wow, that's a salient point there...
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?
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 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.
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 le 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 les a possibility. Those last three les 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 les. 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.
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 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 ing knows)". Way to take a solid stance there, bro.
You're done with me cuz you realize how full of you are on this. Don't be pissed at the messenger, be pissed at yourself for such a weak ass argument.
Last edited by monosylab1k; 04-02-2007 at 03:45 PM.
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.
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.
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.
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 les, more clutch)
Bird (great leader, fierce compe or, clutch as they come)
Agreed. They're up there. ^^^
...
...
This is where Kobe is presently.
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.
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.
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.
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.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?
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.
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).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.
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.
Then what is the best way to compare scorers? How do we rate scorers against each other, to the extent that we can?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.
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 ty 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.
I don't think they are more meaningful. I never said I did.
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.
True.
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.
I don't know, give me a few minutes to think about that one.
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 ed trying to convince anyone of anything.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote