Kobe vs. Michael (adjusted)

[SRJ]

I would have addressed this in a given thread, but the argument pops up in many threads. I'd rather just centralize it here.

People are getting personally insulted at the mere idea of comparing Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant. Apparently, the idea is so ludicrous, we dare not make the attempt.

Well, I don't work that way. And for what it's worth, I think MJ is the better player, but I'd rather closely examine the issue to see how wide the gap is between the two.

This idea is not without its dangers, the most pressing of which is that the Great Deity MJ Himself will become angry with me and ruin my crops. However, in the name of seeking accuracy I go forward.

As I've explained in the thread "ESPN Page 2: Kobe is better than Michael", to get a better handle on one players stats versus another's, one must place the numbers into a normalizing context. Otherwise, the raw numbers will appear to be conclusive proof of superiority one way or the other, when in fact it was easier to score in this era or that era.

Here are MJ and Kobe's scoring outputs at the same age, expressed in terms of a percentage of team's points rather than comparing scoring averages. It's hard to give equal weight to scoring averages when one team scores 97 points a game and the other team scores 105 points a game - this is why I use the percentage method.

I'll begin by comparing scoring percentages - I list the next highest percentage teammate with that player to point out what sort of scoring help Kobe and Michael had to work with. Just another way to put all of this along the same line.

MJ age 22 (Orlando Woolridge)
scored 25.9% of team's points (Woolridge 19.8%)

Kobe age 22 (Shaquille O'Neal)
scored 18% of team's points (O'Neal 28.4%)

(MJ was injured most of 1986 season, so I left age 23 out)

MJ age 24 (Charles Oakley - seriously!)
scored 35.4% of team's points (Oakley 13.9%)

Kobe age 24 (Shaq)
scored 24.3% of team's points (Shaq 21.9%)

MJ age 25 (Oakley again!)
scored 33.3% of team's points (Oakley 11.8%)

Kobe age 25 (Shaq)
scored 29.9% of team's points (Shaq 22.4%)

MJ age 26 (Scottie Pippen)
scored 30.2% of team's points (Pippen 12%)

Kobe age 26 (Shaq)
scored 19.3% of team's points (Shaq 17.9%)

MJ age 27 (Pippen)
scored 30.7% of team's points (Pippen 15%)

Kobe age 27 - first year without Shaq (Caron Butler)
scored 22.5% of team's points (Butler 14.8%)

MJ age 28 (Pippen)
scored 28.6% of team's points (Pippen 16.2%)

Kobe age 28 (Lamar Odom)
scored 34.7% of team's points (Odom 14.5%)


Now, in the same manner, I present the percentage of team assists for both players. There are no additional factors to consider here, as neither player played with an outstanding assist man such as Nash, Stockton, Mark Jackson, etc.:

MJ age 22
produced 24.2% of team's assists

Kobe age 22
produced 16.8% of team's assists

(MJ was injured most of 1986 season, so I left age 23 out)

MJ age 24
produced 17.6% of team's assists

Kobe age 24
produced 23.3% of team's assists

MJ age 25
produced 22.6% of team's assists

Kobe age 25
produced 25.2% of team's assists

MJ age 26
produced 29.4% of team's assists

Kobe age 26
produced 16.9% of team's assists

MJ age 27
produced 23.9% of team's assists

Kobe age 27
produced 23.8% of team's assists

MJ age 28
produced 20.5% of team's assists

Kobe age 28
produced 20.8% of team's assists


And finally, I present the shooting percentages for both players as expressed this way - FG% relative to team's adjusted FG% (minus 3FG%). This is the best way I can see to provide context for these statistics. Certainly, shooting 50% today is much more difficult to do in 2007 than it was in 1987 - my method puts these percentages on a straight line.

After gathering the player's and team's 2-point percentages, I divide the player's percentage by the team's percentage. A number over 1.00 means the player was shooting a better percentage than his team was.

Let's start with both players at age 22. For Michael, that was 1985. For Kobe that was 2000. Jordan's 2-point FG% relative to his team in 1985 was 1.05. Doing the same thing with Kobe in 2000 gives also gives us a figure of 1.05.

Why exclude three-point shooting? Three point shooting strategy has changed drastically over the years. In 1985, the Bulls made 29 threes and attempted 161 threes. In 2000, Kobe by himself made 46 and attempted 144. This has nothing to do with Kobe shooting too much or anything like that - Kobe was 4th on his own team in both categories in 2000 (behind Glen Rice, Rick Fox, and Derek Fisher). All these numbers reflect is a shift in strategies by NBA coaches over time; when they realized that the three was good for more than just an occasional surprise weapon or desparation comeback tool, three point attempts and makes grew over time. Removing the three from this discussion eliminates that weirdness.

Anyway, here is the relative 2FG% for both players:

MJ age 22
1.05 relative 2FG%

Kobe age 22
1.05 relative 2FG%

(MJ was injured most of 1986 season, so I left age 23 out)

MJ age 24
1.02 relative FG%

Kobe age 24
1.00 relative FG%

MJ age 25
1.13 relative FG%

Kobe age 25
.971 relative FG%

MJ age 26
1.12 relative FG%

Kobe age 26
.961 relative FG%

MJ age 27
1.10 relative FG%

Kobe age 27
1.01 relative FG%

MJ age 28
1.21 relative FG%

Kobe age 28
1.02 relative FG%

Of these six seasons surveyed, Kobe Bryant has shot as well has his team in four seasons and was slightly behind his team in the other two. On the other hand, Michael Jordan after his first two full seasons shot at a much higher standard than the rest of his team for the nest four seasons. So in this instance, those defending Jordan's shooting superiority are on point.

Of the preceding six full seasons completed by Bryant compared with Jordan at the same age, the following assessments seem reasonable:

Scoring: Jordan A+, Bryant A
Assists: Bryant B, Jordan B
Shooting: Jordan A++, Bryant B-

I'll be happy to do this for other catgories, and will do so if asked, but my basic point is to put these numbers on a straight line before comparing players. 35 PPG, 50% shooting, and 8 APG doesn't mean the same thing between different eras in basketball. If I compared Jordan and Bryant by raw averages, Jordan would look much superior to Kobe than he really is in these areas.

[toosmallshoes]

Let's not forget the number of times each player beat the crap out of Steve Kerr. Jordan has a decided advantage in that category.

[Cry Havoc]

Let's not forget the number of times each player beat the crap out of Steve Kerr. Jordan has a decided advantage in that category.

Or the number of suspensions served for flailing elbows like a spastic kid with epilepsy in an attempt to draw contact each player has received. Last I checked, he threw a couple of non-flailing elbows which didn't help his cause, either.

Or the number of team distractions due to feuding with other players, infidelity to his wife.....

Or how the potential of a perennial all-star has been reduced to another basic role-player on the court....

[Medvedenko]

Nice analysis...there's definitely a lot more to the story than pure #'s.

ASK THE EXPERT
By Sam Smith
MSNBC contributor
Updated: 2:58 p.m. MT March 29, 2007


Sam Smith


I'm saying this without hesitation: Kobe Bryant is the best player ever who scored at least 50 points in four straight games in March in two cities beginning with the letter "M." And something else Michael Jordan never could do: Bryant scored at least 50 points in games in Memphis and New Orleans. Yes, it's time for the stupid "Who's the Greatest Ever" debate.

These days this happens every year, or do now when Bryant goes off on some phenomenal scoring binge, like the nine straight of at least 40 a few years back, his 81 last season and last week's latest assault on Wilt.

To me, it was Wilt who was by far the most dominant player ever, the player who most transcended his era. Not necessarily with the championships. Likely, the scoring records never will be broken. But there never was a figure in basketball bigger than the game like Wilt was with his scoring — on and off the court, as he told it — and his effect on the game to the point the league continued to change rules to counter him because teams couldn't.

Jordan is generally regarded as that mythical best ever because of the championships and, to no small measure, the explosion of the NBA media and sneaker era, both of which featured Jordan.

Plus, he had this magnetic hold over men.

I've never seen anything in sports like it. It may have been that way with Muhammad Ali and Babe Ruth, the desire of men to be liked by him, but they mostly performed in the era before maximum media coverage.

Being around Jordan, I watched the hardest bitten reporters, the ones who had "cynical" on their business card, melt when Jordan would answer their questions by calling them by their first name, seek out eye contact and the exchanged smile. It wasn't fake with Jordan. He was a man's man, betting, boasting and beatific. Men wanted to be him; the next best thing was for him to acknowledge them.

interactive

• Rank who's leading the race this week

It's one reason Kobe never will be regarded as the best ever.

Nobody wants to be him. Well, not quite, but it's taken awhile for Bryant to begin to warm up to the populace, to shake his feud with the more personable Shaquille O'Neal, get past his court case in Colorado and sexual assault charges, and issues with supposedly breaking up the Lakers. Kobe was an island; Michael was the south of France.

Michael won the championships as the best player on his team; Kobe is more skilled with a better shot and far more range; Michael was the league's best defender; Kobe could do everything, leading the Lakers in assists every season they won a championship; Michael never had a big center to play with; how good could Kobe have been if he didn't have to defer; the league was stronger when Michael played; the players are more athletic and the preparation better now; how much would Michael have scored if they didn't allow hand checking back then? How much would Kobe score if there were no zones now?

SPECIAL FEATURE

• It's fun when you find your groove

And on and on it goes.

It is a lot like the debate you hear occasionally in golf, if you are awake enough to contribute after watching it on TV.

The old timers refuse to accept anyone could ever be better than Jack Nicklaus. Everyone else generally agrees Tiger Woods is the best.

There's really no surpassing Jordan because memory is fallible.

How often are you certain something happened years ago and it never did, or at least not the way you remembered it?

Slide show: The Week in Sports Pictures

• Week in Sports Pictures
March sadness, motorcyclist’s rocky ending, diving in darkness, and more.

This is like the life changing moment presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about in his new memoir of reading this Life magazine article when he was growing up in Indonesia about a man — not Michael Jackson — whitening his skin to conform. Obama talked about it changing his life. Only there never was an article in Life. Obama was sure, though maybe perhaps it was somewhere else.

The mind can play devilish tricks.

Like with Jordan and the media. It's as if he never missed a big shot, made a bad pass, took a selfish shot. He's like a basketball urban legend as he gets farther from the game. There's no competing against his legacy.

So why bother?

Bryant is the best player of this era. There are too many variables between eras, rules changes, quality of opponents, changes in talent and expansions.

Bryant probably is not the MVP because the Mavs and Suns will win far more games, and the vote usually goes to the best player on the best team, or close to that. The Lakers have been decimated by injuries to key players all season. They perhaps play the poorest starting lineup of any team in the West that will make the playoffs.

Which is why they are dangerous.

Coach Phil Jackson says that the reason the Lakers came so close to beating the Suns last season was that they shared the ball, and to a fault Bryant did as he was condemned in the seventh game for not shooting enough.

This season, until last week, anyway, Bryant again to a fault involved his teammates. Jackson had finally seen enough with seven straight losses and told Bryant to shoot. Scorers don't have to be told twice.

It's little realized that all this began after the blowout loss in Denver during which George Karl again seemed to run up the score, much like he did in New York, precipitating a brawl that cost Carmelo Anthony 15 games. It is said that Anthony had been taunting Bryant in that game about the scoring title and the way the Lakers were being beaten. Within a week, Bryant had virtually clinched the scoring title and the Nuggets were in another dive.

The Lakers are not particularly good. But because of Bryant they are dangerous. Like the Bulls of the late 1980's, who were knocking off better teams with more wins in the playoffs, like the Knicks and Cavaliers. The star is the x-factor in the playoffs, which is really why the best of Bryant may yet be ahead

[itzsoweezee]

yup, stats can't capture everything. and while the stats are clearly in mike's favor, another thing is also in mike's favor - basketball IQ. jordan is 10 times a smarter basketball player than bryant is. i never saw jordan make any of the boneheaded dumb decisions that kobe makes on a nightly basis.

[mVp]

yup, stats can't capture everything. and while the stats are clearly in mike's favor, another thing is also in mike's favor - basketball IQ. jordan is 10 times a smarter basketball player than bryant is. i never saw jordan make any of the boneheaded dumb decisions that kobe makes on a nightly basis.

true

[Medvedenko]

Well, I've seen Jordan make dumb plays as well...Jordan was by far not the perfect baller people seem to think he was. It took him a while for his Athleticism to match his IQ....

[picnroll]

Jordan was the consumete team leader. Players, his players, respected and feared him. He even got Rodman in his whackiest years to tow the line. That's an area where MJ is a 10 and Kobe doesn't have it.

[lefty]

yup, stats can't capture everything. and while the stats are clearly in mike's favor, another thing is also in mike's favor - basketball IQ. jordan is 10 times a smarter basketball player than bryant is. i never saw jordan make any of the boneheaded dumb decisions that kobe makes on a nightly basis.
:clap :clap :clap

[mabber]

yup, stats can't capture everything. and while the stats are clearly in mike's favor, another thing is also in mike's favor - basketball IQ. jordan is 10 times a smarter basketball player than bryant is. i never saw jordan make any of the boneheaded dumb decisions that kobe makes on a nightly basis.

Some people can't or are unwilling to grasp this point. It's somewhat understandable if you never saw a player play as stats are all that you have to go by though. This is why I'm usually unwilling to get into this type of a debate when a player that I didn't see play (bulk of his career) is involved. I'm guessing that a few people on here didn't see all of Jordan's career.

[leemajors]

Well, I've seen Jordan make dumb plays as well...Jordan was by far not the perfect baller people seem to think he was. It took him a while for his Athleticism to match his IQ....

absence makes the heart grow fonder. kobe is still young, still in his prime. he has plenty of time to grow as a leader. this debate is silly until kobe's resume is complete.

[JamStone]

Jordan's Washington Wizards teammates hated him. He was only respected by his Chicago teammates because they were scared of him. It wasn't respect AND fear. It was respect OUT OF fear. It has been documented that he was a horrible teammate, and his best leadership quality was leading by example.

[mabber]

Jordan's Washington Wizards teammates hated him. He was only respected by his Chicago teammates because they were scared of him. It wasn't respect AND fear. It was respect OUT OF fear. It has been documented that he was a horrible teammate, and his best leadership quality was leading by example.

Maybe he had to become a mean bastard to his teammates as they stood around and watched your team (Pistons) beat the ever-loving shit out of MJ for several years :lol

I'm not sure we'll ever see another playing take that much physical abuse again. The current rules wouldn't allow it as the league is so damn soft now. MJ used to get pummeled by 2-3 Piston players every time he came down the lane. Flagrant fouls in today's game.

[monosylab1k]

Seriously these Kobe vs. Jordan comparisons need to just end. Any fucking retard who thinks that Kobe is anywhere near Jordan's level should never be taken seriously on these boards ever again. Talent-wise, Kobe is definitely on Jordan's level. But Jordan completely eclipses Kobe in every other aspect of the game. Don't even bring this fucking stupid bullshit fuckin argument to the table anymore, people. Every time anybody tried to put up empty fucking numbers to put Kobe on Jordan's level, that shit has been swatted out to half-court, and it will keep happening.

[leemajors]

what is notable was the last person to drop 50 on the rock-ettes - dana barros!

[mVp]

Seriously these Kobe vs. Jordan comparisons need to just end. Any fucking retard who thinks that Kobe is anywhere near Jordan's level should never be taken seriously on these boards ever again. Talent-wise, Kobe is definitely on Jordan's level. But Jordan completely eclipses Kobe in every other aspect of the game. Don't even bring this fucking stupid bullshit fuckin argument to the table anymore, people. Every time anybody tried to put up empty fucking numbers to put Kobe on Jordan's level, that shit has been swatted out to half-court, and it will keep happening.

agreed

[Cry Havoc]

Seriously these Kobe vs. Jordan comparisons need to just end. Any fucking retard who thinks that Kobe is anywhere near Jordan's level should never be taken seriously on these boards ever again. Talent-wise, Kobe is definitely on Jordan's level. But Jordan completely eclipses Kobe in every other aspect of the game. Don't even bring this fucking stupid bullshit fuckin argument to the table anymore, people. Every time anybody tried to put up empty fucking numbers to put Kobe on Jordan's level, that shit has been swatted out to half-court, and it will keep happening.

Yep.

Of course, it won't matter. Some fans only care about hype and stats.

[SRJ]

Seriously these Kobe vs. Jordan comparisons need to just end. Any fucking retard who thinks that Kobe is anywhere near Jordan's level should never be taken seriously on these boards ever again. Talent-wise, Kobe is definitely on Jordan's level. But Jordan completely eclipses Kobe in every other aspect of the game. Don't even bring this fucking stupid bullshit fuckin argument to the table anymore, people. Every time anybody tried to put up empty fucking numbers to put Kobe on Jordan's level, that shit has been swatted out to half-court, and it will keep happening.

Well, I'm convinced! You insulted AND cussed!

:rolleyes

Seriously, what kind of mental defective gets this angry on behalf of the greatest player of all time, a multi-multi-millionaire at that? I hope, monosylab1k, you actually ARE Michael Jordan - I'd hate to think some pasty white dork with a pube mustache gets this goddamned defensive over this.

Did I hit a nerve, or are you just really fucking stupid?

[Cry Havoc]

Did I hit a nerve, or are you just really fucking stupid?

Maybe he's tired of endless, pointless threads that involve insane amounts of headbutting about how great Kobe is, attempting to establish how close he is to Jordan's level?

Your thread is fine, but most of them are full of little else but conjecture, personal attacks, and general annoyance. They suck up space on the boards and serve little else except to say, "Well they were different eras so you can't compare them."

I'm pretty sick of it as well. I don't hate Kobe, but all this media hype when the playoffs are closing in is ridiculous. If you can't compare eras, why even pose the freaking question?

[SRJ]

Maybe he's tired of endless, pointless threads that involve insane amounts of headbutting about how great Kobe is, attempting to establish how close he is to Jordan's level?

Your thread is fine, but most of them are full of little else but conjecture, personal attacks, and general annoyance. They suck up space on the boards and serve little else except to say, "Well they were different eras so you can't compare them."

I'm pretty sick of it as well. I don't hate Kobe, but all this media hype when the playoffs are closing in is ridiculous. If you can't compare eras, why even pose the freaking question?

I appreciate that you see where I'm coming from on this, but it seems to me that on a discussion forum, there ought to be scope for a discussion. There's no need for anyone, on either side of the argument, to become angry.

At this point, why don't the mods just lock every thread? Hell, go ahead put a filter on the letters KOBE sequenced in just that order. That way we don't insult Laker diehards, statheads, Michael-jockers, or old guys who think the old days were always better.

Then we can just go back to duck's threads about LeBron, game threads with full of spam, YouTube threads, and Mavs fans vs. Spur fans smack threads. Everyone will be happier then!

[Kermit]

I appreciate that you see where I'm coming from on this, but it seems to me that on a discussion forum, there ought to be scope for a discussion. There's no need for anyone, on either side of the argument, to become angry.

At this point, why don't the mods just lock every thread? Hell, go ahead put a filter on the letters KOBE sequenced in just that order. That way we don't insult Laker diehards, statheads, Michael-jockers, or old guys who think the old days were always better.

Then we can just go back to duck's threads about LeBron, game threads with full of spam, YouTube threads, and Mavs fans vs. Spur fans smack threads. Everyone will be happier then!
and there is the mouse which allows you to exit out of a thread that holds no intrest for you. some people love to bitch just to read what they've bitched about.

good thread srj.

[Cry Havoc]

I appreciate that you see where I'm coming from on this, but it seems to me that on a discussion forum, there ought to be scope for a discussion.

Discussion. Not trolling or being completely oblivious to anything that doesn't involve a person's favorite team.

And you're right. A lot of the threads on these forums are pointless, boring, and shouldn't be posted in the first place. It's one reason I haven't been as active on the boards of late.

[JamStone]

Seriously these Kobe vs. Jordan comparisons need to just end. Any fucking retard who thinks that Kobe is anywhere near Jordan's level should never be taken seriously on these boards ever again. Talent-wise, Kobe is definitely on Jordan's level. But Jordan completely eclipses Kobe in every other aspect of the game. Don't even bring this fucking stupid bullshit fuckin argument to the table anymore, people. Every time anybody tried to put up empty fucking numbers to put Kobe on Jordan's level, that shit has been swatted out to half-court, and it will keep happening.



Or maybe those who are just so disgusted with the comparison should just ignore topics that talk about it.

[Cry Havoc]

Or maybe those who are just so disgusted with the comparison should just ignore topics that talk about it.

Hard to do when they completely saturate the boards.

[Medvedenko]

The question is...why do they saturate these boards....oh I don't know, maybe Kobe's climbing the ladder...if you're too stupid to see that, than maybe put the NBA on ignore...because Kobe is the only true superstar and transcendent player they have right now.

[mavsfan1000]

The question is...why do they saturate these boards....oh I don't know, maybe Kobe's climbing the ladder...if you're too stupid to see that, than maybe put the NBA on ignore...because Kobe is the only true superstar and transcendent player they have right now.
I guess there are a lot of stupid people out there because many think Kobe is no where near Jordan along with being extremely overrated. Dirk, Kobe, and Nash are all great players. Go fuck yourself btw.

[dirk4mvp]

what is notable was the last person to drop 50 on the rock-ettes - dana barros!



You sure?

[Warlord23]

SRJ, The numbers about who scored what % of their team's points is a misleading stat.

Let me give an example. Player A scores 30 PPG, his team scores 100 PPG. Player B scores 25 PPG while his team scores 75 PPG. By your argument Player A scored 30% of his team's points, Player B scored 33% of his team's points. Correct?

Now let's look at a few other stats in the same scenario. Suppose Player A scored his 30 PPG by making 15 FGM out of 25 FGA. Player B scored his 25 PPG scoring 12 FGM out of 30 FGA. Suppose each team took 80 FGA overall.

Now because Player B took more shots (30 FGA), the rest of his team ended up taking lesser shots (50 FGA). Player A took 25 shots, thus allowing his teammates to shoot more (55 FGA). Because his teammates got more attempts, they scored more. Player B's teammates shot less, and so scored less. Although this ended up reducing Player A's percentage of points scored, his team was far more efficient and everybody ended up scoring more. Player B hogged the ball more, resulting in his teammates not getting enough opportunities, and thus boosting Player B's % numbers.

See where I'm going? The stats you posted are distorted because they don't take efficiency into account. An efficient player will take less shots to get his points, and his teammates also get to see more of the ball. The player of lower efficiency will take too many shots to get his numbers, and his teammates will not get enough opportunity to contribute.

Let's now complete this argument by looking at MJ (1991) and Kobe (2006) both at 28 years of age.
MJ shot the ball at 53.9%, Kobe shot it at 45.0%.
MJ had 22.4 FGA per game, Kobe took 27.2 FGA per game.
MJ's teammates got 64.4 FGA per game, Kobe's teammates got 53.4 FGA per game
MJ's PER rating was 31.63 (5th best in NBA history), Kobe's PER rating was 28.02 (41st best in NBA history)

Bottomline: MJ might have scored less % of his team's points, but he did it at a way higher efficiency with far less FGA. That actually gave his teammates more FGA opportunities, so they ended up scoring more. What that means is the "% of team's points scored" is a BS stat, and cannot be used for comparison of 2 players.

[SRJ]

SRJ, The numbers about who scored what % of their team's points is a misleading stat.

Let me give an example. Player A scores 30 PPG, his team scores 100 PPG. Player B scores 25 PPG while his team scores 75 PPG. By your argument Player A scored 30% of his team's points, Player B scored 33% of his team's points. Correct?

Now let's look at a few other stats in the same scenario. Suppose Player A scored his 30 PPG by making 15 FGM out of 25 FGA. Player B scored his 25 PPG scoring 12 FGM out of 30 FGA. Suppose each team took 80 FGA overall.

Now because Player B took more shots (30 FGA), the rest of his team ended up taking lesser shots (50 FGA). Player A took 25 shots, thus allowing his teammates to shoot more (55 FGA). Because his teammates got more attempts, they scored more. Player B's teammates shot less, and so scored less. Although this ended up reducing Player A's percentage of points scored, his team was far more efficient and everybody ended up scoring more. Player B hogged the ball more, resulting in his teammates not getting enough opportunities, and thus boosting Player B's % numbers.

See where I'm going? The stats you posted are distorted because they don't take efficiency into account. An efficient player will take less shots to get his points, and his teammates also get to see more of the ball. The player of lower efficiency will take too many shots to get his numbers, and his teammates will not get enough opportunity to contribute.

Let's now complete this argument by looking at MJ (1991) and Kobe (2006) both at 28 years of age.
MJ shot the ball at 53.9%, Kobe shot it at 45.0%.
MJ had 22.4 FGA per game, Kobe took 27.2 FGA per game.
MJ's teammates got 64.4 FGA per game, Kobe's teammates got 53.4 FGA per game
MJ's PER rating was 31.63 (5th best in NBA history), Kobe's PER rating was 28.02 (41st best in NBA history)

Bottomline: MJ might have scored less % of his team's points, but he did it at a way higher efficiency with far less FGA. That actually gave his teammates more FGA opportunities, so they ended up scoring more. What that means is the "% of team's points scored" is a BS stat, and cannot be used for comparison of 2 players.

1) I never claimed % of points scored was completely accurate, only more accurate than simply comparing one scoring average to another.

2) In the third section below, I did produce the adjusted 2FG%, which showed that MJ was a more efficient shooter.

3) This analysis actually reinforces the perception that MJ was better, which I already believed before taking a longer look at this. I absolutely did not rig this to weigh in favor of either player.

4) I'm not saying there isn't a better method to compare scorers of different eras, but I don't know of/can't think of a better method. Again, that's comparing point production, not overall efficiency - I wouldn't have even argued that Jordan was more efficient.

5) Percentage of points scored is not a BS stat, it just has its limitations - as all statistics do. Assists don't measure how many passes became blown assists thanks to a bad play by a teammate. Blocks don't measure unblocked shots which the defender obviously forced the shooter to miss anyway. FG% doesn't tell you where all those shots were taken from. 3FG% doesn't tell you how many times the shot was contested. So why are all of those stats accepted without question?

[Warlord23]

1) I never claimed % of points scored was completely accurate, only more accurate than simply comparing one scoring average to another.

2) In the third section below, I did produce the adjusted 2FG%, which showed that MJ was a more efficient shooter.

3) This analysis actually reinforces the perception that MJ was better, which I already believed before taking a longer look at this. I absolutely did not rig this to weigh in favor of either player.

4) I'm not saying there isn't a better method to compare scorers of different eras, but I don't know of/can't think of a better method. Again, that's comparing point production, not overall efficiency - I wouldn't have even argued that Jordan was more efficient.

5) Percentage of points scored is not a BS stat, it just has its limitations - as all statistics do. Assists don't measure how many passes became blown assists thanks to a bad play by a teammate. Blocks don't measure unblocked shots which the defender obviously forced the shooter to miss anyway. FG% doesn't tell you where all those shots were taken from. 3FG% doesn't tell you how many times the shot was contested. So why are all of those stats accepted without question?

I agree that you were comparing point production alone, not efficiency. But I still believe that % of points scored is not a good enough stat. I think PPFGA (Points per FGA) or PPP (Points per possession) are better stats to compare scorers across eras. [# of possessions in PPP = # of FGA + 0.5 * (# of FTA)]

To show what kind of conclusions can be drawn by % of points scored, let us compare Kareem Abdul Jabbar in 1971-72 vs Allen Iverson in 2001-02.

Kareem scored 34.8 PPG at an astounding 57.4 FG % (played 81 games)
Iverson scored 31.4 PPG at a meagre 39.8% (only played 62 games though)

The 2001-02 Sixers scored around 91 PPG per game, while Kareem's Bucks scored 114.6 PPG. So Iverson has a bigger share (34.5%) of his team's scoring compared to Kareem (30.3%). Going by the "% of team points" Iverson would be rated a superior scorer than the Captain. Of course, the fact that Iverson took 3 FGA per game more than Kareem while scoring 3 PPG lesser isn't accounted for.

Now let's do Points per possession to compare the two:
Kareem's PPP is 1.18, Iverson's PPP is 0.96

I'd say PPP seems more accurate, wouldn't you?

[monosylab1k]

Well, I'm convinced! You insulted AND cussed!

:rolleyes

Seriously, what kind of mental defective gets this angry on behalf of the greatest player of all time, a multi-multi-millionaire at that? I hope, monosylab1k, you actually ARE Michael Jordan - I'd hate to think some pasty white dork with a pube mustache gets this goddamned defensive over this.

Did I hit a nerve, or are you just really fucking stupid?

We've had 4 other threads with this exact same bullshit. Every time, nobody provides any type of sound argument whatsoever to prove that Kobe is anywhere close to Jordan's level. If you wanted to continue with your dickless little campaign for Kobe, then at least have the fuckin decency to do it on one of the threads already provided for it you dumbass, that way I can properly ignore it.

Now unless you've got something decent to add around here, then get the fuck out. You're officially the most pathetically idiotic fuck on this board.

[monosylab1k]

Or maybe those who are just so disgusted with the comparison should just ignore topics that talk about it.

Difficult when a new "kobe vs. jordan" pops up every fuckin' day. it's obvious trolling and whoring for attention. if he really wanted to debate this, he would have posted it in one of the other 1000 or so kobe vs. jordan thread, rather than create a new one.

[sabar]

I've never seen someone so offended at a thread before.

Ever.

In my entire time on the internet.

We haven't had four other threads on this, we have had four other threads of hijacking and insulting like you are doing right now, deviating from a good subject of debate.

Moving back to the topic at hand. Statistical analysis has been done many times which will always put MJ over the top, as he just plainly had better stats in nearly every category, sometimes by a large margin. While not the end-all statistic, the PER has been a solid stat on which to generally show someone's level, and it's clearly evident that MJ is on a different level.

While Kobe can approach and maybe even surpass MJ in every statistical category, he is doing it later than Jordan did it at. Jordan was able to get consistent and play at a high level young and through all his years, if it happens with Kobe, it will be on the tail-end of his career.

I don't think you can say Jordan has anything over Kobe in intangibles. MJ wasn't exactly the nicest guy in the world like people make him out to be. One other stat I would like to see is clutch-factor -- shots attempted in the final minute while trailing by 4 or less points against shots made.

[Kori Ellis]

Hard to do when they completely saturate the boards.

Not really. The threads have titles. Don't click on them. :lol

[jdalive2004]

MJ 6-time Finals MVP
MJ 5-time NBA MVP

Kobe-0

Nuff Said.

[Cry Havoc]

Not really. The threads have titles. Don't click on them. :lol

I'd prefer just to show trolls (and any real posters) that when you have watched basketball for more than 5 years as some people here seem (not) to have, there is no doubt who is better. From a spectator's perspective who's watched them both play, AND from a statistical perspective, Jordan is dominant. Kobe is nowhere close.

Hopefully then the comparisons will stop.

I guess really I'm just pissed at ESPN.com for posting such an incredibly stupid article (on their front page, no less!) to stoke the fires of this inane debate in the first place. That doesn't change the fact that seeing spurstalk clogged with spam annoys the hell out of me.


The question is...why do they saturate these boards....oh I don't know, maybe Kobe's climbing the ladder...if you're too stupid to see that, than maybe put the NBA on ignore...because Kobe is the only true superstar and transcendent player they have right now.

Yeah, you know what? You're right. I'm going to just stop watching basketball because there seems to be a growing demographic of individuals who think they know hoops better than I do because they've watched it since the Lakers went on their three-peat run. I'll stop watching because these "fans" are so bold as to open their mouth and attempt to establish conjectural rationality (this is where SRJ's thread is different, although he did already post his stats in another thread... sigh) for why Kobe is the greatest player of all time. :rolleyes << I put the rolleyes there to ensure you understood that this is all sarcasm, because I'm not entirely positive you'd pick up on it.

That would be much akin to me stepping into a futbol forum and telling all the older fans there how much better Landon Donovan is than Pele or Maradona. Just because I could probably get you to believe me, and have a ton of new American soccer/futbol fans supporting that idea, doesn't mean we're right. It means we're completely incompetent when it comes to the history of the game.

Now honestly. Call me names all you want. Hurl insults at me. It makes you look so much wiser, and bolsters your argument considerably.

[SRJ]

We've had 4 other threads with this exact same bullshit. Every time, nobody provides any type of sound argument whatsoever to prove that Kobe is anywhere close to Jordan's level. If you wanted to continue with your dickless little campaign for Kobe, then at least have the fuckin decency to do it on one of the threads already provided for it you dumbass, that way I can properly ignore it.

Now unless you've got something decent to add around here, then get the fuck out. You're officially the most pathetically idiotic fuck on this board.

Yep, you've got one hell of a life there.

[monosylab1k]

Yep, you've got one hell of a life there.

So says the one that has posted pages upon pages of "stats" that don't even support his own argument. You spin your BS numbers almost as well as Hollinger. Great job "debating" there, dipshit.

I've had plenty of "civilized" debate on this topic, but it's just gotten incredibly tiresome. This constant Kobe suckfest that's been going on in the NBA forums is just insane. He's great, but he's not Jordan. Does he have the chance to be at Jordan's level? Yes, but he's nowhere close to it yet. any comparison, any stat, any ANYTHING will never put him at Jordan's level. Pages upon pages of threads have already proven it. And now we've got another one.

[SRJ]

So says the one that has posted pages upon pages of "stats" that don't even support his own argument. You spin your BS numbers almost as well as Hollinger. Great job "debating" there, dipshit.

I've had plenty of "civilized" debate on this topic, but it's just gotten incredibly tiresome. This constant Kobe suckfest that's been going on in the NBA forums is just insane. He's great, but he's not Jordan. Does he have the chance to be at Jordan's level? Yes, but he's nowhere close to it yet. any comparison, any stat, any ANYTHING will never put him at Jordan's level. Pages upon pages of threads have already proven it. And now we've got another one.

Look asshat, I've already elaborated upon what I've said below. I don't need to do it again just to satisfy a single-cell rage-addict like you.

You want a deeper explanation of what I wrote, then read below. If you have any specific questions about what I wrote, then ask. But don't think you can just put up something insulting and profane and think I'm going to scramble around to try and mollify you. I don't work that way.

BTW, your doing a horrible job ignoring things you don't like. My guess is that you haven't gotten mad enough today.

[Obstructed_View]

Seriously these Kobe vs. Jordan comparisons need to just end. Any fucking retard who thinks that Kobe is anywhere near Jordan's level should never be taken seriously on these boards ever again. Talent-wise, Kobe is definitely on Jordan's level. But Jordan completely eclipses Kobe in every other aspect of the game. Don't even bring this fucking stupid bullshit fuckin argument to the table anymore, people. Every time anybody tried to put up empty fucking numbers to put Kobe on Jordan's level, that shit has been swatted out to half-court, and it will keep happening.
Word. This shit is weak. I'll say Kobe's a better scorer than Jordan at this point in his career. He's got a ways to go since Jordan averaged five points more per game and was winning championships against much better competition.

[picnroll]

Jordan's Washington Wizards teammates hated him. He was only respected by his Chicago teammates because they were scared of him. It wasn't respect AND fear. It was respect OUT OF fear. It has been documented that he was a horrible teammate, and his best leadership quality was leading by example.
I hear Patton was a real SOB too. You want to win the war or a popularity contest?

[Medvedenko]

http://broadband.nba.com/cc/playa.php?content=video&url=http://boss.streamos.com/wmedia/nba/nbacom/history/jordan_3straight_50ptgms_870416.asx
Jordan's 50 3 times in a row.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1UCbdcpW4w
63 Points vs Celtics...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAOzBdoWuus
69 career high vs Cavs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NoT8m50_UI
55 vs Knicks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye-0ghhY7uw
51 vs Charlotte...@ 38 years old.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0r7bd9NM4Ts
Kobe 62 vs Dallas in 3 q's

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEnd0AgbOMU
Kobe 81

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEnd0AgbOMU
Kobe 65 vs Blazers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfcx-0W4abw
Kobe 60 vs Memphis

Now one thing I see on the Jordan highlights...the D was amazing....lock down defense.... ;)

I got these clips from a guy on Lakerground (Lakersanity)

[monosylab1k]

Look asshat, I've already elaborated upon what I've said below. I don't need to do it again just to satisfy a single-cell rage-addict like you.

You want a deeper explanation of what I wrote, then read below. If you have any specific questions about what I wrote, then ask. But don't think you can just put up something insulting and profane and think I'm going to scramble around to try and mollify you. I don't work that way.

BTW, your doing a horrible job ignoring things you don't like. My guess is that you haven't gotten mad enough today.

You're doing an even worse job defending Kobe. your "evidence" is the most convoluted pile of elephant shit i've ever looked at.

And hey, maybe i took it too far with the insults. Really. If your tender little vagina can't handle a few dirty words, i apologize.

the only people around here that dare say Kobe is better than Jordan are Pistons fans (biased), Lakers fans (really biased), and you (retarded). Don't scramble and mollify me, just admit that you're wrong when you're in the face of insurmountable evidence against you.

[monosylab1k]

I hear Patton was a real SOB too. You want to win the war or a popularity contest?

post of the century.

[King]

Not getting into the Kobe v. MJ debate - but I just wanted to say that it's probably best not to play the 'MJ didn't disrupt the locker room with infidelity to his wife' card - as was played early on in this thread.

It's not a big secret that he wasn't faithful to his wife. Not by a longshot.

[Medvedenko]

Ahh..memories...Shaq fouls out...Kobe takes over in OT. 2000 Finals
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVa6CMssZes&mode=related&search=

He's been ballin' a long time boys... a long time.

[monosylab1k]

Not getting into the Kobe v. MJ debate - but I just wanted to say that it's probably best not to play the 'MJ didn't disrupt the locker room with infidelity to his wife' card - as was played early on in this thread.

It's not a big secret that he wasn't faithful to his wife. Not by a longshot.

Name me an NBA basketball player that's faithful to his wife and I'll show you an NBA player that's full of shit and duped you into thinking it. Doug Christie doesn't count because anybody that whipped isn't a real man.

All NBA players cheat on their wives. Not all of them go to Colorado and fuck a girl so hard her pussy bleeds while he chokes her, then asks to cum on her face, and finishes off the trifecta by throwing their teammate under the bus when questioned by police.

[Medvedenko]

Hey mono...chill the fuck out....man, bringing up the rape case ad nauseum is trite, seriously. The girl had 3, cout them 3 different types of semen on her panties...maybe she was a freak. Regardless, I say AC Green...still a virgin.....
Oh, and Mono, once again....chill out.

[monosylab1k]

Hey mono...chill the fuck out....man, bringing up the rape case ad nauseum is trite, seriously. The girl had 3, cout them 3 different types of semen on her panties...maybe she was a freak. Regardless, I say AC Green...still a virgin.....
Oh, and Mono, once again....chill out.

I didn't say anything about rape.

I merely stated the facts of what happened in Colorado via Kobe's own account of things.

The fact that Jordan cheated on his wife was brought in like it could destroy his character. I pointed out that every NBA player cheats on his wife, some more that others. And then there's what Kobe did.

Your feathers got ruffled over simple facts. Maybe you're the one that needs to chill out.

[Medvedenko]

Yeah, all of the NBA players cheat...not many of them have 4 months where they averaged 40 points per game...oh yeah, only 1 Wilt.

[monosylab1k]

Yeah, all of the NBA players cheat...not many of them have 4 months where they averaged 40 points per game...oh yeah, only 1 Wilt.

wow, that's a salient point there...

[SRJ]

You're doing an even worse job defending Kobe. your "evidence" is the most convoluted pile of elephant shit i've ever looked at.

And hey, maybe i took it too far with the insults. Really. If your tender little vagina can't handle a few dirty words, i apologize.

the only people around here that dare say Kobe is better than Jordan are Pistons fans (biased), Lakers fans (really biased), and you (retarded). Don't scramble and mollify me, just admit that you're wrong when you're in the face of insurmountable evidence against you.

I can't be wrong if you've ascribed the wrong conclusion to me.

"Ascribed" means to...oh, never mind. You won't understand.

I can handle any kind language, really. It's just a little unexpected when having a conversation about a retired basketball player - it's hard to anticipate an allegedly adult person to get himself all bent out of shape over a discussion about that player.

Did you know Paxil is pretty inexpensive these days?

[monosylab1k]

it's hard to anticipate an allegedly adult person to get himself all bent out of shape over a discussion about that player.

too bad it wasn't a discussion - it was you spewing a bunch of useless numbers, biased Pistons and Lakers fans agreeing, and every other person with a small strand of clear-headed thinking and reasoning on the topic showing you just how full of shit you are. I can stop swearing to calm your little vagina down, but you're always going to be the idiot that tried to put Kobe ahead of Jordan.

[jacobdrj]

I am not an MJ fan. Never was. But I respect his game. I don't put MJ on a pedestal like so many, because I saw his last 3 title runs, and saw that he won, but it wasn't all because of him... he had a phenominal team (wheter people want to admit it or not, the proof is in the pudding as far as Jordan's sabattical) an amazing coach, a very good GM and owner, and some truly good fans.

And to the one who said Kobe's resume is incomplete: you are right... apples and oranges.

But for the sake of arguement, because that's why we have a messageboard:

Kobe is clutch, just like Jordan. Both could score. MJ was a very good defender, but he had that luxury because he had great farwards who could cover for him. I don't know where Kobe's defensive reputation comes from, honestly. He deserves it less than T-mac, whose first couple seasons in the NBA, it was all T-Mac did was defend, in the shadow of Carter. Kobe did have Shaq protecting him in the lane though.

I don't understand why people are putting Jordan on this Ruth-like pedistal that nobody can touch him. when Kobe had Phil, he carried his team, just like Jordan, and even Pippen. Jordan didn't do jack before Phill. And I don't think Jordan was all that late in his career either. He was the best player in the NBA, but still needed the greatest defender of his era to make his last 3 titles a possibility. Those last three titles were far too contested to even argue otherwise. If Rodman isn't there, they loose in the 2nd round to the Pacers or Knicks, or Heat or Magic. Period. Jordan isn't god because he won 6 titles. He was the greatest of his era, in combination with so many other factors. It is unfair to the other people who was on his team, the organization that put it together, and the coach, which is proving time and time again, that he is the differencemaker.

[SRJ]

too bad it wasn't a discussion - it was you spewing a bunch of useless numbers, biased Pistons and Lakers fans agreeing, and every other person with a small strand of clear-headed thinking and reasoning on the topic showing you just how full of shit you are. I can stop swearing to calm your little vagina down, but you're always going to be the idiot that tried to put Kobe ahead of Jordan.

That last sentence is proof positive that, once again, you either don't read what I write or you don't understand what I write. My money's on the latter.

I'm done with you.

[monosylab1k]

That last sentence is proof positive that, once again, you either don't read what I write or you don't understand what I write. My money's on the latter.

I'm done with you.

LOL then what is this thread for? This entire BS argument started over a stupid article stating that KOBE IS BETTER THAN JORDAN. If that's not what you're trying to argue, then why the hell did you even start this thread? "I'm not saying Kobe's better than Jordan, I'm saying he's kinda sorta good like Jordan is, heck MAYBE he's better than Jordan, i dunno, I wish I could find a way to prove he's better but none of the numbers I have show it to be true, so I'll just come on here and mock people for saying Jordan's better while I go about saying the exact same thing but at least i'll show that Kobe is really good (something everybody already fucking knows)". Way to take a solid stance there, bro.

You're done with me cuz you realize how full of shit you are on this. Don't be pissed at the messenger, be pissed at yourself for such a weak ass argument.

[Cry Havoc]

mono... check out the new article she just put out. But this is all you probably need to read:

"[Kobe]'s the only player in the league even remotely interested in being a good defender."

Yeah. You guys still want to agree with that incredibly inane sports writer? Please keep posting. Laker fans, your turn to defend her statements. I'm waiting.

[bobbyjoe]

I'm a Laker fan and I'll say its ridiculous.

Kobe picks his spots to expend defensive energy. It's frustrating as a fan. He's great, great, great, but not even close to MJ.

[bobbyjoe]

I am not an MJ fan. Never was. But I respect his game. I don't put MJ on a pedestal like so many, because I saw his last 3 title runs, and saw that he won, but it wasn't all because of him... he had a phenominal team (wheter people want to admit it or not, the proof is in the pudding as far as Jordan's sabattical) an amazing coach, a very good GM and owner, and some truly good fans.

And to the one who said Kobe's resume is incomplete: you are right... apples and oranges.

But for the sake of arguement, because that's why we have a messageboard:

Kobe is clutch, just like Jordan. Both could score. MJ was a very good defender, but he had that luxury because he had great farwards who could cover for him. I don't know where Kobe's defensive reputation comes from, honestly. He deserves it less than T-mac, whose first couple seasons in the NBA, it was all T-Mac did was defend, in the shadow of Carter. Kobe did have Shaq protecting him in the lane though.

I don't understand why people are putting Jordan on this Ruth-like pedistal that nobody can touch him. when Kobe had Phil, he carried his team, just like Jordan, and even Pippen. Jordan didn't do jack before Phill. And I don't think Jordan was all that late in his career either. He was the best player in the NBA, but still needed the greatest defender of his era to make his last 3 titles a possibility. Those last three titles were far too contested to even argue otherwise. If Rodman isn't there, they loose in the 2nd round to the Pacers or Knicks, or Heat or Magic. Period. Jordan isn't god because he won 6 titles. He was the greatest of his era, in combination with so many other factors. It is unfair to the other people who was on his team, the organization that put it together, and the coach, which is proving time and time again, that he is the differencemaker.

Bob Costas once said about MJ that he was simultaneously the best player Ever and most overrated player Ever.

It sounds funny when you first read it, but if you think about it, it's true in a lot of ways.

Jordan was the best ever, but the gap between him and guys #2-5 is not nearly as great as many seem to think.

[Warlord23]

Jordan was the best ever, but the gap between him and guys #2-5 is not nearly as great as many seem to think.

Yep, that's true ... in fact there are at least 5-6 greats who are close to GOAT status:

Wilt (most ridiculously dominant offensive force ever)
Russell (easily the best defender of all time)
Kareem (longest-lasting, most consistent go-to-guy of all-time)
Oscar Robertson (Mr. triple-double, all-round impact on a game)
Magic (Oscar with less gaudy stats, more titles, more clutch)
Bird (great leader, fierce competitor, clutch as they come)

[Cry Havoc]

Yep, that's true ... in fact there are at least 5-6 greats who are close to GOAT status:

Wilt (most ridiculously dominant offensive force ever)
Russell (easily the best defender of all time)
Kareem (longest-lasting, most consistent go-to-guy of all-time)
Oscar Robertson (Mr. triple-double, all-round impact on a game)
Magic (Oscar with less gaudy stats, more titles, more clutch)
Bird (great leader, fierce competitor, clutch as they come)


Agreed. They're up there. ^^^








...



...



This is where Kobe is presently.

[SRJ]

From my initial post in this thread, for the hard-of-reading:


And for what it's worth, I think MJ is the better player, but I'd rather closely examine the issue to see how wide the gap is between the two.

From the same post:


...my basic point is to put these numbers on a straight line before comparing players. 35 PPG, 50% shooting, and 8 APG doesn't mean the same thing between different eras in basketball.

It takes a special brand of ignorance to convert these two statements into "Kobe is better than Michael". I don't believe that and I haven't believed that. I may believe it after Kobe's last NBA game, if he grows the resume enough, though that seems doubtful.

Nice to discuss with you guys, really. Sorry I've been so damned blasphemous of late.

[monosylab1k]

From my initial post in this thread, for the hard-of-reading:



From the same post:



It takes a special brand of ignorance to convert these two statements into "Kobe is better than Michael". I don't believe that and I haven't believed that. I may believe it after Kobe's last NBA game, if he grows the resume enough, though that seems doubtful.

Nice to discuss with you guys, really. Sorry I've been so damned blasphemous of late.

Ah, so your point is that you had no point. Great. I thought you were "done" with this? You really should have been.

[conqueso]

SRJ,

I agree with Warlord's statement that the stats you are trying to compare are pretty irrelevant to the discussion. However, I disagree that it is because they fail to take efficiency into account. I also disagree with your statement that they are more accurate than simply comparing scoring averages to each other; I don't believe percentage-of-team-stats means anything at all unless you already know which team is better and why.

The percentage of a team's points a player scores depends on the scoring ability of that player, sure, but also depends on several other factors, most obviously the scoring ability of the other players on the team. For instance, let's say two players both score 30 per game, but one player's team scores 120 per game and the other player's team only scores 90. While it's true that one player scores a third of their team's points and the other only scores a quarter of their team's points, what does that tell us? Why would we assume that the 1/3 and 1/4 mean anything at all when we don't know how good the players' teammates who are scoring 90 and 60 points per game are? Why is 1/3 better than 1/4? If a nasty scorer gets one or two other great scorers on his team, then his percentage will go down, irrespective of how great a scorer he is or how many points he scores. If they played with the same team, then the fact that one scored x% while the other scored y% would be material. Otherwise, it is not.

This percentage analysis is only meaningful to the very limited inquiry of "who contributed the most to their team's scoring?" This is NOT the same inquiry as "who is a better scorer?" The best scorer of all time could play on a dominant team with terrific scorers and have his percentage distorted. For all of the reasons above, that inquiry is also irrelevant without further data about the make-up of the teams.

[SRJ]

SRJ,

I agree with Warlord's statement that the stats you are trying to compare are pretty irrelevant to the discussion. However, I disagree that it is because they fail to take efficiency into account. I also disagree with your statement that they are more accurate than simply comparing scoring averages to each other; I don't believe percentage-of-team-stats means anything at all unless you already know which team is better and why.

Explain how comparing raw averages is more meaningful, please. I don't even see how they could be equally meaningful. Because to me, raw average comparisons are extraordinarily misleading when comparing averages separated by fifteen years. The game was quite a bit different in 1988.


The percentage of a team's points a player scores depends on the scoring ability of that player, sure, but also depends on several other factors, most obviously the scoring ability of the other players on the team. For instance, let's say two players both score 30 per game, but one player's team scores 120 per game and the other player's team only scores 90. While it's true that one player scores a third of their team's points and the other only scores a quarter of their team's points, what does that tell us?

It tells us, simply, how impactful those 30 points are. As you just demonstrated, 30 points means more on the 90 point team. In the late 80s, Chicago was one of the lower scoring teams in the NBA; In the early 2000s, the Lakers were one of the higher scoring teams in the league, yet those Lakers averaged 5-7 points less than those Bulls teams. Expressing those averages as a percentage of points scored normalizes that factor.

And of course you have to factor in high scoring teammates. Michael Jordan didn't play with a scoring threat like Shaquille O'Neal, and I addressed that factor. No matter how anyone feels about Kobe or MJ, this is absolutely true. As great as Scottie Pippen was, no one will argue that Pippen's scoring production was in the same area code as Shaq's.


Why would we assume that the 1/3 and 1/4 mean anything at all when we don't know how good the players' teammates who are scoring 90 and 60 points per game are? Why is 1/3 better than 1/4? If a nasty scorer gets one or two other great scorers on his team, then his percentage will go down, irrespective of how great a scorer he is or how many points he scores. If they played with the same team, then the fact that one scored x% while the other scored y% would be material. Otherwise, it is not.

I don't understand why they would have to play on the same team. I'm comparing two players who play the same position. In fact, they play that role in the same way (not comparing the quality, but the role; Kobe is not playing the role Dale Ellis or Richard Hamilton play - he's playing the SG position the way MJ played it).

As a matter of fact, there's no need to compare players on the same team. Those stats are self-evident. The number of minutes, touches, and shots they get playing together tells me what their coach thinks of their scoring ability.


This percentage analysis is only meaningful to the very limited inquiry of "who contributed the most to their team's scoring?" This is NOT the same inquiry as "who is a better scorer?" The best scorer of all time could play on a dominant team with terrific scorers and have his percentage distorted. For all of the reasons above, that inquiry is also irrelevant without further data about the make-up of the teams.

Then what is the best way to compare scorers? How do we rate scorers against each other, to the extent that we can?

[conqueso]

...

5) Percentage of points scored is not a BS stat, it just has its limitations - as all statistics do. Assists don't measure how many passes became blown assists thanks to a bad play by a teammate. Blocks don't measure unblocked shots which the defender obviously forced the shooter to miss anyway. FG% doesn't tell you where all those shots were taken from. 3FG% doesn't tell you how many times the shot was contested. So why are all of those stats accepted without question?I agree with you in an indirect way here. I think that the quality of a player's other teammates and the overall quality of the team (I think those are two separate things) significantly effect EVERYONE'S stats. Someone may be a great passer, but if everyone else on his team is a shitty shooter, then his assist numbers will be lower than a worse passer who has better-shooting teammates. Someone may be a good shot blocker, but if his teammates aren't good perimeter defenders, he won't get as many opportunities to block shots in the post, or if they aren't good post defenders, he will be forced to come over on help-side D more and get more fouls.

One of the problems with using career statistics at all is that you cannot divorce them from their context.

Scoring is probably the least susceptible to the kinds of distortion we've pointed out since the scoring skill encompasses the ability to create quality shots when being defended and to hit tough shots when being defended well. Therefore, the performance of your teammates won't matter as much in determining your scoring stats--they can be crappy scorers and passers who don't command much defensive attention and don't help him out at all, but it won't matter to a good scorer because that incompetence doesn't interfere with what it takes to be a good scorer.

Now, team makeup, league makeup, coaching, rules, and referees can all distort the scoring numbers. For instance, Kobe on the Spurs would not lead the league is scoring, since Pop would want him to focus on other things. Arguably, Jordan would score more than he did if he was in his prime now with the pussy no-hand-checking rule. Playing in an era where every team was run-and-gun and a team had to score a ton of points to have a shot at winning pumps up everyone's scoring numbers. Those are the factors that need to be equalized if we're trying to compare players from different eras, and I don't really have much of an idea how to equalize them quantifiably.

All I know is that I believe Kobe had better teammates when he was winning and worse teammates now that he's losing, Kobe had a more experienced coach, and Kobe directly benefitted from a set of rules that was different than the one Jordan played under. I also believe that the refs favored Jordan more than they do Kobe, the league needed Jordan to survive, the teams were better in Jordan's era, and Jordan's defense alone was HOF worthy. Stats aren't going to prove any of these elements, but it is these elements that are essential to determining who is better. In other words, stats aren't going to get you very far in settling even small points in this discussion, so it is destined to devolve into various people pontificating their myriad opinions.

[conqueso]

Explain how comparing raw averages is more meaningful, please. I don't even see how they could be equally meaningful. Because to me, raw average comparisons are extraordinarily misleading when comparing averages separated by fifteen years. The game was quite a bit different in 1988.
I don't think they are more meaningful. I never said I did.


It tells us, simply, how impactful those 30 points are. As you just demonstrated, 30 points means more on the 90 point team. In the late 80s, Chicago was one of the lower scoring teams in the NBA; In the early 2000s, the Lakers were one of the higher scoring teams in the league, yet those Lakers averaged 5-7 points less than those Bulls teams. Expressing those averages as a percentage of points scored normalizes that factor.
Obviously 30 points means more on a 90-point team than on a 120-point team. But whose points means more is in itself an irrelevant inquiry, at least irrelevant to the question of scoring ability or overall greatness. The 30 points is determined by the player in question, but the 90 or 120, the other number used to ascertain something about them, is determined by 4 other people. It's a meaningless statistic.

Furthermore, the factor you are trying to "normalize" by comparing percentages is also meaningless. That factor is the scoring ability of the player's teammates and its general standing in the league at that time. How does that have anything at all to do with the scoring ability of the player in question? That factor is expressly addressing something outside the player's control, not determined by them in any way, and only minorly (and wholly mysteriously) affecting their own scoring numbers.


And of course you have to factor in high scoring teammates. Michael Jordan didn't play with a scoring threat like Shaquille O'Neal, and I addressed that factor. No matter how anyone feels about Kobe or MJ, this is absolutely true. As great as Scottie Pippen was, no one will argue that Pippen's scoring production was in the same area code as Shaq's.
True.


I don't understand why they would have to play on the same team. I'm comparing two players who play the same position. In fact, they play that role in the same way (not comparing the quality, but the role; Kobe is not playing the role Dale Ellis or Richard Hamilton play - he's playing the SG position the way MJ played it).

As a matter of fact, there's no need to compare players on the same team. Those stats are self-evident. The number of minutes, touches, and shots they get playing together tells me what their coach thinks of their scoring ability.
Not playing on, playing with. That would equalize the teammates quite literally and they would cancel each other out. Your stat would be meaningful if we chose 4 guys to play with Michael for 80 games and then had those same 4 guys play with Kobe for 80 games. Then, since both players had the same team, each of their performances on those teams would be able to be compared to the other.


Then what is the best way to compare scorers? How do we rate scorers against each other, to the extent that we can?I don't know, give me a few minutes to think about that one.

[conqueso]

Then what is the best way to compare scorers? How do we rate scorers against each other, to the extent that we can?I hate to say this, but I think it has to be well-reasoned intuition. I know that sounds oxymoronic, but I don't think you can come up with a stat that fairly represents quality of scoring. It certainly isn't raw numbers. It isn't percentage-of-team-scoring. And I don't think it's efficiency either, since statistically efficient scorers are not necessarily high scorers. Unless you can control for these distorting factors, I don't think you can tell anything by comparing the numbers, regardless of what schema you want to use. So unfortunately, I think you just have to make extra-statistical arguments about why someone is better and support them with reason. Of course, most people rely on numbers for "proof" instead of rational thought, so I guess we're fucked trying to convince anyone of anything.

[SRJ]

I see what you're saying, conqueso, looking at the issue this way: There is a fundamental difference between point production and scoring ability. It may be not be a significant difference, but it's there. Tim Duncan had greater scoring ability than David Robinson even though Robinson produced more points during his peak. Robinson outquicked guys his size and overpowered smaller players, got to the foul line more - but Duncan's scoring skills (the post moves, the shooting range, touch on the ball) are superior to Robinson's.

No two players are truly comparable, but Kobe/MJ are pretty similar IMO (Again, role, not quality). So I don't think it's inappropriate to use the criteria that I have. It's not a complete picture, and I'm glad you're posting here to try and make that picture as complete as we can make it.

[conqueso]

I see what you're saying, conqueso, looking at the issue this way: There is a fundamental difference between point production and scoring ability. It may be not be a significant difference, but it's there. Tim Duncan had greater scoring ability than David Robinson even though Robinson produced more points during his peak. Robinson outquicked guys his size and overpowered smaller players, got to the foul line more - but Duncan's scoring skills (the post moves, the shooting range, touch on the ball) are superior to Robinson's.

No two players are truly comparable, but Kobe/MJ are pretty similar IMO (Again, role, not quality). So I don't think it's inappropriate to use the criteria that I have. It's not a complete picture, and I'm glad you're posting here to try and make that picture as complete as we can make it.'05 Kobe and '86 Jordan are very comparable players. Granted Jordan was only 23 and Kobe was 27, but the two played the same role on very similar teams. Jordan averaged 37.1 ppg, 5.2 rpg, and 4.6 apg, while Kobe averaged 35.4 ppg, 5.3 rpg, and 4.5 apg. They both averaged 27 attempts per game. The big disparity in their styles of play was three point shooting, where Kobe averaged 2.25 threes per game while Jordan averaged only 0.15. Jordan made up for this by attempting 1.6 more FTs per game and shooting 3% better from the field. Jordan's efficiency was 31.91, while Kobe's was 27.83. The numbers say that Kobe in '05 was a better shooter than Jordan in '86, but Jordan was a better penetrator. In the end, '86 Jordan was very much like what Dwayne Wade was last year, but also very similar to Kobe.

I think it's natural to compare the '86 Bulls and the '05 Lakers. Even though the '05 Lakers are a triangle-offense team while the '86 Bulls were a straight up iso-for-Michael team, they seem to be structured in the same way. At the top, there's a guy averaging 27 attempts per game scoring in the mid-to-high thirties, followed by a power forward averaging around 15, and then a point guard averaging about 11.

Jordan scored 35% of his team's 104.8 ppg, and Kobe scored 36% of his team's 99.4 ppg. So it appears as if Kobe in '05 was a more important part of his team's offense than Jordan was in '86. Since the two teams are statistically and structurally comparable, it seems that Kobe has a slight edge over Jordan when comparing these two stastically similar years.

However, I would say that Jordan was a better scorer that season than Kobe was last year. Not more versatile, not more nuanced, but just plain better. Here's why:

In '86-'87, the Hawks were the best defensive team in basketball, giving up 102.8 ppg. They were followed by the Cs, the Sixers, and the Bullets (all Eastern Conference teams). The All-Defensive Team guards were Alvin Robertson (Spurs), Dennis Johnson (Celtics), Michael Cooper (Lakers, DPOY), Mo Cheeks (Sixers) and Paul Pressey (Bucks). All of these guys spent significant time on Jordan when they played the Bulls (even Mo Cheeks, who was only 6'1", but Dr. J. was 36 and draggin ass). The Hawks' premier perimeter defender was Doc Rivers, although Nique would come over and D up Jordan some, although he wasn't very effective since was too tall and too slow. The Bullets' premier defender was Darwin Cook, who was actually pretty good, but not a top-flight defender.

Jordan started out '86 with a streak of 6 straight games of 30+ points, including a 50 point game (the first of the season) and a 40 point game. He then went on a run of scoring 40+ points in 15 out of 20 games, including 9 straight. He ended the season scoring 50+ points in three straight games, dropping 53, 50 and 61 on the Pacers, Bucks and Hawks before sitting most of the last game of the season against the Cs. He scored 30+ in 67 out of 82 games, 40+ in 34 games, 50+ 8 times, and 60+ twice.

Jordan's numbers against the Hawks were nasty: he put up 34 in the sixth game of the season, and then scored 41, 34, 31, 31 and 61 (his season high) in his last five games against them. Jordan's numbers against the Cs were pedestrian: he put up 48 in the eighth game of the season, but then scored 34, 30, 27, 22 and 17 in his last five games against them. That was the late Dennis Johnson D'ing up Jordan, an All-Defensive First Team selectee. Jordan was nasty against Philadelphia, scoring 47, 49, 29, 49, 56, and 34 against them. The Bullets kept him in check: he went for 21, 22, 32, 13 (his second lowest point total of the season), 36 and 32. Against Michael Cooper and the Lakers, Jordan scored 41 and 33.

In '05-'06, the Pistons were the best defensive team in baskebtall, followed by the Spurs and a bunch of trash. The All-Defensive Team guards were Bowen (Spurs), Artest (Kings) and Billups (Pistons). Tayshaun was second team and spent time guarding Kobe.

He scored 30+ in 57 out of 80 games, 40+ in 27 games, 50+ 6 times, and 60+ twice. His famous high scoring game of 81 points came against the Raptors, who blew sack and had a bottom 10 3pt defense. He had a streak of 5 straight 40+ games, including a 50 point game, in December and January. He scored 40+ in 5 out of 8 games, including four straight (with games against the Spurs and Pistons, amonth others), in February and March. He had a streak of 4 straight 40+ games, including 51 point game, in March and April.

Kobe scored 36, 30, and 28 against the Kings after they picked up Artest. Against Bowen, he put up 25, 43, 29 and 23. Against the Pistons, he scored 39 and 40.

There are two factors I see weighing in. First, in Kobe's favor, in '86, teams in general scored much higher than they did in '05, and defenses were not as effective at keeping scores low. Second, in Jordan's favor, Kobe played with the benefit of the hand-check rule.

Even if we want to say that their scoring production numbers balance each other out (which is tough to say, since every criteria except season-high favors Jordan), then we have to claim that Jordan's scoring benefitted more from more lax defenses than Kobe's did from the perimeter contact rule. Kobe certainly didn't benefit from that rule as much as Jordan would have, since Jordan's game in '86 was predicated on getting the ball in isolation on the perimeter and driving to the hoop over and over again. It is clear that had Jordan played with this rule, his scoring average would have increased--more defenders would have gotten into foul trouble against him, and he would have had more opportunities for and-ones and free throws. It is not as clear, however, that Kobe would have scored more had he played against the teams that Jordan played against. While the league in general had a much higher PA, the top defenders Jordan faced were excellent, and there were more of them. In '86, 5 Jordan-defenders made the All-Defensive teams, whereas in '05, only 2 Kobe-defenders did. While Artest might have been a better defender than Michael Cooper or Dennis Johnson, Jordan faced a tougher match-up on a nightly basis than Kobe did.

In the end, I think what Jordan was able to do when he dominated the league for a year in '86 at the age of 23 was more than what Kobe was able to do when he dominated the league last year in his absolute prime. Since their teams were very similar, you can compare their stats in a meaningful way. And as far as scoring goes, I think Jordan was clearly better.