Kobe is the worst MVP player to win multiple championships.

[Kidd K]

Career Offensive ratings:

Magic: 121
Jordan: 118
*LeBron: 116
Kareem: 115
Bird: 115
Shaq: 113
Dr. J: 112
Kobe: 111
Duncan: 110
Hakeem: 108


Career Defensive ratings:

Duncan: 95
Hakeem: 98
Kareem: 99
Dr. J: 100
Shaq: 101
Bird: 101
*LeBron: 102
Jordan: 103
Magic: 104
Kobe: 105


Difference:

Magic: +17
Kareem: +16
Duncan: +15
Jordan: +15
Bird: +14
*LeBron: +14
Shaq: +12
Dr. J: +12
Hakeem: +10
Kobe: +6 :lmao



Only Kareem is high on both lists (which is why he's underrated in general). Only Kobe is low on both lists (which is why he's overrated in general).

Boiled down: Kobe is lucky to have 5 rings due to the massive help he's gotten, and his ring total does not make up for the fact that he's worse than every great player he's mentioned with. While Duncan's game impact has been as high as Michael Jordan's.

*As for LeBron, in fairness, since he's mid career, his numbers will probably come down a bit.

DRob's second title was right as he was going to retire so I don't count him, but his ratings are: 116/96/+20 if anyone wondered.

[Malik Hairston]

That's quite the method for ranking players, tbh:lol..

[KoolAid Mans Brother]

Kobe's mvp season was bullshit anyways. Chris Paul deserved mvp that year. He had an absolute beast season. It was a career achievement award.

[Kidd K]

He also has equal or less total MVPs/Finals MVPs than everyone else mentioned too, and arguably didn't deserve 2 of the 3 he did get, especially his only MVP.

[Clipper Nation]

Just more proof that Kirby has a propped-up legacy full of pity awards and role player rings....

[Thread]

Just more proof that Kirby has a propped-up legacy full of pity awards and role player rings....

Only pussies & assholes do legacy.

[Kidd K]

For the record, I only didn't list Wilt and Russell because the NBA didn't have those stats back then. Theirs were extremely likely to be higher than Kobe's too.

[Henrik Sedin]

Only pussies & assholes do legacy.

Tbh, your time here is close to done. You serve no purpose after Duncan curb stomped Koby's legacy and your schtick.

[Killakobe81]

That's quite the method for ranking players, tbh:lol..

LOL I get the need to shit on Kobe. but wow that list ... :rollin
Magic my all-time favorite player and Kareem are GOATS and and shit on Jordan, Lebron and Duncan. I really like this rating!! Sure Timmy plays better defense (not better than HAkeem, but whatever)

I'll take Kobe at the bottom of a list all day EVERY DAY when you put MAGIC at the top of it over MJ, LBJ Duncan and Bird.
Magic is the GOAT, Kareem is 2nd and the rest can eat a fat one!!
I love stats!!!

[Killakobe81]

Bump this thread ... Magic is greater than Jordan something finally good for REAL Laker fans to rejoice about.

[Kidd K]

LOL I get the need to shit on Kobe. but wow that list ... :rollin
Magic my all-time favorite player and Kareem are GOATS and and shit on Jordan, Lebron and Duncan. I really like this rating!! Sure Timmy plays better defense (not better than HAkeem, but whatever)

I'll take Kobe at the bottom of a list all day EVERY DAY when you put MAGIC at the top of it over MJ, LBJ Duncan and Bird.
Magic is the GOAT, Kareem is 2nd and the rest can eat a fat one!!
I love stats!!!

I'm not seeing how being one or two points better is "shitting on" Duncan and Jordan (especially when they played together). Magic only played 906 games while Duncan is nearly 1,300 and Jordan over 1,000. Jordan was 120/103 with Chicago too for +17, equaling Magic in roughly the same number of games. So tbh, you have to take that into account. Duncan's has slipped down the past few years too due to playing to an older age. He was also +17 at about the same number of games. Kareem though, more games and still bigger difference.

But being several points worse than everyone else in the same category certainly says a lot. And yeah, Kareem and Magic were much better Lakers than Kobe and its not close.

[Jenks]

I have no idea what this list proves but I'll go ahead and add The Admiral, 116 / 96 / +20.
edit -Nvm saw you put him down the bottom.

[BillMc]

Bump this thread ... Magic is greater than Jordan something finally good for REAL Laker fans to rejoice about.

Actually, I agree. Magic is my favorite non-Spur of all time

[Thread]

Tbh, your time here is close to done. You serve no purpose after Duncan curb stomped Koby's legacy and your schtick.

I've been hearing this for 20 years. I shuttered, I say I shuttered AZ Central. I built & I survived Sose's Joint.

Attrition is my friend. And nobody, I said nobody uses it like Culburn369.

[Axegrinder]

I've been hearing this for 20 years. I shuttered, I say I shuttered AZ Central. I built & I survived Sose's Joint.

Attrition is my friend. And nobody, I said nobody uses it like Culburn369.So who is Sose and how often did he thrust his joint into your super beta prostate?

[Killakobe81]

I'm not seeing how being one or two points better is "shitting on" Duncan and Jordan (especially when they played together). Magic only played 906 games while Duncan is nearly 1,300 and Jordan over 1,000. Jordan was 120/103 with Chicago too for +17, equaling Magic in roughly the same number of games. So tbh, you have to take that into account. Duncan's has slipped down the past few years too due to playing to an older age. He was also +17 at about the same number of games. Kareem though, more games and still bigger difference.

But being several points worse than everyone else in the same category certainly says a lot. And yeah, Kareem and Magic were much better Lakers than Kobe and its not close.

I was being facetious. The list is stupid though It is great that it praises Magic's offense and Tim's defense. I love Magic and think he is the GOAT PG and Laker but even he admits he is not as good as MJ. A list like this strictly based on stats is full of shit.

[Kool Bob Love]

*

[Kidd K]

I was being facetious. The list is stupid though It is great that it praises Magic's offense and Tim's defense. I love Magic and think he is the GOAT PG and Laker but even he admits he is not as good as MJ. A list like this strictly based on stats is full of shit.

Any opinion that does not include stats (facts) is full of shit.

Stats are also better than some random couch-jockey's questionable experience and observational ability. It's pathetic when people try to act like facts somehow don't count because of their beliefs which are not based upon facts., but rather hype and what they heard somewhere from people who also don't base their opinions on facts.

[jimbo]

Tbh, your time here is close to done. You serve no purpose after Duncan curb stomped Koby's legacy and your schtick.

You can't kill Culburn's schtick. The people that actually argue with him don't realize that you're playing his game. A game that he's free to change the rules as he sees fit (and has done so, see: the definition of the bag).

Only way to win is not to play.


Any opinion that does not include stats (facts) is full of shit.

Stats are also better than some random couch-jockey's questionable experience and observational ability. It's pathetic when people try to act like facts somehow don't count because of their beliefs which are not based upon facts., but rather hype and what they heard somewhere from people who also don't base their opinions on facts.

Meh, advanced stats aren't facts--they're the results of a formula. They can be as biased as you want them to make them.

It looks like it heavily rewards good offensive rebounders (since they extend the length of a possession I'm guessing, and offensive rating is boiled down on their formula page as "number of Points Produced per Scoring Possession." So then it also really favors PGs that are their team's offense (w/ a high assist percentage) and that are also efficient, since that leads to a high number of points produced per posession. Lastly, it heavily punishes missed FGs since multiple 1-1s at the line really drag your averages down.

and then it should go without saying, but both offensive and defensive rtg are heavily impacted by the team you play on also.

If it were a "fact", you'd have to accept that some of the best players in the league are (didn't do too much looking, so there might be a couple guys left out)

22.4 DeAndre Jordan
22 CP3
21 Robin Lopez
19 KD
19 Bogut

and that Robin Lopez has had one of the best offensive years in NBA history, oh and not to mention that the best offensive player in history is Chris Paul, and that Jose Calderon has been a better offensive player over his career than Michael Jordan

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/off_rtg_career.html

[Kidd K]

You can't kill Culburn's schtick. The people that actually argue with him don't realize that you're playing his game. A game that he's free to change the rules as he sees fit (and has done so, see: the definition of the bag).

Only way to win is not to play.



Meh, advanced stats aren't facts--they're the results of a formula. They can be as biased as you want them to make them.

It looks like it heavily rewards good offensive rebounders (since they extend the length of a possession I'm guessing, and offensive rating is boiled down on their formula page as "number of Points Produced per Scoring Possession." So then it also really favors PGs that are their team's offense (w/ a high assist percentage) and that are also efficient, since that leads to a high number of points produced per posession. Lastly, it heavily punishes missed FGs since multiple 1-1s at the line really drag your averages down.

and then it should go without saying, but both offensive and defensive rtg are heavily impacted by the team you play on also.

If it were a "fact", you'd have to accept that some of the best players in the league are (didn't do too much looking, so there might be a couple guys left out)

22.4 DeAndre Jordan
22 CP3
21 Robin Lopez
19 KD
19 Bogut

and that Robin Lopez has had one of the best offensive years in NBA history, oh and not to mention that the best offensive player in history is Chris Paul, and that Jose Calderon has been a better offensive player over his career than Michael Jordan

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/off_rtg_career.html

You say that as if getting an offensive board isn't a good thing. Stuff besides scoring points matters. Paul is a ridiculously good player too. . .underrated tbh. Most of the players on that GOAT list aren't bigs, so there is no rebounding or big man favoritism. You also listed a bunch of role players or borderline role players for your list. Obviously it's possible role players (like Matt Bonner for example) can high high ORatings or +/- and it doesn't mean they're better because they play low minutes and aren't involved in a lot of plays. Nor does it mean it's a bad stat (propositional fallacy. A doesn't = B). But for guys that do, yeah it matters and is quite telling.

What's telling is how literally everyone else on the list is MUCH better. When facts are contrary to your opinion, your first reaction shouldn't be to try to explain away the facts, but instead reconsider your position or at least wonder why it's such a big difference. Kobe is the near or at the bottom on that list in O/D ratings, PER, WS/48, etc. I mean you can sit there and argue the validity of stats, but you can't argue that he keeps coming up short in most of them.

[jimbo]

You say that as if getting an offensive board isn't a good thing. Stuff besides scoring points matters. Paul is a ridiculously good player too. . .underrated tbh. Most of the players on that GOAT list aren't bigs, so there is no rebounding or big man favoritism. You also listed a bunch of role players or borderline role players for your list. Obviously it's possible role players (like Matt Bonner for example) can high high ORatings or +/- and it doesn't mean they're better because they play low minutes and aren't involved in a lot of plays. Nor does it mean it's a bad stat (propositional fallacy. A doesn't = B). But for guys that do, yeah it matters and is quite telling.

What's telling is how literally everyone else on the list is MUCH better. When facts are contrary to your opinion, your first reaction shouldn't be to try to explain away the facts, but instead reconsider your position or at least wonder why it's such a big difference. Kobe is the near or at the bottom on that list in O/D ratings, PER, WS/48, etc. I mean you can sit there and argue the validity of stats, but you can't argue that he keeps coming up short in most of them.

Have you actually looked at the formulas for either of the offensive or defensive ratings? (I'm guessing no or you wouldn't have made this thread in the first place unless you're solely trolling Lakers fans.) I already explained the reasons for why the all time list looks the way it does in my last post...
offensive rating boiled down = number of Points Produced per Scoring Possession


Which is obv not the same as "who is the better offensive player." You can just look at the formula itself to see the weights on every action it takes into account. I am not saying anything revolutionary, I'm saying to look at the formula rather than responding to me. It's that easy. I'm not saying the formula is wrong, I'm explaining why it produces the results it does. (and why you shouldn't use it to make claims about areas it does not cover)

I attacked the formula first, went into the "fallacy" second. I was going at your claim of advanced stats as "facts." (Which ain't no fallacy, just trying to get you to agree with your original post.) If you came to the conclusion that Bryant is the worst player to win multiple championships based off of offensive/defensive ratings--why aren't you applying that logic to the rest of that all time offensive rating leader list? Those numbers are "facts."

Or are you twisting the "facts" to fit your conclusion?

Oh and


Obviously it's possible role players (like Matt Bonner for example) can high high ORatings or +/- and it doesn't mean they're better because they play low minutes and aren't involved in a lot of plays.

Cmon now, basketball-reference already filters that out.

to quality for the season ORtg lists

2012-13 to present NBA 500 Poss

to qualify for the career ORtg lists

Career NBA 5000 Poss


Besides, if you follow the NBA you already know that DeAndre/Robin Lopez/Bogut all play starter minutes, so none of that would apply anyways.

[Venti Quattro]

:lmao just stick to playing Final Fantasy

[TDMVPDPOY]

Bump this thread ... Magic is greater than Jordan something finally good for REAL Laker fans to rejoice about.

lol faggot resorting to his last line of defense...

if all arguments for kobe doesnt work
use the lakers card

[Killakobe81]

Any opinion that does not include stats (facts) is full of shit.

Stats are also better than some random couch-jockey's questionable experience and observational ability. It's pathetic when people try to act like facts somehow don't count because of their beliefs which are not based upon facts., but rather hype and what they heard somewhere from people who also don't base their opinions on facts.
I agree I said strictly ... But hey magic is the new GOAT thank you for this statistical gold mine ...I have seen the light stats Ruls every thing around Me!

[Clipper Nation]

Prime Magic > Dad KillerPERIOD :downspin:

[Killakobe81]

lol faggot resorting to his last line of defense...

if all arguments for kobe doesnt work
use the lakers card
I don't care about Kobe's legacy more than Magic's ...magic is my GOAT Laker all jokes aside. Yes I was being facetious earlier but if I did embrace a stat to rank players one that has Magic over Jordan and Duncan over Shaq sounds like a good start but unfortunately it is pretty inconsistent and like most stats favors a certain style of play. But hey Kidd k is a Fucken genius this is the new world order. Magic the GOAT

[Galileo]

Career Offensive ratings:

Only Kareem is high on both lists (which is why he's underrated in general). Only Kobe is low on both lists (which is why he's overrated in general).

Boiled down: Kobe is lucky to have 5 rings due to the massive help he's gotten, and his ring total does not make up for the fact that he's worse than every great player he's mentioned with. While Duncan's game impact has been as high as Michael Jordan's.

*As for LeBron, in fairness, since he's mid career, his numbers will probably come down a bit.

DRob's second title was right as he was going to retire so I don't count him, but his ratings are: 116/96/+20 if anyone wondered.

this person gets it.

[Medvedenko]

LOL...stats...hey OP keeping playing NBA Skyrim...I'll actually watch the games.

Kobe is top 10 period.

[JamStone]

Interesting stats evaluation. Even if not at the bottom of those players listed, Kobe would be and should be somewhere near the bottom. You're talking about a list of basically the greatest players in the history of the game. Although missing a few other guys other than Wilt and Bill, like Bob Cousy, Dave Cowens, Willis Reed, though I'm not sure those players have offensive and defensive rating stats for their careers.

No one statistic tells the entire story for a player, and Offensive Rating and Defensive Rating are no different. Both are "estimate" statistics that are far from perfect. I doubt the guy who came up with the formula/idea and the stats geeks who come up with the numbers go through every single play of every game and isolate all the man-on-man possessions in situations with no double or triple teams, no help defense to come up with DR. My impression is that it's more or less a slightly more complex variation of a +/- stat where the team scoring per 100 possessions and the team defense per 100 possessions are tabulated when that particular player is on the floor. Way too difficult to do a really accurate OR and DR for every player in the league. On the basketball-reference site itself, OR and DR are described as "estimates." Far from accurate. And if in fact it's more or less a +/- type stat, even as an individual player stat, it would be safe to assume it's heavily reliant on team offense and team defense and the contributions of teammates. So it's not surprising that guys like Kobe and Hakeem would be lower on the list because both played for several bad teams. When you look at a guy like Magic, basically his entire career was playing for 50+ win playoff teams that went deep into the playoffs and playing alongside multiple HOFers. Same with Bird and Duncan. That's why guys like LeBron and Jordan having a big OR/DR difference is more impressive because they had little help. But to that point, that's why you can see players like Steve Kerr (+15) and Matt Bonner (+13) have big OR/DR differences because they both played on mostly winning teams whose OR would generally be better than DR. It's basically a more complicated +/- stat.

I haven't really seen anyone use the difference between career OR and DR as a means to rank players before. I'd assume using PER would have been the more obvious route to go even though that's not a perfect stat either. But at least PER is less of an estimate and based more on actual individual player production. I would imagine the OP didn't want to use PER because Kobe wouldn't be on the bottom of the list of players even though he'd be close. He'd be ahead of Bird and Dr. J.

[Baseline]

Shaquille carried Bryant to three rings. Shaquille also carried Fisher and Rick Fox to three rings.

Then after David Stern giftwrapped Pau Gasol to LA, Pau carried Bryant to two more rings.

Bryant shot 6-24 in a Game 7 at home, and was bailed out by Gasol and Ron Artest. Otherwise, that performance would have gone down as an all-time choke.

Why on earth is a self-centered gunner who has never even shot 47.0% from the field considered such a "great" player?

[Thread]

Shaquille carried Bryant to three rings. Shaquille also carried Fisher and Rick Fox to three rings.

Then after David Stern giftwrapped Pau Gasol to LA, Pau carried Bryant to two more rings.

Bryant shot 6-24 in a Game 7 at home, and was bailed out by Gasol and Ron Artest. Otherwise, that performance would have gone down as an all-time choke.

Why on earth is a self-centered gunner who has never even shot 47.0% from the field considered such a "great" player?

Boiled down:

You let Bosh & Allen cream your jeans.

[Killakobe81]

Interesting stats evaluation. Even if not at the bottom of those players listed, Kobe would be and should be somewhere near the bottom. You're talking about a list of basically the greatest players in the history of the game. Although missing a few other guys other than Wilt and Bill, like Bob Cousy, Dave Cowens, Willis Reed, though I'm not sure those players have offensive and defensive rating stats for their careers.

No one statistic tells the entire story for a player, and Offensive Rating and Defensive Rating are no different. Both are "estimate" statistics that are far from perfect. I doubt the guy who came up with the formula/idea and the stats geeks who come up with the numbers go through every single play of every game and isolate all the man-on-man possessions in situations with no double or triple teams, no help defense to come up with DR. My impression is that it's more or less a slightly more complex variation of a +/- stat where the team scoring per 100 possessions and the team defense per 100 possessions are tabulated when that particular player is on the floor. Way too difficult to do a really accurate OR and DR for every player in the league. On the basketball-reference site itself, OR and DR are described as "estimates." Far from accurate. And if in fact it's more or less a +/- type stat, even as an individual player stat, it would be safe to assume it's heavily reliant on team offense and team defense and the contributions of teammates. So it's not surprising that guys like Kobe and Hakeem would be lower on the list because both played for several bad teams. When you look at a guy like Magic, basically his entire career was playing for 50+ win playoff teams that went deep into the playoffs and playing alongside multiple HOFers. Same with Bird and Duncan. That's why guys like LeBron and Jordan having a big OR/DR difference is more impressive because they had little help. But to that point, that's why you can see players like Steve Kerr (+15) and Matt Bonner (+13) have big OR/DR differences because they both played on mostly winning teams whose OR would generally be better than DR. It's basically a more complicated +/- stat.

I haven't really seen anyone use the difference between career OR and DR as a means to rank players before. I'd assume using PER would have been the more obvious route to go even though that's not a perfect stat either. But at least PER is less of an estimate and based more on actual individual player production. I would imagine the OP didn't want to use PER because Kobe wouldn't be on the bottom of the list of players even though he'd be close. He'd be ahead of Bird and Dr. J.

Jam slaps his wang acrossthe forehead of the sucka MC's on this forum ... It's like NAS back on Stillmatic just need the Takeover to refocus that fire.

[Killakobe81]

Shaquille carried Bryant to three rings. Shaquille also carried Fisher and Rick Fox to three rings.

Then after David Stern giftwrapped Pau Gasol to LA, Pau carried Bryant to two more rings. :rollin:rollin

Bryant shot 6-24 in a Game 7 at home, and was bailed out by Gasol and Ron Artest. Otherwise, that performance would have gone down as an all-time choke.

Why on earth is a self-centered gunner who has never even shot 47.0% from the field considered such a "great" player? :wakeup

[Kidd K]

Have you actually looked at the formulas for either of the offensive or defensive ratings? (I'm guessing no or you wouldn't have made this thread in the first place unless you're solely trolling Lakers fans.) I already explained the reasons for why the all time list looks the way it does in my last post...
offensive rating boiled down = number of Points Produced per Scoring Possession


Which is obv not the same as "who is the better offensive player." You can just look at the formula itself to see the weights on every action it takes into account. I am not saying anything revolutionary, I'm saying to look at the formula rather than responding to me. It's that easy. I'm not saying the formula is wrong, I'm explaining why it produces the results it does. (and why you shouldn't use it to make claims about areas it does not cover)

I attacked the formula first, went into the "fallacy" second. I was going at your claim of advanced stats as "facts." (Which ain't no fallacy, just trying to get you to agree with your original post.) If you came to the conclusion that Bryant is the worst player to win multiple championships based off of offensive/defensive ratings--why aren't you applying that logic to the rest of that all time offensive rating leader list? Those numbers are "facts."

Or are you twisting the "facts" to fit your conclusion?

Oh and



Cmon now, basketball-reference already filters that out.

to quality for the season ORtg lists


to qualify for the career ORtg lists



Besides, if you follow the NBA you already know that DeAndre/Robin Lopez/Bogut all play starter minutes, so none of that would apply anyways.

Not sure if that post is meant as try hard sarcasm, or if you really thought you were making some ground breakingly great point by bolding that captain obvious statement.

No shit it's points scored per 100 possessions, and points given up per 100 possesions. It's an efficiency stat. It depicts how well their team performs with them out there. If the stat is bad, it means the guy isn't making much of an impact regardless of how many points he jacks up. It's a way to tell players apart who apparently seem to be putting up similar stats.

For a guy who's been playing on such great teams with massive salaries, Kobe hasn't been setting his team apart as much as most other great players have. You would be hard pressed to find "all time great" players with a lower difference between those two stats.

Stats are facts, and yes, you did attack the facts first. . .because that's what people with bad arguments do. Try to pretend that the facts somehow don't matter.

Why am I not applying my logic to what? :lol I didn't choose to not apply it to anything. We're discussing all time great champion players. If you want to talk about which players were the best while ignoring championships, then I certainly would make an argument that Kobe would be nowhere near the top 10 and those same stats would be part of the argument.


The last few things you posted were all irrelevant. Didn't address what I said in any way. DeAndre Jordan is not involved in a lot of offensive plays, so his offensive rating doesn't mean as much as an all star MVP candidate like Chris Paul who is involved in a lot of them. Precisely why I said role players or people who aren't involved in a lot of plays' ratings aren't as important.

If you're too dense to understand that point, it's like saying a baseball player who makes spot starts and hits .300 isn't as impressive as a guy who plays all season and hits .300 with 30+ jacks and 100+ RBI. It's called perspective. Or you can just continue to be a fool as say dumb shit like "since he hits for the same percent as a better player it's a shitty stat!", just because you don't have the brainpower to use the stats in the proper perspective.


:lmao just stick to playing Final Fantasy

Stick to being a cross dressing faggot.

[Brunodf]

LOL I get the need to shit on Kobe. but wow that list ... :rollin
Magic my all-time favorite player and Kareem are GOATS and and shit on Jordan, Lebron and Duncan. I really like this rating!! Sure Timmy plays better defense (not better than HAkeem, but whatever)

I'll take Kobe at the bottom of a list all day EVERY DAY when you put MAGIC at the top of it over MJ, LBJ Duncan and Bird.
Magic is the GOAT, Kareem is 2nd and the rest can eat a fat one!!
I love stats!!!
Magic always had a case for GOAT tbh... Arguably "the man" since day one, won FMP really young despite playing with many great players, multiple MVPs, team player, good rebounder, his only weakness was defense...

[Kidd K]

Interesting stats evaluation. Even if not at the bottom of those players listed, Kobe would be and should be somewhere near the bottom. You're talking about a list of basically the greatest players in the history of the game. Although missing a few other guys other than Wilt and Bill, like Bob Cousy, Dave Cowens, Willis Reed, though I'm not sure those players have offensive and defensive rating stats for their careers.

No one statistic tells the entire story for a player, and Offensive Rating and Defensive Rating are no different. Both are "estimate" statistics that are far from perfect. I doubt the guy who came up with the formula/idea and the stats geeks who come up with the numbers go through every single play of every game and isolate all the man-on-man possessions in situations with no double or triple teams, no help defense to come up with DR. My impression is that it's more or less a slightly more complex variation of a +/- stat where the team scoring per 100 possessions and the team defense per 100 possessions are tabulated when that particular player is on the floor. Way too difficult to do a really accurate OR and DR for every player in the league. On the basketball-reference site itself, OR and DR are described as "estimates." Far from accurate. And if in fact it's more or less a +/- type stat, even as an individual player stat, it would be safe to assume it's heavily reliant on team offense and team defense and the contributions of teammates. So it's not surprising that guys like Kobe and Hakeem would be lower on the list because both played for several bad teams. When you look at a guy like Magic, basically his entire career was playing for 50+ win playoff teams that went deep into the playoffs and playing alongside multiple HOFers. Same with Bird and Duncan. That's why guys like LeBron and Jordan having a big OR/DR difference is more impressive because they had little help. But to that point, that's why you can see players like Steve Kerr (+15) and Matt Bonner (+13) have big OR/DR differences because they both played on mostly winning teams whose OR would generally be better than DR. It's basically a more complicated +/- stat.

I haven't really seen anyone use the difference between career OR and DR as a means to rank players before. I'd assume using PER would have been the more obvious route to go even though that's not a perfect stat either. But at least PER is less of an estimate and based more on actual individual player production. I would imagine the OP didn't want to use PER because Kobe wouldn't be on the bottom of the list of players even though he'd be close. He'd be ahead of Bird and Dr. J.

I mentioned why Wilt and Russell and them weren't included. There are no ORating/DRating stats for them to list with everyone else.

I didn't say one stat told the whole story, don't strawman.

Kobe didn't play for very many bad teams. Jordan played for more bad teams and until he was 40 and still nearly has triple the difference as Kobe. Being able to keep your team consistently good is part of being a good player. Or should we penalize Duncan for doing that and give Kobe a pass for being a bitch and running Shaq and Howard (and arguably Gasol) out of town then hamstringing ownership with a 30m/year contract? -_-

As for "didn't want to use PER", uh, what? I already mentioned it.


Kobe is the near or at the bottom on that list in O/D ratings, PER, WS/48, etc. I mean you can sit there and argue the validity of stats, but you can't argue that he keeps coming up short in most of them.

And yes, Kobe is still near the bottom of the list. He's near the bottom of practically every broad advanced stat list when compared to those guys. Kobe is a great scorer, but he is the worst modern era MVP with multiple championships imo.

[Clipper Nation]

LOL...stats...hey OP keeping playing NBA Skyrim...I'll actually watch the games.

Kobe is top 10 period.

:lol Kirbystan deflecting to the eye test (which is inherently biased, as they watch all the games already believing that Kirby is any good, which colors their view of the game) because there isn't a stat on the planet that backs up their insane overrating of him

[spurraider21]

:lol Kirbystan deflecting to the eye test (which is inherently biased, as they watch all the games already believing that Kirby is any good, which colors their view of the game) because there isn't a stat on the planet that backs up their insane overrating of him
ppg, 81, 5 rings fucker, etc etc

[jimbo]

Not sure if that post is meant as try hard sarcasm, or if you really thought you were making some ground breakingly great point by bolding that captain obvious statement.

No shit it's points scored per 100 possessions, and points given up per 100 possesions. It's an efficiency stat. It depicts how well their team performs with them out there. If the stat is bad, it means the guy isn't making much of an impact regardless of how many points he jacks up. It's a way to tell players apart who apparently seem to be putting up similar stats.

For a guy who's been playing on such great teams with massive salaries, Kobe hasn't been setting his team apart as much as most other great players have. You would be hard pressed to find "all time great" players with a lower difference between those two stats.

Stats are facts, and yes, you did attack the facts first. . .because that's what people with bad arguments do. Try to pretend that the facts somehow don't matter.

Why am I not applying my logic to what? :lol I didn't choose to not apply it to anything. We're discussing all time great champion players. If you want to talk about which players were the best while ignoring championships, then I certainly would make an argument that Kobe would be nowhere near the top 10 and those same stats would be part of the argument.


The last few things you posted were all irrelevant. Didn't address what I said in any way. DeAndre Jordan is not involved in a lot of offensive plays, so his offensive rating doesn't mean as much as an all star MVP candidate like Chris Paul who is involved in a lot of them. Precisely why I said role players or people who aren't involved in a lot of plays' ratings aren't as important.

If you're too dense to understand that point, it's like saying a baseball player who makes spot starts and hits .300 isn't as impressive as a guy who plays all season and hits .300 with 30+ jacks and 100+ RBI. It's called perspective. Or you can just continue to be a fool as say dumb shit like "since he hits for the same percent as a better player it's a shitty stat!", just because you don't have the brainpower to use the stats in the proper perspective.



Stick to being a cross dressing faggot.

Stopped reading after that. You don't understand the stat and you're still talking about it. I bolded and put the statement in extra large font, and you still don't get it..

Tbh you shoulda played World of Warcraft instead of Final Fantasy. Maybe then you'd know how to operate a fucking spreadsheet or read a formula.

[SupremeGuy]

You can't kill Culburn's schtick. The people that actually argue with him don't realize that you're playing his game. A game that he's free to change the rules as he sees fit (and has done so, see: the definition of the bag).

Only way to win is not to play.:lol There is much truth to this... I'm surprised so many still get goaded into his nonsensical or circular arguments.