conspiracy theory that the league was desperate to revive the Celtics-Lakers rivalry.

Yet, I don't follow your argument that the Celtics having a long win streak vs. WC teams was some kind of indicator that they would not be stopped either way.

Sorry, forgot the cover the 04 Pistons, you can say they were destined to win, and no doubt they were a fantastic defensive team, but they could have been beat, and I still believe that, a Shaq driven team could have beat them, or at least made it a 7-game series. Shaq was abusing the Wallace brothers like nobody ever did.

[ambchang]

No playof wins not one.
U the research stat guy google it.
You the one trying to change the narrative I asked you to explain superstar and leader status the honus is on you ...Kobe we shall debate another day wer talking about Pau here.

Again, team accomplishments. You give Kobe a Mike Miller as his 2nd option, and what does he do? We don't know, but we do know that with Odom as his #2 and Butler as his #3, he missed the playoffs.

Would you say Kobe is not a leader and not a superstar then? I wouldn't say that.

[whitemamba]

What was it boiled down to again?

[ambchang]

I guess to summarize, there are two major points to this thread:
1) Are advanced stats more accurate than the eye test in judging a player? I think we will never ever come to a conclusion to this.
2) Is Kobe Bryant such a special player that he can be the ONLY superstar based on exceptions? No advanced stats support his supposedly dominance, and yet every consensus top 10 player could be supported by advanced stats. Kobe Bryant is the ONLY exception. Why is that?

[Killakobe81]

I thought you said regular season play was a better indicator (sample size) than playoff games?

[Killakobe81]

Again, team accomplishments. You give Kobe a Mike Miller as his 2nd option, and what does he do? We don't know, but we do know that with Odom as his #2 and Butler as his #3, he missed the playoffs.

Would you say Kobe is not a leader and not a superstar then? I wouldn't say that.

Team accomplishment according to you or only when it suits you?

[Clipper Nation]

Lol @ advanced stats nerds...good luck in your quest to make following sports about as much fun as doing your taxes
Yeah, God forbid anyone tries to understand sports on anything above the most superficial, flawed level possible....

[ambchang]

I thought you said regular season play was a better indicator (sample size) than playoff games?

Now we are talking about teams. Regular season is used to gauge the effectiveness of an individual player because of a wide variation in playing style. To be a champion, you have to go through 4 rounds after making the playoffs, there are no other ways around it.


Team accomplishment according to you or only when it suits you?

Not winning a playoff game is most certainly a team accomplishment, I am not sure whey you have to such a difficulty distinguishing between individuals and teams.

You seemed like an intelligent person, and you most definitely has a fantastic knowledge of the game of basketball. Why is it so difficult to grasp the concept of team > individuals when it comes to wins?

[AaronY]

Yeah, God forbid anyone tries to understand sports on anything above the most superficial, flawed level possible....
Lol, 99.99999999999% of those who use these so-called "advanced" stats have literally no clue what they mean. It's like qb rating you ever seen the formula for that? Please weigh in on qb rating after analyzing its formula mathematically and breaking down its strengths and weaknesses, you can't do that because you probably have literally no clue how it works. Or what flaws it might have in terms if how it weighs things. People just like stats because it boils everything down to a simple number.

In terms of lazy stupid analysis what could be worsse than using some random number you don't even understand and acting like your some high level analyst. It caters to dummies too because even the biggest moron can understand "the higher number the better the player" even of he has no clue what the number signifies

"Derp, he got one of dem high qb ratings dat mean he a good one. Ow, wait until someone talk shit about him I'll hit his arguments with my derp gun loaded with qb ratings bullets and blow it to pieces, that'll show em!"

[Killakobe81]

Now we are talking about teams. Regular season is used to gauge the effectiveness of an individual player because of a wide variation in playing style. To be a champion, you have to go through 4 rounds after making the playoffs, there are no other ways around it.



Not winning a playoff game is most certainly a team accomplishment, I am not sure whey you have to such a difficulty distinguishing between yindividuals and teams.

You seemed like an intelligent person, and you most definitely has a fantastic knowledge of the game of basketball. Why is it so difficult to grasp the concept of team > individuals when it comes to wins?

So if winning titles is a team accomplishment aren't playoff and regular season losses as well?

[FkLA]

lol at dumbasses comparing '11 Dirk to '03 Duncan
lol '08 KG WS higher than '11 Dirk WS

FkLA right again, as usual. :hat

[ambchang]

So if winning titles is a team accomplishment aren't playoff and regular season losses as well?

Yeah, of course. But of course a bad teammate can shoot a team out of a winnable game/series.

We saw that with 95 Rodman, and we saw that with 04 Kobe.

[Killakobe81]

Yeah, of course. But of course a bad teammate can shoot a team out of a winnable game/series.

We saw that with 95 Rodman, and we saw that with 04 Kobe.

Just checking ...duly noted.

[ambchang]

Just checking ...duly noted.

Sorry, but I have to clarify, while losses can be due to teams, we all know that, a player who is good enough can drag a team to the playoffs. The player may not be able to lead a team to 50 and 60 wins with a highly flawed team, but making the playoffs is a bare minimum for a superstar.

P.S. This is explained in W/S

[Clipper Nation]

Lol, 99.99999999999% of those who use these so-called "advanced" stats have literally no clue what they mean. It's like qb rating you ever seen the formula for that? Please weigh in on qb rating after analyzing its formula mathematically and breaking down its strengths and weaknesses, you can't do that because you probably have literally no clue how it works. Or what flaws it might have in terms if how it weighs things. People just like stats because it boils everything down to a simple number.
You're defeating your own argument right off the bat by citing a stat that's well known to be outdated and flawed.... the whole point of the analytics movement is to progress past the flawed stats of old and create new ones that more specifically represent a player's production and value in various situations.....


In terms of lazy stupid analysis what could be worsse than using some random number you don't even understand and acting like your some high level analyst.
Firstly, you're assuming that everyone is as statistically ignorant as you are.... believe it or not, plenty of people actually take the time to understand the numbers before blurting them out.... in fact, most sports teams nowadays employ people whose job is to work with advanced stats to help make the most informed decisions possible when building the roster....

Secondly, you're assuming every advanced stat is ridiculously complicated, but it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that (for example) WHIP measures walks and hits per innings pitched....

Thirdly, the laziest form of analysis is the shit that ESPN puts out on the daily: analysis via cliches and storylines.... for instance, despite the fact that Kirby's shooting percentage in clutch situations is about league average, the media only hypes up the shots that go in, using those isolated outliers as "proof" that Kirby is "clutch," which they repeat ad nauseum until casual fans are convinced it's the truth... the same thing was done to LeBron in reverse: until last year's Finals, all of his failures were amplified and his successes ignored in an attempt to paint him as a "soft choke artist"...

This type of analysis is the worst, because not only does it fail to consider statistical fact, oftentimes, it's influenced by or related to uncontrollable factors that have nothing to do with the sport.... for instance, white players are usually portrayed as "scrappy, grinders, good teammates, hard workers" while black players are usually portrayed as athletic, volatile divas.... that's just lazy confirmation bias at its finest, but that's what passes for analysis in the mainstream media....

[spurraider21]

Using points per possession instead of just "points" seems to make a lot more sense. Since win shares includes points per possession allowed, instead of just "steals" do prove your defensive prowess, i'm going to assume its more indicative than simple stats. by traditional stats, bowen was a shit defender :lol

[ShowtimeFan]

Great topic of discussion and some interesting points made along the way. First off, it’s ridiculous to use WS alone to determine who was the better or most important player to a team. That said, I think we can draw some more broad conclusions from this data.



Basketball is a big man’s game. Jordan is the key outlier here and the fact that he dominated without dominant big men is what makes him by far the best 2 guard of all time and probably the GOAT. Billups’ Pistons and Wade’s Heat were flashes in the pan and we might as well consider Lebron a dominant big for this argument cause he can do it all.
Pau was immensely important to the Lakers latest title runs. While the eye test tells me it was still Kobe’s team, Gasol was the glue that made the whole team work being a fantastic offensive player and an underrated defender.
Regarding Kobe, the trouble with trying to rank him among all-time greats is that some like to use peak performance years while others prefer to see sustained excellence. I’ve always thought that any argument using peak performance as the basis leaves Kobe well out of the top 10 all time. This table in a way substantiates that. While I don’t think Pau was more important than Kobe for the latest title runs, I think this data at least suggests that Kobe wasn’t that much more important than Pau to the Lakers success.


For the record, my all time rankings have Jordan, Magic, Kareem, and Russell as the top 4 with each of them having at least some legitimate claim as GOAT. Next 6 for me includes Wilt, Shaq, Kobe, Duncan, Lebron, and Bird in no particular order. Sure it’s fun to debate Kobe vs Duncan but neither of them have a legitimate claim as GOAT so that’s all that matters to me. Only Lebron of today’s current players has a chance once all is said and done.

[ambchang]

I pretty much agree with StF on all points, except Kobe in the top 10, and Bird not being in the GOAT category. I would put Moses Malone and the Big O in the top 10 as well.

[ShowtimeFan]

I pretty much agree with StF on all points, except Kobe in the top 10, and Bird not being in the GOAT category. I would put Moses Malone and the Big O in the top 10 as well.

Like I said, if you value peak dominance over sustained greatness that's perfectly understandable.

[HarlemHeat37]

Win Shares is one of the worst advanced stats, tbh..

However, as I've been saying for years, Kobe's success does not translate to advanced metrics for some reason, tbh..virtually every other top-10 or so guy's numbers translate to analytics, but not Kobe, for some odd reason..

I agree with ShowtimeFan that longevity is Kobe's best attribute in the all-time discussion..it's pretty crazy that he's still a top 5 player in the NBA and playing big minutes..

[spurraider21]

What the fuck are win shares anyway? Like how they are even calculated
Takes into account offensive and defensive rating and compares it to league average, or replacent level players. These ratings depend on points per possession rather than just points, field goals, etc

[ohmwrecker]

I don't really care about advanced stats, but I like how stuff like this makes Kobe fans lose their shit.

[spurraider21]

QB rating is the nfl equivalent of PER which essentially adds every box score stat with multipliers. It's decent for quick reference but pretty flawed if that's your end all be all evaluator. Like the 40 yard dash to decide whose a faster player

[ShowtimeFan]

Win Shares is one of the worst advanced stats, tbh..

However, as I've been saying for years, Kobe's success does not translate to advanced metrics for some reason, tbh..virtually every other top-10 or so guy's numbers translate to analytics, but not Kobe, for some odd reason..

I agree with ShowtimeFan that longevity is Kobe's best attribute in the all-time discussion..it's pretty crazy that he's still a top 5 player in the NBA and playing big minutes..

And speaking of being a top 5 player, Kobe's been a top 3-5 player for 15 years but already, Lebron has had more years as the unquestioned #1

[Brunodf]

lol at dumbasses comparing '11 Dirk to '03 Duncan
lol '08 KG WS higher than '11 Dirk WS

FkLA right again, as usual. :hat
KG played on both ends tbh...

[TDMVPDPOY]

htf is kobe top5 if your blind by his volume statpadding?

[Killakobe81]

Using points per possession instead of just "points" seems to make a lot more sense. Since win shares includes points per possession allowed, instead of just "steals" do prove your defensive prowess, i'm going to assume its more indicative than simple stats. by traditional stats, bowen was a shit defender :lol

But what did your eyes tell you I absolutely hate Bowen and his bowtie but when I watch him play defense its like watching a dirtier less athletic Michael Cooper. I don't care if numbers were to say Battier or LeBron are better defenders (if they did) cuz I know what I saw.

[spurraider21]

But what did your eyes tell you I absolutely hate Bowen and his bowtie but when I watch him play defense its like watching a dirtier less athletic Michael Cooper. I don't care if numbers were to say Battier or LeBron are better defenders (if they did) cuz I know what I saw.

using PPP rather than Steals/Blocks usually confirms what these eye tests show. they confirm bowen, battier are good defenders. this was just a response to somebody else saying standard stats are better than advanced metrics. something like PER > win shares. PER takes box score numbers like steals and blocks as the only indicators of good defense. stuff like true shooting %, usage rate, offensive/defensive rating are emerging as go-to stats. some of the findings revealed during the sloan conference were pretty awesome, and a lot of it confirms the eye test you mention, but by quantifying it, removes the bias that the eye test can be vulnerable to

[Arcadian]

1. Rings (Stars only)
2. Eye Test
3. Traditional stats
4. Advanced stats


:lol Putting "eye test" above advanced stats

The problem is that human perception is highly prone to errors and biases. Psychological research has established that people see what they want to see, rather than seeing the truth. And it's easy to say, "But what about all the times the eye test has been right?" But that's called the confirmation bias: you remember the times when you were right, but you forget the times when you were wrong. Maybe a lot of advanced stats merely confirm what we already knew (or thought we knew), but they also point out a lot of subtlety that we otherwise wouldn't have known. That's why advanced stats exist. They see what we don't.

[Arcadian]

How so? He just admitted Kobe was the playoff leader in 2001 which collapses a WHOLE bunch of arguments on this forum for the past 4 years ...

I was just using the eye test. According to the eye test, three Laker fans immediately responded to this thread with defensive responses.

[DMC]

That's how we got to you holding the dirty of the 5-4 stick. You thought he'd launch from the top of that key. tee, hee,,,so did I.

Uh, uh.

Nah, you just hoped the 5>4 bus when Pau joined. You didn't make the ride.

[TD 21]

I agree with ShowtimeFan that longevity is Kobe's best attribute in the all-time discussion..it's pretty crazy that he's still a top 5 player in the NBA and playing big minutes..

:lol Let me guess: James, Durant, Wade, Paul, Bryant?

Based on this season, Duncan and Parker easily trump him. And if we're talking a big picture approach and giving Howard and to a lesser extent, Rose, the benefit of the doubt injury wise, he's still not in the top five.

[Killakobe81]

Great topic of discussion and some interesting points made along the way. First off, it’s ridiculous to use WS alone to determine who was the better or most important player to a team. That said, I think we can draw some more broad conclusions from this data.



Basketball is a big man’s game. Jordan is the key outlier here and the fact that he dominated without dominant big men is what makes him by far the best 2 guard of all time and probably the GOAT. Billups’ Pistons and Wade’s Heat were flashes in the pan and we might as well consider Lebron a dominant big for this argument cause he can do it all.
Pau was immensely important to the Lakers latest title runs. While the eye test tells me it was still Kobe’s team, Gasol was the glue that made the whole team work being a fantastic offensive player and an underrated defender.
Regarding Kobe, the trouble with trying to rank him among all-time greats is that some like to use peak performance years while others prefer to see sustained excellence. I’ve always thought that any argument using peak performance as the basis leaves Kobe well out of the top 10 all time. This table in a way substantiates that. While I don’t think Pau was more important than Kobe for the latest title runs, I think this data at least suggests that Kobe wasn’t that much more important than Pau to the Lakers success.


For the record, my all time rankings have Jordan, Magic, Kareem, and Russell as the top 4 with each of them having at least some legitimate claim as GOAT. Next 6 for me includes Wilt, Shaq, Kobe, Duncan, Lebron, and Bird in no particular order. Sure it’s fun to debate Kobe vs Duncan but neither of them have a legitimate claim as GOAT so that’s all that matters to me. Only Lebron of today’s current players has a chance once all is said and done.

Welcome to the forum, great post and I agree with most of what you said. Kobe's peak (numbers) co-incides with us losing so I can see why he is not in most peoples top 5 or 10. He is at the bottom of mine (5-6 range) but I dont rank players I never saw so my list is skewed. Part of why the "eye" test is important. I for the life of me just cant bring myself to rank players off box scores or grainy film which tends to show those players only at their very best (hardwood classics etc.). IF I was able to watch their careers (like Kobe and Duncan) I am able to see both their highs and lows. I used to coach at a high level and to me judging players that played decades before you even understand the game ... is like me scouting a AAU or HS game using box scores. I just dont trust that method. I get this is just an internet version of a barbershop or lockerroom debate, but I just refuse to capitulate on that front. My all-time starts in 1980. Modern era for me..

I also agree Lebron is the only players in the modern era that has a chance to surpass MJ ... looks doubtful today but he is the only one with a real shot.
Kobe and Duncan have virtually none.

[Killakobe81]

:lol Let me guess: James, Durant, Wade, Paul, Bryant?

Based on this season, Duncan and Parker easily trump him. And if we're talking a big picture approach and giving Howard and to a lesser extent, Rose, the benefit of the doubt injury wise, he's still not in the top five.

:lol
:rollin

[midnightpulp]

On a more serious note, that is my problem with advanced stats. AMb wont admit it, but he went in to that exercise with bias and to prove his point about Pau.
But when he was surprised by data he was sure to explain it away ...and that is a problem.

No I dont thnk eye test alone is sufficient you need a balance just like rangs alone is not good enough either you need a balance. But the only way I can completely trust advanced stats is if the person creating/compling that data is not a fan beforehand. IF you are a hoop fan and you create a system based on your own beliefs and bias (PER) then that data will support those beliefs.
I trust what I See. The stats, and the advanced ones mostly support what I see. If thay don't ... No need to explain away ... because in the end it's all opinions anyway. Hollinger or anyone else that did not play or coach in the league's opinion is no more valuable than mine. He is a fan with better access. And if we do go by stats, why are your or his stats better than mine ... because Hollinger or some other nerd says so? The spirit of a great debate can never be decided by numbers alone. Any number ... even rings. I just emphasize those over advanced stats because the goal is to win. I get trying to see how much someone contributed etc. And like I said before all of those factors should be considered, we just differ on what carries the most weight. For me:

1. Rings (Stars only)
2. Eye Test
3. Traditional stats
4. Advanced stats

But again Amb, we will have our day to make these arguments thanks for the afternoon diversion ....good stuff.

:lmao

I don't see how you can take traditional stats that seriously when the production of them is highly, highly dependent on pace. Put Kevin Durant on Memphis, and he's probably not the scoring leader right now, but that doesn't mean he still wouldn't be the best scorer in the league.

[midnightpulp]

You're defeating your own argument right off the bat by citing a stat that's well known to be outdated and flawed.... the whole point of the analytics movement is to progress past the flawed stats of old and create new ones that more specifically represent a player's production and value in various situations.....


Firstly, you're assuming that everyone is as statistically ignorant as you are.... believe it or not, plenty of people actually take the time to understand the numbers before blurting them out.... in fact, most sports teams nowadays employ people whose job is to work with advanced stats to help make the most informed decisions possible when building the roster....

Secondly, you're assuming every advanced stat is ridiculously complicated, but it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that (for example) WHIP measures walks and hits per innings pitched....

Thirdly, the laziest form of analysis is the shit that ESPN puts out on the daily: analysis via cliches and storylines.... for instance, despite the fact that Kirby's shooting percentage in clutch situations is about league average, the media only hypes up the shots that go in, using those isolated outliers as "proof" that Kirby is "clutch," which they repeat ad nauseum until casual fans are convinced it's the truth... the same thing was done to LeBron in reverse: until last year's Finals, all of his failures were amplified and his successes ignored in an attempt to paint him as a "soft choke artist"...

This type of analysis is the worst, because not only does it fail to consider statistical fact, oftentimes, it's influenced by or related to uncontrollable factors that have nothing to do with the sport.... for instance, white players are usually portrayed as "scrappy, grinders, good teammates, hard workers" while black players are usually portrayed as athletic, volatile divas.... that's just lazy confirmation bias at its finest, but that's what passes for analysis in the mainstream media....

/end thread

Read carefully, Killa, Deuce, and other Kirby cocksuckers who don't like advanced stats because they've never been favorable to their boy.

[Killakobe81]

/end thread

Read carefully, Killa, Deuce, and other Kirby cocksuckers who don't like advanced stats because they've never been favorable to their boy.

LOL Like CN can close any fucen thread I want to keep going ... Amb is the only big fish on the other side of the argument worth my time tbh ...

[ambchang]

I guess I have to clarify before I get labeled as this WS crusader who looks at nothing else BUT WS.

I am not, but I think from a statistical standpoint, WS is the one with the least amount of exceptions out of all the available statistics.

At the end of the day, I still prefer the eye test over everything else, and I find that WS provides the least amount of exceptions when compared to the eye test.

The biggest problem with the eye test though, is the subconscious biases that we have built in. In a case of comparing players such as Kobe vs. Duncan, it’s obvious that Laker fans will choose Kobe, and Spurs fans will choose Duncan, so we have to go the next step, which is to compare statistics.

Regular stats are probably the worst out of all the stats. The reason is, as mentioned before, the lack of context. Scoring 25 ppg with the late 90s Cavs is very different from scoring 25 ppg with the mid 00 Suns. Pace, playing styles, teammates, systems, coaching, all comes into play. Also, how do you weigh the different statistics? Is scoring more important than rebounding, assists more important than steals? I can’t say, and neither could anyone. These are all situational stats, that, I felt, tells me nothing at the end of the day.

This takes us to PER. PER provides one neat number that is pretty much a aggregation of all regular stats. I hate calling it an advanced stat, because it really isn’t. It’s just multiplications and additions of existing regular stats. In other words, it’s regular stats presented another way. The advantage of PER over regular stats is that it takes into account pace, and it tries to provide relative weighting of importance to different aspects. My issue with PER is that it favours offense heavily, and penalize great defensive players who doesn’t put up Ben Wallace like numbers. Players like Bowen, or even Artest, Cooper, Battier and such do not get the recognition they deserve using PER. Also, the weighting is relatively out of thin air. If I was playing with Moses Malone, a missed shot isn’t as bad as a missed shot if I was playing for the 00 Spurs, who prefers to run back on defense than to crash the offensive boards, but they get weighted the same regardless of the situation. It also rewards volume shooters, and per minute superstars who really doesn’t play that many minutes. Calvin Booth was a prime example of this back in the day, and if you look at this season, we have Brook Lopez over Parker, Harden, Wade, Anthony, and Kobe. We just know that is untrue.

Finally, we come to WS. Is it bullet proof? Hell no. A notable exception is that Bill Laimbeer led the Pistons in WS back in the day, and Thomas was usually 3rd or 4th in WS. However, we have to understand the context of the game. Laimbeer was a unique shooting big man who crashes the board, and provide stellar defense. As a predominantly defensive unit, Laimbeer provides immense value to the Pistons. In fact, you could not have found another player to replace him back in the day. Coupled with the era when mobile big men were few and far between, the ability of Laimbeer to shoot from outside, drawing the defender out to open up lanes for Thomas and Dumars was unbelievably important. However, I am not going to call this an exception, because Laimbeer DID provide that value to the Pistons. With him on the floor, the Pistons are much better. He was a system player, and he would not have been that successful if he was on any other team, but to the Pistons, he was vital. People put way too much emphasis on the guards of the Pistons because they created the offense, but what was really scary with the Pistons was their immense frontline that no other team could match up with. Jordan and Pippen was most definitely a better backcourt (Pippen is more backcourt than frontcourt) than Thomas and Dumars, and yet they were defeated by the Pistons because they couldn’t deal with their frontline. It is also nobody in their right minds would EVER rank Thomas as a top 10, or even top 15 player of all time, because, let’s face it, he had a loaded team and a fantastic coach who introduced the perfect system.

Ironically, the same could be said of Gasol, he was a system player, the triangle was perfect for him (and Odom), and the Lakers benefited greatly with that frontline. However, Kobe did not create the offense as much as Thomas and Dumars did for the Pistons, and anybody who watched the Lakers knew that the Lakers offense was inside out more than outside in. Gasol didn’t get the credit that he deserved, and got the blame that he didn’t deserve. At least people recognized the value of a Laimbeer, Rodman and Dumars back in the days. We all KNEW the Pistons were not Thomas and a bunch of scrubs. My problem is that Gasol has been reduced to a soft European puss, when he was extremely important to the Lakers, often times as much, or even more so, than Kobe.

[Killakobe81]

I guess I have to clarify before I get labeled as this WS crusader who looks at nothing else BUT WS.

I am not, but I think from a statistical standpoint, WS is the one with the least amount of exceptions out of all the available statistics.

At the end of the day, I still prefer the eye test over everything else, and I find that WS provides the least amount of exceptions when compared to the eye test.

The biggest problem with the eye test though, is the subconscious biases that we have built in. In a case of comparing players such as Kobe vs. Duncan, it’s obvious that Laker fans will choose Kobe, and Spurs fans will choose Duncan, so we have to go the next step, which is to compare statistics.

Regular stats are probably the worst out of all the stats. The reason is, as mentioned before, the lack of context. Scoring 25 ppg with the late 90s Cavs is very different from scoring 25 ppg with the mid 00 Suns. Pace, playing styles, teammates, systems, coaching, all comes into play. Also, how do you weigh the different statistics? Is scoring more important than rebounding, assists more important than steals? I can’t say, and neither could anyone. These are all situational stats, that, I felt, tells me nothing at the end of the day.

This takes us to PER. PER provides one neat number that is pretty much a aggregation of all regular stats. I hate calling it an advanced stat, because it really isn’t. It’s just multiplications and additions of existing regular stats. In other words, it’s regular stats presented another way. The advantage of PER over regular stats is that it takes into account pace, and it tries to provide relative weighting of importance to different aspects. My issue with PER is that it favours offense heavily, and penalize great defensive players who doesn’t put up Ben Wallace like numbers. Players like Bowen, or even Artest, Cooper, Battier and such do not get the recognition they deserve using PER. Also, the weighting is relatively out of thin air. If I was playing with Moses Malone, a missed shot isn’t as bad as a missed shot if I was playing for the 00 Spurs, who prefers to run back on defense than to crash the offensive boards, but they get weighted the same regardless of the situation. It also rewards volume shooters, and per minute superstars who really doesn’t play that many minutes. Calvin Booth was a prime example of this back in the day, and if you look at this season, we have Brook Lopez over Parker, Harden, Wade, Anthony, and Kobe. We just know that is untrue.

Finally, we come to WS. Is it bullet proof? Hell no. A notable exception is that Bill Laimbeer led the Pistons in WS back in the day, and Thomas was usually 3rd or 4th in WS. However, we have to understand the context of the game. Laimbeer was a unique shooting big man who crashes the board, and provide stellar defense. As a predominantly defensive unit, Laimbeer provides immense value to the Pistons. In fact, you could not have found another player to replace him back in the day. Coupled with the era when mobile big men were few and far between, the ability of Laimbeer to shoot from outside, drawing the defender out to open up lanes for Thomas and Dumars was unbelievably important. However, I am not going to call this an exception, because Laimbeer DID provide that value to the Pistons. With him on the floor, the Pistons are much better. He was a system player, and he would not have been that successful if he was on any other team, but to the Pistons, he was vital. People put way too much emphasis on the guards of the Pistons because they created the offense, but what was really scary with the Pistons was their immense frontline that no other team could match up with. Jordan and Pippen was most definitely a better backcourt (Pippen is more backcourt than frontcourt) than Thomas and Dumars, and yet they were defeated by the Pistons because they couldn’t deal with their frontline. It is also nobody in their right minds would EVER rank Thomas as a top 10, or even top 15 player of all time, because, let’s face it, he had a loaded team and a fantastic coach who introduced the perfect system.

Ironically, the same could be said of Gasol, he was a system player, the triangle was perfect for him (and Odom), and the Lakers benefited greatly with that frontline. However, Kobe did not create the offense as much as Thomas and Dumars did for the Pistons, and anybody who watched the Lakers knew that the Lakers offense was inside out more than outside in. Gasol didn’t get the credit that he deserved, and got the blame that he didn’t deserve. At least people recognized the value of a Laimbeer, Rodman and Dumars back in the days. We all KNEW the Pistons were not Thomas and a bunch of scrubs. My problem is that Gasol has been reduced to a soft European puss, when he was extremely important to the Lakers, often times as much, or even more so, than Kobe.

Much better than the one in the other thread ...:toast
Only a little bit of emotion and I liek the fact that you gave props to two players who are a underrated by some. I just dont like when yo overrate Pau. Like Bill Laimbeer both essential Finals players neither are superstars or leaders though.

[DMC]

Much better than the one in the other thread ...:toast
Only a little bit of emotion and I liek the fact that you gave props to two players who are a underrated by some. I just dont like when yo overrate Pau. Like Bill Laimbeer both essential Finals players neither are superstars or leaders though.

But he brought you and the horde a callin'.

[Killakobe81]

But he brought you and the horde a callin'.

OH DMC you havent figured me out yet I like debate so I am easily trollable ..if that is someones thang. But do you see how long his posts are? He makes my rambling ass seem like the master of brevity. He is NOT trolling he also loves to debate.

Cant speak for teh folks who get all emotional about Kobe ... but I just was playing the huckleberry ...

[DMC]

OH DMC you havent figured me out yet I like debate so I am easily trollable ..if that is someones thang. But do you see how long his posts are? He makes my rambling ass seem like the master of brevity. He is NOT trolling he also loves to debate.

Cant speak for teh folks who get all emotional about Kobe ... but I just was playing the huckleberry ...
You're no Daisy, you're no Daisy at all.

[ambchang]

lol at dumbasses comparing '11 Dirk to '03 Duncan
lol '08 KG WS higher than '11 Dirk WS

FkLA right again, as usual. :hat
Not sure how I missed this one, but when you actually look at their respective careers, Dirk led the lead in WS twice, with 17.7 and 16.3. He also had WS of 16.1 and 15.6. Garnett also led the league twice, but with 18.3 and 16.1, with other highs of 15.6 and 14.9.

In the playoffs, Dirk led the league in 06 with 5.4, also had other seasons of 3.6 and 2.6. Garnett led the league in 08 with 4.1, and had other seasons of 2.7, 2.4 and 2.3.

They are actually very similar players and is quite comparable (which is pretty much my stance), but I tend to give Dirk the advantage because he is just easier to build around.

[ambchang]

And for comparison's sake, Duncan also led the league in WS twice, with 17.8 and 16.5, and had 10 other seasons of double figure WS (12 seasons total). Garnett had 9 double digit WS seasons, while Dirk had 11. Duncan also led the league in DWS 5 times, something neither Dirk nor Garnett ever did.

To top it off, Duncan led the playoffs in WS twice, once with an insane 5.9, and the other time with 3.7. He also had a 3.5 and 3.3 playoff winshare seasons.

Duncan have similar, and slightly better RS WS numbers across his career than all other PFs, and his PO WS was just the icing on the cake. In fact, his 5.9 ws in the 03 PO is the highest in NBA history. Dirks run in 06 was 3rd best all time.

[AchillesHeel]

:lol

[Arnold Toht]

And he's still up 5-4 over Duncan.