NBA Playoff PPG leaders on Championship teams since 2000, RPG and APG leaders as well

[Deuce Bigalow]

NBA's Playoff PPG leaders on Championship teams
PPG difference between 1st option and 2nd option since 2000
Playoffs numbers, rebound and assist leaders added


2009 Kobe: + 11.9 ppg [Kobe 30.2 ppg / Pau 18.3 ppg]
Rebound leader: Gasol, Assist leader: Kobe

2011 Dirk: + 10.2 ppg [Dirk 27.7 ppg / Terry 17.5 ppg]
Rebound leader: Chandler, Assist leader: Kidd

2003 Duncan: + 10.0 ppg [Duncan 24.7 ppg / Parker 14.7 ppg]
Rebound leader: Duncan, Assist leader: Duncan

2006 Wade: + 10.0 ppg [Wade 28.4 ppg / Shaq 18.4 ppg]
Rebound leader: Shaq, Assist leader: Wade

2010 Kobe: + 9.6 ppg [Kobe 29.2 ppg / Pau 19.6 ppg]
Rebound leader: Gasol, Assist leader: Kobe

2000 Shaq: + 9.6 ppg [Shaq 30.7 ppg / Kobe 21.1 ppg]
Rebound leader: Shaq, Assist leader: Kobe

2012 Lebron: + 7.5 ppg [Lebron 30.3 ppg / Wade 22.8 ppg]
Rebound leader: Lebron, Assist leader: Lebron

2004 Hamilton: + 5.1 ppg [Hamilton 21.5 ppg / Billups 16.4 ppg]
Rebound leader: B. Wallace, Assist leader: Billups

2005 Duncan: + 2.8 ppg [Duncan 23.6 / Manu 20.8 ppg]
Rebound leader: Duncan, Assist leader: Parker

2002 Shaq: + 1.9 ppg [Shaq 28.5 ppg / Kobe 26.6 ppg]
Rebound leader: Shaq, Assist leader: Kobe

2007 Duncan: + 1.4 ppg [Duncan 22.2 ppg / Parker 20.8 ppg]
Rebound leader: Duncan, Assist leader: Parker

2001 Shaq: + 1.0 ppg [Shaq 30.4 ppg / Kobe 29.4 ppg]
Rebound leader: Shaq, Assist leader: Kobe

2008 KG: + 0.7 ppg [KG 20.4 ppg / Pierce 19.7 ppg]
Rebound leader: KG, Assist leader: Rondo


This gives us a good look at playoff leaders with the use of real stats. 09 Kobe had the biggest difference between his second option in points since 98 MJ. 03 Duncan and 12 Lebron pulled off a run in which they led in all three of the main categories of stats.

[LkrFan]

Good shit Deuce. Kobe was the real MVP in 2001. He was only a point off of Shaq's ppg avg, he was the defacto PG who ensured the big dog was fed constantly, and he clearly our best perimeter defender. Talk about triple threat skills.

[ambchang]

Lol. Ball hogging to its finest.

Basically, anybody who really knows the game knows that raw stats are crazily misleading.

And typical Kobe fanboi putting stock on scoring.

[djohn2oo8]

Good shit Deuce. Kobe was the real MVP in 2001. He was only a point off of Shaq's ppg avg, he was the defacto PG who ensured the big dog was fed constantly, and he clearly our best perimeter defender. Talk about triple threat skills.

CROFL. Not that hard to give the ball to Shaq.

[LkrFan]

CROFL. Not that hard to give the ball to Shaq.
You're :downspin: shit. He also set up Fish, Horry, and Foxy. :nope

[Deuce Bigalow]

Lol. Ball hogging to its finest.

Basically, anybody who really knows the game knows that raw stats are crazily misleading.

And typical Kobe fanboi putting stock on scoring.
Care to tell me the assist leader on all 5 of the Laker championships? Thanks.

[ambchang]

Care to tell me the assist leader on all 5 of the Laker championships? Thanks.

Stepson Marbury and Allen iverson averaged a lot is assists. Your point being?

[ambchang]

:lol Shaquille was the clear leader in the three titles
:lol Wade was more or a leader than Lebron
:lol Hamilton was the leader of the pistons.

:lol trying to how Kobe was the leader of the two recent rings but showed him to be the clear sidekick in 3 championship.
:lol two clear exceptions in 10 years.

:lol didn't go back to 1999 because Avery Johnson had a +5 apg
:lol didn't go back to 98 and 96 because pippen had a +2 in apg

:lol ignoring rebounding and putting stock in ast because ast are guard stats and reb are big men stats.

[ambchang]

One more. Taking assists as raw numbers and ignoring usage rates.

[Killakobe81]

NBA's Playoff PPG leaders on Championship teams
PPG difference between 1st option and 2nd option since 2000
Playoffs numbers, rebound and assist leaders added


2009 Kobe: + 11.9 ppg [Kobe 30.2 ppg / Pau 18.3 ppg]
Rebound leader: Gasol, Assist leader: Kobe



2011 Dirk: + 10.2 ppg [Dirk 27.7 ppg / Terry 17.5 ppg]
Rebound leader: Chandler, Assist leader: Kidd

2003 Duncan: + 10.0 ppg [Duncan 24.7 ppg / Parker 14.7 ppg]
Rebound leader: Duncan, Assist leader: Duncan

2006 Wade: + 10.0 ppg [Wade 28.4 ppg / Shaq 18.4 ppg]
Rebound leader: Shaq, Assist leader: Wade

2010 Kobe: + 9.6 ppg [Kobe 29.2 ppg / Pau 19.6 ppg]
Rebound leader: Gasol, Assist leader: Kobe

2000 Shaq: + 9.6 ppg [Shaq 30.7 ppg / Kobe 21.1 ppg]
Rebound leader: Shaq, Assist leader: Kobe

2012 Lebron: + 7.5 ppg [Lebron 30.3 ppg / Wade 22.8 ppg]
Rebound leader: Lebron, Assist leader: Lebron

2004 Hamilton: + 5.1 ppg [Hamilton 21.5 ppg / Billups 16.4 ppg]
Rebound leader: B. Wallace, Assist leader: Billups

2005 Duncan: + 2.8 ppg [Duncan 23.6 / Manu 20.8 ppg]
Rebound leader: Duncan, Assist leader: Parker

2002 Shaq: + 1.9 ppg [Shaq 28.5 ppg / Kobe 26.6 ppg]
Rebound leader: Shaq, Assist leader: Kobe

2007 Duncan: + 1.4 ppg [Duncan 22.2 ppg / Parker 20.8 ppg]
Rebound leader: Duncan, Assist leader: Parker

2001 Shaq: + 1.0 ppg [Shaq 30.4 ppg / Kobe 29.4 ppg]
Rebound leader: Shaq, Assist leader: Kobe

2008 KG: + 0.7 ppg [KG 20.4 ppg / Pierce 19.7 ppg]
Rebound leader: KG, Assist leader: Rondo


This gives us a good look at playoff leaders with the use of real stats. 09 Kobe had the biggest difference between his second option in points since 98 MJ. 03 Duncan and 12 Lebron pulled off a run in which they led in all three of the main categories of stats.

Nice work, Deuce these numbers just as useful as the others ... but I love the mocking of Amb who takes his numbers way to seriously

[Deuce Bigalow]

:lol Shaquille was the clear leader in the three titles
:lol Wade was more or a leader than Lebron
:lol Hamilton was the leader of the pistons.

:lol trying to how Kobe was the leader of the two recent rings but showed him to be the clear sidekick in 3 championship.
:lol two clear exceptions in 10 years.

:lol didn't go back to 1999 because Avery Johnson had a +5 apg
:lol didn't go back to 98 and 96 because pippen had a +2 in apg

:lol ignoring rebounding and putting stock in ast because ast are guard stats and reb are big men stats.
It's okay, let it all out.

[Killakobe81]

It's okay, let it all out.

You actually gave props to Duncan for 2003 but he missed that ... was quit big of you Deuce ....aI did the same in the other thread back in 2003 TIm was clearly better than Kobe ...heck I would still gibe him the edge in 2007. But It was close and Kobe has been better every year since and oh, yeah

Boiled down: 5>4

[midnightpulp]

NBA's Playoff PPG leaders on Championship teams
PPG difference between 1st option and 2nd option since 2000
Playoffs numbers, rebound and assist leaders added


2009 Kobe: + 11.9 ppg [Kobe 30.2 ppg / Pau 18.3 ppg]
Rebound leader: Gasol, Assist leader: Kobe

2011 Dirk: + 10.2 ppg [Dirk 27.7 ppg / Terry 17.5 ppg]
Rebound leader: Chandler, Assist leader: Kidd

2003 Duncan: + 10.0 ppg [Duncan 24.7 ppg / Parker 14.7 ppg]
Rebound leader: Duncan, Assist leader: Duncan

2006 Wade: + 10.0 ppg [Wade 28.4 ppg / Shaq 18.4 ppg]
Rebound leader: Shaq, Assist leader: Wade

2010 Kobe: + 9.6 ppg [Kobe 29.2 ppg / Pau 19.6 ppg]
Rebound leader: Gasol, Assist leader: Kobe

2000 Shaq: + 9.6 ppg [Shaq 30.7 ppg / Kobe 21.1 ppg]
Rebound leader: Shaq, Assist leader: Kobe

2012 Lebron: + 7.5 ppg [Lebron 30.3 ppg / Wade 22.8 ppg]
Rebound leader: Lebron, Assist leader: Lebron

2004 Hamilton: + 5.1 ppg [Hamilton 21.5 ppg / Billups 16.4 ppg]
Rebound leader: B. Wallace, Assist leader: Billups

2005 Duncan: + 2.8 ppg [Duncan 23.6 / Manu 20.8 ppg]
Rebound leader: Duncan, Assist leader: Parker

2002 Shaq: + 1.9 ppg [Shaq 28.5 ppg / Kobe 26.6 ppg]
Rebound leader: Shaq, Assist leader: Kobe

2007 Duncan: + 1.4 ppg [Duncan 22.2 ppg / Parker 20.8 ppg]
Rebound leader: Duncan, Assist leader: Parker

2001 Shaq: + 1.0 ppg [Shaq 30.4 ppg / Kobe 29.4 ppg]
Rebound leader: Shaq, Assist leader: Kobe

2008 KG: + 0.7 ppg [KG 20.4 ppg / Pierce 19.7 ppg]
Rebound leader: KG, Assist leader: Rondo


This gives us a good look at playoff leaders with the use of real stats. 09 Kobe had the biggest difference between his second option in points since 98 MJ. 03 Duncan and 12 Lebron pulled off a run in which they led in all three of the main categories of stats.

Per game stats aren't real stats, though.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Per game stats aren't real stats, though.
Okay.gif

[Killakobe81]

Per game stats aren't real stats, though.

How so? Please enlighten Numbers on a page same as winshares tbh ...

[ElNono]

So, Kobe scored a lot when he had a dominant big man grabbing all the attention and doing all the defense...

ambchang doing some solid work, tbh... pushing the right buttons, getting kobefainboi mad, lamborghini mercy, not quite what she said, etc...

[Killakobe81]

Cant speak for Deuce but Im far from Mad ...Amb just replacing DPG as my huckleberry ... so we dance from time to time

Pau is a superstar and a leader I have seen the light, EL and winshares have led me down the righteous path ...

#WINSHARES

#TeamAMb!!!

[midnightpulp]

Let's actually use a meaningful stat (PER):

Kobe's title runs in which he was the lead dog.

09: Kobe - 26.8/Pau - 21.9 (+4.9)

10: Kobe - 24.7/Pau - 24.0 (+0.7)

Duncan's lead dog title runs:

99: Duncan - 25.1/Robinson - 23.8 (+1.3)

03: Duncan - 28.4/Robinson - 17.7 (+10.7)

05: Duncan - 24.9/Ginobili - 24.8 (+0.1)

07: Duncan - 27.4/Ginobili - 21.9 (+5.5)


Overall, Duncan has maintained a greater average statistical separation from his second option than Kobe did in his two lead dog title runs, meaning Duncan was always more valuable to his team than Kobe was to his.

:lol Per game stats.

Quit living in the 90s.

[midnightpulp]

How so? Please enlighten Numbers on a page same as winshares tbh ...

Per game stats tells us Elgin Baylor is a better rebounder than Ben Wallace.

:lol Per game stats.

Any metric than doesn't factor in pace is worthless in my book.

[Killakobe81]

Let's actually use a meaningful stat (PER):

Kobe's title runs in which he was the lead dog.

09: Kobe - 26.8/Pau - 21.9 (+4.9)

10: Kobe - 24.7/Pau - 24.0 (+0.7)

Duncan's lead dog title runs:

99: Duncan - 25.1/Robinson - 23.8 (+1.3)

03: Duncan - 28.4/Robinson - 17.7 (+10.7)

05: Duncan - 24.9/Ginobili - 24.8 (+0.1)

07: Duncan - 27.4/Ginobili - 21.9 (+5.5)


Overall, Duncan has maintained a greater average statistical separation from his second option than Kobe did in his two lead dog title runs, meaning Duncan was always more valuable to his team than Kobe was to his.

:lol Per game stats.

Quit living in the 90s.

Stop it, Mid ...

WINShares are what counts and shits on PER

Amb said and so it was written ...

[midnightpulp]

Stop it, Mid ...

WINShares are what counts and shits on PER

Amb said and so it was written ...

Winshares is actually an advanced stat I'm not fond of, which is why you never see me using it. In my opinion, PER is the best stat we have so far for measuring a player's overall quantitative impact. It's not perfect, of course, but world's better than per game stats.

[whitemamba]

duece dropping bombs.. this is a great discussion and all, but amb and pulp, remind me again, what does it boil down??

[midnightpulp]

duece dropping bombs.. this is a great discussion and all, but amb and pulp, remind me again, what does it boil down??

For individual player comparisons?

Finals MVPs.

Duncan: 3

Kirby: 2

Thanks for asking.

[whitemamba]

For individual player comparisons?

Finals MVPs.

Duncan: 3.5

Kirby: 5

Thanks for asking.

fify

[Deuce Bigalow]

Let's actually use a meaningful stat (PER):

Kobe's title runs in which he was the lead dog.

09: Kobe - 26.8/Pau - 21.9 (+4.9)

10: Kobe - 24.7/Pau - 24.0 (+0.7)

Duncan's lead dog title runs:

99: Duncan - 25.1/Robinson - 23.8 (+1.3)

03: Duncan - 28.4/Robinson - 17.7 (+10.7)

05: Duncan - 24.9/Ginobili - 24.8 (+0.1)

07: Duncan - 27.4/Ginobili - 21.9 (+5.5)


Overall, Duncan has maintained a greater average statistical separation from his second option than Kobe did in his two lead dog title runs, meaning Duncan was always more valuable to his team than Kobe was to his.

:lol Per game stats.

Quit living in the 90s.
You already know what it all boils down to.

Let me ask you, what is a PER? If you don't know what it is in your head then why does your dumbass use it?

[Deuce Bigalow]

Per game stats tells us Elgin Baylor is a better rebounder than Ben Wallace.

:lol Per game stats.

Any metric than doesn't factor in pace is worthless in my book.
You can't compare stats from completely different eras, were talking ~40 year differences. Fail on your part, but you fail at understanding basketball anyways.

[SanDiegoSpursFan]

Any stat that requires a higher level of math than basic multiplication/division isn't a real stat?

[midnightpulp]

You already know what it all boils down to.

Let me ask you, what is a PER? If you don't know what it is in your head then why does your dumbass use it?

Pretty simple metric actually. Nothing "advanced" about it.

"PER strives to measure a player's per-minute performance, while adjusting for pace."

PER's most important feature is bolded, something your dumbass fails to comprehend. Higher pace means more possessions, which means more opportunities for points, rebounds, assists, etc. Steve Nash averaged 8.8 apg in his last year with the Mavericks to averaging 11.5 apg the very next year with the Suns, who we all know played at much higher pace. Your sacred "Per game stats" would lead us to believe he magically became a 30% better passer in a one year span, but the increase in his production had more to do with the system he was in and the pace at which he played than him suddenly becoming an MVP candidate overnight because he's just that good.

Again, quit living in the 90's and join us in the modern era.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Pretty simple metric actually. Nothing "advanced" about it.

"PER strives to measure a player's per-minute performance, while adjusting for pace."

PER's most important feature is bolded, something your dumbass fails to comprehend. Higher pace means more possessions, which means more opportunities for points, rebounds, assists, etc. Steve Nash averaged 8.8 apg in his last year with the Mavericks to averaging 11.5 apg the very next year with the Suns, who we all know played at much higher pace. Your sacred "Per game stats" would lead us to believe he magically became a 30% better passer in a one year span, but the increase in his production had more to do with the system he was in and the pace at which he played than him suddenly becoming an MVP candidate overnight because he's just that good.

Again, quit living in the 90's and join us in the modern era.
Tell me what PER is.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Any stat that requires a higher level of math than basic multiplication/division isn't a real stat?
PER is not a real stat. It's a formula invented by John Hollinger. Do you see a player's PER on a box score? Do you go, hey what's this guy's PER in this game right now?

Win-shares? What is that? It is not literally a stat that measures the amount of wins a player produces.

[midnightpulp]

You can't compare stats from completely different eras, were talking ~40 year differences. Fail on your part, but you fail at understanding basketball anyways.

Yes you can. And PER does it quite well.

There's a reason stats from the 60's were highly inflated as compared to now. Can you tell me why?

[Splits]

PER is not a real stat. It's a formula

Yeah I know, right! Fucking MATHS! Putting numbers together in a sensible way in order to properly assess a situation with as little bias as possible. Fuck your FORMULAS

[Deuce Bigalow]

Yes you can. And PER does it quite well.

There's a reason stats from the 60's were highly inflated as compared to now. Can you tell me why?
It's not just the pace when you're talking about the 60's. The level of competition is another factor.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Yeah I know, right! Fucking MATHS! Putting numbers together in a sensible way in order to properly assess a situation with as little bias as possible. Fuck your FORMULAS
Except you, pulp, ect don't know what that formula is.

[midnightpulp]

PER is not a real stat. It's a formula invented by John Hollinger. Do you see a player's PER on a box score? Do you go, hey what's this guy's PER in this game right now?

Win-shares? What is that? It is not literally a stat that measures the amount of wins a player produces.

Yeah, and PER doesn't totally reflect real world perceptions at all. Jordan is widely considered the greatest player in history and has the highest all-time PER in both the regular season and the playoffs. Lebron James is clearly the best player in the league and is running away with the "PER title."

But "real" per game stats tell us that Allen Iverson was a better scorer in 2002 than Kevin Durant is today. :lol

[midnightpulp]

It's not just the pace when you're talking about the 60's. The level of competition is another factor.

How so? A lot of those "unathletic midget honkies" filled up the stat sheet, as well. The 6' 7" Dolph Schayes was still pulling down double-digit boards at age 32, which back then was like being 50 years old since sports medicine wasn't too advanced back then.

Any metric worth its salt should factor in pace, and since per game stats don't do that, they're pretty much antiquated.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Yeah, and PER doesn't totally reflect real world perceptions at all. Jordan is widely considered the greatest player in history and has the highest all-time PER in both the regular season and the playoffs. Lebron James is clearly the best player in the league and is running away with the "PER title."

But "real" per game stats tell us that Allen Iverson was a better scorer in 2002 than Kevin Durant is today. :lol
Chris Paul
25.5 career PER
30.0 peak PER

Magic Johnson
24.1 career PER
27.0 peak PER

I could give so much more examples...

[midnightpulp]

Yeah, and PER doesn't totally reflect real world perceptions at all. Jordan is widely considered the greatest player in history and has the highest all-time PER in both the regular season and the playoffs. Lebron James is clearly the best player in the league and is running away with the "PER title."

But "real" per game stats tell us that Allen Iverson was a better scorer in 2002 than Kevin Durant is today. :lol

Let's review how PER doesn't reflect "actual production," measured so accurately by per game stats, and is simply an arbitrary invention by Hollinger without any basis in reality:

Wilt (regarded as the best player of his era, even over Russell): Highest PER of his generation.

Kareem (best player of the 70's): Highest PER of that decade.

Magic (best from about 1980 to 1988): Highest PER during that time.

Bird (2nd best player from 80 to 88): 2nd highest PER during that time.

Jordan (best player from 88-94): Highest PER during that time.

Hakeem (best player in 94-95): 3rd highest PER behind Shaq and David Robinson, who were the other top two players in the league alongside him. Posted the highest playoff PER.

Jordan (best player from 96-98): 2nd highest regular season PER, highest playoff PER.

So yeah, PER isn't a fairly accurate gauge of player production at all. It's also worth mentioning that the players with the highest PERs this gen (Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, Dirk, Lebron, Wade, and KG) have also won the most titles combined.

Again, quit living in the 90's.

[HarlemHeat37]

PER is not useful as a comparative stat, outside of comparing player's to their own competition in each respective season, tbh..

So comparing Magic and Paul's number is a faulty argument, tbh..

I'm not a huge PER fan, just saying though..

[midnightpulp]

Chris Paul
25.5 career PER
30.0 peak PER

Magic Johnson
24.1 career PER
27.0 peak PER

I could give so much more examples...

Prime Paul before the injury was well on his way to becoming one of the all-time great players. Pair prime Paul up with players the caliber of Worthy and Kareem, and he probably wins a couple of titles. So I don't see how that's a good example, especially considering you're comparing a player who played 7 seasons with a player who played 13 seasons.

Per game stats: Stockton was a better passer than Magic in 1990 when he averaged 13.8 assists to Magic's. Dirk is also a better scorer than Kobe in the playoffs because he averages more points per game, as are Durant, Iverson, George Gervin, Lebron James, and Rick Barry.

I can give you so much more examples.

[midnightpulp]

PER is not useful as a comparative stat, outside of comparing player's to their own competition in each respective season, tbh..

So comparing Magic and Paul's number is a faulty argument, tbh..

I'm not a huge PER fan, just saying though..

My essential argument is that PER is a much more useful metric for measuring production (given a large enough sample size) than per game stats. Kobe fans hate it because his PER (both regular season and playoff) is relatively unimpressive compared to other all-time greats. And it always seems the players we consider the best of their generation have uncannily no lower than the 2nd or 3rd best PER of their respective eras. So I don't really understand the arguments against it for not being a useful stat. Of course it doesn't consider defense and "intangibles," which is why it should be used in conjunction with observation, like any other stat.

[Deuce Bigalow]

2010 Pau Gasol had a higher Playoff PER than Every single playoff year of Larry Bird's career except 1984.

[midnightpulp]

This why they hate it, and it burns their ass:

http://oi46.tinypic.com/11aaglw.jpg

The difference between Kobe and the all-time greats he's compared to, like Jordan (and now Lebron), is that their hype has always held up under the microscope of every statistical analysis there is, from advanced measurements to the per game. When someone examines the Kobe myth deeper, they find the perception doesn't quite measure up to the reality. Stats, simple basic "per game" stats, have shown Kobe is not the best clutch player in the league, now or even of his generation. Kobe's vaunted defensive reputation crumbles when you go through it with the fine tooth comb of advanced stats (http://asubstituteforwar.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/kobe-bryant-the-most-overrated-defender-imaginable/). All other players we consider top ten all-time greats pass these "tests" with flying colors, while Kobe passes them with about an A-minus, and for a player who the media and his fans alike claim to be a top 5 great, A-minus shouldn't be good enough.

But like usual, Kobe is the exception because he has 5 rings, 3 of which were won when he was clearly the 2nd best player on his team.

[Deuce Bigalow]

My essential argument is that PER is a much more useful metric for measuring production (given a large enough sample size) than per game stats. Kobe fans hate it because his PER (both regular season and playoff) is relatively unimpressive compared to other all-time greats. And it always seems the players we consider the best of their generation have uncannily no lower than the 2nd or 3rd best PER of their respective eras. So I don't really understand the arguments against it for not being a useful stat. Of course it doesn't consider defense and "intangibles," which is why it should be used in conjunction with observation, like any other stat.
Actually Kobe's PER is on par with Magic and Bird. Kobe has a higher peak than both and their prime years and career are nearly identical.

Kobe
peak: 28.0
next best 3 years: 26.2, 26.1, 24.5
career: 23.4

Magic
peak: 27.0
next best 3 years: 26.9, 26.6, 25.7
career: 24.1

Bird
peak: 27.8
next best 3 years: 26.5, 26.4, 25.6
career: 23.5

[Deuce Bigalow]

This why they hate it, and it burns their ass:

http://oi46.tinypic.com/11aaglw.jpg

The difference between Kobe and the all-time greats he's compared to, like Jordan (and now Lebron), is that their hype has always held up under the microscope of every statistical analysis there is, from advanced measurements to the per game. When someone examines the Kobe myth deeper, they find the perception doesn't quite measure up to the reality. Stats, simple basic "per game" stats, have shown Kobe is not the best clutch player in the league, now or even of his generation. Kobe's vaunted defensive reputation crumbles when you go through it with the fine tooth comb of advanced stats (http://asubstituteforwar.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/kobe-bryant-the-most-overrated-defender-imaginable/). All other players we consider top ten all-time greats pass these "tests" with flying colors, while Kobe passes them with about an A-minus, and for a player who the media and his fans alike claim to be a top 5 great, A-minus shouldn't be good enough.

But like usual, Kobe is the exception because he has 5 rings, 3 of which were won when he was clearly the 2nd best player on his team.
Pulpy wrong again. I just proved that Kobe's PER is on par with Magic and Bird.

[midnightpulp]

2010 Pau Gasol had a higher Playoff PER than Every single playoff year of Larry Bird's career except 1984.

So stats aren't allowed to have outliers?

FWIW, you're also comparing a first option player to a second option player.

[Deuce Bigalow]

PER - Playoffs
Playoff years with a PER of at least 24

Kobe: 26.8, 25.0, 25.0, 24.7, 24.4, 24.1 [3 Title years]
Magic: 26.2, 25.6, 25.0 [1 Title year]
Bird: 26.3 [1 Title year]

[midnightpulp]

Actually Kobe's PER is on par with Magic and Bird. Kobe has a higher peak than both and their prime years and career are nearly identical.

Kobe
peak: 28.0
next best 3 years: 26.2, 26.1, 24.5
career: 23.4

Magic
peak: 27.0
next best 3 years: 26.9, 26.6, 25.7
career: 24.1

Bird
peak: 27.8
next best 3 years: 26.5, 26.4, 25.6
career: 23.5

Still 21st all-time.

Classic Deuce cherry pick.

[midnightpulp]

PER - Playoffs
Playoff years with a PER of at least 24

Kobe: 26.8, 25.0, 25.0, 24.7, 24.4, 24.1 [3 Title years]
Magic: 26.2, 25.6, 25.0 [1 Title year]
Bird: 26.3 [1 Title year]

Still 21st all-time.

[Deuce Bigalow]

So stats aren't allowed to have outliers?

FWIW, you're also comparing a first option player to a second option player.
Pau averaged 40 mpg.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Still 21st all-time.
Got you there. Kobe's playoff PER is better than Larry Bird's easily and on par with Magic Johnson's.

I don't think anyone cares or even knows hat he's 19th (NBA son) on the career "PER" list lol

[whitemamba]

Deuce! Deuce! Deuce!

[Deuce Bigalow]

Still 21st all-time.

Classic Deuce cherry pick.
Still 5 rings
Still better than Duncan
Still you mad

[midnightpulp]

Pau averaged 40 mpg.

Was he the focus of the opposing team's defense? Or was Kobe?

And tell me how citing Gasol's 2010 run invalidates anything? That was one of the better second option performances in a long while, probably since Kobe's '01 campaign. 20, 11, 3.5 apg 2.1 blk on .539 shooting and playing great defense is top tier. But the reason we don't give it the credit it deserves is because Pau was still the second option.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Give it up pulpy. Your argument is PER and you use that to justify ranking Duncan over Kobe. Yet Duncan has a higher PER than Magic, Kareem, Bird. But you don't rank Duncan over them now do you?

[midnightpulp]

Got you there. Kobe's playoff PER is better than Larry Bird's easily and on par with Magic Johnson's.

I don't think anyone cares or even knows hat he's 19th (NBA son) on the career "PER" list lol

And when we compare Kobe to Duncan, Shaq, Jordan, Hakeem, Lebron, Dirk, etc what happens?

The reason Bird and Magic have lower PERs than other greats is because PER undervalues assists, which is by design, since the assist has been called the most overrated stat in basketball. We know from the "eye test" that Magic and Bird were playmakers who often got their teammates open looks, unlike a player like Stockton who whored the pick-n-roll. FWIW, Bird was also a bit inconsistent in the playoffs and has benefited greatly from the whole Magic/Bird mythology. Still an all-time great player.

So yeah, like any other stat, PER has its kinks and should be always used with observation. Still better than your per game bullshit, though.

Per game: Allen Iverson is the 2nd greatest playoff scorer of all-time :lmao

Your method is highly, highly more flawed than mine.

Quit living in the 90's.

[Deuce Bigalow]

^ Knew you would have an excuse.

[midnightpulp]

Give it up pulpy. Your argument is PER and you use that to justify ranking Duncan over Kobe. Yet Duncan has a higher PER than Magic, Kareem, Bird. But you don't rank Duncan over them now do you?

Kareem played 75 years and was on a stacked team with a variety of scoring options in his later years, so it stands to reason he'd have a drop off in production during that period, lowering his PER average. But during Kareem's prime (from 1970-80), his playoff PER was higher than Duncan's during his prime (99-08).

Magic I have higher than Duncan because I know how valuable of a playmaker he was, and PER does undervalue assists.

Bird is arguable. Slam magazine ranked Duncan higher than Bird.

So basically the only "evidence" you have against PER is repeatedly citing Magic's comparatively lower PER to other greats (and please don't be an idiot and name players like McGrady and Amare who have very small sample sizes). On the other hand, I can defeat your per game argument by naming a ton of different players with impressive per game stats who aren't considered top ten all-time greats, many of whom have superior per game stats than your beloved Kobe, like Allen Iverson :lol

You simply don't like PER because your hero is 21st (we'll bump him up to 17 by eliminating Howard, Amare, Durant, and T-Mac, players with small sample sizes) on the all-time list.

[Deuce Bigalow]

This why they hate it, and it burns their ass:

http://oi46.tinypic.com/11aaglw.jpg

Where's Larry Bird?
Less than 1 PER from Kareem, Magic, Wilt, and West. Yeah that really burns our ass that he's less than 1 PER point behind those legends.

[midnightpulp]

^ Knew you would have an excuse.

What excuse?

I'm totally on board with PER undervaluing assists. It's an overrated stat. This is why PER should be used with observation. Magic's assists were more "valuable" than Stockton's.

The only eye test Kobe passes is his ability to make difficult shots over 2 defenders, usually after going 1-7 previously.

[midnightpulp]

Where's Larry Bird?
Less than 1 PER from Kareem, Magic, Wilt, and West. Yeah that really burns our ass that he's less than 1 PER point behind those legends.

It does because he's 3 points behind Duncan and nearly 5 points behind Lebron.

[HarlemHeat37]

:lol again, PER numbers can't be compared to numbers in different seasons for an individual..the overall results for the PER of an individual season is partly based on the competition and "average" of the particular season in question..

One player's PER in 2011 is not comparable to a different player's PER in 1986..

Pau Gasol in the 2010 playoffs did not finish with a top 5 PER, while Bird finished in the top 5 several times IIRC..

Kobe has 4 top 5 playoff PER finishes(2010, 2009, 2008, 2001) with #3 as his peak
Magic has 6 top 5 playoff PER finishes, with several #2 finishes
Bird has 3 top 5 playoff PER finishes, with #2 as his peak

Magic's numbers are especially impressive, since PER undervalues PGs..

I agree that PER is a useful box score stat and more accurate than raw, simple box score numbers, but the overall PER number and career ranking list is largely irrelevant..

PER is useful in assessing an individual's player's dominance in a particular season against his competition..

[midnightpulp]

:lol again, PER numbers can't be compared to numbers in different seasons for an individual..the overall results for the PER of an individual season is partly based on the competition and "average" of the particular season in question..

One player's PER in 2011 is not comparable to a different player's PER in 1986..

Pau Gasol in the 2010 playoffs did not finish with a top 5 PER, while Bird finished in the top 5 several times IIRC..

Kobe has 4 top 5 playoff PER finishes(2010, 2009, 2008, 2001) with #3 as his peak
Magic has 6 top 5 playoff PER finishes, with several #2 finishes
Bird has 3 top 5 playoff PER finishes, with #2 as his peak

Magic's numbers are especially impressive, since PER undervalues PGs..

Agreed. PER sets a baseline for 15 every season, which is why I broke it down by era in an earlier post of mine. However, I couldn't help but indulge Deuce when he was naming his "outliers" that he stupidly believes debunks the stat.

I know I sometimes talk like it's the be-all, end-all stat, but I don't believe that it all. I just believe it's more valuable than the per game measurement. Averaging 25 points per game on the Grizzlies would be much more difficult than averaging the same on the Rockets. Deuce and his ilk don't seem to fuckin' understand pace, and try to distill player evaluation down to per game stats, which is a futile exercise. If you spent any time watching basketball, you'd know players can pad per game stats much easier in a high-tempo system, a concept that is obviously beyond Deuce's tiny brain (which is no doubt encrusted with Kobe's semen).

[Killakobe81]

Agreed. PER sets a baseline for 15 every season, which is why I broke it down by era in an earlier post of mine. However, I couldn't help but indulge Deuce when he was naming his "outliers" that he stupidly believes debunks the stat.

I know I sometimes talk like it's the be-all, end-all stat, but I don't believe that it all. I just believe it's more valuable than the per game measurement. Averaging 25 points per game on the Grizzlies would be much more difficult than averaging the same on the Rockets. Deuce and his ilk don't seem to fuckin' understand pace, and try to distill player evaluation down to per game stats, which is a futile exercise. If you spent any time watching basketball, you'd know players can pad per game stats much easier in a high-tempo system, a concept that is obviously beyond Deuce's tiny brain (which is no doubt encrusted with Kobe's semen).

Of course pace should be considered, but I dont think the per game numbers should be discounted either. Not speaking of PER which all kidding aside is probably better than winshares but still a bit iffy tbh ...
Nash, MArion etc. played in a crazy offense that boosted their traditional per game numbers ...but again ... if you played or coached at a high level do you know how hard it is to play uptempo for 40 or 48 minutes ESPECIALLY if you try and play defense at a high level as well? Not saying the Suns did that ...but to run heavy for extended minutes is tiring. And though I think it makes sense to keep in mind their tempo, they should not be penalized for scoring more than most teams. Gstate for example under Mark Jack is attempting to do this but also play defense and Ill be very ineterested to see how they hold up in the playoffs over a long series or if they get past round one. Point being I dont get why folks knock
So I get pace is to try and level playing fields and I get scoring for Memphis is diffrent than Houston, scoring is fun and playing defense at a high level is even more tiring than playing offense tbh ... But points no matter the pace are still at a premium no matter the tempo. IF you get sucked in to a shoot-out you need to score more and if you get in a dog fight ever basket is precious. Like my man Russell said these young bloods dont understand "the game always was and always will be about BUCKETS" ... (and of course stopping them).

But all in all most stats still tell us MJ, Magic, Bird Duncan etc are great ...Kobe for some reason is lower than expected but hey shit happens in the end. He will still be one of the greats no matter how many diatribes AMb spits on here. Is he overrated by Kobe fanbois? Absolutely is he underrated by Duncan fans sho nuff.

[ambchang]

See my stance on regular stats, PER, and Win Shares
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=211829&page=4&p=6461167&viewfull=1#post6461167

To summarize, at the end of the day, I don't care about a player's stats as long as he helps the team wins. In an extreme case, I would take a player who averaged 0 points, 0 rebounds, 0 assists, but did all the unmeasured stuff like setting picks, hustling, getting loose balls, etc .. than a guy who averages 20/5/5 if those stats came at the expense of the team (ie, ball hog)

Also, calculating PER is extremely straightforward, anybody with an excel sheet and the stats lined up can do it in about 3 minutes.

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

Kobe Bryant is the only supposed top 10 player of all time who is an exception to everything. It's not that he failed one of two of them, he failed every single one of them.

His best PER season was ranked #49 of all time for players who played more than 42 games in a season. And it came during the 05-06 season when his team was horrible.
His best WS season was ranked #95 of all time, and #55 of all time since the 77-78 season.
He was the only player to miss the playoffs in his prime. Kareem's case was unique due to injuries and wonky divisional rankings, and the mid 70s was wonky in general.
He was the only player to run a dominant teammate off the team during both of their primes. (Magic only did it to his coach)
He was never the clear cut #1 player in the league at any point in his career. In fact, he was the only player replaceable by multiple other players at any point in his career with another player in the league, and his team would have had the same success.

[Killakobe81]

And when we compare Kobe to Duncan, Shaq, Jordan, Hakeem, Lebron, Dirk, etc what happens?

The reason Bird and Magic have lower PERs than other greats is because PER undervalues assists, which is by design, since the assist has been called the most overrated stat in basketball. We know from the "eye test" that Magic and Bird were playmakers who often got their teammates open looks, unlike a player like Stockton who whored the pick-n-roll. FWIW, Bird was also a bit inconsistent in the playoffs and has benefited greatly from the whole Magic/Bird mythology. Still an all-time great player. So yeah, like any other stat, PER has its kinks and should be always used with observation. Still better than your per game bullshit, though.

Per game: Allen Iverson is the 2nd greatest playoff scorer of all-time :lmao

Your method is highly, highly more flawed than mine.

Quit living in the 90's.

Gotta agree with this, and I know Simmons is a homer but in some of his old stuff he calls out MAgic for his tragic Johnson stuff in 1984 but none of Bird's playoff failings. Which points to the issue with ALL of this everyone here picks and chooses the stats or data that supports their argument, that is human nature. AMb can argue winshares and Mid PER but reality is they are just looking to back what they already believe and when it doesnt the use Outliers or competion as an excuse. Any one method will be inherently flawed but the funniest part of all this Harlem when he is not trolling is one of the more reasonable fans on here. Good to have you back HArlem HO (ha)... whose troll was that anyways? Good times

[Killakobe81]

See my stance on regular stats, PER, and Win Shares
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=211829&page=4&p=6461167&viewfull=1#post6461167

To summarize, at the end of the day, I don't care about a player's stats as long as he helps the team wins. In an extreme case, I would take a player who averaged 0 points, 0 rebounds, 0 assists, but did all the unmeasured stuff like setting picks, hustling, getting loose balls, etc .. than a guy who averages 20/5/5 if those stats came at the expense of the team (ie, ball hog)

Also, calculating PER is extremely straightforward, anybody with an excel sheet and the stats lined up can do it in about 3 minutes.

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

Kobe Bryant is the only supposed top 10 player of all time who is an exception to everything. It's not that he failed one of two of them, he failed every single one of them.

His best PER season was ranked #49 of all time for players who played more than 42 games in a season. And it came during the 05-06 season when his team was horrible.
His best WS season was ranked #95 of all time, and #55 of all time since the 77-78 season.
He was the only player to miss the playoffs in his prime. Kareem's case was unique due to injuries and wonky divisional rankings, and the mid 70s was wonky in general.
He was the only player to run a dominant teammate off the team during both of their primes. (Magic only did it to his coach)
He was never the clear cut #1 player in the league at any point in his career. In fact, he was the only player replaceable by multiple other players at any point in his career with another player in the league, and his team would have had the same success.

This is where you start to lose me AMB should of just stuck with the facts. Let me help you out when you are trying to make a logical reason based argument and claim you dont "hate" a player it helps when you leave the off court drama and opinions out of it. It pretty much eats at the credibility of all the numbers you said right before it.
I like your postings Amb, you are fun to debate with. But you go out of your way to make a great argument but undermine it by letting your didsdain for Kobe shine through in the end ...

Like I said just admit you dont like the guy. Ego. Seems like a rough team-mate if not a bad one at times. Petulant, competitive sociopath, adulterer. Selfish scorer.

We get it ...no need to hide behind the numbers.

[Killakobe81]

Again why I enjoy Harlem he will give Kobe props as a great player he just does not like him. Nothing wrong with that ...he even slammed his kids and got his hands spanked by Kori.

[ambchang]

This is where you start to lose me AMB should of just stuck with the facts. Let me help you out when you are trying to make a logical reason based argument and claim you dont "hate" a player it helps when you leave the off court drama and opinions out of it. It pretty much eats at the credibility of all the numbers you said right before it.
I like your postings Amb, you are fun to debate with. But you go out of your way to make a great argument but undermine it by letting your didsdain for Kobe shine through in the end ...

Like I said just admit you dont like the guy. Ego. Seems like a rough team-mate if not a bad one at times. Petulant, competitive sociopath, adulterer. Selfish scorer.

We get it ...no need to hide behind the numbers.

Kobe failed the teammate test, which is a huge thing in my book. In almost 2 decades, he still hasn't learned how to play within the team confines and settle in his role, and I am suspect about his motivations. People claimed he just wanted to win, but I don't really see it. Not shooting to make a point in Game 7 of a playoffs? Shooting your team out of the Finals when you have 2 other HoF on your team playing with you, including one who was still in his prime and was absolutely dismantling the opposition?

These are traits that causes a team to underachieve, and that is not a role of a leader.

On the other hand, I am willing to say that he is one of the greatest offensive force in the league's history. In a game of one on one, I will take him as one of the top 10 of all time, no question. Too bad the NBA is a game of 5 on 5.

[SpursBills]

What excuse?

I'm totally on board with PER undervaluing assists. It's an overrated stat. This is why PER should be used with observation. Magic's assists were more "valuable" than Stockton's.

The only eye test Kobe passes is his ability to make difficult shots over 2 defenders, usually after going 1-7 previously.


This post gets to the crux of the matter. Kobe is arguably the most skilled scorer in the history of the game. Maybe even better than Jordan on this front. A bad shot by Kobe has a better chance of going in than a bad shot by anyone else in the history of the game, making him the ultimate 'bail-out' scorer. However, I think that versatile scorers in the Jordan, Kobe, Iverson, Carmelo, etc. mold are more susceptible to bias when evaluating them using the 'eye-test' than are, say, big men. Guys like Shaq, Duncan, etc. are judged almost exclusively on efficiency. The number of ways they can score is limited, but still extremely effective because of their inherent physical advantages around the basket. Elite perimeter scorers can score in so many ways that people using the 'eye-test' sometimes get so caught up in the different ways that they score, and lose sight of how much that scoring directly contributes to winning. This is probably why bigs who usually pass the 'eye-test' are also great according to advanced metrics, while there's a bigger variation among versatile scorers as to how the 'eye-test' stacks up against advanced metrics. For this reason, advanced metrics hold even more weight among perimeter players, mostly because they cut through a lot of the biases present in the 'eye-test' that are stronger with guys with really 'pretty' games.

There is no argument to be made for using per-game stats over advanced metrics. None.

[Killakobe81]

Kobe failed the teammate test, which is a huge thing in my book. In almost 2 decades, he still hasn't learned how to play within the team confines and settle in his role, and I am suspect about his motivations. People claimed he just wanted to win, but I don't really see it. Not shooting to make a point in Game 7 of a playoffs? Shooting your team out of the Finals when you have 2 other HoF on your team playing with you, including one who was still in his prime and was absolutely dismantling the opposition?

These are traits that causes a team to underachieve, and that is not a role of a leader.

On the other hand, I am willing to say that he is one of the greatest offensive force in the league's history. In a game of one on one, I will take him as one of the top 10 of all time, no question. Too bad the NBA is a game of 5 on 5.

Honesty. And Amb, you are not wrong to feel this way. And Im glad you stated as suspect, because you don't know. All I am saying is those suspicions of yours cloud your judgment I dont see why you find that hard to understand. YOu use the numbers as a way to say you are unbiased but you seek out the numbers to "back your play" which is also "human" and normal. Many on here do it. Just dont act like you don't.

For example I despise PGs that cant hit FT's, wont pass ahead on a fast break to "whore" the assist and who overly gamble on steals. SO Rondo though a great player fails my eye test especially when you add the shaky jumper. Is he a great player I say yes, underrated by some overrarted by others. But that is my bias. I grew up watching Magic and he was so good at all of those things especially as he improved his range. But My Magic bias doesnt make me despise Shootfirst PG's because I saw guys like Isiah, KJ and GP and others that were successful doing it THAT way as well.

I get that Kobe has holes in his resume more than Duncan tbh. But that does not end the debate. Kobe does not lead his team the way you prefer they be led, but he still leads and has success nonetheless. I am a certified Situational Leadership facilitator. There are diffrent leadership styles you just prefer Duncans ...I think most people would agree myself included. But none of that matters to me, I have worked for leaders like both and though Duncan's style is more enjoyable Leaders like Kobe also get results. Kobe also has been a great player LONGER than Duncan imho with Tim just showing this season anything close to his 2008 form (duncan's last really high level season). I just feel they are relatively close but the past few seasons gives Kobe the edge. But agin we will debate this in a few years ... if Duncan leads the spurs to the Finals this year or next as a #1 or #2 he definitely has another strong argument for him over Kobe ... we shall see.

[Killakobe81]

This post gets to the crux of the matter. Kobe is arguably the most skilled scorer in the history of the game. Maybe even better than Jordan on this front. A bad shot by Kobe has a better chance of going in than a bad shot by anyone else in the history of the game, making him the ultimate 'bail-out' scorer. However, I think that versatile scorers in the Jordan, Kobe, Iverson, Carmelo, etc. mold are more susceptible to bias when evaluating them using the 'eye-test' than are, say, big men. Guys like Shaq, Duncan, etc. are judged almost exclusively on efficiency. The number of ways they can score is limited, but still extremely effective because of their inherent physical advantages around the basket. Elite perimeter scorers can score in so many ways that people using the 'eye-test' sometimes get so caught up in the different ways that they score, and lose sight of how much that scoring directly contributes to winning. This is probably why bigs who usually pass the 'eye-test' are also great according to advanced metrics, while there's a bigger variation among versatile scorers as to how the 'eye-test' stacks up against advanced metrics. For this reason, advanced metrics hold even more weight among perimeter players, mostly because they cut through a lot of the biases present in the 'eye-test' that are stronger with guys with really 'pretty' games.

There is no argument to be made for using per-game stats over advanced metrics. None.

Sensible post, but again I just think using stats at the crux of any argument is flawed becau se of the intent of the creator or the seeker of said stats. The few timesI have used them in a debate (not just hoops but college ones) they are to prove a belief I already held. I just doubt the ability of most "fans" to look at any data or metric and remove bias from the equation.

[ambchang]

This post gets to the crux of the matter. Kobe is arguably the most skilled scorer in the history of the game. Maybe even better than Jordan on this front. A bad shot by Kobe has a better chance of going in than a bad shot by anyone else in the history of the game, making him the ultimate 'bail-out' scorer. However, I think that versatile scorers in the Jordan, Kobe, Iverson, Carmelo, etc. mold are more susceptible to bias when evaluating them using the 'eye-test' than are, say, big men. Guys like Shaq, Duncan, etc. are judged almost exclusively on efficiency. The number of ways they can score is limited, but still extremely effective because of their inherent physical advantages around the basket. Elite perimeter scorers can score in so many ways that people using the 'eye-test' sometimes get so caught up in the different ways that they score, and lose sight of how much that scoring directly contributes to winning. This is probably why bigs who usually pass the 'eye-test' are also great according to advanced metrics, while there's a bigger variation among versatile scorers as to how the 'eye-test' stacks up against advanced metrics. For this reason, advanced metrics hold even more weight among perimeter players, mostly because they cut through a lot of the biases present in the 'eye-test' that are stronger with guys with really 'pretty' games.

There is no argument to be made for using per-game stats over advanced metrics. None.


I agree with most of the post, but I disagree on the skilled side. He surely was skilled, but our perspectives were skewed by highlights (ie biased reporting). I find that Kobe makes more of these difficult shots because he shot more of them than anyone else. Not sure if you remember a guy called Rex Chapman, but the guy makes some insanely difficult shot, but I wouldn’t call him the most skilled offensive player.

To me part of a skilled scorer is know when NOT to shoot. Kobe never learned that in 2 decades.

[Killakobe81]

Oh and as far as leadrship goes I dontknow if either Kobe or Duncan win without Pop or Phil. We may never know what Tim looks like with a lessor coach but Tim has never really ever had to lead a team. Avery was the early leader of the Spurs and Pop is pretty much been the leader since. Phil was the real leader of the Lakers along with fisher ...

[ambchang]

Honesty. And Amb, you are not wrong to feel this way. And Im glad you stated as suspect, because you don't know. All I am saying is those suspicions of yours cloud your judgment I dont see why you find that hard to understand. YOu use the numbers as a way to say you are unbiased but you seek out the numbers to "back your play" which is also "human" and normal. Many on here do it. Just dont act like you don't.

For example I despise PGs that cant hit FT's, wont pass ahead on a fast break to "whore" the assist and who overly gamble on steals. SO Rondo though a great player fails my eye test especially when you add the shaky jumper. Is he a great player I say yes, underrated by some overrarted by others. But that is my bias. I grew up watching Magic and he was so good at all of those things especially as he improved his range. But My Magic bias doesnt make me despise Shootfirst PG's because I saw guys like Isiah, KJ and GP and others that were successful doing it THAT way as well.

I get that Kobe has holes in his resume more than Duncan tbh. But that does not end the debate. Kobe does not lead his team the way you prefer they be led, but he still leads and has success nonetheless. I am a certified Situational Leadership facilitator. There are diffrent leadership styles you just prefer Duncans ...I think most people would agree myself included. But none of that matters to me, I have worked for leaders like both and though Duncan's style is more enjoyable Leaders like Kobe also get results. Kobe also has been a great player LONGER than Duncan imho with Tim just showing this season anything close to his 2008 form (duncan's last really high level season). I just feel they are relatively close but the past few seasons gives Kobe the edge. But agin we will debate this in a few years ... if Duncan leads the spurs to the Finals this year or next as a #1 or #2 he definitely has another strong argument for him over Kobe ... we shall see.

Oh, don’t get me wrong, I have biases for sure, but the funny thing is, the stats backed those biases. And when they don’t, there are legitimate reasons behind it.

I hope there will be better stats in the future for us to really gauge the effectiveness of a player. As for Rondo, the guy is like stat-padder extraordinaire. I am no fan of him at all because of the reasons you listed, but guess what? WS backed that up. I didn’t even attempt to discredit Rondo, but he was actually #4 in WS with the 08 Celtics. Since they he was #3, #1 (because Pierce and Garnett missed quite a few games, as Rondo actually was third in WS/48), #4 and #3 (Rondo missed a lot of games, but was still behind Pierece and Garnett in WS/48).

Even this year, Rondo was #4 in WS (because he missed a lot of games, he is actually #3 in WS/48 for all the regulars), which really speaks to the fact that the numbers backed up what we saw, Rondo put up great stats, but he does it to the detriment of the team.

[ambchang]

Oh and as far as leadrship goes I dontknow if either Kobe or Duncan win without Pop or Phil. We may never know what Tim looks like with a lessor coach but Tim has never really ever had to lead a team. Avery was the early leader of the Spurs and Pop is pretty much been the leader since. Phil was the real leader of the Lakers along with fisher ...

True, that's why I had an issue with people ranking David Robinson so poorly. I can guarantee that he would have won with a decent PG/SG, and a coach of the Phil/Pop/Riley status. He would have won if Larry Brown stayed a little longer and relinquish his player picking rights.

The same happened to Dirk in the mid 00s btw, I always felt he was underrated, and it was funny how after 11, when he won, people started to recognize him as one of the greatest players in the last decade or so when 11 wasn't even his prime.

[Killakobe81]

Oh, don’t get me wrong, I have biases for sure, but the funny thing is, the stats backed those biases. And when they don’t, there are legitimate reasons behind it.

I hope there will be better stats in the future for us to really gauge the effectiveness of a player. As for Rondo, the guy is like stat-padder extraordinaire. I am no fan of him at all because of the reasons you listed, but guess what? WS backed that up. I didn’t even attempt to discredit Rondo, but he was actually #4 in WS with the 08 Celtics. Since they he was #3, #1 (because Pierce and Garnett missed quite a few games, as Rondo actually was third in WS/48), #4 and #3 (Rondo missed a lot of games, but was still behind Pierece and Garnett in WS/48).


Even this year, Rondo was #4 in WS (because he missed a lot of games, he is actually #3 in WS/48 for all the regulars), which really speaks to the fact that the numbers backed up what we saw, Rondo put up great stats, but he does it to the detriment of the team.

Yep but like I said my eyes guide me here ... he does things I just dont like from my PGs ... and I think Ainge is the same, which is why they tried hard to trade him despite being younger and until this year healthier than CP3 ...and even for Westbrook if rumors are true.

[Latarian Milton]

shit gives solid evidence that dirk's one of the best playoff players and it's gonna be a real pity to watch the playoffs w/o dirk participating tbh :cry. kobe just went HAM in 09 cuz he knew that would be his first NBA title won w/o shaq.

[Killakobe81]

True, that's why I had an issue with people ranking David Robinson so poorly. I can guarantee that he would have won with a decent PG/SG, and a coach of the Phil/Pop/Riley status. He would have won if Larry Brown stayed a little longer and relinquish his player picking rights.

The same happened to Dirk in the mid 00s btw, I always felt he was underrated, and it was funny how after 11, when he won, people started to recognize him as one of the greatest players in the last decade or so when 11 wasn't even his prime.

Did you see the center rankings on ESPN Sports nation this week? They had a center poll (cuz of Shaq jersey night) David was behind Ewing. Now let me say this I liked Pat. Hard worker, warrior. One of the best defensive college big men EVER. but IF you use the eye test or advanced stats (not sure about traditional) David is CLEARLY better. I saw some Dream team games recently and outside of MJ no one stands out more (atheltically) than david on that team. Not drexler, Pip or Chuck. He ran the floor better than prime Malone (maybe not as hard) but faster and more graceful. Post game was kind of ugly but few bigs defended ran, then dunked in transition better than David in is prime. Not surprised his son played football David looked like a WR or the new hybrid TEs as he ran the court ...was also a better offensive player at Navy than Shaq was at LSU or Ewing at Georgetown or Hakeem at Houston. Ewing was the best defensive big I ever saw in college though. Great shot blocker great at defending pnr ...was not as good in the pros but developed a lethal jumper ...

Put him in this era and despite his short-comings he shits on Dwight howard and Tyson Chandler ...

[ambchang]

Did you see the center rankings on ESPN Sports nation this week? They had a center poll (cuz of Shaq jersey night) David was behind Ewing. Noy let me say this I liked Pat. Hard worker, warrior. One of the best defensive college big men EVER. but IF you use the eye test or advanced stats (not sure about traditional) David is CLEARLY better. I saw some Dream team games recently and outside of MJ no one stands out more (atheltically) than david on that team. Not drexler, Pip or Chuck. He ran the floor better than prime Malone (maybe not as hard) but faster and more graceful. Post game was kind of ugly but few bigs defended ran, then dunked in transition better than David in is prime.

Put him in this era and despite his short-comings he shits on Dwight howard and Tyson Chandler ...

Didn’t see it, but I am not surprised. One guy was the face of the Knicks, and the other was … Spurs. Robinson’s image never sold, he was too goody-two-shoes throughout his career, and was destroyed in the playoffs time and again (hey, I have yet to see any center do well in the playoffs with horrible guards like Avery Johnson and Vinny Del Negro). This is just typical media bias. And when you put up the polls, NY got 12 million people, San Antonio got like 1 million, it’s not even a competition.

Robinson had a very choppy post game, he was actually more suited as a PF or even a SF. His game is very similar to one of Garnett, but he was never given that luxury. He won a scoring title, DPoY, RoY, MVP, all D teams, All-NBA teams and everything against Hakeem and Shaq playing out of position.

Duncan is actually the perfect teammate for Robinson, a guy who plays C on offense and PF on D, someone who can command the lowpost and benefit from Robinson’s mid range game.

Robinson is not as easy to build around as Duncan, but if you give him a PG of the caliber of, say Terrell Brandon, a shooting guard like Mario Elie, and a PF like Otis Thorpe, or a Horace Grant, then a coach of say, Larry Brown or Rick Adelman, and the Spurs would have rung at least once, even in the 90s dominated by the Bulls. Those are not really extremely hard players to find, just that the Spurs settled on guys like Tarkanian, Avery Johnson, Vinny Del Negro (this was particularly frustrating, he is not even a 6th or 7th man caliber for a championship team, forget about starting) and Dennis Rodman (without a psychologist like Daly or Jackson), Carl Herrera and such. The only consistently good help Robinson ever had was Elliott, that was it. Hell, if the Spurs kept the Spurs rookie team and Cummings didn’t get old, the Spurs would have rung.

[Killakobe81]

Was a tough decade so wont go as far as saying they would have rung with the guys you mentioned ... especially considering the limits to his game. But people forget what a specimen David was. Not as skilled as Lebron but if you watch him go from end to end David more akin to Lebron, Malone Pippen than the centers he is compared to. Dont get me wrong shaq is the ultimate specimen at center he was not as fast as David but quick with so much size/muscle (before he got fat) Shaq should of been the GOAT tbh ...

Center rankings click here (http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/post/_/id/9125214/all-time-nba-centers)

[ambchang]

Aside from Ewing > Robinson, I also had trouble with a few of the rankings.

Shaq > Hakeem. Shaq was great, really great, but I would take Hakeem over Shaq all day, especially considering Hakeem's defense.

How the flying hell did Parish got ranked so high? He ran the floor well, great. But > Walton, Reed Hayes and Thurmond? GTFO! To me, Parish was clearly the least of that group.

Thurmond once again got underrated. Although I am more familiar with him when he was way past his prime, his quickness and defense even after his prime was enough to convince me that, during his prime, he was a lot better than people gave him credit for.

Walton was great, could have been top 5, too bad for injuries. Very much like Yao's career, but much much better. Walton was the best passer out of all big men, great defensively, extremely high IQ basketball player (not sure why he is such a horrible commentator though), can score when he wanted to. I would have loved to see him, KAJ and Moses fighting against each other uninjured and during their primes.

Moses was way underrated, once again. He dominated, and I mean dominated KAJ. Sure KAJ wasn't at his absolute peak, but Moses just straight out abused him. Also, greatest offensive rebounder of all time. Not as great defensively, as say Hakeem or Robinson, and could be a black hole at times, but the dominance he had in the middle was only bettered by Shaq and Wilt.

Overall, that was a pretty damn bad list.

I had them ranked as:

1. K. Abdul-Jabbar
2.Moses Malone
3.Wilt Chamberlain (haven't really witnessed his prime, tbh)
4.Hakeem Olajuwon
5.Shaquille O'Neal
6.David Robinson
7.Patrick Ewing
8.Bill Russell (haven't seen him in his prime, but honestly, if I were to go with stats and titles, he would be top 5, no question)
9.Bill Walton
10.Nate Thurmond
11.George Mikan (haven't seen him at all)
12.Wes Unseld (again, past his prime)
13.Elvin Hayes (memory hazy, tbh)
14.Willis Reed (again, one of the more overrated guys because he played for NY. Fantastic leader, great tough guy, great mid range game, great passer, but his impact of the game was over credited at the expense of their backcourt).
15.Robert Parish (really, how the hell would he be here, I would put Mourning, or even Brad Daugherty in his place. I mean, come on, clear 3rd option, never led any teams. He was never the best player on his team, or even 2nd best, how the hell could he be ranked in the top 15 centers of all time?)

[Deuce Bigalow]

See my stance on regular stats, PER, and Win Shares
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=211829&page=4&p=6461167&viewfull=1#post6461167

To summarize, at the end of the day, I don't care about a player's stats as long as he helps the team wins. In an extreme case, I would take a player who averaged 0 points, 0 rebounds, 0 assists, but did all the unmeasured stuff like setting picks, hustling, getting loose balls, etc .. than a guy who averages 20/5/5 if those stats came at the expense of the team (ie, ball hog)

Also, calculating PER is extremely straightforward, anybody with an excel sheet and the stats lined up can do it in about 3 minutes.

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

Kobe Bryant is the only supposed top 10 player of all time who is an exception to everything. It's not that he failed one of two of them, he failed every single one of them.

His best PER season was ranked #49 of all time for players who played more than 42 games in a season. And it came during the 05-06 season when his team was horrible.
His best WS season was ranked #95 of all time, and #55 of all time since the 77-78 season.
He was the only player to miss the playoffs in his prime. Kareem's case was unique due to injuries and wonky divisional rankings, and the mid 70s was wonky in general.
He was the only player to run a dominant teammate off the team during both of their primes. (Magic only did it to his coach)
He was never the clear cut #1 player in the league at any point in his career. In fact, he was the only player replaceable by multiple other players at any point in his career with another player in the league, and his team would have had the same success.
Bird's highest PER season is 55th alltime. Magic's is 76th alltime. Magic never led the league in PER. Although Bird did twice, Kobe has surpassed those PER numbers twice. And no he was not the only player to miss the playoffs in his prime, like you mentioned, Kareem did, twice. If Kareem gets a pass because he played in a weak era, which doesn't even make sense, then Kobe gets a pass because he and his best teammate were injured.

[Killakobe81]

Aside from Ewing > Robinson, I also had trouble with a few of the rankings.

Shaq > Hakeem. Shaq was great, really great, but I would take Hakeem over Shaq all day, especially considering Hakeem's defense.

How the flying hell did Parish got ranked so high? He ran the floor well, great. But > Walton, Reed Hayes and Thurmond? GTFO! To me, Parish was clearly the least of that group.

Thurmond once again got underrated. Although I am more familiar with him when he was way past his prime, his quickness and defense even after his prime was enough to convince me that, during his prime, he was a lot better than people gave him credit for.

Walton was great, could have been top 5, too bad for injuries. Very much like Yao's career, but much much better. Walton was the best passer out of all big men, great defensively, extremely high IQ basketball player (not sure why he is such a horrible commentator though), can score when he wanted to. I would have loved to see him, KAJ and Moses fighting against each other uninjured and during their primes.

Moses was way underrated, once again. He dominated, and I mean dominated KAJ. Sure KAJ wasn't at his absolute peak, but Moses just straight out abused him. Also, greatest offensive rebounder of all time. Not as great defensively, as say Hakeem or Robinson, and could be a black hole at times, but the dominance he had in the middle was only bettered by Shaq and Wilt.

Overall, that was a pretty damn bad list.

I had them ranked as:

1. K. Abdul-Jabbar
2.Moses Malone
3.Wilt Chamberlain (haven't really witnessed his prime, tbh)
4.Hakeem Olajuwon
5.Shaquille O'Neal
6.David Robinson
7.Patrick Ewing
8.Bill Russell (haven't seen him in his prime, but honestly, if I were to go with stats and titles, he would be top 5, no question)
9.Bill Walton
10.Nate Thurmond
11.George Mikan (haven't seen him at all)
12.Wes Unseld (again, past his prime)
13.Elvin Hayes (memory hazy, tbh)
14.Willis Reed (again, one of the more overrated guys because he played for NY. Fantastic leader, great tough guy, great mid range game, great passer, but his impact of the game was over credited at the expense of their backcourt).
15.Robert Parish (really, how the hell would he be here, I would put Mourning, or even Brad Daugherty in his place. I mean, come on, clear 3rd option, never led any teams. He was never the best player on his team, or even 2nd best, how the hell could he be ranked in the top 15 centers of all time?)

This we agree on mostly ...but i missed the primes or whole careers for most of those guys so mine staring cica 1980:

1. KAreem (missed his peak but saw an MVP season)
2. OLajawon (a bit high) but his defense
3. Shaq at his peak pprobably better than Hakeem but his defense was mediocre (relative to this list) a primary center responsibility...
4. Moses
5. David
6. Ewing
7. Walton
8. ALonzo (loved his defense heart was a underachiever at Gtown (comapred to hype) but a over-achiever as a pro
9. Parish
10 Laimbeer

GOd I hate my last two but they played key roles on title squads ... and their fight in the 80's was classic. PArish beat Bill down!!!

[ambchang]

Bird's highest PER season is 55th alltime. Magic's is 76th alltime. Magic never led the league in PER. Although Bird did twice, Kobe has surpassed those PER numbers twice. And no he was not the only player to miss the playoffs in his prime, like you mentioned, Kareem did, twice. If Kareem gets a pass because he played in a weak era, which doesn't even make sense, then Kobe gets a pass because he and his best teammate were injured.

That's why I don't like using PER, and prefers WS. Besides, what stats do you prefer to use? Magic ranks even lower if you take his peak PPG season, he probably won't even be in the top 100 (haven't looked it up).

As for KAJ, it wasn't that he played in a weak era, it was that he was injured for one season (Bucks was on pace to make the playoffs if KAJ was healthy for the entire season, much like Hakeem did in 90), and in the other season, the Lakers were actually good enough, they actually had a better record than all the teams in the Midwest Division, but had to miss the playoffs because of Divisional rankings. In Kobe's case, the Lakers' record who NOT have allowed them to make the playoffs if his team was in the East in 05.

While Kobe did miss 16 games that season, it didn't have any impact, because unlike Jabbar missing games with the Bucks, the Lakers were on pace to pretty much the exact same record with or without Kobe. The Lakers won 34 games that season, and had a 28-38 record with Kobe in the line up. Well, guess what? If projected to an 82 game season, that 28-38 record would have been projected to 34.8 wins, an astounding total of 0.8 games more over 16 games.

[ambchang]

If I was to rank centers since 1980, KAJ wouldn't be #1, his prime was before that, and his 1980 to 1984 years weren't even close to Hakeem, Shaq, or even Robinson during their primes, and this is when he had a player of Magic's caliber playing next to him.

Since 1980, I would put
Moses (really a hair above Hakeem, and I am fine with switching them around)
Hakeem
Shaq
Robinson
KAJ
Mourning
Laimbeer
Dwight Howard (his few years with Orlando alone makes it, in fact, he's not that far behind Laimbeer or Mourning)
Parish
Yao (late addition. Forgot about him. If it wasn't for his injuries, he would have been ranked behind KAJ for centers since 1980)
Mutombo
Ben Wallace
Daughtery
Walton (too injured)

[Arcadian]

1. Wilt
2. Kareem
3. Hakeem
4. Shaq
5. Robinson
6. Moses
7. Russell
8. Ewing
9. Mikan
10. Walton

[Black&Silver]

1. kareem
2. wilt
3. russell
4. shaq
5. hakeem
6. Moses
7. Robinson
8. Mikan (gets points deducted for playing in a bad era)
9. Walton (injured, but still rang)
10. Ewing