Water is wet thread, tbh... despite salty mad Kobefanbois...
Faulty argument.
2011,mavs blow a huge lead face deficit in round one Heat also had them down still won convincingly
2010 Lakers trail Celts 3-2
2009 Lakers face elimination by Rox sans Yao most of series
You covered 2008
I could keep going but most le teams face adversity Heat trailed Pacers, 2000 Lakers were down big in game 7 of WCF the fact those teams still won only proves mindcrimes point ... le teams won't be denied
No playof wins not one.
U the research stat guy google it.
You the one trying to change the narrative I asked you to explain superstar and leader status the honus is on you ...Kobe we shall debate another day wer talking about Pau here.
My point is, 08 Celtics were not that dominant of a team. Barely getting by 1st and 2nd round opponents is not a sign of a dominant team. The 11 Mavs were not a dominant team, neither were the 10 and 09 Lakers. We all know that. And if Garnett was suspended like he should for bumping the ref, the Celts won't go past the first round. BTW, this feeds the conspiracy theory that the league was desperate to revive the Celtics-Lakers rivalry.
Yet, I don't follow your argument that the Celtics having a long win streak vs. WC teams was some kind of indicator that they would not be stopped either way.
Sorry, forgot the cover the 04 Pistons, you can say they were destined to win, and no doubt they were a fantastic defensive team, but they could have been beat, and I still believe that, a Shaq driven team could have beat them, or at least made it a 7-game series. Shaq was abusing the Wallace brothers like nobody ever did.
Again, team accomplishments. You give Kobe a Mike Miller as his 2nd option, and what does he do? We don't know, but we do know that with Odom as his #2 and Butler as his #3, he missed the playoffs.
Would you say Kobe is not a leader and not a superstar then? I wouldn't say that.
What was it boiled down to again?
I guess to summarize, there are two major points to this thread:
1) Are advanced stats more accurate than the eye test in judging a player? I think we will never ever come to a conclusion to this.
2) Is Kobe Bryant such a special player that he can be the ONLY superstar based on exceptions? No advanced stats support his supposedly dominance, and yet every consensus top 10 player could be supported by advanced stats. Kobe Bryant is the ONLY exception. Why is that?
I thought you said regular season play was a better indicator (sample size) than playoff games?
Team accomplishment according to you or only when it suits you?
Yeah, God forbid anyone tries to understand sports on anything above the most superficial, flawed level possible....
Now we are talking about teams. Regular season is used to gauge the effectiveness of an individual player because of a wide variation in playing style. To be a champion, you have to go through 4 rounds after making the playoffs, there are no other ways around it.
Not winning a playoff game is most certainly a team accomplishment, I am not sure whey you have to such a difficulty distinguishing between individuals and teams.
You seemed like an intelligent person, and you most definitely has a fantastic knowledge of the game of basketball. Why is it so difficult to grasp the concept of team > individuals when it comes to wins?
Lol, 99.99999999999% of those who use these so-called "advanced" stats have literally no clue what they mean. It's like qb rating you ever seen the formula for that? Please weigh in on qb rating after analyzing its formula mathematically and breaking down its strengths and weaknesses, you can't do that because you probably have literally no clue how it works. Or what flaws it might have in terms if how it weighs things. People just like stats because it boils everything down to a simple number.
In terms of lazy stupid analysis what could be worsse than using some random number you don't even understand and acting like your some high level analyst. It caters to dummies too because even the biggest moron can understand "the higher number the better the player" even of he has no clue what the number signifies
"Derp, he got one of dem high qb ratings dat mean he a good one. Ow, wait until someone talk about him I'll hit his arguments with my derp gun loaded with qb ratings bullets and blow it to pieces, that'll show em!"
So if winning les is a team accomplishment aren't playoff and regular season losses as well?
lol at dumbasses comparing '11 Dirk to '03 Duncan
lol '08 KG WS higher than '11 Dirk WS
FkLA right again, as usual.
Yeah, of course. But of course a bad teammate can shoot a team out of a winnable game/series.
We saw that with 95 Rodman, and we saw that with 04 Kobe.
Just checking ...duly noted.
Sorry, but I have to clarify, while losses can be due to teams, we all know that, a player who is good enough can drag a team to the playoffs. The player may not be able to lead a team to 50 and 60 wins with a highly flawed team, but making the playoffs is a bare minimum for a superstar.
P.S. This is explained in W/S
Last edited by ambchang; 04-04-2013 at 03:01 PM.
You're defeating your own argument right off the bat by citing a stat that's well known to be outdated and flawed.... the whole point of the analytics movement is to progress past the flawed stats of old and create new ones that more specifically represent a player's production and value in various situations.....
Firstly, you're assuming that everyone is as statistically ignorant as you are.... believe it or not, plenty of people actually take the time to understand the numbers before blurting them out.... in fact, most sports teams nowadays employ people whose job is to work with advanced stats to help make the most informed decisions possible when building the roster....In terms of lazy stupid analysis what could be worsse than using some random number you don't even understand and acting like your some high level analyst.
Secondly, you're assuming every advanced stat is ridiculously complicated, but it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that (for example) WHIP measures walks and hits per innings pitched....
Thirdly, the laziest form of analysis is the that ESPN puts out on the daily: analysis via cliches and storylines.... for instance, despite the fact that Kirby's shooting percentage in clutch situations is about league average, the media only hypes up the shots that go in, using those isolated outliers as "proof" that Kirby is "clutch," which they repeat ad nauseum until casual fans are convinced it's the truth... the same thing was done to LeBron in reverse: until last year's Finals, all of his failures were amplified and his successes ignored in an attempt to paint him as a "soft choke artist"...
This type of analysis is the worst, because not only does it fail to consider statistical fact, oftentimes, it's influenced by or related to uncontrollable factors that have nothing to do with the sport.... for instance, white players are usually portrayed as "scrappy, grinders, good teammates, hard workers" while black players are usually portrayed as athletic, volatile divas.... that's just lazy confirmation bias at its finest, but that's what passes for analysis in the mainstream media....
Using points per possession instead of just "points" seems to make a lot more sense. Since win shares includes points per possession allowed, instead of just "steals" do prove your defensive prowess, i'm going to assume its more indicative than simple stats. by traditional stats, bowen was a defender
Great topic of discussion and some interesting points made along the way. First off, it’s ridiculous to use WS alone to determine who was the better or most important player to a team. That said, I think we can draw some more broad conclusions from this data.
- Basketball is a big man’s game. Jordan is the key outlier here and the fact that he dominated without dominant big men is what makes him by far the best 2 guard of all time and probably the GOAT. Billups’ Pistons and Wade’s Heat were flashes in the pan and we might as well consider Lebron a dominant big for this argument cause he can do it all.
- Pau was immensely important to the Lakers latest le runs. While the eye test tells me it was still Kobe’s team, Gasol was the glue that made the whole team work being a fantastic offensive player and an underrated defender.
- Regarding Kobe, the trouble with trying to rank him among all-time greats is that some like to use peak performance years while others prefer to see sustained excellence. I’ve always thought that any argument using peak performance as the basis leaves Kobe well out of the top 10 all time. This table in a way substantiates that. While I don’t think Pau was more important than Kobe for the latest le runs, I think this data at least suggests that Kobe wasn’t that much more important than Pau to the Lakers success.
For the record, my all time rankings have Jordan, Magic, Kareem, and Russell as the top 4 with each of them having at least some legitimate claim as GOAT. Next 6 for me includes Wilt, Shaq, Kobe, Duncan, Lebron, and Bird in no particular order. Sure it’s fun to debate Kobe vs Duncan but neither of them have a legitimate claim as GOAT so that’s all that matters to me. Only Lebron of today’s current players has a chance once all is said and done.
I pretty much agree with StF on all points, except Kobe in the top 10, and Bird not being in the GOAT category. I would put Moses Malone and the Big O in the top 10 as well.
Like I said, if you value peak dominance over sustained greatness that's perfectly understandable.
Win Shares is one of the worst advanced stats, tbh..
However, as I've been saying for years, Kobe's success does not translate to advanced metrics for some reason, tbh..virtually every other top-10 or so guy's numbers translate to analytics, but not Kobe, for some odd reason..
I agree with ShowtimeFan that longevity is Kobe's best attribute in the all-time discussion..it's pretty crazy that he's still a top 5 player in the NBA and playing big minutes..
Takes into account offensive and defensive rating and compares it to league average, or replacent level players. These ratings depend on points per possession rather than just points, field goals, etc
I don't really care about advanced stats, but I like how stuff like this makes Kobe fans lose their .
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
