How the Analytics movement destroyed Kobe legacy...

[spursistan]

must read from Five Thirty eight :lol


Over the past 20 seasons, as Kobe’s career unfolded through its successes and growing pains, analytics did too, with the former serving as a touchstone — and lightning rod — for the latter.

The stats were not always kind to Kobe, least of all in his perpetual, mythic struggle against Michael Jordan. Perhaps that comparison would have been less harsh in an earlier era, thanks to a similar ring count and a passing statistical resemblance, but the advanced metrics have consistently debunked the parallel. (They’ve essentially taken on the role of the old noodge at the bar or barbershop, reminding “kids these days” of their historical betters.) Kobe wasn’t nearly as efficient as Jordan, they’d remind; he’d likely never be as valuable no matter what the rings said. Likewise, the numbers always seemed to find some other contemporary upon whom to bestow the “Next Jordan” mantle, be it LeBron James or Dwyane Wade or even Tracy McGrady. As if chasing Jordan’s shadow wasn’t hard enough, the shadow seemed to be armed with the cold, compassionless weaponry of data.


It didn’t help that hoops analytics went through its contrarian phase right around the time Kobe peaked. Every sabermetric movement has a period in which its sport’s sacred cows are officially on notice, and basketball’s came in the mid-2000s — known around these parts as the Hollinger Era — when Bryant embodied many bits of conventional basketball wisdom in need of rigorous auditing. Back then, it was fashionable to unearth the deep cuts, the guys like Carl Landry or Gerald Wallace or, uh, Landry Fields, who didn’t get as much play on SportsCenter but contributed efficiently within their roles. Obsessed with efficiency over context, many in the field downplayed the value of Kobe’s greatest skill — relentless, tireless scoring — and went so far as to suggest that an average player could have notched as many points if given the same number of opportunities. (Note: This is, and always was, insane.) Others raised more valid questions about Kobe’s reputation for clutch shooting and lock-down defense, and these cut more to the core of what fans wanted to know about him and players of his caliber. It was a crucial point for basketball stats; perhaps a fractious relationship between Kobe and stat-geekdom was simply the necessary collateral damage.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/kobe-haters-are-stuck-in-2008/

[midnightpulp]

Actually a badly written article, and kind of click-baity. Your thread title is more accurate on how analytics are truly treating Kobe's legacy rather than the apologetic contrarian view the writer is taking.

His premise is that "cutting edge analytics" are rating Kobe more fairly than they did during the "Hollinger Era," but then he goes on to cite cumulative VORP :lol. Kobe's had a 20 year career as an all-star level player, of course his cumulative VORP is going to look nice. Hell, Manu is ranked 10th in the stat for the playoffs, and it's because he's played more playoff games than 99% of NBA players. Not that Manu isn't great, but he isn't 10th best playoff player of all-time great.

And :lol at him citing "scoring workload matters." As if this is some revolutionary discovery that will vindicate Kobe's ball dominant, volume shooting style of play. Not all scoring workloads are created the same. For 75% of his career, Bryant's M.O. was volume shooting from the mid-post/long mid-range, positioned in what I like to call the Kobe spot:

http://oi64.tinypic.com/fohboi.jpg

That's a terrible spot to start an offensive possession. It's tough to playmake from that spot. Easier for the opponent to trap and double you. And given Kobe's style of play, iso-ing for 10 seconds in that spot will naturally stagnate the offense and cause your teammates to stand around and ball watch. And missing from that spot is about the worse miss in basketball. Westbrook is a fearless penetrator (as is Harden, another volume scorer), so you can't just say, "Well, Russell Westbrook's volume style has been vindicated by the metrics. Kobe's style works better than we thought!"

And he just glossed over Kobe's mediocre defensive metrics.

This is one problem I have with pure new media writers/autists like those from FiveThirtyEight. They don't look too deeply into context and often assume all statistical phenomena occur in a vacuum.

[StrengthAndHonor]

The value of analytics in sports has regressed if we're being honest :lol Two of the biggest advocates at MIT Sloan conference (Hinkey, Morey) has cynically fucked the hopes and future of relying on data to build and win a title team.


Funny as it may sound, sports analytics has become a marketing tool to reassure fans that they shouldn't worry, that there is a plan and it's all a process and that plan is sound because it's based on smart-people doing things, pretty much their version of branding campaign.:lol



Analytics has taken the joy out of sport. How many times have we seen casual fans look at these numbers while completely overlooking the whole context of the game? Predictive analytics is pretty good in real world applications and I know it's the "in" thing to sound smart in social media/net but come on, we know there are an infinite amount of intangibles that is not recorded data which draws another picture of the game.

[Mitch]

All that matters is the LOB and Repeat, tbh.

Obscure metric statistics are something fatnecks are interested in. At the end of the day, you can smile when your team locks the trophy behind the glass ( instead of leaving the case open for Ray Allen to reclaim the chip.)

[midnightpulp]

All that matters is the LOB and Repeat, tbh.

Obscure metric statistics are something fatnecks are interested in. At the end of the day, you can smile when your team locks the trophy behind the glass ( instead of leaving the case open for Ray Allen to reclaim the chip.)

I don't think repeats matter at all considering you don't get an extra trophy for them. But keep hanging on to that imaginary "accomplishment."

And there's nothing "obscure" at all about these metrics considering every front office and scouting department uses them, aside from the Lakers, which would explain your team's current level of sucking ass :lol

[midnightpulp]

The value of analytics in sports has regressed if we're being honest :lol Two of the biggest advocates at MIT Sloan conference (Hinkey, Morey) has cynically fucked the hopes and future of relying on data to build and win a title team.


Funny as it may sound, sports analytics has become a marketing tool to reassure fans that they shouldn't worry, that there is a plan and it's all a process and that plan is sound because it's based on smart-people doing things, pretty much their version of branding campaign.:lol



Analytics has taken the joy out of sport. How many times have we seen casual fans look at these numbers while completely overlooking the whole context of the game? Predictive analytics is pretty good in real world applications and I know it's the "in" thing to sound smart in social media/net but come on, we know there are an infinite amount of intangibles that is not recorded data which draws another picture of the game.

Yes. I've called out Morey on numerous occasions here. He looks at his computer spreadsheet and not much else.

But I fail to see how analytics take the joy out of sport? Per game stats were the first analytics. Did they take any joy out of the game? Rubes like Mitch, Kool, and Luva still use them as gospel.

Analytics are just an evolution of per game stats, and are much better for player evaluation in a vacuum. But an "objective" eye test should always be used in conjunction. Danny Green is a good example here. His metrics look nice this season, but watching him, his pretty metrics don't measure up to his real world impact at the moment.

[AlexJones]

He was being shat on even by non-analytical people who look at basic shit like FG%.

[midnightpulp]

He was being shat on even by non-analytical people who look at basic shit like FG%.

Indeed.

[Reck]

The repeat schtick argument reminds me of when I was in high school. It was all about that bandwagon effect and the imaginary illusion that a repeat meant you were the greatest ever. 9th grader mentality.

Good times. :lol

[Killakobe81]

Yep it was a sine article ...of course Mid is upset that it agrees that a top 12 ranking is about right ...
pulpy was hoping for a not only is he 12th my metrics say he is barely top 25 ...
Nice find, sprsisstan ...

As the ink dries on this final, morbid chapter of Kobe’s career, even the most stats-savvy of analysts have to acknowledge Bryant’s all-time greatness. According to Value Over Replacement Player, a measure of total contribution that tries to emulate RPM for historical seasons,1 Bryant ranks as the NBA’s 15th-best regular-season player since 1973-74 and its eighth-best in the playoffs, both of which track with the No. 12 all-time ranking he received in a recent ESPN poll of NBA experts.

Those rankings are still probably not as high as many observers would place the Black Mamba. But they do represent a kind of compromise between the traditionalist viewpoint and the first wave of sabermetric assessments that harshly criticized Bryant for his relative lack of efficiency. Bryant’s game had its flaws, and he was certainly no Jordan, but he was a player of undeniable historical importance. His résumé speaks enough to the on-court portion of his legacy, but for statheads, Kobe’s career helps us track the evolution of basketball analytics over time, both in its reaction to his performance and its ability to capture the meaningfulness of that performance in the first place.

Like i said in an earlier thread he is my 8th best player as well and it would make sense that I value playoffs more than regular season. If his finals performances were better I would probably even arue him up a couple notches ...but a case can be made for Kobe anywhere from 8-15 ...12th is not bad place. Hard to argue for anyone to argue him top 5 (that isnt a blind homer). and the haters that say he is not top 20 are equally blind.