Reply With Quote
this person gets it.
I don't care about Kobe's legacy more than Magic's ...magic is my GOAT Laker all jokes aside. Yes I was being facetious earlier but if I did embrace a stat to rank players one that has Magic over Jordan and Duncan over Shaq sounds like a good start but unfortunately it is pretty inconsistent and like most stats favors a certain style of play. But hey Kidd k is a en genius this is the new world order. Magic the GOAT
this person gets it.
LOL...stats...hey OP keeping playing NBA Skyrim...I'll actually watch the games.
Kobe is top 10 period.
Interesting stats evaluation. Even if not at the bottom of those players listed, Kobe would be and should be somewhere near the bottom. You're talking about a list of basically the greatest players in the history of the game. Although missing a few other guys other than Wilt and Bill, like Bob Cousy, Dave Cowens, Willis Reed, though I'm not sure those players have offensive and defensive rating stats for their careers.
No one statistic tells the entire story for a player, and Offensive Rating and Defensive Rating are no different. Both are "estimate" statistics that are far from perfect. I doubt the guy who came up with the formula/idea and the stats geeks who come up with the numbers go through every single play of every game and isolate all the man-on-man possessions in situations with no double or triple teams, no help defense to come up with DR. My impression is that it's more or less a slightly more complex variation of a +/- stat where the team scoring per 100 possessions and the team defense per 100 possessions are tabulated when that particular player is on the floor. Way too difficult to do a really accurate OR and DR for every player in the league. On the basketball-reference site itself, OR and DR are described as "estimates." Far from accurate. And if in fact it's more or less a +/- type stat, even as an individual player stat, it would be safe to assume it's heavily reliant on team offense and team defense and the contributions of teammates. So it's not surprising that guys like Kobe and Hakeem would be lower on the list because both played for several bad teams. When you look at a guy like Magic, basically his entire career was playing for 50+ win playoff teams that went deep into the playoffs and playing alongside multiple HOFers. Same with Bird and Duncan. That's why guys like LeBron and Jordan having a big OR/DR difference is more impressive because they had little help. But to that point, that's why you can see players like Steve Kerr (+15) and Matt Bonner (+13) have big OR/DR differences because they both played on mostly winning teams whose OR would generally be better than DR. It's basically a more complicated +/- stat.
I haven't really seen anyone use the difference between career OR and DR as a means to rank players before. I'd assume using PER would have been the more obvious route to go even though that's not a perfect stat either. But at least PER is less of an estimate and based more on actual individual player production. I would imagine the OP didn't want to use PER because Kobe wouldn't be on the bottom of the list of players even though he'd be close. He'd be ahead of Bird and Dr. J.
Shaquille carried Bryant to three rings. Shaquille also carried Fisher and Rick Fox to three rings.
Then after David Stern giftwrapped Pau Gasol to LA, Pau carried Bryant to two more rings.
Bryant shot 6-24 in a Game 7 at home, and was bailed out by Gasol and Ron Artest. Otherwise, that performance would have gone down as an all-time choke.
Why on earth is a self-centered gunner who has never even shot 47.0% from the field considered such a "great" player?
Boiled down:
You let Bosh & Allen cream your jeans.
Jam slaps his wang acrossthe forehead of the sucka MC's on this forum ... It's like NAS back on Stillmatic just need the Takeover to refocus that fire.
Shaquille carried Bryant to three rings. Shaquille also carried Fisher and Rick Fox to three rings.
Then after David Stern giftwrapped Pau Gasol to LA, Pau carried Bryant to two more rings.
Bryant shot 6-24 in a Game 7 at home, and was bailed out by Gasol and Ron Artest. Otherwise, that performance would have gone down as an all-time choke.
Why on earth is a self-centered gunner who has never even shot 47.0% from the field considered such a "great" player?
Not sure if that post is meant as try hard sarcasm, or if you really thought you were making some ground breakingly great point by bolding that captain obvious statement.
No it's points scored per 100 possessions, and points given up per 100 possesions. It's an efficiency stat. It depicts how well their team performs with them out there. If the stat is bad, it means the guy isn't making much of an impact regardless of how many points he jacks up. It's a way to tell players apart who apparently seem to be putting up similar stats.
For a guy who's been playing on such great teams with massive salaries, Kobe hasn't been setting his team apart as much as most other great players have. You would be hard pressed to find "all time great" players with a lower difference between those two stats.
Stats are facts, and yes, you did attack the facts first. . .because that's what people with bad arguments do. Try to pretend that the facts somehow don't matter.
Why am I not applying my logic to what?I didn't choose to not apply it to anything. We're discussing all time great champion players. If you want to talk about which players were the best while ignoring championships, then I certainly would make an argument that Kobe would be nowhere near the top 10 and those same stats would be part of the argument.
The last few things you posted were all irrelevant. Didn't address what I said in any way. DeAndre Jordan is not involved in a lot of offensive plays, so his offensive rating doesn't mean as much as an all star MVP candidate like Chris Paul who is involved in a lot of them. Precisely why I said role players or people who aren't involved in a lot of plays' ratings aren't as important.
If you're too dense to understand that point, it's like saying a baseball player who makes spot starts and hits .300 isn't as impressive as a guy who plays all season and hits .300 with 30+ jacks and 100+ RBI. It's called perspective. Or you can just continue to be a fool as say dumb like "since he hits for the same percent as a better player it's a ty stat!", just because you don't have the brainpower to use the stats in the proper perspective.
Stick to being a cross dressing got.just stick to playing Final Fantasy
Magic always had a case for GOAT tbh... Arguably "the man" since day one, won FMP really young despite playing with many great players, multiple MVPs, team player, good rebounder, his only weakness was defense...LOL I get the need to on Kobe. but wow that list ...
Magic my all-time favorite player and Kareem are GOATS and and on Jordan, Lebron and Duncan. I really like this rating!! Sure Timmy plays better defense (not better than HAkeem, but whatever)
I'll take Kobe at the bottom of a list all day EVERY DAY when you put MAGIC at the top of it over MJ, LBJ Duncan and Bird.
Magic is the GOAT, Kareem is 2nd and the rest can eat a fat one!!
I love stats!!!
I mentioned why Wilt and Russell and them weren't included. There are no ORating/DRating stats for them to list with everyone else.
I didn't say one stat told the whole story, don't strawman.
Kobe didn't play for very many bad teams. Jordan played for more bad teams and until he was 40 and still nearly has triple the difference as Kobe. Being able to keep your team consistently good is part of being a good player. Or should we penalize Duncan for doing that and give Kobe a pass for being a and running Shaq and Howard (and arguably Gasol) out of town then hamstringing ownership with a 30m/year contract? -_-
As for "didn't want to use PER", uh, what? I already mentioned it.
And yes, Kobe is still near the bottom of the list. He's near the bottom of practically every broad advanced stat list when compared to those guys. Kobe is a great scorer, but he is the worst modern era MVP with multiple championships imo.
ppg, 81, 5 rings er, etc etc
Stopped reading after that. You don't understand the stat and you're still talking about it. I bolded and put the statement in extra large font, and you still don't get it..Not sure if that post is meant as try hard sarcasm, or if you really thought you were making some ground breakingly great point by bolding that captain obvious statement.
No it's points scored per 100 possessions, and points given up per 100 possesions. It's an efficiency stat. It depicts how well their team performs with them out there. If the stat is bad, it means the guy isn't making much of an impact regardless of how many points he jacks up. It's a way to tell players apart who apparently seem to be putting up similar stats.
For a guy who's been playing on such great teams with massive salaries, Kobe hasn't been setting his team apart as much as most other great players have. You would be hard pressed to find "all time great" players with a lower difference between those two stats.
Stats are facts, and yes, you did attack the facts first. . .because that's what people with bad arguments do. Try to pretend that the facts somehow don't matter.
Why am I not applying my logic to what?
The last few things you posted were all irrelevant. Didn't address what I said in any way. DeAndre Jordan is not involved in a lot of offensive plays, so his offensive rating doesn't mean as much as an all star MVP candidate like Chris Paul who is involved in a lot of them. Precisely why I said role players or people who aren't involved in a lot of plays' ratings aren't as important.
If you're too dense to understand that point, it's like saying a baseball player who makes spot starts and hits .300 isn't as impressive as a guy who plays all season and hits .300 with 30+ jacks and 100+ RBI. It's called perspective. Or you can just continue to be a fool as say dumb like "since he hits for the same percent as a better player it's a ty stat!", just because you don't have the brainpower to use the stats in the proper perspective.
Stick to being a cross dressing got.
Tbh you shoulda played World of Warcraft instead of Final Fantasy. Maybe then you'd know how to operate a ing spreadsheet or read a formula.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
